Water/Wastewater — Arena Reno or Replacement — $8 Million to County
By John Francis, Bruce Peninsula Press
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP) Council’s September 9, 2024 Meeting has three very important items on the Agenda: the future of Water/Wastewater in MNBP, the future of the Lion’s Head arena and our financial relationship with Bruce County. The discussions and decisions will have long-term implications.
The Meeting will be recorded and can be found on the municipality’s YouTube channel. The Agenda can also be found online. Links to both are available through MNBP’s landing page.
Water/Wastewater Master Plan
The Ontario Clean Water Agency (an arm’s length crown corporation) and WSP, an engineering consultant, have been contracted to provide water/wastewater Master Plans for Tobermory and Lion’s Head.
WSP’s Chris Miller will appear as a delegation on September 9 to present their second Project Update,
The preamble notes that:
“Currently, existing water and wastewater servicing is limiting potential growth within these communities.
The goal of the Master Plans is to develop a preferred strategy to provide water and wastewater services in each community for today and for future development to 2046 and beyond.
The Master Plans will take into consideration climate change and social and economic impacts, as well as current limitations to each community’s growth, given the existing infrastructure.”
The study is being guided by the following Problem Statement:
“To develop an infrastructure plan for the communities of Tobermory and Lion’s Head which meets servicing needs for today and future development to 2046 and beyond, considering climate change and social and economic impacts, as well as current limitations to Tobermory and Lion’s Head’s growth due to the extents of the existing municipal drinking water and wastewater systems and lack of municipal servicing.”
Three Choices Re Lion’s Head Arena/Community Centre
A previous Council applied for a federal/provincial grant to add new ice-level dressing rooms to the Lion’s Head arena. The cost — pre-COVID — was estimated at $5 million, of which the municipality would need to contribute less than one third.
Public consultation suggested that the scope of the project should be broadened to include a library, a replacement for the Friendship Club building and other community use functions. This dramatically increased the budget, but not the subsidy. When it was discovered that there were drainage and other problems with the site, construction was put on hold and alternatives were considered.
A detailed CAO Report in the Agenda for September 9 suggests Council discuss three alternatives:
Option One: Limit the project to adding changerooms, but also include redesigning and moving the main entrance to make it accessible, improving stormwater drainage and installing a new septic system.
The cost of this is estimated at $7 million, of which the federal/provincial grant would cover $3.6 million. Financing this option would increase the municipal tax levy by 1%.
Option Two: Build a new arena and community centre on a new site. The facility would include a hockey rink, a library, and “various sports and events facilities”. The budget is guesstimated (hard to give a precise budget when the design is still hypothetical) at $31 million, of which $3.4 million would be covered by the federal/provincial grant.
If financed over 30 years, this option would increase the municipal tax levy by 22%, but the CAO notes that the increased services offered at the community centre might increase the annual operating costs significantly.
Option Three: “The proposed strategy would involve maintaining and renovating the Lion’s Head Arena at its current location while acquiring property for a new library and community center.”
Under this option, MNBP would be able to apply for funding under the recently-announced Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund, which would provide 50% funding up to a limit of $10 million.
This project would have a total budget of $20 million, of which MNBP would have to cover $10 million. This would result in a municipal levy increase of 6.4%.
The CAO asks Council to provide direction so that staff can set about preparing the funding applications.
Deputy Mayor Not Happy With Consultant’s Report
Back in the winter, Deputy Mayor Rod Anderson suggested that Northern Bruce Peninsula needs to take a very close look at its financial relationship with Bruce County. He noted that we send $8 million in taxes to the County every year and it did not seem that we get $8 million in value back from the county.
After considerable discussion, Council agreed on March 25 to hire a consultant to study the issue, based on recommendations from CAO Peggy Van Mierlo-West. An excerpt from the terms of reference she proposed for the consultant:
“Overall, reviewing a funding model requires a comprehensive analysis of the scope of services, financial contributions, cost-sharing agreements, performance metrics, and stakeholder engagement to ensure that the partnership is sustainable, transparent, and accountable.”
StrategyCorp was hired to conduct this review and analysis; they presented to Council on July 22 and submitted a final report on August 16. That final report is included in the Agenda for Council’s September 9 Meeting (which can be found online).
Deputy Mayor Anderson told me in an interview, that he is “very disappointed” with the consultant report. “They didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. We were looking for specifics about our municipality. We wanted a good breakdown of the finances.”
He pointed out that by far the largest component of the County’s budget is roads. “I wanted a good breakdown of the finances — I envisioned an assessment of our Return On Investment — how many millions are we paying per year for roads and we’re getting back — what — thirty kilometres of County roads?” (I checked — there are 32 km.)
He pointed out that MNBP’s contribution to the County Roads budget is roughly the same as what we spend to maintain our own roads. But the municipality maintains 470 kilometres, not thirty-two. We’re maintaining approximately fifteen times as many kilometres of road for the same budget cost.
A lively discussion can be expected at the September 9 Meeting.
