City of Calgary budget, 2014 edition

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

So exactly what wedge am I driving here?

There are plenty of place where that money should be directed, but its not a "sprawl" or "suburbs" issue where the city would have all the money they need if it weren't for the minivan driving soccer mom.

This is a strawman. You're misrepresenting the urbanist position to create an enemy for the minivan driving soccer mom.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is a strawman. You're misrepresenting the urbanist position to create an enemy for the minivan driving soccer mom.

Good lord. So my saying that I don't think sprawl is the issue here is a straw man? You have totally lost me. Quite frankly, I'm about 90% sure that my dislike of the "urbanist position" (which is a new one to me, but I digress), is entirely due to your posts on CP. I realise that you probably don't care and might even be proud of that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why shouldn't government employees be able to advance in salary (not just break even with inflation) as they gain more experience? I wouldn't accept that in my private sector job, and I don't see why it should be any different for those working in the public sector.

They should and do. The unions usually have a scale that wages increase by based on years of service and level of responsibility. When a union negotiates a 3% per year increase all of these levels get increase by 3%. So your annual raise would include your inflationary 3% plus whatever levels you have hit. Also some scales include ranges within the level so you start at 90% of the level you are in an increase over a few years to 100% of your level.

In short raises for experience are built in to the pay scales already so a 3% increase to salary applies to all of these an in actual fact an employee would receive more than the 3% increase.

Overall a good work force will be retiring people at the top (high earners) and replacing them with entry level people as others in the system move up. This way the overall wage remains the same plus the inflationary increase.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is a strawman. You're misrepresenting the urbanist position to create an enemy for the minivan driving soccer mom.

We have a perfectly good thread to fight over the urban planning issues and who is at fault. And who should pay what tax.

This thread should be a much more practical discussions on what city services are necessary and how much we have to pay for them

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

We have a perfectly good thread to fight over the urban planning issues and who is at fault. And who should pay what tax.

That thread has about two pages of good discussion and seven pages of talk about Yop.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This "we need" thing. Who is "we" and how do "we" decide what's best for us is the biggest challenge that democratic societies face

The city as a whole is "we." Everybody from the latte sippers to the suburban parasites. There are projects planned that will not really serve me at all, however as somebody who lives in a major city I realize that projects that serve the greater good should take priority.

That's also why I made sure I voted this past election; to make sure the people who were elected were people who I can trust to work for the benefit of "us."

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The city as a whole is "we." Everybody from the latte sippers to the suburban parasites. There are projects planned that will not really serve me at all, however as somebody who lives in a major city I realize that projects that serve the greater good should take priority.

That's also why I made sure I voted this past election; to make sure the people who were elected were people who I can trust to work for the benefit of "us."

Maybe we collectively drink espresso with steamed and frothed Yop.

A Yopte - we neither sip nor gobble, we simply drink. Unity.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm well aware that the difference is capital and operating, but I am wondering what you mean by the comment about the design of some subdivisions?

Density and design have a massive effect on the cost of providing both hard and soft infrastructure on a day-to-day basis. For instance, consider police and fire stations. In a walkable community, the police can successfully lower their operating costs by having more officers walk or cycle during their beat. Since they need to be able to respond to calls in certain amount of time, fire stations are provided according to a radius. The cost of the station per resident within this radius increases as density decreases. Low-density areas will require more fire stations per capita.

Density and design, they matter.

[CaptainYooh]

Density and design matter, yes; but the cost increase argument is a fallacy. A simple one-vehicle Fire House instead of a full-blown Fire Hall reduces the cost of fire protection in a suburban community by millions, literally. A small community police station placed strategically in a large subdivision achieves the same goal within an 8 upa community or 16 upa community. More police and fire protection power is needed for higher-density areas just to mitigate the impact risks; this is common sense.

The only three major contributors to the cost of subdivision growth support are transportation, water and sewerage extensions. These costs are either a burden or an investment, depending on who you ask. I consider them investments into the future well-being and wealth of the municipality. With each 3-yr capital budget, the City must decide how much to invest in the infrastructure based on a variety of factors, including its own data and recommendation from geo-demographics department, development and housing industry forecasts and independent economic predictions. Plus there are needs and commitments made under previous agreements.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

And those that are against them can volunteer to use less city services.

Sure, can I opt out of the city bin program, I will never use public transit, bike lanes, the new public library etc. There is no way for me to opt out of paying for city services I don't want or use. But you could dribe through a pile of speed on greens if it makes you feel better.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Density and design matter, yes; but the cost increase argument is a fallacy. A simple one-vehicle Fire House instead of a full-blown Fire Hall reduces the cost of fire protection in a suburban community by millions, literally. A small community police station placed strategically in a large subdivision achieves the same goal within an 8 upa community or 16 upa community. More police and fire protection power is needed for higher-density areas just to mitigate the impact risks; this is common sense.

