Bang on Peter. Now, what can we do about it between elections?

The first thing to do is to get all your friends and relatives, and anyone else who is interested to attend the meeting at CNC on Nov. 13th.

It is very important for all people who are impacted by this report to stand up and voice their opinion.

Steven Harper has decided to minimize the Federal government, and download costs and services to local citizens and municipalities.

Luckily Harper has also decided to decrease corporate tax rates by half, from 35% to 17%. So instead of letting corporations sit on piles of unused cash, lets start looking at taxing them. Canfor, Husky, CN, -all are profitable, all can afford more. All depend on Prince George as a viable and successful city, let them help pay for it.

Well, you no what they say about opinions. KPMG has made some recommendations, why is it that Ewart can’t do likewise? All the guy does is whine, whine, whine.

More socialist rhethoric from Peter Ewart.

Excellent work again, Peter!

axman, did you lose an “f” on your handle?

So what do you offer as an alternative Peter? Status Quo where we continue to fall further behind in upkeep to our roads, sewer, water and other vital infrastructure?

Maybe a 25% hike in property tax to begin with just to get our head above water rising further as true costs become known?

I don’t agree with many of the suggestions but path we are on is not sustainable so some tough choices will have to be made. We cannot afford contracts with no L/O clauses, 100k a year firefighters and civic facilities bleeding cash and debt piling higher.

Is it wise use of public funds to offer a 43% ice time subsidy for beer league hockey? IMO that money would be better spent in topping up tax exceptions for charities.

Why attend the meeting on Nov 13th as it will just be a verbal version of your post, lots of bitching and moaning about the report but offering no suggestions of how the city can get out of this mess.

This was all a given, now I question why do we have management? Big salaries and not one paid employee could come up with this garbage. It is common sense that if you have no money but lots of assets the smart thing to do is start downsizing. I am disgusted with this city council and every manager that they have employed. I would be embarrassed to admit that I work for the City of Prince George.

I’m certainly not a sympathizer of large corporate interests, however, I think the link that Peter is trying to make between them, KPMG and the core review is a bit of a stretch. I see a number of distinct issues here that all intersect with this core review:

1) The overall usefulness (or lack thereof) of the KPMG study due to the major gaps that seem to exist in it;

2) A lack of clear direction in regards to the service levels that the City of PG desires to provide and the costs attributable to those levels of service (and thus the revenues required to fund those);

3) A lack of clear understanding in regards to the willingness of the people of PG to fund various services in a more aggressive “user pay” model;

4) A seemingly severe lack of common sense or restraint from the City in regards to how it is spending on certain items (i.e. trip to China);

5) An almost deliberate unwillingness to address the fact that the city is experiencing stagnant growth rates, while at the same time the city is managing itself as though it fully expects to grow at a reasonable rate for the foreseeable future;

IMHO, issues 2-3 need to be addressed before any decisions can be made regarding the core review. Issue 4 comes down to fiscal accountability and responsibility for the elected officials. Issue 5 is probably the largest systemic issue facing the city. It’s the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. It doesn’t matter what the city does in the short-term, if they don’t address issue 5 they will be doomed.

Its just going to come to the point where I simply will refuse to pay any fees at all at any so called ‘public’ facilities. I just won’t go. It will suck but you can’t get blood from a stone.

Jack up the fees at the pool. Won’t go swimming.

Jack up fees at the ice rinks. Won’t play hockey or go skating.

Jack up fees and fines for parking. Won’t go shopping where I have to pay to park.

Its pretty simple really. I won’t be able to afford the increased fees so I’ll likely be saving money…..

Merc: “Its just going to come to the point where I simply will refuse to pay any fees at all at any so called ‘public’ facilities. I just won’t go. It will suck but you can’t get blood from a stone.”

Yup. Some people probably will stop going, or go less to these facilities. However, it is time for a serious reality check in terms of what these facilities cost to run and figuring out who is going to pay for them, and how. The mostly free (subsidized) ride we’ve had to this point is coming to an end.

NMG is right on the money.

Let me try to address his number 2: “A lack of clear direction in regards to the service levels that the City of PG desires to provide and the costs attributable to those levels of service (and thus the revenues required to fund those);”

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can tweak it a bit, as our municipal auditors office will undoubtedly do over the years. In the meantime we can look at Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Afffairs which has been working on this since the new Act called for this in 2001.

