Why is no one dumping on this issue?

I wonder why PG doesn't have a blue box/bag recycling program in place, like just about every other city in BC?

Did you you ever think they(the rates) would come down!!

Another tax grab! We are taxed to death, work stay home and pay your taxes. I'm sure glad the province is booming.

So the business plan was so poorly written that it never included the container capital lease cost of over $260,000 ? What on earth is interdepartmental overhead ? ( Sounds like dumping of the cost to run programs on a different department ).

I have lived here in PG now 5 years and unfortunately each and every year the city looses my respect both for how it is managed and organized. I could write out a list of the strange practices and priorities versus doing the nuts and bolts things we need done to get this city back to somewhere that people don't just laugh at when you compare city services to theirs.

If it really was about reducing thee amount of garbage the City should decrease the cost of th esmall containers and double th ecost of the large ones.....

"as the vacancy rate drops, that means there are more people, and that means more garbage."

And which people who understand something about the change of demographics and its impact on the average number of people per housing unit actually believe such nonsense? Everything else being the same, that is a true relationship. However, not everything is the same.

The simple case of two families of 3, each with a child who has graduated and has decided to leave home. The two offsprings decide to live together while going to university and/or working. They decide to stay in town and live on their own rather than with one of their parents since they have enough money to do that.

So, they move to a vacant rental unit. We now have changed from two housing units at an occupancy of 3 per unit to 3 housing units at 2 per unit.

The vacancy rate has dropped, but the number of people has stayed the same. This is not rocket science!

The Census figures for Prince George show exactly that. A drop in population over ten years with an increase in housing units. In 1996 the average occupancy per dwelling was 2.80; in 2001 it was 2.47; and in 2006 it was 2.36. While the population over that period within the city dropped from 75,150 to 70,981, the number of dwelling units increased from 26,849 to 30,062.

The other myth which is, of course debunked with this is that an increase in housing means an increase in population. For anyone who uses the number of dwelling units as an indicator of population would arrive at a population in 2006 of 84,143 at the 1996 occupancy of 2.80/dwelling unit. A number in the 85,000 range may sound familiar to some.

Maybe we would be better off hiring some rocket scientists at City Hall.

;-)

Is it remotely possible that the increased costs can be attributed to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the mechanized container dumping system, the 'special' containers, the shop that they have to keep these things in because otherwise they don't work well when the outdoor temperatures are very low (btw, do they have to take these machines back to the shop at lunch time to keep the hydraulics warm?) Apparently, we did not know that the hydraulics do not work well when it gets cold outside, thats ok, neither do I, but I am much older than these trucks.
metalman.

"City Manager Derek Bates said compostable materials offer best potential for a curbside collection system."

So, is anybody going to implement it asap? Don't hold your breath waiting. Too much administrative inertia.

Yes, and what exactly is "interdepartmental overhead"?

Inter depart mental over head. Even written this way it doesn't ring a bell.

It's a fuzzification slogan, of course.

By the way, wouldn't it be amazing if once in a while the City could take credit for lowering the fee for something, anything, that was touted to become a money saver?

And, it appears from the story that the containers are only leased, so the annual leasing fee is passed on to: the utility bill payer, year after year.

Before this new automated collection scheme was brought in I bought and paid cash for my two garbage cans - why am I being forced now to pay an annual garbage can rental fee hidden in the utility bill?

"Councilor Brian Skakun says people who overfill their garbage cans should be told that if the can is overflowing it won't be picked up"

Good idea.

The only time when our garbage can is "overfilled" is under two conditions.

1. we missed a week since there was only one green bag in the can and then the next week we had more garbage than anticipated because we may have cleaned up a part of the house or something of that nature.

2. Did not take the time to push the garbage bags down by punching a hole in them and letting out some of the air. I believe tipping fees are based on weight, not volume.

I guesstimate that we do not actually put out the can between 5 and 7 or 8 times a year. So, we are overpaying by 10%+ right there.

Perhaps we need to go back to installing one of the compactor systems in the kitchen so that we can get a smaller container. In fact, we would want a smaller one than the city actually provides.

The information provided by the City is insufficient for me. I would want to see how much it did cost under the old system, the rate of increase in the old system over the last 10 years of operating that system, and the cost of thenew system immediately following the old system to se the cahnge of one system over the other, and the average annula rate of cahnge within the new system.

Any faster rate of change of the new over the old system, I would want to know why that is the case. Any immediate change of the old system to the new system I would want to know why.

Something seems to stink in this garbage gate story.

"Interdepartmental overhead +$109,000"

Solution? Give the whole responsibility to one department and get rid of the overhead.

"Something seems to stink in this garbage gate story."

The city doesn't own the garbage cans, apparently - what about the trucks? Are they only leased as well?

"Give the whole responsibility to one department..."

That would require that department to be increased in size and poof, there goes the so-called saving of the overhead.

;)-

"Overhead Costs" are directly related to those costs which are not directly related to THE costs. Example - management.

"Interdepartmental" - transferrable between departments affiliated by related overhead. Example - everybody (management) gets a share.

My jargon can floweth over.

Under the Charter of Rights section there is a clause explaining freedom of association. If one wished to opt out of this too expensive garbage system, would the City's need fer dough trump the good ol' Charter of Rights? Any lawyers out there? Jailhouse lawyers not need to reply.

Overhead costs could be **Overtime** as I understand that there has been a significant increase in overtime. In addition I dont beleive that the New Garbage trucks can handle the same payload as the old trucks, and therefore I would conclude that they are making a lot more trips to the dump than they were under the old system. If this is true then of course you have lost time running to and from the dump, and increased costs for fuel because of the additional miles, etc; etc;.

It seems that they are trying to hide the fact that this is a failed project by using the old **smoke and mirrors** routine. Maybe Owl can dig up some factual information on what is actually going on here.

Does anyone (Other than CN Centre staff) ever get fired at City Hall. Is there no system of accountability.

We are submerged in High Salaries, Huge Offices, Great Expense Accounts, Lack of Accountability, 7.5 hour days, and a unlimited supply of fresh money from disgruntled taxpayers.

This begs the question. Who the Hell is in charge of these guys??.

Is there some way that the Department of Municipal Affairs could conduct an audit into the spending of this City over the last 15 years and follow the money to see if in fact we are getting value for our tax dollars??? I suspect we are not. However they spend it faster than the average Citizen can earn it, and we cannot keep up with all the projects.

1. Bridges
2. Police Stations
3. Performing Arts Centre
4. Gaming Halls (Bingo)
5. Co-Generation Plant
6. Sports Plex on the Hill
7. Walkway between the CN Centre and Kin 1 and 2 (Rarely if ever used)
8. Replay board for the CN Centre. Cost approx $1 Million. It seem the only people who wanted this was the Mayor and the Cougers Management
9. Relocation of the Ball Fields, and Soccer Fields, and the elimination of the driving range on the par 3 course to make way for commercial development. How much money does the City get for this property and where does it go.
10. Relocation of the Prince George Golf Club which is a Semi-Private course that must remain open to the public. Once this course is re-located will the covenant that allows public participation go with the new course, or will it disappear and it will end up being a totally private course.
11. What is the Citys involvement in the relocation of this course. Does it have an interest because it could increase the value of the property they presently own. ie; The tennis courts, and the playhouse theatre.
12. What will happen to the Curling Club portion of the Prince George Golf and Curling Club. If you attended the meeting put on by L&M Engineering and the City you would see no indication as to where the Curling Club will relocate. My understanding is that the Golf Club could not relocate without the votes from the Curling Members so some sort of a deal must have been reached. Keep you eye on this one.