2018 Property Tax

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I'm up $48/mo or $576 on the year, 12% increase. How is it my assessed value is so far off? I have the exact same home (builder and floorplan) a street down currently selling for $100k less than I paid for it and it's been on the market >6 months.

Bear in mind that your assessment data was as of July 1 of last year

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Bear in mind that your assessment data was as of July 1 of last year

It was off by 60k last year already I don't understand how assessments went up when it was an across the board drop in sold prices since 2 years ago

[GullFoss]

Wow lots of irritated people here. The obvious solution is as follows:

1) increase residential burden, decrease business burden
2) Decrease the burden overall through cuts to wages and services.

But let's be real. (1) is political suicide as the current burden probably needs to shift from 50-50 to something like 60-40 or worse. And that increases everyones taxes.

And there is no urgency for (2) because most of council was re-elected on a status-quo mandate when it comes to taxes. You had a chance to turf your councillor and most people didn't.

[transplant99]

While blaming Mayor Naheed Nenshi for previous failures at resolving Calgary’s tax crisis, a majority of city council is now backing a proposal to slash commercial tax bills this year by 10 per cent and institute budget cuts that could result in city layoffs.

“Council dropped the ball,” said Coun. Evan Woolley. “And I’m particularly disappointed that the mayor has been unable to champion council and rally everybody around some significant relief for the business community and the city.”

Finally someone is speaking out against his purpleness and his astonishing lack of leadership.

It just took about 4 years too long.

I understand he is only one vote, but he is the leader. When there are issues within a board/council/business, whatever, its always a good idea to start at the top and work your way down to the problems. He has and continues to be a problem in this issue. He is a classic tax and tax more, spend and spend more politician, and this city simply cant support that now nor in the immediate future.

He started out well but became just a terrible leader of this city.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...business-taxes

[GullFoss]

Its interesting that Woolley is lurching to the right, slowly but surely. You can see how he's attempting to transitioning from inner-city Councillor to a potential "mayor in waiting" that's "socially progressive" but "fiscally conservative".

The most interesting thing about these comments by Woolley is that by challenging the mayor to "be the leader" he's potentially signaling that he might be gunning for Nenshi's job rather simply than wait him out and try to position himself as the natural "Nenshi successor".

If that's the case, its a terrible strategy because to me Woolley and Nenshi are almost interchangeable in terms of ideology, so Woolley isn't going to coalesce the right-wing vote that Bill Smith got. And Nenshi, in a lot of ways, is more thoughtful and knowledgeable than Woolley. So if Woolley takes on Nenshi directly, he's going to be betting that (1) no right-wing candidate emerges to take advantage of the Nenshi-Woolley vote split and (2) People really tire of Nenshi. Thats a terrible bet to make because you have to think something to the right of them both is going to take advantage of a Nenshi-Woolley vote split.

[InglewoodFan]

Not trying to be a Nenshi apologist, but to have other Councillors lay everything on him in a weak mayor system is pretty disingenuous.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Finally someone is speaking out against his purpleness and his astonishing lack of leadership.

It just took about 4 years too long.

I understand he is only one vote, but he is the leader. When there are issues within a board/council/business, whatever, its always a good idea to start at the top and work your way down to the problems. He has and continues to be a problem in this issue. He is a classic tax and tax more, spend and spend more politician, and this city simply cant support that now nor in the immediate future.

He started out well but became just a terrible leader of this city.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...business-taxes

An old article, but I remember Nenshi being the only vote against the endless expansion of the police budget, that makes up 14% of property taxes. He was 50/50 on taxpayer friendliness then and I'm sure its the same now. You can disagree with him, or think he's smug, but he's not reaching into Calgarian's pockets just for the sake of it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/854496/tr...-city-council/

The city has a lot of external pressures on it right now and there will be more change.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

Not trying to be a Nenshi apologist, but to have other Councillors lay everything on him in a weak mayor system is pretty disingenuous.

