On February 4, 2014, a repeat performance was set in motion when municipal council approved the 2014 J Class
Road Paving Priority List. Only three councillors voiced objections and voted
against this (Bishop, Raven and VanRooyen).
By-law 50
clearly outlines to residents the procedure for paving of J-class roads. It
stands unchanged, on the sidelines, now acting as little more than a monument
to more equitable times in Kings
County
Until
December 2013, with few exceptions, local improvement costs for the 50 percent not
covered by the province had been charged to the homeowners of the subdivisions
paved. Between 1996 and 2011 scores of
tax-payers paid out of their own pockets to pave their subdivision roads with a
portion of the cost covered by the province, most usually on a 50-50 basis. Some
financed their share through a 10-year payment plan offered by the county. They
will continue to pay in the years immediately ahead.
It is also
notable that any new subdivision developed since 1996 posts a bond for the
roads that must be paved which is not released until paving occurs. The charges
related to that paving are then covered by those purchasing lots or homes in
the subdivision.
What
happened at the December 3, 2013, council meeting, in essence, gave “free
paving” to those living along this particular group of roads totalling
15-kilometres. I found both the process
and decision arrived at highly problematic. Of great concern was the fact that
most councillors at the horseshoe gave no substantive indication of why
they voted as they did despite the fact that they were voting on a $1.2 million
dollar item.
I posted much
of what follows on December 6, 2013, as an explanation of why I voted as I did.
For me that decision 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.
Interestingly, it now appears that some Coldbrook homeowners who did pay for paving are looking for a refund. I have had contact with residents from Natalie Street in Centreville who are also interested in whether its possible to get a refund.
Interestingly, it now appears that some Coldbrook homeowners who did pay for paving are looking for a refund. I have had contact with residents from Natalie Street in Centreville who are also interested in whether its possible to get a refund.
This
history of J-class “happenings” and motions as I have experienced, or researched,
them since being elected as District 3 Councillor in October 2012, may be
helpful to those sharing my position that it is grossly unfair that many
citizens have paid, or are still paying (if they had to set up a payment plan
with the county) for pavement in their subdivision while others are being provided with paving free of any charge. This cost-sharing by home-owners and the province with municipalities providing only financing to homeowners as required is the generally accepted practice in other jurisdictions across Nova Scotia.
I was shocked on December 3, 2013, when 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 given the requested preference by the chair. That motion would have provided a fair and flexible payment plan where the county paid for some paving on roads (those where more through traffic was evident) while homeowners paid for the remaining more private roads. I recently read a reference to the strategic use of procedure by renowned Canadian parliamentarian Eli Mina. He points out that through “procedural trickery” a boost can be afforded to “certain causes” while blocking others.
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. This is much longer than that! But by the
time I had tracked all the twists and turns to bring my position into as clear a focus
as possible several pages had been filled. Now that we are looking at a repeat performance
I am reposting my blog of December 6, 2013, with updates to the end of February 2014.
Fairness
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 are
still paying for roads paved in 2007, year-by-year, through the Municipality of Kings
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, homeowners on a few roads eligible for upgrading under Bylaw 50
have been exempted from local improvement charges.
Most
notably, at a special meeting of council (September 22, 2009), homeowners on Oak Avenue Fales River Road , Kingston
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 it was after these exemptions in Kingston
·
A
total of 46 Bylaw 50 petitions were completed between 1996 and 2011.
·
A
total of 28 Bylaw 50 petitions were successful.
·
Of
the 18 failed petitions --- only 1 failed prior to 2009.
Did the
2009 exemption of local improvement costs for Oak Avenue Fales River Road
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 the ability to apply a local improvement charge
to homeowners.
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
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. Moving boldly forward, council permitted paving of this 15-K set of roads prior to a decision being made about how much homeowners would pay.
At all
points along the way staff indicated timing wasn’t a factor. Council was told
by our CAO that charges could be applied after the fact: Once drafting and
approval of a by-law concluded. But there was always a shadow over how
actionable such an application of costs would be without any prior notice.
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 $1000 per household, and some home-owners are still paying.
·
Since
1996 every home owner in a new subdivision pays for the compulsory paving of
their streets. Again, thousands of their
own household dollars.
Taking all that into consideration
my conclusion is that:
· It is not equitable to exempt some
home-owners from charges for road paving: 100s of homeowners have already paid
for their paving. Homeowners in new subdivisions pay for their paving.
·
Council
has the right and duty to apply a local improvement charge to all home-owners
enjoying the benefits of paved roads
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 over
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 could be paved. The February 2014 approval of the next set of
J-class roads to be paved is in my opinion a continuance of the “no-cost
subdivision paving” decision made in December 2014.
To date
this council has not set corporate spending priorities for infrastructure
renewal and I for one anticipate great challenges ahead as we move toward approval of the 2014-15 budget with several anticipated increases. For example, Valley Waste (about 19%); Fire Services (4%); and infrastructure renewal for sewer and water that we are already very much fiscally under-prepared.
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 IMMEDIATELY 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, could have been made accountable for such costs. Several
councillors were mute on this important issue. If February 4, 2014, is any indication,
as we move into this year's J-class paving, council’s opposition to continued paving
for free may have diminished even further. Approval of the 2014 list passed with an 8 to 3
majority.
Other Issues
For me,
there were also issues related to the list of roads approved on August 13, 2013, and
I voted against that list based on the lack of information and clarity about
the selection process. That lack of clarity was repeated with the list presented for approval on February 4, 2014.
It is
notable that two meetings between council and the Department of Transportation
and Infrastructure Renewal were scheduled and cancelled in 2013.
Other
Issue Transparency of Selection Process
2014: The
list of all j-class roads circulated by staff to councillors in advance
of decisions included roads that were, in fact, not J-class roads and/or not
eligible for paving because they had been previously paved but not to
provincial standards. The list circulated in advance differed from the list
used in chambers by staff (because in the interim new priorities had come
forward). As well, there had not been any open solicitation for councillors to
identify roads in need of attention.
J-Class
Motions Jan 2013-Feb 2014
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.
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):
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.
|
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.
|
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).
For (6). MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Raven. Hirtle. Bishop.
Winsor.
|
15-Oct-13
|
Motion approved: Receive the J-Class Roads petition.
[From
|
For (10). MacQuarrie. VanRooyen. Raven. Hirtle. Brothers.
Lloyd. Best. Bishop. Winsor. Ennis.
Abstain or missed (1):
|
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.
Against (4): Bishop. Raven. VanRooyen. MacQuarrie.
Absent (1): Winsor
|
4-Feb-14
|
Motion Approved: That Municipal Council approve the 2014 J Class Road
Paving Priority List as circulated.
|
For (6): Ennis. Winsor. Best.
Against (3): Bishop. Raven. VanRooyen.
Absent (1): Lloyd
|
