let's get this project going. more construction in PG.......I'm 200% in favour!!!

The sooner the better.

$37 Million to build $32 Million in interest over 20 years. Yes by all means we should get on this right away. Throw in 10-15 Million for the WinterGames and $6 Million for the Community Energy System, plus $6 Million for the Boundry road connector, and we are well on our way for huge tax increases and less services, but heh, we have a few construction jobs, and then 20 years of debt.

Stolz was trying to be impressive by making reference to only 2% of the people being against the petition, and therefore 98% must have been in favour. I am not sure what planet he lives on. Could it be the third rock from the sun?? If he was so sure that people were in favour, then why didnt they go to a referendum.

They didnt go to a referendum because they knew that they would lose. Thats why they always go to the alternate approval process.

These guys were voted in with the hope that they would start to cut spending. This Police station is the biggest expenditure for a project in the history of the City. Without any concern for taxpayers ability to pay all these loans over the next 20 years they just approved a project for $70 Million when a 5 or 10 million renovation would have been just fine, and we still would have had the construction jobs.

Watch your tax bills rise for the next five years or more, and enjoy.

Beyond whether we need another cop shop or not I understand the city owns the present one, right. Then how did it get in such bad shape? Is the city hall building in bad shape also? Was the cop shop purposely allowed to get into this shape? I think these are answers that need to be answered.

"Stolz was trying to be impressive by making reference to only 2% of the people being against the petition, and therefore 98% must have been in favour."

That is an interesting piece of logic. If he believes that, then I wonder what he would say about him receiving something in the order of 7,329 votes that got him elected second to last.

If 1,147 votes is 2% against and 98% for (actually it is closer to 2.2% and 97.8%), then, with the population of PG and the % of eligible voters not being substantially different 7,329 votes equates to about 14% of eligible voters being for Stolz and 86% being against Stolz.

No wonder most people are not happy with the Councillors!!! Most never voted for them because they were against them.

Makes total sense to me!!!!

Isn't representative democracy a wonderful invention. We get such wise Councillors.
;-)

"a 5 or 10 million renovation would have been just fine"

Talk to a few of your friends Palopu. Just as Stolz is pushing reality, you are way off the mark as well with your lack of knowledge of construction costs and realistic area requirements for a police station that was built around 40 years ago.

The existing facility is about 30,000 sf. At today's contruction prices, one would be lucky to get away with $300/sf for renovations to the existing building and another $400/sf for doubling that area by adding to the top of the building or expanding across Brunswick St. With those unit costs figures everything but the structure would be new.

So, $300 x 30,000 = $9 million and $400 x 30,000 = $12million for a total construction cost of $21 million. Add 25% for "soft" costs and you get $26.25 million.

Drop the area requirements to 55,000 square feet and the total project cost would be in the order of $23.75 million.

And you can sell the prime property on Victoria for true commercial office/retail use in the part of downtown we do not have to be shamed of. Perhaps a new Northern Health office or whatever new use will come along.

Thanks for clearing that up Gus.
Any thoughts on building on the flood plain should Kenney Dam burst?

I dont get the paper, so this is the first I had heard of this petition.
Interesting how they assume I am in support simply because I had not heard of the process...

yeh where is this paper? i would have collected 7 000 signatures easily

So there is an election issue.

Whoever supports reverse petitions will not get my vote.

Who else will make that a decision maker in November?

Gus. It all depends of your outlook for what is needed for a renovation. Firstly the the fact that there are 140 uniformed police and 50 staff that use this building is misleading, because they work 24 hour shifts 7 days per week. So at best during the day you would have probably less that 90 people.

Secondly there will be less space for prisoners in the new building as opposed to the old, so we are getting less space for more money.

Thirdly the location sucks. The property was bought in 2004 for $2,750,000.00 and we have paid a substantial amount of interest on this money since then.

Fourth. If they had built the bloody thing or at least did the reno, when they originally asked for $12,000,000.00 to do the job, in 2003, we wouldnt be having this discussion. If the costs have risen from $12 Million to $38 Million over seven years, then we have a serious problem in this town. This is a 200% increase, someone is making a hell of a lot of money. Wages never went up anywhere near that level over the same period, nor did other costs, such as transportation, lumber, etc; etc;

The cost of the renovation would be in direct proportion to who you hired to do the work.

This building was identified for replacing in 1997 so in effect a new building was required after 25 years. Seems like they managed from 1997 to 2010, how was that possible??.

We built a new police station in 1957, and again in 1972, and now again in 2011. Whats wrong with this picture???

Is this about actual needs, or is it about spending tax payers money.

None of the private structures that were built around 1972 have been replaced, why is that???

