Clear Full Forecast

Traffic Light At 1st Road Tax Open House

By Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 08:05 PM

    

Just over 20 people turned out during the first hour of the City’s two-hour open house at the Civic Centre this evening to find out about a proposed four-percent road rehabilitation levy.

Some of those who attended tonight said they had been expecting a ’town hall’ style meeting, instead the City had three displays set up with staff there to answer questions directly.

Communications Manager, Christine Russell, says "Over the last five years, in every single poll (of city residents) roads and transportation are the highest concern, so that’s kind of where Finance and Audit are coming from, as well.  We continually hear that roads and road rehabilitation work is a high concern and, so, this is one way for us to let the public know this is a way we’re trying to deal with it."

Councillor Brian Skakun came as a private resident this evening.  "I think people are concerned that:  if you do increase taxes, where’s it going to go?"  But Skakun says, "I’m not sure, at this point, if I’m even in favour of doing what we’re doing.  I want to hear what the public says and, so far, I betcha I’ve heard 90-percent of the people I’ve talked to have been unsupportive of this, easily."

Asked whether this flies in the face of the opinion surveys calling for rehab, Skakun says, "There’s no doubt that roads are a priority, but people are saying cut spending in other areas if you can, shift more money into roads."

City resident, Julie Carew, says she found the open house very informative.  "I did gain new information about how the fund will be set up -- the three different options -- I’m not sure which option I would be more inclined to accept because I need to reflect now on the information that I have and think about something that I can live with."

The information brochure at this evening’s meeting outlines three options:

A.  continue with the current system and fund road reconstruction through borrowing -- which will accumulate debt payments of $235-thousand dollars per year with a term of 15-years and five-percent interest, the interest paid on 2007 road rehab will be $1.76-million dollars

B.  introduce a 4-percent tax increase to raise $2.35-million dollars for a road rehab reserve to fund road projects each year -- interest earned by the reserve between the time taxes are collected and the road projects are funded will add to the reserve

C.  phase in a tax increase to fund a road reconstruction reserve (blend borrowing and current year tax revenue) -- a new road rehab levy may be phased in over two years at two-percent in 2007 and two-percent in 2008.  The 2007 road rehab program may be financed 50-percent by debt and 50-percent by levy increase in 2007 and 100-percent by the levy increase in 2008 and beyond.

For his part, city resident Wayne Mills says he would have liked a town hall format, because he overheard some really good questions being asked, as for the levy proposal, "I’m still not sure which system would be better, nobody really likes a tax-and spend type thing, but I guess I have to make a decision."

The City’s 2nd open house will go tomorrow from 12pm until 1:30 at the Civic Centre, with the final one to be held on Thursday evening from 7pm to 9pm, again at the Civic Centre.

Full details of the proposal can be found on the City’s website at http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/pages/news/roadrehabilitation/


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Parks and recreation, leisure services budget should be shifted to roads. What's the rec figure? 40% of the city budget?

Lots of money for something that people have as a lower priority than roads. How'd that happen?
About twenty people came, eh? Seems to me we have a lot of very wealthy people in Prince George who have no problem with the city making their wallets 4% lighter.
I think there is a basic philosophical shift which has to occur at City Hall. You hit the nail on the head with your comment YDPC.

The first items that need to be funded are BASIC needs. Roads, including maintaining roads properly, are a BASIC need from my point of view and I would assume also from those who have stated in past surveys that it is a priority.

We need a brand new look at where this City is spending money, identifying which ones are BASIC NEEDS and which are more WANTS than needs. Then we need a look at HOW the city is spending money - borrow or direct payment as the expense occurs.

Back to the books is waht I say. In the meantime DO NOT BORROW MONEY, DO NOT RAISE TAXES, FIND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE TO GET STARTED BY CUTTING IN A SERIES OF NON-BASIC AREAS.

Take a hint from UNBC. We are not growing, so do not spend as if we will be. We will just get into deeper and deeper trouble and no one will bail us out.

When there are signs of actual growth and that growth is likely to be permanent, then lets talk.
I think it is more an indicator of apathy. People figure the City will do what it wants to anyway. They have not laid out all the options.

They have not laid out the most obvious one.
BTW, I knew the format of the meeting since that is the way all city meetings are. They are not interested in town hall meetings. They can be far too confrontational. The city is not interested in confrontation.

People can write in. They can speak to a Councillor. They can write letters to editors. They can form a ratepayers group.

There are much more effective ways to deal with this than a session with displays and a PR person to field questions and comments.
This is what they did in Guelph. They formed a Civic League.

Another poster on here made me aware of this group that appears to be quite successful. We need a watchdog group with much broader interests than clean air. Dirty air is just one of the indicators of a City which is not in the best control of its destiny.

http://www.guelphcivicleague.ca
Notice the 10 values:

- Greater voter turnout.

