Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Expect surprises in the new Alberta Government Municipal Government Act

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,812

    Default Expect surprises in the new Alberta Government Municipal Government Act

    Expect surprises in the new Alberta Government Municipal Government Act

    ELISE STOLTE

    ....

    Taxing urban blight
    Edmonton wants a new tax class to deal with those muddy parking lots downtown or the empty store fronts on otherwise hopping main streets.

    Currently, itís allowed one tax rate for everything not residential. And the bill is based on what the land is worth. An empty lot pays less than a building, much less than a nice building, giving a bonus to those who let their property decay.

    ďItís essentially creating blight,Ē said Iveson, who wants the ability to charge derelict or vacant land a higher rate.

    Edmontonís formal submissions also suggest the city could tax higher-density residential areas less to encourage infill.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...government-act
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  2. #2

    Default

    Details of those changes now public.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...s-and-services

    The provincial government is giving cities, towns and counties three years to figure out how to plan and share costs for regional services, everything from roads to swimming pools to policing.
    It means industry taxes from Strathcona County could be used to upgrade the Beverly Bridge in Edmonton, but the details of such an agreement will be determined by local political leaders.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  3. #3

    Default Expect surprises in the new Municipal Government Act

    It would be good to give municipalities a bit more flexibility in setting tax rates based on density or considering use (or non use) of commercial properties.

    Vacant and derelict properties are a blight, especially those that have been vacant or derelict for years that the owners do nothing about. Perhaps a higher tax rate would provide some incentive to the owners to do something.

    I would go about it the other way on density, rather than have a higher rate for low density development (which is much of residential property), I would have a lower rate for higher density in prescribed zones, such as some areas downtown, near LRT, etc.. That way no existing residential property owners would be penalized, but higher density development would be encouraged where appropriate.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The most important thing in the amendments is the new Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework. The news hinted at what this will do with the revenue sharing component, but it stretches much further. The ICF contains a mandatory Intermunicipal Development Plan, and must address future growth and development and the servicing of that growth and development.

    It is a very major change to planning in Alberta.

    As well, there is a new requirement for all municipalities to pass a Municipal Development Plan (previously only those with a population above 3,500 had to).

    There are also new offsite levies for rec facilities, libraries, police stations, fire halls - provided 30% of the benefit of the facility is accrued to the new development (an asinine requirement that can't be calculated and will only lead to constant appeals).

    Another big kicker - the province is centralizing industrial assessment.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,324

    Default

    Not sure this will happen as the three 3 year period will end at the time of the next election which has to happen by May 31st 2019. There is also the consultation period, amendments, which means the process will take at least 4 perhaps 5 years.
    If they wanted this to happen they should make some small incremental changes during each session with the intention of getting you to the same goal.

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Yes, it will happen. This is not one they can "go back on", and frankly I don't think any party would want to. Only change I see happening is if Wildrose is elected - they ran on changing provincial grant system for municipalities (10-10-10).

    This piece of legislation has been in the works for years. It is a massive amount of work and the foundation was all laid in the PC era.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The new 30% benefit accrual requirement for offset levies is absolute trash.

    How is it possible to even calculate that? How can a rec centre accrue benefit specifically to a single area, and be tracked in doing so?

    Moreover, it looks like these offsite levies will only be able to be used in Edmonton and Calgary because there are 0 developments in other places large enough to fill 30% of the total benefit of any facility - the facilities service the whole community and outside the community.

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
  •