Listen: to give attention with the ear; attend closely for the purpose of hearing;

Mayor Peary’s recent comments on the budget have once again demonstrated city hall’s need for a dictionary. As the above definition makes clear, listening involves paying close attention in order to hear what was actually being said.

My fellow citizens of Abbotsford need to look around their homes for any dictionary or dictionaries they can spare and deliver the dictionary (ies) to Mayor Peary at city hall. Thereby delivering the message that city hall needs to listen to citizens.

Considering that a local paper also reported that the Ratepayers Association suggested scrapping the parks, recreation and culture department it appears that listening problems are contagious for anyone spending to much time at city hall.

Those present at the Ratepayers Association’s presentation having active listening skills were no doubt as astonished as me to hear claims that the Ratepayers had suggested abolishing parks, recreation and culture.

The failure to listen to or to consider ideas and suggestions they do not want to hear obviously remains a problem at city hall.

As to the departments that the Ratepayers did suggest cutting, social planning and economic development, and the mayor’s statement “These fellas have never been in to see what goes on in these departments.” This statement is true of almost every citizen of Abbotsford. Rather than a dismissive ‘I know best’ statement the mayor should have provided evidence of the accomplishments of these departments that demonstrate their value and effectiveness to the citizens of Abbotsford.

I know the personnel in the social planning department, considering them highly competent and professional. Unfortunately they face the barrier presented by city council and its lack of listening skills.

Mayor Peary’s dismissive entertainment and sports centre comment: “You don’t build a $65 million project and then mothball it” underscores that an important component of listening is to actually think about what has been said.

Responsible government will ‘build a $65 million project and then mothball it’ if that is the responsible action to take. Indeed other jurisdictions have built expensive facilities and mothballed them until they had the funds to open and operate them.

What the ratepayers called upon city council to do, and I have previously called upon city council to do, is to not open the entertainment and sports centre at this time of economic recession when the city cannot afford to squander the funds needed to cover the negative cash flow that will result from opening the centre.

To quote the ratepayers “These losses have been illustrated on multiple occasions at other facilities of the same size. We would be happy to provide City staff and Council with our research in this area.

So, until a business plan showing verifiable revenue projections and operational costs can be produced… we suggest that the new Entertainment complex remain dark.”

Which would seem to this taxpayer to be advice to be listened to and considered, not dismissively pooh-poohed?

I read with interest the letter from David D. Hull concerning the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce and its board of directors’ position on Plan A.

It is unfortunate that Monday January 19th 2009 is one of the days council has chosen not to be taking care of business as this is a matter they need to move on quickly to ensure it’s inclusion in the city budget they are drawing up.

Given Mr. Hull and the Chamber of Commerce’s “unwavering belief” that all 3 Plan A projects will make Abbotsford “a fantastic place to conduct business”, council must recognize the $benefits$ that will accrue to Abbotsford businesses from these projects.

In light of the breadth of the business $benefits$ cited by city council and other staunch supporters of these projects the business taxes levied on these $benefits$ should to be spread widely over the business community, rather than limited to the hospitality industry via room rental and meal taxes as is the case in Vancouver to pay for the Vancouver convention centre ensuring that businesses gaining $benefits$ from these projects, contribute to the costs of the projects in a manner reflective of the $benefits$ they will receive.

With two of the projects already open and the third scheduled to be open before the City’s new fiscal year begins, council needs to act promptly to ensure these $benefits$ are appropriately recognized and taxed; reducing the impact of debt repayment for capital costs and cost overruns, interest payments and the yearly operating expenses on ordinary taxpayers gaining no benefits from the Plan A projects.

It is fortunate Mr. Hull and his board of directors brought the matter to the public’s attention at this time as it permits council to include a tax reflecting the Plan A $benefits$ to business in the budget for the next fiscal year.

***********************************************************

The Times

Friday, January 16, 2009

EDITOR, THE TIMES:
The Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce board of directors passed a resolution at their December board meeting to vociferously and enthusiastically support local efforts to secure an American Hockey League franchise for Abbotsford.

The Abbotsford chamber has been a staunch supporter of all three Plan A projects with the unwavering belief that an improvement to the quality of life in Abbotsford will make our city a great place to live. A great place to live is a fantastic place to conduct business.

The addition of an AHL franchise in our city would be a fantastic addition to the sporting and entertainment landscape.
We are confident that an AHL team in Abbotsford would not be to the detriment of other hockey leagues in the area, but in fact an important asset.

