[Boris2k7]

Okay, I've had about enough of this. Let's kick these guys out of office.


Stelmach balks at signing 10-year city funding deal

Colette Derworiz and Kim Guttormson, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Premier Ed Stelmach rejected calls Monday to sign a contract committing the $1.4 billion in annual infrastructure dollars he has promised to municipalities, suggesting it would be a liability for the provincial government.

Stelmach, who had his first public encounter with Dave Bronconnier since the mayor started accusing him of breaking his word in the April 19 provincial budget, said there's a 10-year deal for municipalities.

"Our commitment is $1.4 billion (each year) over the next 10 years," Stelmach told reporters following a speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Calgary. "We were very clear during the leadership. I am the only one that offered, that put the $1.4 billion on the table.

"So it's there," he said.

Bronconnier has suggested there needs to be a 10-year contract in place so the city can count on the money to build multi-year projects.

However, Stelmach dismissed those calls on Monday.

"That would be looked at as a liability, like a debt. It's a contract," he said. "A contract . . . means you show it immediately in this year's books as a liability. And we haven't done that in the past."

Bronconnier called Stelmach's claim "preposterous," noting the city already has two other contracts with the provincial government for infrastructure funding -- including a gas tax deal returning nearly $90 million annually to Calgary, and a five-year contract delivering $177 million each year until 2010 as part of a catch-up fund announced by former premier Ralph Klein.

"I don't know why any government would announce a 10-year program and then not be prepared to sign a contract to deliver that amount of money to the community in which they promised the money for," said Bronconnier, noting the city needs a long-term funding supply to deal with long-term projects.

Under the new provincial program, municipal funding will be phased in over four years, starting with $400 million this year, $500 million next year, $600 million in 2009-10 and $1.4 billion in 2010-11.

Calgary is eligible to receive $127.5 million this year for affordable housing, roads, transit and community facilities.

But the mayor insists only $42 million in unconditional cash is available to address the city's $5.5-billion infrastructure backlog.

Bronconnier also suggested the city needs a long-term commitment to get started on major projects such as a sewage treatment plant or the west leg of the LRT, which he delayed after the provincial budget was released because there was no long-term commitment.

"How do you go about building multi-year long-term projects on one-, two-, three-year money?" he said. "It just doesn't work."

The mayor said he can't understand why the province won't deal with his concerns.

"Calgary's money, Calgary's priorities, Calgary's infrastructure," Bronconnier said. "It only appears to be the people in Edmonton who have a difficult time with that concept. If you've made a promise, why not just deliver?"

"Why can you say that you can't deliver on a 10-year program, then why did you announce it?"

cderworiz@theherald.canwest.com
kguttormson@theherald.canwest.com
=========================================================

Uhhh, and to the Edmontonians reading this, when our mayor says "It only appears to be the people in Edmonton who have a difficult time with that concept. If you've made a promise, why not just deliver?" he is talking about the government, not about you guys. Just in case that wasn't obvious... just don't want to turn this into a vs thread. ;)

[Coldrsx]

yay

[The Chemist]

Stelmach is a buffoon. 'We have a 10 year commitment, until we don't feel like committing anymore and decide to break that commitment.' Great job, country boy. Go back to the farm. :rolleyes:

How the hell is the city supposed to have the ability to build multi-year projects like the new LRT lines (which will easily take 4 or 5 years to build) when the province absolutely refuses to make a commitment that the funding will be there?

[feepa]

Eddie has got to go... At first I thought I liked him, but lately, he's really gone sour. Get rid of him

[brento79]

Where is good leadership?! Stelmach I thought you would be a good change, but so far you are no better. I don't care for Taft either so what does that leave us?

[Jasper and one o nin]

Im still pissed that the government postponed funding to build the Nait campus on the south side of edmonton. In a time where this province is starving for trades and the tech institutions are having to turn students away. Prices are through the roof because of the shortages... and what does the Stelmach government do... "No funding for you!"

[Lyle]

"Calgary's money, Calgary's priorities, Calgary's infrastructure," Bronconnier said. "It only appears to be the people in Edmonton who have a difficult time with that concept. If you've made a promise, why not just deliver?"

Even Calgary's mayor appears to hate Edmontonians. Must be something in the air. :haha:

[feepa]

Even Calgary's mayor appears to hate Edmontonians. Must be something in the air. :haha:

When he refers to Edmonton, hes referring to the provincial government... silly.

[Coldrsx]

Even Calgary's mayor appears to hate Edmontonians. Must be something in the air. :haha:

i believe it is called manure

[Doug]

The Province can't committ to a ten year agreement because its own revenue stream is uncertain due to oil and gas pricing.

