Build a reserve for snow removal, if they are looking for a name I have a suggestion. Slow Levy Unless Something otHer fund. For short it could be called the S.L.U.S.H. fund as you never know when council wants to sneak in a parking system or a dyke through the back door.

All kidding aside it is time that they start acting like a board of directors. This folder should be dropped on Ms. James desk with a sticky note attached saying to present back to budget committee when she can assure them there are no internal savings to be found.

An internal audit might not find the 10% shortfall, weird exactly the same as the mayor’s magic campaign number, but presenting it to council as is says the department is running as efficiently as possible.

Probably not a good time to ask for cupe input on an audit but if some of the stories on here are any indication, sparks flying off grader blades and loaders piling a couple of snowflakes, then will not have to dig too far to save a few dollars. Heck could even look for volunteers in the community to participate in an audit.

If they could find half of the Green number it would mean a $300k in annual saving.

Then there is asphalt. Has the city found a dance partner to secure better pricing or will we pay a 30% premium again this year and fed the line “it is too late to do anything this year but next year we will be all over it” for the third year running.

The budget increase to $7 million should also help secure a lower unit cost.

Make that Snow Levy Unless Something otHer…Freudian slip there;)

I always thought that the whole amount the City gets from the gas tax is dedicated to road related matters, like paving, potholes and snow removal! Now I am surprised to learn that the City wants to tap into that tax share to the tune of 2 million! Where has this gas tax money been going until now?

After all, us motorists pay the gas tax at the pumps and the only way we can get there is on the roads!

OMG!

Using the figures above, the police budget increase is just over 3%.

What is the fires services budget?

The two together make up a significant amount of the expense budget.

It is difficult to find compensating savings in other places if these services keep on increasing at 3%+ a year.

Maybe it is time to do a user fee on fire services based on different residential types, distance to fire services, commercial and industrial buildings. Totally based on the call-outs characteristics and costs (doubt they even track costs per call out type) false or otherwise.

Ooooops …. am I aiding an abetting in moving towards that progressive user fee system? ;-)

The asphalt partner thingy is just something they like to bring up every year. There are no qualified composers at city hall to come up with a different song sheet, certainly not one that is going to be a hit.

Frankly, I think this is where politicians have to show what they are made of and get after those who control the other paving projects in this region. Bureaucrats like to keep it simple and do not want to complicate their lives. They need a bit of an incentive from their clients.

Far from it! I think that bureaucrats have allowed simple things to become far too complicated and out of focus and this mindset is called job security.

Charging a user fee for fire services would just make homeowners pay more for insurance, wouldn’t it? Probably significantly more.

$$590K to demolish an old building???

A couple of CUPE members with a backhoe and dump truck should be able to complete this in under a week. I seriously doubt it would cost $590,000.

The silence from our elected councilors on the budget and how money is spent at City Hall is deafening.

I am not convinced that they are on top of the situation. If anything they are unaware of most things that take place at City Hall. So, who looks after our interests????

|**Prince George**. The Community Works Fund (CWF) is where the gas tax fund comes from. The Federal Government returns 2% of the gas tax to Provinces for various programs. In BC the gas tax is distributed on a per capita basis, and for Prince George this amounts to approx. $2,911,000.00 per year. This Gas Tax Grant has been in effect since 2005 and is in effect until 2015 and it will then become permanent.

Soooo. You have a valid question. Where has this money been spent since 2005. Well here’s the kicker. The City of Prince George has been telling us that this money could not be used for roads, or road repair, even though other Cities across Canada have been doing so. In addition the UBCM who distributes this money to the Municipalities also states it can be used for roads.

We know that the City has spent $4,366,000.00 of this money for the Community Energy System. In addition they have borrowed $100,000.00 per year for the next 10 years against future payments, to help fund the Energy System. Where was the other money spent??? Who knows, perhaps on trails, River Road, etc:

The City now says that it has just come to their attention that they CAN use this money for road repair, and paving, and will put $2,000,000.00 into road rehab for 2014 for a total of $7 Million dollars for roads. Hmmmm. Election year?

We need to know why the City misled us on the use of this gas tax money since 2005. It is inexplicable that we were the only City in BC, if not all of Canada, who were not aware of being able to use this money for roads.

