• Home
  • About
  • Council Minutes – Compiled
  • Parry Sound Area Reports and Resources

Parry Sounds

~ Ideas, Opinions and 'Green Shoots' In and Around Parry Sound

Parry Sounds

Tag Archives: Archipelago

Sunshine List – Expanded Summary

24 Tuesday Mar 2020

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Budget/Financial

≈ Comments Off on Sunshine List – Expanded Summary

Tags

Archipelago, Carling, McDougall, parry sound, Seguin, Whitestone

By popular demand here are the figures for all of the West Parry Sound District. There are some interesting observations to be made.

  1. The CAOs for the most part all make the same money. For other positions it seems the Town of Parry Sound is at the low end of salaries, notably Public Works. I wonder if Mr. Kearns took a pay cut to take a similar position in the Town of Parry Sound. Perhaps next year’s list will tell us. He has much greater responsibilities in his new position (water (supply and sewer), facilities, …). Even sidewalks and traffic lights are a challenge he didn’t face in his last position. It seems we were underpaying out last Director of Public Works.
  2. The Archipelago certainly has a larger number of ‘chiefs’ for the population they serve when compared with the other municipalities. They also have the best Christmas party from what I’m told.
  3. The Town of Parry Sound actually has a smaller total considering that it is responsible for the largest population, provides many more services, and supplies oversight for a number of district services, most notably EMS.

In the case of Carling, McKellar and McDougall it could be that they have a number of employees just below the $100K cut-off for reporting. It also could be that they replaced staff in 2019. Salaries are reported by individual, not position. That means a person who was earning $120K per year and left the end of October would have only earned 3/4 of a full-year salary or $90K, and would not have been reported.

 

Council Agenda Preview – May 7, 2019

05 Sunday May 2019

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ Comments Off on Council Agenda Preview – May 7, 2019

Tags

Agenda, Archipelago, By-Law, Fire Department, Growth, parry sound, Planning, Rezoning, safety, Town Council

This is a rather remarkable Town of Parry Sound council meeting with only a single resolution on the agenda.

Notable Items:

4.4 & Closed Session (c) – There seems to be activity afoot to sell the CP Station to the Festival of the Sound. It will be interesting to see what terms are agreed. For everything that the Festival provides for the Town it is interesting to see how much they are still dependent on the Town for direct and indirect support. It’s like having a 40-year child coming back for handouts.

10.3.3 – It looks as though we will have a Best Western in town. It will add another hundred or so beds. How many more beds have been created in town with the general acceptance of Airbnb? I hope the private individuals who are playing the Airbnb game have their fire detectors up to date. Is this something the Fire Department monitors? Do we have a safety issue hiding in plain sight?

Closed Session
(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; (CP Station)

Public Meeting
2.1 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Z/19/03 – 32 Riverdale Road. (Laforme/Hubert).
2.2 – Proposed fee for the consideration of Alternative Solutions as defined by the Ontario Building Code.

Correspondence
4.1 – Ontario BIA Association. Notice of Award at the 2019 OBIAA Conference to the Parry Sound DBA in the Special Events + Promotions – Small category judged on five BIA pillars: Innovation, Replication, Representation, Outcome, and Accessibility.
4.2 – Township of Seguin. Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 9 Recreational Water Quality Model Update.
4.4 – Scott Scarrow, Board member, Granite Harbour. Granite Harbour waste collection concerns.

Deputations
5.1
– Ian Fleming, Alison Scarrow, Dan DiNicolo, Donald Sanderson, John Sallinen, Festival of the Sound Board. Future of the CP Station/Festival Office.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff
9.4.1
– Appointment as a WPS SMART Member. Resolution. That Clayton Harris, the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer be appointed as a member of WPS SMART to represent the Town, replacing the former representative, Rob Mens, the former CAO.

By-laws
10.1.1
– Financial Assistance to Elderly Persons Centres. Direction. To process the grant payment to Parry Sound Seniors Club in the amount of $5,000, as approved through the 2019 Budget Process, being 100% of the budget for Seniors Assistance; and Provide correspondence to the Parry Sound Seniors Club indicating the October 31 deadline for their annual grant requests; and encourage the Club review their membership’s place of residence and request financial support from those area communities as well.
By-law 2019 – 6917. Being a By-law to revoke By-law 2001-4399 regarding an out-dated funding provision for an Elderly Persons Centre.
10.1.2 – Appointment of Treasurer. By-law 2019 – 6921. Being a By-law to appoint Stephanie Phillips as Treasurer of the Town of Parry Sound.
10.3.1 – Pointe au Baril EMS Base. By-law 2019 – 6918. Being a By-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Township of The Archipelago for the use and occupation of the EMS Base located at 70 South Shore Rd., Pointe au Baril.
10.3.2 – Primary Public Safety Answering Point. By-law 2019 – 6920. Being a By-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the OPP for the provision of 9-1-1 Primary PSAP Services.
10.3.3 – Rezoning Application – Z/19/02 – Pine Drive (John Jackson Planner Inc. on Behalf of V.G. Cox Limited). By-law 2019-6922. Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 2004-4653 (The Zoning By-law), as amended, for Pine Drive (John Jackson Planner Inc. on Behalf of V.G. Cox Limited)
Direction for Staff Follow-up: That staff be directed to bring forward pole sign renewal until January 31, 2045 for Oastler Park Shopping Plaza Limited.
10.4.1 – Georgian Nordic Paddling MOU RE: William Street Park for Paddling Training Centre. By-law 2019 – 6919. Being a by-law to approve the memorandum of understanding with Georgian Nordic Paddling for use of William Street Park as a paddling training centre.

 

West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 4 (Crude Models)

10 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Amalgamation, Budget/Financial, Parry Sound

≈ Comments Off on West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 4 (Crude Models)

Tags

Amalgamation, Archipelago, Carling, McDougall, McKellar, parry sound, Seguin, Taxes

It’s time to take a look at how the amalgamation numbers shake out. Step One – take a deep breath. Step Two – be patient as you review the numbers. There are two scenarios, each of which are presented with two different sets of assumptions. These are not the final figures but are the easiest to model and understand. There will be additional scenarios presented in the next post that hopefully better model what amalgamation might mean for the individual municipalities. But, let’s start simple and work from there.

Key Assumptions and Descriptors:

  1. There are two basic scenarios, Scenario 1A with the five core municipalities – Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Parry Sound and Seguin. Scenario 2A has the core five municipalities plus Archipelago. This second scenario is a change in direction from an earlier post where I said I would not include the Archipelago. My decision to include a scenario with Archipelago results from my look at the Muskoka model. In Muskoka there are very urban and very non-urban centres, not unlike West Parry Sound. During the amalgamation process it was obviously felt that Muskoka Lakes was not that different and would benefit from, and contribute to, the district.
  2. Each of Scenario 1 and 2 are a simple summing of the tax revenues for all of the municipalities divided by the total assessment for the 5 and 6 municipality scenarios. This is a very crude first estimate and sure to raise complaints in a couple of the municipalities. Additional scenarios, 1B and 2B, are presented showing the impact of an overall 10% savings with amalgamation. I suspect that this is too optimistic but is worth sharing.
  3. The numbers presented include both the dollar and percentage increases and decreases for each scenario. There are enough figures provided to permit the interested person to work out their own numbers or simply check mine.
  4. The scenarios present the Residential tax rate figures, but the percentages can generally be applied to the Commercial and Industrial tax rates. To simplify the tables, a single $250,000 assessment is used for calculation purchases. For a $500,000 assessment just multiply by 2. For those lucky folks in Seguin, Carling and Archipelago multiply by 5, 10, 20 or 50 as appropriate.
  5. The scenarios also include Education taxes which have the same rate for all municipalities. Education taxes are a much higher proportion of total taxes in Seguin, Carling and Archipelago than the other municipalities.

Scenario 1A

This scenario is a simple add and divide exercise. All of the property tax revenues for Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Parry Sound and Seguin were added up and divided by the sum of the assessments for these municipalities. Here are the numbers.

Quick Comments:

  1. I can imagine the howls coming from Seguin and they are deafening. On the other hand, the people in Carling are saying – okay, that’s much better than I imagined. In Parry Sound the response is “YES”. The folks in McKellar are voicing complaints, but what’s new?
  2. This is the crudest of the calculations and does not properly reflect what would be seen with a well thought out amalgamation process. Future scenarios will try and model something more sophisticated that takes account of service levels.

Scenario 1B

This scenario is the same simple add and divide exercise. All of the property tax revenues for Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Parry Sound and Seguin were added up and the total was reduced by 10% to reflect some sort of amalgamation savings. As was the case for the previous scenario this figure was divided by the sum of the assessments for these municipalities.

Quick Comments:

  1. Okay, these numbers are a bit better for Seguin, but doubtless still unacceptable to a municipality that is addicted to low tax rates. McKellar ends up pretty much neutral and there are savings in Carling, McDougall, and Parry Sound.
  2. Scenario 1B sees that $250,000 property in Seguin paying an additional $342 per year. That’s a 26% increase over the current property tax rate. The same assessed Parry Sound property owner is seeing a $1,900 decrease.

Scenario 2A

This scenario uses the same approach as 1A and adds up the property tax revenues for Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Parry Sound, and Seguin plus Archipelago which is then divided by the sum of the assessments for these municipalities.

