• 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: McKellar

Council Meeting Minutes (Abridged) – March 16, 2021

19 Friday Mar 2021

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

≈ Comments Off on Council Meeting Minutes (Abridged) – March 16, 2021

Tags

Archipelago, BOCC, By-Law, Carling, Council Minutes, economic development, Health, McDougall, McKellar, Rezoning, tourism, Town Council, Water Management

There were no surprises in terms of Council’s decisions. Item 9.3.1 – Consent Application B/06/2021 – Barnes, is worth reviewing if you are thinking about subdividing your property. Council and Staff have been very accommodating in approving the addition of secondary residence units, but there apparently is a limit. This decision may help better define where the actual limit might lie.

Council Minutes (Abridged)

Closed Meeting
(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (Sifto Canada Corporation lease of Smelter Wharf).

Questions of Staff
3.2.1 –
In response to Councillor Keith’s inquiry regarding whether the Town should put up signage at the Salt Dock launch warning about ice conditions, Director of Development and Protective Services Dave Thompson reported that while it does not seem the Town bears responsibility for a casualty on the ice, the Town could promote a message advising people to stay off the ice as the weather warms, and that a media campaign with the same message would be beneficial.

3.2.2 – In response to Councillor Backman’s inquiry as to estimated completion date of repairs on the CN trestle over William Street, Director of Public Works Mike Kearns reported that it will be about one month, as there is only a short window of time each day within which the crews can work. As the times that the crews work there vary, signage indicating closure at certain times would be misleading and therefore not recommended.

Correspondence
4.1 – Municipality of McDougall.

Defeated Resolution to support Parry Sound removal from Planning Board.

4.2 – Don Brisbane, North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit Board Member.
Resignation from the Board of Health effective March 1, 2021

4.3 – Seguin Township.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit publish WPS Area COVID statistics.
Support Resolution requesting more proactive communication from Health Unit.

4.4 – Township of The Archipelago.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit publish WPS Area COVID statistics.

4.5 – Municipality of McDougall.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit publish WPS Area COVID statistics.
Support Resolution requesting more proactive communication from Health Unit.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit establish bi-weekly meetings with WPS Area Mayors.
Appointment of Mayor Jamie McGarvey to Health Unit Board.

4.6 – Township of Carling.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit publish WPS Area COVID statistics.
Support Resolution requesting Health Unit establish bi-weekly meetings with WPS Area Mayors.
Appointment of Mayor Jamie McGarvey to Health Unit Board.

4.7 – Township of McKellar.
Appointment of Mayor Jamie McGarvey to Health Unit Board.

4.8 – Municipality of Magnetawan.
Support Resolution requesting more proactive communication from Health Unit.

4.9 – Jim Chirico, Medical Officer of Health/Executive Director NBPSDHU (Health Unit).
Response to municipal request to publish COVID-19 data for WPS.
Establishment of bi-weekly meetings with WPS Area Mayors.
Notice of Don Brisbane resignation from NBPS District Health Board.

4.10 – Margaret McCullough.
Request to enact animal welfare legislation to combat puppy mills.

All items of correspondence were filed, with notice that item 4.2 being Don Brisbane’s letter of resignation from the Board of Health of the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Board, as well as any resolutions received from area municipalities appointing a member to the Board of Health were considered under item 9.4.2.

Deputations
5.1 – James Murphy, RTO12-Explorers’ Edge.

Activities Update in support of Tourism sector in Parry Sound and Area.
James Murphy opened his presentation with an acknowledgement that it is being conducted on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek people – party to the Robinson- Huron Treaty of 1850.
Mr. Murphy addressed four issues in his presentation – Business Landscape, Work-to-Date/Upcoming; Business and Operational Plan – new direction; and Workforce development/catalyst housing.
With respect to the business landscape, Mr. Murphy identified statistical participation by Parry Sound businesses with Explorers’ Edge, industry webinars and newsletters issued, and local participation on the Explorers’ Edge (EE) Board.
Projects undertaken were the Cottage Country Spirit Local Travel Packages for Summer/Fall and again in Winter which provided vouchers to encourage shopping at local participating businesses; the Winter Arts Collective promoting ceramic artists, metal/wood workers, performance arts, musicians, fashion/jewellery designers, painters, etc; Fat Bike Friday phone in to CKLP Moose FM for prize vouchers to local businesses; and Great Lakes Cruising Coalition Support. Mr. Murphy described efforts to recruit students to tourism and hospitality programs as enrollment has dropped; he reported that a new website is set to launch with the successful Great Canadian Wilderness branding; and introduced a work-integrated housing ecosystem model to develop and sustain a tourism workforce in the area.
In response to questions from members of Council, Mr. Murphy said that a satellite office in Parry Sound was trialed and did not seem to provide value, but that EE welcomed the opportunity to make presentations and welcomed partnerships with associations, with the ultimate goal of supporting the small business operators. Mr. Murphy suggested that perhaps a survey to small business operators on what they want from EE would be useful. Mr. Murphy noted that the Great Canadian Wilderness brand, proximity to an international airport and the large urban GTA, as well as existing and proposed marketing efforts will poise the Parry Sound area well for tourism coming out of the pandemic.

