Council, developers ink deal for new builds

Mayor wanted development subsidies to end

Calgary city council overwhelmingly approved a new five-year agreement with land developers that cuts subsidies for new neighbourhoods in half — adding an average of $8,000 to the cost of a new home.

Yet, taxpayers will still be on the hook for half of the cost of water and sewer infrastructure in new neighbourhoods. It’s a deal Mayor Naheed Nenshi strongly opposed because he wants suburban developers to pay the entire cost of new infrastructure.

“Are we better off than we were yesterday? Absolutely,” Nenshi told reporters. “Do I think we could have done better? Yeah, but I’m still nonetheless extremely happy.”

That’s one way to put it. But the fact remains that for the next five years, taxpayers will continue to subsidize water and sewer infrastructure in new developments — about $150 million, according to the mayor.

During the council meeting, Nenshi, who wants developers to pay 100 per cent of new infrastructure costs, asked city administration to renegotiate the deal so that it spans three years instead of five.

Council ultimately shot down that proposal, voting 12-2 in favour of the negotiated five-year agreement. Only Ald. Druh Farrell, who told her colleagues they are being “timid,” sided with the mayor (Ald. Ray Jones was absent for the meeting).

After the vote, many developers were grinning. “We’re very pleased that the city decided to stick with their original agreement,” says Michael Flynn, executive director for the Urban Development Institute.

“The mayor’s never backed away from his opinion — that he doesn’t think development doesn’t pay for itself,” said Flynn. “We disagree with his sentiment.”

While the mayor and developers both say they’re satisfied with the new deal, it doesn’t address the city’s $1.3 billion water and sewer debt. In 1999, council signed off on a deal that let developers off the hook for water and sewer infrastructure — and re-signed that same deal five years later.

Then the economic boom hit. Development exploded. And the city was forced to borrow heavily to pay for upgrades to water treatment plants as well as new water and sewer pipes.

Although the new agreement addresses future development, retroactive to last January, it doesn’t cover the cost of the existing debt. That burden will ultimately fall on most Calgary residents and business owners, who can expect “significant” increases to their utility bills over the next several years, says the mayor.

“Previous councils allowed this debt to grow and did not make any allocation to pay it off,” says Nenshi. “We really are going to have to look at adjusting the rates to make up for the sins of the past.”

According to the city, the average annual water and sewer bill for a single-family home is $900 (Calgarians’ water bills have increased by 15.8 per cent since 2009).

Calgarians will know just how “significant” their increases will be when city administration tables a detailed report on June 28.

 


Comments: 9

freethinking wrote:

too bad ....... sign of the times, sheeples.

on May 19th, 2011 at 4:35pm Report Abuse

Clairvoyant wrote:

Half a century ago, Calgary could build suburban single family communities, with single family homes, on wide lots, with full size streets, with back lanes, with water and sewer systems. But today it cannot. Strange. Maybe the hundreds of slush funds for pet projects (Peace Bridge, Airport Tunnel, Eau Claire & Ant Hill land deals, subsidized wind power,...) are where the cash goes? Maybe it is just that Nenshi, & Farrell, & Carra and their fellow travelers in Civic Camp can never find enough money to create the dystopia into which they wish to transform Calgary. But the unintended consequences will come, just as their policies created Cross Iron Mills. And of course, as the old water pipes continue to fail in the older communities, accelerated by densification, even more taxes will be required, because to Civic Camp, necessities can be used to justify higher taxes, while the multitudes of pet projects continue unhindered, unaudited.

on May 20th, 2011 at 11:03am Report Abuse

Editor Drew Anderson wrote:

Hehe. Now CivicCamp has joined the Master Planners that will doom us all to a world of Stalinist oppression. Crap. Ooh, here's a scary thought: what if the tinfoil companies are in on it? Then what will we do to protect ourselves from their planner rays? Ahhhhhhhhhhh!

on May 20th, 2011 at 11:45am Report Abuse

bohunk wrote:

Clairvoyant - developers can still build big yards, alleys, full size streets, etc. They just choose not to because they can make more money not doing so. It's all about margins, and why should taxpayers be paying for those big margins?

As for pet projects, I'm with you. The Eifel Tower is stupid. Bikes in Portland and Amsterdam? Whatever! Who wants to live in those dumpy cities!

