Official Brian Bowman Thread

[Biff]

^^^ Very well said.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

I think a better connection would be between the increase in the police budget year after year while the budget for recreation is pretty stagnant. Maybe those two are more interrelated?

Just talking about this the other day with a friend, would be interesting if a chunk of the policing budget in this city/province went into programming for youth with FASD/ARND to keep them active in positive ways. Would free up police resources and courts for sure.

Read a very interesting article in a local publication called LIFESTYLES 55 written by Dorothy Dobbie, where Ms Dobbie wrote, "Security for this city gobbles up half of the property tax, four times the amount to be spent on roads." And furthermore, "Almost half_ 44'5 per cent_ of your property dollar goes to support the police and firefighters. No wonder the city can't afford flowers for its streets_ let alone solutions to crumbling curbs and potholes!", ... these two services gobble up $442.3 million_ police $264M and firefighters $178.3M, ......street renewal will get $640M over S I X years." Also, a headline reads, " Bright young councilors should avoid defending the budget."

I would urge all the local members to pick up a copy of this informative newspaper and read the article in its entirety_ for themselves.

Just a bone for members to pick at and compare to their salaries:

POLICE SALARIES AND BENIFITS

Starting salary $51,204.33

First class (five years) $93,098.77

Overtime time and a half first four hours, double after that.

Uniforms, drycleaning and clothing allowance

120 hours (3 weeks) sick leave

Vacation 3 weeks after one year, 4 after five, 5 after thirteen, 6 after 21.

Pension after 25 years and retirement after 55, whichever comes first

Fire Fighter

Salary $51,000 to start to $129,000 with benefits.

[esquire]

^ She has a point. We obviously need cops... probably more on a per capita basis than any other Canadian city with more than 300,000 people. But the costs are getting out of hand... $442 million for fire and police out of a $994 million operating budget seems high... that's 44.5%!

By contrast, Edmonton, which is similar in many ways to Winnipeg, will spend 24% of their operating budget on fire and police.

[Cyro]

Lest we forget, It was a campaign pledge by our newly elected mayor, as others before him, to open Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic.

By his account, in some of his current media releases, he feels that that most property owners that would be effected are all for the opening of the intersection.

Unfortunatley this probably will not be the case.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Read a very interesting article in a local publication called LIFESTYLES 55 written by Dorothy Dobbie, where Ms Dobbie wrote, "Security for this city gobbles up half of the property tax, four times the amount to be spent on roads." And furthermore, "Almost half_ 44'5 per cent_ of your property dollar goes to support the police and firefighters. No wonder the city can't afford flowers for its streets_ let alone solutions to crumbling curbs and potholes!", ... these two services gobble up $442.3 million_ police $264M and firefighters $178.3M, ......street renewal will get $640M over S I X years." Also, a headline reads, " Bright young councilors should avoid defending the budget."

I would urge all the local members to pick up a copy of this informative newspaper and read the article in its entirety_ for themselves.

Just a bone for members to pick at and compare to their salaries:

POLICE SALARIES AND BENIFITS

Starting salary $51,204.33

First class (five years) $93,098.77

Overtime time and a half first four hours, double after that.

Uniforms, drycleaning and clothing allowance

120 hours (3 weeks) sick leave

Vacation 3 weeks after one year, 4 after five, 5 after thirteen, 6 after 21.

Pension after 25 years and retirement after 55, whichever comes first

Fire Fighter

Salary $51,000 to start to $129,000 with benefits.

Good post, add to that the pensionable overtime that's only found in Winnipeg for the WPS and becomes an even bigger joke, well not exactly funny for Winnipeg taxpayers, guess that's why most WPS members live outside city limits.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Good post, add to that the pensionable overtime that's only found in Winnipeg for the WPS and becomes an even bigger joke, well not exactly funny for Winnipeg taxpayers, guess that's why most WPS members live outside city limits.

WPS compensation is in line with that of other cities. If it wasn't competitive Winnipeg would be losing police left and right to other cities. I have several friends that are cops. They all live in the City.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

WPS compensation is in line with that of other cities. If it wasn't competitive Winnipeg would be losing police left and right to other cities. I have several friends that are cops. They all live in the City.

I think the jest of the article was, "Almost half_ 44'5 per cent_ of your property dollar goes to support the police and firefighters."

Which means that your property tax dollar isn't going to pay too much of the improvements that are needed around the City. The only way Capital Projects get done in Winnipeg is the extra kick that the Feds and the Province gives us.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by alittle1

I think the jest of the article was, "Almost half_ 44'5 per cent_ of your property dollar goes to support the police and firefighters."

Which means that your property tax dollar isn't going to pay too much of the improvements that are needed around the City. The only way Capital Projects get done in Winnipeg is the extra kick that the Feds and the Province gives us.

Winnipeg is completely reliant on the generosity of the higher levels of government and our ability to generate enforcement revenue. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that we continuously build infrastructure that decrease our ability to generate property tax revenue; not only that, we build that infrastructure with debt spending.

