A Fair Question
I am the Scugog Council representative on the Fair Board. I have been trying for close to 4 years to get improved site protection, landscaping, and better governance implemented for the fairgrounds. I have been thwarted at every turn. But, while I keep losing battles, I think there is a way to win the war. I am going to share my ideas and would like to hear yours.
The staff report, which is a follow-on to the Visioning Exercise Final Report, is controversial. It surprised me. It is more radical than I expected, but far less radical than I think it could - and should be. As presented, I respectfully disagree with the report in its entirety. It is the exact opposite of what I think should happen. The proposed plan will not work well programmatically, it is not what most in the community want, it is not fiscally responsible, and it is not realistic at our current staffing levels to implement.
In contrast, here is what I think:
Ownership
In my view, the Township should grant a partial ownership stake in the property to the Port Perry Agricultural Society (PPAS). It could be though an incorporation, a trust structure, or other mechanisms. The Township would be the majority owner, and the agreement would entail that full ownership revert to the Township should the PPAS cease to operate.
We need to get the fairgrounds protected. Every 10 or 15 years someone comes along wanting that site - developers, a school board, misguided Councils. This has to stop. A really good way to get that off the table is to change the ownership structure.
Pride of ownership is a real thing. Get rid of the lease. We don’t need a tenant, we need a long-term management agreement. Agricultural Societies that have ownership in their properties have markedly better parks - and much better opportunity to secure donations and grants.
Funding
Why on earth would we take this site under municipal management and thereby import our cost structure - the administrative overhead, the procurement polices, the collective bargaining agreements, when we are already resource constrained in both labour and capital. The property sale will not cover the long-term maintenance and staff costs of this site and its proposed improvements. It will be your tax dollars - unnecessarily.
The PPAS already pays for regular maintenance of the grounds, and for other projects. It operates with volunteer labour, donated services, and materials often at cost or as gifts. While our municipal staff are great - they can’t compete with free.
The PPAS has the financial capacity to undertake improvements. For its part, the Township already has close to half a million dollars in a reserve account for tree planting. There is no need to sell land. In fact, the Township is already sitting on vacant land elsewhere that could be sold if the rationale is to secure funds for projects the community desires.
Governance
I think the greatest failure to date has been governance. In the original agreement of 1910 in which the Agricultural Society paid for half of the acquisition price of the land, there was to be a park committee of 3 members of Council and 3 members of the Society to regulate the grounds. We need to re-establish a Park Committee to run this park for the benefit of everyone - with municipal, community, and PPAS representatives. The Central Park Conservancy that runs New York’s Central Park is a widely admired example of this type of governance. If they can make it happen there, we can make it happen here.
We need the Township and PPAS to work together rather than fight each other. I am pretty sure that can happen.
What do you think?