“Council will also receive the report from the Business Committee, which has 16 recommendations on how City Hall can “ create a better environment for business to grow and generate new jobs”

I am wondering if anyone at Council would consider setting up a “Residents Committee” which would “prepare recommendations of how City Hall can generate a better environment for PEOPLE to live, prosper, and pursue happiness, to retain residents and attract newcomers to the City.”

Having business and industry “rationalize” operations and become more efficient with fewer employees is so counter productive when it comes to generating new jobs, isn’t it?

In Ben’s column this am council’s costs are increasing by $75,000.00 this year. If we can afford to give the councillors an extra 75 grand there is no reason at all council should balk at spending $65,000.00 for a referendum on the Nechako river dike peoject. Atleast the citizens will get an honest chance to give a yes or no rather than using the back door AAP the previous mayor and council were so fond of using. As Ben said, “practice what you preach”.

I think it might be worth spending the dollars to see whether it makes a difference. Monitor turnout as well compared to an election turnout. Have only one location rather than a whole bunch. Do it over a couple of days if need be. Look at the voting process itself to see how it can be economically done. Others are starting to use different approaches and finding them to be secure, why aren’t we?

One wonders how you can be having a core reveiw to reduce costs, and at the same time borrowing $3.5 Million to put in a diking system that may or may not have an effect on flooding over the long term.

Interest on the $3.5 Million over 20 years is $280,000.00 per year.

Its pretty bloody obvious that we are not making any headway on reducing costs.

We dont need an alternative approval process on this project. What we need is a Mayor and Council with the intestinal fortitude to cancel the project.

Have a nice day.

A few years ago, our city council went to China to drum up trade. They invited people to come to our city at our expense. 14 people came. Because no one involved in business had time or interest, anyone interested took advantage of the free trip. A gardener, a house painter, and a teacher were amng the bunch. This was all paid for by the city of PG. You want to talk about waste? I spoke to these three, they did not know what they were here for or why. It was free so they came. Why not?
No one cared then, about spending, so why start now?

Dont forget that the City borrowed $3.5 million last year for the upgrade to River Road, which among other things was to mitigate flooding damage.

So another $280,000.00 per year for 20 years, and then tack on $300,000.00 per year for the Citys contribution to the Northern Sports Centre and you are looking at $860,000.00 per year for 20 years on these three items alone. This is, over $17 Million dollars.

All three of these items could have been not done at all, or done for a lot less. So in my opinion there is no attempt at all by the City to reduce costs.

The City Manager Derek Bates, when questioned about the $300,000.00 payment per year to the Northern Sports Centre, said that they could have a look at it. We will have to wait and see if **looking at it** morphs into actually taking some action to reduce or get rid of this cost.

When they first came up with the proposal to help fund the NSC to the tune of $300,000.00 per year, they referred to how they did it as **creative accounting**

In actual fact it is a direct grant of taxpayers dollars.

The original proposal for this centre indicated that it would generate enough revenue to support itself. So much for that idea.

‘According to a document to be presented to Council, it will be the Core Review Committee and not Supply Services which will make the decision on who should get the bid.’

Good. That way it won’t be sole-sourced to one of Mr. Bone’s buddies.