So last Aug. 26 in the Advocate, Mark Francis was quoted as being able to save money on the new school by building onto the multiplex, as savings could be found through mechanical, HVACs and electrical. “… Even if 10 per cent can be saved, 10 per cent of a $35 million school is $3.5 million”.
Also, in reference to Edwin Parr School, he was quoted as, “Quite honestly, it is a serviceable building.” He stated then — as he is stating now in the June 23 Advocate — that the multiplex is the only site Aspen View will entertain for a new school site.
But there does not seem to be any savings now, just more costs, as according to the new article, the new school cannot be attached to the multiplex. It needs a secondary ice surface, a smaller library, a smaller gym.
We have not even mentioned the proposed new pool being attached to the new school, because no one seems to be coming forward with the costs of design and construction of a new pool yet, or how they can be connected or not.
So is the new school going to $45 or $55 or $ 60 million to build? Is a new pool only going to cost $10 or $20 million? Do we know what other issues or situations may cost more money to fix, like fuel for the school buses? And can anyone say who is going to pay for all this? Do we all just put our heads in the sand and pay the bill at the end, even if the costs double or triple from $35 million?
Or maybe the more sane, cost efficient and practical solution to this would be to look at the “quite honestly serviceable building”.
I am not against a new school as such — if needed, then build it. But to financially ruin the town and county to pay for this project does not make sense. Why build a new school to teach our kids, when the cost of it is going to drive them all away because no one will be able to afford to live here anymore.
Howard Wilkie
