2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Fully agree with that point. The province can put it's foot on the city's throat and not vice-versa. But once again this is something that needs to be explained as a rationale as to why there was such a big tax increase at the municipal level, not trying to pretend that somehow there wasn't a big tax increase specifically at the municipal level.

I think he attempted to do this - relentlessly, but the message was drowned out by 31%!! 31%!! 31%!!

People never characterize province's increase in revenue as "tax hikes" when hey derive, for example, a year-over-year increase of 12% (2011-2012) in revenue from personal and corporate taxes. Theirs grows naturally with population and the economy. Our tax system requires a manual mill-rate adjustment because it's revenue neutral and is on a shifting assessment base. It's tough politically every single year.

Broadly, it's hard to wrap your head around our convoluted property tax system, revenue neutrality tax room and all its nuances. But I do think the Mayor did try to explain as best he could how property taxes work, the issue of tax room - why it was taken, and what it is used for:


From: http://www.nenshi.ca/straighttalk

What is this conversation about “tax room” and the famous $52 million?

The City’s share of the overall property tax has increased because the City has taken “tax room” left by the Province to fund capital expenditures that used to be funded by the Province.

What is tax room?

Remember that half of your property taxes go to the Province for education. When the City sets its budget in November for the following year, it sets the tax rate to derive the amount of revenue required to meet both its operating needs and the Province’s needs for education. The problem is that the City has to guess how much the Province will require for education because the Province does not set its budget until the following spring. In the past 3 years, the Province hasn't taken as much of the tax increase as we thought they would, leaving a revenue surplus, which is called “tax room”.

City Council has a policy to use tax room to offset the shortfall in the capital budget caused by lack of funding from the provincial government. When the City does this, the City is increasing its share of the total property tax collected, but it is NOT using that money to increase the operating budget.

Projects funded by tax room include:

2011: $42 million annually created the Community Investment Fund, which is funding the new Central Library, 4 new regional recreation centres in NW and SE Calgary, 3 new library branches and maintenance and upgrades to parks, arenas, swimming pools, and other recreation facilities across the city.

2012: $10.2 million annually was distributed to five areas: $2 million for sidewalks (replaces the 50% resident share for sidewalk replacements), $2 million to improve transit system reliability, $2 million for targeted traffic congestion solutions, $2 million for lifecycle maintenance of City buildings, and $2.2 million for enhancing community facilities like community halls.

2013: $52 million for flood recovery (repairing things like bridges, roadways that the City will not recover from insurance or provincial or federal disaster recovery programs). Future allocation of this annual tax room amount is yet to be decided by Council.

The key point here is that tax room is not used for the operating budget; it is explicitly used only for capital projects and debt reduction – the things the Province normally funds, but has been cutting its funding recently. None of the projects listed above - projects which citizens have told us are important investments - would have occurred if Council had not used the tax room to fund them.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He just took issue with people bluntly saying "your property tax bill went up 31%", well no it didn't - it went up 16.7% compounded over the three years.

Which is still a completely unsustainable figure.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He just took issue with people bluntly saying "your property tax bill went up 31%", well no it didn't - it went up 16.7% compounded over the three years.

Sure, but in the context of a municipal election, the city's take sure increased by more than 16.7% and that is the lens that the voter should look at as far as to the question of if he/she is getting the value they expect from municipal services for the taxes that are collected for the municipality.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Which is still a completely unsustainable figure.

Agreed, which is why we're trying to make systemic changes that will make service delivery more efficient. He could have tried to make slash and burn cuts, but that would affect front-line service (which the public doesn't seem to want), and would not actually make changes in how we do things leading to long term efficiency and effectiveness.

Zero Based Reviews, Transforming Planning, Corporate Cultural Transformation, etc, etc, are all initiatives to this end, but they do take some time to set up, execute and for the real fruits to bear - but the most definitely will. The City is a big ship to turn around.

Our revenue tools are also too inflexible. Only half our operating budget is from taxes, and a crappy regressive tax at that.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Sure, but in the context of a municipal election, the city's take sure increased by more than 16.7% and that is the lens that the voter should look at as far as to the question of if he/she is getting the value they expect from municipal services for the taxes that are collected for the municipality.

