When Will The City Of Prince George Admit We Screwed Up In Garbage Collection

Thursday, December 03, 2009 03:44 AM

In 2004 the city introduced automated garbage pick. They said the reason for the move would affect a saving of about 2 million dollars. It is high time that the City of Prince George came clean on the matter.

The reverse has been true and we have been continually bombarded with a spin that we are actually saving money.

The automated garbage system was to: save $37,500 a year in lost day wages, a 17%reduction in WCB premiums, cut the number of employees from 8 to 5, move the amount of pickups from 2800 under the old system to 4,000. This new system they said will save the taxpayers 2 million over the next 15 years.

There may have been a hint of what we could expect to happen when 250 polled a number of cities back then, including a couple who had gone back to the old system of garbage pickup. But the city plodded on and a good many of those sitting on council voted in favour of the new system, surely they now know they blew it, but still no admission from them.

In May of 2005 we had added to our bill $5.26 for the garbage can, seems that the city at that time said they might have to replace them in 10 years, of course failing to tell us that that increase would bring in an additional 1.54 million dollars over that 10 year period.

Then we were told that tipping fees had gone up and so we have embarked on a program where each and every year we are hit with yet another increase.

Had we stayed with the old system as was suggested back then, we may have been able to tie the manual system in with curb side recycling. Instead today we have ever increasing garbage collection costs, and a complete denial that the system failed.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 03:44 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Denaljo on December 3 2009 5:45 AM

City Hall admit they made a mistake!? WOW! That would be like Gordo saying the HST is not a good idea and that he really needs the money to prop him up until he can get through the Owelimpics before he retires.

Posted by: muckermike on December 3 2009 6:26 AM

It sure does keep the streets a lot cleaner though.

Posted by: o-wise-one on December 3 2009 6:39 AM

I really think that as a society we are screwed up...spend spend spend is the solution to everything. We can not stop and ask is this really needed, will it really save us money, do we really need it, is there something more important that we need? And why does this happen? Beacuse we have people spending someones elses money that are not held accountable.

Posted by: whatintheheck on December 3 2009 7:09 AM

I agree with muckermike, the streets are much cleaner. Dogs and especially crows and ravens leave the garbage alone. The city of Prince George however is behind with curbside recycling pick up. Other cities have had it for many years. And as far as I know, we have no way of recylcling glass jars.

Posted by: gus on December 3 2009 7:52 AM

We continue to see that the City appears to be unable to assess the quality and effectiveness of the programs it puts in place.

Of course, these days, with the politically correct viewpoint that everything must be positive or else do not bother to open your mouth since we will not listen, how can anyone develop an effective quality control program?

Not every program can be effective and efficient, unless, of course, one is perfect! So, we live in a perfect city is what we continue to be told.

Posted by: Eagleone on December 3 2009 8:08 AM

Well if we are admitting wrongs today... I guess its time I said I think the new traffic circle might actually be better than an intersection would have been. I think it will work, not that I said I thought it wouldn't, but I did have doubts and still think it will be a high maintenance location, but worth the cost.

As for the ever escalating costs for city services. If I was elected and had the power I would make it law that no city worker makes more than the mayor. $80,000 tops and if they don't like it they could find another job... we would fill the vacancy with a very capable person that would do the job for $80,000 a year. We could save $4 million a year minimum just from the cream of the top and use that to reduce taxes for the services rendered. Its about time IMO.

No city job even the city manager position is worth more than $80,000 a year.. the city manager would have to make to with 50% less or find another job.

Posted by: econ101 on December 3 2009 8:11 AM

Here's a Question-how many communities in North America currently use an automated collection service. Take that one on Ben, you'd be surprised!

Posted by: Eagleone on December 3 2009 8:13 AM

Furthermore the city should have a law stating they have to take the lowest bid on contracts unless the contract is forwarded to city council for a vote based on a points system that would see a contract go to anyone but the lowest bidder.

This way we make it on record and accountable directly to the voter for decisions made that waste tax payer dollars.

The engineering contract for boundary road for example would then not have went to L&M because all the council members would have had to opt out from voting due to conflict of interest (campaign donations), and the grease palming would be stopped because the votes would not be there to circumvent a lowest bid. We could save further millions with a law like that IMO.