Honestly, municipalities in Alberta need some perspective. Their infrastructure funding is far and a way the highest in the country (I read that Calgary spends anout 6 times per capita on infrastructure than Toronto). Every year since the late 90's new spending has been announced and municipaities still clamour for more. If anything, municipalities in Alberta are overfunded as indicated by the inflationary spiral that excessive spending has created. They definately haven't shown an ability to manage their exisiting funding as virtually every project is behind schedule and massively over budget.

[Coldrsx]

^is that a funding issue or a labour/material issue?

[newfangled]

Calgary's money, Calgary's priorities, Calgary's infrastructure," Bronconnier said. "It only appears to be the people in Edmonton who have a difficult time with that concept.

Isn't there a rumour that he wants to be liberal premier at some point?

Good luck with that.

[lubicon]

I really don't see what the big deal is. As Doug mentioned, the revenue stream for the province is to unpredicatable to commit to a 10 year plan. The health regions and school boards all operate on 3 year plans as does the province. There is no reason the province cannot commit to a 3 year deal with the city and renew it on a yearly basis thereby providing the same stable funding that Bronco is after. Committing to a 10 year plan would be irresponsible on the government's part.

Bronco really needs to be realistic about this whole thing. He can still get the funding he wants (and probably will in the end) without making a mountain out of a molehill and crying like a baby every time he doesn't get his way. It seems like every time a major project is mentioned for Calgary he immediately starts to spout off about how the city doesn't have the money and the province (or someone else) will have to step up or the project will never happen. (LRT, Airport expansion, Stoney Trail etc all come to mind).

And I'm getting really sick of the media reporting that the LRT expansions have been cancelled/delayed by Bronco as a result of the lack of funding. He does not have the authority to unilaterally approve or cancel any project in this city, that is a Council decision not his to make alone. Neither of the LRT legs have even been brought to council for approval yet. How can they be cancelled when they have not even been approved yet.

[Innersoul1]

The Province can't committ to a ten year agreement because its own revenue stream is uncertain due to oil and gas pricing.

Honestly, municipalities in Alberta need some perspective. Their infrastructure funding is far and a way the highest in the country (I read that Calgary spends anout 6 times per capita on infrastructure than Toronto). Every year since the late 90's new spending has been announced and municipaities still clamour for more. If anything, municipalities in Alberta are overfunded as indicated by the inflationary spiral that excessive spending has created. They definately haven't shown an ability to manage their exisiting funding as virtually every project is behind schedule and massively over budget.

you make some valid points but keep in mind that the majority of large infrastructure (subway, highways, freeways) in Toronto have been in place for a long time now. Wheras in Calgary population increases have put HUGE pressures on undeveloped infrastructure necessitating increased spending on infrastrucure

[Doug]

^is that a funding issue or a labour/material issue?

Many factors influence labor and material costs in the construction market, some of which can be controlled. The construction industry cannot grow fast enough to meet the demands of simultaneous booms in industrial, residential, commercial and institutional building, leading to massive inflation. Publically funded projects are most susceptible to inflation as governments are less likely to balk and increasing costs.

[Bassic Lab]

I really don't see what the big deal is. As Doug mentioned, the revenue stream for the province is to unpredicatable to commit to a 10 year plan. The health regions and school boards all operate on 3 year plans as does the province. There is no reason the province cannot commit to a 3 year deal with the city and renew it on a yearly basis thereby providing the same stable funding that Bronco is after. Committing to a 10 year plan would be irresponsible on the government's part.

Bronco really needs to be realistic about this whole thing. He can still get the funding he wants (and probably will in the end) without making a mountain out of a molehill and crying like a baby every time he doesn't get his way. It seems like every time a major project is mentioned for Calgary he immediately starts to spout off about how the city doesn't have the money and the province (or someone else) will have to step up or the project will never happen. (LRT, Airport expansion, Stoney Trail etc all come to mind).

And I'm getting really sick of the media reporting that the LRT expansions have been cancelled/delayed by Bronco as a result of the lack of funding. He does not have the authority to unilaterally approve or cancel any project in this city, that is a Council decision not his to make alone. Neither of the LRT legs have even been brought to council for approval yet. How can they be cancelled when they have not even been approved yet.

The provincial government can and should pledge to get out of the bussiness of property tax. The entire premise of the educational portion of the property tax is unfair and flawed. It is purely a method of stripping wealth away from cities to subsidize rural areas. Why is it in any way fair for Calgarians to be paying a far larger property based provincial tax than other residents of the province when all the funds are combined.

