The body count for the meeting was 6 councilors and mayor. Councilor Williams was  absent. Town staff numbered 6. Moose-FM, Cogeco and the North Star were present. The audience numbered about a dozen of which 8 left after the Timbits deputation.

The councilors reports at times sound a bit like a report on ‘what I did this summer’ with the requirement that it be no less than 10 pages. I’d like to see some of the councilors post their reports on a blog of some sort so those who are interested could read through the details and the rest of us could just skim through the highlights. Which raises the question of when are we going to see a draft social media policy? It was suggested a few months ago that something would be proposed.

One point of particular interest in the councilor’s report was a reminder that the St. Charles crossing, Isabella Street, would be closed to all traffic on May 23rd from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM for rail maintenance. This means all traffic or pedestrians will not be able to cross.

Notable Decisions and Actions

Item 9.1 relating to the charitable waste issue was approved by council. All’s well that that ends well. Based on several comments from council I expect they will revisit the issue at some point in the future to see if there is an even better solution.

Item 9.1.2 concerning the use of town property for the development of additional assisted living facilities as recommended by the Regional Economic Development Advisory Committee was postponed to early September.

Item 9.4.1 concerning an investigation to pursue the possible disposal (sale) of the former water pumping station was approved by council. After understanding the town’s situation a little better it seems to be a reasonable course of action.

Item 9.4.2, a pending appeal by IKO Construction to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) concerning council’s rejection of a zoning by-law amendment for 9A Belvedere Street seemed to tie council up in knots. Council will need to put forward a cogent argument to the OMB about why the request was turned down. What appeared to have been a political decision will now need to be rationalized in planning and public interest terms. Going outside for private sector help with the appeal process could cost the town as much as $25,000.

Item 9.6.1, a discussion of the airport funding application ‘morphed’ into a discussion of whether Parry Sound was getting its fair share of the ‘profit’ associated with the airport. Council agreed to look into renegotiating the deal so that Parry Sound would share in the ‘profit’. A suggestion to council – be careful, very careful, be sure you have the moral if not legal right to make this request. Parry Sound can only ask for a share of the profit if it has in the past agreed to share in any losses associated with the airport. These losses might include the waiving of taxes or any direct funding that was provided by other municipalities to support the airport. You can’t ask to renegotiate a deal to get a piece of the action once it starts to make money and the losses seem to be an issue of the past. If you do, you need to pay your share of past losses, on a net present value basis, and agree to accept your share of any future losses. This seems to me to be a bit of ‘politicking’ to show the voters that at least one of their councilors is looking out for them and trying to uncover all sources of income for the town. Let’s hope it doesn’t waste too much staff time, cost too much money (there will need to be lawyers involved sooner or later), or ‘pisses’ off Seguin by wasting their time and money.

How about spending a little more time on the Power Gen project, a wholly owned town asset, and letting us know what is, or isn’t, happening.

Item 9.6.2, a direction to staff to prepare terms of reference for a committee to look at core services that can be privatized was withdrawn from the agenda because Councilor Williams, the spokesperson, was unable to attend.

Item 9.6.3 a resolution in support of an Ontario Mayor’s Coalition to become involved in a provincial task force examining provincial policing costs was approved.

Item 10.1.1 as suggested was an interesting topic of discussion. This concerned a Saturday night ‘movie/laser show/beach party/beer tent’ at Wabuno Beach every Saturday night from June 30^th to September 1^st. Council correctly decided that the local residents who would be impacted by the events should be heard. A good point was made that this event probably would be little different than the yearly Dragon Boat festival and ‘party’. The difference of course is that this would be every Saturday night for the whole summer season, and not a one-off. Council will have a public meeting on the matter prior to the next council meeting, June 5th. The June 5th council session promises to be quite busy with three public meetings preceding the actual council session.