Posted by: metalman on December 3 2009 9:14 AM

There are hazards in always going for the lowest bid. Sometimes you have to try and look beyond the price. My comment does not directly address the Boundary road isue as I know next to nothing about it. In general though, I believe that somewhere between the lowest and the highest bids lies the best value for the money.
metalman.

Posted by: seamutt on December 3 2009 9:45 AM

I do like the cleaner streets.

Now the city wants garbage collection to pay for itself. That should free up some tax money. I don't really know as I get lost in the black art of budgets. Since this could possibly free up some money, could the city say our budget is now so good that we can build the performing arts theatre. See in a roundabout way garbage to pay for the theatre. Get it.

Sorry I am having a slow day.

Posted by: IMO on December 3 2009 10:09 AM

This is what I think....If you have to raise taxes year after year after freaking year then NO ARTS CENTRE, NO 11Klm TRAIL, NO NEW RCMP OVER PRICED NEW BUILDING AND NO WAGE INCREASES! Clear?

Posted by: Palopu on December 3 2009 10:14 AM

The round a bout works fine at the moment, however to say that it is a success would be a little premature. Remember that it was built with the following proviso.

(A) Traffic would increase from 8000 vehicles per day to 14000 per day by 2023. (The Citizen reported Oct 09/09 that the first traffic count was 7365 vehicles per day approx 635 short of their projections) There will be another count in the spring.

(B) We have yet to see how this round a bout works under normal winter conditions., Ie; Snow clearing, ice, sanding, etc;

(C) The Citys numbers indicated that there were 3353 vehicles heading from the Hart coming into town, and 4012 who used the crossing to head north. We could probably assume that at least 3353 going North were the same ones that went into town, so in effect we have built a bridge for $10 to $12 Million dollars to accomodate approx 3500 people, with another bridge less that a kilometre away. Doesnt sound like a success to me.

(D) A $750,000.00 repair job would have handled the same traffic without any problem, and the money saved could have gone into road rehabilatation, garbage pickup, water, etc; etc;etc;.

When you spend huge dollars on unnecessary projects, like state of the art Police Stations, Performing Arts Centres, Expensive upgrades to arterial roads, etc; do not complain when your taxes go up.

Posted by: IMO on December 3 2009 10:20 AM

YOU is not the issue here. WE have no say in all those projects you speak of. The people are saying NO but the city is not listening. That being said....YES we should COMPLAIN about the constant tax increases from the city and regional district. Then you have the provincial and federal plans to gouge as well with the HST and the scam call CARBON TAX. It is out of control ....WAKE UP!

Posted by: o-wise-one on December 3 2009 10:21 AM

I agree with IMO. Someone has to say enough. I think that we need money to run a city but what do we need to run a city? We have to look afterthe pennies and the dollars will be ok. Things like thecity doing road work and leaving the pylons on the sidewalk for weeks until the city snowplows into the ditch or Having 5 fireman travel around town in a huge fire truck to go for coffeesor pick up groceries or go to the bank isn't needed to run a city.....

Posted by: Palopu on December 3 2009 11:07 AM

The Citys projection for the annual rates for automated garbage collection stated in June of 2006 that the rate would be as follows for 2010.
Projected Actual 2010
Small 109.33 131.00
Medium 138.04 167.00
Large 176.85 211.00

So you can see that they were off anywhere from $20.00 to $35.00 in their projections.

This is just one case of where they went wrong. I suspect that the other area that has cost them a lot of money is the fact that the new trucks have less capacity than the old ones, and therefore even though they can make up more pick ups per day, they would also have to make more trips to the landfill, which of course means lost time, and more fuel consumption.

So it appears that there are no savings to this project. (Surprise, surprise)

Is anyone going to be held responsible for the **screw up** highly unlikely,and therein lies the problem. These politicians and city staff have no fear of being responsible for any decisions they make, and the result of that is we pay through the nose for their incompetence,.

Posted by: Harbinger on December 3 2009 11:09 AM

Don't like paying too much for garbage pick up? Opt out. Is there a law, bylaw, a MOU, an "understanding" with city hall with garbage pick up fees? Is it in the municipal act? Provincial regulations? Hypothetically if you surrender your "city garbage receptacle" at the city works yard, get a receipt, show the boys at city hall and the tax lady, and you still get charged for garbage pickup, which you didn't receive, do you still have to pay? I remember some ditzy lady not wanting to pay a portion of her taxes because she didn't support a war. But still had to pay.

