Hotel: What happened?
From: Denise McRae, Resident, Elliot Lake
Attention: Corporation City of Elliot Lake
Acting Mayor Andrew Wannan
Council Members: Charlie Flintoff, Rick Bull, Norman Mann, Merrill Seidel, Luc Morrissette
CAO Daniel Gagnon, City Clerk Natalie Bray
City of Elliot Lake
45 Hillside Drive North
Elliot Lake, ON, P5A 1X5
Dear Acting Mayor and Council
I am writing not just on behalf of myself but many citizens of Elliot Lake that responded to information I posted to social media. Many of us have questions and concerns about the surplus land at:
255 HIGHWAY 108 Elliot Lake
The following is the background information that the citizens know as true.
On Sept 26th, 2022 a staff report indicated the property size was 3.58 acres.
In November 2022 during a Council meeting, Council announced they had 3 proposals from investors to purchase the property.
This was discussed in closed session.
We did not hear anymore about these proposals until January 2023. Council discussed this in closed session again.
When Council returned to chambers, they informed the public a bulletin would be released.
The following is that bulletin.
Public notice:
Following several meetings to review options and interest from the private sector into commercial land in Elliot Lake, Council directed staff to pursue a severance of the property at 255 Hwy 108 (former civic centre lot).
The 4.78-acre parcel will be split in two. The northern portion of the lot will be retained by the city for a future arts and culture building, while the southern portion of the lot will be deemed surplus and potentially sold. Exploratory survey work and soil / terrain research is ongoing to confirm the size and lot lines of the southern portion of land.
When the property was made surplus and offered for sale it was not a divided lot to be shared. We have now been informed by Council that 2 proponents have withdrawn from the negotiations but one remains.
We have now received information that there were two attractive offers.
First was an Executive retreat that required a minimum of 5 acres, but designers were looking for 7 acres. A creative architect could use the sharp drop on the back of the property but needed site evaluation to make things fit.
The Second proposal was an 80-room hotel with a conference centre that would require 3.5 acres, preferably 5 acres to accommodate parking and building.
Both offers are now withdrawn.
In the interest of transparency and accountability we are hopeful that Council will read our comments and respond to these questions from us, the residents of Elliot Lake.
I have not altered any questions or comments.
Questions
· Denise, could you also ask that they let the residents of EL know what is happening with the renovations to the old Reel to Reel site? I believe that the renos had to be completed by the end of March in order for the city to retain the $750k NorDev grant, otherwise we lose it.
· I want to KNOW where the insurance money is from the civic centre and if that’s why they really decided to split the land. As long as they hold part of the property and say they are going to rebuild then they won’t have disclose where the insurance money really is?
· How is it that this council of *businessmen* (5 of the 6 of them, anyway) have taken a proposal for an 80-room hotel with a convention center - sitting like a wrapped gift on the council table when they arrived - and through delays and "bait and switch" offers are probably killing that project to convert it into what? An empty lot for a "maybe-theatre" - a 400-seat performing arts center with no viable, public business plan - a facility for which local taxpayers would have to pay at least half the capital cost - not to mention the utilities and expenses 24/7/365, for, um, how many days of use each year? .. Could you look at the equation? It was more jobs, more property tax dollars, and more tourism v. pay for it ourselves *and get much less for Elliot Lake*. .. What on earth are they thinking?
· I don't understand why they decided to divide the property to begin with. What (who) was the driving force behind that decision? Was it done so that 2 of the 3 offers would pull out?
· Will
you please invite the one remaining interested proponent to share any details
they are willing to share with the public? .. Let's not repeat what happened
with the loss of two potentially very good proposals - one or both of which the
community has had to learn about after-the-fact when a proponent shared the
details of an 80 room hotel and/or alternative plan on facebook. Please stop
the secrecy.
· So,
there were 3 viable offers for the property at 255 Highway 108. We know that at
least one of them involved building an 80-room hotel with a convention centre.
Without naming the principals involved in the 3 offers or the dollar figures
involved, why couldn’t the citizens of Elliot Lake be informed of what the
options were? Now that Council has decided, without any input from the citizens
of Elliot Lake, to partition the property in two, are the three options still
feasible? If not, why was this done? What was the driving force behind this
decision? ELRL?
