Category Archives: Suggestions

A varied collection of posts looking at current situations and providing some thoughts on what might be considered.

Taking Responsibility – Locally and Regionally (Revised)

12 Thursday Dec 2019

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Suggestions

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Oops! There were simple arithmetic errors in the original version. The imputed St. Peter’s tax figure should have been be $16,600 not $166,000. For the United Church in Nobel the figure should have been $1,255, not $12,555. I have removed the original post and replaced it with this one. The revised section is identified in bold and italics. I apologize for the confusion.

MI have noted that in the past year more and more folks from the area municipalities are suggesting the possibility of amalgamation as a positive way to provide for necessary and enhanced services. This is despite their realization that it will cost them more in taxes. While the suggestion is gaining momentum locally it really doesn’t matter, amalgamation won’t happen unless the Province forces it with either a stick or a carrot. I spent quite a bit of time analyzing the consequences of amalgamation that were captured in a series of posts. Here are links to these articles if you are interested in diving in a little deeper.

West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 1 (The Numbers)
West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 2 (Analysis)
West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 3 (Muskoka Model)
West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 4 (Crude Models)

In the meantime, there is a problem with the current situation that extends beyond the high tax rates in the Town of Parry Sound (TOPS). It is a matter of services for organizations that are exempt from taxation. This includes most notably houses of worship and social services. This was highlighted by deputations last week when the Bayside Family Church asked the Town for considerations related to a grinder pump and the Parry Sound Friendship Centre requested support with a Warming Centre. They are in a difficult situation. They pay no taxes to support the necessary services the Town provides, but they hope for improved services. What is their argument? It probably relies on the Town doing the generous thing and helping out these not-for-profit organizations that make a difference in the larger area community.

My Perspective

For some time now I have written about the inequity of asking Town of Parry Sound taxpayers to indirectly subsidize the services provided by these many non-for-profit organizations with higher taxes. Not only do these organizations require Town services they also occupy valuable real estate that is not available for business or residential uses that would not consume any additional services but would pay property taxes to support these services. I have received consistent pushback on this point from at least one reader but have received general acknowledgement on the merit of the point from most. This acknowledgement is generally accompanied with a shrug of ‘what can you do about it’.

Perhaps there is a way the situation can be fairly handled, and it doesn’t require the financial shock for the low tax municipalities that would be associated with amalgamation.

Some Background

  1. The various not-for-profit organizations serve the much larger area community. Perhaps the largest population served by these organizations resides in TOPS, but certainly many live in the surrounding municipalities.
  2. The current not-for-profit organizations in the Town account for more than $20 million in assessment value according to MPAC figures. This does not include schools, the West Parry Sound Health Centre, or public housing. In total then the Town foregoes about $250,000 in revenue annually if taxed at the residential rate and more like $400,000 at commercial rates. Add in schools, hospital and public housing and it would be more than $1 million per year.
  3. TOPS has experienced significant cutbacks in support from the Province that has caused the Town tax rates to increase significantly.
  4. The Province and Canada also occupy high value property that is not subject to property taxes. However, both the Province and Canada provide funding in lieu of property taxes. It may not be full compensation, but it is a reasonable level of funding all things considered.
  5. There is some acknowledgement that the not-for-profit services provided in the Town of Parry Sound serves the larger area. Both DSAAB and Belvedere Retirement Home receive funding from the municipalities in proportion to their assessment base. Just because it is in the Town doesn’t mean it only serves the Town. As an aside, I believe that neither of these not-for-profit organizations pays property taxes.

The Proposal

  1. Not-for-profit organizations, excluding schools and the hospital, determine where their members or clients reside. In the case of religious organizations that would be their members. In the case of social service providers, it would be their clients.
  2. The various organizations then estimate what proportion or percentage of their services are provided to people residing in each of the municipalities.
  3. This type of service audit would be supervised by each of the municipalities for all qualifying not-for-profit organizations in their municipality. While it is likely that people from Seguin and Carling attend church in the Town of Parry Sound, it is also possible that people from the Town of Parry Sound or McDougall attend church in Seguin or Carling. It would be the same process for social services although most services are provided out of the Town of Parry Sound because only the Town provides the necessary infrastructure to support these organizations.
  4. A calculation is made of a ‘fair’ tax rate to be charged on the MPAC assessed value of the not-for-profit organizations’ land and buildings. A ‘fair’ tax rate might be the residential rate.
  5. The credits and debits are toted up for each municipality, netted out, with each municipality paying their bill annually.