Sure, but also don't pretend (as many did) that this increased "share" didn't get us anything other than normal ongoing service delivery - just regular operating budget stuff like cutting grass in parks and clearing snow.

It confounded me that the Herald endorsement editorial lauded the Mayor on his very tangible accomplishments of getting important projects like the long awaited $245 million central library, $450 million for 4 major rec centres and three library branches built (all the other stuff listed above) while in the next sentence condemning the only method by which any of these projects could have been built. It was odd - we love this stuff, but we don't like that you paid for them out of dirty, dirty Calgary tax dollars - I guess they thought the money fell from the sky.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Zero Based Reviews, Transforming Planning, Corporate Cultural Transformation, etc, etc, are all initiatives to this end, but they do take some time to set up, execute and for the real fruits to bear - but the most definitely will. The City is a big ship to turn around.

I've voted for Nenshi twice now, but I hope by the end of this term I'm hearing more:

"We've transformed planning and corporate culture, and here's all the specific savings/efficiencies we've found"

and less

"These things take time" and "We're making Calgary better"

Politics in full sentences should include specific results, imo. 3 years is already becoming a long time, but if he can't finish those in 7 then he won't be able to.

[KelVarnsen]

So the city stole 104.2 million from us? Give it back(*25)

[CaptainYooh]

Bunk, my sincere congratulations on keeping your job. Well deserved. I look forward to our future debates.

Originally Posted by Bunk

...we love this stuff, but we don't like that you paid for them - I guess they thought the money fell from the sky.

Not so fast. You are putting a Nenshi-like spin on this. How to pay for the "nice stuff" is not such an easy and clear-cut question. Why should we pay for all of it now? How many generations should should be sharing the burden of some major capital investments in municipal culture and recreation? How much of that should be funded from debt financing and how much should come from property tax increases? Should the cities ask the Province to approve municipal bond financing? Should the cities make property tax distribution the next provincial elections issue? None of this has ever made it to public discussion. So Herald's point was fair and valid, I believe.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not really... he's not talking about his own platform objectives, which you seem to have missed.

Look way way up.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Which is still a completely unsustainable figure.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Which is still a completely unsustainable figure.

Sure, and if our taxe rate can't pay for the stuff we need, then that's completely unsustainable too. A solution would be to raise taxes to a suitable and sustainable level, then limit increases to inflation. If Nenshi was proposing to increase taxes 5-6% every year, until the end of time, then yes, it we'd have a sustainability problem.

[killer_carlson]

Thoughts on the recount? Anyone hearing anything on the voters being turned away allegation that some media ran earlier?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Voter turnout was 38.43%. Coming in a lot higher than most thought.

That would make turnout slightly above average for a municipal election without a contested mayoral race.

I'm just going to sit here and wait for the Sun to retract their article.... Any second now.....

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Thoughts on the recount? Anyone hearing anything on the voters being turned away allegation that some media ran earlier?

Yeah, it was corrected about 5 minutes later by Global.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That would make turnout slightly above average for a municipal election without a contested mayoral race.

I'm just going to sit here and wait for the Sun to retract their article.... Any second now.....

It was good turnout all things considered. Higher than Edmonton's, which is astonishing considering they had an open Mayoralty race.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Higher than Edmonton's, which is astonishing considering they had an open Mayoralty race.

What's astonishing is how many people actually voted in Edmonton, seeing as most of them are illiterate...

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

What's astonishing is how many people actually voted in Edmonton, seeing as most of them are illiterate...

They're used to signing things with an X, so it balances out.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Look way way up.

Can't. That convo died yesterday, you took too long to respond. It's in the past now.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That would make turnout slightly above average for a municipal election without a contested mayoral race.

I'm just going to sit here and wait for the Sun to retract their article.... Any second now.....

Didn't you hear? People only showed up because the weather was nice. If the weather wasn't so nice, fewer Nenshi voters would have voted, because they secretly hate Nenshi.

[Bigtime]

I secretly hate Nenshi. In fact I told him as much when he got to tell me about getting a ride in a CF-18 during his first year in office at Stampede time.