The District of Squamish council members are preparing to decide which proposal or proposals will receive the $750,000 Olympic sports legacy fund. And it appears they intend to review every suggestion that comes their way.
Council unanimously voted against staff's recommendation to shortlist the proposals from 16 to eight based on a narrowing list of criteria at Tuesday's (Nov. 2) Committee of the Whole meeting.
"I'm very concerned about deciding on six or any number of criteria to represent our values," said Coun. Corinne Lonsdale. "Those values are what we campaigned on and the public trusts us to make those decisions so I'm not keen to have staff shortlist [the proposals]."
Current criteria include economic benefit, impact, requested funding, sustainability, external funding source requirements, accessibility and equity, public support, district recognition, project development, financial risk, environmental impacts and request for proposals (RFP) qualification.
Although Coun. Paul Lalli didn't want to exempt any criteria, he did single out public support as key.
"This money was given to the community for a public community amenity and I think public support is important," he said.
But not everyone agreed.
"Just because a proposal has public support doesn't necessarily mean it's the best option," said Lonsdale.
Coun. Bryan Raiser's concerns were over narrowing the list of a proposal's desirable traits only after putting out an RFP.
"Now people have gone to great lengths to complete the onerous RFP and now we're adding criteria - that doesn't seem fair," he said.
Had organizations known the criteria beforehand, he said, community organizations might have included different aspects in their proposal.
Coun. Doug Race agreed and said objectivity would already be difficult so he wasn't comfortable cutting the number of proposals down.
"I would like to see all the proposals laid out together," he said. "I think a struggle will be bringing objectivity to this so I would suggest we don't throw things out."
Coun. Rob Kirkham suggested including all proposals and 12 criteria in one chart.
"I don't think 16 proposals is too onerous, and neither is 12 criteria," he said.
Administrative services director Robin Arthurs said staff could include all the proposals and rank each project relation to each criterion as high, medium or low.
Coun. Patricia Heintzman's motion to that effect was approved.
However, Race was concerned the ratings might lead councillors astray, since staff's analysis would give certain proposals more "high" marks than others.
"For example, just because a proposal is ranked as high in economic benefit, I don't think it should be at the top," he said. "I wouldn't consider economic benefit a determining factor for a recreational activity."
Race requested the proposals be listed alphabetically instead of highest to lowest ranking and for staff not to put forward any recommendations.
The amended motion passed unanimously.
Councillors will have the opportunity to look over the proposals before discussion at a Committee of the Whole on Nov. 23.
