Monthly Archives: December 2009

Municipal, Snafu

Reality vs. Council Think

Leave a comment

Council bears no responsibility for the sad state of the City of Abbotsford’s finances and the fact Abbotsford has the highest municipal debt-per-household in the lower mainland?

Even for Abbotsford “council think” this strains the bounds of credulity. Although given the disastrous state of the city’s finances, cuts to services and a municipal election less than two years away it was only a matter time before city politicians began to revise history in an attempt to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions/decisions.

Apparently, in the revisionist council version of the history of Plan A, council are innocent bystanders whose involvement in Plan A was merely that of obeying the wishes of taxpayers.

Even if you overlook that Plan A was initiated by council who led the cheering squad for Plan A; who spent $140,000.00 taxpayer dollars on advertising to sell taxpayers on Plan A; who denied the rights of those who opposed Plan A by denying them access to city buildings even as the pro-Plan A council plastered city buildings with pro-Plan A propaganda and whose conduct during the referendum process was such that the BC Ombudsman’s office and the Ministry of Community and Rural Development have developed guidelines for future municipal referendums in order to prevent future abuses; it is a far-fetched, preposterous revision of history to suggest that the fallout from Plan A is NOT the responsibility of Abbotsford’s council and city hall.

Shall we have a historical reality check?

Yes the citizens of Abbotsford voted, by the slimmest of margins, to borrow $85 million to build Plan A. But that was not a blank cheque to build Plan A at any cost to the city.

In seeking the approval of citizens for Plan A, council made commitments and guarantees to the citizens of Abbotsford to win approval of Plan A. Among these commitments and guarantees were that the maximum amount that was to be spent on Plan A was set at $85 million; undertakings were given that contracts with the builders would guarantee the cost of Plan a would not go 1 cent over the taxpayer approved maximum of $85 million; expenditures from reserves for any amount of spending on Plan A was never raised for approval and therefore never approved by taxpayers; that while the museum/art gallery and ARC addition would need yearly subsidies the Sports and Entertainment Complex would not need any subsidy, indeed council guaranteed this Complex would be a source of positive cash flow and not a black hole for city dollars.

The $45 million plus over expenditure was not only solely the decision and responsibility of council and staff, but was against the will of the citizens who put a cap of $85 million on expenditures in voting for and agreeing to the Plan A terms and conditions set out by council.

Indeed council should either have shelved plan A or gone back to the public for approval when they realized that Plan A would require expenditures in excess of $85 million approved by citizens.

Since council was aware, but did not disclose, that expenditures in excess of the $85 million agreed to by taxpayers would be required even before the referendum, no expenditures for Plan A should ever have been made.

The recent announcement of the $2.3 million (if lucky) subsidy required by the Sports and Entertainment Complex this year (with increasing subsidies in future years) was predictable at the time of the referendum even to someone living homeless in their car using only a piece of blank paper, a pencil and $1 calculator with the simple application of basic math skills and common sense.

In light of this the fact council and city staff issued guarantees of a positive cash flow raise questions about their common sense or veracity or both.

With council having withheld pertinent information from taxpayers about Plan A costs during the referendum and failing to comply with the direction given to council by taxpayers that costs for Plan A were not to exceed $85 million, it is facetious to suggest that citizens in any way approved the financial mess that is Plan A.

An examination of the facts makes clear that citizens did not give approval for Plan A as implemented by council. That if council had been forthright with taxpayers or behaved as directed by taxpayers or behaved with integrity and honour Plan A would have been shelved and the city and its future would be in much better financial shape.

Municipal

No apologies.

Leave a comment

A few words for those recent letter writers complaining about citizens who expresses their concern with city council and staff continuing the same financial spend, spend, spending pattern that built Plan A and has the City of Abbotsford running out of money and seeking to disguise a double digit tax increase by breaking up the raise into smaller less imposing increases (property tax, gas tax, fee increases, service decreases etc).

“The facilities were built because citizens voted yes. It’s too late to complain. Why not support the facilities instead of trying to prove yourself right? Get over it.” Larry Ross

Unless Mr. Ross is aware of a second referendum held that I am not, what citizens voted for was spending $55 million on a facility that would have a positive cash flow into city coffers.

Citizens did not vote for a $100 million arena (an arena that Langley built for $45 million) and an operating subsidy that (if citizens are lucky) will only cost $2.3 million this year; a subsidy that will increase year after year into the future.

There is no need for “trying to prove yourself right”, the consequences of city council and staff’s lack of basic common sense, financial, planning and budgeting skills has already done that.

How is one suppose to “Get over it” when council continues the same ruinously spendthrift behaviours that have Abbotsford in dire financial straits? More importantly, why would one want to get over or ignore this behaviour?

“If you want to lower the price of tickets, buy a season ticket. I am paying $12.96 per game,” Phil Menger

You are paying $12.96 per game and citizens are paying $58.50 per game to subsidize you and everyone person who attends an event at the arena for the cost overruns and arena subsidy. That amount is IN ADDITION to the $43.40 per person/per event subsidy that people approved when they voted to spend $55 million to build the arena.

It is easy to understand why you and those you have spoken with are happy not to have to pay the actual costs associated with your arena usage and with your fellow citizens subsidizing your night out by $100.00. Can you appreciate why citizens are less than pleased with the 135% ($58.50) increase in the amount they subsidize you and every other person at every event at the new arena?

I can also understand why you and others would choose to label being reminded that your fellow citizens are subsidizing your entertainment by $100.00 per event as whining.

However it would be irresponsible not to hold council and staff accountable for the consequences of their decisions and actions; irresponsible not to work to have council and staff behave with basic common sense in financial planning and budgeting; irresponsible not to share the consequences of council and staff continuing ‘business as usual’ in light of the high cost this behaviour has imposed and will continue to impose for decades on the citizens of Abbotsford.

Sorry if being reminded how heavily subsidized your attendance at arena events is by your fellow citizens is disquieting to you, but while council and staff continue behaving irresponsibly on financial and operational decisions you will just have to put up with the ‘whining’.

“Tongue planted firmly in cheek, I conclude with this: Shame on the city for having this albeit costly venture built in little old Abbotsford.” Rob Ironside

The shame lies in all the citizens of Abbotsford who can no longer afford the use of facilities because of fee increases to feed the voracious appetite for cash flow servicing the debt and subsidizing the arena has; for all the children/families who cannot afford to continue or start to participate in sports or activities because of the cumulative costs of all the fee increases imposed by the city to pay for the arena; the fallout for services that the large cutbacks in staff hours taking effect in January 2010 will have; the increasing number of citizens on limited or fixed incomes in danger of losing their homes because of tax and fee (e.g. water) increases to pay for ego/luxury facilities; the citizens on limited or fixed incomes who have to go to the food bank and other charities for basic necessities in order to have the money to pay the increases in fees and taxes.

The true shame in this lies in a council, staff and citizens who were/are focused only on how this would and does affect THEM, without giving any thought to the affect their decisions have on their many fellow citizens who currently struggle just to survive.

I make no apologies for demanding council and staff behave in prudent and responsible ways, for reminding them of the consequences their past bad decision making is having, for urging them to change their behaviour or for considering the affect councils behaviours have on all citizens – not just myself.