Funding Shortfall on Cameron Street Bridge

Monday, March 31, 2008 11:59 PM

Prince George, B.C. – City Staff say there is a funding shortfall for the construction of the Cameron Street Bridge.

The amount short is $184,950

The Mayor wasn't willing to kick in the extra dollars to cover it, nor was Councilor Glen Scott. Councilor Don Zurowski says he isn't one to support "$200 thousand dollar bills, but this one I will." Councillor Debora Munoz supports the expenditure saying it is to "preserve an important piece of our history." The motion passed.

IDL Projects has been given the approval to construct the Cameron Street Bridge and while it submitted the lowest bid, City staff trimmed a little more, reducing the estimated cost for saving a small section of the Bridge, moving it and setting it up at the Forestry and Railway Museum

Here’s how the dollars both in form of income and expenditures shape up so far:

Funding Sources for Design & Construction Budget:

Amount

Debenture (borrowing authority in place) $5,952,000

Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund $2,000,000 (gas tax program Fed/Prov)

City Roads-DCC Reserve $1,548,000

Provincial Cycling Infra Partnership Prgm. $ 200,000 (Anticipated funding)

Total Budget $9,700,000

Expenses/Commitments To Date: Amount

City activities in support of Design $ 10,500

Engineering & Construction Insurance $ 46,500

Consultant Functional & Detailed Design $ 442,260

Construction Tender Cost** $9,054,000

The Construction Supervision/Administration $ 128,690

Allowance for commemorative plaque $ 3,000

Proposed Contingency Allowance $ 200,000

Total Expenditures $9,884,950

Funding Shortfall $184,950

**The $9,054,000 amount represents the tender bid less the GST amount and less the difference between the $312,000 submitted Heritage components (shown in Table 1) and the recommended expenditure of $205,000 for Heritage considerations.

The difference between the approved budget and total expenditures indicates that there is an anticipated budget shortfall of $184,950. It is recommended that $130,000 this shortfall be funded through surpluses from other 2008 capital projects and the remaining $54,950 be funded from capital expenditure reserves brought forward from 2007.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 11:59 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: whitewater on April 1 2008 4:55 AM

Burn the old bridge and lets get at it....move the old bridge?.....sell it on e-bay or Richie bros get someone else move it with thier own money....

Posted by: metalman on April 1 2008 7:30 AM

No doubt! How nice for them, there is no problem here, we will just "trim a little off the cost of moving the old bridge" How very typical of government eh, with a wave of the magic funding wand, the cost to move the old bridge is now less, voila!
If only private industry could operate like that (there would not be any private industry if we operated like a gov't.
And, after all, there is a contingency that "has" to be spent anyways, my gosh.
I like the idea of selling it though, maybe a person of means can buy it for a dollar and move it for us. The museum will not need the whole thing, can I buy 60 or 68 feet for say, $100.00? I need it to cross a creek. Let me know. Thanks.
metalman.

Posted by: robichal on April 1 2008 7:39 AM

OMG!!!!! That bridge is hideous!!!! Who cares that it's been there since the beginning of time...what a gigantic waste of OUR money!!! The more I read on this website, the less I want to live in PG (wehre I was born and raised). We need a new major and a few new city councillors might be in order too. I think I'm I have more common sense than all of them put together. Debra? Come on, I had faith in you as you are the only councillor against the plan to put a bio energy plant down town - but this is also a bad idea. The lowest bid? I guess time will tell, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Foo738 on April 1 2008 8:46 AM

Waste af taxpayer's money.
Keeps heavy truck traffic in bowl area
A ring road would be a more worthwhile project.

Posted by: getajob on April 1 2008 9:34 AM

Move it? Does city hall sit around sniffing whiteout all day? Flaten that old hunk of junk and build a new bridge already...Man how long does it take to get things done in this stupid hick town!
Onw more head shaker for the day. Way to go city of PG.

Posted by: Bridge on April 1 2008 9:43 AM

City Roads-DCC Reserve $1,548,000.

Nice piece of work. Taking the money that is needed for raod repaire and will now be used for another dream project the building of the Cameron Street bridge. The cup is half full.

Cheers

Posted by: Harbinger on April 1 2008 11:20 AM

Blow it up real good! Sell tickets. Maybe. The cup is real dirty. Into the dishwasher this November.

Posted by: craftymom on April 1 2008 12:15 PM

I totally agree that the old bridge is ugly and has been nothing but a money pit for taxpayers. However, I do understand that there are probably some history buffs that think the bridge is this wonderful? piece of Prince George history and we should save it ....perhaps the City could trim a little more off the top by having the local history group pay to save the darn thing!

Posted by: Death to Socialism on April 1 2008 12:25 PM

The crap people consider "heritage" in this town is astounding. The bridge is garbage, trash it.

