Executive Committee Approves New LIP Policy
It is a process that has gone on for a decade but it finally took a step forward as the City established a policy surrounding Local Improvement Programs (LIP).
The new policy once the accompanying bylaws are completed could see some City streets currently only gravel paved with the possibility of curbs and gutters as well as sidewalks.
An LIP is a process where the City may carry on work and have property owners directly benefitting from the work pay a portion of the costs, There are three types of LIPs - one where residents can petition out or opt out of work proposed by the City if over the property owners owning 50 percent of the affected frontal footage are against the work, they can petition in the work if over the property owners owning 50 percent of the affected frontal footage are for the work or they can be forced by the City to pay for the work if it is deemed essential and no opt out option exists.
LIPs have had a controversial history in Moose Jaw.
The successful 2016 referendum was started after the City won its case with the Municipal Review Board to use the no opt out option to pay for cast iron water main replacement.
Speaking before Council John Bye a Coteau Street East resident said the process to set up an LIP has been on-going since 2010.
In the Coteau Street East case area residents want the LIP so as the existing gravel roadway can be paved.
Bye said residents were told the LIP would be part of the budget process in 2019 but it was put on hold until the City established a Uniform Rates Bylaw.
A Uniform Rates Bylaw establishes fixed rates and the billing for the LIP which must go before the Saskatchewan Municipal Board for approval. Provincial legislation states property owners have a right to have an average estimate what the costs might be.
“The purpose of the Uniform Rate Bylaw is you are giving the public a general rate. It could be less…generally when a project is approved and through the SMB (Saskatchewan Municipal Board) you can’t charge more with extra costs over and above what you originally told residents their estimates are, ” city solicitor Myron Gulka-Teichko said.
“We lost that year in that process with this new process coming,” Bye said, adding “the new process will not make it to budget discussions until at least 2021.”
The recently announced development at the Southeast Industrial Park along with the planned adjacent residential development makes the Coteau Street East LIP “precarious given the new welcomed industrial park development and the acreages up there for residential development,” he said.
Bye said although it appeared the LIP directly affecting his property is likely on hold during the construction process that the City expedite the other LIPs within the existing policy that are not affected by the new development.
The areas initially being looked at for LIPs are: Coteau Street East from 7th Ave. SE to 9th Ave. NE, 5th Ave. SW from Coteau St. W to Lillooet St. W, 9th Ave. NE from Fairford St. E to Stadacona St. E, and Caribou St. E from 11th Ave. NE to Highway #1.
Former Councillor Don Mitchell is another resident affected by the on-going LIP debate.
Mitchell spoke about the frustration to have the LIP process finalized.
“It is important to emphasize this is legitimate policy municipalities have some obligation to repond to and it is extremely difficult, as the residents in the area will testify, to bring this process to a successful completion,” Mitchell said.
During his tenure on Council Mitchell was one of the leaders of Citizens Advocating Sustainable Taxation (CAST) who fought against the cast iron water main replacement LIP.
On Council Mitchell opposed no opt out option LIPs which benefitted the city at large but was in support of opt in LIPs where residents could sign a petiton and request the City do the work with the residents paying a portion of the costs.
“We have faced a situation where this has been pushed back and not really responded to as a priority policy in the way the community should be expected to,” he said.
Mitchell said he was happy to see the report it was something though residents had expected to come forward a year ago.
“It is quite frustrating in terms of the slowness of the process but also the communication. I appreciate Councillor (Chris) Warren notified us this was coming forward as we have had discussions with him last year and the Mayor as well. If he (Councillor Warren) hadn’t given us note of that we wouldn’t have been here tonight.”
Mitchell said residents are still interested but largely given up due to the City’s response.
“The residents remain interested and committed but have largely given up that the City is serious about responding to local improvements. Where they are intended for, for neighbourhood enhancement, where this certainly would be,” he said.
Under questioning from Councillor Scott McMann if the City could get the LIP issue looked at in a more expedient fashion city engineer Josh Mickleborough said there were three LIPs which date back several years caught in delays.
“With respect to expediting it if yes Council were to approve the process we can get these three into the process as soon as possible,” Mickleborogough said adding the department was prepared to get out the rates and infomation out to residents to “see if there is interest for them. I will also comment in the policy it does make reference to the procedure .”
“If it aligns with the budget we will carry the initiative in Budget if it doesn’t we will bring it forward to seek the funds,” he said.
City manager Jim Puffalt said there were funds in the 2020 Budget for LIPs. The funds going in are $250,000 annually over the next five years.
“That is in anticipation this policy would come back to Council and it will be approved and we will be able to provide some funding to a local improvement as it comes forward…the procedure defined is an excellent one,” Puffalt said, adding “it was advantageous to approach the property owner before hand to let them know what their costs are. It expediates the process if we have a majority of property owners in favour of a local improvement.”
With money set aside in 2020 if something gets back quick enough Puffalt said there was potential something could happen this year.
Councillor Brian Swanson said he was not pleased with the report from Administration as it differs little from what was used before given how direction was given by Council on the issue almost a decade ago.
“That it takes this long to get what we got to me is not satisfactory. Uniform Rates Bylaw is something that should be updated annually it’s not a big deal and it was used as a reason this did not come forward so I have some difficulty with how long this has taken,” Councillor Swanson said.
Mickleborough said the Uniform Rates must be updated a minimum of every three years and provision had to be made so they were updated more regularly.
Under the policy the City plans to get the estimated costs out to property owners in advance to see if they are in favour of an LIP.
By doing so the City could save costly administrative work on a potential LIP if the proprty owners are not interested and would likely petition the proposed work out. The policy is designed to give property owners an idea of costs beforehand rather than simply signing on and later if the costs are too high petitioning out the LIP.
“There is still a provision in the legislation the residents can petition out,” Gulka-Teichko said.
Mickleborough said the new policy also helps solve “where and when you want to use an LIP. So who can generate an LIP. Should we use it for renewal, new infrastructure and what about infrastructure that may or may not be up to current standards.”
The new policy allows those seeking to have an LIP to do improvements a means to engage in the process, he said.
Under the policy LIPs can be initiated in three different ways by City Council, adjacent property owners or City Administration.
The proposed policy will have seven steps:
1. Pre-screening LIP request – submission of scope, location and description of work.
2. Review and evaluation of LIP Pre-screening for Eligible Work. (2 weeks)
3. If work is eligible an Application Petition form will be provided to applicant (this includes an estimate and unit rates for work). If work is not eligible a letter declining the LIP will be issued. (3 weeks)
4. If 50% or greater of property owners impacted sign the Application Petition acknowledging a willingness to pay the associated the costs, the budget process and the formal legislative process will be initiated. (4 weeks)
5. If applicable the City portion of funding will be included in the following years budget submission to City Council. (or a report will be taken to City Council)
6. The information and data required for the formal LIP will be compiled and the application drafted. (2 months)
7. The formal application will be submitted to SMB. SMB will conduct their review and process. (estimated at 2 months)
During discussion Councillor Warren requested given the finite amount of funds available that Administration give priority to the LIP requests that date back to 2017 over top of any new application if the policy was approved.
Regarding the estimates being provided to property owners Councillor Heather Eby said she agreed with the policy as it would be “silly” as property owners might be all gung ho on a project before they knew the cost only to have them opt out after all of the labour intensive administrative work was done and the true cost might have them now opposed to the work.
The funding options are the property owner can pay for the LIP upfront or they can opt to finance through the City over seven years at an interest rate of four percent per annum.
With a vote of 6 -1 with Councillor Swanson opposed Executive Committee approved the policy.