Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 154 of 154

Thread: The City's Skyrocketing Debt

  1. #101
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    City funding and debt is much more nuanced than the general public will have information for. Some quick facts I know of to help the discussion:

    - Our share of the gas tax revenue is currently going to pay off the debt incurred by the South LRT line until 2021. At that point almost $500m will be available to fund other projects. Theoretically this could be used to help pay for the West LRT line (SE line scheduled to be complete in 2019).
    While you're talking with your contacts at the city, could you also check the accuracy of your second claim? My understanding is that the federal gas tax revenue was dedicated to repaying the South LRT debt for 20 years starting in 2011. In other words, until 2031, not 2021.

    Here is an excerpt from an Administration Report:
    "The South LRT (SLRT) project was extended past the Health Sciences station and was completed in 2010 at Century Park. Due to the cost of the project, Edmonton borrowed $574M to cover the costs. In 2005, the Federal Government announced a grant program titled the New Deal for Cities and Communities (NDCC) which has since been
    extended to 2014 and beyond under a new name, Federal Gas Tax Fund. This fund could be used for new public transit projects including
    LRT. City Council made the decision, in 2005, to direct the NDCC dollars to the SLRT project. This program also allowed for Edmonton to borrow against future payments of the grant program and included debt servicing charges as an eligible expense. However, this means that all Federal Gas Tax Fund (NDCC) dollars are committed to SLRT until 2031, when the debt is retired."
    See Attachment 2, p. 2 here: http://www.chba.ca/uploads/urban_cou...on%20paper.pdf

    While the 2013 federal budget provision to index the gas tax fund to inflation will add some dollars in future years, it will be nowhere near $500 million.

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,743

    Default

    I say go ahead with the projects that have been approved but that's enough for now. Time to concentrate on roads, schools, snow removal, etc. for a decade or so. There are a lot of projects that have been given the green light, enough for now. Let's cool it and get back to those basic things that need to be done for a few years. Imo

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    City funding and debt is much more nuanced than the general public will have information for. Some quick facts I know of to help the discussion:

    - Our share of the gas tax revenue is currently going to pay off the debt incurred by the South LRT line until 2021. At that point almost $500m will be available to fund other projects. Theoretically this could be used to help pay for the West LRT line (SE line scheduled to be complete in 2019).
    While you're talking with your contacts at the city, could you also check the accuracy of your second claim? My understanding is that the federal gas tax revenue was dedicated to repaying the South LRT debt for 20 years starting in 2011. In other words, until 2031, not 2021.

    Here is an excerpt from an Administration Report:
    "The South LRT (SLRT) project was extended past the Health Sciences station and was completed in 2010 at Century Park. Due to the cost of the project, Edmonton borrowed $574M to cover the costs. In 2005, the Federal Government announced a grant program titled the New Deal for Cities and Communities (NDCC) which has since been
    extended to 2014 and beyond under a new name, Federal Gas Tax Fund. This fund could be used for new public transit projects including
    LRT. City Council made the decision, in 2005, to direct the NDCC dollars to the SLRT project. This program also allowed for Edmonton to borrow against future payments of the grant program and included debt servicing charges as an eligible expense. However, this means that all Federal Gas Tax Fund (NDCC) dollars are committed to SLRT until 2031, when the debt is retired."
    See Attachment 2, p. 2 here: http://www.chba.ca/uploads/urban_cou...on%20paper.pdf

    While the 2013 federal budget provision to index the gas tax fund to inflation will add some dollars in future years, it will be nowhere near $500 million.
    That report is from 2011 and things change, but assuming you are correct, gas tax is indexed to inflation, and $500m represents the future borrowing potential the gas tax can service
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 08-07-2013 at 02:15 PM.
    www.decl.org