In fact the criteria for using the money was further clarified in 2010 to make it easier to understand, and still the City did not use it for roads, even though we had at that time the worst roads in Canada. What they did was increase the road levy, and spent the gas tax money on some of their favourite (wasteful) programs.

These types of issues is (in my opinion) where investigative reporting falls down. If we were in fact misled by out City Administration and Councilors, etc; then this needs to be brought to light.

Yes Jim , $590K does seem a little steep .But this ain’t like the good old days when a guy with a hoe and a dumptruck could clean er up like old Ralph klein .Shoot it , shovel it ,and shutup about it . [ Knock it down , load it up and get rid or it] .First we may find [God help us ] a little asbestos ,next all those deadly chemicals used in painting must be dealt with .Lets not forget about reclaiming the ground where the gas station was .We will have to have some one [ maybe a team of university students ] sift through the dirt for any artifacts .I’m sure we will need more than 590K when the smoke clears

a “hoe and a dump truck?” Just make sure she is dressed warm. Ha ha ha .

Palopu, to answer your question about where the gas tax money has been going all these years, the gas tax is supposed to be used for projects which will reduce greenhouse gas, improve air or water quality.That is exactly what the agreement with the UBCM says, however, there are some who believe paving over potholes will, somehow, meet those requirements. The City has taken that interpretation and is running with it. So far no one ( ie UBCM or Federal Government) has challenged that interpretation. If it is challenged, and the City is found to have used the dollars inappropriately, what then? In the past, the dollars have been used for trails, energy reduction, etc. As far as I can tell, no other community ( at least not in B.C. ) has used the gas tax funds for road repairs.

Elaine Macdonald

Palopu you may be on to something. It is either wrong for previous council’s to say the money could only be used environmental projects like the community energy system OR it is wrong now for them to say it can be used to pave roads.

If you look at the contract between the province and the federal government you will see there are strings attached in BC that require the gas tax money to be used specifically to improve the environment. Improvements to the air or water or for projects that reduce greenhouse gases. That requirement hasn’t changed.

Check out section 2.3 of the current agreement. http://www.ubcm.ca/assets/Funding~Programs/GasTax/Resources/Gas%20Tax%20Agreement.pdf

The legal requirement that the gas tax be used only for projects that improve the environment hasn’t change. So how does PG get away with using it for paving roads? Maybe black is the new green. LOL

SCHEDULE A-Eligible Project Categories and Sub-Categories by Community Tier.

Under Public Transit, Sub-Categories. Rehabilitation of roads and bridges that enhance sustainability outcomes.

In a letter from Chuck Strahl Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, dated Nov. 24 2010 to Mr. Harry Nyce, President, UBCM, and The Hon Ben Stewart, Minister of Community Services, Miniser Strahl supported some proposed changes to the BC Gas Tax Agreement, one of which was to remove the reference to roads, from the Public Transit Category, to a stand alone Category, ie; Local Roads, Bridges and Tunnels, with the following project examples.

1. Local roads, bridges and tunnels that enhance sustainability outcomes.
2. Rehabilitation of roads, bridges and tunnels than enhance sustainability outcomes, and
3.Implement innovative technologies that support environmental sustainability.

So its pretty obvious that the intent of the Gas Tax was to include road rehab, and it was certainly obvious in 2010 after the clarification amendments.

So the question is, what part of this whole process did the City of Prince George not understand. Who looks after the file, and who made the interpretation that the money could not be used for roads.

What information did the City receive this year that would indicate that they could now use Gas Tax Money for road rehab?? Where did the information come from?? How was it any different than the amendments of 2010.??

Here is an example from Dieppe NB.

**Bustling with commercial activity, Dieppe’s roads handle significant traffic. Paul Street is one of the City’s busiest streets with up to 30,000 vehicles travelling the route daily. To keep people and goods moving efficiently, the City initiated a major road rehabilitation project in 2010.

Thanks to financial support from the Federal Governments Gas Tax Fund, work to widen the street to six lanes between Route 15 and Sunset Street and add dedicated turning lanes is now complete.

Rehabilitating this road has greatly improved traffic circulation, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Example from Nigadoo NB.

Due to years of wear and tear, many of the village’s roads were in bad shape and required resurfacing. Thanks to support from the Fed Gov Gas Tax Fund, Nigadoo motorists are enjoying better conditions on several roads. The roads have been repaired and newly surfaced with asphalt.