· I know that there were many who wanted the former Arts building property used for the eventual new Arts building but they are now going to be confined to half the property with half the parking – is that satisfactory? I think this decision satisfies no-one. There is really no reason the Arts building had to be located on the main highway, other than nostalgia and that is not what using half the property will get them. There is a perfectly good alternative location available for the Arts hub which would leave the highway property intact for the 3 options – the old Algo Centre Mall property! Although it has been declared surplus, like 255 Highway 108, the City still owns this property and there had already been talk of partitioning it. Why not set aside a decent portion for the eventuality of being able to build an Arts hub there and, in the meantime, avail ourselves of the actual offers on the table for 255 Highway 108?
· I would like to know if any dialogue happened with the 3 persons/companies that put in a proposal for the purchase of this land. Can any of them proceed with less land if property is divided? Does the dividing of the property impact parking allotment going forward? How much of the land is usable? (Does part of the land include rock and hills)?
· I
have to ask what kind of research did these 6 councilors do to see if this
would actually work to have a hotel and there arts centre there instead of
having it somewhere else and having hotel there? Also was this there doing or
had some influence from retirement living or anyone one else that should not be
involved?
Comments
· It was originally offered as one lot to which 3 persons put in an offer. Then the City said the lot may be bigger than originally thought?? (They didn’t know?). Then they are dividing it in two. Sounds to me like City is changing the playing rules.
· I believe the seller (City) has the right to change the size of the parcel being sold, provided the public is notified of the change before the closing date. The size (dimensions and area)of the parcel being offered should be a matter of record in the Land Title's office in SSM. It should also have been known to the City. How else would they legally describe what they were offering for sale. To attempt server the property after the proposals had been received and shared with "others" in my mind requires the seller (morally & perhaps legally) to "re-tender" the new property(s). Just my thoughts and opinion.
· I believe the highest and best use on the property for sale will likely be highway commercial, and require adequate parking for "clients". By severing the larger parcel the seller may be limiting a buyer's ability to carryout his intended business. A proponent will know how much area is required. So maybe area required could be requested and stated & perhaps negotiated by the proponent and the city solicitor? Again just my thoughts.
· After discussing this with a friend …. Parking was an issue prior to the devastating roof collapse. Splitting the property in half may be an issue for one or both buildings
· "Split in two" does not necessarily mean equal pieces. How much property is needed for a 400-seat performance theatre, plus whatever else it will be, including the parking? The land to the back is a steep slope to the wetland, and to the south, it's a steep rock with a high voltage powerline.
· Taxpayers deserve to know what the proposals were and on what criteria they were measured and turned down. Not sure if it matters who the proponent was or dollars left on the table. Enable the taxpayer to understand the thought processes of how new council make decisions. It is fair to say they are new and deserve a chance, I agree.... here is their chance.
· Wow, they all promised transparency. So much for that. When it's closed meetings usually means back door deal's. I would like some answers.
· Maybe its time to open review of the contract of one non profit organization. Ir even cut ties. You cant and will not surive on a singlar. It was probably possible but business is dead water
· What about the algo mall site.. what a eye sore in our town. Let's start developing that land. New site for a hotel to attract tourists to spend a few days here. We need businesses and another hotel with possibly stores inside. Let's make elliot lake a place people would love to come and stay for a few.days. we need to make Elliot Lake a place people want to invest in.
In closing
There were many more questions and comments sent to me but I will end here. We, the residents of Elliot Lake, are hopeful you, our elected Council, will give us the respect we deserve by responding to our questions.
With Respect
Residents of Elliot Lake
Denise McRae
awannan@city.elliotlake.on.ca
cflintoff@city.elliotlake.on.ca
nmann@city.elliotlake.on.ca
rbull@city.elliotlake.on.ca
mseidel@city.elliotlake.on.ca
lmorrissette@city.elliotlake.on.ca
dgagnon@city.elliotlake.on.ca
nbray@city.elliotlake.on.ca