Note to Parry Sound Staff – this meeting is not yet posted on the town website. I think it should be to ensure all town residents who may be impacted by the event(s) have their chance to understand more and then express their support or concerns. It would also be nice for town residents to see a mock up of the proposed event and what it actually will entail.

I’d like to point out that quick reports on council decisions are often available on Moose-FM, usually Wednesday morning. I pick up their summary of the previous night’s events through their Twitter feed. Final meeting minutes, with very limited details, are posted at the town’s website a couple of days following the meeting.

Parry Sound Power’s Power Gen project is back for discussion in a closed session prior to the open portion of the council meeting. I wonder when we will be told what is going on.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Item 9.1 takes another run at the charitable waste issue. Okay team, the ball is on the one yard line; let’s see if we can this resolution across the goal line. No more punting on first down.

Item 9.1.2 concerns the use of town property for the development of additional assisted living facilities as recommended by the Regional Economic Development Advisory Committee. I’m interested in learning more about the proposal and it’s implication for the town. Parry Sound is little-by-little becoming the de facto services centre for the West Parry Sound District. This is a noble undertaking and responsibility so long as sufficient revenue is realized from these developments to ensure they are not being subsidized by other town residents and businesses. Reading the background/report it becomes more obvious that the proposal refers to a senior’s residence complex that would provide a range of services from independent to fully supported living.

Item 9.4.1 concerns the possible disposal of the former water pumping station, the house just off the shoreline trail and close to the water treatment plant. The property is currently rented out by the town and must be considered one of the more attractive rental properties in Parry Sound. Council will consider whether the property should be retained by the town or put up for sale. There are some environmental and logistical concerns that make the simple sale of the property a complex issue.

Item 9.4.2 suggests there will be another fight on Belvedere Hill to follow the parking lot dust up of last year. IKO Construction is contesting council’s rejection of a requested zoning by-law amendment for 9A Belvedere Street with an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The wording of the resolution and its implications are interesting and worth reading. The town will apparently need to hire a consultant to prepare and argue their case before the Board.

Item 9.6.2 is a direction to staff to prepare terms of reference for a committee to look at core services that can be privatized. This is a path that has been wandered down by many other governmental bodies with varying degrees of success. Oh boy, another committee. Are these committees intended to actually get anything done or are they simply a way to keep interested town residents busy?

Item 9.6.3 is a resolution in support of an Ontario Mayor’s Coalition to become involved in a provincial task force examining provincial policing costs. Apparently a salary cost increase of 8.5% for OPP services is one of the triggers for this resolution.

Item 10.1.1 promises to be the most ‘interesting’ item on the agenda this week. One needs to read the whole by-law to understand its import and implications. Basically it will allow for a weekly ‘movie/laser show/beach party/beer tent’ every Saturday night from June 30^th to September 1^st. The organizers would be required to provide insurance coverage, all staffing and the temporary projection structure (which is substantial). The by-law includes a request to relax the local noise restrictions. The event would start at 8:00 PM and end by 12:00, with a $5 admission charge. The town would be paid a rental charge of $504, that is $56 per night, and would be required to provide power and washroom facilities.

I like the idea of having events for visitors and town residents, and I have received a couple of favourable comments suggesting local interest. I do wonder if this will take disposable entertainment dollars from our local theater and restaurants/bars that are open year round and depend on summer visitors to be profitable. The organizers are sweetening the deal for the community by offering to support our local Harvest Share.

These are the key issues to be covered on Tuesday; the agenda lists a number of additional items that may be of some interest to you. Details are provided in the packages available for view at the library and town hall. See you Tuesday night.

Driving by the Salvation Army this morning I stopped to see what had been ‘donated’ over the weekend and took the picture above. As you can see someone had ‘considerately’ donated an old three-section sofa. And because the individual(s) didn’t want to have their generosity acknowledged it seems they decided to drop it off over the weekend when the store was closed.