If there is to be a tax meant to fund a portion of the cost of education in this province it should apply equally to the entire province. Preferably it would be based on income or consumption, it just should not have a different rate for every different municipality.

[polishavenger]

10 years is excessive, as the governing party may change several times in that time frame (not likely, but who knows what will happen). I dont think the city has any projects that take 10 years to build once committed to anyway, and if they do, well all things in life carry risk. If 3 years into the project, the market turns around and the money dries up, well I guess you either divert funds from other projects or you cancel.

[jeffwhit]

^^ Yeah, but the province should be pledging to stop collecting the education portion of the property tax permanently.

[EdmTrekker]

[QUOTE=Doug;2879475]The Province can't committ to a ten year agreement because its own revenue stream is uncertain due to oil and gas pricing./QUOTE]

The why did he promise it. As an EDMONTONIAN - I agree with the Mayor of Calgary...one other thing I agree with is that Stelmach has to go and 35 years of the Tories has to come to an end...time for a breath of fresh air.

[DizzyEdge]

The[n] why did he promise it. As an EDMONTONIAN - I agree with the Mayor of Calgary...one other thing I agree with is that Stelmach has to go and 35 years of the Tories has to come to an end...time for a breath of fresh air.

Stelmach is learning on the job?

[Policy Wonk]

My grandfather called Diefenbaker Diefencracker, unfortunately I can't think of anything that rolls off the tounge quite so nicely for Stelmach.

[Beltliner]

My grandfather called Diefenbaker Diefencracker, unfortunately I can't think of anything that rolls off the tounge quite so nicely for Stelmach.

Maybe "Special Ed"? Or is that too cruel? ;)

[Xelebes]

Maybe "Special Ed"? Or is that too cruel? ;)

hah, that's a gooder!

[Innersoul1]

My grandfather called Diefenbaker Diefencracker, unfortunately I can't think of anything that rolls off the tounge quite so nicely for Stelmach.

Stelmachiavellian :haha:

Doesn't reallly work but sounds funny!

[Xelebes]

Stelmachiavellian :haha:

Doesn't reallly work but sounds funny!


Well, it works if we're going for irony.

[Innersoul1]

Let irony rule the masses!

[e909]

uhm, how would you like if 1997 infrastructure levels were funding our current growth? or how about 1975 levels in 1985?

maybe this is why it's a bad idea. it shouldn't be year by year, but ten years is a little excessive to commit to. 5 would be more reasonable.

[Boris2k7]

uhm, how would you like if 1997 infrastructure levels were funding our current growth? or how about 1975 levels in 1985?

maybe this is why it's a bad idea. it shouldn't be year by year, but ten years is a little excessive to commit to. 5 would be more reasonable.

Fair enough, but what is clear to me is that Stelmach has been avoiding as much commitment to municipal funding as he possibly can, and wants to make sure that it is on his own terms as much as possible.

[The Kid]

Stelmach became Premier largely as everybodys second or third choice.

The excuse of him not being able to perform miracles in 6 months is already getting tired. He seems to have no idea how important the big cities are to the overall wealth/prosperity of the province. He has bungled every single thing he has touched and should go back to Vegreville where perhaps he could run for Mayor. Running that little town is probably a better fit for his qualifications.

[RicoCan]

My grandfather called Diefenbaker Diefencracker, unfortunately I can't think of anything that rolls off the tounge quite so nicely for Stelmach.

Stall-mach?

[vaportrail]

uhm, how would you like if 1997 infrastructure levels were funding our current growth? or how about 1975 levels in 1985?

maybe this is why it's a bad idea. it shouldn't be year by year, but ten years is a little excessive to commit to. 5 would be more reasonable.

Indeed, comrade. The politburough shall proclaim a plan of five years.

[jeffwhit]

Stall-mach?

That's a little too Sun Mediaesque for my liking, Special Ed has that ring of cruelty and lack of taste I just love, I'm going with it.

[dubiousmike]

That's a little too Sun Mediaesque for my liking, Special Ed has that ring of cruelty and lack of taste I just love, I'm going with it.


Cruelty and lack of taste is my specialty. So I'll be going with Smellmach.

[CanadianCentaur]

I can imagine Stelmach's popularity sinking like a stone right now.

[lubicon]

I can imagine Stelmach's popularity sinking like a stone right now.

I think there was a poll last week that showed the PC's support down drastically in Calgary, down slightly in Edmonton, and up significantly in rural Alberta.

[tarapoto]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me

Stelmach...the real cause of Chinooks?