We Could Have Saved 500 K In Taxes
Thursday, August 22, 2013 @ 3:45 AM
It may not be significant in the big picture, but your tax increase could have been reduced by 3/4 of 1 percent had the City made two simple moves. One, not proceeded with the Core review. As it was, we spent over and above what other communities did for virtually the same thing.
The second thing the City should not have done, is move to hire a Communications Director. Lets not forget the previous head of that department left, and one other member of the department was let go when, under Mayor Green’s watch, several posts were canned as a cost savings measure.
To hear at least some councillors talk, the core review was a better investment than sliced bread, problem with that of course is that no where do they specifically talk about direct savings. Those savings are always couched in talk like savings in the future, and areas of concern that were not being addressed. The net return from the spending of 350 K in the core review is dismal. No private business would ever invest that kind of change for that kind of a return, but then private business does not have the benefit of simply raising the amount of money they need to operate at the whim of the Council.
The cost of the core review, the new post of Communications Director and that of a personal assistant to the Mayor, and you’re talking nearly 1% more on your tax bill. There’s also the fact there will now be 3 spin doctors working at City Hall, with at least one having the responsibility of writing speeches for the City Manager and the Mayor. Makes one wonder, just what are the responsibilities of the Mayor?
Part of the increase in salary for the Mayor some years ago was predicated on the notion that the Mayor would become the spokesperson for the city, now it appears someone else will be doing the wordsmithing and the Mayor and City Manager just required to lip-sync.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.
Comments
The core review is a one time expense, so the taxes would only be saved in the one year.
The staff position is an annual operating expense, so we could save that money every year going into the future. Thus the saving would be greater than $500K
There is one more one time expense we could still save.
Forget about doing all that fancy stuff to the Civic Plaza. Rename it as we promised we would, and be done with it. Real simple.
I doubt we promised the Canada Games people a greener plaza. Does not make any sense for a winter event.
Someone at City Hall promised themselves a cut up plaza thinking that it would increase the use of the plaza.
I predict that after the initial novelty has worn off, it will simply revert back to its steady state user pattern that it has developed over the past decades.
Maybe city hall will plant palm trees at the new plaza? That would be classic PG planning.
I think if we are going to have a communications director they should hire Dan Rogers. He has that back ground, and then he could head up the games related promotion of the city. I don’t think Sherri would have that kind of class though.
While I agree with you on the new communications director Ben, I actually do find value in the core review. I think it highlighted many opportunities and a lack of will within Administration and on Council. There were some high annual savings potentials on that document and that the people at City Hall are not moving on them because they’re “too complicated or disruptive to implement” disturbs me. I want to see Council do the hard thing and direct Administration to do the hard work of restructuring where possible for the long-term sustainability of this community. I’m sick and tired of hearing people whine about their taxes, but when governance proposes an idea that makes good financial sense (like selling Pine Valley to developers) those same petty little people are all up in arms about “their” activities not being subsidized by taxpayers. Taxpayer dollars should not be competing with legitimate businesses, the time for that has past. Green space within a city is nice and necessary and would have been a part of the project, but there is another concept people need to get used to – DENSIFICATION. In order to save money in the future, more of Prince George’s population will have to move towards the core of the city. More multifamily spaces need to be constructed. This is so much more efficient from a service delivery standpoint; water, sewer, roads, snow removal, transportation.
One of Council’s own stated priorities, in fact it tops the list of priorities, is “Sustainable Fiscal Management.” When one looks at their behaviour though, this doesn’t seem to come across as a guiding principle.
Priority # 2 Organizational excellence. Hmmm not seeing a lot of that either.
Priority # 3 Sustainable infrastructure. I find myself wondering what Councils definition of “sustainable” might be.
The priorities go on, and some are seemingly at odds with some of the others. There is only so much money. We need to be very strategic about how we put those dollars to work or this will turn into another ghost town. 70,000 people and we’re already over $100 million in debt with an apparent aging and crumbling infrastructure. Where are we going?
If they really want to start saving taxpayers some money they need to make some serious cuts to the over bloated municipal work force. That’s where the money is going.
The way I see it. The problem at City Hall is…there are too many people making six figure and plus salaries that are not doing their job or don’t know how to do their job. Council with the exception of a few are like a rubber stamp that says – YES. Very little objective thinking with this bunch. Thanks to Brian for shaking things up once in a while.
