Despite commentary by The City of Calgary about the reduced number of assessment appeals in recent years and less volatility in the real estate market there is nothing to suggest that the 2013 property assessments are on balance more fair and equitable then in prior years. In the circumstances continued vigilance is imperative as The City of Calgary is placing ever increasing reliance on revenue from taxation of commercial property.

In 2012 the successful rate for appeals by non-residential property owners professionally represented through the complaint hearing process was above historic levels. At least one agency reporting complaint decision success rates of approximately 50%. Considering the dramatic increases in property tax which will be experienced by for example owners of downtown office buildings a comprehensive review of individual assessments and participation in initiatives to reduce the growing delta between the non-residential and residential tax rates is critical. From 2012 to 2013, overall Property Assessments per square foot for Downtown Office Properties increased 44.0%. Individual building class increases are; AA : 23.4%, A : 38.3%, B : 112.2%, and C : 101.5%.* From 2012 to 2013, overall Revenue Neutral Property Taxes per square foot for Downtown
Office Properties increased 20.1%. Individual building class increases are; AA : 2.9%, A :
15.4%, B : 77.1%, and C : 68.3%.**

Statistics of successful appeals suggest that there remain many opportunities to obtain favorable changes to assessments either during the Customer Review Period presently underway or through filing an assessment complaint. In addition with a review of the Municipal Government Act in process there is an unprecedented opportunity to implement a new assessment system which better serves and is more responsive to the needs of non-residential property owners. We have undertaken a number of important initiatives to ensure that the negative impact on the competitiveness of Calgary from ever increasing reliance on non-residential property tax and the growing disparity between non-residential and residential tax rates is understood and mitigated. In addition we will be pursuing all possible avenues such that the interests of our members are identified and addressed during the review of the Municipal Government Act.

* Source Altus Group, January 6, 2013

** Source Altus Group, January 6, 2013

By William G.R. Partridge, President & Chief Staff Officer

A general evacuation order has been issued. You have a few short hours to prepare yourself. Are you ready? What are the consequences if you are not? Hurricane/tropical storm Sandy forced one of the largest evacuations seen on the eastern seaboard. It also precipitated the largest pre-emptive shut down of the public transportation system thus reducing evacuation options.

We all have an expectation to be safe; a condition we often take for granted. Recent events such as the earthquake in British Colombia and the major weather event on the east coast, “Franken-storm” are reminders of our vulnerability, and perhaps reminders of our lack of personal preparedness. It is fact – we have no control over these kinds of events. What we can control is our response to them. BOMA Calgary members who own and operate most of Calgary’s office, retail, industrial and other buildings have emergency plans aimed at a disciplined response to virtually every type of emergency. As a tenant in a building, perhaps you have been a participant in a fire drill or even a practice building evacuation. These are “rehearsals” designed to test the plans and the role of each of the key personnel such that in the remote event of a real situation everything will go smoothly.

At a personal level a number of years ago I was stranded in Innisfail for three days by a freak spring snow storm. This demonstrates emergencies can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. A typical response to an emergency is anxiety, particularly when separated from loved ones, and caring for dependants and pets. There is uncertainty about how long the emergency might last, along with distress about one’s physiological needs like water, food and medications. Having just returned from a business trip, I was completely unprepared. I was totally dependent upon others for my very survival. Needless to say, I have completely changed my approach to personal safety and survival. Not only do I have a “go pack” at home, I have one my office and another in my vehicle. I am therefore able to sustain myself for at least 24 hours or longer if necessary. I may not be completely comfortable, but I will be alive.

BOMA is an invited partner with CEMA, the Calgary Emergency Management Agency, and works with this group through our Public Safety Committee. This means that BOMA is a key communications partner to assist in disseminating critical messages should there may be a major city-wide emergency. BOMA also sends out important messages, such as pending wind incidents. These wind incidents are not uncommon in Calgary and there were a number of these earlier in the year. In cooperation with city officials, BOMA has crafted a set of best practices. These are of course aimed at one thing – public safety.

Despite all the planning and preparation there is every likelihood that in a general emergency, particularly a catastrophic one, the emergency responders may not be able to reach people for as much as 72 hours. As participants in an emergency planning event in Washington, D.C. this October, senior BOMA Staff contributed to a hypothetical scenario involving a dirty bomb which required buildings to be locked down immediately : no one in, no one out. What would you do in that situation? Do you have all your emergency numbers for your spouse, your children? Do you have your medications to see you through the next 24 – 72 hours? It is something to think through.

