OUCH! Another grab from the city. My roof runoff is contained and managed on my property and I will probably still have to pay. We are going to be taxed so the city can build their precious dike on River Road to protect homes and business on a flood plain.we are all going to pay for poor civic planning. Look at Calgary after the flood, homes destroyed there are not going to be rebuilt on the flood plain.

Oh those poor nonprofits…One looks at the massive asphalt parking lots at some of these wealthy churches and why shouldn’t they be treated equally with everyone else? And, they aren’t hobbled with paying income tax (scams galore) let alone their full share of city taxes.

Not a fair tax. Each property is different in the sense as to how much water runs off the site. Too many variables to even make it close to being fair. The City would be better off just raising the tax of another utility heaven for bid.

I have water from a multi acre city park running over my property. There are several in CH that are like that too.

I could make a fortune charging the City ….

I would like the city to prove that the rain running off my roof gets into the storm sewer. The down pipe from the back definitely won’t as it is 60 feet from the street and drains onto the lawn and the one in the front drains onto the lawn too! I can wash my car on the driveway and non of the water goes down the street so prove it city hall!

“Your driveway is impervious as is the roof on your home.”

Those who do not have pavement but have something like gravel instead, and there are plenty of them, do not have impervious driveways.

“The lawn or garden are not, meaning they absorb run off.” They do not absorb runoff when the ground is frozen and there is a spring rain.

“So, the larger your home, the more run off there will be.”

Not if the roof has eavestroughs and rain water leaders leading to flower beds and lawn, except when the ground is frozen. The same will be if there are none of this and the water simply flows off the roof onto the pervious ground.

Most houses are set back about 15 feet from property line.

The 15 or so feet of city property on the edge of the street pavement stores huge amounts of snow built up from plowing. Most of that also does not run onto the street but get absorbed into the soil below since the ground is not all that much frozen because it is protected by the snow accumulation above.

The entire thing is totally stupid and nitpicking if one were to really follow it through.

“Your driveway is impervious as is the roof on your home.”

Those who do not have pavement but have something like gravel instead, and there are plenty of them, do not have impervious driveways.

“The lawn or garden are not, meaning they absorb run off.” They do not absorb runoff when the ground is frozen and there is a spring rain.

“So, the larger your home, the more run off there will be.”

Not if the roof has eavestroughs and rain water leaders leading to flower beds and lawn, except when the ground is frozen. The same will be if there are none of this and the water simply flows off the roof onto the pervious ground.

Most houses are set back about 15 feet from property line.

The 15 or so feet of city property on the edge of the street pavement stores huge amounts of snow built up from plowing. Most of that also does not run onto the street but get absorbed into the soil below since the ground is not all that much frozen because it is protected by the snow accumulation above.

The entire thing is totally stupid and nitpicking if one were to really follow it through.

I’m disgusted with the goings on at city hall. Its a blatant tax grab. If the city has not been budgeting for upkeep of works then they are not competent.

Its time for a full scale business review of the organization at city hall and fixing what is wrong…..They need to start running this show within its means and figuring out where the City is bleeding cash

Just charge the Down Town Businesses for it all. I hear they are rolling in money and don’t have any lawns or gardens. ;)

I think this is Desperation to get the last Penny out of you, if you really have to have a “New Tax” use this old Formula “Frontage”
to Tax all. All this other Stuff “Roof Size, Driveways” paved or not, makes the whole thing to complex. What is next, Tax by Rainfall and Snow Amount.

I say crap, on them, the land was sold to the buyer, on the anticipation of a roofed structure being placed on the property.

If any form of taxation is made, than it should be based on coverage on property. If roof or hard surface exceeds 50% of the land than there should be some tax on it.

This is like a slap in the face to us in our case. We actually do our neighbourhood a service because our property actually takes all the rain water, runoff, etc from the entire neighbourhood and channels it through our property because our property is intersected with a gulley which serves as an outlet for the neighbourhood. The only rain that gets anywhere near any storm sewer is what actually falls on the roadway. If they are going to instill this BS tax then each place should be assessed and those that never use the storm sewer system should be exempt, and to go one step further maybe we should be compensated for saving the wear and tear on the system.

Just did the survey, it is so tied into flood control and not run off. So I agree that they seem to want to build the River Road dike. Only one home, and the owner never complains, was on River Rd before the large 1972 flood all the other homes and companies were built after. As for the park flooding, that is why Cottonwood Island was cleared of homes & business so that it could become a nature park and absorb the annual flood waters.

