Is anyone else sick of Rick Bell?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How is it an over taxation? Based on what? Why didn't they give it back directly to us rather than the city? I'm actually curious.

I do my taxes every year, yes, but getting money back because of contributions to RRSPs or whatever is a different story than one level of government not knowing what to do with my tax dollars and handing it off to another level of government. Isn't that what's happening? If not, what exactly happened and how were we "over-taxed"?

The process has the money go back to the city not to spend but to return. Its not a bonus for the city budget.

Its not money being handed off to the city to be a part of their capital or any other government, its being sent to the city because that's what the defined process is. But the money in a sense doesn't belong to the city. The province has even said this multiple times.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by redforever

The main problem is the City of Calgary does not have a policy as to what to do when situations like this arise.

If a policy were in place, it would be cut and dry as to what to do with the $52 million.

It is also something that could be decided quite easily this upcoming municipal election.

Council does have an existing policy to automatically take up tax room when it comes along to use for debt relief or capital projects - explicitly for projects the Province would typically help fund (that's why it was taken in April). This was an exercise in asking citizens what to do with it - because it was the largest amount of money from tax room yet ($42m in 2011 - building the 4 rec centres and central library and $10.2m in 2012) Council wanted to test that policy with the 'give it back' option.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Council does have an existing policy to automatically take up tax room when it comes along to use for debt relief or capital projects (that's why it was taken in April). This was an exercise in asking citizens what to do with it - because it was the largest amount of money from tax room yet ($42m in 2011 - building the 4 rec centres and central library and $10.2m in 2012) Council wanted to test that policy with the 'give it back' option.

Yup, and even though the public votes leaned towards the return of the money iirc, the city decided to make up another reason to keep the money.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The process has the money go back to the city not to spend but to return. Its not a bonus for the city budget.

Its not money being handed off to the city to be a part of their capital or any other government, its being sent to the city because that's what the defined process is. But the money in a sense doesn't belong to the city. The province has even said this multiple times.

It's funny that they are saying this now since the whole concept of the City taking up tax room was subject to a long negotiation with the Province through the AUMA (our representative is Jim Stevenson - and voted in favour of keeping the tax room on this basis). You'll notice the Province did not say anything about the two previous times we took tax room - they only reversed their message when it apparently became politically expedient to do so.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yup, and even though the public votes leaned towards the return of the money iirc, the city decided to make up another reason to keep the money.

Only for one year - not forever. This is 1/20th of the tax room for the next 20 years. And that decision was made because our circumstances changed with the flood. Consultation was completed prior to the flood - and Council will consider that consultation again when it makes a decision on the long term allocation of that annual funding.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh I don't disagree that its to the advantage of Redford because it takes the heat off of you, but I deflect back to you, is she saying something that is wrong or dishonest?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I don't disagree that its to the advantage of Redford because it takes the heat off of you, but I deflect back to you, is she saying something that is wrong or dishonest?

Working with the City on the intended use of tax room should it happen, knowing the City has the policy to automatically take up tax room, giving the tax room, then acting shocked Council acted on its own policy strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

Perhaps it's because she wasn't Premier at the time those discussions were happening? I don't know - but any Deputy Minister or ADM I'm sure would have made the relevant ministers and the Premier aware.

What strikes me as odd is why they left the tax room in the first place - knowing what kind of funding constraints they are under with Education.

Here's a bit of background on the decision-making process on tax room and when Council has previously taken tax room. At the end of the first page it highlights the previous Council decision on automatically taking tax room that was approved in 2011.

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...3033400466.PDF

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...1303362790.PDF

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Only for one year - not forever. This is 1/20th of the tax room for the next 20 years. And that decision was made because our circumstances changed with the flood. Consultation was completed prior to the flood - and Council will consider that consultation again when it makes a decision on the long term allocation of that annual funding.

Ok, but what does the flood have to do with it since the province and feds will pay for most of the damage?

You're even saying its a changed story by the city, we consulted the people wanted the money back, the floods came and now you can't have it?

Where's the concrete plan, it just feels like the city is not selling us on this, they're bullying and stamping their feet on this.

Look, like I said to me it means nothing more then an exercise in dictatorial democracy. But get off of the evasion and tell everyone what the actual plan is without continuing to change stories, having Nenshi come out and say, "well the people who called me said I should keep the money", oh its for infrastructure its for the flood.

If you're going to scoop up money that literally doesn't belong to the city at least be specific about it.

I know that you work with the mayor and you act as his mouth piece here, but saying hmmm isn't it interesting that the province changed its story for political purposes when the mayor did the same damn thing with the flood a bit hypocritical my friend?

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think part of it may be the fact that returning the money back to taxpayers isn't "spending that money".

