Question about the Synthetic Turf Field

My name is xxx. (deleted personal information)  I am contacting you because over the last few months I have been frustrated with the process with regards to the synthetic grass field project.  As a stakeholder, a coach, an athlete, and a member of the community as a whole, I am concerned that we as a community are not embracing the people who put in endless volunteer hours to aid council to make sound decisions.  The synthetic grass field is a prime example of councils inability to make a decision.  As voters, we spend time researching council members that will make hard decisions and elect them to do so.  It seems to me that some members of the current council do not want to make the hard decisions and seek uneducated feedback from the community, creating community divisions in the process.  I urge you to read the information on the municipality's web site regarding the process that has been undertaken to reach the current status of the synthetic grass field project.

 

As a registered voter in this next Municipal election,  I am interested in your position on the project.  I have real concerns about how Bowen Island will be perceived by the Community Connections grant representatives.   Our elected officials have stalled this process many times thus putting the grant on hold.  I'm sure these are funds that could have been given to other communities in need.  In addition to this concern, I am appalled that this council let this project get to tender.  Many companies invested real money to quote this job with the vision of completion and I know that  local contractors pulled their quotes because of a fickle council. 

 

I am aware of the budget concerns but think we can still construct the field on budget using the Community Connections grant and the additional funds from the recreation reserves.  BIFC will also work to raise additional money to assist in the construction if needed. 

 

The greatest misconception of this project is that it was conceptualized by the Bowen Island Football Club.  As a result we have been demonized in the community and to council as a special interest group driving decisions in council chambers.  It is true that I believe we need new recreation facilities; for example, the gym floor is an unsuitable playing surface  and is constantly over booked.  The school field is getting better but will now be closed for essentially 3-4 months because of the weather.  Contrary to popular belief,  the single largest beneficiary of the artificial turf field  is Bowen Island Community School (West Vancouver School District) who have been 100% behind this project from the beginning.  Lets have a look at the volume of user groups that stand to benefit from this project.  BICS:  lets say only 200 kids use the field (massive underestimate),  BIFC:  currently at about 200 members,  IPS: ultimate program 50 students , additional programming opportunities and people who would play on a better, safer surface: approximately 100.  So that is a user potential on the low end of about 550 community members, not to mention the potential for teams to come from town to play on a good home field.  Not a bad ratio for a community of about 3500 people.

 

The second largest misconception is that the synthetic grass field is meant to be a practice field.   It is true, from the BC Soccer perspective, that the field is only officially large enough to host the under 10 age group games however,  BIFC is encouraging soccer development which translates to small sided games.   Even the men and women's programs regularly play on fields of this size or smaller to encourage touches on the ball.  We have plans to develop inter-squad leagues at all levels but cannot because of field closures, the current state of the field, and an over booked gymnasium. 

 

In conclusion , I am using your response to this issue as a gauge to judge whether you and I share some common vision for Bowen Island.  I would like to see one project completed to better the community so we can continue to be vibrant and engaged.  I encourage you to embrace the volunteers of the community.  It seems to me that their well intentioned efforts are not always properly utilized and then we spend unnecessary tax dollars on another expensive study.  I realize there are many other issues of concern, affordable housing, OCP, Cape Roger Curtis, the cove,  and the list goes on.  I urge you to respond honestly and not politically side step this issue. 

 

Sincerely,

 xxxxx

Dear xxxx:

Thank you for your email. I was on the Parks and Recreation Commission from 2002-2004, and continued as Council liaison from 2004 until it went into hiatus in late 2007. We were apprised early of the Community Connections Program, and of the process that distilled the possibilities down to the synthetic turf proposal. As you know, Council unanimously voted in Dec. 07 to transfer up to $375,000 from reserves into the 2008 recreation budget. We all thought it was a great project, and for different reasons, but the common thread was the one you identified- that this would be a high value, heavily used facility that would be a de facto first phase of our Civic Facility process.

When we received the report from the project coordinator and staff (Christine Walker) in May 2008 which elaborated some of the project elements- the need to remove the trees, the additional costs, the exclusion of lighting  from the core project, I think we were put a bit off balance. This was compounded by the high bids tendered, and of course, the public reaction.

The voting record of individual Councillors is in the minutes; suffice to say that two councillors began to raise strong concerns about the project, particularly the lack of a wide public process. Two were in favour, and I remained fairly neutral. The mayor tried to achieve an equitable outcome, though it became clear that all of us were becoming wary as the public heat increased. 

The crafting of conditions- including the budget ceiling, the requirement that the marked trees should not come down,etc. led to an attempt to introduce other configurations, including the south of current field concept plan, which SD #45 rejected.

Also complicating the decision has been the inability, as yet, to update our joint management agreement with the SD. Ongoing concerns, such as hours of use, access to washrooms, cost allocations for maintenance, have not been addressed. That background work is proceeding.

Given all this, Council has directed that a further public process set for January. That may appear to you to be stalling, but it is genuinely felt that the time was needed to put the ducks in a row. We would not be spending another $2000 if we felt the project did not have merit, or that it was to be flatly rejected, regardless.

My position is quite clear; I support the construction of a new field, appropriately designed and located. I understand the advantages of the 100x120 synthetic turf field in the original location. However, I am more than open to alternatives that would not raise the ire of so many people. 'Uneducated' or not (and that is your view, not mine), there was a strong visceral reaction to this, and  I do not believe that approving something like this in this atmosphere would have been beneficial to the project.  We on Council did not create the divisions- the underlying values simply existed, and coalesced around this project.  I spent a LOT of time with the Civic Facilities Working Group, at which there was much talk about ways to build community support for new facilities. I want to build consensus around the field and  community hall projects, not fight people- ie perhaps complete one project but in doing so jeopardize another, larger one.

The money is still there, the desire for a field is still there, and Community Connections has extended the grant period for a Sept 09 outside completion date. I truly appreciate the volunteer effort and the terrific activities of the BIFC, and your willingness to fund raise. I ask that you please be patient, recognize the bigger picture, and help us to reach a solution that pleases a clear majority of Bowen Islanders. 

I've floated some ideas, none of which seem to resonate. Maybe you can comment. One was to go back to the type of concept put forward by John Reid and architect Ron Cato 3 years ago- to build a covered facility on the 'Snake Field', which can accommodate a 100x120 surface (barely). Can one utilize a quonset type building (with sidewalls)  for the intended uses? How high does a ceiling need to be? What about a tent- much like the BIRD structure but bigger and higher? Several years go, there was a plan to do something of this sort on newly acquired community land at the top of Cowans adjacent to Headwaters Park...

Thank you.

Peter Frinton