Quick Comments:

  1. Now the folks in Archipelago are howling and the Seguin folks are not any happier with only $100 shaved off the scenario without Archipelago. The folks in Carling, McDougall and Parry Sound all have smiles, some bigger than others. The folks in McKellar are sulking.

Scenario 2B

This scenario is the same as Scenario 2A with a 10% savings in the total amalgamated expenses as discussed earlier.

Quick Comments:

  1. The Seguin tax increase under Scenario 2B is $250 for a $250,000 property, about a 0.1% increase on the basis of the property value and 19% more than the pre amalgamation taxes. Archipelago goes up $200 or 15% for the same property. Carling and McDougall see not insignificant decreases and Parry Sound can’t believe their luck. McKellar is seeing a savings for the first time under an amalgamation scenario.

The Fine Print

Did I mention that these are crude estimates and will benefit from some tinkering? One of the obvious areas of tinkering has to do with garbage service. I’ll try to adjust for that in the next set of scenarios. There are also other adjustments that would seem to be reasonable to include. Overall, I’m not sure that these adjustments will make the people in Archipelago and Seguin much happier, but I think there is another way to make the increased cost of amalgamation worth considering for all municipalities. I’ll get to that two posts from now, #6 in this series.

McKellar, I am teasing you for your general demeanor when it comes to cooperation with area municipalities. Much of that attitude was seen in the behaviour of the two previous councils. How can we forget the entertaining coverage of council meetings and ‘Business Cardgate’ by the North Star? I am hopeful that the new council will take a more outward looking approach to regional cooperation. Reputation rests not on what you are now, or what you hope to be. It rests on what you have done. That can be changed for the better.

Supplemental Reading

So why does Parry Sound have such a large property tax burden in proportion to its assessment? There are some reasons worth understanding or considering.

Parry Sound Shot Itself in the Foot

  1. One of the biggest costs for Parry Sound is associated with the losses arising from the operations of the Bobby Orr Community Centre and the Stockey Centre. Together they account for about $600,000 or 5% of the annual tax bill. The Stockey Centre underwent renovations, roof and siding, last year that amounted to about $1.2 million. The Bobby Orr Community Centre had roof repairs that exceeded $100,000 and an expansion will cost close to $1 million. (I’m plugging in these numbers from memory. Feel free to send me a note with corrections.) Personally, I only get into the Bobby Orr Community Centre once a year for the Mayor’s Levee. I don’t think that I have been inside the Stockey Centre, or on the deck, in two years. But it costs me $250 annually in taxes to support these facilities. The Town would be better off selling both facilities for $1 and taking the savings. What would that do for the local and larger community? I suspect that West Parry Sound would be poorer without these facilities. There wouldn’t be the Festival which appeals to many of the seasonal residents in the surrounding municipalities. Do we need really another Pink Floyd or Eagles ‘note for note’ album performance? People must like it because they keep coming back, again and again. What about the community events hosted at the Stockey Centre? Parry Sound effectively subsidizes people who will be attending the upcoming Gordon Lightfoot concert. It promises to be a remarkable show in an intimate setting and without the added cost and time to travel to a Sudbury, Barrie or Toronto performance? Could locals even get decent tickets to these events in another urban centre? Do events like the visiting bonspiels, the Hockey Canada event or even local minor hockey cover their true costs? Of course not, it’s the right thing to do for the town and the larger community.
  2. The big box stores were effectively subsidized by Parry Sound. It seemed like a better deal at the time than it was. When push came to shove the town was obliged to take on considerable unbudgeted infrastructure expenses for services that support the much larger West Parry Sound community. And in the last couple of years these big box stores won a court case provincially that reduced their assessments by about a third. The difference in tax revenue directly hit the Parry Sound tax rates. Our neighbours? They just tell us how lucky we are to have them patronizing these stores.

For the Greater Good

Remember that sign as you head south on 400 and head into Simcoe County? “For the Greater Good” It should be Parry Sound’s motto.

  1. As I have noted earlier Parry Sound hosts many if not all of the local social service facilities. These institutions do not pay any local property taxes yet expect a full suite of services. More importantly, they occupy high value land that could be generating tax revenue to support services.
  2. Hosting schools is not without local Town of Parry Sound cost. In addition to occupying what is often prime real estate and not paying property taxes, these facilities use town resources and incur town supported expenses. The town is obliged to do extensive review to approve the building permits for these public facilities. The costs are not covered by any fees that might be charged. More importantly, these facilities often require infrastructure upgrades that are the responsibility of the town. The recently built William Beatty School presented the town with many infrastructure costs that were not budgeted or covered by the school board. And the conversion of the old school to affordable housing and a community hub has come with surprises in addition to the taxpayer infrastructure costs that came with the conversion. Now the organization behind the property renovation is petitioning to be exempted from property taxes. Their logic follows the thread that the property was not previously taxed as a school so it shouldn’t be now. With that type of logic I would be against any further efforts to provide public low income housing in Parry Sound. Low income housing like many other social issues is not a Parry Sound issue, it is a district issue, but as usual Parry Sound bears the brunt of the administration and infrastructure costs. And it trickles down to the taxpayer.
  3. Parry Sound is also home to the District Court House. That honour comes with a $50,000 or so annual bill for OPP protection. This is a district resource but a Parry Sound cost.
  4. Parry Sound also provides management oversight at the staff and council levels for district wide services such as EMS.
  5. And then there is the West Parry Sound District Hospital. They don’t pay property taxes yet require town resources. I would imagine that Parry Sound provided considerable infrastructure support at no cost to the hospital when it was built. Another rub for me at least is that most of the high-end folks working at the hospital, let’s say more than 90%, do not live and pay taxes in Parry Sound but rather support the tax base of the neighbouring municipalities. I don’t blame them. Why pay higher taxes and have to deal with the noise and the stink of a railway close by?

Possibilities

Four ideas that come to mind that can help address the imbalance of support for services that impact the whole West Parry Sound community.

  1. Go forward with amalgamation. It not only seems a reasonable way to address current imbalances, but it provides the basis to make the whole district better by providing for a shared vision of a larger community.
  2. Tack on a 1% salary levy to folks who work in Parry Sound that would be remitted to Parry Sound. If you pay property taxes in Parry Sound that amount would be deducted from your property taxes. If you live in one of the area municipalities you would not have the deduction, unless your municipality wanted to subsidize it. That’s the situation I faced when I lived in one township and worked in another in Pennsylvania. The tax was used by the township I worked in to pay for the required infrastructure to support the businesses. The 1% tax was deducted at source.
  3. Add 1% to the local sales tax for purchases in Parry Sound. This would be a relatively minor cost and would be remitted to Parry Sound. Heck, just 1% of the purchases at the LCBO and the Beer Store would probably go a long way to helping cover the many infrastructure costs assumed by Parry Sound.
  4. Add 1% to the bill for local services. That might range from tax preparation to massages to dental services. Would people start driving to Bracebridge to save 1% for a massage or an eye check up?

It’s always fun to ride for free or at a discount. But someone has to pay the bill. Right now that’s Parry Sound residents and businesses. If the community at large is to prosper we need to have everyone paying their fair share.

In the next post I look at the impact of adjusting the numbers presented earlier to account for differing service levels.

West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 3 (Muskoka Model)

07 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Amalgamation, Budget/Financial, Parry Sound

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Amalgamation, Archipelago, Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Muskoka, parry sound, Seguin, Taxes

I’m glad that I didn’t try and squeeze the Muskoka Model into the last post. The District Municipality of Muskoka (Muskoka) presents a complex model of amalgamation, at least to this rookie. I will provide a superficial overview of the tax rate structure for Muskoka with the hope of better understanding how amalgamation might be implemented between Carling, McDougall, McKellar, Parry Sound and Seguin.

This post is neither a graduate thesis nor a consulting (paid) project so I will stick to top level assessments and comments and not bother with detailed research. I am comfortable that this first level examination will provide generally valid observations.

The Basics

Muskoka is composed of district municipalities.

Table 1 – Muskoka Demographics and Assessments

There are all sorts of interesting observations that can be made with this limited dataset. The key points that jump out at me are:

  1. This is a diverse municipality in terms of population and assessments.
  2. Individually the property assessment values of the individual urban centres are on a par with the more rural and cottage areas despite a considerable population difference.
  3. And then there is Muskoka lakes with 11% of the district municipality population and 37% of the assessment value. That has some similarities with the West Parry Sound District.
  4. Wow – Muskoka has almost $25 billion is assessments.

Well that’s a start and it’s time to slice up the data. I could overwhelm you right now and post up a simplified summary of the Muskoka Tax Rates. But I did not do that. You can find the tables at the end of the post for those who don’t believe what follows or want to do their own analysis.

Muskoka Tax Rates

Muskoka has separate tax rate schedules for all six of the district municipalities. These schedules have twelve different property classes. (The simplified summary only lists the three most important classes.) In addition to different tax rates for six municipalities there are five schedules for different services that are provided/taxed by Muskoka. Not all properties in all municipalities are subject to all tax schedules. (Yes, the details are complex but it’s not too hard to get a general grasp of the intent.)

Table 2 – Tax Rates and Applicability, Muskoka

General Tax Rates & Levies

In seems that all of the properties in all district municipalities are subject to, and pay, the same tax rates for general services and the hospital capital fund. The latter is an interesting concept for those of us who pay Parry Sound taxes and effectively subsidize a hospital that benefits all area residents and cottagers. It amounts to about $400,000 annually in Muskoka. It has been suggested to me that because of the area residents/cottagers we enjoy a better hospital than if they weren’t present. (Yup, because you have kids you get a government subsidy. Well, that covers their costs and makes life so much easier doesn’t it?)

