Two open houses to invite public input prior to a second fire hall financing referendum drew dozens, not the hundreds that organizers expected.
Public attendance was 33 on Sunday and didn’t appear to be much larger on Monday afternoon at the Community Complex, where displays provided information and table talks were organized to get more input from a public that might be tiring of the social media and mailout blitzes organized by the project’s opponents.
“Where is everyone?” Mayor Ron Toyota wondered aloud on Monday. The smattering of citizens was outnumbered by Town of Creston staff and Town Council representatives, along with resource experts. A number of vocal opponents from last year’s referendum were visible, but they were quiet and seemed ready to engage in civil discussions as they wandered around the displays.
It wasn’t a surprise that a larger turnout was expected. An anonymous mailer sent out last week listed numerous concerns about plans for a new fire hall, some based on half-truths and others outright fabrications.
One point accused the fire department of purchasing turnout gear from an American supplier at nearly double the cost of gear from a Canadian supplier. Fire Chief Mike Moore responded by posting an invoice for the purchase of gear by the Town of Creston, from a Canadian supplier at the lower cost stated in the mailout.
Couns. Karen Unruh expressed her bewilderment over complaints that a final fire hall plan is not part of going to referendum.
“It’s like getting a pre-approved mortgage when you want to buy a house,” she said. “Then you go out and start looking at houses in your price range.”
Toyota said the situation is no different than the referendum for the Community Complex when about 60 percent of voters approved of the borrowing of up to $18 million. There was no final plan, just a general list of what the RDCK hoped to accomplish, including an aquatic and fitness centres, and upgrades to the arena and Creston room.
Once the referendum was passed, Creston Town Council and local RDCK directors stepped back from the planning process, appointing a citizen’s committee to work with staff, the architect and other experts to come up with a design. That committee was responsible for placing the aquatic centre on its current location, and not where the former pool had been, and for details like how many swimming lanes the pool would have and devoting space to lease for physiotherapy services. The large entry foyer was not discussed before the project went to the design committee stage.
“I don’t think there are many who look back now and said that the process didn’t work extremely well,” said Toyota, who was a member of that design team. “The politicians of the day had the right to approve or reject all of the design team’s recommendations. They didn’t do that even once, because we worked within the budget we were given. The aquatic centre opened eight years ago today (June 26) and it’s hard to find a person who admits to voting against that referendum now.”
