What kind of BS is the Annual Report pojecting?

It starts on page 5 with statistics about the City and includes a population of 87,247. It attributes that to bC Stats 2011 Estimate.

Here is a page from BC Stats with the estimates for all regions of the province.
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/285cd56c-9be1-4c5e-a153-3deeffa2ac94/BCDevelopmentRegionRegionalDistrictandMuncipalPopulationEstimates2006-2011.xls

The estimated figure for the City shown on that table is 75,828.

Stats Canada Census details for PG population is shown here:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?Lang=Eng&TAB=1&GK=CMA&GC=970

“In 2011, the population of Prince George census agglomeration (CA) was 84,232”

The population for the CITY is shown as 71,974.

What kind of people work at City Hall that cannot even assemble correct numbers for something as simple as the population of the City that the Annual Report deals with?

Now wonder they cannot manage a city if they can;t get simple things like that straight without giving it a pretencious spin.

We are what we are, face it and if one needs to show that the immediate surrounding area combined with the city has a significantly larger population then do so and write something like “The City population was estimated at 71,974 in the 2010 Canada Census. The Census Agglomeration was estimated at 84,232.”

An editing feature would be nice …. :-(

The $13,593 tax holiday for Tony Romas was money well wasted;)

We are approaching the 3rd quarter of 2012…this is more of an historical document rather than an annual report FFS.

They sure have set the bar low in most areas for the 2012-2013 goals. I laugh when I see words like “consider” in action plans(thought about it last month while on the throne,check-mark for 2012 report;)
Very few specific and measurable plans, not exactly earning the big pay raise they got!

=================================
This is the ONLY goal from “Organizational Excellence”

“The Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw No. 8383 will proceed to Final Reading in
Spring/Summer 2012,”

==================================

From “Sustainable Infrastructure”
“Work with Finance to develop and implement Long Term Financial Planning Tools.”
The current plan is based on the wack-a-mole model of financial planning.

It’s really made bureaucratically crystal clear (!) what this statistical effort called agglomeration is all about in the following fuzzification blurb:

A “census metropolitan area” (CMA) is a grouping of census subdivisions comprising a large urban area (the “urban core”) and those surrounding “urban fringes” and fringes” with which it is closely integrated. To become a CMA, an area must register an urban core population of at least 100,000 at the previous census. CMA status is retained even if this core population later drops below 100,000. A “census agglomeration” (CA) is a smaller version of a CMA in which the urban core population at the previous census was greater than 10,000 but less than 100,000. If the population of an urban core is less than 50,000, it is the starting point for the construction of a ‘census agglomeration.’ There you have it in a *nut*shell!

The city’s sign at the junction of 16 & 97 with the population number is basically illegible unless one parks the car and walks right up to it in order to be able to read it! It has black letters on a very dark background – making it practically useless! If it wasn’t against the law to take a can of bright yellow paint and a small brush and highlight the lettering I would have done it for free many years ago!

Then again, it may be the way it is on purpose, one can never be sure!

Having worked with map based data in the past I am not too sure where the fuzzification comes from, Prince George. Yes, for a “lay” person there may be some difficulty, but both CMA and CAs have physical boundaries which are mapped, no different than a City has city limits.

In the case of the PG CA, it can be seen on the second link I provided from statscan. It includes the listed RDFFG electoral areas.

Prince George 71,974
Fraser-Fort George D 4,175
Fraser-Fort George C 3,434
Fraser-Fort George A 3,362
Fraser-Fort George F 1,207
Fort George IR2 (Shelley) 80

lonesome sparrow wrote: “I laugh when I see words like “consider” in action plans”.

Hey, you are one of the few people that understand that. Right on!!

I often think I am the only one who notices that and, when I am in a position to do that, get the wording changed to a meaningful metric.

So, can we put you down for 10 minutes spent on that action of consideration? … LOL

Gus:”What kind of BS is the Annual Report projecting? It starts on page 5 with statistics about the City and includes a population of 87,247.”

You called it BS, I call it fuzzification! Why publish different numbers? You yourself seemed to be irritated.

“George 71,974”

Thanks for the precise realistic number! No fuzz!

The authors of the annual report draft must have noticed how poorly they have done in the past on completing plans that have a specific measurable goal so in addition to “consider” , the report is flush with terms such as “pursue”, “support” and “participate”.
Hard to measure and impossible to track progress!

If a cheetah pursued a gazelle,failed and as a result starved would this be a success by the city’s standards?

IPG on page 101 shows PG population of 75,828…..

I would be embarassed to put my name on a document that has conflicting numbers with no specific measurables etc.

