The embers of the fiery debate regarding the Town of Bracebridge’s decision to move Station 2 are still smouldering, but whether Barb McMurray may still want to fan the flames on the controversial decision is not clear yet to the Bracebridge councillor and Oakley Ward representative.
“I don’t know yet,” she said when asked what her next step may be, if anything, about the station’s impending move. “I’m still contemplating how to deal with it. I need to be in discussion with the residents. Some of them will be up here this weekend to see what the next step is.
“I don’t know, maybe the Ontario Fire Marshal needs to be aware of what’s taking place. I don’t know whether (Jon Pegg) will have any concerns or not, but I don’t feel that things are being done properly.”
McMurray made the comment one day after council, at its May 15 meeting, approved the relocation of Station 2 from 3448 Highway 118 East to the municipally-owned 1002 Uffington Rd. The department worked with the Loomex Group over the course of four years to conduct a review of data, variables and site locations to identify this need and support the recommendations outlined in the 2021 fire master plan.
What is the background behind this decision?
According to the town, a feasibility and location analysis was conducted in 2022 due to the building’s age, functionality and space limitations. That study found moving the station to the Uffington area would allow the department to dispatch an effective response force to the high-risk occupancies as identified in Bracebridge’s 2021 community risk assessment.
The pros of moving the station, according to the town, include:
- Increased firefighter safety by allowing the department to dispatch more firefighters to certain areas of Bracebridge and provide a stronger, effective response force
- Increase levels of service provided to the south-east area, high-risk occupancies and the greater Bracebridge area
- Provide a better water supply for areas of Bracebridge that do not have hydrants
- Improve the department’s ability to obtain its superior tanker shuttle accreditation, which can result in insurance savings to residents
- Improve the health and safety of firefighters and facility accessibility compliance
- A higher staff complement of volunteer firefighters as a result of being located in a more densely populated area.
“Upon completion of Station 2 in 1982, the initial estimated useful life was determined to be 30 years. The building is now 12 years past this timeline and the asset condition is now considered to be poor,” the town stated in a release announcing council’s decision.
“While the building has served the community well for over 40 years, it no longer meets current or future needs, and there are concerns regarding health and safety, and accessibility compliance.”
What do residents have to say?
These reasons appeared to do little to assuage some Oakley residents’ worries about the decision.
In deputations to the council at the May 15 meeting, three residents expressed their concerns regarding the choice to move the station, including differing opinions on responses times created by the station’s move and uncertainty the new location would have a positive impact on attracting new firefighters.
Janet Thomson told councillors during her deputation that she and other residents are unhappy there was no public consultation with Oakley residents prior to the decision to move the station. This concern was the biggest one for McMurray and fellow councillor Don Smith, who renewed their objections during the May 15 meeting.
“Community members who have the opportunity to speak make better decisions and therefore (become) better community members. They are more likely to accept decisions if they feel they have input into them,” Thomson said.
“But conversely, participants who feel they are unheard are less likely to participate in the process again or to support the decision reached. People who feel they have no voice are angry and frustrated. But if community members feel heard, regardless of the outcome, they feel like active participants.”
She also claimed McMurray and other citizens have come up with at least three possible alternate locations for a new hall with one day of research.
“Community members knocked on doors, they put in the miles and hours on foot and by car, they spoke to people, they hand counted every house in the affected areas and they were not paid to be a part of the study,” she said.
“This is just another reason why involving the community is essential — active participants work to find active solutions.”
What steps did council take before its decision?
An amendment to defer the report and recommendation back to the committee of the whole was presented to council. Mayor Rick Maloney said he didn’t feel this amendment was a necessary move, given what the chief and consultants have provided to councillors regarding the reasons for the station’s relocation, adding he was “very concerned” about the request.
“If it’s for the purpose of my council colleagues to get more information and maybe understand some of the issues and concerns a bit better, I understand that,” he said.
“But to suggest that the next step for us is to invite whomever to dispute the empirical data and the effort that we have invested in getting to a point where we are now, I think that is flawed and a wrong direction to go.”
The amendment was defeated and the motion to accept the report’s recommendation was passed by council.
Staff will now work to create a pre-qualification process and request for proposal for the design-build of the facility to be included in the 2025 municipal budget and business plan.
As the project moves forward, the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback on potential site amenities, functions of the facility and potential future uses of the soon-to-be-replaced station.