Council turns down motion for new town hall build

Jeff Helsdon, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

A motion to build the town’s new hall on vacant town-owned property at the corner of Brock and Harvey Streets was defeated by a narrow 4-3 margin.

Coun. Pete Luciani presented a motion at Monday night’s council meeting calling on council to select what is known as the greyfield site, at the northeast corner of Brock and Harvey Streets, as the location for a new town hall. The motion also directed staff to proceed with the necessary steps to advance the project, including site remediation, hydro relocation, and detailed design and construction.

The issue has been dogging council the last year since a decision was made to proceed with tearing down the existing customer service centre at 10 Lisgar Ave and build a new structure there.

Council then changed that decision, with a mandate construction wouldn’t proceed until funds were accumulated from land sales to fund the building, while not having a firm direction on the location of the building. The availability of the former PeaveyMart building on Concession Street East was a possibility that was being investigated. Council discussed this in closed session the past two meetings, as is the custom on possible real estate transactions, with the latest report presented at Monday’s meeting.

Speaking to his motion, Luciani started with an outline of the history of a new town hall, which has crossed multiple terms of council. It began with the council of the day appointing a town hall steering committee on April 13, 2015. Recommendations were presented to the next council, at which time the committee membership changed and a new mandate was given to choose the best option of staying in the mall, building at 10 Lisgar Ave, or on the greyfield site.

That committee, which Luciani was a member of, chose the greyfield site. He pointed out this council opted to go with Lisgar.

“I supported 10 Lisgar Ave, but also supported a complete tear down and complete rebuild after it was found to save over $1 million going in that direction,” he said. “Saying that, I still don’t believe 10 Lisgar is a better choice than a new build at Brock and Harvey.”

Luciani then referred to the last report from CAO Kyle Pratt showing a new build would provide the best price, meet current standards, and have the best ongoing efficiencies. He also mentioned the Concession Street option, saying, “which I think at this time is no longer viable.”

“Time is money,” he said. “The cost to build would have been less at any past point but a future build is only going to get higher the longer we wait. Keep in mind, this has been going on for 10 years now.”

As part of the last discussion, another report is being worked on to try to bring town stuff under one roof. Staff who were formerly in the Tillsonburg Town Centre are now spread between multiple locations, including two separate rented offices on Brock Street.

“After 10 years settling for anything less than the best long term solution makes sense, I don’t think we need another report,” Luciani said.

Coun. Chris Parker said he wouldn’t support the motion, referring to past reports about contaminants at the greyfield site.

“While I appreciate the work going into this and the comments made by Coun. Luciani, I have major concerns about the site remediation needed in that area and not knowing the cost of that I can’t support that,” he said, adding it could cost millions.

His preference was for 10 Lisgar and to wait for the report in November.

Coun. Kelly Spencer said one building is needed for staff, the process has been lengthy and either location would be on town-owned land. She mentioned how much it cost for the reports by staff and outside professionals.

“This has cost the taxpayer - like I can’t even imagine how much hundreds of thousands, a million, I’m not sure - for nothing. We haven’t gotten any farther, it’s been 10 years,” she said.

Pointing to the last estimate that a building on the greyfield site would be $5.1 to $9 million, she said, “This is the lowest number we’ve seen.”

Spencer said there were advantages to a newer building, but she did share concerns about the possible cost of environmental remediation at the greyfield site. Spencer suggested a friendly amendment to address the possible remediation costs, which were later clarified to likely be $244,000.

Deputy Mayor Dave Beres’ concern was the town’s debt capacity, with the costs of developing industrial lands and expanding recreation facilities in the near future on the town’s plate.

“I believe right now, temporarily, until we know what’s going on with industrial lands and with our debt capacity, that we don’t take off that big chunk and we should support the 10 Lisgar Ave with a moderate fee to reconstruct it to suit the needs of the community for the next year or two and then see what happens after that time,” he said.

Coun. Bob Parsons said he supported Luciani’s motion. His concern was refitting 10 Lisgar, as it would not be substantive enough for the town’s needs in 10 or 30 years.

“We need to build a town hall that’s going to take us 50, 75 or more years down the road,” he said.

Coun. Chris Rosehart was confident that the customer service centre could be made to work.

“The greyfield site I am worried about because of the contamination we really don’t know what’s in the ground,” she said. “Will that building hold all the people, or are we going to have a lot of people work from home? I would rather see people all come to work and all be in one location.”

She also threw out a different concept.

“If we can’t resolve it maybe we should open it up to the taxpayer on the next ballot and let them make the decision. It’s not my tax dollars, it’s their tax dollars; they’re the ones who are going to pay for it.”

There was some discussion from several councillors if the report coming to council in November would deal with a permanent solution, but Pratt explained it was being done to suggest the quickest way to put all staff under one roof. With some feeling there was a desire to wait for that report, Luciani was given the option to withdraw his motion or vote on it that night.

“We waited 10 years,” Luciani said. “To take anything less than the best possible approach moving forward makes no sense at this stage. If we move people temporarily into 10 Lisgar, we’re going to be moving people temporarily out of 10 Lisgar when we start doing construction. We’re going to be putting good money after bad in that location. I don’t think that’s the right road to go I would like to see a vote on this tonight.”

Mayor Deb Gilvesy supported renovating 10 Lisgar, saying land sale revenue should pay for it.

“It’s not up to this council to build for 50 years out,” she said. “The people of today shouldn’t be paying for 50 years down the road. The phased approach at Lisgar would soften the blow to the taxpayer, both in the short term and the long term. There is land around there where it could be expanded in the future.”

The final vote, which was recorded, was Luciani, Parsons, and Spencer for the motion, and Parker, Rosehart, Beres, and Gilvesy against it.