I do not think this is the time to find out what the community thinks.

This is a time for those who are paid by the community to come forward with a clear plan how the infrastructure of this community is sustainably managed, or how it should be sustainbly managed if it is not managed in that fashion at this time.

This is not a time for random thought by a majority of people who would not have the faintest clue of how to operate even a $10 million building sustainably, let alone a billion plus of City infrastructure.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc48194/nrcc48194.pdf

Based on that, for instance, once the CURRENT replacement value of the roads is estimated, the recommendation is to set aside 2 to 4% of that each year for replacement and maintenance. Removal of snow and sanding material is an additional cost.

Speaking of a billion dollars of infrastructure. If that is what we have in place, 2% of that means we should be putting away around $20million per year plus another 2% of anything new we build that adds to the inventory.

Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? And puts the Terasen money to shame.

So yes, why does tax on gasoline go to the province when at least half of roads in this community are community roads not provincial or federal roads. (it would be good to get a breakdown of that to make sure my guess is in the ballpark). That is the money that is owed to this community and all the communities in the province.

We do not need an additional increment on top of that for PG. We need to once more look at that tax as a user fee for those who use roads.

You said it Gus,
If there is a legacy fund then let’s use that fund to make money. I wouldn’t have a problem if the interest on it could go back to roads, but grabbing the money is short sighted. In the long term, it’s not going to fix anything and once it’s spent–it’s gone. Given the City’s past track record, there will be little if anything to show for it.

We need to find a way to put an extra $15 million per year into our infrastructure. Increasing taxes is one option, but cutting expenses and/or getting better value for our money is a lot easier in many ways than raising revenues.

I’m with gus – enough “engaging” with the public already with half-assed attendance and fancy reports and renderings no one reads or believes. Time for city management to start earning their enormous salaries and benefits and get to work.

Good job Brian!

Way to go Brian! Perhaps when it comes to repairing the decaying sewar and water lines they should talk to industries who have experience with horizontal drilling. Cheaper, faster less disruptive of merchants and traffic. The laying of the community energy lines was a great example of how not to.

Actually Gus, you’re a little off on your estimate of our assets. According to the 2010 financial statements…(page 66)
http://www.princegeorge.ca/infocentre/communications/Lists/Recent%20News/Attachments/29/2010%20Annual%20Report%20Bookweb.pdf

Our tangible capital assets as of the end of 2010 was just under $550 million.

Of that total was $173million in land, which you can take right off the top because we don’t have to replace that.

That leaves $377 million. The 3 biggies of infrastructure; water, sewer & roads totals $210 million. So, 2% of that a year is just over $4million. That’s not so bad, until you take into consideration how old that infrastructure is and how depreciated that asset figure could be.

Let’s just say for the sake of argument, that those core assets are 60% depreciated.
So then $210, would represent ~ 40% of the original capitalized value, which was $210/40%=$525 million. Now you have to decide how long ago those assets were installed and include and inflation factor to determine today replacement costs. Let’s say they’re an average of 50 years old and use an annual inflation figure of about 3% and see what we come up with for replacement value at today’s costs.
$525 * (1 + .03)^50 = $2,300 million. Whoa, and that’s just for core assets. That’s scary stuff. Maybe 3% was a little stiff, let’s try with 2% instead. Still comes out to $1.4 billion. let’s see now, with approximately 30,000 household and businesses paying taxes in the city, to raise even $1 billion would mean another $33k per property owner. That’s just for roads, sewer & water, to say nothing about buildings or equipment which depreciate much faster on average.

Someone can check my math, because I’m gonna go start looking for another place to live outside the City limits, way outside. :)

Brian what’s next for your pie in the sky ideas, maybe unicorns for the police, buy flying vehicles so we don’t have to fix the roads ? You seem to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

I read that Brian has been on council for at leat ten years and now he finally realizes our roads are in horrible shape, a bit late to try to jump on the and wagon now don’t you think ?

P Val,

What should council do? I am tired of seeing people say that is a stupid idea and then having nothing to contribute. New rule, don’t piss on someone else’s idea until you have one of your own.

Gus. Your right . As is Sine Nomine.
Let the leaders lead and forget the input crap.
Were way beyond that.See Sine Nomine #s. accurate
Time to act .
As they say . Lead ,follow or get the h out of the way.
Sorry Brian. No new ideas here. Just a hail Mary pass.
By your method we would have no money for the highways we drive to get out of town.
Back to the big pulp mill control panel Brian.
Thanks for cummin out.

