Category Archives: Urban Development

Royal Bank Free to Move to South End

24 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by in Parry Sound, Urban Development

≈ Comments Off on Royal Bank Free to Move to South End

Tags

, , ,

At a hearing two weeks ago the Ontario Municipal Board, now called the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, decided to dismiss the appeal of the Parry Sound Mall regarding the relocation of the RBC to the south end. This means all appeals have been exhausted and the RBC can move to the Oastler Park development beside the Walmart.

I understand that the Parry Sound Mall’s presentation was less than compelling. I sat in for the first twenty minutes of the appeal and realizing that it was game over headed back to work. I hope the Downtown is prepared to deal with the consequences of this decision and what is likely to follow.

Wet Dreams? Part 1

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Urban Development

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In a series of four articles I will try and lay out some of the more obvious issues concerning a municipal pool in the Greater Parry Sound area. I will alternatively refer to this as ‘pool’, ‘aquatic centre’ or ‘recreational complex’. There is a difference between the three terms that may come into play in the discussion. A pool is something we already have in Parry Sound and in the local area, by my count at least three in local hotels. These are rather modest facilities, in some regards not much more than ‘super-sized’ hot tubs that provide a valuable service to many in the community. The next step up in terms of size and facilities is an aquatic centre. I would imagine that this might include two pools, one for more exercise-oriented use that could host competitive meets, and the other targeted to recreational use, perhaps with an extended shallow area for children. It might also have a diving pool. I imagine that a recreational complex would combine an aquatic centre with a full gymnasium or exercise centre. Big – Bigger – Biggest.

At this point in the process I have shifted my position on the desirability of a pool to one of neutral. I have in the past suggested that a pool is not something the Town needs, even if it wants it. That position was based on my research into the costs and my observations on how the various communities were cooperating. Why bother to even consider a pool if the costs would be very high and there was little prospect for regional cooperation. It seems that in the past couple of years there has been a shift to more cooperation, in principle at least, when it comes to the issue of an aquatic centre that can be used and shared by the area municipalities.

The issue of cost remains the biggest issue and will be the topic of a separate post. If a pool was ‘free’, and let’s remember nothing is actually ‘free’, it seems to me that the plans for a pool would be underway, if the pool were not already built.

I will relate my thinking about the cost of a pool to my thinking about personally purchasing, servicing and enjoying a Porsche. I don’t own a Porsche for many of the same reasons we don’t have a municipal pool already. In both cases somebody needs to come up with the cash for the initial purchase/build. Since neither of us could afford a Porsche or a pool from our bank accounts we would need to take out a loan. The question would be whether we could afford the monthly payments. In the case of the Town they could. It might mean raising taxes or deferring other infrastructure projects. In the case of my new Porsche it would mean taking on a second job or cutting expenses. Perhaps I could sell my property and move to Carling or Seguin where I would save thousands annually on taxes but still have access to Parry Sound services. Though, perhaps not the high speed internet access I need for work. Dang, not an easy solution but perhaps the Province and the Feds will build the internet structure I would need. But that’s another issue that only confuses the discussion of a pool.

So, even if I could make the necessary sacrifices to buy a Porsche I would need to face the operating expenses. It’s a Porsche, so it wouldn’t be cheap. Expenses that would require more income or additional sacrifices. Annual operating expenses is probably the biggest issue for any aquatic centre, recreational complex or municipal pool. In the case of Parry Sound that would mean raising taxes or cutting back on other services. Perhaps we could get folks to agree to reduced snow removal services.

But, if three friends in the area were to go in on the purchase of Porsche Boxster I might be able to swing it. Cutting the upfront and ongoing costs by three quarters might make it manageable. I really wouldn’t need it full time. It’s not practical in winter, so I would still need my Honda Civic. Having access to the Boxster a couple days a week would be more than acceptable, especially if one of my neighbours would keep it in their garage. Hmmm! Seems like something I might be interested in. I would of course be much more interested if one of my neighbours were to buy the Porsche and let me use it for ‘gas money’.

I think that’s not an unreasonable analogy for the issues underlying a municipally owned and operated pool. I wonder if it would be easier to find three other people to chip in for a Porsche than get the local municipalities to chip for a pool. Each of the local municipalities has their own concerns that range from land use to infrastructure demands to cost. But I’m getting ahead of myself, more on this in future posts.

My bottom line is that I’m very much okay with the idea of a pool, aquatic centre or recreational complex if it doesn’t cost me anything in capital or operating costs. I’m probably still okay if the tax payer related costs were minimal and users would be responsible for the larger part of the expenses. I’m not that interested in using a pool. That’s just not what I’m interested in. If I want to get wet I can use one of the local beaches. If I want to exercise I can bike, walk, hike, ski or snowshoe depending on the season. I suspect that’s one of the reasons people have concerns about a municipally supported pool. They may feel they will be paying for a resource they don’t use. Not everyone who pays for the pool will use the pool.

That’s the case for me with the Stockey Centre and the Bobby Orr Community Centre. I don’t use them. At this point these two facilities cost the taxpayers of Parry Sound more than $500,000 per year and the Town is now preparing to put in another $2 to $3 million in necessary renovations and repairs. These costs will need to be paid for with a bond paid off over 20 years that will add to the current $500,000 in costs. It’s not the case with a hospital. Everyone hopes they don’t use it but are willing to pay for it to be there if and when they do need it. Let’s realize that a municipal pool is a quality of life expense, like my Porsche.

Actually, the Porsche analogy isn’t really appropriate. I don’t want a Porsche at any cost. A pool? A pool I might be okay with. It depends on the cost

The next post will offer some back of the envelope calculations on the cost to build and operate a pool. They won’t be right, but they’ll be closer to right than wrong.

 

 

 

Council Agenda Preview – December 19, 2017

17 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ Comments Off on Council Agenda Preview – December 19, 2017

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The biggest piece of news in this week’s Town of Parry Sound Council Agenda Package is the recommendation of Staff to award the Request for Proposal (RFP) to Greystone for the Salt Dock Road surplus properties (10.4.2). All-in-all the process was very quick, and in my opinion the decision is in the best interests of Parry Sound residents and businesses. I would like to compliment the Town for their relative transparency on the RFP process and the decision parameters regarding their recommendation. It was not so long ago that accessing this type of information required considerable effort on the part of the Public.

Other agenda items worth noting:

9.2.1 – Creation of Hotel Tax – Deferral. The recommendation of the committee is to delay the review process for at least a year to better understand how other, more similarly sized communities, are addressing this issue.

9.4.2 – Warrant Analysis – Downtown Parry Sound. This concerns the possibility of a pedestrian crosswalk on James Street between Mary and Seguin Streets. The Staff recommendation, to defeat the resolution, is that the Town forgo further study of the issue based on an earlier report and the expected expense of an additional study ($65,000). It’s not that far to walk up to Mary or Seguin streets if you are not comfortable crossing the street mid-block without assistance.

9.5.1 – Complimentary Parking Program. It turns out that here are some individuals who regularly abuse the downtown free parking benefit. Staff is recommending that there be directed enforcement targeting those who have been identified as chronic offenders.

