In Thursday's editorial, I wrote about how user fees on recreational facilities like hockey rinks and swimming pools are problematic.
They run against the efforts of Northern Health and other agencies to improve the physical health of residents and lower the soaring per capita health care costs.
They run against the efforts of local companies and Initiatives Prince George to attract young working professionals to Prince George by pointing to our excellent, easily accessible facilities.
They run against the efforts of the city itself to foster community development and social adhesion, bringing residents and families together for various activities.
Finally, the idea of raising user fees for civic facilities, as a "suggested opportunity" for increased city revenue in the KPMG core services review report, is based on the idea that people and sports groups will just absorb the higher fees and use the facilities as much or more than ever before.
It's back to square one if fees go up 10 per cent and residents respond by using the facilities 10 per cent less often than before.
No, it would actually be worse than that. Council would have passed a budget, counting on that revenue coming in. When it didn't, there would be a scramble in the final quarter of the year to find those revenues elsewhere, like informing non-profits they would be receiving a 97 per cent property tax discount, instead of the full 100 per cent, a move council already made earlier this fall.
Or the city could jack up other user fees.
How about developers paying more for building permits?
How about residents paying more to subdivide property?
That's just two examples.
The city has already made it known that, despite the opposition of the Downtown Business Improvement Association, paid parking is coming back downtown, in one form or another. In other words, if you "use" downtown - shop at its stores, eat at its restaurants, do business at a bank or a lawyer or an accountant located in the city centre - you'll pay for it.
Coun. Brian Skakun's much-maligned idea to introduce a local fuel tax to help pay for road repair is a form of user fee, in that the more you would drive on local roads, the more you'd pay for the privilege to do so.
Some city leaders are sensitive and split hairs about the distinction between user fees and taxes but it's irrelevant, since ultimately the funds raised go into the city coffers as revenue. In other words, the current members of city council who campaigned on getting tough on municipal taxes but are now leading the charge on raising user fees are reaching for the cash in your left pocket instead of your right and saying with a straight face that there's a difference.
The benefit of user fees is that they are designed to target the "user" of the government-provided service and they are transparent - the user knows what they're paying for.
For example, Highway 407 through Toronto is called an ETR (express toll route) and serves as an alternative to the ridiculously jammed (but free) 401.
Drivers buy a transponder and mount it to their windshield. The transponder keeps track of how often and how far you travel on the 407 and bills the driver accordingly. If you don't have a transponder, a camera snags a picture of your licence plate and fines you accordingly.
User fees sound great but they have their limits.
Elementary and secondary schools, hospitals, firefighters and police departments shouldn't be operated on a user-fee system for obvious reasons. In that light, a case could be made for higher overall taxes but then no user fees as a way to encourage greater use of pay-as-you-go city services. Everybody would help pay for hockey rinks, swimming pools and art galleries but also share the costs for building permits and business licences.
Bottom line is there is nothing straightforward about user fees as a way to increase revenue at city hall. Despite what they appear to offer, user fees are not a simple solution to a complex problem.
Managing editor, Neil Godbout