The last major flood in the area was because the City allowed overflow channels to be filled in, and the dikes put up kept the water from flowing back into the river. The Nechako Rivers has major underground streams that perk up and then flow to the river. By the way the major underground streams were above ground until GTP built their rail yard.

Not mention that question 6 on the survey is stupid. The wording and the location of the question really makes me think that if you are just the average joe who isn’t an engineer and doesn’t fully understand the workings of the storm sewer system that your answers really won’t be taken into account.

Ummmmmmm…… okay everybody… I’m gonna tell you something but PLEASE keep it a secret!

You see… if the city finds out that we all exhale carbon dioxide then we will have to start paying an environmental utility fee.

So please… when you pass by one of our city councillors on the street HOLD YOUR BREATH.

“So please… when you pass by one of our city councillors on the street HOLD YOUR BREATH”

Pinching your nose is a better idea.

At election time, I do my research and choose carefully where my vote goes. I will do the same at the next election with one exception.

Any councilor that votes in favor of this motion will be automatically excluded from my yes vote.

What an insult to the taxpayers!

Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. If you would like additional information, or wish to request a presentation regarding the proposed Storm Water Utility Initiative please contact Gina Layte Liston, Supervisor, Wastewater Collection and Facilities at (250) 614-7824 or glayteliston@city.pg.bc.ca

Firstly I think the 250 survey should allow for the question as to whether or not we support the establishment of a Storm Water Utility. I would suggest that they would get solid NO. The other questions are defeatist in that they imply that the Utility is already a given, and all we can do now is establish a process for collection of the money.

Time for people to wake up and smell the roses.

Have you not noticed that the Storm Water Utility will come into effect at the approx. the same time that we complete paying for the Winter Games?????. So in effect the Utility is a ploy by the City to keep the money we are presently paying and pretend that we no longer pay it. This is a sham, and the City needs to be exposed for what is actually taking place.

I urge people to fill out the survey and if they are opposed to this bloody tax increase, say so on the survey in the comments section.

If you are opposed, then fill out the survey as a first **strike** of a protest that I am sure will come from this ill conceived idea.

In addition you can rest assured that any business’s,apartments, retailers, etc that get hit with this tax will download it on the consumer. So if you think you are going to avoid this tax, you are living in a dream world.

Have a nice day,.

I have a ditch in front of my house. Many years ago the city asked the residents if they wanted storm sewers and curbs along our road as they were replacing the water and sewer lines. Every one said OK. A week before this work was to commence, a couple of busybodies (one a city employee) started a petition to say no because “our taxes would rise”, ergo no storm sewers or curbs. All the naysayers have either died or moved away. But alas, all of us had to settle for “upgraded and enhanced ditches. Everyone got a new culvert pipe. People with ditches get a break on this tax? All the perceived run off winds itself down to Parkridge Creek. There are no storm drains nor ditches in front of the folks on Ridgeview Drive up the Hart. Methinks they “landscaped” their ditches to add class to their neighbourhood. Hope I read something from them in this article.

Palopu: “In addition you can rest assured that any business’s,apartments, retailers, etc that get hit with this tax will download it on the consumer. So if you think you are going to avoid this tax, you are living in a dream world.”

Agreed. I would also go further to say that if we didn’t have this tax, the City would make up the money elsewhere. Either way, you will pay.

One way or another, we need to start maintaining the infrastructure we have (including storm sewers), and that costs money. The status quo is not acceptable anymore.

As harbinger pointed out, not all neighbourhoods have storm drains or storm systems. Why should they have to pay this fee when they don’t have the infrastructure to maintain. There should be exemptions for those who don’t use the infrastructure. Those people who are in city limits but are not hooked up to city water or city sewer do not pay those city utilities.

I just filled in the Cities Storm Sewer Survey.

Question 9. Have you seen any problems with storm water infrastructure in Prince George? Then proceeds to ask if you have seen landslides, flooding on private property due to storm sewers, etc.

This is a question on the Cities survey. But they don’t allow you to answer this with a simple “No- I have not witnessed this problem”. You have the option to answer that you have seen it one or more times, or “I don’t care”

Of course I CARE, but I have NOT seen some of the events they question.

Interesting survey, but not applicable. I’ve filled it out 5 times so far since 8 O’clock.

Pretty good way for the city to get it to swing the way they want it to.

“This has some non-profits crying foul, as they have to claw for every dime they spend.”

Based on the yearly published tax exemption list, we have a LOT of non-profits in this town. The work they do is great, but remember that Jane and Joe taxpayer have to pick up the slack for that large exemption list every year. How long can we sustain this?

