Observations on the Economic Growth Committee’s January 27 Meeting

These notes reflect my observations from the most recent Economic Growth Committee meeting.  See video recording here

Lack of Documentation From Public Consultations

Before the meeting, the committee held public consultation sessions. The invitation stated that the municipality was seeking “specific feedback on the special planning area along Highway 103 between exits 25 and 26,” while also welcoming general input on economic growth.

At the meeting, the committee provided only a verbal summary of those consultations. There is still no written report, no description of the consultation process, no record of what residents said, and no compilation of ideas, concerns, or themes. Even the number of participants is unclear - estimated at no more than 18 people.

Despite this lack of documentation, the committee described the sessions with vague, feel‑good language such as “good energy,” “fabulous visions,” and “not being afraid to dream.” These sentiments do not represent a meaningful or statistically valid mandate from the broader community.

A Shift Toward Hartz Point

Although the focus was supposed to be on the Highway 103 properties, the committee seems to be considering linking development at Hartz Point with the Highway 103 properties. This shift appears to be based almost entirely on the subjective impressions and “excitement” expressed during the two consultation sessions. 

Having followed these meetings closely, I see a deliberate effort to link Hartz Point to the Highway 103 discussions to get additional funding for work on Hartz Point during the upcoming budget process.  The municipality has stated clearly that they spent $1.46 million dollars on Hartz Point and I estimate hundreds of thousands on the Highway 103 properties without a plan.  If you pay attention to the upcoming budget allocation meetings, I predict that you will see additional funds being poured into this project without a plan.

Although the public was invited specifically to comment on the 103 corridor the committee is now claiming, without evidence, that residents view Hartz Point as a development priority.  (See 4:36 in the video link above.)

Budget Commitments Without Data

What is most troubling is that the committee is preparing to allocate additional budget funds for Hartz Point and Highway 103—despite having:

• no written consultation report
• no business case
• no cost–benefit analysis
• no project plan
• no exit strategy

This is planning based on optimism, not evidence. As a taxpayer, I find it alarming that the municipality is once again making financial and strategic decisions before any hard data exists.

Consultants Still Gathering Basic Information

The consultants have not yet produced the “What We Heard” report and have not compiled the consultation data. One staff member even acknowledged that the consultants are still “identifying the market gap.” In other words, the committee is considering committing to a project before knowing whether a viable market opportunity exists.

And again, the entire data set behind this supposed “community vision” consists of only 18 people—eight or nine per session.

No Performance Metrics or Exit Triggers

Another major concern is the complete absence of measurable criteria that will allow the municipality to stop spending if the project fails to deliver results.

• Developer Milestones vs. Municipal Accountability:

I found it interesting that when discussing development of properties on Spa Road it was pointed out that potential developers must meet milestones otherwise the municipality could halt the development.  This is good because it provides a documented way to stop pouring good money after bad.   Unfortunately, the municipality has no equivalent performance measures for its own investments.

• No Stop‑Loss Criteria:
  There is no definition of what “failure” looks like for Hartz Point or Highway 103 properties. Without KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) - such as investor targets or minimum return on investment - the municipality is effectively writing a blank cheque.

Conclusion

The committee appears to be moving from a “dreaming” phase directly into the budgeting phase, without waiting for the data that should inform those decisions. By discussing funding before the “What We Heard” report is even released, the committee is bypassing the opportunity for evidence to challenge their current impressions.

We have just witnessed yet another public consultation with dismal participation and once again the municipality is deluding itself into thinking it has public support.  The municipality making decisions with just “feel-good” statements and no hard data.  The municipality has no project plan for these expensive projects – just an open cheque book made up of yours and my tax dollars.