Maybe city should rethink things...
Here is a novel thought....we live in the north, we get snow and sometimes lots of it, PLAN FOR IT!

Good thing we don't get the snow we used to like back in the late 70's and early 80's 12 feet in 82?

Hey gofaster................

My take is that they did plan for it, with the line item funding that was being kept in reserve. Is that not good planning?

I am glad that there isn't an additional tax...like the road repair tax (they are trying to get going) to cover what I feel is their inept budgeting decisons. However I see there is a levy which (is a type of additional tax) Like the other patrons say here ...We live in the north and I can't believe that they never get it right for snow removal ever, I have lived here all my life so am well versed in the way they budget for snow removal.

I remember the days when it was just small dumptrucks and half loads those guys made a killing. (I am not against making a living but...) Then they got Dumpers like in Montreal way bigger with sides, but it still seems we never have enough money or equipment for any year. And on a light snow year it seems to get chucked into other project funding. We should have a bigger budget and in the lean years leave it alone so it gets bigger when the regular budget cash is applied for the heavy snowfall years.

We aren't that warmed up where our snow will always be lower, therefore in their thinking...less yearly budget money for snow removal. If they worked the snow money like that maybe they could remove the snow faster and for longer periods because there would be more money for equipment. My parents are seniors and there sub gets plowed way later than many many other places around town.

I think that city hall should get it together with the snow budget and don't even entertain a road repair charge, (That is a tax no matter what you call it). That is unfair as we are getting hooked for their inablity to maintain proper budgets...what we pay taxes for in the first place. Maybe less trips around the world and apply all that cash to snow removal or road work would be better.

"We should have a bigger budget and in the lean years leave it alone"

That is exactly what they have done by setting aside the overages and rolling them forward until needed. It has been done for some years or decades now,

"unfair that we are getting hooked for the inability to maintain proper budgets"

The term fixed expense with a straight line increase does not exist in the real world in a business, private or public. The forumulas and ideas for grappling with long term peaks and valleys expenses are not one councils product. They are initially developed by staff, the professionals, then massaged by council as the situation permits. I have seen them struggle with this specific situation for decades. We have better and more efficient road clearing than 25 years ago, and yes costs have gone up, but so has my income.


Taking a run at "city hall" in this case I believe is short sited and narrow minded.

Time for a new Mayer.
Time for new people in City Hall.
Time for a new Mayer that will stay around here and take care of things and not pop of to a winter fair in China.
Time for a change in ideas.
Time for someone that can plan ahead.

Time for New People in Office.

next november, correct?

Time for better informed citizens who understand budgets.

Runner46 is right on the money.

How much do people budget for car repairs? How about a furnace breaking down? Lawnmower breaking down? How about getting sick for 2 months and not having insurance to cover any prolonged absence from work?

All those things happen to most people. Many put it on plastic and pay for it over time after the fact. Some have savings for emergencies. Sometimes many of those things happen in the same year, and the savings you had are completely depleted.

The budget for these items are an average over years. It is impossible for any of us to predict such things. We can approximate. Snow fall prediction is going to fluctuate greatly. I road repair fluctuates less.

So, for snow, there are some years when there is little, and some when there is a lot. So, always have money there for the year when there is a lot. Then you have to figure out a way to top it up again. If you get two years in a row ,it does not look good for your bottom line. Three years in a row, you better look at whether the weather is changing again in the reverse of the "less snow" that we have been seeing as a trend over the past 8+ years.

Anyway, it pains me to think that this is the level of understanding people have about budgeting. No wonder City Hall does not listen.

Runner46 I feel you are wrong. We have every right to take a run at City Hall if we as tax paying citizens think their accounting is funny. It is more appropriate to direct it at City Council and the Mayors office, but City Hall is just as good if they want to enter the debate.

