CITY OF VANCOUVER

POLICY REPORT
PHYSICAL SERVICES

 

Date:

March 23, 2004

 

Author:

Brian Willock

 

Phone No.:

(604)873-7995

 

RTS No.:

04053

 

CC File No.:

5808

 

Meeting Date:

April 8, 2004

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director of Legal Services

SUBJECT:

Sidewalks - Policy Objectives and Revisions to Local Improvement Cost Share Divisions

RECOMMENDATIONS

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager supports the Recommendations.

COUNCIL POLICY

SUMMARY

To expedite completion of the sidewalk network and to improve the condition of the existing network, this report recommends the following:

The City's sidewalk network is approximately 80% complete which represents 15565 block faces with sidewalks. The remaining 4833 block faces have no sidewalk. Of these blocks awaiting sidewalks, approximately 95 block faces are on transit routes, 450, including most of the 95, are on arterial routes, with another 300 block faces of arterial routes having only gravel sidewalks. Additionally, about one-third of the total block faces without sidewalks, or approximately 1340, are considered to be on a "pedestrian collector route". A pedestrian collector route is a route through a residential neighbourhood leading to public amenities such as transit, schools, hospitals, daycares, senior homes, community centres, libraries, parks, churches and commercial areas.

Improvements such as new sidewalks, curbs and pavement on streets, and pavement on lanes are identified and funded as Local Improvements. A Local Improvement is a capital improvement or service that specially benefits properties in a limited area with a portion of the cost recovered by a special tax on those properties.

In application there is limited support for, and even active opposition to, sidewalk projects. Concerns are raised over issues such as privacy, security, litter, nuisance, lost landscaping and cost. Reducing the cost to adjacent property owners should help bolster support for sidewalk projects. It will also lessen the financial burden on adjacent property owners should Council proceed "on Special Grounds" despite property owner objections.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to establish Council policy on sidewalk priorities and funding strategy to expedite completion of the sidewalk network.

BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2003, Council received a report from the Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues which singled out Recommendation 8 of the Sidewalk Task Force report entitled Vancouver A Walking City (June 2002).

On March 25, 2003, Council passed the following motion:

DISCUSSION

1. Comments from Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues (SACDI)

Sidewalks are an essential foundation of an inclusive infrastructure, and, while the recommendations of this report are an improvement and re-align us in the right direction, we generally hold 2025 as the long-term target for a truly accessible city. The proposed timeframe for completion of the sidewalk network over the next 50 years is unacceptable.

In the shorter term, forums such as Accessible Vancouver, ICORD (International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries), and 2010 Olympic/Paralympic Vision for Persons with Disabilities, all refer to Vancouver being a welcoming and accessible city for the 2010 Olympic/Paralympic event. To help achieve this goal, in addition to transit and arterial routes, sidewalks on all pedestrian collector routes should also be complete by 2010.

2. Sidewalk Network

As the City has grown and developed, and as transportation policies have evolved, two issues have remained constant:

Additionally, public expectations have increased regarding accessibility for wheelchairs, electric scooters, and strollers and there is less tolerance for situations where pedestrians must travel on the road to avoid wet or muddy boulevards.

There are 20584 block faces in the city of which 4833 block faces, or about 20%, do not have sidewalks. Of these, approximately 95 block faces are on transit routes, 450, including most of the 95, are on arterial routes, with another 300 block faces of arterial routes having only gravel sidewalks. Additionally, about one-third of the total block faces without sidewalks, or approximately 1340, are considered to be on a "pedestrian collector route". The remaining block faces are classified as either local residential or higher zoned. Local residential areas encompass only single and two-family zoning; higher zoned areas encompass all other zoning.

Within the 4833 block faces without sidewalks, there are some locations where sidewalks may not be feasible due to steep topography or other reasons. For example, low density neighbourhoods in very steep areas may require extensive structures to support sidewalks that meet a limited demand. Similarly, there is currently limited or no demand for sidewalks along undeveloped sections of some streets such as Kent Avenue or Marine Way.

The designation of a "pedestrian collector route" is applied at Council's discretion and considers routes in local residential areas leading to public amenities such as transit, schools, hospitals, daycares, senior homes, community centres, libraries, parks, churches, and commercial areas. In the past, this designation has been significant because it recognized the larger community benefit of sidewalks on these routes by the City paying a greater share of the project costs compared to other local residential sidewalks. With the proposed reduction in property owner costs for all sidewalks, the increased City share is proportionately less significant. However, the designation itself may remain important as a means to prioritize sidewalk construction in local residential neighbourhoods.

