- $2,057.43/Calgary household… No cost overruns
- $5,810.07/Calgary household… 65 per cent cost overruns (same as Calgary 1988)
- $10,967.96/Calgary household… 142 per cent cost overruns (average for winter Olympics)
Spoiler!
The Calculation
CTF analysis divides the total Olympics tax bill facing Calgarians, $1.057 billion (federal portion + provincial portion + municipal commitment), by the number of Calgary households, 513,878. This results in the best case scenario of $2,057.43 per household. The same calculation is done to get the cost associated with overruns ($5,810.07 = $2.986 billion/513,878 households); ($10,967.96 = $5.636 billion/513,878 households).
The calculation assumes the federal government commits the full amount under its policy for hosting international sporting events. Under the policy, federal commitments will not exceed 35 per cent of total costs or 50 per cent of the taxpayer tab. When there are no overruns, the federal government can provide up to 50 per cent of the taxpayer tab. With 65 per cent cost overruns (overruns during 1988 Calgary Olympics) and 142 per cent overruns (average winter Olympics overruns), the federal government pays 35 per cent of the total event cost (50 per cent of taxpayer tab exceeds 35 per cent of total cost).
The calculation uses the $700 million contribution announced by the Alberta government. As per the Alberta government’s announcement, the calculation does not allow for the province to pay for cost overruns.
The calculation assumes the city of Calgary will pay the remainder of the taxpayer bill.
The calculation uses 513,878 households (total household dwellings in Calgary as of April 2018 – non-residential use dwellings). This number is larger than the total assessed residential properties in 2018 and the number of households identified in the 2016 Canadian census. If the CTF used the smaller household figures, the cost per household would be greater.
The $2,000 figure is a best case scenario as it does not include any cost overruns, interest payments or any further costs not included in Calgary 2026's hosting plan. The figure doesn’t include the price of attending Olympic events.
Haha and that ladies and gentleman is how you make a “no” headline.
Haha ok i see what they did here. This all assumes we’re paying off the Olympics in 1 year haha and they forgot to include business’s. Their numbers assume it’s all paid by residents. They also included alberta’s federal portion which yes the taxpayer pays for but realistically that’s money that taxpayers will be paying whether we have an olympics or not.
Also their dwelling number is lower than statscan but ok.
Let’s take that ctf $2057 number that includes the federal and provincial portion and no business contribution and divide it by 8 years of repayment. We get $257 or $21/month.
I know what the ctf is doing here and they are using every theoretical cent of tax collected however aren’t factoring in the taxpayer cost for infrastructure payments (like the field house) if the olympics don’t happen.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to stampsx2 For This Useful Post:
I’d guess that the Field House, our main local cost will get covered by existing taxes, as the Mayor alluded to in the exchange in the CBC panel with Trevor Tombe.
There was a 10 yr allocation of an annual capital fund of $42m (from the 2011 tax room), called the Community Investment Fund. It was specifically for community, social and recreational capital infrastructure. $135m from that fund went to the Central library, a whack of it went to the four big new rec centres (Rocky Ridge, Seton, Quarry Park and Great Plains) and a bunch of little things like roof repairs to pools and stuff. My understanding is that allocation ends in 2021, so the City could do a ten year renewal of that fund and pay for the Fieldhouse (#1 priority on the community and rec priority list) and other stuff and your taxes would not be affected at all assuming they do not add a bunch more projects to the games. The Mayor alluded to this fund as a likely source for the Fieldhouse. I helped in the creation of that fund when P3 Canada funding evaporated in front of our eyes for the 4 rec centres and there were literally no grants available for this type of infrastructure.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 11-09-2018 at 11:18 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I’ll tell you what we should do with $500MM since we seem to have it to throw around. We should invite business leaders and politicians to Calgary constantly to drum up a transitional industry(ies) to Calgary to set up shop. We should provide subsidies tax advantages and breaks on utilities to new industry to create businesses in Calgary that will have jobs. Like our Amazon bid. We should not be ####ing around with corruption via the IOC and bolstering Nenshi and city hall and BidCos personally motivated profiles by hosting an expensive PARTY that is not a lasting economic impression on the city of Calgary.
You mean like the industry of sport?
Where our facilities and infrastructure have allowed athletes, coaches, officials, technicians from all over the world to set up shop here to train, work, eat, shop and do business?
Where sports federations set up their operations in our city?
