Council Update: Budget, Woodside, Extra Floors, Mic Mac Mall Development

Agenda, February 24

Budget:
Council’s budget deliberations are nearing their conclusion. This past week we finished reviewing the last department, Fiscal Services. Fiscal Services are a sort of catch-all department for a lot of HRM’s money flows. It might sound like a remote department from day-to-day life, but there are a number of items in the Fiscal Services basket that have a very direct impact on residents, such as HRM’s various grant programs. In that regard, the Mayor moved to cut grant programs by 10%.

HRM’s rules allow the mover of a motion to amend it if the seconder (in this case Councillor Purdy) agrees before the motion comes to a vote. Basically motions can be adjusted on the fly based on discussions if the mover and seconder agree. That then set off a Council debate as to what grants to leave in the 10% reduction. The Mayor and Purdy agreed to remove cuts to HRM’s rural transit grants, but my ask to exempt the non-profit tax relief program, Councillor White’s request to take out arts grants from the mix, and Councillor Morse’s request to remove community grants were all deemed to not be friendly amendments. Rural transit ended up being the only grant program that won’t be considered for reductions. Council agreed to add grant reductions to the Budget Adjustment List 12-5 (myself, White, Morse, Hinch and Deagle-Gammon voted against). So we’ll be debating this again this coming week.

The Mayor also moved to reduce funding for HRM’s climate change plan, HalifACT, by cutting the funding put into reserves by a third ($6,000,000). There is more to fiscal stewardship than just squeezing the tax bill down as low as possible. Fiscal stewardship also means planning for the future. We could cut the HalifACT funding now, but that will either mean not doing some of the work in future years or paying higher taxes in future years as HRM is forced into doing more with debt. There is always a temptation in politics to look to the short-term. Long-term planning doesn’t really bring much political reward, but it’s essential for good governance. I’m at the point career-wise now where I have been around for a few years and can see choices in my early years that were made, with the best of intentions at the time, but increasingly look like mistakes with the benefit of hindsight. One of the things that I don’t think past Council’s did enough of was prioritizing savings. We kept taxes as low as possible, often putting forward tax bills that were less than inflation in the 2010s. The result is that HRM’s reserves have been depleted, which makes for a bit of a perfect storm now as costs have escalated so much over the last several years and growth-related pressure is straining HRM’s capital budget. Our savings are low, everything is more expensive, and there is much more to do than anyone planned for. Councillor Morse, Mason and I, at various times, argued for putting surpluses into reserve, but we had mixed success. I shared this point of view with my colleagues.

So far, this Council seems to be getting the message on the need for long-term fiscal sustainability. Spending the Library reserve was a cautionary tall for most of my new colleagues who saw in quick succession what spending one-time money does to future budgets! We voted down the Mayor’s HalifACT cut 3-14 (Mayor, Purdy and Hendsbee voted in favour), have brought in polices on reserves (such as how much much of the deed transfer tax can go to operations), and have prioritized topping up the risk and capital reserves this year, even though that’s hard to do. These are good choices that future Councils will appreciate and that will ultimately reduce costs for everyone in HRM.

Now that Council has finished our review of every department, we have a filled out Budget Adjustment List. The List includes stuff that we might spend more money on and stuff that we might cut back. Council’s consideration of the BAL begins on Tuesday and I expect will take up most of next week. There is also a big unknown batch of potential cuts to reduce HRM’s budget by $40 million and create a flat tax rate still to be added to the BAL. Staff indicated that they would look at all the cuts that Council didn’t advance in considering the flat tax motion, but what exactly gets suggested for Council to consider as a result of that motion remains unknown. Staff are hoping to have the list to us by end of day Monday, just in time for our deliberations on Tuesday morning, which doesn’t exactly give much time for the public to react (part of why I opposed going this route, as it’s far less transparent than we normally are).