5.2 – Steve Barnes, proponent for the consent application to sever property on the William Street/Hillcrest Ave. corner in Parry Sound addressed Council in support of his application, and in opposition to the staff report which recommended denial of his application, (item 9.3.1). Mr. Barnes noted that on the existing property there are 2 separate homes with separate addresses and that within the larger home, an additional residence has been created, satisfying the intent of the Official Plan’s promotion of secondary dwelling units throughout Town. Mr. Barnes suggested that if successful in severing the single unit dwelling and it goes to market, it would make a good starter home for a first-time homebuyer which should also be important. Mr. Barnes acknowledged that the lot sizes would be small, however suggested that many lots in Town and especially in this neighbourhood were small.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff
9.2.1 – 2020 Water System Summary Report.
Resolution

Whereas the Town of Parry Sound owns and operates the Parry Sound Drinking Water System (M.O.E. Designation Number 2200000585) which has been categorized as a “Large Residential” Drinking Water System, and
Whereas Ontario Regulation 170-03 (as amended) under the Safe Drinking Water Act requires, according to “Schedule 22 Summary Reports for Municipalities” that all large Municipal Residential Drinking water systems have a report prepared no later than March 31st of each year addressing the items detailed in the Regulation and is given to the members of Council in the case of a drinking water system owned by a municipality;
Therefore, be it resolved that Council of the Town of Parry Sound hereby acknowledges receipt of the report titled:
“Town of Parry Sound Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plan, Large Municipal Residential Drinking Water System Summary Report 2020”, as prepared by Kyle Hall, Manager of Water Systems.
Carried

In response to a councillor inquiry, Director of Public Works Mike Kearns confirmed that year over year information could be provided, preferable in a different report, to compare, for example, the capacity that the Water Treatment Plant operates on as an average maximum daily flow, which might relate to development growth, etc.

9.3.1 – Consent Application B/06/2021 – Barnes.
Prior to Council’s consideration of the resolution, Mr. Elgie responded to aspects of Mr. Barnes deputation under item 5.2, noting that his main concern was that if he recommended approval for the severance of this very sub-sized lot, it would set precedent, with an expectation for approval of future applications to sever garage- turned rental accommodation into freehold units. This would result in circumventing the intent of the provincial policy statements which support secondary rental units on residential property.
Resolution
That Council of the Town of Parry Sound hereby recommends denial of Parry Sound Area Planning Board Application Number B/06/2021 – Barnes.
Carried

9.4.1 – Extension of Virtual Council Meetings.
Resolution

Whereas the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 18 expanded the opportunity for Municipal Councils, Local Boards and their Committees to meet electronically, and
Whereas in response, Council passed By-law 2020 – 7061 permitting by means of a resolution, certain expanded terms of electronic participation at meetings of Council, Local Boards and its Committees; and
Whereas pursuant to By-law 2020-7061, Council extended by Resolutions 2020-082 and 2020-112 until March 31, 2021 expanded terms of electronic participation at meetings; and
Whereas best-case COVID-19 vaccine roll-out plans suggest an autumn, 2021 date before all residents of Canada desiring a vaccine will be able to receive one; and
Whereas public health experts advise that as the vaccine is rolled out, practices such as physical distancing, masking, and limiting the number of individuals in gatherings continue to be important measures to combat transmission of COVID-19 virus and its variants;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved that Council of the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound extends until December 31, 2021 the terms of electronic participation at meetings of Council, Local Boards or Committees of either them per the following:
a) electronic participation counts towards quorum;
b) electronic participants are permitted to vote; and
c) electronic participation is permitted in a meeting closed to the public.
Carried

9.4.2 – Appointment to the North Bay Parry District Health Unit Board.
Resolution