In fact attempting to return this to taxpayers would "spend" a great deal of this money. The bureaucracy and administration of dividing up this small amount of funds would consume most of it, I suspect.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flacker

In fact attempting to return this to taxpayers would "spend" a great deal of this money. The bureaucracy and administration of dividing up this small amount of funds would consume most of it, I suspect.

Please explain with facts how the majority of this money would be consumed. Nobody here is under the illusion that taxpayers would get 100% but there is some major exaggeration going on here.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, but what does the flood have to do with it since the province and feds will pay for most of the damage?

You're even saying its a changed story by the city, we consulted the people wanted the money back, the floods came and now you can't have it?

Where's the concrete plan, it just feels like the city is not selling us on this, they're bullying and stamping their feet on this.

Look, like I said to me it means nothing more then an exercise in dictatorial democracy. But get off of the evasion and tell everyone what the actual plan is without continuing to change stories, having Nenshi come out and say, "well the people who called me said I should keep the money", oh its for infrastructure its for the flood.

If you're going to scoop up money that literally doesn't belong to the city at least be specific about it.

I know that you work with the mayor and you act as his mouth piece here, but saying hmmm isn't it interesting that the province changed its story for political purposes when the mayor did the same damn thing with the flood a bit hypocritical my friend?

Like I said - 1/20th of the next 20 years of the money (2013) is being used for flood - this is out of necessity in the majority of Council's eyes, the strong opinion of the City Manager, the advice of a Provincial Minister, and other disaster-hit communities. You used the word most - yes most of the damage will be insured or covered by the Province, but not all and some of half a billion is still a lot of money. Just ask Slave Lake:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sa...913/story.html

For example, the City will have incurred about $8 million to repair various major sink-holes across the city due to the high groundwater levels. We don't know whether this will be eligible or not under the Province's and Fed's flood recovery programs.

If not this money, the City's portion will just be coming from another taxation source. Or if it drains its reserve, it would have to be replenished (again through taxes). So why not use this available funding in an extraordinary circumstance? Following the flood, there was a lot of public discourse about the desire to use this funding specifically for flood recovery.

Beyond 2013, (this is an annual funding source) doesn't have to be all or nothing - using it for capital or applying it to a tax reduction (or debt reduction) it could be a blend. It's quite clear through the consultation that applying it to a tax reduction was popular - at budget time I'm quite certain all or most of it will be applied to the "give it back" option as a result.

The use of tax room is specific in the policy - debt relief or capital projects (not operating).

I'm not sure how I see the Mayor changed his story - tax room money is to be used for capital or debt relief - the flood presented a sudden influx of capital needs for the City - it's a prudent application of this funding (at least for the immediate term). Cash on hand also relieves all levels of government of taking debt to cover reconstruction costs (remember both the Province and Feds are in deficit, so reconstruction funding would be debt for them).

[Nehkara]

I honestly cannot believe that people are upset that the city is using one year of the money for flood recovery.

Not only that but if it is used by the city it can do something useful. Each person would only get a tiny amount of money back. It seems very... backwards and stubborn to demand this tiny amount per person back.

Mind boggling.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I honestly cannot believe that people are upset that the city is using one year of the money for flood recovery.

Not only that but if it is used by the city it can do something useful. Each person would only get a tiny amount of money back. It seems very... backwards and stubborn to demand this tiny amount per person back.

Mind boggling.

To me its about due process, and not the money I would theoretically save. The city sets their budget (and raises taxes) and everything is fine. The province 'over-collects' and suddenly the city has $52M that falls in their lap. The majority decision is return it to taxpayers, but as soon as a flood hits that is washed away. We have no idea where it is destined for now, and if we were entirely truthful neither does the city. This could've waited until budget time, or could've been returned, but instead the city found a use for it.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Council does have an existing policy to automatically take up tax room when it comes along to use for debt relief or capital projects - explicitly for projects the Province would typically help fund (that's why it was taken in April). This was an exercise in asking citizens what to do with it - because it was the largest amount of money from tax room yet ($42m in 2011 - building the 4 rec centres and central library and $10.2m in 2012) Council wanted to test that policy with the 'give it back' option.

Well then, by involving the citizens of Calgary this year, they weren't following existing policy were they?

And they opened up their own can of worms.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

What strikes me as odd is why they left the tax room in the first place - knowing what kind of funding constraints they are under with Education.

This money comes from eliminating the 'mitigation formula'. My understanding is that was revenue-neutral as a whole (property taxes in other areas went up). To eliminate the 'mitigation formula' while keeping Calgary's rate constant would've required an increase to the overall rate. For whatever reason (likely because tax increases are politically toxic), the province apparently didn't want to do that.