Example:

  1. Peter’s Catholic Church has an assessed value of $1.23 million. At the Town of Parry Sound residential tax rate of $1.35 per $1,000 of assessment, its annual property taxes would be $16,600 if it were subject to taxation. If 55% of the parishioners live in the Town of Parry Sound, 15% in Seguin, 10% in McDougall, 10% in Carling, and 10% in McKellar, then the municipalities would be assume costs of $9,130, $2,500, $1,660, $1,660, and $$1,660 respectively.
  2. If we then take the United Church in Nobel with an assessed value of $215,000 and a tax rate of $0.57 per $1,000 ($1,255 total) and reverse the apportionment for the Town of Parry Sound (10%) and McDougall (55%) and the rest are the same we arrive at costs of $122, $184, $670, $122, and $122 for each municipality.

Tote up the numbers for all of the not-for-profits and offset the costs and revenues for each municipality and you have the amount to be remitted to each municipality. (Note: I have not forgotten about The Archipelago and Whitestone, I have just ignored then to make it a bit simpler.)

The net/net is pretty obvious. The Town of Parry Sound basically subsidizes the services of the other municipalities. The impact on each for the municipalities would be relatively small, certainly much less than amalgamation would imply. If we estimate that the Town of Parry Sound foregoes as much as $500,000 per year in tax revenues related to the not-for-profit organizations it hosts, and it actually ‘consumes’ 50% of the services, then the other municipalities would be on the hook for $250,000 after adjustments. The municipalities, excepting TOPS, in total collect taxes of about $40 million from residents and businesses annually. Adding in another $250,000 would raise their taxes by about 0.6%, that is less than 1%. The Town of Parry Sound rates could go down by 3%, or the rates could stay the same and additional services could be provided.

This type of sharing of the service burden for not-for-profits might make it much easier for TOPS to be a little more sympathetic and supportive when not-for-profits request a little bit of help related to standard services. It would be a ‘shared’ help.

The Arguments Against

  1. It would take some toting up and accounting to start the process and require each municipality and not-for-profit to do the work. (It wouldn’t really be that hard though. All of these institutions have lists of members and clients and they typically don’t change all that much year-to-year.)
  2. It doesn’t acknowledge the burden that the Town of Parry Sound bears with respect to the hospital and the schools. (Okay, but something is better than nothing.)
  3. The Town of Parry Sound benefits from all of the traffic so it is compensated indirectly with merchant related property taxes. (Yes, but these merchants also benefit the area residents by providing local services. I’m not sure the Town has ever recaptured the investments made in infrastructure for the south end centre. And recently the Town lost about $200,000 annually in property tax revenues when MPAC reduced the assessments for these big box stores.)
  4. We have been doing this for decades and it works, why change? (This the argument favoured by segregationists. Yeah – it worked pretty well for them while it lasted.)

Alternatives

  1. If you think this hits your property taxes, amalgamation will make you scream if you are in one of the low tax rate municipalities. I’m looking at you Seguin and the Archipelago.
  2. Consider the 1% solution. (More on this is a future post.)
  3. Do nothing and hope that the Town of Parry Sound continues to be generous and raises taxes without cutting services.

I have been following the Town of Parry Sound budgeting process for about eight years now. I really can’t find anything in the budget that screams unreasonable or an indulgence at the expense of taxpayers. (Except perhaps for the downtown flower baskets that consistently suck. And there is of course the decision to provide free parking. How is that working out Parry Sound? People still bitch don’t they?)

The Town faces continuous pressure to provide better service for tourists, not-for-profits, schools, and area visitors that directly impact our taxes. (Why can’t we look like Huntsville, or Gravenhurst or Port Carling?) A simple sharing of the load related to not-for-profits could go a long way to making things better for everyone.

 

 

The Vacancy Tax Issue – Seth Godin

24 Wednesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Suggestions

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

From a Seth Godin blog post earlier this month. It’s worth a read and it’s worth subscribing to his posts. Was he thinking about Parry Sound? No, but if the shoe fits.

Considering the vacancy tax

seths.blog · by Seth Godin, October 9, 2018 

Landlords are notorious for having a bias toward raising the rent. They’re in it for the long haul, they’ve seen downturns before, and while they’re quick to raise rents in good times, they are loathe to lower rents, even if it means sitting with an empty storefront for months at a time.

While this math might be compelling for some landlords, it’s terrible for the cities those buildings are located in.

Empty storefronts deny residents accessible services.

They lead to vandalism and other crime.

And they suck the vibrancy from the neighborhood.

They also deprive the municipality from sales tax revenue, cost jobs and take watchful eyes away from the neighborhood as well.

If we view the ability to have a well-cared for, civil neighborhood as a privilege, it’s logical to consider a vacancy tax for landlords as an incentive for them to lower rents when decreased demand happens because retailers can’t afford the old rent.

It could be something like: For any storefront that’s empty, after two months of vacancy, the landlord has to pay a tax of 20% of the average rent they’d be receiving. All the money would go to neighborhood improvements and policing.