Moving on, you couldn’t be more wrong. What’s happened on differentials has actually occurred more to the point over the last two weeks in particular. Basically diffs and investment analysis has become a disaster over like the last one month to two weeks. That’s why what were planned for 2019 capital programs in August and Sept are absolutely not the same capital programs people are talking about in Oct and November. Things are changing fast to the downside. Do you follow the stock market?
You people need to understand something. Calgary is in trouble. Like you think things are rebounding when the country can’t get product out and supply is increasing with no way to move it! Do you think Keystone getting shut down in Montana yesterday helps?
Get a grip. The red alert button has been on in industry for the entire year and over the last month panic has actually started to settle in and you can sense it.just because some macroeconomic rube cruises in and says well 2017 Alberta still was the best provincial economy does not make it true looking forward. You think jobs are stable at $20/bbl???
It’s devils advocates like you that do not help the narrative and we all need to be pulling in the same directly at this point.
Industry needs support not questions. Industry needs help not uncertainty. The quality of life for Calgarians is at significant risk. It has never been as bad as it is today in Calgary including the early 1980’s when we were contemplating 1988 Olympics. There wasn’t the environmentalist nonsense. There wasn’t the inability to build a company and there certainly wasn’t the massive capital flight from the investment community.
The alarm bells should be loud and clear and yet we have people like you walking along not understanding how serious it is and others hoping we focus on and host the ####ing Olympics.
It’s absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life in Calgary.
And no, the 0.000001% of Olympians who use these facilities to train in the future do not make an economy for the thousands of Calgarians who depend on these jobs, hundreds of thousands of Albertans who depend on these jobs and this sector or millions of Canadians who economically benefit from the oil patch today.
Calgary is one of the highest quality of life cities in the entire world now let me ask you. Was that because of oil and gas and business or was that because of the 1988 Olympics?
I’ll tell you what we should do with $500MM since we seem to have it to throw around. We should invite business leaders and politicians to Calgary constantly to drum up a transitional industry(ies) to Calgary to set up shop. We should provide subsidies tax advantages and breaks on utilities to new industry to create businesses in Calgary that will have jobs. Like our Amazon bid. We should not be ####ing around with corruption via the IOC and bolstering Nenshi and city hall and BidCos personally motivated profiles by hosting an expensive PARTY that is not a lasting economic impression on the city of Calgary.
We are in trouble short term. Watch.
Meg energy Opex is about $3 or so per barrel. There maintenance and sustaining capital is $7-$8 a barrel. So at $25 CAD they still have a $15 netback. It the worst economic environment. Now as a company they are loaded with debt but as a sustaining asset it is profitable to sustain production.
There is a baseline industry that exists because of the previous billions spent on these projects. The employment levels in 201/16 hit those levels.
And if things are really as bad as you say than who cares about the Olympics, we are ####ed anyway might as well throw a party. I’m not even for the Olympics but your chicken little argument against them is false.
Looking a futures by April we are back to $30 diff (still
Down significantly from $15 diff) which at 60 WTI many projects are viable. Just this week in the middle of this WVS crisis Imperial sanctioned Aspen. Is 2019 going to suck for juniors and service companies? Absolutly. Can the city or Province do anything about it? NO. Does it have anything to do with the Olympics? NO. Are the Olympics a good idea? NO. But not because of the state of the Calgary economy. If we were booming it still isn’t a good bid.
Welp, Trevor Toombe who’s an economist has figured out that taxes would go up $25 annually. It was repeated at the cbc town hall. If you have different tax projections from credible sources, would you mind sharing your results? If the results are higher i would really like to know beofre i vote on tuesday.
Just reminding you that taxes would go up if the city can’t find other aources of revenue from the games. There’s also a billion dollar contingency built into the budget and our venues are 85% built.
If you want to quote Trevor Toone shouldn’t you put in a caveat that he does not believe that the Olympics are a good idea? It seems to be misleading to say look this economist says the games don’t cost that much without adding that he also doesn’t support them because they don’t benefit us that much.
If you want to quote Trevor Toone shouldn’t you put in a caveat that he does not believe that the Olympics are a good idea? It seems to be misleading to say look this economist says the games don’t cost that much without adding that he also doesn’t support them because they don’t benefit us that much.
Why? He says it will cost XYZ and some of us are ok with it. He does not see value in it, fine. My uncle wouldn't pay a penny for anything that's not "survival". Died a poor man with no joy to look back at. Some life.
How much does garbage collection cost? Snow removal? Fixing the roads etc. See? we pay for everything. Why are people expecting the Olympics to be free?
The Following User Says Thank You to Red For This Useful Post:
I think it's very unfair for so people to call Mary Moran, Mary Conibear and Scott Hutcheson, the 3 faces of the 2026 Bid, "corrupt".
They are working extremely hard, have put in countless hours and respond to every question with dignity and respect. They have also done so much research and put a lot of effort into creating this bid.
Oppose the bid on it's own for whatever reason, but don't question their character; especially with the work they've done in the past. Was Moran corrupt when she helped created the Amazon Fight A Bear campaign with the CED? Was Conibear corrupt when she was managing operations during Vancouver 2010, was Hutcheson corrupt when he chairs non-profit organizations?
Please check these insults at the door. They are Sean Chu "Calgary 2026 made me think of Enron" levels of ridiculousness.
I'll double down on my comment that they've corrupted the process.
But you are right - it's not fair to call them corrupt. They could be corrupt. They might just be incompetent. Or brainwashed. Or subconsciously biased to the extreme. But it doesn't really matter which of the above it is. The result, in my view, is that they failed their mandate. And it's not even close. If they put in a lot of hours, they ended up spending those hours producing really bad work and attempting to mislead the public.
The overriding mandate of the bidco was to provide Calgarians with a detailed and accurate cost estimate and hosting details of the games.
The bidco has blatantly failed because its so biased towards a "pro-bid" outcome. First the estimates are garbage. Theyre not accurate (they're not a midpoint of a normally distrusted curve). They don't have uncertainty bands around the cost estimates. And these are extremely important because Calgary is responsible for the cost overruns. So they failed in this core aspect of their mandate And second, the bidco is spearheading a huge promotional campaign centered around spinning the numbers favourably to the point where they might be saying things that aren't even true. There is a huge difference between promoting the bid and disceminating propaganda. So I would say they failed in the second aspect of their mandate as well.
How does a bidco fail these mandates so spectacularly if their not corrupt, incompetent or brainwashed? They don't.
"Calgary 2026, with support from its partners, will complete the bid exploration and development work that began in 2016. Calgary 2026 will clarify the vision and details of a potential Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and will develop a more accurate hosting cost estimate."
"Calgary 2026 bid corporation was established in June 2018 and is working to develop a bid for Calgary to host the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games"
"We’re Calgary 2026, an organization tasked to explore, develop and promote a responsible bid to host the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. But at the end of the day, our goal is to provide clear and accurate hosting details and costs so you have the information you need to make an informed decision when you vote on Nov. 13."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The fact Gullfoss is not banned for life on here is such an embarrassment. Just a joke.
Why? He says it will cost XYZ and some of us are ok with it. He does not see value in it, fine. My uncle wouldn't pay a penny for anything that's not "survival". Died a poor man with no joy to look back at. Some life.
How much does garbage collection cost? Snow removal? Fixing the roads etc. See? we pay for everything. Why are people expecting the Olympics to be free?
The way he was quoted for costs to seemed to imply is support as well. When using him as an expert source that should be disclosed as its relevant to the discussion. That was the only point I was making.
The bidco has blatantly failed because its so biased towards a "pro-bid" outcome. First the estimates are garbage. Theyre not accurate (they're not a midpoint of a normally distrusted curve). They don't have uncertainty bands around the cost estimates. And these are extremely important because Calgary is responsible for the cost overruns. So they failed in this core aspect of their mandate And second, the bidco is spearheading a huge promotional campaign centered around spinning the numbers favourably to the point where they might be saying things that aren't even true. There is a huge difference between promoting the bid and disceminating propaganda. So I would say they failed in the second aspect of their mandate as well.
They included 20% contingency in the overall bid number. They refined values from the original exploration committee report. At this stage estimates are going to be +/- 30%. Unless you have specific information as to why these estimates are wrong you are effectively accusing this group of fraud.
I think it’s fair to say that they have excluded scope that isn’t drirectly related to the Olympic spend but that has been clearly indicated from the start.
The only questionable part is the 125 million cut to security where I agree they just moved the bell curve. The other area they have failed is the communication of cost over runs on the security file. There is clearly confusion there.
If you look at the quotes there job is to provide information and then promote the games. They have done both. You seem to be objecting to the promote part.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
They included 20% contingency in the overall bid number. They refined values from the original exploration committee report. At this stage estimates are going to be +/- 30%. Unless you have specific information as to why these estimates are wrong you are effectively accusing this group of fraud.
I think it’s fair to say that they have excluded scope that isn’t drirectly related to the Olympic spend but that has been clearly indicated from the start.
The only questionable part is the 125 million cut to security where I agree they just moved the bell curve. The other area they have failed is the communication of cost over runs on the security file. There is clearly confusion there.
If you look at the quotes there job is to provide information and then promote the games. They have done both. You seem to be objecting to the promote part.
I wouldn’t impugn the character of those working on the bid. I am sure they are working hard and believe in the cause. However, that does not make it a compelling bid. I think a majority of counsellors voting against the bid is very troubling. It speaks to what I see as last minute band aid fixes to legitimate questions as to the scope and cost of the bid. You mentioned “the only questionable part” is security. I think it goes well beyond that. Security is the obvious one that should raise eyebrows, but there plenty of others that should be open to criticism.
Much has been made of the billions in spending, but to what ultimate benefit? Lipstick on McMahon, same for a number of facilities which, to be kind, limited benefit to the vast majority of Calgarians. The Fieldhouse? Fine, that looks to be a real benefit, but Bunk said above that it is mostly on the City dime and can be allocated appropriately outside of the bid.
Finally, I think many more would be onside is if true legacy work was completed as part of the games. New NHL arena, airport LRT, etc. That is not part of this bid. The most infuriating part for me, is that there seems to be a campaign (or maybe shadow campaign) that implies that if the bid is successful, those big ticket items will get done. It is entirely unfair and disengenuous to whisper that this stuff will get done and not include it in the bid or cost it out appropriately.
CSES were pilloried for a half assed CalgaryNext plan, and rightfully so. I don’t see much difference in what bidco has come up with, except for more money and less obvious benefit. End rant. Vote No.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Last edited by Fighting Banana Slug; 11-10-2018 at 09:46 AM.
there also seemed to be some grey areas in some of the earlier costing exercises, siap, but i haven't been able to find any clarity on a few items?
was a location for curling ever decided upon? Was this captured as a line item in Bidco's documents?
using Whistler for the alpine event (even tho last week whistler said they never heard from bid co) were those things covered off in the latest estimate?
also previously leaked was potential associated cost with the remediation of the bus barn site and cost of the new bus barns if they were intent on using the site.
there also seemed to be some grey areas in some of the earlier costing exercises, siap, but i haven't been able to find any clarity on a few items?
was a location for curling ever decided upon? Was this captured as a line item in Bidco's documents?
using Whistler for the alpine event (even tho last week whistler said they never heard from bid co) were those things covered off in the latest estimate?
also previously leaked was potential associated cost with the remediation of the bus barn site and cost of the new bus barns if they were intent on using the site.
thanks for any info ppl might have
They say they still have four locations in consideration for curling. All are in "Southern Alberta". Take that however you want. There is money allocated in the budget to prepare the curling venue for the Games.
Whistler will only be used for ski jumping and nordic combined, which are a very small part of the overall Olympic program. Alpine events will be held at Nakiska. There is money allocated in the budget for holding events in Whistler.
In the latest revision of the budget, they removed the Athletes' Village from the bus barn location, which was one of the cost reductions. The new plan will see the village built somewhere else that doesn't require demolishing the bus barns (I don't believe such a location has been determined).
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
there also seemed to be some grey areas in some of the earlier costing exercises, siap, but i haven't been able to find any clarity on a few items?
was a location for curling ever decided upon? Was this captured as a line item in Bidco's documents?
using Whistler for the alpine event (even tho last week whistler said they never heard from bid co) were those things covered off in the latest estimate?
also previously leaked was potential associated cost with the remediation of the bus barn site and cost of the new bus barns if they were intent on using the site.
thanks for any info ppl might have
Hockey 1 = New Event Centre
Figure Skating & Short Track = Saddledome
Field house = Curling
This will probably be my last word on the plebiscite and bid. Here’s my podcast with Mary Moran. I hope you have a listen. As a yes supporter I wanted to be transparent and as an interviewer present the best version of what I think are valid criticisms.
The debate has been super divisive and pretty ugly in my view. So this is my attempt to present a sensible conversation. I hope it is fair and informative.