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I agree with moahunter on this, sprawl and low density communities have high relative costs and low tax base. Simply increasing density on infill using most of the same infrastructure like roads, sewer, snow removal, existing schools, fire services etc while increasing the revenue without all the capital costs. That is the smart in smart growth. Grow inward, not outward.
    Edmonton really is lagging here. For example, Nenshi in Calgary has lead his council to stop approving sprawl (Calgary also massivley eased restrictions on infill - eg allowing simple subdivison of single lots in mature neighborhoods). The results have already been dramatic (even though prior approved sprawl and neighboring city sprawl continues, albeit is becoming more expensive as available land reduces) - a massive acceleration of beltline and east village development. The quarters and muni lands (not to mention downtown, glenora gates, north edge, etc) will never be sucessful until a council in Edmonton has a leader who can guide them to do the same.

    Edmonton should be leading Calgary in residential downtown given the lower land prices, but it won't happen until the mayor has no links to sprawl developers (eg no campaign funding from) and the supporting council stand up for residents ahead of land speculators. When that happens the debt problems will decline.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-07-2013 at 05:35 PM.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^Yes and no. I totally agree with your sentiments, but this is more than just Edmonton's problem. This is a regional governance issue and the fact Edmonton has to work with so many other municipalities to curb sprawl. We're on the right track with the CRB, but it takes massive amounts of effort and political perseverance.
    www.decl.org

  6. #106

    Default

    Big debt. No fear ; Edmonton 'nowhere near' declaring bankruptcy like Detroit: city official

    Publication: The Edmonton Sun

    Date: Sat Jul 20 2013

    Page: 3

    Section: News

    Byline: Angelique Rodrigues City Hall Bureau

    Source:

    Story Type:

    Length: 378 Words





    Many a major city might be taking a second look at the debt its carrying after Detroit -- with an $18-billion debt -- shocked millions by declaring bankruptcy Thursday.

    Though Edmonton's current debt is now past the $2-billion mark, officials say the city could actually carry more without cause for concern.

    "We are always monitoring our debt in terms of limits and the debt we can service," said Peter Ohm, manager of urban planning and environment for the city.

    "We are nowhere near being a Detroit."

    According to the city's finance department, Edmonton's debt ceiling is close to $4 billion -- $3.9 billion in 2012 -- about two times the city's annual revenue.

    At 48% of its provincially permitted debt limit, Ohm says the city is "quite healthy".

    "However, that's not to say we don't take it lightly; we try to make sure we're on top of the issues that Detroit eventually faced," said Ohm, noting Detroit's population decline from about 1.8 million to around a current 700,000.

    'JOB LOSS'

    "With the decline in population in Detroit -- they lost 60% of their population since the '50s -- they lost a huge amount of their residential tax base and with that, came job loss."

    Edmonton -- with a population of 818,000 -- is on the opposite end of that spectrum, says Ohm, pointing out that the population has been increasing steadily over the last decade.

    "Edmonton is always keeping their eyes on that, in fact that's one of the reasons for the annexation," he said.

    "You can grow by growing out spatially -- so that you take in more land and area and therefore your property taxes grow -- or you grow your assessment by having more investment within the city."

    In fact, he says a smart city does both, which is why Edmonton is also investing so heavily in the downtown core.

    "I think we are in a mode were we are certainly building a city here," said Ohm.

    "And when you build stuff, you leverage other things like private investment and such."

    As for where we fall in terms of other Canadian cities, Calgary's debt load crested $3 billion back in 2011 -- 59% of its debt limit.

    Meanwhile, Grande Prairie was at at 75% of its limit as of 2011, at almost $148 million worth of debt.

    @SunAngeliqueR
    www.decl.org

  7. #107

    Default

    I was wrong about the number, if these are correct.
    www.decl.org

  8. #108

    Default

    I posted this on another forum... but basically, when looking at the City's debt consider this:

    Based on the Dec 31, 2012 financial statements, if the city took its financial assets (cash, investments, receivables, etc) and paid off all debt, the city would still have around $1 billion in cash. That's ignoring all of the hard assets the city has (land, etc).

