The two digital billboards at either end of Port Moody aren’t bringing in as much revenue as had been anticipated.
But the city’s manager of financial planning, Tyson Ganske, says taxpayers shouldn’t be impacted as savings are being found in other areas to offset the $209,000 shortfall.
The red ink was revealed in an update about expected revenues and expenditures of various city departments through the past year.
Paul Rockwood, Port Moody’s general manager of finance and technology, told council’s finance committee on Tuesday (Nov. 15) that while the city will receive the minimum $650,000 guaranteed annually by the signs’ proprietor, Pattison Outdoor Advertising, additional revenues anticipated by the city’s 2022 budget did not materialize.
“People weren’t going out as much, so there was less demand on advertising revenue,” Rockwood said, citing the ongoing fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The placement of the 10-foot high by 35-foot wide billboards was approved by council in 2019 and they were erected in January 2020 — one at the corner of Ioco Road and Barnet Highway and another at the city’s old landfill site on the Barnet.
Port Moody anticipated it would earn about $30 million over the course of the 25-year contract it signed with Pattison, based on a guaranteed annual minimum payment from each billboard, plus a $300,000 signing bonus, or 45 per cent of the ad revenue they generated annually — whichever is greater.
At the time, Pattison said that could amount to more than $590,000 a year from each billboard going into city coffers.
So far, though, that hasn’t quite panned out said Jeff Moi, Port Moody’s general manager of engineering and operations.
“We were hoping to draw in more revenue, but we’re still just getting the minimum annual guarantee,” he said, adding even a loosening of rules by council to allow alcohol to be advertised on the billboards hasn’t generated a bounce in demand.
In October, another company proposed two more digital billboards along the Barnet Highway west (aka St. Johns Street) — one along the curve near Union Street and another just west of the intersection at Clarke Street.
Terms of the contract for that arrangement were not disclosed for “competitive reasons.”
However, council at the time decided to defer any decision on the proposal until residents could have a chance to weigh in on the idea.
