I am sure there must have been some perceived performance deficiencies that prompted this measure.
With these real-time monitors in place A2 citizens can rest assure that city plow operators won’t be slacking off.
]]>To me it just appears to be unnecessary tinkering with a system every driver on the road deeply understands. Could not the same effect have been achieved with the standard light arrangement? I understand the concern about the low volume that necessitates a light, but if the light were to stay green until a pedestrian initiated the “give pedestrians the right of way” process, I don’t see how this would impede traffic. Here’s an image I made showing the mapping of this signal’s needs to a traditional light: [link]
]]>That process is a joke. For anyone who has tried to find out the delivery time of a compost cart or get information on a building inspection for a replacement furnace, it’s not customer friendly, questions never get answered and when you follow up with phone calls to the city, it’s voice mail hell. Only after emailing city staff directly on one of these issues did I get a reply. If the city is paying anyone for this software, they are being robbed.
]]>This assumes certain quantities of each material and certain prices for materials. Staff tend to be conservative in such projections. Nevertheless, the phrasing of the statement and the level of precision in the payback periods might be unintentionally misleading. It might have been more appropriate to simply state that the projected payback period isn’t expected to increase as a result of the added investment.
“Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste program manager, explained that the city makes money off the program – 30% of the revenue that is collected on non-city tons above the sale price of $54/ton.”
The value of $54/ton might more accurately (if still simplistically) be called the base sale price.
“[Hunter's] contention was that the city’s claim that the single-stream recycling program would save money is a lie.”
Did anyone contend that it would “save money”? It won’t. It will result in increased revenues, probably exceeding the total new investment after a period of time.
Is it “a cinch to tell a lie”? I don’t know, but it sure is easy to miscommunicate and misinterpret.
Thanks to CMs Hohnke and Teall for addressing the drinking water fund misappropriation.
]]>