Hey Ben, knock it off will ya...this is no place for common sense and logic.
Your talking about city hall remember.

Think like the mayor and council....smoke and mirrors Ben....smoke and mirrors.... no logic allowed here.....lol

The RCMP staffing issue

1. Assume the same amount of crime, with a dropping population = rising crime rate, BUT no need for additional staff for status quo
2. Assume increase in crime, with dropping population = greater rising crime rate, THUS need additional staff for status quo
3. Assume different mix of crime, which is what I thought I heard (although I could be wrong) with cases more difficult and hard to solve .. THUS need more staff. NO, not necessarily, Could need different mix of staff, smarter staff, less staff turnover so that we do not keep training newbies, etc.

I, for one do not buy the need for additional staff. I have not seen the information on which a case was made. I don’t know who has. This should be a matter of public information, I would think.

Here we go again. I fail to see exactly how the city is breaking the common man with huge tax increases. I pay taxes on a few properties down town and for me it makes a difference of a few hundred a year. For most people of limited means i would assume the burden would be a lot less.
On the other hand, people who do not live in the less than choice neighbourhoods of PG should not begrudge us some officers. I would pay quite a bit to get an increased police presence down there. Maybe if they were plentiful enough we could get deterrence instead of punishment. With the increase of day to day petty crimes and the rise of drug use across the nation we had all better wake up, smell the coffee and reach into our wallets. We have higher expectations regarding the enforcement of the law in this country than we used to (anyone over 40 can back me up on this one) so we need more cops than we used to.
Talking abou hiring smarter staff is insulting to those in the force we have now. It also shows a lack of knowledge about what it is that most cops spend their days doing. I do not suppose that owl would appreciate people talking about cutting down on the number of people in her profession by getting fewer, smarter people.
As for the garbage, well the rationale for the new system was plain and simple: money. It could only save money by cutting emplotees. No one cared as long as the city saved some money. MAybe we needed to take our minds off our wallets there. Maybe it will turn out the old system was cheaper! If so i hope the garbage men demand more money!
While i appreciate Ben keeping his eye on city hall I also observe that all the people commenting have their own lists of which projects were good and which were bad. I suspect that these lists coincide with the projects these people take advantage of.
Here then is my (biased) list : We dont need a wider bridge, nor a new one on cameron. The new pool was an excellent idea and anyone who says it is under-utilized either doesnt swim there or doesnt mind sharing lanes and being drowned in the wave pool by hordes of splashing kids! The courthouse looks great, is great inside and makes jury duty taste, and smell quite a bit better.
Having said all this i will end by saying that i am glad all these projects have been built. If we all just look to our wallets and our retirement in the okanagan this town will actually be the glorified logging camp people think it is.

There are all sorts of different ways to look at what is needed in a City, however the tac that the City usually takes when it wants to build something, or tax us etc; is to compare us to other Citys, however when it comes to the Number of Police per capita, or the Number of City staff in relation to Citys of similiar size, or the Mayors Salary, then they do not want to play the comparing game.

I agree that the inside of the Courthouse looks nice, although it would seem that it is an extreme waste of available space. I wouldnt go so far as to say the outside is nice. It looks like a donut box with a scoop of ice cream sticking out of it.

The New swimming pool may or may not be fully utilized, however I think people will agree that the old pool certainly isnt, therefore overall we are under utilizing our swimming pool capacity. At a cost of approx $2 Million per year who cares?

We can be glad all the projects have been built, and continue to build more, however we also should ensure that taxpayers dollars are spent wisely. Building all sorts of facilities for vested interest groups while we drive around on roads that should be an embarresment to the Mayor and Council, and Citizens, is hardly wise spending.

Most people dont seem to have a clue as to how much money is spent on Recreation and Recreational facilities in the City. I suggest that after all income from facilites is accounted for we have a deficit each year of approx $6 Million dollars. This is a direct cost to taxpayers of $6 Million and an expenditure on Recreation of $12 Million per year, or over 10 years $120 Million dollars.

Think of that while your jumping around in your heated pool.

Regarding the garbage collection, there is a great article in "Government Buyer" on how much money the City of Prince George has saved by going to automated collection.
- cost $2.50 per week for each household vs $2.75 if they had stayed with the manual system
- $37,500 per year in lost day wages saved
- 17% reduction in WCB premium
- five employees vs 8 employees
- five vehicles instead of 8 vehicles doing 800 homes per unit per day instead of 350 homes per unit per day

Which by my calculations works out to 2,800 homes per day under the old system to 4,000 homes per day now. We are told that the reason our garbage rates went up was because the cost of dumping went up which it would if there is more homes, therefore for each home it should have stayed the rate.

Okay... so where is the money that was "saved" ?? I just can't seem to find it on my tax or utility bill ??

The City has implemented all kinds of successful cost saving measures with such things as garbage collection, contracting services, bulk/coop buying, faster computers, etc. etc..... what are they doing with those "savings" ??

Sorry, now that I read my question, I see how stupid the question really is. My bad.

2800 homes under the old system versus 4000 per day with the new system sounds great if you say it fast, however answer this question.

How much garbage could be loaded into the old trucks compared to the new trucks. Looking at them I would suggest that the old trucks could take almost twice the load of the new.

4000 homes per day with the new trucks means how many trips to the dump with a smaller load than the old trucks.

