Business Committee Report Hailed As Great Piece of Work
Monday, February 20, 2012 @ 6:50 PM
Prince George, B.C.- City Council has received the recommendations from the Business Committee. As expected, the report has been hailed as "a great report."
Councilor Dave Wilbur says he attended all three meetings of the Committee and offered praise to the co-chairs for having well organized meetings.
Now, the report has been handed over to City Administration to sort through those things which the City is already doing. City Manager Derek Bates says he thinks the report can be divided into three area, how Council develops policy , how the city delivers its services, and how Council engages in a lobbying role for developers.
Staff expect to have a report back to Council on March 5th.
The Committee was given two tasks:
1. To identify specific examples of perceptions by the business community of what the City of Prince George is doing well in regards to creating a better environment for business to grow and generate new jobs, and
2. To provide specific advice on what the City of Prince George could do to create a better environment for business to grow and generate new jobs.
In it’s report , the committee points to several initiatives (that were achieved under the previous administration) among the 6 examples of what the City is doing well:
1. Working with the provincial government to attract public infrastructure investment like UNBC and CNC capital improvements, the Cancer Centre, improved highway corridors, and the Wood Innovation and Design Centre. Winning the right to host the Canadian Winter Games 2015 is positively viewed as an opportunity to showcase Prince George across Canada.
2. A fresh focus on being “open for business” and growing the city tax base. The new Mayor and Council have demonstrated clear and positive goals by moving so quickly to establish a Select Committee on Business as well as the Core Review initiative.
3. The ‘Ten Year Revitalization Tax Exemption Program’ and downtown multiâunit residential incentives are great examples of what the City has done to encourage new development and renovations. By continuing to focus on investment and the development of Prince George, the City is demonstrating to the business community that it is concerned about its image and intends to attract new business and workers.
4. Partnering with the private sector to take advantage of already developed technology to streamline the City’s operations to reduce costs. An example is the utilization of a system which electronically posts bid documents and tender calls, as well as receiving tenders.
5. Working closely with the RCMP to ensure an increased police presence downtown that also has the flexibility to respond to issues in other areas of the city.
6. A Real Estate Services Division that is business friendly, well trained and solution oriented.
On the “suggestions for improvement” side of the mandate, the Committee has put forth 16 recommendations:
1. Treat the potential investor or developer like a valued customer.
2. Address service levels around development approvals.
3. Ensure a seamless working relationship and a culture of being like a “Business and Development Concierge” and “One Window for Business”, between Initiatives Prince George and City Development Services staff.
4. Review the portfolio of City owned vacant property and develop an action plan to divest properties, incent development and increase the tax base, wherever appropriate.
5. Implement the recommendations of the Core Service Review in a timely, bold and accountable manner, especially where they may address cost reduction and containment strategies, or processes to improve service.
6. Ensure fiscal responsibility in budgeting to send a positive message to the business community that the city is a stable place to invest.
7. Implement a public relations campaign to promote the positive attributes about living and working in Prince George, as well as the advantages and incentives offered in starting a business in the city.
8. Ensure that there is an appropriate inventory of heavy industrial land with the local area, while being mindful of the resident’s desire for a high quality airâshed.
9. Continue to support a tough stance on crime and enforcement, and advocate for adequate local resources in the judicial and social response systems.
10. Ensure the City is open to innovative contract solutions for projects with budget issues or constraints, outside the traditional procurement approaches.
11. Continuously research the best practices and policies of cities in BC and across Canada that are being viewed as progressive and open for business.
12. Send a strong signal that the City is open for business through timely decision making that results in capital investment, increases to the tax base and jobs.
13. Benchmark Prince George with other cities for both development cost competitiveness as well as process timelines.
14. Aggressively attract new businesses to Prince George.
15. Work with business and the federal and provincial governments on workforce attraction and avoiding a critical shortage of labour in Prince George.
16. Solicit business and public opinion more actively with concise onâline surveys which can influence positive change.
Comments
Another great job done by Green!! I really like the direction that the city is going in. Keep it up!!
oh please!
most of the items on the good list are the work of the previous administration, and the recommendations are vague with no specific actions for change.
so a whack of people hold three complaint sessions , they bundle the complaints into “recommendations”….and call that a great piece of work?????
Really???????
PG politicians and their high-paid administration would !@#$!@ up a one-house paper route, then pat themselves on the back for a job nearly well done.
Only Wilbur called it a great piece of work.
“pgiscrazy” you must be trying to be sarcastic. How can anybody be happy with the direction. They promised tax cuts and debt reduction during the election and suprise, after getting elected they have done just the opposite by:
– Approving yet another tax hike
– Moving forward with borrowing millions more for a dike that likely will never be needed adding to our already high debt.
– Giving themselves a hefty 30% increase in pay while telling everyody else to cut back.
Nice direction indeed. I think your name says it all pgiscrazy.
It’s a piece of work alright.
We do not need any more like this. A total waste of time. Will cause Admin to waste more time in responding.
What else can Council say? They ask a bunch of people who have dubious connections to the question being posed; they get a mostly unresearched, unsupported anectodotal response, and they fall head over heals in accolades.
It will be interesting to hear what administration has to say at the next meeting.
