City Council chooses phased approach for stormwater infrastructure tax levy

Prince George City Council made a decision on a new stormwater management fund at tonight’s (Monday) meeting.

In September 2024, City Council was presented with a number of options on creating a dedicated stormwater management fund.

At that meeting, City Council chose to create a utility fee based on the measurement of the hard surface area in a sampling of all types of residential properties.

According to a staff report, this would add an additional $65.92 onto the average tax bill, which would start in 2027.

Tonight, Council was presented with more options on how to implement that fee:

1. Begin charging all properties the full funding level of $9M with an annual ERU of $169.07 as of January 1, 2027.
2. Option 1, plus freeze the extra 1% to the General Infrastructure Reinvestment Fund (GIRF) for two years. This option mostly neutralizes the 2.25% net increase to the representative home owner. The City still has a large infrastructure funding gap so this option doesn’t help us close it much and may result in future funding challenges for infrastructure types that are funded by GIRF (facilities for example). The two-year freeze would be proposed in 2027 and 2028.
3. Begin charging all properties on January 1, 2027 at less than the full funding level with phased increases over two years to reach the full funding level. The intent of this option would be to start charging an ERU at $103.15 in the table above and then increase the ERU in 2028 and 2029 to reach the full funding level in 2029. This option helps close the
   infrastructure funding gap in storm drainage just as in Option 1, but takes a little more time to get there. Challenges in this option would include the utility relying on other funding sources for capital reinvestment for a while longer until the reserve has time to build up enough funds. Also, the increases in 2028 and 2029, as a percentage, would be high and likely result in heavy criticism in those years.
4. Option 1, 2, or 3, plus implement a credit program as a pilot for 3 years to determine its benefits.
5. Do not create a dedicated fund and continue to include stormwater related expenses within the general tax levy, where it will need to compete with other City service categories

Councillor Garth Frizzell put option one on the floor.

“The number that you’ve proposed of 65 additional dollars, that’s more than five dollars per month that would be added to the residential tax bill, more than five bucks every single month, but compare that with the cost of the infrastructure that could be damaged by flooding,” he said.

“I think it’s time for us to make the choice and pull the band aid off and just get this done.”

Councillor Cori Ramsay said she was leaning that way as well.

“When we look at the current funding model, stormwater management is competing with many capital project interests for the same dollars,” she said.

“Having a dedicated levy will really ensure that we can hit that required investment to, quite frankly, protect our community from the impacts of climate change.”

Councillor Ron Polillo agreed the issue needs to be addressed, but felt option three was the better way to go.

“Option three gets us there, but perhaps not right away, well it doesn’t, it’s a three-year phased approach,” he said.

“I’m thinking about the taxpayer, which I think all of us around this table are all taxpayers too, that implementing it within a year-and-a-half from now, is a lot for the taxpayer to absorb.”

Councillor Trudy Klassen said she was disappointed to be in the situation, saying there’s options to better utilize natural drainage areas.

Councillor Tim Bennett said he wasn’t “thrilled” with option one, and he preferred the phased approach.

“Coming into tonight’s meeting, I was actually leaning towards a combination of option three and option four, where we would give time to residents to know that this is coming, but also give time to start thinking about alternatives and incentives that they could look at over the next year and a half to improve the drainage and and opportunities for incentives at their property prior to this coming into place,” he explained.

Councillor Kyle Sampson brought up Edmonton, saying they make retention ponds and market housing developments around them as “lakefront property.”

He also added he would be interested into adding an incentive program that could help residents lower the stormwater fee.

Option one was defeated, and option three was put on the floor and passed.

Council also voted to have staff return a report on a potential credit program.