Cities scramble to qualify for infrastructure funding

[khris]

City scrambles to qualify for infrastructure funding
By: Radhika Panjwani

File photos
The City is struggling to meet the federal government's infrastructure funding requirements for the May 1 deadline. Mayor Hazel McCallion and City officials say the rigid criteria laid down by Ottawa is creating a "road block". Meanwhile, Mississauga-Erindale Conservative MP Bob Dechert says the simple form's purpose is to employ people immediately rather than projects that will start two or three years from now.


April 23, 2009 09:20 PM - City of Mississauga officials are scrambling to find suitable projects that meet what they contend are rigid criteria laid down by Ottawa to qualify for infrastructure funding.
City officials say there are too many strings attached to the federal government's $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, of which $1.2 billion was given to Queen's Park for distribution among Ontario municipalities.
As a result, many deserving projects, such as the Bus Rapid Transit and renovation of Port Credit Arena, among others, will not qualify for what the City describes as "use-it-or-lose-it" funding.
It's not yet clear how much money will flow into City coffers, but officials estimate at least $45 million could find its way here for projects that do qualify.
At yesterday's meeting of Council, Robert Rossini, the City's director of finance, outlined numerous conditions and constraints placed on the infrastructure funding, including a May 1 deadline to identify shovel-ready projects.
Through the ISF, federal and provincial governments match municipal contributions towards infrastructure projects.
Officials are now rushing to make next Friday's deadline.
“I cannot think of any other roadblocks they can put in our way,†Mayor Hazel McCallion said. “I am sitting here thinking, 'what else could they say that prevents us from moving ahead.' It's appalling. I don't think they want to give us any money. What a joke.â€
Rossini said other conditions include:
• projects that qualify will have to be completed by March 31, 2011 or the money has to be returned
• funds allocated cannot be used for any project that has already been identified in the City's 2009-10 capital budget
• the money cannot be used to buy land or buildings
• construction on approved projects must start within 60 days of receiving funding
City officials say those guidelines have put staff in a difficult position because new transit projects, such as the Light Rail Transit initiative, require detailed design, studies, planning and approvals before the shovel can hit the ground.
Furthermore, the project might take more than two years to complete.
“The Infrastructure Stimulus Fund is a use-it-or-lose-it approach,†said Rossini. “The risk is, if you can't complete a project on time, you lose the grant, or even worse (are) asked to repay whatever the grant payments that were made already and that could leave us holding the bag of 100 per cent of the project.â€
Rossini said red tape is also a problem. The City had planned to submit a proposal for street-lighting projects at 115 locations across Mississauga. But Rossini said he was told Mississauga would have to submit 115 individual applications, as projects cannot be bundled together.
However, Mississauga-Erindale Conservative MP Bob Dechert said the one-page application form is simple and he can't understand why the City thinks otherwise.
“It's one of the simplest forms in the history of government,†he said, then turning his thoughts to the bigger picture. “The purpose of the fund is to employ people immediately, not projects that will start two or three years from now, because people need the jobs now.â€
Dechert added that McCallion recently submitted to him a list of projects including the City Centre revitalization, renovations to Burnhamthorpe Library, park lighting and a bridge over Sawmill Valley, among others.
“So these are some of the projects they've told us about; they just need to put them on the application form and send it in,†he said. “It is simple, simple...â€
City Council will meet next week to finalize its list of projects to be submitted for funding.

rpanjwani@mississauga.net

Source

 

[waterloowarrior]

However, Mississauga-Erindale Conservative MP Bob Dechert said the one-page application form is simple and he can't understand why the City thinks otherwise.
“It's one of the simplest forms in the history of government,†he said, then turning his thoughts to the bigger picture. “The purpose of the fund is to employ people immediately, not projects that will start two or three years from now, because people need the jobs now.â€

Engineering, planning, and architecture aren't considered 'jobs'?

 

[Chuck]

Rossini said other conditions include:
• projects that qualify will have to be completed by March 31, 2011 or the money has to be returned
• funds allocated cannot be used for any project that has already been identified in the City's 2009-10 capital budget
• the money cannot be used to buy land or buildings
• construction on approved projects must start within 60 days of receiving funding

My thoughts:

1) If the goal is to create sustained, well paying jobs, what good is it to fund only projects that will be complete in less than 2 years? Do the upper levels of government honestly believe that in a span of less than 2 years, cities can not only identify new projects, but also carry out the complete planning, design, and Environmental Assessment, tender the project, select a winning bidder, and have the whole thing completed by this deadline?

2) Fair enough.

3) Fair enough.

4) Working in the construction industry myself, I believe that it is next to impossible for a public sector job to be tendered, signed, and the contractor mobilized on site within less than 60 days. 3-4 months is more realistic.

I would absolutely have to agree with the City of Mississauga on this one. The infrastructure stimulus has very unrealistic and restrictive conditions, and those projects that do go ahead are unlikely to create anywhere near the stimulus that the feds are hoping for.

The only types of projects that I could see meeting all of the above criteria are those that would have been done anyway, but that could pushed forward by a year or two with minimal design work. This might include road resurfacing, pot hole repairs, and bridge repairs. All very worthy mind you, but nothing high profile like new subway construction. Maybe that's not the point though.

 

[kEiThZ]

Engineering, planning, and architecture aren't considered 'jobs'?

The construction phase always creates the most employment.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Remember that this government had to be brought to the brink of defeat in order to undertake what can be considered an ideologically untenable stance on stimulus - pundits who read the fine print have long suggested that the conditions are onerous enough that getting the money spent is difficult, if not impossible in many circumstances - which is suggested a desired outcome. Why should anyone be surprised now?