So what does the Salvation Army do with this donation? The really don’t have the space to inventory it. And how can they in good conscience sell it without a proper cleaning? Who knows where and what the couch was used for prior to the drop off. I find it a little bit scary to think about taking it home, even in an unfinished basement.

The answer is of course is to pay to dispose of it. What the cost might be for this type of ‘commercial’ waste I don’t know. If a Parry Sound resident were to bring it to the transfer station the cost would be three ‘dump tickets’, or $9.00.

But a donation sure beats paying $9.

The town needs to help address this situation. This is not a charitable waste issue, it’s a town littering problem. What would the town do if the sofa were dumped at the corner of James and Mary Streets? They would pick it up and bring it to the transfer station, whether the anonymous ‘dumper’ was from Parry Sound, McDougall, McKellar, Seguin or any of the other surrounding municipalities.

Let’s see how the town chooses to handle this challenge. It’s people who are generating the waste, not our charitable organizations.

The body count for the meeting was 5 councilors. Mayor McGarvey and Councilor Horne were absent. Town staff numbered 7. Moose-FM, Cogeco and the North Star were present. The audience numbered 10, of which 4 left after their deputations.

There was a deputation by Sail Parry Sound that summarized their activities and plans for 2012. Sail Parry Sound does a nice job of bringing activities and people to Parry Sound that enhance our image and quality of life. The Canadian Armed Forces provided a short overview of what will be going on with respect to Parry Sound over the next week as they conduct their military maneuvers.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Items 4.4, 4.3, 4.6, letters from town residents to council requesting clarification on  the proposed expansion of the Downtown Business Association (DBA) boundaries were referred to town staff for a response.

Items 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 concerned the Charitable Assistance and Municipal Assistance Programs that were discussed and approved in principle earlier this year. I was astounded to see that once again council could not get to a decision on the charitable assistance program. This has been before council at least three times and has been going on for more than 6 months. It involves a total of $5,000. What is the issue here? There is agreement at council that a problem exists and town staff has offered a solution that, while perhaps not ideal, at least provides some relief to the town’s charitable groups.

There were three points that caused me to shake my head in wonder. The first was the suggestion by one councilor that the town revisit once again whether it was possible to amend the town’s permit to allow for charitable dumping rather than approve the assistance program. This has been discussed and was felt by town staff to present a significant challenge. The councilor’s point is reasonable but why didn’t this councilor vote for the assistance program and then request staff investigate the permit revision options? In this way the charitable organizations would have been able to get some relief now – almost six months after it was agreed help was appropriate, with the possibility that an even better outcome might be possible later.

The second point was the comment by another councilor that perhaps by not approving this assistance program the charitable organizations would be forced to be more creative in managing the problem. These groups are for the most part getting rid of the ‘garbage’ that people in town and the surrounding areas are dumping on their doorstep. Perhaps that’s the same type of thinking that the federal and provincial governments are using in their continued reduction of municipal funding. They want town councils to be ‘more creative’.

The final shake my head moment was when council split 2 to 2 on approving the municipal assistance program and looked to the deputy mayor to break the tie. Following an initial ‘deer in the headlights’ look on the deputy mayor’s face he voted down the resolution.

So staff and council will spend more time and effort on this $5,000 issue. The way it has moved forward so far perhaps it can be wrapped up by year’s end with only another half dozen council discussions.

By way of disclosure I have no affiliation with any of the charitable organizations who might benefit from the municipal assistance program. I just have my own sense of what is fair and reasonable. While heading out to a meeting this evening (May 2nd) I saw a sofa on a front lawn with the sign – “Free”. Well it was raining rather hard at that point, and assuming the sofa was a decade or two old with stories it could tell of pets and kids, it’s likely it will soon end up as a ‘donation’ at the Salvation Army because it would cost $10 or $20 to dispose of at the town transfer station. But heck this is another opportunity for the Salvation Army to be creative in dealing with ‘their garbage problem’. Perhaps the creative thing to do is get a few dozen town residents to donate their dump passes and use it to clear out a year’s worth of garbage. But wait they can’t accept Salvation Army discards because of the transfer station permit. But of course they can if it involves a town resident who is lucky enough to have the assistance of a local charitable organization to provide them with the transportation to get ‘their’ garbage to the transfer station. Brilliant! But it would just be playing a game, not addressing a real problem. Let’s get this municipal assistance program issue resolved and not just pushed back meeting after meeting.

