The District of Sicamous is in the process of making a bid to take over the management of the Sicamous Arena.
The significance of that can only be understood if you know the back-story. The arena is owned by the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD). It was built in a large part by the efforts of volunteers who saw a need and took action.
The management of the arena has been the Sicamous & District Recreation Centre Society under contract with the CSRD. Comprised of volunteers, the society has dedicated hundreds of hours to ensuring that the arena and its programs operate successfully. During the past 20-plus years this volunteer society has done an exemplary job staffing with paid staff, volunteers and overseeing operations. In the past year-and-a-half the newly hired manager and his staff, along with the volunteers, have made tremendous strides in expanding community use of the arena and its facilities.
There is a draft version of a study conducted in 2010 on the District of Sicamous website called the Sicamous and Area Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
This document appears to be the justification for the bid to take over management of the arena. After studying this document, I find it contains information that may be correct but is presented in a manner that creates misconceptions. For example the report says, “Sicamous paid 63.47 per cent of operating costs” of the arena. In fact, Sicamous paid nothing. They collect taxes on behalf of the CSRD and those taxes paid by all residents of the CSRD area paid 100 per cent of the operating costs. Another statistic from the report is that 79 per cent of the respondents were willing to pay $10 to $50 more on their taxes to support recreation programs. What you are not told is that 222 people completed the survey, 183 people answered that question, and 34 of those were under the age of 21. There is no information about how many of the remaining 149 were in fact taxpayers, nor does the survey ask what income bracket each person falls, information that affects willingness to increase taxes.
My final example is that according to the report, the Lions have a park on the Eagle River at Silver Sands Road. I am sure the Lions would be surprised to hear this and that it contains washrooms and beaches. No such park exists. These examples are but a few of the more than 50 questions I have about this report. My point is a report used, as justification for government to make decisions should not contain incomplete, wrong or misleading information. Throughout that report, the reader is reminded that population, participation in activities, and finances are decreasing, yet it expects us to swallow that the solution is hiring a program director to plan more activities.
The proposed solutions, even if valid, do not justify forcing out the society.
I encourage the taxpayers in the CSRD, including those in Sicamous, to read this report and start questioning its intent, content, and the validity of some of its conclusions. I believe we need to work on improving and growing recreational activities to make our town more attractive to current and new residents, but the bottom line is that until we can offer solid employment in this area, we will continue to lose families and not attract new ones.
Absolutely, let’s get our groups working together to help each other meet the needs and expand horizons but lets not do it by bullying and abolishing a successful volunteer society that is, and has been, above reproach.
My concern about the takeover bid stems from outrage that the efforts of volunteers that are so obviously successful are being swept aside, and the fact that my late mother gave a lot of sweat and blood to the society.
I intend to do whatever I can to help protect the legacy for which she and others fought. I encourage all to find out what’s going on and get involved.