10.3.3 – Solar Field Memorandum of Understanding. Town Staff is suggesting that the Town take the next step to allow Lakeland Power to better assess the potential of a solar field project. Any final agreement will be subject to further discussion and review. I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why the Town feels compelled to source their power requirements from a new capital investment. Why not just allocate electricity from the Cascade power plant to the Town’s operations? Let’s keep an eye on this, it can easily turn into a boon dongle even if all parties have the best of intents.

10.4.1 – CP Station Lease Extension – Festival of the Sound. The Town is extending the lease agreement with the Festival of the Sound for one year while it takes the necessary remediation steps to put the property on the market.

There are more notable items on the agenda listed below. As always, refer to the agenda package available at the Town’s website for a full list of the items and the supporting documents. (Good luck finding the document. It’s there, but not easy to find. I don’t know why the Town doesn’t just post a link to the agenda for the upcoming meeting of council under the News and Public Notices menu item at the bottom of the page. It’s a classic example of people designing and managing a website without ever actually using it. The industry suggestion for this type of inconsiderate design is ‘to eat your own dog food’. I think the Town can, and should, do better. The News and Public Notices section would be much more user friendly if it also had a link to the latest draft/final budget as well as the most recent council meeting minutes.)

Closed Session

  1. b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. (Appointment of Treasurer)
  2. d) labour relations or employee negotiations. (Grievance)

Correspondence

4.1 – Margaret Dunnigan, Parry Sound resident. Reopening the dialogue regarding building a swimming pool for resident of Parry Sound and surrounding areas.

4.2 – Gail Burrows, President, Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce. Request for funding, along with McDougall, toward lettering on the North End Water Tower.

Deputations

5.1 – Roger Alexander, Parry Sound Condo Corp #2. Surplus property near Salt Dock Road proposal to purchase a portion of the land offered for sale by the town of Parry Sound based on its “utility valuation”.

5.2 – Brenda Ryan, representing the Downtown Beautification Committee, a Downtown Steering Committee Ad Hoc Committee. Downtown beautification

Resolutions and Direction to Staff

9.1.1 – Goal Plan Update – 4th Quarter. Resolution. That Council approves the December, 2017 Fourth Quarter Goal Plan update, attached as Schedule “A”.

9.2.1 – Creation of Hotel Tax – Deferral. Direction. That Council defer any review of the hotel tax until January 1, 2019 upon the recommendation of the ad-hoc committee.

9.4.1 – West Parry Sound Economic Development Collaborative. Resolution. That upon the recommendation of the Regional Economic Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), Council adopt the Terms of Reference for the West Parry Sound Economic Development Collaborative, attached as Schedule “A”; and That the Terms of Reference for the West Parry Sound Economic Development Collaborative be effective upon adoption of all the participating municipalities by no later than January 31, 2018. That Resolution No’s: 2011-137 and 2013-235 be rescinded.

9.4.2 – Warrant Analysis – Downtown Parry Sound. Direction. Resolution. That upon the recommendation of the Downtown Steering Committee, Council direct staff to proceed with the development of Terms of Reference and workplan for a Warrant Analysis to review pedestrian movement in the downtown with a goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial zones.

9.5.1 – Complimentary Parking Program. Direction. That staff implement the following changes to the complimentary parking program;
• Re-parking enforcement be on a complaint and flagrant abuse basis
• Designated Permit Parking spaces in the Miller St. lot be moved closer to James St
• Clearer identification of Parking Permit spaces throughout downtown be implemented

By-laws

10.2.1 – 2018 Interim Tax Levy. By-law 2017 – 6787. Being a By-Law to provide for an interim tax levy, for the payment of taxes, and for penalty and interest at 1 1/4 percent per month for the 2018 taxation year.

10.3.1 – Amending Agreement for Emily St. Funding. By-law 2017 – 6788. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an Amending Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound regarding the reconstruction of Emily Street.

10.3.2 – Traffic bylaw 2013 -6205 amendment – Carol Court. By-law 2017 – 6789. Being a bylaw to amend Bylaw 2013-6205, as amended, known as the Traffic Bylaw, a bylaw to regulate and control traffic and parking in the Town of Parry Sound.

10.3.3 – Solar Field Memorandum of Understanding. By-law 2017 – 6790. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with Lakeland Holdings Ltd. and AMP Solar Group Inc. for the provision of a partnership in solar fields to offset electrical usage of Town owned facilities.

10.4.1 – CP Station Lease Extension – Festival of the Sound. By-law 2017 – 6791. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Town of Parry Sound and Festival of the Sound for the rental of the CP Station.

10.4.2 – Declaration of Surplus Lands – Salt Dock Road Properties and award a Request for Proposal. By-law 2017 – 6792. Being a By-law to declare lands fronting onto Salt Dock Road surplus to the Town of Parry Sound.
Resolution. That Council award the proposal from 1793951 Ontario Inc. (Greystone) for the Request for Proposal.
Direction. That a conditional agreement of purchase and sale be prepared between the Town of Parry Sound and 1793951 Ontario Inc. (Greystone) for Council’s consideration.

See you there Tuesday night.

 

 

Hold Them, Fold Them

07 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealin’s done
(The Gambler, 1978, performed by Kenny Rogers, written by Don Schlitz)

Late last week I made the decision to fold my appeal of Parry Sound Council’s approval of the Oastler Park Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment and advised the Town and the lawyers for the Oastler Park Mall of this decision on June 29th.

I initiated my appeal in January of this year for three reasons that are worth listing:

  1. I believed, and still believe, that the rezoning will significantly change the Parry Sound downtown (Downtown). It may not hurt the Town overall in terms of tax revenue, but things will change, and the changes may be painful for some.
  2. I felt that the parties most likely to be impacted by the rezoning had not yet organized themselves and needed additional time to properly appeal the rezoning and Official Plan amendment decision.
  3. The work submitted by the applicant in support of the rezoning contained significant errors of fact that put into question the impartiality and conclusions of the applicant’s experts.

My original January appeal of the Oastler Park rezoning was appealed two months later (an appeal of an appeal) by the Town and the rezoning applicant wishing to have the Royal Bank relocate to the Oastler Park Plaza in the location previously leased by the Easy Home people. Last Friday I received a communication from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that my original appeal could go forward. This followed a communication earlier in the week from the Province of Ontario advising interested parties that the decision had been made to uphold the Town’s Official Plan Amendment (OPA) permitting a change in the Official Plan to allow for the rezoning of the Oastler Park Mall property to permit the Royal Bank to relocate there from the Parry Sound Mall. Existing Parry Sound Official Plan had required Banks, Booze outlets (LCBO, Beer Store) and Bars (licensed establishments), commonly referred to as the 3-B restriction (3-B) to be located in the Parry Sound Downtown.

If you find this issue confusing, be comforted by my suggestion that it is confusing. Unless you have been following the issue for most of the year you probably have read as much as you need to. For those of you more familiar with the situation, you may wish to read on and understand why the original appeal was an important part of process and my sense of what may be ahead for the Town of Parry Sound.

Background:

In January of the 2017 I filed an appeal with the OMB concerning the Town of Parry Sound’s (TOPS or Town) decision to permit a rezoning of the Oastler Park Plaza to allow the Royal Bank to move into an existing vacant building. In January I also filed a document with the Province outlining my concerns with the Official Plan Amendment (OPA) approved by the Town to permit the rezoning. The arguments in both filings are similar and I have linked a copy of my filing to the Province regarding the OPA rezoning for those who are interested in my specific concerns.

