On December 3, 2013 Kings County Council voted 6 to 4 to
spend approximately $1.2 Million dollars from “reserve funds” to cover 50
percent of the cost for paving subdivision roads.
The majority of these roads are in
Kingston,
Greenwood,
Aylesford and Coldbrook. This is a costly departure from prior practices that is not supported by the intent of the current by-law.
Until now, with few exceptions, local improvement costs for
the 50 percent not covered by the province have been charged to the homeowners
of the subdivisions paved. Between 1996
and 2011 hundreds of tax-payers paid out of their own pockets to pave
their subdivision roads. Some, on a 10-year plan, will continue to pay during the
years immediately ahead.
It is also notable developers of new subdivisions (since
1996) post bonds to ensure that paving is completed. The charges related to that paving gets covered by those
purchasing lots or homes in the subdivision. This is another indication that it is not the intention of Kings County to cover the costs of subdivision paving.
What happened at the December 3 council meeting was a good deal for those living along about 15-kilometres of roads but it is questionable why and how this occurred. Most councillors at the horseshoe gave no
indication of why they voted as they did despite the fact that they were
voting on a $1.2 million dollar item.
Here’s what
happened on December 3 and why I voted against the motion
A motion to not charge a local improvement charge was
quickly put on the table and seconded, despite the fact that a very similar
motion had been tabled, and rejected, in September. Further, a referred motion from that same date
in September, that I argued should have been returned to the table first, was
not recognized by the chair. That motion
looked at a flexible payment plan where the county paid for roads with a more generalized use, and homeowners
paid the remainder.
For me the debate on December 3rd was not only about roads. It was
more important than that. It was about fairness and the responsible use by
council of the scarce resources entrusted to us by taxpayers from one end of
this county to the other.
A two-pager is usually how I try to clear my head on complex
issues that are taking unexpected twists and turns at the council table. The following is informed by the two-pager I prepared in
advance of December 3rd. This is the information that ultimately, in the
absence of any substantive debate by those in favour, guided my decision to
vote against the motion that waived all costs to homeowners. Some additional background information is also provided.
Fairness
To date the vast majority of home-owners have paid considerable amounts from their household budgets to
have their subdivision roads improved under By-law 50.
Most usually, local improvement charges have been done after
a successful petition. Charges paid by homeowners to date are in the range of
$1.094.52 to $3,318.56 or by frontage… $3.67 to $19.08 per foot.
Some home-owners have also paid interest on a 10-year plan
at an annual rate of 8 percent to make the paving of their subdivision roads affordable
to their household. Some will still be making payments for several years to come.
By my estimate, based on the number of roads paved to date,
100s of homeowners have paid out of their own pockets for paving in their
subdivision under Bylaw 50.
On the other hand, a few years back, some homeowners on a few roads eligible for
upgrading under Bylaw 50 were exempted from local improvement
charges.
Most notably, at a special meeting of council (September 22,
2009), homeowners on Oak Avenue
and Fales River Road,
Kingston, were exempted from contributing
from local improvement charges. No reason is recorded in the minutes.
ON MOTION OF DEPUTY WARDEN BROTHERS AND COUNCILLOR HALL,
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACCEPTS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND
APPROVES THAT THE RESIDENTS OF OAK AVENUE AND FALES RIVER ROAD BE EXEMPT FROM
CONTRIBUTING TO THE RE-PAVING OF OAK AVENUE AND FALES RIVER ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN
BY-LAW 50-STREET SURFACING BYLAW, APPROVAL THAT THE FUNDING MODEL DESCRIBED
ABOVE BE USED FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE RE-PAVING OF OAK AVENUE AND FALES RIVER
ROAD, AND FURTHER, APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH FURTHER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FOR
POTENTIAL AWARD DURING OCTOBER COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. [Exerted from official
minutes]
It appears to me that following these exemptions in Kingston By-law 50
petitions started to routinely fail. From the information available we see
that:
Did the 2009 exemption of local improvement costs for
Oak Avenue and the
Fales River Road
have an impact on the success rate following that decision of council?
Procedure
Time was not on our side: The season was advancing and temperatures
were soon to be unfavourable for paving activities. From the beginning of this
project we had to decipher if it would be possible for council to apply a local
improvement charge after paving has been completed and/or without a
petition. Throughout the process we were
assured by staff that these issues were surmountable. That is, council did have the option to move
forward without petitions and did have the ability to apply a local improvement charge
to homeowners post paving.
Is a petition an essential factor? Another way to
address this was to uncover if any roads had previously been paved under By-law
50 without a petition being completed.
