Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have some deferred maintenance work — it’s quite a major job — scheduled for ’09–10 for the school in Fort Resolution. The school in Lutselk’e had quite an extensive project not so long ago. We have nothing on the books for deferred maintenance at this time, although we are doing maintenance on the school there.
The issue with midlife retrofits is something we’re going to try to work more stringently into the new capital planning process, as deferred maintenance now takes priority over incremental infrastructure. You will see midlife retrofits coming back by way of deferred maintenance through that capital planning process.
We do have a project in Fort Resolution for the Deninu school this summer. In Lutselk’e we have some minor maintenance coming as well this summer, but there was an extensive project done within the last six or seven years, so that school is in fairly good shape.
So as a result of technical assessment, the Deninu probably got scheduled for some deferred maintenance in ’09–10. Has Public Works completed a technical assessment of Lutselk’e school in this go-round? I know the deputy minister advised me just now that there has been some major work done, but I’m just wondering if there was a technical assessment done on that school as well.
I’ll have to confirm, but I believe there was a technical assessment done on the Lutselk’e school this summer. We had a technical assessment on the Deninu school last year. The focus of the deferred maintenance is to take care of the priority 1, which is the critical work that needs to be done now to address mostly the structural integrity of the assets, or life-safety concerns. That’s how we’ll probably be proceeding.
I’m familiar with the date of the Deninu school. I believe the Deninu school was built in 1972, so I guess it’s 36 years old. I know there was some retrofit work done on the school. Could the deputy minister advise me when the Lutselk’e school was built — the current school?
Mr. Chair, I don’t have that information with me.
Mr. Chair, I’d just ask the department if I could get that information provided to me.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.
Interjection.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mrs. Groenewegen.
The technical review of the Diamond Jenness Secondary School and the work that was planned there, where we actually saw numbers in a capital plan…. It’s pretty hard for me to believe or accept, as one of the MLAs for Hay River, that this whole thing had to be pushed back two years because of an educational review that was going to take two weeks.
I mean, the Minister of Education just said that the educational review was going to start being conducted by a consultant sometime in October and it’s going to be concluded by the end of October. So I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time buying into this idea that the Diamond Jenness Secondary School was pushed back only because of an educational review.
The money that was indicated, the red flagging of this project because of the critical and priority nature of the work that needed to be done…. This is just a little excerpt under “capital plan project substantiation: the building is over 35 years old. It’s been renovated, but the entire scope of the work was not completed due to budget constraints. A technical status evaluation of the building completed in 2003 and then updated in 2006 determined that mechanical and electrical systems require significant capital upgrading as well as upgrade of the walls and windows is a high priority. Other major renovations have also been outlined which will extend the life of this asset.”
To go from having this earmarked and red flagged as a high priority capital retrofit project to pushing it back two years because there was an education plan that had to be undertaken, and it was going to take two weeks, is just a little bit hard to believe.
In follow-up to some of the questions Ms. Bisaro asked, Mr. Miltenberger responded that if there was capital available, we could get…. This substantiation report doesn’t talk to the budget constraint. Without budget constraint, and perhaps the fact that this educational review document will be produced by the end of October, I’m going to ask again if there is any of this work related to the roof, the envelope, the foundation, the air-handling. Is there anything that could be started in the summer of ’09?
Given all the background information that’s already been compiled, does everything have to hinge upon this educational review? I mean, I’m in support of the educational review if there are things that need to be changed. But when the Minister of Public Works says that people in the community wanted to look at different things for the school…. I’m curious: did they have any official correspondence to that effect? Was this just in a casual conversation, in a tour of the school? It didn’t come from my office. From where did it come that this project should be put on hold for two years because somebody thought that the program should be so altered? I’d like to know what triggered that.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.
I’ll ask Mr. Aumond to reply to that.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.
Mr. Chair, as the Minister of Public Works stated earlier, our intention was just to do a midlife retrofit of the school. That’s what was in the capital plan in ’08–09. When we became aware that there was going to be an educational program review undertaken, we sort of stopped work on that project to see what the results of that educational review would be. The educational review is just about to be completed, as we heard today. Once we have an understanding about what that means, then we can put a proper plan in place and proceed.