The more sustainable road has improved driving conditions and will help reduce maintenance costs for both the village and motorists.

So there is a few examples where the Gas Tax was used from road rehab and paving, as far back as 2010.

Did we use our tax gas money for other projects other than roads, by choice, or were we unable to understand the intent of the program.

Indications from UBCM suggest that the money was always available for roads subject to sustainability outcomes.

The amendments to the Gas Tax Fund in 2010 were forwarded by the UBCM to all Cities in BC.

Did the City take any action, or question these amendments in 2010?? It doesn’t appear so.

2010/11 was when our roads were the worst, and when the Community Energy System project was being pushed.

Palopu you raise some important questions that deserve some answers but I don’t think the comparison with other provinces works though as it seems each province signed a separate deal and there are requirements in BC that aren’t the same as elsewhere.

The Schedule A amendment that you note broadened the type of projects that could qualify but it didn’t change the basic requirement that no matter what the project, it has to improve our water or air or reduce greenhouse gases.

So some answers from city hall or our local MP’s is definitely needed. What gives?

thanks for posting the link to the contract palopu. I found this piece under the Interpretations section in the agreement that is rather interesting

Precedence
“In the event of a conflict, the part
of this Agreement that precedes the
signatures of the Parties will take precedence over the Schedules.”

So that means even if the federal minister agreed to a change to Schedule A it doesn’t supersede the part that requires the money to be spent on projects that improve the environment. Hum is there a lawyer online or maybe one on council?

Seriously $590,000 to tear down a couple old buildings?? That has got to be hard to justify.

Was this cost incorporated in the price paid for the site???

$2.2 million for fleet vehicles…wow, does every city employee get a company car or what??

The UBCM is required to.

a)prepare and deliver to the Governments of Canada and BC no later than September 30 of each calendar year, in respect of the prior calendar year, an Annual Expenditure Report, and.

b)prepare, publish and disseminate to the public, by no later than Marc 31, 2014, an Outcomes Report.

One would think from the foregoing that we should be able to determine what the various Cities spent their gas tax money on, and whether or not some went to road rehab.

Its rather interesting that the City decided to run with the idea that they could use this money for roads, in the year 2014, especially when we are going into an election, and of course trying to spruce up for the Winter Games.

My guess is that they could have at the very least used this money from 2010 forward for roads, but chose to spend it on the Community Energy System, and increase our road levy to cover paving, etc;

The argument that there are some who believe that this money could be used for road rehab, and that the City decided to run with this interpretation is pretty weak.

Perhaps we could find out who (some) are, and what if any ramifications the City feels they will face, if their interpretation is incorrect.

My understanding is that the proposals are put forward by the City, rubber stamped by the UBCM, and forwarded to the Feds. No one is overly concerned about how the money is spent, and by fixing roads, expediting traffic, you would in fact be reducing green house gases, just by people getting to work faster every day.

Palopu I agree with one part of your comment and disagree with the other. Yes I think you are right in saying no one is overly concerned about how the money is spent. Some would call that a lack of accountability, something government is famous for.

What anybody who even has a remote understanding of greenhouse gas emissions knows, is that paving a road does not reduce emissions. In fact it is laughable to even suggest that there is an environmental benefit from making rough pavement smooth again.

If anything the exact opposite could be argued. Smoother pavement results in higher speeds which results in greater fuel consumption and thus an increase in greenhouse gases.

So money is being used for something other than what it is legally meant for. Of course it is only a contract between two levels of government so who really would expect them to live up to what in most circles would be a legal obligation. That would be far too ethical.

Any road project that reduces traffic jams or allows for more fluid movement of traffic would lessen greenhouse gasses.

Synchronizing lights here in PG 7am to 7pm would save buckets of greenhouse gasses and improve air quality. Adding a few turn lanes where one does not have to double back with a vehicle is another area you could keep the ghg’s in the tank. Pedestrian bridge over 15th Ave so they don’t have to hold up traffic.

Pretty much any new pavement over a road with potholes allows for consistent gas pedal usage and results in better fuel usage which in return results in better tail pipe emissions which in turn results in better air quality in the bowl

Or does this mean we can pay for Canfor’s scrubbers on the top of their pipes?