Enough tax breaks for companies. It looks like Commonwealth got over 71 thousand for two of its locations. Still waiting to see the walk in clinic that was promised….

I for one do not like the idea of churches etc getting all the tax breaks either… just my opinion. I donate generously to causes I consider worthy and resent the fact my tax dollars are used for this. The city and its entities should knock off the tax breaks etc. If one uses the services/facilities as these, then start looking at ways to keep them going.

Glad I do not run my household like others run their operations… if you can not pay for it do not get it.

Did I read right that any defecits from Regional District the City is also liable for because the city sits on the District?

Who is City Centre Ventures? Just asking..

Just noticed another glaring mistake in the report……it is not a draft report….it is a DAFT report:)

Page 87 ….. Appendix A
CLIMATE ACTION REVENUE INCENTIVE PROGRAM ( CARIP) PUBLIC REPORT

Shows reporting year as 2011
and shows population as 71,974 …. number # citing of the City population. Author of that is Scott Bone.

Reminds me of an old TV program …. will the real population figure please stand up … very funny, but very sad.

I noticed that last year’s version had no population figures …. wonder why??

As the manager presenting this document to Council, never mind the public, I would be ashamed of myself. :-(

BTW, Scott Bone gets the prize for having the official figure presented by Stats Canada. Good job!!!

“City Centre Ventures” is/was a program/corporation run by IPG to promote the downtown of PG.

http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2011/2011_06_20_cw/documents/IPG_Financial_Statement_Auditors_Report.pdf

see page 19 of the above Financial Statement … 2009 was last year of operation.

Here is a bit more (sheet 13)
http://icsp.princegeorge.ca/ICSP%20Documents/Appendix%20A%20%202008-10%20IPG%20Business%20Plan%20and%20Strategy%20%5BRead-Only%5D.pdf

Here is waht a succesful City Centre Venture Corporation can accomplish … San Diego …
http://www.ccdc.com

I think we need one of those … just we would have to import the people to run it … it would be a real challenge for someone who is up to it and has a proven record.

No one on Council has the know how …. and no one in administration has the know how, in my opinion.

I noticed that the economic conditions in California have caused the corporation to be absorbed by the City. Maybe the days of such separation into city corporations are over.

Research time …. :-)

http://www.wfbm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75catid=6&Itemid=80&catid2=6

In case others may not have been aware, Governor Brown did not like Redevelopment Agencies, so he killed them when he came to power … simple … LOL.

“the legislature passed two laws in 2011 relating to such districts: One law dissolved them and the second would have allowed them to exist, notwithstanding the first law, subject to a compromise whereby the agencies would have been required to share a portion of the property tax revenues they received.”

“The California Redevelopment Association, an umbrella organization for the roughly 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the state, brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these laws. The California Supreme Court, in the case of California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, held the first law (dissolving the agencies) constitutional and the second law (allowing agencies to continue to exist, if they agreed to enter into a compromise regarding sharing tax revenues) unconstitutional. In short, the law, as it now stands, dissolves redevelopment agencies throughout the state, effective February 1, 2012, without any ability for such agencies to continue to survive by entering into compromise agreements, as proposed in the law that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional.”

guesswhat! I understand why many people would question why churches or charitable organizations should receive property tax exemptions. It doesn’t really seem fair at all, does it? Everyone should pay their fair share. But do they?

After all, if you didn’t belong to a church or a charitable group, you may not really understand all of the benefits a community receives because of them. In fact, you might resent them for receiving a property tax exemption.

Well, often it has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. It has to do with serving the needs of others. Standing up for the rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves. Loving those who are not so loveable.

How many lives have been saved because of counseling? (provided by a church)How many marriages have been salvaged? (because of the efforts of someone from a church)How many funerals have been officiated by someone from a church? How many people have been comforted and counseled by someone from a church? How many people have been fed or cared for by someone from a church? How many people in drug rehab have been salvaged by someone from a church? I could go on and on for a long time highlighting the benefits of having a church in our community. So, what is the real problem again?

I would propose to you that the value and benefits our churches and charitable organizations provide to a community far exceed the cost of a few bucks of property tax exemptions.

I know all companies in BC are numbered. Is there a reason these companies can’t be identified with a name? Does a numbered company even have to have a name?

Chester. Most of the services you have mentioned are provided by individuals, who in additon to attending a church, also donate to the church. In addition a lot of the services done by charitable organizations are funded by different levels of Government.

I suggest that most good work is done by good people on a volunteer basis, without any tax exemptions.

Harbinger, no numbered companies do not have to have a name as well.