Three appellants filed notice with the City Clerk to appeal their drainage assessment. At the Court of Revision held on January 7, 2020, all appellants were present to substantiate their reasons for appealing. Their main reasons were:

• They, and other property owners, cannot afford their assessment for the bridge improvements and repairs that was determined in the Engineer’s Drainage Report.

• Some property owners have to pay a small amount while others have to pay a more significant amount for comparable work.

• There is an unfair assessment, as indicated in the Engineer’s drainage report, given to some of the property owners that abut the drain.

• The term to pay for the bridge improvements on their municipal taxes is punitive and ought to be increased 5 to 10 years above the current 10 year practice.

In response to the reasons mentioned above, Mr. Gerard Rood, of Rood Engineering, explained that the establishment of cost sharing was completed in accordance with practices that are used across the province for assessing bridge costs under drainage works on municipal drains pursuant to the Drainage Act.

The size of the bridge and corresponding assessment amount is dependent on where the bridge is located along the municipal drain. A bridge located in the mid-point along the length of the drain would have 50% of the cost sharing assessed to the owner and 50% to the upstream lands and road. A bridge is typically of a smaller size when it is located upstream, leading to a lesser costs. The cost-sharing ratio reflects that the owners have less cost to pay. A bridge located further downstream, normally larger in size because of the increased flow, would be assessed at a lower rate because there are more upstream lands, properties, and roads that rely on the bridge and would contribute to the necessary cost of the bridge.

The bridge replacement is also influenced by additional work warranted by the location or the drainage works. Design of the bridge is affected by the depth and width of the drain, the amount of materials that are required, and accessory items such as railings and pavement.

In their decision, the Court of Revision recommended that Administration review financial options to allow for an extension of 5 to 10 years for the cost of drainage repairs to be added to the property owner’s municipal taxes. This was later brought to City Council for decision as noted below.

A property owner filed an appeal of the engineer’s report to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal (Drainage Tribunal) as allowed for under section 54 of the Drainage Act. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing of appeal was delayed.