Reducing Budget and Crime On Agenda for Committee of the Whole
Monday, October 28, 2013 @ 4:00 AM
Staff are recommending the snow levy be increased because the little more than $5 million collected in the past couple of years hasn’t been enough to pay the snow clearing bills. Staff say the snow clearing fund should be topped up to $6 million dollars.
Then there’s the General Infrastructure Reinvestment fund, which collected about $800 thousand this year, but should be boosted by another $533 thousand.
According to the report to the Committee, those two items alone will eat up 1.79% of the proposed 2.5% increase. That leaves less than ¾ of a percent for increases in General expenditures.
The good news, is the City plans to use $2 million dollars from the Gas tax to beef up the road rehabilitation budget. 250 News reported on Saturday that City Staff have confirmed the money can be used for road rehab projects, and that will see the road rehab budget climb from the approximately $5 million spent this year, to about $7 million, with no additional municipal tax cost.
Also on the agenda for this evening, the Mayor’s Task Force on Crime presents a draft of it’s report on reducing crime and the public’s perception of crime.
Designed on four pillars, the report makes the following recommendations:
1. Prevent and Deter:
Help high risk youth to access the supports they need and facilitate cross-agency resource coordination
Implement a City Watch program, which is a CUPE BC program, that would have CUPE workers alert police to suspicious activities they may witness while on the job
2. Apprehend and Prosecute:
Coordinate City mapping and RCMP crime analysis resources to enable a strategic and integrated response by RCMP, Bylaw and Fire Services.
3. Rehabilitate and reintegrate:
Implement a graffiti reporting and removal program in partnership with an agency, or agencies, providing community service opportunities for offenders.
4. Perception and reality of Crime:
Research perceptions of crime and feelings of safety in Prince George
Identify and prioritise actions to address those most fearful of and/or vulnerable to crime.
The recommendations from the Committee of the Whole will go to Council for final approval.
Comments
How about listening to and taking advice from the public.
two thumbs up tormented!!
Can’t achieve 2.5% increase? How in the world would they do 10% savings in each department? Have they ever been asked?
How can a boost of 2.5% in spending be called an attempt at a budget reduction?
(I just knew that the headline was too good to be true).
The only way to truly cut money in government is through wages (union AND management). There is very little “fat” beyond wages. Good luck cutting Union positions without a massive strike (which may be coming anyways) and like it or not there is a need for some Managers.
With cuts to positions, or either kind, you can expect cuts to services.
If you think you can have your cake and eat it too you’re dead wrong.
How about having the firemen drive around looking for criminals instead of sleeping and get paid to sleep?
Maybe increases are a fact of life. I don’t see any complaining about BC Hydro increasing by 26% in the next few years. ICBC is increasing. If you look at the price of pork and beef it has gone up way more than 2.5%. Are any of you in the grocery store demanding they take a wage cut or get rid of employees. The farmers almost lost it all when beef prices collapsed yet the price in the store stayed the same. Where you screaming at the packing houses that where making recorded profits. The wages in the city match or are lower than most in the private sector. Every person I know that work in the mines or forestry make $20,000 or $30,000 a year more than city workers. Except admin. staff because they are mostly women. Which is wrong but shows what the private sector gets away with. Cutting wages and staff will not solve the problem. We need a council that can manage money properly and put it where it belongs. The RCMP could have worked out of a square building in light industry just as effectively as being in a $40,000,000 building. Of course we all know the winter games is a waste of resources. Stop spending money on frills and stick to the core services. I live in the regional district so I look after my own services. I don’t build a fancy barn for the critters. I make sure the water is running, the septic is working and there is a path pushed thru the snow to get everyone fed.
Hey, there is a criminal!!!!
Well put Bentely.
Here is an idea. Before the city of Williams Lake stopped water fluoridation it was spending about $97,000 a year on fluoridation. This for a city of about one quarter the size of P.G.
It is easy to make a calculation how much P.G. could save every year.
Shutting off the fluoride would be a demonstration of respect for individuals who do not wish to have a chemical added to their tap water in spite of their strong objections. The savings could also be applied to enhanced public education about daily flossing and brushing of teeth and gums.
Thank you.
