— continued. from page A4

office and an improved P.A. syst-
en.

A rough estimate for the retrofit
was between $120,000 to $150,000.
and Scott suggested that the rest of
the money might be used for the
Howe Creek lincar park. Was the
pool expansion project dead in the
water? Of course not.
*Oct. 27, 1988 — Scott wrote

- another letter to Hallsor and said
that Inselberg had completed plans.
‘that would reduce the overall cost
of the pool expansion project while.
still preserving the intent of the
original proposal. Inselberg’s rec-
ommendations included .deletions
of $227,117 and deferments of
$145,700. Using the highest tender
($836,495) as a starting point,
these reductions would bring the
project cost down to only

— - $463,678... and the city had
$512,916.

But there was a problem, accord-

_ing to Scott. The proposed defer-
ments would result in “empty
building space because the pool
equipment would not be installed
until a later date".

*Nov. 10, 1988 — As requested by
council, Inselberg submitted a
revised fee schedule for the project .

" based on an estimated construction

cost of $609,000. We’re not sure
where this number came from.

Perhaps we missed one of those

in-camera meetings. At any rate,
professional fees would cost
$32,277 for his architectural work,
$8,000 for Peterson Engineering
and $6,300 for Perelco Design.

This totalled $46,577 and $28,080
of that total had already been paid.
And we still didn’t know if we had
a project or not.

*Nov. 14, 1988 — A summary of
our pool project was prepared by
Scott. He began by pointing out
that "regardless of the expansion
proposal, some major work is
required to help preserve the exist-
ing building". He said that several
"major leaks" had appeared in the

"roof that could be fixed by “pla-
cing a vapor barrier and insulation
on the exterior of the roof deck".

In addition (this was new, we

think) six exterior doors required |

replacement due to "misuses" and
the "humid atmosphere".

But the expansion itself hadn’t
been forgotten. Three of these
doors would be eliminated if the
expansion project was to proceed,
Scott added. He listed the expan-
sion cost as follows: architects
estimate for expansion $609,378,
roof repairs and door replacement
$127,200, a 10 percent contingency
of $73,660, and professional fees
of $49,850 (up from $32,277 if
you remember the Nov. 10 letter).
This totalled $860,088. Forget
about the tenders... apparently they
were low.

Scott outlined the city’s current

' financial situation. They had the

Expo and referendum money plus
~ $4,075 in bank interest (five per-

cent on the first Expo installment

of $54,300) because they hadn’t
_ done anything with it. They also
had a “reserve account” with an
estimated value of $8,000 that had
apparently been dedicated in the
early 1970’s when the arena was
being built. Use of this-money had

Al0 Terrace Review —- Wednesday, May 9, 1990

Splashdo

to be approved by the province,
though. This left the city $335,113
short. Was the project deomed? Of
course not.

The city had already been suc-
cessful in their Expo application
for one-third funding on the orig-
inal project so why not go for one-

third of the current project cost in

a Go B.C. grant? If approved, this
would give them another $286,696
and they would only be short

$48,417... a mere pittance. And .

this. short-fall, suggested Scott,
might be raised by local service
clubs, parent groups and senior
citizens groups. It appeared as
thought this project might finally
live up to it’s expectations in pro-
viding recreational activity for all...
door-to-door.

*Nov. 7, 1988 — A "public" Com-

mittee of the Whole mecting

_ decided to try again; with the help.

of Go B.C. But first they reviewed
Inselberg’s list of proposed delet-
ions, changes and deferments,
After some discussion, though,
they decided that deferments were
out of the question. But re-ten-
dering, with a few deletions to
keep the cost down, might not be
too bad of an idea.

In essence, their recommendation
to council was as follows: That
they make the deletions and reten-
der but ask for separate tenders for
"roof replacement". There were
four conditions, however. No addi-
tional costs, except advertising and

"minimal" advertising fees, would _

be incurred; there was a strong
indication from the province that
they would be successful in their
Go B.C. bid; that time was of the
essence and administration must
submit a timeframe for proceeding;
and that council continue to re--
evaluate the city’s recreational
priorities. .

