Dear editor,
The construction climate has changed dramatically recently and that is why I am requesting a second opinion on this major project.
Gone are the days when we had to 鈥榦rder鈥� and we, the owners, were at the mercy of consultants and contractors.
I believe this project (arena plant replacement and dressing room addition) should be one project.
And we should be inviting proposals for that.
I would like to look at three options:
Firstly, build a new ice plant as we authorized last year.
Linking to the existing header can be accomplished with a trench on the north side of the arena. This involves very little demolition.
The second option is to cut and remove the slab only.
The boards at the end adjacent to the ice plant would likely have to be removed to build a header at that end.
Underneath the slab a conduit would be added to link to the curling rink.
The majority of the existing boards remain, the rotten kick plates can be replaced.
As a matter of fact, the arena staff has already replaced some of the kick plates.
This is a minor repair and certainly should not be justification to replace the entire boards.
Lastly, demolishing the entire boards and slab to build new with flex/dasher boards.
Very few rinks have these new boards, they are expensive and can be high maintenance.
Junior level hockey does not require these.
The existing boards are in good condition and can last for many more years.
I would like to suggest they will last forever.
Administration want all the 鈥榖ells and whistle鈥� on a Cadillac.
A Chevy is quite adequate for our usage.
The arena should be for locals and residents firstly.
Administration is seeking four additional dressing rooms.
In order to meet ladies/girls hockey we require six dressing rooms in total.
As I mentioned before, the existing ice plant room can become the sixth change room.
This can be accomplished regardless of which option is chosen.
The need for eight change areas occurs only for the 鈥楿nder 7鈥� once a year hockey tournament. This can be achieved by using the basement of the Activity Centre.
I have spoken in council about the 鈥榩iecemeal鈥� approach to these renovations.
When you add up the three year request, this project totals many millions of dollars.
At that price tag, I believe it is necessary to get a second opinion.
We have no prepared report before us to approve this.
All we have is one line in the budgets with an amount.
It is being 鈥榮hoved down our throats鈥�.
The presentation is lacking details and not acceptable in my opinion.
As we think back on the aquatic centre slide project, we should seriously be considering more involvement by council.
It is my opinion that we can return to the days where contractors would present their proposals to council.
Thereafter council jointly with administration can decide on what is best for our community.
This should not be a 鈥榖ottom up鈥� type of endeavour.
Bert Journault
Jasper, AB
