I have a couple of questions for council regarding the four buildings in the Heritage Park that you were referring to at the council meeting on Monday, Dec. 7.
My understanding is that the city has to give a building permit to build a new building. And there are special codes a building must have before the construction can get started.
That usually should happen after the city has checked the blueprint thoroughly, which was created by an architect.
Once the blueprint has been examined, at this point the city will give the go-ahead for construction to start. Once construction has started, I believe, an inspector from the city should have come on a regular basis to monitor various stages of the construction.
Now my first question: If all these stages have been followed properly, why was it not detected that the Blackberry Kitchen’s extension and the apartment above the concession area were not built to the standards of the fire regulations?
Second question: Where have your inspectors been to find that out?
Actually, third question: Why was that not discovered in the beginning by the city, that the fire code was not being followed?
Should the building not have been built in the first place? Corrections should have been done right then.
Do you not owe the citizens of Mission an apology?
I heard at the council meeting that to fix that problem will cost the city (taxpayers) perhaps $200,000 to $300,000. It seems to me that now the taxpayers will be on the hook because of the city’s mistake. I also feel that is why there is not enough money to give the observatory a go-ahead.
As a result, the Sunrise Rotary Club is out $20,000 in cash, which was raised by Mission citizens.
Furthermore, the provincial government gave $100,000, and the Heritage Park Association gave another $ 20,000. And last but not least, there was $225,000 in volunteer hours and donated material, as well as all the equipment that was used to build that observatory.
On Monday at that meeting, I heard all your concerns about the observatory and I do not understand your point, but I guess I have to accept it.
Now my last question: With all the mistakes from the city, do the donors not have a right, at least, to ask to receive the $20,000 back?