Connect with us

News

Discussions Set To Begin On Red Deer’s 2017 Operating Budget

Published

5 minute read

By Sheldon Spackman

Red Deer City Council is set to consider the 2017  Operating Budget. Presentations and discussions begin at City Hall starting at 1:00 pm on January 10th.

After the approval of the 2017 Capital Budget and Ten Year Capital Plan on November 23rd, Council will now turn it’s attention to the $357 million Operating Budget which aims to focus on sustainability for both people and services by keeping tax increases to a minimum while maintaining core services.

Currently, the proposed Operating Budget calls for a 2.51 percent property tax rate increase in 2017, the number City Council will try to wittle down once deliberations begin. The two and a half percent property tax rate increase being proposed represents a $3.2 million increase to the Operating Budget, which includes a 1 percent increase for Capital amenities and growth. City officials say this would translate to a roughly $50 increase per year in the municipal portion of a property tax bill on a Red Deer home assessed at $325,000.

In regards to the 2.51 percent starting point for Council, Red Deer Mayor Tara Veer says “This is the lowest recommended operational budget in about 15 years of City history, Council’s recognition of the current state of our economy.” Veer adds however that despite the lower than normal property tax rate increase being proposed, “there may very well be movement anticipated in that recommended percentage as well.” Veer also points out that in Council’s guidelines regarding the Operating Budget, the currently proposed property tax rate increase of two and a half percent is close to inflation and maintains a Capital Savings Program to relieve the City from having to Debt finance.

City Manager Craig Curtis says “This is the most challenging Budget I’ve worked on since returning to the City. There are huge challenges financially because we’re seeing much less growth, which translates into less Revenue and as we see less Revenue, we’ve also seen a decline in the use of our Transit System and our Recreation, Parks and Culture facilities, so the Revenues from those have also affected this Budget.” As a result, Curtis says one of the key initiatives in the 2017 Operating Budget is to look after the social well-being of our community, so they are recommending that user fees for City facilities remains the same next year, the first time the City has recommended that in many years.

However, Mayor Tara Veer and City Manager Curtis also point out that they are both disappointed that the Province’s new three-year pilot program for a low-income transit pass subsidy for residents in Calgary and Edmonton, is currently not extended to other municipalities, making it unfair to Albertans in mid-sized cities such as Red Deer. Curtis says “This is a total inequity. The fact that they have a pilot project stemming from their Big City Charters, that invests millions of dollars in their Transit subsidies, is not fair to those who operate Transit Systems in the middle sized cities.” Mayor Veer adds to those sentiments by saying the mid-sized cities represent close to 900,000 Alberta residents, which means they are being treated inequitably from those in the two larger centres by being less able to participate in their communities or access things like employment and educational opportunities, as well as other community and government resources.

Manager Curtis says their latest survey results indicate roughly 15 percent of Red Deer’s population currently lives below the poverty line, with residents having identified Crime, Transportation and General Municipal Government Services as their top priorities for this Budget. He says it’s important to note that this recommended Budget makes investments in Crime Prevention, Safety and Homelessness, a recognition of some of the Social challenges Red Deer is facing.

Many local organizations including the Red Deer and District Chamber of Commerce however, are hoping for a zero or minimal tax rate increase this year.

Operating Budget discussions will continue on January 11th – 13th and on January 16th, 17th and 18th if needed.

(Thumbnail provided by the City of Red Deer)

Follow Author

International

Cheatle resigned after two articles of impeachment were filed against her

Published on

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina

From The Center Square

Two articles of impeachment were filed against U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle just before she resigned Tuesday over security failures at the Pennsylvania campaign event where former President Donald Trump was shot.

A Florida congresswoman asked for criminal charges to be brought against her, and two Republicans, Greg Steube, R-Florida, and Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, took actions for her to be impeached.

After she resigned, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said Cheatle “will not get to slither away and enjoy retirement.” She still needed to be investigated for her “role in the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. There may be criminal charges coming in the future. I think she showed up to the Oversight Committee, refused to answer our questions, did not bring any of the information that we asked her to bring in subpoenaed, she came in and participated in a full cover up and then resigned … that speaks a message loud and clear.”

If Cheatle hadn’t resigned, she might have been the second cabinet member to be impeached by the House after her boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas was impeached on two counts in February for his role in creating the border crisis. Multiple Congress members and others have called for Mayorkas to resign following the July 13 assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump.

Greene also said Cheatle and Mayorkas “will face accountability for actions, including possible criminal investigations.”

Although Cheatle was an appointed officer, impeachment could still be possible. One presidential cabinet member was impeached after resigning, Secretary of War William Belknap, over corruption charges in 1876. The Senate said he was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned, according to the Congressional Research Service. He was later acquitted.

“The Secret Service calls themselves ‘one of the most elite law enforcement agencies in the world,’” Steube said. “What happened under their watch in Butler, Pennsylvania, was an international embarrassment and an inexcusable tragedy.”

On Monday, he filed one article of impeachment against Cheatle “for her dereliction of duty as it relates to the assassination attempt on President Trump’s life.”

The article states Cheatle “has negligently failed to uphold the agency’s mission and statutory charge to ‘ensure the safety and security’ of ‘protectees, key locations, and events of national significance.’”

It describes a range of security failures and conflicting statements Cheatle made to media outlets. It also addresses her action to shift the focus of the Secret Service from “solely providing the best protection services possible for protectees to meet arbitrarily set diversity hiring quotas.”

Mace also filed a privileged motion, requiring the House to vote on impeaching Cheatle within 48 hours. By the time she resigned, she had 24 hours left.

