Council Votes to Use Alternate Approval Process for Dike Construction Dollars
Monday, February 20, 2012 @ 7:37 PM
Prince George, B.C. –The Council for the City of Prince George has chosen to take the Alternate Approval Process route in seeking electoral approval to allow the City to borrow $3.5 million dollars for the construction of the River Road dike.
First, Council had to agree to move ahead with a plan to borrow the dollars to build the dike. The dike construction is something Councillor Murry Krause, who lives along the Nechako River, says he supports,"Even though this dike will likely push mountains of water towards my home." Councillor Krause lives on the north side of the river. Councillor Skakun would not support the borrowing of the money.
Council had already approved acceptance of a Federal Provincial grant in the amount of $5.442 million dollars for the project.
Once it was established that council supported borrowing the money, Mayor Shari Green advised Council she has always supported the idea of the alternate approval process where is it appropriate.
Councillor Frank Everitt says he has never supported the Alternate Approval process as it "leaves a stigma that we are trying to do something we couldn’t possibly sell, so it is viewed as being underhanded." He says he would like to see another method used, but the Community charter only allows the referendum or the alternate approval process as recognized legal means of approval.
Councillors Dave Wilbur, Garth Frizzell, Murry Krause, Brian Skakun, Cameron Stolz, Albert Kohler, and Lyn Hall all voted in favour of going to the Alternate Approval process. Most cited the costs involved to support a referendum which it has been estimated would come in between $55 and $65 thousand dollars.
An Alternate Approval Process would cost a fraction of that amount, with the only real costs being advertising and the printing of the forms. The most recent AAP cost about $1600 dollars.
In a report to Council, Legislative Services Manager Walter Babicz noted the borrowing of the cash would take place in the fall of 2014, and with a term of 20 years for payback, it would cost just under $280 thousand dollar a year to service that debt, with payments starting in April of 2015. That is of course, assuming the interest rate holds at 4.5%.
Babicz says the city could try to make the alternate approval process more accessible by offering the forms on line, or by allowing people to mail in or fax their forms.
Comments
GREEN AND KOHLER LIED TO ME IN THE ELECTION RUNUP.let’s call their bluff.
The petition is in the mayors office under the counter. You have to ask for it. But only during business hours. That seems to be where our city council keeps our “democracy”.
The petition is in the mayors office under the counter. You have to ask for it. But only during business hours. That seems to be where our city council keeps our “democracy”.
Posted twice. Pokey computer. Rats!
This is outrageous. Rogers was voted out for his use of the AAP. Now Green says she has always supported using the AAP.
The rational to save $55,000 in order to spend $280,000 home hostage taxes for 20 years is a slap in the face to every homeowner in PG.
PG city council does not believe in democracy at all and only wants to spend your property tax dollars to ‘save them money’ as they put it.
Who in their right mind would want to buy property in PG with the councils we seem to elect?
The City.
Even Skakun voted in favour of the AAP??? Unbelievable gall…the entire bunch of them.
I thought things were crooked under Kinsley, but the Rogers regime made that stench smell like a rose…now it looks like the Green machine is going to outdo that even!!!
Stoltz again brought up the issue of liability if we did nothing in regards to building a dike. He knows full well that the City is not responsible for rivers flooding. This is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government. However he likes to get the liability issue out there to spook the other Councillors.
The fact of the matter is this issue has been decided on a long time ago. They are now just going through the process to make it look like the citizens of Prince George have some say in the matter.
If in fact they make it easier for people to sign the petition on line or mail or fax it to City hall, this would certainly be a help. Lets see it that happens.
This whole issue is a very subtle case of railroading the taxpayers. Most people do not have a clear idea of the amount of money being borrowed or the cost of borrowing. Nor do they understand that the whole diking system may not make any significant difference to the overall flooding and seepage situation.
We are being hosed, pure and simple.
The only way to stop the borrowing madness is to get the required number of signatures. That is a big job, and people should start thinking about it now.
Scary Shari strikes again!
I am under the impression that if enough signatures are captured, it just turns magically into a suggestion for city council. Nothing else.
If 5300 people sign the petition , then the issue goes to a referendum. People then get a chance to vote on the issue.
The City will not go directly to a referendum because they stand a good chance of losing. Thats why these issues never get on a ballot on election day.
This is about getting their hands on $5.4 Million of Provincial and Federal money, along with $2.5 million from the land reserve fund, and $3.5 million from borrowing, and having a hell of a good time spending the money.