Sine Nomine. Have you forgotten that the City only went to sell Pine Valley after the sale of the PG Golf and Curling Club, fell through. They then said that they would have to sell off Pine Valley to offset the projected taxes that they would have made from PGGCC.
The City and some business/organizations, spend a lot of time trying to get their hands on prime property for their own selfish purposes, and basically say to hell with everybody else.
There is nothing to indicate that the City would have made any immediate money on the sale of the Pine Valley property. Perhaps some from land fronting Range Road, but that’s about it for the first 10/15 years. This never was about generating taxes, it was more about selling land to developers/vested interests.
The selling of the Tennis Court land t
The City is too afraid of implementing any core review suggestions. Pine Valley is a great example.
Sine Nomine. Have you forgotten that the City only went to sell Pine Valley after the sale of the PG Golf and Curling Club, fell through. They then said that they would have to sell off Pine Valley to offset the projected taxes that they would have made from PGGCC.
The City and some business/organizations, spend a lot of time trying to get their hands on prime property for their own selfish purposes, and basically say to hell with everybody else.
There is nothing to indicate that the City would have made any immediate money on the sale of the Pine Valley property. Perhaps some from land fronting Range Road, but that’s about it for the first 10/15 years. This never was about generating taxes, it was more about selling land to developers/vested interests.
The selling of the Tennis Court land to Private Developers generated a lot of money for the City. Some of it went to relocate the Tennis Courts to the North End of the PG Golf and Curling Club, and some $800,000.00 will go to renovate the PG Club. How do you explain spending tax dollars to renovate this building??? Especially in light of the fact that the Golf Course sold the driving range property for (rumour has it) some 4/5 million dollars.
Why does the PG course get $147,000.00 per year for a tax exemption, and a free reno, when they have all this money??
Where did the balance of this money go??? Seems to me it went into the Capital Funds Account, and perhaps some of it is now being spent on the Civic Centre Plaza.
The name of the game is follow the money. See what happens to the money when they sell the Studio 2880 property, the Playhouse Theatre property, to name a few.
Get off the backs of those who want to keep some green space in the City, like Pine Valley, and go after those who are really costing us huge dollars.
We could have saved 500,000 in taxes. Don’t bet on it! They would have found some other way to spend this money. I don’t believe that they are afraid to implement whatever they want to implement. If they were actually afraid (of what?) they wouldn’t have been making so many highly unpopular and controversial decisions, some of them contrary what was promised during the last election campaign.
BTW, it has been noticed that no other mayor in the past had a personal assistant or a personal speech writer. Being a mayor in my opinion should include an ability to write one’s own speeches and communicate effectively with the community at large.
Just saying, because it is so obvious.
Sine Nomine: âTaxpayer dollars should not be competing with legitimate businesses, the time for that has pastâ
The reality is that every single part of operating the City can be contracted out. Every single department has a consulting firm that parallels its operation expertise. And each one of those firms has expertise from doing work with many different clients, thus giving them a much vaster experience base than most staff at the City. Just think of the training/orientation dollars that would be saved.
In fact, the largest contract we have is with the RCMP to act as the City Police Force. See how well that works.
When I came to PG, there was no planning department. The work of planning the City was contracted out. The same presentations that are now made by planning were made by a contractor for Councilâs input. The discussions up to that point were between the consulting firm and the City Manager.
The real question is what part of the work of City Administration is cheaper and more effective to do in house than by consultants. What is the real cost of contracting out? Weigh all the pros and cons, then act accordingly.
That should be the City Managerâs role. It should also be a policy of the City Council to review that on an ongoing basis in periods of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years or some such parameter.
“Being a mayor in my opinion should include an ability to write one’s own speeches and communicate effectively with the community at large.”
And who decides that? The voters. Not some department head or City Manager or HR person. There is no screening process to put one’s hat in the ring.
BTW, in the City of Bellingham, the Mayor is an administrative position, not a governance position. The Council has a president who governs with the other Councillors.
The duties of the Mayor are similar to our City Manager. The Mayor has no vote.
However, the Mayor has a veto power with respect to bylaws passed by the Council, but that may be overridden by the vote of a majority of all Council members plus one more vote.
