|
2013 City Budget
Council OKs $252m capital budget for roadwork, transit, Pan Am
(Hamilton Spectator, Emma reilly, Dec 12, 2012) City councillors have approved a $252-million capital budget for 2013, up from $221 million this year. The biggest chunk — $102.8 million — will be spent on roads. Other major expenses include $39.2 million for Pan Am, $26.5 million for transit, and $5.4 million for vehicle replacement. However, equally telling are the items not being funded in next year’s budget. They include: • Park development initiatives (including $30 million for Gage Park, $6 million for Gore Park, $10 million for Battlefield Park and $37 million for Confederation Park • Police investigative building: $15 million • West Harbour Recreation Master Plan: $75 million • Light rail transit (LRT): amount undetermined • Two-way street conversions: amount undetermined The lack of funding for two-way street conversions and LRT funding garnered particular attention Tuesday. Hamilton Chamber of Commerce CEO David Adames attended the meeting to ask councillors to dedicate funding to LRT in the 2014 capital budget, arguing that it wasn’t too early to start thinking about next year’s expenses. Councillor Chad Collins also asked for city staff to prepare a three- or five-year implementation plan for two-way street conversions — including those already identified by the city, along with any conversions that arise at the recommendation of a citizen task force recently struck by councillors Brian McHattie and Jason Farr. |
40% of the budget going towards roads - that sounds about right.
|
Putting those "telling" omissions in context, while it stepped up to cover six months of CSUMB, Council backed away from spending what would presumably be an additional $3.35m to bankroll a full year of temporary poverty relief, apparently because doing do "would have added about 1 per cent to residential tax rates, which works out to about $30 per household."
Leaving the TBD line items of LRT and two-way street conversions out of the tally, the other three items cited amount to an additional $173m in spending. If included, they would have meant a capital budget 68%+ larger than the one that was passed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Infill, and densification and the resultant increased property values and tax bases brought on by LRT are proven in many other cities. |
Quote:
|
When has public transit not required massive public subsidies? Everybody knows that. We do it, not only to provide another method of transportation, but because of the spin-off effects, especially in the case of a metro, LRT or the like.
Even if Aerotropolis goes ahead as planned, the jobs would be warehousing and logistics - in other words, low-paying. We can do better for $500M+. Most of us, however, believe that Aerotropolis is just a ruse to service lands for sprawl residential. There's little doubt in my mind that that's the way it's going to go. |
Also driving requires more subsidies than transit. I was doing some research for a paper and a study out of the US found that a 20 mile round trip by car costs society, through externalized costs, $7.60 more than the same trip via transit. The externalized costs include road construction,maintenance, emissions , health, accidents, storm water runoff, depressed property values, noise, parking, gas subsidies, insurance subsidies and does not include climate change costs.
|
The difference between AEGD and LRT in terms of risk is that if the AEGD fails to attract business, the money has gone to waste. Worse yet, it will have paved the way for sprawl residential which is a net loss to the city.
If LRT fails to attract development and increased assessment, it still improves transit. The demand for ridership already exists, and transit needs are currently underserved along the route. LRT is known to have lower operating costs per passenger mile than buses. It will form the backbone of an improved transit system with higher ridership across the board. Even if none of the hoped for development materializes, there will still be some payback with LRT. |
[QUOTE=bigguy1231;5937341. It will be a bottomless moneypit that will have to be subsidized by taxpayers for as long as it exists.[/QUOTE]
All public transit requires subsidy. That's why they're public. Just like roads. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That was my point. Roads, sewers and water are all public infrastructure just like building an LRT. Both will need continued maintenance and expeditures. The difference is the infrastructure for the aerotropolis will only be built as needed, if needed. The LRT on the other hand will be an ongoing expense whether people use it or not, because it will be part of the infrastructure in whole from the start. They have already said in the studies that the people that are currently using buses will be the same people using LRT. There is no guarantee that ridership will increase, yet the advocates are still willing to spend a billion building it and millions per year supporting it for a generation or more. If people are going to demand guarantees for the airport lands before we proceed there they we should also demand that the LRT be held to the same standard. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Promoting and planning increased density is the best way to keep taxes efficient. Sprawl cost us all even more and more. It's gotta stop, or be minimized. We have the luxury of benefiting from the successful LRT experiences of others. It's well established what well planned LRT can do. It'll all come down to costs and financing models. |
Quote:
|
Just noticed that the Hamilton Civic League is against aerotroplis as a waste of taxpayers' money
http://civicleague.ca/aerotropolis/ |
Quote:
|
If you want to look at a perpetual money pit, look at Hamilton's overbuilt road system - it's costing us $100 million for one year of maintenance!