Item 9.3.2, the purchase of three new ambulances for the Land Ambulance service was approved.

Items 9.4.1, 10.4.1 and 10.4.2, a series of by-laws pertaining to property standards were passed.

Item 9.4.2, a request to extend the security realization period of the Parry Sound Travel Centre was denied. The $40,000 ‘security deposit’ will be retained by the town.

Item 9.6.1 relating to a report from the Integrity Commissioner concerning a Code of Conduct complaint against a member of council was approved. I’m comforted to know that certain members of council now understand the difference between ‘accept’ and ‘approve’. They were in the end seemingly willing to ‘accept’ the report but not ‘approve’ it. The whole discussion seemed to have overtones of passive-aggressive politicking.

That’s my take on the council meeting. It took almost two and a half hours, about an hour more than the agenda items would have seemed to warrant. The final minutes should be out in a day or two and be posted at the town’s website.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Items 4.4, 4.3, 4.6 are letters from town residents to council requesting clarification on why the proposed expansion of the Downtown Business Association (DBA) boundaries is including large areas of residential property. My additional question would be ‘what is the impact of including these areas into the DBA on residential properties’?

Item 5.1 is a deputation from Sail Parry Sound requesting some logistical accommodations on the part of the town to support a couple of big sailing events they are hosting this summer. It’s nice to see how Parry Sound is becoming a destination for visitors and not just a jumping off point to cottages.

Items 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 concern the Charitable Assistance and Municipal Assistance Programs that were discussed and approved in principle earlier this year. The Charitable Waster Program addresses the disposal of items ‘donated’ (dumped?) to local charities, notably the Salvation Army, that do not qualify for disposal at the town’s transfer station. Funding is limited to $5,000 and will be shared among all charities that apply for support. The Municipal Assistance Program is larger and continues a program that has been in place for a number of years in support of initiatives by local not-for-profit organizations.

Item 9.3.2 concerns approval for the purchase of three new ambulances for the Land Ambulance service. The total cost is in excess of $350,000, with the vast majority of the price tag being covered by senior government and regional municipality grants.

Items 9.4.1, 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 are a series of by-laws pertaining to property standards and providing for the town to more easily deal with offenders. These by-laws will complement by-laws passed earlier this year. Bit by bit the town is working toward ‘cleaning up’ properties and repeat offenders. These by-laws as written will particularly apply to those parties that have been resistant to repeated requests to take responsibility for their properties and the mess they make on adjoining public spaces.

Item 9.4.2 is a request to extend the security realization period of the Parry Sound Travel Centre. The amount at issue is $40,000 and is the ‘security deposit’ placed by a developer to express business interest and encourage the town to provide services for a service centre at the corner of Louisa and Bowes Streets. This centre was to include a hotel, gas station and restaurant. The town invested about $300,000 to extend services with the result that all but the restaurant were built. The security realization period has been extended a couple of times by the town. The staff recommendation is not to extend it a third time given that there are no plans to construct the restaurant.

Item 9.6.1 relates to a Code of Conduct complaint against a member of council. The resolution proposes the Report of the Integrity Commission be accepted. The conclusion is that there was a contravention of the Code and it occurred through “inadvertence or error of judgment made in good faith”. The report further proposes that no penalty be imposed. Details can be found in the council meeting package, copies of which are a town hall and the library.

These are the key issues to be covered on Tuesday; the agenda lists a number of additional items that may be of some interest to you, here is a link to the latest agenda. Take a look. I will be at the meeting.