Rule number one in budgeting is if you are going to find a way to measure a 'cost object' (road repairs, snow removal), then you have to allocate that cost in some way. In allocating the cost to the tax payer you want to achieve two results:
#1 The greatest possible accuracy in your cost driver used to measure the allocation of revenue to cover the expense.
#2 The fixing of responsibility in such a manner that those responsible for the expense will desire to decrease and not increase it while maintaining certain standards and benchmarks.

The poster above notes how costs are rising and yet less snow is removed. He is inferring that the cost driver is the amount of snow that is removed. He is not an idiot and makes a legitimate concern.

The correct 'City Hall' rebuttal would have been to explain that the city 'budgets' for snow removal by such and such combinations of cost drivers that influences the correct behaviours of its responsibility managers (safety first, reduce costs), and limits negative externalities (bad weather years) on the budget, enhancing positive externalities (pro-active salting, pot hole repair ect). Who knows, but this could be setting the budget based on snow days per inch of snow, plus a factor for non-snow days, pot holes filled, miles swept, or square footage of roads paved.

With a proper explanation of what the cost drivers are for those departments one can then begin to find a way to allocate pay (taxation) for those 'common costs' (road repairs, snow removal). This is where my larger complaint comes into play. It is not simply a matter of raising a levy or a special 4% surcharge on your annual property bill (not allowing other options either) and calling this good budgeting, because you save in the good years, to pay for the bad.

This tells me you have no controls in place and budgeting is simply a matter of setting the rate. With no care as to who should be responsible to pay the rate.

Its like asking Jimmy Pattison to have his produce department at Overwaitea allocate all the costs for the meat department to the produce department. Subsidize the meat with the cost of the produce. Charge a single mom $6 dollars per apple, so that I can have my steak for $5 dollars. Great deal if you can afford steak, but not so good if you're a single parent that wants a nutritious meal for the child. The point being is becomes very dangerous when politicians and 'City Hall' start running around allocating 'common costs' to those who are not the sole, primary, or mutual beneficiary of those expenditures simply for the simple fact that it is 'easier' for 'City Hall' to implement such said form of taxation.

I was disappointed with Zurowski going along with the new 4% road tax levy. I thought he was the one with the business advice on council. I thought it was a complete joke that the Chamber of Commerce endorsed it out of sheer self interest.

IMO the activity driver in the need for road services are those that put the fuel in their tank. Not the retired folk trying to keep their home from the tax man. A 2 cent fuel tax makes the most sense when one factors in desired behaviours, direct connection to the cost driver, and responsibilities. Its the way the business world operates for maximum efficiencies.

The provincial and federal governments recognize this and tax accordingly for road tax, even though it is not a dedicated tax so they over allocate the tax so as to spend the money in other completely unrelated areas like the 2010 Olympics, and Adscam. The federal government has made an art of setting up the activity driver for dedicated taxation and then inflating that taxation so as to divert fund away to other policies. The EI and CPP are prime examples of abuse along with the 24.5 cents in road taxes on our gasoline. Its to bad the conservatives turned out to be no better than the liberals in this regard.

The key is how do you tie together the activity driver with the cost in a way that measures performance, and assigns responsibility, and most importantly, in a way that can not be altered by the next opportunist politician to divert dedicated funds for other such pet political projects.

I have to laugh when the city announces we have the lowest taxation of any similar sized city in BC. What they don't mention is that it is financed by the highest debt of any similar sized city in BC. That IMO is not sustainable.

It tells me budgeting is not a high enough priority by Prince George City Hall.

I’ll wait for your rebuttal…..

Thanks Charemando for explaining what I said and meant in a more clearer way. Runner please do not take offence but I believe that bias is clouding your thoughts about council and their decision making procedures. I full well realize they are professionals in their fields.

In their defence myself perhaps it is that many may not have lived here for many decades & don't know the long term Prince George. Maybe they have lots of extra disposable income from their well paying jobs and can handle the added cost.

Lots of Prince Georgians are hurting after being beaten up by lower wages increases that don't meet the vast rise in all market items we buy. So they at city hall don't see the way that the additional taxes will hit a large part of our community. I know that seniors will really take a hit with this (If it goes through) especially the ones who don't drive.

