Sorry, we are already paying in full for the road repairs. Stop looking to us for more money because you can't balance a budget. That's the lazy way out. Get your sh!t together, we have to balance our budget or we don't eat !

Has there been a change in the information sessions? Earlier information on this site told us the time for the first information session Tuesday January 30 was "noon to 1:30. Please update us.

Would be very interesting to know how many people voted. 79-21 means nothing if it was 20 people. I suspect it will be far less than 100 which would be considered a "moderate" sample with a large margin of error.
Post those stats Ben...let's see how it measures up.

The City pamphlet dated January 22 2007 states:

"Three public consultation sessions have been scheduled and will be held at the Prince George Civic Centre as follows:

* Tuesday, January 30 and Thursday, February 1st 7pm to 9pm
* Wednesday, January 31st 12 noon to 1:30 pm."

A citizens' referendum would be in order for this far reaching and PERMANENT 4% levy, in my opinion.

Mr. Zurowski's and Mr. Kinsley's idea is met with a very unfavourable reaction by the general tax paying public. I personally have not had the pleasure of meeting even one person who supports it.

Everyone feels that the City collects enough taxes as is and should find the money for annual road rehabilitation and improvement within the present budget (without borrowing or raising taxes) by determined belt-tightening and responsible management alone.

The paper says a one time only levy..........not permanent....where did you get your information?

As usual, strayed way off topic....
the question is who wants to pay again for something we already paid for ?

Page 2: "B. Introduce a 4% to fund road rehabilitation in 2007 and future"

"According to previous analysis, the City needs to invest $2.35 Million in repaving every year..."

"If we go with option B, we will have a one-time tax levy increase of 4%, the $2.35 million will be placed in the road rehabilitation reserve and used to fund the road rehabilitation projects each year."

The $2.35 million will cover exactly one year's worth of work.

My interpretation (and mine may be incorrect, but the wording of the pamphlet is somewhat unclear) is that there will be only one increase of 4% and it stays at 4% after that. Every year this will bring in $2.35 million and every year that newly raised $2.35 million will be used to rehabilitate the roads - in other words, no more borrowing, but pay as you go.

Let me know if I am wrong, but that is what the pamphlet seems to be implying.

It is a one time only levy ... but it is permanent .... in other words, they will not lower the tax next year by 4% .... but they will also not increase it once more by 4% on top of the 4% they raised it this year ....

The city's web page is the source .. it is always best to go to the source, even if the source is not all that clear.

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/pages/news/roadrehabilitation

Here are the words from the source:

"If we go with option B, we will have a ONE-TIME tax levy increase of 4%; the $2.35 million will be placed in the road rehabilitation reserve and used to fund the road rehabilitation projects each year. Interest earned in the reserve between the time that the levy is collected and the road projects funded will accumulate in the reserve."

In addition it states:
"According to previous analysis, the City needs to invest $2.35 Million in repaving EVERY YEAR to overcome age and deterioration, and keep the network average road condition at its present level. To improve the existing conditions, a greater investment is needed."

Unless they get some philanthropist to give them 100%/annum interest each year on the $2.35 million raised in year one, their so-called reserve will only collect about 5% or $115 thousand over a one year period if they do not draw down on it till the end of the first cycle.

So, it stands to reason that the 4% will be a perpetual "lift".

However, the words used by the city writers do not state "lift" or some other explanatory note as to what is meant by "one-time" levy.

So, perhaps we can use this example as one of the many examples which the Ministry of Education can use to teach those people who think that just because they can write, that they write for ease of understanding, or just because they can read, they understand what they read.

To be frank, I have given my interpretation based on thinking the matter through. I am not positive, however, what the city means. If the phrase "we will have a ONE-TIME tax levy increase of 4%" stood by itself, there is not doubt in my mind what it meant. It means for ONE year only, and then next year it will drop back down to its "normal" level. However, it is in context of a whole set of other thing including, most importantly, the different experiences of everyone who reads the release. Thus, if there is any ambivalence in the writing, one will get many interpretations.

A good PR person (department) is a must for clarity. It is important that PR people be functionally literate in their jobs.

Or maybe we should use a more appropriate word - "skilled" in the techniques of their job.

Okay .. so that is two people who basically siad the same thing ... their interpretation is one way, we have someone else whose interpretation is another way ... but both are hesitant due to the fact that the original words are unclear ....

And, from my point of view, they are unclear primarily because the writer does not put him or herself into the position of the reader. In addtion, they may not even pass it on to others who will proofread it .... I am also finding more and more often that when I give someone something to proofread, they do not do that very well. People are generally too lazy to read for content or they have lost tht skill.

Thanks, owl! My thought was that a)if the City intended the one-time increase of 4% to be in place for only one year and then eliminate it again they would have made a big issue out of it and b) would a one-time non-permanent levy of 4% raise enough money to fund road rehabilitation to the tune of $2.35 million in perpetuity without ever borrowing again? No, not unless it is a permanent increase.

But the pamphlet, as clear as it may seem to the writer, may not be as clear to the average reader, like me, the average taxpayer.

Perhaps a referendum is not that bad an idea?

I wonder how bad the air is in China today - Prince George's is very polluted.

Tax creep is what it is, after they get the 4% they will then come asking for more for something else. Just like income tax was a temporary war measure, and then they borrowed hysterically on top of that.

We have to stop the runaway spending, the generation that gets burdened with paying it all off has absolutely no ability to carry it, nor the interest or intent of doing so.

You're absolutely correct thereasonableman.

There seems to be a lot of concern in the country lately about the environmental mess we are leaving for the next generation (and rightly so), unfortunately there is not too much concern for the financial mess we are leaving for the next generation.

Why didn't the city ask to do this last year or the year before? Something stinks. Hands in your pockets. Hands in your pockets.

Now there is the real question Harbinger. As I recall one or more on here have already stated that pulling this into current account spending rather than capital will free the city up to borrow money for true capital expenses.

It may be that a financial auditor uncovered what I think is essentially a bad practice. Maybe it was simply someone internally tht uncovered the questionable practice.

From my point of view, I do not want the city to pay for maintenance with borrowed money. I think, however, as with what most others here have said, the City needs to review its spending and try to find the money by cutting somewhere else.

I have not got the faintest clue where. I am not spending any time on that exercise. They have plenty of people working at City hall that should be able to do that as part of their paid duties.

However, I do expect them, as a result of this, to show us a much more transparent system of budgeting and reconcilliation after the fact so that when they say they cannot cut back, as I suspect they will, we can see why not.

If they take care of our money in this shoddy fashion, we ought to do something about it.