degrandprix
Active Member
We could have just built a new pedestrian/MUP bridge beside it
I wonder if the costs to restore vs replace were ever posted publicly?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
We could have just built a new pedestrian/MUP bridge beside it
I wonder if the costs to restore vs replace were ever posted publicly?
northlands
Senior Member
Those numbers were probably floated by admin a over a decade ago when they put in the temporary reinforcements back in 2014, but at the time it was noted there was no funding for a rehabilitation. Council-of-the-day decided to trip over a dollar to pick up a dime.We could have just built a new pedestrian/MUP bridge beside it
I wonder if the costs to restore vs replace were ever posted publicly?
kcantor
Senior Member
The problem with maintenance is that it cost money and the money is controlled/cut off based on three/now four year election cycles.
The only way to stop that is to ensure that all capital project budgets include a reasonable reserve fund that is adequate to ensure long term structural and aesthetic stability.
And the only way to ensure that happens is to make sure those funds, if not required, can only be reallocated for the structural and aesthetic stability of other infrastructure and nowhere else.
The only way to stop that is to ensure that all capital project budgets include a reasonable reserve fund that is adequate to ensure long term structural and aesthetic stability.
And the only way to ensure that happens is to make sure those funds, if not required, can only be reallocated for the structural and aesthetic stability of other infrastructure and nowhere else.
TAS
Senior Member
Do you mean something like this?
"In March 2025, Edmonton City Council voted to support the creation of a Dedicated Universal Renewal Fund (DURF) to address the $1.5-billion infrastructure renewal shortfall. The fund will be initially supported by modest annual tax increases from 2025-2029, with funds gradually redirecting to the DURF after the Fleet Reserve Fund (FSR) shortfall is repaid by 2029. The DURF will fund the renewal of city-owned assets not covered by other dedicated funding.
Purpose and funding
Purpose: To create a consistent and predictable funding source for renewing and replacing city-owned assets, which are not covered by other specific funds. This will help prevent service declines due to aging infrastructure.
Funding source: The fund will be initially built up by gradually increasing the tax levy through modest annual tax increases from 2025 to 2029."
Salvador talks more about it here:
kcantor
Senior Member
^
This is for all “city-owned assets, which are not covered by other specific funds.” I’m proposing that all new projects have their own “other specific fund” established as part of their initial capital approval just as those whose initial capital approval includes 1% for public art. This would prevent their falling into the current/ongoing trap of not having maintenance done when it should be done in the first place instead of deteriorating to the point they’re competing with every other piece of deferred maintenance in the city for money.
This is for all “city-owned assets, which are not covered by other specific funds.” I’m proposing that all new projects have their own “other specific fund” established as part of their initial capital approval just as those whose initial capital approval includes 1% for public art. This would prevent their falling into the current/ongoing trap of not having maintenance done when it should be done in the first place instead of deteriorating to the point they’re competing with every other piece of deferred maintenance in the city for money.