Skip to content

Community liability of hundreds of millions feared for Comox Valley developments

A local conservation group thinks developments are being approved at a rate that will leave taxpayers on the hook.

A local conservation group thinks developments are being approved at a rate exceeding the budgets of Valley municipalities, leaving taxpayers on the hook for 'unfunded infrastructure liability' costs. According to the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy Community Partnership, the Town of Comox, for instance, has said it is facing costs of about $160 million — about 10 times the 2010 budget."When those figures are extrapolated to the rest of the Valley, it suggests a community liability of $300 to 400 million," CVSCP local government co-ordinator Jack Minard said in a news release. "No governments here have that kind of money...If we keep approving development at the rate and type we have now, the coming costs will continue to grow exponentially."The CVSCP does not brand itself an anti-development organization, but it does advocate smarter development. While developers bear engineering and construction costs at the time of building, the group said taxpayers foot the bill for maintenance and replacement in the long term. According to a Convening for Action Vancouver Island meeting last year that included engineers from the four local governments, new development accounts for just 20 per cent of 'lifetime costs' of infrastructure. That leaves the communities funding the remaining 80 per cent. "That's certainly the case now," said Glenn Westendorp, Town of Comox public works superintendent. "We know there's unfunded liability out there...We're not reinvesting infrastructure at the rate that we should be doing. The typical way of dealing with that is to raise taxes, and we don't see that as a solution."The CVSCP suggests income from Development Cost Charges — which are collected from land developers — is not a sustainable way to pay for infrastructure replacement.Courtenay administrator Sandy Gray said DCCs are helpful in terms of offsetting costs and encouraging development but challenging at the same time. In the sewer function, for instance, he said there is not enough money to entirely cover maintenance and repairs.  "It's a two-way street," Gray said. "They (DCCs) provide some assist to help the development community put services in. On the other side, when we go to replace things, you need other costs or other taxpayer dollars." The CVSCP suggests the following alternatives for development: • Reduce infrastructure requirements for new development by reducing street and road widths, and eliminating curbs, gutters and stormwater pipes in favour of on-site rainwater management.• Extend the life cycle of infrastructure by not expanding into areas such as wetlands that shorten the life of roads and pipes.• Use vacant land already serviced and increase dwelling-unit densities such as granny suites and studio apartments on larger lots.• Decrease infrastructure use via cisterns, rain gardens, low-flush toilets, improved transit and other measures. Minard said these measures are inexpensive to implement, can save taxpayer dollars and "slow the gobbling of important habitat."Gray concurs that increased density is a must, but said curbs and gutters are necessary to keep water off the streets and to control stormwater and runoff, especially as storm frequencies intensify. Westendorp said technology such as lining sewer and storm mains would help offset costs. The Town, however, needs to exercise caution when it comes to land development because of service level requirements and legal liabilities."We're rethinking the way we do development in Comox," Westendorp said. "I think it's fair to say that all municipalities are rethinking the way they're doing development." reporter@comoxvalleyrecord.com