Alberta Flood Watch 2013

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Its more than an excuse. If you truely believe it's an excuse to keep the money there's probably not much to debate with you. Between the start of the debate on this topic and now a massive disaster happened here, the biggest in the city's history and maybe the biggest in the history of the Country, the landscape has changed. The City alone has 1/4B and counting in damage, so they'd just ask for the money back next year and then some. Further, I can think of 1/2B to a B in future mitigation that could be evaluated that the province nor the feds have discusssed. Calgary has a ton of flood related expenses going forward, they'll rip through that 50M in a heartbeat.

I called it an excuse because the city had designs on keeping this money before the flooding. I also take issue with the amounts being put forward because I know for a fact the city has losses that were insured. Like I say, we don't know what the costs will be at the end of the day.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why did Hodges skip the vote? This seems like a pretty significant vote to miss.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to know how much of the potential $500M is insured. I would hazard a guess that its more than the vast majority. Then you add in the provincial and federal funds and how much is left over?

I hate to agree with both Bell and DCU, but that money was never the cities money to begin with and should've been given back. The flood just provided a convenient excuse, but quite frankly this is very concerning because its tantamount to theft. The money was overpaid, and rather than do the right thing we have a group of politicians here who found a politically appealing way not to return it to its rightful owners.

The motion is designed such that any leftover money is moved to long term flood mitigation. Future tax room beyond 2013 is still on the table for a Council decision.

It's been estimated thus far that The City may be on the hook for approximately 20% of the overall cost. The Province has advised the City it would be wise to set aside cash for its recovery effort. The experience in Slave Lake (who urged Calgary to set aside cash based on its experience) and other disasters have suggested that Federal and Provincial programs are highly unlikely to cover all the costs. Cash on hand also reduced bridge-financing costs.

Why not use our Fiscal Sustainability Reserve, one might ask? Well it sits at 11% of the budget while its target is 15% and its bare minimum is 5%. Tapping into that would require it to be replenished (which would end up coming out of taxes anyway).

As for tax room - it's not the result of "overpaid" money. It's the result of the Province requisitioning less than expected on their portion of the property tax after the City has already set the indicative tax rate. Actually, in years past through negotiation, the Province encouraged the City to take up any tax room to fund capital projects that the Province might otherwise fund. You'll notice Jim Stevenson voted for keeping tax room, because he was a key point-person as Calgary's representative on Alberta Urban Municipalities Association regarding tax room.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Slava

I called it an excuse because the city had designs on keeping this money before the flooding. I also take issue with the amounts being put forward because I know for a fact the city has losses that were insured. Like I say, we don't know what the costs will be at the end of the day.

So just to clarify, you know that SOME or ALL losses are insured?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The motion is designed such that any leftover money is moved to long term flood mitigation. Future tax room beyond 2013 is still on the table for a Council decision.

Realistically is there any chance there would be any leftover money for the mitigation?

Future mitigation measures are what I am interested in.

It grinds my gears to hear the provincial radio ads talking about helping Albertans and yadda yadda yadda, yet saying nothing about committing to mitigation measures to prevent flooding of that scale from occurring again.

Or am I simply expecting that to happen too fast (most likely)?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

So just to clarify, you know that SOME or ALL losses are insured?

I wouldn't want to speak to direct figures. Let's say about 80% of the loss is likely covered.

So if you're asking me whether one hundred percent of everything is insured, I couldn't say but would have to say no. Then again we don't have any hard figures from the other levels of government factored in here either.

The thing is that municipalities are insured for these kinds of events. The road repairs, hours of overtime as a result, etc. is almost surely insurable loss. I'm nowhere near the adjuster or insurer here, so take that for what its worth, which is basically some guy on a message board with an opinion.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As you can see the waste water going out keeps the valve open, and then if you try to reverse the flow the flap gets pushed back and closes the system. At that point all I could see increased pressure doing is pushing hard to keep it shut.