Posted by: Palopu on December 3 2009 11:26 AM

Harbinger. The other side of the story is that the City raised the rates at the trasnfer station from $2.00 to $4.00 to $6.00 so if you were to take you garbage to the station once a week it would now cost you $312.00 per year, so they have effectively stymied you from withdrawing from their service. I suspect that it would also cost you a similiar amount to go to the Regional Landfill (but dont know for sure) In any event it would certainly cost you in time and fuel.

The issue is the apparent inability for the City to put forth a program that clearly outlines the costs, so that taxpayers can make an educated decision as to whether or not they support the issue. It seems the order of the day is to muddy the waters, hype and spin the issue, and bleat as much as possible.

Posted by: Tom Stark on December 3 2009 11:42 AM

I actually think it's a great service. For less tha $4 a week the City supplies me with a can, collects the garbage and pays to dispose of it? For $4 a week. Seems pretty reasonable to me?

Posted by: MrPG on December 3 2009 1:40 PM

Here's a business idea for someone. Get a big truck and offer to take over the garbage services in your neighborhood. Offer it for $2 a week. Fill the truck up as much as you can and take it to the transfer station. Surely there's a profit margin in there somewhere...

Posted by: Harbinger on December 3 2009 5:36 PM

MrPG. Could happen. Then they get a union and then.... never mind.

Posted by: Palopu on December 3 2009 5:55 PM

Thats what they want you to think Tom because if you look at all City services in isolation it appears that you are getting a good deal. If you look at you overall tax assessment you of course come up with a different outlook.

Your Garbage service is in addition to your cost of water, sewer, and general taxes.

The City will take in approx $4,477,631.00 in 2010. The increase over 2009 would amount to approx $742,735.00, while the projected increase would have amounted to $106,105.00. When you start missing your mark by those kinds of numbers then its pretty obvious that someone is **out to lunch**

Posted by: gus on December 3 2009 6:51 PM

Where is the $100,000 per year PR guy in all of this????? on the job for a month and already missing in action in Mexico????

Posted by: Palopu on December 3 2009 8:32 PM

He probably has to run out his salary and holidays from the Airport Authority before he starts to dine at the City trough.

Has anyone heard if they are going to fill his position at the Airport, or was he let go as part of a cost saving initiative because they have run out of money???

Posted by: NMG on December 3 2009 8:53 PM

"I actually think it's a great service. For less tha $4 a week the City supplies me with a can, collects the garbage and pays to dispose of it? For $4 a week. Seems pretty reasonable to me"

Interesting perspective and logically, I tend to agree. To take it a step further, for roughly 12 bucks a week (or $1.71 per day) the city provides me with a garbage can, picks up and disposes of my garbage, supplies me with safe and clean water and ensures the infrastructure is in place to dispose of my personal waste.

If you built a new house on property and had to drill a well, install a lagoon and pay for your own garbage disposal every time you needed to, do you think it would average out to $1.71 per day for the amount of time you lived in the house? For example, say you lived there for 40 years, that would mean that your total outlay for that stuff would only be about $25K (not including the mortgage interest associated with those costs). GOOD LUCK with that, LOL. In reality, it would probably be 3 or 4 times that amount.

It's one thing to have concerns over cost increases and fiscal management, but let's also keep the price we pay compared to the value of the services we receive in perspective. Some of the arguments here about "opting out" and doing it cheaper on your own are just plain goofy. Heck, I paid more for a single bottle of water with my lunch today than I did for all of my services with the city for that same day.

Posted by: Palopu on December 4 2009 12:56 PM

If you look at it in isolation you can make it look good, however the fact of the matter is taxes should be looked at overall, and in the case of garbage it costs millions of dollars to run the system, not four dollars. It is a basic economy of scale operation, wherein 21,221 people pay for a service. Of course it could not be done on an individual basis for $4.00 at week.

You couldnt send you kids to school for $27.00 a week, or have a police force for $10.00 per week. The whole argument is flawed.

Fact of the matter is, if the City does not stop spending and wasting money, then the costs of services will continue to rise.

The economies of scale dictate that you get the maximum production at mimimun cost.

Not maximum production at maximum cost.