Report identifies revenue to offset town hall costs

Jeff Helsdon, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

As much as $17 million in revenue could be realized through the sale of town-owned property to offset the cost of a town hall.

In a report presented to council on Dec. 9, Development Commissioner Cephas Panschow identified net potential revenue of $9 million to $17 million from selling town-owned property, if all opportunities are realized. The variance in the proceeds is due to market conditions at the time of sale and other factors related to what is sold. These properties include town land on Earle Street, Broadway, Maple Lane, Young Street, and William Street. While the sale of property at 25 Maple Lane is already in process, it could take until 2027 to see revenue from the other lands due to existing leases. Panschow estimated there could be $6 million realized by the end of 2026.

The recommendation council wants a target cost of $11 million for a new facility, with 50 per cent of the capital funds achieved prior to construction commencing.

“What we are seeing here that will minimize the impact to taxpayers,” Panschow said. “We want to bring something forward that can fund this space, which is needed, but in a way that is fiscally responsible and have minimal impact to the taxpayer of the town of Tillsonburg.”

Coun. Kelly Spencer said there is still a resolution council passed earlier to demolish the existing public works/customer service centre at 10 Lisgar and build a new town hall there. If that was reconsidered, she questioned what that property, which wasn’t listed in Panschow’s report, would be worth. Panschow estimated it was worth between $2 million and $3 million.

Mayor Deb Gilvesy pointed out there is a proposal to build supportive housing on part of the Earle Street housing, which would eliminate it from the potential sale list. Panschow confirmed that would reduce the potential revenue.

Coun. Chris Rosehart confirmed that the vote for the customer service building still stood, which was confirmed.

A motion was presented for the development commissioner to proceed with the sale of the identified land, to secure 50 per cent of the cost of the town hall prior to construction commencing, and to set the target price at $11 million.

“I still think there is no appetite in the community for an $11 million town hall, regardless of what we fund it with, it’s still an $11-million town hall,” said Coun. Chris Parker. “I think there’s better uses of money from the sale of land.”

He mentioned the possibility of renovating the bay portion of the existing customer service centre for council chambers and renting office space. He requested a recorded vote.

Coun. Pete Luciani agreed with much of Parker's comments but pointed out that the town hall cost only $9 million a couple of years ago. He didn’t want to see a facility underbuilt so that another council would have to deal with it in the future.

“It’s going to be more than that a few years from now,” he said.

Deputy Mayor Dave Beres agreed inaction by past councils has left this council with a difficult and expensive situation. He also pointed out the report doesn’t include the money paid for rent over the years.

“We just have to show some maturity here for the long term future and for future councils,” he said.

Luciani said the possibility of renovating the bays at 10 Lisgar was considered several years ago but was not been moved on. He said the town hall is to create a more efficient place for the employees.

“It was more efficient when it was in the mall altogether. I don’t want to see this linger on for a long time. We are looking for more than just a council chamber,” he said.

Gilvesy reminded council the plan to renovate at 10 Lisgar with both council chambers and offices.

Parker pointed out that with the work-at-home policy, employees aren’t all in one space.

Spencer countered that staff are spread out, and the council did receive a report that morale is low.

“The point is they are in the office the majority of the time and they should be under one roof,” she said.

The motion passed with Spencer, Luciani, Parsons and Beres voting for it and Gilvesy, Parker and Rosehart voting against it.