A commentary by a Victoria resident.
As a professional engineer with 35 years experience of leading the planning, design, procurement and construction of major public infrastructure projects including 18 schools, a major regional hospital, a cancer centre, numerous river crossings, highway interchanges and urban freeways worth billions of dollars, I am alarmed by the major inconsistencies between the reports provided to Victoria council on the Crystal Pool replacement and the information provided by the city’s communication staff on the website and at the “pop up” information booths.
The public information pegs the cost of the new pool at $209.2 million or $215.9 million and a construction duration of 62 to 67 months depending on location.
These are very precise numbers that have no chance of being achieved. The feasibility study identifies that the estimates are Class C or D.
The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada describes a Class D estimate as “indicative” with a 20% level of accuracy.
The June 7, 2024 staff report to council states “…..cost certainty will only be achieved once the design is complete, the work has been tendered, and construction contracts are secured”.
The reported costs appear to be in 2023 dollars and are therefore already out of date.
The feasibility study only did a visual condition inspection of the existing facility. It did not look behind the walls.
A building of that age may have asbestos, lead paint, toxic mold, bio hazards from 50-year-old plumbing and drains, environmental contamination, as well as unrecorded structural changes from renovations and alterations.
There is no mention of any environmental site investigation, historical investigation or consultation on traditional land use, and only a preliminary geotechnical review. There has been no consideration of procurement strategy: design-bid-build, construction management and design-build are valid strategies used for facilities of this type and magnitude, and each has a different cost/schedule/quality risk profile.
All of these factors add risk to a project but the city has either not done or not made public a quantitive analysis of cost and schedule.
The planning for projects of this nature typically use a quantitive probabilistic risk analysis of cost and schedule. The Project Management Institute says a Monte Carlo simulation or similar technique is used to convert project risks into numerical information that is used to determine the cost and time contingencies of the project.
This approach provides the average (mean) cost and schedule along with the confidence levels (standard deviations), as opposed to the single number promoted by Engage Victoria staff.
The feasibility study states “in addition to taxpayers having to contribute to the capital costs of indoor pools, the typical recovery rate for an indoor pool in Canada is between 30% and 60%, with tax revenue subsidizing the remainder of operating costs” and that the subsidy for the existing pool is $2.65 million a year.
There is no estimate provided for the subsidy for the new pool but as it will be larger and more complicated than the existing pool, it will be at least $3 million a year, i.e. $100 million over the life of the facility.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the annual capital maintenance and renewal costs for the new pool. For a building of this nature they will be about five per cent of the initial capital cost, i.e. $10 million a year or $300 million over the life of the facility, also to be paid for by Victoria taxpayers.
Therefore, the total life cost to Victoria taxpayers will be in the order of $650 million which is more than three times the amount publicized by the city.
None of these costs include the effect on construction prices due to the looming trade war and tariffs with the U.S. For example, most of the drywall used in western Canada comes from the U.S.
Given the perilous state of the federal and provincial government finances and the probable change in federal government, grants to offset the capital costs should not be expected. In any case, a grant is still taxpayers’ money.
The feasibility study states that there are three appendices to the report, but only two are included in the publicly available version.
Why has the City of Victoria not admitted to the public the risks involved in this project and provided the full costs to the voters? Where is the missing appendix? What are they hiding?
This begs the question whether the replacement pool is over-scoped for a city of less than 100,000 residents.
Is a competition-sized pool with bleachers as well as a leisure pool with swim lanes really required? During the recent extended closure of the existing Crystal Pool the members used the YMCA.
The YMCA is also an aging facility. Why is the city not pursuing a partnership with the Y, other not-for-profit organizations, corporate donors and philanthropists to build a new recreation centre for all Victoria residents?
This model has proven successful across B.C. and Canada. We already have the Save-on-Foods Memorial Centre, the Mary Winspear Centre and Starlight Stadium, why the hesitancy by Mayor Marianne Alto and Council?
Before casting their vote, voters need to understand that contrary to the impression promoted by city staff, the costs and schedules are only indicative and not guaranteed, they are incomplete with major risks and unknowns, and that valid, proven alternatives are available.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