Over the past ten years, Council proposed 367 blocks of pedestrian collector sidewalks on the Initiative with 209 blocks, or about 20 blocks per year, approved for construction. Over the same ten years, 40 blocks of local residential sidewalk were approved for construction through Petitions. At these rates, it will take 67 years to complete the pedestrian collector sidewalk network and several centuries to complete the entire sidewalk network.

The crux of the issue is property owner support, or more pointedly, property owner opposition to new sidewalks. There are many different reasons a property owner might object to new sidewalks. For instance, concerns are raised over privacy, security, litter, and nuisance as well as physical concerns such as impacts on landscaping or fencing. However, the most common objection is concern over costs.

If Council wishes to set priorities and objectives to accelerate completion of the sidewalk network, then reducing the property owner cost should increase support for proposed projects, or at least soften objections should Council increase its resolve for advancing projects on Special Grounds.

3. Local Improvement Process
Improvements such as new sidewalks, curbs and pavement on streets, and pavement on lanes are all constructed as Local Improvements. A detailed description of the process is included in Appendix A.

A Local Improvement is a capital improvement or service that specially benefits properties in a limited area with the cost recovered (in whole or in part) by a special tax on those properties. The Local Improvement process provides for:

There are four methods to advance a project:

Most projects are advanced by Petition or on the Initiative.

In broad terms, the cost share division between the City at large and the adjacent property owners reflects one or more of the following:

The cost share divisions differentiate the scope of work proposed to provide the local benefit from the scope of work proposed to provide the greater City-wide benefit and can be summarized as a percentage of the total project cost paid by the property owner and a percentage paid by the City. These percentages reflect the actual construction costs and differ from year to year due to variations such as ground conditions, drainage requirements, previous improvements, utility relocations, and other site conditions. Table 1 summarizes the average cost share percentages over the past ten years (1994-2003) for typical improvements.

Table 1: Cost Share Division for Various Improvements

Improvement

Cost Share

New Sidewalks

47% City / 53% Property Owner

Residential Streets

75% City / 25% Property Owner

Higher Zoned Streets

34% City / 66% Property Owner

Residential Lanes

46% City / 54% Property Owner

Higher Zoned Lanes

20% City / 80% Property Owner

In addition to the cost share divisions, the By-law also contains provisions for `relief' whereby the City pays a portion of the property owner share. For instance, pedestrian collector sidewalks in residential districts receive 25% relief. This means that in addition to the City share of the project, the City also pays twenty-five percent (25%) of the property owner share to acknowledge that these projects provide a City-wide benefit.

Another standard form of relief is flankage relief where the term `flankage' refers to the long side of a corner property. For improvements on the flankage side of a property, the City pays a greater share of the cost. For example, in residential districts the City pays 75% flankage relief which means the City pays 75% of the costs that would otherwise be charged if the improvement was on the frontage (short) side of the property. In this case, the underlying rationale is that a typical parcel is four times as deep as it is wide. The relief makes the residential property owner's cost for frontage and flankage roughly equal. Local improvements in higher zoned districts (commercial, industrial, and multiple dwelling) receive 25% flankage relief.

In terms of dollars spent for an improvement, a property owner in a residential district pays almost as much for a new sidewalk as they do for new curbs and pavement. Table 2 summarizes the three year average cost (2001, 2002, and 2003) to a typical 33 foot by 122 foot property for typical residential improvements.

Table 2: Costs to a Typical Property (33 feet x 122 feet)

Improvement

Frontage (33 Ft)

Flankage (122 Ft)

New Sidewalks

$1,647

$1,522 (75% relief)

Residential Streets

$1,873

$1,731 (75% relief)

Residential Lanes

$1,193

$1,102 (75% relief)

4. Cost Share Revisions

To ensure the capital improvements available through the local improvement process reflect the current priorities and needs of the City, the cost share formulas for sidewalks, streets and lanes should be revisited periodically. The relative importance of pedestrian facilities can be reflected by decreasing the property owner's share of sidewalk improvements. The increased City cost can be offset by an increase in the property owner share of residential street and lane pavement projects.

While there is no information which allows us to predict the demand for local improvements, it is logical that decreasing the cost of sidewalks should increase demand, and increasing the cost of streets and lanes should decrease demand. If the demand for sidewalks doesn't increase through the petition process, then Council can prioritize and select new sidewalk projects on the Initiative. Conversely, if the demand for streets and lanes exceeds the available funding, then some projects can be deferred until the following year.