My appeal of the rezoning was appealed to the OMB by the Oastler Park Plaza folks. They wanted my appeal thrown out. A hearing, convened by the OMB, was held in Parry Sound in April with the lawyer for the Oastler Park Plaza, and me, presenting our arguments why my appeal of the rezoning should, or shouldn’t be heard, by the OMB. The appeal itself was interesting and a worthwhile exercise. On the Oastler Park side was their lawyer and his assistant, up from Hamilton, along with the Oastler Park Plaza’s planning consultant. On my side, it was me. The lawyers for the Oastler Park Plaza folks presented about 400 pages of documentation including precedents for why my appeal should be rejected. In all, the hearing took about 4 hours. As mentioned earlier, the OMB’s decision rendered this past Friday upheld my right to appeal. It’s a small consolation, but offers some validation for the merits of my concerns about the rezoning and the impact it might have on the Town.

The Process:

Since January I have been spoken to a number of people about the appeal, including those likely to be impacted by any lessening of the 3-B requirements in the Official Plan. Concern was expressed, but over time it became obvious that there was no interest in investing in the appeal process, either emotionally, publicly, or financially. My sense after the first appeal hearing was that it would take more than $20,000 to mount a credible appeal of both the Rezoning and the OPA. It’s likely that the Oastler Park Plaza people spent more than $10,000 to appeal my original Rezoning appeal, and that was just the first period of the game that would likely go into overtime

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised by the response of the business people in the downtown with regard to the issue. There certainly was concern, but it was a shared concern that no single individual or business felt hurt them specifically or immediately. It’s a variation of the commonly discussed term – Tragedy of the Commons. Because no single individual would be immediately hurt, there was no obvious reason to stand up.

What surprised me was a party who contacted me early in the process and expressed support, with the suggestion of financial and logistic resources to put together the necessary documentation to support an appeal that might win the day. They took a bit of my time and in the end didn’t even have the courtesy to promptly respond to an email once push came to shove. They were playing a game that I recognized they might be playing early on in the process. But they claimed to be sincere, and in the absence of contrary information, and being the appeal’s best hope for success, I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

The Decision:

Late last week, and especially after the Province’s OPA decision, It became plainly obvious that the best intentions of others were not going to turn into material support. At that point I realized that no one cared enough about the implications of the Town’s rezoning and Official Plan Amendment to step up and support my appeal logistically or financially. Given that I would personally not be damaged by Council’s decision to allow the bank to move to the south end, and it would cost me thousands to properly carry the appeal forward, I decide to fold the appeal. Just like poker, if the cards don’t warrant raising or you are out of chips, the right thing to do is to fold. There was no room for bluffing when it would cost thousands to stay in the game and there was no personal payoff even if I had won the appeal. There would perhaps have been that nice warm feeling of having supported the Downtown. The same kind of nice warm feeling when you piss your pants?

The Future:

I think we can imagine the future already, not so much because of my decision to fold the appeal, but rather the Province’s decision to allow some grocery stores to sell beer and wine. You may have noticed that our local Sobeys has started selling beer and wine. My casual observation suggests that it has further increased their business. I have seen any number of people walking to the cash register with a six-pack in their carts, that didn’t require them to head to the Downtown. Of course perhaps they just wouldn’t have bought that six-pack or bottle of wine, so the Downtown lost nothing. Yeah, sure! In effect the second “B” restriction, booze, has already moved out of the Downtown. The only nail left to put in the figurative coffin is a restaurant in the south end serving alcohol. I understand there are individuals ready to make this happen. With the Royal Bank heading to the south end, and booze at Sobeys, I can’t imagine that Council will be in any position to oppose restaurant rezoning. The Town’s recent decision to apply for the right to approve their own Official Plan amendments would streamline the process. This is despite Mayor McGarvey public statement that he will not approve the move or establishment of any business that would be in contravention of the 3-B regulations. He has shown in the past that he can be ‘flexible’ if there are moneyed interests involved. These are the folks who can drive the local economy and they can’t be ignored or dismissed.

The real test will come in the next few months. The LCBO’s lease in the downtown will expire by October of 2018, and I understand that they are itching to get out of the Downtown and into a facility in the south end. And there are people with the land and resources to provide them with exactly the type facility they might want. And the Beer Store would like to do nothing more than get out of the real estate business and rent space in the south end. These are the near term ‘canaries in the coal mine’ when it comes to the future of the 3-B and the Downtown.

How will the fast food joints across the street from the LCBO do now that tourists or folks from Seguin and Carling who need (want?) a six-pack, or a bottle of wine, can avoid traffic and limited parking by picking it up at Sobeys? What about the downtown banks? How many people will move to the Royal Bank because it’s more convenient, and right beside Walmart? One stop less.

No, the town is not going to go to hell with this change, morally or financially. In fact the Town will probably benefit with booze and bars heading to the south end. Any development in the south end will result in additional property assessments that will increase the Town’s tax revenue base. It’s possible that the assessment base of the Downtown may drop, but not nearly as much as the south end development revenues will increase.

The Downtown will need to roll with this punch. Don’t bet on everyone’s hope that waterfront development will increase traffic and business to the Downtown. It won’t happen for the simple reason that the weather in Parry Sound sucks between November and April. You can’t create a stable economy based on four months of beautiful weather, especially if that weather is available to neighbouring communities. I love winter in Parry Sound, when there is snow and the Big Sound is frozen over, but that’s not November, December and April. Sometimes it’s not even January and March. Most people don’t like the snow, and certainly aren’t going to come to Parry Sound’s downtown in the winter to sit in a hotel or to shop. Casino anyone? Wait, that won’t be in the Downtown. Or might it?

There is the possibility though of turning Parry Sound’s downtown into a residential centre, with an emphasis on senior and social services. The Downtown has little charm in terms of wide treed streets and classy old buildings that can compete with Muskoka. Two very busy train tracks further detract from any charm that might be possible. But, the Downtown is perfectly functional and will appeal to many who have more limited means. This is a transformation that will be slow to develop and will be painful for many businesses.

Development in Parry Sound, even in the south end, has limitations as it currently exists. This may explain the Town’s interest is extending Parry Sound Road to Oastler Park Drive and their approval a couple of years ago of the rezoning of the properties north of Starbucks. If there is to be development there needs to be land. If Parry Sound doesn’t provide it, the development will move to Seguin, just up Oastler Park Drive. These Seguin properties may not have water and sewer services, but some businesses will not require them. Not all LCBO buildings are located in towns with water and sewer service. With property taxes in Seguin one-third those of Parry Sound, a well and septic, or holding tank, may just be financially attractive.

I do feel sorry for some of the business in the Downtown who will see things change, most notably those businesses that depend on regular traffic to sustain business. Things seem to have reached a point where change is assured. But, change isn’t necessarily a bad thing unless of course sea level is rising and you own beautiful oceanside property.

