District of North Vancouver Candidates Comments about Aquatics

The Aquatic facilities in both the City of North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver are deteriorating and unable to meet present public demand let alone the future. Furthermore, many Aquatic programs are no longer available to North Shore Residence due to the lack of aquatic space. Regional, provincial and national aquatic events are not hosted on the North Shore due to the limited size and design of existing pools as a result both the City and District are not able to benefit from the economic spin-off of hosting such events. Presently, there is a development proposal for the Harry Jerome pool. This proposal is for a 10 lane 25 meter pool. A facility of this size and design will not handle the existing or future public demand, will promote access to new aquatic programs presently lacking on the North Shore and it will not attract any aquatic events which could help off-set operating costs or support local business. An alternative proposal has been presented for a 50 Meter 8 lane pool which would meet public program demand, attract aquatic events and provide financial benefits to the local businesses and most importantly enable our residents to have constant access to aquatic activities. The increased capital cost to construct the expanded facility is approximately 50% more than the 25 meter pool. However, the 50 meter pool proposal provides a multi-purpose facility which could offer more program flexibility, new aquatic programs for our families and an increase in revenue generated by aquatic events and provides income opportunities for the local businesses.

Question #1 from Aquatics

  1. Do you support the concept of replacing the present Harry Jerome Facility with a 50 meter pool complex which would not only increase aquatic activities available to all North Shore residents but would also create potential income to offset operating cost and support local businesses?

Question #2 from Aquatics

  1. What is your position on capital cost sharing between the City and District for facilities which provide benefits to both district and city residents, particularly facilities in which operating cost are presently shared?

CANDIDATE ANSWERS

Roger Bassam Roger@Bassam.ca

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. Yes.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. There should be only one municipality and that would eliminate this issue in its’ entirety. It would also provide a larger user base and tax base which would justify the investment in larger recreation facilities. As far as actually spending taxpayer’s money to support infrastructure and programs in other municipalities, I cannot support that. It is an incredibly dangerous precedent and in the specific relationship between the CNV and DNV the DNV already heavily subsidizes the CNV residents. Compare the population and number of community centres, ice sheets, athletic fields, park space and kilometres of trails and you will see a startling discrepancy. It would be appropriate for the CNV to address this imbalance with by investing in aquatic facilities, additional ice and a competitive 8 lane track.

Lisa Muri

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. Current numbers do not support a 50 Meter pool in any one municipality, I know that this is a very big want for the users, but I have yet to see a business case to support it

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. Maybe we need to look at a North Vancouver referendum pack, I have suggested this in a previous question, to look at funding a larger, multipurpose sport center, again, Lucas Center has the appropriate land size, however needs alternative road access off highway 1, but this property could encompass a number of needs.

Robin Hicks robinhicks@shaw.ca

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I support this approach. My daughters were all involved in competitive swimming and water polo. When I was the Director of Finance in Coquitlam I was directly involved in the design and financing of their aquatic complex which included a 50 metre tank and with one end accommodating a floor which could be raised and lowered.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. I would like to see this happen, but as an experienced local government finance director the complexities of fairly allocating capital costs are formidable. The resulting impact on either tax levies or user costs would also present challenges in a dual municipal system. 

Doug MacKay-Dunn

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. Yes in principle but this is the City of North Vancouver’s decision-just another reason for Amalgamation. My vision would see a Pool Plex built by the three North Shore Communities and managed by way of a MOU between the North Vancouver Recreation Commission and West Vancouver Rec

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. In principle yes I would agree that capital cost sharing would be of benefit. The current Recreation Commission Partnership Agreement would have to be re-written and that could take some time and will require a heavy dose of positive political will.

Mathew Bond mathew@mathewbond.com

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I agree that a 50m will bring a greater share of benefits (health, social, economic, flexibility of use) than another 25m pool. I’m not sure District citizens are comfortable putting $10M dollars into the pot when there are other issues (like transportation) that we think are a higher priority. The ongoing annual subsidy required, while it could be viewed as an investment in the health of our citizens, is also worrisome from a financial perspective. If we all we able to bring more partners to the table (health authority, private enterprise, higher levels of government) to lower the cost to each of us, and develop a long-term operational model that lowers the annual subsidy, it might make the proposal more palatable. In the absence of those partners, and hearing the concerns of citizens about transportation, investing in a 50m pool would be lower on my priority list than investing in improvements to transportation. When we have limited funds, it’s difficult to prioritize.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. Please refer to my answer to the general question.

Len Laycock , contact via www.lenlaycock.org

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I support it. At www.lenlaycock.org you will find and article I wrote about Town Centres and Density. In that article I touch on the need to build recreation/sports into our town centre designs. That is happening right now. I’d like to change that. There are opportunities to extract funds from developers in exchange for use giving them the privilege to build in our community. This is true not just for aquatics, but across the sporting spectrum.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. This question links with the first general question. I’m in favour or cost sharing. But neither Municipality can agree to pay for the others capital cost, even in part, unless they share control. I’m afraid that wherever a given facility sits, determines the owner. Amalgamation is a means to a solution. I support a referendum on that issue.

Glenn MacKenzie, glenn544@gmail.com

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I support aquatics in principle, but I need to examine the short term and long financial impact of each proposal on District taxes and revenues.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. City and District should share capital costs of facilities in North Vancouver.

Linda Findlay – linda.findlay@shaw.ca

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. Yes, I support 50M pool, however, this question is for City Councillors as CNV is responsible for Harry Jerome. It will take a few years to accomplish all the new builds with the new District facility at Griffin needs to completed first.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. No Response

Wayne Hunter waynehunter2014@gmail.com

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I support the construction of a 50 meter pool, subject to a specific negotiated agreement amongst at least 2 municipalities regarding capital investment and operating costs, (outside of the current Recreation Bylaw).

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. I’m sorry. I do not understand the question. I support the current capital cost sharing arrangements as specified in the Joint Bylaw Agreement.

Kevin Macauley

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. No Response

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. This idea is worth exploring but the cost burden and split between the municipalities needs to be equitable. Until there is a true evaluation of overall shared costs and services this will be a challenge.

Hazen Colbert hazen@hazencolbert2014.ca

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. I support a review of best practices for acquatic facilities in other jurisdictions prior to spending money on what would solely be a City of North Vancouver initiative.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. A Shared Services Agreement is required with a cost-sharing formula

Connie DE BOER

Question 1 from Aquatics

  1. Again as a Sports professional , I am a huge supporter of sport and fitness and see it as a priority.

Question 2 from Aquatics

  1. That just makes sense

Speak Your Mind

*