Japonski Island Pool
Dear Editor: I write this to correct some facts to the Sentinel’s May 2 article about the Japonski Island pool.
The article said ‘‘the original plan was for a 50-meter pool,’’ and that being downsized now to 25 meters it will be ‘‘less than half the size of the pool as originally envisioned.’’
Not so.
Alaskan voters approved $20 million for a 25-yard length pool for Mt. Edgecumbe students, in a 2010 ballot measure. The approved capital budget clearly stated that this amount was to be for the ‘‘total cost’’ of the project. Later, increased length and width of the pool bloated the planned cost to $33 million, 165 percent of the voter-approved amount.
In August 2012, project planners met separately with various user groups about conceptual design. First were meetings with Trooper academy instructors and Air Station Sitka, who said a 25-yard pool would be adequate if storage space for training equipment is provided.
Meetings with Mt. Edgecumbe staff revealed that P.E. classes are 25 to 30 students, and competitive swim meets would have 50-70 participants. A 25-yard-long pool and ‘‘a separate portion’’ for training was suggested. A fanciful whim or a necessity? The notes don’t say. A consultant then sketched a double pool totaling 25 yards wide (10 lanes) by 50 meters long.
Later that afternoon a meeting was held with local swimmers, who wanted 10 lanes by 50 meters long, for competition.
Mission creep had started.
That November, a consultants’ report picked a site for a 25-yard-by50-meter pool with seating for over 1,000 spectators, at a cost of $35 million, later trimmed to 500-700 seats and $33 million.
Last November the Sentinel noted: ‘‘A pool had never been a high priority for the state-operated boarding school, and when it first came to light on the state capital project list, even the school’s administrators weren’t certain what was envisioned, or even where a pool might be located.’’
Which makes me wonder, is this pool a real need or a boondoggle?
Ever since the project’s conception, it seems to me that no one has had realistic control over it. The owner to be – the Department of Education – is beholden both to a directive that came out of the blue by ballot and legislation, and to another department – DOF/PF – that is in charge of all the planning.
Only because sufficient construction funds couldn’t be raised for the gilded-lily design is project being scaled back now.
Even at a 25-yard length, the Sentinel indicates the Department of Education will be overburdened by an estimated $720,000 in yearly operating costs. I think this project needs public scrutiny, not a go-ahead.
Budgets are very tight, and it seems likely that other aspects of education should have priority.
Larry Edwards, Sitka