Yeah, its more complicated than just 'Spendshi!'

The whole system is broken from the Provincial level on down.

[para transit fellow]

I believe this is at last year's mill rates but you enter your assessed value and see what sort of municipal property tax you would pay in various communities in the Calgary area

https://www.rockyview.ca/CountyServi...omparison.aspx

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I believe this is at last year's mill rates but you enter your assessed value and see what sort of municipal property tax you would pay in various communities in the Calgary area

https://www.rockyview.ca/CountyServi...omparison.aspx

Entered my 2018 assessed value and it’s over $1600 off for Calgary.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Entered my 2018 assessed value and it’s over $1600 off for Calgary.

They only show the municipal portion.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

An old article, but I remember Nenshi being the only vote against the endless expansion of the police budget, that makes up 14% of property taxes. He was 50/50 on taxpayer friendliness then and I'm sure its the same now. You can disagree with him, or think he's smug, but he's not reaching into Calgarian's pockets just for the sake of it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/854496/tr...-city-council/

The city has a lot of external pressures on it right now and there will be more change.

That's great and all that but i don't care what he did in the past etc...its been a disaster that anyone could see coming for years.

as an example,

A small vehicle repair shop got this in the mail.



The business tax situation in this city is out of control.

Look at the leader as always, and if all they can come up with is some stammering "there is nothing else we can do about it" kind of refute, then that guy/gal should be fired as they would if they were leading any other large multi-million dollar operation.

Enough with the excuses, this is going to cost a lot of jobs which we all understand is the last thing this city needs right now.

[GullFoss]

I feel that a lot of people confuse municipal spending with how municipal taxes are assessed.

Are taxes too high? Figure out the city budget and divide it by the number of residents. That's spending per capita. Then compare that to other jurisdictions like Edmonton, Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and winnipeg. And make adjustments for city density or number of kids or whatever if you want to get granular. But in broad strokes, thats the only way to assess municipal spending levels.

Here's some 2012 data I found for operating budget per capita:

Winnipeg - $1350
Vancouver - $1450
Calgary - $1575
Edmonton - $1625
Victoria - $1625
Quebec City - $2050
Ottawa - $2300
Toronto - $2800
Montreal - $2850

I would say the relative value-for-money in Calgary looks pretty good. I mean, Winnipeg is lower but also has a much lower cost of living. Vancouver is lower but has huge density benefits and also a much lower proportion of school kids and also a number of people who pay property tax but use no services (because they live in China). Meanwhile in Calgary, spending is pretty low, especially when considering lack of density and how many kids there are in school (young demographics).

Everything after spending per capita is just a debate about how the taxes to pay for those services are allocated across the population.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's great and all that but i don't care what he did in the past etc...its been a disaster that anyone could see coming for years.

as an example,

A small vehicle repair shop got this in the mail.



The business tax situation in this city is out of control.

Look at the leader as always, and if all they can come up with is some stammering "there is nothing else we can do about it" kind of refute, then that guy/gal should be fired as they would if they were leading any other large multi-million dollar operation.

Enough with the excuses, this is going to cost a lot of jobs which we all understand is the last thing this city needs right now.

I agree with you, however, under the system Calgary employs there needs to be more turnover of the other councilors, as the Mayor is a single vote. They are the leaders that need to be questioned.

As for that bill, well its a balancing act. You have limited choices with the downturn in corporate tax base in the core.
1. Increase the public burden to pay for services by increasing property taxes
2. Cut services - either lower the capital budget or fire staff at the police, fire, and transport departments (etc)
3. Corporate taxes on the remaining businesses rise - unfortunately that means the lady with the stationary store in Inglewood has her bill go up 4x, which is ridiculous.
4. Ask the province to kick in more funds - Albertan's just tossed the NDP for running a deficit, and the new guy promised to balance the books by balancing the budget (soon)
5. Ask the Feds for more funding - you guys voted down $1.5b for the Olympics, they bought a pipeline for $5b, so I guess they could do more.

