I don’t even know where to start…

So…what she is saying is – “who is going to be paid by tax dollars to sit around and look for grants (more tax dollars) for things we arguably don’t need”.
Sounds like union talk to me

Exactly. She’s living in a taxpayer funded dreamworld!

She is doing her job as president of the union. Part of her job is to justify and defend the employment of the members.
metalman.

Its pretty tough for the navel gazers to ask questions or make comments about people losing their jobs when they are busy figuring out where they’ll spend their 30 percent pay raises. The reality Janet is that the trench workers who do the legwork for the grants for the projects the navel gazers will take credit for at election time are the ones who get it in the neck. Your comment interceptor “who is going to be paid by tax dollars to sit around and look for grants for things we arguably don’t need”. Who do you think are making the decisions to go after these things we don’t need? Chop there. Just like with the Cougars. If you can’t run the ship, get off.

She isn’t making any sense, I think that’s plane to see. But did Stolz really say that cutting his travel budget would mean he couldnt find million dollar grants? That is completely pathetic on his part.

Johny Belt just what is your solution? No taxpayer paid employees. Oh does not look like the tax payer fed employee is guaranteed a job for life after all.

http://www.grantcanada.com

We can all close our eyes to the realities of the world around us.

“grants” are used by governments to tweak society and the economy.

For any business people on here, I suspect some of you will have accessed grants for a number of things including hiring employees, improving business, etc.

If you do not believe in grants, and yiou won a home, refuse that home BC home owner grant the next time you pay your taxes.

Grants are a fact of life. If you want Council to cut itself off from grants, write a letter, make a presentation to Council to counter the one just made.

To me, the issue is whether reducing staff will impact the ability to receive grants. I would not know. The City Manager has that information.

The other question is whether Councillors who travel hear about grants from others while they are “networking” in their travels? Of course, they hear about all sorts of things.

To me the question is whether, specific to grants, that is the only way to find out about grants and, if not, what actually is the most effective way to find out about grants. I hope that is not the primary reason for spending the time and the money to travel for Councillors.

I know a person who has received home improvement grants (rapp program). There is tons of research and paperwork and hoops to jump through to receive a grant. It can take months from start to finish. Experienced people with knowledge are a real asset….

If you fired them all, nothing would change, Its business owners that find the opportunities, Lately all I read is how important everyone is,My favorit is when council is asked to make an important descision, they all say we should hire a consultant. This way none of them can be held accountable. Rest assured, there all there come payday.

“If you fired them all, nothing would change, Its business owners that find the opportunities”

Finally someone who understands!

But, wait, we would still need government employees to convert taxes to grants for those business opportunities.

Unless, of course, we cut the middleperson out and give businesses the authority to collect taxes.

Hmmmm, just thinking. I know. Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that business already has the ability to collect money from people to support their businesses. I seem to recall it is called fee for service or retail pricing. Yes, of course, we are all already paying businesses to pay them for finding those opportunities.

I am starting to get totally confused. Who is doing what to whom, anyway? I just know I am being totally violated .. businesses, government … everyone wants to get into my pockets.

;-)

Grants are fine but in most cases the grant does not cover the full cost of the project. Prime example the city heating system. New building to house natural gas boilers, stack gas economiser at Lakeland, and underground piping. Did PG really need this project and where is the justification it is even financially viable. Yet the city in there haste to proceed grabs the grant and the taxpayer taxes a hit for close to 5 million dollars. Grants are not really free money, it originally came from the taxpayer in the first place.

Grants are fine but in most cases the grant does not cover the full cost of the project. Prime example the city heating system. New building to house natural gas boilers, stack gas economiser at Lakeland, and underground piping. Did PG really need this project and where is the justification it is even financially viable. Yet the city in there haste to proceed grabs the grant and the taxpayer taxes a hit for close to 5 million dollars. Grants are not really free money, it originally came from the taxpayer in the first place.

