Municipal Politics

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I think you have to go to a base country first, then get on the boat and sail to Antarctica. She was probably in Argentina.

Yes, typically, Antarctic expeditions/cruises leave from Ushuaia, at the southern tip of Argentina. Scott Dippel posted (on his Twitter) a picture of her boarding passes from Calgary-Houston-Buenos Aires.

Annalise Klingbeil wrote at http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...rctica-cruise-ends-due-to-engine-failure:

Colley-Urquhart said the inaugural $25,000 Silver Cloud expedition cruise she was on was hit by bad weather and the initial itinerary was changed, before the ship’s fuel pump seized on Nov. 20 and the entire trip was called off.

Bad weather is par for the course in the Southern Ocean, but mechanical failure is a whole other can of worms.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Yes, typically, Antarctic expeditions/cruises leave from Ushuaia, at the southern tip of Argentina. Scott Dippel posted (on his Twitter) a picture of her boarding passes from Calgary-Houston-Buenos Aires.

Annalise Klingbeil wrote at http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...rctica-cruise-ends-due-to-engine-failure:


Bad weather is par for the course in the Southern Ocean, but mechanical failure is a whole other can of worms.

And not good for an inaugural cruise costing $25K. I don't understand why she couldn't have gone a bit later. It's not like November is the only time you can go to Antarctica. Her point about not taking a vacation in August sounded very weak to me. Simple solution as far as I'm concerned is to ban vacation time during key periods such as when the budget is being deliberated. Other jobs have similar restrictions so I don't think anyone would see such rules as being onerous.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Very interesting. If what DCU said is how administrative inquiries actually work then Farkas really messed up. Did his inexperience screw him over or did he simply not trust the administration?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Did Farkas double-cross her or did she double-cross him? All I know is she's claiming she recorded him and the plan was to ask administration to do something. With her long record of sketchiness I'll take his word over hers unless she provides the recording. If she's telling the truth he could be screwed.

On radio it was reported that as soon as Farkas was told there was a recording of the conversation, he stopped talking. Seems pretty clear he was double crossing her.

It would also seem pretty clear if he was in those types of conversations with her, that he would have known she was out of town in preparation for the expedition, so his drama queening about where she was is pretty telling. Pretty disappointed with Farkas to date. I think the balance of the council has given him a fair shake, but there is a risk that his entire term will be filibustering and wedge politics to gain attention of the media / populism. If he has an idea, indeed put it forward, but not when you know that it doesn't have a hope in hell and just delays the council's work. When you think about wasted time and energy, this is the epitome!

As an aside, it was interesting to hear the Calgary Chamber guy on the radio yesterday bemoaning that the residential taxes will not be increasing much more drastically so businesses get a break. As you'll all recall, this strategy of increasing residential taxes to off-set the business portion was a plank for Bill Smith. Anyone complaining about residential taxes needs to think about what could have been the alternate!

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think the balance of the council has given him a fair shake, but there is a risk that his entire term will be filibustering and wedge politics to gain attention of the media / populism. If he has an idea, indeed put it forward, but not when you know that it doesn't have a hope in hell and just delays the council's work. When you think about wasted time and energy, this is the epitome!

While I disagree with Farkas on SWBRT (and probably many other things), to be fair, he needed to make a serious and public effort to deliver on his campaign promise. I respect that he tried to follow through. And so far (though the term is very, very young), he seems to be willing to accept the will of council and move on to other matters.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

And not good for an inaugural cruise costing $25K. I don't understand why she couldn't have gone a bit later. It's not like November is the only time you can go to Antarctica. Her point about not taking a vacation in August sounded very weak to me. Simple solution as far as I'm concerned is to ban vacation time during key periods such as when the budget is being deliberated. Other jobs have similar restrictions so I don't think anyone would see such rules as being onerous.

Maybe she thought she was going to lose the election. . .

[Corndogger]

Not sure if this is the best place for this post as it could be viewed as a combo of politics and transportation. Anyway, this is very interesting.

City of Calgary transportation boss Mac Logan resigns

Annalise Klingbeil

Published on: December 18, 2017 | Last Updated: December 18, 2017 12:39 PM MST

Calgary’s city manager confirmed Monday transportation boss Mac Logan has resigned, though he remained tight-lipped on the circumstances surrounding the abrupt departure.

“Mr. Logan and I reached a mutual decision that he resign,” city manager Jeff Fielding told council Monday morning.

“Beyond that, I can’t comment. It’s a personnel matter,” Fielding added.

Logan began working with the city in 1995 and was named the city’s general manager of transportation in March 2010.

