Debate grows over future of Smiths Falls’ iconic water tower

SMITHS FALLS — A 102-year-old icon that has defined the Smiths Falls skyline for generations is at the centre of a growing debate, as council weighs whether to tear down the town’s old water tower or find a way to save it.

During committee discussion April 27, councillors pushed back against a staff recommendation to begin planning for the tower’s removal and authorize a $375,000 out-of-budget expense, saying they need more information on the cost, risk and heritage value of preserving the landmark before making a final decision.

The old water tower in Centennial Park is no longer in service, having been decommissioned after the town’s new elevated water storage facility came online earlier this year. Staff say the structure, built more than a century ago, has reached the end of its useful life and is showing signs of deterioration, including corrosion and fatigue.

Director of Public Works and Utilities Paul McMunn said the new tower will serve the community well into the future, while the older structure is now undersized and no longer needed.

“That water tower has served the community well,” McMunn said.

The tower has been disconnected from the distribution system and sits empty, functioning only as a visual landmark.

Staff estimate the cost to remove the tower at $375,000, including demolition, potential lead abatement and the removal of concrete footings. The work would be funded through water and wastewater reserves.

McMunn said inspection reports identified significant issues, including corrosion and degradation in areas that cannot be fully assessed due to the tower’s riveted construction.

“It is a recommendation of public works, utilities and engineering that the water tower come down,” he said.

Coun. Jennifer Miller said she was not prepared to support that recommendation without more information.

“I appreciate the report, but there’s nothing in it that speaks to the historical significance,” Miller said. “I used to call it our CN Tower.”

Miller called for the matter to be deferred until council receives more information on the cost of maintaining and repainting the structure, along with input from the Heritage Committee.

Coun. Chris McGuire also questioned the timing and scope of the report, noting the tower’s status as a prominent feature in the community.

“It almost feels like we’re getting a fast one pulled here,” McGuire said, as he felt staff was trying to push this through before the new Heritage Conservation District takes effect, which includes Centennial Park – the home of the water tower. 

He said council should have clearer information on the structural condition of the tower, as well as the economic and tourism value of keeping it.

“It’s the most photographed structure in our community,” he said.

CAO Malcolm Morris said there was no attempt to move the item ahead of the town’s Heritage Conservation District coming into force.

“We need to make you aware we have a liability,” Morris said. “You need to know about that liability and make a decision.”

Coun. Jay Brennan said he is not interested in committing to significant long-term maintenance costs for a structure that no longer serves a purpose, but agreed more information is needed.

“What I’m not interested in is saddling future councils with $100,000 or $200,000 a year to maintain a 100-year-old structure,” Brennan said.

At the same time, he noted there is no indication the tower is at immediate risk of collapse.

“I don’t think it’s going to fall down tomorrow,” he said.

Mayor Shawn Pankow said the tower holds strong emotional and historical value, but council must weigh that against risk and cost.

“Before a decision would be made to commit $375,000 to take it down, I think we need to know what it would cost to preserve it,” Pankow said.

Coun. Dawn Quinn said the issue has already generated significant public reaction.

“Once it was put out that it was going to be on (the April 27) council, I couldn’t believe how my phone started going,” Quinn said.

She said residents want clarity on what’s possible before the town makes a decision.

“If we take the time now and do a little bit more investigation, then we can be honest with the public,” she said.

Council also discussed the need for a structural assessment to better understand the condition of the tower and what would be required to preserve it safely. A similar assessment had been considered during the 2024 budget process, with an estimated cost of about $60,000 at the time, though that funding was not approved.

Staff indicated a new assessment could cost about $75,000 and would likely require hiring an engineering firm, as a formal stamped report would be needed to support any long-term decision.

“There’s a risk of spending some money to turn around and find out that it’s got to go,” McMunn said.

Council did not approve the recommendation to move forward with demolition planning. Instead, staff are expected to return with additional information on assessment costs and preservation options before the matter comes back for a decision.

Keep connectred to your community—Read the latest Smiths Falls news.