For Bradford West Gwillimbury town councillors, the cost of adding a solar power system to the roof of its new community hub was out of this world.
Councillors, sitting as committee-of-the-whole, recommended staff go to tender for the project to refurbish the former Bradford Public School at 177 Church St., but chose the least expensive option, which did not include putting solar panels on the roof of the facility.
Staff indicated the panels would add nearly $1.4 million to the project’s capital costs.
That would be money well spent, argued Coun. Mark Contois, even if it would take nearly 35 to 45 years to see a return on that investment, depending on energy consumption.
“We need to reduce emissions and we haven’t done very well at that,” he said. “In my mind, it’s worth the money.”
However, his colleagues were turned off by the work that would be required to the building. The existing building at 177 Church St. was first constructed in 1950, with additions in 1955, 1986, 1994 and 2000. Town staff evaluated each era of roof construction individually to determine their respective load capacities.
Ultimately, staff recommended against adding any additional loading onto the original roof structures. The only way to safely install solar panels at this location would be a full reconstruction of the roof, which Terry Foran, director of community services indicated, would account for about $1 million of the additional cost alone and delay the project’s completion further into 2023.
Councillors were quick to side with the staff report, even if they understood where Contois was coming from.
“I’m sympathetic to Coun. Contois’ theory on this and these are things we should be looking at,” said Coun. Ron Orr. “I’m not sure I can support with the numbers I’m hearing.”
“I’m all for going green,” said Coun. Peter Ferragine. “Putting it on the old building… it concerns me…. to tack on another $1.4 million… it didn’t make any sense for this building.”
Coun. Gary Lamb wondered if the solar technology the town could install would be obsolete before a return on investment was seen.
“You have a system life expectancy of 15-20 years; we don’t know what the obsolescence of those systems are,” he said. “My concern is that for that extra money, after 45 years, we’ll have an old system and an old roof.”
The cost estimate option chosen by committee came in at $6,630,675, approximately $553,000 more than had been estimated in June. That number wasn’t a surprise, Foran stated in his report to committee, due to additional information typically being revealed through the detailed design process.
The town is currently awaiting word on a grant application for the project which could lower the municipal cost to about $1.326 million. Regardless, the project could go to tender by the end of the year.
Foran’s report also provided councillors with an update on how the interior of the building will look, as well as some of the exterior features. That gave them a better sense to imagine how the building will be filled as they discussed the proforma financial plan for the community hub.
On top of the capital cost for acquisition and renovation of the property, budgeted at $11,279,900, the community hub could cost anywhere from $343,889 to $758,091 to operate each year, as outlined in the plan provided by Director of Finance Ian Goodfellow.
Of the four options Goodfellow provided, councillors levitated toward the third choice, where town and community organizations occupy 177 Church St., with “legacy tenants,” such as the Helping Hand Food Bank, being grandfathered at a modified legacy rate, while the third-party tenants rate would cover recovering operating costs.
“I don’t think the food bank can go from paying $0 in rent to paying full cost per square foot that’s contemplated here,” said Coun. Jonathan Scott. “I think it’s important that third-party tenants pay a market rate. We don’t want this facility to cannibalize other landlords in the downtown and create an unintended consequence that way.”
However, that third choice comes with a potential tax increase of 3.2 per cent just to operate this building, which did not sit well around the council table.
“That’s a pretty high and significant number,” Contois said. “This is a community hub, I get it. But should it be through taxation? The rentals of the space should be offsetting what the taxation should be.”
As a proforma financial plan, the document committee ultimately recommended was as much a worst-case scenario for operating the community hub. During next year’s budget deliberations, decisions will need to be made on how much money will be required from the ratepayers to make the hub a reality.
“The numbers are important… (but) we’ve got until 2023 to figure out how to completely fund this in the end,” said Deputy Mayor James Leduc.
