Seven Oaks Land Scheme Swimming in Red Ink!

A few questions regarding Swinford Park, the establishment of a middle school on the existing West Kildonan High School site and the realignment of catchment areas in the Seven Oaks School Division

——————————————————————————–

Seven Oaks announces that with the construction of the “new: West Kildonan Collegiate north of Chief Peguis, it will not have enough capacity to accomodate all students presently attending the existing Hgh School. Approx 300 students are affected.

This causes a realignment of the catchment areas for the “new” high school, with the surplus being accomodated by the exisiting Garden City Collegiate.

Does this not mean that there is already surplus high school capacity in the division?

——————————————————————————–

With the construciton of the new high school, plans are announced to renovate a portion of the “old” West Kildonan high school into a K-8 middle school.

I gather this implies a shortage of middle school seats in the division. What are the occupancy levels of other middle schools in the division? Should we be building a new middle school?

If a middle school is established at the existing West Kildonan high school site, is there a need to construct a new K-8 facility in Swinford Park? Will this land now be declared as surplus? Was this the plan all along, to allow the division to develop the entire 23 acre site as a residential development?

——————————————————————————–

It is interesting to note the timing of the change of the catchment area of the new West Kildonan high school. Was this considered when the tender was requested for the remodelling of the “old” West Kildonan high school? Or did the tender involve renovations for the entire existing facility at the present enrollment level as opposed to 300 less students?

Has anyone looked into the details surrounding the renovation proposal and tendering process for the initial proposal to renovate the existing west Kildonan high school? What was the required capacity of the renovated school? How many tenders were submitted and by whom?

——————————————————————————–

I believe it is imperative that any investigation of the Swinford Park development be tied in with the “new” high school. These items are not mutually exclusive and appear to be a carefully orchestrated plan to use the Seven Oaks School Division to subsidize the infrastructure for the Swinford Park and now the River Ridge subdivisions

Fri, June 3, 2005

Report faults gov’t agency
School division broke the law

By FRANK LANDRY, LEGISLATURE REPORTER

The Seven Oaks School Division broke the law by getting into the business of land development, but the problem should have been detected earlier by a government agency, states a new report.

“Obviously, the process in place was not followed,” Education Minister Peter Bjornson said yesterday in response to the report.

The Department of Education report states Seven Oaks “did not act within its legal authority” when it began developing Swinford Park in north Winnipeg.

However, the department found the public schools finance board should have been more diligent in its review of documents provided by Seven Oaks before approving the development deal.

Seven Oaks divided up about 12 acres of land in Riverbend two years ago into residential lots. The division spent about $2 million building roads, installing sewers and bringing in water for the new residential development.

Seven Oaks says it made a profit of about $700,000. Yesterday’s report states it’s too early to tell if there was a profit because “all revenues have not been realized, and expenditures have not been incurred.”

Its handling of the situation was “highly unusual,” according to the Education Department’s 14-page report. “There’s been very serious mistakes made, and we’re going to ensure these mistakes don’t happen again,” Bjornson said after releasing the report.

He wouldn’t say if anyone would be disciplined.

Liberal MLA Kevin Lamoureux called the report a “whitewash.” He said the report failed to look at what Bjornson’s involvement was in the whole deal.

Lamoureux called for an independent investigation.

And please call me Robert. Mr. Snyder is so formal…

Robert

I can not find any mention of the issue from the Hansard of April 25th? So it has been only 358 days and not 365 days?

Falsehood is the one of the “approved” words for lying and if you hear it in the House, it means, he’s accusing the guy of lying.

Eric