‘New money’ means big decisions for city

The City of Peterborough is expecting $7 million in new annual revenue from a casino and the sale of its electricity distribution system.

How to spend that money is already a popular topic. Contributions to a new downtown arena, stormwater control measures and, more generally, projects that “benefit the whole city” have all been mentioned at city council in the past month.

A majority of council has publicly committed to using the money for capital projects, not operating spending or holding down property taxes.

In household terms that means paying for a new roof or replacing the car, not amping up the grocery budget or buying the kids new skates every year instead of used ones.

Council seems ready to resist pressure for a mixed outlay that includes some operating spending. That won’t be easy when requests come in to keep paying for dentures for people on social assistance or expand bus service.

But most of the money will go to long-term projects. And that opens other areas to consider.

First is the scale of what is possible. Can a casino be counted on to reliably generate $4 million a year for the next 20 years? Will a $50 million reinvestment of the profits from selling Peterborough Distribution Inc. produce $3 million a year?

If the answers are yes, that money could finance roughly $75 million worth of capital spending over the next two decades.

One option would be to simply add that amount to the city’s existing pool available to pay for capital works. Don’t identify any particular projects, just continue to prioritize what needs to be done and have more money to do it.

Don’t count on it. Approving a casino and selling PDI were controversial decisions and council will want to identify the payoff, whether it be a new arena, public housing or art gallery.

A formula to spread spending among projects favoured by different interest groups is a possibility. Should there be equal amounts for recreation, social projects, arts and culture and infrastructure? Or some acceptable weighting among those groups?

That would be a controversial and time-consuming debate but would provide long-term direction that could be adjusted as needs and priorities change.

Or should council commit to a policy of substantial change? That is, identify a few major projects that wouldn’t happen otherwise and snap its metaphorical fingers. Short $20 million for the new Canadian Canoe Museum? Snap, done.

Or what about really swinging for the fences? Commit the whole bundle to a single project. Maybe a public-private partnership to build a downtown hotel and convention centre.

Whatever the outcome it’s a community discussion that is already underway, and one that will soon need a formal shape and direction.