GCA VP Agnes Warda participated and provides the following comments and findings.
1. Water rate review especially stormwater. Survey period February 14 - July 31, 2024.
2. Rain Ready Ottawa (RRO website) pilot project and its benefits and rebate eligibility.
3. Discussion of various issues:
a. Increasing density within the city’s boundaries causes loss of trees and green spaces, the new tax will be higher for new builds. A new stormwater fee tax does not create an incentive for intensification but encourages the retention of green-scaped areas rather than paving over yards. Perhaps it is an attempt to balance the seesaw?
b. Lots with higher density, meaning more buildings or structures per area, will pay slightly more in stormwater charges compared to lots with a single-family home and less impermeable area. The increase in taxes for the higher-density lots with less impermeable surface area should be less than $200 each year. This is fair and appropriate because lots with less permeable areas require larger culverts and more extensive streambank protections, making them more costly to maintain.
c. It is important to note that it is beneficial to have the smallest impermeable area possible regardless of the lot's development density. To achieve this, it is not advisable to have a paved area for parking 4 or 5 cars on the lot. Although higher density lots may cause some disruption, the additional cost for managing stormwater is incurred by those who choose to develop their lots at higher densities. It is far more reasonable for these higher density lots to incur a modest increase in taxes than to bear the significant cost of expanding the urban boundary.
4. Issue of Tewin development.
a. The costs associated with extending services to the Tawin development are substantial, but they are covered by Taggart, the developer. In the future, the expenses related to operating an extended sewer, water lines, and longer bus routes will be shared by all taxpayers. Taggart is paying for the services they need not the extra oversizing the city wants to do for future development - the cost of that is very high.
b. However, Taggart is paying for the services they need not the extra oversizing the city wants to do for future development - the cost of which is very high. The official plan approval required that the costs of the initial services for the 45,000 people planned for the Tewin area be the responsibility of Taggart Construction and the Algonquins. It is very expensive ($1.2 billion?). It is an appropriate example of demonstrating that expanding to new urban areas is expensive. Hence expanding within the current urban boundaries was a better choice than opposing intensification.
c. Councillor Menard made a good point about Tewin and about the costs of sprawl generally. The points about the cost of sprawl as so explicitly shown in the City's Hemson 2021 report (annual $465 per capita) is to cover the additional service costs to areas outside the greenbelt are only implicit in the survey. Hopefully, the new zoning bylaw will address the problem but more likely we will see the annual $606 per capita surplus for high-density infill will increase even as aging infrastructure in the inner urban areas is renewed. Staff would be suggesting more costly infrastructure for Tewin and adjacent areas suggesting staff has not got the message about the cost of urban sprawl. Hemson's report references suburban area expansion continuing to develop with single-family detached homes and with a current density of approximately 50 units per hectare which is how the new development in STITTSVILLE is taking place. Generally, the current residents of the Stittsville area do not object to the higher densities in the new area. The one exception has been the 125-story apartment on Hazeldean Road. It takes an ambitious entrepreneur with very high expectations to rile up the community against development. Stittsville generally accommodates sensible development at levels close to what is expected in the New official plan. It is therefore surprising that the cost of operating communities in the new high-density communities in Stittsville are so much higher than operating costs in suburban areas. (eg Stittsville is much closer to the snow disposal sites than the urban area)
i. Thanks for reading about my clarification of my remarks regarding the high cost of Tewin developments as an example of the new high cost of any type of construction
ii. If the city asked for advice on how to oversize infrastructure, It would be a good idea to ensure that the developer pays for a water line (or two) of adequate size with a modest safety factor. One has to recall the disruption caused by the failure of the large prestressed concrete pipeline in Calgary.
iii. Rather than pay for an oversized water line now it may be more appropriate to have those proposing expansion 40 years from now, require the future developers to construct a water tower at that time. Another suggestion would be to develop a twin line capable of handling the entire sewage flow to the treatment Centre. That is the current city policy requirement. In the future, larger pumps could accommodate the effluent from an expanded Tawin community.
iv. The increased density necessary to accommodate Ottawa's increased population can be accommodated in the suburban area at or above the level expected by the official plan. In the Stittsville area, the densities are higher than they are in the urban area. It is easier to do that in with open field development now occurring in the STITTSVILLE area.
v. The city should stop playing games and put the infrastructure charges for sewers and water on the tax bill NOT the water bill that seems to go up much more than 2 or 3 % per year.
5. Not accounting for incentives or suggesting steps to increase permeability. Other incorrect assumptions:
a. I have 5 rain barrels to handle some of the rainwater on my property together with lots of greenspaces to absorb any other stormwater, so the investments are also important. The problem with how the city is managing stormwater for intensification projects is that the approach is designed only to slow down the flow through temporary storage to avoid overwhelming the sewers. That and the sink holes etc. are still poor substitutes for adequate green space and the use of permeable hard surfaces. Taxing "impermeable spaces" as indicated in the survey however is another approach the city seems to be thinking about seriously, something which may change site plan design.
b. The roof is considered a non-permeable area, however, that does not account for eaves and spouts directing water to rain barrels, pools, or other permeable areas like gardens, and water gardens. There are many different practices that home/property owners can adopt to reduce stormwater runoff from their lots, including the use of rain barrels, permeable pavement/interlock, rain gardens, and other bioretention features, etc. It would be fairer and more equitable, as well as a very innovative municipal practice if the City were able to conduct individual permeability assessments for each residential property and offer some type of offsetting credits for those who’ve adopted good stormwater management practices. The challenge is that this approach is considered to be far too administratively complex and cost-prohibitive.
To illustrate the problem, I have attached a few original presentations prepared by Glens. I am also presenting different points:
One size does not fit all! For residential properties, privately serviced and rural property owners would be penalized twice. First through subsidizing the City’s costs for stormwater ditches maintenance, and second, because the impervious area of their property would not be taken into account. If the City were to proceed with the impervious surface fee model, then the impervious surface impact of their residential lands on stormwater should also be built into the equation.
The second issue discussed has been Director liability. In the opinion of the FCA treasurer there are two key risks:
1. Harassment concerns assuming CA is having employees; and
2. Financial disputes, and misappropriation of funds by board members.
Those two risks will have to be considered when debating paying for directors' liability insurance.
There is no new development regarding the existing insurance.
Comments