One Last Comment:

What really pissed me off about the whole process, and motivated me in part to appeal the rezoning, was the documentation provided in support of the rezoning application. An important part of the rezoning process is the requirement for the applicant to provide an independent opinion on the potential impact of the rezoning on the Downtown. In the case of the Oastler Park Plaza rezoning this involved planning and economic statements. These reports are expected to be independent and unbiased. While it’s possible to ‘shop’ for an opinion, I have seen this often done in legal situations, the analysis still needs to, at the very least, provide a sense of independence.

My concern is not with the conclusions reached by the reports that the rezoning would not have any negative impact on the Downtown. I think they are wrong, but we are all permitted our own analysis and conclusions. What pissed me off is that they actually didn’t do the necessary work to reach an unbiased opinion. This was evidenced by the reports, which are riddled with errors, most notably the location of businesses and even the Downtown. The Downtown area was expanded a couple of years ago, but this was not reflected in the two reports. They still made reference to the older footprint. Would the revised Downtown size have impacted their analysis and recommendation? Absolutely not. The consultants knew what their client wanted and they were prepared to deliver it. These are the same parties that advised the Town that the Walmart development would not negatively impact the downtown. At the very least they could have updated their earlier analysis to reflect the current situation even if their opinions were already fixed.

Is anybody else paying attention to the changes? Does anybody really care? It’s a sad consolation that regardless of what people do or don’t do it won’t impact my personal situation. You need to care, but not too much.

Repatriating OPA Responsibilities

02 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

One of the 2017 Town of Parry Sound Staff objectives is to ‘repatriate’ the responsibility for approving Official Plan amendments (OPA). I realize that I am using the term ‘repatriate’ incorrectly, but it makes a complex process a little easier to understand. This post summarizes the issue. It’s an interesting subject that provides some insight into how policy is created and approved.

Background

The Town of Parry Sound wants to gain the right to unilaterally approve amendments to its Official Plan. The Official Plan is a document that summarizes the Town’s plans and intentions with respect to development. Here’s a link to Parry Sound’s Official Plan. Presented below is the statement of Purpose from the Town’s Official Plan.

“The purpose of this Official Plan is to provide a planning framework to manage land use changes and to guide the physical development of the Town, while having regard to relevant social, economic, environmental and public health matters.

The Plan will:

 a) adopt growth management policies to guide development over the next twenty years;
b) direct the actions of Council, the Planning Board, agencies and the public on development applications;
c) recognize the financial capability of the Town to accommodate development and provide an appropriate level of municipal services;
d) ensure that development occurs in a manner that will minimize public health and safety issues, including the protection of human life and property from water related hazards such as flooding and erosion;
e) identify significant natural features and provide for their protection and conservation.”

It’s this document that, among other things, defines whether a new business can open in a certain part of Parry Sound, or if a bank can move from one location to another. Just because the Official Plan says it can, or can’t, doesn’t mean that it can, or can’t. In cases where the Official Plan allows, or at least doesn’t restrict, a new business to open, or another to move, then it probably will be approved to do so by the Town, if the application conforms with all other necessary requirements.

In cases where an application for a new business, or a move, or anything else doesn’t conform with the Official Plan, Council can, if they agree with the application, amend the Official Plan. This is referred to as an Official Plan Amendment (OPA). But that’s not the end of it. Because the OPA doesn’t conform with the Official Plan, the Town of Parry Sound must submit the proposed amendment to the Province of Ontario for approval. This typically takes a couple of months but can extend to 270 days. In most cases the Province approves an amendment, but when it doesn’t, the application underlying the amendment is denied, at least based on the application as it was initially framed.

Item 9.2.1 on the April 4, 2017 agenda is intended to confirm that the Town of Parry Sound wishes to apply to the Province for the right to approve its own OPAs, ‘repatriating’ that right from the Province. With that confirmation, Town Staff will make the necessary application with the Province to take control of OPAs. Provincial review will likely take several months, at most a couple of years. The Province can approve or reject this request. In the interim, Official Plan Amendments will continue to be reviewed by the Province. Item 9.2.1 also requests that the Town confirm that it no longer wishes to participate in the Parry Sound Area Planning Board (see below).

Allowing a municipality to approve their own Official Plan Amendments is not unusual. It is however, unusual in Northern Ontario, except for the larger municipalities such as North Bay and Sudbury. Seguin is one of the few smaller Northern Ontario municipalities who currently have the right to approve their own Official Plan Amendments.

Complications

I have only recently come to realize that there is a Parry Sound Area Planning Board (PSAPB) with responsibility for the Town of Parry Sound, McDougall, Carling, McKellar and Whitestone. It seems the PSAPB intends to request the right to approve Official Plan Amendments for their member municipalities. The board seems to feel that the Province would look more favourably on this request, rather than one where each municipality is delegated the right to approve OPAs for their own municipality. This means a Town of Parry Sound OPA would be reviewed, and approved or refused, by the PSAPB, rather than the Province. Given that this board is comprised of local elected politicians with limited resources and planning experience, asking this group to make informed decisions would probably not be in the best interests of Parry Sound. This also seems to be the opinion of Town of Parry Sound Staff.

Options

It seems there are three possible options for the future handling of Town of Parry Sound OPAs, all of which are under active consideration.

  1. Continue to have the Province review and, as appropriate, approve or reject OPAs.
  2. Delegate Official Plan Amendment review and approval to the Parry Sound Area Planning Board.
  3. Have Parry Sound OPAs reviewed and approved by Town of Parry Sound Council (‘repatriation’).

Reflections

My first reaction was to oppose this ‘repatriation’ of OPA rights by Parry Sound. My feeling was that the Province plays an important role with respect to ensuring that the intent of the Official Plan is being respected. It’s too easy for a council to forgo the intent of the Official Plan in hopes of generating additional economic development. Having an impartial, experienced set of eyes reviewing and approving the OPA seems important. Having the Province involved removes the burden from residents and businesses of having to look too closely at exactly what OPAs the town is approving, and the implications.

But, there is a but, things need to move forward in a timely fashion and not be hung up according to the schedule of the Province. A couple months here, a few months there, and suddenly momentum is lost, especially in this part of the world where construction is often seasonally restricted. A delay in filing an application with the Town, followed by the necessary community review, staff report and council deliberation, and then a couple of months or more for provincial review, followed by the onset of winter, can mean a project starts a year later than planned.

Even if the Town of Parry Sound gains the right to approve their own Official Plan Amendments, there is still the opportunity for public input before the issue is approved by Council, and if necessary after approval, through appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). As I am discovering, this is a bit of nuclear option. While victory can be achieved, whatever that means, there is a high cost to all parties involved, winners and losers, in terms of expense, effort and time. It is not an option to be taken lightly. It also works best when all parties have access to the nuclear option, the right file an OMB appeal, or appeal an appeal. A business or resident, deciding to file an appeal, or a council deciding to approve a controversial OPA that might trigger an appeal, will need to carefully consider their options. It’s not quite assured mutual destruction, but it is costly in many ways. The key, in my opinion, is that all parties need to understand the appeal process and demonstrate that they are prepared to use it to ensure things are done in the best interests of the Town, its businesses, and its residents.

Conclusion

In the end, my preference is that the Town of Parry Sound gain the right to approve their own Official Plan Amendments. This would mean a by-law and the corresponding OPA could be approved at the same time. Decisions are made quickly, and appeals can be filed against both the by-law and OPA at the same time, if appropriate.

