The Ratepayers Community Group provided an update on its petition against the ratepayer-funded portion of the Tiny Homes project to Okotoks town council at the June 24 meeting, with more than 1,450 signatures collected.
The Facebook group informed council of the petition at the June 10 council meeting and began collecting signatures later that week. The group hoped for 10 per cent of the electorate, or 3,000 signatures, to fit within the requirements for legal persuasion.
“We are here to provide timely ratepayer communication to council, so councillors can make informed decisions before proceeding further on the project,” said Ryan Nix at the meeting on behalf of the group.
The 1,450 signatures represents five per cent of the population of Okotoks, said Nix, with the group believing the 10 per cent—as required by the Municipal Government Act (MGA) for sufficiency for legal persuasion—is attainable.
“The large amount of signatures collected in a very short amount of time (nine days) indicates a significant portion of residents are uncomfortable with the Town’s involvement in this project, and that the Town’s involvement should be halted before any significant milestones are crossed that require more spending or bind the Town or its ratepayers into contracts,” he said.
Without legal persuasion forcing council to act (or re-vote) the group appealed for council to accept the petition under moral grounds, but will continue the petition.
CAO Elaine Vincent clarified that to be counted as a sufficient petition, it must be submitted to the CAO within 60 days of the resolution in question. Through such, the ratepayers group has 60 days from the May 27 meeting where the budget for the project was approved.
Mayor Bill Robertson said council is tied to the MGA.
“We certainly would prefer 10 per cent as it says in the (MGA),” he said. “There are those people within the community who are silent (…) so if we don’t follow the legislation then those people are rightfully able to call us that we are not following what is stipulated in the laws of government for the way municipalities work.”
Council discussed the land lease agreement in camera, with public discussion and council’s final vote on the project coming at a later date.
Robertson suggested the petition continue with council reconsideration a possibility at a later time.
The group’s 14 points against the project include the cost of the project, business case, approval under duress of funding and inefficiency of housing type as affordable housing.
Coun. Matt Rockley raised concerns about the messaging spread by the group while door knocking after being contacted by a resident.
The resident reported a group member told them the project was going to cost them personally $400 every year from additional taxes and that the community was going to be a slum, with the low-income people bringing down the property value of the area.
“That caused me great concern,” said Rockley. “Affordable housing is a priority for the community (...) statements like the residents of this project should carry the burden of those costs and not the entire town, that’s a statement against affordable housing.”
Nix responded that the group cannot control where the conversation at the door goes, but the volunteers were provided the list of 14 points.
He stressed the group is not against affordable housing or tiny homes, and that there may have been a miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Coun. Ed Sands expressed frustration with the petition, saying that affordable housing was a primary discussion during the last election, with concerns around the marketplace not providing enough options.
He said the marketplace is still not providing it, and questioned how long council is expected to wait for private enterprise to provide affordable housing in Okotoks.
Vincent clarified that it should have been said in the discussion at the May 27 meeting that the approval in relation to the budget was subject to a satisfactory lease arrangement being made.
“If there is no satisfactory lease arrangement that has been negotiated, council can take money earmarked for the project,” she said. “I just want everyone to really understand that, that lease piece (...) that’s where council is maintaining the control to make sure that the terms and conditions they want to see in that lease are exercised through that appropriate lease.”
In an interview with the Western Wheel, Nix stressed the economic climate impacting the project. He said that while Okotoks is one of the highest average income regions in Alberta, many of those jobs have been affected by the struggles in the oil industry.
“All of the residents are having to buckle down and make choices that are a little more practical and a little less showcase-y, and the Town should be looking at that the same way,” he said. “It’s not the Town’s money, it’s the ratepayers’ money, so there needs to be a level of care taken with how that money is spent.”
Nix said the lack of a strong business case, an “unproven” partner and the hypothetical non-profit was reckless.
“If you took that to a bank, they’re going to say no to that financing because there is no basis for it, so that’s really the concern,” he said. “It’s not about tiny homes and setting up a development.
“The concept is fantastic, a lot of people I’m sure would love to have affordable homes in a community and lifestyle like that, but why does the Town have to pay for that?”
Angela Groeneveld, economic development manager, said at the May 27 meeting that the project showcases Okotoks as a leader in innovation, and would grow the workforce through attracting investors.
Over 400 people have expressed interest, and 60 people have already indicated direct interest in living in one of the homes, which Groeneveld said indicated little risk for the Town.
“This has a direct impact on Okotoks and the ratepayers,” said Wendy Adam, a member of the Ratepayers Group, who is concerned about the “escalating costs” the Town is putting into the project.
The Town’s investment for Phase 1 of the project increased by $1.44 million, with the latest budget presented at the May 27 meeting projecting a total of $4.26 million.
That cost includes $3.34 million towards the ecovillage—land lease estimated at $2.8 million, land development, landscaping, and renewable energy systems—$720,000 for the park buffer, and $200,000 for initial planning, design, and legal work for the entire project.
The majority of the Town’s costs for the project will be coming out of the capital budget, which Coun. Ed Sands said would make the impact on the residential tax bill “essentially zero.”
The costs that would affect the taxpayers directly involve the public land portion of the project, which Dawn Smith, environment and sustainability manager, said would be expected costs regardless. This is owing to the fact that council must develop that land, making the eventual operating cost to the taxpayer a guarantee with or without the tiny home project.
Smith said the cost of the project is not just about the houses—which the Affordable Housing Task Force still considers an affordable housing option—but is the entire “ecovillage concept as a whole.”
Nix argued that the capital reserve would need to be filled back up with tax dollars, which amounts to the same impact on ratepayers over time. He said it ultimately comes down to a choice of what to fund.
“There’s an opportunity cost that you’ve lost by spending that,” he said. “You could have used that money to resolve some other issue, possibly put it towards water infrastructure, or to any of the town’s infrastructure needs that are going on.”
Adam said the housing was not affordable, based on dividing Realize Communities’ share of the Phase 1 cost ($4.4 million) by the 42 homes, which is over $100,000 for around 500 sq. ft. of living space.
However, the tiny homes are proposed as rental properties, which would offset the cost of construction for the tenants, and Smith said at the May 27 meeting that it was not as simple as dividing the cost by the houses, as the cost includes more than just the tiny home.
Adam said apartment complexes would better serve the current economic situation, and be a better use of dollars.