If the old trucks were taking almost twice the garbage per trip than the new trucks then of course there would be little or no savings because of the increased cost of fuel and lost time driving to and from the dump.

The other question is does the City pay dumping fees based on each truck that goes through, or is it based on weight. If it is a truck by truck rate and the new trucks make more trips than the old then of course it will cost you more. If it is based on weight then the cost should be the same, as the available garbage is about the same if you consider the big drop in population. People make garbage not houses.

So once again we ask where is the $175000.00 per month, or $1.75 Million over 10 years, savings that we were told wuld be a result of this project.

Did the City lay off Employees, or were they transfered to other jobs. If they were laid off we must remember that we also hired 3 employees to run the Community Policing Project, and 4 new RCMP Officers, and I hear that the Transportation Manager has been set up in a new job. So we may have got rid of 3 Garbage employees, but we seem to have picked up 5 other jobs. No savings here.

According to the City in the 'Government Buyer"
- two of the employees retired and the remaining six workers simply moved to the new automated trucks.

- unless the City have a different rate with the landfill, it is by the tonnage, not per truck.

"We dont need a wider bridge, nor a new one on cameron."

As posted by Caranmacil.

Certainly true. We lose a heritage tourist attraction and keep hazardous goods moving in the centre of the city - what was the question again?

Oh yes, our population is dropping.

I have heard a lot (from my heated pool) about the quality of roads and the terrible traffic jambs we suffer because of our narrow bridges. I lived in kelowna and vancouver and drove a lot of washboard gravel rds in the former and hit some monster potholes in the latter. I have driven all over PG in the last 20 years and I have not seen the problem as severe enough to generate the number of complaints that it does every year.
If you are damaging your vehicle then SLOW DOWN. Thats the big trend here, its called too much speed, too little attention. Pot holes are to be expected with our weather, as is the whining i suppose. I for one, will wait in the huge (5 minute) traffic jambs and dodge a few holes if need be if that means we have the funds for first class facilities such as pools, rinks, arts centers and the like.
As i stated previously, we all have our preferences for where tax dollars should be spent. Unfortunately, too much of our advocacy reflects our own personal wants rather than what might be good for the whole.

Having two pools in PG is not excessive. More crowded pools = less people going to the pool who should be going. Also, sports facility use is cyclical as is the sports they facilitate. The pool downtown may be underutilized at the moment but in the future?

"If you are damaging your vehicle then SLOW DOWN."

While you are slowing down beware of the idiots trying to pass you either on the left even though there is oncoming traffic...or on the right!

The fact is missed that the City has a large annual budget of 105 million dollars + the new road repair levy! We are in fact paying enough taxes to have purchased a right to expect that our streets and roads are well maintained at all times.

What else are we going to tolerate by keeping quiet (i.e. by not whining)? Burned out street lights, busted sidewalks, dirty drinking water?

Take a flashlight, walk in the street, drink bottled water...sure, just don't whine, whatever you do!

Well complaining about substandard services is, of course legitimate. However, my issue is: what exactly is substandard? People tend to complain a lot in this town. We always have. We do so about things that are not really problems at all ,like traffic over the bridges and , in my opinion pot holes. We complain even though we know full well that many of the things we are complaining about are far less troublesome than they used to be, or than they are in other places.
Taking your point to extremes is of little use in this discussion. Obviously tax spending is a quantitative issue. It isnt whether we get services or not but what level of services we demand. I dont see many of us walking by flashlite, having to drink out of bottled water, walking in the street, OR enduring the sufferings of the damned on our 'terrible' roads. Those of you who are not satisfied do have the right to pursue better services in these areas. Its a free country.
My point was, and remains that each of us has priorities for spending. Mine dont include more and more and more for roads. I will put my vote for more into other services. The issue i took with Bens article was that some people are so focused on reducing or controling taxes that they seem to begrudge any extra expenses at all. If we allow the census data to stymie some of the good new services and prospects we have then we will make the decreasing population a trend.

No one begrudges anyone having recreational facilities, however there is a limit as to what taxpayers should pay for people to enjoy themselves. As an example you can go to a Cougers game for $14.00 and be entertained, however if it wasnt for the taxpayers picking up a deficit of $500,000.00 per year on this facility you couldnt do it, and the price would jump to $28.00 and of course less people would go.

With the Cougers we have a situation where the taxpayers are subsidizing tickets for 3000 fans to sit in an expensive arena and enjoy themselves. Other venues using this facility pay their way through ticket sales etc; however not Hockey.

There is no reason what so ever to assume that those people who like to use Municipal Facilities for there enjoyment, somehow have this right over those who pay the same amount of taxes, but do not have an interest in jumping around in a warm pool, or skating in a cold rink, or being deafened at a Hockey game. If I want my money spent on road repairs, better facilities for shoppers in the downtown area, etc; that is my right as a tax payer.

If you extrapolate the cost of Recreation over 10 years at $12 Million a year you get a cost of $120 Million dollars.

If you do the same with road repairs at a cost of $2.35 Million per year (Now covered by 4% levy) you get $47 Million.

In other words over a 20 year period we spend $73 Million more on recreation than we do on roads. If you took the number of people who use the recreation facilities versus the number of taxpayers who use the roads you would see very quickly that taxpayers are getting screwed to the 11th power by the so called recreation crowd.