Posted by: Death to Socialism on April 1 2008 12:29 PM

Just noticed the $3000 "commemorative plaque". What's it "commemorating" & why is it three grand? I know it's not a lot in the big picture but I have to say...WTF?

Posted by: metalman on April 1 2008 12:32 PM

Look, we need a new bridge, the old piers are sound enough to hold a new bridge apparently, so get rid of the old bridge.
Those who want to keep it, raise some money and pay for it or a portion to be dismantled and moved. Hell, it would be cheaper to recreate the bloody bridge, build a facsimile on the museum site. If it was mine I would not save it, if it was going to cost a lot of money to move to where people could look at it and say "so that's the bridge, huh"
metalman.

Posted by: Foo738 on April 1 2008 1:34 PM

Why do we need a new bridge in that location Metalman?

Posted by: Foo738 on April 1 2008 1:38 PM

Why do we need a new bridge in that location Metalman?

Posted by: Big-Wayne on April 1 2008 2:53 PM

Foo738
I do agree with you as to why here and not a ring road that would have removed dangerous goods from out of the bowl area but it's to late to do this now so toast the old bridge. If people had of wanted some or all of it saved they had enough time to raise the money needed to do it. Let's get on with building the new one

Posted by: getajob on April 1 2008 2:57 PM

hmm maybe use the old timbers to carve some totem poles...recycle that old eye sore..do something but scrap that money sucking pit once and for all! Hmmm was'nt there one in the Hoof that was dismantled a few years ago? Get that outfit up here they will remove it for free i bet!

Posted by: acrider54 on April 1 2008 3:28 PM

Posted by: Harbinger on April 1 2008 4:19 PM

Maybe use the old timbers to carve some totem poles? Hmmmm? Only when there is another new casino. I bet.

Posted by: robichal on April 1 2008 7:25 PM

I'm just wondering does anyone from the City (major, councillors etc) read these?? I certainly hope so. I'm glad people are stating that the old cameron str bridge is a piece of crap!! HOLY, is the major blind??? Heritage, to me, means attractive, not just old! Old, ugly & broken = GARBAGE!!! Why not put that $$$ that they want to spend on moving the junk, on say getting rid of weeds and stuff from the meridians in our city...we certainly do NOT live in a prestine town... I wish the city of PG took more pride...Kamloops isn't beautiful, but at least they try!!!

Posted by: Foo738 on April 1 2008 7:44 PM

I don't view the bridge the way others do on this site. I view it as a heritage structure. I think it should be left as is as a foot and cyclist bridge to connect with the trail system.

If that cannot be then I agree we do not need a commemorative plaque or a piece of the bridge. That is the final insult to the heritage of a grand ole gal. We only paid $1 for it and it hasn't cost us much.

We don't need heavy traffic in this area of the City as it adds to the poor air quality of the bowl which is a hot topic right now.

Further downstream to connect with the pulpmills as part of a ring road would make more sense.

Posted by: PGDriver on April 1 2008 7:44 PM

Cancel the China trip and put the money towards the bridge!

Posted by: Runner46 on April 1 2008 10:09 PM

Score so far!!!

Turkeys 19, Humans 1

Posted by: Eagleone on April 2 2008 2:57 AM

IMO its $3.75 million in near fraudulant mis-allocation of revenue from areas that are already sorely underbudgeted due to political priorities of the day.

I don't plan to vote for politicians that need general revenue or rob from other priorities to pay for pet political projects like this one.

I think if a politician supports this plan then they should have brought it full cost to the voting public for a referendum on its questionable need.

I also think the way it was done shows ignorance of the public interest from the day the bridge was frist closed to all traffic. Its a neat slight of hand how the 4% rate thing last year nicely covers the $1.5 million from the city roads reserve.

Posted by: metalman on April 2 2008 10:33 AM

Well Foo, it's like this; we need the additional crossing to help divert SOME of the heavy traffic away from the bypass, fifth avenue, and Carney street. We have existing piers that have been pronounced suitable for a new, larger structure. We never seem to have enough money to build sensible infrastructure, there exists the initiative to get a bridge built ............gee, it seems like a no brainer to me. We can all sit on our duffs complaining as we do, most of us agree that a 'ring road' is the ideal, but at the speed the government works, and with all the election planning and posturing that goes along with that, a sensible traffic solution could be twenty five years away. Why not get the damn bridge built now while we can, and reap the immediate benefits, even if the solution is not the most ideal? You talk about the heavy traffic, well I imagine the industry along River Road is going to be there for some years to come, plus without a ring road, there will always be truck traffic in town. Let's take what we can get.
Save the bridge? for sure. I too have fond memories of that pile of wood, and would like to see it preserved where it sits, but that idea does not make sense for today.
metalman.