Is it possible your neighbours had overland flooding? That was the one thing I was thinking of when we were talking about these vavles before; if you have one installed and you flood; does that not prove to your insurance company that it was not sewer backup? Meaning you'd be out of luck on a claim?

Yes, very possible he had overland, although he says otherwise. Can't be sure, but I thought the same thing that physically the backflow should work. However, as the provincal adjuster and a few others have noted is that they can fail under major pressure such as a flood. I think I can find an article that backs that up.

I think my next step is to contact a plumber who specializes in this. Maybe it is a maintenance issue where I need to clean it every year.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The motion is designed such that any leftover money is moved to long term flood mitigation. Future tax room beyond 2013 is still on the table for a Council decision.

It's been estimated thus far that The City may be on the hook for approximately 20% of the overall cost. The Province has advised the City it would be wise to set aside cash for its recovery effort. The experience in Slave Lake (who urged Calgary to set aside cash based on its experience) and other disasters have suggested that Federal and Provincial programs are highly unlikely to cover all the costs. Cash on hand also reduced bridge-financing costs.

Why not use our Fiscal Sustainability Reserve, one might ask? Well it sits at 11% of the budget while its target is 15% and its bare minimum is 5%. Tapping into that would require it to be replenished (which would end up coming out of taxes anyway).

As for tax room - it's not the result of "overpaid" money. It's the result of the Province requisitioning less than expected on their portion of the property tax after the City has already set the indicative tax rate. Actually, in years past through negotiation, the Province encouraged the City to take up any tax room to fund capital projects that the Province might otherwise fund. You'll notice Jim Stevenson voted for keeping tax room, because he was a key point-person as Calgary's representative on Alberta Urban Municipalities Association regarding tax room.

Thanks for your reply, I do appreciate it!

I have to laugh at the province telling the city it would be wise to set aside money. I also saw Nenshis tweet saying that Rick Fraser thought it was prudent that the city set aside money to pay for things that the province otherwise would be. Its amusing, because I also think it would be prudent of my children to use their allowance to pay for things that I would otherwise pay for.

The issue for me isn't so much where the money will be spent in the longer term. I still have my doubts about the city being out $750M or more, even though that number has been bandied about. That might well be the total cost of the flooding, but like I say much of this will be insured, and then we have provincial and federal commitments which should cover the vast, vast majority of the final tally.

My issues around this are two-fold. First you say that we shouldn't dip into the reserve because its currently underfunded. Underfunded or not though, isn't that the point of a reserve fund? Its ear-marked for just such and occasion? I also recognize your point that its underfunded, but what was the plan to deal with that problem before this happened? Were there no plans to add to this fund and get it to the 15% mark prior to the flooding?

The point regarding the use of the $52M for me is that this wasn't the cities money to decide what to do with. If CRA gave me a tax refund for too much money and came back to collect it, they would never accept the reply that I've "found a better use for the money"...there is actually nowhere in the free world that would operate on that kind of premise. Do we need some flood mitigation strategies going forward? Sure. But cost them out, propose them and run through the correct process to get there. Instead, our elected officials found an overpayment by taxpayers (which you have used other words to describe, but it all amounts to the same thing!), and decided to keep it in one way or another. Maybe the taxpayer would've ended up paying that money right back in increased taxes next year, but the difference isn't the money from a taxpayers pocket. Its the process of how that is arrived at, and that is a significant difference.

[Ice_Weasel]

The city did the right thing. It makes absolutely zero sense to administer a wide spread refund of $50ish per Calgarian when our city just suffered a natural disaster and is already in debt. It is a no brainer, and a refund should have never been contemplated even before the flood. You pay down debt, plain and simple.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

The city did the right thing. It makes absolutely zero sense to administer a wide spread refund of $50ish per Calgarian when our city just suffered a natural disaster and is already in debt. It is a no brainer, and a refund should have never been contemplated even before the flood. You pay down debt, plain and simple.