The second choice would be Parry Sound Area Planning Board approval of Town of Parry Sound Official Plan Amendments. That would add in a little delay to the process, perhaps a month or so, but much less than Provincial review. I wonder if the PSAPB would be responsible for defending their OPA decisions if appealed.

Of course, there is always the default situation where the Province continues to review Town of Parry Sound OPAs. That would not be ideal, but it is a known process.

What Will Happen?

Thinking about it a little bit more, my sense is that the Province will probably prefer to have an area planning board, in this case the Parry Sound Area Planning Board, assume responsibilities for approving Official Plan Amendments. It would mean the Province would only need to deal with a single body’s application for OPA approval privileges, the PSAPB in this case, rather than a number of separate applications, if Parry Sound goes ahead and withdraws from the PSAPB.

This explains the urgency of this week’s Item 9.2.1 and the decision before Council to leave the PSAPB. I think the Town realizes that if the Province is given the option to delegate OPA approvals to a single municipality or an area board, they will choose the latter.

So what will happen? The Town will surely withdraw from the Parry Sound Area Planning Board. That means the PSAPB won’t be able to include the Town in their application to ‘repatriate’ the responsibility to approve OPAs.

I expect that the Province will eventually approve the Town of Parry Sound’s application to ‘repatriate’ OPA rights, but it will take a year or so. It’s consistent with the Province’s strategy of downloading costs and responsibilities to the municipalities. That is unless the Province agrees to approve the Town’s request only if the Town joins with other area municipalities to have Official Plan Amendments reviewed by an area board.

This is ‘real world’ reality programming. And like TV it can take a season or more to come to any type of conclusion. Stay tuned.

It’s Not Magic, but It Can be Deceiving.

Parry Sound EDO – Just in Time

15 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I received a call today from a town resident who wanted to discuss the new Economic Development Officer (EDO) and my thoughts on whether the Town needed this position. Picking up my copy of the North Star a bit later and reading the editorial I understood where the question came from. The editorial suggested that the EDO position really wasn’t something the Town should invest in. I wish they would have thought about it a bit more. My sense is that the position is absolutely necessary.

The EDO position has much the same responsibilities that I held in Business Development working with multi-billion dollar corporations making investments globally. We were expected to identify opportunities, assess their contribution to the bottom line and, as approved by management, get the deals done.

The thing you quickly realize doing this type of job is that your responsibility is not only to identify and get the best deals done, your job is also to identify the opportunities that don’t make sense, and make the business case to walk away from them. Management often has their pet projects that they want to see done, sometimes because they ‘have a feeling’, and sometimes because they figure it will enhance their career prospects if successful. And if it’s not, well they can just move on before the you know what hits the fan. The job of the EDO or Business Development Officer is to understand the risks and make sure management doesn’t enter into a deal with an inflated sense of opportunity.

Looking back over my career I’m as proud of the deals that I turned down as those that I completed. In many cases, it took courage to stand up to senior management and make the argument that the idea wasn’t in the best interests of the company. It’s not easy, but it’s very necessary.

Right now, the Town is looking at multiple business investment opportunities being suggested by Council (aka Senior Management). Someone with real world experience needs to look at these opportunities, develop the business case, calculate the net present values (NPV) of the opportunities, and provide an opinion. The Town of Parry Sound doesn’t have that experience on staff. Hiring a consultant to do this type of job would be much, much more expensive, and they wouldn’t have any ’skin in the game’. If a consultant makes a mistake they just walk on to the next job and blame failure on poor ‘execution’ by the client. The individual being hired for the EDO position in Parry Sound seems as though they will have some ownership.

Doing a little bit of Sunshine List research reveals that Mr. Harris, the new EDO, earned a little more than $260,000 plus $16,000 in benefits in 2013. Someone thought he was pretty good.

I will take the North Star to task for a little bit of sloppy research. They stated that the current Town of Parry Sound debt is $1.5 million, and that figure will rise to $4.2 million in 2021. Oh, I wish! That’s just the carrying cost for the Town’s debt, basically the annual ‘mortgage payment’. According to 2017 budget documents the Town expects to carry about $24 million in debt by the end of 2017, which will drop to $20 million by 2021 if no additional capital investments are made. If one adds in the projects being discussed, the Town’s debt may rise to over $40 million in five years.

We currently have one member of Council who seems to be ready to go ‘all in’ with Town capital projects in hopes of stimulating more business and tax revenue. My worry is this individual doesn’t really have the experience to judge these opportunities and seems to not have a long term interest in Parry Sound, and probably won’t be here five years from now. It will be left to others to clean up any mess that may be left behind. But that’s being pessimistic, these suggestions may very well prove to be the type of investments that the Town needs to make and will pay off ‘hugely’.

That is exactly why we need an Economic Development Officer on staff. We need the expertise on staff to assess the many proposals that will come from Council and businesses, and make their best recommendation. Hopefully Mr. Harris will focus on the interests of the Town’s residents and businesses, not the egos of elected officials. Sometimes the best deal you ever made is the deal you didn’t make.

I’d rather be paying a little bit more and having the full attention of an EDO rather than trying to get a share of a regional EDO with too many constituencies to please.

Welcome aboard Mr. Harris. We very much need your contribution.

2016-12-06 Parry Sound Council Meeting Reflections

07 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Well, last night meeting of Parry Sound Council was about as interesting a session as I have experienced in the past five years. The only exception might be last year’s fluoride sessions. Watching the crowd milling around the hall before the meeting it was jokingly asked if fluoride was on the agenda. The meeting met expectations in terms of entertainment value. It’s worth reviewing a few of the ‘acts’.

Belvedere Parking
There was a deputation by Donna Dellio, Chief Executive Officer Belvedere Heights (‘Belvedere’) concerning the issue of parking on Belvedere Avenue. Ms. Dellio’s deputation was in support of the existing traffic pattern to ensure there were adequate parking spots available for the public, staff and suppliers. I took exception to her deputation on two points that I believe are either incorrect or inappropriate.

  1. She claimed that the parking lot at Belvedere was consistently full, and she related that at on one occasion she was required to park down closer to the downtown. Well I call Bull Shitake on that. I have been up to Belvedere multiple times, at all times of day, all days of the week, and have yet to see the pay parking lot across the street full. On most occasions there are no more than one or two cars in the pay lot. Now, the lot beside the Belvedere building is almost always full. This is reserved parking for either residents or staff, I’m not sure. And of course, there have been times I have headed up to Belvedere to visit and have found the ‘free’ on street parking is full, but at the same time the parking lot is almost totally empty. There is more than enough parking up on Belvedere to meet the current needs, without on street parking, but it costs $2. We know how Parry Sounders, visitors and staff, hate to pay for parking. The deputation seems misleading with respect to a need for on street parking. There is enough parking, but it’s not free. Take down the parking arms and the problem is solved. But there is that parking lot to be paid for, $2 at a time. Oh dear, that’s a problem isn’t it?
  2. As part of the deputation Ms. Dellio suggested that part of the parking problem was that because of heritage considerations the pay parking lot was restricted to 19 spots, not the 32 that they originally requested. I am outraged. So, they took perhaps the most iconic outlook in Parry Sound, paved it, put up a pay parking lot, and then resent the fact that they were not allowed to pave even more? Shame on Ms. Dellio for blaming the locals for trying to trying to preserve a bit of what makes Parry Sound special. That’s another example of why we can’t have nice things in Parry Sound.

