Thanks very much for the link, exactly what I was looking for.
boy you really have your facts the city should look at
hiring folks like you who take time to do research i know
the city is in a tough position but i strongly feel this year
we will be in better shape then ever ,we need to stay focused
and keep moving positive forward i thank you for your reply
keep up the good work speaker up
Thank you, but no the city would not hire vanguardists and boat rockers like me. I would recommend that elected leaders receive political re-education by spending time among the peasants, working for low pay, taking job search courses at CRC etc.
Then maybe they would understand why taxpayer subsidies of the airport ferry to the tune of around $750,000 a year to help out people who can afford out-of-town flights including for fun in the sun somewhere else makes no sense, or on second thought is fiscally irresponsible, especially during times of budgetary restraint.
unreal good topic about "city west " I’m really not impressed how we all pay for 5MB/s high speed internet services which is all they have to offer and I’ve done some close monitoring and lucky if we get 1MB/s download and 0.4 MB/s upload there ripping us off and the fact that it has anything to do with the municipality is stupid, close up shop and let some companies that have the money to upgrade the system do so. exactly what is the the problem with this town ?
Turd sandwich I have good news for you, if you dislike the town so much there are plenty of ways out. You can drive, catch the plane, there is the ferry service, walk if you have to but it is the highway of tears so probably not a great idea, or you could always fold yourself into a cardboard box and mail yourself anywhere but here. Prince Rupert is a good community and a good place to raise a family. I have yet to fear for my safety while walking down the street or stopping at an ATM like people in major municipalities where violent crime is the name of the game. pick one and have a safe trip.
Yea, why fix roads, too? They only get use by those richers with a car.
I for one like having our excellent Rec facilities, even though I don’t use them as much as I should…Props to Speakuppr & BTravenn for all the research!
User fees for the Digby ferry might be a good way to bring some revenue in. I’ve been seeing some good ideas, why don’t we HTMFers hit up some council meetings and ask a question or 2? Might not get taken seriously, but I’m all for exhausting all possible democratic channels before I dust off the trusty ol RPG-7…plus those rounds ain’t cheap.
Good ideas from BTravenn…Somewhat Khmer Rouge-esque, but maybe you have to kick a little ass to get anything done these days…
My dear chap, people of all social classes use our roads, and don’t forget buses for seniors, students and non-drivers, fire services, ambulance, security services, sanitation, the list goes on. Interesting you bring up the subject of roads though.
In the amended 5 Year Plan the city plans to spend more on the airport ferry than on roads, starting this year, and about 3 times more than on city transit.
The airport ferry is planned to cost taxpayers $953,000 in 2010 ($1,847,000 expenditures - $897,000 revenue). Meanwhile, $844,000 is budgeted for roads. The net cost of the transit service is about $300,000.
Now anyone who thinks that makes sense either spent too much time in the sun during their last vacation or trained in the Soviet Union. I’m sure these are just details busy state planners overlooked and elected officials didn’t notice.
Here’s the link:
princerupert.ca/images/edito … er2009.pdf
Look, make the airport ferry pay for itself and the cost of getting to and from downtown Rupert will be a bit less than a cab between YVR and downtown Vancouver. No big deal. Or better yet include the full cost in the ticket price like the airport tax at YVR and people barely pay attention.
So Eccentric, you support subsidizing the airport ferry?
I think that anyone who has lived here since the 80’s when fishing was good, and in the 90’s when the mill was open will agree that almost every store/business that has not shut down in town, has laid off staff or cut hours for staff etc. EXCEPT THE CITY! So here we are 5 years since the mill permanently shut down and the city is now saying oh we don’t have any money!!! I do agree with Jack that everything is for sale for the right price, I don’t know about the ferry system … ( it should be cost effective) we do need a service to get to the airport. Perhaps offer early retirement to city staff that are eligble … saves money in the long run … new employee = less vacation and wages etc than a 25 year employee and with a lot of the work force able to retire in the next 3 years it would be a good cost saving move. Justin Case you really should run for council you seem to have no likings for the current council, and my words have always been you are either part of the problem or you are the solution.
BTravenn; Thanks for providing that information and your analysis of the ferry costs. Certainly a vigorous debate about priorities for spending is worthwhile. Whether it’s appropriate for the city to be subsidizing air travel to the tune of 45% of the ferry costs is a great starting point.
Frankly, I think city management and council have their financial objectives wrong. To quote;
Council will encourage economic development by minimizing tax increases.
Source: page 15
princerupert.ca/images/edito … tation.pdf
As an objective this blows!. How does one measure whether this objective has been achieved? Objectives should be Smart. Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Relevant and Time Bounded. I think a much better objective for the City should be as follows;
Suggested Objective
Over the next five years, Council will encourage economic development by reducing the overall tax burden on it’s citizens by 25% to bring overall expenditures per citizen in line with other BC Municipalities in our peer group. In addition expenditures will be relallocated to focus on decreasing the backlog of required Capital Infrastructure Repairs and Improvements by increasing expenditures per citizen to at least 150% of the median capital expenditure per citizen in our peer group. For the purpose of this objective our peer group is BC Municipalities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999.
If previous councils had adopted a stretch goal of this nature, instead of spending $2,039 per Rupertitite in 2007, the City would have spent $1,643. In addition instead of only spending $103 dollars per Rupertitie versus the $523 that other municipalites spent to maintain their infrastructure, we would have spent $784.5 per citizen in 2007.
Frankly, we are not going to be competitive in attracting economic growth by having one of the highest tax burdens in BC and we are not going to be able to dent our 90+ million dollar backlog of infrastructure repairs and improvements by timid and unmeasureable objectives. We need to look at all of our Sacred Cows and ask ourselves the following questions;
- Should the municipality be providing this type of service at all?
