The City of Red Deer Land and Economic Development Department has recently reviewed their public utility lot (PUL) leases and have effectively terminated them and will be replacing them with a “New Agreement — Fee Increase.”
As a homeowner in Morrisroe, we’ve enjoyed living here for 15 years. At the time of purchase, we were unaware of the utility lot lease until the bill arrived. The lease has been at $30 per year for the duration of our purchase and most likely, it has been at this price right from day one with the original owner, perhaps 25-plus years before we bought it.
We have a big, beautiful back yard with established trees and lush grass. A true private paradise.
The city, effective Oct. 6, stated that we have no right to possess the PUL unless we have entered the new form of lease agreement, and provided with the new required up-to-date property insurance for a minimum of $2-million liability, naming the City of Red Deer as additional insured.
To top that off, if by Oct. 6, the city has not received the duly signed lease agreement, insurance policy and lease fee (I quote from my letter):
• “We will deem you as having refused our offer to enter a new lease.
• You will be without right to possess the PUL, and;
• You must have, by that date, removed all improvements (eg. fencing) from the PUL and restored the PUL to its condition prior to your possession, failure to do so all improvements on the PUL will belong to the City and you will be liable to the City for all costs arising therefrom.”
This really got my goat. For years we have been maintaining, beautifying this “lease” from the city. We have three huge trees on that PUL. Yes, it is part of our yard, but at our own expense, we have been maintaining this PUL and paying a yearly fee.
So, the city is now asking for $250 per year increase, along with a $2-million liability insurance naming the city as additional insured. All previous years we’ve paid $30 per year with no extra liability insurance and have been doing the maintenance at no cost to them, in fact we’ve paid to maintain this property. I have no idea how much more it would cost to insure “their” property for a minimum of $2 million liability. I can imagine it wouldn’t be cheap.
I spoke with Joe D’Onofrio, a city land co-ordinator, on the telephone concerning this, and he states that this “correction” was long overdue. Other municipalities are complaining that their PULs are way more expensive than ours, the city needs to correct and bring it to the same standards as everyone else.
Why? The city is getting all their established PULs looked after for a fee of $30 a year. Why would they want to destroy established parts of Red Deer, rip up fences, etc., only to have their city employees maintain them? I imagine it would cost the city a lot more than $30 each a year to maintain.
Also, I had mentioned to D’Onofrio that we have three large trees on this PUL. Apparently there was to be no trees on them. Will they remove them, devalue the property, at my expense?
D’Onofrio stated that because it is part of my property, I am responsible to maintain it, but really, Mr. D’Onofrio, you are making it very clear that it is not my property unless I comply with this ridiculous renewal request.
Also, he asked me: “Isn’t that property worth paying more money for?” Yes, I enjoy my property with my PUL on it, but it’s the principle, and according to the city, it’s not my property, I’m just looking after it — at no cost to the city. In fact, I would be paying the lease fee and a $2-million liability insurance to look after the city’s property and who knows what else as time goes on.
I shudder at the thought of these beautiful established areas being defaced, only to turn them into dandelion-infested areas and with a much greater cost to the city to maintain them.
I would appreciate hearing from anyone else who is in the same situation.
This is a money grab.
Just think of all the money the City of Red Deer will be spending on their PULs if everyone refuses to sign this new agreement. It would be mayhem.
In other words, if we want to keep our well established old yard as it is now, we are forced to agree to the terms of the new lease agreement, at an additional cost to us, and we will still be maintaining it.
Wow, highway robbery in plain daylight! Who makes all this up?
I’m interested in seeing just how many people are in the city with PULs, and what everyone else has to say about maintaining the city’s property at their expense.
Debbie Mazzei
Red Deer