Moose Jaw’s two school divisions and the Ministry of Education chose Westheath for the joint-use school since that location provided the best safety for students and could be easily reconfigured, documents show.
Westheath was the most suitable location for several reasons, according to a Dec. 3, 2019 letter that both directors of education in Moose Jaw wrote to city manager Jim Puffalt.
Those reasons included the fact that the 34.5-acre site is located in a growing residential neighbourhood; it is a greenfield site that allows for additional services, transportation corridors, site access and configuration that can align with the project’s needs; and adjacent uses — such as an existing school — would not limit the design and construction of the building,
The boards of education for Prairie South School Division and Holy Trinity Catholic School division considered other sites such as Westmount and Coteau Street West but dismissed them since:
- In Westmount, the surrounding streets could not handle the traffic volumes associated with a 1,000-student school; the adjacent baseball diamonds would have to be decommissioned to build the new school; there would be expenses to remove city trees; accommodations would have to be made for existing on-site development; and the current school would have to remain operational during construction, which would endanger students
- On Coteau Street West, the school would be near an industrial zone; there would be safety concerns with the building near an active railway; and the railway line could present noise exposure from passing trains, idling locomotives, shunting, and from compression or “stretching” of trains
The letter was part of a package that the Moose Jaw Express received through an access to information request to city hall. The request asked for all communications between the school divisions and municipality concerning the joint-use school on South Hill.
While the documents show there was no communication about the site at the start, city council eventually gave both school divisions approval during the Nov. 23, 2020 council meeting to proceed with the project’s next phases.
Development proposal
In their letter to Puffalt, PSSD education director Tony Baldwin and Holy Trinity education director Sean Chase offered an “innovative solution” to develop the site since they recognized that the City of Moose Jaw doesn’t see itself as a developer.
Since the boards of education could not purchase the land, nor could they afford to design or install the site services, the education directors suggested that the municipality sell the entire Westheath parcel with stipulations that the purchaser (developer) must:
- revise the area concept plan to include the school, in dialogue with city hall, the boards and ministry;
- pay development levies of $50,592 per acre to recover all or part of the city’s capital costs for upgrading the infrastructure for the school and residential lots; and
- adhere to any other requirements the city may impose.
“This scenario offers the best option for the city and boards to advance this development while recovering costs and eliminating out-of-pocket expenses,” the letter said. This also offered several benefits to Moose Jaw, such as:
- providing a safe and viable school that could be a catalyst for community growth;
- reducing administrative burden and risks associated with being a developer;
- possibly increasing revenue through a sales transaction not anticipated; and
- recovering through lot sales the $300,000 that city hall had already invested in that area.
No response
City hall did not appear to respond to the letter from Chase and Baldwin, according to any of the emails the Express was given. This may be because city administration was busy working on the 2020 budget in December 2019. However, based on an email that the MJ Independent received through a separate access to information request, the education directors were working behind the scenes to receive an answer.
“Hi folks, not a peep from the City — no response (and) no acknowledgement of any kind,” Baldwin wrote to a group of ministry officials. “I’m wondering about a follow-up to see if they have any questions/thoughts/concerns … . What do you think?”
One of those officials included Clint Repski, the assistant deputy education minister.
Support from the ministry
Repski sent Puffalt a letter on Jan. 22, 2020, offering two options on how the sale process could work. One option included engaging a realtor/brokerage service provider, while a second option included issuing a public expression of interest (EOI) to gauge developer interest and receive proposals for the purchase and development of the land.
The steering committee believed the second option was best and offered “the greatest opportunity to advance this project with no obligation to proceed with the sale,” Repski said. The first phase would include creating a road map and learning the initial market interest, followed by preparing the EOI and then managing the process to post and advertise it.
This three-stage process would start on Feb. 3 and close on April 10.
Mike Sazynski, vice-president of Colliers Project Leaders, sent Puffalt a letter on Feb. 5 reaffirming Repski’s letter and laying out the implementation process so that “favourable outcomes for all parties” could be realized.
Meetings between parties
The education officials met with city administration on Feb. 20, 2020, to further discuss the project, with Sazynski summarizing the meeting in an email on Feb. 21. In particular, city hall made it clear that it wanted to recoup $2.5 million from the sale of the Westheath property and lot sales.
“… the market will ultimately dictate the value,” Sazynski wrote. “(P)arties agreed that a lesser value would be a decision of council and may be considered if appropriate detail is provided and the best interests of the city are represented.”
City hall also confirmed that the development levy would be $50,592 per acre for off-site services only, while all other costs inside the parcel would be the developer’s responsibility.
Money, money, money
In an email on April 28, 2020, to Michelle Sanson, director of planning and development, Sazynski asked if it was OK to release the expression of interest in its final form. The goal was to release it on April 30, with a closing date of May 22.
In response, Sanson wondered if it was clear in the EOI that the development levies were included in the $2.5 million revenue goal. Sazynski replied that those levies were included in that hoped-for number. The only financial portion that was variable was the $15,000 per acre “for the dirt,” while other costs were assumed to be “sunk costs.”
