Letter to the Editor - The alternative Fire Hall is not less expensive

Monday, March 12 2012

Dear Editor,
I have been intrigued over the arguments regarding the proposed construction of a new fire hall and the proponents for a conventional building as proposed in the upcoming Fire Hall referendum and the arguments by people opposed who wish to have a metal building constructed.
I personally was involved in a proposal to build a new church using a metal building. The church made a down payment on the building because the price was reasonable and there was a limited time discount. However, we did not take delivery as our plans were not sufficiently advanced for the site or its preparation.
Once we started to develop our plans and talk to the Regional District regarding a building permit it very quickly became clear that there were going to be significant and expensive modifications for us to have the building comply with our needs and with the requirements for a Public Building under the Building Code. This despite being assured by the seller that it would meet the Building Code requirements as a public building. We decided not to take delivery of the building and forfeited our down payment as a better but unpleasant choice compared to trying to modify the building.
I personally would advise voters not to make their decision about the fire hall because they consider a metal building cheaper. My experience tells me that it will not be less expensive and may be more expensive.
Yours truly,
~ George von Westarp