Parks & Recreation

To the best of my knowledge, the NTRC name was chosen because the building was built to serve all residents in New Tecumseth with unique offerings, such as the indoor soccer pitch and twin pad ice rinks. Plus we already had the "Old Alliston Arena" as it's affectionately known, or our Alliston Memorial Arena which could be confusing.

This issue actually came before Council during this term when signage appeared overnight referring to the NTRC as the 'Alliston Community Centre'. I supported maintaining the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre name because I believe major municipal facilities can belong to the entire municipality regardless of which community they happen to be physically located in and moreover, because user groups who had stationary, websites, insurance forms and other documentation in the NTRC name said it was confusing to their visiting groups and would be costly to update.

There's a history here. A lot of it has to do with us being one community and not three distinct centres. I believe it was the first big build after amalgamation. The Alliston Memorial Arena follows suit with the other two centres.

Great question! And I have to admit, when I saw “Alliston Community Centre,” my first thought was ACC… and apparently Toronto already had dibs on that one. 😂

But there actually is some history behind the NTRC name.

When the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre opened in 2007, Alliston Memorial Arena was still being used as an ice arena. Its ice-making equipment was removed when the new twin-pad NTRC opened.

Alliston Memorial kept its name, and importantly, it really is a Memorial. It was built after WWII and dedicated to those who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars. That name and history deserve to be preserved.

From what I’ve been able to find, naming the new facility the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre was intentional. Although it is physically located in Alliston, the idea was to create a facility that represented Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham and our rural community. It was meant to belong to all of New Tecumseth.

Personally, I think there was some good thinking behind that. We don’t have to give up the individual identities and history of Alliston, Beeton or Tottenham to also have something that carries the name we all share.

And besides… NTRC has probably grown on us by now. 😉

Because it was the first arena built after amalgamation in 1991

Good question. Using NewTecumseth is a good way to build our unified identity. It is like the Business Improvement Associations and other service groups.

As a Morrison Ave. resident myself, this one is very close to home for me, literally. I have conversations with residents about what is happening in the Park (and throughout the area north to Young Street) on an almost daily basis.

I want to be very clear that needles, drug paraphernalia and human waste in a public park where children play and walk to school are unacceptable. We can have compassion for people struggling with homelessness, mental health and addiction while also expecting our public spaces to be safe for everyone, so I've already taken some action. Most recently, I arranged to have the lower limbs of the trees in the park trimmed to improve visibility and remove areas that were being used to hide or stash items.

I would like to see increased police presence and patrols in the area, better education for residents about when and how to report activity through the OPP non-emergency line, and conversations with the neighbourhood about establishing a Neighbourhood Watch or similar community-safety initiative – a committee I will be suggesting to our new Mayor for formation.

At the same time, enforcement alone won't solve addiction or homelessness. We need our outreach, mental-health, addiction and housing agencies involved so people using the park can be connected with appropriate services.

This is a difficult choice as one option will upset one group, and another answer will upset another. However, as difficult as it is, decisions have the be made.

As I discussed the issue with constituents, the missing pool always comes up. Residents repeatedly noted how a year-round pool should have been included when the New Tec Rec Centre was originally built. Given the fact the prior council has already approved the arena, this question seems like a purely academic exercise. My view is I would have elected for the pool since New Tecumseth already has facilities available for all residents across Alliston, Tottenham, and Beeton. The pool would serve a larger demographic, including toddler swimming lessons, school safety programs, seniors and open public recreation. In addition, I do agree Beeton deserves a new arena as the existing one has run its course and is very costly to maintain. The broader question is what is best for New Tecumseth as a whole. The inability to access a pool forces families, seniors, and swimmers to travel outside the municipality or rely on private/seasonal alternatives. Having said that one cannot dismiss the impact a 5% increase and its demands will have on the already stretched taxpayer.

I had previously answered this question. Thank you :)

Pools are nice, but never pay for themselves. The 5% refers to the "arena build in one of the 3 options", not including a pool. Keep in mind that the 5% is on top of any other usual increase for any given year. The cumulative tax increase from 2022-2026 (inclusive) is around 27%.

Also consider that the p/i of the $46 million option (no pool) is about 2.8m per year. Then you add the operational costs and subtract the actual usage fee to arrive at the net cost, then add any repairs or depreciation. The cost to build is just one factor.

I believe we need to review the plan and instead of asking a service to offer a suggestion, we should come up with the requirements, with a FULL and comprehensive understanding of the actual costs, and then request a tender based on our acceptable budget.

In the current economic climate I am not in favor of any increase in taxes. I do reserve the right to change my view if there is strong evidence that supports the need.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on what makes this a pressing need. My limited view suggests that we are trying to honor a broken promise to appease part of the electorate.