The net/net is that if you have a home in Bracebridge or a cottage on Lake Muskoka your basic tax rate is the same regardless of the level of general services, and value, you believe you are receiving.

Waste Management Tax Rates & Levies

There are differences in Muskoka when it comes to the add on services, water, sewer and garbage. All properties in all municipalities pay for garbage services. But the waste management tax rate varies in terms of what municipality the property is located. The rate is highest in Bracebridge and is a bit lower in Gravenhurst (-10%) and Huntsville (-5%). Why? It’s probably an issue of service levels. The garbage tax rate in Georgian Bay is about the same as in Huntsville. For Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes the garbage rate is about 40% of that in the highest municipality, Bracebridge. Again, that probably represents different service levels. The important thing to note is that irrespective of the tax rate for waste management services, all properties in all municipalities pay for this service at a higher or lower tax rate.

Urban Areas A – Water Services

Things are different when it comes to water services. Water supply it seems is not available to all properties in all municipalities. That means some properties do not have a water assessment associated with their properties. For example, even in Bracebridge only a third of the assessed value of properties are taxed for water services. The figure is much lower in the nonurban municipalities. In Lake of Bays about 1% of the assessment is subject to water taxes. For all of Muskoka only 17% of assessed value is subject to this tax.

Urban Areas A – Sewer Services

A similar situation is seen with sewer services although it is not exactly the same. Why, I’m not sure and won’t investigate it further. The net/net is that if you have sewer service you pay in your tax bill. It’s also likely that the properties that receive Muskoka water and sewer services also pay for consumption. I can’t imagine that a car wash would be flat rated. In total about 15% of the assessed value in Muskoka is subject to sewer services taxes. It’s important to note that the Sewer Services rate, where applicable, is the most expensive of the services except for the General Taxes & Levy. In Bracebridge the sewer rate is 73% of the general levy rate. That is remarkably high and probably reflects the cost of replacing decaying infrastructure.

Muskoka Rates Summarized

With an understanding of what might be included in a property tax bill it’s time to look at the rates. These will be very top-level figures. Remember that tax rates are assigned by property class. These property class tax rates are the same in all municipalities when it comes to General Taxes and Hospital Capital Funding. For this discussion we will look only at the Residential, Commercial and Industrial property classes.

Table 3 – Muskoka General Tax Rates & Levies (2017)

Some quick analysis of the above table. Residential properties account for 93% of the Assessments and the same proportion of the taxes collected within rounding errors. This is reflected in part by the small premium, about 9%, charged to Commercial and Industrial properties. The discrepancy in the rounded figures, if you are wondering, is accounted for by the contribution of the other classes not included in the table above, for example Landfill, Pipelines, Farmlands and Managed Forest. It’s also worth noting that the Commercial and Industrial rates are the same.

Overall Muskoka Tax Rates

It’s possible to put together a highest and lowest tax rate for properties in Muskoka. This is done by adding the highest rates for a property that would be fully serviced (Water, Garbage and Sewer) and comparing it with a property that only is required to pay the General Tax Rate, Hospital Capital and Garbage (at the lowest rate).

Muskoka Tax Rates 2017

Table 4 – Highest Rate Possible (Bracebridge, 2017)

Table 5 – Lowest Rate Possible with Full Services (Muskoka Lakes, 2017)

Table 6 – Lowest Rate Possible with No Services (Muskoka Lakes, 2017)

The tables above summarize the tax rates depending on the services received. They define the high, the low and a middle scenario. It is possible to be located where there are no water or sewer services and that makes a huge difference on the tax bill. Depending on where the property is located the waste tax rate is higher or lower, but there is always a charge.

Total Tax Rates – Muskoka Versus Selected West Parry Sound Municipalities

The obvious next step is to compare these rates with those for the various municipalities outlined in the previous posts. In the case of the West Parry Sound municipalities the tax rates are what they are and are applied to all properties depending on class. The services provided for each municipality are defined by the municipalities themselves. The real tangible difference in terms of service concerns waste management. Parry Sound has curbside pickup once a week and this cost is included in the base tax rate. The other municipalities offer ‘bag and drag’ service to the local municipal waste facility. In theory at least, Parry Sound does not include charges for water and sewer services in the tax rate. These are accounted for separately and charged directly to the user. I’m not sure if there isn’t some ‘bleed’ into the tax rate. But a residence with a $200,000 assessment would pay about $1,300 per year for water and sewer service above the tax bill. That equals an effective rate of about 0.00650. For a $400,000 assessment it’s .00325 and for an $800,000 assessment it’s .00162. In Muskoka you pay a fixed rate on your assessment not a flat fee. Should a property assessed at $800,000 pay more for water and sewer services than a $100,000 property if they use the same service amounts? I’ll let you think about that.

Other than the items noted above the rates are broadly comparable with the understanding that the Parry Sound rates are even higher in comparison to Muskoka if you add in the water and sewer bills. Note – none of these tax rates include any Education Taxes.

Table 7 – Tax Rate Comparison, Muskoka and Selected West Parry Sound (2017)

Okay there you have it. Some quick comments:

  1. Parry Sound has by far the highest overall tax rates for Residential properties. It’s not even close. It’s the same case for Commercial properties. With Industrial properties Parry Sound is not that far from some other West Parry Sound municipalities but well above Muskoka .
  2. Seguin and Archipelago Residential tax rates aren’t that much higher than the lowest Muskoka rates, about 10% more. I assume that these are often seasonal cottage, albeit $10 million cottage, type properties. The same is true for Commercial and Industrial properties in the lowest tax areas, all of which probably enjoy the same service levels.
  3. I wonder how much the highest rates in Muskoka, presumably for the urban centres, are moderated by the high assessment value of the non-urban properties. The non-urban municipalities in Muskoka account for 65% of the total Muskoka residential assessment base. Since there is only one rate for all Muskoka properties regardless of their municipality it is possible to imagine that urban properties might well have a 20-30% higher tax rate if they were required to fund themselves.

Enough of the foreplay. In the next post we’ll start looking at amalgamation in West Parry Sound. After looking at all the numbers for Muskoka I think that I’ll put together a series of scenarios. It’s probably not as simple as adding all the numbers together, adding in a little bit of cost savings and dividing by the total amalgamated assessment value. But I’ll probably start with that to get everyone in the area who doesn’t live in Parry Sound hot and frothy. (It’s cold out there.)

Here are the more detailed Muskoka tax rates noted earlier. (Click on the image for a larger, easier to read, version.)

 

West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 2 (Analysis)

06 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Amalgamation, Budget/Financial, Parry Sound

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Amalgamation, Archipelago, Carling, McDougall, McKellar, parry sound, Seguin, Taxes

This post follows up Part 1 which laid down much of the financial information required to understand what amalgamation might mean for the municipalities of West Parry Sound. Here is a link to the first post. The intent of this second post is to add a little more colour to the numbers along with some general observations and commentary.

In response to a few comments to the first post I want to categorically state that it is not my intention to make a case for, or against, amalgamation. What I am hoping to do is provide a framework for better understanding the implications of amalgamation. It’s bit like a pre-Brexit analysis. In the case of what was to become called Brexit I believe too many people voted without the benefit of any real analysis or understanding of the implications for and against. Their vote was mostly based on whether they held a ‘screw the EU’ or an ‘EU is our future’ mindset based on their personal experience, advertising and ‘gut feelings’.

I am in a situation where I understand the Town of Parry Sound budget reasonably well and the underlying expenses. I am hard pressed to find fault in the budget decisions that Council has made that underlie the current Parry Sound tax rates. The cost is what it is, and I am able to afford my property taxes. Any reduction in taxes through amalgamation would not have an impact on my quality of life. I do understand that this is not the case for many others in Parry Sound or one of the other communities.

Okay, let’s look at the numbers and perhaps tease out some meaning.

Tax Rates

In the previous post I laid out the more important tax rates for the municipalities. I won’t go into details about the relative tax levels of the municipalities. The Town of Parry Sound has the highest overall tax rates by far, with Seguin and Archipelago having the lowest. Perhaps more relevant is understanding the property class tax rates set by individual municipalities.

Table 1 below is an expanded version of Table 1 from the first post (Part 1). It provides a summary of the various municipal property and educational tax rates and the premium charged to the Commercial and Industrial classes relative to the Residential Rate. For example, in the case of Carling the Industrial Property Tax Rate is 2.6 times that of the Residential Property Tax Rate.

Table 1 – Residential, Commercial and Industrial Tax Rates (Selected West Parry Sound District Municipalities 2017)

Table 2 – Residential, Commercial and Industrial Tax Rates Factors (Selected West Parry Sound District Municipalities 2017)

Note: Residential Tax Rate is assigned a value of 1 for each of the municipalities. Comparisons are only valid within a single municipality and tax rate class.

I am not familiar with the details of what limitations municipalities have in assigning taxation rates by class. I recall discussions at Parry Sound Council where it was mentioned that there were provincial guidelines on how much the various property class rates could be adjusted. Nonetheless, it seems that all the municipalities consistently place higher tax rates, Property and Education, on Commercial (i.e., Walmart, Fireplace & Leisure Centre…) and Industrial (i.e., Connor industries, Shaw-Almex …) properties in comparison with Residential properties.

