Clear Full Forecast

Road Rehab Levy Deferred

By 250 News

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 05:25 PM

Prince George City Council has opted to defer the proposal that calls for a 4% tax levy to be added to your tax bill to the Council meeting  set for February 28th.
That will give the public have another opportunity to examine the proposal.
There were three recommendations from the Finance and Audit Committee
  1. That a road rehabilitation reserve be established
  2. That a separate road rehabilitation tax rate be shown on the property tax notice
  3. That an annual contribution of $2.35 million be made to the reserve.
The committee prefers the 4% hike be established this year in the full amount, however, it suggested that if Council is not comfortable with the full amount for 2007, (adding $50 dollars to the average tax bill) then two options could be considered:
  1. Increase the levy by 2%  in 2007 and a further 2% in 2008, meaning half the cost of road rehabilitation would be financed through tax, the balance through  debt
  2. Increase the levy by 2% in 2007, a further 1% in 2008 and a further 1% in 2009.
Both alternatives would cost the “average” homeowner about $25.00 this year.
According to Finance Services Kathleen Soltis, if there is no change in how road rehab is funded, by 2022 the City’s annual debt payments for road rehabilitation will reach $3.757 million dollars, and that is why the City Staff wanted to explore a different route.
Soltis says the property tax notice would have this levy as a separate line item, like snow removal, and with a by-law in place the dollars collected for road rehab could not be used for any other purpose.
One of the other concerns expressed by the public was that "business" was responsible for damaging the roads, so should pay more.  Soltis says  it is true, of the $2.35 million needed, more than half would come from residential tax payers, however that is because there are more of them.  Business would pay about $591 thousand, and major industry pays $433 thousand.
She says during the public comment process, only 172 submitted comments and only 27 of that number said the City should stick with the current method (debt financed) of financing road rehabilitation, only 60-70 people attended the public sessions.
As Chair of the Finance and Audit Committee, Councilor Don Zurowski says he is one who has never been in favour of increases that outpace inflation, but he believes the time has come for “pay as you go”.  He also noted over the year the loss in dollars from Provincial and Federal Governments’ has amounted to about $11 million dollars, and funds coming back from the gas tax can only be used  for “green projects” not road repairs.  He says despite efforts to gain funds through Provincial and Federal government for extra funds for road rehabilitation but those dollars are not forthcoming.  He says “Every one of our households will mourn the loss of the extra dollars, but if we don’t act now, down the road we will have to pay this and more.”
Councilor Glen Scott says people he has been speaking with have given him this message "The concept is right, the timing is wrong". Scott says the City should instead focus on growing the tax base not increasing the tax burden.
Councilor Don Bassermann says the timing is now as the economy has never been so strong, however, he says  there are still questions to be answered and he hasn't yet "hung his hat on any one of the options".  Councilor Murry Krause  warned against  looking at gaming funds to help pay for road rehab "What the Province giveth, the Province can also taketh away" says Krause.
Mayor Kinsley thanked the committee for the "forward thinking and taking the brave move of putting forward the options."  He says  this levy may  be  helpful in pressing the senior levels of government that  infrastructure  funding  has to  come back to local government.  

Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 05:25 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: charles on February 14 2007 7:04 PM
If any of our local politicians vote to support this road tax levy, I sure hope someone starts an advertising campaign (radio, newspapers, and opinion250.com) just before the next civic election to remind the voters who voted to support this road tax levy.

I would be willing to contribute to such an advertising campaign.

Our Mayor and Town Council have to be sent a message that our property taxes are too high, and that they should be making an attempt to reduce them.
Comment Posted by: Free Enterprise on February 14 2007 7:23 PM
charles - you would pay more to advertise against a road levy instead of paying $25 (average) in extra tax?
I am not one for more tax but the facts are the our city seem to have no real ability to budget properly which we should not forget a election time but lets get the roads fixed now as one front end alignment on my car will cost more than the road levy. I begrudgingly support the levy just to get the roads done. Then let’s hold the city counsel to the fire…
Comment Posted by: Chadermando on February 14 2007 7:39 PM
"Soltis says the property tax notice would have this levy as a separate line item, like snow removal, and with a by-law in place the dollars collected for road rehab could not be used for any other purpose."

That is a big improvement. I still don't support it. I agree the roads should be pay as you go, but not by taxing homes.

I would like to see the city at least look at the option of a city gas tax to fund all thngs road and use it as a tool to get the federal and provincial government paying their share of road infrastructure investments and repairs in our region.

They provide no real options other than the 'tax your home' option. I find it lazy and the easy way to tax with no direct connection between the cost allocation and the person paying for the cost allocation (ie a pensioner that doen't drive). If this was a business allocating costs (corporate overhead, R&D ect) in this fashion the people making these recommendations would be looking for a new job before long.
Comment Posted by: realitycheck on February 14 2007 7:53 PM
A gas tax is illegal. The only reason Vancouver can do it is a special one-time "trial" exemption they got from the federal government. Funny how it's still going.....
I would support a local gas tax if it was legal. My only beef would be bigger vehicles should get dinged moe as they create the most wear and tear on the roads. This would be tough to do however.
Comment Posted by: charles on February 14 2007 8:22 PM
Why can't the Mayor and Town Council fund this proposed expenditure by going through its present budget line by line and ask themselves the following question. Do we absolutely need to spend money on this item, and if we do, can we find a way to accomplish the same result by spending less money.
Comment Posted by: Palopu on February 14 2007 8:45 PM
I see the comments from our Councillors are once again laced with brilliant statements. **What the Province giveth the Province can taketh away**

I notice that they didnt have any problem setting aside gaming revenue for the next 5 years for the 2011 Games. $1.05 Million. This money could very easily have been given to road re-hab and some of the gaming revenue still could. I beleive that they collect something like $2.5 Million per year. We could use this money for road re-hab, and if for some reason the Province quit giving it to us then we could look at other alternatives.