The Mayor is an elected position which is a key difference between the USA and Canada in that many top administrative positions are elected positions.
Just think how it would change the local scene if the City Manager were an elected position. The people running for the position would have to be local. No carpetbaggers. ;-)
Or how about a police commissioner? Elected and local.
BTW, Bellingham, which is larger than PG by about 10,000 has 7 Councillors not 9.
A majority vote is thus 4 of 7 if all are present. To overturn a Mayor’s veto thus requires 5 votes of 6 or 7 present or 4 of 4 or 5 present.
Thus a veto carries a bit of weight to it.
Palopu,
I wasn’t talking about the PGG&CC, why muddy the water with that? I don’t care what excuse some random Councilor “might” have made for selling Pine Valley. The fact of the matter is, that it was a good financial decision. It still is and don’t think it’s off the table either. Apparently, Pine Valley needs substantial upgrades of over a million dollars; I’ll scream blue bloody murder before I let that happen.
Your conjecture about the City not making any money off of the deal for 10 to 15 years is completely absurd. Right off the bat, they would stop operating it at a loss. Net positive effect #1. Anyone who buys it will have to pay up front, those funds flow to the City right away. Net positive effect #2. Developers will start paying property tax immediately, positive effect #3. Business at other privately run clubs will increase; net positive benefit #4. The taxpayers will quit subsidizing a business that competes directly with some large taxpayers; net benefit #5. When the developer starts selling lots, those people will start paying residential property taxes. This just goes on and on and if I knew all the details, I’d do a cost benefit analysis that I’m willing to bet would be an overall net present value in the millions. Just from a policy standpoint alone, it has bad decision written all over it to continue to operate that golf course. WE SHOULD NOT BE USING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUBSIDIZE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE CITY AND HURT PRIVATE INTERESTS. I mean if you think that’s alright and sound municipal policy, then why don’t we just start building bars and cold beer & wine stores with tax dollars and start crowding out those businesses? Give your head a shake.
And Gus…
As per usual, your comments confound and astound. Not sure where you guys get these “ideas.”
You can’t just privatize all of City Halls services, that’s completely asinine. Not to mention impossible. Not to mention not cost effective either. You do know that the majority of the services the City provides are union labour right? I suppose you think the unions would just stand by (taxpayers themselves) and let their City be sold to the lowest bidder. Unless you’re thinking about contracting out management? Now that would be a hoot! Hiring Council or chief operators, that’s a much more interesting idea. Otherwise what you propose is absurd and makes no sense and mistakes the entire model of municipal governance altogether. You’d think with all the time you have on your hands you’d have more time to read and actually inform yourself.
Pine Valley is a course whose glory days have long passed. Not sure why Palopu continues to support the City competing with private business.
SN … you said the city should not compete with private industry.
I said, everything the city does has a parallel in private industry so which ones are your talking about?
So, the question really is, how do we determine which private industry we will compete with and which we will not compete with?
When you look at a variety of cities and how they are run you will find virtually ever sort of model.
I have mentioned the most interesting model with respect to the top level governance.
Portland, Oregon has an elected Council of 6 Commissioners. Each get paid in the mid $100thousand range and head up departments.
Here is the page which shows which department they are responsible for.
http://www.portlandonline.com/?c=25783
So, we got rid of the Council expenses and by rolling it in with an overview group that works at the level of City Manager and the next level down.
We can then go from there.
Actually we can’t until the province allows us to be a bit innovative, at least for this country.
SN: “You’d think with all the time you have on your hands you’d have more time to read and actually inform yourself.”
Ever heard of a conversation? You know, the kind where people put out some feelers and others respond not by shutting them down and calling them by some name, but by furthering the idea a bit more to the limit which one or more persons will go no further.
Challenging the limits of a proposal is always the most interesting one and gets one right to the meat of the debate.
SO, SN, you are stumped by the Union thing. Wow. So union jobs are safe? Not to be gotten rid of. Is that your position?
So let us say we make a policy that the City can contract out to a private company and close the City department which took care of the function. That will then be put out to bid every 5 years or so the private sector. The contract can only be awarded to a private sector union company.
So, we move from public sector union to private sector union.
Hire an administrator and some quality control inspectors who will monitor the work of contracted forces.
Comments for this article are closed.