The preferred approach is to continue with the Municipality’s structural flood mitigation project, in addition to limiting development below 250m, while at the same time introducing enhanced flood provisions in the Land Use Bylaw. For more information regarding the downtown evaluation, continue reading below. Downtown consists of small to large-scale commercial, residential and institutional uses spread across more than 6,600 parcels with buildings of varying age and intensity. Important facilities and services include Northern Lights Regional Health Centre, Willow Square Continuing Care, Keyano College, Composite High School, Dr. Karl A. Clark Elementary, Father Turcotte Omi School, and a plethora of critical social profits. Infrastructure such as lift stations provide service to Abasand, Beacon Hill, and other southern portions of Fort McMurray. Downtown functions as the administrative and retail heart of not only Fort McMurray but the entire region. Owing to its central location, Downtown acts as a bridge between the northern and southern areas of Fort McMurray, providing residents on either side of town with a short and direct trip. During the 2020 flood, 2753 properties were impacted. Flood mitigation is partially complete for Reach 1-4, and underway for Reach 5-9. Refer to Appendix C for a full community profile. Key Points Flood mitigation is significantly underway (Reaches 1 – 9), with plans to protect the entire Downtown area. Some reaches have been completed, some are under construction or construction will start in summer 2020, and some are still in the design stage. Remaining components of flood mitigation are currently expected to cost $70 million, based on current market conditions. Costs have been decreasing compared to initial budgeted amount. Population of Downtown is 10,993 as of the 2018 Census and consists of 6,231 private properties. 4374 private properties (70% of the total) below 250m, of which 2582 (41.44%) were affected by the flood. 1857 private properties (30% of the total) above 250m, of which 44 (0.71%) were affected by the flood. Very few private properties were damaged or destroyed during the Horse River Wildfire, none of which were in the flood affected area. In our region, this is an area that presents the greatest degree of concern with respect to the “levee effect” whereby residents and businesses behind the berm may feel a false sense of security. This confidence may lead to further investment in the flood hazard area, ultimately increasing damages and costs arising from a future flood that the berm was unable to withstand. Proposed Approach for Downtown The preferred approach is to continue with the Municipality’s structural flood mitigation project, in addition to limiting development below 250m, while at the same time introducing enhanced flood provisions in the Land Use Bylaw. The flood mitigation program is already substantially underway, but since it is only being built to withstand a 1:100 year flood event, it is advisable to resist further intensification of areas below 250m so as to avoid substantial further increases in damage should the berm fail or be overtopped. The Land Use Bylaw provisions should apply up to a higher flood elevation (such as the 1:200) so that new development above 250m can be afforded a higher degree of protection from a flood event that exceeds the 1:100. A full buyout also creates an array of consequences, including drastically altering Fort McMurray’s traffic patterns. There exist two locations that could potentially accommodate a relocated downtown: Parsons Creek to the north and Saline Creek to the south. Both areas contemplate a full range of land uses, from residential to institutional, to commercial (including small scale retail and big box). A significant shift in the location of downtown services and employment lands will require employees and patrons to utilize the transportation network in different ways, likely creating additional stresses on roadways in other parts of the city. Since prohibiting new development below 250m will sterilize some vacant parcels downtown, it could be viewed as a form of down-zoning. Consequently, the Municipality may have to consider buying out those vacant parcels. Should buyouts be undesirable, the second preferred approach could be continuing with the flood mitigation project and introducing Land Use Bylaw provisions that require all new development to adhere to flood-proofing measures (i.e. raising utility rooms, mechanical equipment and habitable or occupiable space) within a prescribed flood level. That flood level could be increased from the minimum 1:100-year standard to a higher standard such as the 1:200 if desired. Doing so would ensure that at least a minimum level of additional protection is offered, reducing full reliance on the berm (deriving too much comfort from the presence of a berm or any other structural protection is known colloquially as the “levee effect”). Substantial portions of Downtown lie below the 250m contour, and a significant amount of investment has been made there in recent years. Existing development would be grandfathered but, to provide owners some flexibility, they could be permitted to make interior changes and minor exterior modifications, provided the exterior modifications do not exceed a maximum threshold (so as to limit future damages). New buildings would not be permitted below the 250m contour. While buyouts offer greater community resiliency, the extraordinary cost of even a buyout of lands below 250m is prohibitively expensive and could place the Municipality in financial risk. Per capita costs of a buyout below 250m amount to at least $16,400 and to almost $24,000 for a full buyout, likely making both objectionable to taxpayers. The CSA 31000-10 requires treatment options to be assessed with a view to whether any new risks arise from the selected option; selecting such an option would present an unacceptable financial risk with negative consequences on the quality of life of all local residents and businesses, not just those in the flood hazard areas. The policy for Downtown will be to maintain its central role and function in Fort McMurray and the RMWB while implementing as many structural and non-structural safety precautions as possible to protect lives and property. Opportunity exists to set a higher Land Use Bylaw standard for the flood level, i.e. 1:200, which is more in keeping with minimum standards throughout the rest of the country, and would increase community resiliency for those areas above the current 1:100. Potential future uses will be more of the same: commercial, residential and institutional development. What degree of residual risk remains from overland flooding? Risk of flooding still remains since no properties are being removed from the hazard area. Flood mitigation is only being constructed to the 1:100-year level, so it is only a matter of time before the berm is overtopped by a higher flood event or suffers a failure. Land Use Bylaw provisions are only intended to protect sensitive mechanical systems, and require habitable floor space to be above the 250m level; they will not necessary protect the building from being flooded, so damage will still likely occur to interior spaces, particularly on the ground level. What was the cost of the risk reduction? The cost of this treatment option is estimated to be up to $70 million. This cost is largely attributable to the remaining work on the unfinished portions of the flood mitigation project. Implementing regulatory changes through the Land Use Bylaw carries minimal costs and are carried out during Administration’s typical operations. What new risks (if any) are generated by the risk treatment? No known new risks are created. Discussion Points within this forum: Do you agree that continuing with the Municipality’s structural flood mitigation project, in addition to limiting development below 250m, while at the same time introducing enhanced flood provisions in the Land Use Bylaw is the best solution for downtown? Why or why not? Have you talked to your neighbours about your preferred approach? What did they say? Were you in agreement? From your perspective, is there anything that you feel was missed in the evaluation (found in the report here)?