City councillors had many questions and concerns about the new “Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Bylaw” at their standing committee meeting Tuesday evening.

The new bylaw would put in a rising set of fees for the owners of abandoned buildings to encourage them to develop their property.

It would require owners to safeguard the building from fire and other hazards, maintain insurance and carry out snow and ice removal.

Questions ranged from high level –should the new bylaw apply to all of Whitehorse or just downtown – to very detailed, such as the difference between a vacant and an abandoned building.

“I really do not want to lose the focus on getting this thing done because (the issue of abandoned buildings) has been top of mind for many of us,” said Mayor Laura Cabott.

“Council has asked for it, the community has asked for it. These derelict buildings really are an obstacle for so much in our downtown.”

Council members next week will be able to amend the bylaw, call for public input, or make other changes, noted Coun. Mellisa Murray, in her capacity as chair of the Public Health and Safety Committee.

The 15-page-long draft bylaw supports the city’s desire to increase development activity downtown while dealing with underutilized lots and derelict buildings.

City staff looked at the measures used by other Canadian municipalities of a similar size, adjusting as needed to meet specific Whitehorse challenges.

The new bylaw would yield positive economic spin-offs and social benefits, Cabott noted. As well, derelict buildings are an attractant for illegal activities.

“We want to find the right way for dealing with them,” Cabott said.

She is willing to look at a pause in the process, to allow for more input with affected owners and the community, before a public hearing is held.

Under the bylaw, the owner of an abandoned building would have to pay $1,500 for the first year, $3,500 the next, and up to $8,000 in year four. There are exemptions are for special circumstances, such as estate problems or illness.

The strategic priority for council might not come to pass before the fall elections.

City manager Jeff Farrell said that there might not be enough time for council to pass a new bylaw during this mandate if a targeted consultation or additional public meeting is held.

“I think we can anticipate what the result of the outreach (to owners) would be,” he said, noting that most will not be in favour of new fees.

“I have quite a number of concerns with the bylaw as it is drafted,” Coun. Dan Boyd said.

“It’s a very aggressive, heavily penalizing … (there are) a lot of conditions for owners of abandoned buildings to comply with. This is going to be a shock to any owner of a building that’s been vacant for some time.”

His concerns include the lack of a definition for “vacant building”, the lack of an appeal process and the involvement of the city manager in issuing a permit.

‘We’re not trying to get at vacant buildings,” Boyd said. The city knows which abandoned buildings to focus on and shouldn’t put a lot of effort into vacant ones, especially when there’s a good reason for the situation.

(The old Dairy Queen outlet on Second Avenue and the Jamieson’s building on Fourth Avenue were specifically mentioned in the meeting. Dairy Queen left its former building in 2007, and it was later used as office space before being vacated.)

Coun. Jocelyn Courtenau questioned how the owners of abandoned buildings would acquire the required permits, and how non-compliant owners would be dealt with.

“There are ways when it comes to our attention that when we feel a building is abandoned that inspectors can connect with property owners to either remedy the situation or remedy the failure to obtain a permit, and to get the permits in place as required,” said bylaw services manager Ryan Leef.

Unpaid fees would result in penalties, and potential enforcement action that could involve the courts, he said.

Boyd agreed action on derelict buildings is long overdue, but that the focus should be on the downtown core.

“I want to see some good public consultation on this,” he said, noting that a public hearing might not be the best approach, as too often people hear about them after the fact.

“This (policy) is something that we need to do,” said Coun. Ted Laking.

“The downtown in particular is the heart of any community, so we need to look at these types of policy initiatives.”

The new bylaw complements the new incentive policy, which encourages owners to demolish problem buildings in the downtown area, he noted.

“The whole approach here is to have a carrot and a stick, which would be the case in downtown – but for buildings outside of downtown, there would just be a stick,” he said.

“To be more fair to the community at large, I would be in favour of a more targeted bylaw, to have 100-per-cent overlap between the two policies.”

Laking noted that the bylaw gives “pretty broad powers” to inspectors.

In the event of a dispute among neighbours, if one complained about a property being vacant for six months, he questioned the process that would be used to confirm the problem while preventing an abuse of the bylaw.

The bylaw requires the city to contact the property owner when a complaint comes in, Leef said.

“The standard practice for us is to use as much discretion as possible … to not be overly punitive.

“We’re trying to focus on safety and lot utilization. We would work with property owners to get them into compliance first.”

With respect to timing, one option raised was to have the bylaw come into force some time after it is passed, rather than right away.

Council will deal with this next Monday, when first reading is given.