But it will probably go into general revenue and when tasked to account for its spending, council will provide generic answers until the issue goes away.

[Tailgator]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why did Hodges skip the vote? This seems like a pretty significant vote to miss.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to know how much of the potential $500M is insured. I would hazard a guess that its more than the vast majority. Then you add in the provincial and federal funds and how much is left over?

I hate to agree with both Bell and DCU, but that money was never the cities money to begin with and should've been given back. The flood just provided a convenient excuse, but quite frankly this is very concerning because its tantamount to theft. The money was overpaid, and rather than do the right thing we have a group of politicians here who found a politically appealing way not to return it to its rightful owners.

Not a big fan of Hodges (I used to live in his ward), but I suspect he didn't vote because his house was damaged in the flooding and couldn't really be impartial in that vote? Just a guess.....

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thanks for your reply, I do appreciate it!
The issue for me isn't so much where the money will be spent in the longer term. I still have my doubts about the city being out $750M or more, even though that number has been bandied about. That might well be the total cost of the flooding, but like I say much of this will be insured, and then we have provincial and federal commitments which should cover the vast, vast majority of the final tally.

Not saying you are wrong, this very well could be the case, but I advise caution in this line of thinking. An old saying is "Don't count you chickens till they hatch." (Sorry to go all Rick Bell there).

Point is, looking at my situation insurance covers up to $100K on sewer backups, what if I had $200K damage? I am then out of pocket for that part. Then the province said at the start "We want to put things back to the way they were". Now they are saying "We will put things back to basic function" (Which that is even debatable, but I digress)

I haven't heard a peep from Commander Harper in his sweet bomber since he staged his photo op.

Then look at the last guys to go through a disaster like this. Slave Lake is telling us to keep some money saved because, like the residents, the province and fed money wasn't as sweet as first indicated and announced.

So to figure all these guys will come in (insurance, province, feds) is a bit of a hail Mary in my opinion. Most likely insurance will cover a moderate amount. Then the Province will come in and offer a minimal amount to re-linoleum old city hall. The Feds, who knows? Harper ain't worried about losing any seats in this area, no need to pander like Quebec.

So coming from someone having to deal with these gov't guys myself, I can see why Nenshi is playing safe.

Besides, any money left over after insurance, prov, feds and this money should go right to mitigation. Trust me that one will be one very expensive beast to solve, but one we need to do or we will need to keep paying to fix things again and again in the future.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Not saying you are wrong, this very well could be the case, but I advise caution in this line of thinking. An old saying is "Don't count you chickens till they hatch." (Sorry to go all Rick Bell there).

Point is, looking at my situation insurance covers up to $100K on sewer backups, what if I had $200K damage? I am then out of pocket for that part. Then the province said at the start "We want to put things back to the way they were". Now they are saying "We will put things back to basic function" (Which that is even debatable, but I digress)

I haven't heard a peep from Commander Harper in his sweet bomber since he staged his photo op.

Then look at the last guys to go through a disaster like this. Slave Lake is telling us to keep some money saved because, like the residents, the province and fed money wasn't as sweet as first indicated and announced.

So to figure all these guys will come in (insurance, province, feds) is a bit of a hail Mary in my opinion. Most likely insurance will cover a moderate amount. Then the Province will come in and offer a minimal amount to re-linoleum old city hall. The Feds, who knows? Harper ain't worried about losing any seats in this area, no need to pander like Quebec.

So coming from someone having to deal with these gov't guys myself, I can see why Nenshi is playing safe.

Besides, any money left over after insurance, prov, feds and this money should go right to mitigation. Trust me that one will be one very expensive beast to solve, but one we need to do or we will need to keep paying to fix things again and again in the future.

Well the city should have more accurate information on the items that would be covered. I deleted some comments from my previous post because I don't want to talk about hearsay or anything like that. As far as the province and federal government, those bridges have yet to be crossed.