Here is a copy of the 2009/2010 report on Municipal performance measurement.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=9890

For instance, it requires municipalities to report out on such metrics as (read the report to see the other metrics used:

•Governance and corporate management as a percentage of total municipal costs

•Costs for fire services per $1,000 of property assessment
•Number of residential fire related civilian injuries per 1,000 persons
•Number of residential fire related civilian injuries averaged over five years per 1,000 persons
•Number of residential fire related civilian fatalities per 1,000 persons
•Number of residential fire related civilian fatalities averaged over five years per 1,000 persons
•Number of residential structural fires per 1,000 households

•Costs for police services per household
•Violent crime rate per 1,000 persons
•Property crime rate per 1,000 persons
•Total crime rate per 1,000 persons (Criminal Code offences, excluding traffic
•Number of youths charged per 1,000 youths

•Costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometre
•Costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometre
•Percentage of paved lane kilometres where the condition is rated as good to very good

•Costs for winter control maintenance of roadways per lane kilometre
•Percentage of winter events where the response met or exceeded locally determined municipal road maintenance standards

For instance, the City of Kingston has to report out on this. That city is working in consultation with Ottawa and Toronto to create standards of service.

Here is some info on Kingston versus PG. The first figure is for Kingston and the second for PG. Note that the operating budget for Kingston is virtually the same as it is for PG. I can tell you that in general, the costs of construction and civil maintenance work in cities such as Kingston is lower than in PG.

population114,19571,030
2012 operating budget$301,000,000$186,243,000
operating $/pers$2,636$2,622

In my opinion we are behind many of the standards of maintenance which Kingston delivers. Imagine what we would end up with if we were to cut our budget here. Something KPMG has not addressed at all. To fail to do so is inexcusable. That, amongst many other indicators, show me that they do not know what they are doing. We were sold a bill of goods and our City Council and administration are gullible enough to accept that.

THAT is the problem we have in this city!!

If we can’t afford the urban sprawl reset the city limits to 1970.

I like the idea of privatized garbage collection. Maybe then I can opt out as paying for the same garbage can twice a year is ridiculous.

We are already paying for having our driveways cleared out so if they stop doing it are they going to stop collecting the extra we pay to have it done? I doubt it!

You are not paying for the garbage can. You are paying rent for the air space in the garbage can.

The amount of air you pay for depends on the size of garbage can.

You are allowed to displace that air with “garbage” which will be picked up every pickup cycle. If you compact that garbage to displace more air, then you are a winner since the weight does not matter.

Lol Gus but my bill says nothing about air,

Maybe the City should sell some of the Real Estate it owns. How much downtown Real Estate do P.G. tax payers own??and are they still buying more??

cut the taxes to zero and every one fends for themselves. Get it on!!

No way wrote:
“I like the idea of privatized garbage collection. Maybe then I can opt out as paying for the same garbage can twice a year is ridiculous.”

This is the city web page on garbage
collectionhttp://princegeorge.ca/cityservices/solidwaste/Pages/AutomatedGarbage.aspx

The rates are for collection, which comes with a city owned container.

– Small (135 litres) $139/yr – $2.67/pickup
– Medium (250 litres) $182/yr – $3.50/pickup
– Large (360 litres) $222/yr – $4.27/pickup

Here is the price of a private company which collects garbage (and will also pick up recyclables for an additional rate) in Whatcom County, WA, USA.

– Small (32 US GAL) $132/yr – $2.54/pickup
– Medium (64 US GAL) $201.60/yr – $3.88/pickup
– Large (96 US GAL) $316.34/yr – $6.09/pickup

http://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/Sanitary%20Service%20Company%20Inc%20and%20Recycling%20Services%20Inc%20G-14%20-%20Tariff%20No%208.pdf

There is a state sales tax of just under 9% which goe on top of that. The County also charges an excise tax to the company which pays for the County’s cost of running the solid waste department. Thatr lowers the County tax rate … but increases the user fee to the final user by cycling the County tax back through the private business and on to the final user.

