Tennis Bubble Fiasco

In 2005 the SSI CRD director recommended, and the CRD Board approved a $780,000 sole-source bid for an indoor tennis facility on SSI. The participants in this project were the SSI CRD Director, the CRD Board and management, SSI PARC and its Operations Manager, members of SSTA, and the vendor Cover-All Pacific.

The CRD Director, in initiating and promoting the project, publicly committed a $100,000 government grant and $140,000 from monies specifically held in trust to replace an existing facility.

The approval by the CRD was granted before a) an application for a building permit was made; b) rezoning applications were made; c) an exemption from ALR could be confirmed; d) a height variance was requested; e) an application for a health permit was made; f) a management and operating contract was in place; g) projected operating revenues could be verified; and h) before the committed funding had been secured.

A cheque in the full amount of the building structure invoice ($341,125) was issued to Cover-All by the PARC Operations Manager in January 2006. This payment was made before the above noted permits and approvals were obtained and was more than six (6) times the authorized limit allowed the PARC Operations Manager under CRD Policies.

None of the necessary permits were ever issued or obtained, and in 2006 the project was abandoned. Neither promised grant was received and SS taxpayers have borne the entire $350,000 expense with absolutely nothing to show for it.

In early 2007 in an audit of the project, KPMG Consulting cited over 27 failures by the CRD to follow its own guidelines and deemed the bid of $780,000 by Cover-All Pacific to be non-competitive.

Most alarmingly, the CRD did not hold any public meetings during the span of the project, and Salt Spring residents (99\% do not play tennis) were not offered a referendum to determine if they supported the expenditure of public dollars on a tennis facility.

It appears that the CRD has been derelict in its fiduciary responsibilities, has misled the public, and has abandoned its promises and pledges to SS taxpayers.

Is this a case of expensive incompetence, negligence, abuse of authority or improper conduct by one or more of the participants? In the case of this project, this governance system has clearly failed the residents and taxpayers on Salt Spring and we have a right to know why and what happened.

We respectfully request:

1. that the Provincial Government direct an investigation into the conduct of the SSI CRD Director, the CRD Board and management, SSI PARC, its Operations Manager, and the SSTA throughout the process of the indoor tennis facility project to determine if improper payments or commissions were paid, and to hold to account those responsible for the losses to the taxpayers.

2. that the Provincial Government require the CRD to uphold its promise to the public to provide $140,000 from the monies held in trust with the SSTA toward the original project so that the losses on this project are shared and not absorbed solely by Salt Spring taxpayers; and

3. that the Provincial Government initiate an independent study of alternative governance structures for Salt Spring Island and direct a referendum of Salt Spring Island voters on a future governance structure.