JohnnyBelt.

The City has been taxing us for years for storm water. They have been looking after this through general revenue. They now say that this is not sustainable and need a storm water utility.

This is pure BS. If it is true then they need to show us how much was budgeted for storm water in the past 20 years, and where the money was spent, and where they will spend it for the next five years. In detail.

All these single line items, like snow, roads, storm water, etc; allow the City to collect more money, however they still increase the general tax, and continue to spend money on **goofy** projects.

While you are defending their position on the need for infrastructure money, they are squirreling away money in the Capital Projects Fund for what I believe will be a Performing Arts Centre. Approx $15 Million. How many millions did they spend on Boundry Road, $6 Million for water, sewer, roads, lights,bike trails, etc out in the middle of nowhere. How many millions on the upgrade to River Road to the 200 year flood plain level.? How much for a redo on Cranbrook Hill because it was not done right in the first place. How much pissed away on the Community Energy System.;

Don’t try to defend the indefensible. These people at City Hall are out of control, and need to be rained in.

IMO this is a double dipping tax grab… hmm…reading through the comments on this topic, there are not as many sheeple on this blog site, as I thought, all except for one obvious one, bleating loudly and apparently quite often!

“What is next, Tax by Rainfall and Snow Amount.

No tax by how many crappers one has in the house, how many people there are to use those crappers and how often each person uses it on average.

They are working on the questionnaires right now that will determine what each resident will be charged and how much it will cost the taxation enforcement officers to go around checking 3 out of 100 houses at random.

Then they will make it illegal to park at night on the road next to you house unless you have a permit. The permit fee will be $50/month or $500 per year.

I mean, there are hundreds of ways to cause people to give up their cable TV to pay for such silly things in a city that is way too large land wise.

Oh, if you have an antenna (dish) on your house, there will be a license required for that …. $150/year .. an ugliness permit, we will call it.

“These people at City Hall are out of control, and need to be rained in.”

I think they need to be rained on …. and then figure how much of their head, shoulders and portion of back is impervious and lets water run onto the sidewalk and into the storm drains. Users of umbrellas will be charged twice as much. Those who walk to work will be charged even more due to high frequency of use.

Palopu: “This is pure BS. If it is true then they need to show us how much was budgeted for storm water in the past 20 years, and where the money was spent, and where they will spend it for the next five years. In detail. “

My point exactly. Clearly, not enough money has been allocated to maintaining infrastructure. Blame it on poor management, bad decisions, misplaced priorities, whatever you want. The point is that we have to right the ship. I agree that the City needs to be held to account with respect to where the tax dollars are going and the hasn’t been happening.

I THINK THE WHOLE WATER ISSUE IS JUST DUM.
IF THE CITY WOULD LOOK AFER WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RUN THE AS A BUSSNESS INSTEAD OF A SERVISE THEY WOULD NOT BE IN THE BAD BOOKS WITH TAX PAYERS.
ALSO THE CITY EQUIPENT ISSUE.I UNDERSAND THAT THE CITY SOLD ALL OF THE HEAVY AND LIGHT DUTY EQUIPENT OFF AT ACTION FOR NEXT TO NOTHING AND LEASED IT ALL.FROM WHAT I HEAR THE NOW ARE BUYING OUT ALL THE LEASES WHITCH DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENCE AND COST TAX PAYERS MILLION OF DOLLARS

Let’s not forget about the $500,00+ spent on the Civic Centre upgrade. Really, we needed the space in front of the Civic Centre re-done – is this ONLY for it to look good for the winter games (which we don’t need), or is it to also look good for when they sell off the building? (which we should not do). That site is perfectly fine the way it is – put that money into the roads etc. where its needed. Stop wasting our money!!
Pretty soon we’ll need to buy a permit, in order to be eligible to take out an actual permit.

The City just needs to tell us, at a minimum:

1. by how much more they need to fund the system each year to take care of replacement and maintenance cost.

2. why they wish to muddy the waters with a new inequitable charge, which varies based on house size, without actually looking at the facts of how rainwater and lawn watering turn into water that gets absorbed by the surface conditions of the property as opposed to drained onto the street.

The premise of their calculation is likely quite wrong. For the typical PG suburban houses, those with a pitched roof typically shed approximately half the water to the back and the rest towards the front.

