Category Archives: Municipal

Municipal, Snafu

Why was anyone surprised?

Leave a comment

This is a mayor and council who swore up and down they would not be helping subsidize the travel costs for AHL teams to travel to Abbotsford – and then proceeded to do exactly that. A mayor and council who maintain their willful blindness, insisting that it is the Heat who subsidize the visiting AHL teams travel costs and that the council’s multimillion dollar yearly subsidy of the Heat has nothing to do with the Heat’s ability to subsidize travel costs for visiting teams.

A mayor and council who had Global Spectrum act as their agent vis-à-vis the agreement between the city and the Heat in order to sidestep the provincial municipal statutes that prohibited this type of agreement. A prohibition intended to protect citizens by preventing municipal governments from putting the taxpayer on the hook for paying a potential liability such as the $73 million guarantee given the Heat ownership.

And when citizens questioned this action the mayor replied – so sue us; a mayor who berated Chilliwack’s mayor for grandstanding when she declined free Olympic tickets on the grounds of ethics.

With a municipal election next year, the mess, misery and financial woes council have afflicted upon the voters is it any surprise politicians would not want to put at risk political donations from businesses?

Given that if Mayor Peary and Councilor Smith had not voted in favour of the developer the developer’s proposal would have been defeated 4 – 3 rather than approved 4 – 5 (3 + Peary + Smith).

Why was anyone surprised that, even with the clear conflict of interest of having received political contributions from the developer, Mayor Peary and Councilor Smith voted in favour of the developer and the development?

Consider, Municipal

If only.

Leave a comment

That was the thought that crossed my mind in reading Abbotsford City Councilor John Smith’s comments concerning the incinerator.

Councilor John Smith: “There is a cost to everything … at the end of the day, decisions are based on economic reality.”

If only that were true … the taxpayers of Abbotsford would not be groaning under the fiscal burden of: an Arena that cost nearly twice what was promised in enticing citizens to vote yes, million+ dollar arena operating losses where taxpayers were promised operating profits and multi-million dollar subsidies to the owners of a professional hockey team were politicians promised during the last municipal election bribes (aka subsidizes) would not be paid to seduce a team to play in the new arena.

Councilor John Smith: “Up until now, we have been dealing with emotion. Let’s now take a look at the cost,”

If only that were true … let us review the history of the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre. The pending arrival of the Bruins in Chilliwack had the Chiefs seeking a new home and in that regard approaching the city council of Abbotsford proposing a partnership to build a new arena as the new home for the Chief’s – a successful team with an established fan base in the Fraser Valley.

Remember city council’s response? That the city did not need a new arena … and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of town.

Then suddenly council felt the need to not only build an arena but to build a bigger, fancier arena than the arena in Chilliwack or the new arena under construction as the new home of the Langley Chiefs.

Why after brushing off the Chiefs and their offer to partner with Abbotsford in building a new arena did council suddenly feel the need to build, on speculation and without a tenant such as the cavalierly dismissed Chiefs, not simply an arena but an arena that was bigger than those of Chilliwack and Langley?

Why, when it would have been cheaper to leave the arena without a team did council burden taxpayers with a further liability of $73 million? The attendance and results of this first year of operation suggest that taxpayers will be fortunate if they only end up paying out $20 million of the $73 million liability assumed on their behalf by council.

No responsible person, no responsible city council, would have made the decisions that Abbotsford’s city council using cost as the basis of the decision.

Only emotion can account for the complete disregard of economic reality in building the arena or in signing the agreement that the City of Abbotsford entered into with the Heat team ownership. Well … I suppose a complete lack of even an infinitesimal scrap of financial common sense or substance use could also account for such a divorce from economic reality.

Of course “Let’s now take a look at the cost,” only works if you do your homework. That way you can avoid failing to include costs necessary to maintain the warranty on jungle gym equipment – markedly improving the accuracy of ‘estimated costs’ and lessening the number of 100% cost overruns or losses in place of promised profits.

While he hopes an unbiased analysis of the numbers will show incineration is not cost-efficient, (Councilor John) Smith says he would oppose the WTE (waste to energy), even if it was cost-friendly.

