Division among council led to the deferral of a bylaw amendment to exempt the city from providing frontage improvements with development of municipal properties.
Up for three readings at the Feb. 10 council meeting, the proposed amendment to the city's Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw was to exempt the city from having to complete frontage requirements – things such as curb/gutter and sidewalk – with capital works, as triggered by the bylaw when a building permit is obtained.
City engineering and public works director Rob Niewenhuizen said staff believe it is not in the best interest of city taxpayers to "complete frontage upgrades outside of the priorities established for the community due to the application of a building permit for institutional infrastructure."
This situation arose recently with the city development permit for construction of the Zone 2 Pump Station at the water treatment plant in Canoe. Staff sought a variance on required frontage improvements triggered by the bylaw, which would have added an additional $400,000 to the $4.3 million project.
Niewenhuizen said the amendment would give the city "flexibility to defer frontage improvements if we feel that we just either cannot afford them, or they’re on for a different time in the plan to be constructed."
Coun. Tim Lavery was reluctant to support the amendment without it giving council some degree of oversight. Coun. Sylvia Lindgren was on the same page, stating she "would rather see the city budgeting for those things and coming for a variance…"
Couns. Louise Wallace Richmond, Kevin Flynn and Debbie Cannon spoke in favour of the motion.
"I think really what it boils down to is we get ourselves caught up in a bit of bureaucracy with projects and moving them forward. and I think this gives the ability to not have our city staff come to us with a variance," said Cannon… "If there really is a need for that frontage work to be done, I’m sure our staff will recognize that and bring it to the table when we do our budget process."
On the fence, Coun. David Gonella suggested a friendly amendment to include a review after one year, but council voted against this.
Lindgren then asked who the public would hold responsible if a city project went ahead without a sidewalk or multi-use path desired by the community.
"Who will the public hold responsible for that and is that the right place for it," asked Lindgren. "I feel like the city will be standing in the firing line when it should be us taking the heat from the public for decisions that are made by the city."
In response, Mayor Alan Harrison said staff would make the decision, residents would write council, "council would say, 'hmm maybe we should put that sidewalk in there, put it in next year’s budget', or 'nope, we think staff was right, we don’t need that sidewalk'."
"I see a lot of wasted money when we look back and say we did that project last year, let’s tear it up and put a sidewalk in," replied Lindgren. "The time to do these works is when it’s all torn up, to do the work in the first place, and I think that if council is going to be held responsible for those decisions they should be making those decisions."
Lavery moved to defer the motion so that additional information could be provided. Council supported this, with Flynn and Cannon opposed.
