October 19 Public Meeting

HRM staffers refuse public partaking during desolate presentation

On October 19, HRM staffers facilitated a presentation to local residents at Halifax West High School where they presented a bleak picture of the recreation facility options available.

Once again, the hurdle was funding, as three sub-standard options (A, B and C) were presented to the crowd. However unimpressive, all were aimed at providing recreation and leisure facility which according to Project Manager Terry Gallagher, should last the community about 30 years.

Options A, Option B, and Option C

The cost of options A and B were to match to the current level of project funding: approximately $8-million. Option C came with a heftier price tag of $14.5 million.

Option A: an unviable proposition
Projected Completion Date: Fall 2007
Option A, a renovation/expansion project for the existing facility, Northcliffe Pool, was presented with many drawbacks including a 24 month closure of Northcliffe, fundraising challenges, and future expansion limits. It was essentially presented as an unviable proposition. [conceptual image]

Option B: limited but affordable
Projected Completion Date: Summer 2007
In what appeared to be HRM's hands down most desired option, a rosy picture was painted for Option B with many advantages listed including adjacent facilities, visibility from Lacewood drive, ease of future expansion, and financial prudence. While noted, the disadvantage of size appropriateness for the community was downplayed. It became clear that this was the marquee option in HRM's view. [conceptual image]

Option C: a replacement for Northcliffe
Projected Completion Date: Summer 2009
Looming infrastructure spending deadlines and the inability of the community to fund raise the necessary $8.1-million shortfall were the major snags with Option C. And despite all of the fund raising challenges, the facility option as presented was not considered suitable by many. Consisting of a six-lane 25m pool (same as Northcliffe), leisure pool, fitness studio, aerobics and dance facilities, the plan lacked several components sought by the community, most notably, a long term vision for the project. Questions were raised about the size of the pool and the lack current or future planning for many common aspects of recreation facilities including squash courts, gymnasium, a field house, walking/running track and ice surfaces. [conceptual image]

Option A: renovate Northcliffe	Option B: $8-million	Option C: $14.5 million

Crowd silenced despite lack of support for options presented

None of the three options was popular with the crowd in attendance.

In an apparent attempt to keep a lid on the crowd response, HRM did not allow any questions from the floor, insisting instead the public write their questions on cards for submission. A small percentage of questions were hand picked by HRM and were replied to by staff and consultants with the rest going un-addressed due to a lack of time. HRM committed to replying to all questions with responses posted to their website. Overwhelmingly, based on the questions asked, the public did not seem impressed with the options presented.

On a few occasions, HRM staff refused to engage members of the public who insisted on asking questions from the floor despite the imposed regulation. Many members of the community left frustrated and bewildered at HRM's attempt at community consultation.