We weren’t in a position to really proceed with the midlife retrofit, given that the education programming and planning was going to be undertaken, because that will have an impact, perhaps, on how the school operates. With the programming of the school, there’s going to be an impact on the facility itself. Once we have an idea of what that looks like, then we’ll know. The schedule is based on the reality that if we have the educational plans sometime in ’08–09 and we commence with some design work, then we’ll proceed with construction accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated in this House before and will state again, the school in Hay River is a bit of a landmark. It may be old, but it is of a design that is unusual, outstanding, and it’s a tourist attraction. I don’t think you’re going to completely change the exterior. I mean, it needs to be upgraded, definitely. It needs new windows; it may need new siding. If you’re going to use the same school, it’s hard for me to believe that a program review for what you’re going to do inside that school is going to…. You would think that wisdom would tell you that you’re going to probably try to change the programming space with a minimal amount of change to the building. If you don’t, I guess you might as well tear it down and start again, and I’m not suggesting that’s what we should do.
When we toured the school, there was talk about enhanced trade shop opportunities. They’re making do with a very small space there. And the access is an issue: the administrative offices in relationship to people coming in and out of school, security, things like that. These are not things that are going to cause the exterior walls of the school to be moved. There may be an addition — there may be a wing added on, something to that effect — but the main body of the school is going to remain the same, as far as I know.
I’m still not really hearing where the idea for a full program review came from. I don’t know if it came from the principal. Did it come from the local district education authority? Did it come from the teachers? It didn’t come from the MLAs that I’m aware of. So where did that idea come from? You went from having a midlife retrofit to looking at a full program review. Even with a program review a high school is a high school is a high school, and we’re not going to turn it into a banana.
Interjection.
All right. That’s Inuvik, yeah.
Laughter.
I’m wondering: on some of this mechanical and stuff, which has been extensively studied, why can’t we get started if funds are not an issue? Can I hear clearly that we could get started in the summer of ’09?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, first I’d like to refer the question about the education program review to Minister Lafferty to give us the history and the background of how that entered into the mix.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. With this program review we’ve been talking about, there’s been a consultant who was hired back in August. We initiated the discussion with the damage in that school.
When we toured the school early in the new year, there was considerable discussion on added areas; some areas needed to be upgraded or enhanced. There was some discussion from the DEA, the parents, the school staff and administration. There was a need to do some sort of consultation with the school to identify where we need to upgrade within the school. There’s been considerable discussion with various parents in the evenings and also DEAs, the school staff and administration with the five to eight days, and there will be eight to 12 days of on site visits, a meeting with the Chair and a meeting with the DEAs, the student focus group, the parent focus group. Those are the groups where there’s been some discussion on this educational plan. It will be, I’m getting messages, completed by the end of October. Mahsi.
If it’s going to be completed by the end of October, that gives us — November, December, January, February, March, April, May, June — eight months until the kids are out of school. Obviously, the best time to be doing work on the school is when the students aren’t there, because there are 400 students at Diamond Jenness. I don’t think it’s going to be very easy to find alternative locations for them to be getting their education. Some of this work needs to be done in the summer months when the school is not occupied. It may have to be done in a way where a certain amount of the work is done at one time, and it may have to have a phased approach.
If budget is not an issue, is it possible that the Department of Public Works could look for specific contracts and things that need to be done that could begin to be undertaken in the summer of ’09?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you. I’d like to refer that question to Minister Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, I’m not the Minister of Finance, but I’d like to think that anything’s possible.
The Member is quite correct that the Department of Public Works has identified this project as a priority for renovation to address major deferred maintenance issues. The problem is the project has not proceeded through the planning study phase that the ECE is currently undertaking. They’re doing the functional program review, and I’m sure they’ll be coming back with a certain number of program enhancements for this project.
Given that that work is not expected to be completed until sometime this fall and we’re expecting the design work will not be completed until the spring and summer of 2009, we had anticipated that this project would be brought forward for inclusion in the 2010–2011 plan. Provided everything goes well and the functional review goes with everybody in agreement, it may be a possibility. But our experience has shown us that the functional reviews can take some time. We have to consult with the community, provided that there are enhancements to this project. We’d have to look at design and then bring it back, then also have the community put their stamp of approval on it. Sometimes that gets complicated.