Lower rents create new innovations, which leads to more interaction and more vibrant neighborhoods. And in the long run, it gives landlords an incentive to do what actually generates more of what they seek as well.

seths.blog · by October 9, 2018 · October 9, 2018

Trestle Logic

15 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Safety, Suggestions, Train

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

When entering a parking structure in the Big Smoke have you noticed how there is generally a bar of some sort hanging from a couple of chains that you are required to drive under? There is also a sign that advises you the maximum vehicle height that can safely park in the structure. But, because people don’t like to read signs, or they don’t have a good sense of heights and numbers, the hanging bar acts as a check. If there is a bump as you pass under the bar you know that you have bigger problems ahead. Time to back up and park somewhere else.

So what do you think would happen if a parking garage posted the correct maximum height sign but set the bar a foot higher? Do you think people would look at the sign and think that the bar is set too high? Or would they simply ignore the sign and see if they fit under? If they are driving a vehicle that is a bit higher, perhaps a pickup truck with a camper unit on the back, they would probably inch forward cautiously, and once they passed under the hanging bar, assume they are okay and drive into the garage. Surprise!

This is basically the situation on William Street in Parry Sound and the CN trestle where there have been three ‘decapitations’ complete and partial in the past year. As you approach the trestle there is a frame structure about 15 feet in front of either side of the trestle. The sign on the trestle says that the maximum height is 10’6”. That seems like enough information to warn the truck driver with an 11’ height to take another route. What would you think if I told you that the clearance of the trestle, where the trucks hit the trestle, is greater than 11’, offering drivers a considerable margin of error. But perhaps 10’6” is actually more reasonable. As you look at the photo below you realize that there is a drop down as the truck travels under the trestle but the box of the truck would still be at the higher road level. That would lead to an angle which might actually make it an effective 10’6”, even if it’s actually three-quarters of a foot higher directly under the trestle.

The problem is not just professional drivers not knowing the height of their rig, or not paying attention, it’s also the support frame about 15 feet in front of the trestle. This structure has a clearance of 13’. I can well imagine that a truck driver might cautiously approach this 13’ frame and, discovering that they are able to get under it, assume they can fit under the trestle. It’s a bit of an optical illusion the way the road dips down, suggesting there is more clearance than there is.

The answer it seems is pretty simple. Suspend a bar on chains under the two support frames at 10’6”, much as you see in parking garages. A truck would pretty quickly figure out that they weren’t going to fit if they heard a thump well before they ventured forward and tore the top off their trailer.

We have had three such incidents just this year. You would think that CN would have figured it out by now that something needs to be done.

Has the Town received a formal report from CN attesting to the integrity of the trestle? Three dings in the past year and many more over the past few decades could mean there is unrecognized structural damage. But, it seems the railways always find it cheaper to apologize and make repairs after the fact than practice prevention.

 

Capital Investments – BOCC Ice Surface

21 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Suggestions

≈ Comments Off on Capital Investments – BOCC Ice Surface

Tags

, , ,

The text below is taken from an email I received from a reader who preferred not to provide their comments using the comments section of Parry Sounds. It is reprinted below with their permission and offers some pertinent thoughts about the proposed replacement of the Bobby Orr Community Centre arena surface. Some individuals prefer to offer their comments anonymously. I am willing to pass on their comments, with their permission, so long as the comments are relevant to the discussion and are reasonably ‘polite’. Here you go.

“The 36th G8 summit was held in Huntsville, Ontario on June 25–26, 2010. Tony Clement was forking-over money, hand over fist, to his Parry Sound/Muskoka constituency like a drunk who had just won the lottery.

Following a commitment to build a multi-million dollar community complex in Huntsville including, but not limited to, an Olympic-size pool; without even asking, Tony Clement reportedly asked Mayor Richard Adams what Parry Sound needed in terms of infra-structure. Mayor Adams reportedly replied “our Bobby Orr Arena could use some repairs and expansion. No problem. Parry Sound reportedly received well over a million dollars, including expansion of the BOCC and (HELLO), new floor. On the surface (no pun intended) this seems like an awfully short lifespan for a well constructed cement floor. Hmmm.

When Clement finished throwing-around all this Canadian tax-payer’s money, Tony and his Conservative Party successfully formed the 41st Parliament (2011-2015), which was the first time in which the Liberals did not form either the government or the Official Opposition.

But, back to the BOCC Floor Replacement.

Without even any discussion (da), they removed the existing concrete BOCC floor and replaced it with a spanking-new replacement. Great looking floor! Short lifespan.

