No surprise there! Wonder who gets this plum?

People will moan and complain no matter what the mayor does.

Go ahead with the review and make sure that the recommended changes are implemented which will make the cost of the report worthwhile.

Turning over a new leaf, as promised during the election. This mega plum must be put to public tender and advertised extensively.

One naturally expects that there would be recommended changes but it is also possible that the report may state that the city is already being run as lean and mean as possible and that no changes should be made, i.e. no savings.

Get the mayor from Toronto to do the review.

I think the city should hire another reviewer to review the other reviewer

If city council knew what they were doing, this would not be necessary

I`ll ask my consultant. The Gypsy Lady

Of course a city employee would make the core review look onerous. Did we really think a city employee would want this review done?

Will the mayors sister or brother get this job…you can bet it will be someone close

Well like I mentioned before, there was a reason Shari Green had arrows pointing up on her campaign signs. Those pointed up arrows could have a variety of interpretations. But my first thought is “higher taxes” – this bogus little nugget (core review) that Mayor Green tosses around might actually be made of gold; first it was estimated to cost 200 thousand, then 250 thousand, now today 350 thousand and the review hasn’t started yet! Hang on to your wallets fellow tax payers an arrow is heading your way…

Here is the web site which deals with the Toronto Service Review. It goes beyond the “core” services. In fact, I think that is one of the elements which Council here needs to determine, is this going to be just a core services review or will it go to all services.

For myself, I think that if one is looking not only at how well we are doing with what we must deliver by law and base operations of a city, but are looking for cost savings everywhere, then we must go beyond jusr core services. I think those optional services are where one is more likely to find savings, although they will likely come at a considerable social and even public perception cost as was seen in Toronto and the backpedaling that the Mayor had to do there.
http://www.toronto.ca/torontoservicereview

For “Prince George” I thought he might be interested in this statement made by KPMG:

“Within Toronto Water the S+ service level reflects high water quality produced at lower than target cost, but costs could be further reduced by eliminating fluoridation.”

As a heads up, I pick this statement in the review:
“Toronto conducts street sweeping on ALL ROADS ALL SUMMER. Residential and collector streets could be left alone after the spring cleanup is completed.”

It will be extremely interesting to me what the service standard is going to be against which we will be measuring ourselves. That will be one of the key components of this review.

If we compare ourselves to the street cleaning level of Toronto, we will, I am sure, be having to spend more money rather than less money to provide the service. In a City with air qulity problems suc as PG, this tyoe of discussion could be very interesting and telling of where our Council stands.

Remember there are 4 elements when looking at a service
1. scope
2. quality
3. cost
4. time

Make a change in any one, it will affect the others.

High time we did this. We should take a hint from Toronto … this is a test of transparency for this Council … it absolutely needs to have a presence on the net from the very beginning with its own page.

“If city council knew what they were doing, this would not be necessary”

A city council doesn’t set the priorities and direction of a city. They examine, discuss and usually rubberstamp what has been presented to them for approval, except on the odd rare occasion.

Even a mayor asks for the advice of a manager and recommendations from heads of various city departments during council sessions.

A manager manages. How can a manager effectively manage if he/she has to worry about disapproval of vital issues?

That’s why a manager is usually the highest paid official of a city and is ultimately in charge of the whole thing.

Okay Prince George, you wrote: “A city council doesn’t set the priorities and direction of a city.”

I think you must be suffering from a hangover from last night’s party.

THAT is the very thing City Council’s and Boards do ….

Sure, they will do that with the advice of their City Manager and his/her senior administrators, but it is they who do that and not the City Manager.

Now, if you are referring to how this City works, or has worked in the past for some time, you might be close to being right.

In my view, the first indication of whether one is looking at a well run organization or city is how effectively the CAO and CEO/Board work together.

Yet another report that the city will ignore when making decisions. See Fifth and Tabor Smart Growth Plan.

Gus:” For “Prince George” I thought he might be interested in this statement made by KPMG: “Within Toronto Water the S+ service level reflects high water quality produced at lower than target cost, but costs could be further reduced by eliminating fluoridation.”

