City of Calgary budget, 2014 edition

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Posturing for a Ward 14 run already?

The "minivan driving soccer mom" is making a rational decision in taking advantage of unsustainable lifestyle subsidies. The shots fired are against the subsidies themselves.

I'm not posturing for anything. I just think that your great panacea of blaming every budgetary issue on the suburbs and sprawl is ridiculous. I'm quite interested in where you'll hang your hat once the $4500 per door is no longer there and we still face these budgetary issues.

You call it posturing as if its a black and white issue with one solution, whereas I can accept that's not the case.

[19Yzerman19]

He blamed a budgetary issue on suburbia in this thread? All I saw was a joke in post 5.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would like to see Nenshi take another run at the Police budget. We have the most expensive costs in terms of dollars per officer and crime in general has been decreasing for years everywhere regardless of policing methods employed. So its time to cut one of the biggest expenditures.

Just a question, have you ever been out with the police, specifically the CPS to see what the front line officers deal with on a day to day basis? If you haven't maybe check it out, It may change your opinion based on the challenges they face. CPS also has the lowest Police to Population ratios of major cities in Canada, meaning they already have fewer cops to manage the fastest(or one of) growing population in Canada. Stretching fewer cops over a ever growing city in both size and population is playing with fire.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by SebC

Posturing for a Ward 14 run already?

The "minivan driving soccer mom" is making a rational decision in taking advantage of unsustainable lifestyle subsidies. The shots fired are against the subsidies themselves.

You're the biggest broken record I've ever seen. Do you have any other interests you'd like to post about?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

It bothers me that an inflationary increase isnt always included in the discussion as it makes city politicians look bad compared to federal or provincial counterparts. If I get a 3% pay increase the feds increased their tax take by more than 3% by doing nothing. The city has to raise taxes by 2-3% just to break even.

Must also account for population growth. Property tax is calculated from a revenue neutral position. So if population grows by 2.5% and Municipal inflation is 3.0% - property tax revenue must increase by 5.5% to break even. Also remember that property tax is only about 50% of the city's revenue and other sources, for example user fees, don't necessarily grow at the rate of inflation every year.

Tax reform needed. It's stupid the City must manually adjust the mill rate every year.

Did you know for example that the Province's personal and corporate income taxes rose by 20.5% between 2011/12 and 2012/13 - but you didn't see days of headlines about that. It's because the Province's tax system makes sense - it automatically grows with population and the economy - the City's doesn't.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not posturing for anything. I just think that your great panacea of blaming every budgetary issue on the suburbs and sprawl is ridiculous. I'm quite interested in where you'll hang your hat once the $4500 per door is no longer there and we still face these budgetary issues.

You call it posturing as if its a black and white issue with one solution, whereas I can accept that's not the case.

Yeah, the $4800 is about capital (particularly initial outlay), not operating (which is 95% what property taxes cover). The levy issue has much more to do with our large debt than our operating budget. But, it is fair to say that the design of subdivisions does lead to some operating inefficiency - especially more expensive services to provide like transit.

[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.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So if population grows by 2.5% and Municipal inflation is 3.0% - property tax revenue must increase by 5.5% to break even.

What does "Municipal inflation" mean?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

What does "Municipal inflation" mean?

Municipal Price Index is costs directly related to running a municipality - things like wages, benefits, contracting services, and fuel. Different things than a consumer price index.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nflation-rate/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Municipal Price Index is costs directly related to running a municipality - things like wages, benefits, contracting services, and fuel. Different things than a consumer price index.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nflation-rate/

Although wages and benefits should be directly tied to the consumer price index. The line needs to be held with unions and increases in limited to inflation.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

Although wages and benefits should be directly tied to the consumer price index. The line needs to be held with unions and increases in limited to inflation.

I agree, but not always in City's hands as large union contracts like for Fire often end up in binding arbitration.

It's also sometimes tough because competitive private sector wages also rise quickly in Calgary. It's hard to hang onto staff when they can make $30,000 more a year in an equivalent private sector position. This is relevant to a lot of the indoor union positions (and then up into management). The biggest cost for people is housing, which has certainly risen much higher than inflation over the past decade in Calgary.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I pay my property taxes directly, and I would rather see that increase if it means more money going towards thing we need. Various projects that should be started as soon as possible remain un-funded.

