City council has slowed the rate of increase for parkade fees in Prince George, but some users could end up paying more in the end.
After nearly an hour of sometimes contentious debate, council voted 6-3 in favour of a plan that will see rates increase 25 per cent this year and 15 per cent in each of the next two years.
The vote reversed a plan stemming from last year's core review recommendations which had seen rates jump substantially. Last fall council had voted overwhelmingly to increase the rates to help cover the cost of needed repairs to the aging structures, but some councillors now admit that was a mistake.
The initial increases, which in some cases amounted to user fees doubling in some lots, had met with opposition from people who work downtown and use the parkade. The users had petitioned council to reconsider the increase due to the burden they faced in dealing with the sudden increase in the context of other expenses like child care.
"Jacking those rates up as high as they've gone is wrong," Coun. Brian Skakun said.
Coun. Murry Krause admitted he made a mistake when he supported the initial increases and hadn't considered what it would mean to users and their families, a view echoed by Coun. Garth Frizzell.
"You had one group of people that was saying, 'Let's do the whole thing in one year and arm the torpedoes and full steam ahead,' " Frizzell said. "I was part of that group and I made a mistake."
Originally, councillors Lyn Hall, Frank Everitt and Krause had presented a plan at Monday's meeting that would only have seen the rates increase at 10 per cent a year for each of the next three years, but some around the council table said that wasn't enough to fund needed repairs. Frizzell proposed an amendment to the 25-15-15 increase which he said would ensure parkade users came closer to covering the costs of the buildings.
The amended motion got the support of the councillors who proposed the initial motion as well as Frizzell, Skakun and Coun. Albert Koehler.
But Mayor Shari Green said for some users the new rate structure will eventually see them paying more in the end than had the original significant jump for this year had been left in place.
"While we've got councillors expressing concern that people were paying too big a bill, they're actually going to be paying a bigger bill by the end of 2016 than had we left it alone," she said.
Frizzell said his calculations show that in some cases some people may be paying a few dollars more at the end of the day under his amended plan, but it was the right thing to do to avoid the shock of the big increase this year.
Coun. Cameron Stolz, who opposed both motions, cited the city's infrastructure deficit - which he termed as critical. He said he could support a phased increase, but only if the increases could reasonably fund the needed improvements to the parkades.
"For Christ sakes, can we at least get numbers based on science?" he said, later apologizing for his "frank language."
Stolz also expressed disappointment that past councils had lacked the foresight to plan for the required upkeep of the parakades and other civic infrastructure, which has necessitated the sharp increase in rates.
Director of public safety and civic facilities Rob Whitwham told council that capital expenses needed to maintain the two oldest parkades built in 1975 and 1980 will be more than $4 million in 2015 and 2016.
Downtown off-street parking are funded by a combination of user fees and a levy on downtown property owners. Since the rate of increase for the users will be going down, that will mean the levy will need to go up.
In stating his opposition to the motion, Coun. Dave Wilbur expressed concerns that by subsidizing the rates for those who use the parking lot, it could cause the levy to skyrocket.
"Will it quadruple the levy?" he asked. "That doesn't make sense either."
Green, who also opposed the lower rates of increase, cited news stories in other jurisdictions where the failure to maintain infrastructure lead to concrete falling causing public safety issues.
The new, lower rates, won't come into effect until April because city administration needs to act on council's motion and prepare a revision to the bylaw which will be voted on at a future meeting.