That Whereas Council of the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound has received notice of the resignation of Don Brisbane from the Board of Health of the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit, representing the West Parry Sound municipalities; and
Whereas Council has received resolutions from the Township of Carling, Municipality of McDougall, and the Township of McKellar nominating/approving the appointment of Mayor Jamie McGarvey to fill the vacancy, with similar nominations being considered by the Township of The Archipelago, Seguin Township and the Municipality of Whitestone at their next respective Council meetings;
Now Therefore Council of the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound accepts, effective March 2, 2021, the resignation of Don Brisbane from the Board of Health of the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit with appreciation for his sixteen years of service in this capacity; and
That effective upon nomination/appointment from all seven West Parry Sound municipalities, Mayor Jamie McGarvey is hereby appointed as joint representative for the seven West Parry Sound municipalities on the Board of Health for the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit for a term ending November 30, 2022, or until a successor appointment is made.
Carried

By-laws
10.2.1 –
Delegation of Authority: MOU with NBPSDHU for use of BOCC as mass vaccination site.
By-law 2021 – 7113
Being a by-law to delegate signing authority to Clayton Harris, CAO, for the purpose of authorizing an MOU for use of the Bobby Orr Community Centre by the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit as a mass COVID-19 public vaccination location.
Passed, Signed & Sealed.

10.2.2 – Partnership with STEM Camp to Deliver Youth Camp Programs at the Bobby Orr Community Centre.
By-law 2021 – 7114
Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a agreement with STEM Camp for the delivery of education based youth camp programming.
Passed, Signed & Sealed.

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.)

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.

 

 

 

 

2016 Sunshine List Mashup

05 Wednesday Apr 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on 2016 Sunshine List Mashup

Tags

Archipelago, Carling, economic development, McDougall, McKellar, Opinion, parry sound, Seguin

Or, fun with figures.

I wasn’t going to post about the recently released 2016 Sunshine list, but I was ‘egged’ into it. I really don’t have a problem with what people are paid as long as they are doing their job and they are earning what they are paid. Given my regular interaction with the senior staff in Parry Sound I won’t complain. They seem to be ‘earning their pay’.

More interesting I thought was to look at how the 2016 Sunshine List looks across the West Parry Sound District, and what it reflects. Mashing together the 2016 Sunshine List and the recent 2016 Census figures provided for some interesting insights. Here are the figures, with some explanation. (Apologies to Whitestone for being excluded.)

(Click on any of the tables for a larger view.)

The table above summarizes the combined salaries and benefit figures reported for the area municipalities. Each of the municipalities uses slightly different titles for the various senior management positions so I have associated them to the best of my abilities. In the case of the Archipelago and Parry Sound there are a couple of positions that don’t fit the standard categories, these are Corporate Services and Emergency and Protective Services respectively.

This next table relates the cost for each position as a function of fulltime residences. It reveals a number of significant discrepancies in terms of the cost of all Sunshine List senior staff for municipalities, from a low of $47 per person, to a high of $1,167. But this is really not a fair comparison as some of the municipalities have far more seasonal than fulltime residents. Unfortunately, the census data doesn’t provide information on seasonal resident numbers. So let’s look at the same Salaries & Benefits figures as a function of the total Private Dwellings in each municipality. This includes both fulltime and seasonal properties.

This figure is closer to a reasonable estimate of Sunshine List ‘efficiency’, but it does not include the impact of businesses. If the number of business properties were to be included I suspect that Parry Sound would show a much more favourable ‘efficiency factor’.

So there are the 2016 Sunshine List figures with a little bit of analysis. A set of figures from the 2016 Census report that a I found interesting relates to municipality fulltime population and the number of private  dwellings (below). The numbers range from a high of 5.1 dwellings per person (Archipelago), to a low of 0.5 dwellings per person in Parry Sound. The difference obviously is the large number of seasonal residences in the Archipelago, Carling and McKellar. Those simple figures tell you everything you need to know about why amalgamation will not be something the municipalities spontaneously decide to do. It’s possible to imagine a Parry Sound and McDougall amalgamation, and perhaps an Archipelago and Carling amalgamation if they wanted to get better efficiency. The ‘business models’ are reasonably aligned. But don’t even think about it, much less talk about it. It’s a bit like integration in the U.S. South in the 60s. It took Federal legislation to make that happen. In the case of West Parry Sound it will take Provincial legislation. With Bay Street just a short walk away from the Provincial Legislature it’s – not – going – to – happen. Ever!

Notes:

  1. The 2016 Sunshine list is a bit of a bear to work with. I didn’t come across a simple PDF version as in earlier years. It’s available as a variety of data dumps. The easiest in my opinion was the CSV format file that can be searched with Excel.
  2. The municipalities that have only a single person hitting the Sunshine List may well have personnel just under the $100,000 cutoff, who would not be included in this report.
  3. It’s interesting to see how many police officers are on the Sunshine List. In the end, I think our neighbouring municipalities took the prudent course of action by biting the bullet and continuing on with OPP service.