——————————-

Thanks for that information! Calgary recently voted to eliminate fluoridation. The city was looking at an expenditure of seven million to implement fluoridation city wide. It also voted to donate the annual savings of several hundred thousand dollars to the funding of public education about proper daily brushing and flossing.

Waterloo also discontinued, as did Fairbanks Alaska and Williams Lake, B.C. which would have seen its annual spending on fluoridation rise to close to one hundred thousand dollars.

There are only 200 million people worldwide still being subjected to intentional fluoridation plus about 70% of the population of the USA.

P.G. claims that it costs about one hundred thousand dollars annually to keep up its fluoridation of the tap water, but this figure is in all likelihood just a basic estimate and it may have to be multiplied by 3 or 4 to reflect the real total costs, like maintenance etc.

Quite a saving possible here, especially in view of the fact that there is no scientific proven difference (in all the countries which still fluoridate and those which never have or discontinued) in dental health of the public and it should be discontinued using the Precautionary Principle in view of the mounting evidence that it is actually causing harm.

Most toothpastes are fluoridated and that alone should satisfy those who still demand that teeth should be exposed to fluoride. Drinking and showering with it does absolutely nothing for teeth.

There are still the moral, ethical and legal aspects of forced mass medication of a water supply. Sooner rather than later these must be addressed too.

“How can a manager effectively manage if he/she has to worry about disapproval of vital issues?”

He/she can’t. As simple as that. But you know, one has to find out where the problem lies when that happens.

First place is “communication”. Why does the manager get it wrong? Why would someone who has been meeting on a reugular basis with the Mayor get it wrong? Or, conversely, why would a Mayor get it wrong?

End result if they cannot get along? Things that should get done don’t due to time wasted on “pissing” matches, rightly or wrongly, not to even speak about the morale in the entire administration AS WELL as Council.

Okay Prince George, you wrote: “A city council doesn’t set the priorities and direction of a city.”

I stand by that opinion. If they alone would set the priorities and direction of a city a city wouldn’t need a manager to manage. The mayor and the councilors would plan what’s next and what is not. Then they would vote on it and do it.

(I did not party last night and I don’t think you did either!);-)

Another note which was made in the Toronto services review is: “The City has started the process to outsource solid waste collection and continuing this process could result in considerable cost reductions.”
I am not sure where the verification of that statement could be found. But Toronto is the place to watch since they have just outsourced part of the collection in the GTA.
I think they will have some trouble measuring apples to apples to see whether they will actually have a net saving with either the same or improved quality of service.
Here is an article previous to privatization
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110207/110207_garbage?hub=CP24Home

Here is the announcement of the contract award in October http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/19/toronto-privatizing-trash.html

Just look at how much problem we have measuring changes in cost of pre garbage bin standardization/automatic bin pickup system to the current cost.

How about pulling the city employees computer records and dock pay on a percentage basis for hours spent on faacebook, solitaire, ebay – heck, opinion250 for that matter :-D

We will likely have to agree to disagree on that one Prince George .. :-)

One more try, however. I think I noticed a hint of movement … LOL

You wrote … “If they ALONE would set the priorities” .

Yes, I think my note about how the CAO and CEO have to work closely together fits with the notion that neither works alone. When they do, then there are problems.

We have to go back to who the actual “owners” of a city are … its inhabitants and some will even restrict it to its ratepayers.

The system we have in North America is that the ratepayers have a say in what services they wish a city to provide. That is what it boils down to, the services, not the operation. I do not care how you get it done, I care about what services we get and how much we pay for those.

So, we either vote in representatives (Council) to work with administration to look after our interests, or we get rid of Council and vote in the Manager. Or we find another way to have input into running the City.

Rightly or wrongly, successfully or poorly, we are connected to the process.

Of course we could also look at other systems such as outsourcing the whole lot, never mind solid waste management collection – 5 year contract, new RFP every 5 years goes to the lowest bidder.

We have to remember, it’s our infrastructure.

Other municipalities have their “City Manager” job up for grabs the same time they have their municipal election.
The names are on their ballots………

The way you write that it makes it sound like we are in the minority in appointing a City Manager rather than electing someone to that position.

Give us some examples of which CITIES in Canada, and even the USA, elect the City Manager.

