Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pemberton recreation needs queried

Master plan update turned into workshop on community centre

Pemberton and Electoral Area C residents were surprised by the change of format for the May 31 meeting to discuss the community’s recreation needs. The meeting, billed as the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District’s Recreation Master Plan (RMP) Update, turned into a facilitator-led workshop focusing on establishing a new community centre. Neither a review of the RMP occurred at the meeting nor were copies of the document available for participants to examine.

More than 65 members of the public joined members of the SLRD and Village of Pemberton – partners on the project – to discuss the community’s recreation needs. However, it soon became apparent that what was advertised as a forum was actually a project launch session.

The facilitators, Surrey’s Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants, made a brief presentation to the crowd outlining the evening’s objectives and PERC’s methodology in acquiring data for a final report due in July.

One of those people disappointed with the format of the meeting was valley resident Cam McIvor.

"I was expecting that the RMP created in September 1999 would have been discussed to see if the information inside was still relevant," said McIvor. "The meeting essentially only contemplated the community centre aspect which is only one part of the RMP."

The Pemberton businessman also had some concerns about the worksheets that were handed out at the meeting.

"I feel the questions were there to validate the previous plan that was shot down."

McIvor is referring to a plan to build a community centre that was shelved in April after a counter petition was presented to the VOP and the SLRD.

Although not part of the counter petition project, McIvor did attend some meetings and questioned the value of what was being offered in respect to the cost of building the new centre.

"This is about a community putting all its options on the table and putting down a phased action plan to implement that," he said. "I feel we need to get the Recreation Master Plan updated properly, adopt it, prioritize the community needs and see what tools are able to deliver as many options as possible."

Paul Edgington, administrator for the SLRD, acknowledges that the focus of the meeting was a reaction to community concerns about a community centre. He also believes that an evaluation of the existing Recreation Master Plan may not have been the most valuable use of meeting time.

"The document is a set of standards and terminology and the results of the 1999 prospective survey rather than a document that says, ‘OK, this is our vision, this is how we are going to deliver these particular facilities," explained Edgington.

The document primarily outlines standards for the creation of facilities that take into consideration the recreation needs of various sized population.

"This kind of information – such as standards that prescribe such things as one arena for every 20,000 people–this didn’t appear to be what people were asking for," said Edgingtong, explaining why a review of the plan did not occur.

"Based on what we heard from discussion about the other building, what they appear to be wanting (are) different facilities," added Edgington. "The message we believe we heard is that people want recreational facilities. Based on this premise there wasn’t clarity on the facilities people wanted.

"We heard from some people that the [initially proposed] building would be okay if it has a fitness centre. We heard from some people who wanted a pool. We heard from other people who wanted an arena."

Edgington is optimistic that the consultants’ report will help to define community needs when a first draft is delivered at the end of the June.

The tight deadlines for the report also drew negative comments, which the consultants attempted to squash.

"We’ve been working on it a couple of weeks," PERC principal William Webster said. "We wanted to address the need of the client as and get it done as quickly as possible."

Webter went on to say that his company was very experienced, and that the timeline was realistic and would yield an accurate report.

While the timeline issue generated much discussion, the proposed phone survey drew the most heat. Comments ranged from concerns pertaining to the accuracy of the survey due to the sample size to the belief that upwards of 40 per cent of area residents rely exclusively on cell phones, and would therefore be ineligible to participate. Initially presented as a survey of 200 of the area’s approximately 5,000 residents, the VOP doubled that number before the end of the evening.

"My understanding is that council was acting on what was said at the meeting. The concern seemed that the net wasn’t cast wide enough, they wanted to increase the base so that everyone was comfortable with the numbers of people being surveyed," explained Bryan Kirk, VOP clerk-administrator.

In addition to the phone survey that will examine the community’s expectations of a community centre as well as the financial thresholds for such a project, PERC will be comparing the experiences of "five or six" communities similar in demographic composition to Pemberton. Webster emphasized that PERC would be looking to see what didn’t work in these communities so Pemberton could avoid the same mistakes.

The workshop component of the evening saw the attendees divided into 11 groups and engaging in discussions ranging from the purpose of a community centre, to specific desired features and the acceptable tax increase to construct a facility. The scope of ideal community centre concepts ran the gamut from "like we have now, but newer" to centres featuring arenas and indoor swimming pools with waterslides.

The average acceptable cost for constructing a community centre for the workshop’s participants was in the $5 to $10 million range. At current rates of taxation, this would mean an increase of between $195.48 and $390.48 for owners of single-family dwellings with an estimated value of $500,000.

During the final discussion period of the evening, Deborah Esseltine, chairperson of Equifest 2005, brought up the issue of why community recreational opportunities such as trails, fields and natural spaces were not being discussed.

The consultants acknowledged, but did not address Esseltine’s comments. According to Edgington, facilities that do not require a physical space, such as trails, do not fall under the SLRD’s current mandate for recreation services.

"Although our dialogue around the recreational process may indicate a desire for some of these more active uses of land, like trails and open space, these tend to be considered aspects that would fall under a parks service," says Edgington.

PERC’s final report will be presented to the community July 11.