Look at all the lanes that are barely used. I can think of pavement in Hamilton that is not even a lane, it's simply painted over so cars won't drive on it, because there's so much extra. We have 7.2 metres of main road per person here. If that was reduced to somewhere closer to that of the average city, the costs of upkeep would go down. Traffic is always suggesting road widening if the 'level of service' is deemed too low. How about going the other way? If a road is not used enough, cut down a lane and return it sidewalk, front yards or bike lanes, which are cheaper to maintain. |
Via City of Hamilton:
Pavement Management The City of Hamilton maintains an extensive network of both urban and rural roads, and all classes from local roads to expressway roads. A centreline-kilometre is a measure of one kilometre of road, regardless of the number of lanes. A lane-kilometre is a measure of one kilometre of road multiplied by the number of lanes. Hence, a one kilometre long, four-lane road, would be considered to be one centreline-kilometre, or four lane-kilometres. Hamilton maintains approximately 2800 centreline-kilometres, or 6200 lane-kilometres of roads. 6200 lane-kilometres of road is approximately the equivalent of travelling the distance from Hamilton to Toronto and back, on a one-lane road, 45 times. In order to effectively manage and maintain the state of Hamilton’s roads, Hamilton staff utilize a Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS is a powerful software tool that stores road condition rating data, analyzes and prioritizes road rehabilitation needs and rehabilitation strategies, and predicts future funding needs based on forecasted road deterioration. The key to managing the City of Hamilton’s roads is to apply the correct rehabilitation strategy at the correct time. This includes applying preventative maintenance strategies to roads in early stages of deterioration (e.g., crack sealing), then applying rehabilitation strategies in later stages (e.g., resurfacing) and finally, reconstructing roads. Ideally, road reconstruction is coordinated with subsurface infrastructure rehabilitation projects because it is most cost-effective. It increases our customers’ level-of-service and reduces the frequency of construction inconvenience. In comparison, the City of Toronto apparently contains 5,389 centreline kilometres (including road and associated ramp)... and 70km of rapid transit rail lines, while the City of Ottawa boasts roughly 5,200 centreline kilometres of roads. FWIW, Ottawa's stats suggest that, as of 2005 at least, Hamilton's per-capita lane distance placed just below the median for single-tier Ontario municipalities surveyed. Also from Ottawa's docs: On a per-lane-km basis, our unpaved roads cost consume almost twice as much maintenance budget as our paved roads do. |
But given that overinvestment, why then this rush toward laying down rail lines? I get a sense that many who love LRT just love trains. Yet conceivably you could make a BRT system that would have all the capacity and right of way of LRT, yet would be more versatile. So what's the advantage of having metal rails? So instead of LRT, what about instead providing dedicated lanes on all streets for high occupancy vehicles and transit?
|
Because, supposedly, there is more benefit to LRT even though it costs more.