Getting sufficient signatures on the AAP is the only way to force this issue to a referendum. There is no other way. Its obvious that the City has no intention of stopping the borrowing. So it is up to the citizens of Prince George to stop them.
Whats the chances???
Lets see…..spring break or summer vaction when everyone is away would be the perfect time to run the AAP.
How about a lawsuit directed at getting rid of the AAP in this city?
We “the City” of Pr George are laying off staff, our roads are crumbling, our water pipes and sewer pipes are failing, our garbage trucks are wearing out, etc., etc., and Mayor Green along with what appears vice mayor Stoltz, think it’s okay to go and borrow another 3.5 million dollars to build a useless dike; to protect property on one side of the river from a possible flood that might happen every 50 years or so! Most normal thinking long term residents who know the issue would suggest a simpler solution. Dreg the floor of the Nechako where it meets the Fraser, sell the gravel, put the money in the empty coffers and have a nice day!
Its almost sick how obvious the real solution truly is hey Cheetos?
No kidding Dragonmaster…
when I was a young child in Prince George, it was a common sight to see gravel been hauled out of the river bed where the Nechako meets the Fraser! We still saw floods during the spring run off, but they were mild compared to the “KENNY DAM” letting the flood gates open like they did several years ago. This “DIKE” thing is a total waste of money! Actually, your new CITY COUNCIL is a total waste of money!
Lets all go into panic mode when something happens about once every 50 years!!
taxi
Think of the possibilities…………
In downtown Prince George, breathtaking bus tours of a brand new dike!
With the daring and exciting “subsurface collection wells, including brand new pumps” And be sure not to miss the potholes on the roads leading to and from our showpiece: “River Road”
Ten bucks a head, they’ll have the dike loan paid off in no time at all!
metalman.
next they will ban jet boats on the Nechako because their wakes are sending water over the dike and flooding the valley beyond!!!
taxi
If they truly want to make it accessible for people,then set it up on a table in the Pine Center Mall for a month.
Easy Access
Where is this “DIKE” going to start, and where will it end. The way I understand it, it will have a major leak at both ends, as well as getting the bed wet!
Kind of sounds like Prince George City Council don’t you think!
The numbers for the dike don’t include further land purchases that will be necessary. The cost will be far greater than this.
We have to hold the provinces feet in the fire for this one. Gordon Campbell is to blame for the AAP. WE have to push the provincial government to recind this law in order to stop the plundering of our population. These monies are fraudulently being taken by force. Way to go PG Council–and no-one even suggested we might want a little more respect this time around. Politics, at all levels, is a corrupt culture of deviant plundering.
Well said supertech……
Why was River road not upgraded to double as a dike or berm? Raising the grade 1/2 a metre would be sufficient,for less than the cost of what the city is proposing?
The borrowing and lies continue. Why waste money on a core review when council so handily can saddle the taxpayer with another unwarranted tax increase.
If this council is fond of the AAP it is about time it became a mail in ballot or an online vote. Even the liberals figured out how to use a mail in ballot for a HST vote.
The city can do surveys online so why not the AAP vote.
The last time there was an AAP vote, I went to city hall to sign it. The nice lady at the counter had no idea what I was talking about, and sent me upstairs. A friendly gentleman I spoke to up there also didn’t know where the AAP would be located, therefore I didn’t get to sign it because it couldn’t be found at City Hall. I hope I was the only person in P.G. who had this issue. A table at the mall sounds reasonable to me. I can find that.
Cheetos for city engineer. Years ago they moved everyone out of the Island Cache and shut down the Fraser Bridge trailer park because of flooding. To this day they dredge the Fraser down south to prevent flooding, but it won’t work here? More discussion should have happened!
So Everitt was the only hold out,his comments sure ring true, if you can’t take the time to explain why and gain support in an open manner then the chickens should have stayed in the hen house. So people will have to now get off their ass and vote or just ……
I’m surprised that a ‘man of the people’ like Brian Skakun would support this. Not really, I’m just being sarcastic.
I’m reminded of that Talking Heads song, “Same As It Ever Was”.
You can’t even get people out to vote for mayor and council, there’s no way people will be bothered with this.
You could get any budget spend for any reason pushed through this way.
Babicz says the city could try to make the alternate approval process more accessible by offering the forms on line, or by allowing people to mail in or fax their forms.
This is one smart man. I wonder if council will listen to the one common sense recommendation out of the meeting. We should be demanding at council meetings that the process be more accessible to potentially scare them into not using this again to borrow even more money. Its unfathomable all the millions that is being borrowed for special interest projects. Such a hypocritical bunch.