BTW, here is a good explanation of how city governance is supposed to work:

https://www.auroragov.org/AuroraGov/Government/City_Manager_s_Office/index.htm

Duties of the City Manager:

•Ensures that the policy direction set by the city council is carried out
•Sees to it that the city’s delivery of public services is of high quality and provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner
•Prepares a recommended budget for the city council
•Recruits, hires and supervises city of Aurora staff
•Provides the city council objective information and recommendations regarding the issues and decisions before the city council.

Council’s focus is on:
•Aurora’s short-term goals
•Major projects and long-term considerations such as capital improvement projects
•Land use development
•Capital financing

City of Los Angeles has the following who are elected
1. Mayor
2. City Attorney
3. City Controller (by districts)

Sorry, of course that should be:

City of Los Angeles has the following who are elected
1. Mayor
2. City Attorney
3. City Controller
4. City Councillors (by districts)

This is the sort of thing an elected controller postion could do.
http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@ctr_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_019132.pdf

Fluoridation is a Waste of Tax Money

Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.org). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

Even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, distributing any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful method. As a Civil Engineer, I know that people drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the water with this toxic fluoride chemical (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is dumped directly into the environment through the sewer system.

For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice.

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.

Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful government program. Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.

Gus, you introduced the notion of councils plus boards!

What are you trying to say?

Aurora, CO 80012 – I see that is what the situation is like in CO = Colorado, USA.

Well, good information! Let’s do what THEY do in LA and ELECT a city controller instead of letting a mayor choose who gets the manager’s job. Seems to me that here if we (the voters) are not happy with the manager and the job he/she is doing we can’t un-appoint him/her.

Very undemocratic, isn’t it? If a city has a weak mayor or a mayor who is so busy with the political aspects of representing the city that he/she leaves all or most of the direction decisions and planning and setting of priorities to the manager (it does happen) wouldn’t this lead to the councillors basically having no choice but to agree with what is being put in front of them?

At least we would have a say every three years and elect a new controller/manager! What if the same appointed manager takes the city over a period of many years in a wrong direction and a many term mayor doesn’t object, being too busy with all the other stuff?

That too happens, occasionally.

The core review that KPMG did for Toronto seems to be very thorough.

Perhaps KPMG can do one for P.G.

jwillie6, great comment on the fluoride issue!

We must not forget to mention that many teens have fluorosis of the teeth from fluoride in the water, an ugly staining and mottling of the enamel surface of the teeth. Fluoride proponents shrug it off as a *cosmetic* problem which can be adressed by expensive treatments by a dentist, but this is just a visible indication of what kind of damage this corrosive stuff can do! What about the invisible cumulative damage to the INTERNAL organs of the body and the associated health care costs?

97% of British Columbia is free of AWF (artificial water fluoridation) and now P.G. is the last big city to persist in continuing this needless expensive practice!

Scientific representations to the city have not made any difference. Perhaps the city manager and new mayor and council will listen and then act according to the well-known Precautionary Principle!

Still waiting to hear about one documented case in Prince George of where someone got sick because of fluoride. Anyone?

No mention about management compensation in the scope… I don’t expect much other than more costs.

I hope one day a class-action lawsuit gets launched against the city for mass medication of its water supply with the toxin fluoride… maybe then they would stop.

Hopefully that won’t be necessary! Since Prince George never had a referendum on the issue of fluoride addition – the City can simply decide to shut it off.

No referendum required! The longer it ignores the fluoride issue the more the public resistance to this mass medication will grow!

It’s completely illegal according to the Nuremberg convention which states that no person shall have any medication administered to it without the person’s knowledge and consent.

Chlorine is added for TREATING the WATER to kill bacteria and other harmful organism like cryptosporidium.

The chemical sodium fluoride is added for TREATING PEOPLE (!!!) NOT the water!

However, the prospect of a lawsuit is always a possibility, it can’t be ruled out as people become more educated!

“Still waiting to hear about one documented case in Prince George of where someone got sick because of fluoride. Anyone?”

Specialists and doctors are looking at kidney disease, thyroid disease, osteosarcoma, etc without being able to define precisely WHY people get these.

