If Barrhead town residents vote no in the upcoming plebiscite, a new aquatic centre could be delayed as long as three to four years.
That is the opinion of Town of Barrhead Mayor, Gerry St. Pierre.
In recent days the Leader has received a number of requests to do a story on what a no or a yes vote means for both town and county residents.
On Wednesday, Oct. 7, both town and county residents will be asked if they approve of their prospective councils plans to borrow up to $5 million each for the construction cost of a new aquatic centre. Both plebiscites are worded similarly; the major difference being that the town vote will be binding, while the county’s isn’t.
If both county and town resident’s vote in favour of passing the two bylaws, the answer of what happens next is straightforward.
Both the town and county borrow their $5 million and construction of Barrhead’s new aquatic centre proceeds, probably breaking ground in the early spring of 2016.
“Construction on a project like this, usually takes a minimum of a year, but it’s probably going to be more like 18-months, so I think the earliest opening date for the aquatic centre would be in the fall of 2017,” St. Pierre said.
However, if the majority of people vote no in either the town or county, what happens isn’t so clear.
St. Pierre said while he and the rest of town council are confident the public will overwhelmingly support the borrowing bylaw, and therefore the pool project, he said it isn’t as simple as making a few changes to the architectural concept to make the project more palatable to naysayers.
According to Plan Forward, a group of citizens who are concerned about the cost, both the capital and the projected operating budget of the pool as it is currently proposed, the only thing a no vote means is that a person is opposed to the borrowing bylaw and nothing more.
“The vote is about whether people want to borrow $5 million for the construction of the pool, nothing else. A no vote doesn’t mean no to a pool, just the one that is being proposed,” Chuck Hambling, one of the founders of Plan Forward, said in an interview with the Leader in early August.
St. Pierre disagrees with Hambling’s assessment.
“A no vote means we would have to start the whole process again from scratch,” he said, adding the town would be limited in what it can do by the Municipal Government Act (MGA). “It can’t be a simple change of the numbers in the bylaw, it has to be a significant change to the project.”
St. Pierre said this would mean the town would have to ask residents, through another series of open houses, what they would like to see in a pool facility.
“We would probably have to start the process of looking for a new architect as well,” he said. “I can’t imagine Steve Bushnell, of BR2 Architecture, after spending the last four years working on this project, would want to start all over again.”
St. Pierre estimates the whole process would take another two to three years and in the end, they could be right back where they are now.
“Who knows, we could end up with another petition and another vote,” he said, adding another issue to consider is whether the current council would be willing to start the process again.
While he said he couldn’t speak for the rest of council, on a personal level, he isn’t sure he could start the whole process again.
“I don’t know if I would have the stomach to carry on,” he said. “We have a lot of other work to do in this community and I would probably put my energy towards that and put this pool project to rest once and for all.”
The Leader then asked whether, under the MGA, if there was a no vote, if there was a set period of time before the town could pass another borrowing bylaw for a different aquatic centre facility. St. Pierre said, it’s his understanding that there is no time limit.
“In reality, if we have to redesign the project, we would have to go through the same process that it has taken us four years to get to,” he said, adding he is confident it won’t come to that.
St. Pierre said he is focusing all his energy on a yes vote.
“I still firmly believe that this community is perfectly happy with this proposed facility,” he said. “Will it satisfy everyone? Absolutely not, but it is the closest we can come with the finances available for this community. And I am 100 per cent confident that if everybody pays their fair share, all the ratepayers in the town and county and the users, we can easily afford this facility, both in capital and operating. No doubt in my mind.”
As for what a no vote would mean for the county, Barrhead county Reeve Bill Lee, said it would depend on how strong a yes or a no vote was.
“Our position, as a council, has been pretty clear and it is spelled out in the agreement we signed with the town,” he said, adding that in January 2015 the town and county came to an agreement where the town and county equally contribute $5 million towards the facility’s construction costs. In the agreement, the county agrees to pay what it considers fair towards the operating costs of the facility. In Oct. 17 after the municipal elections, the amount would be open for negotiation.
Lee said if the vote is close, it could be difficult for council or an individual councillor to decide whether or not they would still vote in favour of the bylaw.
Although county council has given their borrowing debenture bylaw first reading, they decided to wait to see what the outcome of the both the town’s as well as their own plebiscite was before proceeding with second and third reading.
“I can’t speak for any other councillor,” Lee said. “Nor is there really too much to say. This is the town’s project and we are here help, but in the end it’s really their decision.”
