At the public workshop on the core review, people strongly criticized many city services.
However, there was no consensus on what to do. There were conflicting demands for
both expansion and reduction of services.
The Core Services Review has correctly identified the city's biggest problem. "We are not
investing enough to repair and replace the City's infrastructure."
I asked how big the problem is. How much is "enough to repair and replace the City's
infrastructure"? No one had a reliable answer, and the workshop became an unfocussed gripe session, including contradictory demands to increase and decrease services. There was no attempt to prioritize services. No one knew how much is available for services after paying "to repair and replace the City's infrastructure."
How can the core review proceed without this answer? How do you know what core services are affordable without knowing the cost "to repair and replace the City's infrastructure"?
I have asked city councilors how big the city's infrastructure debt is. City councilors have asked city administration how big the city's infrastructure debt is. KPMG has interviewed city administration. Yet no one has revealed how much is "enough to repair and replace the City's infrastructure"?
For the Core Services Review to succeed, the infrastructure debt must be disclosed so
the public can decide what services taxpayers can afford.
Glen Nicholson
Prince George