What the idiots failed to consider, in the process, was to (at a modest minimal cost) place insulation underneath the cement floor, so as to be able to make and hold-ice when the outside temperature is warm (i.e. the Humphrey arena can have ice all summer long for Hockey Schools, etc.). Just think of the business and economic ripple-effect that could be generated if the BOCC could host 8 weeks of “Hockey Schools” (like little old Humphrey), taking advantage of the  Bobby Orr Brand, i.e. “THE HOME OF BOBBY ORR.”

But wait Jo; to compound the planner’s stupidity, they installed expensive dehumidifiers to expel the moister from the building during warmer outdoor/indoor temperatures, particularly when the ice had been laid on the cement floor. But guess what? They forgot the ground below the ice-surface was too warm and that the ice wouldn’t “set-up” in the early/late fall, and early/late spring when hockey (public skating) was still going on. There would be so much fog in the building it wasn’t practical to play hockey. Running a hockey school, in the summer months, was completely out of the question.

My point Jo, if the floor is replaced in the BOCC for god’s sake will you please tell somebody to insulate the ground, before they pour the cement.

But wait Jo, there’s more.

When Tony Clement was willy-nilly handing-out bundles of cash, just before the Conservatives formed the 41st Parliament (2011-2015); somebody should have checked to see what constituted the dimensions of a “Regular” ice surface. Had they done so, they would have determined that the BOCC ice-surface was about 185’, as much as 15 feet short of a 200’  “regulation” size ice surface. Even little old Humphrey knew that.

Note: the comment above has been edited ever so slightly for punctuation and grammar.

 

 

North Shore Rugged Trail User Group Needed

13 Sunday Nov 2016

Posted by in Boating/Recreation, Parry Sound, Suggestions, Town Council

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

It seems a good time to establish a North Shore Rugged Trail Users Group. Anyone interested? If yes, please contact me at parrysounds@gmail.com. Let’s start a discussion of how best to support the North Shore Rugged Trail as it seemingly has become the centre of business interest.

Background:
The Town of Parry Sound recently passed a by-law (here’s a link to the agenda preview summary, it’s Item 10.5.1) that confirmed the Town’s willingness to negotiate the relinquishing of certain rights to portions of the North Shore Rugged Trail to help support development of the privately owned property that lies inland from the trail. Very limited information was provided in the by-law and the supporting documents regarding what was being considered. There was a suggestion that any concessions would be limited.

Here is a link to the draft bylaw and supporting documents that was approved by Council 2016-11-01.

The Trail:
The North Shore Rugged Trail is an interesting Town of Parry Sound asset. It is a rugged trail that runs from the Smelter Wharf along the coast past Zhiishiib Rock, Thunder Creek, and Monument Point all the way to the Parry Sound / McDougall boundary. If you have hiked it you know how special it is, rugged for sure.

I hike the trail no less than once a week, and as often as five times a week. It provides for the best views of the Big Sound, sunsets, and Parry Island. While hiking the trail I often come across people who are taking the opportunity, minutes from their home, to get away from it all and challenge themselves a little with  hiking over the rocks and around, or through, the water. The North Shore Rugged Trail is quite unlike the Rotary Algonquin Regiment Fitness Trail, the trail that runs from Champaigne to Salt Dock Road. While the Rotary Algonquin Regiment Fitness Trail welcomes people to take a stroll and relax, the North Shore Rugged Trail demands more physically and mentally, with the corresponding rewards. Nor is the North Shore Rugged Trail like the Voldemort Trail (see link), the informal trail that runs inland from Salt Dock Road and is a favourite of people walking their dogs. The Voldemort Trail is not mentioned in any of the Town’s official trail documents because it is an informal trail that passes over private property for which permission has never been obtained by the Town, or the users. To the credit of the property owners they have been generous in not restricting access or prosecuting those who do use the trail. It seems it is these property owners who would like to secure certain considerations regarding the North Shore Rugged Trail to better develop their property. The Town is interested in seeing the property developed so as to increase the assessment base.

The Challenge:
It is unlikely that the North Shore Rugged Trail would be deeded over to new property owners with no access for the Public. The question of course is what kind of concessions will be necessary to incentivize development, and how will that impact public access. Who will have input and who will decide?

My major concern is that I believe Town Council and Staff have no familiarity, or love for the North Shore Rugged Trail. While I have seen members of Council and Staff on the Rotary Algonquin Regiment Fitness Trail from time-to-time, I have never, in the hundreds of times I have hiked the North Shore Rugged Trail, seen anyone from Council or Staff on the trail. It’s my sense that they know no more about the trail than can be gleaned by looking at a Google Maps view, their distant childhood memories, or perhaps some of my photos at ParrySights (click the North Shore Rugged Trail tag for images). There has been no investment by the Town to promote the North Shore Rugged Trail or to even provide a map or guide for its exploration. Is this a conscious effort to deter people from using the trail because it is rugged? Perhaps Staff and Council believe that it is in the Town’s interest to restrict or limit use of the trail so as to limit liability. That would be a shame.

