Skip to content

Two views: Fate of the Pelham Arena lands in residents' hands

The case for caution Commentary by Alan Morgan, Resident T he Town of Pelham , staff and elected officials have not handled this file well at all going back to 2016.
pelhamarena
Interior of the old Pelham arena. VOICE FILE PHOTO

The case for caution

Commentary by Alan Morgan, Resident

The Town of Pelham, staff and elected officials have not handled this file well at all going back to 2016.  Starting with discussions with realtors to sell the combined arena lands reported on by the Voice, my neighbours and I had a meeting with the CAO and Director of Planning in 2016.  We couldn't believe that a park was being sold, and were told everything was on the table but no decisions had been made.  After a campaign to raise awareness of the issues, the Town went to a more consultative process.  

The charrette process, while well-intentioned, alienated many people by limiting the taxpayers’ choices to five development scenarios.  There was never an all-park choice, in spite of voters asking at every charrette session and follow-up meeting why not. The Town had already decided the arena was surplus and the land was being sold without public consultation.

Thanks to our new Mayor we are revisiting that issue but under stressful conditions.  Their intentions are good but the presentation by Town staff needs to be clearly laid out and be reasonable.  The cost assumptions and financing alternatives need to be out in the open so the Mayor, councillors and the people of Pelham have the right information to make an informed decision.

First of all, a park is not a frill or luxury.

The arena was built on parks and recreation over four decades ago.  If the arena is not being used any more then that doesn't mean we should sell off our parkland.  There are many well-studied and documented benefits of having parkland.  One of them is higher property values for all of the residents.  People considering moving to Pelham will think twice if the Town is selling off parkland, basketball and tennis courts, which is the current plan.  There are good uses for a park.  We know the summer Bandshell concert site behind Town Hall is too small for the summer events.  It could be moved to this park and expanded.  Many Pelham residents enjoy the concert series and wish it was a bigger venue with better parking.  We must think long-term and not just sell off parkland to meet a one- time cash need.

Second, the costs of demolition as stated by the Town are high and the remediation costs are totally unknown. Someone saw a staff person with a bucket of chemicals? We need to have a realistic estimate of the demolition costs. That can be done in a matter of days.  We also need to know what the Town staff were doing on the site and where.  Running an ice compressor inside of the arena in a confined space isn't going to lead to over $500,000 in cleanup costs.  That information will lead to a range of estimates for the remediation of the soil if it’s needed at all.  If we don't know any of the answers, then lets say so please.  

Third, financing a capital project over one year is unrealistic.  No capital project in this town will ever get done using that high of a bar.  The Treasurer's presentation was unclear about how much the park option would cost, how much it would cost for the average assessed home, and more importantly, how long the increased taxes would go on for.

At the meeting I was at, three people asked for clarification on these issues.  We are still seeing unreliable numbers from the Town.  The councillors should be demanding realistic numbers and financing alternatives in order to make an informed decision on behalf of the voters.  Keeping all of the site as parkland, being honest and open, were recent campaign issues. It was only in October that the election was held!

A 7.7 percent ( Treasurer's number) one-time increase for an average home paying $4,000 in taxes is $308. That is paid in four installments.  $77 dollars each due date for one year.  The Treasurer wasn't clear whether that 7.7 percent is based on the total tax paid or just the Town portion.  If it's only the Town portion then it’s $37.50 each due date for one year.  At the meeting I attended, a figure of $140 was talked about.  Do our councillors know these numbers?  I don't and I went to the meeting to get that information.  

Another financing alternative is to include the cost in an upcoming debenture issue. If we use debenture financing, like we did for the community center, then the cost per tax installment is closer to $1.00 (one dollar) for each installment.  There are many other financing options in between these two alternatives, which I believe should be explored.  

How much room do we have to issue debentures now that hundreds of homes have been built here, contributing more tax dollars to our debt limit? The debt-limit numbers presented at the meeting and how close we are to the limit were from the same presentation I saw a year and a half ago? Those were based on 2016 numbers.