This strategy requires even more initial infrastructure costs and would have a more than questionable efficiency. Also, there would still be redundancies.

High-density areas do require additional stations but they get a much better rate of use (i.e. efficiency).

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

These costs are either a burden or an investment, depending on who you ask. I consider them investments into the future well-being and wealth of the municipality.

What's the RoI and how long will it take to see a financial return?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

...What's the RoI and how long will it take to see a financial return?

It varies, depending on the input costs and established property tax cashflows from the new areas. One thing certain: it will cashflow and it will be profitable for the municipality.

What's RoI on the Peace Bridge? And how long would it take to see a financial return?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

One thing certain: it will cashflow and it will be profitable for the municipality.

Really? It will pay-off the initial infrastructure costs before this infrastructure will need to be replaced and still contribute enough in property taxes to cover their operating costs?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

What's RoI on the Peace Bridge? And how long would it take to see a financial return?

Seeing as how my argument in support of the Peace Bridge wasn't based on it turning a profit I don't know. However, it will pay itself off before it needs to be refurbished. That being said, I do believe that the impact levies in the Core and river-side communities should have been at a level where the bridge would already be paid-off.

[Bunk]

Re: subdivision design. Here's one example comparing NW to NE Calgary. Both Post-war suburban areas. The NE is far, far more efficient and cost effective to serve for transit. Cost recovery for each route in the NE is much higher that of the NW. Both serve very similar functions as feeder routes to their respective LRT lines.



Even better is the grid-iron on North Central Calgary - which so easily and efficiently serves line-haul service.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

Really? It will pay-off the initial infrastructure costs before this infrastructure will need to be replaced and still contribute enough in property taxes to cover their operating costs?

Yes, absolutely. Good quality infrastructure can serve for many decades with proper maintenance. New subdivisions, with rare exceptions, take less than 15 years to get fully developed and start cashflowing back to the municipality.

Originally Posted by Addick

Seeing as how my argument in support of the Peace Bridge wasn't based on it turning a profit I don't know. However, it will pay itself off before it needs to be refurbished. That being said, I do believe that the impact levies in the Core and river-side communities should have been at a level where the bridge would already be paid-off.

Not sure what you mean there. How will Peace Bridge pay for itself unless the city start charging user fees for it?

We don't even need to use Peace Bridge, it's too easy of a target. Think of investment in Public Transit in Calgary. It has never been able to pay for itself (let alone be profitable) and was always subsidized. It will likely remain subsidized unless the rates start climbing.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by fotze

But who wants to live in a grid?

These dudes:

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Re: subdivision design. Here's one example comparing NW to NE Calgary. Both Post-war suburban areas. The NE is far, far more efficient and cost effective to serve for transit. Cost recovery for each route in the NE is much higher that of the NW. Both serve very similar functions as feeder routes to their respective LRT lines.



Even better is the grid-iron on North Central Calgary - which so easily and efficiently serves line-haul service.

It'd be interesting to see the residential tax income on each of those two pictures assuming land area is comparable.

I'm sure it's not the case, but slightly humerous that one picture shows low income areas vs. not low income areas.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Yes, absolutely. Good quality infrastructure can serve for many decades with proper maintenance. New subdivisions, with rare exceptions, take less than 15 years to get fully developed and start cashflowing back to the municipality.

Fully developed or recover all of their infrastructure costs?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not sure what you mean there. How will Peace Bridge pay for itself unless the city start charging user fees for it?

I said 'should have'. The impact fees in the inner-city should have been high enough to cover the cost of the Peace Bridge's construction.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

We don't even need to use Peace Bridge, it's too easy of a target. Think of investment in Public Transit in Calgary. It has never been able to pay for itself (let alone be profitable) and was always subsidized. It will likely remain subsidized unless the rates start climbing.

The alternative to public transport is the private vehicle which doesn't even have a user-fee. With all modes of transport, a high degree of the operational costs are covered by property taxes. Where are you going with this?

[yads]

Originally Posted by Bunk

To keep things in perspective on how much we pay compared to residents in other cities for municipal services.

We are close to the middle of the pack when considering utility rates. But that is something that is directly related to a decade in which there were zero levies for water/wastewater infrastructure for new growth. We're all paying for that now.

Considering I pay more almost ten-fold to the federal government in taxes I feel like I get pretty damn amazing value for the relatively little taxes I pay to the City.

Just curious if density is such a big factor to keeping operating costs down, why Toronto, Victoria and Vancouver have significantly higher property taxes despite being much denser than Calgary?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by fotze

But who wants to live in a grid?

Lots of highly desirable latte sipping areas are a grid - Altadore, South Calgary, Hillhurst, West Hillhurst, Parkdale, Crescent Heights, etc etc.

Our newer ASPs have a more grid-like structure. More of a modified grid, but the same connectivity principles. Keystone for instance is mostly cul-de-sac free (at least from what I've seen from the first draft Outline Plans).