Because the Alternate Approval Process is not democracy, and leads to abuse of the tax base it should not even be considered.

The only way this should go ahead is with approval through referendum.

That said I don’t believe it would ever pass. The benefits are for far to few at a significant cost to the many. Mitigation methods to this point are sufficient not to justify the costs. If anything it should be a federal and provincial partnership *which I would wholesale agree with) and not a property tax issue for homeowners not effected.

Because the bureaucrats brought this before us we have a sunk cost of $70,000’ish to bring it to referendum to strike it down. It is a large enough scheme that someone should have to be held accountable for its folly… but it is a huge savings over allowing a city council to run around unaccountable for the taxes they levy on your home for ridiculous abuse of those funds.

IMHO

Be interesting to see how this vote ends up, some of these guys campaigned to stop the app process, if they use it then proof they are all the same jam it through.

I’m not a fan of the AAP, because it depends on people’s laziness and apathy to be successful. We have an abundance of that in this town.

During the election campaign both Green and Kohler told me they would NOT use the AAP process.

They are only 2 votes on council. I suspect the AAP process will continue to be used on projects that have the majority of support in council. If council wants the dikes to be built you can bet the process will be by whichever means gives them the best chance to have it succeed.

A referendum relates to less than a buck per city resident. Add a couple of bucks to my tax bill next year. I will gladly pay rather than have council use the back door AAP approach. Even if 10% of eligble voters did sign the AAP it just means a referendum will then be called.
Rogers was a big fan of the AAP and he got turfed. Let’s hope some present city councillors took notice.
It might cost the taxpayers $60,000.00 to hold a referendum but the end result is the taxpayers will save $280,000.00 a year for 20 years if the referendum is defeated.

Ok, so they hold a referendum and 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot. A little more impressive than the turnout to an AAP, but not much.

Seeing the few day old letter from the Government of Canada to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which states that municipalities can rely on continuing annual contributions from the Gas Tax Fund which appears to be in the order of $4.5 million a year, I would like to know what the City is planning to do with that money as it comes in.

I assume it cannot be used for this project directly since there is already grant money involved. However, it is a loan that is being made and the suggestion is that the Gas Tax Fund be used to leverage loans for capital expenditures on “green” projects.

So, I challenge City admninistrators to come up with a way to use those annual funds in such a way that the borrowing of the funds for this project will be offset in a wway that does not mean a tax increase and may even see tax savings in the area of debt financing so that other escalating costs that we have little control over can be mitigated.

“annual debt servicing costs of $279,594 with payments starting in April of 2015”

I read the report and I cannot find the effect this has on residential taxes.

I realize that the payments are expected to start in 2015 and Council has a tough time to get budgets approved prior to the start of the budget year (tongue in cheek) but a reasonable effort can be made to let those who vote in one way or another tto know what the impact will be.

I think a policy to explore would be to show that there will not be an increase since other debt financing will be reduced by that time in a similar or greater amount.

Let’s hold a referendum on facebook …… the perfect system is already devised so why re-invent the wheel …. you can only register a “like” … LOL

You know, of course, we could start a referendum and pose the statement as:

Prince George should not borrow money for the River Road Dike Project.

Could we get 5,000 likes?

Sorry Gus but a referendum on facebook would not work, I for one do not have facebook and I know alot of people that will not use it. I do not approve of the AAP but I have always made an effort to get to City Hall to put my name down. Others have stood in line for ages only to be told that they had to go up stairs to sign and then got up stairs and still couldn’t find out how to sign the AAP. An retired City worker told me that you have to post the informantion on the board near the entrance but then then they would always make sure some other notice was covering it. It was their job to make sure it was a husle for us so that people would give up.

This dike project stinks to high heaven. One does not know where to start. But here goes.

1.Part of a media release from the City of Prince George Dated May 14th. regarding the **River Road Improvement Project**

(((A reconstructed River Road will exhibit a road profile that will be above the 200 year flood level. With the completion of this project, flood related disruptions will be minimized.

Completed works incude, Storm drainage improvements-culverts, inlets, rip rap, and improved ditch drainage conveying water into existing subdrain system.)))

