1523 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

Fortin on CBC1 talking about the funding issues raised by UBCM.

-800 jobs important
-until UBCM brought it up he's unaware of grant uncertainty issues
-still hopeful, still waiting
-bridge "fundamentally" shovel-worthy
-seismic issues critical
-no funding forthcoming? We'll cross that bridge if we get there
-huge operating costs with current bridge, this should be factored in when contemplating cost savings for retaining old bridge
-full $63 million impact to local taxpayers if funding doesn't come? Fortin doesn't know; implies cuts rather than tax increases

[mat]

Fortin on CBC1 talking about the funding issues raised by UBCM.

-800 jobs important
-until UBCM brought it up he's unaware of grant uncertainty issues
-still hopeful, still waiting
-bridge "fundamentally" shovel-worthy
-seismic issues critical
-no funding forthcoming? We'll cross that bridge if we get there
-huge operating costs with current bridge, this should be factored in when contemplating cost savings for retaining old bridge
-full $63 million impact to local taxpayers if funding doesn't come? Fortin doesn't know; implies cuts rather than tax increases

Really? So some questions...

-800 jobs: how many will be local?
- UBCM the 'only' notice of grant problems? If that quote is true it is really disingenuous. Councillor Geoff Young and Chris Coleman have brought this up in council weeks ago. Letters to council have noted potential funding problems, along with the media. All weeks ago.
- 'shovel-worthy'? Big difference between that and Shovel-Ready. Without engineering plans, or even a chosen DESIGN, this project is far from meeting the shovel ready requirements under the stimulus funding protocol.
-Full tax implications! Exactly - with, or without, the funds, Victoria taxpayers need to know the precise tax implications to make an informed decision.

[Bob Fugger]

Wow, I'm glad that we have a Mayor that has his ear to the ground. My neighbour's deaf mentally-challenged dog had already figured out the "uncertainty" of these funds, without the UBCM prez having to draw a picture.

I'm also super stoked that our Mayor hasn't given any thought to what the implications to taxpayers might be, should the infrastructure funding not come in. If he doesn't consider it, it won't happen, right? That's what I call positivity!!

[Holden West]

Really? So some questions...

- 'shovel-worthy'? Big difference between that and Shovel-Ready. Without engineering plans, or even a chosen DESIGN, this project is far from meeting the shovel ready requirements under the stimulus funding protocol.

I gathered what he meant is, worthy as in a bridge is one of the main things you think of when it comes to infrastructure. As opposed to a sports facility or some such thing.

[Bob Fugger]

I gathered what he meant is, worthy as in a bridge is one of the main things you think of when it comes to infrastructure. As opposed to a sports facility or some such thing.

I'd argue that in our particular case, replacing the Crystal Pool is more shovel-worthy than replacing the JSB. Alternatively, I would argue that refurbishing the bridge is more shovel worthy than replacing either the JSB or the CP.

[Holden West]

Les Leyne column, Times Colonist:

The lure of matching grants has always been irresistible for local governments, since it means spending 33 cents and getting $1 worth of value.

The most obvious example in Victoria is the replacement for the Blue Bridge -- a $63-million project that would only cost the city $21 million, if everything works out.

...

[Mike K.]

This article was published by Victoria News in February of 2008. Victoria councillor Sonya Chandler was concerned about Langford's decision to borrow funds to build the Spencer Road interchange:

“There is some risk of precedent setting and at what point does a local service justify major borrowing and under what conditions?,” Chandler said Friday. “And if it goes through, does it actually encourage municipalities or local councils to use this as a means to circumventing the counter-petition or referendum process?”

Victoria seeks answers on Spencer Rd. interchange
By Keith Vass - Victoria News - February 13, 2008

Victoria city councillors have asked for a legal opinion on the process Langford used to secure a $25-million loan to build the Spencer Road interchange.

The move came at the request of Coun. Sonya Chandler. She asked council to write to B.C.’s Inspector of Municipalities to ask if Langford council’s decision to designate the intersection site a local service area and assign the cost to the developers of the Bear Mountain condo, golf club and resort complex, is following the letter of the law.

