Illegal: adjective forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Immoral: adjective violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Once again I find myself providing definitions for the education of Abbotsford’s city council and staff. Perhaps readers with a spare dictionary could take it to city hall and give it to the mayor? Citizens would then know with certainty that yes city hall has a dictionary; they just choose not to use it.

An aging parent who is ill and needs care, your home is on an acreage with plenty of room for a trailer to provide a home that will allow you to provide care, the rational decision is to put a trailer in for your parent. This is a situation that more and more people across the lower mainland face as our population ages.

Being an honest citizen you go to city hall to inform them of this and get your $287 building permit. Imagine your surprise when you are billed an additional $25,000 for DCCs. Imagine the greater surprise when upon enquiry you are informed that under the city’s new DCC bylaws anyone who gets a building permit for anything is billed $25,000 for DCCs.

Development Cost Charges are the charges municipalities are allowed to levy to cover the cost of providing services (sewer, water etc.) to new developments or construction. It would seem to me that the purpose and scope of these charges is perfectly clear just from their name.

For purposes of clarification the provincial government provides a “Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide”. Finally there is The Local Government Acts, the statute that govern the powers and behaviours of Abbotsford’s municipal government.

DCCs are to allow the City to cover or recover the costs associated with construction or development; they are clearly not and never were intended as a cash grab method. A fact testified to by the law itself.

Section 933(3) of the Local Government Act states that DCCs are not payable if it can be proven that the development does not impose a new capital cost burden on the municipality, or if a DCC was previously paid for the same development.

Section 933(4) of the Local Government Act says that DCCs are exempt where a building permit is issued for the construction, alteration, or extension of a building that contains less than four dwelling units, and the building is exclusively for residential use, where the costs are less than $50,000.
Section 933(4) also states that the reason for DCC exemptions is to avoid capturing renovations that do not require improvements to infrastructure.

For those who have any doubts remaining the Act also states: “…normal costs of repairing and maintaining existing infrastructure can’t be included, in DCCs, nor can operating costs. DCCs represent a way to hold new development accountable for the infrastructure costs it imposes on existing taxpayers.”

This all seems pretty clear and straight forward to me, how does it seem to you?

Apparently it is not clear to Abbotsford City Council or to staff at Abbotsford City Hall – including it seems, legal staff.

Fortunately for Christine Masztalar, her neighbour Russ Walsh is of Irish decent and happy to fight city hall on her behalf. (As a personal aside I would like to state my opinion that this city would benefit from more neighbours such as Mr. Walsh).

The question is: What about all the other citizens of Abbotsford who did not have a neighbour such as Mr. Walsh or were unaware of what “The Local Government Acts” set out as the law for DCCs?

The attitude and behaviours of Abbotsford City Council and City Staff and their actions and lack of actions on the matter of DCCs has and is totally unacceptable.

That City Hall is not taking immediate action to address this matter thus forcing citizens to go to court and get an estoppal order to put a stop to illegal DCC levying, is unconscionable.

Council and staff have been repeatedly informed of their illegal actions, but for reasons only they know, they continue this illegal activity.

As taxpayers we need be concerned as we will pay any financial costs associated with these illegal actions.

As citizens we should be concerned that these behaviours certainly do not “conform to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics”.

The Parks and Rec department in Abbotsford “needed” what had been the community bulletin board – because they had so much they needed to post. It was only after patron complaints to City Council that a community board was put up to replace the board taken over, because of claimed need, by Parks and Rec. After the photos were published (see below) contrasting Parks and Rec’s board with the new, smaller public board; Parks and Rec redid the board as seen below, covering a much larger area of the surface of the board.

In the interests of an informed public we have a picture of the new display, a picture of the new display bluing out all but the information portions of the display (a handout for the public) and a new photo of the current public board.

Leaving us once again wondering: why was it that Parks and Rec “needed” to take over the public board?

The announcement that Mr. Bottrill is leaving for a position in Surrey raises questions about whether the City of Abbotsford is in worse shape, the problems bigger and future bleaker than those citizens concerned about the current state of affairs of the City of Abbotsford and its future thought likely.

This announcement underscores concerns that the financial situation and other challenges facing the City will prevent finding the leadership and excellence in a City Manager needed to lead/manage Abbotsford and avoid simply levying higher and higher levels of property taxes.

Mr. Bottrill’s departure, following on that of Don Lymes’s, taken together with upcoming retirements, highlights the fact the city is being stripped of its most competent people at a time when that competence, knowledge and experience is badly needed.

At this rate we will soon be, if not already are, left with only those who cannot find a position elsewhere remaining on the City payroll.

Put all this together with the spendthrift ways of City Hall and the current council – and we are looking at a hole so deep, only years of double digit property tax increases will keep the city financially liquid.