2011 Provincial Forum Section

With the 2011 provincial election now making headlines I figured it was time to begin this thread.

Please lock!

I reckon that even Sellinger knows his time is up.

Next election we'll elect the Conservatives for their round at the helm.

I do believe that we do that every 10, or so, years.

Today's Free Press says that the City needs $7.4 billion worth of infrastructure repairs.

I can't wait for the NDP to be tossed out. Instead of building crap that we don't need, they should have been spending money on repairing infrastructure.

Unfortunately...that's not how government works.

Government is socialist by design.
"Spread the wealth"...so a little to infrastructure, a little to building maintenance, a little to new construction, etc.

Instead of focusing on the NEED, they insist on letting everyone get a "little piece" to help quell the whiners.

And these mandates are actually in writing, that's the really sad part.
And what makes it worse...each area has their "budget", and if they don't spend it THIS YEAR, they lose it...and it may get shifted to somewhere else the following year (meaning a smaller budget next time).

It's the primary reason all these useless circles and AT programs are being installed...because if the money ISN'T spent in time, the next time the feds offer some "incentive" money, they'll say "well, Manitoba didn't use it last time...so they aren't going to need any".

To be honest...that's completely backwards.
There should be assessments done of what NEEDS to be done, with an estimate of the costs, and the priority for completion.
Those should be presented to the council who controls the money, and they can go through the list based on priority and approve projects. The only time a "lesser" priority project should be getting done, is when there's still some money left in the budget, but it's not enough to cover the project above it...or if there would be a major delay in getting the project done.

"$7.4 billion worth of infrastructure repairs."

dear lord will that number stop changing soon?

AGEsAces wrote:Unfortunately...that's not how government works.

Government is socialist by design.
"Spread the wealth"...so a little to infrastructure, a little to building maintenance, a little to new construction, etc.

Instead of focusing on the NEED, they insist on letting everyone get a "little piece" to help quell the whiners.

And these mandates are actually in writing, that's the really sad part.
And what makes it worse...each area has their "budget", and if they don't spend it THIS YEAR, they lose it...and it may get shifted to somewhere else the following year (meaning a smaller budget next time).

It's the primary reason all these useless circles and AT programs are being installed...because if the money ISN'T spent in time, the next time the feds offer some "incentive" money, they'll say "well, Manitoba didn't use it last time...so they aren't going to need any".

To be honest...that's completely backwards.
There should be assessments done of what NEEDS to be done, with an estimate of the costs, and the priority for completion.
Those should be presented to the council who controls the money, and they can go through the list based on priority and approve projects. The only time a "lesser" priority project should be getting done, is when there's still some money left in the budget, but it's not enough to cover the project above it...or if there would be a major delay in getting the project done.

I call bull on 42.3% of the statements in that statement.

.3?

I get that information from the people who write the contracts.
The ones who actually put the projects together and have to use their budget to pay for it.

AGEsAces wrote:.3?

I get that information from the people who write the contracts.
The ones who actually put the projects together and have to use their budget to pay for it.

Perhaps retired ones....or...you have an imagination.

Provincial departments no longer budget the way you describe them and the AT crap, with its ensueing circle-ffucckkshit is because our Federal Finance Minister set it up this way.

We deal with them daily here at work.

Over and over we hear "we have to use our budget up or we don't get it next year"
and "we'd get more money for this project, but it's been allocated to another project so the money gets spread around".

These are from the Project Managers from government (all levels) projects. Maybe they don't know? Or maybe they are just saying things to give excuses. Either way, it's the information we get at our meetings.

And the AT thing is correct...that's even been in the news.
Instead of the feds coming up and saying "we have $xxx, do some studies and find out where you need it the most"...they said "we have $xxx, put together something and have it completed by xx date or you get nothing (or a percentage)."

So it's forcing them to put together quick and useless components so they can meet their arbitrary deadline, instead of putting together a REAL plan that would probably take an extra year to get processed.

So, there's $20M available for this AT thing right?
Now had they told Winnipeg "here's $20M, put a plan together by "x" date, or provide "3" options by "x" date...and it will be a 5-year project.
Then take that $20M and put it in an interest bearing trust fund for the 5 years...say at 3% (might be low)...that's what? An extra $6M in revenue to help offset price increases, price overruns, etc. once the construction actually starts.

