HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1541  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 7:57 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
Budget tags $60M for southwest rec centre
Residential taxes expected to increase by $58 on typical home

Gordon Kent
The Edmonton Journal


Tuesday, December 19, 2006


EDMONTON - A last-minute attempt to cut the tax hike was shot down Monday as city councillors approved a 2007 budget that will see the average Edmonton homeowner's property levy rise by $58.

The municipal tax rate was boosted by 6.5 per cent, but city politicians anticipate the final bill people receive in the mail next May will be only 4.9 per cent higher, when changes expected to the province's education tax are factored in.

Mayor Stephen Mandel described it as a "growth budget" to deal with the pressures of providing the services people need in the middle of a booming economy.

"Most of our citizens want to see more transit, more police, more ambulances. They want to see playgrounds ... I have had an unending number of calls about snow removal."

Coun. Karen Leibovici agreed, saying the city will now be able to move ahead with projects such as upgrading the Valley Zoo and building the southwest recreation centre in Terwillegar.

"Every section of the city will benefit out of this particular budget."

Provincial officials have indicated they'll collect a smaller increase from the average Edmonton ratepayer under the education property tax than they would have under previous tax policies.

Councillors are moving into this "tax room" by increasing city taxes $9 million to pay for more police, ambulance and fire service.

But homeowners will be spared from picking up a larger share of the tax burden from apartment owners. Council has overturned a 2005 decision to gradually set a uniform tax rate for single-

family houses and apartments, a move that would have lowered taxes next year by $25 on a typical apartment suite while raising the rate on houses by about $6.

The rate for apartments, now 15 per cent higher, was supposed to decline to the same level as houses in three years, but councillors decided the first step change, already in place, didn't lead landlords to cut rents as predicted.

For the third year in a row, only Coun. Mike Nickel voted against the budget, arguing it provides for taxes higher than the local inflation rate and will hurt "little guys" such as seniors and single parents.

"It's only pennies a day, but quite frankly those pennies don't fall from heaven," he said.

"To say that we're taking up room on education property taxes ... is simply a shell game. To me, it's going where one level of government has left room, and it's quickly gobbled up by another."

He supported an attempt by council veterans Terry Cavanagh and Ron Hayter to limit the civic tax hike to 5.8 per cent because it isn't certain the provincial government will provide the tax space that's expected.

"What if it doesn't occur? Then we have told the citizens they must have a tax increase of 6.5 per cent," Hayter said.

"In my opinion, that's too high, and there's no guarantee of a reduction until spring."

Other council members easily defeated the proposal, with Mandel saying he'll be "shocked" if the province doesn't come through.

Coun. Kim Krushell insisted her colleagues have to take a stand.

"If we don't take that education tax room, we don't get those dollars, and then the province will be wondering why we come whining to them for more money."

The final property-tax figure will be known in May when council sets mill rates, which could also be affected by factors such as the 2006 surplus or higher-than-expected growth revenue.

[email protected]

BY THE NUMBERS

- Total 2007 budget: $2.3 billion.

- Impact of projected 4.9-per-cent final tax hike on average homeowner: $58.

- Increase in taxes from 2006: $64 million ($23 million due to growth from new buildings, businesses and other sources, and $41 million from higher tax rates).

- Annual impact on average homeowner of hikes in waste management, sanitary sewer and drainage fees: $37.

OTHER FEE INCREASES:

- Arena-rental times: children, $100, up $5; adults, $203.85, up $7.85.

- Tier 1 fitness and aquatic facilities admission: child, $3.50, up 25 cents; families, $18, up $2.70.

- Fort Edmonton Park admission: child, $6.50, up $1.50; adult, $13, up $3.25

- Valley Zoo summer admission: child, $4.25, up 25 cents; adult, $8.50, up 50 cents.

- Transit fare: adult cash, $2.50, up 25 cents; 10 adult tickets, $21, up $2.50 (effective February); senior/youth cash $2.25, up 25 cents; 10 senior/youth tickets, $18.50, up $2.50 (effective February).

WHAT IT COVERS:

- 62 more police officers and civilian employees.

- 30 more firefighters to staff the new Meadows fire station and aerial trucks in two other stations.

- 22 staff to operate two extra ambulances to meet city growth and improve response times.

- $5.5 million to redevelop the Fred Broadstock pool.

- $300,000 toward snow-making equipment for cross-country skiing at Gold Bar park.

- $1.4 million for artificial turf at the Fred Singer soccer field.

- $1.7 million to help design and build a new sea lion facility at the Valley Zoo.

- $3.2 million for traffic improvements on St. Albert Trail and Dunvegan Road.

- $28.3 million for the multi-year construction of an interchange at 23rd Avenue and Gateway Boulevard (depending on actual costs, council may re-examine this $125-million project in February).