A formally constituted North Shore Rugged Trail Users Group, involving people who know and love the trail, would be able to secure a seat at the table in any negotiations to restrict public access to the trail. I would also like to sees a Users Group take a leadership role in keeping the trail tidy and suggest opportunities to make it more user friendly. (The trail does not suffer from the issue of litter and trash as is the case with the Voldemort Trail, but from time-to-time stuff washed onto the shores from the Big Sound needs to be removed.) Those of you who regularly use the trail are familiar with how Thunder Creek often makes the trail impassable unless you are willing to get wet feet, or venture further upstream. This gets to be a problem in the fall and early spring when the water is c-c-cold. Wouldn’t a footbridge be nice?

Interested? Drop me a line. Perhaps the group can form in alliance with other local nature groups who may not have the same love and appreciation of the North Shore Rugged Trail but are committed to supporting trails and ongoing public access. We all need to work together.

“They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot”

The Town’s lack of interest in the North Shore Rugged Trail is perhaps best illustrated with the photo below of the sign leading up to the trail. There was money for a new artist’s station, a sign announcing the new station that covered up part of the map, but not a new map?

Let’s make sure that the North Shore Rugged Trail gets the protection that it and it’s users deserve. I can be reached at parrysounds@gmail.com. Or if there is already an initiative underway let me know how I can help.

“Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got til its gone”

redwood1890-20161112-dsc_0321

Walking the Dog

20 Tuesday Sep 2016

Posted by in Boating/Recreation, Parry Sound, Safety, Suggestions

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Well, this is a new one for me. I have seen people take their dogs out on a leash and walk with them. I have seen people take their dogs out on a run with them. I have seen people do both, with their dogs off leash. I have seen people ride their bikes with their dog or dogs both on and off leash. I have seen people take their dogs for a run while they drove beside them on a deserted country road. And just a few days ago I saw someone driving their ATV with the dog running alongside them. But, last night I saw something new and unexpected.

Taking their dogs, three of them, for a walk or hike or swim, whatever you want to call it, while boating.

We were out on the North Shore Rugged Trail yesterday evening when I saw a tin boat heading out along the trail. I could hear a dog on the boat start to whine as the boat went past Thunder Creek. Continuing along the trail, heading north past Thunder Creek and reaching Survey Monument along the trail, I saw what was up. Three large dogs, two German Shepherd type dogs and one Husky, had been let loose to run back along the trail, while their owner followed offshore in the tin boat.

Two of the dogs came running up at us barking and the dog owner started shouting at them. The third dog came along quietly a few seconds later. Fortunately, it all passed without incident.

What kind of inconsiderate idiot lets three dogs loose on a public trail? Oh, I guess the inconsiderate idiot type. Dogs in packs are unpredictable. And the owner is not there to offer some sort of supervision.

I have heard it all. “Oh, don’t worry they are friendly.” “They bark but don’t bite.” “Oh, it seems they don’t like you.”

I’m not dog-phobic. I grew up with German Shepherds, Bouviers, Rottweilers, and Giant Schnauzers before they became trendy. I have come to understand that unsupervised dogs are unpredictable, especially in groups.

The North Shore Rugged Trail is a public area that needs to be treated with respect and consideration. I have on several occasions been confronted by dogs, alone or in a ‘pack’, that have been let loose to run with their owners following far behind. It turns a pleasant walk into a confrontation with dogs and owners. The owners typically won’t back down and try to blame me for the behaviour of their dogs. At least I don’t have a dog on a lead. I would be more worried about my dog.

On the positive, a few minutes later we came across a couple hiking the trail with their dog on a lead.

Old man, get some exercise while pumping a little less carbon into the atmosphere; walk, don’t ‘boat’ your dogs, preferably on leads.

Shooting Me a Dirty Look from the Safety of His Boat

apc_0017

Apology Extended. Lesson Learned?

01 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Suggestions, Town Council

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

Well it was sort of an apology, but I hope that Town Officials have learned a lesson. No, not the lesson of starting a fight with someone who can defend themselves. It’s the lesson that Council, abetted by Staff, should be open and direct in their dealings with all members of the community. No hidden agendas, and no hiding behind closed meetings of Council. There is a reason that provincial regulations restrict the number of issues that can be discussed behind closed doors, and not made public. Too many municipal organizations, one in our area (not Parry Sound) was recently censured for being a little too closed.

The apology was to Ms. Lis McWalter concerning her unceremonious, and without recourse, removal from the Board of the Downtown Business Association in 2014. Here’s the apology, most certainly drafted by lawyers.

