City, rural directors clash over need for another study

Swimmers - Jim De Ramos (Source: Pexels)

The North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee’s members hit an impasse at their recent meeting over a recommendation to investigate the possibility of refurbishing the existing pool facility.

The Committee met to receive the report, Proposed Project Next Steps, of the third round of public engagement from the consultants, and to discuss the recommendations of the consultants, based on what they heard from the public.

The recommendation read:

“THAT the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee recommend that the Regional Board, prior to moving forward with a new facility or project referendum, examine the existing North Peace Leisure Pool to determine the possibility of refurbishment/expansion of the facility to meet the expressed aquatic/recreation needs of the Region; further, that the Committee receive a report identifying the costs associated with necessary upgrades and enhancements.”

Fort St. John Mayor Lilia Hansen was concerned that the $100,000 price tag for another study would be a waste of money.

“I’m concerned about putting additional dollars into another report, when we know that the cost each year increases for maintenance and the lifespan on this pool is maybe 7 to 8 years,” Hansen said. “I don’t know if we’ll just be throwing more good money out.”

“We have been told in the past that the envelop for that building is fine,” Area C Director Brad Sperling said. “It’s the pool inside that’s (approaching end of life).”

Sperling added that going by the consultants’ report moving forward the project doesn’t seem to be a viable option. “We have to listen to what the people are saying,” he said.

“So, you’re advocating to go ahead with the referendum that sounds like it has a very slim chance of passing.” ~ Area C Director Brad Sperling.

In the report Sperling referred to – Phase 3 Public Engagement – the consultants reported that the community needed more information about the current facility, and that options to either refurbish or expand the existing facility as aquatic or other recreational spaces should be explored before proceeding to a referendum.

Hansen said that while she didn’t disagree with the consultants’ findings, she was not in agreement with putting more funds towards trying to fix the existing pool. “If we do that, that means the residents will not have a swimming pool for multiple years.”

While this was noted in the report, that in order to renovate or refurbish the existing pool, it would have to be closed, concerns over the cost of full replacement have led residents to express interest in this avenue.

Area B Director Jordan Kealy asked for clarification about where the calculation of the lifespan of the pool came from, noting that he’s a member of the committee and the pool commission and has never heard that time frame mentioned.

“Right now, we currently approve work orders, we look at the existing condition and I’ve never heard that 7-8 years, so if there’s anyone who can enlighten me, I’d like to hear that,” Kealy said.

Peace River Regional District staff said that a facility condition assessment, examining all the components, was done in 2021, and it was projected that it would need to be reassessed in five years time.

“There was a study prior to that done that had an end-of-life component for the pool. That was probably in 2016-17, it was literally what trigged the start of putting money away for a new pool, and from there we started the discussion in 2018 about having community engagement on a new pool,” said Fort St. John Councillor Trevor Bolin.

“At that time the recommendation was 10 to 12 years, so that’s when that seven years gets brought up, that’s where we stand now.”

Kealy didn’t feel this answered his question.

“I’m just trying to get clarification on whether it’s an actual asset expiring. I know that the hot tub got shut down, so that’s no longer a current worry with water leaking,” he said. “I still don’t really know what’s an end-of-life to cause a need to actually shut it down if we absolutely had to in 7 to 8 years.”

“At no point in time have I heard from anybody who said let’s refurbish the existing pool. Zero.” ~ Commitee Chair, Trevor Bolin

Bolin explained that at the beginning of the process, an engineer confirmed that a second level couldn’t be added to the existing structure.

“That is why the original discussions of this in 2018 at our advisory committee, which you are all sitting on, made the recommendation that we look at other locations to build a new facility and that we not look at trying to refurbish this facility,” Bolin said.

Like Kealy, District of Taylor Councillor Betty Ponto, also asked for clarification.

“What I’m hearing is what this recommendation is saying has basically already been done?” Ponto asked. “I understand what we’re saying what are we going to do moving forward, and we need to figure that out, but if that’s already been done that we know – I wasn’t on the committee at that time so I don’t know – I’m just getting clarification on exactly what we know and what we don’t know.”

Sperling, who has been on the regional district board since the beginning of the process, explained that the cost to refurbish the facility was never examined, nor whether it was even possible.

“Neither the advisory committee nor the pool commission wanted it to go that far, because the way we’ve grown at that time, we were looking at what needed to be a new pool,” Bolin said.

To continue with this recommendation, Bolin felt would be a violation of the Terms of Reference of the committee, and a constant spend on studies while being no closer to having a new pool.

“So, you’re advocating to go ahead with the referendum that sounds like it has a very slim chance of passing,” Sperling said.

“No, I think we actually take the information we have, and we put together a plan and we make a recommendation for this to move forward. At no point in time have I heard from anybody who said let’s refurbish the existing pool. Zero,” said Bolin. “If we know we need a pool and we’re worried about the cost of it, let’s get this down to less than the $40-50 option, then let’s just build the pool. If we just fix this pool and try to do a renovation on it, we will go broke trying and have nothing but issues in the future.”

Yet according to the consultants, there was sufficient public interest in looking at refurbishing the facility for them to come up with the recommendation.

“The workshop I attended out in Rose Prairie it was expressed by multiple people about the option of looking at what the possibility and cost would be of trying to refurbish our current pool facility, so it has been brought up before,” said Kealy. “It’s something that people have thought about and they’re curious what the cost would be, in comparison to the other higher costs that we’re looking at right now.”

Sperling said that the committee asked for this final round of public consultation, and they have to take the findings of the consultants under advisement.

Bolin disagreed, suggesting that they close the Terms of Reference and disband the advisory committee. “Because we can go around on this thing right back to where we were in 2018, it’s now 2024 and we’re no closer to anything being done,” he said.

The purpose of the process, Kealy pointed out, was to look at different options and get public feedback. The feedback has shown that in certain areas, that cost is a very important factor.

“If we just shut down this committee, you’re pretty much killing all that going forward and us doing all this work trying to figure out options for people to have a working pool,” said Kealy.

“So, I think if we look at the next recommendation, if that’s something that’s suitable to the committee, in that recommendation we should also include possible option of the refurbishment or expansion, just to be able to see a cost to inform the public of what that would be.”

The Committee voted to Table Recommendation #1 until the end of the meeting, following the closed session.

Recommendation #2 from the Proposed Project Next Steps Report read:

“THAT the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee recommend that the Regional Board explore grant funding and partnership opportunities to reduce the cost of the project in response to concerns raised during Phase 3 Public Engagement for the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Project, prior to moving forward with a new facility or project referendum; further that all grant funding and partnership opportunities be identified to the NP Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee for their consideration.”

This recommendation was Carried without discussion. When the committee came back from their closed session, they again addressed the first recommendation and voted to defer it to a future meeting for decision.