City Council's First 2007 Budget Meeting

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 05:12 AM

Prince George City Councillors head into the 2007 budget deliberation process later this afternoon, needing a 2.4-percent increase in the property tax levy to maintain services at last year's levels.

The City's Manager of Financial Services, Sandra Stribany, will provide councillors with an overview of the 2007 financial picture. In a report, Stribany says the plan provides for general operating expenditures of $105-million dollars this year. The annual property tax levy is expected to bring in $60.4-million with $755-thousand estimated in new construction revenue.

In the coming year, the city will receive approximately $2.7-million dollars in gaming revenues from the province. Stribany says the city uses those funds for operational and capital expenditures.

And total external debt repayment is expected to be $8.5-million dollars this year, an increase of $130-thousand dollars over 2006.

The first budget meeting begins in council chambers at 4:30pm, with 15-minutes set aside at the start for public input, then the Prince George Chamber of Commerce has requested an opportunity to present "thoughts for consideration" on behalf of the business community.

Council's evening budget meeting at 7pm will consider the 2007 financial plan for Administrative services, which makes up the lion's share of the city's operational expenditures -- covering police and fire protection services -- with a 2007 price tag of just under $30-million dollars.

Above the base budget, the RCMP are seeking the addition of four new members for a half-year at an additional cost of $236-thousand dollars this year. If approved, the cost of those extra officers would rise to $472-thousand for all of 2008.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 05:12 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: trusted on February 7 2007 8:37 AM

All those millions, and the city is not fiscally responsible with the handling and spending of that money.
New construction-additional income-not mentioned-just the need to increase taxes.
Always the need for more and more to be taken from the stupid taxpayer-who always cries and pays.
And where is that new city manager in all this fiasco?
Not so much as a peep out of that one.
Must have whipped him into shape with no difficulty. Whoever chose him certainly knew what they were up against. Nothing.
It's all a monstrous joke-just not a funny one!

Posted by: Marty on February 7 2007 11:14 AM

No need for me to comment on this one... Just read trusteds comments above.
He said it all, and said it well.

Posted by: zoom on February 7 2007 11:37 AM

2.4% is right with the rate of inflation and increases in City Employee pay. One can not expect as much service with the same or less money.

Posted by: bohemian on February 7 2007 12:55 PM

"One can not expect as much service with the same or less money."

Why not? As time goes on one should be more efficient at doing his job. It's called productivity growth:

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/15-206-XIE/15-206-XIE.html

At average annual productivity growth at 1.6%, and inflation at about the same, we should almost exactly get the same services for the same money. No tax increase required for maintenance.

Posted by: trusted on February 7 2007 4:45 PM

Now, how in hell can it be the same-or less money?
With all this growth and increase in building-are they not all obliged to pay taxes?
Is this not "Additional" income for the city coffers?
And bohemian is quite correct-do employees for the city never become increasingly proficient at their job?
Is there a possibility we have too many chiefs and not enough indians in some departments? How long has it taken to arrive at the point whereby we require half a dozen to repair a water line? Two to work and four to supervise. And all those trucks being driven around aimlessly. And are the employees permitted to drive them for their own personal use? All free, along with gas, repairs, maintenance, and insurance. Anyone know how many employees have the unlimited use of a city owned vehicle?
I can hardly wait for the day to come when I feel I will be at liberty to expose a number of employees who live off the lowly taxpayer, by collecting a paycheque from the city of Prince George.
What goes around, comes around.
First, we must seek out the truth, and that may be hard to come by at city hall.
We just need a few more citizens like Lorrie Collins-who has proven that it is possible to fight city hall, and win!
It can, and will, happen.

Posted by: Jigga on February 7 2007 7:09 PM

I dont think any city employees would have unlimited use of a city vehicle. I came across that in their policy manual while looking for info on an unrelated manner.

Our taxpayer money pays for the vehicles, so the city has strict regulations on when and where they can be used.

Whether or not this happens could be a different story.

Posted by: Palopu on February 7 2007 7:20 PM

More police??

Kamloops Population 82,714, Total Police 118 Population per Police 701 Total Criminal Code Offences 13,927, Crime Rate 168, Case Burden 118, Total Costs $14,967,841, Cost per Member $126,846 Cost per Capita $181.

Nanaimo Population 79,898, Total Police 114, Population per Police 701 Total Criminal Code Offences 14,222, Crime Rate 178, Case Burden 125, Total Costs $14,638,272, Cost per Member $128,406, Cost per Capita $183

Prince George Population 77,148, Total Police 121, Population per Police 638, Total Criminal Code Offences, 13,800, Crime Rate 179, Case Burden 114, Total Costs $15,524,482, Cost per Member $128,302, Cost per Capita $183

These are 2005 numbers, so you can see that we have more police than comparitive cities, and we have a smaller population. The interesting thing is that 3 or more police have been added since these numbers came out, and they are still looking for more. In addition we have hired 3 full time employees to take over the Community Policing Program.

There may be a logical explanation for these additional costs in relation to other cities, however if there isnt then this is an indication of why our costs are so far out of whack.

Posted by: charles on February 7 2007 8:20 PM

I have a suggestion on how the City of Prince George can increase its revenues.

When a future job vacancy occurs, they can go through the interview process to select the top few people who are suitable for the job, (qualifications, work record, etc.)

They could then ask the top few candidates to bid for the job in question, with the highest bidder getting the job.

I am sure they could get some pretty high bids for these job vacancies because a lot of people want a job which pays more (and has better pension and other benefits) than equivalent jobs in the private sector.

Posted by: Chester on February 7 2007 10:22 PM

Wow, Charles, I think you are on to something here. How about bidding on a job. How much money would a person be willing to pay for the privilege of working for our city?

When a person starts a business, they often make a sizable investment to start up their business. They also make many sacrifices in the early years. They also incur the scrutiny of the bankers while trying to survive long enough to begin showing a profit. Lots of effort, lots of personal investment and lots of sacrifices to eventually, maybe make an average income.

Managing cashflow is paramount to succeeding and surviving in a business environment. Comparitively, a steady paycheck, a pension plan, dental, company car, all the benefits with no real necessity to produce is the alternative. I think it is a good idea to require people to invest in their future jobs and occupations, just the same as business people. Why not? Chester