City must maintain transparency through process

Faced with a deteriorating structure and limited lifespan for the Johnson Street bridge, Victoria council voted in April to replace the bridge with a new model, one that could well take the crossing into the next century.

Due diligence saw the city apply for a federal infrastructure grant to defray the $63 million cost of the new bridge. The city hopes to hear soon whether it will receive that help, but in the meantime, it is considering applying for a loan for the entire amount.

The notion of moving forward without the grant contains an element of risk to the city and by extension, its main revenue source – residential and commercial property owners, who reside all over the Capital Region. As such, it has the potential for an unpleasant surprise to those same taxpayers.

Should the city find itself in the position of having to foot the entire bill for the bridge, the public will have the opportunity to veto any mega-loan via the counter-petition process.

We appreciate the city being prudent and acting now to be ready to meet the narrow window of project completion set out under the federal grant program. The key to the whole situation, however, is that the city maintain a high level of transparency in its financial dealings on the project through this process.

Taxpayers will want to know what the tax implications will be if the city secures government infrastructure funding, as well as if it does not. Keeping the public apprised of the true financial picture will minimize the surprise factor.

The scenario somewhat parallels the region’s sewage treatment plant options in that the public just wants to know what it can expect to pay.

If the city keeps that thought in mind, it is more likely to ensure public support for the project whichever way the financing goes.