Red Deer City Budget 2025: An Opportunity for Council to Step Up for Taxpayers

Opinion on Red Deer City Budget 2025

By Al Poole

I have lived in Red Deer for 45 years and loved every year. So happy to be here.

Having said that, I see things, patterns over time, that worry me. When I worry I dig deeper – I just need to understand.

Budget 2025: Wow – a massive document. I can only imagine what it cost to build this document. Even more concerning – the amount of time and effort for council members to understand. Crazy!

I will say up front – I wonder if anyone on council has a good grasp on operations performance
based on the budget – as presented. If I am correct, what does that say for citizens of Red Deer
understanding? [note: I do not equate understanding with agreement]

This could be so much easier. Council needs to insist this becomes clearer and easier to understand. (I can help).

As in the past, generally, I find this another document reads from a position of fear and defensiveness – simply looks like justifying “what we do is already the best”. Why would you do that to yourselves?

It starts at the top – the City Manager message is not inspiring. It lacks the leadership that says I got this and here is what I am going to do to correct our current course.

Upfront, an area that confuses me is the reserve transfers. I find it hard to get a real good grasp on spending. I will work to close that gap soon.

Back to the document, a couple of things that caught my attention and I find encouraging. In the
Executive Summary, item 4 on page 5: establish expectations of Administration to achieve a positive variance to budget. I presume this means a fair budget that requires Administration to be more effective and efficient in executing its work (i.e. not only from more tax revenue). I applaud you writing it down – achieving it is akin to retained earnings in my work world (for City – healthy reserves). Second, the citizen surveys in the spring and then the fall. They serve as a great guide for Council and Administration.

The City’s current financial situation is not great. If you understand and accept how we got here – the path forward becomes clearer. Based on what I see in the document you have not understood or accepted. It still appears it’s the taxpayer who is carrying most of the load.

It is interesting that the citizen surveys point to reducing the size of City organization. That tells me everyone, without knowing the details, has a good sense that the City Operations are not as effective or efficient as they could be. I know some of you know it to be true, as well.

Ok – let’s delve into the budget. I like the breakout in TTAX sheet, page 65. I commend Administration for projecting a positive variance over 4% Good job. Now, a bold move demonstrating real leadership would be to take the projected 2024-year end outcome and make that the 2025 budget — and still deliver a positive variance in 2025. Instead, all of that seems to have been lost – the 2025 budget is 6.3% higher. Who thought this an acceptable approach.

Secondly, Considerations and Bold Moves on page 71. The title is impressive — the content is anything but bold.

If you were to assume, based on preamble, I started this review with skepticism – you would be correct. The two items above, a 6.3% increase to base budget and lack of bold moves are absolute derailers for me. Given our financial position – regardless of how we got here – I am ok with, as a taxpayer, to help improve the financial position of my city. Note: I said help – not carry it all. You totally missed it. Why would I as a tax paying citizen, or any other citizen believe we are being served by strong informed leadership? In essence you are pushing all of the fix onto us.

In closing – to keep it clear and simple: show me the math to $18,201,505 tax revenue increase. I can not find a pathway to that number. I realize MGA dictates certain rules you must follow – but it does not stop you from presenting a clear picture. Also, why would you list $512,317,612 – like it is the cash you will spend. Roughly, $89M is non-cash – it is an accounting transaction. I would like to see a summary of financials so I can reasonably assess how operations are doing — akin to EBITDA line in the for-profit world. In the absence of that summary, I have little confidence in Councils ability to reasonably assess operating performance.

I know from experience large organizations tend to grow organically and suffer from increasing
inefficiency over time unless specific actions are taken to correct the course.

You have a chance as Council and Administration to demonstrate leadership – the type that earns
trust and respect. Step up!

It is my intent to be helpful. I am happy to chat in more detail.
Al

PS: Please do not come back to me with it is a complicated operation and you do not understand.
I concede City operations have complicated elements but the nice thing about complicated – it
leads to prescriptive processes/procedures (easy to monitor and evaluate). Now on the revenue
side – there are some complexities that require more nuanced solutions.

Al Poole is a business and community leader. Former Site Leader Joffre Complex, Poole served with the United Way Central Alberta and Red Deer College.

Related Topics:#AlPoole #RedDeerCityCouncil feature RedDeerCityBudget2025

Don't Miss

It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Red Deer City Budget 2025: An Opportunity for Council to Step Up for Taxpayers

International / 1 hour ago

Trump sues New York Times for $10 billion over ‘false and defamatory statements’

Brownstone Institute / 4 hours ago

The Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury

Business

It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones

Published on November 16, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg

Are political parties more valuable than charities?

You’d be hard pressed to find a single Canadian that thinks so, but that’s how they’re treated under today’s tax system.