AoD

 

[afransen]

My thoughts:

1) If the goal is to create sustained, well paying jobs, what good is it to fund only projects that will be complete in less than 2 years? Do the upper levels of government honestly believe that in a span of less than 2 years, cities can not only identify new projects, but also carry out the complete planning, design, and Environmental Assessment, tender the project, select a winning bidder, and have the whole thing completed by this deadline?

2) Fair enough.

3) Fair enough.

4) Working in the construction industry myself, I believe that it is next to impossible for a public sector job to be tendered, signed, and the contractor mobilized on site within less than 60 days. 3-4 months is more realistic.

I would absolutely have to agree with the City of Mississauga on this one. The infrastructure stimulus has very unrealistic and restrictive conditions, and those projects that do go ahead are unlikely to create anywhere near the stimulus that the feds are hoping for.

The only types of projects that I could see meeting all of the above criteria are those that would have been done anyway, but that could pushed forward by a year or two with minimal design work. This might include road resurfacing, pot hole repairs, and bridge repairs. All very worthy mind you, but nothing high profile like new subway construction. Maybe that's not the point though.

I work in the private sector. We're currently working on a project that is fairly urgent, and there is no way it could go from concept to commencement of construction in 60 days. The design-build cycle is probably 2 years, and it's a smaller, expedited project. I don't think the guidelines are reasonable.

Of course, all of this fits with the CPC MO. They merely wanted to appear to be shovelling money. As I said at the time, I doubt much of these funds will actually flow.

 

[kettal]

Isn't this exactly the shit Mr Ignatieff's budget amendment was supposed to save us from?

 

[afransen]

As I recall, Iggy's only amendment was to require quarterly updates on progress that would be considered confidence measures. Given the polling, it isn't certain Harper would survive the next one.

 

[kEiThZ]

They are having similiar issues in the some US states and Europe. In the rush to get 'shovel ready' projects going the conditions came in more stringent than could be fulfilled. Keep in mind that even in the US most of the funds have gone towards road construction, re-surfacing, and highway overpass work which would probably have and easier time meeting the rules we have. I think it's quite likely we'll see some easing of the rules in 2-3 months when it looks like there have been few disbursements.

I don't know if the 60 day rule can't be worked around though. Couldn't an organization simply do the design work, buy long lead items, etc. and the apply for a grant for the rest of the project when it knows it can meet that 60 day window to get shovels in the ground? It's not ideal but I am sure there are workarounds.

 

[willyph]

The entire point of this infrastructure money is for "shovel-ready" projects. That means those specific projects on which the engineering and design work have already been completed; projects which are merely waiting on capital approval by Municipal Councils.

I don't know how Mississauga, Toronto, or other large municipalities handle their infrastructure planning, but in the municipality where I work capital projects are identified 10 years in advance and the engineering, design and environmental assessment work (if required) is budgeted and completed 2-3 years in advance of the actual construction phase. Thus, come budget time there is approximately 3 years worth of infrastructure work which has the necessary tender documents prepared and awaiting capital budget approval to move forward.

I find it quite inconceivable that the largest municipalities in this province operate on a year-by-year approach to infrastructure development and renewal. If that's the case, shame on Council and senior staff for such a shallow-sighted approach to infrastructure renewal.

 

[Chuck]

I don't know how Mississauga, Toronto, or other large municipalities handle their infrastructure planning, but in the municipality where I work capital projects are identified 10 years in advance and the engineering, design and environmental assessment work (if required) is budgeted and completed 2-3 years in advance of the actual construction phase. Thus, come budget time there is approximately 3 years worth of infrastructure work which has the necessary tender documents prepared and awaiting capital budget approval to move forward.

I would hazard an experienced guess that in the example above, the engineering and design phase took 2-3 years to be completed from beginning to end, so naturally construction occurs 2-3 years after the design stage first started. It would be quite foolish for your municipality to let the drawings and specs sit and gather dust, then tender the job three years later. Not only might the needs and site conditions have changed enough to render the original design useless, but those who designed the project would likely have moved on and project delivery would become difficult and inefficient.

 

[GraphicMatt]

My suspicion is that the CPC, out of a combination of not wanting to spend stimulus money in the first place and their continual pandering to rural/"small town" populations, pretty well ignored large cities when dreaming up these requirements.

The stimulus money is perfect for building a bridge or repaving a highway in Belleville, Ontario, but not so useful for cities with populations north of half-a-million people in them.

Shouldn't the Federal government at least have consulted with the major municipalities across the country before coming up with these 'rules'? If they were sincerely interested in spending money on infrastructure that will stimulate the economy, that kind of seems like a no-brainer move.

 

[nfitz]

The closest comparable city is Montreal. What did they apply for?

A lot of smaller cities are still expanding, so there's always a backlog of widenings and upgrades to do. In a mature city, things are a bit different. And a lot bigger challenge to co-ordinate all the utilities to dig up their stuff first.

Still there are of course projects listed in the 5-year budget. How many of these can be advanced I don't know ... but where is the extra $600-million coming from? Will the city have to put another surcharge on property taxes?

 

[kEiThZ]

Ottawa managed to find 375 million worth of projects for the feds to invest in (125 million from the feds). I think a fifth of that is directly transit-related. And a lot of the spending on roads is also designed to make things easier for transit. I am sure Toronto could have done likewise if Miller was not so comitted to using stimulus funding as a political opportunity.

 

[nfitz]

Ottawa managed to find 375 million worth of projects for the feds to invest in (125 million from the feds). I think a fifth of that is directly transit-related. And a lot of the spending on roads is also designed to make things easier for transit. I am sure Toronto could have done likewise if Miller was not so comitted to using stimulus funding as a political opportunity.

Ottawa is a city with a mixture or rural and suburbs, and a lot of expansion.

What did Montreal ask for? Vancouver might be comparable, though it's a lot smaller, with all the different cities there.