Lis McWalter, former Chair of the Parry Sound Downtown Business Association
Posted on Wednesday June 01, 2016

 A Media Release issued by the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound on April 8, 2014 referred to Lis McWalter and her departure from her position as Chair of the Parry Sound Downtown Business Association.  The Media Release may have been interpreted to suggest misconduct on the part of Ms. McWalter.  There was no such misconduct.  The Town of Parry Sound thanks Ms. McWalter for her voluntary service on the Downtown Business Association, regrets any harm that may have been caused, and apologizes to Lis McWalter.

So why was she removed? Hmm, not worth mentioning or discussing. Let’s just apologize, and not take any real responsibility.

The lesson that I have learned from this whole issue is not to serve on a Parry Sound Committee of Council. There is no reason that Council cannot once again turf out a board member that they find objectionable, or threatening to their political security. After the McWalter debacle in 2014, Staff presented Council with a revised set of regulations covering the governance of committees. It fell short of what I thought was necessary to protect the interests of volunteers. Basically Council could remove anyone from any committee at their sole discretion, but now officially. There was no option for appeal, or a requirement that Council meet and speak with the individual to better understand the situation.

That’s why I will not sit on a committee of Council until the regulations covering committees are amended to allow for a proper review and appeal process. I do not recommend that anyone else sit on a committee of Council if they wish to help promote change. It’s too easy for public officials to claim they never received the message if they first shoot the messenger.

All that being said, I am very upbeat about this session’s Council. I see them working as a team and thinking ahead, something that was absent in the last session of Council. Perhaps it’s a couple of council members with a bit more experience, or it’s the presence of the new council members. Also contributing to the proactive thinking is a Senior Staff, most of whom are relatively new to Parry Sound, better understanding the issues facing the Town, and the personality of Council. Regardless, it’s a welcome sign of progress.

Two requests of Council and Staff:

  1. Let’s add protection for citizens who volunteer their time to sit on a Committee of Council. They should be able to directly address issues concerning their contribution and conduct that is being considered grounds for dismissal.
  2. Let’s get back to the one garbage bag issue that Council promised to address a few months ago. It’s hard to imagine a family with two kids in diapers, working two jobs, having to work with a one bag limit because they don’t live in a ‘two-bag’ neighbourhood. Let’s be generous. We rarely put out two bags of garbage, so I’m happy to share my allotment with others.

Supporting Business in Parry Sound – 2016 Budget Discussion

14 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Reflections, Suggestions

≈ Comments Off on Supporting Business in Parry Sound – 2016 Budget Discussion

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Before starting in with an analysis of the Town of Parry Sound’s 2016 Budget I want to offer some thoughts on a topic that arose at the budget meeting on Tuesday night. I’ve sat through about one hundred council meetings at this point and, once the deputations are over, I am required to sit quietly and listen to the discussion. With no opportunity to speak, it provides me with the opportunity to listen and think about the issue at hand. Perhaps that’s why this blog exists, an opportunity to express an opinion that may or may not be heard, but at least forces me to put my thoughts together, with the understanding that it will be open to review and criticism. Hopefully it also stimulates some to think about an issue and perhaps take action.

During the discussion Tuesday night on how the 2016 Budget can be used to revitalize the Town and businesses I had a sense that the best intents of Council may not always be aligned with best outcomes when it comes to Town residents and businesses. As a town we are pretty much committed to Free Parking to support businesses in the downtown. That will mean a $150,000 annual loss of income. It has been argued that much of that income is offset by maintenance costs (repair, snow plowing, meter maintenance, etc.), parking attendant, with a net zeroing out of income and expenses. These expenses of course will now need to be cut, or accounted for in some other part of the budget. I’ll leave it at that, but if the parking revenue income is lost, there are still the same expenses, except perhaps meter maintenance. So it becomes a net expense, of about $100,000 a year. (Accounting at some point for 1% of your tax bill.)

Despite the cost of Free Parking, I’m happy to support the initiative and local businesses. I do object to the hiring of a parking attendant to supervise free parking. It seems pretty stupid to offer something for free, and then monitor that free isn’t abused.

So, Council seems prepared to make a major commitment to support the downtown businesses. This effective tax increase of course doesn’t really help any of the businesses that are not located in the downtown parking area. They have already paid for land to allow client parking, they pay for their parking area upkeep, and are taxed on the value of the parking area. But, I’m still okay with that. If the businesses want to complain, let them; as a resident it’s not hurting me. As an aside, if I were one of those businesses that provides free parking already I would probably ask that the Town rebate me all, or a large portion, of the property tax value of the parking area. That would seem to level the competitive space, and allow all businesses to benefit from ‘free parking’. But then that would cost the Town tax revenues and raise taxes for everyone.

