â€œDespite the fact that Prince Rupert was one of the best performing municipalities when it came to controlling increases in spending over time, per capita spending levels show the local government still spent more per person compared to all other municipalities with a similar population.â€
So the city was forced to spend less overall because of being nearly ‘broke’, yet because of the decrease in actual population, still spent the highest amount per capita in it’s bracket? Since we know it probably should have been listed in the 10,000-15,000 bracket, how much would that percentage increase? Where was the money spent, if the complaints I keep reading about the current state of affairs up there (dirty streets,etc) is factual??
edited to add-Looking at the tables, Kitimat spent more per capita than PR did but really, you’d have to compare facts with the actual PR population, which was closer to 12,000 than the old census figure of over 15,000 to get an idea of how much was really spent by the city in that time period.