Connect with us

News

Discussions Set To Begin On Red Deer’s 2017 Operating Budget

Published

8 years ago

5 minute read

By Sheldon Spackman

Red Deer City Council is set to consider the 2017  Operating Budget. Presentations and discussions begin at City Hall starting at 1:00 pm on January 10th.

After the approval of the 2017 Capital Budget and Ten Year Capital Plan on November 23rd, Council will now turn it’s attention to the $357 million Operating Budget which aims to focus on sustainability for both people and services by keeping tax increases to a minimum while maintaining core services.

Currently, the proposed Operating Budget calls for a 2.51 percent property tax rate increase in 2017, the number City Council will try to wittle down once deliberations begin. The two and a half percent property tax rate increase being proposed represents a $3.2 million increase to the Operating Budget, which includes a 1 percent increase for Capital amenities and growth. City officials say this would translate to a roughly $50 increase per year in the municipal portion of a property tax bill on a Red Deer home assessed at $325,000.

In regards to the 2.51 percent starting point for Council, Red Deer Mayor Tara Veer says “This is the lowest recommended operational budget in about 15 years of City history, Council’s recognition of the current state of our economy.” Veer adds however that despite the lower than normal property tax rate increase being proposed, “there may very well be movement anticipated in that recommended percentage as well.” Veer also points out that in Council’s guidelines regarding the Operating Budget, the currently proposed property tax rate increase of two and a half percent is close to inflation and maintains a Capital Savings Program to relieve the City from having to Debt finance.

City Manager Craig Curtis says “This is the most challenging Budget I’ve worked on since returning to the City. There are huge challenges financially because we’re seeing much less growth, which translates into less Revenue and as we see less Revenue, we’ve also seen a decline in the use of our Transit System and our Recreation, Parks and Culture facilities, so the Revenues from those have also affected this Budget.” As a result, Curtis says one of the key initiatives in the 2017 Operating Budget is to look after the social well-being of our community, so they are recommending that user fees for City facilities remains the same next year, the first time the City has recommended that in many years.

However, Mayor Tara Veer and City Manager Curtis also point out that they are both disappointed that the Province’s new three-year pilot program for a low-income transit pass subsidy for residents in Calgary and Edmonton, is currently not extended to other municipalities, making it unfair to Albertans in mid-sized cities such as Red Deer. Curtis says “This is a total inequity. The fact that they have a pilot project stemming from their Big City Charters, that invests millions of dollars in their Transit subsidies, is not fair to those who operate Transit Systems in the middle sized cities.” Mayor Veer adds to those sentiments by saying the mid-sized cities represent close to 900,000 Alberta residents, which means they are being treated inequitably from those in the two larger centres by being less able to participate in their communities or access things like employment and educational opportunities, as well as other community and government resources.

Manager Curtis says their latest survey results indicate roughly 15 percent of Red Deer’s population currently lives below the poverty line, with residents having identified Crime, Transportation and General Municipal Government Services as their top priorities for this Budget. He says it’s important to note that this recommended Budget makes investments in Crime Prevention, Safety and Homelessness, a recognition of some of the Social challenges Red Deer is facing.

Many local organizations including the Red Deer and District Chamber of Commerce however, are hoping for a zero or minimal tax rate increase this year.

Operating Budget discussions will continue on January 11th – 13th and on January 16th, 17th and 18th if needed.

(Thumbnail provided by the City of Red Deer)

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 1 hour ago

‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App

Crime / 2 hours ago

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 2 hours ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.

Continue Reading

Trending

X