The project was completed in the fall of 2010 at a cost of $7 Million. The Federal Government put up $3,516,800.00 and the City of Prince George (taxpayers) $3,500,000.00. The Citys portion was borrowed over a 20 year period at interest rates etc; much as the present borrowing will cost.

So we are now faced with additional money from the Province/Feds for a diking system, $5.4 Million grant, $2.5 Million from the land reserve fund, and $3.5 Million in borrowing by the City with the attendent $280,000.00 per year interest for 20 years.

Total cost for these two projects by the end of 2012, early 2013 for the taxpayers of Prince George would be.

$7 Million in loans
$2.5 Million from the Land Reserve
$10 Million in interest charges.
$8.9 Million from the Prov/Feds

For a grand total of $28.4 Million.

There is no need for a diking system on River Road. The consultants who studied this problem stated that it would be 50 or 90 years before one could expect a series of events to cause a flood as the one experienced in 2007.

So why are we doing it.? Because the City can get the Federal,. Provincial money and they want to spend it.

With this kind of BS taking place it is no wonder we are in debt up to our butts, and it is no wonder that we cannot look after everyday services like, water, sewer, roads, garbage, etc; We spend all our money on **goofy projects**

These expenditures on river road in two years are far in access of what the City will spend on paving and roads in the City for the next 10 years.

To the City and those in favour of the dike I say **GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE**

X2

I agree 100% with Graymare, the AAP is stacked against the average citizen, and heres how they do it.

1. They announce that they have accepted the funding from the Prov/Feds for the dike project. (Lets keep in mind that they made application for this money probably in 2009, before they upgraded River Road)

2. They also announce that the project has to be completed by 2014 otherwise the money is not available. They reluctantly suggest that they might be able to apply for funding at a later date, and get it, but its not a **for sure**

3. They then state that at the meeting on Feb. 20th they will consider the first three readings of a loan authorization bylaw, and look at whether to go to a AAP, or a referendum.

4. All previous loan authorizations in the past 10 or 15 years went to the Alternative Approval Process, so it would be interesting indeed if this one went straight to referendum.

5. They will state that any delay in getting the loan authorization will impede their ability to get this project completed by 2014, and therefore imperil the access to the Federal, Provincial monies.

6. So they effectively put us in a box, because once they get the approval to go to an AAP, they run the necessary information in the local papers for two weeks and then.

7 BAAAM. We have 30 days to get 5000 signatures to stop the borrowing and force the issue to referendum. But wait, theres more.

8. The 30 days for the referendum are the minimum that they can allow. They could if they chose, have an AAP for 60 days that would be more realistic, however thats not going to happen.

9. The 30 days are calendar days, and of course the City is closed on the week-ends so we are in fact looking as 22 eight hour days. Considering that most people who vote, work, they are restricted to voting during their lunch hour. You do not get time off work to vote on an APP, as you do in a Municipal election, nor does the City have to stay open past 5pm of on week ends to accommodate you. You can access the form on the internet, however you have to deliver it to the City by hand.

10. The petition form is usually on the fifth floor of City Hall, and as pointed out by Graymare not that easy to access.

11. The AAP requires approx 5300 signatures to force the issue to a referendum. So lets do a little math.

5300 divided by 22 days is 241 people to vote each day, or 30 people per hour, but because of people working etc; you would have some hours that would have a lot more people trying to vote. In addition there is not sufficient parking anywhere near City hall to accommodate 241 people per day 5 days a week for 4 weeks.

So one could argue that logistically the City and the AAP process could not in an honest and democratic way, process the number of people who are required to vote.

12. Obviously the City is not concerned about not being able to survive an AAP process. In fact I suspect that they alreay have or are in the process of buying up property on the North Side of the River Road.

We need the media in Prince George to take a real hard concerted investigation into everything that has taken place on River Road since the flood of 2007. The results of this investigation would show that for all intents and purposes we are being conned.

This is about accessing Federal/Provincial grant money,. and wasting taxpayers dollars, more than it is about flooding.

WHAT CAN THE CITIZENS OF PRINCE GEORGE DO TO EFFECTIVELY UTILIZE THE ONLY PROCESS AVAILABLE TO THEM, IE; THE ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS.