Commercial Property Tax Rates

The premiums for Commercial Property Tax Rates vary from a low of 1.1x in Seguin and Archipelago to a high of 1.9x in McKellar versus the Residential Rate in that municipality. An even larger premium is seen with Education Rates which range from a low of 1.4x in McDougall to a high of 4.8x in Parry Sound. Combined, the Property and Education Rate premiums for the Commercial Property tax rates vary from a low of 1.9x in Carling, Seguin and Archipelago to a high of 3.1x in McKellar.

Industrial Property Tax Rates

The premiums for Industrial tax rates relative to the Residential Rates vary from a low of 1.1x in Archipelago to a high of 2.6x in Carling and McDougall. The Education Tax Rates premiums for Industrial Properties range from a low of 3.7x in Parry Sound to a high of 7.8x in Seguin. The combined rate premiums range from a low of 1.8x in Parry Sound to a high of 4.1x in Seguin.

What these differences mean is hard to understand without some sense of intent. Here are some thoughts:

Carling and McDougall – tax rates seem to be much more favourable for Commercial rather than Industrial properties. Is this an intentional attempt to encourage Industrial businesses to look to other area municipalities to establish their businesses? It’s not clear to me how properties in the industrial park in Carling are taxed. They may well enjoy some tax benefits or reduced costs for land and or services.

McKellar – the tax rates for Industrial and Commercial properties are essentially the same. The overall McKellar Industrial Tax Rate is the lowest in the area with the exception of Archipelago, which isn’t part of the amalgamation scenario and obviously offers many fewer amenities.

Parry Sound – the tax rates for Commercial is among the lowest in relation to the Residential Property Tax Rates at 2.0x. The Industrial Tax Rate is the lowest at 1.8 times the Residential Property Tax Rate. Given that the Parry Sound tax rates are so much higher than all the other municipalities this lower premium is of no real competitive significance. The Commercial Rate for Parry Sound is almost three times that of Carling and Seguin and twice that of McDougall. This may help explain the apparent interest of businesses to establish a commercial presence in Seguin on the outskirts of Parry Sound. A $1 million property would pay on average about $10,000 less in property and education taxes annually and still be within walking distance of the south end big box centres. With respect to Industrial Tax Rates, Parry Sound actually has a tax rate comparable to that of McDougall and an overall property and education tax rate about 25% higher than the other municipalities, with the exception of Archipelago. This may explain some of the attraction of industrial businesses to locate in Parry Sound if they require certain services. A $1 million assessment would only cost $5,000 per year more in Property and Education Taxes in Parry Sound relative to other municipalities.

Seguin – with the lowest Residential Tax Rates in the area, excepting Archipelago, it either is seemingly discouraging industrial development with its much higher taxes on industrial properties (4x Residential Tax Rates), or attempting to have these businesses take some of the tax load off of residential property owners.

Property Tax and Municipality Population

So, how much Property Tax do the various municipalities collect as a function of the population they serve; their residents? In the case of Parry Sound the town actually ‘serves’ more people than the official population but that is a point not everyone would agree with, so I will raise it and let it rest in the same sentence.

Table 3 – Weighted Assessments, Property Tax Revenues and Population Figures (Selected West Parry Sound District Municipalities 2017)

Note: Numbers in this table are taken from Table 1 in Part 1 of this series. Sources and explanations can be found there.
1. “Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables, 2016 Census”. Statistics Canada. February 8, 2017. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Ontario) sourced 2019-03-04.
2. Calculated by dividing Property Tax Collected by Population.

There are some major differences in the tax collected by the various municipalities. On the low-end Parry Sound and McDougall collect about $1,500 in Property Taxes per resident to provide the necessary services. That figure increases by 70% when you get to McKellar’s and Seguin’s $2,700 per resident. There is then a large jump up to Carling’s $5,500 followed by a hop, skip and jump to reach Archipelago’s almost $21,000.

In some cases the differences can be accounted for the size of these municipalities and the relative lack of efficiency related to size. You still need one mayor, one CAO and so on to service a population of 1,100 or 6,000. You may pay these folks a bit less, but not one-sixth of the amount in Seguin or Parry Sound. That type of basic service cost does impact the smaller municipalities budgets. Another reason may be related to seasonal residents, the cottagers. These people still require services that aren’t accounted for in the official population count and obviously skew the per capita cost figures.

Attention though should be paid to where a municipality with a considerable seasonal population under invests in a particular budget area as calculated using the permanent resident basis (Table 3). Assigning seasonal residents a one half or one quarter equivalent weighting would certainly change the results. I may do that type of analysis in a separate post. I can imagine the results but have not yet run the numbers.

What is obvious is the efficiency with which Parry Sound and McDougall are operated and the benefits of urbanization. For all of the grief that Parry Sound receives for its higher taxes it seems to put its tax revenues to good work whether by keeping expenses low or capturing revenue other than through property taxes. I regularly shake my head when people outside the Town of Parry Sound suggest that the Town is not properly managing its budget and that this is the cause of its higher taxes.

Enough of these numbers, let’s take a look at how the municipalities spend their money.

Expenditures by Line Item

It’s possible to look at the financial statements for the municipalities and get an idea of how their spending compares on some common line expenses. It’s not possible to compare their total budgets because in a number of cases Parry Sound collects and books revenues and expenses for the municipalities. This is the case of EMS and POA court costs. There are other line item expenses that are more directly comparable and are presented below.

Table 4 – Expense Lines (Selected West Parry Sound District Municipalities 2017)

  1. Estimated values for McDougall. 2017 Financial Statements not posted as of 2019-03-04. It’s possible that the McDougall figures are low on the Protection to Persons / Property expense line.

Table 5 – Expense Lines Normalized for Permanent Residents (Selected West Parry Sound District Municipalities 2017)

Let’s start with some general similarities:

  1. Transportation Services sees the municipalities spending similarly high amounts on a per resident basis to keep the roads patched and cleared in the winter. Parry Sound and McDougall being more urbanized see some savings in this area.
  2. Planning and Development expenses are pretty similar except for McDougall. Perhaps there is some overlap in responsibilities in McDougall, or there is no particular investment in this area.
  3. Protection to Persons / Property is mostly similar on a per resident basis. This is a little surprising as the McKellar and Seguin have significant seasonal populations and high-end properties that require both police and fire protection. McDougall may be unreasonably low in this category because OPP rates were revised in the last couple of years and McDougall’s financial statements are not available online as of this posting.

There are some differences:

  1. General Government sees Carling and McKellar on the high side on a per resident basis. This may well be a function of a relatively smaller resident population and the need to provide a full suite of services.
  2. Social and Family Services finds Parry Sound on the very low end of this expense on a per resident basis. This is largely due to the fact that these services are charged on a weighted assessment basis, not on population. Combined with Parry Sound’s larger population the per resident expense is low. This is offset is to a large extent by the many religious, cultural and social services located in Parry Sound that use Town services but are not subject to property taxes.
  3. Recreational and Cultural Services are the opposite with respect to Parry Sound where it spends almost five times what McDougall does on a per resident basis. Why spend the money if Parry Sound is a five minute drive away? McKellar and Carling spend more in this area but still only half of what Parry Sound does. Seguin with its many community hubs and public facilities falls only a little short of Parry Sound on a per resident basis.

Here are some additional thoughts on the actual expenditure amounts:

  1. General Government: in the case of Parry Sound the expenses include a number of unique services including POA Court that make the figures hard to compare at a top line level. In many cases these figures are offset by cost sharing or revenues.
  2. Protection to Persons / Property: this is largely a combination of OPP and Fire Department costs. Because Parry Sound is home to the area hospital, a number of government buildings and high-rise residences it is obliged to have more substantial fire management equipment. The last ladder truck was more than $1 million. OPP services are also higher because of the out of towners that come into Parry Sound and shoot the place up (kidding!). But if a Carling resident comes to Parry Sound and robs a local store or is caught buying or selling drugs that cost is borne by Parry Sound. I am not familiar with the Seguin budget and can only suggest the reasons for the higher costs are similar with the exception of the need to protect high rise developments, hospital and government and social service facilities.
  3. Social and Family Services: here we see Seguin carrying the larger load. This is the result of the cruel requirement, at least in the opinion of some in Seguin, that the Belvedere Heights expenses are apportioned on the basis of Weighted Assessment. That also explains the higher expenses paid by Carling. Here is one case where the seasonal residents are shouldering more of the load for the larger area and not just their slice of heaven.
  4. Recreational and Cultural Services: this is one area where the municipalities have some ability to make decisions on what is important. In the case of Parry Sound, the Bobby Orr Community Centre, the Waterfront, numerous parks, and the Stockey Centre represent a major portion of the expense. In the case of Seguin, the community maintains a number of community centres spread over the township. I believe that Parry Sound has done its part in this area and would be looking to the other municipalities to shoulder a larger portion of any costs for an aquatic centre. Even when apportioned for population Parry Sound is far ahead of area municipalities in providing community recreation and cultural services.
  5. Planning and Development; the only outlier here seems to be McDougall. I’m not sure if they don’t believe in active planning or the expense is budgeted under another line item. Looking a little closer it’s half of Carling’s and McKellar’s expenditures so perhaps it reflects the longer-range investment in their futures.

That’s more than enough for now. I was hoping to discuss the Muskoka tax rates as a model for how an urban, rural and seasonal residence community handles the obvious differences in service levels. You wouldn’t expect to have access water and sewer services on a lake in the backwoods of Muskoka. That’s where I will head with the next post.