If you would like to address Council, Tuesday starts with public participation. Public participation allows anyone to present to Council on any budget related item and since virtually everything HRM does has budget implications, it’s really an open-ended opportunity to speak. Although given where we are, addressing the BAL list would be the most helpful sort of feedback! Sign up in advance to present virtually or in person by contacting the Clerk’s Office at clerks@halifax.ca. You can, alternatively, present at the end of public presentation without signing up if you show up in person at City Hall.

North Woodside Community Centre Park Plan:
Council approved the park plan for the North Woodside Community Centre. The space around the North Woodside Community Centre has been a topic of discussion for several years now with competing ideas as to what to do with the space. The Community Centre has long needed additional parking spaces, and there have been proposals for walking trails, and a disc golf course. There have also been safety concerns. The Pleasant-Woodside Residents Association organized a survey in 2023 which prompted HRM to undertake a park plan. The resulting park plan was approved by Council on Tuesday.

So what’s in the Plan? The Plan isn’t a radical departure from what already exists in the area. What is proposed is to redo the parking lot at the North Woodside Community Centre so that the parking lot provides a bit more space and is more logically arranged. Right now there is no separation of pedestrian walking space from the parking lot, which would changed with a sidewalk space alongside the Community Centre. The existing basketball court would relocate up towards Pleasant Street with an expanded footprint, there would be new walking paths through the wooded area, and playground space would be consolidated in the centre lawn with the potential addition of some sort of water feature (not a full splash-pad). The connection to the Harbour Trail would also be changed to meet accessible requirements around grade (it’s too steep right now).

Staff indicate that implementing the new park plan won’t be an overnight process. The plan is to implement it in phases as existing infrastructure wears out. So when the parking lot needs to be repaved, instead of just repaving as is, HRM will look to instead build that phase of the plan. When the existing playground and sports courts need to be replaced, that will be the time to look at implementing that portion of the plan. Other pieces, like the expanded park trails, will depend on budget availability. So there is no set timeline for when park improvements will be made in North Woodside, but there is a plan and several trigger points that will eventually come around as existing infrastructure wears out. Both Councillor Kent and I will keep an eye on this. Becky spoke about her involvement in this space when the Harbour Trail was first being planned and I know she is also interested in seeing improvements made.

169 Wyse Road:
A fairly unique situation has landed at Council. A developer on Wyse Road has built an apartment building with two more floors than the land-use bylaw allows! It’s a pretty stark violation of the rules, which begs the question of how the heck did it happen? The building was already under construction when HRM, in response to the housing crisis, made changes to the Centre Plan in June 2024 to allow for the development of more housing. As part of the many revisions, 169 Wyse Road, was given additional density. In response, the developer submitted a revised permit application to increase the height of the already under construction building by two floors in September 2024. The developer assumed that HRM would approve their amended permit application and with concrete already pouring on site, they didn’t wait for a response. They were already at the top of the design and they just kept going rather than incur the cost of shutting down and restarting. HRM rejected the revised permit at the start of November, but by then the extra floors were already under construction. There is no problem with the extra density that the developer has incorporated into the project, but, unfortunately, there is a problem with the building’s design.

HRM requires buildings to get slimmer as they get taller. The reason for that is wider buildings have more impact on light and wind and so the taller you go, the slimmer a building has to be. Adding two floors changed 169 Wyse Road’s classification from tall mid-rise to high-rise, which means a maximum tower width of instead of 35 metres instead of 48 metres as well as increased setbacks from neighbours and streets. The developer and their consultants evidently missed that adding floors would change the classification of the building and so their gamble of just going ahead with the extra two floors, assuming that they would eventually receive a revised permit, has blown up in their face: 169 Wyse Road is too wide and too close to the surrounding streets for the number of floors. The fate of the top two floors is very much up in the air.