Whether or not there is a need for one or two-way access on Belvedere Avenue is immaterial to me. But let’s not be loose with the facts to support a particular position.

Closed Session Discussions and Decisions
There was an interesting by-law approved last night that flew right over the head of anyone at the meeting. After the RBC move was discussed and voted on, Council moved to the regular session. One of the first actions of Council was to vote upon a by-law that had been discussed and agreed in closed session. It presumably concerned the agenda item:

c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for municipal or local board purposes. (Property Purchases)

There was no discussion or explanation of the by-law during the meeting. It was simply brought forward and voted upon. After the meeting I spoke with the Clerk and asked to see the by-law. The by-law was an offer to purchase a property in the boundaries of Parry Sound from a government agency (I don’t recall the details). Turning to a couple of the Councillors after the meeting I asked what it concerned and why there was no discussion or explanation of the by-law before or after it was approved. They seemed a little hesitant to offer any details until I indicated it was approved as by-law so it was in fact public. They offered the barest of details, but enough to sniff what’s going on. I have in the past requested that Council be fully transparent with respect to items that are ‘agreed’ in closed sessions and simply brought forward to open session without any opportunity for the public to offer input, much less understand what’s going on.

There is something going on that also has an impact on the 2017 Parry Sound Budget. I have a sense of what it is and I’m surprised the Town hasn’t provided more information to the public. Perhaps it’s supposed to be a SURPRISE. I’m not sure how you feel about surprises, but I’m not a big fan of them when it comes to things that may impact my pocket book, in the near or long term.

I’ll see if the Town offers more information in the next week or so, either through a press release or an ‘interview’ with one of the official media outlets, before I offer what I’ve managed to discover. There is no conspiracy here, just a seeming desire of Staff and Council to get things done out of the view of the public. It surprising how many people think it’s easier to get things done in the dark. Well actually it’s about keeping others in the dark. That’s why we have Sunshine requirements.

Royal Bank of Canada Move
This was the big item on the agenda. The bank wants to move from their current location at the Mall to the Oastler Park Shoping Plaza (Walmart plaza). Any move would require approval by Council, an amendment to the Town’s Official Plan, and approval of the amendment by the Province. There was quite a bit of confusion and drama surrounding the decision that I won’t go into, I’ll leave it to the ‘official’ media to cover it. It’s the kind of news that captures online clicks. The bottom line is that no final decision was made and it will be back on the December 20th agenda. But I will make a few comments.

  1. I have written in the past that ‘I don’t have a dog in the fight’. That doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. In this case I support the status quo in terms of what the Town’s Official Plan states with respect to the location of banks. If there is an interest in allowing the free location of banks then let’s have a discussion of the issue and as appropriate change the Official Plan. Why have plans if they can be thrown out at the seemingly arbitrary whim of certain Councillors. It would seem to me that if the Official Plan were to be disregarded it should require a unanimous approval by Council, not a split vote, or one decided by the Mayor.
  2. We seem to have a a Trumpkin on Council. I’m referring to Councillor Saulnier. In general, I do not call out council members by name, but it’s appropriate here in my opinion. The Trumpkin approach in my opinion is to ignore facts and protocol/procedures. At last night’s meeting Councillor Saulnier, who was in support of amending the Official Plan and allowing the move, made the claim that the Town isn’t growing so we should do something different. This implied ignoring the Official Plan’s long standing rule that banks, bars and alcohol retailers be located in the downtown. Well actually Councillor Trumpkin, Parry Sound is growing. The last census (2011) found that the Town of Parry Sound had grown by 6.4% while McDougall was flat and Seguin was down by 6.7%. Compared to a few decades ago the population hasn’t changed much, but after a precipitous drop in population it seems that growth is back. Detroit would be delighted to see its population return to what it was three decades ago. And let’s remember that Parry Sound has little developable land, and what land we may have, notably Louisa Street, has been designated as a low priority because of the expected cost of infrastructure. The willingness to toss out plan and protocol, in this case the Official Plan, is so Trump-like. Parry Sound is not in a crisis situation where it is appropriate to encourage a free-for-all. Shooting from the hip is a valid approach, but be sure not to shoot yourself in the foot. It’s ready, aim, fire not, ready, fire, aim.
  3. The RBC wants to move right now. But won’t that take a change to the Official Plan, and don’t changes to the Official Plan need to be approved by the Province? I’m not up on municipal process and procedure but that presumably would take some time, probably several months. Does that fit with the apparent urgency to revise the Official Plan? Perhaps the Town can provide some clarity on the timelines to Council and Public.
  4. In case you are wondering who voted for and against the move, here’s a summary. For the move: McGarvey, Saulnier, Marshall. Against the move: Keith, McCann, Borneman. Absent: Horne. If you have an opinion I suggest you contact one of the councillors to express your thoughts on how they should vote to represent your interests.

Woo-hoo the best free* show it town. Let’s see if there is a plan to set up reserved seating for the December 20th meeting. I’ll be there.

Closed Sessions. Can North Shore Rugged Trail Users Expect a SURPRISE?

redwood1890-20160903-dsc_9453-2

  • Actually nothing is free. Consider it part of the bonus you get for paying taxes, sort of like your one free dump day tag. (Conditions apply)

Feeling Lucky? Prospects of a Parry Sound Casino

23 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I’ll start this post by stating my support for gambling and casinos. I would also like to confirm my support for cigarettes and alcohol sales. I look to these simple human pleasures as contributing to lower taxes for those of us who choose not to indulge. In this regard I guess I’m painting myself as a libertarian; people can do what they want as long as they are aware of the consequences, and they don’t impact the rights of others. But, I think we need to ensure that people are properly informed of the possible consequences of indulging these simple human pleasures. Businesses and individuals who profit off these activities should not be permitted to suggest that they don’t have possible, and quite likely, consequences.

I have been asked by a few people what I think about a casino in Parry Sound. I don’t have a strong opinion at this point, but I am interested in understanding what the impact of a casino might be on tax revenues, expenses and the community. I have read that Mayor McGarvey supports the idea of a casino in Parry Sound as it will be a boon to businesses on a twelve month a year basis. I won’t dispute this suggestion, but I wonder how it will benefit me as a Parry Sound taxpayer, and what provisions can be made to ensure I don’t end up subsidizing a casino, in the near and long term.

Let me explain.

The Town of Parry Sound currently has two major sources of revenue – government grants and property taxes. Yes, there are other sources of revenue, for example water services, but these are largely self-sustaining and have no impact on the property taxes that we pay quarterly. How might a casino in Parry Sound impact taxes?

Well, the obvious benefit to the Town is that a casino will involve the creation of facilities and businesses that would be subject to municipal taxation at a commercial rate. One could imagine that the development would include a casino building, probably one or more waterfront hotels to house the visitors, and possibly a marina to service clients who prefer boating, rather than driving, to make their supplemental tax payments.

