Sounds o me like they are floing the same format as they started with. That was:

1. break City operations into functions allocated to existng departments

2. describe the scope in terms of dollars (but not manpower, which is one of the things people at the public workshop seemed to object to)

3. somehow come up with a quality of service on a graph, which really says very little to a reader

4. ask the question of the reader: “do you want less, the same or more”

I am not quite understanding why many people are saying this was too complex. In my view, there was nothing complex about it. I was already relatively aware of what was being done and I have formed my own opinion after some 40 years of living here not only what was done well and not so well, but also how things have changed for the better and for the worse.

THAT is something I do not expect anyone using the method to tackle this core review, would be able to determine unless they ask people in a very succinct, directed fashion rather than the totally useless question posed.

Unless they cahnge their approach, I cannot see much coming from this core review.

We had a single response to the RFP. The entire thing was derailed from the point when the City went with that instead of regrouping to see what was wrong.

So who was the one that decided that the thing to do was to go ahead with KPMG at that point?

I am beyond blaming KPMG. ButI am not beyond blaming the administrators repsonsible do that decision and every person on Council who voted to go ahead.

If we could fix that incompetence, THAT would be worth every penny of the $350,000+ for this review!

We had a single response to the RFP.
====================================

What is the RFP? Pardone m ignorance.
Cheers

Is this Core Review going to give u more questions then answeres?
Ch eere

I think RFP would stand for Request For Proposals?

“Is this Core Review going to give u more questions then answers?”

YES. That is very common with such studies. For anyone who wishes to study such reviews in more detail, you will likely discover the same as I did – these reviews are just the tip of the iceberg. Sort of like an executive summary.

As many people much wiser than many of us have stated, if one were to do a thorough review of how to re-arrange the deck chairs and move them onto a sleeker, more modern and possibly smaller ship plying the ocean of services to a viable community one needs to continue to explore some of the highlights which have been pointed out.

THAT costs more time by staff and possibly additional consultants and more money.

We have been given the best and very timely opportunity to work on this multi-year project. We have the opportunity to find the ideal – a bridging City Manager who has worked, perhaps as an assistant City Manager who has gone through a few years of adjusting the operations of a city with successful implementation of recommendations put forward after a core review.

That would be a person with vision, with people skills that will be able to find those people in the organization most likely to assist with such a rebuild and pull a functional team together with as little conflict as possible. In cases of considerable change, an astute and sensitive HR manager is a must.

On the surface this appears to be an excercise that is,

a. Dreamed up by the City
b. Implemented by the City
d. Used by the City to make some changes using KPMG, and Taxpayers as the fall guys, because the City Council, and Administration has no gonads.
e. Used as a vehicle to get certain things on the table, that would otherwise not have been there. Such as selling swimming pools, Civic Centre, Par 3 Golf Course, etc;

In my opinion this is nothing more than a thinly disquised **shell** game, and will result in very little savings over all.

We have a huge debt, somewhere in the area of $110 Million dollars. In addition we have an infrastructure deficit of over $175 Million dollars. We are reaching the saturation point for raising taxes, however the cost of services continue to rise.

The City does not have a plan to deal with the really big problems like debt, spending, borrowing, etc;

We will have to bring the seriousness of the overall problem to the attention of those at City Hall, perhaps by having a huge rally on thier doorstep.

If you look at the four City projects now in progress, ie; Police Station, New office buildings on 18/Ospika, Boundry Road, and the Community Enery System, you will get an inkling as to why we have some serious problems.

In any event we will have to wait and see what they finally come up with.

My guess is **Not much**

I think we need to run KPMG’s survey question against the LPMG version of the Core Review process.

Time to give them some of their own medicine.

With respect to KPMG’s core review process do you feel

1. we should have spent less
2. we are spending just the right amount of money
3. we should be spending more.

Go for it…. ;-)

– a bridging City Manager who has worked, perhaps as an assistant City Manager who has gone through a few years of adjusting the operations of a city with successful implementation of recommendations put forward after a core review.
—————————————————————————————-
Here is how the Mayor sees it and I quote from the Sept 14 issue of the Free Press., “ the City manager is as much of a leader as the Mayor “. She said..

It appears that we don’t even need a City Manager. If our Mayors in the past had such a viewcof the City Manager it probably expalins why our City is in such poor financial condition. Somewhere I read that the manager manages and council approves or words to that effect.
Cheers

“Councilor Murry Krause is concerned the document is too complicated ”
>Cmon, Murr, just because it is complicated for you does’nt mean the average taxpayer won’t be able to understand the language.

“Councillor Dave Wilbur is not happy with the size of the document “
> A lawyer concerned about the size of a document? I don’t believe it.

“But the full list of ideas is all about transparency”
For once I actually agree with Ms. Green.
metalman.

draft or not the list should be made public now. all meetings are supposed to be open to the public so it goes all the information they get at that public meeting should also be available to the public. What gives? How transparent are these guys?

It took nearly a half a million dollars to say the city could sell off pine valley or contract out or close down a pool or arena to save money. OMG tell me something that wasn’t already obvious. What a waste of time and our hard earned tax dollars, just make a decision and live with it. Yesh.

Given that only a few hundred have actually responded to the consultation, the vast majority of citizens don’t care. Though they might when services start to be cut.

psst: “Given that only a few hundred have actually responded to the consultation, the vast majority of citizens don’t care. Though they might when services start to be cut.”

Hopefully that statement doesn’t divide the community.