The alternative approval process is very undemocratic. Kudos to Frank Everet for standing against it.
As stated before on this site, its easy to be the dissenting voice when you know something is going to pass. How did he vote on getting the grant money to proceed with the dike?
River Road was built to be a dike with a very expensive drainage system to collect seepage water. Business on River Rd were told that the River Rd dike and drainage system was all that was needed. Not only that but when the City puts in new systems alonge my residential street they expect me to pay not the whole City. So should it not be the companies on River Road paying for this. Plus I would hate to up or down river from this dike, during the last flood it was when they put the dikes up that other areas starting flooding. The City never should have allowed the dry river bed between Winton Global and Couger Crain to be filled in, that is where the speepage water flowed to and the water that came over the bank was just following the old river bed.
Stoltz is wrong regarding the issue of liability, that is why the City raised the flood plane, once they did that any one that built on the flood plane can only buy very expensive insurance. The new flood plane includes parts of the City that never had flooding or water seepage.
“To this day they dredge the Fraser down south to prevent flooding, but it won’t work here?”
They dredge the Fraser River in the GVRD because of shipping, as they do in much of the rest of the world in river deltas that have shipping.
The Rhine is one of the rivers I am familar with. It floods relatively frequently much of the way along it path. It flows almost as fast as the Fraser and Nechako. They dredge it to keep the channels and espcecially the various inland harbours open for shipping, nothing else. The have dikes as well as temporary walls that can be put up as the river rises, including watertight closures for doorways to buildings that have been sitting in flood plains for over a thousand years.
Here is a video of a dike going in on the Mosel, a tributary of the Rhine. A totally different urban context than ours, but the rivers are almost identical to ours – fast flowing with headwaters in the mountain ranges, cut deep over time which gives rise to the wine hills on the banks.
You can see the underwater cutoff wall being driven many metres down and the superstructures of concrete tied in with them, as well as stone facing to make them look “natural” as any in an urban setting would. Then there there are the anchors which go in for the temporary walls used in locations where walls cannot be built such as crossing roadways.
The second video is of low water along the Rhine a year ago. I put that in just so that you can see that the soil conditions are identical, including associated seepage problems.
Finally a third video which show the progressive icing up of the Mosel a couple of years ago starting from the wonderful times people had on a river which does not normally ice up, then the breakup, rains, and flooding.
These communities have existed for centuries and some over 1,000 years. Dredging, is not a solution to flooding. Dredging is a solution to keeping shipping channels clear.
Oh, and then I include one of a ship that ran aground during low water last year. THAT is something that should have been dredged or marked better. Then agaoin, these ships have sonar depth gauges …. jsut like the super tankers which will be plying our coastal waters off Kitimat shortly … :-)
The building of a dike on the Mosel Riverhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNRRXfhBhQ&feature=relmfu
Low water on the Rhine – same gravel base as our rivers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwDRTUOPl_E&feature=related
Ice buildup and consequences on the Mosel 1997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEdcNdcivgo&feature=related
Ship ran aground on a sand bar on the Rhine and the failed attempt to get it back into a deeper part of the shipping channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVm2ImG8Qvo&feature=related
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=d88d3c1f-235b-4312-a2f6-8740e745ef17
For those who think that dredging the lower Fraser mitigates flooding.
But hey, some people ahve their heads in the gravel. ;-)
“The study’s results present “no surprise to people who are knowledgeable about the river,” Chilibeck said.”
But he said the report’s conclusions will be unpopular with some government critics.
“It’s much easier to say, ‘dig the river out,’ because it’s a simple solution. But it’s really not that effective.”
Design by committee …. design by popular belief … forget about the facts ….
“Business on River Rd were told that the River Rd dike and drainage system was all that was needed.”
You know, this is the sort of thing that happens when people do not share information and go with a little bit here and a little bit there.
The City has to learn one thing big time …. share the info and make it available to everyone concerned – that is the citizens of this place we call PG.
The report is available on the net. But the actions the City is undertaking and the expected consequences of that action are not.
Why do I have to watch videos on youtube of places in other parts of the world where they do show what is happening with similar projects on public placards, on Youtube, and on web sites?
Totally disrespectful. Totally arrogant.
This page is totally outdated by 4 years – present day event is Dec 2007 …. This is typical of City web pages ….. just like roads and buildings, they do not maintain the old “stuff”
http://princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/eoc/2008icejam/response/Pages/QuickFacts.aspx
Last word on there?