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I agree with moahunter on this, sprawl and low density communities have high relative costs and low tax base. Simply increasing density on infill using most of the same infrastructure like roads, sewer, snow removal, existing schools, fire services etc while increasing the revenue without all the capital costs. That is the smart in smart growth. Grow inward, not outward.
    Edmonton really is lagging here. For example, Nenshi in Calgary has lead his council to stop approving sprawl (Calgary also massivley eased restrictions on infill - eg allowing simple subdivison of single lots in mature neighborhoods). The results have already been dramatic (even though prior approved sprawl and neighboring city sprawl continues, albeit is becoming more expensive as available land reduces) - a massive acceleration of beltline and east village development. The quarters and muni lands (not to mention downtown, glenora gates, north edge, etc) will never be sucessful until a council in Edmonton has a leader who can guide them to do the same.

    Edmonton should be leading Calgary in residential downtown given the lower land prices, but it won't happen until the mayor has no links to sprawl developers (eg no campaign funding from) and the supporting council stand up for residents ahead of land speculators. When that happens the debt problems will decline.
    Totally agree
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #110
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Edmonton should be leading Calgary in residential downtown given the lower land prices
    Totally incorrect, at least in terms of multi-unit residential. Land costs are a minor factor in the total cost of large residential developments. What really counts are the costs of construction and real estate values. Edmonton has slightly higher costs of construction, with significantly lower real estate values (by 20-30% at least). Because of that developers find it extremely difficult to make the numbers work for high rise residential in Edmonton.

    In-fill stuff I'm less familiar with the issues, but I'd imagine that a significant part of it is that Edmonton's employment nodes are much more spread out, with fewer people proportionately working downtown, and therefore it makes sense for people to buy detached homes in the burbs (whether in Edmonton or surrounding bedroom communities) for less than what they'd pay for a duplex or townhouse centrally located, because they won't face an hour long commute to get downtown since they likely don't work there anyways. And even if they do work downtown, their commutes and parking are far less costly than in Calgary, time and money wise.

  11. #111
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    ^^^The concern is not so much the existing debt level but the relatively short time (10 years) in which the City has gone from being almost debt free to borrowing 53.44% of its MGA limit (as of December 31, 2012).

    Of even greater concern is that the existing debt level has yet to incorporate future borrowing for major projects like the downtown arena, SE LRT, and the airport lands.

    It can also not be assumed that the strong assessment growth/low interest rate scenario of the past decade will continue indefinitely into the future.

  12. #112

    Default

    What level is an acceptable risk level will be different for each person, but at a civic level all factors say they should be borrowing while we continue to grow as a city. Not spending on infrastructure and services like we did under previous mayors is not acceptable. Maybe not to pay for things growing outwardly, but to pay for more services as the more people move to this city. We are unfortunately playing catch up.
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 23-07-2013 at 10:13 AM.
    www.decl.org

  13. #113

    Default

    While there's smart debt and stupid debt, the neat thing about debt is that none of that matters as much as the simple requirement that you have to have the cash flows to make the interest payments and retire the debt or roll it, if you can't retire it.

    City's debt sparks debate

    Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...9-bf5e2082e340

    Excerpt:

    ...

    "Edmonton's total obligations have almost tripled to $2.7 billion since councillors removed a policy against borrowing in 2002.

    "This year, the city will pay $223 million for loan interest and principle, the budget's sixth..."
    ...
    "The situation worries retired management consultant Andrew Brown, ..."
    Last edited by KC; 29-07-2013 at 09:06 PM.

  14. #114

    Default

    Funny....Detroit just approved an arena to revitalize their downtown.

  15. #115
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,743

    Default

    I think many cities in n America that set their city limits, did not expand into new areas, have had nothing but problems. The suburban towns , cities and counties have prospered while the city propers suffered and many to the point of decay. This may be something the politicians have taken into consideration.

  16. #116
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    GUNTER: Edmonton's debt doesn't add up.