As an example: I just think of the Cameron street bridge, they have wasted 20 years at least in making non-effective decsions on the replacement by eaking out repairs to limp it along for short periods of time. When or if it ever gets fixed it will have far out weighed (Exceeded) the costs than if they had fixed it all those years and years ago (Decades) When they should have.

I do seem to realize that council are quick to up their wages and extra benefits which I have no trouble with....if we the taxpayers can drive down better roads winter & summer without having to pay extra for it.

Then there is the water issue.....

Where is the pothole capital of North America?

Montreal: “Dauphin, president of the city’s transit corporation, said Montreal needs at least $3 billion over 10 years to permanently fix the problem. He hopes some of the gas tax money promised by Ottawa will be put toward road repair.”
http://www.dcnonl.com/article/20050330650

Just to put that into a bit of context, that’s roughly $100 per person per year. If PG was to provide a similar amount of money per person, we would require $8 million per year or three times as much as the City is suggesting will do the trick. And you thought we had it tough.

Pataluma California (just north of San Francisco): Anger at City Hall for not fixing roads …
[ulr] http://petalumapothole.com/editor_text.htm[/url]

New York City: http://leemichaelwithers.tripod.com/sfh5_02_96.htm

Edinburgh, Scotland: they actually pay claims http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1103552004

Pittsburgh, PA: Pothole Capital of the world http://www30.homepage.villanova.edu/therese.gourash/pittsburgh.htm

Atlanta, GA: this fellow wants a commissioner of potholes for Atlanta, pothole capital of the South. http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2005/12/24/a_wishful_chris.html

You may get the drift. There is a tough competition out there for Pothole capital of Canada, North America, the world. Are we up to it?

Thanks Charemando for explaining what I said and meant in a more clearer way.

Runner please do not take offence but I believe that bias is clouding your thoughts about council and their decision making procedures about budgets. I full well realize they are professionals in their fields.

However I don't understand this figuring?
"the reserve has a balance of $1.161-million that will absorb last year’s budget over-run." (Happens alot this over-run stuff, quite a chunk of change this overrun must be)

"in 2007, the levy will generate $4.287-million dollars" (the same as last year) "and the snow control operations budget is for just over $4-million." (Is this now 8,247,000?) "So, Stribany says, "All going well, we should be able to retain $264-thousand dollars in that reserve."

Doesn't sound like there is a real budget is in place ($4 million short, Maybe they just ditched it by this statement).....Are we now going to doing snow removal by short budgeting & levy for 2007? ...

Well perhaps it is that many in city hall may not have lived here for many decades & don't know the long term Prince George. Maybe they have lots of extra disposable income from their well paying jobs and can handle the added cost.

Lots of Prince Georgians are hurting after being beaten up by lower wages increases that don't meet the vast rise in all market items we buy. So they at city hall don't see the way that the additional taxes will hit a large part of our community. I know that seniors will really take a beating with this (If it goes through) & especially the ones who don't drive.

As an example of inept decsion making: I just think of the Cameron Street bridge, they have wasted 20 years at least in making non-effective decisions on the replacement by eaking out repairs to limp it along for short periods of time. When or if it ever gets fixed it will have far out weighed (Exceeded) the costs than if they had fixed it all those years and years ago (Decades) When they should have.

I do seem to realize that council are quick to up their wages and extra benefits which I have no trouble with....if we the taxpayers can drive down better roads winter & summer without having to pay extra for it. (And use the cameron street bridge too)

Then there is the water issue.....

url] http://petalumapothole.com/editor_text.htm[/url]

once more with feeling .... :-) http://petalumapothole.com/editor_text.htm

So, there are people who say pay $750,000 to fix the bridge and keep on spending every year to fix it. Then there are those who say buy a new bridge for $12 million or so. Then there are those who say build a ring road (that is a federal and provincial project) and there will be no need for the bridge at all in a few years.