The way tax credits are handed out in Canada needs to be revamped. The system is broken, both federally and provincially. It’s time to stop giving big tax credits for political donations. Instead, let’s give tax breaks to folks when they donate to charity.

Consider this present-day scenario.

Last year, Sally donated $250 to the Conservative Party of Canada and another $250 to Save the Children. Jim donated $250 to the Ontario Liberals and another $250 to the Make a Wish Foundation.

When tax time came, the federal government let Sally use both her donations to lower her tax bill.

But one donation counted a lot more against Sally’s tax bill than the other. And it’s not the one that you might think.

For the Save the Children donation, Sally’s $250 donation netted a $44.50 credit towards her tax bill. The province added in another $15.90. That means she will get $60.40 back at tax time.

How about her political contribution?

Because it was a federal political party donation, Sally only received a federal tax credit. But the feds will give her back $187.50 when she files her taxes.

In other words, the amount Sally gets back from donating to a political party is three times as much as her donation to charity.

For those paying income tax, the tax credit situation for a $250 donation, both to charities and political parties, is identical at the provincial level.

Jim gets $60.40 back at tax time from his charitable donation and $187.50 from Queen’s Park for his provincial political donation.

That means the money Jim gets back from his provincial political donation, like Sally’s at the federal level, is three times larger than what he gets back for donating to charity.

On what sane planet should both the feds and Queen’s Park be giving out tax credits for political donations so much more generous than tax credits for making donations to charity?

Making a terminally ill child’s wishes come true should be valued more than helping politicians pay for political attack ads.

Canada’s provincial and federal governments should take funds that go toward tax credits for political donations and reallocate them to tax credits for charitable donations. Credits for political donations should be scrapped.

Tax credits exist to try to encourage behaviour. The whole idea behind it is that if you give folks a bit of a financial incentive to make a donation, they’ll be more likely to do so.

That makes sense when it comes to charities. It’s a worthy policy goal to have a tax credit in place to encourage Canadians to make donations to organizations that work to make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

But why should taxpayers be incentivizing donations to political parties? Why encourage Canadians to shell out money that will end up paying for leaflets, lawn signs and attack ads?

Some try to justify the tax credit regime by arguing that because political parties can’t take corporate or union donations, they need help encouraging individuals to make donations.

But ask anyone on the street, and they’ll tell you it’s charitable donations, not political ones, that should be encouraged.

If political parties can’t raise as much money without the tax credit, they should just spend less money. No one is going to shed tears over seeing fewer attack ads on television.

The sole goal of a political party is to get themselves elected. Why should they get credits of up to 75 per cent while charitable donations get trivial treatment?

It’s time to stop treating political parties like charities on steroids. That means putting political donation tax credits on the chopping block. Instead, the same money can and should be used to supersize tax credits for charitable donations.

Business

Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

Published on November 16, 2024

Todayville

News release from Oxfam International

Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance —nearly 40 percent of all climate funds disbursed by the Bank over the past seven years— is unaccounted for due to poor record-keeping practices, reveals a new Oxfam report.

An Oxfam audit of the World Bank’s 2017-2023 climate finance portfolio found that between $24 billion and $41 billion in climate finance went unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed.

There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible. It also remains unclear whether these funds were even spent on climate-related initiatives intended to help low- and middle-income countries protect people from the impacts of the climate crisis and invest in clean energy.

“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling,” said Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office. “This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”

The Bank is the largest multilateral provider of climate finance, accounting for 52 percent of the total flow from all multilateral development banks combined.

The issue of climate finance will take center stage at this year’s COP in Azerbaijan, where countries are set to negotiate a new global climate finance goal, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Climate activists are demanding the Global North provide at least $5 trillion a year in public finance to the Global South “as a down payment towards their climate debt” to the countries, people and communities of the Global South who are the least responsible for climate breakdown but are the most affected. Oxfam warns that the lack of traceable spending could undermine trust in global climate finance efforts at this critical juncture.

“Climate finance is scarce, and yes, we know it’s hard to deliver. But not tracking how or where the money actually gets spent? That’s not just some bureaucratic oversight —it’s a fundamental breach of trust that risks derailing the progress we need to make at COP this year. The Bank needs to act like our future depends on tackling the climate crisis, because it does,” said Donald.

Oxfam’s investigation revealed that obtaining even basic information on how the World Bank is using climate finance was painstaking and difficult.

“We had to sift through layers of complex and incomplete reports, and even then, the data was full of gaps and inconsistencies. The fact that this information is so hard to access and understand is alarming —it shouldn’t take a team of professional researchers to figure out how billions of dollars meant for climate action are being spent. This should be transparent and accessible to everyone, most importantly communities who are meant to benefit from climate finance,” said Donald.