Just because they can’t implicate fluoride directly doesn’t mean that there is not a possibility that sodium fluoride is factor or a contributing factor.

http://www.fluoridealert.org
will give you enough information to become serious about this.

To rule fluoride out the first natural step is to remove one source: The public water supply!

“Gus, you introduced the notion of councils plus boards! What are you trying to say?”

Just that I view the purpose of a Council is similar to the purpose of a Board of Directors. Both are elected by a constituency to represent them to set directions (a policy setting body) as opposed to an administrative body.

The extent to which such public governance bodies work in relation to administrative bodies varies from community to community and also changes over the long term.

In my opinion there is a good site that looks at municipal and regional governance in Texas which is not foreign to the variations in Canada.

http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_dye_politics_5/7/1867/478179.cw/index.html

My favourite larger city in the USA is Portland, Oregon. I understand it to be the last holdout of a city run by Commissioners. There is no city manager. There are no councillors who have no operational authority.

Here is their web site. Notice the 6 commissioners who are all elected and together form the Council. All get compensation in the $100,000/year range for their full time positions. All head up separate portfolios which they manage. All are elected to take care of those specific portfolios.

http://www.portlandonline.com

Click on the individual commissioner’s image on the top left to go to their web site which will provide information on which bureaus or portfolios they have.

Lots of information on the site. Seems like a very transparent way of doing the “business of the people”.

Here is an interesting resolution that will be going to the next meeting of the Council.

“Establish as a position of the Portland City Council that corporations should not receive the same legal rights as natural persons do that money is not speech…….”
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=50265&a=380759

This should be interesting. Here we have a Mayor and Council who were elected primarily because they promised to cut taxes. And oh yeah, she was going to do it without laying anyone off or cutting services. (I wonder if she has a magic pill or magic wand for that?)

Now they are going to add to the tax increase that is already too high. 4% or 5% hike is a long way from her promise of a 10% cut. Oh well the election is over, she got the power she wanted and our memories are short.

Surely our new mayor and the other incumbents on Council have been there long enough to know where to cut if they really wanted to. It is isn’t complicated, gas the social and cultural grants, cut the tax exemptions given to the churches, start charging market rates for community groups renting city facilities, reinstate parking meters downtown so they rest of us don’t have to subsidize downtown parking (better yet contract it out to Impark), contract out the garbage collection and oh yeah, maybe lead by example and scrap the 30% pay hike you are about to give yourselves. Looking for cuts across the board while giving yourselves a huge pay increase is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The fact they need a committee of Council to define the work is also evidence that many on Council don’t know what a “core review” actually is (or they prefer to talk about contracting out behind closed doors).

Anything less than identifying the areas to cut services or where services could be contracted out is not a core review it is called management. Finding areas to be more efficient and identifying areas to save funds is what management is supposed to do. If that isn’t happening fire the City Manager. Don’t waste $350 thousand in tax dollars on a political exercise to try and give life to false promises made during an election campaign.

Gus that is an interesting find. Portland has always been my favorite American city too… great to see how they do things differently down there… fantastic to see them taking on the corporations are people issue as well.

Everything is relative ….

1. How much are you paying right now to the City, SD57, the Regional District and Northern Health?

2. If you are paying any property tax, why are you singling out the city portion of the tax?

3. Do you think that all the others are spending reasonably?

4. Do you think a similar review should be done of the others who use property taxes to fund paortions of their opertions?

5. If you have property and are paying property taxes, how much less are you looking to pay?

6. After you pay the amount you are willing to pay, will you accept an increase in subsequent years, or do you want to keep paying the same amount every year?

I know these are questions that no one ever seems to ask. But I think we need to find out what the “price point” is around here for the excpected service.

Once we establish the ability or willingness to pay, then we can see what we can buy for that. I mean, after all, if you can only afford $10,000, then don’t go shopping for new cars on a lot with $40,000 cars as a starting price.

Something about a champagne taste on a beer budget.

So let’s find out whether this town fits into that category.

Portland, Oregon is a great city! I used to visit it a lot and stayed often in Beaverton which is not far from Portland.

The people are very proud of their city, which is called the City of Roses. It has a very inviting ambience about it. It’s clean and well looked after, at least is was when I saw it the last time about ten years ago.

