I think the city should reduce their spending also. They keep on spending money on futile things, like the airline that was a waste on money, the lot for the PAC, a whole raft of spending on what we do not need right now. In the furture their might be a need for it but not in these times. Instead put the money into keeping P.G. working, so we can atleast have a decent life for our families. Hire more workers to fix the potholes on the roads, to pick up the garbage around the city, make our entrances to the city more attractive to visitors, the bypass ia about the uglyiest I have seen. These are jobs for the citizens of our city. It makes sense to spend our money on these kind of things. Hire the people on welfare and the ones who are on E.I. all the time. These people are not motivated to work because they do not have to. The people collecting walfare have cars that cost more than our house and they get away with it, put them to work. There was an article in the Citizen a little while ago where a contractor for snow removal from Dec. 5th justified the $4.million spent. The city pays far too much in wages for the work because the contractors can get away with it. I do realise that equipment and drivers cost but not double because it is durning the night. I know some of the contractors and they sure do live a good life. I do not begrudge them a good life but do not be greedy about it because you can. I do think if they are going to ask for that much money the streets should be cleared a whole lot faster and better than they are now.

No new spending on projects and programs we currently do not have would be a reasonable approach, unless those projects are part of a provincial and federal program to improve infrastructure as a means of easing the financial situation and PG gets the $ to pay for them.

There may be additional cost savings, but I doubt they would add up to allow taxation relief accross the board.

We must remember that the products which the forest industry produce are no longer in demand to the extent they were. On the other hand, the City's infrastructure and services have not had a 20+% reduction in demand. If anything, we have not been satifying the demand in the area of maintenance of the infrastructure we have.

I think when one looks into this request in detail, one would have a difficult time supporting it. Why should we "subsidize" everyone when only a few need that subsidy to survive? It really makes no sense to me.

We need to quit being free market purists in times like these and help those in need of help in order to keep society operating in a reasonable fashion. There is no need to help everyone. There are much better ways to spend any money which can be saved by more frugal operations at the City.

As they say, "to each according to their need".

I'd be very surprised if the city reduced spending at all, even though they should.

They're too used to reaching into the taxpayer's pocket to fund any idea they might come up with or commission some study.

Why is Lakeland Mills crying the blues. Heavy industry only make up 17% of the City budget and the residential share is 53%. I guess they want the residents to pay for flood control that took place last winter.

If I were setting the tax rate those industries that create a lot of polution and bad air quality would either reduce their emmissions and if not jack up their taxes untill they do. Maybe they provide jobs but they provide even more profit to the share holders.

Cheers

When reducing expenditures, it is helpful waht similar cities are doing in BC to give one an idea of iincome as well as areas of greates expenditures. The figures below are for 2007. The first is percentage of expenditures on protection services (fire and police); the second is percetnage of expenditure on expenditures on recreation and culture, the third is the per household income through direct tax and user city service user charges.

pg 26.2% 17.70% $3,248
abbotsford 23.4% 27.1% $3,274
chilliwack 22.8% 14.0% $2,448
nanaimo 17.6% 18.6% $2,692
kelowna 13.4% 18.1% $4,002
kamloops n/a n/a $3,548

The sort is by highest to lowest % expenditure on protection.

Note that

1. three cities have higher "taxes" than PG and two have lower "taxes".

2. PG has the highest protection services spending

3. PG has the second to lowest recreation and culture spending.

In addition to that, PG has the highest long term debt by far of any of the named cities.

One typically looks at the big ticket items first when one needs to cut radically, such as is required to accommodate a 20% property tax cut.

revenue
1. increase user pay
2. sell/lease assets

expenditures
1. protection services

It will be interesting to listen to Council tonight, see if the new ones will be waffling already with the Lakewood suggestion.

Lets keep flogging that dead horse.
Nothing will change, the city and all other levels of gov't will keep doing as they please.
Don't hold your breath waiting for miracles from any level of gov't unless you are a home owner in Tsawwassen for instance.

cannot compare mill rates to other cities,have to compare average property tax paid. Mill rates is per $1000 or so of the assesment value of the property and Prince George assesment values are lower,therefore, mill rates are higher.

To Lifesucks; the City pays a contractor the same rate no matter when they go out. The contrator has to give the City a hourly price for the equipment.