2 If the answer is yes then who should be paying for the serivce? - Is there a better and more cost effective way to provide this service?
Using your example of the ferry;
Personally, I believe that Rupert needs an Airport if we are to continue to encourage economic growth. If the overall consensus is that we do need a ferry and by extension the airport, then the substantial operating deficit begs the following questions;
- Should the Users of this service pay the full costs of using the ferry?
- Should the City look at privatizing this service to see if it can be run more effectively, efficiently and at a lower cost to the end users and the City?
Certainly we have any number of local marine service companies that are skilled in transporting passengers and equipment. Contracting out the service and regulating it like any other utility such as taxi services may be worth exploring.
Well I saw this topic as being more about City Finances than any one service such as CityWest, Rec Centres or Airport Ferries. Having said this, One of the millstones around the City’s neck is the amount of debt it carries.
In 2008 Long term debenture and capital lease debt was some $9.3 million. Principal repayment on this debt was $609,909. While I could not easily pull out the interest I note on page 20 of the 2009 presentation that our annual interest costs are reported at $921,000. Thus principal and interest carrying costs on our debt are some $1,531,000 per annum.
In the same year we wrote off $20,000,000 of our investment in CityWest due to current economic conditions! This is a company that a former mayor and council set up in 2004 to sell our municipal telephone company to and to purchase Monarch Cable. Dividends have been dissapointingly low at around $1,000,000 per year since it was set up. I’m not sure if the company missed paying dividends one year or not but other HTMF’s may recall.
Assuming CityWest has not missed paying any dividends; over the last five years, we’ve suffered a $20 million dollar loss on the value of the company in return for dividends of some $5 million dollars.
At the same time, each year we pay out $1.5 million dollars in interest and principal on municipal debt.
On the face of things, we’d be better off to sell CityWest for the $31 million it’s on our books for, pay off our debt and bank the remaining $22 million dollars. Our cash flow immediately improves by some $531,000 per annum and we are no longer at risk that CityWest will be unable to compete in the Telecom space with Rogers, Telus, Bell and new entrants that are now coming.
The $22 million dollars can be invested in low risk bonds or used to start to make a dent in our capital infrastructure backlog. Note that since the $20 million writedown, we’ve seen emerging technology and the entry of other competitors in the Canadian telecom markets which make our investment into full service telecommunications even riskier.
*(Mind you if we did sell CityWest, we may not have the amusement of having a local municipally owned company writing “Love” letters to the owners of locally owned bulletin boards!) *
Sources:
princerupert.ca/images/edito … tation.pdf Page 20
princerupert.ca/images/edito … tement.pdf
Perhaps you could follow the example of BTravenn and contribute something meaningful to the discussion rather than sarcasm. Even better, invite your mother to contribute to the discussion and answer some of the questions that are being asked.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
The airport ferry is planned to cost taxpayers $953,000 in 2010 ($1,847,000 expenditures - $897,000 revenue). Meanwhile, $844,000 is budgeted for roads. The net cost of the transit service is about $300,000.
Now anyone who thinks that makes sense either spent too much time in the sun during their last vacation or trained in the Soviet Union. I’m sure these are just details busy state planners overlooked and elected officials didn’t notice. [/quote]
From the same document in the link you provided;
“User fees and charges form the second largest portion of planned revenue. Some municipal services, such as: water and sewer usage; recreation and transit usage, can be measured and charged for on a user-pay basis. This basis attempts to fairly apportion the value of a municipal service to those who make use of it.”
and
“Policy
Council has begun to review the fees charge for various services to ensure that the users of the service are paying a fair portion of the operating and capital cost of the service;”
Seems to me that ferry usage falls into this category. Certainly public transit contribute less of a carbon footprint to the environment than than Airline travel does. Good transit systems can contribute significantly to a healthy and vibrant downtown. Perhaps we should do away with subsidizing the ferry and use those monies to dramatically improve our bus service?
I wonder what ever happened to the recommendations in the (Provincially commissioned) Kennedy Expenditure Review of Prince Rupert (2005 wasn’t it)?
I can’t find the report on the City’s site any more, nor can I find it on the Ministry of Finance site.
I THINK THE CITY WORKERS CITY HALL ARE DOING A GREAT JOB
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FOLKS.
Yes some are doing a “great” job, some are doing an ok job and some are doing no job at all. The real story is whether we can afford all these services at this time or whether some serious cuts will be required.
We also need less pom poms and more thought out realistic responses to the situation
[size=9]. . .[/size]
And BTW, I think you did a heckuva job expressing your la-la-land thing rather than facing the reality and tackling issues that really matter.
As much as I would hate to close the local airport sometimes I wonder if the ferry is worth the expense… I agree we need to spend on good public transport…
I think the ferry to digby should be treated as part of the hiway and become the provinces responsibilty…but thats just my 2 cents 
Has the city always paid for the ferry? Didn’t passengers once pay right on the bus?
How much would passengers have to pay if the city didn’t subsidize it?
According to ypr.ca/html/activity.html there were 63,660 passengers in 2008. The city spent $1,678,993 on the ferry in 2008 (about $26 per passenger). They collected $932,961 (about $15 per passenger).
Would airline passengers mind (or even notice?) a $11 per flight increase?
If it’s a matter of priorities in a shrinking economy, then in my opinion the city should spend tax money on the library and other similar services, not subsidize travel on the ferry. People won’t stop flying if it costs then $11 more per flight. Cutting library hours (or other services) will have an impact, though.
Please feel free to correct my numbers.