 

REDAC Regional Market Plan Reflections

10 Saturday Sep 2016

Posted by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Parry Sound, Reflections, Seguin Township

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Archipelago, Carling, economic development, Growth, Infrastructure, McDougall, McKellar, North Star, Opinion, parry sound, Planning, Seguin, Taxes, train

A few thoughts after reviewing the REDAC Regional Marketing Plan issued June 2016.

Positives:

  1. The report was not too shy in identifying some of the issues and challenges facing the region in terms of increasing economic development.
  2. There was a clear understanding that it is one thing to prepare a plan, and another to fund and effectively implement the plan.
  3. The plan appropriately identified the need for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of any marketing programs.

Oversights:

Several meaningful issues were overlooked in the report. Was it a case of simply not recognizing the issues, or was it a case of ‘sweeping it under the carpet’. My sense of some important points that were overlooked:

  1. Services
  2. Tax differentials
  3. Housing value
  4. Railways

Services:

The services available to homeowners and businesses varies considerably throughout the area studied in the REDAC report (Parry Sound, McDougall, Seguin, and Carling). These include:

  • Municipal water
  • Municipal sewer
  • Natural gas

There was mention of the need for better internet connectivity. For the most part it’s not that big an issue except at the residential level. Wireless service is actually quite good, and for businesses it is not an unreasonable expense if it impacts business and profitability. They aren’t streaming video at work. Businesses out in the backwoods of the region really can’t expect ‘fibre’ type service, and if they really needed it they would not be located where they are. Homeowners who want to stream video at home have an issue as wireless can be expensive. Better, actually mostly cheaper, internet services are a nice to have that would help attract people and businesses to the area.

Real businesses that employ people and serve customers on site, not the retired consultant type shop, need water and sewer service. Yes, a well and septic bed can do the job, but it raises an unreasonable burden of effort for businesses that have other things to think about. Think about the new high school to be built in the area. Will they locate somewhere that depends on wells and sewers? Perhaps, but given their preferences they would rather not be doing weekly water tests to make sure the kids aren’t drinking contaminated water following that big rain. And how big a septic bed is needed for a high school of 1,000 students? Right, just about the size of a football or soccer field.

A bigger issue is the availability of natural gas. Electricity is expensive, especially for uses like heating. Natural gas is remarkably inexpensive, but it requires an infrastructure that is only available in Parry Sound and a relatively select number of addresses in the other municipalities. Propane is an option, but it’s not nearly as cheap or convenient as natural gas. I suspect a large number of people who installed electric baseboards when electricity was cheap regret not putting in more insulation, or installing a furnace and ducting that could be used with propane, a heat pump, or natural gas when it arrived along their road.

Tax Differentials:

The tax rates on property in the five municipalities vary about three-fold, with Seguin at the low end and Parry Sound at the top. Taxes reflect a balance of what services municipal residents and business want to receive and how much they are willing to pay for them. The lower taxes in the surrounding regions do not arise from happenstance, they reflect the interests of the taxpayers.

Municipalities like the Town of Parry Sound are stretched in terms of the taxes they can collect and the services they are expected to deliver. Adding new taxable residents and businesses is a priority as much of the infrastructure is already established and any increased revenues from new residents and businesses would be ‘profitable’, and help support necessary infrastructure upgrades for all. Economic development that leads to increased property values is very much in the interests of Parry Sound. The only real revenue the Town has is from the taxation of property and government grants.

The other municipalities do not have the same needs for more development and greater tax revenues. This is reflected in their lower tax rates. Economic development is something that is nice to talk about, because it reflects positively on councils. But do they really want it? Is it possible that more development will lead to a requirement for new services that might mean higher tax rates? Nobody likes to raise property taxes, especially if your municipality depends on being the low tax provider.

I think the residents of these municipalities would rather not promote development. Many of them like it the way it is. Seasonal residents are complaining about the development of certain lakes and are calling for a moratorium on new cottages. And I’m not sure that people really like the idea of losing the small town, or cottage area, feeling that comes with more development. If permanent and seasonal residents can enjoy low taxes and the services of a town like Parry Sound next door or Bracebridge a little further away, why do they need more ‘economic development’? There is no benefit, only the potential for change and higher taxes.

The tax differential between municipalities drives much more than was ever suggested in the REDAC report.

Substandard Housing Value:

This mostly applies to the Town of Parry Sound. Housing in Parry Sound is by Toronto standards cheap;  but it is a poor value. There are any number of reasons for this, none of which are easily fixed by politicians. In more affluent regions many of these houses would be leveled and replaced with the types of housing that young families need and can afford. The development of well-designed condo facilities offers some hope for better value housing in Parry Sound, but this type of housing will not appeal to those with families who want a backyard. They can get that type of housing in the Barrie, Orillia and Owen Sound areas, where there are also the jobs to support the associated cost of this housing. Chicken and egg, or egg and chicken?

