Should Whitecourt’s downtown parking be up to the town or the business community?

• 

Parking rules in the downtown could change if Whitecourt Town Council passes planned amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and the Land Use Bylaw. During a recent Policies and Priorities Committee meeting, Stephanie Schaffner, Development Officer for the Town of Whitecourt, explained in detail what was before them. “What we are looking at is removing the minimum option parking requirements for the downtown. With that comes removing the option to provide money in lieu of parking, also known as a Parking Levy. Right now, the Land Use Bylaw says how much parking a property has to provide, and in the downtown, there is also an overlay that further reduces the parking requirements. If the proposed amendments were to go through, business and property owners in the downtown would be responsible for figuring out their own parking needs.”

The proposed amendments were advertised through multiple forms of media, including newspapers and the town’s website and mailed to the property owners adjacent to the downtown. “On April 26, council heard a public hearing on these amendments. Before that public hearing, five written submissions were received, all from property and business owners in the downtown, and all five written submissions were in support of the amendments,” explained Schaffner.

The Whitecourt and District Chamber of Commerce also submitted a package before April’s hearing, which focused on discontinuing the parking levy, tax funds for parking, and future parking studies. “Included in their package was a membership survey which showed 89.2 percent of those who voted were in favour. They also included a formal letter signed by eight different property and business owners from the downtown.”

During the hearing, there were four presentations. “The first two were from the Chamber of Commerce, and they were in support of the amendments. The second two were from property and business owners in the downtown, and they were also in support of the amendments.” Schaffner stated that the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) raised three questions for Council to consider before making their decisions on the changes. “What are the plans for the town-owned parking on 52 Avenue? What will happen if there are parking issues in the future? What would happen with the parking levies that have already been paid?”

Currently, a business owner must provide a certain number of parking stalls. If they couldn’t, they could pay a parking levy which is essentially the cost of a parking spot. Levy fees can go towards future construction of parking areas to help plan for future developments. Removing the levies would mean not taking in those funds. Any business that has paid the parking levy previously might look for a refund from the town if they remove the requirement.

Councillor Derek Schlosser asked where the onus would lie if there were any parking issues. Director of Community Safety Doug Tymchyshyn was very clear. “If council approves these amendments to the bylaw, what it means is that either the business owners would have to look after the parking requirements on their own or they could approach the council of the day asking for assistance at that time. That is always an option available to them. But at this point, the position that we have taken is that the businesses will be responsible for providing their own parking.”

Councillor Schlosser said that he supported it. “I can get behind the elimination of the levies because the Chamber of Commerce and their members would like to take that over. I would be more than willing as a councillor to let them do so.”

Mayor Chichak asked for clarification on the percentage provided by the Chamber of Commerce. “Was it 89.2 percent of the downtown businesses voting in favour or was in 89.2 percent of those that completed the survey? Because 89.2 percent of 40 businesses or 89.2 percent of five businesses is a totally different weighted average.” Administration clarified that 65 businesses voted, and of that, 89.2 percent voted in favour. It was not clear if all 65 were downtown businesses. 

Mayor Chichak then asked if other comparable communities have parking requirements. “Yes. Most municipalities have some sort of parking requirements in their Land Use Bylaw. Edson and Hinton also allow shared parking agreements. If I have a really large parking lot and you have a small parking lot, then we can come to a mutual agreement to share parking,” responded Schaffner.

Following the answer, Mayor Chichak said that she could get behind it if that’s what the businesses want but noted that it must be clear to the business community and property owners. “In my opinion, the parking is the onus of the business community. In no way, shape or form do they come back in ten years or fifteen years and say, hey, we’re short on parking, we need a couple million dollars for you to do a couple of parking lots to help us out. Since its inception, we’ve always planned for the future (of our municipality). I think if we’re going to discontinue that practice, then the onus has to be clear as to why and what the repercussions could be in the future.”

Councillor Bill McAree jumped on the train with a bunch of questions. “We have a few empty storefronts downtown. If somebody moves in, is there any protection for the people that are already there? Can the customers for the new business come in and park everywhere and take everyone’s parking spots? It’s not bylaw’s business anymore. Right? Can they come to the town complaining?”

Tymchyshyn replied. “If it is a public parking stall on the street, anybody can park in it. We wouldn’t be policing who parks on it. Right now, there are no time limitations, so unless that changes, then we will continue business as usual.” McAree felt it was a slippery slope. “We’re not planning for the future, and we have no say if somebody moves into the corner spot with 35 customers an hour, and they take up both sides of the street. Who’s going to stop that war and clean up that mess?”

Councillor Ray Hilts spoke in support of the changes. “We’ve heard from the business community, and they want to see changes. History shows us that downtown continues to be a quieter part of our community. If this moves us in the direction of getting investment downtown, long-term investment that is, then I am fully supportive of it.” The P & P Committee voted unanimously, aside from Councillor Chauvet, who was out due to conflict of interest, to send their recommendations to Council for the final decision.