There are some real gems of recommendations. Here is one.
Under item 1: âConsider the utilization of senior staff at an earlier stage in the development process in order to better understand and assist with project success.â
Sounds to me like a politically correct way of saying that intermediate or junior staff are not trained enough to do the work they are assigned to do. SO the suggestion is to go higher up from the start. So why would the suggestion not be to train the junior staff better?
Of course, they have not looked at whether the requests are appropriate.
Having been involved in the field in the past as an individual who had to deal with the city bureaucracy in the development arena, I know that the level of developer knowledge in this part of the world as it relates to municipal and provincial regulations leaves something to be desired.
It can be very dangerous for an employee of the City to actually help more than one should. There is a limit beyond which the individual could begin to take on liability. Professionals such as engineers, architects and/or planners should typically be hired in such cases by the âdeveloperâ to lead one through the process. I noticed that there was an overwhelming representation on the group of realtors and âbuildersâ but not a single individual to represent the group with the most experience in taking things through the process of city halls right across Canada. A big slip up in my view.
Just to explain for those who might not understand what I am referring to.
I was involved in one case, which goes back some 15+ years, when I was commissioned by City lawyers to help fight a case brought against the City for increased costs the builder incurred to build a house on a “complex” lot. The claim was that the City technician caused the builder the increased costs based on advice given.
The report managed to get the City off the hook, but it cost them legal and report fees. Had the builder had the prerequisite skills/knowledge required to build a house on such a property without encroaching set back requirements or the ability to determine when he needed the assistance of a surveyor at an early enough stage, the City would not have had the claim against them and, more importantly, received another nail in the coffin of not being helpful to the poor developer who, of course, is never at fault.
Being in the service business means having to learn how to deal with difficult clients. I did not see that thought brought forward in the report at all. It is, of course, all the City’s fault.
Gus stated:
“It can be very dangerous for an employee of the City to actually help more than one should. There is a limit beyond which the individual could begin to take on liability. Professionals such as engineers, architects and/or planners should typically be hired in such cases by the âdeveloperâ to lead one through the process.”
I completely agree, however, I think that makes recommendation #1 more valid.
Wouldn’t the correct advise from the City early in the process include recommending that the developer hire such a professional in those cases where such professional guidance is needed? If the developer didn’t seem to understand or was resistant, do you suppose it might be helpful if a more senior member of City staff was able to help the developer by entering the process early and confirming the advise of the more junior staff member?
There may be no need to get more senior staff involved early in some cases, but there will be many opportunities to provide better service early on, especially where the service required is related to unrealistice expectations or a lack of knowlege on the part of the developer.
That would provide both support and training for the junior staff member and clear direction to the developer. It would also help to train the development community that the junior and intermediate staff at the City are providing appropriate advise, thereby lessening the need for early intervention over time.
I guess I choose to be a little more positive about the recommendations than some on the site. For every recommendation, there are positive measures that could be taken. The committee was not asked to provide the direction on implementation. That’s up to the City.
Wouldn’t the correct advise from the City early in the process include recommending that the developer hire such a professional in those cases where such professional guidance is needed?
Yes, very much so, but no one on the committee made that suggestion. In some ways, that is self evident. I see the committeeâs view being one of âthe customer is always rightâ. That is, of course the fact of life. However, that can only go so far, especially in the case of the City. It is not as if one is buying a shirt and can go somewhere else if the service is lousy. So, the City needs to do a lot of awareness raising with customers who are not prepared to do the work they should be doing.
I think the one stop shopping is something that cities have tried. Sort of like a triage system â redirect traffic to the right person. Of course, that needs people at the front desk who have a very broad knowledge base and have quick access to support that can help them on the spot when they have some trouble determining where the exact fit lies.
And, yes, one could try a system of having a so-called âseniorâ person being the one that is seen first; the senior person listens; calls the person in who should be handling the initial work required and has a three person short meeting and then send them off, telling the client to get in touch if he/she feels the service is not as expected. I have worked in situations like that. Very controlled and controlling. Not a modern day flat structure way of managing. It is really the old hierarchical system. In fact, the extreme case of that would be that projects would be characterized by value and by the âimportanceâ of the customer. Those with pull and dollars start with the Mayorâs and/or the City Managerâs office. Others are relegated to senior departmental and/or middle management. The lowest of the low, a single house builder, for instance, who likely needs the most help and has the least money to hire professionals will get the poorest service unless everyone has good training.
If not monitored, it can become very elitist.
So, the notion of “open for business” really needs to be defined. On whose terms should this City, which we “own”, be “open for business”? Our terms as citizens or their terms as developers? I would hope that it needs to be on as much of a compromise as possible.
The default if a deal cannot be struck? Simple. No go. If this City is to grow, it will do for other reasons. It is totally wrong to guarantee someone a piece of the pie when the time will come when pressure is going to be such that developers will be fighting over it.
Location, location, location.
Locations such as river fronts, high lying view properties, golf courses in the middle of a city, vacant property on major arterials, etc. are limited. One needs only to wait. If the city grows, it will grow without developing the golf course. In fact, it will likely develop in a much more positive way.
Comments for this article are closed.