Calgarians pride themselves on being entrepreneurial until it comes to forward-thinking infrastructure. Then they become lemmings.

on May 20th, 2011 at 1:52pm Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Both greenfield AND infill development is massively subsidised by taxpayers. Do you think Knightsbridge Homes and La Caille Group are paying the costs of the additional water, sewer and other infrastructure, for their TOD projects in Brentwood and Eau Claire? And who do you think pays for new water and sewer lines, as well as road and sidewalk repairs, when a duplex infill goes up in an established neighborhood? And who do you think will have to pay for new landfill space, since half of the non-recyclable crap filling up the current one comes from the housing construction industry? The City should be running a full cost-recovery model, here, rather than sticking it to taxpayers.

While I applaud Nenshi for taking half a step forward, here, 'Barney' and co. are making a mess of other things. Of course there's Druh Farrell's 'Peace Bridge' and rubber sidewalks. And there's the airport tunnel, the ring road...and Nenshi's wet dream--the Northwest LRT leg. Proposals for this fantastic, Billion-plus porkbarrel project have it running along Nose Creek, Edmonton Trail, or Centre Street. The first is an environmental disaster; the latter two are social and financial nightmares. Does City Council have any idea how much expropriating businesses and homes--THOUSANDS of properties--allong Centre would cost? And does council actually think THOUSANDS of property owners will accept this? This kind of mad profligacy is just a continuation of the Bronconier era. Fortunately, though, the Province doesn't have the cash to fund this lunacy, and Nenshi's pet 'Penny Tax' is a non-starter.

on May 21st, 2011 at 3:40am Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

How Come Department.

1. How come most people ignore municipal politics but over-concern with international or federal issues? They overlook what they have the best chance of influencing in favour of that upon which they have the least chance.

2. How come Calgary municipal government has an utter inability to create a logical long-term plan? E.g.;
(a) I have ZERO interest in subsidising construction of over-sized monstrosities in what will be future ghettos at Calgary's ever-expanding fringes. Pay for your own house, Jack. I'm trying to pay for mine.
(b) Why didn't the L.R.T. go to the airport in 1983? Is that because Edmonton's doesn't? In the real world -Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Amsterdam, even much smaller cities like Dusseldorf, the L.R.T. goes to the airport.
(c) Re: Farrell's Folly, Bronconnier's Boner, the Piece of Our Wallets, if anyone seriously thinks that people will visit Calgary to see it except to laugh at it, they are badly mistaken. And its tragic story is not even fully written yet. How much more $ and time until it is finished?
(d) If the City did not erect those stupid pennants on ever-other lamp post, how much $ could we save? Do I REALLY need these things telling me that I am on Memorial Dr. every 30 M. as I drive along it? Or at ANY other place the damned things - municipal graffiti, tax-purchased weeds - pollute our landscape?

on May 21st, 2011 at 2:13pm Report Abuse

dog dog wrote:

Oh Ron, Ron, Ron...

The ghettos are downtown. I used to live in Connaught. Got tired of bums pissing beside dumpsters. Housing was also very expensive when I was looking to buy.

I have ZERO interest in subsidizing downtown projects - why can't you rich folks simply pay for items such as the Talisman reno yourself?

on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:59pm Report Abuse

dog dog wrote:

@bohunk,

No, developers can't do that - there are density restrictions in place. Something like 15 houses/hectare or something like that.

@Pionek/Quadrant/Agent666,

The original plan was to also have a levy put into place for infill/inner city development. You want your conspiracy theory? There's a nice one brewing here...

on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:04pm Report Abuse

Ron wrote:

For "dog dog": Where do you get the delusion that I live downtown or am "rich"? Did you even bother to READ what I wrote before blasting away? Houses have never been larger. Families have never been smaller. Utility bills will continue to rise - exponentially if the provincial bill for more power lines passes.
The only way houses in Arbour Lake, Copperfield, etc. will be manageable is if the owners can attract renters to fill up the empty rooms. They won't be able to charge much because renters can get places closer to work - less transit time and cost. This will make these areas into new ghettos within 20-30 years.
MY point was that I have ZERO interst in subsidising ANYBODY's projects. As I said - pay for your own damn house. I'm busy trying to pay for mine.

on May 25th, 2011 at 1:43pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use