What might the tax revenues be from these facilities? Will Parry Sound end up ahead, break even, or end up in a hole? Well I could imagine that a reasonably full build of a casino and supporting hotels might have a property only assessment on the order or $20 to $50 million. (Let’s hope for the sake of all of us it won’t be done on the cheap. The quality of any casino will have an impact on how Parry Sound is viewed, upscale or tacky.) How much might the Parry Sound tax revenue be increased? At first I thought the assessment would be based on the value of the buildings with a commercial tax rate applied to that figure. Doing a little research, it seems that this isn’t the case. The value of a casino and probably the associated hotels is more likely to be calculated based on what these businesses generate in revenues. But I’m not sure. Here is a link to an article at MPAC that outlines the process for assessing the value of a casino. MPAC presents three different approaches to determining valuation for assessment purposes, not all of which necessarily converge. I’ll be looking forward to a detailed analysis from the Town and the developers at an appropriate time, well before any decision is made to approve a casino development.

What expenses will the Town be responsible for in any casino development? We have considerable infrastructure in place but I suspect that there will be a need for upgrades ‘all round’; water services as well as new and upgraded roads immediately come to mind. There will also be considerable legal and consulting fees. Do we pay for all of this upfront with a hope that it will be paid off in the near term? Probably not, which suggests we will be taking on long term debt for future generations to pay. Let’s remember that the only way the Town benefits from a casino is from taxes related to property or business assessment. The Town doesn’t get a cut of the take unless that’s part of the assessment model decided by MPAC.

But what about the jobs that will be created and the construction work itself? Well, that benefit is not likely to flow to Parry Sound directly if recent history repeats itself. At best, it may help the surrounding municipalities, but that might be a stretch. The hospital certainly created jobs, but Parry Sound saw less of the municipal tax benefits benefits than the surrounding municipalities. Most of the higher end people, physicians, nurses and administrators, choose not to live in Parry Sound because of more desirable properties (waterfront) and lower taxes in Seguin, McKellar and Carling. Why live in Parry Sound if you can have a waterfront property a kilometre away on Rose Point Road? Will it be different with a casino? Not really, casinos don’t deliver that many high paying jobs, so it would be unlikely to raise local residential property values and taxes. What about new construction jobs? Hmmm, is a local company doing the Cascade Street build? And how many of the high value materials that are required for the Cascade project, notably concrete and the pre-engineered parts, come from businesses in Parry Sound? Concrete might be coming from Seguin, helping a business in that municipality, or it might be coming from as far away as Bracebridge. The engineered parts are coming from Southern Ontario. The trades doing the work also seem to be sourced from outside Parry Sound. It was the same situation with the build on Seguin Street across from Tulloch. The work was contracted to out-of-town, actually out-of-district, suppliers.

But the added traffic, twelve months a year, will be good for local businesses, won’t it? Yes, but Parry Sound won’t be sharing in the upside unless these businesses receive a higher assessment value and pay higher property taxes. It’s interesting that what is good for businesses doesn’t necessarily show up in increased tax revenues for the Town, and then pay for the associated increase in costs for town services.

What about the social issues? The new Parry Sound District OPP commander has stated that his experience suggests casinos attract seniors, especially if they are slot type casinos. Seniors are beyond any type of criminal activity aren’t they? Who knows, but let’s assume there will be additional policing costs associated with a casino if only because there will be more people and there will be more ’social friction’. You don’t add more of this type of activity without a corresponding increase in police services, and probably EMS services as well.

Will people on the Carrington side of Parry Sound bit by bit be pushed out by the local development? Possibly, but probably not. There is enough land with redevelopment of the former petroleum properties that there shouldn’t be too much real estate pressure. Perhaps it won’t be a very family friendly area to live. I don’t know. I don’t frequent casinos nor have I studied their impact on local communities. A good proxy for a Parry Sound casino might be the casino in Gananoque, a small town about 50 km outside Kingston. For those of you interested, an article in the Kingston Whig-Standard goes into considerable detail, financial and social, about Ganaonoque’s casino as part of a decision by the voters of Kingston to reject a casino in their own town. I suspect much of the analysis is well considered as it was probably developed in discussions with the Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning. Here is a link to that 2014 Kingston Whig-Standard article. I heartily recommend the article to anyone interested in the topic of a Parry Sound casino. It’s well written and easy to understand. It has a conclusion that may be surprising.

Here are some other casino related links that may be of value to the interested.

http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/2013/02/24/city-of-niagara-falls-fuming-over-casino-tax-cuts

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-casinos-to-pay-host-municipalities-more-money-1.1304652

http://business.financialpost.com/financial-post-magazine/can-casinos-spearhead-economic-development-efforts-in-canadas-cities

http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Real-Cost-of-a-Casino_Wellesley-Institute_2013.pdf

Still feeling lucky? Let’s hope that Parry Sound Council decides to provide local residents and businesses with a full analysis of the implications of a casino if the discussion ever get that far. Let’s not have one of those Closed Session discussions that is then brought into Open Session and voted on without any input from the residents and businesses of Parry Sound. It’s our town, and we have a right to not only understand what is going on, but to express our support or opposition.

Will This Be the Way It Was?

redwood1890-20150901-_ds78062

 

Deputation to Town of Parry Sound Council – 2016-10-04

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

It was a rather short meeting last night, with only three people in the audience. It may have been because of the prospect of my deputation, or it might have been the Blue Jays playoff game. Here is the text of my deputation last night.

“This deputation relates to Item 9.3.3 on the agenda – Review of New Multi-Residential Tax Class

I have come to think of Parry Sound as an island municipality in that it sits on a very limited piece of land with essentially no opportunity for expansion. This means as a community we need to carefully consider how we develop what limited land is available in the best manner possible so as to provide residents and businesses with the best value for their municipal tax dollars.

What is obvious is that despite the limited land resources of our island municipality we are required to provide the majority of the community and social services for the West Parry Sound District. In most cases these services are located in prime locations and are not subject to property taxation, even though they make use of Town services, and in some cases require services above and beyond what is supplied to most residential and business property owners. A simple drive from the Town Office past the Mall provides evidence of the many properties that are exempt from property taxation on their assessed value, including churches, schools, social services organizations and colleges. In some cases, when they are taxed, it is far below what other businesses and residents pay. Add to this the home for the aged, the hospital, the brown field properties, the railways, the District Museum, and even the assessment reductions provided to properties directly adjacent to the rail line, and the loss in tax revenue is considerable. Yet these organizations provide critical services and support to neighbouring municipalities who carry none of the financial burden in terms of lost tax revenue, despite having a much, much larger land area and a far higher assessment base. Parry Sound currently has by far the highest tax rate in the district, in part as a result of the revenues lost because of these taxation exempt institutions. I estimate that these tax exempt properties account for between 10 and 15% of the Town’s total assessment, and add a similar amount to every residents and businesses property tax bill.