In the weeks before his resignation, Logan was on leave from his job as transportation boss, where he oversaw projects including the multi-billion dollar Green Line LRT.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi told reporters there was little he could say about Logan’s sudden exit.

“As you know, I cannot discuss human resources issues,” Nenshi said.

“In fact, I can just say that the city manager and Mac sat down and came to a mutual agreement that it was time for him to resign.”

Fielding’s brief statement came following a query in question period from Ward 11 Coun. Jeromy Farkas during Monday’s council meeting.

“I have fielded a lot of questions from constituents regarding the absence of Mac Logan,” Farkas said.

“I was wondering if you could speak to the circumstances, the costs if any, as well as how important files like the Green Line will be handled in that transition?” he asked.

Fielding did not detail the circumstances surrounding Logan’s departure or speak about the costs.

Full article at: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-of-calgary-transportation-boss-mac-logan-resigns

[Policy Wonk]

I'm only surprised it took this long, although I would have expected him to be sent out to the cornfields to keep Rollin Stanley company rather than shown the door.

[suburbia]

I found this thread on Twitter by Josh White to have explained the Farkas situation extremely well. Read through the full thread for a good appreciation.

https://twitter.com/joshyyc/status/1076150801545027585

[jawagord]

Perhaps those slighted Calgary F-350 drivers want to shed their caveman status? Or the electric truck isn’t quite ready yet?

Flood of orders for new Ford Ranger will require ‘massive overtime’ at factory
Automaker sees overwhelming demand for new compact truck, with interest from some 300,000 shoppers online

Ford said it is scheduling “massive overtime” at a factory in suburban Detroit to meet strong demand for its new Ranger midsize pickup truck, a stark contrast to the cuts to production of traditional sedans U.S. automakers have been making.
Ford is about to boost production of the Ranger, which went on sale this month and already has expressions of interest from 300,000 online shoppers, Kumar Galhotra, president of North American operations, told reporters in Detroit Wednesday.

https://driving.ca/ford/ranger/auto-news...will-require-massive-overtime-at-factory

What I am interested in is just helping everyone in Canada understand that we here in Alberta are not a bunch of, you know, F-350 driving cavemen.”

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/bell-nenshi-speaks-and-a-whole-lot-of-people-get-angry

[Corndogger]

Council approved $300-million transfer from rainy day fund to pay for major projects: report

Meghan Potkins, Calgary Herald
Updated: April 26, 2019

Councillors approved a $300-million withdrawal from the City of Calgary’s rainy day fund in order to seed a new major capital project reserve expected to help pay for an expansion of the BMO Centre, a new arena, the first phase of Arts Commons and a multi-sport field house, a city report has revealed.

The reserve, currently totalling nearly $400 million, is part of a larger financial strategy approved behind closed doors by council last month to fund major long-term projects. The entire suite of projects is valued at approximately $1.5 billion, though a significant portion of the costs for the projects could come from other levels of governments or from private sector partners.

A report heading to council Monday outlines the sources of the “initial funding” for the projects.

The most significant source is a $305-million transfer from the city’s fiscal stability reserve, the so-called rainy day fund created to provide Calgary with a “contingency for urgent situations with significant financial implications.”

As a result of the transfer, the sustainability reserve is expected to be reduced to the minimum balance allowed under council policy — a level equivalent to approximately five per cent of the city’s operating expenses, according to comments made by the city’s chief financial officer in March and echoed by several council members.

The report reveals additional funds came from three other sources: $19 million from the lifecycle maintenance and upgrade reserve; $37 million from the budget savings account and $37 million from the tax loss provision reserve.

The city has not said what the remaining balances are in those reserves, but Mayor Naheed Nenshi dismissed concerns Friday that council was being irresponsible in diverting cash for major capital projects.

“What we did is we kind of went through all the drawers and found the crumbs in various drawers where we thought some reserves were a little bit too much — where the balance had maybe grown a little more than they were supposed to grow,” Nenshi said.

“It doesn’t mean it’s painless. It does mean that it’s taking away future flexibility. But again, when you’ve got cash for a rainy day — and it’s raining — you may as well use it.”

At the start of 2019, the city had more than $2 billion spread across a number of operating and capital reserves.

A handful of council members objected on March 4 when councillors voted 11-4 to fund the four major projects, including councillors Peter Demong, Jeromy Farkas, Druh Farrell and Evan Woolley.

Council members have previously been unable to publicly discuss specifics of the financial strategy, which was first presented at an in camera meeting, but Monday’s report from the chief financial officer is expected to be discussed in public.