The Railways:

Again mostly a Parry Sound issue. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific together run about twenty or more heavy freight trains through Parry Sound every day and represent a serious deterrent to business investment and residential development. Not surprisingly, the most substantial recent residential development, Silver Birch, is located far from the railway tracks. Bt it comes at a price, Highway 400 with it’s noisy weekend summer traffic. One development in Parry Sound close to the tracks, and subject to crossings that see trains going both ways, has struggled despite offering attractive ‘Southern Ontario’ single family homes. The issue is not just the risk of a Lac Megantic type event, or even the occasional road blockages, it’s the day-in, day-out, sound of air horns blasting at six crossings and the squeal of the wheels as they round the many curves, day and night. Why build a business in Parry Sound if you can build in Seguin or McDougall?  Oh, there’s the issue of services and infrastructure. Why not just go to communities like Orillia, Barrie and the ‘suburban’ areas of Muskoka, where you are not subject to trains in the same manner and you have access to more customers (retail and service), cheaper transport costs (manufacturing), and a larger employment pool?

 

Parry Sound Bay and Beyond can become an attractive destination for both people and businesses. The trouble is that there are too many other Southern Ontario municipalities that are already much more attractive. Once these destinations reach their limit to host businesses and new homes people will begin to look at Parry Sound Bay and Beyond. That is unless we can get our act together, work together, and create the infrastructure to compete. But area municipalities, with the exception of Parry Sound have more than enough money to continue operating as they have for the last twenty years, for another twenty years, without attracting any new residents or businesses. These municipalities have little motivation to do anything new. They just need to pretend to be interested lest permanent residents and businesses think they don’t play nicely with others.

Provincial and Federal civil servants are quite happy to facilitate and fund discussions of economic development in the West Parry Sound area. It their job to do it. And they are well paid jobs. By gosh they will do their best to get it done, regardless of the odds. It reminds me of the continuous negotiations in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians facilitated by the United States. The US State Department is tasked with getting a real agreement between these two parties and they try their best. It’s their job, even though there is no prospect of any type of agreement. At this point Israel has everything it needs in the region. It has the wealth, military strength and political influence to ensure nothing is taken from them. It is not in their interest to negotiate. Any appearance of willingness to negotiate is strictly a function of making nice with the President of the United States who gets it in their mind every now and then that they want to gain statesman status by brokering a grand peace agreement.

Final Thoughts

I started out this review of the REDAC Regional Marketing Plan expecting to be critical of Whitestone, McKellar and The Archipelago for not participating in the REDAC economic development process. Looking at things a little more closely I have come to realize that they are perhaps the only honest brokers in the region, willing to admit that not only do they not need regional cooperation, they are actually better off without it. I will give a pass also to the Town of Parry Sound. I believe they do support regional economic development because they desperately need the increased tax base to manage tax rates and support additional infrastructure necessary for the larger community.

Even Parry Sound tax rates are on the low end for Northern Ontario as was presented in a survey of Northern Ontario municipalities. I visited Elliot Lake in August and was impressed by the upkeep of the town and the facilities it offers. But it benefits from a population base about twice that of Parry Sound, a much larger geographic area (715 sq. km, versus 13 sq. km), and a tax rate 40% higher.

Regional economic development is something to keep Municipal, Provincial and Federal employees busy, and employed. If Ontario and Canada really want to see additional economic development in the area they need to provide incentives to McDougall and Seguin to hand over enough land to Parry Sound to allow for real economic development, by a municipality that is interested in economic development, and with established infrastructure. Incentives to McDougall and Seguin might include support for policing expenses, and/or broadband infrastructure, and/or an area athletic complex. But that would be a bribe I suppose. Given America’s experience with the billions they have pumped into the Middle East, I expect it wouldn’t work too well here. Take the money and run.

Aside: reading yesterday’s Beacon Star I saw that Seguin has started thinking about their 2017 budget. Their high priority items are summer weekend support for a nursing station in Rosseau, taking responsibility for unassumed roads, and a tennis court. All this with a potential 0% increase in taxes. Seguin is doing just fine with their current business model. Why take on development that might mean responsibility for building the services accompanying business and non-seasonal resident growth? It might mean tax increases and unfamiliar faces. That’s okay, the area municipalities have their cake and are able to eat it as well. They  seem to be riding as high on property values as were the Middle East oil kingdoms were when oil was $100 a barrel. As long as property valuation stay high, and seasonal residents don’t become permanent residents and expect Toronto level services, it’s all okay.

