City to raise property taxes by 10%?

[Ace]

^^ Yeah exactly, the province decides to give us a tax break and the city keeps it for themselves...after ALREADY raising taxes earlier.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

A herald editorial on the weekend nailed this issue: the city plays a shell game with finances. City revenue has grown 82 per cent since 1996. Population 24.65 per cent (from the article)

The 'cry poor' routine is a load of hooey.

What a completely bogus comparison. Why compare revenue growth to population growth? Why not revenue growth to expense growth?

Besides, The City isnt just paying for the growth of the population in Calgary. Airdrie has grown about 85% since 1996, MD of Rockyview is up about 70% or so. Cochrane and Okotoks are up 100%+, Strathmore has grown by 90%. Chestermere has grown by about 275%, etc. People from the outlying communities use these roads and facilities as well, and they dont pay taxes to the city of Calgary.

[Mccree]

When did the province annouce this change and why are we only hearing about it now??? The city was sure quick the spend the money. I wonder how long they have known??

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

What a completely bogus comparison. Why compare revenue growth to population growth? Why not revenue growth to expense growth?

I guess the implied question asked is why should expenses rise so far ahead of population?

Or put another way, does the city have a revenue problem, or a spending problem.

The answer is that the city has a spending problem and is adding services by the truckload, not simply keeping pace with growth as our mayor likes to whine.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I guess the implied question asked is why should expenses rise so far ahead of population?

I know what the implied question is, and it is, frankly, a stupid question. It also does not answer my question of why you would compare revenue growth to population growth as if there is a direct coorelation.

You are comparing 1996 dollars to 2006 dollars. I have news for you, and the writer of that editorial: people dont get devalued by inflation, only money.

Costs have risen, especially in this city. Fuel costs especially, along with the costs of material and workers. Or did you think that only the fast food industry had to start raising wages to keep employees in this market?

There was also an infrastructure deficit before 1996, and it is only getting worse. Expenses are going up because the city needs to catch up.

Or put another way, does the city have a revenue problem, or a spending problem.

The answer is that the city has a spending problem and is adding services by the truckload, not simply keeping pace with growth as our mayor likes to whine.

Which services, exactly, is the city adding?

Seems rather funny to me that every city in the province that is experiencing rapid growth are all suffering from the same "spending problems".

[Robbob]

I think the problem a lot of people are having is that the city did the budget, raised the taxes, and then after the budget was approved they were told by Edmonton that the city will not have to pay as much to the government for education. So this leaves the city with 25 million extra they want to spend. Its too late in the game to try to give back or reassess property tax because almost half that amount would be lost to administrative costs.

I personally don't think that the city should not put that money into something like policing and rather invest it. As soon as they give the money to different organizations and then down the road the provience wants to collect the tax again we will hear nothing but bitching from those that are effected by the cuts. If the money is going to be spent it has to be a one shot thing with no future monetary commitments.

[pekka]

Originally Posted by Mccree

When did the province annouce this change and why are we only hearing about it now??? The city was sure quick the spend the money. I wonder how long they have known??

They would haveknown by the end of March. This isn't anything new its called equalization. The province uses previous assessment figures to figure out the amount they require from each municipality for an education requisition. So if an assessment base grows higher than the province figures then it results in a lower school requisition and therefore a lower millrate.

What the city is doing is exactly what the province figures municipalities will do if they ever let municipalities off the hook for collecting education taxes. That is use it to collect more muni taxes.

So this isn't the case of province = good and city = bad, it is province doing business as usual and have a nice article written about the agreeing to take less(garbage) and the city taking advantage and looking very bad IMO. My Municipality's education requisition went down ~7.4% and our municipal mill rates have not changed in 5 years.