East side residents burst into applause at the packed special council meeting last Monday night after the motion for a second reading of the East Side Services Local Improvement Tax Bylaw was defeated.
“Before everybody runs out, I would like to make this very clear,” said Mayor Annette Clews. “We do not have to wait another year. We can actually go back to the drawing board and come up with a new local improvement.”
The bylaw and another bylaw dealing with borrowing funds to pay for the servicing of the east side project were defeated on their own merits by council. A petition submitted to council intended to put a halt to the process was deemed invalid.
“We could actually ask our engineers to come up with costs downscaling the entire project, and then we would once again go through the process of asking if anybody wants to petition,” said Clews.
Councillor Paul Isaac reiterated Clews' position.
“I would hope that we don't walk away from here saying ‘this is never going to happen',” said Isaac.
He said he hopes residents, businesses, and the town will soon collaborate to make the project viable.
“I hope we're not going to say ‘ha, it's over.' But instead, ‘now we begin'.”
Petition leader and east side property owner Rick Scown said he was pleased with the results.
“I think we're on the right track,” he said.
Shortly after, the East Side Services Local Improvement Borrowing Bylaw, which outlined how individual property owners would be taxed to pay back the $4.5 million council proposed to borrow, was also defeated.
“Something will need to be selected. But I do believe that this community – that this town council – has a duty. We need to step up to the plate. Right now,” said Councillor Tony Jordan.
Council proposed to pay for the $19,108,679 project with $8,689,853 in grants, $5,918,826 from the municipality at large, and $4.5 million in separate taxes to the east side property owners.
Councillor Myron Thompson said he was thankful for the grant money the government had already provided, but wants them to know where it came from.
“It came from the same taxpayers that are here today objecting these proposals.”
Before the motion had been defeated, Clews told the audience that the provisions within the bylaw allow residents up to 10 years to figure out how they will be able to afford it.
Several people in the crowd said they would prefer to get it done right away.
East side resident Ken Sefcik said he empathizes with council's predicament.
“You're saddled with something that I don't know is fair,” he told council Monday night.
Sefcik said he thinks council isn't getting enough help from the government. and that council's dependence on consultants wouldn't be beneficial to the Town of Sundre, or its residents.
“I've been doing this for 40 years. Consultants are Teflon. Nothing sticks,” he said. “I was on board, until I got other information. This is a very difficult situation for you guys.”
Sefcik said he felt sorry for the position council was in.
Clews said they are still seeking more provincial government funding.
Residents were under the impression that the cost was much less than quoted to them during the council meeting.
Property owners of the 68 residential parcels on the east side of the river would be charged $24,000 plus interest per parcel under the now defeated bylaw.
Owners of the 55 parcels of industrial and commercial lots would have been charged $1,329.87 per front metre un der the bylaw.
Clews explained to the gathered crowd that the increase in costs had arisen from the inability to suspend the pipes beneath the bridge.
Also, Alberta Transport would no longer allow pipes to be placed beneath the ground alongside highway 27 as proposed, which resulted directly in horizontal drilling (underground) costs.
More than 90 people signed a petition saying the costs were too high for east side property owers.
Interim Sundre CAO Wanda Watson-Neufeld said the lack of a statement of representative from the person compiling the petition made it invalid.
“We must receive three things from petition applicants: The petition must have a witness, whose signature has to have an affidavit. The third thing is a statement of representative.”
“We even tried to get municipal affairs to waive it, but they said no. The petition was illegal.”
Mayor Clews was nonplussed at resident's cries of a perceived injustice.
“I am going to reiterate this again: Jackie sat down with the three different people that came in here to collect the petition packages, and walked them through the process of what was needed, and what was required.”
Councillor Isaac said he flip-flopped a number of times about what he was going to say during the meeting.
“I feel that I want to believe that the economy will grow, and more businesses will come.”
Isaac said his uncertainty stemmed from a lack of time to properly research answers for people after being elected.
“I'd like to see us table this motion until we have more answers as new council, and until we have an opportunity for more dialogue.”
Councillor Tony Jordan said he too had been giving the bylaw much thought.
“I believe that the east side of Sundre needs town water and sewer. However, as I have said before, I cannot and will not support a motion of this matter.”
As he has watched the issue progress, Jordan said he wished he could slow it down.
“It's like I'm trying to push on the brake pedal, and the car ain't slowing down. I've heard way too many people speak, and they are speaking again. This is who you as council represent.”
Jordan said it was only his opinion, but he believed alternatives and funding could be found.
“I don't care if we have to jump on somebody's desk to do it. I think we have to stop taking a no from the Alberta and federal governments.”
“Tabling this thing is not the way to do it. In my opinion, these motions must be defeated.”
Jordan said the time that defeating the motion would buy could be used to properly research and find funding.
Councillor Thompson said he was unclear on the intent of the petition submitted by residents.
“I don't hear anyone saying they don't want the improvements, they want it to where it's affordable.”
“The duty is to represent the people, and I am doing what I believe is the truth. This thing is unacceptable, it's unaffordable, and we need to go back to the drawing board.”
Thompson said he would not supporting a motion to table the bylaw.
If price was out of the issue, councillor Michael Baird said everybody would be in agreement that water and sewer would be a good thing
“Council and administration have done as much as they possibly can, and admittedly still a big cost.”
He said that it didn't seem fair to make residents pay a portion of the cost, especially when some may have just finished paying their debts for their levies for existing water and sewer.
Baird said the motion needed to go forward, and he is trying to solicit additional funds.
“If we put this off, what is the cost going to be to residents? If we put it off for a year is it going to be $30,000 each, or $40,000 each?”
“I certainly agree that the cost is high, but it's as low as we can possibly make it.”
Councillor Jordan corrected him.
“It's as low as we can possibly make it – doing it all at once,” said Jordan.
He suggested that there were alternatives, such as installing everyone's services in stages (ie, waste water, storm water, pavement, etc.) rather than doing some people's all at once (in phases).
Resident Carol Kelly was pleased with the momentary delay in the services and tax bylaw, but frustrated that residents weren't notified of the change in grant money.
“It floors me,” she said. “It's future revenue (for the town). It's their pipes.”