“In terms of what is planned for next year should a similar situation in river arise, based on a risk assessment we will leave the temporary berms and dikes in place until a permanent solution is determined. The situation will continue to be monitored.”
It is no longer a joke, folks. This is serious business. How can anyone who watns to do business with the City deal with such outdated information?
Hey, why did our gold panel of experts not deal with such matters? Not such a gold panel, are they?
Flood Mitigation Strategic Plan
If ound one of the pages …. still hunting for the rest that I saw a week or so ago …. navigation through the CIty web site is still the chits ….
http://princegeorge.ca/infocentre/communications/Lists/Recent%20News/Attachments/18/Report_FloodMitigation_StrategicPlan_2010-06-24.pdf
That has 2009 projects completed … nothing on 2010 projcets or 2011 projects …
I think this belongs on a museum web page, not an ongoing planning page of City Hall.
Total cost will be in the order of $45 million + inflation + unforseen contingencies.
I found that page on the hot topics page … it was added in april 2011, with nothing new for the year 2010 added in …. who monitors this stuff at City Hall?
[url]http://princegeorge.ca/infocentre/communications/Pages/hottopics.aspx
Do Councillors know this is going on? [/url]
Are they not ashamed of being on a Council of a City that is this bad with information updates?
BTW, the last hot topic was October 3, 2011.
No hot topics since then … LOL … little do they know, eh?
I am ashamed of voting for some of those people!!
further in the saga of locating information ab out the report by Northwest Hydraulics that was there a few weeks ago but I cannot relocate
So I go to current planning-floodplain bylaw
http://princegeorge.ca/citybusiness/currentplanning/floodplainbylaw/Pages/Default.aspx
It tells me that there is more information here.
http://princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/eoc/pages/default.aspx
But all there is are pictures ….
So, I call the phone number that is on the page. I get a message that says that she is on maternity leave till november or so of 2012. Gives me another number to call, no person.
One would think that the web page could be cahnged with that long an absence. Barring that, that an automatic redirect be in place to the right person ……
So, the phone number left behind by the individual on maternity leave did not go to the person in charge, so I was transferred to her phone number and had to leave a message.
Stay tuned. ;-)
Hey, I could, of course, take the suggestion of the business group and go right to the top.
Planning? City Manager? Mayor? Minister responsible for Municipalities? Premier?
Gus. The temporary berms and dikes they were referring to was the build up of River Road during and right after the flood of 2007/8. This is when they built up River Road with gravel and buried the pavement. It was then that they advised people that the berms would stay in place. The City was refunded their costs for this work.
It was later in 2010 when they received the funding from the Federal Government under the Federal Governments **Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor Initiative Transportation Infrastructure Fund**, in the amount of $3,516,800.00 the balance $3.5 Million was borrowed by the City. They then removed all the gravel and pavement, and rebuilt the road, drains, etc;
See Citys Media Release September 10,2010 **River Road Improvement Project Completed**
Later they got the $5,442,000. from the Federal Government under the Building Canada Fund **Communities Component** This funding was announced on January 24,2012 Government of Canada/BC News release. The Citys portion of this funding was $3.5 Million in borrowing and $2.5 million from the Land Reserve Fund.
The latest funding is to build the dike North of River Road to run approx 3.5 kilometres from Brink Forest Products to the CN Rail Bridge.
Its interesting to note that the application for funds under the Building Canada Fund for Tier 2 Multi-year projects were to be completed by February 28, 2014.
It is also interesting to note that applications for Disaster Mitigation Flood Protection projects closed on September 24,2010. So one would assume that the City made application for this money prior to the closing date.
In other words while they were completing the River Road upgrade, under the Gateway Initiative fund, they were also waiting for word on the Building Canada Fund. Once it was received then they proceeded to borrow the money to build the dike.
So in essence we could say that the flooding problem was in effect done three times.
1. Provincial Government Flood money
2. Gateway Initiative Fund
3. Building Canada Fund.
Number of dollars spent or planning to be spent of 3.5 kilometres of River Road to date, excluding interest on loans that would total approx $10 Million over 20 years.
Provincial flood dollars (unknown)
Gateway fund. $7 Million
Blding Cda Fnd $11.4 Million.
Total $18.4 Million plus interest.
Benefits for these expenditures?? You tell me.
Palopu, I know all that.
My complaint in the above is that they have old information floating all over the place on their web site.
Comments for this article are closed.