- $60.2 million toward development of the southwest recreation centre in Terwillegar.

Ran with fact box "By the Numbers", which has been appended to this story.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1542  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 7:58 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
Research firm gets $22.3M in government funding
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
EDMONTON - TRLabs, Canada's largest not-for-profit technology research consortium, will get $22.3 million in funding over five years from the federal and provincial governments.

The money will ensure the 50 government, academic and private industry consortium members benefit from new technology, and train university students for leadership roles in the industry, TRLabs president Roger Pederson said Monday. "The new technology and highly skilled university graduates we produce are more important than ever in a sector that enables productivity in all other economic sectors, grows at twice the rate of the broader economy, and is Canada's largest research and development spender and employment generator," he said.

Doug Horner, Alberta's new minister of advanced education, said TRLabs is a key link in bridging basic research with commercial applications and helping entrepreneurs turn research into competitive products and services for world markets.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****The investment includes $10 million from the federal government, $7.5 million from the Alberta government and $2.4 million each from Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Since its inception in 1986, TRLabs has trained 840 students, commercialized 310 technologies and issued 160 patents.

Its head office and main lab is in Edmonton, with facilities in Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg.




© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1543  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 7:59 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
Golf courses face market value tax assessment in 2007
City quits waiting for province to add greens, fairways to eight-year-old system
Ron Chalmers, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
EDMONTON - Municipal property taxes could double on private golf courses in Edmonton.

Eight years after the city shifted to market-value assessments on other property, including golf course buildings, it will start applying that standard to golf course land in 2007.

The Derrick Club's initial assessment would more than double its tax from the $103,000 paid in 2006, says general manager Jan Navotny. "Some clubs are looking at even larger increases."


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****With 17 private courses in Edmonton, city revenues could rise by a couple million dollars -- although the assessments can be appealed.

The city has used a "best practices" handbook that the provincial government prepared for the shift to market values, says Stan Dilworth in the city's assessment branch.

Golf-course lands initially were omitted but an update was expected. That hasn't happened, so the city is proceeding on its own.

It has consulted a committee of course officials.

"All parties want to come to a reasonable and equitable solution," says Navotny, a committee member. "There is a spirit of co-operation between all the clubs and the city."

The problem is to find fair market values.

Residential and commercial real estate is assessed by consulting recent sale prices of comparable properties.

"But we have had very few sales in the province," Dilworth says. "I don't think any golf course in Edmonton has sold in the recent past."

The shift won't be reversed, he says -- but the branch is open to discussing fair values. "We have invited the clubs to present any recent appraisals that they may have received on their courses."

Navotny questions the accuracy of the new assessments because, when courses do sell, "they don't sell for much," he says. "They are not very profitable, and lot of them have issues raising financing."

Without comparable-sales data, he says, the city looks at replacement costs -- but neglects to consider depreciation.

"Courses have to be upgraded. Fairways, greens and irrigation systems wear out."

Market value assessments assume that the lands will continue as golf courses and not be converted to other uses for which they are not zoned.

Until the assessments are finalized, Navotny would not discuss possible impacts on clubs, members or fees. "The city has been very receptive and is willing to talk about these things," he says.

[email protected]




© The Edmonton Journal 2006
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1544  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:16 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
FYI .....

Thank you for expressing interest in The Planning Academy or taking at least one of our courses.
As someone on our contact list, we’re pleased to inform you we have set the dates for our spring offerings of the three core courses, transportation planning elective and our brand new urban design planning elective. We invite you to register in sessions of interest at www.edmonton.ca/planningacademy. To find the spring course schedule click on Course Descriptions under Additional Information and then at the bottom of that page select Course Dates and Times.

If you have any questions regarding The Planning Academy registration process or for more information about The Planning Academy, call (780) 496-6242, or e-mail [email protected]. Space is limited so be sure to register early. We look forward to seeing you at one of our courses.

Please note: If you registered for a course on-line before, you need to register as an existing customer. If you haven’t registered on-line with us before (even if you took a course) you’ll register as a new customer.

A cost effective parking option is the parkade under City Hall; it costs $0.25 per hour in the evenings and on weekends.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1545  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:34 PM
etown etown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 257
Its unfortunate that this thread has basically gone from a discussion about current construction in Edmonton to bashing pretty much everything that is proposed, under construction, or already finished.

A few years ago many of you were all worked up everytime a crane was spotted, or a sold sign went up on an impark lot. By the new standards set on this thread I'm assuming that even the OMEGA is now on the list of ugly buildings because of its bland white siding and small windows.