Aha! Now that statement reflects the actual way that Abbotsford’s current council acts – if fiscal reality does not support the action you want to undertake – ignore the financial facts/reality and do whatever it is you want, pursue your priorities and ignore the cost to the city, its citizens and taxpayers.

Council pursuing its own priorities, no matter how inappropriate or costly to taxpayers those priorities are, is how you end up with the city being “unable” to afford to subsidize minor amateur hockey in Abbotsford by $9,500 while “able’ to afford to subsidize professional hockey and the ownership of the professional team by $3,000,000 (approximately, considering direct subsidy to the team and the indirect subsidy of arena operating costs).

Councilor’s personal priorities is why the minor hockey rate increase proceed “as it was necessary to cover operational cost increases” while the professional team does not cover any, much less increases, of the operating costs of their arena.

Council’s priorities have resulted in the city imposing double digit fee increases for the use of city recreation fields and facilities over the past several years; increases that have resulted in an increasing number of families being unable to afford their children’s participation in youth sports and recreational activities.

As a grandfather of my acquaintance was lamenting – the cost of baseball for his grandson has gone from $45 to $100 over the past three years making affordability an issue for his family.

It is not just children who have been affected by these double digit fee increases. Lack of affordability resulted in me no longer being able to afford a pool pass; for the first time in my long residence in Abbotsford I found myself without a pass and dealing with the negative physical and mental health consequences of not being able to swim as needed.

Personally my priorities dictate that fees for fields and facilities should not be being raised ever higher in order to have funds to subsidize a professional hockey team and the council ego project better known as the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre.

Why is it that Parks and Recreation spent $135,000 (plus however much they went over budget) to buy used jungle gym equipment (to be rented out to those who can afford the rental cost) instead of spending the funds on repairs to Matsqui Village pool?

That the Langley Museum has a perfectly fine utilitarian electronic sign and ARC had to have a costly fancy, bells and whistles electronic sign to impart information undoubtedly reflects the differing priorities of Langley’s council versus Abbotsford’s council and explains why Abbotsford’s taxpayers paid $90+ million for an arena comparable to the arena Langley’s taxpayers paid $15 million for.

Abbotsford’s council needs healthy priorities, an ability to plan for the needs of Abbotsford and avoid problems rather than stumbling from mess to quagmire to disaster. A little financial and personal discipline would be nice and would go a long way to stop council and staff from digging the hole they have dug the city into ever deeper.

If only …

Municipal

Not as simple as a Heat/Moose switch

Leave a comment

Re: the Manitoba Moose

I must agree with Mr. Redekop that the attendance at the Heat playoff games is ominous news for the future of the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of Abbotsford.

It bodes ill for future attendance at Heat games that even with the marked advantage of novelty with this being the first year for the Heat in Abbotsford, that in their first year the Heat made the AHL playoffs and that AHL playoff games have never been available west of Winnipeg before the Heat are drawing poorly.

The fact that attendance is lackluster under such favourable circumstances strongly suggests that, under the terms of the 10 year agreement council entered into with the ownership of the Heat, the taxpayers of Abbotsford will have to pour millions of more taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the Heat ownership.

Just as an aside Mr. Redekop: if the Heat ownership was in fact “… community minded, generous …” they would have assumed at least some of the risk associated with the ownership of an AHL hockey team rather than foisting all the risk off onto Abbotsford’s already overburdened taxpayers.

While I concede that the Moose would perform better that the Heat, how could they not, the view expressed in Mr. Redekop’s letter strikes me as viewing this possibility through the same rose coloured glasses the mayor and council wore when they committed city taxpayers to the overly generous agreement signed with the Heat ownership.

The attendance dynamic of a single yearly visit by the Canucks farm team is markedly different from the dynamic when there are numerous opportunities to catch a game over the course of a season. The fact that during their one visit the Moose drew full houses does not mean they will fill the arena for every home game.

The attendance at this year’s playoff games is probably a better predictor of a realistic attendance level over a season than the attendance at ‘the only chance this year to see the Moose’.

It is important to be realistic because I doubt that “the win-win situation for all parties should require no payment by anyone.”

What I mean by this is:

If the Heat remain in Abbotsford and attendance follows the historical patterns/trends the taxpayers of Abbotsford are looking at contributing 2 – 3 million dollars a year over the remaining 9 years of the agreement council signed with the Heat; a total of 18 – 27 million dollars.