The prevailing planning information encourages us to have a “go bag” in our home, but do you have one at work? In your car? We can never know when a major emergency might occur so it does pay to be prepared.

Preparation is why the BOMA Public Safety Committee is dedicated to keeping building occupants safe. The safety teams contemplate emergency situations and plan for them. In particular, if people have to take shelter in an office building, plans are in place. BOMA takes your safety seriously and the association, together with CEMA, work together to ensure a timely and appropriate response to any local situation.

There is no denying that it costs a great deal of money to operate a city like Calgary.  There is no denying that we must pay taxes, even though we may gripe about it.  There is no denying that people in cities like Calgary continuously seem to demand more and more services from the City.

But where can we get this additional revenue, on the assumption that it is actually required.  Those who demand the additional services tend not to want to pay higher taxes and are quite content to have that burden imposed on businesses and high income earners.  But is it fair to do that?  At the end of the day, we all end up paying those costs whether it is directly as taxes or in the form of higher housing, food and transportation taxes, and not to forget, the sin taxes on booze, smokes and the like.

As we come in to a municipal election next year, there needs to be some public discussion about future municipal funding.  It is already being talked about but in a not-so-public way.  As part of the Growth Management Study, the City of Calgary is looking into these additional mechanisms which if any or all are implemented will most likely result in a higher cost of living and doing business in Calgary.

And these costs could hit Calgarians were they least expect it.  The list below identifies areas for revenue potential/new taxes that the city administration was directed to examine and report back to committee at a later date.

• Assessment sub-classes
• Congestion charges/peak rate
• Special taxes
• Borrowing from Alberta Capital Finance Authority (ACFA)
• Developer or Municipal Issued Bonds
• Public-Private partnerships (P3s)
• Fuel Tax
• GST
• Hotel Tax
• Income Tax Sharing
• Land Value Capture Tax
• Permanent Area Contributions
• Private Utilities
• Property Insurance Tax
• Property Transfer Tax
• Revolving “Industrial Servicing ?Fund
• Sharing Revenue (gaming, alcohol, tobacco taxes)
• Vehicle Insurance Tax
• Vehicle Registration Tax

This represents a taxation regime that could significantly impact the lives of every Calgarian and every business in Calgary.  It has the potential to shift the balance of competitiveness for our city in a local, regional, national and even international context. What is the relationship of these tax streams as proposed to property taxes? Will the latter be diminished as revenue is derived from other sources?  How will these taxes impact low-income Calgarians? How will Calgary’s competitive position be maintained?

While the end position is not known, nor can be known until decisions are made, the fact remains that most if not all of these funding mechanisms remain outside the authorities afforded to Alberta municipalities under the current Municipal Government Act.  However, that Act is now under review by the province.  It may be that these taxes, which tend to be more user-oriented, are a good thing.  It may be that such a structure could be harmful to the growth of business in Alberta. The outcome is unknown. The public discussion is yet to come.

In the meantime it behooves us all to become informed, to understand to affect critical thinking, and to prepare to pose questions to those who seek public office in next year’s local elections.

Are cities equipped for the future? With continued urbanization exacerbated by population increase driven by Alberta’s unprecedented economic expansion, will growth actually lead to the collapse of cities?

It is a frightening thought but a plausible one just the same. The economic collapse in the United States beginning in 2008 was unprecedented. And it was certainly unanticipated. Who thought a government could go broke?  Consider this:  San Diego, CA – FY 2011 Deficit $30 million; Norfolk, VA – FY 2011 Deficit $26 million; San Jose, CA – FY 2011 Deficit $116 million; Las Vegas, NV – FY 2011 Deficit $79.7 million; Phoenix, AZ  - deficit through 2011, $241 million; Reno, NV deficit 2011 $35.2 million; Chicago, Il, deficit through FY 2011, $520 million; Baltimore, MD, deficit through FY 2011, $121 million; Honolulu, HI, deficit through FY 2011 $140 million; New York, NY, deficit through FY 2011, $4.9 billion; San Francisco, CA, deficit through FY 2011, $483 million; los Angeles, CA, deficit through FY 2011 $697 million; Detroit, MI, deficit through FY 2011, $710 million.  These are huge numbers and reflect a budget deficit, not the accumulated municipal debt.

Some pundits prognosticate America is on the verge of a horrible municipal debt crisis.  It could destabilize governments in some instances. In 2012 the cities of Stockton, California, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania have already defaulted and many more are headed down the same path. With defaults, lenders will become much tighter with their money and that could cause even more municipalities to get deeper into financial trouble.  It is a crisis that could easily spin wildly out of control.

