Comments on: Council Plows Ahead With Human Services

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:22:40 +0000

It may be a matter of keeping plow personnel honest and making sure we have city streets being serviced in a timely manner.

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.

By: Jane Smith

Jane Smith — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:05:51 +0000

We do not have money for basic services but yet we are going to spend $200,000 on tracking our snow plows? Are we out of our minds?

By: Phil Dokas

Phil Dokas — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:13:07 +0000

I’m not clear one why a stoplight unlike any that drivers have ever seen is desirable. Drivers are trained to see stoplights without any lights on as a sign of power failure and come to a stop. And double reds? Could not the blinking be achieved with a single blinking light? 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]

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:01:51 +0000

“The new system would allow most of the questions to be answered through the city’s website.”

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.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:02:33 +0000

“The increase in tonnage from outside the city, said McMurtrie, would reduce the projected payback period of 7.1 years for the city’s several million-dollar investment by approximately 0.2 years. ”

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.

By: Stephen Landes

Stephen Landes — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:36:48 +0000

Thanks to Marcia Higgins for her request that there be at least some discussion of what this new storm water ordinance would cost individual homeowners and the group in total. I am not judging the ordinance itself one way or the other, but passing such a requirement without knowing what it really costs to comply is improper and certainly means to me that Council, once again, doesn’t really represent property owners. (ah, property owners, those pesky residents that actually foot the bill for all of Council’s decisions).