why the mountain resort municipality for the jumbo glacier resort project?

7/29/2019 Why the Mountain Resort Municipality for the Jumbo Glacier Resort project?

1/3

Glacier Resorts Ltd.

WHY THE MOUNTAIN RESORT MUNICIPALITY

FOR THE JUMBO GLACIER RESORT PROJECT?1

1. Public Input. Following the acceptance of the Expression of Interest in July1991, the Province decided (contrary to the process to be followed according tothe provincial Commercial Alpine Ski Policy - CASP ) not to move forward to

the Formal Proposal stage and Interim Agreement leading the Master Plan public

process, but to create an unstructured Public Input process, which lasted the

entire summer and was concluded with an informal public hearing held by

Provincial staff in Invermere at the end of September 1991.

The proponents representatives were excluded from this process (thus preventingthe consultants from responding to concerns expressed by the public and by

provincial staff). There was considerable controversy but despite the controversy

both provincial staff and local governments decided that there was no land usepreclusion or show stopper and that the project should go ahead at least to the

Master Plan stage. The Council of the District of Invermere voted that theproject should progress to the Master Plan stage, and the planning department

of the Regional District of East Kootenay requested that the Province should putthe project in the context of a regional land use plan.

2. Land Use Designation. Following the elections and the change of government,the Province was not satisfied that there had been enough public consultation on

the land use issue and decided that the project should not go ahead unless the land

use issues were examined and unless there was a land use approval decision under

the new, public and local land use designation process of the Commission OnResources and the Environment (CORE).

The sectors representing local stakeholders at the initial CORE Table chose to

split the area and the delegates in two separate decision making processes and

land use plans, divided into an East Kootenay CORE Table and a West Kootenay

CORE Table. The Jumbo Glacier Resort project was placed under the

jurisdiction of the East Kootenay CORE Table by unanimous agreement.

The east Kootenay CORE Table covered an area matching the area of the

Regional District of East Kootenay.

3. Interim Agreement. After another year, at the beginning of 1993 the Provincefinally did do a public Call for Proposals according to CASP and completed theInterim Agreement. However, contrary to CASP, it refused to allow the start of

the Master Plan process until when the East Kootenay CORE Table would make a

land use decision allowing the project.

1This document is available online at: www.jumboglacierresort.com/JGMRM


2/3

Why the Mountain Resort Municipality for the Jumbo Glacier

Resort project? www.jumboglacierresort.com/JGMRM

Glacier Resorts Ltd. 2013 2

4. Land Use Decision is Fundamental. Tom Gunton, Deputy Minister of theEnvironment, wrote a letter at the end of 1993 confirming that the land use

decision by the East Kootenay CORE Tablewould be the most critical factordetermining whether the project would be permitted to go ahead or not.

5. The Land Use Decision. The East Kootenay CORE Table deliberated in publicand with public input for two years, and finally in 1994, despite the oppositionthat is now clearly identified, voted 18 to 4 that the land use should permit the

project, subject to an environmental review.

In the management recommendations of the land use decision for Jumbo

Valley, tourism, including resorts, with specific mention of the Jumbo

Glacier Resort project, was given the highest value, higher than grizzly

bears.

The JGR project was the only site specific land use decision and approval ofthe entire public, local, long and costly CORE process.

6. The Local Government (for a valley without residents). The local government,the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK), which has its office inCranbrook, participated at every meeting as a key stakeholder, represented by its

planner and by its Chairman of the Board of Directors, who conveyed the will of

the Board of Directors. The RDEK became very aware of the controversies

surrounding the project, and decided that zoning and administration for the

project should not be done from RDEK.

By 1995, more public hearings, discussions and reports than the RDEK couldever entertain had already been done regarding the Jumbo Valley. In the

East Kootenay CORE Table decision making process the RDEK voted in

favour of the project.

7. The New Laws. Following the East Kootenay CORE Table process in 1995 theProvince created the Environmental Assessment Act and the Mountain ResortAssociations Act, which included the provision that the Province, on request of

the local government, could create a Mountain Resort Municipality (MRM) for

a ski resort project.

8. The Regional Districts Decision. In 1996 the RDEK unanimously voted torequest the formation of the MRM for the project. It should be noted thateven if theRDEK had wanted to go through a rezoning, almost all theenvironmental and technical reviews would have had to be done by provincial

ministries and their staff.


3/3

Why the Mountain Resort Municipality for the Jumbo Glacier

Resort project? www.jumboglacierresort.com/JGMRM

Glacier Resorts Ltd. 2013 3

9. The Restated Decision. The Environmental Assessment Act process and theMaster Plan process of CASP dragged until 2007, among the well known

controversies. The RDEK became divided between those who wanted to have theproject killed by reversing the land use approval of the East Kootenay CORE

Table by denying zoning and those who still wanted the project to go ahead. TheRDEK Directors voted again for the project to go ahead and to have the

MRM formed in 2009 and in 2012.

10.The Attempts To Overturn The Decisions. Following the East Kootenay CORETable land used designation, the Environmental Assessment Act process and theMaster Plan process the only reason to resurrect the land use issue at the

RDEK is to bring the process back to the beginning, so that final delays kill

the project by making impossible to comply with the Environmental

Certificates deadlines (and/or by dragging the process until when a majority

against zoning and the project is achieved at some point in time). The

controversy and the potential for reversals of majority at a regional district, withunforeseeable changes of zoning and project restrictions, would also create a

sufficient threat to make project financing probably impossible.

11.A Final Response In Conclusion Of The Process. A special purpose MountainResort Municipality dedicated to the approved project can create the zoning

according to the Master Plan and provide focused, prompt and efficient

administration. This would be less feasible from Cranbrook and the RDEK withon going controversies and attempts to reverse majorities. A final governance

structure providing certainty and capable of a final fundamental permit, after 21

years of process, hearings, studies, consultations and reviews, is indispensable.

12.It is Inappropriate and undemocratic to propose to capriciously reject all thework done and the decisions made. The reality is that proposing the alternative

of a regional districts new open ended process, as if it were possible to restartfrom the beginning under a new jurisdiction and under a new process, is

equivalent to condemning all the processes, the reviews, the approvals and

the work of the last twenty two years, as if they had been not worthy of

consideration and useless.

Glacier Resorts Ltd.

February 18, 2013

why the mountain resort municipality for the jumbo glacier resort project?

Documents