|
Funding for some major Stoney Creek projects announced (2013 - 2022):
Quote:
|
Hamilton hits surplus fifth year out of six
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Mar 11 2013) For the fifth year out of six, the city of Hamilton has recorded its second-largest budget surplus. City financial staff told politicians last week they were projecting a total $11.4 surplus for the year, combining its tax and rate supported services. It is the second highest surplus the city has had since 2007. Last year the surplus reached $15 million, the highest over the last five years. In 2010, the surplus was $5.2 million, while in 2007 it was $5.4 million and $7.4 million in 2008. The city recorded a budget deficit of $3.3 million in 2009. The city saved about $8.5 million in capital financing, and another $5 million from the public works budget, mainly because of lower winter control, and waste processing costs. The city also had declining Ontario Works caseloads, delays in recreation openings, and savings from social housing subsidy payments, for a total of about $2.8 million. Another $1.7 million was saved by delaying the hiring of people for vacant positions. Some of the savings were offset by $12 million in tax write-offs the city was forced to do this year. It was also a poor year for business and trade license revenues, and there was a parking revenue shortfall. The 2012 surplus will be shifted to various department reserve funds, city finance staff said. The city has seen its reserve funds nearly depleted after councillors dipped into them one time too often, particularly from the Tax Stabilization Reserve or the Unallocated Capital Reserve. Before he departed for the city of Toronto, former corporate services general manager Robert Rossini told councillors last December that politicians’ decisions to use reserve funds to pay for tax-supported programs has hit financial bottom this year. Council had agreed to increase user fees this year in order to replenish the planning department fee stabilization reserve fund. Staff used the remaining $2.1 million to cover higher staff salary costs. “Using the reserves is not sustainable,” said Rossini. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Buses don't attract riders
Buses don't attract investment Buses don't attract new business Buses are more expensive to operate Buses are noxious and noisome |
Hamilton homeowners facing average $68 tax increase
CBC News Posted: Mar 21, 2013 11:47 AM ET http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/economy/s...-march-21.html The burden on Hamilton taxpayers has been lifted a little more with a new draft budget for the city. Staff have found savings that will reduce the budget increase to 1.9 per cent over last year, a $68 increase on the average household. The previous version of the budget called for a 2.5-per cent increase, or $75 more than last year for the owner of a $266,200 home. The change reflects, among other savings, a smaller than expected Ontario Works caseload and winter control budget. The year-end totals for 2012 are available now, and they weren't at the start of the budget process, city manager Chris Murray said. “Because of that, we've been able to look at the books more closely and come to you with these further savings.” Councillors deliberated the budget at a general issues committee meeting Thursday. A big item was the budget for Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc. (HECFI), which projects no savings for 2013. This worried some councillors. HECFI's properties will be managed by new parties this year — Copps Coliseum and Hamilton Place by Global Spectrum/Live Nation, the Hamilton Convention Centre by Carmen's Inc. Both promised savings in their bids. Both groups have said 2013 will be a transitional year. Councillors voted Jan. 31 to allow Carmen's to apply for $450,546 and Global Spectrum $110,000 to cover any losses this year. Mike Zegarac, interim head of finance, will come back to the general issues committee the first week of April to elaborate on why there would be no savings. “We asked the transition team if there were any potential savings,” Zegarac said. The team told him “there were no potential savings to incorporate in the 2013 budget.” But Coun. Brian McHattie wanted to press the groups for some cost reductions, especially in light of HECFI staff being laid off. “They have reduced staff to the detriment of those families,” he said. “It [the transition to private management] was done for the benefit of the taxpayer. If that's not the case, we need to seriously query what we've bought into.” Budget deliberations are scheduled to continue on April 4, with final approval on April 10. |
Police budget a ‘shell game’
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Mar 27 2013) To borrow a line from Jorge Borges, the sweat-it-out struggle over the police budget is starting to look like two bald men fighting over a comb. After all, city councillors on one side and Chief Glenn De Caire and the police service board on the other are only about $262,000 apart in terms of dollars. At least that’s how it looks on the surface. But, like an iceberg, it’s what lies beneath that counts. Let’s do this by the numbers and you’ll see what I mean. Back in February, by a vote of 5-2, the police board approved a 3.71 per cent increase for the 2013 police operating/capital budget. That represents an increase of $5 million over 2012 for a total budget of $140,675,370. Last week, in response, Councillors Bernie Morelli and Terry Whitehead — the two dissenting police board members — brought forward a motion for a committee of council’s consideration calling for an increase of 3.52 per cent. That represents an increase over 2012 of about $4.7 million for a total budget of $140,414,620. Councillors postponed their next move until they could confirm some information and ask police board members and De Caire some questions. But, as you can see, the difference between the two positions is only about $262,000. So what’s the big deal, given the total size of the budget? Why risk a potential showdown which could see the whole dispute end up at a panel hearing before the Ontario Civilian Police Commission? Here’s why: The police board-approved budget boils down to what Whitehead has quite rightly called a “shell game.” The 3.71 per cent increase is based on De Caire hiring 20 new officers for 2013 but carrying over the majority cost of the hires to the 2014 budget. Under the chief’s proposal, the new officers will add $511,750 to the 2013 budget but financial pressures of more than $1 million to the 2014 budget. In other words, next year taxpayers will pay the piper double what the tune cost this year. |
Jesus. Just scrap these stupid fake democratic police and school boards and make the executive decisions. They're happening anyway. These boards give a pallor of legitimacy to what is a totally crooked process.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.