What are these cities doing to try to manage their debt crisis?  The short answer is they are cutting services and laying off employees. Their big exposures are unfunded pension liabilities that they simply can no longer afford to pay. They are trying to borrow more to pay their obligations, taking on debt to pay down debt. It is like taking out a loan to pay your credit card debt.  It is simply not a sustainable model. So far in 2012 there have been 21 municipal defaults totaling $978 million, nearly double the dollar amount for the previous years. The bond defaults have been insured meaning that some municipalities have made a strategic decision to default and let the insurance companies pay the bond holders who will therefore not suffer a loss.  The consequence of this action may mean municipalities may no longer be able to insure their bonds.

The real meaning is that municipalities have ducked their fiscal responsibility and abdicated that responsibility to the insurers. The result, some insurers have lowered their exposure to municipal bonds by as much as 45%.

Governments it seems are addicted to debt.  In Alberta, fortunately, there are limitations on cities and their ability to have operating deficits.  It does not preclude them however from accumulating debt.  The estimated total debt of the City of Calgary was $2.1 billion in 2007 and estimated to rise to $2.4 billion in 2008. (Current budget documents seem to point to $1.657 billion) 

It is difficult to extract the total debt currently for the City of Calgary.  But in the 2012 – 2014 Business Plan and Budgets document, a monumental 735-page document, the debt per capita is summarized.  From a per capita total debt of $2,311 in 2009, the total debt is expected to increase to $3,444 per capita by 2016.  Within those figures the tax-supported debt is expected to decline from $422 per capita in 2009 to $201 in 2016.  Someone who is a better financial analyst than I can make better sense and interpretation of the figures in the document.  But debt is debt and you owe that money to someone and it has to be paid back.

It is interesting to note that people demand services and the level and the variety of those service demands seem to the casual observer to be on the rise.  Everyone loves services as long as others pay for them.  Therein lays the dilemma.

To be successful, a city must have a range of services available to attract businesses and people.  But the cost of those services to both businesses and people must be perceived to be competitive and affordable.  Among other things there must be an economic rationale to local in Calgary versus any other city.  And not just in Alberta or in Canada, but in every other venue that can provide comparable services at comparable costs.

Not too long ago, much was made of the “Alberta Advantage”.  This writer submits that that advantage is nothing more than a memory.  Business came to Alberta and to Calgary because the tax regime was very competitive, housing costs were relatively low and there was a good supply of skilled labour.  While some of those conditions may hold true to some extent, Calgary and Alberta is just not as competitive as it once was.  There are compelling economic reasons business are shifting away from Alberta to other jurisdictions.

One must look at the spending of municipalities overall.  It is always on the rise.  But as business cut expenses – and this usually means jobs – government expenditures are on the rise.  Public sector job and expenditure growth in the current recession is opposite to the experience in the private sector. Politicians are quick to make very expensive promises at election time and do so without offering any discussion as to how what they propose will expand the economy, broaden the tax base, or what their plan is to pay for all the incremental promises. They just raise taxes with impunity. Then there are politicians who in a fit of self-importance make decisions based more on an ideology than on the basis of a well-developed and disciplined strategic objective. (Remember that bridge?)

We cannot have unfettered spending at the municipal level. Most will agree that we need good policing, fire and other protective services, we need roads, transit and water and sewer services.  There are supportable arguments for various social services in aid of those who require them.  But the spending must be justified and it must accomplish those things which it is intended to do.  If not, there must be some serious accountability. Must we remind elected officials they have the duty of stewardship of the public purse?

We must ask why certain services should be performed by a municipality.  For example, should a municipality provide services that can easily be provided by the private sector?  Should we in effect use tax dollars to compete with tax-paying entities, or in some instances put those tax-paying entities out of business? (Do you recall the recycling issue that put some private contractors out of business?) Does the city need to be in the parking business? Does the City need to be in the energy business? Does the city need to be in land development business?  Is the city providing services that duplicate those of the tax-paying business community and if it is, how does it justify doing so? A Council’s obligation is to ensure that tax dollars are use efficiently and effectively.  It is to ensure that work is done to a certain high community standard.  It does not require that it exclusively must do that work.

I believe most would agree that a legitimate government role is to define a community standard for various services and see that work is done against that standard. I would argue that a government need not provide a service in competition with the business sector except where, as in the case of policing and fire protection, that it should or in those instances where there is no interest, will or capacity in the private sector to do those things.  Further, nothing drives creativity, innovation and adaptation like a healthy competitive environment.

So, if the role of government is slowly creeping and expanding from what it should be, if the revenue requirements are increasing in both relative and real terms, how sustainable is that fiscal environment?  What happens if our local economy experiences a catastrophic economic collapse cause by external circumstances?  What happens if the tax-based revenue shrinks significantly as has been the experience in the United States where, as outlined above, they have become insolvent and declared bankruptcy?  What happens if circumstances forces a municipality to layoff virtually its entire police force?  This has actually happened in one California municipality. What happens if as in the Euro zone, governments must significantly reduce the compensation packages, benefits and pensions of public sector workers?  Have we sown seeds for future social unrest and the collapse of the social order?

On August 30^th the Alberta Government announced a $3 billion budget deficit. My colleague Scott Hennig at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation declared via the media that he expects that deficit to be north of $4 billion.  Deficits happen for two reasons: you seriously underestimate your revenues; or you simply spend more than you take in.

At a personal level we try not to do that.  If we don’t have the money in our pocket, we can’t afford it.  If we borrow, we are mortgaging our future; we are spending money that has not yet been earned. Having said that, there are some things in life where borrowing makes sense, such as purchasing a home.  It has a high prospect of being an asset that will appreciate in value over time.  Some holds true for major infrastructure.

Borrowing to put key infrastructure is a defendable expenditure.  It can also be a strategic action and help to create the conditions which are advantageous to and therefore attract business, grow the economy and expand the tax base. Most major infrastructure projects will get little argument from me.  But spurious spending by self-important elected officials who may do things for which they were not elected to do will be the target of my wrath.  And rightly so. I do not appreciate being intellectually swindled by hollow promises from otherwise unemployables saying what they think will get them elected.  It is a fraud and should be labeled as such and it should also be rejected by electors.  But in the age of entitlements, perhaps that is too much to be expected.

Presently in Alberta there is a move to look to more revenue powers or sources afforded to municipalities.  If they need more money, the municipalities need to explain why.  A review committee is being established and at present it appears as if it will be dominated by the municipalities with perhaps only token representation from the business community.  I will mention the obvious in case its significance went unnoticed: it is the business community that by and large pays the bills whether directly through taxes or indirectly through the employment it offers to folks who too pay taxes.

Does it not seem a little odd that the folks who want to spend taxpayers’ money will formulate the mechanisms to collect it?  It is rather like hiring a fox as an architect to design the hen house, or hiring a weasel to provide security for that hen house.

The point is Alberta is a community as are its municipalities.  The constituent components, which must include taxpaying entities, must be at the table and they must define the role of municipalities and the services they ought to provide.  It must be an engaged and collaborative effort to formulate a reasonable and responsible funding formula and one which has appropriate oversight provisions.  And as much as I hate to use over-used terminology there must be real transparency and genuine accountability.

In the real world if we hire someone to do a job and they can’t or don’t do it, we get rid of them.

Alberta will review its Municipal Government Act soon and one of the points of discussion will be charter cities or some special consideration for the two principal cities of Calgary and Edmonton. As point in fact, the province and the two cities recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding that created a framework for their discussions.

In preparing for the MGA review, I thought it would be pertinent to review the origins of government in Canada. At least briefly.

A starting point could be in 1620 when Charles II, King of England, assigned Rupert’s Land (named for the King’s cousin Prince Rupert) to the Hudson’s Bay Company. This Royal Charter granted the HBC exclusive trading rights for all the lands draining into Hudson’s Bay, about 40% of today’s Canadian land mass. This established territorial expansion for England and is perhaps the earliest form of colonial administration.

Then in 1763 a Royal Proclamation by King George III, following the Treaty of Paris which concluded the Seven Years War, the colony of New France was surrendered by the French to the British and the colony came under military occupation and military rule until a definitive treaty of peace was negotiated. The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the British parliament setting the procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec (Canada). A later Treaty of Paris of 1783 created Quebec as a crown colony and which substituted civil authority for military authority. Following the American Revolution, there was an influx of immigrants in the form of United Empire Loyalists, who were in effect refugees loyal to the British crown and who were fleeing persecution within the new American Republic. The Loyalists, settled mainly west of the Ottawa River in what now is southern Ontario. While many were stripped of all their land and possessions when they fled the American republic, they did bring with them the tradition of freehold land tenure, British laws and representative government. They did not want to give up those rights by living under the Quebec Act which guaranteed the seigneurial system of landholding and denied an elected assembly to the people of that colony.  The first formal municipality in Canada was the city of Saint John in New Brunswick, which received royal approval in 1785.