Grants are fine but in most cases the grant does not cover the full cost of the project. Prime example the city heating system. New building to house natural gas boilers, stack gas economiser at Lakeland, and underground piping. Did PG really need this project and where is the justification it is even financially viable. Yet the city in there haste to proceed grabs the grant and the taxpayer taxes a hit for close to 5 million dollars. Grants are not really free money, it originally came from the taxpayer in the first place.

I am not against grants per se, but if you take the list above and multiply it across every municipality in Canada, you quickly see where huge dollars are going. It’s insanity.

And I am not suggesting they fire ‘all’ city employees, but I have to ask, since when does being a public employee guarantee you a job for life?

So the City has lost a couple employees. Big deal. The private sector has had to make huge adjustments in staffing and spending, and we just haven’t seen that on the public side. Why?

Maybe a few less “free” grants to this city would be a good thing.

As I stated before. The City of Prince George is a **Grant money junkie**. They are always looking for various grants.

The problem is all these grants come with a requirement for matching funds, or at least the City has to put up a % of the money to complete the project.

As an example the grant for the **useless** dike on river road from the Government for $5 Million means that the City has to come up with $3.5 Million. In addition to $2.5 Million from the Land Reserve fund . The $3.5 Million will be borrowed at a cost of $280,000.00 per year for 20 years.

The $3.5 Million for the upgrade to River Road last year (The Citys portion) was also borrowed, so again we are looking at $280,000.00 per years for 20 years. These two projects alone will cost us a fortune in interest.

If someone would care to take the time to work out what exactly the upgrades to River Road, and the dike will cost us, you begin to see why we are in debt up to our butts, and of course we havent even touched, the money for Boundry Road, The Community Energy System, The new office building,etc;

We didnt get to the position where we pay over $12 Million a year to service debt by accident.

Insofar as the home owner grant goes, that is a bloody laugh. We pay taxes to the Federal and :Provincial Government, and they return a portion in the form of a grant, and pretend they gave us something. In fact they gave us a minicule tax reduction.

Palopu: “As I stated before. The City of Prince George is a **Grant money junkie**. They are always looking for various grants.”

To be fair, it’s not just the City of Prince George. This is happening in every city in Canada in verying degrees. Cities are competing for a slice of taxpayer-funded pie.

There’s a sense that we have to compete for our ‘fair share’. But if all it does is increase debt, who wins in the end?

“The City of Prince George is a **Grant money junkie**.”

I think that is correct. However, you make it sound like that is PG’s claim to fame.

The more accurate statement is that “Canadian cities are grant money junkies”. Grants happens to be the way that money gets doled out these days.

As far as us having to pay part of the project that the grant is for. That’s the whole idea. It’s like supporting your kid in a project that he/she wants:

1. provide all the money, or
2. provide none of the money, or
3. provide some money as seed money to give the kid the incentive to get the rest.

It’s basic parenting 101. The amount of support is typically based on the inerest of the parent in having the child participate in something.

So, senior government is interested in chasing after greenhouse gasses? They fund a lot.

Senior government is not interested in urban parks development, they don’t fund or fund a little.

Senior government wants people to be fitter, the fund for trails.

As they say, this stuff is not rocket science.

As to how do you change it …. I really do not think you will. Learn how to tweak the rules to fit your needs and then take a rules refresher course next year because they will change again. Changing rules is one of the prime roles of senior governments, and parents … LOL

The initial idea behind the grant program was for funding for needed projects, or some projects such as trails, etc;

The problem is we are now into a situation where we are applying for grants for projects that we dont need.

As an example, in order to get the money from the Government under some green program, the City came up with the idea of a Community Energy Project. This project met the requirement of the grants available and they accessed the money. They then had to come up with the matching funds, and as a result we had to borrow our share. The end result is further debt for the City. The project itself is suspect as to whether it will ever make any serious contribution to reducing green house gases, and in fact over time could cost us more, than if we had stayed with natural gas.

When the City couldnt get funding from the Feds for the expansion of Queensway and a road along lower Patricia Blvd and an overpass over 1st Avenue, they scrapped the plan. They then were able to get money for the upgrade to River Road under the Ports Development Funds (or some such program) and proceeded to upgrade River Road at a huge cost to taxpayers. Then they accessed money for flood control and they will spend more money.