Every taxpayers dollars are important and we should not burden the whole town with debt at the expense of what was a campaign promise of last century. Decisions should be made according to what services would stimulate the town and all residents.

I don't think building another arena was wise — we already have numerous rinks. If anything, we need an indoor public pool. And I don't want taxes to increase, so I'd fund it through development charges and grants instead of property taxes.

I think this question has been asked already.

If I could only choose one, I would choose an indoor pool. I believe it would serve a broader range of residents, from children and families to seniors, recreation, therapy and competitive use.

But I don’t think that’s how we should be planning for a growing community. We have three important recreation projects to consider: the Beeton arena, an indoor pool and the field house.

I would have moved all three forward to the next steps so we could better understand the costs, funding opportunities and options before making final decisions.

We need to plan ahead for the whole community, while still being realistic about what taxpayers can afford and when.

This question doesn't really give the whole picture. Because it's important to also note a pool comes at even higher tax rate increase. But this does circle back, how do we find additional funding if we only move one of 3 projects forward and that's where previous council made an error in my opinion.

Yes. I do have concerns about a 5% tax increase to build another arena before we address the need for a pool. I believe we need to look carefully at our community’s priorities, affordability for taxpayers, and whether our recreation investments are meeting the needs of the whole community.

This question Was Already answered In Arena vs Pool. Here is my response below.

This is a difficult choice as one option will upset one group, and another answer will upset another. However, as difficult as it is, decisions have the be made.

As I discussed the issue with constituents, the missing pool always comes up. Residents repeatedly noted how a year-round pool should have been included when the New Tec Rec Centre was originally built. Given the fact the prior council has already approved the arena, this question seems like a purely academic exercise. My view is I would have elected for the pool since New Tecumseth already has facilities available for all residents across Alliston, Tottenham, and Beeton. The pool would serve a larger demographic, including toddler swimming lessons, school safety programs, seniors and open public recreation. In addition, I do agree Beeton deserves a new arena as the existing one has run its course and is very costly to maintain. The broader question is what is best for New Tecumseth as a whole. The inability to access a pool forces families, seniors, and swimmers to travel outside the municipality or rely on private/seasonal alternatives. Having said that one cannot dismiss the impact a 5% increase and its demands will have on the already stretched taxpayer.

No. I believe an indoor pool is both wanted and needed in New Tecumseth, and I don't think we should be looking at major recreation projects in isolation from one another.

I voted to defer both the indoor pool and sports dome to the 2027 Budget deliberations (and I voted against the arena) because I want Council to look at the bigger picture: what recreation facilities do we already have? What are we missing? What will each new facility cost to build and operate? What do we need to reserve for the eventual replacement of the assets we already own? And, ultimately, what can taxpayers reasonably afford?

An indoor pool would fill a significant gap in our recreation programming, but pools also require an ongoing municipal operating subsidy. That's why the original concept of combining the pool with a fitness centre piqued my interest, as membership revenue could potentially help offset some of those ongoing costs but that's not what council originally asked for.

Further, I wasn't satisfied with the initial design given to Council. I wanted to see other configurations, locations and funding opportunities, including potential grants, before committing to a project of this size. The NTRC was identified as the preferred location, but I don't believe that should prevent us from asking whether another site or a larger multi-use recreation complex could provide better long-term value.

My vote to defer was not a vote against a pool. It was a vote to bring these major recreation projects into the same budget discussion so Council can make an informed decision about our entire recreation system and not simply approve one expensive project at a time.

That probably would not have been a decision I would have made. The user data would guide my thoughts.

Questions like how many people use the current Ice Rinks? What is the cost per user and what are they charged? How many different people use the icepads and what is the projected increase?

How much does it cost to run a pool? What is the capacity and staffing levels?

When comparing the two, what is the average cost for use per individual? Considering equipment or training etc. Which benefits the most families?

Why are these the only two options? Lots of questions that I would like to ask before committing millions of dollars to any project.

This is an example of what happens when people don't vote. Millions of dollars budgeted for from such a small percentage of the electorate.

No — I think the pool is needed more.

I have supported SHIFT through volunteering, advocacy and delivering support through council. I believe we have the means to care and help our most vulnerable while also keeping our downtowns safe for everyone including those without a place to sleep.

Homelessness is a growing issue across rhe country and the solution lies in the collaboration and pooling of resources from all levels of government. With the province defunding many of the services through DC reduction, our town needs to make an strong effort to lobby the province for funding.

I sit on the affordable housing committee at the County where I have advocated we need more transitional housing. I plan to continue those efforts as Mayor.