Full story at: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-new...ay-fund-to-pay-for-major-projects-report

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Council approved $300-million transfer from rainy day fund to pay for major projects: report
<>
At the start of 2019, the city had more than $2 billion spread across a number of operating and capital reserves.

Thanks for sharing this. It was new information to me. I seem to recall several articles over the last couple years highlighting that the reserves were cumulatively over $2B, which relative to the city's annual budget, was deemed to be quite high.

I'm two minded about the decision in all honesty, not as much because of the fund source, but more because the four projects were lumped together. I have no issues for these funds to be used to leverage equal Federal and Provincial dollars for the BMO event centre expansion, which has demonstrated as a magnet for bringing out of province dollars to the city. That project is a far cry from subsidizing an arena for the private business Flames billionaire owners, most of whom do not even pay taxes in Canada (let along Alberta or Calgary). So within those four projects, I certainly hope that the BMO events centre expansion is prioritized, then the field house, then the arts commons project, and finally, the new arena.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Thanks for sharing this. It was new information to me. I seem to recall several articles over the last couple years highlighting that the reserves were cumulatively over $2B, which relative to the city's annual budget, was deemed to be quite high.

I'm two minded about the decision in all honesty, not as much because of the fund source, but more because the four projects were lumped together. I have no issues for these funds to be used to leverage equal Federal and Provincial dollars for the BMO event centre expansion, which has demonstrated as a magnet for bringing out of province dollars to the city. That project is a far cry from subsidizing an arena for the private business Flames billionaire owners, most of whom do not even pay taxes in Canada (let along Alberta or Calgary). So within those four projects, I certainly hope that the BMO events centre expansion is prioritized, then the field house, then the arts commons project, and finally, the new arena.

I thought the BMO Center expansion got the go ahead a month or two ago. As for the other projects I'm positive that they'll be using this money to leverage money from higher levels of government and private sources. There's no way the others will cough up big bucks if the city doesn't. If any prioritization has been done on the other three projects it was done behind closed doors. Realistically the order will be in the order they cut funding. If the Flames agree to a funding model that is agreeable to the City I'm sure the province and feds will follow up with money shortly after. If the City is smart they'll take advantage of the federal election to get as much infrastructure funded as possible. Preferably things like major roads which will free up money to pay for some of this stuff. For the arena it would be ideal to get the feds to pay for the area infrastructure upgrades which will probably end up being quite costly.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the City is smart they'll take advantage of the federal election to get as much infrastructure funded as possible.

Federal funding doesn't work like that, and provincial funding rarely does. We get more money by expanding the country wide pot, not by jockeying for position.

Only flood mitigation is funded a bit differently, but that is risk based for the most part, and tied to provincial/municipal funds being available, and in Calgary's case we are both risky, and have governments motivated to mitigate that risk with dollars.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Federal funding doesn't work like that, and provincial funding rarely does. We get more money by expanding the country wide pot, not by jockeying for position.

Only flood mitigation is funded a bit differently, but that is risk based for the most part, and tied to provincial/municipal funds being available, and in Calgary's case we are both risky, and have governments motivated to mitigate that risk with dollars.

They are? I don't see a dam being built in Springbank yet and we just elected a stingy version of Donald Trump to lead us, so I don't have high hopes of those dollars ever being spent. The flood was 6 years ago, it effectively never happened now so we'll have to wait for another flood.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They are? I don't see a dam being built in Springbank yet and we just elected a stingy version of Donald Trump to lead us, so I don't have high hopes of those dollars ever being spent. The flood was 6 years ago, it effectively never happened now so we'll have to wait for another flood.

The environmental assessment is in progress. Then there will be an inevitable duty to consult lawsuit.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Federal funding doesn't work like that, and provincial funding rarely does. We get more money by expanding the country wide pot, not by jockeying for position.

Only flood mitigation is funded a bit differently, but that is risk based for the most part, and tied to provincial/municipal funds being available, and in Calgary's case we are both risky, and have governments motivated to mitigate that risk with dollars.

Are you saying we'll get $X regardless of we ask for more or ask for nothing? I'm pretty sure that if we don't put together good cases for funding that we'll end up with just crumbs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The environmental assessment is in progress. Then there will be an inevitable duty to consult lawsuit.

And then... I assume the ultimate decision is now in Kenney's hands? Kenney is equally a populist, a miser and an idiot. My money would be on him prioritising a dozen rural landowners and saving a little cash in the short term over a million and a half Calgarians and the risk of more money spent in the future. I hope my cynicism is proved wrong.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Are you saying we'll get $X regardless of we ask for more or ask for nothing? I'm pretty sure that if we don't put together good cases for funding that we'll end up with just crumbs.

