ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: August 30, 2000
Author/Local: J. Griffin/7928

RTS No 1677

CC File No. 5802

Court: September 26, 2000

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT: Local Improvements Subsequent Procedure - September 26, 2000

RECOMMENDATION

THAT projects by "Initiative Principle" in Court #598 be approved.

COUNCIL POLICY

Policies governing the Local Improvement process are set out in the Vancouver Charter and Local Improvements Procedure by-law.

PURPOSE

Projects by the Initiative Principle have been advanced under the provisions of the Local Improvements Procedure By-law and will come before a Court of Revision on September 26, 2000. The attached Appendix I from the First and Second Step Report outlines the reasons for initiating these two projects.

The projects are identified as follows:

		Items
Court	Item	Defeated	Type
Initiative
#598	1		Pavement & Curbs, Local Residential
	2		Lane Pavement, Local Residential

Capital Funds

Funds for the City's share of the projects are available from existing Engineering Department Basic Capital Accounts.
- - - - -

APPENDIX I

COURT OF REVISION - SEPT. 26, 2000

Initiative Projects - Schedule #598

I. PAVEMENT & CURBS - LOCAL RESIDENTIAL

1. Camosun St. - Lane North of 27th Ave. to 29th Ave.

At the February 15, 2000 Court of Revision, after considering a presentation by Mr. Chris Nicolls of St. George's School, Council approved a motion to defeat the Initiative Street Improvement project on Camosun St., from the lane north of 27th Ave. to 29th Ave. Of the 7 properties affected by the proposed curbing and paving project, only 2 properties owned by St. Georges's submitted a letter of opposition. The residential owners did not attend the Court of Revision. They assumed that the project would be approved since a majority of owners, as required by the Local Improvement Initiative process, supported the street improvement proposal.

On April 20, 2000 a formal appeal was submitted by Mrs. Dot Chambers to all members of City Council. Her appeal to members of Council concerned the decision to defeat the above street improvement project. She cited several sections of the Vancouver Charter that justify why the project should have been approved and requested a review of the decision.

Engineering staff have had discussions with the Law Department and were advised that Council cannot rescind a decision on a project once it has been defeated at the Court of Revision, and that the project would have to be brought forward as a new project.

In response to Mrs. Chambers appeal, which was cosigned by a majority of owners, staff indicated that Engineering Services would reinitiate this project unless otherwise instructed by Council. All owners will once again be notified and invited to attend. We are considering this approach in order to: give all of the affected owners an opportunity to voice their concerns; to retain the current quoted rates; and, to be able to construct the project this year.

II. LANE PAVEMENT - LOCAL RESIDENTIAL

2. Lane South of 64th Ave. from Adera St. to the Lane West of Granville St.

This project was originally a petition project presented to Council at the February 20, 2000 Court of Revision for review. At the time the Petition was sufficiently signed with two-thirds of the owners supporting the project. However, at the Court of Revision, one of the signatories rescinded support resulting in an insufficiently signed Petition. Engineering Services recommended the project be reballotted and Council approved a motion to support this action.

On February 21, 2000, ballots were mailed to affected owners. Of the 34 owners involved, 33 owners returned the ballots before the designated deadline. One supportive ballot was not counted because only one out of the required two owners signed. The other owner was out of the country and could not be reached, however, it should be noted that both owners did sign the original Petition Form. Of the 33 owners who returned their ballots, 11 were opposed and 22 were in favour, one short of the required two-thirds majority.

Once the deadline for the ballots passed and no contact was received by the Petitioner or the remaining owner, a report to Council was prepared. The report was received and the recommendation that the project not proceed due to insufficient support was adopted by Council on June 10, 2000. On June 12, 2000, letters were forwarded to all 34 owners advising that the lane improvement work would not proceed. Shortly afterwards, the Petitioner called questioning why the project was not proceeding especially when she managed to contact the remaining owner, confirmed that they were supportive of the lane improvement and faxed their ballot to Engineering Services.

Engineering Services could not ascertain why the ballot was not received. It could have been due to equipment failure or misdirected mail. Regardless of the reason, we subsequently received the supportive ballot and when combined with the other ballots, a two-thirds majority has been achieved which is required for a petition to be successful.

Engineering staff have had discussions with the Law Department and were advised that Council cannot rescind a decision on a project once a decision had been rendered by Council. The project would have to be brought forward as a new project.

Rather than have the Petitioner circulate another Petition when the balloting process confirms a two-thirds majority, it is appropriate that this project is initiated in order to retain the current quoted rates and to be able to construct the project this year.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver