Prince George city council voted at its Monday, July 28 meeting to partner with the three local opposition MLAs to partner on a forum on retail and business crime later this year.
Councillors Kyle Sampson and Tim Bennett gave notice of the motion directing city administration to host the forum at the Monday, July 14 council meeting.
In the notice of motion document, the councillors write that their intent isn’t to direct the operations of Prince George RCMP or stepping into challenges faced by the private sector, but “making sure the city is doing what it can, within its lane, to support a safer business environment, and in turn, a safer community.”
They wrote that in in “recent meetings with a major employer and retail sector leaders,” they and fellow council colleagues committed to creating a dialogue between police and the business community.
The document also suggested that administration could work with local partners to arrange for tours of local stores and their loss prevention teams.
The councillors argued that the forum would align with other initiatives council has discussed recently like the downtown security camera pilot project as well as council’s strategic plan.
“Any minimal costs associated with facilitating the forum or coordinating related activities would be absorbed within the existing administrative operating budget,” the document concluded.
At the meeting, Sampson mentioned that the concerns they’ve been hearing about aren’t just limited to theft, but violent crimes as well. He added that a forum would tie into the lobbying work the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs has been doing with the provincial government relating to public safety.
Sampson said he had spoken with Prince George-Mackenzie Conservative MLA Kiel Giddens earlier in the day who told him that he and the other two Prince George provincial representatives were working on a similar forum after hearing the same concerns.
Because of that, the councillors proposed an altered motion calling on administration to partner with the MLAs to jointly host the forum.
Bennett said that while council has the responsibility to advocate and work on local issues, a lot of issues around public safety are under provincial jurisdiction and jointly hosting the event would help move things forward.
He said that Giddens had told him the Prince George Chamber of Commerce would be involved with the MLAs’ event.
Coun. Ron Polillo, connecting to the meeting remotely, said he had concerns with the original motion regarding how much of staff’s time setting up the forum would take as well as a lack of specifics on how much the event would cost. With the revised motion, he said partnering with the MLAs would help address those issues.
Coun. Cori Ramsay said that she had previously worked on a poverty reduction strategy developed by the city which said its role was to facilitate, support and navigate on that topic. The forum, she said, would follow along similar lines.
Director of finance and IT services Kris Dalio asked for more clarity in the motion relating to how many staff hours and city funds should be spent in setting up the forum.
Sampson said he wanted staff to have a lot of latitude, but it’s his impression that the MLAs' offices would be doing most of the preparation work and the city could step in to offer help in finding an appropriate venue, providing staff resources for planning or offering some financial resources.
Coun. Garth Frizzell said it might be proper to refer this issue to the Standing Committee on Public Safety for consideration. Mayor Simon Yu said he would like the intergovernmental affairs committee to consider the topic even if the vote on the motion failed.
Yu proposed an amendment removing the final line from the motion mentioning that costs for the forum be absorbed by the existing administrative operating budget. It passed, with Sampson and Bennett voting against it.
After that vote, Sampson expressed concern about the removal of a commitment to support the forum monetarily. Yu said council still has more than $3,000 from its annual contingency fund that it could choose to spend once specific costs have been identified.
The motion as amended passed unanimously.
