The downtown core of St. Marys emerged as “a common theme” through the past year’s work of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC). Among short-term recommendations now being brought to Town Council from the committee are an increase in development charges, the hiring of a bylaw enforcement officer, the provision of snow removal in the downtown, and a relocation of the Tourism office from the Town-owned VIA Rail station.
The eyes of the town’s Heritage Committee, meanwhile, have also been heavily focussed on the downtown core in recent months — specifically, the ongoing effort to nail down whether or not Council will eventually support a recently-altered version of the Heritage Conservation District.
The EDAC advisory group was formerly known simply as the Economic Development Committee. It took on the more formal name at the beginning of 2011, and at the same time took on the more formal role of assessing how the Town might pursue the future goals identified in its Strategic Plan.
The first report from the updated EDAC came before Council for information only at its meeting Tuesday, Dec. 20. The report described the committee’s mandate: “to encourage a positive business, industrial, and tourism climate for the benefit of St. Marys and area, to promote a diversified, balanced and socially responsible economy which encourages the retention of existing businesses, supports the development of new enterprises and provides opportunities for new community economic development partnerships.”
Over the past four months, the report explains, the committee completed SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analyses in four sectors: industrial, commercial, downtown and tourism. “When the analysis was complete, a common theme which focused on the downtown core emerged amongst the sectors.”
Responding to a question from Councillor Lynn Hainer about the “achievable results” that might come out of the committee’s work, Manager of Development Grant Brouwer said, “we were kind of stumbling with the committee, and now that we’re actually walking — and walking fairly quickly — we’ll probably be able to show some of those results.”
Mayor Steve Grose, however, cautioned that none of the EDAC recommendations will go forward without Council approval.
The Dec. 20 report states the committee’s 10 recommendations have been split into three categories: short range (budget consideration for 2012); medium range (budget consideration in less than two years); and long range (budget consideration in 2-5 years). Only the short-range recommendations were included in the report, with the others “to follow at another time.”
Of the four specific recommendations noted above, the report states that “Council is dealing with (the increased development charges and the bylaw enforcement officer) under 2012 budget considerations. The committee recommends sending the downtown snow removal option to the Public Works Subcommittee “for consideration.” And the relocation of the Tourism office “is currently being vetted by Council.”
Unlike those four suggestions, the committee’s fifth short-term recommendation is not specific in nature. It calls on the Town to “maintain and help foster growth with existing businesses.”
According to the report, this recommendation “is in the 2012 (proposed) budget as a $60,000 request broken into three areas: $20,000 for the Community Improvement Plan (Façade Improvement Grant Program); $20,000 for the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program (existing); and $20,000 for a business incubator program (new) which will assist with small business ventures.”
The St. Marys Heritage Committee, meanwhile, is hopeful it finally has the terms established for the completion of a Heritage Conservation District proposal by Stratford-based consultants Town Design Collaborative. At its Dec. 20 meeting, Council received a recommendation from the committee to retain Town Design for four weeks at a cost of $1,250.
The Heritage Committee’s report to Council included a proposal from the consultants — revised from an original Nov. 11 document that included “work beyond what they had been asked to perform and at a much greater cost than anticipated.” At a Council meeting in November, Councillor Don Van Galen argued the Town should abandon the Heritage Conservation District entirely as a result of this discrepancy, but other councillors voted to go back to the consultants and request a modified proposal. That proposal was submitted to the Heritage Committee on Dec. 2.
At the Dec. 20 meeting of Council, Grose praised St. Marys Museum curator Trisha McKibbin, the staff representative on the Heritage Committee, for her hard-nosed bargaining with the consultants on the issue.
A plan for the Heritage Conservation District first came before the previous Town Council in July, 2009. In 2010, the previous Council voted to revise the proposed District’s boundaries to include a less expansive swath of edge-of-downtown properties. A previous consultants’ proposal failed to adequately take into account those revised boundaries, and the Heritage Committee is hopeful the upcoming work by Town Design Collaborative will rectify that problem so the proposal can again be brought before Council.
There is also an outstanding threat from a landowner of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the Heritage Conservation District is approved.
At the Dec. 20 meeting of Council, Councillor Carey Pope — a downtown resident and business owner who has expressed misgivings about the concept in the past — said she would like to hear about how the presence in the Town of Goderich of a Heritage Conservation District affected that community’s efforts recovering from the devastating August, 2011 tornado.