As the Castlegar and District Recreation Commission (CDRC) continues to work towards a plan to enhance the Castlegar and District Community Complex (CDCC), they have passed a resolution asking for the creation of a draft bylaw that would fund borrowing and asset management from only the City of Castlegar and Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) Area J.
Most of the area's current recreation services include Castlegar plus Areas I and J.
The RDCK recently released its final Reimagining Castlegar Recreation Engagement report and one conclusion in the report is that there is a strong likelihood that Area I would not support increased taxation to enhance recreation services at the CDCC in a referendum vote.
This could result in a scenario similar to the 2018 referendum where a plan to add a second sheet of ice, new pool, a fitness area expansion plus other smaller improvements failed after 71 per cent of Area I voters voted against the $32 million project.
Major enhancements at the CDCC can not proceed without a referendum vote due to the amount of money that would need to be borrowed.
Survey respondents from Area J (81 per cent) and Castlegar (87 per cent) were more supportive of paying additional taxes to fund borrowing for enhancements than respondents from Area I (66 per cent).
Results showed Area I might support a project that resulted in less than $100 in increased annual taxation, whereas Castlegar and Area J would support up to $200. A new walking track is the only project on the list that would come in under the $100 mark.
About half (52 per cent) of Area I respondents said CDCC enhancements are needed, compared to 69 per cent in Area J and 77 per cent in Castlegar.
According to the report, Area I respondents being less supportive of recreation enhancements/investments than respondents from Area J and Castlegar was generally apparent throughout the study.
A report from RDCK staff also states, "Through the engagement process many in the community expressed that an enhancement is needed but that a referendum under the same conditions as 2018 would not be successful. The feeling in the community is that a referendum conducted as an overall service assent vote or an assent vote without Area I participating would pass."
With all of these facts in mind, the recreation commission decided to explore eliminating Area I from any new project services to increase the likelihood of success.
Although a project has yet to be defined and further community consultation may be undertaken, RDCK staff say the process of developing a new bylaw can begin now in order to make efficient use of time.
Key findings from the final report
• There were no enhancement projects to the CDCC that were supported by a majority of respondents across all areas.
• Based on their stated priorities and willingness to pay, a walking track is the only project that connects a higher priority from all respondents with the level of taxation increase needed to fund it.
• Knowing the potential costs, a majority of respondents from both Area J and Castlegar supported: a walking track (59 per cent and 63 per cent respectively), a new secondary ice surface (60 per cent and 56 per cent), and an expanded fitness centre (52 per cent and 54 per cent).
• For Area I respondents, none of the potential enhancements were supported by a majority although the enhancement receiving the greatest amount of support was the addition of a walking track (42 per cent support).
Ice sheet support
Comparing all respondents who are affiliated with ice user groups from other affiliations, ice users are generally in greater support of all enhancements to the CDCC, even considering tax impacts, compared to non-ice users. The differences are particularly true for a secondary ice sheet (91 per cent vs 51 per cent), field house (42 per cent vs 20 per cent) and a walking track (74 per cent vs 58 per cent).
Knowing the potential tax increases, lower-income respondents (household income of less than $100,000 before taxes) are more likely to support a walking track (54 per cent) than anything else. Only 42 per cent of lower-income respondents supported a second indoor ice surface or fitness centre expansion.
A majority of higher-income respondents (household income of at least $100,000) supported a second indoor ice surface (68 per cent), walking track (65 per cent), and fitness centre expansion (60 per cent).
Knowing the potential tax increases, a majority of respondents with children in the home would support enhancements more strongly than respondents without children in the home: walking track (61 per cent vs 59 per cent), a second indoor ice surface (61 per cent vs 49 per cent), a new leisure pool (58 per cent vs 29 per cent), and a fitness centre expansion (54 per cent vs 29 per cent).
Recommendations
The report concludes that the CDRC should utilize a prioritization framework to determine a prioritized list.
Projects to be considered are a walking track, a secondary indoor ice arena, a new leisure pool, and an enhanced fitness centre.
The report says the prioritization framework brings a number of factors into play beyond solely community demand. These include social good, public accessibility, cost savings through partnership/grants, economic impact, current provision and cost.
The engagement process showed recreation service delivery in the Castlegar area is not fully understood by residents. Many people were unaware of the differences in responsibilities between the City of Castlegar, the RDCK, and the recreation commission. Residential taxation and its contribution to the different services also lacked clarity.
To combat this, the report recommends a program of communications to better inform area residents.
Reports on each public engagement phase and the final report are available at RDCK.ca/reimagining-recreation-services-in-castlegar.