So our expenses go up -- in the form of the costs of carrying debt -- but our income goes down. This isn't the proper way to create "sustainable infrastructure". We will do nothing but continue to increase fees for water/sewer/garbage, increase enforcement for parking/speeding/by-law infractions, and continue to beg for more money from our "superiors".

I'll step off my soap box now...

[Urban recluse]

The province must bestow Winnipeg more freedom (powers) to determine what levies, etc it decides to create to raise revenue.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The province must bestow Winnipeg more freedom (powers) to determine what levies, etc it decides to create to raise revenue.

Does it matter who takes our money in that case? It's not a revenue problem, if it was the City could just raise taxes. The problem is our mindset and the paradigm with which they are viewing the problem (much like how you view it). They (and you) see is as "we don't make enough money so we want more revenue sources, and more control over our revenue sources".

I think the problem isn't the amount or the source of the revenue, it's the investments we make with the revenue we have. Does it matter how much money we take in if we spend it on project that don't make money?

If I take my wages and invest it all in Beany Babies thinking, eventually, my cow will come home, if only spend enough on them, do you think I'm making a good choice?

Well, this is pretty much what the City is doing. They aren't doing any sort of ROI analysis on any major transportation infrastructure project. Sure, you might get the odd project that returns money, much like you might have one rare Beany Baby, but the difference is I can say "look, this one Beany Baby made a big return!", can the City?

Ask the City how much tax revenue we generated as a result of the Chief Peguis Trail extension. It's an infrastructure "investment", it should create a real return. They can't give you an answer. $255 Million dollars in "investment" combined from all levels of the government and they couldn't tell you how much money it's made in the 4 or 5 years it's been open.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Does it matter who takes our money in that case? It's not a revenue problem, if it was the City could just raise taxes. The problem is our mindset and the paradigm with which they are viewing the problem (much like how you view it). They (and you) see is as "we don't make enough money so we want more revenue sources, and more control over our revenue sources".

I think the problem isn't the amount or the source of the revenue, it's the investments we make with the revenue we have. Does it matter how much money we take in if we spend it on project that don't make money?

If I take my wages and invest it all in Beany Babies thinking, eventually, my cow will come home, if only spend enough on them, do you think I'm making a good choice?

Well, this is pretty much what the City is doing. They aren't doing any sort of ROI analysis on any major transportation infrastructure project. Sure, you might get the odd project that returns money, much like you might have one rare Beany Baby, but the difference is I can say "look, this one Beany Baby made a big return!", can the City?

Ask the City how much tax revenue we generated as a result of the Chief Peguis Trail extension. It's an infrastructure "investment", it should create a real return. They can't give you an answer. $255 Million dollars in "investment" combined from all levels of the government and they couldn't tell you how much money it's made in the 4 or 5 years it's been open.

Partially, as raising property taxes would no doubt irk people more than other ways to raise revenue. Also, the city has to beg and plead with the province for additional money. Given the size of the city compared to the province, it being the economic engine, it should have more power regarding its ability to generate revenue.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Partially, as raising property taxes would no doubt irk people more than other ways to raise revenue. Also, the city has to beg and plead with the province for additional money. Given the size of the city compared to the province, it being the economic engine, it should have more power regarding its ability to generate revenue.

I don't want to give more money to the City to waste on projects that actually put the City in a worse financial position. I don't want to give them more power to generate revenue. I would rather the City do real Cost/Benefit analysis, not hide behind the guise of "asset management" and pretend that their spending is somehow sustainable. It's not.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Ask the City how much tax revenue we generated as a result of the Chief Peguis Trail extension. It's an infrastructure "investment", it should create a real return. They can't give you an answer. $255 Million dollars in "investment" combined from all levels of the government and they couldn't tell you how much money it's made in the 4 or 5 years it's been open.

I'm not crazy about more new roads, but I'm not sure I'd attack them from the angle of "they don't pay for themselves" because then you're exposing just about everything the city does... I mean, do parks, emergency services, libraries, transit pay for themselves?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not crazy about more new roads, but I'm not sure I'd attack them from the angle of "they don't pay for themselves" because then you're exposing just about everything the city does... I mean, do parks, emergency services, libraries, transit pay for themselves?

The 2 biggest capital budget lines are water/waste water and transportation (aside from the one off police HQ's). They make up >70% of all capital spending. Transit, <5%, Libraries (and all recreation including Community Clubs, Pools/Wading Pools, Leisure Centres, Rec Fields, etc.) <4%.

Further, if by "exposure" you mean it shows that more spending in those areas actually increases our property tax revenue you could imagine how much better the City would be.

EDIT: I should add, it's pretty easy to see property value increases as a result of amenities nearby. It's how they sell homes: every listing -- close to public transit, close to schools, close to parks... Do you see any listings saying close to expressway? No, because that doesn't generate very much property value.

[esquire]

^ Maybe a new library is a tiny part of a capital budget, but if it's just a drain on the civic treasury then why build it? Same with water and waste projects. I've heard people trot out that logic to attack transit improvements.