A pool, a dome, an arena. All cost money after the fact. We pay to build them and we then charge our residents to use them. For me I'd love to see some options that don't charge residents after they are built. Mainly a trail system that works, that actually gets us places from our front door. Parks such as an All Wheels Park that generates options for our youth and our youth at heart. Our economy today is perhaps more dire than it appears. Once development reboots and the development charges start rolling in, perhaps that is the time we revisit these big projects. I do want a pool though, but for now I use the outdoor one on an almost daily occurrence (in season) as well as the Nott, and I have been up to the base as well. We are fortunate to have so many surrounding options.

Here's an outside the box possibility -- What if we sold the NTRC to private business? and did a full reboot on our Town Recreation Centre? I'd love to explore this at least.

I don't think it should have been a one over the other. I personally believe all 3 items should have advance to the next stages to see what grants we could participate in? What partnerships could be made ie name recognition etc at a cost of course and to explore further costing. It was a real shame for how the council meeting was handled that day.

If elected I would bring it back to the table with hopes we're not too late and other elected members hopefully support it. After all your one voice and one vote amongst 8 other elected members. (We ) those selected to represent our communities and residents need to work together and find a common ground. This past council from my position, watching every meeting was not working together. It wasn't just one person they each brought good and bad over the 4 year period.

The plan for the pool was brought forward at the end of the term of council, not during the budget process. This was not right. I wanted the opportunity to speak to the 2400 residents I was going to be meeting at the door to see if they want a pool (which will most likely be located in Alliston) and do they want the tax increase that will come with it? We need to get some help with a project like this and partner with other municipalities, the province or developers. Adjala-Tos hasn't given us any money for Parks & Recreation and yet their residents use our facilities. Other municipalities, like King, get money from businesses for their facilities. We need to look for other sources of money to help pay for a project of this magnitude as the tax payer can't shoulder the burden.

Not in the form currently proposed. I voted against moving forward with the single-pad Beeton arena because I don't believe the cost provides enough benefit to taxpayers, particularly when we have other significant gaps in our recreation facilities.

The current concept is a very expensive single-pad arena, and the capital cost is only part of the equation. Once it's built, taxpayers are responsible for the ongoing operating and maintenance costs indefinitely. We also know that, as New Tecumseth grows, we will eventually need additional ice capacity. Building one new pad now and potentially having to address a second one somewhere else later doesn't strike me as good long term planning.

I've also listened to Beeton user groups whose needs extend beyond traditional ice sports. Ball hockey, roller derby and other dry-floor users need appropriate space too. I think we should be looking at how a future facility can serve as many residents and activities as possible rather than designing around one use.

I would like to see us investigate a larger, long-term recreation complex in Beeton, including whether the JOC lands could accommodate a twin-pad arena together with other recreation amenities, potentially including the future indoor pool. A larger site could also give us room for future expansion and ample parking as the community grows.

There may also be opportunities to fund the growth-related portions of a larger recreation complex through DC's, which should be fully explored before asking existing taxpayers to carry the entire cost.

I absolutely support maintaining municipal arena and recreation facilities in Beeton. The question for me isn't whether Beeton deserves investment. The question is whether spending tens of millions of dollars on a single-pad arena today is the best use of that investment. It isn't.

I believe Beeton is due for an expansion of facilities, but we have to re-examine the finances to minimize the tax burden. I believe we can achieve a facility build-out and enhancement without the projected (and almost always underestimated) budget of $44-$46M.

Our cumulative tax increase from 2022 is approximately 27%**

Adding 5%*** for the facility and then adding the usual tax increase due to inflation, etc. will result in a total tax increase beyond 5%. Many residents are unhappy with the constant tax increases.

**Adding the individual yearly tax increases.

***Although it's stated in the proposal that a 5% tax increase would be required, there is no stated clarity on the projected tax increase due to other factors, ands as such we can't know the total tax impact from 2026-7 and beyond.

The Beeton arena is a topic I have heard about since moving to New Tecumseth. It tends to come up as a sore point of broken promises.

No one should feel cheated and I understand the sentiment of injustice. The message comes across as "we deserve this".

Beeton has grown a great deal over the last few years. I would be interested to know numbers before I form an opinion. How many different users are we talking about across the different arenas? What is the cost per user and what do we charge them? Occupancy levels and demand levels etc.

The business case should make sense. If this is the best value for ALL residents, then we have to find a way to make it work. This shouldn't be an emotionally charged decision, rather a calculated rational action.

If someone has actual numbers, please share them.

No, not at all. We already have rinks available, and property taxpayers do not want an increase in taxes.

A 5% increase in taxation for the Beeton Arena is not something I support. My approach is that the replacement of the arena is something the whole of New Tecumseth deserves. But that doesn’t mean we should shoulder the cost alone. Many municipalities have built state of the art rec facilities with grants and funding from higher levels of government. It is those relationships and governments that I will bring to the table and secure funding from. Our town pays its fair share of taxes, and our residents deserve to see value for it.

