“a level that would be considered acceptable”

Acceptable to whom?

I think everyone that has even the least bit of interest in this “conversation” that is now happening needs to go to the PG City site and read the package in front of Council.

I have lost all trust that I may ever have had for those people, both administration as well as Councillors, especially the gang that was there from previous Council(s).

Unless you read the background information required to have this “conversation you really do not understand how past Council and past administration have screwed the people of this city.

I know if I were on a Board of a Society whose finances looked like this City’s finances do, I would remove myself from the Board since no Directors’ umbrella insurance package would ever cover the liability this City has.

From at least Kinsley and George Paul onward, this City has been going down the wrong path and I do not have the confidence that the people in charge have the ability to fix it. They are still in band aid mode at the moment. The new members have had almost a year to come to the realization what we, the citizens, are facing. They too appear to be blindly following someone, god only knows who.

Start off with this page
http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_11_14_cw/documents/Chair_report.pdf

Here is a portion of the info on the linked page.
The historical underfunding of the City of Prince George’s Infrastructure

In 2006 it was recognized that borrowing to pave our roads was not sustainable. As such, direct funding for road rehabilitation was established with the “Road Rehabilitation Levy”. It was also at this time that staff began to investigate the true condition of our infrastructure and the cost to maintain it through an asset management program called “RIVA”.

•Between 2005 and 2011 we have invested $6.75 million in Sewer infrastructure, when RIVA tells us we should have invested $16.59 million. A shortfall of $9.84 million.

•Between 2005 and 2011 we have invested $4.56 million in Water infrastructure, when RIVA tells us we should have invested $34.93 million. A shortfall of $30.37 million.

•Between 2005 and 2011 we have invested $3.44 million in Storm infrastructure, when RIVA tells us we should have invested $11.13 million. A shortfall of $7.69 million.

•Between 2005 and 2011 we have invested $21.06 million in Road Rehabilitation, when Riva tells us we should have invested $49.0 million. A shortfall of $27.94 million.
Our failure in the past to address the underfunding of our core infrastructure has left the City, in just the last seven years, with a further infrastructure gap of $75.8 million!

And here is the real kicker …….. when Chair Stolz writes:

“Over the last year, there have been GOOD suggestions from Councillors (an additional gas tax, a fair share agreement, expanded use of the Federal gas tax rebate) to address our funding shortfall which are actively being pursued.”

In other words, the best suggestions they can come up with is to get big mommy (province) and big Daddy (feds) to bail this City out!

From what I am reading, there is not even a scenario situation which will take us 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road to where we can come back to actually run a sustainable operation.

This is not of my doing or any of those who live in this City because this City has never been honest and open enough with us, the taxpayers, of what it takes to operate in a sustainable fashion. We are all living in a dream world. Band aid solutions are not enough. $350,000 should have been spent on helping this City understand the situation and find short, intermediate and long term strategies to solve the problem.

If we weren’t spending the money needed all those years, where did we get the $111 million dollar debt? Poor PAC. Alas, it may not come to fruition in my tax paying lifetime.

Great post, gus. Not only is City Council living in an alternate reality… Sadly, many of our citizens are as well.

Bang on Gus!

If anyone wants to look at a City that actually realized the problem at a time when this city was still fixing potholes on BORROWED money and did something about it and told its citizens about what sustainability looks like and did not need any sort of computer program to do that with, all one has to do is look 12km to the south of us to the City of Quesnel.

http://www.quesnel.ca/DocumentBank/PublicWorks/07.06.01_CRP_one_pager.pdf

The City of Quesnel is taking a proactive approach by answering the questions, “How much is it going to cost to replace infrastructure assets over the long-term?” and “How can these costs be recovered?”

Realizing these were significant questions, the City developed a long-term strategy and the Quesnel Capital Reinvestment Program (CRP) was born.

The linked page has a graph which illustrates how the CRP works. The solid line indicates the spending required to maintain the City’s water system, and how that spending could affect THREE GENERATIONS of taxpayers. The dashed line indicates how much should be collected each year to BALANCE OUT SPENDIONG SO THE TAX[AYER ISN’T HIT BY A SUDDEN INCREASE. In this example, you’ll notice that should the status quo continue, Joe would pay a far lower rate to maintain the system than his son or granddaughter, especially when spikes occur in 2035 and 2060. By collect¬ing in advance, the City avoids paying interest on borrowed funds and users of the system pay an equal share in operating and maintaining it.

So, Quesnel started to pay forward in 2007. If we decide to pay forward in a similar fashion will be at least 6 year behind Quesnel and more likely 7 years.

So those who have been on Council the longest should have known this was coming down the pipe – Skakun and Krause. Sorry Councillors, but that is the way I see it.

Who is still there now that should have seen this about 3 years ago, giving them a year to get their seat warmed up – Stolz, Wilbur, Frizzel and Green.

Three new ones left. The only one of those who I saw some promise from during the Wednesday evening session is Councillor Hall whose light seem to suddenly go on that the terminology of the recommendations did not seem to be consistent and that really he needed more information to make decisions.

It appeared to me that he was actually seeing a bigger picture than any of the others were seeing, or at least that he had the courage to admit that.

Okay … so I missed an important zero …. 120km to Quesnel …:-(

Now, maybe I am missing something, again because things are really not communicated very well by our City.

It is just possible that the Terasen deal might be meant to be our “Capital Reinvestment Program”. If so, thn I would love to hear that from someone who knows that deal and understands it enough to tell us that money can be used for that or will be used for that and that the money will actually be there and that the gas distribution infrastructure will actually be there in good condition and will not have lost any of its value.

IMHO mayor and council should go to referendum in any purchase or transaction that will further affect the tax payers of our city. This could also include foreign trips as I’m sure they could be scaled back to save $$#$.