West Parry Sound Amalgamation – Part 1 (The Numbers)

03 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Amalgamation, Budget/Financial, Parry Sound

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Amalgamation, Archipelago, Carling, McDougall, McKellar, parry sound, Seguin, Taxes

This series of posts was stimulated by a question posed by friends of ours in McDougall during a dinner discussion. The host asked me why it would be in the interest of McDougall residents to consider amalgamation. My immediate response was that it wouldn’t be. Amalgamation I imagined would lead to a property tax increase of about 10-20% for McDougall residents. But that was a wild assed guess.

I have not seen any numbers on how amalgamation might impact the various municipalities. It is generally understood that amalgamation would benefit Town of Parry Sound residents but not the residents of the other municipalities. But there are no detailed numbers to look at. I wondered if I could do a rough pro forma estimate of the impact of amalgamation on property taxes based on the publicly available data. It turned out that I can, without too much difficulty. The results are surprising.

But as my wife would say, why get to the conclusion when there is a good story to tell. In this case I will present some of the background related to local municipal taxes. It really is hard to properly understand how amalgamation will impact the various municipalities without understanding where they are now in terms of tax rates and expenses.

Warning: if you don’t aren’t comfortable with numbers don’t venture further. There are lots of numbers and assumptions. Wait until the next post where there will be fewer numbers and some interpretation of what the numbers suggest.

Baseline Assumptions and Important Concepts

  1. The analysis of amalgamation tax rates includes: the Town of Parry Sound (Parry Sound), the Municipality of McDougall (McDougall), the Township of Seguin (Seguin), the Township of Carling (Carling) and the Township of McKellar (McKellar). The Township of the Archipelago (Archipelago) is not included. As a municipality the Archipelago is quite different than the five listed above. I also figure that they have enough old money in the municipality to wield an unreasonable amount of influence in Queen’s Park. Our local MPP has already gone on record as not supporting the Archipelago being part of any amalgamation. I have also not included the Township of Whitestone or the Township of McMurrich/Monteith because they are not only quite distant, but have better things to worry about.
  2. The tax rates used in this analysis are based on published 2017 figures. While the 2018 tax rates are public, the corresponding financial statements for the various municipalities are not yet available. Using 2017 as a basis provides relevant figures. For the most part tax rates have only increased a couple of percent in each of the municipalities.
  3. The assessment values for the various municipalities are Weighted Assessments. These are figures that are publicly disclosed, although not easy to find, and are based on 2017 values.
  4. From a tax rate calculation perspective the most important figure to consider is the Property Taxes collected by each of the municipalities. This is not the same figure as the budget figure for total revenue/expenses. The total revenue figure is the sum of property taxes collected plus grants (Provincial, Federal and other) plus revenues from charged services (building permits, water services and other). A municipality totes up all of the revenue it expects to receive from all sources other than Property Taxes and calculates the shortfall in revenue versus expenses. For example, the total municipality budget might be $18 million with $10 million coming from Grants, Charged Services and Other. That means the $8 million shortfall is collected from residents as Property Tax. This Property Tax is then assessed to property owners on the basis of the property assessed value and the tax rate. Each municipality has a variety of tax rates by property class. Residential property enjoys a lower tax rate for the same assessed property value than commercial or industrial properties. In total then the tax rate is adjusted in each municipality to bring in the needed revenue. In the example above this would amount to $8 million. This is why the Province’s cut in municipal grants has a major impact on tax rates. Any reduction in these grants obliges a municipality to either raise the Tax Rate, reduce expenses, or take on debt, to address the shortfall.
  5. A note about assessed property values. Property values are assessed by MPAC according to metrics that are supposed to be common for all municipalities in the province. A property with a 5,000 square foot home, two acres of land and 500 feet of waterfront should have the same general assessed value whether it is in the Archipelago, Seguin or on Lake Simcoe. There may be additional factors to consider but the idea is that there should be parity in property values based on inherent value of the property. This is important when setting tax rates. In the past it was possible for municipalities to play with both property assessments and tax rates. Currently municipalities have no control over what properties are valued at and can only adjust tax rates to meet their budget needs. This is particularly important for district type expenses, for example education and social services. These services are generally charged at the same rate, regardless of municipal tax rates, in each municipality based on MPAC assessed values. That means the Town of Parry Sound and Seguin and McKellar all have the same education tax rate for residential properties. There is however some difference in the tax rate according to class of property, for example residential, commercial and industrial. These numbers are shared in the analysis for the purpose of completeness.

Current (2017) Tax Rates for Select West Parry Sound Municipalities

This section is divided into three sections. Section One provides a summary of the 2017 Tax Rates for each of the municipalities. While there are a number of tax rate categories only the three most relevant categories are included. The full rates for each municipality can be easily found online. This section also provides the Education rates for each of the municipalities. This is relevant for the the third section where pro forma taxes by property value are presented for each of the municipalities. Tax Rates for the Archipelago are included for the purpose of comparison even though this municipality is not being considered in the standard amalgamation scenario.

Section Two summarizes the Weighted Assessments for each of the municipalities. Information on the Assessments by tax category is not readily available.

Section Three summarizes sample taxes for a variety of different property values for each of the municipalities and residential, commercial and industrial properties.

Section One – Current (2017) Tax Rates

Table 1 provides a summary of the tax rates by municipality and includes Property Tax and Education Tax Rates.

Table 1- 2017 Tax Rates by Municipality

 

Section Two – Weighted Assessments and Property Tax Collected (2017)

Table 2 – 2017 Weighted Assessments and Average Property Tax Rates

  1. Notes:
    Weighted Assessments are sourced from Belvedere Heights 2019 Levy Apportionment letter to Town of Parry Sound, February 27, 2019. Confirmed with Province of Ontario 2017 FIR Data by Year. (https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/fir/MultiYearReport/MYCIndex.html)
  2. Property Tax Collected figures were sourced from the individual municipality Financial Statements for 2017 as posted on their websites. These figures do not include Education Taxes. (Note: the Township of McDougall did not have their 2016 or 2017 Financial Statements posted online as of 2019-02-28 and had not posted the statements at the time of this post after being contacted about the oversight. Estimates were made on the basis of the posted 2015 and 2016 financial statements and posted budget information.)
  3. The effective tax rates were calculated by dividing the Property Tax collected by the total weighted assessments for each municipality. This total does not include Education Taxes.

Section Three- Pro Forma 2017 Taxes by Property Assessment

The tables below provide a summary of sample Property Tax, Education Tax and Total  taxes for properties in the municipalities. A selected number of assessments have been chosen for the sake of simpleness. Calculating other values is as simple as multiplying one of the defined figures by the appropriate factor. For example, a $200,000 assessment in Carling would have a Total Tax of $1,232 ((200,000/25000) x $1,540). Property and Education Taxes unlike income taxes are not progressive. The values chosen reflect a variety of real world assessment values. While there are no $1 million or $5 million residential properties in Parry Sound there are commercial and industrial properties with valuations on this order. In contrast there are a limited number of commercial properties with these valuations in McDougall, Seguin and Carling, but there certainly are numerous residential properties.

Table 3 – Residential Property Taxes for Defined Assessment Values (Pro Forma)

 

Table 4 – Commercial Property Taxes for Defined Assessment Values (Pro Forma)

 

Table 5 – Industrial Property Taxes for Defined Assessment Values (Pro Forma)

 

Reflections and Next Steps

As promised, there are lots of numbers. Getting a handle on these figures, which represent the current taxation situation, is critical to understanding where taxes and tax rates might head in the case of amalgamation.

The next post will provide some comments on the numbers presented in this post regarding the apparent similarities and differences in taxation approaches taken by the  municipalities. The next post will also take a look brief look at Muskoka and what types of ‘flexibility’ there might be with regards to amalgamation taxes.

(Note: I also link this post to Facebook for the convenience of some readers. I do not monitor comments or questions on Facebook. You can reach me by posting comments at this WordPress sight or by email – parrysounds at gmail.com.)

Council Agenda Preview – September 4, 2018

02 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ Comments Off on Council Agenda Preview – September 4, 2018

Tags

Agenda, Archipelago, By-Law, Capital Investment, DBA, parry sound, Rezoning, Stockey Centre, Town Council, Water Management

Oh boy, this is an interesting agenda from so many perspectives. But my favourite has to be Item 4.3. It’s not often where a problem can be solved in so many ways without raising Town of Parry Sound taxes. I offer some thoughts on the other matters before Council this week in the following section. The commentary section is followed by an abridged summary of the major items on the agenda as presented in the council meeting package.

4.3 – Barry Ridout, resident of the Township of The Archipelago. Complaint that Parry Sound has no public drinking water available. (Letter)
Oh dear, another out of towner who enjoys low local property taxes and no water/sewer charges that is disappointed by the Town’s cessation of providing free water taps. But there are several solutions, none of which require additional Town of Parry Sound taxpayer expense. The first is my favourite.
a) Ask your Township to provide water from their 9 James Street offices in Parry Sound. The Archipelago already has access to Town water and presumably pays commercial rates for their current water use. If they were to supply their residents with the water that some require, the building water costs would rise only a little and that small amount could be passed on in the form of slightly raised Archipelago taxes. The cost ends up being covered by the beneficiaries.
b) Support the Water Depot on Miller Street. I have to believe that they can provide bulk water at a more reasonable price than the grocery stores.
c) Contact one of the businesses you claim to spend thousands at and ask to fill up your water jugs at their business. Don’t be shy, you are their customer.