The process of revising the cost share divisions is also an opportunity to change the basis of the formulas. As discussed earlier, the current formulas specify certain aspects of the work are paid by the City, and other aspects are paid by the property owner in an effort to quantify local and non-local benefit. This approach is confusing for property owners, onerous to administer, and difficult to revise. A simpler approach is to prescribe the percentage paid by the City and the percentage paid by the property owner. This is reflected in the recommendations.

Recommendation D proposes revisions to the cost share divisions for all future sidewalk, pavement and curb, and lane projects. These proposed revisions will only apply to projects undertaken by Council after the date the by-law takes effect. In this context, "undertaken by Council" means approved at a Court of Revision. There will be no change for projects already undertaken by Council, including projects approved at the February 11, 2004 Court of Revision.

The cost share divisions will be expressed as percentages, and in all cases, the various forms of "relief" will continue as described earlier. The proposed revisions will reduce the property owner cost for sidewalks to about one-quarter that of residential streets and one-half that of residential lanes. Table 3 compares the current and proposed cost share percentages and frontage costs.

Table 3: Recommendation D - Cost Share Percentages & Typical Property Owner Costs

  

Improvement

Current Cost Share

Current Cost (33 Ft Frontage)

Proposed Cost Share

Proposed Cost (33 Ft Frontage)

New Sidewalks

47% City / 53% PO

$1,647

80%City / 20% PO

$622

Residential Streets

76% City / 24% PO

$1,873

70% City / 30% PO

$2,341

Residential Lanes

46% City / 54% PO

$1,193

40% City / 60% PO

$1,325

Higher Zoned Streets

34% City / 66% PO

$4,514

30% City / 70% PO

$4,788

Higher Zoned Lanes

20% City / 80% PO

$1,919

20% City / 80% PO

$1,919

Staff recommend this combination of revisions because, from a property owner perspective, it balances a significant cost reduction for sidewalks with a modest increase for street and lane projects. For simplicity, the proposed percentages are rounded to a multiple of ten.

The option of further reducing the cost of sidewalks to a ten percent property owner share was considered but not proposed because it would result in only a symbolic property owner contribution to sidewalk projects and a significant increase in the property owner cost of residential streets and lanes.

Even as proposed, the increases in street and lane costs for property owners may increase demands on maintenance resources. In cases where existing streets and lanes are in very poor condition there is a legitimate need for improvements and a property owner's share that is too high will place an inordinate burden on property owners. If this reduces the number of residential streets and lanes reconstructed each year, then over time the demand on maintenance resources will increase.

The 2003 to 2005 Capital Plan provides approximately $4 million annually for the City share of all local improvements. This funding is divided roughly into $0.25 million for new sidewalks, $2.5 million for streets and $1.0 million for lanes. Considering the new cost share divisions, and assuming a 25% decrease in demand for pavement and curbs and lane paving, will free up $1.2 million from streets and lanes for 2005. This combined with the current $0.25 million annual sidewalk funding will provide a total of $1.45 million for new sidewalks within the current Capital Plan. Allocations can be adjusted further in the next Capital Plan to meet Council's priorities for sidewalks.

5. Network Priorities and Completion Objectives

Recommendation A proposes a sidewalk network which includes sidewalks on both sides of all blocks with the following network priorities based on current transportation policy objectives and pedestrian volumes:

Transit routes are given the highest priority because transit users start and finish their trips as pedestrians. Similarly, arterials, pedestrian collector routes, and higher zoned streets carry larger volumes of pedestrians than local residential streets and are prioritized accordingly.

In the early 1990's Council instructed staff to initiate sidewalks on transit routes and was met with significant public resistance when advancing projects on Special Grounds. This resulted in the current practice of "pre-balloting" property owners to gauge support before deciding whether or not to even propose a project on the Initiative. To implement the recommended network priorities with meaningful completion objectives will likely require increased resolve to advance projects on Special Grounds.

Recommendation B proposes completion objectives for sidewalks on all transit routes by 2007 to coincide with TransLink's schedule to offer wheelchair accessible service on all routes by the end of 2007, and on all developed arterial blocks by 2009. Most arterial routes are also transit routes; those that are not will have sidewalks completed before the 2010 games.

To meet the proposed sidewalk completion objectives will require funding to construct approximately 100 block faces of sidewalk each year for the next five years. In today's dollars, this translates into an annual City share of $1.7 million for new sidewalks. As described earlier, the proposed cost share revisions should facilitate an annual City share of $1.45 million within the current Capital Plan. Funding allocations can be revised for the 2006 to 2008 Capital Plan based on experience over the next year.