As for mitigation, there is a lot to be decided on there. I think that this should be costed out and discussed. Frankly to do this properly the $52M is a drop in the bucket and we'll need federal and provincial cooperation and funding anyway.

Making a decision to keep the money though strikes me as acting without the proper information to make these decisions. They don't know what the costs of any of this really are at this point. They don't even know how they will act to mitigate flooding in the future at this point, never mind how much that will cost or how they ought to proceed. In the face of all of these issues how can we say that this is prudent? Its basically all based on guessing and estimates.

[Dion]

High River homes sacrificed during flood, says official in video

The neighbourhood of Hampton Hills was sacrificed to help drain the rest of High River when floodwaters devastated the town last month, according to a video obtained by CBC News from inside a private meeting held last Friday for affected residents.

"We had to sacrifice your area to try and get the other ones de-watered," Darwin Durnie, who was hired by the province to manage emergency flood operations in High River, said to the gathered crowd.

Residents responded with cheers, saying they were thankful that someone finally told them what happened to their community, which is not located in a floodway or flood fringe area.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...n-hills-w.html

[OldDutch]

Further clarification on the rules:

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....b/06BCB009.pdf

Back flow I can see the value in taxpayers paying for.

Now for what is quite frankly poorly thought out. Remember the taxpayers are paying for these expensive materials, not the owners, if the gov't stated promise is to be believed:

1. Rewiring my house - My panel never flooded, and with a back flow supposedly the chance it does goes down huge. Besides, the cost of new panel is peanuts compared to rewiring an entire house to the main floor.

2. Steel Studs would be an advantage over wood. Yes I get that, but my wood frame has been pressure washed and disinfected. This is overly expensive for the value. Very few people throw their wood studs out, but now I would have to in order to get metal studs.

On the side, if you think I am putting pressure treated wood studs the province also recommend in my house think again:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...1-97cf362d841d

Why are they even endorsing/enforcing a material that has possible health impacts?

3. Concrete panels and foam insulation - Again expensive, paid by you the taxpayer. Again, in a flood, this would have to be taken out of the house and left to dry and then re-installed. Foam insulation, more expensive than pink insulation would need to be dried.

4. Concrete/Tiled Floors - Again super expensive and pointless in houses that have flooded once in 80 years. Even every 5 years replacing cheap carpet vs. laying down tile is cheaper.

So my question is why is the taxpayer paying all this money for upgrades that few people who flooded will actually benefit from? Taxpayer won't even benefit because next time they will be on the hook for the de-install of the concrete and re install. Again has the gov't done the math to figure if that would save taxpayers any money at all?

What ever happened to "We will look at this on a community by community basis"? These rules will only cost the taxpayer and homeowner huge money with a detrimental feel to their house and negligible benefit in future floods in may areas of Calgary.

If I was a taxpayer I would be angry. As a both homeowner and taxpayer I am. This is all a big game to look like they are doing something, when they should be focused on builing better infrastructure. Honestly I am about to go all Rick Bell! (arg)

[Bigtime]

A day of confusion here at the old building supply store.

As Old Dutch is pointing out he doesn't want to use treated wood in his basement, and rightfully so. That old stuff was horrible. However the current "ACQ" treated we carry is safe, but according to our vendors may be no more resistant to flood damage than spruce.

So we have calls in to the Province and are also looking at the Blue Wood that some carry around these parts. However it comes with a pretty steep price difference from the treated lumber.

When I find out more I will update here.

Oh and Old Dutch, instead of concrete you could always go with vinyl tile. I have some nice wood grain versions here. Still cold on the feet, especially in our basements.

[photon]

Was talking to my condo manager today and looks like all the elevators in our complex have to be replaced, so gonna be months at least before elevator access is restored

They're hydraulic and they're trying to find out if the default shutdown location for the cabs can be set to ground floor instead of basement as part of the flood proofing stuff, otherwise they may switch to a cable system.

Sounds like the rules for flood proofing for fringe for corporations is different than residential.

