An Open Letter about the Tiny Township Administration Centre (TTAC) from the Bluewater Action Group

October 14, 2024

To: Tiny taxpayers and Tiny Township Council

Subject: Follow up letter concerning new Tiny Township Administration Centre (TTAC)

Dear Council and Tiny Taxpayers,

On September 16, 2024, the BCAG presented an open letter of factual pros and cons concerning the proposed new Town Hall in Tiny (TTAC).

The letter presented factual pros and cons pertaining to the project. The pros and cons were carefully vetted by both the opposition party and the Council promoting the build. The budget numbers and tax implications were confirmed by Council.

This letter was carefully reviewed by our membership. Citing poor process, lack of transparency, enormous costs, and future tax increases at 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation, our membership has overwhelming rejected the proposed build.

At the behest of our membership, the BCAG, Bluewater Georgina Wendake Beach Association (BGW), and Bluewater Dunes Ratepayers Association (BDRA) cannot support this project in anyway.

Yours truly,

Bluewater Community Action Group (BCAG)

Dear Council and Tiny Taxpayers, Sept. 16, 2024

Our group is quite concerned about the animosity and division over this proposed new building. There has been a lot of misinformation in the media and online. Our group has met several times with Mayor Evans and Councillor Walma to discuss the TTAC. We have also engaged those opposing the new build. www.stopthebuildtiny.ca Councillor Walma has asked to reference his email at the bottom of this document.

This document is an attempt to…

1. Present true facts and numbers, confirmed by Township representatives

2. Present arguments in favour of the build, vetted by Township representatives

3. Present arguments against the build, vetted by opposition groups.

The Pros and Cons were presented to both parties. Their changes/corrections are noted in green font below. We have worked hard to present both sides of issue. It was di2icult to keep all emotion out of this briefing. But if we can at least agree upon the costs, risks, and tax effects, then we can have a constructive discussion.

This document should allow taxpayers to formulate their own decision to support or oppose the largest asset purchase in Tiny Township history.

Yours truly,

Bluewater Community Action Group (BCAG)Is there even a need for a new building?

Is there even a need for a new building?

Council says the current building…

• is too old

• is inefficient and we can meld some existing buildings into one

• is moldy

• is not large enough now nor for future growth

• not environmentally friendly

• they are not considering remote work policies due to lack of accountability

• some staff work in field but still need an office location

• population projections do not include people turning cottages into permanent residences

Opposition says the current building…

• is a reasonable size given that office space is becoming less necessary everywhere

• could be upgraded or added to for a fraction of the cost

• if moldy, would not be in use now

• with a modest upgrade, would be fine for our limited 3000 person population growth to 2051

• would be fine with remote work policies suggested by independent consultants

• The new build will fill in some wetlands, threaten endangered species, and just add to

• environmental degradation

• We are going to pay close to $50 million (interest included) for a building we don’t really need that

• only adds about 3000 to 4000 sq ft of additional work/office space for staff.

Was the process acceptable?

Council says…

• Previous councils started the process

• Renovation costed at $21.9 million vs new building costed at $25.6 million

• There was a newspaper article identifying the new build as a priority

• There were many New Building Committee meetings with minutes posted on Tiny.ca

• The needs of the Township and wants of staff were carefully considered and this was the result.

Opposition says…

• Previous councils started the process but abandoned it because it was unaffordable

• Previous councils considered a practical $5.4 million rectangular building on the existing site. This would be under $10 million in 2024 dollars. Not an inappropriately ornate building on a whole new site as proposed now. Where is the quote for this original design?

• How could a renovation possibly be $21.9 million? This shows lack of options considered and a narrow RFQ process.

• The Building Committee had 11 meetings with no mention of a budget. How is this possible? The building was decided upon before any budget was established

• Finally in December 2023 they asked for a cost estimate.

• In April 2024, Council surprised taxpayers with a $26 million cost estimate. Public Works Report PWR-013-24

• Why was the simple plan on existing site (below) completely disregarded?

Were the taxpayers consulted in the process?

Council says…

• They were elected to make decisions and taxpayers should trust that they are working in the best interests of the community

• Building Committee minutes are posted on tiny.ca

• Residents have had a number of engagement sessions with Council and the building designer

• A silent majority wants the new Town Hall

Opposition says…

• Residents were asked for input only AFTER the decision to proceed was made. And only allowed to discuss the public portion of the building. Residents could not comment on staff work spaces.