Between the gaming revenue, and the Terasen gas $500,000.00 per year and some reductions in spending we could come up with the $2,350,000.00 quite easily.

The problem is, is that this City wants to continue to access and spend the gaming money, continue to tax us for roads, and spend the money on other projects, and then tax us again for road re-hab. The taxes that we already pay, along with any increases will go to build the Cameron St., Bridge, the new Police Station, the so called Co-Generation Project, and probably a performing arts centre. These projects will cost us someting in the neibourhood of $35 Million or more, and most of it will be borrowed over 15 years and we will sink further into debt.

This City needs to do an in depth analysis of its spending with a view to cutting costs, and reducing taxes. Whats the chance of that happening.

At the very least if we are going to have a pay as you go road rehabilatation program, then it should be a program that is registered at City hall.

Anyone who has a valid drivers licence and a vehicle that is registered in the City of Prince George should be required to go to City Hall pay the *Road Rehab* charge of say $30.00 and be issued a Road Rehab Decal to be placed on their windshield. All commercial vehicles would be required to have a decal. Anyone caught without the decal would have 24 hours to obtain one or be subject to a fine. Out of town vehicles would of course be exempt, and it would be necessary for the police and bylaw inforcement officers to check vehicle plates to determine their address. It would take sometime to get this plan into place, but once there it would be a fair plan for all users, and those who do not drive, would not be required to pay. People with 6 or 7 people living at one address, or people living in trailer parks, or apartments, would no longer be able to get a reduced or free ride, and would have to pay the same fee as home owners. (What a concept)

Councillor Zurowski should apply his *Pay as you go concept to the CN Centre* If we charged the Hockey fans enough money to cover our costs, they would never attend another game. It seems pay as you go applies only to home owners who have no way to dodge the tax **bullet**
Comment Posted by: diplomat on February 14 2007 9:01 PM
The mayor and the council will flog/discuss this road levy issue some more, but the final outcome is totally predictable; and it has been from the start.

Comment Posted by: Palopu on February 14 2007 9:30 PM
You got that right diplomat. I notice the Mayor was in China, and Zurowski was conspicuos by his asbsence during the meetings at the Civic Centre. This is the Classic *Hit them with 4% in one year* back it off to 4% over two years, so that it doesnt hurt to much and **Walla** you have your road levy, plus your general tax increase, plus you get to keep your gaming revenue to play with.
Comment Posted by: Chester on February 14 2007 10:22 PM
Palopu, if we go with your reasoning that if you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay concept, then it should also carry over to those who don't have children, shouldn't have to pay for our schools, and those who don't require the services of the fire department, shouldn't have to pay for them either, or the police for that matter, many people never have a need to call on the police for anything, so they don't need to pay, and the library, many people have never been there, and the pool, many people don't swim, and the skating rinks and hockey, not everyone uses these facilities either.

So, Pal, Who is expected to pay for our community? Chester
Comment Posted by: Chadermando on February 15 2007 1:48 AM
Chester its called finding the closest revenue driver to the cost allocation.

Obviously for other essential monopolistic social and infrastructure services they will have their own revenue drivers, or none at all, and where none exist society will be allocated the cost in some form of tax that should be shared by business

In this particular case a fixed income homeowner that does not drive is not a revenue driver in any way what-so-ever for road rehabilitation.

A person putting fuel in their tank is a revenue driver. The more fuel used, the more road repairs needed. A large truck uses more than a small truck, a commercial truck may use 500+ litres a day a personal car might use 10 litres a day. The refinery can allocate the tax on behalf of the city at wholesale for a minimal cost to administer in one easy step where everyone pays.

Nothing is illegal when it comes to a democracy. Obviously the feds and province need to step up. Maybe they could return what they collect in each regional district to that regional district for dedicated road repairs. Its not such a far out concept especially if we just dedicated the road tax to road repairs I think it would work.
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on February 15 2007 6:27 AM
Once initiated it won't go away, it will just rise every year even after roads are repaired. Has anyone ever seen a temporary tax disappear? I doubt it.
Comment Posted by: Palopu on February 15 2007 9:20 AM
Chester. The user pay concept for the road rehab isnt my idea. It was put forward by City Hall. They just dont want to make an effort to collect from the Users. I dont agree with the levy at all, but if they are going to put it in, then it should apply to users.

This whole levy concept is a **Con Job** by City hall. What we need is for the City to reduce some costs, and re-allocate some revenues and fix the roads. This is not a complicated matter. Use the money from the Terasen Gas, and from Gaming Revenue, and from reduced costs and get on with it. Use the money from the gas tax and from fines to fund some other **Green** or **Crime** projects.