Prentice might've been on to something when he said, Albertan's need to look in the mirror, as there are no easy answers.

In a world where you guys toss Nenshi he goes and gets a sweet gig at a think tank, or as a prof, or even moves up the political chain. With him gone the exact same problems will continue to confront Calgarians, and now you're spinning the wheel to see if someone new can do a better job.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

I agree with you, however, under the system Calgary employs there needs to be more turnover of the other councilors, as the Mayor is a single vote. They are the leaders that need to be questioned.

As for that bill, well its a balancing act. You have limited choices with the downturn in corporate tax base in the core.
1. Increase the public burden to pay for services by increasing property taxes
2. Cut services - either lower the capital budget or fire staff at the police, fire, and transport departments (etc)
3. Corporate taxes on the remaining businesses rise - unfortunately that means the lady with the stationary store in Inglewood has her bill go up 4x, which is ridiculous.
4. Ask the province to kick in more funds - Albertan's just tossed the NDP for running a deficit, and the new guy promised to balance the books by balancing the budget (soon)
5. Ask the Feds for more funding - you guys voted down $1.5b for the Olympics, they bought a pipeline for $5b, so I guess they could do more.

Prentice might've been on to something when he said, Albertan's need to look in the mirror, as there are no easy answers.

In a world where you guys toss Nenshi he goes and gets a sweet gig at a think tank, or as a prof, or even moves up the political chain. With him gone the exact same problems will continue to confront Calgarians, and now you're spinning the wheel to see if someone new can do a better job.

Soo....what you're saying is that we need to 'Break the Wheel' by ironically electing someone in a wheelchair?

I see...

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Here's some 2012 data I found for operating budget per capita:

Winnipeg - $1350
Vancouver - $1450
Calgary - $1575
Edmonton - $1625
Victoria - $1625
Quebec City - $2050
Ottawa - $2300
Toronto - $2800
Montreal - $2850

I would say the relative value-for-money in Calgary looks pretty good. I mean, Winnipeg is lower but also has a much lower cost of living. Vancouver is lower but has huge density benefits and also a much lower proportion of school kids and also a number of people who pay property tax but use no services (because they live in China). Meanwhile in Calgary, spending is pretty low, especially when considering lack of density and how many kids there are in school (young demographics).

You are aware 2012 was 7 years ago now right?

The city budget for 2019 is 4.525 billion, say roughly 1.4 million people. That's $3232 per person, doesn't look so rosey now does it.

City of Calgary spending has grown over 7% per year since 2012 during a big economic downturn. pretty crazy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

I agree with you, however, under the system Calgary employs there needs to be more turnover of the other councilors, as the Mayor is a single vote. They are the leaders that need to be questioned.

Sure Calgarian's voted in the same past its expiry date City Councilors so absolutely we have to take some of the blame for this. But at the same time there has been a lot of complacency in the long standing City of Calgary Councilors and that's shame on them.

Originally Posted by Rutuu

As for that bill, well its a balancing act. You have limited choices with the downturn in corporate tax base in the core.
1. Increase the public burden to pay for services by increasing property taxes

Sure, but at the same time, the golden goose is pretty much dead and its time to make a change. You really can't keep grinding out money from taxpayers in a bad economic situation. I don't get why people and especially politicians have this simple solution and argument. Well we have to raise taxes or lose services. The tax payers pocket is only so deep. At the same time, the solution of across the board pay cuts is going to have to be a that or argument, if you're going to raise taxes, you'd better be changing your spending habits as a government.

The operating budget has to decrease or you have to lose services. At the same time, each department is going to have to take a hard look at bloat, and unnecessary personal and projects. We are now in a situation where the city is looking at selling assets for cash, that's now going into sirens flashing levels of emergencies.

