Dear editor:

I am one of those snowbirds, just returned home, missed the to and fro of local politics and the never-to-end proposals for development, but my neighbours have quickly brought me up to speed.

With the clarity of thought this break has rendered, I am processing the significant decision over 176 Wellington St., the old hospital.

I understand that council through public forums and other means has sought citizen opinions and currently has authorized up to $200,000 to advance design, costing and financial modelling for a parking garage. Perhaps a reasonable step, if the underlying assumptions hold.

The problem is that the numbers now emerging strongly suggest they may not. At first glance, the proposal is straightforward: a structured parking facility of approximately 150 spaces, potentially integrated with community uses.

The preliminary capital estimate is $14.7 million, or roughly $98,000 per space. Annual operating costs are projected between $120,000 and $225,000, with additional accessibility requirements to increase that figure.

So, what does the town’s own data tell us? Current utilization at the hospital site is approximately seven per cent, far below the broader Old Town system average of roughly 23 per cent for the entire heritage district. Thus paid-parking system is operating well below capacity.

Based on reported revenues, utilization equates to approximately 22.8 per cent of theoretical maximum. This matters because the financial projections for the new structure assume something very different.

Town modelling appears to rely on utilization rates between 55 per cent and 85 per cent. That is between two and eight times current performance at the site, and well above system-wide average. Recent increases in parking revenue do not resolve this gap.

The town’s 2024 figures reflect improved monetization — higher rates, better enforcement and digital payment systems — not a surge in demand. That is a one-time step change, not evidence of sustained growth.

Only at sustained utilization levels above approximately 55 per cent does the structure approach break-even.

The risk profile becomes clear. This is a project with fixed, long-term debt obligations, paired with revenue that is seasonal, variable, and sensitive to policy choices. If demand falls short — or even stabilizes at current levels — the gap does not disappear.

All of this leads to a simple conclusion: under realistic conditions, the proposed parking structure is unlikely to be financially self-sustaining, and the burden shifts to the taxpayer. This is at a time when citizens are alarmed that taxes are not being contained.

That should give any council pause.

There is also a broader question that extends beyond the balance sheet. The hospital site is not just another parcel of land. It is one of the most important dwindling public assets in the town.

Its use should reflect long-term community priorities, and fit into the long-term vision for our community, not a response to peak-season demand for parking.

Before committing to a permanent structure, the town has options that are more flexible and far less costly: peripheral parking with shuttle service, pricing strategies to shift demand or seasonal measures tailored to peak periods.

These approaches can be tested, adjusted, and scaled. A $14.7 million structure cannot.

This is not a question of being for or against parking. It is a question of whether the proposed solution matches the problem, whether the numbers support the decision, and if the proposal fits the vision for our NOTL.

On the evidence available today, it does not.

Colin Patey
Old Town