Springbank residents say they are not happy with the level of County consultation when it comes to the design of the proposed new South Springbank community centre.
“The South Springbank facility has gone off the rails, and has lost credibility within our community,” Springbank Community Association president Karin Hunter told Rocky View County’s (RVC) Recreation Governance Committee on Sept. 26. “The project is in dire need of a course correction. In our view, this is a missed opportunity for meaningful community engagement.”
Hunter said her organization’s complaints stem from the lack of information and meaningful consultation time associated with the ad hoc Stakeholder Advisory Committee brought together by RVC to settle the details of what the new facility will include when it is designed.
At the Recreation Governance Committee meeting back on Feb. 6, when the business case for the new facility was approved, consultant Jon Hartenberger of HarGroup Management Consultants presented a plan which would include an event centre with room for 200 persons, a dance studio, and a few multi-purpose rooms. At the time, Hartenberger suggested the $8 million set aside for the larger Springbank community as compensation from the province for the SR-1 project could be used to cover the costs of phase one construction.
Hartenberger’s suggested plans for the recreation centre, which he said came out of consultations with the Stakeholder Advisory Group were never accepted by the Springbank Community Association membership, according to Hunter’s remarks on Sept. 26.
“So what do residents want?” she asked. “It’s an exercise facility. It’s an indoor walking/running track. It’s a gymnasium. And it’s some community spaces such as teen spaces, childcare, before and after care, and a library. Regarding outdoor spaces, it’s parks and pathways.
“It’s time for a reset,” she went on to declare, “and the best way to reset is to please check in with the community.”
Hunter also rejected the notion that the Springbank Community Association should only be treated as one voice among many in Springbank, considering its large local membership.
“The composition of the stakeholder committee in Springbank,” she said: “the president of the Heritage Club wasn’t from Springbank, the president of Springbank Park For All Seasons isn’t from Springbank, the Elbow Valley resident has not been involved in Springbank, Harmony is not even part the plan in your Recreation Master Plan for Springbank– so this is why I am saying from day one we raised concerns about the composition of that stakeholder committee being problematic.”
Hunter said the consultant had only spoken with members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for about 12 hours altogether over the 18 months the committee sat, and no information handouts had been given out to bring back to the Springbank Community Association.
She said they had been “blindsided” by the consultant’s report back in February which laid out the design plan for phase one, and recommended using the $8 million reserve fund set aside for a SR-1 legacy project in Springbank to pay for construction costs of the new facility.
Money, she later argued, which should be banked, with the annual interest being used to fund community projects voted on by a local recreation committee, similar to what Langdon does now with its recreation reserve.
Division 5 Coun. and Rec. Committee vice-chair Greg Boehlke asked staff if that 12 hour number cited by Hunter was correct.
RVC manager of Recreation, Parks and Community Support, Dari Lang, said that was approximately correct; however, Lang pointed out that the purpose of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee wasn’t to decide on the design elements of phase one of construction– those had already been decided during the community consultations which took place with dozens of stakeholders in the year before the committee was struck.
“The purpose of the advisory group was, the decision had already been made on the amenities,” she confirmed. “The process of the advisory group was to identify what specific uses would be needed for the facility. Their purpose was to take that information back to their respective community associations or boards to get input to bring it back to the committee for future discussion.”
Hunter said she was “shocked” by this revelation from Lang.
“I thought the intent of the stakeholder committee was to decide on the amenities,” Hunter stated. “So I am really floored right now, to be honest. There was never any document for us to take back. Our representative on the committee was never able to bring us something to say, ‘Can you share this out?’”
In the end, the Recreation Governance Committee received staff’s report on the Southwest Springbank community facility as information, with no courses of action suggested on how to resolve Hunter’s concerns at this time.
RVC staff did explain to committee members more consultation with the community would be forthcoming as the County moved toward site design and construction planning.