The back half will typically drain to the property that has pervious soil and thus does not drain onto the street. For those who have a driveway next to the house without a carport or garage will typically have the front of the house drain onto pervious soil as well a good 15+ feet from the city property part adjacent to the paved road. That make it about 30 feet of potential drainage into pervious soil.

The geniuses at City Hall are struggling for technical knowledge in this and are skimming like crazy.

No sewer or storm drains where I live – only water hook – up and the soil is very sandy;if there is a flood in our area – all of PG will be under!

I am looking out my second storey window and seeing a whole row of houses whose back yard have slopes which drain any excess water that does not get absorbed into ground water into the adjacent City Park.

From there, the City park drains all that water onto 3 to 4 four properties that are lucky enough to have chosen those spots, but find themselves unprotected from the perfect storm that drains that water from the neighbourhood, via a park over our properties and then onto the street.

So what is the perfect storm condition?

A period of several days of freezing and thawing with little snow cover, and a quick warming above freezing with considerable rainfall. The ground cover is frozen snow and ice, and water runs off it like crazy. If it rains enough, it runs off in sheets.

The CMHC approved subdivision plan (the City was the subdivision developer) shows a berm/ditch which intercepts that water and leads it to a 20+ foot walkway right of way onto the street which has a catch basin located at that point.

The berm/ditch was never built and the CMHC inspector likely never showed up or forgot his drawings. The City likely figured they had just gained several thousands of dollars to put toward a PAC.

By now, the cost avoidance may have grown to pay for the City portion of such a development. ;-)

Woodwoman …. that is the next thing. Your property and some of the properties in CH will be much different. Almost the entire bowl is on gravel.

Our house sits on imported gravel in the front and about a 3 foot loam overburden on top of sand/gravel in the back.

Think you were just called out gus…11 posts back

Even when we get heavy rains and certain roads flood they are dry in less than an hour which goes to prove our storm system is working.

We pay an extra tax to pay down our debt, the City tried to use it for the parking system. My question to the council was why is there money in the account if it is to bring down the debt.

We pay an extra tax to have our driveways cleared, but they have forgotten that.

We pay an extra tax for … you get my drift.

I’m thinking it’s definitely cheaper renting than owning a home. The city is bending me over trying to keep up. I guess I will stay in that position and while I’m there, they can kiss my arse.

This is quite possibly the dumbest idea to ever come out of PG City Hall and that’s saying something, LOL.

So what is the next brain fart idea, a turd-o-meter installed in sewer lines…

furtree, they came very close to turd counting when they proposed installing water meters on our houses, good thing they rejected it… can you imagine someone at city hall counting the number of flushes we make per day?

“someone at city hall counting the number of flushes we make per day?”

people#1 is usually so full of it the city could be debt fee in weeks if they moved to a pay per flush model!!

People: “furtree, they came very close to turd counting when they proposed installing water meters on our houses, good thing they rejected it… can you imagine someone at city hall counting the number of flushes we make per day?”

Don’t be so sure. A lot of towns in Canada have water meters, and I wouldn’t take PG off the list yet.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you put a drop into the storm sewers, they still have to be maintained. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand.

On the other hand, if we want to go to a true ‘user pay’ system when it comes to City taxes, bring it on… and be careful what you wish for!

We pay for water here in Ottawa and while one can argue the pros and cons of it, at least the billing relates to something that you actually use! If I fill up my pool, water my lawn or do lots of laundry, I’m going to pay for it.

Saying that someone places a larger burden on the storm sewer system because they have a bigger roof is utterly absurd. What if it rains more on the Hart than in does in Westgate? What if I collect rain water for use in my garden? What if there is a summer drought and there is no rain?

What next, a tax to fund parks based on how often someone admires them when they drive by?

The City will opt for the single charge per house, for local residents, and probably a square foot charge for industry and business. Naturally industry and business, will download their costs to the user/renters/consumers.

By going to the single charge, they do not have to worry about where houses are located, square footage of roofs, or drainage. It would be stupid to use any measure other than a basic charge.

Like most City projects, this Storm Water Utility has been on the books for some time. We are now going through the phase where they pretend that we are being consulted, and that they will listen to our suggestions. Not bloody likely.

This is a money grab pure and simple, and if it is implemented we need to see **proof** that the money is spent where it is supposed to be spent.

On the other hand, we need to get a petition going telling the City to shove this idea.

“The City will opt for the single charge per house”

I think that is the way the thing is going everywhere today ….. hit the little guy ….