In 1791 the British Parliament passed the Canada Act, usually known as the Constitutional Act, which provide for the division of Quebec in to the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. Both colonies were granted an elected assembly and the freehold system of land tenure went into effect in Upper Canada. (Later Ontario)

The ruling oligarchies of both Upper and Lower Canada precipitated dissent such that there were simultaneous revolts in the provinces as the Rebellions of 1837. Both demanded a form of government that was radically more democratic. These rebellions were a catalyst for a move to responsible government. In response the British dispatched in 1838 John George Lambton, 1st earl of Durham to investigate and report on the causes of the 1837 rebellions. His findings are known as the Durham Report and it is an important document in the history of Canada.

Durham recommended the unification of Upper and Lower Canada into one province. He encouraged immigration to Canada mainly from Britain. He also recommended responsible government wherein the governor general would be a figurehead and the legislative assembly would hold a great deal of power. Durham’s recommendations, published in 1839, were not accepted and the province of Canada would not get responsible government for some years. It was Charles Poulett Thomson, 1st Baron Sydenham, who was responsible for implementing the Union of the Canadas.

The Act of Union 1840 merged the two colonies by abolishing the two legislatures and replacing them with a single legislative assembly. The first capital city was Kingston (1841 – 1843) and its first meeting was held in what now is part of the Kingston General Hospital. (Other capitals included Montreal, Quebec City – twice and Toronto – twice, before Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria in 1857. The first parliament buildings were completed in 1865.)

Most will be familiar with the British North America Act of 1867, regarded as Canada’s constitution. There were in fact 19 subsequent BNA Acts. The act of 1867 served as the basis of the division of federal and provincial powers.

What we know today as Alberta joined the Canadian confederation 1 September, 1905, 38 years following the 4 original provinces. The Alberta Act was an act of the Parliament of Canada to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Alberta. The provisions the Constitution Acts (BNA) of 1867 and 1886 apply to Alberta as they apply to other provinces.

What is interesting here is that the City of Calgary was established as a legal entity prior to the province joining confederation. It was incorporated as a town on 7 November 1884 under the North-West Territories Ordinance passed by the territorial government situated in Regina. Population at the time was 506.

Having a grasp of the background of governance in Canada is but one component necessary to better understand the move to Charter Cities. Historical traditions and conventions are important and people have come to accept them as fact and may be reluctant to drastically alter them. This article points to those traditions and how we have arrived at a form of representative democracy almost by trial and error. As Winston Churchill is known to have quipped: democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.

In future installments, I intend to examine the phenomenon of rural urban migration and its implications to governance, some theories about local government, specifically what it should be or should not be, and other subjects relating to charter cities.

http://www.canadascities.ca/pdf/2005_Lidstone_The_Model_Municipal_Charter.pdf

(Steve Speer, photo artist)

“We are builders of the city.  Where we are today is the sum of everything we’ve done and been before and a celebration of the future.”

(Bill Partridge, President and CSO, BOMA Calgary)

 “Many of the buildings that you will see throughout this book represent the same foresight that Calgarians had one hundred years ago.  They are not necessarily buildings constructed for how things were at the time, they were constructed for the city that the owners wanted and expected to see.  These buildings illustrate the dreams we’ve had for our city.”   See the full foreword from the book

(City of Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi)

Full list of sponsors can be found here.

 ”Our company is part of the new development in Calgary. ‘Building on the Bow’ is a great initiative.  It takes lots of buildings to make a city and it doesn’t happen overnight — it’s good to provide the overall perspective on the history of buildings here and how they came to be.”

(Avi Tescuiba, Hines Canada, sponsor)

“We are enthusiastic supporters of historical and heritage buildings, their architecture and the desirable character of those urban and office environments.  The whole trend of quality development and community building in Calgary is worth celebrating! We’re pleased to be involved in preserving some early parts of that.”

(Alec McColm, Allied Properties REIT, sponsor)

“We feel this book was important to document not only how downtown Calgary has evolved but, how quickly it has evolved in response the demands of the residents and employers in the city of Calgary.  Oxford continues to contribute to this growth through its next planned development of the Eau Claire Tower at 3^rd Avenue and 5^th Street S.W.”