- Genuine public consultation on major issues.

- Better city planning and design to manage growth.

- Clean economic development to offset residential taxes and provide jobs.

- Complete cost/benefit analysis of major decisions and investments.

- Less red tape for local businesses.

- Ecological awareness and protection of the highest standard.

- A strong commitment to culture and the arts.

- Heritage identification and preservation.

- Quality and beauty as civic priorities
Don't fool yourselves. This 4% surtax balloon they are trying to fly is over and above the increase the city is planning on nailing us with. Count on 6% or 7% when all is said and done. Not going to get my support.

Got to cut back. Got to re-allocate other money that the city receives, like Gambling proceeds, gas taxes and ICBC surpluses. Time to get a little creative with the money we are receiving or begin to request removal of all of the restrictions and limitations on the use of it.

I'm tired of the same old excuses that the expenditure doesn't fit the criteria. Change the criteria until it does fit. Somebody made these decisions and somebody can change them. Chester
You're right Yama we should close the rinks, shut the pools, close the Civic Centre, ask the Cougars and Spruce Kings to go some place else, stop mowing (or even maintaining) Fort George Park (or the hundred other parks), let trails grow over with weeds, stop working with community groups to provide low-cost recreation (such as the ice Oval and outdoor rinks), turn all the playing fields into working farms, shut the playhouse, Close the Art Gallery, sell Pine valley, sell the Gymnastics building, close Studio 2880, and stop funding the PGSO, Theatre Northwest and many other community groups. We'd have the best roads EVER and a town no one in their right mind would want to live in.
Do your homework..our spending (% wise)on "Leisure" (Parks and Rec) is far less than most other communities in CANADA.....that's a fact....look it up.
good points reality check...most departments the city spends money on have value. but reallocation of funds is part of the answer for sure.

I vote that they do both. shift some money out of other areas AND tax people a bit more.

our roads are totally terrible. at least now the city is realizing that and attempting to move toward some type of solution (even if the majority of us disagree with this first proposal)

hopefully we will continue to take a step forward on this matter. the current situation is unacceptable.
The Road Rehabilitation Funding Proposal pamphlet is very unclear about what precisely we would be getting for coughing up an additional 4% in taxes.

It claims that "a 4% increase would provide $2.35 million for road rehabilitation."

It also states that 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."

That indicates to me that a greater investment (than the 4% increase provides) is required to ever IMPROVE the present awful conditions!!!

Now, where is THAT additional money going to come from, especially since it also appears in the pamphlet that a part of the new 4% levy is going to be used to retire the previously accumulated road repair debt over a number of years?

Who has done the calculations on this whole matter?

It appears, logically, that we will pay up front with the new 4% levy but will really not see any substantial IMPROVEMENTS, in fact we may be told that more taxes will be required if we expect things to get better.

Reality Check. I would love to look it up, mainly because I dont beleive that it is true. Where are you getting this information????? Let me know.
It Seems that we have cried ouselves into the 4% solution by constantly complaining to the City that our streets have to many potholes and the City has come up with an answer, a 4% solution.

When you see all the suvs and trucks on our streets with the large 17 inch rims and super suspention they dont even notice the pot holes.

My family and I were in Cranbrook last summer and if you think our potholes are unbearable try the streets of that City where they are all one big pot hole. No and I dont drive a truck I have a Corolla.

You all have one more kick at the cat at tomorrow nights session. You will have the oppertunity to provide the City with a "D" option in three lines or less. Do it.

Cheers


According to my calculations (based on info. found on the City website) Leisure Services accounts for roughly 19% of the budget (2006), far from the 40% claimed.
A quick check of comparable communities in BC find 25% or greater in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo. Info. found easily on their websites.
Pal:"Reality Check. I would love to look it up, mainly because I dont beleive that it is true. Where are you getting this information????? Let me know."

Gladly. I downloaded it a few days ago from the city's website at

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca

It is called the *Road Rehabilitation Funding Proposal Public Consultation Opportunities* dated January 22, 2007

- published by the City Of Prince George Communications Division.

I think it was in PDF format.

Ph. 561-7732 Fax: 561-0183

Email: crussell@city.pg.ca

Read it and let me know if I did not interpret it correctly - I need help!
Sorry, Pal, I thought your post following mine: *Reality Check* was for more info from me, but it was for realitycheck.

Still, I am somewhat surprised that nobody has noticed that apparently the new 4% levy is just for maintaining the present "fair" average condition of our roads and that it has no funding in it for actual improvements.

Ah, well. It will be decades before the roads, streets and sidewalks (and the lack of them) are brought up to a *good* or *very good* average.

Dan Rogers remarked a couple of years ago that approximately $60 (sixty) million dollars are needed by the city to rehabilitate the entire infrastructure.

He knew what he was talking about.



Dan's a smart guy...too bad more people didn't vote for him.