If the pace of 100 block faces of annual sidewalk construction is sustained beyond 2010, then the longer-term objectives of completing sidewalks on pedestrian collector routes can be accomplished by about 2024 with the remainder of the sidewalk network complete in approximately fifty years.

To further accelerate sidewalk construction will require additional funding. For example, doubling the pace of construction to 200 blocks each year will come closer to meeting the 2025 target suggested by the Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues and will require an annual City share of $3.4 million in today's dollars.

6. Sidewalk Reconstruction

Reconstruction of existing sidewalks, streets, and lanes also require property owner support through the local improvement process. The wording in the By-law specifies "construction or reconstruction" so the same cost share formulas apply. The only difference is for sidewalk reconstruction where the City pays an additional 50% of the property owner share.

Relying on property owner support restricts the City's ability to reconstruct sidewalks in poor condition and is particularly problematic in commercial areas with high pedestrian volumes. There are numerous examples such as Commercial Drive, Main Street, or West Broadway where the sidewalks have deteriorated to the point they provide a low level of service and are a constant drain on maintenance resources, and proposed reconstruction projects are defeated by property owner objections.

The City currently pays all costs for sidewalk maintenance. Maintenance typically involves using asphalt to patch broken or out-of-grade sections of sidewalk, grinders to smooth bumps in the concrete, or replacement of discrete panels of damaged sidewalk. The distinction between sidewalk maintenance and sidewalk reconstruction is that reconstruction typically involves the removal and replacement of a significant portion of the sidewalk on a block.

Recommendation C proposes reconstructing sidewalks outside of the local improvement process so Council can identify, prioritize, and fund projects based on objective criteria. These criteria can be based on the annual "Streets and Lanes Condition Field Survey". As part of this survey, the entire sidewalk network is inspected and rated for condition using the following criteria:

 

sharp vertical differences

open joints or gaps

 

out of elevation

broken panels

 

asphalt patches

settlement

 

concrete surface defects

damage at tree bases

The condition survey completed in the spring of 2003 identified 119 block faces of sidewalks which should be reconstructed. Over the past ten years, 61 block faces have been approved for reconstruction through the local improvement process. As the sidewalk network ages and as trees roots continue to grow, sidewalks will continue to deteriorate faster than they are reconstructed through the local improvement process.

The local improvement process will remain available as a mechanism for property owners to identify and fund projects that are not identified as priorities by Council. For example, older sidewalks in single family neighbourhoods are often raised out-of-grade by the roots of mature trees. These sidewalks typically carry very low pedestrian volumes and, from a safety and serviceability point of view, sidewalk maintenance techniques are adequate. However, from an aesthetic point of view, some property owners would like a reconstructed sidewalk rather than an old, repaired sidewalk. In these instances, the property owners can still petition for a reconstructed sidewalk through the local improvement process.

While changing the rules for sidewalk reconstruction will create flexibility to improve sidewalks in poor condition, it may also lead to equity concerns. In some situations, property owners on one block are still paying annually for a reconstructed sidewalk, while another block in the same area may have defeated a similar project and the sidewalks remain in poor condition. For example, many blocks of sidewalk on Denman Street were reconstructed in 2001 as part of a local improvement, but a few blocks were defeated and not reconstructed. These remaining blocks are strong candidates for reconstruction based on condition and pedestrian volumes. If they are reconstructed without property owner cost share, then property owners on one side of the street would be paying for their reconstructed sidewalk, while property owners on the other side of the street would not. In these situations the default practice will be to delay sidewalk reconstruction and continue to rely on sidewalk maintenance techniques.

The 2003 to 2005 Capital Plan provides $0.8 million annually for "Partial Block Sidewalk Reconstruction". This funding is used to extend the scope of sidewalk reconstruction associated with developments and utility construction. For example, if a utility company replaces a portion of a block of sidewalk as part of their work, this funding has been used to replace the remaining sidewalk where appropriate. The application of this funding can be expanded to offset the elimination of the property owner share of sidewalk reconstruction projects as proposed in Recommendation C. The property owner's share of reconstruction projects has been about $97,000 annually on average over the last five years.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed cost share revisions for local improvements, and for sidewalk reconstruction outside the local improvement process, can all be funded within the current Capital Plan. Establishing the transit and arterial sidewalk completion objectives recommended in this report will require a funding review which can be done as part of the next Capital Plan process.

In addition to reallocation for future Capital Plans, additional funding may also be realized through other sources such as development cost levies, federal infrastructure programs, and the recently announced GST rebate. On March 9, 2004, Council approved a recommendation from the Director of Finance that staff report back on the total funding available from this rebate and on the recommended policies for the use of the funds.