Originally Posted by Rutuu

. Cut services - either lower the capital budget or fire staff at the police, fire, and transport departments (etc)

Or look at the management levels in each department. Look at what you can contract out and privatize. Make essential pay cuts to non front line workers l

Originally Posted by Rutuu

. Corporate taxes on the remaining businesses rise - unfortunately that means the lady with the stationary store in Inglewood has her bill go up 4x, which is ridiculous.

What City Council has done is grease the slide. So now we're not only sitting on an abandoned downtown, but to support their spending habits they're going to start eroding other businesses and kill another portion of the tax base. The fact that the City waited til after the bills went out and people exploded before they got serious about this should get these people fired.

What? Did they think people were just going to accept seeing massive up ticks in their tax bills?

Originally Posted by Rutuu

. Ask the province to kick in more funds - Albertan's just tossed the NDP for running a deficit, and the new guy promised to balance the books by balancing the budget (soon)

Not going to happen at all. The UCP can't kick in funds because every city and town will ask for the same deal, also because as they've said the books are worse then the NDP promoted. The UCP is right, instead of waiting for the last minute while singing everything is awesome before the emergency hit, they should have been fixing their budget long before this. There's no money to gain.

Originally Posted by Rutuu

. Ask the Feds for more funding - you guys voted down $1.5b for the Olympics, they bought a pipeline for $5b, so I guess they could do more.

Can you imagine this group of clowns running the Nenshi Olympics? Sure you can ask for more money from the Feds, but again, they would have to give the same deal to other cities. And look at how the Feds raced to the rescue for Alberta rail cars . . . oh wait they didn't. And really the pipeline has nothing to do with any of this.

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Prentice might've been on to something when he said, Albertan's need to look in the mirror, as there are no easy answers.

In a world where you guys toss Nenshi he goes and gets a sweet gig at a think tank, or as a prof, or even moves up the political chain. With him gone the exact same problems will continue to confront Calgarians, and now you're spinning the wheel to see if someone new can do a better job.

I think Nenshi has really hurt his future political aspirations. If he had them he should have gone and done that instead of running for Mayor again. Now, he's not only come across as someone that has no control. But as an arrogant twit. He can go run for the sinking good ship, we're bitter NDP or the invisible Liberal's provincially. Or he can go run for the Libs or NDP Federally but both of those options are political suicide in Alberta. He's done, his base which would have been Calgary is turned against him.

Look I voted for him the first time. I literally plugged my nose and voted for him the second time. Now I regret that and the end of his run as mayor can't start soon enough.

You'd think that the city economic crisis and he not being able to actually show leadership to city council and not being somewhat strategically minded and smart when it comes to an economic crisis would rub some of the arrogant, I'm the smartest most brilliant guy in the room feel off of him. But it didn't.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The operating budget has to decrease or you have to lose services.

Except the city is still growing. That means even a budget increase could still need to result in a reduction in services. This isn't something 'dying businesses' or 'household budgets when times are tight' have to deal with.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Except the city is still growing. That means even a budget increase could still need to result in a reduction in services. This isn't something 'dying businesses' or 'household budgets when times are tight' have to deal with.

As the city expands the tax base should grow. If the tax base isn’t growing at the rate service costs are increasing than the city is not charging enough for new development. Part of that tax base growing is increasing value of existing property as it becomes more desirable. So in a tax neutral expanding environment the average tax payment of existing property should go up while new property at the outside becomes the lowest taxed housing. This is why inner city redevelopment is so attractive as it allows the addition of above median cost housing to the tax base.

I think the key metric budgets should be evaluated against is pop growth plus inflation which the city as almost met for operating budgets despite the false info graphic that was circulated a few months ago. Where they city has significantly increased spending is capital spending.

They could have chosen to defer capital spends at these times. Though with Capital projects their is a Keysian affect as the city can borrow for capital projects.

In short the city could limit the city budget to pop growth plus inflation for both Capital projects and Operating costs. They choose not to.

[Ducay]

Wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the increase is solely to cover the useless traffic lights theyve decided are now required every 15 paces on every single road. Seems like a poor use of capital and traffic planning.