    ...

    It may not be dire, but consider this: debt repayment and debt servicing are together the second largest expenditure in the city budget. Only policing costs more.

    Of Edmontoniansí property taxes, 18% go to policing, 13% to debt financing, 12% to transit and 11.5% to fire rescue. Parks and community services consume 11% of our taxes, roads 8%. Neighbourhood renewal - replacing sidewalks, blacktop and street poles -- is just 4.5%.

    Yet the cityís plans to spend more money in the future, not less. That makes our debt a problem.
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/07/2...-doesnt-add-up
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, itís not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  17. #117

    Default

    Kind of interesting to contrast Kent's and Gunter's articles. Gunter is all chicken little, the sky is falling. Kent actually talks about who is financing the debts (feds/province, revenue from the investments, 1/3 from property taxes), and the fact we borrow at an absurdly low rate. When you dig deep, we're getting a fantastic return on our dollar, something multitudes of times better than the average homeowner gets on a mortgage (and plenty of people think mortgages are good debt). I'm glad I only get 20 free articles a month reading the Sun, keeps me from reading too much of their drivel.

  18. #118

    Default

    Maybe that's harsh, but as a business man I'd love to be in the city's shoes. Incurring debt when building assets is the reality for most businesses and the city has the sweetest repayment terms you can possible get (guaranteed low interest rates, revenue generation, Momma Alberta and Papa Canada pitching in a buck for every buck we do). In fact, I hope we go balls out and build a waste management empire while the going is good, cause that is something that should be a cash cow in the long run.

  19. #119
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Most of the major projects are long-term debt. We're lucky to have a growing population and tax base.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  20. #120

    Default

    ^Exactly. Detroit's problems and our debt have absolutely nothing in common. What I'm hearing from the anti-debt types is they don't want rec centres, overpasses, police or fire stations, new roads or LRT.

    It's time for the province to step up to it's responsibilities too. Either give cities the tools to find the money, but don't 'balance' the provincial budget by slacking on infrastructure dollar responsibilities for the cities.
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 30-07-2013 at 12:08 AM.
    www.decl.org

  21. #121
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bolo View Post
    Maybe that's harsh, but as a business man I'd love to be in the city's shoes. Incurring debt when building assets is the reality for most businesses and the city has the sweetest repayment terms you can possible get (guaranteed low interest rates, revenue generation, Momma Alberta and Papa Canada pitching in a buck for every buck we do). In fact, I hope we go balls out and build a waste management empire while the going is good, cause that is something that should be a cash cow in the long run.
    ^ This.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rime ice View Post
    Funny....Detroit just approved an arena to revitalize their downtown.
    You have to remember metro Detroit is still a population center of 4.5 million. Even if Detroit proper is only 700,000
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  23. #123
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Edmonton's "soaring debt."

    hahahahahahaha

    Seriously, what a laugh. Folks do know the city borrows at incredibly low rates from the municipal finance corporation/agency/board/whatever.

    And folks do know that said corporation/blah/blah sets a limit on how far in debt the City can go.

    And that Edmonton is nowhere near that limit.

    Most anyone over the age of sixteen in Edxmonton could cover a cheque to pay off their entire portion of the per capita civic debt - this afternoon.
    ... gobsmacked

  24. #124

    Default

    ^ I know hey...

    Every debt item has a repayment schedule and dedicated funds. So much of it is borrowed against promised gov't funds. (like the gas tax)

    and you know what.. if I had a rev stream of a billion dollars and I could secure borrowing at 1.6% for 30 years I would be borrowing too!

    LOL... what a joke.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  25. #125
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    And of course, Edmonton exists in a vacuum and is totally unaffected by events going on elsewhere.


    Alberta Premier Alison Redford needs to come clean on how much flood relief is going to cost Alberta taxpayers.

    Will it be $1 billion, the money already set aside? $2 billion? $5 billion? More?