(Ken Dixon, Oxord Properties Group, sponsor)

BOMA Calgary celebrates Calgary’s designation as Cultural Capital of Canada 2012

CALGARY, AB (Marketwire – June 5, 2012)  — A fine-art photographic book and print exhibition is to be launched this month by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Calgary. This collection of 63 high-resolution monochrome images is the first of its kind to capture the visual essence of Calgary’s evolution from the late 1800’s to the present day.

BOMA Calgary and its members have invested significant time and financial resources to celebrate Calgary’s designation as a 2012 Cultural Capital of Canada with this unique photographic essay.  Titled Building on the Bow: Landmarks in Calgary Commercial Real Estate, the exhibition will be on public display at a VIP book launch event from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and a public launch from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21 at Gerry Thomas Gallery, 602 11^th Avenue S.W.  The exhibition of fine-art prints from the book will remain on display at the gallery until June 28, 2012.

Steve Speer is a respected local photographer whose ability to create exquisite fine-art images within commercial, industrial and challenging environments is well recognized. His work is displayed in the boardrooms and residences of art-collectors and corporations nationally and internationally.

He explains that the idea for Building on the Bow occurred during a conversation with BOMA Calgary commercial real estate veteran Mike Kehoe while hiking in the Rocky Mountains.  “Catching our breath at the summit of Burstall Pass,” says Speer, “we started talking about the history of Calgary and that some of the older buildings, like The Herald Building, were going to be demolished to make way for the new.”  Kehoe challenged Speer to bring the current architectural landscape into focus for the future.

BOMA Calgary’s Communication & Member Services Manager Lia Robinson was assigned the role of Managing Editor and provided Speer with a list of carefully selected architectural subjects, giving him free rein to photograph them in his own distinctive style.  The buildings and their stories reflect eight identified architectural  time periods in Calgary’s colourful history.

Building on the Bow will be available for purchase this summer from Amazon.

In celebration of the event, BOMA is inviting the public to submit original digital photos to a photo contest.  The deadline is noon, June 20, 2012. Steve Speer will judge the contest, and the winner will receive a signed copy of Building on the Bow.  Calgarians can email an image of their favourite commercial building in Calgary, (max 2 MB) to info@boma.ca, along with their name, location of the building,  and their phone number (Subject line: Photo Contest).   All entries will be posted on BOMA’s Pinterest site at pinterest.com/bomacalgary for all to enjoy.

Established in 1959, BOMA Calgary supports the commercial real estate industry through advocacy, education and networking.  It is affiliated with BOMA Canada and BOMA International, with over 19,000 members globally.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR MEDIA KIT DOCUMENT DOWNLOADS

-30-

Media Inquiries

MEDIA are invited to attend the VIP LAUNCH EVENT on June 21, 2012 4:30 – 6:30 pm PLEASE RSVP  by June 18, 2012 to lia.robinson@boma.ca to confirm your attendance.

Interview Contacts:

William (Bill) Partridge
BOMA President
T. 403-237-0559
bill.partridge@boma.ca

Lia Robinson
BOMA Managing Editor
T. 403-237-0559
C. 403-200-2662
lia.robinson@boma.ca

Steve Speer
Photographer
T. 403-870-2020
steve@fourbyfive.com
http://www.fourbyfive.com

Public Relations and Event Promotion (for photos, data, other material):

Jacqueline Drew
Tenato Strategy Inc.
T. 403-242-1127
C. 403-804-4676
jdrew@tenato.com
http://www.tenato.com

Media Documents

• Foreword by Mayor Naheed Nenshi (.pdf)
• News Release (.doc format)
• Facts About Building on the Bow (.pdf)
• What People Are Saying About Building on the Bow (.pdf)
• Sponsors of Building on the Bow (.pdf)
• Book Cover (.jpg format)
• Steve Speer Portrait (.jpg)
• Steve Speer Bio (.pdf)
• BOMA Logo (.eps)

High Resolution Images

Herald (.jpg)		Devon Place (.jpg)		Barron Bldg (.jpg)		Bankers Hall (.jpg)

Winner receives a signed book and, of course, accolades as being the “keenest eye” in Calgary’s commercial real estate.  We encourage you to share your entry (this does not share your answers) to Twitter, to drop the gauntlet on your colleagues.

Event promotion and public relations by Tenato Strategy Inc. http://www.tenato.com

Media Inquiries

Media are invited to attend the VIP launch event on Thursday, June 21st, 4:30 – 6:30 pm