Closed Session – d) labour relations or employee negotiations. (Stockey Centre) (Union Negotiations).
I’m leaning towards supporting the unionization of the Stockey Centre. As it stands now it is a non-union Town facility that does not benefit from any existing town services for things such as maintenance, snow plowing or grass cutting. Everything is contracted out. It may cost a little bit more but it tidies things up in so many ways.

9.4.1 – Tender – Denis Drive and MacKlaim Drive Servicing.
I was surprised by this one, it’s almost a million-dollar expense that I did not remember Council approving as part of the 2018 budget. Reviewing the R&R I realized that this was part of an agreement earlier this year to cost share with a developer the expenses of providing services for a potential of 19 new lots in the Town. So, I guess that works. The Town puts up most of the money now, probably in the form of a lower cost debenture, and then gets reimbursed in part by the developer with the balance coming in the form of future tax revenue from the new properties. That type of approach mostly worked with the Granite Harbour development.

10.1.1 – Rezoning Application – Z/18/6 – 1 Joseph Street.
It looks as though the rezoning request for this new twelve unit development will be approved.

Abridged Version of the Town of Parry Sound Council Agenda of September 4. 2018

Closed Session
a) the security of property of the municipality or local board. (Audit Questions of Council)
d) labour relations or employee negotiations. (Stockey Centre) (Union Negotiations)
e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board. (Planning Matter)

Public Meeting
2.1.1 – Council will hold a public meeting to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the Planning Act, as amended. The purpose of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is the applicant has requested to amend the Special Provision 26.44 holding (SP 26.44(h)) and Residential Second Density (R2) Zones to permit up to 160 apartment dwelling units at a maximum height of 16.5 metres. The property is currently zoned to permit up to 74 retirement residence units. The property is a vacant lot on Louisa Street and described as Part of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the west side of Louisa Street on Plan 21, or more particularity described as Part 3 42R9332, Part 2 of 42R9754, and Parts 2 and 8 of 42R10238.

Correspondence
4.1 – Letter from the City of North Bay. Request to the province for more stable, long term or permanent funding to give stability to the film industry in Northern Ontario.
4.2 – Joseph Raedts, 7A Addie Street. Sale Halverston to Raedts, 7A Addie Street, Parry Sound. Concerns with Right-Of-Way.
4.3 – Barry Ridout, resident of the Township of The Archipelago. Complaint that Parry Sound has no public drinking water available.
4.4 – Rick and Jean Beckett, 10 Meadow Street. Concerns with flooding issues on their property due to changes in near by properties.

Correspondence – Zoning By-law Amendment – Z/18/04 – Louisa Street (Acorn Ridge)
4.6 – Larry & Joy Hall, 114 Church Street North. Opposing the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
4.7 – Louis and Elise Resonnet, 38 Louisa Street. Opposing the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
4.8 – Mary Bertrand, 45 Louisa Street. Opposing the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
4.9 – April Leach, 40 Louise Street. Opposing the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment

Deputations
5.1 Thomas Dowswell, 22A Belvedere Avenue. Citizens on the fringe of society – “Fringers”

Consent Agenda
8.1 – PSDBA Request for Board Appointments. Resolution. That Council for the Town of Parry Sound appoint Bernard Keating, Amy Black and Tanis Mack to the Parry Sound Downtown Business Association Board of Directors for the term ending November 30, 2018.

8.2 – Support for City of North Bay’s Resolution – Stable Funding for Film Industry Resolution. Whereas the film industry in Parry Sound added approximately $25 million in 2016, $600,000 in 2017 and 10 million in 2018 to the economy of Parry Sound; and Whereas NOHFC funding of the industry is a large part of the attraction to utilizing our Town and our people as staff in the productions, as well as in other northern cities; and Whereas the NOHFC funding application process continues to be short term, with current information on their website indicating funding applications are only currently open until fall of 2018; and A more stable, long term or permanent funding would give more stability to the industry and the jobs and impact it has here, as well as across Northern Ontario; Therefore Be It Resolved that Council for the Town of Parry Sound supports the City of North Bay’s Resolution 2018-229, attached as Schedule “A”, and calls upon the Province to make the funding of the film industry either more long term, as in 10 year commitments, or a permanent commitment.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff
9.2.1 – Discarded Needles. Direction. That the CAO’s September 4, 2018 report on discarded needles be received for information.

9.2.2 – Potential Waubeek St. Non-Profit Housing Development. Resolution. Whereas the Parry Sound Affordable Housing Development Corporation has requested Council support in principle for the development of an affordable housing initiative on Waubeek St. and; Whereas the proposed development would require a rezoning; and Whereas the Planning Act obligates Council to remain neutral in its position on proposed rezonings until the public consultation process has been concluded; Now Therefore Be It Resolved that Council defer indicating whether it supports in principle the development of an affordable housing initiative on Waubeek St. until the public consultation process through the Planning Act is concluded.

9.2.3 – Withdrawal of 2018 BOHF Scholarships from Reserve Fund. Resolution. That Council authorizes the withdrawal of $2,000 from the Bobby Orr Hall of Fame Scholarship Reserve Fund to pay the two recipients $1,000 each, further to By-law No:2018-6859 which established the Bobby Orr Hall of Fame Scholarship Reserve Fund and authorized the annual expenditure of $1,000 to two recipients.

9.3.1 – 2017 Audited Financial Statements. Resolution. That Council for the Town of Parry Sound does hereby approve the Draft Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 in Schedule “A” as attached.

9.3.2 – Financial Variance Report for Q2 2018. Resolution. That Council hereby receives and accepts the variance report for Q2 2018 (June 30, 2018) in Schedule “A” as attached; and Further that Council hereby approves the expenses for Council members for the period from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018, as in Schedule “B” attached.

9.4.1 – Tender – Denis Drive and MacKlaim Drive Servicing.Resolution. That upon the recommendation of Triton Engineering Services Limited, Council accept the tender from Fowler Construction Company Limited for the reconstruction of Denis Drive and MacKlaim Drive including water, wastewater, and roadwork, in the amount of $905,599.12, excluding HST, this tender being the lowest tender of two received. This includes $174,179.77 of work to be completed as part of the Isabella Street reconstruction project.

9.4.2 – Tender – Gibson Street and Logan’s Lane Retaining Wall. Resolution. That upon the recommendation of Triton Engineering Services Limited, Council accept the tender from Fowler Construction Company Limited for the replacement of the existing concrete retaining wall on the southeast corner of the intersection of Gibson Street and Logan’s Lane, in the amount of $75,850.00, excluding HST, this tender being the lowest tender of four received.

By-laws
10.1.1 – Rezoning Application – Z/18/6 – 1 Joseph Street (John Jackson Planner Inc. on behalf of Microsuite Properties Ltd.). By-law 2018 – 6861. Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 2004-4653 (The Zoning By-law), as amended, for 1 Joseph Street – (John Jackson Planner Inc. on behalf of Microsuite Properties Ltd.)

10.2.1 – Union Gas Franchise Agreement. By-law 2018 – 6841. Being a by-law to execute the Union Gas Franchise Agreement and repeal by-law 98-4008.

wet Dreams? Part 3

04 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Reflections

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Archipelago, Capital Investment, Carling, Infrastructure, McDougall, McKellar, Opinion, parry sound, Pool, Seguin, Taxes

Swimming in Numbers.

In the end it’s about the numbers. There is no question in my mind that there is no one against a pool, aquatic centre or athletic complex on the basis of its contribution to the community. There may have been people for and against the Walmart on principle and not numbers. And there were people for and against fluoridation, and the numbers didn’t really matter. In the case of a pool it’s all about the numbers at the council level.

Let’s start with some numbers. These numbers can be used to tell any number of stories, but we will focus on only a couple that are relevant to a municipal pool.

The numbers in the table above are derived from a few sources, notably StatCan, MPAC, and individual municipal budgets and tax rate bylaws. The Occupied Home figures from StatCan, basically tells you how many of the properties are not used seasonally, that is they are residents and not cottagers. The MPAC Values represent the property values in the various municipalities. To make things a little easier to digest I have normalized the figures with the Town of Parry Sound being set at 1. That means all of the properties in Seguin have about four times the values of those in Parry Sound. McKellar property values total about four fifths that of Parry Sound. Some of these numbers may be surprising. Tax rates are similarly expressed relative to those of Parry Sound. For example, a person in Parry Sound paying $2,000 of municipal tax on their property would pay $540 in Seguin for a property with a similar MPAC assessed property value, $740 in McKellar and $880 in McDougall. This does not include the education tax levy which is the same in each municipality. The education portion represents about 10% of my total tax bill in Parry Sound but would represent about 35% of the tax bill of someone in Seguin or the Archipelago. We pay exactly the same rate for education taxes, but it ‘hurts’ more in a relative sense in the other municipalities.

If this is the financial backdrop for a pool project, it’s important to understand the implications for each of the municipalities. I have a pretty good idea of the more important considerations in Parry Sound and will imagine some of the dynamics and concerns in the other municipalities. At this point Carling, McDougall and the Archipelago have expressed initial interest in a municipal pool project. McKellar has declined to participate. Seguin has not yet responded as far as a I know, and I believe Parry Sound has not committed but is likely to agree to participate in looking at the options.