Where there could be a big saving is at CN Centre. The biggest hand out goes to the Cougars, just think how much lower our taxes would be if we weren't supporting the Cougars through our taxes. I think one year our rate went up 17 and 16.5 was for CN Centre.

So Lakeland wants the city to cut spending on our infrastructure, etc, etc, etc by 20% so as to save themselves $100.000.00 in taxes.

In other words Lakeland wants the regular joe taxpayer to have their services cut for the benefit of Lakeland Mills.

Lakeland is a locally owned forest company as part of the Sinclar group that also owns Excel and the Winton Global mill which is now shut down just down the road from their Lakeland mill.

Obviously shutting down Winton Global mills here in PG and Bear Lake last summer hurt them and this city with the 400 direct jobs lost... not including the service jobs like those working in the bush. The fiasco by the city in regards to River Road played a big role in how that all shaped up for Winton Global and I think evaporated any confidence that company has in this city.

I think Winton Global will not reopen in PG especially since we see US housing starts down 72% from its high two years ago. I think they will wait until they buy out their employees next summer and then hire a whole new work force non-union at about 40% less then they now make... and they will probably relocate all their operations out to their Bear Lake property (no taxes out there). That will cost the city another $600,000 in lost revenue.

I think a $100,000 reductions in taxes is something that should be considered when one reflects on what this companies options are, and how they have been one of the longest supporters of this city financially, so maybe they have a bit of an argument to make....

Winton Global would save $11 Million dollars a year just in transportation costs by moving their planner mill from River Road to Bear Lake next to their saw mill, so its not such a far fetched idea... I think it would have a huge impact on their plans for Lakeland if such a thing was to take place. I don't think you can look at both options independent of one another.

"In other words Lakeland wants the regular joe taxpayer to have their services cut for the benefit of Lakeland Mills"

That's sort of my take on it as well and in my opinion, Lakeland can pound sand. Since when does a company have the right to dictate to the City how tax dollars should be raised and/or spent? Perhaps the owners of Lakeland could run for mayor or council next time around if they want to play politics.

So, Lakeland sells lumber to it's customers. This must mean lumber salesmen must make a living finding buyers. And all those people working in the mill to manufacture the product. They must also earn a living, provide for their families and pay taxes. And, just where do they get their wood from? I see trucks hauling logs into town. Hm! They must also earn a living. And, who cut the trees and got them to the trucks? The skidder operators, the buttontoppers, the scalers, the fallers, the timber cruisers who map out the areas to be logged. The weigh scales and employees. Oh, what about all the fuel and fuel suppliers also responsible for contributing to the operation of all these folks. I guess that would also involve a refinery someplace. And all of the employees involved there. And on and on and on.

Guess what! We need every business. It's business that provides products or services that others want or need and are willing to pay for. That is where all the jobs come from. Not government.

Lakeland could just move to Bear Lake and let the whiners and complainers pay more.

Chester, why don't we as citizens of Canada cut any taxes a corporation pays. Corporations could pay no tax at all,federal,provincial,municipal,even stumpage fees all reduced to zero. That would ensure all corporations continue to provide jobs according to your theory. One question Chester, What do we do for the corporations that are still poorly run and cannot make it in this tax free corporate utopia you desire.

Tax Free Utopia? Lakeland paid almost $500,000 in taxes to the city last year. Do you think Lakeland is a poorly run mill?

I don't support financing or bailing out poorly run, lousy companies. I also question subsidies like CBC and Air Canada receive. If they can't make it on their own customers and supporters, why should government (taxpayers) subsidize them?

We all need jobs or everything crumbles. What's your view on nailing corporations with a carbon tax now when the economy is in such challenging times? One more tax may just cause them to shut down and then everyone is screwed. Although there may be less carbon created. Who cares if you can't provide for your family?

They paid $500K because that's what they owed the City as a result of the tax rates that were in place, combined with their property values. Every other business in town goes through the same thing, as does every home owner.

Welcome to the world of taxation where everyone contributes and some contribute more than others based on their income and/or property values in this particular case.