“Don’t waste $350 thousand in tax dollars on a political exercise to try and give life to false promises made during an election campaign.”

We do not know how much this exercise is going to cost. The manager mentions a great sum of money before the job has even been put to public tender. It’s like putting the cart before the horse. Can’t we do it the proper way and get some competitive estimates FIRST?

Mercury amalgam dental fillings, still being touted as totally safe by the dental profession, just like fluoride, but NOW read this:

————————————–

“The World Health Organization (WHO) released its final report on dental amalgam, and has taken a stance against the use of mercury in dentistry — a move that could signal the beginning of the end for this toxic, outdated practice.

In their report, Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration, WHO committed itself “to work for reduction of mercury and … facilitate the work for a switch in use of dental materials.”

The report states that amalgam “has been associated with general health concerns” and releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment.

It also notes that alternatives to amalgam are readily available.”

————————————–

“Can’t we do it the proper way and get some competitive estimates FIRST?”

My experience and method of operation in various businesses has been that one cannot get estimates on no information. Those estimates will be as good as useless. Not only that, but the people giving them will see that you are on a fishing trip and really do not know what you are talking about, so why should they waste their time.

From my experience, the first call will end upo with the question posed to you “what kind of a review do you want? I can give you one for $75,000 and I can give you one for $500,000.”

I have been on both sides of that conversation. A couple of minutes on the phone with someone who wants an “idea” of what it might cost and I can tell whether they know what they want or not. If they want a “quote” … forget it. They are tire kickers.

I would think that the City Manager has done his due diligence, has put together an approximate idea of what the City ought to be doing and a ball park figure of what that would cost.

In fact, I know he has done about as much as can be done without getting additional direction froom Council. I have read the submission ot Council. It can be viewed here on the Net.

http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_01_09/documents/Rpt_Core_Services_Review.pdf

Remember, there is a budget to be approved shortly and this expenditure will have to be included in that budget.

As well, it is proposed that a steering committee be struck to handle the project.

From the report

“Council may expect a significant range in project expense, which is relative to project scope and schedule. A preliminary allocation of $350,000 within the 2012 operating budget is recommended. That budget may need adjustment once Council has determined an acceptable project scope and the results of competitive bidding are known.”

He has provided a menu of the types of items which could be reviewed. He has not given any hint at what might be a minimum, an average, and a full level review. He is leaving that up to the committee, I think.

I expect this to be a high level discussion at council with details to be set aside for the committee to deal with.

You are making it appear as if nobody knows what kind of review the city/manager wants.

I urge you to look at the top of the page where you will find listed the entire scope of the review, on which an estimate can be based:

————————————–

While the scope of the Core Review has yet to be determined, Bates’ report suggests such a review could include the following:

· reviewing an inventory of all city services, their associated service levels and service standards;

· categorizing services as legislated (required by law), core (fundamental to city operations), contractual (such as RCMP, IPG, PG Tourism, Northern Sport Centre Ltd, Regional District of Fraser-Fort George 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Dispatch, Business Improvement Areas, PG Community Forest, Canada Winter Games (2015) and District Energy utility), or discretionary services not affected by contract (such as grant programs and tax exemptions);

· identifying the roles of the City and/or its partners in each service;

· assessing the inventory of services and the respective levels of service against peer local governments, including winter cities and those with similar demographic and property assessment profiles;

· assessing the City’s grant programs, permissive tax exemption program, revitalization tax exemption program and provision of low-cost leases to community organizations;

· assessing the City’s capacity and performance for acquiring grants from other sources;

· assessing the inventory of services and the respective levels of service against the public policy purposes endorsed by Council;

· designing and implementing internal and external engagement strategies to gather and assimilate the views of elected official, public and staff through the process;

· providing recommendations concerning provision of city services, service levels, alignment and organization structure arising from the review; and

· projecting financial and operational outcomes associated to the recommendations, including expense reduction and diversified revenue opportunities.

His report also suggests how the Review would look at the efficiency of service delivery, and the means for generating revenue.

—————————————

If outfits like KPMG and others can not give a pretty close estimate based on the above listed extensive parameters they are not interested in the potential business.