Well nothing is as simple as looking at expenses and revenues and expecting them to balance. As it turns out these expenses also include significant capital asset amortization expenses, about $4.6 million, that impact the balance sheet and a balanced budget, but not simple cash flow. In addition there were a large number of capital expenses in 2011 that similarly did not hit the expense side of the ledger. These capital investments amounted to about $7.2 million in 2011 and included new municipal office costs, road repairs, Canadore College costs, and water service capital expenses. Combined with the $1.8 million gap noted earlier, the difference in ‘cash out’ reaches about $4.4 million ($1.8 million + $7.2 million – $4.6 million). This is $4.4 million ‘in the hole’.

Now to bring this figure to zero, a balanced budget, we need to come up with $4.4 million in additional funds. These figures came from a variety of sources, most notably reserves. Reserves are created exactly for this purpose, to cover the costs of expensive capital items that have an appreciable lifetime. The total amount taken from reserves in 2011 was about $2.1 million, which leaves a deficit of about $2.3 million. This apparent deficit was reduced by $0.9 million in capital asset disposal (I’m not sure what was sold) and another $1.7 million that was in the municipal office building fund (presumably financed). We now have a positive balance of about $0.3 million, but zeroes out when we add in some additional revenues not noted earlier, an opening surplus of $0.3 million, and back out some money transferred to reserves ($1.4 million).

I hope I have not made this too confusing. As you can tell I am not an accountant. The way I look at finances is pretty simple. I like to look at what revenue was received, how much was spent, and how much we added or withdrew from our savings account (reserves). This simple approach provides a good start to understanding where revenue can be improved and expenses better managed. What hasn’t been discussed so far is how much debt we are carrying as a town. I’ll look into this in a future post.

The next post will take a more detailed look at 2011 town revenues which were briefly summarized in the first post.

The two big issues on the agenda, as far as I saw them, rezoning at 9A Belvedere (10.4.1) and space sharing at the Smelter Wharf (9.4.3), had quite different treatment by council. More on this below.

First the body count: the mayor and all of the councilors, except Dave Williams, were in attendance. It’s interesting to speculate how one vote might have gone had Councilor Williams been in attendance. Staff numbered about eight for at most of the meeting. Media numbered three, Moose-FM, Cogeco and North Star. There were more than 40 in the audience, two dozen fire fighters in support of their president’s deputation to council, about ten opposing the 9A Belvedere rezoning, four for the KPMG deputation, and a few others interested in better understanding the issues before council that evening.

There were two scheduled deputations. Wayne Gilbert, President of the Parry Sound Volunteer Fire Fighter’s Association, provided facts and figures summarizing the association’s services to Parry Sound. This followed a rather odd presentation from KPMG, the finance and accounting firm, analyzing Parry Sound’s financial performance versus other northern Ontario communities. The analysis was interesting, albeit a little superficial, and revealed that they did little research into the town’s current budget status and analysis process. What was odd, at least from my perspective, was the somewhat condescending tone of the presentation. They made a few assumptions about Parry Sound that seemingly underestimates the town’s level of financial sophistication and controls. Not the best way to try and attract new clients in my view.

There were also a couple of deputations regarding the rezoning applications before council as well as letters from town residents on these rezoning applications.

Councilor reports provided little new information. There was consistent praise for the organizers and town staff concerning last weekend’s Timbits 2012 Provincial Elementary School Championships. Having spent a short time at the Bobby Orr Community Centre catching some of the action I completely agree with the praise. Let’s hope it returns to Parry Sound. We are ideally located for province wide events, central to Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Ontario.

Interesting and Notable Council Decisions and Actions

Item 2.1.1 a rezoning of 66 Emily Street was approved without any comment or concern.