    Is this relief going to bankrupt this province for a generation? Will the billions paid out for flood relief make it next to impossible for the Alberta government to help build schools, hospitals, roads, rec centres, LRT and C-train?


    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...n-flood-costs/
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, itís not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  26. #126
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    and you know what.. if I had a rev stream of a billion dollars and I could secure borrowing at 1.6% for 30 years I would be borrowing too!
    The currently posted ACFA borrowing rate for a 30 year term is 3.703%, more than double your 1.6% claim. Link:http://www.acfa.gov.ab.ca/nav/rates.html

  27. #127

    Default

    Ok now give me a line by line break down that is on our debt ledger and the rate...

    as per the article there are items on it with rates as low as 1.6%

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...9-bf5e2082e340

    Interest rates charged on the $344 million borrowed last year ranged from 1.6 per cent to 3.3 per cent
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  28. #128

    Default

    Who says all our debt is 30 year debt? And most of our debt servicing is paid through other levels of government funding... GreenTrip and others...

    but oh no... sound the alarm. Edmonton has a tiny bit of debt, most of it paid through other programs. .. but don't let that stop the usual hate parade from the usual bandits.

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Ok now give me a line by line break down that is on our debt ledger and the rate...

    as per the article there are items on it with rates as low as 1.6%

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...9-bf5e2082e340

    Interest rates charged on the $344 million borrowed last year ranged from 1.6 per cent to 3.3 per cent
    As per the ACFA interest rate table above, the 1.6% would apply to the shorter 3 (or perhaps 5) year borrowing terms, not the 30 year terms which have considerably higher rates.

    Not sure the City publishes a schedule of outstanding loans with term lengths and interest rates. Should they do so and I happen to find it, I'll try to remember to provide a link.

  30. #130
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,493

    Default

    Oil royalites were great when Ralph klein was in power. and gov't made money but Ed Stemblach change it and we started to lose large amount of money that will take care of Provincial budget. I believe that Tories blew it big time for not going back to fix oil royalites.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  31. #131
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,289

    Default

    From the 2012 Financial Report to Citizens

    http://edmonton.ca/city_government/f...rt+to+Citizens









    Last edited by IanO; 31-07-2013 at 11:56 AM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Ok now give me a line by line break down that is on our debt ledger and the rate...

    as per the article there are items on it with rates as low as 1.6%

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...9-bf5e2082e340

    Interest rates charged on the $344 million borrowed last year ranged from 1.6 per cent to 3.3 per cent
    As per the ACFA interest rate table above, the 1.6% would apply to the shorter 3 (or perhaps 5) year borrowing terms, not the 30 year terms which have considerably higher rates.

    Not sure the City publishes a schedule of outstanding loans with term lengths and interest rates. Should they do so and I happen to find it, I'll try to remember to provide a link.
    It doesn't the point is mute... Every item on that ledger has repayment terms. We know where the money is coming from and it's all budget for.

    You are arguing semantics.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Oil royalites were great when Ralph klein was in power. and gov't made money but Ed Stemblach change it and we started to lose large amount of money that will take care of Provincial budget. I believe that Tories blew it big time for not going back to fix oil royalites.
    relevant how.....?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  34. #134
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    ^^So when you said above the City "could secure borrowing at 1.6% for 30 years", you meant to say the City "could borrow for rates as low as 1.6% and terms as long as 30 years." Got it.

  35. #135

    Default

    ^ 1.6-3.2 any way you cut its historically low rates.

    Lets not pretend that it's anything but.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    "This year, the city will pay $223 million for loan interest and principle, the budget's sixth..."
    $223m represents about 7% of our annual budget, approximately only half is for interest payments.
    www.decl.org

  37. #137

    Default Unfunded municipal pension liabilities

    One thing not addressed here or mentioned in city and provincial budgets is the exponential growth in pension liabilities brought on by inept wage and benefit settlements.

