Council approves controversial growth fees despite lawsuit threat, opposition

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/10/2016 (3020 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Threats of legal action and a throng of developers taking over council chambers were not enough to convince city councillors to vote against a controversial growth fee bylaw on Wednesday.

City council voted 10 to 6 in favour of the bylaw that will see the fees implemented on new developments as early as May.

The vote was the culmination of months of debate at city hall. It divided councillors, pitted executive policy committee member Coun. Janice Lukes against Mayor Brian Bowman and angered the development community.

However, Bowman reiterated his position prior to the vote: “I don’t think it is fair for homeowners, for existing homeowners, to pay for growth. We have listened, we are listening… but that doesn’t mean we are going to agree.”

The day began with a threat of legal action by the development community, with officials from the Home Builders’ Association and Urban Development Institute saying they will take the city to court if council votes in favour of the fees.

“What we think we will do is prove that the proposed bylaw is illegal and that the advice we have is that the city does not have the authority to impose it,” Mike Moore of the Home Builders’ Association said Wednesday.

Eric Vogan of the Urban Development Institute reacts to growth fee vote

Bowman appeared unfazed by the threat, saying the city’s in-house legal team has given the go-ahead to proceed. He argues legal recourse will only cost the taxpayers money. A legal team representing both developing lobby groups is in the midst of preparing a legal opinion on the legality of the fees, Moore said.

“My response would be (to Bowman’s remarks) that if you wait until the legal position that we are paying for is given, it won’t cost you a penny,” Moore said.

In a prepared statement, Municipal Relations Minister Eileen Clarke said the province “will monitor the legal process and review our options moving forward.”

Premier Brian Pallister has previously said the province has received conflicting information about the legality of the fees.

Council has been divided on the issue, with Bowman and River Heights councillor John Orlikow championing the implementation. Bowman has repeatedly said taxpayers cannot afford to cover the costs new developments place on city services.

Lukes (South Winnipeg-St. Norbert) has been a vocal opponent to the fees, questioning whether the oft-repeated line, “growth does not pay for growth,” rings true.

Two amending motions to the bylaw were introduced and passed along with the bylaw, much to the ire of Lukes. Both make minor amendments to the bylaw, such as ensuring annual fee for construction inflation is capped at five per cent and an assurance councillors will be able to access where the fees are collected and how they are spent.

She compares the rush towards growth fees to city hall’s previous missteps in rushing a new police headquarters — the general contractor is now the subject of a RCMP investigation — or the controversial fire hall land swap deal.

“This process is still a process in the works, when I see this happening, you know what this makes me think of? Let’s get ‘er done,” Lukes said after council broke for lunch.

“And you know what has happened when we try and get ‘er done previously, a fire hall comes to mind, a police station comes to mind.”

Meanwhile, four members of Bowman’s inner circle sided with the mayor. Coun. Jeff Browaty (North Kildonan) voted against the fee, arguing there are other tools that can be used to ensure developers pay for soft infrastructure such as parks or libraries.

Transcona councillor Russ Wyatt made a surprise flip in favour of the bylaw after spending weeks criticizing the process in which the plan was pushed on councillors. However, a last minute sitdown with Bowman and Coun. John Orlikow (River Heights) convinced him otherwise. He withdrew a motion asking for community committees to be in charge of investment decisions from revenue generated by the fees, in favour of supporting the amending motion that gave councillors better ability to track where and how the money is spent.

“The concept of saying, OK, you aren’t prepared to go with that, but how can you disagree with having a system where the transparency and how much we are collecting and how much is being collected in those areas,” he said after the vote. “They had to agree to it.”

Developers come out in force

Members of the development community were out in full force at the meeting in protest during the morning of the meeting, packing city council chambers with almost 100 developers and allies.

They stood and cheered after former city councillor Garth Steek offered a stern warning to council Wednesday morning: Do not vote for these fees. “It is flawed, it is badly flawed,” he said, imploring council to look at the legal analysis of the fees. “Do you want to see your names on a statement of claim?”

Steek called it a tax that targets homeowners, who could be priced out of the market as housing costs rise as a result of the fee. He questioned whether council will be able to legally implement the fees.

The revised schedule for the implementation of the fees was announced by Bowman earlier this month. It cut the proposed fees for new residential developments in half and gave a three-year exemption in fee collection to various other developments.

The meeting opened with remarks from downtown business owner Sachit Mehra, on behalf of the Downtown BIZ, who spoke in favour of the fees. The plan exempts downtown developments from the fees for at least three years. Mehra said fees collected on new developments can be reinvested into the crumbling infrastructure within the downtown and inner city

Loren Remillard, president and CEO of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, was also opposed to the fee, but offered a series of changes to the plan if it is approved. This included permanent exemptions for downtown development, brownfield development, economic zones (such as CentrePort Canada), cultural institutions and places of worship.

“What we got is one consultant’s report that is taken as canon law,” said Remillard, citing the Hemson report released in September that said new developments did not pay for all the services they cost the city.

kristin.annable@freepress.mb.ca