So, is anyone ever going to be happy with whatever the dcision will be? Of course not.

One thing people have to realize that North America in general is a ticking time bomb, and has been for decades. We are not spending the kind of money on maintenance as most European countries are.

Cameron St. Bridge is an excellent example of hanging onto an old bridge which requires special equipment in order to determine where rot may be setting in so that the proper preventative maintenance can take place. The city simply does not spend money for such technology.

North America is a throw away society. We believe it is cheaper to throw away and replace rather than maintain.

We had discussion on this site last year about gettng some proper machines to fix potholes. Again, no one is spening money on such machines. Winnipeg has six such machines and has a $1 million annual budget to fix potholes.

PGpioneer said: "However I don't understand this figuring?
"the reserve has a balance of $1.161-million that will absorb last year’s budget over-run." (Happens alot this over-run stuff, quite a chunk of change this overrun must be)

"in 2007, the levy will generate $4.287-million dollars" (the same as last year) "and the snow control operations budget is for just over $4-million." (Is this now 8,247,000?) "So, Stribany says, "All going well, we should be able to retain $264-thousand dollars in that reserve."

-----------------------------

No it is not now $8+ million.

Back to the basics. A budget is first of all an estimate. A budget is not a financial statement.

A budget has a revenue and an expenditure column.

On the revenue side, the tax levy currently raises $4.287 million per year. That is a fairly accurate figure.

On the expenditure side, the estimate is for an expenditure of $4.023 million for January 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2007.

What will actually be spent will depend on the weather as well as on contract costs I would assume since the city contracts most of the work out. It will also depend on other unknowns that may crop up.

So, if they spend $4 million, then they will have $264,000 left on the revenue side of the ledger. If they spend less, they will have a larger reserve. If they have more, they will have to top up the money and pay it through increased taxes next year, after the fact.

Due to overestimating in past years, there was $1.161 million in reserve from last year. That is now gone, since this winter has been unusually heavy. As well, I understand they are competing with other industries for truck services. Fewer people, less machinery. So their unit price likely has gone up or they are accepting going to the back of the line for service priority. Often parking lots are cleared before streets.

There have been complaints from others that they cannot locate the budget on the City web site.

It is located here:
[url]http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/cityhall/agendas[/ulr]

Go down to the Budget meetings and you can download the summary and/or the full budget.

The Cameron St., Bridge was purchased by the City from the Provincial Government for the cost of $1.00. I beleive that the maintenance cost of this bridge over the past 10 years was approx $200,000.00 per year, this was mainly for resurfacing, and some other minor costs due to damage etc;. The real cost was building the Cameron St., overpass to cross over the Railway tracks to the bridge. This cost was in the millions. This bridge could be repaired and maintained for the next 10 years for a cost of approx $3 Million maximum. The $3Million will be less than what you will pay in interest if you have to borrow 7 to 9 Million over 15 years to build a new bridge.

Here is the clincher. Because the Cameron St., Bridge is part of the Citys road system, its maintenance costs, or replacement costs should be subjected to the levy for road rehabilitation that the City in trying to get passed. The City is telling you on the one hand that if you pay for road repairs **up front** through a levy, you will save huge dollars by not having to borrow any money. At the same time they will borrow money to build a new bridge, and of course you will have to pay interest over 15 years on the money borrowed. So if the bridge is part of the Citys road system then where is the savings??

Its easier to sell you a levy for road repair, than it would be to sell you a levy for a new bridge, however thats whats really happening.

Owl:"We had discussion on this site last year about getting some proper machines to fix potholes. Again, no one is spending money on such machines. Winnipeg has six such machines and has a $1 million annual budget to fix potholes."

I didn't know Winnipeg has six of these machines! Thanks for the information. Too bad Winnipeg is not in China! Nevertheless: We have to try to persuade a Prince George city official to make an actual trip to Winnipeg and observe these in operation.

Our buck stops at City Hall, literally.