Langford will borrow the money from the province and will be paid back over 10 years by a group of stakeholders, including Bear Mountain Master Partnership (LGB9), Totangi Forestry, Goldstream Heights, Clara Kramer and Bear Mountain Parkway Estates.

Langford is waiting for the Inspector of Municipalities’ approval of the loan before giving final reading to the borrowing bylaw.

But opponents of the project argue the local service area designation is being used to bypass a petition and referendum process that would be required if the interchange were built as a municipal capital project.

“There is some risk of precedent setting and at what point does a local service justify major borrowing and under what conditions?,” Chandler said Friday. “And if it goes through, does it actually encourage municipalities or local councils to use this as a means to circumventing the counter-petition or referendum process?”

Other councillors seized on Chandler’s request to voice their own concerns about the interchange.

“There has been ample work done on transportation forecasting that indicate pretty clearly simply building more highways is not going to solve the problem,” said Coun. Geoff Young.

“We could draw that to the attention of the minister and simply say we wrote to you and you didn’t do it, so we’re going to give you our opinion anyway that we don’t think that building new interchanges is the best long-term solution to transportation issues here.”

Coun. Pamela Madoff said it would help to understand more about the use of local service area designations. If a problem with the Langford process is discovered, it could then be taken for provincial mediation.

After city manager Penny Ballantyne suggested contacting Langford’s staff to glean their legal understanding of the law around local service area designations would be an appropriate first step, council agreed to hold of on writing the Inspector of Municipalities.

Instead, Ballantyne will discuss the designation process with Langford. Victoria will also get a report from its own legal counsel.

Mayor Alan Lowe excused himself from the discussion. He’s already declared he would be in a conflict of interest if he participated in any decisions related to Bear Mountain because he has done architectural work on the project.

kvass@vicnews.com

LINK: unfortunately there is no link tied to this article. It was originally posted on VV here.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^thanks for posting this, Mike.

Words fail...

[martini]

^^Nice find Mike!

[Jacques Cadé]

Someone recently pointed out this op-ed to me -- Columbia River Crossing: a bridge we don't need and can't afford -- written by an economist for The Oregonian newspaper, about a proposed megaproject near Portland.

The bridge it discusses is far bigger than a new JSB, but the writer's financial analysis is so relevant to our situation it's scary. Excerpts:

So far, like frenzied homebuyers a few years back, many bridge advocates seem chiefly concerned with superficial questions, such as whether the bridge will be pretty. Before we sign on the dotted line, we ought to be asking the kind of questions that will keep us from repeating the worst mistakes of those caught up in the housing bubble ....

If we've learned any hard lessons from the past year about borrowing money, now is the time to put that learning to work. We need to demand a financial plan for the CRC that spells out who pays, and how much. We need independent accurate estimates -- based on a world of $3 or $4 per gallon gas, global warming, and declining vehicle travel --and of how much traffic will use the bridge, especially with a toll of as much as $5.

And we should really ask whether, if we really have $4 billion to spend on the region's transportation infrastructure, we ought to spend so much of it in one place, to facilitate more peak-hour commuting and suburban sprawl.

The current I-5 bridges are like a homely 1920s bungalow: Timeworn and out of fashion, yes, but sturdy and paid for. Rather than take out a huge mortgage to tear them down to build a glitzy new McMansion of a bridge, we ought to look at fixing them up at a fraction of the price.

The work of the project's consultants is too reminiscent of the glossy real estate brochure providing only the most cursory examination of these risks, making implausibly optimistic assumptions, and doing nothing to quantify the consequences of error. The region's elected officials and citizens should insist on real due diligence on these risks -- preferably from parties completely independent of the project -- before mortgaging our region's future for a bridge we don't need and can't afford.

[Ms. B. Havin]

... Columbia River Crossing: a bridge we don't need and can't afford -- written by an economist for The Oregonian newspaper...

(...) Excerpts:

So far, like frenzied homebuyers a few years back, many bridge advocates seem chiefly concerned with superficial questions, such as whether the bridge will be pretty. Before we sign on the dotted line, we ought to be asking the kind of questions that will keep us from repeating the worst mistakes of those caught up in the housing bubble ....

(...)

