Calgary Budget 2019-2022

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Come on, I'm confident you know the reason why Vancouver and Toronto have 'the lowest rates in the country'. You can't compare the mil rate, as it will make cities with high property values look better than cheaper markets.

Yeah - extremely hard to compare in this fashion. In Vancouver, as an example, the municipal tax you have to pay when you purchase real estate is absolutely through the roof. They basically bend you over! Here is a comparison of this particular "user fee" (Calgary is listed as #22, and when you look at the tax amount for repeat home buyers, we're tied for cheapest in the country):


REF: https://www.timescolonist.com/real-e...hic-1.23359004

Originally Posted by milomilo

What I thought was an authoritative voice had backed up what I said, but it may not have been correct. I'd also be interested in some like for like comparisons.

Because of the very broad mix of formulas for municipal tax, the only true normalized way of comparing cities in Canada would be to look at total municipal revenue and divide by number of people. The oft stated "Calgary is cheapest" is based on this. I unfortunately don't have a chart, but it gives people something to investigate should they wish. The comparison needs to be limited to cities above a threshold size, as when you get into towns and the like, the cost structure is different because they do not provide all the same services. Calgary is and has been an exceptional place to live with a fantastic quality of life.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It's hard to present a table of numbers as you need to do a number of different comparisons using data for the same year. Back in 2010 the City of Edmonton conducted such a study to get a more accurate picture of how they compared to other cities in the nation. Have a look at the criteria they used to get a good idea of why you can't just use property tax when doing these comparisons.

https://postmediacalgaryherald2.file...nal_report.pdf

Thanks! Nice read. The distinction it makes between municipal property taxes and total property taxes (read: +school property taxes) is interesting too, and shows a lot of differences across the country. Obviously need to look at the right parts, depending on if you're focusing on "total cost of living in the city" (not to mention provincial tax differences) vs. "taxes consumed by the municipal government".

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Thanks! Nice read. The distinction it makes between municipal property taxes and total property taxes (read: +school property taxes) is interesting too, and shows a lot of differences across the country. Obviously need to look at the right parts, depending on if you're focusing on "total cost of living in the city" (not to mention provincial tax differences) vs. "taxes consumed by the municipal government".

Yes, the focus of the comparison is key. One important point they mentioned is that some cities finance their utilities through property taxes while others do so through extra charges on utility bills. The figures the City of Calgary uses in these comparisons do not include those charges which makes no sense at all. To be realistic all utility costs should be included as well as garbage and recycling.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. But I also know of situations where when people have lost their jobs, they've actually reverted to public transit whereas previously they used cars. Are there monthly ridership numbers available somewhere?

The APTA is the only source I've found that has consistent reporting. Their most recent report (with numbers for America and major Canadian systems) is for Q2 2018:

https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...hipreport.aspx

Their archives have data for Calgary going back to the mid 1990s.

https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...pArchives.aspx

Annual LRT ridership has been stagnant since 2013, while bus ridership has seen significant decline.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...es_a_23496904/

If you include items that we have to pay for through mandatory fees that are "free" in other cities we move higher up on the list, i.e., we're even further from being the lowest.

Thanks for this. Tax rates are meaningless, the actual tax bill is what matters. If anything a city with very expensive homes might have a very low tax rate, high tax bills, and house poor residents due to the high real estate costs.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Thanks for this. Tax rates are meaningless, the actual tax bill is what matters. If anything a city with very expensive homes might have a very low tax rate, high tax bills, and house poor residents due to the high real estate costs.

Can't ignore some of the additional fees like the real estate transfer tax, which for a home in Calgary is $269, and for an average home in Vancouver, over $20,000! This is important, because we're assessing what the city is taking in overall.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Can't ignore some of the additional fees like the real estate transfer tax, which for a home in Calgary is $269, and for an average home in Vancouver, over $20,000! This is important, because we're assessing what the city is taking in overall.

Definitely also a consideration.

[DizzyEdge]

If you're curious about what Calgarians are saying to council about the proposed budget, open this PDF and go to page 1433

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=72818

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

If you're curious about what Calgarians are saying to council about the proposed budget, open this PDF and go to page 1433

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=72818

Thanks for that link. From what I've read so far the comments are what I would expected to have seen. City council and especially the administration are totally disconnected from the real world.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Thanks for that link. From what I've read so far the comments are what I would expected to have seen. City council and especially the administration are totally disconnected from the real world.

