Clear Full Forecast

Committee of the Whole Looks At Budget

By 250 News

Monday, November 26, 2007 08:56 PM

    
The City of Prince George Council has held its first “Committee of the Whole” meeting. 
The first meeting of this type was Chaired by Councillor Don Zurowski.  The item up for discussion was a draft document on budget planning.
The draft document presented outlined  the income, the expenses, and the challenges,  and  it suggests there  should be a property tax hike of 2.5% as one of the  solutions.
One the main challenges facing Council  when it comes to budgets is the fact that  Prince George  covers a large geographical area, and has relatively low density .   There are about 225 people per square kilometer in Prince George, that means higher expenses for things like transit, infrastructure, land use planning and air quality issues.

The draft document outlined some extra expenses, which include:

  • the Northern Sport Centre as the City is responsible for some of the operating costs,
  • the RCMP contract,
  • the  RCMP’s PRIME system which will require additional staff,
  • An Air Quality Coordinator, 
  • Increased trails maintenance,
  • Northern Medical Programs Trust, 
  • Performing Arts Centre feasibility  project,
  • Heritage Strategic plan, 
  • Collective bargaining with City staff,   
  • Servicing the City’s debt
  • Municipal election
  • Firefighters pensions,
  • Staffing for a rescue truck.

The proposed solutions to the challenges:

  • Boost the taxes by 2.5% (consumer price index rate)
  • Fund the Northern Medical Trust through surplus
  • Northern Sport Centre could be funded through incremental gaming revenue
  • RCMP support could be handled with the savings made with a reorganization of management
  • Expectation of increased development fees,
  • Increased traffic fine revenue
  • Grants, and  
  • Terasen franchise fee increase

The major  Capital projects still on the books ( worth $19.1 million dollars):

  • Cameron Street Bridge,
  • Muncipal Police Facility which will likely be paid for through debt financing
  • Road Rehabilitation program (which will be covered  with new road levy collected in 2007 taxes)
  • Downtown streetscape improvements
  • There are  90 other projects on the list worth  $13.2 million.
Staff advised they will take the comments and concerns expressed this evening  and  address them as they  take further steps towards development of a 2008 budget.

Previous Story - Next Story

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

Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 08:56 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Chester on November 26 2007 10:07 PM
Another 2.5% tax hike? I will not support it.

My idea of cashflow management is very simplistic. List your existing obligations. Then also list your existing needs. Then list your wants.

You don't need to discuss obligations, because they are committments already made by someone and must be honoured. Secondly, there are basic needs in this community and don't leave much for debate either, except finding the money to finance them. Then there are the wants. No money, no want list. Sorry. Get rid of your debts first before you commit to more capital expenditures. I will not and do not support continued spending when there is no money to support it.

What kind of thinking figures if the value of a home has increased by $100,000 in the last 3 years somehow means the homeowner is $100,000 richer? Chester
Comment Posted by: owl on November 27 2007 12:38 AM
"One the main challenges facing Council when it comes to budgets is the fact that Prince George covers a large geographical area, and has relatively low density. There are about 225 people per square kilometer in Prince George, that means higher expenses for things like transit, infrastructure, land use planning and air quality issues."

This City was amalgamated to the size it is right now some 30+ years ago. They only figured this out now? Running out of excuses?

So let's say that we de-amalgamate and take out the Hart, for instance. Does that mean that it would cost less to deal with air quality issue? Would there have to be an agreement with the new "Town of Hart" to cover some of those expenses? Or would, in fact, that Town say "we have no air quality issues to speak of" and let the remainder of the City of PG sit there and have to tell its citizens their tax bill has just gone up because they are smaller in area and are carrying a larger proportionate burden for an air quality issue which is predominately one for the lower lying areas of the City and that part of the City which has the major industries housed in it?

Who writes these "excuses". Hopefully people do not actually get paid to spin these things in this fashion.

BTW, if the Terasen franchise fee is increased, will those people receiving natural gas be paying for these increases which would, in fact, be increasing to support services other than gas services, thus making those who are on gas service paying a disproportionate share of paying for increased policing costs, for instance?
Comment Posted by: Bridge on November 27 2007 10:12 AM
"Servicing the City’s debt" and the list goes on. Why are we thinking of borrowing more money for other projects when the Cities debt becomes an "extra expense".

Why do they call it a budget. Sounds more like a tax grab engineered by a "committee of the hole". GOD HELP US.

Cheers