Mismatched Objectives, Taking Off and Heading to Port.
(Best to just get out of each other’s way.)

redwood1890-20160809-_dsc2893

Update: tracking down a link for the Beacon Star article I came across a squabble between Carling and the The Archipelago about phone bills. Yup, sure, let’s invest more in regional cooperation. (Not!) The Town of Parry Sound needs to take on a Singapore or Hong Kong frame of mind. Small is beautiful. It may not be cheap but it offers great value. Can we erect borders?

 

 

Council Agenda Preview – March 1, 2016

26 Friday Feb 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Council Agenda Preview – March 1, 2016

Tags

Agenda, By-Law, Capital Investment, DBA, McKellar, parry sound, Taxes, tourism, Town Council

We’re not going to take it anymore. That seems to be one theme before Council this coming week. It concerns the last minute announcement by the Province that facilities such as the Lake Land Long Term Care facility are exempt from property taxes. Further information is available in the proposed resolution below, Item 9.5.1, as well as the full agenda package which is available from the Town or at ParrySounds through the agenda page. The Town is also proposing to support a resolution from the Manitoulin Centennial Manor regarding long term care funding, Item 8.3.

There are a couple of deputations and letters noted below. I expect that I will make a deputation regarding Item 9.2.1, Town Dock Gazebo. It appears that Staff is asking Council for approval to demolish the existing structure on the Town Dock and build a new structure. I have spoken to several people who are not happy with this proposal. I am neutral on this point, but I think that the Waterfront Committee needs to present the residents of Parry Sound with a comprehensive plan regarding the planned changes to, and vison for, the Waterfront. Changes to date have been limited to signage, painting the Town Dock ‘railing’ gray, and painting the benches along the dock and trails. Replacing the gazebo seems to be a big step that will remove one of the visual elements that has defined Parry Sound for a few decades now. And it will come with a significant cost, about $38,000. The proposed design is not unlike what currently exists, so perhaps this isn’t an issue. But I think that Staff and Committees have a responsibility to report to the residents of Parry Sound and solicit their input before implementing removal of heritage type structures. More information is available in the full agenda package.

A reminder – there is a Wednesday, March 2nd, budget meeting to address the Province’s last minute assessment surprise. It starts at 6:00.

A last thought, it concerns Item 4.4. I can see why McKellar Council meetings provide the best entertainment value in the District, especially if you can just shake your head and walk away from it. No, the numbers mentioned in the letter don’t make sense. Parry Sound makes that pretty clear in their response. In my opinion, shared project rates should be set according to property assessment values, not what is required to support a municipality’s services. Just because you spend the money doesn’t mean you are necessarily the wealthiest, or spend it on yourself. Young families spend much more of their income to raise children than seniors who just need to support themselves. Property is wealth and McKellar does pretty well in that regard as a function of their population. This is something that people need to wrap their head around. It’s not how much you earn that will be taxed in the future, it’s what you are worth. That’s the whole idea behind downloading costs to the municipalities. And you know what? It’s probably a fair way to do it. That way we don’t burden people who earn money, or spend money that supports jobs, with the greatest responsibility to support our country. The letter is included in the full agenda package. Enjoy. Perhaps McKellar should consider building a wall so as to avoid contamination from the surrounding municipalities. Walls are pretty popular with populists nowadays.

Correspondence

4.1 – Gary McNabb, G & B McNabb Lumber Company Limited. Re: Water billing concern.

4.2 – Louise Ramsay and Neil Douglas Hammell. Re: Comments about removing fluoride from the water and a thank you to Mayor and Council their continued hard work and dedication. – Response attached.

4.4 – Gord Zulak, McKellar resident. Re: Disposition of Area Financial Allocations – Response attached.

Deputations

5.1 – Anne Bossart, Resident. Re: Update on the activities on Tower Hill.

5.2 – Daryl McMurray, Chair of the DBA. Re: An update on the Downtown Sustainability initiative.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff

