Federal Funds for Johnson Street Bridge Repair
Big Blue - Photo by Dennis Robinson
Denise Savoie, Victoria NDP MP, has confirmation from Federal Minister John Baird that the allocated $21 million originally provided for bridge replacement can be used to offset costs for a bridge repair. The news was provided to NDP staff, volunteers and supporters last week, and reported in the Times Colonist on Saturday Feb. 6th. Bill Cleverley’s article notes that the actual correspondence between Denise Savoie and John Baird’s office has not been released.
Victoria MP Denise Savoie says she has confirmation from federal Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Minister John Baird that the bridge repair would be eligible for at least one-third federal funding.
Previously, that level of funding had only been confirmed for the $63-million replacement option.
In a written response to Savoie, Baird says that “if engineering reports suggest this is feasible and if residents support that option in a referendum,” at least one-third federal funding would be available for refurbishment.
Savoie would not release a copy of the correspondence.
The City of Victoria would have to reapply for the Federal grant if repair becomes the choice of council, and the voters through a referendum, however previous statements from some councillors that funding would be in jeopardy if the choice is not to replace the Blue Bridge, are now irrelevant.
In fact, while the grant under the Build Canada program is pegged at $21 million, or 1/3rd of the $63 million estimate for replacement, a new application to repair the Blue Bridge could result in up to 50% Federal funding. Council could also apply to the Provincial Government, and CRD for repair funding – or at least statements in principle.
Council to Meet February 18th – Johnson Street Bridge Options
On January 7th City of Victoria Council met in special session to discuss the counter-petition numbers. The campaign against borrowing $42 million to replace the bridge received 15.4% support from Victoria voters, well over the 10% requirement. A motion, introduced by Councillor Pam Madoff, and eventually supported by all councillors, called for more information on repair options. Council will meet on February 18th – we assume that is during a regular evening Council meeting – to receive a report from city staff.
From Bill Cleverley – Times Colonist. Since then, city staff have been re-examining the options and are set to make a full report to councillors Feb. 18, project spokesman Howard Markson said yesterday.
The report will take a detailed look at the costs of refurbishment versus a new bridge, he said. “Council ultimately is committed to a referendum so they will probably use this report on the basis of deciding when to hold a referendum and what that should be.”
In advance of that expected report to council a number of questions and concerns need to be raised.
Who is considering repair options and costs? It appears the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, formed last summer to consider replacement options, has a new mandate to look at repair. Yet the Terms of Reference have not been updated.
Engineers- – who is offering professional advice? One top issue learned throughout the jsb . ORG campaign is that repairing historical bridges is a specialized field. Frank Nelson and Ed Wortman, who have the experience and expertise, made pointed references to bridge closures, longevity, sustainability, seismic upgrades, costs and historical significance. Over the previous month they have not been consulted by CoV staff, nor, as far as we know, an engineer or firm with equal expertise. Does that mean MMM group – the engineering form hired at $3.2 million to oversee bridge replacement – is the sole source of repair options and costs?
Process, Transparency, Accountability. While the minutes of the January 7th Special Council Meeting are now available, the minutes, agendas – even times – of the Johnson Street Bridge Citizen Advisory Committee have not been posted. The most recent available minutes of the Governance and Priorities Committee are from December 3rd 2009 – has that body discussed the bridge?
In a common reply to letters and emails, Councillor Geoff Young noted -
Our citizens will have high expectations for the process Council uses to listen to them on this issue. I think the Council should use this project as a practical test of the various public engagement methods we are now studying, so that when we do go to referendum the public will be confident that they have had ample opportunity both to be informed about the options available and to present their own views.
and
Expertise in new bridge design may be found in different firms than expertise in refurbishment. However, cost estimates need to be comparable, and so we may want a single quantity surveyor to make sure that in comparing options the same values are used for the various cost elements (labour, overtime, concrete etc.) as well as for cost escalation, interest during construction, contingency allowances and so forth.
It goes without saying that a firm should not be placed in a conflict of interest – that is, a firm that stands to benefit more from one option than the other (e.g. a firm with particular expertise in only new bridge construction, or only refurbishment, or one already selected to carry out work for one of the options) should not be asked to evaluate a “competing” option.
On Monday January 11th johnsonstreetbridge.ORG Directors asked for an open information meeting with Mayor Dean Fortin and City Manager Gail Stephens. The purpose: to discover the process leading to a report to council, who would be consulted on repair options, and how the public would be informed and engaged. To date, there has not been a reply on when, or if, a meeting will be arranged.
Costs. The City has estimated bridge replacement at $63 million (including new approaches). The Delcan bridge assessment report estimated bridge repair, with full seismic upgrades at $23.6 million – which City Staff recently upped to $35 million (without supporting documentation).
Councillor John Luton, a firm advocate of replacement, recently blogged a warning about escalating costs for refurbishment.
We are doing more work on refurbishment options, which should give more pause to those concerned about the costs of any project. While those who are concerned only with preservation, the costs will be largely irrelevant, but for citizens concerned about the costs, the escalating tab for refurbishment will be instructive. Various approaches are being considered, and different changes to the scope of work assessed to address the very real challenges of fixing a bridge that should be retired. Council will be presented with some of those costs soon.
The Delcan estimate for repair, and City estimate for replacement were produced within months of each other in the spring of 2009. If Councillor Luton is correct that estimated costs for refurbishment are escalating, then is it correct to assume replacement costs are equally rising?
I am not surprised Fortin et al are still acting sleazy about the bridge. This city has a knack for electing people who like to operate on the sly to hide their conflicts of interest from the rest of us. When I read about city council that Betty Everett 1960′s song plays through my mind: You’re no good, you’re no good, baby you’re no good.
Victoria NDP Member of Parliament Denise Savoie (a former Victoria City Councillor for the Victoria Civic Electors) has written a maddening letter to the Editor of the Times Colonist today, attempting to clarify who said what with respect to the federal money and how it can be spent on the Johnson Street Bridge.
We reprinted the letter in its entirety at the CCC BLOG as it is historically significant:
http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/denise-savoie-victoria-ndp-mp-on-johnson-street-bridge-i-look-forward-to-the-report-to-council-on-feb-18/
The gist of Denise Savoie’s letter is that she believes that ‘it is my job as Victoria’s MP to ensure a fair share of federal funding for whichever option that Council and citizens ultimately choose, and work to maintain constructive relationships with ministers that allow me to do so.’
However, she then goes on to say that her ‘personal impression is that replacement is a smarter option in long-run social and economic terms,’ but doesn’t explain how she got there.
Nor does she say a thing a about architectural heritage conservation.
She says she looks ‘forward to the report to Council on Feb. 18 so that we are all fully informed about our options,’ which seems to be a tacit admission that we haven’t in fact been fully informed about our options up to now, certainly not by this Victoria City Council run by her NDP fellow traveller, Mayor Dean Fortin.