Town of Parry Sound

Parry Sound Town Council is generally in favour of a pool if it can be done as part of an equitable long-term sharing agreement with the other municipalities. Going alone would increase the Town levied taxes by about 12% as mentioned in an earlier post, and these taxes are already four-times that of Seguin and the Archipelago.

The Town is likely to have other concerns that would need to be addressed in any agreement. It’s obvious the pool would need to be in Parry Sound, if only for access to a secure supply of treated water. None of the other communities would be able to provide this service and the cost of building and operating a treatment facility would make the pool project too expensive. But, the Town has concerns about losing a portion of its water treatment capacity to a project that will not generate revenue. Who pays for additional capacity if at a later date capacity equivalent to that used by the pool is required for development?

There is also the prospect of losing prime real estate to another project that will not generate property taxes. The Town now has more than two dozen facilities occupying prime real estate that don’t pay taxes. This includes churches as well as social service and medical service providers. These groups enhance the quality of life for Parry Sounders, but they also enhance the quality of life of those in the surrounding communities. These facilities make use of, and raise the cost of, tax subsidized services, increasing the load on tax payers of Parry Sound.

Would a consortium of municipalities be willing to give Parry Sound a credit on the tax assessed value of a municipal pool? Assuming an ‘assessed’ value of $11+ million for a pool would suggest that if it were a business or residential property it would pay about $150,000 in annual municipal taxes. Would the consortium be willing to credit the Town that amount against their contribution? Oh, oh, I hear the howls already!

For Parry Sound a pool is not that interesting unless acceptable terms were negotiated. What might be acceptable to Parry Sound might not be acceptable to its neighbours.

The Archipelago and Seguin

I am lumping these two together because they largely share the same interests, although they might not share the same ways of thinking.

Issue one is the tax payer. The majority of Seguin and Archipelago taxes are paid for by seasonal property owners. What they want is limited services and low taxes. They are paying two sets of taxes, one for their home in ‘Hogtown’, and another for their cottage in ‘God’s Country’. They don’t need a pool, they have one they are already paying for back home. These are informed folks who do not want to pay for anything more than is absolutely necessary to ensure a road to their cottage, and rules to prevent their neighbour from building a bigger dock or ‘bunkie’ than they have. And when it comes to roads they are already paying for that last ‘mile’ of driveway to access their ‘cottage’.

There are still folks in both municipalities who live, work, and contribute to the larger West Parry Sound community. In principle, they probably would like a pool, but not if it costs that much. It’s a bit different depending on whether you live in The Archipelago or Seguin. Archipelago residents really have only one choice where to go for shopping and services – Parry Sound. Sudbury, Huntsville and Bracebridge are a bit too far. For Seguinites it’s a bit more nuanced. Given the proximity of Huntsville and especially Bracebridge, it becomes a toss-up as to whether you drive to either one of those towns or Parry Sound. It may not even be a toss-up for those in Rosseau. Once you’re in Bracebridge for a pool you have more options in terms of their recreation centre and shopping. Pay more taxes for a pool in Parry Sound that you won’t use? The eastern Seguinites will probably say no. For those in Orrville a Parry Sound pool might be desirable, if they think they will use a pool. Not all will. The situation for Archipelagians is more obvious if they want a pool. That may be why they have expressed initial interest in a community pool discussion.

Both communities offer their seasonal residents the lowest taxes possible. These are the municipalities that boast multiple multimillion dollar properties. A quick look online revealed numerous, and I mean numerous, properties with valuations in excess of $5 million each in Seguin. That $5 million dollar ‘cottage’ would pay about $18,000 in Seguin taxes (not including education taxes). Raising their taxes 2% would mean an additional $360 in taxes. That might mean foregoing a couple less bottles of fine wine, probably very fine wine. When you make this type of money though, a dollar spent on something you really don’t want hurts more than you might imagine. And if it hurts they squeal. With a ward system they have ears to squeal into.

Carling and McKellar

I’m lumping these together to save words even though McKellar has declined participation. The situation these municipalities share is similar. Heading off to Sudbury or Muskoka for a pool is not really practical. At the same time, they both have more than two-thirds of their property value owned by seasonal residents and face the same issues discussed with regard to Seguin and the Archipelago.

The property values in both of these municipalities approach but don’t come consistently close to the stratified values of the Seguin and Archipelago properties. Seasonal residents of both municipalities are likely to pushback against any increase. Perhaps in anticipation of this McKellar’s council has already declared their lack of interest and retreated to their bunker.

McDougall

McDougall is much like Parry Sound in many ways, but not all. If you have driven along Big Sound Road you realize that there are a number of million dollar plus properties, just not the multimillion properties of Seguin and the Archipelago. Parry Sound does not have these types of properties, which may explain why the ‘rich folk’ who work in Parry Sound don’t live in Parry Sound. Taxes in McDougall are also the highest in the area, but still less than half of Parry Sound’s. It’s an easy ride from McDougall, at least the major population centre of Nobel, to Parry Sound for shopping and making use of a municipal pool.

Who Pays What?

This will certainly be a point of discussion and probably disagreement. Do you share expenses on the basis of permanent population, seasonal plus permanent population, private dwelling numbers, or MPAC assessment? I’m sure the lower tax municipalities, with higher assessment values and lower populations, would prefer a population-based sharing. Parry Sound would prefer an assessment-based allocation.

Both methods of allocation are currently being used. Belvedere Heights allocates municipal contributions on the basis of MPAC assessed property values. By this measure Parry Sound, The Archipelago, McDougall and McKellar all pay about the same, plus/minus $15,000. Carling pays about $40,000 more and Seguin pays about four-times as much. This is because Seguin in particular has a massive assessment base with all of those multimillion dollar ‘cottages’.

The Reginal Health Unit on the other hand allocates municipal contributions on the basis of the MPAC 2014 population count. This makes the Town of Parry Sound the largest contributor, while the Archipelago pays next to nothing. This makes sense as health services are delivered on a per person basis, although it is likely our ‘summer visitors’ and cottagers make considerable use of the hospital, albeit not so much the health unit services.

Playing Arbitrage

The situation with McKellar is interesting to think about. They have expressed no interest in a community pool, but could we deny McKellar residents the right to use the pool? Probably not. We would just need to charge a premium for those who want to use the pool but whose municipality doesn’t provide support. It’s a tricky situation. We are likely to have visitors interested in using a pool. Some will be tourists with no relation to the community and there will be others who are friends or family of area residents whose municipalities contribute to the pool. Charge too much and the Town looks like a money grabbing community, charge too little and it will make it cheaper for other municipalities and their residents to not participate in supporting the community pool. But then again, any additional revenue is probably ‘profit’. What is the additional cost of ten visitors compared to the corresponding dollars of non-resident income?

Let’s look at the McKellar situation as an example of what communities might want to think about. If McKellar were to participate in the pool they would probably be on the hook for about $85,000 per year (permanent population basis). That would raise their taxes by a bit less than 1.5%. On a property value basis, let’ assume that for a $250,000 property, not a high-end cottage, this would amount to an increase of about $18 per year. In exchange for this the resident could purchase an annual pool pass for let’s say $1,000. Also assume the non-resident rate is $1,400, a 40% premium. For that person having McKellar in the consortium is a big savings. It’s likely that it would be a break-even event for residents if they were only to use the pool twice a year and pay a resident as opposed to non-resident single visit rate.

What about McKellar as a whole. I would be surprised that if more than 30 pool memberships were sold to McKellar residents. That would bring in $30,000 of revenue as a ‘resident’. The non-resident rate would bring in $42,000, a difference of $12,000. That’s not close to the $85,000 it would cost McKellar to participate in the consortium. McKellar would be better off reimbursing pool users the $400 cost of a non-resident membership. It would raise taxes only a fraction of a percent if the amount couldn’t be found in petty cash.

That’s what arbitrage is all about, capturing profit by exploiting the difference between prices in different markets. In theory at least, it could work to the benefit of a community like McKellar to sit outside. It would be hard to refuse McKellar residents access to the pool because McKellar isn’t party to the pool partnership or charge them the appropriate premium to cover the real benefit they are receiving.

Final Thoughts

The numbers and the individual interests of municipalities are what will drive the decision. Understand the numbers and you can perhaps better anticipate and address concerns at your local municipal level.

There is also a social issue that needs to be addressed. A municipal pool is not like roads or health services that we all use in one way or another, even if we don’t have a car or never get sick. I’ll take a look at that in the next and final installment.

 

 

 

 

Wet Dreams? Part 2

02 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Reflections

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Archipelago, Capital Investment, Carling, Infrastructure, McDougall, Opinion, parry sound, Pool, Seguin, Taxes

In this post I examine the likely costs of a municipal ‘pool’ for the area. I don’t discuss the impact of any costs on individual municipalities in this post. the focus is on the likely costs to build and operate a pool.

I can assure you that any numbers I present will be wrong. I am not doing an in-depth cost analysis; that is best left to an experienced consultant. My estimates are based on figures I believe to be credible and reasonable. As appropriate, I provide links. That qualification of being wrong doesn’t mean you should dismiss the analysis if you disagree with it or embrace it unquestioningly if you agree. It’s an estimate and the basis for constructive discussion. Looking at the numbers also helps identify issues that are worth discussing and digging into. There will be two more posts on this topic so assume that the more obvious questions and implications of this analysis will be discussed in a later post.