Provided all those things fall into place, there may be a possibility to bring it forward. But, again, that would be a question that the Finance Minister along with the FMB would have to discuss. It was intended to defer this project until all components were in place, and we expect it will take a whole year to do all that.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just something I was thinking about while I was listening to the debate with great interest, of course: with the Cardinal design of that Hay River school, do we still have to go through some approval process for him to sign off if any changes are made to that school?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, I’d have to ask the Member just to elaborate a bit more; I’m not clear. When he talks about approval processes, is he talking about with the Legislature? I’m not sure.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. When the Hay River high school was designed, it also came with some type of caveat — if I remember correctly, that is — that any substantial change to the building, including painting, had to have some type of sign-off of the architect. Is that true, and if it is true, how is it being worked around?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Aumond.
Mr. Chair, I’m not aware of any caveats around undertaking a renovation to the school — if we would need to get the permission of the original architect.
I seem to recall that clearly, but okay; I will accept that.
Mr. Chairman, with classroom size has there been a change between the old, typical design of classroom size per square foot to a modern size design? Therefore, if we go to a wholly full-fledged new school, in theory, would the school be smaller because of the new standardization of designs in comparison to renovating the existing school?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is, as we are talking about a renovation…. I’m not aware that we’re talking about a new school at this point.
I’m just trying to seek clarity in the area that we have an existing project that needs to be renovated, which I do support, and the motion falls from heaven today, and I’ll certainly be behind it.
That said, I just want to be clear that if Hay River were to get a new high school on that formula, I’m just trying to get a sense of the old “it’s better to renovate versus build new.” I was always under the understanding that if you renovate existing — typically a lot of our schools are fairly old, but they have large classrooms, working spaces, et cetera — you’d be able to retain those spaces. I was under the understanding that if you went new, there is a standardized size for programming space, and it’s smaller, if I understand that correctly. Would the Minister be able to clarify that in that particular scenario that is the case?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the renovation of Diamond Jenness the capital standards that Education, Culture and Employment have with respect to the capital planning, which outlines the space requirements for classrooms, will be taken into consideration but will be balanced off against the cost to undertake those types of renovations to do that.
I don’t know or have the information in front of me today about what the size of the classroom spaces are in DJ, to say whether they would be smaller or larger. But if we are undertaking a new school, then those types of standards would apply. With respect to DJ those standards would apply but are balanced off against whether there would be major cost drivers or not. I don’t think that’s what is really stopping us from making progress here.
Are those standards typically smaller than from the deputy minister’s experience from older schools to modern schools?
In some cases the Member is correct; in other cases it’s the reverse.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on my first line of questioning, for which I benefited from the questions and responses from my colleagues and the Ministers involved. Given the expected completion date of the education plan — two weeks from today, as we have heard twice from the Minister of Education — and given that Public Works and Services is ready to start their planning right away, as we’ve heard from Mr. Aumond, and assuming that there will be some obvious renos that could be done that are either not affected or minimally affected by the education plan, can we at least assume that substantive work could start in the following fiscal year; that is, ’10–11?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, 2010–2011 is the plan for construction to start.
I am just looking at some numbers, which I’m not going to cite, that were provided, I believe, by the Ministers involved here and that indicate substantive work is not really scheduled to start until ’11–12. Perhaps I could say: can we expect that given the conditions that I’ve stated, the degree of work scheduled for ’11–12 could actually be done in 2010–2011?
The Member is asking me to speculate on hypotheticals, but the Minister of Public Works and Services indicated that if it all goes well — and we hit every step and everything is done on time — there could be an opportunity to do things at an accelerated rate.
That is good to hear. Perhaps it would be the Minister of Public Works and Services…. I don’t know, but could I hear some better definition of “accelerated rate” than just leaving it completely open?
I thought accelerated rate was very clear, but I’ll get the Minister of Public Works and Services to make it even clearer.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.