Are the councillors aware of these financing alternatives?  Do they know how much room we have to borrow today?  Are we unable to borrow any money? 

It was only a few months ago that the previous council, KPMG and others were telling us all is well.  Now the same staff are recommending we need to use debt counseling tactics.

It’s unfortunate that the message from the Town is not clear and is being presented in a way that is alarming taxpayers.

Who would vote in favour of 7, 8 ,9 or 10 percent tax increases?  Yet we can consider more parking for the new hockey arena to accommodate a very short term event? Is that another alarming tax levy? Why wasn't that presented by the Town as a large tax increase?

The community center has seen enough of our money for a lifetime. It now needs to be properly managed to minimize the financial impact on future taxes.

The previous town staff estimates of $100,000-a-year operating loss are far from the truth. The Interim CAO and Treasurer needs to come up with an operating plan that fences-in the costs of the community center.  Building a $40 million project with no realistic operating plan was irresponsible. I, for one, don't want to see any more of my tax dollars going into the community center.

Let's start thinking about how we can make the rest of our town better and more attractive to everyone. I call on the Town to publish a range of costs for keeping all of the park, along with a range of tax levies for the average home owner based on different financing alternatives. Cash-only is not a realistic option.

Once the parkland is sold for development, it’s gone forever.

[Editor’s note: According to the Town’s “preferred” development plan, the large majority of housing will be built where the existing arena and parking lot now sit. The present soccer field area, playground, and platform tennis courts will remain.]

 

The case for action

Commentary by Mayor Marvin Junkin

On February 11, Town Council held a special divided meeting of council, which was called to discuss again the sale of the old arena lands, located at 1120 Haist Street, Fonthill. These two sittings were held from 1 to 3 PM, and from 6 to 8 PM. Almost all members of council had made campaign promises that if the site had not been sold when council took office, then a public meeting would be held to revisit the decision of the previous council to sell the property.

The meetings held at the Meridian Community Centre fulfilled these promises. These meetings also met another promise made by me and others—that, if elected, the new council would engage the residents in community decisions, providing them with all the facts needed to make decisions for the good of the entire town of Pelham.

With presentations from the Director of Community Planning and Development, Barbara Wiens, and Interim CAO and Treasurer, Teresa Quinlin, information was presented in clear, precise language. An opportunity was then provided for residents to ask questions regarding the property and the proposed site plan. Both presentations are available to review on the Town website.

For those residents who were unable to attend either meeting, I will explain the choices here. If the land is sold, the Town will receive between $2.7 and $3 million dollars for the property, plus approximately $500,000 in development charge fees. When the site is fully developed, the Town will collect approximately $80,000 annually in property taxes. Because the land is being sold “as is,” the Town would not be responsible for the cost of demolition of the arena and possible remediation of the soil. These two items could cost the Town nearly $1 million dollars. It must be pointed out that the park, playground, paddle tennis and the wooded area on the west side of property boundary would remain. The monies received from the sale of this property would be used to complete capital projects that have been carried forward from prior years.

If the Town does not sell this land, the Town would be forced to take out a $4 million debenture to pay for the capital projects and to fund the demolition of the arena and subsequent soil remediation. This debenture would be paid by raising property taxes 3.9% over ten years. This tax increase would be over and above any usual property tax increase during this time. Also, if we retain the land, we would not receive the $500,000 in development charge fees or the $80,000 in annual property taxes.

The taxpayers of Pelham can have input into the final decision by going to the Town website and taking part in the poll which began this Monday February 18, and will be open for voting for two weeks, closing Monday March 4. Once the results have been tabulated, staff will present a report to council and a decision will be rendered by the end of March.

As your Mayor, I feel strongly that there is a need to sell this property so that capital projects can be completed with these monies, as opposed to adding to the debt load, which is already at an uncomfortable level. Please visit the website, www.pelham.ca/arena-lands to give your input through the voting process.