Cost Estimates – Introduction

Building and operating a pool comes with four sets of expenses. The Build. Annual Operating Costs. Programming Costs. Reserve Fund.

There is also Revenue to consider, unrelated to property tax implications. That is discussed in this post as well.

The Build

I will toss out the number of $11 million to build a swimming pool. This is based on an article from 2013 concerning a pool being considered by the community of Exeter in Southwestern Ontario. The estimate for their pool was $9-13 million. I have taken the midpoint and ignored inflationary increases over the past 5 years. This is for an indoor pool, not an aquatic centre.

This seems to be a reasonable, albeit conservative estimate, in my opinion. I note that the Town of Parry Sound will be investing $1.2 million in the Stockey Centre just for new siding and a metal roof. A replacement of the ice surface at the Bobby Orr Community Centre also comes in at $1.2 million. The Stockey Centre cost $12 million to build in 2002, about $16.5 million in 2018 dollars. The retaining wall rebuild along Bowes Street cost about $200,000. This was the replacement of an existing wall that was less than 100 metres in total length and varied from ground level to no more than 2.5 metres in height. Things are remarkably expensive when you start moving earth.

It’s possible to lowball costs and take a cheaper path, but that always comes back to bite as we have learned in Parry Sound. That $1.2 million upgrade at the Stockey Centre is required because the current roof leaks and needs to be replaced. And the siding at the Stockey Centre hasn’t held up as well as promised. In the case of the Bobby Orr Community Centre, the town was required to spend tens of thousands to repair/replace/upgrade the heating in the stands. The BOCC roof will cost thousands more to repair/replace/upgrade. It’s possible to do things on the cheap, but it usually turns out to be a mistake.

So, let’s work with $11 million to build a municipal pool. This is for a 25 metre five lane pool, no high diving area, and no separate children’s pool. Certainly no separate fitness area.

None of the local communities, certainly not the Town of Parry Sound, can afford to pay $11 million upfront for a new pool so we need a debenture. There are many considerations in estimating the cost of a debenture, but what the heck, let’s go for it.

The first thing to be decided is the length of the debenture. I understand this generally is the expected lifetime of the facility. An indoor pool is different than most other buildings. The humidity and pool chemicals have a profoundly negative impact on longevity. A pool can last longer than 20 to 30 years, but the maintenance costs rise substantially as the pool ages. For the purpose of our discussion I will optimistically assume a 30-year bond.

An $11 million, 30-year, bond will cost about $700,000 per year at an interest rate of 3.5%. This 3.5% rate seems to be a reasonable, albeit optimistic, figure. Over the length of the loan the pool would have cost $21 million, or about twice the initial cost. That’s not too bad for the privilege of stretching it out over thirty years. It’s likely that inflation will average more than 3.5% over this period. People too easily forget the 1980s and the 10-15% interest rates people paid for mortgages.

If we drop the repayment period to 20 years, the annual cost rises to about $750,000. Keeping the period at 30 years and using a 5% interest rate raises the annual payments to $870,000.

Operating Costs

This is perhaps the weakest part of this analysis and most subject to correction. Nonetheless, the costs can be approached from a couple of different directions with results that hopefully come close.

There is some public information available regarding operating costs. The article mentioned earlier estimates operating costs at about $450,000 in 2013 dollars for a pool that should meet Parry Sound’s needs. Inflated to 2018 this number rises to about $480,000. These figures reflect post user revenue. So, the numbers need to be increased accordingly. Adding in $220,000 for user related offsetting revenue raises the annual operating costs rise to about $700,000. Looking more closely at the article the costs could be higher or lower by $100,000.

Another way to estimate the costs is to look at the cost to operate the Bobby Orr Community Centre, for which we have figures. There is a huge difference between the two in terms of costs. The BOCC only actively operates for a bit more than half the year with an ice pad. For the other months the building is maintained and available for public use, but with much lower expenses. A pool in contrast needs to be actively maintained 12 months a year. While an ice pad, once in place, mostly stays that way, a pool probably needs to be refreshed several times a year with a much higher use of water. Pools also require chemicals. But they don’t require a Zamboni type machine.

Reviewing the 2018 Town of Parry Sound budget documents I see that the BOCC has expenses in 2017 estimated at $700,000 and revenues of $180,000, for a net of $500,000 (don’t worry about the arithmetic, it only needs to be close because it certainly won’t be correct). The Stockey Centre had estimated operating costs of $1.5 million in 2017.

Okay, let’s go with $700,000 for the annual operating expenses for a municipal pool. This seems a bit low in comparison with the Bobby Orr Community Centre expenses, but it’s an estimate.

Some guidance is offered by looking at the Bracebridge 2017 Budget figures for their Sportsplex. This is a much larger operation and has annual expenses of $1.6 million, including the facility’s debenture principal and interest of about $640,000. This debenture figure is lower than I would have thought, but it may have been lowered by upper level government grants, which is also possible for a pool in the Parry Sound area. Operating expenses then were about $1 million. The two largest items were wages ($330,000) and hydro ($260,000).

Programming Costs

If you have a pool you need to offer programming. This ranges from management, to instructors, to life guards. I wanted to exclude a person to lead the programming activity as there is already such a person in Parry Sound, but if this is a joint municipality project we need to add in a programming head who also keeps an eye on the operations and makes sure things don’t screw up.

Let’s add in about $150,000 for programming costs. This would include 0.5 FTE to oversee the pool operation and programming as well as instructors and life guards. As a reference point the Town of Parry Sound spent a little more than $60,000 for their outdoor Swim Program in 2017 that stretches no more than three months.

Reserve Fund

It would only be prudent to add in another $100,000 per year to a Reserve Fund for the pool. This is what’s suggested in the 2013 Exeter article, and while a little low it’s close enough.

Total Expenses

Adding together all of the costs for a pool we end up with annual expenses of about $1.5 million. If you add together the expenses I’ve estimated in the earlier sections, you will see that I’ve rounded it down a bit. It only needs to be close and I’d rather not be seen as trying to stick a knife in the project.

But, that’s only part of the total package. There will be revenue and there are likely to be grants. We can depend on user fees, so let’s take a look at them. Upper level government grants are a different issue that are likely and not guaranteed. Local fund raising is possible, but it will represent a drop in the bucket. I have rounded down the expenses in part, so let’s forget about local fund raising being a meaningful dollar contributor. It’s more likely to be a symbolic statement of support than a financial pillar upon which to build the argument for a pool.

There is also the possibility of a partnership with the YMCA or the school board. One has expressed interest, and the other hasn’t. Neither would really change the costs, nor what we would pay in our taxes. The YMCA still needs to get money to pay their part, either grants or user fees, and the school board would probably just raise the education portion of our taxes to pay their part. I may be pessimistic, but beyond some operational efficiencies in a partnership, these groups won’t improve the bottom line in terms of tax impact. Expenses don’t just disappear, and revenues don’t just appear.

Revenues

This is a bit trickier, because it assumes a price structure for pool use. The only indirect experience I have is with the Sudbury Y. It offers a full family membership, including pool use, for $1,200 per year. The Bracebridge pool offers family pool use for a specified 45-minute period each Saturday for 3 months for about $60. That adds up to about $240 per year. And that is for one 45-minute period on one defined day per week. In Barrie it’s $17 per family per visit. Once a month would be $200 per year, once a week would be $900 per year.

Okay, let’s go with the annual use fee from that Exeter 2013 article of $1,000 per year per family. What that offers in terms of pool access is not clear. The article also mentions a total of 300 memberships, and $300,000 in revenue. All of those numbers carry much more baggage than I want to discuss in this post. I’ll get to that in the last of this four-post series. For now, we’ll assume $300,000 in revenue, the equivalent about 20,000 family days of use at $15/day.

The Net/Net

Add the numbers together and we end up with a net cost of $1.2 million per year for a municipal pool, not an aquatic centre or recreational complex. That is before any upper level government grants.

If the Town of Parry Sound was to shoulder the full expense Town taxes would increase by about 12%. It would be a one-time increase that would carry forward, but unlike the infrastructure reserve expense it would not be increased each year.

Next

In the next post I’ll take a look at the various municipalities, their assessments, their tax rates, their ‘demographics’ and the local political issues that might impact any decision or support for a municipal pool. The last post will be the most interesting in my opinion as I consider some of the human aspects of a municipal pool, particularly how it might impact different segments of the community.

Hang tight Ryan. The next post should be up by the middle of this coming week.

 

 

Wet Dreams? Part 1

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Parry Sound, Reflections, Urban Development

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Archipelago, Capital Investment, Carling, Infrastructure, McDougall, Opinion, parry sound, Pool, Seguin, Taxes

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.

 

 

 

← Older posts

ParrySounds.com Feed

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

Categories

  • Amalgamation
  • Boating/Recreation
  • Budget/Financial
  • Correction/Clarification
  • Economics
  • Events/Activities
  • Green Shoots
  • Parry Sound
  • Reflections
  • Safety
  • Seguin Township
  • Sights
  • Sounds
  • Suggestions
  • Town Council
  • Train
  • Urban Development
  • Video
  • Weather

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011

Attractions/Events

  • Town of Parry Sound
  • The Stockey Centre

Government

  • Town of Parry Sound

News

  • Moose FM CKLP 103.3 – Parry Sound
  • North Star / Beacon Star
  • Parry Sound Weather

Tourism

  • Explorers Edge

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel