The latest project by Sugoi Development requires the construction of a sewer trunk line down Aberdeen Road by the developer. This development will require a latecomer contract similar to that drawn up between the District and Coldstream Meadows in Bylaw 1487. A copy of the bylaw is attached for your perusal.
As you can see 48 properties were included in the bylaw and if they connected within the next 10 years they would have to pay almost $10,000 latecomer fees each plus accrued interest of 6% a year. On the 10th year this fee would be between $15,000 and $16,000. These properties are directly adjacent to the new sewer line. No properties distant from the sewer line were included in the deal, such as Bel Air, Bona Vista, De Jong, etc.
If we apply the same principles to this new development we would only have about 20+ properties involved in the latecomer agreement. Imagine the size of the individual latecomer fees due to the developer for up to 15 years with potential accrued interest.
Council purchased the CM contract for $250,000 using operating funds from the existing utility (your money and mine) and offered a carrot to residents to connect to the line for a fraction of the initial latecomer fee ($2,000 per connection instead of the $10,000). There are few takers to date. After all, the $2,000 fee is only a down payment followed by the physical cost of installation and the annual sewer fees presently at $568 per year in addition to their tax of $97.54 per year.
Is Council going to purchase the latecomer contract from Sugoi Development as well? If so, what will they use for money? If not, will it not appear as favouritism to some taxpayers (and developers)? Why should Aberdeen Road residents pay full latecomer fees when McClounie-Mackie residents pay only a fraction of that fee? Why should Sugoi wait for his potential latecomer income (which may not materialize to a large extent) while CM got more than 50 cents on the dollar in advance?
When Councils make hasty, poorly researched decisions they find themselves in an untenable situation like this. Staff, supposed to be experts, are there to provide advice that would prevent situations like this. They are paid good money for their expertise. In my opinion, this time staff failed Council or Council gave the wrong direction to staff. Either way it is not a happy situation for Council.
As you can see 48 properties were included in the bylaw and if they connected within the next 10 years they would have to pay almost $10,000 latecomer fees each plus accrued interest of 6% a year. On the 10th year this fee would be between $15,000 and $16,000. These properties are directly adjacent to the new sewer line. No properties distant from the sewer line were included in the deal, such as Bel Air, Bona Vista, De Jong, etc.
If we apply the same principles to this new development we would only have about 20+ properties involved in the latecomer agreement. Imagine the size of the individual latecomer fees due to the developer for up to 15 years with potential accrued interest.
Council purchased the CM contract for $250,000 using operating funds from the existing utility (your money and mine) and offered a carrot to residents to connect to the line for a fraction of the initial latecomer fee ($2,000 per connection instead of the $10,000). There are few takers to date. After all, the $2,000 fee is only a down payment followed by the physical cost of installation and the annual sewer fees presently at $568 per year in addition to their tax of $97.54 per year.
Is Council going to purchase the latecomer contract from Sugoi Development as well? If so, what will they use for money? If not, will it not appear as favouritism to some taxpayers (and developers)? Why should Aberdeen Road residents pay full latecomer fees when McClounie-Mackie residents pay only a fraction of that fee? Why should Sugoi wait for his potential latecomer income (which may not materialize to a large extent) while CM got more than 50 cents on the dollar in advance?
When Councils make hasty, poorly researched decisions they find themselves in an untenable situation like this. Staff, supposed to be experts, are there to provide advice that would prevent situations like this. They are paid good money for their expertise. In my opinion, this time staff failed Council or Council gave the wrong direction to staff. Either way it is not a happy situation for Council.
*******************************************************************************
2 comments:
City of Courtenay could learn an thing or two from you folks! Latecomer charges here are not passed by bylaw nor are landowners even informed of the charges (the Local Government Act doesn't require landowners be informed, just recommends it) - I had over 80,000 in charges against my property (one was for work that wasn't even done) that I discovered after putting it up for sale after 7 years - BC Assessment looks at those charges as legitimate causes for lowering property assessments but only if they have been informed by the municipality - there is no requirement that municipalities provide the info to BCAA or the landowner, however, BCAA puts the onus on landowners to provide information they have overlooked - there is no requirement that compels BCAA to collect the info either - at the end of the day, landowners subsidize "out of order" development through these hidden charges because if they are more property tax than they should, then others are paying less than they should. In Courtenay, there was even a recent case where Council retroactively passed a latecomer agreement specific to only one party impacted when it came to their attention that the property had been sold to a developer. When I found out these charges existed on my property I appeared before Council and they ordered a staff report (a year ago) that is still "in the works" - I also requested documentation to provide to BCAA for appeal purposes but the City of Courtenay wouldn't provide anything so the appeal was cancelled - a week after the deadline, the engineering company that is contracted to the City submitted to BCAA a plain piece of paper with the amount of the charges (no bylaw #s) and an interest schedule of 4% annually compounding interest for the preceding 7 years (again no bylaw #s) - this all pertains to 2 charges: one for road paving and widening in front of my property (I have photos to show that the widening never took place and the road was already paved - when the same engineering company supervising construction tore up the road and the front of my property, they came to my door to tell me that it would all be put back to right at no cost to me) and the 2nd charge pertains to a sewer lift station on a nearby property that can only be connected to by going through another property (they can connect directly but are charged the same amount) or going around the other property so sewage would take a 2 km round trip so it could pass by sewer lines that already exist in front of my property. Council and Mayor, Minister of Community Development, Premiers Office, and the BCAA are all aware of this and so far, no one has done anything about it.
City of Courtenay could learn an thing or two from you folks! Latecomer charges here are not passed by bylaw nor are landowners even informed of the charges (the Local Government Act doesn't require landowners be informed, just recommends it) - I had over 80,000 in charges against my property (one was for work that wasn't even done) that I discovered after putting it up for sale after 7 years - BC Assessment looks at those charges as legitimate causes for lowering property assessments but only if they have been informed by the municipality - there is no requirement that municipalities provide the info to BCAA or the landowner, however, BCAA puts the onus on landowners to provide information they have overlooked - there is no requirement that compels BCAA to collect the info either - at the end of the day, landowners subsidize "out of order" development through these hidden charges because if they are more property tax than they should, then others are paying less than they should. In Courtenay, there was even a recent case where Council retroactively passed a latecomer agreement specific to only one party impacted when it came to their attention that the property had been sold to a developer. When I found out these charges existed on my property I appeared before Council and they ordered a staff report (a year ago) that is still "in the works" - I also requested documentation to provide to BCAA for appeal purposes but the City of Courtenay wouldn't provide anything so the appeal was cancelled - a week after the deadline, the engineering company that is contracted to the City submitted to BCAA a plain piece of paper with the amount of the charges (no bylaw #s) and an interest schedule of 4% annually compounding interest for the preceding 7 years (again no bylaw #s) - this all pertains to 2 charges: one for road paving and widening in front of my property (I have photos to show that the widening never took place and the road was already paved - when the same engineering company supervising construction tore up the road and the front of my property, they came to my door to tell me that it would all be put back to right at no cost to me) and the 2nd charge pertains to a sewer lift station on a nearby property that can only be connected to by going through another property (they can connect directly but are charged the same amount) or going around the other property so sewage would take a 2 km round trip so it could pass by sewer lines that already exist in front of my property. Council and Mayor, Minister of Community Development, Premiers Office, and the BCAA are all aware of this and so far, no one has done anything about it.
Post a Comment