The result of the Nelson recreation campus survey in phase three of the project to create a vision for the city’s recreation concentration in the downtown is, another survey. People have until April 18 to complete a resident feedback questionnaire — a phase three feedback form — to comment on the 54-page report released to the public on Tuesday, March 25. The document gathers and compiles the information of the six-week, phase two survey — which included 2,035 responses from residents living in Nelson, regional district electoral Area F, defined Area E (a portion of) and other (which includes other Area E and other communities). The survey was primarily fielded online while a hard copy version was also available. Around 60 people, including city and regional district staff, attended the meeting at the Prestige Lakeside Resort on Tuesday night, far less than the 500 that filled the room in mid-November when the process was first announced. Message boards highlighting the information contained in the report (click here), as well as a presentation from Joe Chirico, RDCK general manager of community services, and a question-and-answer period that lasted over one hour. The report, and the evening, were put into context by the consultant the city and the regional district hired to conduct and compile the information. Rob Parks of R.C. Strategies, said the most often asked question in the process was “What specific project that Recreation 5 commission has got that they will be working on that would come of this? “We are a little bit premature in that, but the one thing that we could find out is … maybe we need to do a little bit more investigation on a couple of specific activities to see are there opportunities available someplace else, are those opportunities that might be available someplace else satisfactory to those who are trying to access them? And can they access them?” he told the crowd at the start of the evening. “So, with this, we have some sense that people are looking for some opportunity that maybe they aren’t really getting. We don’t have a specific answer on what that really means,” he admitted. “Do we have to look at how things are allocated, do we have to look at what the opportunities are outside of the campus, we don’t know what that answer is just yet.” What they do know is respondents to the survey are generally in support of the development and enhancement of recreational facilities to cater to the diverse needs of residents across all age groups. Suggestions include expanding indoor spaces for popular sports (142) like soccer and pickleball, prioritizing community health and well-being (83), and leveraging partnerships for funding (56). Comments included concerns about balancing the allocation of tax dollars between housing and recreational projects (151), affordable access to facilities (74) and the need for more parking (58). “Overall, a key theme within the comments was the need to create inclusive, accessible, and engaging recreational spaces that contribute to a vibrant and healthy community in Nelson,” the report stated. There are 12 facilities (and land) included in the recreation campus, including the Civic Arena, the indoor soccer facility (leased to the Nelson Soccer Association), the Civic Theatre, the gymnasium (leased to Glacier Gymnastics), the dance studio (leased to Dance Umbrella), the senior’s coordinating office, the Nelson Curling Rink and lounge (leased to the Nelson Curling Club) and the “empty lot” on the corner at 824 Front St. In addition, at the Nelson and District Community Complex (owned by the RDCK) there are the aquatic centre, the arena, the fitness facility and multi-purpose rooms. In order to plan that entire space out appropriately, Chirico explained, there needs to be a long-term vision. And, depending on decisions that get made related to the community recreation campus, there may be a need to fund borrowing for enhancements or new amenities, he added. Specific decisions about borrowing will be determined at a later point as decisions are made about the community recreation campus. Survey respondents provided insight into their willingness to pay additional property taxes to fund facility enhancements or new development, with two-thirds of respondents from Nelson (67 per cent) and Area F (67 per cent) said they would consider paying additional property taxes. Over half (56 per cent) of respondents from defined Area E said they would consider paying additional taxes. Less than half (48 per cent) of other respondents said they would consider it. Approximately one-quarter or less said they would not consider paying additional taxes. But there was very little talk about the value the recreation facilities brought to the community, said former Nelson mayor. “We are at a situation right now where it is time to regroup a little bit and start understanding what really makes Nelson tick,” he said. “I suggest, when you are doing a study like this, you have to add the value of these facilities when you are putting it out to the public. Because when you relate it to dollars and cents, that’s all people think about, very few people think about the bigger value … and include that economic development piece and the social piece and the wellness piece. “We are at a crossroads that we have never been at before. We are under challenges every half hour … and we have to look at the big picture and how do we make our community much more resilient than it currently is,” he continued. “And part of that is offering differing quality facilities, maintaining the ones we have and the quality we have.”