There is a growing expression of concern and unrest with regards to the legitimacy of the process and purpose of using the alternative approval process (AAP) for the Saanich Operations Centre as a shortcut to approve capital borrowing.
For what purpose is the borrowing intended? And, what is the public understanding of the details of the proposed capital works? I have attended virtually all open houses and several council meetings regarding the proposed McKenzie service yard project. Over time, I have developed serious concerns about what is known as project creep.
I can appreciate that current working conditions are inadequate in the aged building and that the works yard is unsanitary and likely unsafe for the workers. But, apart from the merits of the approval process to borrow $150 million, how are the funds to be spent and allocated in the design goals for this worksite?
For what purpose are we borrowing? Hidden in the recently released Q&A is a clue: "The site has opportunities to condense operations and to reimage the site as more efficient and providing space and volume for other uses.”
This is puzzling as the borrowing is being ‘sold’ as a single purpose, to upgrade a badly needed service centre. But, is the intent to spend tax money on a much grander scale?
Another $25 million has already been approved to purchase the nearby Mann property as a worksite to relocate the parks department. It appears the rationale of this relocation is less to give parks a new workspace and more to create space at the McKenzie service yard for other purposes.
The municipality has been renting additional office space to accommodate a growing workforce. Priority five for future capital works is a vague reference to upgrading the annex. Yet, the design concept for the service yard includes provision for a new high-rise mixed-use administrative building with provision for public vehicle access to and from McKenzie.
Is the vacant space to be used to relocate the garden waste site or is it being lost to housing?
How much of the $150 million will be spent on uses rather than the renewal of the works yard? With a redesign, could we still provide a modern operations centre for $100 million? I fear evidence of ‘project creep’ as best seen by the upward creep in our tax bill.
Shouldn’t taxpayers be concerned about how we approve financing and be given enough information to decide how much we should borrow and for what purposes? And, shouldn’t taxpayers also be told the incremental costs of each new element in the proposal?
I would rather have more information about the planned development and the various cost alternatives before I vote to borrow such large sums.
James Anderson
Saanich