The work of the project's consultants is too reminiscent of the glossy real estate brochure providing only the most cursory examination of these risks, making implausibly optimistic assumptions, and doing nothing to quantify the consequences of error. ...

Does this mean we can start talking about Victoria's "Bridge Bubble"?

[Bob Fugger]

Give this scuttlebutt the value you paid for it, but I have it on fairly good authority from some well-placed moles that we can expect a funding announcement by the end of the week. Hopefully we will hear before the selection sham meeting on Thursday.

[R0ark]

Give this scuttlebutt the value you paid for it, but I have it on fairly good authority from some well-placed moles that we can expect a funding announcement by the end of the week. Hopefully we will hear before the selection sham meeting on Thursday.

It would certainly be appreciated by everyone if someone could say for sure, one way or the other, whether or not the government money is coming.

Although, even if they do get it, there is no way in hell they will finish the bridge by March 2011.

[Caramia]

It would certainly be appreciated by everyone if someone could say for sure, one way or the other, whether or not the government money is coming.

Lordy please!!!

If only so I can finally invest my split personality into either focusing on the new rolling bascule or hoping for a second look at repair options. Some one asked if given that I was hoping to see the old bridge repaired, I felt in conflict of interest sitting on the CAC. Conflict of interest? No. Conflicted? Hell yeah.

Dear mister government, please announce the funding so I can decide which brain to wear outside today.

[VicHockeyFan]

So there is no final reading of the borrowing bylaw on today's agenda. I don't suppose they'd add it as a "late item".

So..... are we not looking at now 60 days until they can be "in the water" (30 days for counter-petition, 30 days for legal appeals). So we are looking the end of November at best now.

Anyone else concur?

[Bernard]

What no one is talking about is how things will be handled if there is a cost overrun. There is no budget for this project yet, only a very early ballpark estimate of the probable cost of the project. The odds are very, very high that the bridge will cost more than $63 000 000.

What happens if it costs $75 000 000 - a very realistic final cost? Where does the extra $12 000 000 come from? Will the city stop the project and cancel it if part way along it looks like it will go over the $63 000 000 the city wants to borrow? Would they be willing to do as Langford and simply stop building?

I want 100% certainty of the costs of the bridge before anything is started. In a bad case scenario, though not unrealistic, the bridge could cost over $90 000 000. The city is setting itself up for a huge potential cost liability and I see nothing that indicates any actions are being taken to ensure there is any cost control. Fast timelines tend to mean things cost more because deadlines have to be met no matter the costs.

[VicHockeyFan]

What no one is talking about is how things will be handled if there is a cost overrun. There is no budget for this project yet, only a very early ballpark estimate of the probable cost of the project. The odds are very, very high that the bridge will cost more than $63 000 000.

What happens if it costs $75 000 000 - a very realistic final cost?

Can't the City just propose another borrowing bylaw for more?

[Bernard]

Can't the City just propose another borrowing bylaw for more?

They could do that, but why not borrow the upper end of the current estimate, $75 000 000, right away? We will see another borrowing bylaw for this bridge if the city goes ahead with the project. This second borrowing will be 100% on the city no matter what happens with federal and provincial funding.

The federal money is supposed to be for projects that are shovel ready. Part of that means projects with actual budgets and not early estimates.

I would like an answer from the city, how expensive is too expensive, what is the bottom line where they will not go forward or stop the project if the costs rise too much? Or are we going to pay whatever the cost once the project starts? In really bad scenario, a 100% estimate overrun is not unreasonable. A small percentage publicly funded of transportation projects go over by 100% or more. A final bill of $125 000 000 has about a one in 20 chance of occurring.

[Holden West]

I'm so glad we're having this discussion here in the year 2005 so we're not rushed when the opportunity comes to replace the bridge in a few years.

What, we're not?! AAAAHH!

The federal money is supposed to be for projects that are shovel ready. Part of that means projects with actual budgets and not early estimates.

If the JSB project is "shovel ready" I'd be interested to learn about projects that aren't ready to be called shovel-ready.

[VicHockeyFan]

All I know is, last time I saw Rob Randall wielding a shovel and hard-hat, they did indeed dig a big hole, you can go see it any time, it looks like it'll be there for a while...