They now have a long term plan to flood the land below Patricia Blvd. Had they received the original Grant Money they asked for, then of course they would have built the road.

Its pretty obvious that the focus is on spending the money. Whether the project is actually needed, is not really their first concern.

These types of projects are the main reason we are so far in debt.

I would hope that the Municipal Auditor would go back 10/15 years and document how this City has pissed away millions on useless projects, however that is not likely to happen. In fact I suspect that they will just look at the books going forward, and after a short period of time they will become just another highly expensive Government department.

http://www.fcm.ca/documents/letters/Ministerial_correspondence_Prebudget_2012_EN.pdf

You should read this letter dated a couple of days ago from the great Government of Canada under the current leadership of Conservatives (I am sure unbelievable to some) sent to the President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

It deals with the Gas Tax Fund contributions to infrastructure improvements to Canadian Cities.

In particular, I direct you to the second and last page of this letter because it tells the story which needs to be told.

“ … the Government of Canada is taking the steps needed to ensure that the Gas Tax Fund remains a source of stable and predictable funding for municipalities. This allows municipalities to borrow against their allocations to leverage additional funding to assist in their capital planning and expenditures Because municipalities would have an assured flow of funding from the federal government, they could then borrow larger sums of capital, from a variety of sources, the repayments for which could be services by their annual Gas Tax Fund appropriations.”

So, that tells the reader something about the mindset in play from the highest level and most conservative level of government in Canada, and that mindset is being transferred right down to municipalities across the country from City Managers to Mayors and Councillors.

So, they give us $1 million per year for 20 years (that is the “assured” flow of funding from the feds) and we leverage that into a $15 million project which can be built today. I do not know if the feds guarantee the loan or whether we are on the hook for that. We are certainly on the hook for operations, if it is not an infrastructure replacement project.

Anyway, that is the way I read it. If I am wrong, then I would love it if someone could correct it.

It is $2billion a year. Based on our population as a ratio of PG to Canada, we should be receiving about $4.5 million a year if it is equitably distributed. BUT, I am sure we have to fight for that on a project by project basis and an MP seat by seat basis.

So, we could then leverage that into another $65 million dollar loan or series of loans never being greater than $65 million. And, it does not cost the taxpayer any money if they are true infrastructure upgrades.

So, that is what we are paying for, in part, when we pay for gas at the pump. And we really do not have any choice in the matter, do we? I see nowhere that these projects have to deal with transportation systems.

So, that begs the questions – how much are we receiving and how is it being used? Hopefully upgrading roads.

http://princegeorge.ca/cityservices/utilities/districtenergy/Documents/DDES%20June%207.pdf

Came full circle there Palopu …. ;-)

http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=4795

That is how the Peace region is using their million this year.

The funding will assist the Peace River Regional District (PRRD) in constructing a gas management facility at the landfill. The technology employed will capture and utilize up to 75% of the Landfill’s gas emissions, which can subsequently be used to produce green energy and further offset greenhouse gas emissions. This project will satisfy the provincial Landfill Gas Management Regulation, which requires the installation of a gas management system by 2016. The remainder of funds for the estimated $2.4 million project will be provided from PRRD revenues.

There we go, a new requirement by 2016 downloaded to us by our senior government(s).

Grants (free money) is never free. Removes the sweat equity part of the equation and is just another entitlement that must go away! Only going to get worse though!

Gus = Did not the city or PGRD want money not to long ago to do the same thing with their Landfill’s gas emissions on the Hart? Anyone remember or know what is happening there? I believe our taxes went up for garbage etc.because they need to manage more gas emissions – I haven’t heard anymore on this.

Gus = Did not the city or PGRD want money not to long ago to do the same thing with their Landfill’s gas emissions on the Hart? Anyone remember or know what is happening there? I believe our taxes went up for garbage etc.because they need to manage more gas emissions – I haven’t heard anymore on this.

…”highlights losses”? Did she hint at the loss of union dues? I bet not.