I think that is called bullying

I like how they keep saying, “If your are requested to pay”

LMFAO, this city doesn’t request from it’s tax payers it DEMANDS and doesn’t give 2 hoots what the public wants. All they give a crap about is lining their pockets. I think they should all go on strike so we can can their asses and replace them with hard working blue collar people who care about the city more than their own pocket book.

I lived about 10 years in Prince George.
During these 10 years I had to pay for property taxes, water, garbage collection etc. about 30.000 to the City of Prince George.
30.000 $ is quite a bit – and I did not get much back for it. For example, a snow plough showed up only in our road, when they had nothing else to do and they scraped the pavement.
I was lucky and sold my house and moved into the country.
In the last 2 years I had to pay about 1.000 $ in taxes for my house. YRB does a great service with snow ploughing, I feel spoiled now and do not miss Prince George at all.

We all had a chance to vote for someone sensible but we didn’t. Shame on us.

I got a bill in the mail from the city today for $32,211.000 for the proposal to bring city sewer services to our street. My septic system works perfectly fine, but opting out is not an option.

They have a disclaimer that this is only an estimated cost and that actual costs may exceed the estimated cost… property owners are responsible for paying the actual project costs determined upon completion of the project.

Estimated costs are pegged at $2,420,000.000… so I’m sure (tongue in check) the city is negotiating the best deal possible and will strive to keep costs in line even though its 100% property owner funded, and the city shares none of the risks for cost overruns.

No talk of them bringing in a storm water system, so I would hope (lol) that we don’t have to pay the proposed per parcel cost of this storm water tax as well. My property gets all the storm water from up the hill. They even put in a little bit of a curb that they terminated right at my property, so that every big rain fall all the rocks and garbage gets deposited on my lawn. Why should I have to pay this proposed tax when I have a ditch and not a storm sewer and my yard is used as the cities storm water dumping spot?

PG is a rich town tax wise to be a homeowner in, and if your not rich then good luck.

So in five years in this home I will have paid nearly $60,000 in taxes on the house. $9000 property transfer tax penalty for a mistake my lawyer made on the conveyance work at purchase, $32,211 plus any project over estimate costs for the city sewer local area service upgrade, and nearly $16,000 in city property taxes… plus more taxes on the horizon… so I’m tapped out now and will likely move when the time is right for my family….

Oh and the $32,211 cost for the local area service upgrade does not even include the cost to have the house hooked up to the new sewer service. This is just the cost to have it available at the street, but is a mandatory property parcel tax… should I choose at a later date to hook my house up to the system if I had a septic field problem at some point in the future, it will likely cost another $15,000 for that connection as well. The joys of living in PG.

suzir2000 …. $30,000 per year? ….. I guess you mean $3,000/year x 10 years = $30,000.

Did you ever look at your tax bill and notice that at about 2/5ths of that went to SD57, Northern Health, and the regional district?

The reason why one has to pay those prices for services being brought to properties without services is that the property without services is less to buy than property with services. People often forget that.

If your lawyer made a mistake, it is likely that you would have had to pay that money if he had not made a mistake. If it cost you more than if your lawyer had not made a mistake, you should have taxed his account for the difference.

That was the property tax penalty. 3 times what one pays in property taxes. Lawyers always have themselves covered with the fine print that protects them from liability for not doing the proper search or any other type of mistake they make. Bottom line is one is better of to just get a notary if lawyers don’t have to take responsibility for the work they do.

Guys, some people also assume the price they paid for their property is the price they paid… not that they can get a $32,000 tax bill after the fact for a service one doesn’t need. Lesson learned though….

BTW I didn’t find out my house was on septic until a few months after I had bought the house and the neighbor mentioned it. I guess next time one should ask the question specifically for full disclosure and not just assume. I wasn’t happy to find out, and then to get a potential $32,211 bill is just icing on the cake.

Would the city like to tax me for my waste water…what will be next?

“Lawyers always have themselves covered with the fine print that protects them from liability for not doing the proper search or any other type of mistake they make”

Does not matter what they write. The are members of the Law Society. The next time this type of thing happens you call them and tell them you wish to “tax” their account. They will go through the process with you. You will likely end up sitting in their office … you bring a recording device with you, set it on the table and start recording the entire conversation.

You are the client, you are in control, never let a lawyer intimidate you.

“BTW I didn’t find out my house was on septic until a few months after I had bought the house and the neighbor mentioned it”

That is your fault. If you bought the place through a realtor, they would have all that information.

Taxing a Lawyer’s Account

http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/cms_ca_ph_yates_buslawBC_8/76/19492/4990151.cw/content/index.html