While there will be no immediate need to increase the street maintenance budget for 2005, there may be a longer term impact on street maintenance costs if fewer streets and lanes are reconstructed through the local improvement process. In general, the existing street and lane network was constructed before 1960 and is reaching the end of its design life. As the surface infrastructure deteriorates, it requires increased maintenance to keep it safe and serviceable. This increased pressure on maintenance resources is alleviated somewhat as streets and lanes are reconstructed through the local improvement process. If significantly fewer streets and lanes are reconstructed each year, then over time the demands on maintenance resources will increase.

A separate corporate initiative to implement asset management tools and methodologies to assess and monitor the condition of the City's infrastructure will help staff to quantify future budget adjustments which may be required to mitigate the deterioration of the surface infrastructure.

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

If the total number and scope of local improvement projects remains constant, there will be no personnel implications. If the number and scope of local improvement projects changes significantly, there may be personnel implications. Staff will monitor the effects of the cost share revisions and report back as necessary.

CONCLUSION

To prioritize and expedite completion of the City's sidewalk network, Council can establish a broad policy to include sidewalks on both sides of all blocks with short term objectives of completing sidewalks on both sides of all transit and arterial routes. Completion of sidewalks on transit routes by 2007 will coincide with TransLink's schedule to offer wheelchair accessible service on all routes; Completion of sidewalks on the remaining arterial routes by 2009 will coincide with the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. The long-term completion of the entire network can be achieved over the next fifty years by constructing 100 block faces of sidewalk annually.

Funding can be reallocated from streets and lanes to sidewalks by revising the cost share divisions in the Local Improvement Procedure By-law (By-law No. 3614). These revisions will reduce the property owner share of sidewalk improvements and increase the property owner share of street and lane improvement projects. The reduced property owner costs for sidewalk projects will decrease the financial impact on property owners should Council approve more projects on Special Grounds.

To further accelerate completion of the sidewalk network, funding allocations can be increased in future Capital Plans while also considering other funding sources such as development cost levies, federal infrastructure programs, and the recently announced GST rebate which staff will be reporting on later this year.

- - - - -

 

APPENDIX A
PAGE 1 OF 3

The Local Improvement Process (abridged from Local Improvements Manual - 1989)

Definition

A Local Improvement is a work, improvement or service which the City may provide and which will specially benefit properties in a limited area of the City, and the cost of which is recovered (in whole or in part) by a special tax on those properties. The Local Improvement system is a mechanism which provides for:

While the Charter (500(1)) refers to "services," the current applications are all for capital works.

Equity

Where yesterday's "optional extra" has become today's normal service, some properties have paid for a certain improvement. There is an inequity if other properties later receive that improvement at the cost of the City-at-large.

Where some type of improvement is seen as normal for all parts of the City - but to be provided in long-range program - then the Local Improvement system ensures that properties start to pay when the improvement reaches them. It also gives the owners a voice in where they come in the program.

City/Property Owners Division of Cost

In very broad terms, the division between the City and the Property Owners usually reflects one or more of the following:

While we speak of the cost of a Local Improvement being divided between "the Property Owners" and "the City", the division is actually between the share charged to those properties specially benefited and the balance charged to all properties throughout the City.

Methods

There are four methods by which a Local Improvement project may be advanced

Most projects are advanced by Petition or on the Initiative whereas Special Grounds and Ballot have more limited application

Petition

`By Petition' means that someone circulates a petition form among the Property Owners who would be assessed, seeking signatures in favour of the project. To be sufficiently-signed, a petition must be signed by:

Initiative

`On the Initiative' means that the project is advanced by resolution of Council. Each Property Owner who would be assessed is notified and may file a Notice of Objection. A project on the Initiative is "defeated" if Notices of Objection are filed by:

The term `defeated' is commonly used but does not appear in the Charter or the Local Improvement Procedure By-law.

Special Grounds

`On Special Grounds' means that Council is using powers given it by the Charter (506(3)) to undertake a project without, or despite any vote of the Property Owners. This power is limited to:

There are three approaches to Special Grounds, each varying in the voice given to the Property Owners.
`Normal" Special Grounds (Initiative-Defeat Special Grounds)

By Ballot

There are two Charter provisions for Local Improvements by ballot:

Unlike the Petition and Initiative methods, the required proportions refer to the votes cast, not to all of the owners. Also, there is no second requirement as to proportion of actual property value.

csb20040408WEB.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver