File #: POL 19-007    Version: 1 Name: Revised Road Surfacing - Country Residential Policy C-EN01
Type: Policy Status: Carried
File created: 8/30/2019 In control: Council
On agenda: 9/10/2019 Final action: 9/10/2019
Title: Revised Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential Proposed Motion That revised Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential be approved, as presented.
Attachments: 1. 1. Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential, 2. 2. Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential (tracked changes)
Title
Revised Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential

Proposed Motion
That revised Policy C-EN01 Road Surfacing-Country Residential be approved, as presented.

Body
Administration Recommendation
Administration supports the proposed motion.

Purpose
The proposed amendments are to provide clarity under the definition of Benefiting Parcels and to update minor administrative details.

Summary
Policy C-EN01 was last updated November 28, 2017. This update transitioned gravel to asphalt local improvements to a 100% funding model by benefitting parcels. The previous policy was a cost share model at 50% benefitting parcels; 50% Parkland County. Since the approval, Administration identified an oversight in the definitions area that may lead to a misunderstanding as to how the policy is applied.

The revised policy clarifies that all "titled" lots are included in the consideration as a "benefiting parcel". Administration identifies that titled lots include Municipal Reserve parcels, Environmental Reserve parcels, Public Utility Lots or other County owned parcels of land provided to the County through development processes or acquired by other means. The County is a landowner that does benefit from the roadway, or could benefit from the roadway if there were an alternative use for the parcel. Examples would include a Public Utility Lot with a water truck fill, a Municipal Reserve parcel with recreational fields (Ball Diamonds, Soccer Fields), etc. As per policy, the "Buffer Strip" is exempt as there are no alternative uses or benefits from the roadway.

Prior to the recent amendment, Administration assigned payments of the local improvement bylaw as follows: 50% to the County and 50% to the owners of titled properties; of which the County typically owned one or two properties per subdivision. The ratio of cost was actually closer to 55% county/ 45% non-county. Under the recent amendment, the assignment of costs is 100% to owners of titled properties of which the C...

Click here for full text