Item 9.4.1, a resolution to approve a property variance at 18 Belvedere was approved by council after the only letter in opposition was withdrawn. Apparently there was a productive meeting between the owners of 18 Belvedere and their neighbour that resulted in a plan that satisfied all concerned. Bravo, this is the way it should be done. Council shouldn’t be asked to be referees and decide outcomes.

Item 9.4.2 a resolution to rezone portions of Louisa Street from Rural to Restricted Industrial Holding was approved without any discussion or disagreement.

Item 9.4.3, a direction to staff to ensure that the storage of salt at the Smelter Wharf be in compliance with the current lease agreement was approved with little discussion. The last shipment of the season has been received and tarped, and is apparently in compliance with the town’s agreement with Sifto. We’ll see if this is the end of this matter for now.

Item 10.4.1, a resolution permitting the rezoning of 9A Belvedere to allow for in-fill development was voted down by Council and Mayor. Well I called this one wrong, and I’m not quite sure why. There was a lengthy deputation opposing the rezoning application by a Belvedere resident that was in addition to multiple letters of opposition. The vote was split two for, and two against, the rezoning application with Mayor McGarvey cast the deciding vote against it. Two councilors did not vote. One, Councilor Williams was out of town and missed the meeting, and the other, Councilor Saulnier, did not participate in the discussion or vote because of a conflict of interest (he lives on Belvedere). It’s interesting to speculate on the outcome had all councilors been present.

The decision in my opinion is reasonable, but begs the question of what is next. The property is already zoned for multi-unit development and the rezoning application was requested to support the building of a separate single unit residence on the street side of the lot in addition to a three-unit building on the back portion. I wonder if the developer will return with a proposal to construct a six- or eight-unit building consistent with the current property lines, omitting the single residence unit. This would presumably not require town council approval and might result in even greater density and congestion than the original plan had proposed. The best outcome would be for the developer and the local residents to meet and reach an outcome that satisfies both sides’ needs. It’s worth noting that the property was on the market for a couple of years and presumably could have been bought by the residents of Belvedere and turned into a local park had they wanted to retain the ‘historic’ sense of the area. Or they could have purchased and resold the property to someone who would have built in compliance with local resident expectations. I suspect this whole matter is a preview of the future. if you don’t want infill development you need to buy the property and hold it, or resell it with covenants that restrict infill type development.

Item 10.5.1, Council unanimously approved the 2.5% tax rate increase. Tough times require tough decisions. The KPMG presentation mentioned earlier suggests that even with the increase Parry Sound taxes are on the low side compared with comparable northern Ontario municipalities.

Item 10.6.1, a by-law confirming the proceedings of the March 5^th, 2012 Parry Sound Hydro Corporation board of directors meeting was approved.

That’s enough. I will provide a link to the final council minutes once they are posted.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Item 2.1.1 concerns a public meeting held just prior to the regular council meeting to discuss a rezoning of 66 Emily Street. The rezone will permit the development of a duplex, semi-detached or single family dwelling on the site. It is currently zoned for a triplex. I don’t expect  this will be a controversial issue.

Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.8 & 4.9 are all letters from town residents requesting that council not approve the rezoning of 9A Belvedere to permit in-fill development. They will be disappointed by council’s decision this week, see Item 10.4.1 below.

Item 4.7 is a letter of concern that Sifto, who lease the Smelter Wharf, is planning to leave salt on the dock for the duration of the summer. The Granite Harbour developers feel that this is in contravention of the lease agreement and has a negative impact on property values and the environment. This issue is addressed by a proposed direction to town staff in Item 9.4.3 below.

Item 9.4.1 is a resolution to approve subdividing the property at 18 Belvedere to permit a second residence to be constructed. This seems to be non-controversial and requires the removal or relocation of a garage structure that currently straddles the planned property line.

Item 9.4.3 is a resolution supporting the rezoning of portions of Louisa Street from Rural to Restricted Industrial Holding. This is unlikely to create any controversy. It relates to property on the southwest side of Louisa Street, just before Louisa takes a sharp turn when heading north west.