1.Start NOW to talk to your family, friends, and neibours, about the project (dike) and the associated costs, and explain that this issue can be forced to a referendum. Contact people through any means available, telephone, email, etc;

2. As soon as the petition forms are available, go to City Hall and get as many as you can. If they restrict the number of forms for you, then arrange to make copies at your own expense, and have every member of your family and anyone else you know sign the petition. Be sure you keep track of the forms, and return them to the City yourself. This allows people to sign without the attendent trip to City Hall. Access the form from the internet if you can.

3. Anyone 18 years or older, and a resident in BC for the past 6 months and in Prince George for the past 30 days is eligible to vote. You do not have to be a registered voter, nor do you need to own property.

4. This is not a **secret ballot** rather it is a process, that if effective forces the issue to a referendum that would be a secret ballot. People need not be concerned about signing the petition. The right to sign the petition is their right under the law.

5. Phone, mail, or email the City Mayor and Council, advising them of your concerns about City spending, debt, and the AAP, and demand that they stop this project, at least until it can be justified by a group of citizens that include those who are opposed to it.

6. All that is needed is for 215 people to get 25 signatures and the job is done.

Failure to send a message to City Hall will result a continuation of past practices of borrowing at will, and going into debt, and less that stellar services to PG Citizens , in regards to Roads, Snow Plowing, Garbage, Sewer, Recreation, etc;

7. The City will do little or nothing to help with this process, such a mailing a form to every household, and allowing them to be mailed back. This would cost less than $15000 dollars, however its not going to happen.

8. The succes of an AAP in directly connected to the amount of time and effort people are willing to put into the process. Now is the time to go from complaining to **ACTION**

Have a nice day.

I have always taken forms for others to sign but they do not like the fact that they have to fill in their name, address, etc. They feel like the City could use this information against them. They will tell me they are against the project but won’t sign which is what the City hopes happens.

Re River Rd: The City has bought out all the homes on River Rd. The told the home owners that nothing was allowed on the north side of River Rd. yet the business are still there, so are we building the dyke so Brink can’t sue?

I worked at a buiness on River Rd when it flooded and the business down there had the equipment and manpower to look after the area without the $$ the City spent on an outside company. When one of the company asked why IDL was doing the work they were told that it had gone out to tender and IDL was the only one that responded. Well we couldn’t find the tender and even the PG Construction Center couldn’t find the tender and seeing that IDL was doing the work by 8:00am and the water did not start rising until 1:00am something was fishy.

“The consultants who studied this problem stated that it would be 50 or 90 years before one could expect a series of events to cause a flood as the one experienced in 2007.”

It’s a probability calculation. Your words are not the consultant’s words.

A 50 year flood exceedance has a 2% annual exceedance. Put in other words, it is a flood that has a 2% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year.

That is a far better chance than winning at poker, show home, lotto, whatever. A far better chance than getting into a traffic collision within a 50 day period of driving.

Reasonable people protect themselves against such high risks, if the result of the risk can be a high cost item.

That is the question. We have not seen that part of the risk analysis. We have some idea of what the cost of the last event was. We have some knowledge about the shift in users of the high risk areas which should lower the cost associated with future flooding of the same magnitude.

So, unless I missed it in the report, we have not good quality risk analysis of one or more plans of action versus a do nothing scenario.

Gus. We have to keep in mind that the upgrade to River Road in 2010 to the 200 year flood level along with the storm drainage improvements-culverts, inlets,rip rap, and improved ditch drainage converying water into the existing subdrain system, was to minimize flood related disruptions. (Citys Words)

That statement along with the analysis from the from the consultants tells me that the risk of flooding continues to be low.

A flood in 1972 and another in 2007 would give you some indication of how often it occurs. (35 year span)

Even if it did occur the damage from the flood would be minimal in relation to the amount of money being spent to prevent it. I assume that the concern here is the cost of damage from a flood.

Palopu
Insurance companies do not calculate risk vs reward by looking back just 35 years….

Might I suggest you go to the main library and check out the great pictorial display of this subject on the landing between the 2nd and 3rd floor. You will have a better understanding of why the city is taking these steps to mitigate flooding in that area.

Let CN and the feds pay for it otherwise sandbag 1st avenue once every 50 years. If its to protect national infrastructure then that is where our Federal dollars should be spent. But as a home owner I don’t think one cent of our property taxes onour homes should go towards subsidizing the national rail system for this project.