“This is an unprecedented resolution – never in American history has the House voted to impeach what is called an ‘inferior officer,’ or an appointed member of the administration who is not subject to Senate confirmation,” Mace said in a statement.

Cheatle’s “gross dereliction of duty since July 13th led to an unprecedented security breach and a preventable tragedy,” Mace said after an “absolutely egregious” performance at Monday’s Congressional hearing, where Cheatle testified. “She failed to provide us with answers. She failed to tell us a timeline. She failed in every way imaginable. As a result, her failure not only cost the life of someone, but also undermined the trust and confidence placed in the Secret Service by the American people. After today’s hearing – with the extreme lack of transparency and accountability, this impeachment resolution is a necessary step to hold her accountable for her actions.”

After several hours of committee members expressing frustration over Cheatle not answering questions, Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Kentucky, told her, “You answered more questions with an ABC News reporter than you have with members of Congress. You’re here with a subpoena and we expect you to answer the questions.”

Mace then hammered Cheatle with a series of yes or no questions. She first gave Cheatle the opportunity to use her five minutes to draft her resignation letter; Cheatle declined.

She asked if the Secret Service had “been transparent with this committee?” to which Cheatle replied, “yes.” Mace then asked if “the fact that we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today” was transparent and Cheatle attempted to answer but Mace cut her off saying, “no, we had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today.”

In response to Cheatle stating earlier that the Secret Service wasn’t political, Mace asked her how her opening statement was leaked to three media outlets several hours before the hearing. Cheatle said, “I have no idea how my statement got out.” Mace replied, “well that’s bull****.”

She also asked Cheatle if the Secret Service was fully cooperating with the committee; Cheatle replied, “yes.” Mace said the committee sent her a list of demands for information on July 15 and still hadn’t received answers. Each time Mace asked a question, Cheatle replied, “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” to which Mace replied, “that is a no.”

“You’re just being completely dishonest,” Mace said. “You are being dishonest or lying. These are important questions that the American people want answers to and you’re just dodging … we had to subpoena you to be here and you won’t even answer the questions. We’ve asked you repeatedly to answer our questions. These are not hard questions.”

Continue Reading

International

Texas judges issue additional rulings blocking Title IX revisions

Published on

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

From The Center Square

Rule change blocked in 15 states

Two federal judges have ruled in favor of Texas and Texas plaintiffs in separate lawsuits filed to block a Biden administration Title IX rule change from going into effect.

Texas is now the 15th state where the revisions are blocked from going into effect ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division on Friday granted the state’s request in a lawsuit filed by the state and two University of Texas at Austin professors. Kacsmaryk enjoined the U.S. Department of Education from “implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking any action any manner to enforce” a new rule that revised Title IX pending the resolution of the case.

“The Final Rule inverts the text, history and tradition of Title IX: the statute protects women in spaces historically reserved to men; the Final Rule inserts men into spaces reserved to women,” Kacsmaryk said in his 32-page ruling.

In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said, “Texas has successfully blocked Biden’s Department of Education from destroying Title IX protections for women and forcing radical ‘transgender’ ideology on Texas schools. Biden’s rule would have forced our schools to accommodate biological men on women’s sports teams and in female bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms, and required students and teachers to use incorrect pronouns. A federal judge has halted Biden’s rule pending a final ruling. It’s an honor to defend our State from Biden’s unlawful subversion of Title IX.”

Also on Friday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction against the rule in favor of Carroll Independent School District. In May, the district’s board of trustees, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, passed a resolution denouncing the Title IX changes and sued asking the court to block it from going into effect.

Also in May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott instructed the Texas Education Agency and Texas colleges and universities not to comply with the changes, The Center Square reported. In the last two legislative sessions, Abbott signed bills into law to strengthen student safety and “protect the integrity of women’s sports by prohibiting men from competing against female athletes.” Abbott said, “I will not let President Biden erase the advancements Texas has made.”

Judge O’Connor said in his ruling, “The compliance costs also go beyond monetary harm given the potential to infringe on constitutional rights. Privileging gender identity over biological sex is in no way authorized by the statutory text. And the consequences based on this statutory distortion appear limitless. For these reasons, and those stated by other federal courts, Carroll ISD is likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the final rule.”

The rulings were issued after O’Connor in June vacated a guidance issued by the DOE and the Department of Justice requiring schools to implement similar policies to the rule change before it was finalized. He also issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement in Texas, The Center Square reported.

Texas sued in June 2023 over the agencies’ mandates; the agencies are responsible for administering and enforcing Title IX.

At issue is Title IX, part of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

The law was enacted at a time when women and girls had limited athletic opportunities. Despite widespread opposition, including from women’s groups, the Biden administration began amending Title IX through several methods, arguing doing so would “advance educational equity and opportunity for women and girls across the country.”

It’s guidances and rule changes redefine biological sex to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

In response, 18 AGs argued the changes “demolished” women’s and girls’ rights, “making a mockery of Title IX’s fundamental organization principle – basic biology.”

After the Biden administration finalized the rule, multiple states sued. Texas sued on its own. Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho filed a lawsuit. Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming filed another. Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia filed a separate lawsuit. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina filed another.

So far, federal judges have ruled against the Biden administration.

In June, Louisiana, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty was the first to rule against the administration, blocking the administration’s changes from going into effect in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho.

O’Connor also ruled against the agency Title IX mandates in June.

In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves blocked the rule change from going into effect in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Then in July, in Kansas, District Judge John Broomes ruled against the administration, blocking the changes from going into effect in Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. And Judge Kacsmaryk blocked the rule from going into effect in Texas.

Continue Reading

Trending

X