The resulting dental costs would outstrip the cost to fluoridate.
I think Bentley put it best.
We want improved services for less $. Because of that, it is hard to justify the frills we see (I’m looking at you, RCMP building, Winter Games, and PAC) when the infrastructure is failing. Put the money there. For many years, many councils have been ignoring the infrastructure in favor of “sexier” projects. The time has come to face the shortfalls.
Additional taxes for storm water is a way to pay for the underground pipes that need upgrading. It is a tough decision, that had to be made. Yes, it sucks. Does anyone have a better idea?
“Does anyone have a better idea?”
Yup, pay for storm sewers the way it has always been done – general taxes.
You know, I do not really want to give the City any ideas, but paying for storm sewer services in that fashion is as stupid as paying for roads in that fashion.
So, if we paid for roads in that fashion.
1. the residences which are located adjacent to an arterial road, such as 15th Avenue pay the least road taxes.
2. the residences which are located on a collector road closest to an arterial road, such as First Avenue, pay more taxes than #1 above.
3. the residences on a collector furthest away from an arterial road, such as First Avenue, pay more taxes than #2 the above.
4. The residences on a local residential road, close to a collector, pay more taxes than #3 above
5. The residences on a local residential road, furthest from a collector, pay more taxes than #4 above.
Finally, we add a component of the distance from City Hall. For each of the 5 categories above, we add an increment of distance to City Hall.
========================================
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how much each property should be taxes on a user basis rather than on a property assessment basis.
If anyone thinks that it is not equitable, I would like to hear why assessed value is equitable. Why should those people who have a higher assessed property in the Crescents, for instance, pay more than someone who lives in the Hart in a place assessed at half the value, when that person has a larger property to water, is further from central services, and basically contributes most to the cost of sprawl which is measurable through such services as snow clearing, road building and maintenance, increase in utility networks, etc.?
“I’m looking at you, RCMP building, Winter Games, and PAC”
RCMP is a reality.
Winter Games is a reality.
PAC is a figment of everyone’s imagination.
I predict there will likely be some other “surprises” which will come before the PAC and will cause some controversy amongst the “infrastructure status quo” crowd.
Gus, I agree with your comment that assessed values are not equitable at all. There are really only two times a property has a value. The day it is purchased and the day it is sold.
Taxes should be based on the services we enjoy. (not the assessed value of our homes)
I pay for insurance to protect my home. And taxes for fire protection. But that does not include property replacement in the event of loss.
“The resulting dental costs would outstrip the cost to fluoridate.”
B.C. is 97% fluoridation free! No proven increase in dental costs.
P.G. has already a natural amount of natural fluoride in the water.
People need to educate their children here (like everywhere else) how to practice proper dental hygiene.
From the CBC.
“Calgary children showing more dental problems after fluoride pulled from drinking water.”
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Calgary/ID/2385671775/
No question, the anti-fluoride people have been extremely effective in flooding the public with misinformation which just doesn’t agree with the science. I fully expect the people of PG will fall into the same trap.
Yes, because the onus of responsibility for dental care obviously falls on the municipality…oh wait, no, that would be the feds for the money, the province for the services and the parents for the prevention. Why are we talking about fluoride anyhow?
Just wanted to point out that the rate of inflation in BC is typical about 1.2%, but this is based on a basket of consumer goods. I suspect a basket of municipal goods and services would have a higher inflqtion rate as energy, labour, and construction materials figure more heavily in municipal spending. My rough guess is that a 2% increase would be roughly on par with the rate of inflation for municipalities, so an increase of 2.5% is not an obscene tax hike. Having said that, looks like the city will struggle to achieve that. Since snow clearing will now be a utility, they can conveniently exclude that levy from the tax increase.
curmudgeon: “Yes, because the onus of responsibility for dental care obviously falls on the municipality…oh wait, no, that would be the feds for the money, the province for the services and the parents for the prevention.”
You’ll pay for it one way or the other.
“Why are we talking about fluoride anyhow? “
I guess I have to admit that I am a sucker for PG’s trolling. PG has historically ignored the mountain of scientific data I posted and I suspect he/she will ignore the latest link I posted as well.
Comments for this article are closed.