What really caught my attention Tuesday night was the mention that attracting cruise ships to Parry Sound should be pursued more actively. It was felt that these cruise boats bring in visitors who will spend money, and support local businesses. Apparently the Pearl Mist is scheduled for ten visits in 2016.

Whoopee? No wait, let’s take a look at the figures.

So we will have ten visits of about 250 people. That adds up to a maximum of 2,500 visitors spending less than 24 hours in Parry Sound, or 2,500 visitor days. Will they be booking accommodation? No! Will they be buying meals? Perhaps, but probably no more than dinner. Will they be buying trinkets? Probably. Will they be buying gas, hardware supplies, groceries, or ….? Or how about a cruise on the Island Queen or the Chippewa III? No, of course not. And when it comes to trinkets, remember they have a dozen stops and limited storage space. No SUV to haul things back home.

Or perhaps they will simply get off the boat, hop onto a chartered bus, and be whisked away to see the sites and a catered lunch elsewhere.

What’s the dollar value of these visits. Let’s say they spend $50 on meals and $50 on trinkets. That adds up to an optimistic estimate of $100 per person and $250,000 spent in Parry Sound. More likely it tops out at $100,000. Not bad, but there is a much better place to spend money and invest Staff time if the Town wants to help the business sector, all of it, not just the downtown. Council is council for all of Parry Sound aren’t they?

It’s the provincial parks, which received no mention last night, or in any of the many council meeting I have attended. How many potential customers for Parry Sound businesses are there in the parks, and why might they be a much better opportunity for business development?

At peak, Killbear Park hosts about 5,000 people a day and peak pretty much lasts from July 1st to Labour Day, with significant numbers in the month before and after. To be conservative, let’s say there are about 3,000 people per day in Killbear Park for two months. That totals about 180,000 people days. And for the fun of it, let’s add in another 10% to account for Oastler and Grundy Lake Parks, and the shoulder seasons, bringing it to a nice round 200,000 people days. An optimist could suggest it’s more like 300,000.

So what money might the average camper drop in Parry Sound? Well they will need to buy gas, it’s a long way here and a long way to where they are going. How about groceries? Well they probably stocked up before leaving but there is always much more that they need. Prices in Parry Sound are very reasonable, so there is no reason not to buy supplies in Parry Sound, it’s not like buying a meal or a drink at the airport. And there is always something they forgot, didn’t realize they needed, or broke down at the moment of use. That means a trip to the hardware store, White Squall, Mitch’s, Canadian Tire or WalMart. Cold or hot weather can also mean the need for a sweatshirt, jacket, swimsuit, and a visit to the one of the local shops.

And even a good camping experience benefits from an occasional meal of pizza, fish and chips, or sausage on a bun, much less a sit down meal. More opportunity to support our local businesses.

And on a beautiful day is there anything better to do than come to Town and get aboard the Island Queen for a trip around Parry Island, or charter a fishing trip, or hop a boat ride down the South Channel? On a crummy day, it’s a visit for the kids to the Strand, or a visit to Parry Sound Books or Bearly Used Books for reading material. Perhaps it’s a trip to the library to catch some free Wi-Fi, followed by lunch or dinner at one of the restaurants or fast food establishments. It’s not fun sitting in a tent in the rain, much less cooking in the rain.

Speaking with local businesses it’s pretty obvious that Parry Sound already captures value from these provincial park visitors. What if we could capture just an additional dollar from each one of these 200,000+ visitor days? That’s $200,000. Make it $5 and you are pumping an additional million dollars into the local economy; all of the Parry Sound businesses can benefit, not just those in walking distance of the cruise ships. How many cruise ships would it take to capture this type of money?

What if we could encourage the local cottagers to drop by for an extra meal, or to take in a leisure activity? That might add another 50% to the total. These are people who are also around for the important shoulder seasons.

But Council expressed interest in exploring a $5,000 membership in the Great Lakes Cruising Coalition to possibly secure more cruise ship visits to visit Parry Sound? I understand the Great Lakes Cruising Coalition will be making a deputation at next week’s meeting of Council to make a case for Parry Sound taking a membership in their organization.

As an aside, and not really a consideration in this analysis, the cruise ships are a nuisance for those of us who actually walk around the Parry Sound Waterfront. For security and presumably customs reasons the Town Dock is off limits for the locals when the cruise ships are tied up. With ten visits in 2016 over the summer months the Town Dock will be off limits for more than 10% of the time. Our non-cruise boat summer visitors may make the lines longer at the grocery stores, and add to traffic, but they don’t keep us from enjoying our local attractions.