For those of you who think you're driving change in Edmonton by posting here you're not. Whining doesn't get a whole lot done. You want a better skyscraper, urban market, or better architecture in your area - than do it.
Start small, buy a vacant lot and do some infill. But guaranteed, what ever you build not everyone will like it.

The design bar needs to be raised in Edmonton (and every other city on the planet), but it won't happen by spending all day on this web site. There is lots of money out there, put together a good proposal, get your financing and build what you want to see in this city.
     
     
  #1546  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:35 PM
Jasper and one o nin's Avatar
Jasper and one o nin Jasper and one o nin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Лесные Высоты
Posts: 3,344
murman vs. feepa... "YOU BUY THE WHOLE SEAT, BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE"
City Budget.. $300K for snow making equipment for cc trails at GB park??????
and, okay, no I dont live in Terwillegar, but if I was on Council, I would put off the rec centre and allocate the $60 million towards the 23rd ave interchange. Also keep in mind, back in 2004, council decided to use provincial money to build this thing.... but waited, and waited
__________________
"Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. Carl Spackler, 1980
     
     
  #1547  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:38 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
"and, okay, no I dont live in Terwillegar, but if I was on Council, I would put off the rec centre and allocate the $60 million towards the 23rd ave interchange. Also keep in mind, back in 2004, council decided to use provincial money to build this thing.... but waited, and waited"

having lived in terwillegar for most of my life, they REALLY NEED THIS......honestly....and yes 23ave is SUPER important, but this rec centre is not the thing to kill for it.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1548  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:38 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by etown View Post
Its unfortunate that this thread has basically gone from a discussion about current construction in Edmonton to bashing pretty much everything that is proposed, under construction, or already finished.

A few years ago many of you were all worked up everytime a crane was spotted, or a sold sign went up on an impark lot. By the new standards set on this thread I'm assuming that even the OMEGA is now on the list of ugly buildings because of its bland white siding and small windows.

For those of you who think you're driving change in Edmonton by posting here you're not. Whining doesn't get a whole lot done. You want a better skyscraper, urban market, or better architecture in your area - than do it.
Start small, buy a vacant lot and do some infill. But guaranteed, what ever you build not everyone will like it.

The design bar needs to be raised in Edmonton (and every other city on the planet), but it won't happen by spending all day on this web site. There is lots of money out there, put together a good proposal, get your financing and build what you want to see in this city.

well alright then, i will.....who's with me.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1549  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 8:44 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by etown View Post
Its unfortunate that this thread has basically gone from a discussion about current construction in Edmonton to bashing pretty much everything that is proposed, under construction, or already finished.

A few years ago many of you were all worked up everytime a crane was spotted, or a sold sign went up on an impark lot. By the new standards set on this thread I'm assuming that even the OMEGA is now on the list of ugly buildings because of its bland white siding and small windows.

For those of you who think you're driving change in Edmonton by posting here you're not. Whining doesn't get a whole lot done. You want a better skyscraper, urban market, or better architecture in your area - than do it.
Start small, buy a vacant lot and do some infill. But guaranteed, what ever you build not everyone will like it.

The design bar needs to be raised in Edmonton (and every other city on the planet), but it won't happen by spending all day on this web site. There is lots of money out there, put together a good proposal, get your financing and build what you want to see in this city.
i guess i should reply to this since im much of the problem on here....

This isnt about sitting here and being god's gift to development....this is about posting criticism, even if harsh, letting people know who is doing $hit, who is innovative, who is raising the bar, who is keeping the bar below grade.

Edmonton has changed A LOT since 2002.....A LOT.....and we are beginning to see some positive progress with many things, but there is still FAR FAR FAR too much CRAP that is being approved, proposed, and UC.

This isnt about complaining, it is about COMMENTING on the GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY.

Part of the process of change is to cry, to lament, and to BITCH...

stage 4, 5, and 6 is where we are heading now.....those being

RENEW
REUSE
RECYCLE

...oh wait, that was Edmonton;s development motto from years gone by.

INSPIRE
LEAD
CREATE

these are what developers should be doing.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1550  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:03 PM
murman murman is offline
Dreaming in Colour
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin View Post
murman vs. feepa... "YOU BUY THE WHOLE SEAT, BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE"
LOL... I assume that you've got a great cultural reference I haven't come across before. If not, then kudos for a hilarious line; consider that career in marketing again.
     
     
  #1551  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:11 PM
CDE's Avatar
CDE CDE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by etown View Post
For those of you who think you're driving change in Edmonton by posting here you're not. Whining doesn't get a whole lot done. You want a better skyscraper, urban market, or better architecture in your area - than do it.
Start small, buy a vacant lot and do some infill. But guaranteed, what ever you build not everyone will like it.
Some of us are doing it.

