The $30 Million Capital Loan: What You Need to Know
30 Million dollar plan | On February 23, 2026, Prince George City Council moved forward with an Alternative Approval Process (AAP) to borrow $30,046,000.
30 Million dollar plan | The Cost to You
If approved, this debt will cost taxpayers $2.62 million annually in debt servicing. This isn’t just a one-time fee; it represents an approximate 1.66% increase to future tax levies.
Where the Money is Going:
- $15.86 Million: CN Centre Building Envelope Renewal.
- $5.15 Million: Memorial Park Cemetery Expansion.
- $4.08 Million: Equipment Financing (Includes a $250,000 Zamboni and $3.4M in general mobile equipment).
- $2.50 Million: Stormwater System Renewal.
- $2.45 Million: Civic Facilities Roof Replacements.
The “Validation” Question | 30 Million dollar plan
While infrastructure like roofs and storm pipes are necessary, questions remain about the $4.08 million for equipment. In a tight budget year, was every piece of this equipment—including $3.4 million in general “mobile equipment”—fully validated for necessity before being sent to the AAP?
How the AAP Works (And How to Say No)
The AAP assumes you agree with the borrowing unless you explicitly submit an Elector Response Form.
The Goal: If 10% of voters (approx. 5,600 residents) submit forms, the city must stop the borrowing or hold a full referendum.
The Window: April 28, 2026 – June 2, 2026.
The Fiscal “U-Turn”
This borrowing proposal represents a direct contradiction to Council’s recent work. After the intensive effort required to reduce the tax levy, granting city administration a $30 million blank check effectively undoes those savings at the taxpayers’ expense.
Barriers to Accountability
- Neutralizing the Levy Cut: The debt servicing for this loan likely offsets the relief provided by the tax reduction, making the initial “savings” an illusion.
- The AAP Hurdle: By using the Alternative Approval Process, the burden of proof is shifted. Instead of the city proving the need for the loan via a referendum, the public must organize at a massive scale just to be heard.
- Information Gap: This process makes it functionally impossible for the average citizen to dispute the loan, as the 10% threshold is a notoriously high bar to clear within a short window.
Bottom Line: It is a lopsided move that asks the public to pay for administrative expansion while simultaneously making it as difficult as possible for those same taxpayers to say “no.”
Detailed Breakdown of the 30 Million dollar plan | Disconnect
1. The Illusion of Fiscal Responsibility While Council recently celebrated a reduction in the tax levy—a move intended to provide breathing room for households—this $30 million administrative loan acts as a “shadow tax.” When the city borrows such a significant sum, the interest alone can create a long-term deficit that necessitates future tax hikes, effectively clawing back the relief taxpayers were just promised.
2. The AAP: A High Barrier to Democracy The Alternative Approval Process is often criticized as “disenfranchisement by design.” By requiring 10% of the entire voting population to sign and submit physical forms within a tight deadline, the city sets a bar that is rarely met. This creates a lopsided dynamic where:
- Silence is interpreted as consent: If a citizen is busy, unaware, or unable to find a form, they are counted as a “Yes” vote.
- Administrative Advantage: The city uses taxpayer-funded resources to promote the loan, while the public must spend their own time and money to oppose it.
3. Erosion of Public Trust Granting city administration such a large sum without a direct referendum sends a message that the public’s input is a hurdle to be cleared rather than a value to be sought. It undermines the “hard turn” Council made toward fiscal restraint, replacing transparent budgeting with a complex debt instrument that is difficult for the average resident to track or dispute.
How to Oppose the 30 Million dollar loan
