City council has deemed Orchard House ready for demolition, but also offered a window of escape.
To a packed room at the Prestige Harbourfront Resort on Monday, council voted unanimously to proceed with a request for proposals to demolish the building. (Couns. Alan Harrison and Ken Jamieson were absent.) However, the demolition will be delayed 60 days from March 27 in order to give interested parties an opportunity to move the building to a private location. As well, $50,000 of the city’s potential demolition and clean-up costs would be contributed to such a proposal.
In November 2016, the city purchased for $550,000 the one-acre property across from the rec centre with the plan to demolish the former Orchard House building and use the site for future expansion, specifically for an aquatic centre.
Coun. Tim Lavery spoke first, explaining he’s heard more feedback from citizens on this issue than any other since being elected.
He thinks the building’s current location would limit plans for the proposed recreation centre. Although he accepts it has historical and aesthetic merit, he said it is limited by the building’s value. Instead, aspects of the building could be incorporated into a design of a new structure.
Regarding financial viability, “there were a number of ideas presented, all forward thinking, some more plausible than others.”
Lavery said they all rely on accessing grants, as well as significant amounts of local tax dollars for upgrading and day-to-day operations. The probability of getting grants for such a project is extremely low, he predicted.
From the feedback he’s received, he said the ratio has been three or four to one for not spending tax dollars on the building. Lavery said although he’s not always swayed by the majority, he doesn’t support spending significant tax dollars on the building and believes it should be removed from city property.
Other councillors voiced similar views.
Coun. Louse Wallace Richmond said that as chair of the community heritage commission she has spoken to many people on both sides of the issue.
She pointed out that the property was a strategic land acquisition for the city, which is not in the habit of buying land it doesn’t need.
She also noted the role of the heritage committee is to recognize historical significance, but not to save buildings.
“I have no doubt in my mind this building was historic,” she said.
Wallace Richmond said she knows her decision in her role as chair of the commission surprises people.
“At my core, I’m a councillor. It’s our job to think about the future and our job to honour the past. We can’t turn back time. I think this building’s fate was sealed some time ago.”
Coun. Kevin Flynn said he was shocked at the state of disrepair when he toured the building and said the city made a smart, strategic decision when the property was bought, perhaps to accommodate a pool, a gymnasium, a performing arts centre.
Coun. Chad Eliason emphasized that council’s job is to be stewards of the taxpayers’ money and the time has come for Salmon Arm to get a new pool.
“We’re not land speculators, we’re not This Old House… We bought this place for a pool.”
Eliason noted it is an exciting opportunity as the existing centre could be turned into other amenities such as sports courts which could possibly double as an entertainment centre.
“Maybe we could get it all.”
Mayor Nancy Cooper thanked people for all their input and noted it was a hard decision.
“This is really tough – I can see some of you are shaking your heads.”
Following council’s vote, the majority of the 50-or-so people packing the room got up and left.
Outside, members of the Preserving Dilkusha group met to regroup and contemplate their options.
Frank Bugala expressed his displeasure.
“Council made an error. With all the proposals we made for them, and options to expand the building, they still go back to the idea that they’re going to put it (a pool) on that piece of land. The problem is, they’re going to put it behind a housing development, within feet behind a housing strata.”
He reiterated that a number of errors were stated by councillors in the meeting that need to be revisited.
Dorothy Rolin said there is no balance in the town for heritage, it’s all recreation.
“They’re not taking into consideration all the people who have paid taxes for 50 years, and want a place to have tea and reminisce…”
Maureen Shaffer agreed.
“What does this decision say about the city’s commitment to heritage? I live in a heritage house and it’s so important to me. I would hope it’s important to the city.”