As it stands now the Beeton Arena is already approved. Those who voted for it are Mayor, Deputy Mayor, councillors Jacks, Biss, Harrison-McIntyre, Cox and Masters.

I absolutely support Beeton having an arena. Where I struggle is with asking taxpayers, particularly at a time when so many households are already feeling financially stretched, to absorb an approximately 5% tax increase for this project alone.

The financial information presented to Council estimated the single-pad arena option at more than $44 million, with an equivalent tax-rate impact of approximately 5.47%. That’s significant, and it can’t be considered in isolation from all of the other needs facing our municipality.

So, would I support building that option today under the current financial circumstances? No.

That doesn’t mean I don’t support Beeton or believe it deserves an arena. Quite the opposite. I want Beeton to have a recreation facility that can serve that community for generations. I just don’t believe we should put ourselves in a position where achieving that one goal creates an unaffordable burden for taxpayers or prevents us from addressing roads, infrastructure and other priorities across New Tecumseth.

I would rather continue maintaining and repairing the existing Beeton Memorial Arena, provided it can be operated safely, while we work toward a more financially responsible path to replacement.

That means looking at future growth and the increased tax base it can bring to Beeton, development-charge funding where applicable, reserves, grants and funding opportunities from other levels of government. I would also want to revisit the project as our financial position changes rather than committing taxpayers to the entire burden today.

This is actually one of the reasons I support balanced growth across Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham. Beeton needs additional residents not simply for the tax base, but also to support its businesses, recreation facilities and community services.

I want a new arena for Beeton. The question for me isn’t whether Beeton deserves one — it absolutely does. The question is how we get there without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers.

Sometimes responsible leadership means saying, “Yes, I support the goal but no, I don’t support the way we’re being asked to pay for it today.”

I understand why this idea is appealing, particularly as our community grows and more residents live in homes with smaller yards or in apartments. However, I don't support opening our sports fields for seasonal off-leash use.

Our sports fields are significant public assets, and there are practical concerns around damage to the turf, parking, liability and maintenance. There is also the issue of pet waste. Unfortunately, we already have challenges with people not picking up after their dogs, and these are fields that children and adults return to for sports once the season begins.

I do think we need to plan for more off-leash spaces as New Tecumseth grows, but location matters. Dog parks can be controversial, particularly for the residents whose properties back/face directly onto them because of noise, parking and increased activity.

Rather than trying to fit dog parks into established residential neighbourhoods or repurpose sports fields, I would like to see appropriate locations identified through the planning process as new areas develop. Commercial or mixed-use areas, or other Town owned lands with appropriate buffers from homes, parking and safe access, may offer better opportunities.

If we're planning communities for thousands of new residents, amenities for their pets should be part of that planning too.

Not a bad idea, if the residents commit to cleaning up the refuse. I have seen many parks littered with dog feces (not the one in Beeton but I am not a user of that facility). When the field reverts to sports use, I don't think users want to run through that stuff.

This seems like a practical idea. My family is not blessed with a dog so I don't have any experience with the off leash parks. One observation is that not all people are responsible and clean up thier business. The results are evident way too often, especially in the spring.

More objective information about this would help me form an opinion.

I agree — using off-season sports fields as off-leash dog areas makes sense. Dog parks in the middle of town create a lot of noise for nearby residents, so putting them on fields away from homes is the better approach.

The Town can and should consider dual use of our sports facilities and green areas. My approach has always been an attentive and collaborative one. Considerations like this are exactly why I seek residents’ input on every file.

I'd have to think this one through with staff. Right now, for example, my wife and I walk our dogs at Geoff Gaston every once and awhile. We use long leashes. While at the park we see people golfing, personal training and practising soccer, as well as walking dogs. If this park became a off season off leash I think it would still impact some others users. Something to think about though. Currently looking forward to the off leash park in Tree Tops to open up.

Yes, I think this is an idea worth exploring.

As our neighbourhoods grow and lots become smaller, residents need appropriate places to exercise their dogs. Rather than assuming the only solution is purchasing land and building new dedicated dog parks, I would support having Town staff identify existing public spaces that could safely serve more than one purpose at different times of the year.

That could include seasonal or temporary off-leash areas where the location is suitable, provided we consider things like fencing, nearby homes and playgrounds, field conditions, cleanup, liability and the needs of sports organizations that use the space.

I like solutions that make better use of facilities and land we already own. A pilot project at one or two appropriate locations could be a sensible way to determine whether this would work in New Tecumseth before considering anything permanent.

I’m not opposed to it, however most parks are not completely fenced and the Town uses the off season time to conduct maintenance. I do feel that each ward should have a designated dog park which ward 2 does not currently have.