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, because there is no comprehensively good answer and method to this definition. Justin Trudeau, for example, admires the Chinese way, because a one-party dictatorship makes it easier for people that think they absolutely know what "we" need to download their orders and costs associated with those orders on the population without too much of a democratic challenge. Kinda like Druh Farrell, SebC and the pinkish hue crowd - they always know for sure what's best.

The best we've got, however, is an elected government representing the views of the wide majority of different people electing them and making decisions through an argumented debate. Budgetary process is no exception. Ask ten random people to rank municipal budget priorities and you'd get ten different responses.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Must also account for population growth. Property tax is calculated from a revenue neutral position. So if population grows by 2.5% and Municipal inflation is 3.0% - property tax revenue must increase by 5.5% to break even.

Assuming you're saying the tax rate has to increase by 5.5%, this is wayyy too simplistic. It implies that the population growth does not pay any taxes. If the population growth is 2.5% and as a result property tax revenue also increases by 2.5%, then the % to be charged doesn't need to change.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yeah, the $4800 is about capital (particularly initial outlay), not operating (which is 95% what property taxes cover). The levy issue has much more to do with our large debt than our operating budget. But, it is fair to say that the design of subdivisions does lead to some operating inefficiency - especially more expensive services to provide like transit.

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?

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Municipal Property Tax for a Representative Single Family House in 2012 ‐ Canadian Cities

Fixed your post to add the missing graph title. Here is the source. The key word here is "representative," which is subject to interpretation. This is not a graph of either average municipal property taxes per person or average municipal property taxes per taxable dwelling.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Just a question, have you ever been out with the police, specifically the CPS to see what the front line officers deal with on a day to day basis? If you haven't maybe check it out, It may change your opinion based on the challenges they face. CPS also has the lowest Police to Population ratios of major cities in Canada, meaning they already have fewer cops to manage the fastest(or one of) growing population in Canada. Stretching fewer cops over a ever growing city in both size and population is playing with fire.

I don't believe anyone is arguing to reduce the police budget causing less officers on the streets. They are arguing that the CPS has never been forced to work with a set number, and every time talk of reducing or holding their budget steady we get the fear mongering of losing cops on the street.

Surely in that giant beaurocracy there is fat to be trimmed that would lower our costs per officer and allow the same level in the street, if not more.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not posturing for anything. I just think that your great panacea of blaming every budgetary issue on the suburbs and sprawl is ridiculous. I'm quite interested in where you'll hang your hat once the $4500 per door is no longer there and we still face these budgetary issues.

You call it posturing as if its a black and white issue with one solution, whereas I can accept that's not the case.

I call it posturing because you are treating criticism of a policy like it's a personal affront to a large segment of the population. That's classic wedge politics. Useful for getting elected but detrimental to an honest discussion and good government.

As mentioned, the $4500 is only for capital costs. There are still lifecycle costs and indirect subsidies (like far-out LRT) and stuff like that... the $4500 is far from a silver bullet. It is, however, a very good litmus test for councillors.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GGG

Although wages and benefits should be directly tied to the consumer price index. The line needs to be held with unions and increases in limited to inflation.

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.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Bunk;447963[B

4]I agree, but not always in City's hands as large union contracts like for Fire often end up in binding arbitration.[/B]

It's also sometimes tough because competitive private sector wages also rise quickly in Calgary. It's hard to hang onto staff when they can make $30,000 more a year in an equivalent private sector position. This is relevant to a lot of the indoor union positions (and then up into management). The biggest cost for people is housing, which has certainly risen much higher than inflation over the past decade in Calgary.

Fire have worked the last 3 years without a contract.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with you here. For some reason though we have a quick shot against the suburban home owners in this thread when it's irrelevant. Like I say, I have no issue with increased taxes for services and infrastructure that I think the city should provide. 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.

Originally Posted by SebC

I call it posturing because you are treating criticism of a policy like it's a personal affront to a large segment of the population. That's classic wedge politics.

So exactly what wedge am I driving here? I just don't think the only issue the city faces is sprawl. You seem to think that this is some great panacea, but there are a lot of services and provisions that the city provides that are not impacted by sheer footprint.

I realise fully that there are certain things I want the city to undertake and provide, and those items all come with a price tag. I also think there are some areas where some cost savings could be had though. This is the point of zero based budgeting and I recognize that after the process is complete each taxpayer might have to fork over a few extra bucks; I'm fine with that. I think most people are, and no one expects a free ride. I just think that most of us want to see an honest review of the budget before the final ask for more cash from taxpayers.