the broken typewriter

By exploring ways to fund the proposed North Peace Leisure Pool Replacement project, other than solely through property tax dollars, the Peace River Regional District hopes to offset the burden on taxpayers to pay for a new leisure pool facility.

“We heard that our communities understand the need for a new facility, but have significant concerns about costs,” said PRRD board chair, Brad Sperling in a statement from the regional district. “Our next actions reflect their request to explore options that reduce the impacts on taxes.”

For the past several months, as the PRRD has conducted the third round of public engagement for the proposed facility, residents in Electoral Areas B and C, Taylor and Fort St. John, which are all part of the designated service area, have expressed concern about the costs of construction, and subsequent costs to taxpayers. Residents are also concerned about the additional costs for land, and potential for construction cost over-runs.

People in Area B and Taylor were distinctly not in favour of even a $30/month increase in property taxes.

Many of these concerned residents suggested finding sponsorships and grants to reduce the cost to them, an idea the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Project Steering Committee and the PRRD have now decided to investigate.

“Based on the input we’ve received from residents, we feel it is imperative to explore alternative funding support before moving forward,” Steering Committee chair Trevor Bolin said. “A small delay now could mean a big difference for taxpayers, so taking this time now is the responsible decision.”

This decision follows the July 9 public meeting of the Steering Committee, where two recommendations from the public engagement report were discussed.

The first of these recommendations, to explore the possibility of refurbishing the current facility was deferred to a later regional district board meeting, because steering committee members were concerned that the cost of conducting a study would be a waste of money, given the remaining lifespan of the pool.

“Over the years, we have conducted many assessments on the current North Peace Leisure Pool to evaluate its existing components,” Sperling said.

“The current facility’s lifespan is challenging to predict,” he said. “While it might be tempting to provide a specific time frame, such as five years, it’s crucial to understand that unexpected major repairs could necessitate temporary closures, while effective maintenance could extend the facility’s life beyond initial estimates.”

A study done in 2021 shows that while there is a lot of life left in the building itself, at least another 25 years, the components within have suffered some serious issues. Constant water leakage from the hot tub led to its permanent closure and removal in 2023. Similarly, the tots pool has also been removed.

There’s been no indication of how long the next steps of the process will be delayed by exploring additional funding opportunities for the project, but according to the 2024 Referendum Timeline presented to the Steering Committee at its June 18 meeting, they were already behind schedule.

In order to hold a referendum about the proposed facility before the end of the year, at the July 9 meeting, the committee should have selected the facility and amenity scope – that is, which pool size and number of amenities the communities wish to proceed with – and established the facility cost, loan authorization amount and the taxation model to pay for it.

If the board had been able to stick to the timeline, at the July 18 regional board meeting, direction would have been given to staff to prepare a bylaw to establish the service area and a loan authorization bylaw, to send to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for approval.

None of these things have happened.

As Bolin noted at the July 9 steering committee meeting, they’ve been working on this project for six years, and aren’t much closer to seeing construction start.

---

Procrastination, pandemic or both – what’s the hold-up?

Compared to the consultation and referendum process to get the current pool built, even with the issues around cost at that time, the replacement pool project is taking a very long time to get to the referendum phase. While it might be tempting to blame the delay on Covid, the process had already been underway for 3 years when the pandemic hit.

Almost seven years ago, at the September 6, 2017, Special Pool Commission meeting, commissioners were told that the existing pool would need to be replaced or repaired in the next ten years. At that time, visits to the pool were up two percent over 2016, and due to the lack of deck space, lane space and meeting space, only a limited amount of programming could be provided. Demand was high and expected to grow.

“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,” Bolin said.

The loan for the NPLP was paid off in 2006, and the cost to the public was kept the same in order to build the reserve fund to replace the pool. That fund has been building ever since. According to a PowerPoint presentation to the NPLP Commission in January 2024, the Capital Building Replacement Reserve sits at $3.84 million, and is expected to grow to $3.88 million this year.

The project got off to a roaring start in 2018, with an extensive first round of consultations for a facility that was estimated to cost $50 million and be funded through partnerships and a loan.

Although a report was produced following these consultations, and a construction cost estimate was done in February 2019, none of this information was released to the public as the project mysteriously paused in Spring 2019.

No more work appeared to have been done on the project until October 2019, when the Chief Administrative Officers of Taylor, Fort St. John and the PRRD were asked if they were interested in planning a sub-regional aquatic facility to replace the NPLP. All the CAOs agreed to continue to participate, in a project they were told would cost approximately $60 million.

The project construction cost estimate, produced in February 2019, and included in the Electoral Area Director’s Committee meeting agenda in January 2020 along with the 2018 public engagement results, showed that the facility would cost $129 million, including $77 million in construction costs.

It was not until June 2020 that the regional district board decided to create a pool replacement committee, and it was another 18 months – December 2021 – before the Terms of Reference for the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement Steering Committee was developed. The first meeting of the Steering Committee took place in March 2022.

The second round of public engagement sessions took place in 2022, and following the report about the engagement, the feasibility study was relaunched and scheduled for completion in March 2023.

Fast-forward to April 2024 and the third round of community engagements, to gather input on the three suggested options and their potential costs to taxpayers. The project now, in its most basic form, is estimated to cost $136 million. Even though it’s the cheapest option, most of those who took part in the engagement process want more amenities than the basic option has to offer, bringing the project cost to at least $280 million.

There’s also the question of the land, and how much that will add to the project.

Steering committee members were hoping to begin construction in 2025, providing the results of a fall 2024 referendum gave the go-ahead, with completion scheduled for 2029.

But now, since the public has asked that alternate funding options be looked at, the forward momentum is paused again. It’s anyone’s guess when the North Peace Leisure Facility Replacement project will get to a referendum, let alone begin construction. If the PRRD board and the steering committee agree to examine the possibility of refurbishing the current pool facility, which many rural residents have asked to be looked into, it will take even longer.