• The committee committed to proceed with the build before they had a budget or public engagement. Who can decide on a project when there are no estimates?

• The 2023 Township tax survey clearly showed that residents considered a new building VERY LOW priority. Only 5 of 295 respondents said a new building was priority. 17th out of 18 priorities.

• Statistically implausible that there is a silent majority in favour of the build. There are 2000 lawn signs and 1500 emails against the build.

• 2024 survey had similar results. Doing a survey and then disregarding the results shows disdain for the taxpayer. There is zero evidence of so called “silent majority support”.

How sure are we of the costs?

Council says…

• We are confident that the roughly $26 million cost (plus financing) will not run over budget. There is a 25% contingency built into the pricing.

• Financing costs may go down a bit shortly as Bank of Canada rates fall

• HST for municipalities is roughly 1%

Opposition says…

• The Class D estimate is very incomplete. It says right in the estimate that the estimated costs should be considered “high risk”

• Many exclusions have not been accounted for or are unclear if included or not in the estimate

• Large public buildings are notorious for cost overruns

• Staff has not projected the increase in maintenance costs for the new building over the old (landscaping, window cleaning, janitorial, utilities, insurance, Geothermal and solar panel maintenance, etc.)

• See exclusions below…

What are the numbers for the building and other expected costs and how will they e)ect taxation?

Council says…

• Tiny has one of the lowest tax rates in Simcoe.

• Financing of the $26 million building will have an annual mortgage cost of $1,369,681. They say that in the last 2 years of tax increases they have accounted for $400,000. The remaining $969,681 will be financed by a 2.06% compounded increase in taxes in years 2025, 2026, and 2027.

• The AMP (Asset Management Plan) for Tiny calls for a compounded tax increase of 2.39% annually for the next 20 years.

• Councilor Walma indicated that all water improvements will be borne by those who use the water by way of fees

• Mayor Evans indicated in our meeting that Tiny may expect a $1 to 2 million expense to handle our septage issue if a deal is done with Midland. Councilor Walma indicated that any septage change should be 100% borne by increased user fees to homes with holding tanks, since they are the only ones affected, and that for the remaining 95% of homes the field spreading will continue as it has been for many years.

• Annual inflation is around 2.7% but expected to drop to 2% by year end.

• Councilor Walma and Haley Leblond have confirmed the 7.5% estimated tax increase annually for the next three years.

• CAO Leblond confirmed there will be 3 more years of 7.5% municipal tax increase in 2025,

• 2026,2027. The education and county portions of tax are not a2ected by the build so overall tax increase will be lower.

Opposition says…

• Tiny has a low tax rate because we have very little infrastructure. No arena, no library, no pool, no transit. We don’t even have a traffic light. Our commercial tax base is less than 1% of taxes. We are a residential/cottage/farm community. We mostly just have roads and some parks to maintain. The fact that we have a well managed tax rate is no excuse to spend recklessly on a building that we don’t need. Mayor Evans is on recorded tape justifying the spend by saying “we have an affluent community”.

• Here is what our municipal tax increases will look like IF the project stays exactly on budget and best case scenario…

• Naturally, the annual inflation rate of 3% will go up or down with the economy. But we can expect roughly 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation increase for the next three years and 2 X inflation thereafter. This represents close to 50% increase in municipal portion of taxes over 5 years. Young people and older people on fixed incomes will be truly hurt, if not driven from living in Tiny.

Unknown “wildcard” expenses

o These unknowns could be extremely expensive additions to above noted costs

 TTAC cost overruns (Class D estimate considered high risk)

o What happens to taxes if costs overrun by $5 million? $10 million?

 Cost exclusions that are unclear

o These could be very expensive. Example roller blinds for all the windows

 Increased annual operating costs of new building

o Council has not done any estimate on this

 Septage deal with Midland or other community

o Can we really keep spreading septage on fields indefinitely?

 Water system improvements

o Can this whole cost really be made up by water user fees only?

FOOTNOTES:

Councillor Walma says he can be contacted at councillorwalma@tiny.ca and more information can be found at https://www.tiny.ca/township-hall/new-building

Opposition parties say you can get more information at www.stopthebuildtiny.com