Category Archives: Municipal

Municipal

Jay’s Words of Extortion and Nonsense.

Leave a comment

General Manager Economic Development and Planning Services Jay Teichroeb had this to say about the referendum on the proposed P3 water project:

“It’s important that the public understands what is in front of them. It is not an either/or question … The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” said Teichroeb.

That means the public either says yes to the P3 water supply or no. The traditional design/build is not one of the options. He said if people don’t understand this then “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

If the public says no to the P3 proposal, Teichroeb said the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

If this was the best of 19 options that city staff could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff.

If Mr Teichroeb actually believes what he says above and is not merely using threats, intimidation and scare tactics (old favourites of City Hall staff, mayor and council) to stampede taxpayers into panicking and doing what staff, the mayor and council want them to – vote for the excessively expensive, flawed and problematic system, the City’s inept P3 proposal – that would explain why the City derives at best minimal benefit from the $892,000 it budgeted for Economic Development and Planning Services.

Rather than accepting Mr Teichroeb’s Chicken Little ‘the sky is falling’ routine let us proceed in the matter Mr Teichroeb, city staff, mayor and council clearly don’t want the public to, by thinking about what he said rather than being intimidated.

“The choice is the model proposed or nothing,” It is not “ or nothing,” It is a choice of overpaying for a flawed and problematic system by $100,000,000+ (a Hundred Million Plus dollars – a phenomenal waste of taxpayer dollars even by current staff, mayor and council’s standards of waste, waste, waste) OR saying ‘enough’ and demanding a financially responsible and operationally sound plan for upgrading the Abbotsford/Mission water supply system.

“we have not served the community.” OK, I cannot dispute that. Plan A and the numerous costs staff and council were aware of and did not reveal to the public until after the referendum; Plan A with its massive cost overruns; not obeying the law (Community Charter) which was designed to protect taxpayers from being saddled with multi-million dollar subsidies to private business, which staff, mayor and council worked to circumvent so they could burden already overburdened taxpayers with ten years of million(s of) dollar(s) subsidies to the Heat’s owners; usury fees for the use of city facilities to subsidize a professional hockey team; and so on and so on….

Clearly Mr Teichroeb is correct in stating “we have not served the community.”

“It is the best of 19 potential options we examined, and were closely analyzed by teams of engineers and financial experts.”

The public is certainly entitled to have a list of the 19 options as part of evaluating the “best of the 19 options.” It is vital to a proper evaluation of the options for the public to have the list of names of those who were members of the “teams of engineers and financial experts.” and their analysis.

Please none of this ‘we cannot give out the names’ usual city claptrap and excuse mongering. Unless the City is saying the members of these “ teams of engineers and financial experts.” are not willing to stand behind their analysis. Which would inform the public just what that analysis is worth – nada, nothing, less than the paper it was written on.

The public is entitled to the 19 options, the names of the engineers and financial experts and the analysis of each of the 19 options. Or Mr Teichroeb’s resignation.

“If the public says no to the P3 proposal, …… the city would have to “limit new development” and “use water rates to create a financial motivation to conserve.”

Really? This is the best staff, mayor and council can come up with? They are going to take their ball and go home and sulk?

Clearly, if giving up and sulking is the best option that city staff, the mayor and council could come up with, it is time to do a thorough housecleaning and hire some competent staff and elect a competent and effective mayor and council

On November 19th, save your pocketbook and Abbotsford’s water future.

Vote NO to the P3 – another mayor and council debacle in the making.

Vote YES to elect James W Breckenridge. You can examine James W Breckenridge’s proposed approach to upgrading the water infrastructure at: http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176 http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176

Feedback and ideas are welcome. I never have met a good/better idea I was not willing to….ummmmmm….adopt.

Finances, Municipal

Abbotsford’s Water Infrastructure Upgrade

Leave a comment

Here is the James W. Breckenridge plan to upgrade the water infrastructure supplying Abbotsford’s water.

On November 19, 2011 – the day of municipal elections across BC – the voters of Abbotsford vote NO on the P3 referendum, defeating the P3 proposal.

On November 19, 2011 – the day of municipal elections across BC – the voters of Abbotsford vote for James W. Breckenridge and elect him to council.

The new council passes a resolution apologizing to the mayor, council and citizens of Mission for the bullying, intemperate words and unacceptable behaviour of the prior mayor and council on upgrading of the water supply infrastructure.

Abbotsford and Mission turn their attention to working together to upgrade the current water infrastructure, a shared water infrastructure. That, as originally planned Abbotsford pay 2/3 of the cost and Mission pay 1/3 of the cost of the water infrastructure upgrade.

That we do not use current councils preferred method of design/build. Under this system the builder maximizes their profit by delivering the least project they can at the lowest cost they can at the highest price they can.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build. We need to be able to ensure the upgraded infrastructure meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water.

