If District councillors do not vote in favour of having the District of Muskoka take over the Fairvern home and apply for an expansion to 160 beds by the deadline at the end of March, it could close indefinitely.
“We’ve got to convince some of our compatriots, our colleagues, that we need to keep this going and whatever the expense is to do that,” urged Huntsville and District Councillor Tim Withey at Huntsville Council’s Jan. 27 meeting. Withey was referring to his colleagues around the District table.
“Hopefully with all of our efforts… and certainly, I know Mayor Terziano has been hard at work on it, we’ve got to get this across the finish line. It’s vitally important to our community, vitally important to maintaining our hospital and building out on our campus of care.”
Withey said Fairvern’s current configuration of 76 beds is unsustainable. It then applied for a 96-bed license and it was approved by the Province with the District committing to help fund the redevelopment with a $10.5 million contribution, but it was determined that 96 beds would also not work. “The 96-bed configuration that we had gotten approval for a number of years ago is also unsustainable,” Withey, a former Fairvern board member, told his fellow councillors. “The 160 [bed] expansion effectively doubles what the budget for that build would be, so therefore there is a shortfall as far as what we would have to come up with because the Ministry pays for half of those capital builds.”
After the meeting, Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano explained that the volunteer board of Fairvern has determined that it cannot build a 160-bed facility, nor likely operate one.
“And the province has dictated that they want one owner to build and operate a long-term care home, so that pretty much puts it at District,” she said. “The problem that we have at District right now is they’re preparing an application to submit it but we don’t have full support of District council for District to assume Fairvern.”
She said if the District does not assume the long-term care home, and an application does not go in for additional beds in order to make it sustainable, Fairvern could close within five years or sooner.
District council is comprised of 23 councillors including the District chair and has representation from all six municipalities across Muskoka. “There is an issue at the District table about who funds what and who should fund what and who has the larger assessment and pays more, so those issues have been at the table for quite some time and I think Fairvern is getting caught in the middle of those issues right now.”
Terziano said additional beds do benefit all of Muskoka but councillors have concerns with the cost. “The District is mandated to run one long-term care home, they’re not mandated to run a second so there is definitely some push-back at the District council table about not wanting to take on that added expense,” she said.
Since the time District committed $10.5 million when Fairvern had been granted a license to build a 96-bed facility, the province released more long-term care licenses. “When the Province released a whole bunch of new licenses they said you need to now apply for 160 [beds], which drove the cost of the new build up significantly,” said Terziano.
She said there are rumblings that the Province may be looking at funding a larger share of new or expanded facilities as a result of more beds. In the meantime, “we’re lobbying our District counterparts to try to get them to support this project.”
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
The District of Muskoka does not seem capable of helping Huntsville reach it’s long term goals in regards to infrastructure. The new Fairvern should have been built by now,
but here we are still discussing who’s responsible for construction. I for one am thoroughly disgusted with this whole charade.
Huntsville and the District could not even agree on cost sharing for snow removal in the past, so the increased cost is passed onto the taxpayer. Maybe it’s time to reconsider how Muskoka is governed? The current model is not addressing the infrastructure needs pertaining to all health care facilities in the District of Muskoka. Maybe if we eliminated the District Government, the money we save could be used to address all infrastructure needs in all the municipalities. Obviously the cost of maintaining the status quo is limiting our ability to access the funds needed. All municipalities in Ontario are cash strapped, what is the alternative?
Our politicians have neglected to address these issues in a timely manner. Government is more than aware of the impact the baby boomer generation will have on our health care system.
Huntsville is a good example of how not to address the needs of and aging population in a timely manner. Your inactions, speak for themselves. The more politicians you have in a region the harder it is to get them to agree on anything it seems.
Henderson’s comment above just about sums it all up.
By the time the new fairvern is built (3-5 years)? most seniors that
needed the place will probably be dead,
Unless your a dreamer, with the number of baby boomers coming
up the ladder we might as well be happy that we will at least be able to
die at home. If there is a home and someone to assist?
Even when they do finish fairvern how many seniors will actually be from Muskoka?
If you receive government assistance to build who will be calling the shots?
This is a scary thought. We desperately need Fairvern and even with the bed increase there will be a waiting list. Come in District. Do what’s right.
Now that the nearby sewage treatment plant is to be de-commissioned; this property’s value has increased considerably: It could be used as a feeder retirement community for a new Fairvern on the campus of care, or for townhome/condo construction. At the time I was a Fairvern Director (and a member of the Fairvern Redevelopment Committee), we were also considering a pedestrian bridge across the Big East; producing a handier and more attractive route to downtown.
With the monies already being considered for a new hospital, an expansion on the current site is totally untenable. Let’s reconstruct our current hospital, and sell the Fairvern lands for top dollar. Then a new 120-bed Fairvern may be possible, without indebting our children for the foreseeable future.
It is sad that there is any disagreement about supporting this facilities future growth .A major portion of my $6000.00 annual tax bill goes to the District . Spend more of My Tax money on this facility now and stop the bickering !
Fairvern is a Long-Term Care facility, which means it operates under very different legislation – https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07l08 – and oversight than “retirement / assisted living homes”. Rates at Fairvern are set by the Ministry, and if a resident has no other income or assets, ward care will be provided for no more than the resident’s OAS and GIS.
Fairvern cant be allowed to close. The community funding alone should cover the morgage costs to borrow to build. Building a 96 bed unit the Revenue intake of 2.534 million should offset the costs of morgage and running the facility for years to come. The District has bitten off a huge loan agreement but it should be able to manage with the proper growth and costing for the facility.
This is facility that Muskoka needs. All the surveys and demographics prove this. The Pines is at capacity -when and why is the. District mandated to own one nursing home. This appears to be Provincial Govt. means of allowing private enterprises to operate nursing homes at any rate/cost they can charges, this is a frightening thought. I have done some checking on private. retirement / assisted living homes and it may surprise you to know that comparative facilities in Oakville, Burlington and St Catharines are up to a $1000.00 cheaper/month. Is this the position we want our nursing home in. Fairvern is a jewel in Huntsville and services all of. Muskoka
Let’s hear from our MP & MPP.