Holding Tax Hike to Just a 1.5 Percent A No Go
Prince George, B.C. – Councilor Albert Koehler has called on his Council colleagues to support his request that administration’s budget development look at a budget that will not boost the levy by any more than 1.5%.
“It is not about us, it is about the taxpayer” said Councilor Koehler. He said the taxpayer should not be paying for mistakes. This is the second year Councilor Koehler requested this kind of cap on budget development.
He noted that taxpayers are suffering from tax fatigue.
But his Council colleagues believe to put that kind of cap on Administration, would be unfair. His motion would go nowhere.
Councilor Brian Skakun says tax increases could be reduced if services are to be cut . “People tell me ‘I don’t want tax increases, of course not, but I want to see value in the taxes I pay’”. Skakun said the community should be told if the taxes are to be held to 1.5% what services will have to be cut to achieve that goal.
Councilor Dave Wilbur says the biggest problem is the aging infrastructure, “To ignore that elephant in the room would lead to dire consequences in my view.” He says people in the City “expect a certain level of service” and when it comes to setting the level of tax levies it comes with consideration of all the services provided. Wilbur says the clear target should be that a tax not be increased unless there are sound reasons.
“We all are aware that people live on fixed incomes” says Councilor Murry Krause. He says he can’t support the motion because he doesn’t know what is needed first. “If we put 1.5% out there at this time, puts out an expectation that that is what it’s going to be. It really is about what we need to run the city efficiently and effectively.”
Councilor Lyn Hall says he thinks that expectation is “already out there, at 1.5%” but adds when such discussions are held, it puts people into a “box” and it becomes very difficult to get out of that kind of scenario “I think it handcuffs administration.” He says he would like to see what 1.5% looks like, but only as one of several options for Council to consider.
City Manager Beth James says right now, given the rising costs to be faced by the City, the draft budget is looking at an increase of 3% to 4%.
Councilor Lyn Hall made an amendment, calling for the 1.5% scenario be one of several options available.
That motion was approved. Councilor Koehler soon realized that if he failed to support the amendment, then there would be no 1.5% scenario examined as it was clear the original motion would fail "So I am the one boxed in" said Koehler, as he turned to Councilor Hall and said "smart move."
There is a Finance and Audit committee meeting next week at which time staff will present the work that has already been completed on the draft budget.
Comments
How about reducing some of the overhead, as in a rollback of the top administrators’ and managers’ wages or cutting some of those jobs out completely?
Wilbur had no problem supporting a 50 million dollar PAC and sweeping infrastructure to the side. Now with an election looming he seems to have changed course.
The 3% – 4% would be acceptable if that was the all the city was taking from the taxpayer pockets but in light of the rain water tax, utilities increases, the city of PG has just about emptied the well.
Really hard to see how the services from the city could go much further downhill considering the absolute disaster of snow removal last winter, and the perpetual pot hole season endured by the citizens of PG.
Get rid of Beth James. That should free up some revenue.
So glad I no longer live in the city……
So the $350,000 audit did nothing but cost us money.. there has been no reduction in city hall.. one of the mayors promises. We are going to go deeper in debt from these winter games. ( the shell game of cost centers for things for the games but not charged to them is already beginning)
the rain tax.. the constant increase in automated garbage..the increase in taxes and fees, the dropping of the pay early get a break on city utility bill.. the huge jumps the utility bills have had.. the increase of cost of using the dumps and decrease of tranfer stations.. lousier snow removal..the refusal of mayor and council to listen to the voters about not wanting the PAC..
What good has mayor and council done.. anyone know at least one good thing ?
The first three comments are right on the money.
The problem with the City of Prince George is that they waste money, and have little or no concern about taxpayers.
Did anyone notice that less than an hour after the huge downpour to-day that all the water disappeared. Hmmmmmm. Seems like our Storm Water System works just fine.
