Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

City Engineer Wayne Tuck and Coun. Samson Hartland

Hillcrest property owners may face city charge

Hillcrest property owners could soon be asked whether they favour a local improvement charge (LIC) as the city moves toward rebuilding the streets and utilities in the neighbourhood.

By Stephanie Waddell on March 22, 2017

Hillcrest property owners could soon be asked whether they favour a local improvement charge (LIC) as the city moves toward rebuilding the streets and utilities in the neighbourhood.

At Monday’s council meeting, city engineer Wayne Tuck brought forward a recommendation that members move forward with a bylaw that would allow for a vote on an LIC as plans for work in the neighbourhood continue.

The plans would see:

• sewer mains and services upgraded;

• new water mains, services, hydrants and the elimination of bleeders where possible;

• improvements to fire protection including the addition a new supply main that would go across the Alaska Highway;

• relocation of infrastructure from off of private property and onto city rights-of-way;

• replacing poor soil, improving drainage and building new road surfaces;

• putting in traffic-calming features;

• putting in new sidewalks and a multi-use trail;

• replacing street lighting with LED street lights; and

• restoration of any areas that were disturbed during construction.

As Tuck told council, most of the neighbourhood’s streets and utilities were likely built in the 1950s by the federal government.

“The community approached the city in 2010 about renewing their infrastructure, and in 2012 and 2013, funds were allocated by council to complete a planning and infrastructure renewal study,” Tuck said.

“Planning work was approved in 2014 and included a community vision that also addressed zoning and new building development standards.”

Engineering work followed, as well as a consultation meeting with the neighbourhood.

“A consistent sentiment from Hillcrest residents was a desire to ensure that any infrastructure renewal work should not detract from the rural character of their neighbourhood,” Tuck noted.

It’s expected the work would cost more than $17 million, with close to $2.5 million expected to come from the local improvement charge with the remainder coming from the federal Building Canada Fund.

“To minimize community impact during construction, and keep the project in reasonable sizes for contractors, the project is proposed to be phased over four years,” Tuck said.

The bylaw would see the LIC based on frontage at a rate of $633.33 per metre of frontage for residential properties, $1,266.67 for commercial and $1,900/m for government owners.

That rate would see the LIC range from $1,943.12 to $21,818.22 depending on the property.

The proposed LIC bylaw provides for a 20-year amortization period and is proposed to remain for all four construction phases, making annual payments as low as $172.86 (condo units) and as high as $17,558.66 (a Yukon government property) based on an estimated interest rate of 6.25 per cent. The interest rate is set when the LIC is put in effect.

Property owners are able to pay off the balance of their LIC at any point, Tuck told council when questioned by Coun. Samson Hartland.

The councillor had questioned the theory behind LICs. He pointed out that there’s a difference between a $12,000 bill now and the $20,000 amount that would be paid over 20 years if a property owner takes the full 20 years to pay.

Tuck explained the city has had a LIC policy in place since the late 1990s to cover a portion of the construction costs of rebuilding city roads.

If council approves first reading of the bylaw next week, ballots would be sent to property owners who would have to send them back by May 9 (any unreturned ballots would be treated as a vote in favour). A vote of more than 50 per cent is required for an LIC to go ahead.

Mayor Dan Curtis stressed that if approved, the ballot process will give property owners an opportunity to have their say on the LIC.

A public hearing would then be held May 8, with a report on that and results of the LIC vote coming forward May 15.

Second and third readings would then come forward at council’s May 23 meeting.

Comments (7)

Up 0 Down 0

Sandy Cameron on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:33 am

The LIP vote mechanics must make it difficult for the city to judge what the community wants. The vote uses a technique made popular by book clubs and record companies in the '50s: you want it unless you mail something back that says differently. Sixty Hillcrest owners could vote NO, ten could vote YES and the vote would be considered a win for YES (168 ballots mailed, the 98 not returned are counted as YES). Is it done this way because there's an underlying assumption that the city knows best.

Up 0 Down 0

'Bleed em Dry' on Mar 29, 2017 at 3:16 am

@Take the funds out of reserves. There is no surplus fund left the all knowing City council robbed the money from this fund that was obtained by tax gouging in the first place to spend on the unneeded new MSB/Admin folly on the side of the 2 mile hill.
Residents--- Watch out for "traffic calming features" as this means putting in those annoying little traffic circles in already quiet neighborhoods. All they really do is screw up parking in the area as you lose a horrible amount of parking space.

Up 13 Down 7

Hill rest isn't special on Mar 24, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Local improvements are paid for by a licks improvement charge "LIC". LUC's are added to the tax bill for a fixed period of time, and interest is charged. Every older neighbourhood in Whitehorse has paid for upgrades this way. Seems to me that Crestview paid twice for water lines, even. So if Hillcrest wants upgrades, then vote to pay for them. If you don't want to pay for them, then vote no. It's that simple. But I'm not willing to buy them for you, or to finance it over 10 years interest free. Suck it up.

Up 25 Down 2

Voting no on Mar 24, 2017 at 9:28 am

You want to charge property owners at 6.25% interest rate? How does City of Whitehorse get worse credit than what private individuals can get on an unsecured line of credit? Or are you looking to actively profit from your citizens? All to fund a project designed in part to save you money over the longer term, but where you aren't willing to pony up the upfront investment costs yourselves.

The project design is fine - but the amount of money you are asking from home owners, and the interest rate you want to charge people that don't happen to have $20,000 lying around at the moment are insane.

I'll be voting no.

Up 28 Down 1

Just Say'in on Mar 23, 2017 at 7:34 pm

People of Hillcrest. Be careful what you ask for. Your affordable quaint little area will cease to be. Next thing they will force all those affordable Steel Lox to be brought up to building standards. Best you keep the city out of there, all together.

Up 14 Down 3

Really?!?! on Mar 23, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Seriously?! "Yukon government to step in and clean up the mess in the City of Whitehorse". Please look at how much YTG brings in and spends compared to the city. The fattest bloated cow is not the City of Whitehorse. It's the $800million - $1 billion YG. You are absolutely delusional if you think better money management exists in YG. Next you'll say the Feds should step in. Municipal government is known to be the least wasteful of all tiers of government, yet they are also the ones expected to perform the best with the least amount of investment. All you have to do is look at the budgetary numbers to see what I'm telling you is true. The city could throw another $40 million on their budget simply for burning, and still not approach what is wasted in the territorial and federal beaurocratic coffers.

Up 30 Down 7

Take the funds out of reserves on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:52 pm

They have paid already for the local improvements over a lot of years. Will the City ever get it right? Bleed tax payers and spend $90 million on a badly planned project.
Time for Yukon Government to step in and clean up the mess in the City of Whitehorse.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.