If Mr. Redekop’s assumption of full attendance if the Moose were exchanged for the Heat was correct that would mean taxpayers would save $18 – $27 million over the term of the agreement between the City and Heat ownership.

Let us use the lower $18 million as the amount that taxpayers would save. That means it is worth $18 million to the taxpayers of Abbotsford to have the Moose as Abbotsford’s AHL team. Thus the ownership of the Moose has a team with a value of $18,000,000.00 in respect to moving the Moose to Abbotsford.

Sound business practices dictate that the Moose ownership should charge $18,000,000.00 to exchange franchises/teams given that that amount is the value of the savings to the Abbotsford taxpayers of exchanging franchises/teams.

However should the assumption of full attendance turn out to be another of the ‘rose coloured glasses’ mirages sold to the Abbotsford public and the ‘they are here all season long’ attendance prove to be not significantly higher than the Heats current attendance then the value of the exchange of the Heat for the Moose has a $0.00 value. A value significantly lower than the $18,000,000.00 value under Mr. Redekop’s full attendance assumption.

Although it would be in keeping with the mismanagement of this matter by Abbotsford council to date, it would be rather unwise to pay $18,000,000.00 for an exchange of franchises/teams that in fact has a zero value.

The large difference between these values is why it is so important that any projections as to the benefit of having the Moose as the team in Abbotsford be realistic and reasonably accurate.

‘The Winnipeg Heat owners would win because …’ again a ‘rose coloured glasses’ view of the situation.

Hockey is taken very seriously on the prairies and rivalries are heated. Calgary and Winnipeg have a rivalry established when the Jets were Winnipeg’s NHL team. There was no love lost between Winnipeg (Jets) and Calgary (Flames) when they were NHL rivals. This situation was not improved when Winnipeg lost its NHL team but Calgary and its oil money held onto the Flames.

The ownership of the Winnipeg AHL team would be taking a not insignificant risk that a Calgary affiliated team would tap into old feelings and be rejected by the fans.

On the prairies it is Toronto that is despised; Vancouver is simply la-la land.

It is in the statement ‘The Canucks would also be big winners’ that I feel both the biggest fallacy and barrier in regards to an exchange of franchises/teams lies.

Whether the Moose games are sell-outs or not is of no interest to the Canucks as they have no financial interest in the attendance at Moose games.

The interest of the Canucks in the Moose is not in the ability of the Moose franchise to make money but in the ability of the Moose to develop the skills and abilities of players to the level that enables them to play and contribute to the NHL Canucks.

It is in order to preserve the ability of the Moose to develop Canucks prospects to the level of playing and contributing at the NHL level I suspect the Canucks would block any attempt to move their farm team from Winnipeg to Abbotsford. I certainly would if I was running the Canucks organization.

In Winnipeg the Moose are simply a AHL team and subject to no unusual media attention.

If the Moose were relocated to Abbotsford the team, coaches and players would be caught up in the Canucks media circus/frenzy. This intense, constant media attention would interfere with the ability of coaches and players to focus on hockey, player and skills development.

Given that the fortunes of the Canucks depend on the ability of the Moose to develop players, perhaps more importantly have players ready to step into the Canucks line-up and produce (injuries etc.), I would certainly not want to move the Moose into a market where these functions would be compromised or impaired.

I would expect that for these reasons, as well as several other issues that come to mind, the Canucks would be opposed to a move of their AHL farm (player development) team into Abbotsford.

While having the Moose (the Canucks farm team) as Abbotsford’s AHL team is an idea worth exploring, I have serious reservations that it would be either the cure all or slam dunk Mr. Redekop envisions.

I am not saying it is not a possibility to be explored. I am solidly in favour of anything that will reduce how much of the $65,700,000 liability city council has put taxpayers on the hook for that the taxpayer’s of Abbotsford end up having to pay out.

What I am saying is not to rush into something based on the ‘rosy glasses view’ and promises of success.

That’s what happened with the new arena and what created this financial quagmire. Unlike council and their supporters I am a firm believer that when you find yourself in a hole you do not keep digging yourself in ever deeper, creating ever larger costs that the taxpayers are on the hook to pay for.