News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Municipal Politics

occidentalcapital said:
7% jump is only a couple percentage points away from inflation. It's like a ~3% increase in normal times. point being it isn't much of an increase, people have to start understanding how inflation works.
Click to expand...
Actually, I understand last month's inflation rate was 3.8%.
 
^^
wishing that were so doesn’t necessarily make it so.

there is a big difference between maintaining existing services and maintaining existing services at the same service levels.

there is also the off-loading of service provision from the city to other entities (ie epcor for providing water and adding surcharge for storm drainage) whose increased charges for those services aren’t included in the city’s reporting of percentage increases in property taxes.

the same exclusion from the annual property tax increase calculation is true of fees for everything from garbage pickup to permits to parking to transit and user fees.

it would be one thing if the city were only in our pockets once and not multiple times.
 
Good points Ken. I am thinking the 7% does not include all of those fee increases, so the real increase is actually probably even higher.
 
This largely sums up the extra 2% tax increase the city is proposing.

From Michael Janz:
1.63% of the additional 2.13% tax increase to the new Police funding formula and recent police salary settlement.
 
And this doesn't even contemplate any potential future settlements with CSU 52 who hasn't seen a raise in over five years. I am surprised that salary settlements aren't something that is budgeted for in some way. I know you can't officially keep it on the books because it prejudices negotiations but it also shouldn't come as a shock when that happens, like "OMG these salary settlements came out of nowhere".
 
husky said:
And this doesn't even contemplate any potential future settlements with CSU 52 who hasn't seen a raise in over five years. I am surprised that salary settlements aren't something that is budgeted for in some way. I know you can't officially keep it on the books because it prejudices negotiations but it also shouldn't come as a shock when that happens, like "OMG these salary settlements came out of nowhere".
Click to expand...
Yes, if raises come as a surprise to the administration, they are really not doing their job or giving good advise to council. A good budget needs to anticipate this.
 
husky said:
And this doesn't even contemplate any potential future settlements with CSU 52 who hasn't seen a raise in over five years. I am surprised that salary settlements aren't something that is budgeted for in some way. I know you can't officially keep it on the books because it prejudices negotiations but it also shouldn't come as a shock when that happens, like "OMG these salary settlements came out of nowhere".
Click to expand...
well yes and no…

while it’s true that there hasn’t been an increase in pay scales over the past five years, it’s not true that csu members have not received raises in the last five years.

in fact, the difference between 1 and 6 on the csu pay scale can be as much as 25%. the only members not receiving increases over the past five years would be those at level 6 who were already the highest paid in their position and who also haven’t moved to a position with a higher scale in the interim.
 
kcantor said:
well yes and no…

while it’s true that there hasn’t been an increase in pay scales over the past five years, it’s not true that csu members have not received raises in the last five years.

in fact, the difference between 1 and 6 on the csu pay scale can be as much as 25%. the only members not receiving increases over the past five years would be those at level 6 who were already the highest paid in their position and who also haven’t moved to a position with a higher scale in the interim.
Click to expand...
It was exactly this kind of thinking that led to the creation of so many middle management positions as the only way to give quality people raises. People deserve an inflation raise at minimum without having to move up in positions.
 
TAS said:
This largely sums up the extra 2% tax increase the city is proposing.

From Michael Janz:
1.63% of the additional 2.13% tax increase to the new Police funding formula and recent police salary settlement.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the police salary settlement is negotiated at a national level, the City has to pay regardless.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
It was exactly this kind of thinking that led to the creation of so many middle management positions as the only way to give quality people raises. People deserve an inflation raise at minimum without having to move up in positions.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then we are paying twice - once for the raises they should have got and had to get in a roundabout way and later when inflation based increases are negotiated later.

I would say penny wise, pound foolish, but in this case its a lot of dollars. It also says something about the quality of our city political leadership's and senior management's thinking.
 
This is truly U N B E L I E V E A B L E in case you're interested in watching this.


Similar to Edmonton's current budget deficit, Chicago was facing a $150m deficit in 2008.

So the city, with the overwhelming support of council, decided to sell the rights to their 36,000 metered parking spaces to the bank Morgan Stanley for 75 years for $1.16 billion. Chicago would then not have a deficit and could invest the money for future infrastructure projects.

Parking rates at the time were 25 to 50 cents per hour. Morgan Stanley quickly quadrupled the rates and few years later Chicago had the most expensive parking rates in the country.

On top of it, if city construction was going on or a parade where some of those parking spots could not be used, the city had to pay Morgan Stanley for lost revenue. Also people who had disabled placards and didn't have to pay - well the city had to also make up that lost revenue to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars. And even during the pandemic during open streets, and increasing space for outdoor dining, the city had to reimburse the bank. As it turned out, Morgan Stanley has recouped their $1.16B plus made an extra $500 million with 60 years to go in the contract.

There is more incredibly idiotic parts of the deal outlined in the video. Oh, and Chicago spent all the money it made in the deal in 2 years an will have to continue to pay the bank for any lost parking revenue due to the above mentioned reasons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top