An AHL team would raise the awareness and appreciation of semi pro and junior league hockey and will in fact grow the overall market.
David D. Hull
Executive Director
Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce

Any regular patron or minimally observant staff member of ARC will tell you that January, with its large influx of New Year’s resolution exercisers, is the busiest of the winter months. They can also tell you that as January progresses the New Year’s resolution people fall away and the crowd thins back out.

So if you were scheduling maintenance that would close the men’s and women’s change rooms for three days each, forcing people to change in the family change rooms you would schedule this maintenance for … the first week of January if you are the City of Abbotsford.

In keeping with the effort to maximize inconvenience and hassle for patrons: rather than schedule the closure for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday one week and the same three days the next week you would of course schedule the maintenance for six days in a row.

That way rather than closing only on the quietest days of the week you include Thursday (cheap swim), Friday (longer public swim) and Saturday (public swims and a pool rental with 2 – 3 dozen people wanting to change at the same time) allowing the city to annoy and torment as many patrons as possible.

Mayor George Peary says he wants to bring change to City Hall. I would suggest he make his #1 priority introducing Common Sense into city behaviour and decisions.

Obviously I missed something in our recent municipal election.

Although I am not sure how as I attended all the all-candidates meetings listening carefully to everything the candidates said and paid careful attention to the media to ensure awareness of the issues and ideas candidates were speaking of.

Yet somehow I managed to miss our recently elected and/or re-elected mayor and council members speaking of the need to hold council meetings only twice a month. Or was this a possibility our elected representatives felt the public didn’t need to know? Something to be added to the long and growing list of issues and costs that the public does not need to know anything about?

This 50% reduction was approved on December 15th at the last council meeting of 2008 – just before taking a month off. Apparently they felt the need to rest up before beginning their arduous new twice a month schedule.

For the sake of accuracy – with 52 weeks in a year a bi-weekly schedule would entail 26 meetings a year, not the 24 on council’s 2009 schedule. Council is neither meeting bi-weekly nor every other Monday but twice a month.

It is this lack of attention to detail and to reality which has the City burdened with massive debt and debt repayments and having the need to invest tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure at a time the city is facing declining revenues and with most taxpayers unable to afford any tax increases.

Abbotsford is facing harsh fiscal realities as a result of council’s past actions. Under this grim reality the economic slowdown would not seem an excuse to kick back, take it easy, meet less and twiddle ones thumbs but a call to action.

I had not realized that council had all its’ infrastructure projects in a state where they are ready to break ground the day after receiving funding.

The federal government is readying to apply economic stimulus through spending to invest in infrastructure. With stimulus the purpose of this spending it is the projects that are ready to break ground immediately, not in six months or a year or two, that will be receiving funding.

To benefit from this federal largess council must have infrastructure projects ready for an immediate ground breaking, not be sitting around waiting for money to fall into their laps – we all know, and are paying for, how well that worked with Plan A.

With the economy in the shape it is in, the attraction of business and development is not only highly competitive but is becoming more competitive all the time.

Council needs to spend time expediting matters that are tied up in City Hall’s bureaucracy. Such positive action would serve to counter Abbotsford’s reputation as a bureaucratic red-tape nightmare which moves with snail like speed and is the last place one wants to do business.

The city needs to be aggressively competing for business rather than sitting around watching business and revenue fall. Taxpayers can no longer afford to make up the difference between council’s budget revenue numbers and the real world revenue levels.

Of course in the real world the economic slowdown is reason to work twice as hard, not an excuse for a 50% reduction in efforts.

If council is finding it difficult to stir themselves in the face of the economic slowdown they could use the extra time available at council meetings to consult with the public as to the publics priorities, where to reduce expenditures to offset the reduced revenue, ideas on attracting business and revenue and ideas on ways to save money through expenditure reductions.

Not to forget homelessness, poverty, children going to bed hungry at night, a food bank facing the need for new premises to meet ever increasing demand while donations decline, a host of social problems made worse by economic realities real people have to face, etc.

Consult the public – as they should have consulted the public on cutting council meetings to twice a month during the recent election rather than waiting until safely elected (or re-elected) before springing this on the electorate.

As a suggestion from the public on cost reduction: since council ran on a platform that included weekly meetings, it is reasonable to divide their yearly salaries by 52 and pay this amount for each council session actually attended.

Unfortunately council is unlike the poor taxpayer who, upon deciding by/for themselves to only show up half the time, would quickly find themselves seeking other employment.