    Here's a brief discussion of this problem here making the potential for disaster very real for many taxpayers here in Edmonton and Alberta.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2591701131001
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  38. #138

    Default

    Except that our pension plans are already prepared for this...

  39. #139

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    One thing not addressed here or mentioned in city and provincial budgets is the exponential growth in pension liabilities brought on by inept wage and benefit settlements.

    Here's a brief discussion of this problem here making the potential for disaster very real for many taxpayers here in Edmonton and Alberta.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2591701131001
    Do more research... the world is not Detroit.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    One thing not addressed here or mentioned in city and provincial budgets is the exponential growth in pension liabilities brought on by inept wage and benefit settlements.

    Here's a brief discussion of this problem here making the potential for disaster very real for many taxpayers here in Edmonton and Alberta.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2591701131001
    Do more research... the world is not Detroit.
    Somebody did not view the video provided. ( speaking of doing more research before replying)
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  42. #142

    Default

    ^ the question is largely being asked because of what is happening in Detroit.

    I have been following sim discussions about many major cities in the USA.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    ^^Through the Local Authorities Pension Plan, the provincial government is 100% responsible (and liable) for the pensions of City of Edmonton employees.

    While I happen to think the LAPP is in pretty solid financial shape, this is the topic for a separate thread. It has nothing to do with the City of Edmonton's growing debt.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Through the Local Authorities Pension Plan, the provincial government is 100% responsible (and liable) for the pensions of City of Edmonton employees.

    While I happen to think the LAPP is in pretty solid financial shape, this is the topic for a separate thread. It has nothing to do with the City of Edmonton's growing debt.
    ^How so, given there is only one taxpayer?
    Did you view the attached video?
    There were several examples of impending problems here in Canada.
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  45. #145

    Default

    It's the sun news network....

  46. #146
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

  47. #147

    Default

    There are underfunded pension plans all over the place.. I would not worry about any Alberta gov't funded pension plans all signs point to VERY healthy population growth.

    This sun media rant you refer to is missing real world context.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  48. #148

    Default

    I don't know if its an issue in Edmonton or Alberta but if you have to rely on population growth to meet your pension obligations you have a serious problem in unsustanability.

    Now we may or may not have a problem but its also not fair for our children to pay the pensions of people working now when we don't . Who is going to pay the pensions of the people working 30 years from now or 60 years from now..

  49. #149

    Default

    If your population is stable or growing it shouldn't be an issue.

    Index pensions, which are becoming increasingly rare, were often the issue and you are correct it was a structural issue.

    Detroit ran into problems because a population of 700,000 was paying for an ex civil service of double that.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  50. #150
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Through the Local Authorities Pension Plan, the provincial government is 100% responsible (and liable) for the pensions of City of Edmonton employees.

    While I happen to think the LAPP is in pretty solid financial shape, this is the topic for a separate thread. It has nothing to do with the City of Edmonton's growing debt.
    ^How so, given there is only one taxpayer?
    Did you view the attached video?
    There were several examples of impending problems here in Canada.
    Watched the video. Reference was made to Saint John, NB and Montreal, QC facing possible shortfalls in their municipal employee pensions.

    Even if true, nothing to do with the City's debt since municipal (local authority) pensions in Alberta are under the purview of the province.

    If you wish to discuss the LAPP, I suggest starting a new thread.

  51. #151

    Default

    Any thoughts on this situation now? Should we borrow more now to take advantage of any opportunity to improve our infrastructure at a lower cost than during stronger economic times?

  52. #152

    Default

    Edmontons economy about to get hit hard . Its economy dependent on big government spending . Redwater upgrader . RAM. Arena, remand. Airport , lrt almost all done . Governments not spending like it use too

  53. #153

  54. #154
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Edmontons economy about to get hit hard . Its economy dependent on big government spending . Redwater upgrader . RAM. Arena, remand. Airport , lrt almost all done . Governments not spending like it use too
    How does one go about to make you go away?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •