City tax hikes -- kiss goodbye to your fancy ped bridges

[simmonjam1]

Does the City open it's books to an independent auditor to look for wasteful spending practices? Similar to the Auditor Generals report in Ottawa. If not, they should.

Anything more than a property tax increase equal to inflation equates to a serious lack of planning on the City's side.

Someone please explain to me the argument that they city is growing, we need to raise taxes to deal with the increase demand on our infrastructure. The city is growing and so too is the tax base, so why the need to increase taxes?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

What's the % of city budget for staff...80% or something?

Since it's only a few coffees how about instead of all of us having a few less starbucks maybe the 15000 or so city employees can have the same amount this year as last, so will we and we'll call it all even.

Wait, is the subsidied cafeteria still there in city hall? Starbucks is probably free anyway

I don't even want to touch the salary argument, because this is going to ugly, especially comparing against salaries in white-collar Calgary.

However, I will say this - the City does spend a lot on private contractors to come in and do a good chunk of the corporate work. If the City were to stop using (or at least cut down) on the number of consultants, we could save tens of millions of dollars per year. However, that means that a lot of the talent and expertise needed to run the City would be lost back into the highly-competitive labour market.

I get quite irked when people say that government employees slack on the job and don't earn what they're making. I have now worked in both and I can tell you that the differences in work ethic are slim to none. Some of the brightest and most hard working people work for the government, and the municipal sector is damn lucky to have some of the people they do.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

Does the City open it's books to an independent auditor to look for wasteful spending practices? Similar to the Auditor Generals report in Ottawa. If not, they should.

Anything more than a property tax increase equal to inflation equates to a serious lack of planning on the City's side.

Someone please explain to me the argument that they city is growing, we need to raise taxes to deal with the increase demand on our infrastructure. The city is growing and so too is the tax base, so why the need to increase taxes?

Check my post earlier about why the City needs to increase taxes. Don't forget to pay attention to releases from City Hall after the 2009-2011 budget is released.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

Does the City open it's books to an independent auditor to look for wasteful spending practices? Similar to the Auditor Generals report in Ottawa. If not, they should.

Anything more than a property tax increase equal to inflation equates to a serious lack of planning on the City's side.

Someone please explain to me the argument that they city is growing, we need to raise taxes to deal with the increase demand on our infrastructure. The city is growing and so too is the tax base, so why the need to increase taxes?

There's been calls for a city auditor for years. Right now it does not exist.

I get the need in increase taxes as we went through a huge spike. But the city should be talking about restraint too. Maybe dipping into the billion or so in the reserve funds, or cutting back on the surpluses they run.

Certainly 10 years into the spike we shouldn't still need massive hikes that are growing, not shrinking.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I get quite irked when people say that government employees slack on the job and don't earn what they're making.

Some do, some don't. Same as the private sector. The difference is in the private sector the bad ones get fired. In government they get pensions.

[simmonjam1]

I have read your previous post (#68) as to why taxes must be increased. I still don't buy it. Have all options been fully explored before tax increases were put on the table?

Some options I see:
- independent auditors report on wasteful spending - reallocate saved $$ into other areas.
- The City should explore privitization of some services. Private sector competition (against set quality standards) could drive the costs down.
- Bring in a 'Mud Tax' to curb urban sprawl. It would probably cause community renewal projects as the outward growth may be slowed down with a Mud Tax.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

I have read your previous post (#68) as to why taxes must be increased. I still don't buy it. Have all options been fully explored before tax increases were put on the table?

Some options I see:
- independent auditors report on wasteful spending - reallocate saved $$ into other areas.
- The City should explore privitization of some services. Private sector competition (against set quality standards) could drive the costs down.
- Bring in a 'Mud Tax' to curb urban sprawl. It would probably cause community renewal projects as the outward growth may be slowed down with a Mud Tax.

I can guarantee you that inflation and rising costs are a huge reason for a tax increase. I can also guarantee you that private consultants / contractors are another source of high spending that can be cut down. Privatization of services would thus be contradictory to a reduction in private sector utilization.

A MUD tax is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if something like that already exists.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I can guarantee you that inflation and rising costs are a huge reason for a tax increase.

Members of council and members of the bureaucracy could find lots of ways to better use their money if they'd only look. The problem is that, other than McIvor, there is no desire to find ways to use the same money to do more things. Bronco especially is always about getting more money from anywhere. It is disgusting.

At the same time, the whole "if you don't go to a meeting you have no right to complain" bs is just that. BS. If you're hearing the complaining, there is a point behind it. If you really want to know what people are saying, listen to this stuff no matter where it comes from. Not listening is the biggest problem as they already know they aren't going to like what they hear.

[CaptainCrunch]

This goes beyond making choices about the type of coffee you drink, or sacrificing for taxes.

Between 2000 and 2005 City of Calgary spending increased by about 44%, and now we're looking at a massive increase in property taxes and user fees. The average Canadian's salaries are not increasing at the same rate as Calgary's taxes are increasing ( I think that the Canadian inflation rate is also about 6%).

Meanwhile we're hearing about wasteful spending, which on top of it the latest CFIB study talks about the City of Calgary's salary structure eating up 55% of the budget, and these people are getting raises, bonuses, and other perks.

Calgary's taxation is regressive if we're talking about taking money out of the economy and outstripping normal inflation.

We can talk about the private sector, but the fact is that with most private sector companies, if they had spending increases like the city of Calgary has had over the past 8 years, they'd price their products out of the market and they'd be forced to restructure, probably streamline or their competitors would drive them out of the market. There's no pressure on the city to change their spending strategies or sh$tcan their pet projects that are just on the left side of goofy.

In fact if the City of Calgary was in the business of building cars, their car would cost $150,000 have the performance specs of a 1975 Lada and last as long as a pinto. Of course our lobby would be lovely, but none of the bathrooms in the building would work.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

I have read your previous post (#68) as to why taxes must be increased. I still don't buy it. Have all options been fully explored before tax increases were put on the table?

Some options I see:
- independent auditors report on wasteful spending - reallocate saved $$ into other areas.
- The City should explore privitization of some services. Private sector competition (against set quality standards) could drive the costs down.
- Bring in a 'Mud Tax' to curb urban sprawl. It would probably cause community renewal projects as the outward growth may be slowed down with a Mud Tax.

Kinda FYI.

The city comissioned a report in the late 90s, early 2000 that I can't for the life of me remember the name of, but it cost about $5 mil and had a boatload of ideas on how to save money by outsourcing. It got shelved.

We essentially have Mud tax already. Utility infrastructure costs are charged back to the new homeowners and each lot has a few thousand bucks for the city as part of the price.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

At the same time, the whole "if you don't go to a meeting you have no right to complain" bs is just that. BS. If you're hearing the complaining, there is a point behind it. If you really want to know what people are saying, listen to this stuff no matter where it comes from. Not listening is the biggest problem as they already know they aren't going to like what they hear.

Council Priorities were founded on the concerns and wishes of the citizens of Calgary. The 2009-2011 budget and business plans are based on these priorities.

Here is a perfect example of what happens when people speak up: The West LRT line going through Sunalta, and the massive stink it caused.

See how easy it is for people to influence the city's spending and growth?

Not speaking up is the bigger tragedy. The City has numerous channels for citizens to voice their concerns and get in the loop on civic issues. And it's sad to see people complain when 70% of eligible Calgarian's aren't even voting let alone speaking up.

Calculoso, the issue is the number of complaints (or lack thereof) that is the real issue. Try convincing your fellow man to get involved in municipal politics; I guarantee you that it will be like pulling teeth, so the city just goes with what it has.

And for the record, 62% of Calgarians are in favour of increasing taxes to maintain and expand services, while only 21% want to cut taxes to maintain the current level, and 10% want to cut services to reduce taxes altogether. (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/...ion_survey.pdf)

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If you can build a bridge over water for $5 million, I would like to see that. Especially one that isn't going to have to be replaced in 5-10 years.

Granted I don't know a whole lot about bridge construction, but here is a bridge over traffic:

http://www.edmondsun.com/cnhi/edmond...adpicturestory

The Benham Company design would cost the city $950,500, which also includes a $440,000 new parking lot with 165 spaces on the south side of West Edmond Road. The project cost does not include landscaping.

Here's another link estimating bridge costs:

http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/...nd_tunnels.cfm

Costs

Costs range from $500,000 to $4 million, depending on required right-of-way acquisition and site characteristics.

Here's a bridge proposal that was turned down... for $2.5M:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/b...roject-council

WESTMINSTER The City Council's stance on a $2.5 million pedestrian bridge proposed by Supervisor Janet Nguyen was encapsulated in Councilman Frank Fry's final comment: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Here's a bridge that will cost about $5M

http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/21/n...th-waterfront/

I'm sure I could come up with a bunch more, but these were the first ones that came up through Google.

What's my point? There are plenty of options, if people want to look for them. $25M is a huge sum of money.

[Ozy_Flame]

Calculoso, those numbers are pretty for argument's sake, but you're referencing land bridges. Find some numbers on river and water bridges and they will be more expensive.

$25 million is a lot for a premium bridge, but it's a long-term investment.

The Centre Street bridge cost $375,000 in 1913, an awful lot of bucks in that day. However, look at how vital it is to our city. The long-term benefits have far outweighed the initial costs.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Calculoso, those numbers are pretty for argument's sake, but you're referencing land bridges. Find some numbers on river and water bridges and they will be more expensive.

$25 million is a lot for a premium bridge, but it's a long-term investment.

The Centre Street bridge cost $375,000 in 1913, an awful lot of bucks in that day. However, look at how vital it is to our city. The long-term benefits have far outweighed the initial costs.

Centre Street Bridge is a dual purpose bridge, serving pedestrians AND vehicles. Big difference there too.


http://www.banff.ca/locals-residents...ian-bridge.htm


Well, if the Town of Banff can build a pedestrian bridge over the Bow River for under $5m, surely Calgary can cross the bridge for something less than 5 times the cost. Its not like the Bow becomes a raging river past Cochrane.

You said $20m now or $30m later... the idea is more $20m now, or $12m a little later (cutback scope and save on labour/material due to economic downturn).

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Calculoso, those numbers are pretty for argument's sake, but you're referencing land bridges. Find some numbers on river and water bridges and they will be more expensive.

$25 million is a lot for a premium bridge, but it's a long-term investment.

The Centre Street bridge cost $375,000 in 1913, an awful lot of bucks in that day. However, look at how vital it is to our city. The long-term benefits have far outweighed the initial costs.

Yup, all of those bridges go over land - the bridges are much shorter, the individual spans are much shorter, and it is much simpler to work over land than it is to work over water. Much more expensive construction methods must be used to work over water as you can't just lift components directly verticallt from the ground to lift them in place for example.

If anything, Calculoso's links support the idea that a bridge of the river is going to cost 10-15 million, minimum.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

People who voted for Bronco or didnt vote know the way he operates.

The only people with any right to complain are those who voted against Bronco.

Simply blaming Bronco is lame and short sighted.

He is a weak mayor all around, but builders have been saying for a decade our prop taxes will explode because of the way we build (and demand) our city. All spralled out with a tiny density and requirement for a large amount of infrastructure.

Your simple broad brush condemnation shows how simple your thought process is on the issue. It's not accurate, but it would be MORE accurate to say anyone choosing to live in a full sized lot in the burbs are to blame.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Here is a perfect example of what happens when people speak up: The West LRT line going through Sunalta, and the massive stink it caused.

And the NE LRT line is an example of what happens when they don't listen to the people in the area.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

See how easy it is for people to influence the city's spending and growth?

Easy? Puleease. If it wasn't for the media outcry, it would have been ignored just like every other effort that is being made. One example is just an outlier.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Not speaking up is the bigger tragedy. The City has numerous channels for citizens to voice their concerns and get in the loop on civic issues. And it's sad to see people complain when 70% of eligible Calgarian's aren't even voting let alone speaking up.

When the growing trend is that the City isn't listening, what does it matter? Bronco is going to do what Bronco wants, and he's going to shout down anyone who apposes him. That's what he's trying to do with the province, and fits his personality to a T.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And for the record, 62% of Calgarians are in favour of increasing taxes to maintain and expand services, while only 21% want to cut taxes to maintain the current level, and 10% want to cut services to reduce taxes altogether. (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/...ion_survey.pdf)

For the record, based on your own link, 74% would rather new User Fees be introduced or expanded instead of raising taxes while 26% want their taxes to go up (slide 36). Also, the satisfaction with how the City is spending tax dollars is going down (slide 33).

Tell me again that Calgarians want their taxes increased... It'll just reflect, once again, how the City isn't listening.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Easy? Puleease. If it wasn't for the media outcry, it would have been ignored just like every other effort that is being made. One example is just an outlier.



When the growing trend is that the City isn't listening, what does it matter? Bronco is going to do what Bronco wants, and he's going to shout down anyone who apposes him. That's what he's trying to do with the province, and fits his personality to a T.



For the record, based on your own link, 74% would rather new User Fees be introduced or expanded instead of raising taxes while 26% want their taxes to go up (slide 36). Also, the satisfaction with how the City is spending tax dollars is going down (slide 33).

Tell me again that Calgarians want their taxes increased... It'll just reflect, once again, how the City isn't listening.

Sorry Calculoso. Simply saying the City isn't listening isn't good enough. That obviously means you're frustrated with the City and, based on your responses, are refusing to do anything about it because it's hopeless.

According to the same survey, 86% of citizens have initiated contact with the City of Calgary in one form or another, and the the general trend over the last five years is citizens are getting more connected with the City. This is in large part due to the increased use of services such as 3-1-1.

There is also a 64% satisfaction rating with the City's services, which unfortunately is a dip from previous years, but also the same years where Calgary has seen it's most burgeoning growth.

Your apathy and frustration with the process is something the City is concerned about, but you seem intelligent enough to stand up and make demands. I'm curious to know if you've had a bad experience with communicating with the City before?

Also, comparing raised taxes and user fees is not the same as raised taxes versus lower taxes. One assumes that taxes are going to go up anyways and what kind of raise is preferable, and the other assumes a choice between raising or lowering the overall tax rate. Two different things.

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Calculoso, those numbers are pretty for argument's sake, but you're referencing land bridges. Find some numbers on river and water bridges and they will be more expensive.

$25 million is a lot for a premium bridge, but it's a long-term investment.

The Centre Street bridge cost $375,000 in 1913, an awful lot of bucks in that day. However, look at how vital it is to our city. The long-term benefits have far outweighed the initial costs.

The bridge will be premium only in terms of being novel. Novel designs typically do not follow best/standardized engineering practices, and, if anything, will make the bridge more problem prone and subject to greater maintenance, not less.

I don't have time to research right now, but I read an article where it stated that a standard pedestrian bridge would have instead cost $5mil to $10 million.