More Info on Road Rehab Plan

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 05:04 AM

The City of Prince George has issued some extra information on its proposal for a 4% tax levy to raise funding for road repair.

The City says there are three options:

stay with the current system which funds road rehabilitation through borowing funds
introduce a 4% tax levy to fund repairs in 2007 and beyond
phase in a levy increase to provide contributions to a road rehab reserve fund

The City says the 4% levy would provide $2.35 million and based on last years assessments and tax levels, would cost the average home owner ( with an assessed value of $140,000) $55.75. The amount is already inaccurate as assessed values are up and tax levels for 2007 have yet to be set.

According to the City setting up a reserve fund will save the City $1,76 million in the cost of borrowing the amount over 15 years.

The City says it cannot use the gaming revenue ($1.224 million) because those funds go to the Capital Expenditure plan and "is insufficient to fund the road rehabilitation program". The City is also not allowd to use dollars fro the fuel tax revenue because the criteria for the use of those dollars does not include road (and bridge) repairs.

The City is set to hold public consultations on the proposed 4% levy. The first session is set for January 30th at the Civic Centre from 7-9 p.m. the second will be held on the 31st from noon to 1:30, and then a third will be held on February 1st from 7-9 p.m.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 05:04 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: kimbo on January 23 2007 12:06 PM

How about a fourth option and that would be to reduce funding for some of the other pet projects that the Mayor has.

Now lets hear from our experts.

Cheers

Posted by: wrinkledawg on January 23 2007 1:13 PM

I like the fourth option,sounds good but would never happen.

Posted by: Gofaster on January 23 2007 3:55 PM

Well you can be sure it will happen....dig out the calculator...add 4%...then they will sneak in a liitle more by ingcreasing the mill rate....

Posted by: duffer on January 23 2007 4:39 PM

I wonder why the fuel tax revenue cannot be used for roads. We buy the fuel in order to drive on roads. Is it used for vacations? Is it used to keep the art gallery, or the symphony, or the Multiplex going? What is it actually used for? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Chester on January 23 2007 8:17 PM

That's about the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Can't use gaming proceeds? Can't use fuel tax proceeds?

Can't anyone in authority change the rules where urgency requires some intervention?

What a pathetic excuse. I'm discusted with the leaders in this province when they don't have the authority or the desire to redirect funds where they are better utilized. The next election will create a huge void where these so called leaders used to be. Get ready for some major changes. Chester

Posted by: owl on January 24 2007 2:14 AM

A little pile of money here .. another little pile of money there ..... and a few more over there ......

Many, if not all, the piles of money come from the taxpayers in this region ... the gaming funds, the fuel tax, etc.

So, what is really happening is that when we give money, the higher, non-local governments, decide what the money should go towards, not us or our most local level of government.

And that is the key error in the system. That is what the cities in this country are fighting, from the largest metropolitan city to the smaller cities like PG. I bet that few people realize that. I think the city ought to take that information to the people in this community so that we can back the city in its attempt to get control back to where it belongs, the local governments.

Typically these dollars go to new capital projects which we are then stuck with operating.

Of course, the bean counters and legal beagals should be able to figure a way around that .... don't fund capital projects from local property taxes, just operating costs. Should be easy enough as long as there is not an overabundance of funding earmarked for capital projects.

I still suspect that the city is trying to use this as an excuse to increase taxes. I agree we should not borrow money for road maintenance. So, I go along with kimbo's fourth option - look at where one can cut back first.

I believe there was a time, under Bill Kennedy, when everyone's base funding was cut by 10% as a starting point to the budget process and they would have to identify how their department would operate in that fashion and then justify any increases. If that is no longer being done, I think it is time to return to that system.

In the end, we will likely still have to come up with additional money, but at least we would know where it is really going.