It's just a real pisser when others don't play their part. This forum is a good place to bitch; and hopefully some of these comments make thair way back to people who matter.

And they do.
     
     
  #1552  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:16 PM
on the grid on the grid is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by etown View Post
For those of you who think you're driving change in Edmonton by posting here you're not. Whining doesn't get a whole lot done. You want a better skyscraper, urban market, or better architecture in your area - than do it.
Thus spake Zarathustra.

This is an web forum. Who's talking about affecting change?

I'm sure many people on this site do work towards bettering the city, and this forum is where they go during breaks. For those not directly in the industry, this is a very accessible way to join the debate. Some of the people that post here have an admirable thirst for information, and as long as that's the case, I personally don't mind a little whining. Critique, as long as it is legitimated and informed, is healthy. While 'doing it', for some, would be great, it may not (yet) be that easy.
     
     
  #1553  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:16 PM
Kevin_foster's Avatar
Kevin_foster Kevin_foster is offline
Kevin Folds Five
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 6,072
Err sorry I'll have to agree with Murman on this one ;p- sorry, but do you think in order for us to move forward in terms of architectural advancement as a society - we should smugly state that "meh, it's fine, there's lot's of crap"

EVEN if it is a pipe dream, there is no reason we can't make the city a better place by complaining about every single tiny little piece of Garbage that erupts on our streets.

Why? In your house, would you let someone come in and take a @#$# in your upstairs bedroom, even IF it is in the closet? No. Why? You don't allow crap in your house, and SOMEDAY your going to walk by it and say "aww man, what's that stink".

And don't say that it's because of construction cost. There are plenty of cheap starter toilets out there. We can do better with the same amount of money.

How many bloody times have you driven down Stony Plain Road and said, "man this is a DIVE!"? Maybe it's people like you who at one time thought "OH WELL".

Repeat after Murman - stop defending mediocrity.
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
     
     
  #1554  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:22 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,559
At no point was I really defending this piece of crap. I agree, its crap. So now, what can we do about it?
Who can we write letters to? Who can prevent crap from occuring?

Smokey the bear says Only you can prevent crappy buildings from happening in your city.
     
     
  #1555  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:28 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
what can we do?

write the city planners
letter to editor in the journal - dont be specific per se, but talk about crap in this city.
write the developer
write the architect

ask them why or more importantly, why NOT?

include pictures of good architecture

call the journal or sun and ask them to report on the state of architecture in this city.

call your aldermen

call your MLA

only you can make the world hear
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #1556  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:33 PM
murman murman is offline
Dreaming in Colour
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin_foster View Post
Err sorry I'll have to agree with Murman on this one ;p- sorry, but do you think in order for us to move forward in terms of architectural advancement as a society - we should smugly state that "meh, it's fine, there's lot's of crap"

EVEN if it is a pipe dream, there is no reason we can't make the city a better place by complaining about every single tiny little piece of Garbage that erupts on our streets.

Why? In your house, would you let someone come in and take a @#$# in your upstairs bedroom, even IF it is in the closet? No. Why? You don't allow crap in your house, and SOMEDAY your going to walk by it and say "aww man, what's that stink".

And don't say that it's because of construction cost. There are plenty of cheap starter toilets out there. We can do better with the same amount of money.
How... umm... vivid.
     
     
  #1557  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:37 PM
murman murman is offline
Dreaming in Colour
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
what can we do?

write the city planners
letter to editor in the journal - dont be specific per se, but talk about crap in this city.
write the developer
write the architect

ask them why or more importantly, why NOT?

include pictures of good architecture

call the journal or sun and ask them to report on the state of architecture in this city.

call your aldermen

call your MLA

only you can make the world hear
I for one, would love to see the Journal, or any local, well-circulated and read paper [excluding the Sun; it's got about as much respectability as....] have a periodic column where they "out" the offenders.
     
     
  #1558  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:38 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
I'm a fan of any building not built out of twigs. I can't believe they allow anything but side by side row housing to be stick built.

I don't have a problem with low rise buildings, in Strathcona, four story structures probably suit the area better than high rises. Conversely, In Oliver I'd like to see higher density.
     
     
  #1559  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:40 PM
Auditor Auditor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 122
I think DT has come a long ways but still has a long ways to go. People actually live and party (on the weekends) in Downtown. This will only improve as more condos are built and more people move DT.

What I can't stand is Cove properties, in Calgary they are doing some quality projects but here they are building utter crap. Considering they are based out of Edmonton, you would think they would have put up a nice project or two.
     
     
  #1560  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2006, 9:44 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,024
"What I can't stand is Cove properties, in Calgary they are doing some quality projects but here they are building utter crap. Considering they are based out of Edmonton, you would think they would have put up a nice project or two."

dont get me started...
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:24 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.