"Dec. 22, 1988 — Go B.C. grant

application number one. Total

project cost was listed at $860,000.
Local contributions were listed as
$573,392 (this is ‘confusing
because $162,916 of that amount

actually came from the province...
but maybe they wouldn’t notice) |

and the amount required from Go
B.C. was $286,696, OF this, It was
stated, local service clubs "may"

donate $60,492 to cover the total —

cost.

Jan, 25, 1989 — Go B.C. funding
was uncertain, though, and in a
memo from city treasurer Keith
Norman to mayor Jack Talstra it
appeared as though council may be
preparing for the worst. The memo
outlined the city’s borrowing
power; which had risen slightly

from $9.42 million in 1983 to ~

$10.1 million in 1987. And as of
1987, we only owed $4.89 million

which meant there was $5.2 mil-.

lion in credit waiting to be used.
Was the expansion project sinking?
Of course not. _

*Feb. 6, 1989 — In-camera we go
again. Talstra addressed the Com-
mittee of the Whole and described
the project’s history, architects
estimates, 1987 borrowing refer-
endum, tenders, revised plans and

the Go B.C, funding application.

There was stil] no word from Go
B.C,, but the concensus of the

committee was that they should -

an Ler

re-tender anyway. And February.
would be the best time to do it.
Their recommendation to council,
then, was to go ahead, tendering
roof repairs separately, If the entire
job (expansion and roof) were to
proceed, however, all the work
would go to a single contractor. -

‘March 29, 1989 — The new.

tenders were in. Seward Construct-
ion, a Richmond company repre-
sented in Terrace by Ben Faber,

wanted $635,000 for the addition .

and $126,362 for the new roof, a
total of $761,362, which was far

better than the total of $789,891.

submitted by Norcan Construction
and $913,686 tendered by Wayne
Watson.

April 18, 1989 — Go B.C. grant
application number two. Total
project cost $922,062. This might
be confusing since the March 29
tenders for the expansion and roof
repairs only came to $761,362, but
you have to add to that another
$230,700 for professional fees,
referendum and advertising,
adminstration, debenture costs,

_interlm borrowing, exterior im-

provements, interior improvements
and a $30,000 contingency fund.

‘Local contributions (including the

Expo grant) were listed at
$614,708 and the Go B.C. request

% on
- ta gles ‘

was reduced. from ‘the original

$286,696 to $144,454. *
This left the project $142,800
short, but among the items listed
under community financial support
were $86,646 from local service
clubs, $126,362 in short-term
borrowing and $51,700 in 1989
captial funding. This more than
covered the difference, and if Go
B.C. would just show a little com-
passion our million dollar expan-
sion project- would be soon be
underway.

*May 15, 1989 — Go B.C. came
through and Seaward Construction
was awarded the contract. Seward
began working last July, poured
the footings and concrete in
August, installed the glu-lam -
beams in September, repaired the
roof in October, formed and
poured the new pools in November
and December, poured the new
"deck" in January, installed. the.
pumps and plumbing in February,
surfaced and tiled the pools in
February and March, and in mid--
April, 1990, the addition, for all
intents and purposes, was com-
plete. .

It took about three years longer
to complete than we originally
thought and and in that time the
cost nearly tripled but the job was
done. And probably close to

‘Bae, In tild-Apii, we: tisd

‘ more bills to come in.

So what doés al! this ‘mean? To -

tell the truth, who knows. But for.
the sake of preparing for the worst:

let's consider our community-con-
vention center. The library expan-
sion project seems to be in a tem-
porary holding pattern anyway.
The community-convention center
is a bit of an unknown at the.
moment, but if everything works

we could be going to ‘referendum —
this fall so the city can borrow ©

what they need for something that

has been estimated will cost
around $3 million.
If the pool was a trial run, this

project will go something like this.

-The ribbon will be cut in the sum-
mer of 1995 but not after a lot of
‘debate and near failures. Will, not

nails and glue, will hold the pro-
ject together. And the cost? Well,
if it rides on the same skyrocket
the pool project did, should come
in at around $9 million. Sweet
dreams.

Just one added note: the Terrace
Review didn’t forget about the
bandshell like a few others did. It
was completed on time, on budget

(with a $8,000 gift(?) from the

city) in the summer of 1988.

Could the Terrace Musicians Asso-
ciation handle a community centre :
project? Possibly. But they’ll prob-
ably never get the opportunity to.

prove it.