8.3 – Long Term Care Funding Support. Resolution. Whereas the Manitoulin Centennial Manor passed a resolution regarding the lack of long term care funding from the province and circulated it to all municipalities and First Nations on Manitoulin Island; and Whereas Belvedere Heights CEO provided an excerpt from the Manitoulin Centennial Manor newsletter which highlights the need for better Long Term Care Funding from the province; and Whereas the Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands circulated their support of this resolution to, among others, the Town of Parry Sound; Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound supports the following resolution of the Manitoulin Centennial Manor and will forward a copy of this resolution on to the Minister of Health, Dr. Eris Hoskins, MPP Norm Miller, MPP Michael Mantha; the Town of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, Shawanaga First Nation, Wasauksing First Nation and the West Parry Sound Municipalities and the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association for support: Whereas funding requests from member municipalities was frozen from 2010-2011 resulting in a zero growth budget; And Whereas funding increases from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has been increased but not kept pace with increases in costs to Long Term Care Facilities including staff salaries and benefits; And Whereas Long Term Care facilities are one of the most important aspects of eldercare in the Province’s care scheme; And Whereas capital renewal funding needs to be provided to ensure facility standards are maintained; And Whereas additional funding is required by the LTC’s to meet increased costs for Behavioral Services Ontario (BSO) to better manage dementia and mental health care; And Whereas funding has not been provided to provide Alternate Care for complex health conditions requiring specialized staff and equipment such as IV therapy or tube feeding especially in smaller facilities; And Whereas attracting and maintaining adequate staff requires recognition of the partnerships that exist between the L TC’ s and the health sector; And Whereas fundraising campaigns have not met the needs of the Manitoulin Centennial Manor in its efforts to maintain superior care for its residents; Be it resolved that the Board request its member municipalities support a request to the Province to increase funding to Long Term Care Facilities in keeping with the foregoing; And Further that this request be forwarded to the Manitoulin Municipal Association for whatever action they deem necessary.

9.2.1 – Town Dock Gazebo. Resolution. That upon the recommendation of the Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, Council support in principle the proposal received from Cedarland Homes Ltd. for a Town Dock gazebo; and That Council direct the Waterfront Development Advisory Committee to discuss design of the gazebo with Cedarland Homes Ltd. with a recommendation to come forward to the March 15, 2016 Council meeting. I offer comments in the introductory portion of this post. It may be a good idea, but let’s get some information out to the Public for comment.

9.2.1 – Visitor Information Centre – Stockey Centre. Resolution. That Council include the delivery of Visitors’ Information Centre (VIC) services as a core service of the Department of Development and Leisure Services; and That the VIC be operated from the Charles W. Stockey Centre for the Performing Arts and Bobby Orr Hall of Fame, commencing May 1, 2016; and That staff provide Council with a quarterly report on VIC operations for the first year of operations. I’m glad to see this initiative, it will benefit visitors and regional businesses.

9.5.1 – Exemption from Property Taxes for Non-Profit Long-term Care Facilities. Resolution. Whereas the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 S.3 (1) states that all real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation, subject to the specified exemptions from taxation; and Whereas S.3 (1) paragraph 7.2 indicates that land used as a non-profit long-term care home, is exempt if certain conditions are met; and Whereas the conditions for exemption were released on December 18, 2015 effective January 1, 2016; and Whereas this short time frame, in the middle of the preparation of the municipal budget has resulted significant loss of revenue to the Town from property taxes; and Whereas the Province paid for 85% of the property taxes for these facilities and therefore the exemption is in essence a download to the municipalities; and Whereas the impact of this lost revenue to the Town is approximately $230,000 which approximates an additional 2% tax rate on the general tax rate; and Whereas these properties do not meet the definition of a Public Hospital under the Public Hospitals Act and therefore are not required to pay the “Heads and Beds” tax that publicly funded hospitals pay to the municipality; and Whereas the Province of Ontario has not updated the “Heads and Beds” rate since 1987; Now be it resolved that the Council for the Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound requests that the Province of Ontario require that Non-Profit Long-Term Care Facilities pay the “Heads and Beds” tax similar to publicly funded hospitals; and Further that the Province of Ontario increase the current “Heads and Beds” rate to reflect inflation from 1987 and index the rate so that it is reflective of current value; and Further that the Province commit to providing 12 months notice on changes in regulations that impact the revenue generation for municipalities; and Further that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Northern Municipalities (FONOM), the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association (NOMA), the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities (OSUM), MPP Norm Miller, the City of Toronto, the Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ontario (MFOA), the Ontario Municipal Taxation and Revenue Association (OMTRA). My comments are offered in the introduction to this post.

9.5.2 – Parry Sound Water Financial Plan. Resolution. That Council for the Town of Parry Sound hereby accepts and approves the Town of Parry Sound Water Financial Plan prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated February 24, 2016, attached as Schedule “A”; and Further, that staff are directed to advertise notice of the availability of the PS Water Financial Plan to the public; and To forward the Water Financial plan and resolution approving the Plan to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and To forward the Water Financial Plan and resolution approving the Plan to the Ministry of the Environment, satisfying the requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

By-laws

10.3.1 – Wasauksing Fire Protection Agreement. Being a By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute and affix The Corporate Seal to a Fire Protection Agreement between The Corporation of the Town of Parry Sound and Wasauksing First Nation for a portion of Wasauksing First Nation.

See you Tuesday night, and Wednesday night. I have no sense of how things will go on Wednesday at the Budget meeting. It’s uncharted territory.