Item 9.4.3 is a direction to staff to monitor that the storage of salt at the Smelter Wharf be in compliance with the current lease agreement. Apparently the lease with Sifto to inventory salt at the Smelter Wharf allows them to maintain bulk salt on a certain portion of the wharf all year round. For the winter season, starting September 14^th, this area expands to cover essentially the whole of the wharf. Consistent with the letter noted in Item 4.7, this direction will ensure that salt storage does not impinge on the “Public Area”. As a side note, the town received about $75,000 in 2011 for the use of the wharf by Sifto. This is an issue that’s worth revisiting as part of the 2012 and 2013 budgets.

Item 10.4.1 is a resolution permitting the rezoning of 9A Belvedere to permit in-fill development. The council package has a lengthy and well-written analysis of the situation. There are many more issues involved than I certainly understood, and I believe the local residents understand. I suggest anyone interested in the matter head to the town hall or the library to read the analysis and recommendation. I would also suggest that anyone potentially facing the prospect of in-fill development in his or her neighbourhood consider purchasing the property in question to prevent such development. The current town plan and provincial regulations make it difficult for the town to arbitrarily reject development that increases density and makes better use of existing infrastructure.

Item 10.5.1 is the tax increase. It will be voted upon at this meeting. See my earlier posts or press reports for further information. It’s a done deal.

Item 10.6.1 is a by-law confirming the proceedings of the March 5^th, 2012 Parry Sound Hydro Corporation board of directors meeting. The attached minutes are a work of art in how they convey little or no information about their operations that might be of value of the taxpayers of Parry Sound.

These are the key issues to be covered on Tuesday; the agenda lists a number of additional items that may be of some interest to you, here is a link to the latest agenda. Take a look. I will be at the meeting.

The chart below provides a broad summary of the general areas of expenditures for TOPS in 2011. To make it a little easier to understand there is a table with the same data right below the chart. Total expenditures in 2011 amounted to $29.8 million as opposed to total revenues of $28.0 million. That is a shortfall we will need to look at in more detail in a later post. For now though let’s try and understand where the money went. In the next post I’ll explain what costs fall under each of these rather large expenditure categories.

The reported revenue for Parry Sound in 2011 was $27.97 million. There were three major sources of revenue as defined by the TOPS budget summary. These were ‘Taxation’, “Payment in Lieu of Taxation’ and ‘Non-Taxation Revenues’. A summary of their contributions is presented in the chart below.

What is readily apparent is that taxation, primarily property taxation, accounts for a little more than a third of the town’s total revenue. The majority of the revenue is sourced from non-taxation sources. Just one percent of revenues are derived from ‘Payment in Lieu of Taxes’, with the largest source being the Government of Canada, presumably for federal facilities located in Parry Sound. But we will perhaps look at this in future posts, it is a small component of total revenue.

So where does the taxation revenue come from? The table below provides a breakdown of the taxation revenue. It’s worth noting that residential property provides most of the taxation revenue followed by commercial property. Industrial properties account for only 2% of the revenue, about $150,000. It’s worth pointing out that the railways pay a total of $4,316 for their right to own land and operate in Parry Sound. Even the pipelines pay more than this.

The non-taxation revenue is a real mixed bag. In total this category amounts to $17.8 million. Some of it is revenue that is available to the town for its operations, while other revenue is a ‘pass through’ for regional expenses. Medical services most notably fall under this category of pass through revenue. The same is true for the Provincial Offenses Court, revenue is offset by expenses or transfers. This whole area of non-taxation revenue is complex and will be the subject of separate posts looking at individual revenue components and their associated expenses. The big picture is presented in the chart below. Much of the revenue, almost 60% comes from federal and provincial sources.

So there is a quick look of where the money comes from to operate Parry Sound. In the next post I’ll present a similar top line summary of where the money goes. In subsequent posts I’ll tear apart each of these entries and look at them in much more detail.