I only skimmed maybe the first 50 or 60, but the trends were pretty clear. Pretty much a 3 way split between arts development form letter, parks foundation form letter, and for the love of god cut spending emails. I only caught a very short part of the meeting itself, but the part I caught was around Anderson TOD redevelopment with discussions about "Why are we spending $27 million on a TOD plan that seems to be mostly office when office vacancy is at historical high" "Well the zoning also allows for multi family" "Which is also in a glut" and things like spending millions on studies for projects 10, 20 or more years out, that might not even go ahead.

[DizzyEdge]

Currently talking about a motion concerning the increase costs for the library system by almost 8 million. First part is to stop that increase, also a second part wanting a review about the 'free' memberships.
Some interesting points
- charging the fee was actually illegal, in contravention to the Alberta Libraries Act
- More users of the library system than all Calgary arts & culture services combined.
- But, some of the increase is for raises
- Also, one way to reduce costs is to simply reduce the hours a bit.

First part passed 10-5, second part failed unanimously.

Interesting note, if the Act could be changed, and memberships were only $1 annually that would cover most of the asked increase.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I only skimmed maybe the first 50 or 60, but the trends were pretty clear. Pretty much a 3 way split between arts development form letter, parks foundation form letter, and for the love of god cut spending emails. I only caught a very short part of the meeting itself, but the part I caught was around Anderson TOD redevelopment with discussions about "Why are we spending $27 million on a TOD plan that seems to be mostly office when office vacancy is at historical high" "Well the zoning also allows for multi family" "Which is also in a glut" and things like spending millions on studies for projects 10, 20 or more years out, that might not even go ahead.

I've read through a lot more of the comments now and how you describe the split seems to be holding. I'd love to know how the city analyzes these comments!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Currently talking about a motion concerning the increase costs for the library system by almost 8 million. First part is to stop that increase, also a second part wanting a review about the 'free' memberships.
Some interesting points
- charging the fee was actually illegal, in contravention to the Alberta Libraries Act
- More users of the library system than all Calgary arts & culture services combined.
- But, some of the increase is for raises
- Also, one way to reduce costs is to simply reduce the hours a bit.

First part passed 10-5, second part failed unanimously.

Interesting note, if the Act could be changed, and memberships were only $1 annually that would cover most of the asked increase.

I remember saying at the time they got rid of the annual membership fee that it was a mistake but people kept insisting that some donation would cover the costs. Was that for a few years? Seems to be the case assuming it even covered the costs for one year. The fee was fine. Did they not have a program to provide free library memberships for low income people? They could also offer school kids a low cost card to ensure all families with school-age children have access to library resources. A small fee for most users would be much better than reduced hours and/or a smaller collection of materials.

[DizzyEdge]

During the council meeting they said the plan was for fines to cover operating costs but sounds like the fines covered the *increase* I operating costs due to more people using the service due to no fee, but hasn't covered the cost in general. The problem with re-implementing the membership fee is having a fee is technically illegal based on the Libraries Act. That of course should be revisited, as there is def a percentage of Calgarians able to pay easily.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

...having a fee is technically illegal based on the Libraries Act.

Are you sure?

In Alberta, public library service includes the following services at no charge:
...
borrowing library resources, in any format;
...
In Alberta, public libraries may charge for:
...
Library cards;

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....ervice_alberta

So they apparently can't charge for the privilege of borrowing, yet can charge for a card (which is required for borrowing?).

To be fair, that's totally splitting hairs, and is not the legislation itself.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Are you sure?
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....ervice_alberta

So they apparently can't charge for the privilege of borrowing, yet can charge for a card (which is required for borrowing?).

To be fair, that's totally splitting hairs, and is not the legislation itself.

If that's the case then everyone at council was working off bad information.

[MalcolmTucker]

" the review of the fees motion failed unanimously due to that comment"
Or it failed because the library figured out that charging for library cards cost the library money, and the library board didn't recommend the change?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

" the review of the fees motion failed unanimously due to that comment"
Or it failed because the library figured out that charging for library cards cost the library money, and the library board didn't recommend the change?

yeah the cards used to be like $5, and then the library had to have an elaborate system to manage the $5 cards and keep track. cheaper to be free, I fully agree.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Umm, they still have cards to manage, even if free. But if I recall correctly, they also have 'virtual cards' on their mobile app, which I presume they see as the future, and probably a lot harder to charge for.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

yeah the cards used to be like $5, and then the library had to have an elaborate system to manage the $5 cards and keep track. cheaper to be free, I fully agree.

They were $12 which shouldn't have been an issue for the vast majority of money.