Sound Off: How much are you willing to see property taxes increase.......

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

It simply comes back to my comment in the last thread. The City isn't listening. If they were, they would welcome and try to understand the feedback. Instead, they try to counter it at all costs, and then wonder why they never get any feedback....

I'm not the politician here, so I really couldn't give a damn if I'm making a beer and popcorn reference - I'm stating we don't know all the facts, so why jump to conclusions? I'm not the one being hasty here.

You elect your officials to office, with many...MANY avenues of communication open to you. Council priorities were set by the concerns of Calgarians, which in turn was the basis for each three-year budget. How you can argue that the City doesn't listen is beyond me.

What do you want them to do - take you out for dinner, pass all your suggestions on as bills, and follow up three times a week?

Your expectations are bizarre. You keep keep saying the City doesn't listen, but then you still haven't stated whether you've voted, whether you've tried to voice your opinion...Nothing.

Your angle is seriously flawed IMO; like a kid who wants attention but refuses to say a word.

BTW, the City has said "no" to far more project proposals than they have said yes. If the City wasn't listening to the voices of Calgarians, the hike would be A LOT higher.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

True but I also think Bronco hasn't shown an ability to manage a budget - basically he has two tactics:
1. Whine for more money
2. Raise taxes.

We all know there's waste in this city. It's our elected officials jobs to find it.

Too easy to simply raise taxes every time.

They are not interested in finding ways to save money.

I took a look at the 2008 approved budget adjustments.

http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/...s_approved.pdf


It's all about more, more, more. In fact the word "decrease" never appears. The word "increase" appears a whoping 20 times in 36 pages.

Alderman Ric Ivor seems to be the only one who "gets it".

McIver said an increase is likely and council's main job in the upcoming budget talks is to try and control costs as much as possible.

"Cost control is a 52-week-a-year job, it's not a two-week job during budget time," he said.

"We need to be more aware that every time we approve a nice report to do a nice new project, that becomes part of a tax increase.

"Council didn't get to 22% overnight, it was 52 weeks of approving reports that cost more money and all of council needs to say 'no' more often to spending requests."

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...87056-sun.html

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

BTW, the City has said "no" to far more project proposals than they have said yes. If the City wasn't listening to the voices of Calgarians, the hike would be A LOT higher.

Their budget approvals (linked ^) indicate otherwise.

Perhaps you could provide us with some examples.


And I am still awaiting your response from my earlier questions as well.

The current slate of aldermen have been in for a year now. What have they done to reduce city hall spending? Are they reviewing their departments to look for cost saving measures? Are they recycling? Are they saving fuel and energy costs?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Their budget approvals (linked ^) indicate otherwise.

Perhaps you could provide us with some examples.


And I am still awaiting your response from my earlier questions as well.

I'm going by what Council and the CMO have been saying. Not just to the media, but what people who work with the City are aware of.

Rejected budget proposals are not submitted in three-year budgeting, so what kind of examples can I provide you? Perhaps you should be asking your alderman for that information. You have every right as a citizen to do it. You can even contact the CMO or call 3-1-1 who will direct you to the appropriate people who can tell you about specific proposal rejections.

My response to you other question, just as I have mentioned earlier, is you have to WAIT until the budget is released to the public on Nov. 6.

You are very much in the wrong opinion if you think the City doesn't search for cheaper, more efficient ways to streamline their services. There is a lot of effort being spent internally to re-design business processes within given operating budgets to minimize wasteful spending.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You are very much in the wrong opinion if you think the City doesn't search for cheaper, more efficient ways to streamline their services. There is a lot of effort being spent internally to re-design business processes within given operating budgets to minimize wasteful spending.

Why isn't there a zero-based budgeting policy then? Also isn't that 'living wage' procurement policy another way to essentially pay more then the city has to for infrastructure and services? There's plenty of fat, not adopting zero-based budgeting and weighing in on income re-distribution schemes are symptoms of politicians and bureaucrats avoiding responsibility for the public purse.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm going by what Council and the CMO have been saying. Not just to the media, but what people who work with the City are aware of.

I am quite sure if they were cutting.... the media would report on it.

They certainly did when Ralphie was cutting.

You are very much in the wrong opinion if you think the City doesn't search for cheaper, more efficient ways to streamline their services. There is a lot of effort being spent internally to re-design business processes within given operating budgets to minimize wasteful spending.

Maybe they can start by turning their computers off overnight.

[Slava]

What would you guys like to see cut though? I'm asking honestly because I can't think of too many redundant civic programs, and things seem to be rather bare-bones as it stands?

Seems like most of the city services are rather necessary...but I'm sure that as soon as I post this someone more in the know can educate me!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I am quite sure if they were cutting.... the media would report on it.

They certainly did when Ralphie was cutting.



Maybe they can start by turning their computers off overnight.

Well here's one for you, although not a traditional cut - the EMS transition. The City's biggest expenditure by business unit is in CS&PS, and transitioning administration of this department over will help alleviate some of those costs. Now of course that has already been worked into the budget (given three-year planning), but cuts are a part of the new budget.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

What would you guys like to see cut though? I'm asking honestly because I can't think of too many redundant civic programs, and things seem to be rather bare-bones as it stands?

Seems like most of the city services are rather necessary...but I'm sure that as soon as I post this someone more in the know can educate me!

I agree, and I wanted to ask this question since there seems to be so much upheaval around a tax increase?

What would you guys like to see cut? Where would you like to see funding reduced? Keep in mind that a minimum level of spending is needed to account for increased material and equipment costs, inflation, and supporting new communities being developed on the fringes of the city.

And you can't say pedestrian bridges because that's too easy. Let's get mroe in depth than just that.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

What would you guys like to see cut though? I'm asking honestly because I can't think of too many redundant civic programs, and things seem to be rather bare-bones as it stands?

Seems like most of the city services are rather necessary...but I'm sure that as soon as I post this someone more in the know can educate me!

They could start with looking at "arts" projects.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-0a21c18aaa6d

This last minute bailout of a project that did not meet requirements of provinicial programs and clearly could not raise money on their own; is just one small example.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

....but cuts are a part of the new budget.

Oh, I am looking forward to seeing that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

They could start with looking at "arts" projects.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-0a21c18aaa6d

This last minute bailout of a project that did not meet requirements of provinicial programs and clearly could not raise money on their own; is just one small example.

Looks like that would only save $250 grand though...pretty small part of the budget to avoid tax increases.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Why isn't there a zero-based budgeting policy then? Also isn't that 'living wage' procurement policy another way to essentially pay more then the city has to for infrastructure and services? There's plenty of fat, not adopting zero-based budgeting and weighing in on income re-distribution schemes are symptoms of politicians and bureaucrats avoiding responsibility for the public purse.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a zero-based budgeting policy for each department. Directors are required to go before Council and state their reasons (and outline) their department budgets before approval.

"Living wage" raises the quality of living for lower-income earners, and is in line with imagineCALGARY and the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. It was also heavily researched by Community & Neighbourhood Services, and justified to have a clear and positive impact on the community. Wage hikes are not just for City employees, they're also for private sector earners with a low income. Providing this helps move people off the street and able to afford day-to-day living expenses.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

I would like to see a summary of budget departements and programs with how much they cost vs how much reveue they generate. I was just glancing through a bunch of them. I didn't know that transit fares does not even make it to funding half of the transit budget.

Other highlights:

Community and Neighborhood services - Expeditures of $55 Million
Parks - $75 million
Recreation - $62 million (revenues of $32M)
Animal Bylaw Service $10M (revenues of $3.8M - I assume dog licenses and whatnot)
EMS services $44M (revenues of $38M) Looks like the fees and revenues almost match the budget on this one.
Fire - $135m - No one would ever cut that one
Social REsearch $2M - What's that?
REsource management - $17.8M - What's that, doesn't sound like a sound management of resources to me.
Golf Courses - $9.0M (Revenues of $9.2M) Figures the one thing I might actually use I pay for fully with my user fee.

Perusing through this stuff, every department no matter who it is seems to have an amount of 2-4 million dollars dedicated to "Planning". Hopefully the planning is much more value added than the planning I have ever taken part in, mind you the worker bees also did the planning in those cases, didn't have a separate group to plan for us.

I don't know what each of these is for and what each of these departments actually does...but the big expenditures on that list are things that should really be increasing, not decreasing (at least in my opinion!).

I'm surely not saying that the City of Calgary does a perfect job of allocating their funds, but show me an organization that does? I think that the city provides valuable things for its citizens. I recognize that recreation and the arts are easy targets..but think of how chopping the budget in these areas means closed hockey rinks and how that will impact the rest of the society. I'm going to say that with thousands of bored teenagers (and athletic ones at that!) running around you had better have some money to increase the policing budget!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

They could start with looking at "arts" projects.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-0a21c18aaa6d

This last minute bailout of a project that did not meet requirements of provinicial programs and clearly could not raise money on their own; is just one small example.

I disagree. Arts are just as important to this city as any other function. The Lunchbox Theatre is an artistic institution in Calgary. There were in line for funding, but were not approved at the last minute.

Then again, I'm arguing arts funding with a conservative. This is about as hopeless as it can get.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I disagree. Arts are just as important to this city as any other function. The Lunchbox Theatre is an artistic institution in Calgary. There were in line for funding, but were not approved at the last minute.

The article and other city documents I have read, very clearly state;

Lunchbox Theatre was included in CADA's infrastructure funding recommendations, its project didn't meet provincial eligibility requirements.

Then again, I'm arguing arts funding with a conservative. This is about as hopeless as it can get.

Actually you are arguing it with a libertarian who is also an artist.....I just happen to believe in fiscally responsibility.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

"Living wage" raises the quality of living for lower-income earners, and is in line with imagineCALGARY and the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. It was also heavily researched by Community & Neighbourhood Services, and justified to have a clear and positive impact on the community. Wage hikes are not just for City employees, they're also for private sector earners with a low income. Providing this helps move people off the street and able to afford day-to-day living expenses.

These would be the same people you accuse of wasting their money on HDTV, premium gas and unnessary credit card purchases.....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then again, I'm arguing arts funding with a conservative. This is about as hopeless as it can get.

Something wrong with being fiscally responsible?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

These would be the same people you accuse of wasting their money on HDTV, premium gas and unnecessary credit card purchases.....

And? What if they are making these purchases even if they might be on living wage?

I don't understand the hangup here; why are people assuming that just because someone makes close to minimum wage, they are fiscally responsible?

Yeesh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
The article and other city documents I have read, very clearly state;


A) Show these "other documents."

B) The article clearly states that they were approved, but rejected last minute. Something must have changed that disqualified them.

C) Can private companies pick up sponsorship last minute as easily?

Seems to me that Council picked up the slack where provincial MSI funding didn't - something the CAD was banking on. It was in line with the Calgary Arts Policy, and was voted in favor of 12-2.

I assume you're one of the two.

[Ozy_Flame]

nm