Mayor questions fines for incoming property address bylaw

Posted on February 12, 2026 by Taber Times

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

 At the Jan. 12 meeting of town council, members discussed a property address bylaw intended to establish consistency and set clear regulations for how addresses are displayed on Town buildings. The municipality is looking for a uniform approach that will improve public safety, emergency response times, and wayfinding for fire, EMS, police and operational crews.

 The administration was looking for council’s approval to launch an education campaign that will inform residents and property owners about the new requirements. The discussion reflected concerns about how the bylaw should be enforced.

 The administration recommended a two-year compliance period to allow properties to meet the standards outlined in the bylaw. The two years would give property owners ample time to ensure that front-facing addresses are properly displayed and that properties with laneways affix their address numbers at the rear of their residence (i.e. shed, garage, fence).

 Beyond the two years, any non-compliance would be addressed through bylaw enforcement measures (fines).

 Council approved the first reading of the bylaw in November and Hilary Janzen, director of planning and economic development, returned in January for further discussion and questions. Mayor Prokop was the first to weigh in on the subject.

 “I see a lot of merit, a lot of benefit with this,” he said. “It’s just the penalty side I’m struggling with, even down the road.”

 As a comparable example, he cited the Town’s three-bin system, which he said was difficult to implement.

 “There were some penalties as a result. But I don’t know…particularly with people that are struggling financially. I know there are people who have difficulty with that extra cost on their shoulders to comply, and that’s part of my biggest concern, and the pretty stiff penalties as a result if they don’t comply. So for something that’s designed to improve things and to help, it was a difficult thing to implement.”

 “I’m not against the idea at all. Great idea in many ways. But I’m just wondering about the education side and or the financial struggle possibility. How do we navigate those two scenarios?” he asked.

 Janzen replied, “With a bylaw such as this, you typically have to have some type of enforcement embedded into it. There is the opportunity for council to change what the penalties are, and adjust those to whatever level you see fit.”

 She said the administration would have a strong communication plan should the bylaw be approved. If council saw an undue burden on residents, it could later implement a program to help compensate those who have concerns with the costs.

 Coun. Sparks reminded council that the bylaw was a ‘living document’ that could be changed at any time. However, “The premise of this bylaw, I think, is a very important one. We’re not passing this bylaw for DoorDash or Amazon or anything like that. That’s not what it’s all about. This is for emergency services. This is so emergency services can get to the correct address in a timely and quick manner. Especially when having to use back alleys, it’s far easier to have an address on the back fence than to count houses.”

  The following fees and fines were listed as follows:  Fee – change of address application fee – $250. Exemption: “Should a corner parcel be developed with the building facing the longer front property line and a new civic address assigned as a result, the address change is without cost to the property owner.”

  Fines: Violation penalty for non-compliance – $250; wrong address number displayed – $250; failure to install or maintain address numbers – $250; removal of assigned numbers – $250.

  Additionally, “Where any person contravenes the same provision of this bylaw within one twelve-month period the following additional fines shall be applied: $400 for second offence; $600 for third and subsequent offences.”

 Coun. Firth offered the devil’s advocate argument for enforcement penalties. “The intention is not for them to be punitive, but to ensure compliance with the bylaw.”

 Firth said penalties may incentivize compliance, “because it’ll be a lot more cost effective for them to comply than it would be to not comply, and then to deal with the penalties.”

She said she trusted the Taber Police Service to use their discretion appropriately when fining citizens, and suggested moving forward with the approval motions.

 Council voted and approved the second and third readings. Expect to hear more from the Town as it implements the change.