Asking for more is a strategy to both pressure parties during an election to expand the pot, and to make sure you have enough projects in the hopper that in case a new government comes in and doesn't want to fund X anymore, you have project y ready to absorb the same cash.

In effect, since Calgary always has had enough projects on the go that total federal funding never got close to even 33%, we could always access the maximum amount. Since money in project x is entirely replaceable with money for project y, it doesn't matter which projects are funded, just that projects are funded.

Federal funding is nominated by the province for the most part, so advocating to the province to not lets say, build the ring road, which will probably have a federal contribution, frees up money for other projects.

So yes, the incentive for the city is always to ask for more, and there are benefits, but that benefit is not higher levels of funding, it is ensuring that we use all available funding. There isn't a world where, lets say Ontario decides to cancel a subway project, then that money goes to Alberta instead, or that Alberta somehow gets extra special money (besides infrastructure directly related to an activity, like the Olympics).

I guess it comes down to what your definition of ask is. Is it filling out forms and applying for grants? In that case, if we don't fill out forms, the money can be used directly by the province for provincial programs.
If we don't grandstand and ask politicians at other levels to commit to programs, nothing changes at all.

One of the reasons the big city mayors coordinate to try to get big commitments at election time, is then they go to the federal government and say something akin to "that greenline you promised there, to fund that in this program will require a funding envelope of X", where X does not only include the greenline, but includes a proportional amount for everyone. The government has used different methodologies to set the allocations over the years, but the big 3, as they are stacked is:

• a set amount for every province, regardless of size;

• a per capita allocation; and more recently for a portion of the fund,
• a per transit rider allocation.

Funding of infrastructure from the federal government is a lot more boring, and a lot less politicized than you think based on how the media cover the issue. Sure, a local party caucus could decide to use its heft to stop the funding of a particular project, but by doing that they cannot stop allocated money of an equal amount from flowing to the province for other projects. The envelope is always set in someway by province, or by city. Almost all of the political objectives are about the overall size of the envelope.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Asking for more is a strategy to both pressure parties during an election to expand the pot, and to make sure you have enough projects in the hopper that in case a new government comes in and doesn't want to fund X anymore, you have project y ready to absorb the same cash.

In effect, since Calgary always has had enough projects on the go that total federal funding never got close to even 33%, we could always access the maximum amount. Since money in project x is entirely replaceable with money for project y, it doesn't matter which projects are funded, just that projects are funded.

Federal funding is nominated by the province for the most part, so advocating to the province to not lets say, build the ring road, which will probably have a federal contribution, frees up money for other projects.

So yes, the incentive for the city is always to ask for more, and there are benefits, but that benefit is not higher levels of funding, it is ensuring that we use all available funding. There isn't a world where, lets say Ontario decides to cancel a subway project, then that money goes to Alberta instead, or that Alberta somehow gets extra special money (besides infrastructure directly related to an activity, like the Olympics).

I guess it comes down to what your definition of ask is. Is it filling out forms and applying for grants? In that case, if we don't fill out forms, the money can be used directly by the province for provincial programs.
If we don't grandstand and ask politicians at other levels to commit to programs, nothing changes at all.

One of the reasons the big city mayors coordinate to try to get big commitments at election time, is then they go to the federal government and say something akin to "that greenline you promised there, to fund that in this program will require a funding envelope of X", where X does not only include the greenline, but includes a proportional amount for everyone. The government has used different methodologies to set the allocations over the years, but the big 3, as they are stacked is:

• a set amount for every province, regardless of size;

• a per capita allocation; and more recently for a portion of the fund,
• a per transit rider allocation.

Funding of infrastructure from the federal government is a lot more boring, and a lot less politicized than you think based on how the media cover the issue. Sure, a local party caucus could decide to use its heft to stop the funding of a particular project, but by doing that they cannot stop allocated money of an equal amount from flowing to the province for other projects. The envelope is always set in someway by province, or by city. Almost all of the political objectives are about the overall size of the envelope.

I didn't mean to imply that we should try to get the feds to fund 100% of a project just that we should try and get as much as possible in total. If we don't ask we're likely not to get so it's definitely best to be prepared as possible. I don't know if this is true or not but to me it often appears other cities and provinces don't come to the table with projects that are fully detailed and hopefully ready to go. Calgary seems to have long lists of projects but at times they don't appear to be fully thought through. The Green Line is a perfect example of that.