Finally got approval from insurance to do the make-up air so hopefully the parkade can be opened again sometime soon.

Sounds like insurance is covering pretty much everything, so that's good, unless there's something huge required for extra flood proofing no 5 or 6 digit special assessment is in my future thankfully.

[Bownesian]

We were flooded to the ceiling in the basement but face fairly regular minor seepage floods due to our proximity to the river. In general, we are planning to build with materials that will be washable in the case of a 1-2ft flood in the future and are not worrying about the 100yr overland flood as that would probably total anything we'd put in there anyway.

I thought I'd comment on Dutch's objections to share our thinking:

1. Rewiring my house - My panel never flooded, and with a back flow supposedly the chance it does goes down huge. Besides, the cost of new panel is peanuts compared to rewiring an entire house to the main floor.

Agreed. Also, we all already have our panels installed and have passed inspection. We'll see what's involved here but we have closed in wiring that would need umpteen junction boxes leading up to a new panel somewhere else. For us, the closest place that makes sense is in our garage, after which the rewiring task gets pretty odious.

2. Steel Studs would be an advantage over wood. Yes I get that, but my wood frame has been pressure washed and disinfected. This is overly expensive for the value. Very few people throw their wood studs out, but now I would have to in order to get metal studs.

I've heard stories that with repeated floods, the bases of galvanized steel studs will rust over time. We threw out our studs as we were flooded to the ceiling and felt there were too many dead spots we wouldn't have been able to clean or disinfect (under, behind and within joints between studs and the floor, etc.). The risk of mold is more important than the incremental cost of re-framing.

On the side, if you think I am putting pressure treated wood studs the province also recommend in my house think again:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...1-97cf362d841d

Why are they even endorsing/enforcing a material that has possible health impacts?

In our estimation, blue studs or the newer pressure-treated woods are safer than accepting the risk of mold growth.

3. Concrete panels and foam insulation - Again expensive, paid by you the taxpayer. Again, in a flood, this would have to be taken out of the house and left to dry and then re-installed. Foam insulation, more expensive than pink insulation would need to be dried.

I think they are referring to closed cell spray foam insulation. This would be more expensive but it's waterproof, should bond to the wall and studs and would be washable in place, so much more permanent than batting.

4. Concrete/Tiled Floors - Again super expensive and pointless in houses that have flooded once in 80 years. Even every 5 years replacing cheap carpet vs. laying down tile is cheaper.

Concrete floor would be acid washing the pad and sealing it to make it look nice. That's somewhere cheaper than tile and more expensive than carpet, and may be what we opt for. Replacing carpeting every 5 (or even every 10) years would be much more expensive than tile, which would be a one-time cost and would be permanent. I can see why they want this for flooring, and there's no reason why you can't throw down area rugs to make it comfortable to stand on.

All that said, I appreciate where OldDutch is coming from. One option that we have talked about is not coming into compliance, accepting a devaluation in our house, accordingly saving on property taxes and insuring/protecting ourselves as we see fit. This works for us because our timeline we expect to be in this house is measured in decades not in years, and we have the wherewithal to deal with a modest future flood.

[Dion]

I woke up this morning to the sound of dump trucks, loaders and such tearing up the green strip behind my home. I made some phone calls to find out that the province decided the grass was toxic and needed to be removed. All the green spaces around town are getting the same treatment. Now unless the sewer water got from my basement to the strip I can't see how the ground is contaminated. Even if it was you'd think a couple of good rains would wash it away.

My other problem is they are going to put top soil down with grass seed. When the wind kicks up there will be dust blowing everywhere and onto to peoples homes.

I just think this is a total waste of taxpayer dollars that could have been used elsewhere

[MrMastodonFarm]

Seems to me removing something toxic is a great use of tax payer dollars. Toxic is a lot different then dirty.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Seems to me removing something toxic is a great use of tax payer dollars. Toxic is a lot different then dirty.

How is river water toxic?

My lawn was covered with the same water and no one has said it has to be removed.