Hosting these organizations is part of our contribution to making West Parry Sound a better place to live for everyone, and I do not begrudge the additional tax costs. I do feel going forward that Council needs to carefully consider the cost to businesses and residents of attracting and supporting additional tax exempt organizations. These organizations often occupy prime real estate that could be used for commercial and residential purposes, both of which provide the taxes to support the required infrastructure build, upgrades, and maintenance. It has been argued that these organizations bring additional population who live in Parry Sound and directly support the Town through property taxes. It is my experience that many of these people, notably the higher earning folks, actually live in the surrounding communities, enriching the tax base of these communities because they want to be by a lake or the bay, have a large piece of land, all while paying lower taxes. And what services they need can be sourced in Parry Sound. A number of our neighbours are even suggesting Parry Sound should build a swimming pool so that they won’t be forced to drive to Bracebridge. Like Donald Trump has said, it’s legal and it’s smart business to keep your taxes low. But of course someone has to pay for services and the required support.

The Town is interested in extending Parry Sound Drive up to Old Highway 69, but the business model is hard to rationalize because the Town only is able to tax properties on one side of the road. Once again Parry Sound pays and our neighbours derive considerable benefit.

As we enter the 2017 budget discussions and Council considers Item 9.3.3, which I consider to be a very reasonable request and a relative ‘drop in the bucket’ in terms of lost revenue, I suggest the Town carefully consider how it can strike a reasonable balance between being the go-to resource for District social services while not burdening Parry Sound businesses and residents with the increasingly high cost of the required support.

One last thought. The location of the K-12 school is yet to be decided. I would suggest that the Town do what it can to support having the school built in one of our neighbouring municipalities, McDougall or Seguin. Foregoing the school would allow for the existing high school property to be adapted for commercial and/or residential purposes that would expand the assessment base and provide for additional tax revenues with little or no need for additional infrastructure. Any new school would not only occupy a valuable part of our little island municipality, but it would also come with additional costs. Beyond the expected costs to Parry Sound to fund supporting infrastructure upgrades for any new K-12 school, there would likely be additional, unexpected costs down the line, that will be the burden of the Parry Sound taxpayer. Witness the new Parry Sound Public School, in addition to the debentured costs for required infrastructure there is now talk of additional road changes and extensions to ease a parking problem, at the expense of Parry Sound residents and businesses, and to the great annoyance of local residents.

As a municipality we need to be smart. It is not our responsibility to provide resources and services for our rich neighbouring municipalities at the cost of our local residents and businesses. Supporting the unfortunate and needy is something we should do. The rich folks know how to take care of themselves.”

Island? This is an island.

redwood1890-20160908-_dsc3382

 

 

Finding Focus – The Parry Sound Strategic Plan

29 Friday May 2015

Posted by in Reflections, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I attended the Parry Sound Strategic Plan focus group sessions this past Tuesday. There were about 45 participants, not including Staff and Council who were there to participate and/or facilitate the process. It lasted about three hours and included a discussion on six separate topics that were identified of particular interest from the earlier open house.

I thought the sessions were well-managed. The participants, even when they disagreed, were thoughtful and considerate of other opinions. All in all it was well done and should help with the strategic planning process. A draft plan is expected by the end of the summer, with the final Strategic Plan approved by yearend.

It was interesting to see that one of the six topics for discussion concerned a swimming pool complex. There is a surge of interest in the community, mostly from outside Parry Sound as I can tell, to build a swimming pool complex.

Personally I am neutral to negative on this initiative. In theory a pool would be quite nice. But like a puppy, pools come with long-term responsibilities and costs. A pool would probably cost on the order of $750,000 per year to operate, not including the initial capital costs, or annual inflation.

The question is who will pay for this. Participants who reside in the neighbouring communities were not unanimous in suggesting their municipality would support a pool with tax revenues. Information at the meeting suggested that perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 people would take memberships, and cover about three-quarters of the operating costs. That’s about 10% to 20% of the target audience. Assuming a middle figure, 1,500 members, the annual cost for a per-person membership would be about $300, perhaps $1,000 for a family with kids. These are my estimated costs, and were not provided at the session on Tuesday.

Hmm, how many people have that type of money to spend on a pool membership? In practice swimming in Parry Sound from June through September is free. I guess the higher paid hospital staff can afford a pool membership. It’s possible that the hospital might even subsidize memberships as a ‘health’ initiative. It’s not so obvious how others might afford the cost. There certainly will be some that can and will, but 1,500? The outlying communities can’t necessarily be expected to support a pool because of travel challenges in the winter. Some will find travel not to be an issue, but some seniors will find it to be an unreasonable burden driving into Parry Sound unless it’s connected with shopping or a doctor’s visit. And will these seniors expect a discounted rate? They seem to get it for all sorts of services. (Disclosure: I’m a pre-senior, and will be eligible for any senior benefits if a pool were to be built.)

The real issue concerns who will pay for the very real shortfall in revenue to operate the pool complex. The neighbouring municipalities are quite happy to have their residents enjoy facilities offered by Parry Sound, but are they willing to step up and pay their share, especially if membership revenue falls well short of forecast? And what about ten and twenty years from now when any facility will require capital repairs and upgrades? Might they step away from the arrangement and build a smaller complex in their own municipality, at lower cost?

Experience to date does not support the idea that Parry Sound’s municipal partners will be there to share the load. They will argue any assessment be based on non-seasonal residents so as to cut their obligations. And taking the West Parry Sound District Museum as an example, which was formed by agreement of the seven local communities, only five now still provide support. And the total funding is two-thirds of what it was ten years ago. How many people buy a puppy for their kids and a year or two later decide it’s too much trouble and too expensive so they take it out to the country and let it loose, or drop it off at the local animal shelter? Well Parry Sound would probably end up playing the animal shelter role.

It’s human nature to sign up for things and then change your mind. Think about fitness club memberships. That pool membership may not seem to be something you really need or want after a couple of years of not using it as much as you thought. Sort of like sports season tickets to any team not called the Maple Leafs. How are the Argonauts season tickets doing?

Then there is the question of the full population supporting the interests of a few. Remember that 10% to 20% figure for people who would join the pool. That means the rest of us would be responsible for providing them with a benefit we have no interest in. We Parry Sounders already subsidize the Stockey Centre and Bobby Orr Community Centre to the tune of $500,000 per year. Do I play hockey? No. Do I care for live music? No. But I’m still obligated to subsidize those who do through my property taxes. Do our municipal neighbours help pay for this? No, and that’s okay. They didn’t sign up for it, we did.

Back to dogs. Twice bitten, third time shy.

Despite the tone of this post I’m not against a pool. I just don’t want to pay for one. I would be delighted to have Seguin, McDougall or Carling take the lead and build a pool in their municipality. They have lots of land for this type of complex. Wait, they don’t have water or sewer services. So it’s back to Parry Sound to hold the bag on this one.

I would like to have the regional municipalities build and subsidize a ski hill so I wouldn’t have to drive to Collingwood. Like a pool it would support physical activity and improve the health of the community, or at least my health. It would probably also act as a lure for physicians who won’t come because we don’t have a ski hill close by. The logic for more and more is endless, and in its own way persuasive.

Lots of arguments, but who will pay, and how much? Are we really expected to subsidize the interests and hobbies of the few? We can’t afford to provide subsidized transportation for people to get to medical appointments, but people want us to afford a swimming pool? Let’s see how this plays out.

Incoming – Duck! (Parry Sound in Black & White)

Redwood1890-20150526-_PM20050_DxO