I found an answer to that in a second report prepared by the
CAO at the request of council (in response to unanswered questions I was
seeking that had not been forthcoming). This second report included a listing
of 6 roads paved in 1999 under Bylaw 50 where a petition was not held. These roads were in 3 districts: 4 in Greenwood; 1 in New Minas;
and 1 in Port Williams.
Unfortunately, information regarding whether or not a local
improvement charge was paid by homeowners on these roads was missing.
Applying a local improvement charge post paving. We all know that the paving of this 15-K of
roads had already occurred prior to a decision being made about how much
homeowners should pay.
At all points along the way staff indicated timing wasn’t a
factor. Council could go ahead and pave and decide on the funding formula after. Councillors were told that charges could be applied after the
fact: Once drafting and approval of by-law changes concluded.
This was most strongly indicated in staff report dated
September 3, 2103.
Option 2 submitted by staff was
to: "direct staff to draft a bylaw for first reading which would allow the
Municipality to recover the Municipal cost portion of the 2013 J Class Paving
Project, without the requirement for a successful petition.”
So, in the end we see that:
· With few exceptions, roads eligible for paving
under By-law 50 are paid for, with a 50% contribution from the Province of
Nova Scotia, and a 50% local improvement charge covered by homeowners on the
street.
·
Petitions are the usual starting point for
action on a road in need of paving, but there are a few exceptions to that as
well.
·
To date, hundreds of homeowners have paid local
improvement charges, often well over a $1,000 per household (with some
home-owners on a financing plan still paying).
·
Since 1996 every home owner in a new subdivision
pays for the compulsory paving of their streets. Likely, thousands of their own household
dollars.
Taking all that
into consideration my conclusion is that:
·
It was not fair to exempt the home-owners who had their roads paved this fall from
local improvement charges.
·
Council has the right and duty to apply a local
improvement charge to all home-owners enjoying the benefits of newly paved roads in their subdivisions.
Heading into the council meeting where the decision took
place to not charge homeowners anything for the recent paving of their
subdivision, I leaned strongly toward option 3 that was recommended by motion on
September 3, referred, and ultimately ignored by council.
That option provided some relief to homeowners for roads that are of a
more generalized public use (usually at the entrance of subdivisions) while applying an appropriate local improvement charge similar in scope to what other taxpayers had been required to pay in the past.
Ongoing costs. The decision to pave at no cost to
home-owners in subdivisions is, in my opinion, unsustainable without increasing
the tax rate, or decreasing other services.
The December 3 decision set a precedent for the future costs of
improving roads in subdivisions to be paid for by the municipality until all
J-class roads are improved.
To date this council has not set corporate spending
priorities for infrastructure renewal and I for one anticipate great challenges
ahead and the need for the capital funds we have just spent (unnecessarily) for subdivision paving.
THE DECISION MADE BY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 3, 2013, IS, IN MY
OPINION AKIN TO A HOME-OWNER PAVING THEIR DRIVEWAY WHEN THEY KNOW THE SEPTIC
TANK OR WELL IS LIKELY TO FAIL IN THE YEARS AHEAD, WHILE THERE IS VERY LITTLE
MONEY IN THE HOME-OWNERS BANK ACCOUNT.
I was interested to hear a robust, detailed debate from those
councillors in favour of charging the paving of these roads to the general
tax-payer versus the home-owner who, under By-law 50 is accountable for such
costs. Several councillors were disappointingly mute on this important issue.
Other Issues
Transparency of Selection Process
For me, there were also issues related to the list of roads
approved on August 13. I voted against that list based on the lack of
information and clarity about the selection process.
It is notable that two meetings between council and the
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal were scheduled and
then cancelled.
A July 26th meeting of councillors with DTIR was cancelled due to the need for more work by staff on the scoring system.
An August 9th meeting of councillors with DTIR was cancelled too… in lieu of a presentation at COTW with DTIR in attendance.
Councillors were assured that the selection was fair/non-political and based on assessments of needs and efficacy determined by consultation and discussion between MOK and DTIR. However, once a complete list of all roads was provided, it was apparent that several roads with high scores in terms of poor conditions were not prioritized while roads with very low scores were. There may be justifiable reasons for this, but council did not have the benefit of debate.
As well, there may have been
suitability in the years ahead for some of the selected roads to have been paved
through gas tax money... that would prevent the need for using as much of our general tax revenue base for paving them.
