All municipal priorities are important, but some are essential
Having authored many articles over the past 18 months focused on challenges with MAHC’s redevelopment/capital planning processes, their past single hospital siting preference, and lack of public transparency, it was disappointing that the Huntsville candidates’ debate on September 20 did not focus more on our hospital’s future.
The Doppler article of September 21 accurately pointed out that only one question was asked during the entire two-hour debate related to MAHC. This question raised the veracity, reasonableness and affordability of a $500+ million redevelopment plan, reflected in MAHC’s latest capital planning work.
This question is important because contrary to prior inaccurate comments from several of our District council candidates, the community share of the total redevelopment cost is not 10 per cent, but closer to 25 per cent. That would push the amount into the $125+ million NOT $50 million range. This size of the local share would constitute the single largest investment by Muskoka taxpayers, with financial consequences on ratepayers for decades into the future.
Our current mayor Scott Aitchison and District/Town Councils candidate Tim Withey showed the deepest understanding of the issues related to MAHC’s redevelopment plans, underpinning their position that such a high capital cost burdening Huntsville taxpayers long into the future would not be acceptable. They further correctly understood that the hospital planning costs to-date were driven by a high level of new build, and that responsible redevelopment requires expansion of existing facilities. They also understand this is central to achieving urgent investments sooner; stating timelines of 15 or 20 years out are not acceptable. We strongly agree, noting that the Huntsville hospital’s last (minor) addition was over 15 years ago, and occupancy rates now well over 100 per cent.
Some candidates suggested that we must wait to see how the next planning step for hospital redevelopment plays out, suggesting we don’t have the numbers. These candidates seemed unaware that preliminary planning numbers have been around for years, including a refresh in the recent Stage 1A MAHC Decision Support document. In it, the two acute-care hospital site model cost was pegged at $470 M to $530M, driving a community share cost of $120M – $160M. There was no mentioned of lower-cost options for this model. We expected these candidates to be more informed on this critical matter.
The community must not assume that the future of our acute-care hospital is now secured, as MAHC is still in the first of five planning stages (6.5 years later). With the Province’s financial situation poor, (a net debt-to-GDP ratio of 38 per cent – one of highest compared to global peers) and getting worse (provincial annual deficit now $15B, not $7B), high government scrutiny and skepticism on new large capital commitments vs. more reasonable and staged investments must be expected. Our municipal representatives should understand this and be well versed in these matters to safeguard the future of our acute-care hospital. Waiting for MAHC’s future plans and numbers, given its past track record, is risky. We can’t afford any more ineffective/flawed processes or misguided thinking that results in additional lost time.
If you care about your local hospital services and seeing needed/critical hospital investments sooner, let your voice be heard in this election by voting for the most knowledgeable candidates that you can trust to speak up and lead.
Ross Maund and Dave Wilkin are past MAHC board members.