There is (in my opinion) sufficient funding in our normal budget to cover off any costs for fixing our storm water system. If there is not sufficient money, then we have access to $3 Million per annum in Federal Gas Tax Funding, and we can use some of this money for Storm Water. Why are we not talking about the Federal Money?? Could it be because the City wants another utility tax to generate more funds, and then they can keep the money for storm water in the budget and spend it on something else. You bet.
We don’t need a Storm Water Tax, we do not need any more increases to service charges, and we do not need anymore tax increases.
What we need is a Mayor, and Council who will take the City Administration to task, and ensure that they decrease spending by a minimum of 5% for the next 5 years. Those Managers who cannot come up with these savings should be given the **Golden Handshake** and shown the door.
We can no longer afford the high rollers at City Hall. Its time we got some bang for our buck.
Lets hear what the contenders for Mayor and Council can offer us, other than platitudes, and worn out phrases.
P Val makes some good points, hopefully someone is listening.
Start including the rural areas who use every city amenity, including roads and services, as a higher tax rate. Pineview, Beaverly.. they all come to town every day on our roads, use our services… then retreat to their little tax havens MINUTES from town.
Flat tax them to a more appropriate rate.
Good grief, Lyn Hall is worried about putting hand cuffs on administration and boxing them in by not allowing expenses to go above inflation. Its called learning to work within their budget.
I support Koehler in his original intent. 1.5% should be easily doable considering all the wasteful projects the city goes out on a tangent with each year.
Let them get a mandate from the public if they want to increase beyond the rate of inflation for pet projects. Asking for twice the rate of inflation is an abuse of their fiduciary duty.
I would like to see 2% of the city budget go towards free enterprise support.
Have it allocated between various service areas with no on contractor allowed to get anymore than say 10% of the available pool.
Make it a tool to ensure we have competition in bids by incubating small business start ups that have capabilities the city could benefit from. Set up payment programs that allow them to bid on projects without bonds… things like park maintenance, paving, pot hole repair, painting, garbage clean up and bin dumping, confectionery… just about any service the city could out source.
Most jobs in a modern economy come from a vibrant small business sector. In the last 40-years the amount of new small business start ups has decreased almost every single year, and the financial divide in society has widened. We need to stop that by creating a responsibility for governments of all sizes to ensure a percentage of expenditures goes to ensuring there is opportunity for private enterprise to grow and survive.
If we set that target at 2% of the budget we would be looking at about $3 million a year of guaranteed outsourcing, and if we can have enough participants we could probably save that much over doing it in house through the existing budget.
The key to the whole process would be to involve the public in an open and transparent process in deciding what contracts have priority through the program with stakeholder forums for things like parks and side walks and general maintenance ect ect.
I think that should be the goal and if administration feels boxed in, then I am sure we can hold the line much better through the private sector enabling and supporting the incubation of small business start ups in our city.
We should look at bending over to attract call centres to downtown……oh, wait…
Gotta pay for the army of staff at City Hall somehow. Is anyone surprised?
Oh, and don’t expect much to change in November. Remember the old saying about the definition of insanity.
Posted by: Leroyjenkins on August 18 2014 9:08 PM
Start including the rural areas who use every city amenity, including roads and services, as a higher tax rate. Pineview, Beaverly.. they all come to town every day on our roads, use our services… then retreat to their little tax havens MINUTES from town.
Flat tax them to a more appropriate rate.
————
People living outside of town already pay for PG services whether they use them or not.
P Val: “What good has mayor and council done.. anyone know at least one good thing ?”
That is a difficult question! Give me a few weeks to come up with an answer. Right now I am getting a piercing headache.
Too bad that the councillors, Koehler excluded, do not understand the importance of keeping the tax increases low! It helps our city to grow and prosper.
Keep on pushing Koehler! Good job!
We have to remember the results of the snow removal review. That was totally a result of years of reduced taxes. We must keep up with inflation and cut waste. Doing what is needed far exceeds those things we would like ie:4th Ave construction. That 900,000 could have bought us a couple of more graders for snow removal.
Leroy is exactly right! RD residents pay only a fraction of what they should be paying to the City. If the City had some decent representation on the RD board, perhaps that could change.
Comments for this article are closed.