Sunset Sky Over Zhiishiib Rock As Seen From the North Shore Rugged Trail

Redwood1890-20160225-_DS73920

 

 

Council Agenda Preview – May 5, 2015

04 Monday May 2015

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

≈ Comments Off on Council Agenda Preview – May 5, 2015

Tags

Agenda, By-Law, EMS, McKellar, parry sound, Smoking, Town Council

It seems to be a light meeting this week with nothing that should be controversial. There certainly won’t be the fireworks that seem to go on at the McKellar Council meetings. I’ll have to see if I can get a seat there, it looks like an entertaining evening. For the most part things have really been quiet and business-like at Parry Sound Council meetings. There doesn’t seem to the undercurrent of disdain that was apparent at times during the last term of Council.

Correspondence

4.1 – Letter – Glen Murray, Minister, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Re: Thank you letter for the Town’s delegation at Ontario Good Roads Association Conference regarding the remediation of the Brownfield sites at the former Imperial Oil properties and the Waterfront Development Concept Plan. This seems to be good news, the Town is starting to move on the development of the waterfront property. The Town has limited leverage but it needs to keep pushing, especially the Imperial Oil people. How about not buying gas at their stations? While Shell seems to be willing to remediate their site the Imperial Oil people, that’s Esso/Exxon, seem to believe they have an imperial right to do nothing. How about we raise their taxes 10-fold? That way they can really pay for the privilege of doing nothing.

Deputations
5.1 – Bernadette and Erick Phillis, residents of Seguin. Re: Lack of public transportation in Parry Sound. They’re back again. I hope they are able to tell us what Seguin is doing in this regard. I suspect that Seguin’s contribution is limited to their financial support for the transportation services provided by the Belvedere retirement facility. But let’s see what they have to say.

5.3 – Howard Wesley. Re: Booth Street Park. This concerns the rehabilitation and upgrade to the park and is on the agenda as Item 9.1.1.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff
9.1.1 – Booth St. Park Transformation. Resolution. That the proposed plan for the transformation of Booth St. Park as presented to Council at its May 5, 2015 meeting be approved. Also see Item 5.3 above. A number of community groups and the Town are pitching in with volunteer labour and financial support to the tune of about $26,000 to improve the park.

9.4.1 – Parry Sound Beerfest: Noise By-law relief. Resolution. No Ribfest this year, we have moved on to a Beerfest. It’s June 27th.

9.4.2 – Joint Promotion/Marketing Plan – Former Shell Property. That upon the recommendation of the Waterfront Advisory Committee, Council direct staff to work with the owner of the former Shell property to develop a joint marketing/promotion plan in an effort to attract development to the site. Direction. Good news, any step forward is a step forward. This is related to Item 4.1 above.

9.5.1 – EMS Operational Review. That as recommended by the EMS Advisory Committee the Evidence Based Review of System Planning & Deployment (Operational Review) by Performance Concepts be accepted by the Town of Parry Sound, as attached Schedule “A”. Resolution. This is a complex issue of EMS service allocation for the West Parry Sound District. I have not read the report and encourage others to do so. The summary suggests the recommendation is to implement an easy first step followed by consideration of subsequent actions in line with the consultant report after consultation with area municipalities.

By-laws
10.4.1 – FedNor Funding Agreement: Regional Marketing Plan. Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a funding agreement with Industry Canada/FedNor for the development of a Regional Marketing Plan. of 2015 Budget By-law.

10.4.2 – Festival of the Sound: Lease Agreement/Stockey Centre. Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a lease agreement with the Festival of the Sound for the Charles W. Stockey Centre for the Performing Arts. The Festival has undergone some wrenching changes of late but I’m glad to see they are renewing their lease for an additional five years.

10.4.1 – By-law to Prohibit Smoking. Being a By-law to prohibit smoking in and within twenty (20) metres from any entrance or exit of a building owned or leased by the Town of Parry Sound and in or within 20 metres of any municipal outdoor public place as defined in Schedule A to this bylaw and to repeal Bylaw 2012-6087. This tidies up the Town’s smoking by-law and aligns it with recent Provincial updates. It does show consideration for both non-smokers and smokers. As a non-smoker who grew up in a smoking household I understand the need of some to smoke, but at the same time resent being subjected to second-hand smoke. This by-law seems to tread a reasonable course between the interests of all parties.

I won’t be there on Tuesday, I have meeting in Queen’s Park, but I will post up a summary based on the Town’s meeting minutes.

Keeping an Eye on Things. (Parry Sound in Glorious Colour)

Redwood189020150318-_DSC8767_DxO

← 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

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • 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

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

Tourism

  • Explorers Edge

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×