Seamutt .... "Then how did it get in such bad shape"

Exactly!!!! I think these are questions that do not only apply to this building but many others in the city. The building was built with a much longer life span in mind. Not only could one add several floors to the top, but the "canopies" over the entrances on Brunswick could be used to bridge the street to another building to the east.

We throwe buildings away in this community as if they were Kleenex. If we want to be a sustainable and green community, we have to start changing our thinking.

Does anyone really think the "kitsch" building envelopes with false wood braces and other wood "decoration" on the exterior of buildings is going to last 40 or 50 years? There will be new fads and the buildings will look "old".

Buildings with phony facades applied will be the first to break down and deteriorate. Flooring wears out, walls will be the wrong colours, air ducts will no longer be cleanable, ceilings will gather stains from leaks, jail cells will no longer be considered safe becuase of new standards, washrooms will no longer provide the privacy new standards and society will demand, staff rooms will have to be larger, quiet areas will have to be provided for 30 minute quiet time rest periods ...... in other words, things change that we cannot predict and the question will continue to be whether we will learn to handle those cahnges better than we do during this generation by updating as we go or by accepting substandard quality as we muddle through for another 40 years.

I predict the first thing which will render the new building as one which will not meet the best standards for a public safety building is not the building but the location.

Start saving at this rate UNBC will need replaceing in 10 more years

Why is a municipality paying for a facility for to house a federal department under provincial contract?

Why is borrowing needed? Raise the cash, then build.

Am I to understand that not only do we get stricter laws with more enforcement, but taxpayers also get to pay more for the "privilege"?

Sounds like an eastern bloc or other totalitarian country.

Zieg Hiel, Hier Rodgers.

When you look at the organization chart, there is a Manager of Civic Facilities who reports to the Director of Public Safety and Civic Facilities. Somewhere down this chain there must have been reports as to the repairs required to the RCMP building. This brings up a few questions. What happened to the reports? Why were they not acted upon? On whose desk did they get buried? Would a FOI request find that person?

As the person ultimately responsible for this massive waste of taxpayers money, the city manager should be terminated with cause-no golden parachute.

IMO the mandarins at city hall believe that a few shiny new buildings downtown will suddenly make private developers come knocking. The population is at best stagnant, making it extremely hard to attract new businesses. If existing businesses are profitable in their current location, why would they move to the higher cost central business district.I shutter to think what the new incentives the mayor talked about in his speech will be.

Kelowna needs a new RCMP building and has initiated the first steps to get going on the project.

I think that Prince George should go ahead with the new RCMP building as it is a needed project and not just somebody's pipe dream. The PAC, on the other hand should be totally shelved until sufficient federal and provincial funding can be procured together with funds raised locally by donations and lotteries ala the Spruce Kings Home lottery.

Methinks all residents who can move away from PG to somewhere else need not worry about our city's debt and borrowing adventures. The hard part of all this municipal debt is getting your real estate agent to find a more gullible sucker to buy your property and pay city halls debt via taxes and fees. You didn't sign on for this debt. It ain't yours. It's ours (collectively) It's the city's. Besides, Hizzoner Danno will be the first to remind us that our (Canada's) interest rate rise (predicted by our Finance Minister Flaherty) will not affect us here in PG. Right, Danno? We will be magically exempt.

When I look at the OCP, it calls for "higher density multi family (apartments)" and "retail focus" in the areas directly adjacent to this development site.

Can anyone explain to me how this development supports those plans? Wouldn't that land have been better utilized to house people and/or provide a location for retail services that people living downtown may eventually desire and/or need?

I won't debate the need for a new or renovated RCMP station, because I think the need is likely there, however, the location they have selected is TERRIBLE and just ANOTHER example of the ridiculous planning in this city. 10 years from now, I'm sure people will look at it and say "why the heck did they put that THERE", much like we do now with CN Centre, the Aquatic Centre, the Casino, etc.

This location will do nothing to improve or re-vitalize the downtown and in fact, I think it will be harmful. I say this because it is effectively removing developable land from the downtown core for a long period of time. Without the ability to have land like that available for development and for the spinoff impacts that may result from development, developers are likely to run away from the downtown even more than they currently do.

To me, this decision was based solely on the desire to replace the station. It doesn't appear as though anyone thought about the big picture, the impact on the strategy for downtown, the long-term plan for the city, etc.

...long term plan for the city...? Elected politicians only live in three or four year periods. No such thing as long term. They can't or won't see past the next election.

A sucessfull petition might have put a halt to what so many in this town are against but its just the same old same old...pg is apathetic. Lots of talk but no action in these political matters. You let city hall walk all over you.

Imorge, you are so right - 2% did something about it and 98% sat on their asses but feel an absolute right to complain........so typical.