You think people complain about pot holes and snow clearing now? If the City cut spending by 20% the population would drop to 40,000 overnight as a result of all of the people having heart attacks from the frenzy they would work themselves into when they saw an even greater reduction in services than what they currently have. Just imagine even less work on flood control, LOL. Heck, you could probably make a decent argument that the City needs to increase taxes 20% to adequately pay for the services required in this VERY spread out city of only 75,000 people.

Well said NMG.

Chester, you say you don't support bailouts or taxpayer financing of poorly run, lousy run companies.

Or is subsidies, bailouts, taxbreaks, only approved when the company is a well run company. What then decides which business is well run the balance sheet?

Not sure I understand your flip flop.

As for any tax increase whether its a carbon tax or not, I question whether the government who imposed it is well run or not. That being the case, a tax increase should and better be fair to all who are playing in the sandbox.

North Korea abolished taxes in 1974. I think you have a great idea Chester. A true capitalist country. The marketplace dictates.

Looking at the big picture, relief is something which deserves serious consideration.
What they are asking for seems pretty reasonable to me.

100 grand is not an end-all, be-all amount to either the company or the city, but the "support" which is demonstrated by a city to a company makes owners and bankers much more confident in sticking by the company and operating it.
This is very important.

We need these primary resource industries to survive and continue to operate or our economy is going to implode, and ask yourself where the taxes will come from then?
What is a 10,20,30 million dollar annual payroll worth to the city, its tax base etc? What about all other taxes, stumpage and the whole economic contribution which this operation provides?
Do you throw that out the window for a 100 grand in reduced city expenditures?

Why are people missing the main point of the article above?

It states:

"His company is not seeking a $100,000 dollar break on taxes as has been suggested, but rather he has written the City asking the City to reduce its spending by 20% which would result in his company paying $100,000 less in taxes."

Based on that interpretation of the letter, the main point is that Lakeland is proposing that the City not treat them differently fromm anyone else. They need a 20% tax reduction in order to keep their multimillion dollar business afloat. According to this article, they are saying that the City should give that 20% tax break to everyone in the City and cut their operating costs in order to do it.

I have no problem with someone giving industries a subsidy. After all, it is happening all over the western world right now. Whether that should be the feds, the province or the City, well, that is another story, as is what the conditions would be to give that subsidy.

Back to the letter. I have now read it. At the end of the second to last paragraph it says:

"Now we are asking you at City Hall to sharpen your pencils, as we are having to do, and see where you can reduce the City’s budget in ways that have the least impact on services to residents and business alike and that would provide us with temporary relief from property taxes in the order of 20 percent."

I think the reference to "us" in that sentence is to Lakeland, not to the City. But that is just my interpretation.

Based on that interpretation, I would think it is worthwhile to sit down with them ot hear them out as they request in the letter. Of course, if any concession were to be made, the conditions under which they would be made should apply to other large employers who can show need as well.

It seems not so long ago our city council was bending over backwards to give Canfor a tax break to entice them to rebuild North Central Plywood. If the city could find the extra revenue ot cut back services to find the money to offer Canfor an incentive maybe the city dept budgets have a bit to much fat in them.
I would welcome a 20% decrease in taxes. Hats off to Keith for his forward thinking.
What a concept, decrease taxes, not increase them every year.
Just think, the city would not have to submit the usual propaganda to the Citizen newspaper how the citizens of PG are getting such a great deal compared to other cities of similar size.

"Now we are asking you at City Hall to sharpen your pencils, as we are having to do, and see where you can reduce the City’s budget in ways that have the least impact on services to residents and business alike and that would provide us with temporary relief from property taxes in the order of 20 percent."

Thank you Gus for quoting directly from Lakeland's letter to the City!
It totally refutes the claims/interpretations of some of the people commenting on this story. Be reasonable people !!!

Do you folks honestly believe that the City could cut 20% from it's budget and still keep operating up to YOUR standards? People complain enough about the current service levels, what would you do if they were reduced by almost 25%?

Also, where exactly would they cut that 20% from? Does Lakeland have any suggestions? It couldn't be labour costs since those are all bound by legal collective agreements. So what does that leave? Cut funding for RCMP? Fire services? Flood control? Road repair? Cemetery maintenance? Garbage pickup? Bylaw enforcement? The monitoring of drinking water?

It's the type of story that will get a supportive reaction from people, but in all likelihood, these people haven't thought through what the consequences of such a move would be.