Neat how that works in real life, isn’t it? But hey, we hae KPMG working on this and they know how such things work, don’t they? LOL

So, no way, you would like the opportunity to pay about 30% more if you used a large container? Love those private money making businesses, right? It is amazing how much they have to hose us just to stay in business and pay their people a reasonable wage and allow the owners to spend a few weeks in Cancun. ;-)

Of course there is one interesting thing in that pricing structure. They charge considerably more per available unit volume for the large containers. Now there is an incentive to downsize.
Also, houses do have garburators and they recycle just about anything, including compostable items such as food scraps. BUT, picking up recyclables cost additional.

Sell real estate? Just think. If the garbage service was privatized they could sell the trucks and the containers. The private company might buy the containers … and maybe even the trucks …..

And then the City could rent out the parking space for the trucks and the container inventory …. and they could sell the transfer station operations as well as land. And they could charge the company for operating a solid waste department at city hall (they would still have duties to raise awareness, administer the conract, do quality control checks, etc.)

And from what we learn from that exercise, we can take that over to swimming pools, ice arenas, city playing fields, parks, tennis courts, horse stables, flower baskets/banners/xmas lights, museums, etc. etc.

A true new world orer .. oh no, wait …. a true new municipal order …. ;-)

Life is good. :LG

BTW, I wonder if I should send an invoice to KPMG or even the City for doing this sort of “initial flushing out” research of reality for them to get them out of their ivory tower mindset.

Speaking about new municipal and world order, I picked up a library bok the other day called “The Age of the Unthinkable” by Joshua Cooper Ramo.

The interesting subheading rads “Why the new world disorder constantly surprises us and what we can do about it.”

It goes on to say on the jacket cover – “All around us, the ideas and institutions that we once relied on for our safety and security are failing – and the best ideas of our leaders seem to make our problems worse rather than better.”

It must sound familiar to some of those who post on here.

The Huffington Post has an article which was generated by a columnist who has some great recommendations inspired by the book.

The article is linked here, but for those who do not like to click through, I am pasting the points on my next post so I can tick off those who do not like cut and past …. LOL

Here are the columnist’s six points on what it is required to improve our lot in life:

1.People or organizations need to be more anchored than ever in purpose. Purpose is the moral compass that allows us to navigate through challenging times without losing our core in the process. Finding out what we stand for and drawing the “do not cross line” in the sand is more critical than ever. In the age of transparency we will be judged by our intentions, actions and omissions.

2.Business is no longer just about profit but about enhancing every life and community that we touch. The focus should expand beyond shareholders to include all other stakeholders. This expanded circle of influences needs to be addressed through comprehensive and integrated approaches that drive business and macroeconomic wellbeing over time. To achieve this, leaders need to have a holistic view of the world, one that combines economic, political, social, consumer and technological trends.

3.Leaders need to live in both “global and local” worlds. Our world is interconnected through technology. Citizens navigate from the local to the global within a touch, wave or click of any communication device. Local priorities need to be addressed without losing track that any action will have global implications.

4.Caring is the new selling in the age of transparency. Leaders need to be immersed in the world by understanding their citizens and consumers deeply. They also need to understand the role that technology plays in their lives and become masters of the world of innovation. Solving people’s real problems with real solutions that not only work but make people feel good about their life will carry a heightened emphasis.

5.Leaders need to develop structures along the principle of “centralized decentralization.” That means units that operate freely within their markets but are held together tightly by a sense of aligned purpose, clearly defined role and constant free flowing communication. Given the rapidly changing dynamics of every market and the global implication of every move, centralized decentralization is the only possible structure approach for the new world order.

6.Finally, leaders must acknowledge that the most important leadership characteristic to thrive in this ever changing world is resilience. Resilience is the ability to fall, pick ourselves up from the floor quickly, learn and continue with our journey. Behind resilience there is an inherent positive outlook on life based on unwavering faith in our purpose, our abilities and the capability of the teams around us.

From pointg #4 come these words “Solving people’s real problems with real solutions that not only work but make people feel good”

Advice KPMG obviously has not bought into quite yet.

It would seem the agenda is to sell any public properties that have future potential to generate profit for private owners while the list properties the city has bought over the past years will continue to sit vacant and generate zero tax dollars. The PG hotel, old CKPG building, Outrigger, Norgate auto body, etc come to mind.
How about the pet projects that will do nothing to generate a profit but cost the taxpayers such as the so called energy system, the famous River road dike, Canada winter games, etc.
The average citizen could have told city council how to get their house in order. Quit spending on photo op projects.

I really think that the best investment we could make right now is for the people of PG to educate its Council on the above six principles.