To do that council and the public need to have an opportunity and sufficient time to study the plans to discover and correct any errors and omissions.

It has been my experience that the skills, knowledge and insights a group of people such as the citizens of Abbotsford and Mission possess, can be surprising and serve to ensure nothing gets missed in the plans for the water infrastructure upgrade. Letting people share their thoughts and ideas can lead to valuable insights. At least for a council willing to actually listen with an open mind, accept and act on good ideas.

Going with this approach requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these. But if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met – exactly why are they in or running for office?

We share a bus system, waste management and the Norrish Creek water supply with Mission. Abbotsford and Mission will need to continue to work together managing these systems into the future.

Mission and Abbotsford share many issues jointly, a sharing of issues complicated not just by the fact they are linked by transit bus but by their proximity. Issues such as homelessness and affordable housing are not specific to one city but flow between the cities as the homeless and those in need of affordable housing do.

Abbotsford’s mayor, council and staff should be seeking ways to improve the working relationship between the cities. Not seeking to drive a wedge between the cities.

Undoubtedly Abbotsford’s mayor, council, staff and $200,000 sales pitchmen will seek to drown Abbotsford voters in numbers as well as confuse the voters and the issue with Abbotsford City Hall doublespeak.

Here are several important items to remember and question.

Abbotsford will continue to need to work with Mission even if Abbotsford proceeds alone, rather than in partnership with Mission on upgrading the water infrastructure. Abbotsford needs permission to run a new water pipeline across Mission to get water to Abbotsford. If Abbotsford wants to tie into the current shared water delivery system, would not such an action require permission from Abbotsford’s partner in that system – Mission?

The working relationship between Abbotsford and Mission is too important to act in a way that negatively affects the working relationship, merely because Abbotsford’s mayor, council and staff insist on getting their own way.

Why should the taxpayers of Abbotsford once again be forced to pay millions of dollars extra in order to feed the mayor, council and staff’s egos? Are not the friendship garden and the sports and entertainment complex sufficient City Hall ego taxes on taxpayers?

City of Abbotsford’s cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less the maximum (we do not know the actual amount) of federal subsidy $61 million, leaving Abbotsford ‘s best case cost at $230 million.

City of Abbotsford’s cost estimate for cost of water infrastructure upgrade $291 million, less Missions 1/3 share $97 million, leaving Abbotsford’s cost as $194 million.

The City of Abbotsford needs councillors and a council who comprehend (as the current mayor. council  and staff continue to demonstrate they do not, and seem incapable of learning) that increasing the cost to Abbotsford taxpayers from $194 million to $230 million is a net cost to Abbotsford’s taxpayers of $36 million. That the $61 million dollars ‘savings’ (federal grant) our current mayor, council and staff are chasing is only an illusion of ‘savings’, an illusion that will cost taxpayers $36 million more than they have to pay. Actually $66 million extra when you add in 30 years of $1 million per year increased  operating costs that result from  using a P3, as set out in the report prepared for the city.

The taxpayers of Abbotsford cannot afford to spend $66 million extra because mayor, council and staff cannot grasp basic financial reality.

On November 19, 2011 vote NO to the P3 and the $36 million more than necessary the P3 proposal will cost taxpayers in upgrading the water infrastructure.

On November 19, 2011 vote to elect James W. Breckenridge to council; vote to pay (actually save) $66 million less to upgrade our water infrastructure.

Finances, Municipal, Snafu

Facts? Balance? Thoughtfulness?

Leave a comment

Sadly, as the September 30, 2011 Global News Hour Final stories on the Abbotsford Heat and Abbotsford’s need for upgrading the city’s water system made clear, traditional broadcast media coverage all too often has little or nothing to do with facts, balance or thoughtfulness.

While the segment on the Heat did reference the $1.4 million subsidy paid directly to the Heat ownership for last year’s (2010/2011) season under the ten year revenue guarantee made by Abbotsford’s mayor and city council, it ignored or missed several important points.

Points such as: the indirect subsidies taxpayers pay for items such as the Heat banners adorning city lampposts or the advertising materials that adorn city facilities and buildings or the use of city staff to conduct business on behalf of the Heat.

Nor was there any mention of the yearly multi-million dollar operating subsidy to the Heat in the form of subsidizing the operations of the Sports Complex, the Heat’s home.

But the truly criminal aspect of Global’s story was the failure to address Abbotsford’s mayor and council signing an agreement to subsidize the Heat’s ownership that is illegal under the Community Charter that governs municipalities in BC.

No reference was made to Chilliwack’s mayor and council not entering into the same type of agreement to keep the Bruins (who moved to Victoria) in Chilliwack because as Chilliwack’s Mayor Sharon Gaetz stated “Under the province’s Community Charter, the city is not permitted to fund private business with taxpayers’ funds. This is deemed to be an assist to business and is strictly forbidden.”