Profitability is a great yardstick to assess expenditures if you're a bank or an insurance company, but I don't see why it's relevant to a municipal government.

[bomberjet]

At the open house for Marion Widening, I asked about how much tax revenue will be lost with all the demo's that were part of the plan. I got a blank stare back and then they said "I don't know, we don't do that". And they kind of tucked their tails in.

While I agree with some aspects of what you're saying Steve-O, i don't see how increasing spending on libraries, hockey rinks or parks will somehow increase revenue. The City makes diddly squat off their facilities. They're there for the benefit of the public. If anything, it costs the City money to run all that stuff.

The City is planning on spending somewhere around $400M for the west Chief Peguis Extension. Regardless of personal opinions, this roadway opens up lands for development, similar to what Bishop Grandin did in the south end. That roadway is going to generate a large amount of tax revenues based on all the housing, etc that will be developed because the roadway is there. Yes? Over the next say 50 years, I'll bet that roadway will pay for itself. Maybe. No numbers to back it up of course.

But roadways like the east Chief Peguis extension will obviously have zero financial benefit, based on taxes, because the area is widely built out. It provide vehicles with a through route, which is something that is required. Takes all the traffic off local streets, make it safer for all the kids and what not. It's a benefit to the public lifestyle, not to the public purse.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The City is planning on spending somewhere around $400M for the west Chief Peguis Extension. Regardless of personal opinions, this roadway opens up lands for development, similar to what Bishop Grandin did in the south end. That roadway is going to generate a large amount of tax revenues based on all the housing, etc that will be developed because the roadway is there. Yes? Over the next say 50 years, I'll bet that roadway will pay for itself. Maybe. No numbers to back it up of course.

Now that I doubt. Not only would you be building a huge part of the city, but it all needs to be serviced with cops, firefighters, physical infrastructure (sewers, recreational facilities) not to mention all of the other roads in the region. Add to that the fact that new sprawl hastens the emptying out of inner city areas... would we really have all those depressed real estate values in the North End and West End (and consequent low tax revenues) if there weren't so much sprawl?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

The 2 biggest capital budget lines are water/waste water and transportation (aside from the one off police HQ's). They make up >70% of all capital spending. Transit, <5%, Libraries (and all recreation including Community Clubs, Pools/Wading Pools, Leisure Centres, Rec Fields, etc.) <4%.

Further, if by "exposure" you mean it shows that more spending in those areas actually increases our property tax revenue you could imagine how much better the City would be.

EDIT: I should add, it's pretty easy to see property value increases as a result of amenities nearby. It's how they sell homes: every listing -- close to public transit, close to schools, close to parks... Do you see any listings saying close to expressway? No, because that doesn't generate very much property value.

Real estate listings in cities that actually have expressways will advertise easy access to one. Obviously that's beneficial. Being right next to one is detrimental due to the noise.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

Now that I doubt. Not only would you be building a huge part of the city, but it all needs to be serviced with cops, firefighters, physical infrastructure (sewers, recreational facilities) not to mention all of the other roads in the region. Add to that the fact that new sprawl hastens the emptying out of inner city areas... would we really have all those depressed real estate values in the North End and West End (and consequent low tax revenues) if there weren't so much sprawl?

Well all those new developments should be paid for by the builders/owners and taxed so they are at a net zero cost, right? haha ya i get the sprawl thing.

So what do we do, nothing? Serious question, not being a dick.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

At the open house for Marion Widening, I asked about how much tax revenue will be lost with all the demo's that were part of the plan. I got a blank stare back and then they said "I don't know, we don't do that". And they kind of tucked their tails in.

While I agree with some aspects of what you're saying Steve-O, i don't see how increasing spending on libraries, hockey rinks or parks will somehow increase revenue. The City makes diddly squat off their facilities. They're there for the benefit of the public. If anything, it costs the City money to run all that stuff.

The City is planning on spending somewhere around $400M for the west Chief Peguis Extension. Regardless of personal opinions, this roadway opens up lands for development, similar to what Bishop Grandin did in the south end. That roadway is going to generate a large amount of tax revenues based on all the housing, etc that will be developed because the roadway is there. Yes? Over the next say 50 years, I'll bet that roadway will pay for itself. Maybe. No numbers to back it up of course.

But roadways like the east Chief Peguis extension will obviously have zero financial benefit, based on taxes, because the area is widely built out. It provide vehicles with a through route, which is something that is required. Takes all the traffic off local streets, make it safer for all the kids and what not. It's a benefit to the public lifestyle, not to the public purse.

I mentioned in my edit that these things do generate real property value; if they didn't they wouldn't be mentioned in the property listings. People value these things. People don't value roads, or at least they don't value them as much as they cost.

If your frontage levy had to be the total cost of the road in front of your house, ie. If your street frontage is 50 feet and you specifically had to pay for the 50 feet (or half it with the person across the street), do you think people would build roads as wide as they have in front of their houses? Of course not, no one would want to live on a 38 foot wide street. Because there is no real value to having a street that wide. They would build a narrower road and spend the rest of their money on things that they actually value.