Council should role back the wage increase they gave themself, stop buying up useless land, don’t waste money on a smart car, get their financial house in order before coming back to the citizens for more money, stop trying to push PAC down out throats, at a huge cost etc etc, how’s that for a start porter ?

PG already pays the highest cost for fuel in North America, so increasing the cost of fuel is a non starter. That said I think it is ridiculous that the gas tax goes to general revenue, and that is most definitely a place where PG needs a good advocate to ensure we get our share locally to cover municipal roads.

Far bigger concern to me is why PG consistently pays $.20 a liter more than Kamloops… this can not be written off as cost of shipping or difference in taxes. This is akin to a $20 million a month in premium tax we pay to Husky Oil (90% foreign owned) to fund their off shore investments in Asia (its not profits reinvested in local infrastructure for local supplies).

So why don’t we have a national energy policy that takes the free enterprise concept of public health care and education (allowing business to operate free of these constraints) why not the energy sector for domestic consumption. We are being raked over the coals by foreign ownership groups and its bleeding us dry. The out of control inflation in our fuel costs are sapping consumer spending and handicapping industrial efficiencies.. to say nothing of the crumbling roads.

Why is it that our local city council takes no position on the Gateway project? Our mayor will not take a clear position, and our media fails on all account to enlighten the electorate on these issues… epic failure by the media as well as the politicians IMO.

Sine Nomine, using the 2010 financial statements you linked to, go to page 46, bottom right hand corner. The City indicates at that time that the replacement value of its physical assets is $1.6 billion.
————————————
The replacement value of
the City’s infrastructure
assets is $1.6 Billion. The
life expectancy of a sewer
pipe is between 80 and 130
years.
—————————–

I did a guesstimate without looking up the figure and simply state a billion plus. So it is more properly defined as 2 billion minus, if one were to accept the City’s figure.

So, using the NRC recommended creation of an asset replacement fund it would be $1.6 billion x 2% at a minimum for $32 million a year. That is about the same as the cost of police and fire services. So, we have a new slice we have to cut out of the revenues pie and it is the largest of all.

That poses a new question to the KPMG team. Luckily some of them are Chartered Accountants so it should be easy for them to address it.

Hey, I know, maybe our financial wizzard on Council, Councillor Stolz, can provide the answer.

There is some humour to be found there.
The head of the finance and audit committee makes his living selling fantasy products…….Okay he does that at both of his jobs.

BTW, a sewer pipe is not exactly the best example to use. It is likely the longest lasting civic infrastructure. There are places in the world that are still using Roman sewers, with 300+ year sewers such as those in Paris being not unusual. Sewers are non pressurized systems and with maintenance can last a very long time. There are also new lining technologies which can be used for such non pressurized piping systems.

Pressurized water systems are another matter all together, as are buildings.

Just think, we are replacing a police building constructed in 1972/73. It held a courtroom when it was originally constructed and was built to expand across Brunswick and go up to 5 storeys.

I do not know how much the construction or total project cost was, but the current building being built is likely about 15 to 20 times the cost of the original.

Let’s say that the existing building will last 50 years before it needs to be replaced to meet the needs of technology and practices in use then. Let’s also assume inflation is a similar average of 20 times current cost over the 50 years. The replacement cost by 2062 then becomes $540 million.

All we have to do now is figure the Net Future Value

I do not know what a long term investment rate for a municipality is, but I am going to use a rate of 3% and then do a calculation for 4%

$2.13 million per year invested at 3% average over the 50 year period will give us just over $240million in 2062.
The same at 4% would require a constant investment of $1.57 million per year.

Of course, at the moment, we also have to pay for the cost of the loan for building the replacement. We had no such fiscal responsibilities in 1972 ….. So maybe we should just continue operating in the same fashion. This notion of sustainability for municipal operations is pretty stupid, isn’t it? ;-)

middle finger …. good one ^5

oops … I made a boo boo and calculated for $240 million replacement cost instead of $540 million. so it becomes more than $4million a year tp be set aside …..

Skakun is a media whore who flip flops every time the wind changes directions.

1st he proposes a new tax, people tell him where to stick it, now he is going to get Victoria and Ottawa to give him a bigger cut.

Lots of hot air but little substance.

Exactly Albus, very well said.

Albus – you are correct

Ditto X 3. It’s amazing that some in this town still believe he’s a ‘man of the people’. I stole this quote, but it fits, he’s the windsock of municipal politics.