Background
This record of motions below charts council's journey on this J-class road issue. The final motion will be added once council approves the minutes of December 3, 2013.
|
15-Jan-13
|
Motion approved: Approve Fales River Subdivision as the
2013/14 priority for chip-sealing under the J-Class Road Paving Program.
|
Unanimous
|
|
16-Jul-13
|
Motion Approved: direct the CAO to review bylaw #50 and
provide recommendations on methods through which the County can finance its
portion of the cost for J-Class roads and treats all residents equitably in
roads rehabilitation
|
Unanimous
|
|
16-Jul-13
|
Committee of the
Whole recommend that Municipal Council: approve for the Warden to write a
letter to the deputy Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure Renewal
requesting they earmark one-million dollars under the J-Class roads program
for the 2013/2014 year for the County of Kings.
|
No Vote Recorded in Minutes.
|
|
13-Aug-13
|
Motion approved: Approve, under the J Class Paving Project
2013, to pave the roads as presented to COTW August 13, 2013.
Discussed: issues regarding deciding on the list of roads
to pave prior to deciding on policy and funding; need to address policy
issues prior to committing to funding; need to address other pressing matters
with funding, including aged infrastructure.
|
For (7): Ennis. Winsor. Best. Lloyd. Atwater. Hirtle. Brothers.
Against (3): Bishop, Raven, MacQuarrie.
Abstain (1). VanRooyen.
|
|
3-Sep-13
|
Motion approved: Direct the CAO to execute the notice of
acceptance and return to the Minister, with the funding method to be
determined by Council.
|
For ():
Against (3): MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Bishop.
|
|
3-Sep-13
|
Motion defeated: Approve utilizing $545,000 of current
year forecasted surplus and transfer $567,000 from the General Capital
Reserve to fund the J class Road paving list as approved at the August 13,
2013 Council.[This was option 1].
|
For (4): Atwater.
Brothers. Winsor. Ennis.
Against (7): MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Raven. Hirtle. Lloyd.
Best. Bishop.
|
|
3-Sep-13
|
Motion defeated: Approve option #4.[This was the option
"Do not continue with 2013 J class project]
|
For (4): MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Brothers. Bishop.
Against (7): Raven. Atwater.
Hirtle. Lloyd. Best. Winsor. Ennis.
|
|
3-Sep-13
|
Motion referred:
On motion of Councillor Raven and Councillor Hirtle, that
Municipal Council approve option 3.
Motion approved: Refer the discussion of option three and
any other options to a meeting no later than the middle of October.
Option 3 outlined a flexible cost recovery: "approve
utilizing $312,000 of the forecasted surplus to fund the J Class Road paving
list as approved at the August 13, 2013 Council. Direct staff to draft a
by-law for first reading which would allow the Municipality to recoup the
remaining Municipal cost of $800,000, regarding the 2013 J Class Paving
Project, without the requirement for a successful petition.
Option 2 was to "direct staff to draft a bylaw for
first reading which would allow the Municipality to recover the Municipal
cost portion of the 2013 J Class Paving Project, without the requirement for
a successful petition.
|
For (8): Raven. Hirtle. Lloyd. Best. Winsor. Ennis.
Brothers. VanRooyen.
Against (3): MacQuarrie.
Atwater.
Bishop.
|
|
15-Oct-13
|
Motion approved: Refer this item to the CAO until Council
has the answers to Councillor Raven’s questions, to come back to Council at
the November Committee of the Whole.
|
Against (5). Atwater.
Brothers. Lloyd. Best. Ennis.
For (6). MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Raven. Hirtle. Bishop.
Winsor.
|
|
15-Oct-13
|
Motion approved: Receive the J-Class Roads petition.
[from Kingston].
|
For (10). MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Raven. Hirtle. Brothers.
Lloyd. Best. Bishop. Winsor. Ennis.
Abstain or missed (1): Atwater.
|
|
12-Nov-13
|
Not motioned. Set a
Special Council Meeting to discuss J Class Roads. Tom MacEwan commented that
a Special Council or Special Committee of the Whole meeting could be held to
discuss J Class Roads.
Council decided to discuss J Class Roads at the beginning
of the December 3, 2013 Council meeting before the Planning items.
|
|
|
3-Dec-13
|
Motion approved: Fund costs associated with the 2013 J
Class Road Paving Project entirely ($1.2 million) from the reserves
identified by Staff.
|
For (6): Ennis. Best. Lloyd. Atwater. Hirtle. Brothers.
Against (4): Bishop. Raven. VanRooyen. MacQuarrie.
Absent (1): Winsor
|
|
|
|
|
While much has been circulated about By-Law #81… And
significant time was given to its discussion on September 3, it is important to
note that none of the roads in the 2013 project are governed by By-Law #81.
So that's it folks. I have tried to very diligently present the facts as presented and studied. Please do not hesitate to be in touch if you have questions.
