Penetanguishene councillors wanted answers from staff about how the drainage problem at Harbour Pointe subdivision was missed during the planning stage.
Coun. Dan LaRose said at this week's meeting that the point isn't that council isn't aware of the necessity of this task, the point is that staff is asking council to approve an extra $100,000 of tax money to fix an issue that should not have happened.
"We should not have to supplement a $100,000 of drainage work to a subdivision that's only 48 months old," he said. "That's completely unacceptable. What I would ask of council is we get a report of what the heck happened. Who dropped the ball? Was it public works? Was it our engineers? Was it the lawyers? Was it whoever produced the subdivision agreement? This is a huge expense to us that should never have taken place."
LaRose was referring to the excessive sump pump discharges from the 73 houses that are part of phase two of the subdivision, which was formerly known as Bellisle Heights. A staff report states that the sump pump discharges are now an operational hazard for staff in the roads department during the winter, as they lead to ice accumulation on the sidewalks in the area. Moreover, the report states, this issue also creates liability issues for the town.
"The elevated or perched ground water condition that's causing this excessive ground water condition wasn't included in the original design for the project," said Bryan Murray, director of public works.
"It wasn't caught by our review of the project. There was no contribution or allocation for dedicated storm services, which would be the solution for these issues, were they included in the approved design for the subdividion. No accommodation and allocation within the subdivision agreement is included for it."
He told council that he and the town's CAO have met with the developer to discuss this issue.
"They've made no promise or dedication to fix this issue," said Murray. "They've indicated it's not included in the design of the subdivision, therefore, they're stating they're not required to fix it. I've also consulted with our lawyer and he's saying there's no mechanism under the subdivision agreement to force them to resolve this matter."
LaRose said he was on board for getting the work done.
"But this is disgusting that we're asked to be paying for this," he added.
Coun. Debbie Levy agreed with her colleague and backed his request that staff produce a report outlining how this was overlooked.
"I would like to see a report explaining to us how this happened, because it shouldn't have happened," she said.
Mayor Doug Leroux cautioned against playing the "blame game."
"We realize that a mistake was made," he said. "We also realize what has to be done. If there was an oversight by someone, yes, why are we playing the blame game?"
LaRose said he had no problem supporting the move to fix it.
"Because we have to take care of our residents," he said. "All I ask is we find out whose fault it is. We pay large dollars for these engineers who tell us the information, but that's for staff to bring back to us. I would recommend we pass this and we'll play the blame game once we get the report back from staff."
Coun. Brian Cummings said he anticipated this happening with other phases of the subdivision being handled by the same developer.
"I was shocked when I saw this report come to me," he said, adding he remembered this issue being brought up at the initial stages of the project, too. "We were assured that was going to be fixed. I'm really amazed that I'm seeing this today, especially with a developer that has had many problems with phase one and phase two and is now going to phase three and phase four."
Coun. Jill St.Amant added that staff should consider including a clause in future agreements so this scenario doesn't arise again.
Coun. George Vadeboncoeur was concerned about some other wording in the motion.
"I have a problem with the phrase, 'Council expresses its intent to recover these funds in subsequent development charges bylaws,'" he said. "From my standpoint, maybe we can change that to that council expresses its intent to recover the funds from the developer. I heard what was said earlier about our legal position, however I think there's a moral obligation from the developer as well. In addition, he's got other projects going in as well."
Council voted to approve the funds and send a formal letter to the developer seeking recovery of funds.