The only two options here are for the developer to resolve the situation is to remove the top two floors so that the building’s width and setbacks once again meets HRM’s requirements or apply for a site-specific amendment to the Centre Plan to allow the top two floors to remain. The developer has chosen the later and so the planning issue arrived at Council on Tuesday with staff recommending against initiating any bylaw changes. In making their recommendation, staff point out that the Centre Plan’s design requirements around taller buildings exist for good design reasons and that changing them to fit this particular situation could create an expectation that following HRM’s planning rules is optional.

This is a complicated situation. There is no excuse for the developer to have kept building without a valid permit in hand. That was a choice and a very poor one. I’m fairly satisfied that this is a case of incompetence rather than malevolence. This wasn’t a situation of “I’ll just build this and ask forgiveness” as a way to get some extra floors as some folks have suggested to me. I’m satisfied that the developer believed their design complied with the rules. What this most definitely was, was poor judgement combined with a poor understanding of the planning rules. Poor judgement and ignorance though aren’t valid excuses. They opted to proceed with construction without approval of their revised permit.

On the other side of the coin, I hate the idea of tearing down already built housing. I have received a lot of feedback as this story has broke in the media from people suggesting that the extra two floors be allowed to stay, but only if they’re 100% used for affordable housing so that the developer doesn’t benefit from such a stark violation of the rules. That sounds like a potentially reasonable approach, but HRM’s planning process can’t legally be used in a punitive way. That’s what courts and bylaw enforcement are for. That’s not Council’s role. Planning matters have to stand on their own merit and Council can only make decisions based on what makes sense from a planning perspective. We’re not allowed to exploit a situation of having someone over the proverbial barrel. It’s hard though to square allowing more density as anything, but rewarding bad behaviour, which staff rightly identify as an issue in their recommendation.

I need more time to talk through what alternative options might exist with HRM’s planning and legal staff and so Council agreed to defer this issue until our next meeting so stay tuned for now.

Interestingly, a resident sent me a note pointing out that this isn’t the first time an HRM developer built some extra floors! In 1999, George Ramia’s Eastern Land Bank built five storeys at 1559 Brunswick Street when only four were allowed. The Council of the day ended up approving a staff recommendation to allow the extra floor through a development agreement. The Council minutes from 1999 can be found here and are interesting reading given that we’re in a similar situation now 27 years later.

Micmac Mall (M District):
Council gave first reading for the proposed major redevelopment of Mic Mac Mall. The plans have been revised slightly from what was presented at the Public Information Meeting back in . The revised plans now include a public park on the property along Micmac Boulevard, a new transit terminal, and a multi-use trail through the area to facilitate active transportation. The revised report and the revised plans can be seen here. Where Council has given first reading, a public hearing to fully consider the proposal will take place on March 10, 6:00 PM. If you wish to speak to Council, you can do so in-person or virtually. Contact clerks@halifax.ca to sign up or for more information. In-person speakers can sign-up in advance to get a spot on the list. If you don’t sign up in advance, you can take advantage of the opportunity to speak once everyone on the sign-up sheet has been called. To participate by zoom, you must sign-up in advance.

Other:

• Council approved the new transit plan (I’ll have a write up on that at some other point)
• Finalized changes to the taxi bylaw, but as directed at first reading, excluded ride share
• Adopted a plan to pilot micro-transit potentially starting in 2027/2028
• Provided a grant towards the Centre for Art Tapes to help them purchase their building on Gottingen Street
• Turned down the creation of a Parks Advisory Committee (I’m hoping the new stewardship program can largely fill the role that the Advisory Committee might have served)
• Approved a flypast at Point Pleasant Park for the Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies in May
• Voted against revisiting Council’s previous decision to stick with the protected bike lane plan on Highfield Park Drive 8-9
• Requested the Province not extend the freeze on development fees and that they revisit the grants in lieu of taxes situation regarding Nova Scotia Power (NSP pays HRM about $1,000,000 less a year than their assessments would otherwise dictate)
• Requested a staff report on support and staff roles in the Councillor Support Office