Details aside though...I think we still agree it's run Bassackwards and needs to be fixed.

"And the AT thing is correct...that's even been in the news.
Instead of the feds coming up and saying "we have $xxx, do some studies and find out where you need it the most"...they said "we have $xxx, put together something and have it completed by xx date or you get nothing (or a percentage)"

yeah.. but that dont mean that Next time they have funds Winnipeg would not get some if we never bellied up to the trough this time

Deank wrote:"And the AT thing is correct...that's even been in the news.
Instead of the feds coming up and saying "we have $xxx, do some studies and find out where you need it the most"...they said "we have $xxx, put together something and have it completed by xx date or you get nothing (or a percentage)"

yeah.. but that dont mean that Next time they have funds Winnipeg would not get some if we never bellied up to the trough this time

Ok...that may not apply in this case...but it often does.

I know a daycare that continually shows a deficit in their accounts SPECIFICALLY so they can receive grant money and government funding.

If they didn't show that deficit (ie. the need), they wouldn't "qualify" to receive it.

if they dont need it.. why would they get it?

but they DO need it.
without it...they would not survive.

but they don't always need ALL of it...sometimes they need 1/2 of it.

But if they only need 1/2...the following year they can't apply for an "increase" if they need more without going through a huge process.

I also know they aren't the only organization that has to work this way because of government stupidity.

no they dont need it.

They need to charge more for their service.

apparently they aren't allowed to.

The rates they charge are also mandated by the government.

wrong. The rates they charge. SHOULD THEY WANT TO OFFER SUBSIDIZED SPOTS are mandated by government.


On a related note... the province is giving child care workers free retirement plans now.

Anybody thinks that government does not operate on a "spend it or lose it" mentality is naive. I guarantee you that happens. It also happens in big business.

It does not mean though that if a capital project budgeted for 2010 does not happen that it won't happen in 2011. If it is needed it is needed. But managers HATE risking losing any part of their allocated budget and will do strange and stoooopid things to spend it in the fiscal year it was allocated.

so its time to get rid of the managers is what you are saying.

Deank wrote:so its time to get rid of the managers is what you are saying.

i think it's more likely to just get rid of that "thinking".

MOST managers do not think that way intentionally...it's just how they were taught.

change the teaching practices, and the expectations that the managers must meet...and a new program will develop showing accountability for decisions with reasonable expectations of delivery.

No. Quit penalizing managers by removing budget elements year over year. This requires BETTER quality senior management.

Looks like there are a couple of different funding issues being talked about here. For most government funding what AEGsAces is saying is completely correct. If you get recurring funding for projects either you use it up or you lose it for that year and possibly future years because it's viewed that you don't need it. So if you are planning on using it for a project that becomes delayed into the next fiscal year for some reason, if you can't find another use for it to spend it before the end of this year, you may not get enough money in the next year to finish that project you wanted to work on.

That can be different from project specific funding, which is more often done by approving certain amounts of money being available in certain fiscal years, that disappears at the end of each year unless you can shuffle it around early enough. That's sometimes possible. But if there's a certain government initiative that involves a certain amount of spending over a given time (Building Canada fund for example) it's not the case that you need to use the funding up to be able to get enough in future years for future projects. In a case like this, if you don't use the money up, it just disappears. So you either use it within the timeframe to do what you can, or you just don't use it and it goes away until maybe the next time the Feds decide to throw around billions in infrastructure funding. If they're planning on getting back into the black, that won't be anytime soon. When funding like this pops up it's not too surprising that projects get pushed through just to use up money. Basically if we don't take it someone else will and there's no compensation for deciding that you'd rather not spend it on projects in your area. If you have focused spending (let's say there's priority given to AT plans so putting one forward improves your chances of getting approved), the odds of projects getting pushed through without having been thoroughly reviewed are much higher. Even if you put in projects that your area may feel are higher priority, they may not get approved for funding, while others that sound more like the meet the goals of the program will. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of government projects. We need to keep in mind that the system isn't rational most of the time so a lot of common sense ideas aren't practical within it.