Costly $2.7-million work needed for popular Killam Wharf on Yarmouth's waterfront

A popular gathering, community and recreational spot on Yarmouth’s waterfront is in need of major repair.

For the Town of Yarmouth, the question hasn’t been whether to do the work, but rather what approach to take.

For now, the town is looking at an estimated $2.7-million approach.

In need of work is the popular Killam Wharf, which hosts community events, is the location of the town’s marina, and is a place that people frequent as a place to walk, sit and to relax.

The wharf has been in the town’s hands for about 30 years and has been an important centerpiece of Yarmouth’s waterfront revitalization.

But the history at this wharf dates back long before that, and time has taken its toll.

A 2026 assessment of the Killam Wharf confirmed continued movement of the wharf and identified the need for immediate load restrictions. Load restrictions were put in place on the westernmost portion of the wharf on June 29, with public access to that area restricted ever since.

Since that assessment, the town has worked with the engineering firm CBCL to develop options for reinvestment in the infrastructure.

• Option 1: Stabilization. Estimated cost of $2.7 million. This option involved armour stone stabilization of the existing rockery wall and partial replacement of the timber wharf structure required to accommodate the armour stone installation.

• Option 2: Partial Site Development. Estimated cost of $4.7 million. This option involved armour stone stabilization and replacement of the timber wharf structure, concrete retaining wall and slab-on-grade area. The wharf would also be raised to improve resilience to future sea level rise.

• Option 3: Full Site Development. Estimated cost of $6.7 million. This option includes all work identified under Option 2, along with replacement of the floating docks, gangways and associated marina infrastructure.

This isn’t the first time Killam Wharf has needed stabilization repairs. Work was done in 2018, although that was considered a short-term solution.

Of the three present-day options, town engineer DeMario Dunkley recommended a phased approach to the work starting with Option 1, which allows for future transitioning into work included in Option 2.

“This approach would address the immediate stabilization requirements while allowing the town to continue developing the longer-term partial redevelopment works,” he wrote in the report.

“There are potential funding opportunities available,” he noted. “However, funding programs are competitive, and eligibility and funding levels will depend on the final scope of work.”

Dunkley outlined various provincial and federal grants and funds the town could apply to. The federal Green Municipal Fund – Adaptation in Action, for instance, can cover up to 80 per cent of eligible costs, up to a maximum of $1 million. A provincial Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund, as another example, can grant up to 60 per cent of eligible costs, to a maximum of $600,000.

The three options were discussed by council at a committee of the whole meeting.

“If I were leaning towards one, I’d go for full site development,” said Coun. Wade Cleveland in the early part of the discussion, although he acknowledged Option 3 came with a hefty $6.7-million cost.

“The problem, of course, is … there’s going to be more than just a need for grants; there’s probably going to be a need for provincial or federal money towards that as well. But if we’re going to do it, we should do it right,” he said. “If we’re talking with any degree of seriousness of developing our water in any way, shape or form, we need to get it done.”

Coun. Gil Dares felt he was on the same page as Cleveland.

“There’s a lot of future in that waterfront that hasn’t been realized yet,” he said.

Coun. Belle Hatfield, however, expressed concern about going full out with the most costly option because it’s not just this wharf that needs repairs.

“I don’t disagree it’s an important project, but I’m also weighing it against the priorities of wharf development for the public wharfs,” she said. “The reality is that we have a working waterfront that is generating economic vitality into the area. And they are literally in critical need of replacement and refurbishment.”

She feels the town has to balance its requests to address all of the needs because it won’t get all that it asks for.

The challenging part, Hatfield said, is the public wharfs fall under an agreement where more than just the town is responsible for them. It’s easy, she said, for all involved to sweep the needs under the rug because no one level of government is fully responsible for their development or decay.

The Killam Wharf, meanwhile, is solely in the hands of the town.

“I know that those competing priorities can be difficult to manage,” Hatfield said. “I just need to vocalize the concern I have about the situation we have with our public wharfs, when we’re thinking about large-scale capital projects, and whether we could find a way to scale them so a little bit of attention gets to both of them.”

There were several questions put to the town’s engineer. He was asked if the marina infrastructure, including the docks, are okay for now.

“To my understanding, they’re in fair condition,” replied Dunkley.

He again told council that his recommendation was to go with Option 1, because future work can be phased in from this starting point.

Plus, for now, it’s anyone’s guess how much grant funding the town could get. But timelines can be set once the town has a better financial snapshot. Plus, it has its own capital budget.

As the discussion continued, Coun. Cleveland said he was okay with moving forward with Option 1 and a phased-in approach to the work. But he also said, “To me the idea is if going to reach out and try to get grant money, let’s get as much as we can.”

Mayor Pam Mood, meanwhile, sought assurances that when the stabilization work is carried out, people will be able to use the restricted part of the wharf again.

“In Option 1, people can still use that wharf, still walk around it; it’s not going to be shut down?” she asked. “We don’t want to lose access. We want to get access back.”

The engineer said yes, things would become accessible again.

At its October monthly meeting, council approved moving forward with Option 1 and a phased-in approach to the work.