Another suggestion was made at Tuesday night’s meeting to add back in an expense that had been removed in the latest series of cuts – refurbishing the toilets at the Town Dock. Interestingly enough, it was also estimated to cost $5,000. Hmm, $5,000 that will serve thousands, or $5,000 to woo new cruise boat visits. I believe a town is judged more for it amenities, that in part is it’s toilets, than how many cruise boats visit. I doubt the cruise boat guests will be using the Town Dock facilities, it’s better onboard.

Enough of the carping. Going forward I’ll be taking a ‘dispassionate’ look at the budget and where we are spending the money.

Speaking with a local business owner about the suggestion to attract more cruise boat business, they just laughed. What is needed they suggested was lower taxes for the downtown businesses. Lower taxes will mean more financial resources for businesses to invest in their stores and services that can attract more customers to the downtown, be they locals, tourists, boaters, campers, cottagers, or even cruise boat patrons.

Council seems to believe that more Town sponsored and directed investment in Parry Sound can make the town more attractive for businesses and attract more development. That implies higher taxes. Is there a better way? You can’t easily cut your way to growth, and you can’t easily spend your way to success. I would be happy to see the Town present a plan that outlines the strategy, defines the actions, and most importantly identifies the metrics to assess the success of the plan. You can’t always be right but it’s nice to know where you went wrong. If you’re smart, you can make logical changes.

But, but, it adds so much class to the Town’s waterfront.

Redwood1890-20150812-_DS68097

 

 

Killing Me Softly …..

29 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Suggestions

≈ Comments Off on Killing Me Softly …..

Tags

, ,

with road salt.

Winter as we remember it has returned, and the crews are out in force in West Parry Sound plowing and salting the roads. And at the same time slowly killing Mother Earth.

We have all driven south on the 400 towards the Big Smoke in the Spring and noticed the brown evergreens lining the highway. Look back few more metres and everything is green. And if you pay attention you will notice that where trees are being replanted as a windbreak, they are being moved higher and further back. There is no obvious intention to reduce the use of road salt.

We worry about phosphates, and fluoride, and carbon dioxide, yet somehow never recognize the impact of using road salt. Bit by bit it’s silently killing the ground and lakes.

A Globe and Mail report from 2010 noted the impact that road salt was having on groundwater and streams. Researchers studying the area around Pickering found that the salt was polluting groundwater and during winter thaws causing some streams to have salinity levels approaching that of ocean waters. I’m sure the locals, not the humans, are not happy with this situation.

An article posted at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services website reviews the environmental, health and economic impact of of road salt. The conclusions are concerning, with road salt having a detrimental impact on water quality, human health, pets, wildlife, vegetation, soil and infrastructure.

Road salt is used liberally in the Town of Parry Sound. It’s a ‘cheap’ and effective way to keep roads and sidewalks from icing up. But like many things, what is cheap now, may come with a heavy future cost. We are actually seeing the impact of road salt on our property. Because of the way our street was developed there is very little roadway allowance on our side of the street. This results in the snow being pushed up onto our front lawn. But it’s not just snow that accumulates on our side of the street, it’s also sand and road salt. And with our front lawn sloping down from the street the salt ends up in our lawn. The results are obvious in the Spring and Summer, the grass struggles and the annual weeds take over.

It’s all a trade-off of one sort or another. More industry and transportation at the expense of climate change, whiter clothes at the expense of water quality, greener grass with fewer weeds at the expense of the insects and birds, and clear winter roads at the expense of soil, water and wildlife.

We are beginning to make the changes necessary to save the environment. Phosphates have largely been removed from detergents, perfluorohydrocarbons have been phased out as propellants, and insecticide and herbicide restrictions have cut back use by the home owner. And there seems to be global agreement on reducing, or at least stabilizing, greenhouse gas levels. Perhaps we can take a look at what we need to do to stop poisoning our land with salt. This won’t be an obvious problem for years to come, at which point there won’t be any simple solutions. An ounce of prevention when it comes to the environment can be priceless.

I Wonder Where It Ends Up? (Parry Sound in Overcast)

Redwood1890-20151205-_DS60628

Parry Sound 2016 Budget – Suggestion #5

28 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Suggestions

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

A new sign for the North Shore Rugged Trail. This one is getting pretty tired and doesn’t reflect well on the Town, or the trail. I would appreciate it made obvious that dogs should be on leads. Actually I really don’t care if they are on leads, I just want them to be under control. People who walk with their dogs on leads have told me it’s a problem when these ‘dogs on the loose’ come up and harass their pets, especially when they are running in a ‘pack’. And of course the owners insist their dogs are permitted to be off lead. If you look closely you can see someone has tried to ‘peel’ the matter of leads from the sign. Hey if it isn’t posted, or isn’t legible, they can’t be held responsible, can they?

Redwood1890-20150924-IMG_0299