Nor did Global say anything about Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s acknowledgement that the subsidy agreement with the Heat violates the Community Charter or their claims of having circumvented the law rather than obey it.

Global failed to question a mayor and council who, when a law forbids them from doing something they want to do, ignore/circumvent the law. Or ask just what else was circumvented or ignored behind the closed doors mayor and council prefer to operate from.

Later in the same broadcast Global’s story on Abbotsford’s need for a new water source left one wondering if some in Abbotsford were questioning the need to spend money on the City’s water infrastructure, while failing to address the true issue(s) of concern citizens have with Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s proposed upgrades to the water supply.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Global, nobody is disputing that Abbotsford needs to upgrade its water supply infrastructure. Indeed, many of those Mayor Peary labels as ‘naysayers’ – meaning they disagree with him – were calling on council to upgrade the water supply infrastructure before it built the ‘great white elephant’ AKA the Sports and Entertainment Complex.

There are major differences between the mayor and council’s intentions and the wishes/wants/best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford.

Council insists on using a P3 to upgrade the infrastructure, with Mayor Peary and council liking to talk about the $61 million grant they will get for going with a P3. Mayor Peary and council don’t like to talk about what prior ‘savings’ by mayor and council have cost the taxpayers (considerably more than the ‘savings’) or the fact that the increased costs associated with a P3 will be more (millions, tens of millions of dollars more) than the $61 million ‘savings’. Leaving Abbotsford taxpayers (once again) paying out of pocket for council chasing a mirage they call ‘savings’.

One significant cost the mayor and council like to overlook is that operating costs under a P3 would be at least a million dollars a year more expensive. Ironically this additional cost was included in the report commissioned by mayor and council to sell the project to the citizens of Abbotsford.

The mayor and council’s insistence on using a P3 ignores, as did the Global broadcast, the reality that around the world municipal governments are choosing not to use P3s on vital city resources such as water for a variety of good reasons, including keeping the control of vital resources such as water with the municipal governments.

Then there is the history and experience citizens have with the mayor and council’s promises as to what the total final cost of a project will be. The last time council told taxpayers the price was guaranteed by the contract with the builder (the last project council sold to the citizens) the cost of the project doubled. Costs that run over the cost promised by council by millions or tens of millions of dollars are simply normal operating procedure for mayor and council.

Keep in mind this is a mayor and council that built new Highway 1 interchanges where the roundabouts have signs telling drivers not to get in beside a truck because the design has trucks needing the entire roundabout to manoeuvre or where trucks tip over if they try to transit the roundabouts at or near the posted speed limits. A mayor and council that, with a short window for construction, a window that was open during the late fall/winter/early spring, thought hiring a firm that had never built a pool tank was a good idea.

Water is far too important a resource to go with a design build as the mayor and council want to. Yes, designing the system first in order to ensure it meets not just current but future needs, is robust enough for the years of service it will need to deliver and delivers the highest quality water requires far more of council than simply saying build me one of these – but council could always go back to meeting weekly to earn the salaries and perks they have voted themselves in recent years. More importantly, if the mayor and council are not willing to put in the time and effort required to ensure the needs and best interests of taxpayers are met – exactly why are they in office?

By its nature design build is a poor choice as the way to build a project, since the builder maximizes his profits by delivering the least he can, at the lowest cost he can, and meet the specifications of the contract. Design build is how you get roundabouts with signs warning cars not to enter beside trucks.

Abbotsford’s water infrastructure is too important to be built to the lowest standards and costs permitted by the contract.

Those are the major points of disagreement on upgrading the water infrastructure in Abbotsford. The disagreement is not whether we should upgrade, but about taxpayers wanting to ensure the upgrading is done correctly, managed well and has appropriate financial controls and frugality. As opposed to council’s take the easiest way out by going with a P3 and paying whatever the cost comes to.

All levels of government in Canada (municipal, provincial and federal) have a need to deal with a number of serious, complex issues at the same time they are constrained by the need to get their financial houses in order.

Unfortunately politics today are about politicians holding onto their power, perks and overly generous salaries by getting re-elected and has nothing to do with providing good governance and taking care of the people’s business.

Just as unfortunate is that traditional media is not about facts, balance or thoughtfulness. It is about the bottom line and best interests of whichever conglomerate the media in question is part of.

More unfortunate is that with the traditional media having become conglomerate owned and controlled, there is no media outlet for disseminating and discussing differing ideas, points of view and thoughts on what our priorities should be, the issues we need to address and how we should approach those priorities and issues. At least until such time as newer, open internet media such as The Tyee or Abbotsford Today are more well established and the public has an awareness of the new, emerging, information driven media world online.

I say more unfortunate because without information, knowledge and at least basic understanding you cannot make good choices and the functionality of democracy will continue to deteriorate.

With politicians focused on re-election and their own best interests and the public residing in wilful denial, media’s failure or refusal (or inability to recognize or understand?) to raise important issues, challenges and differing points of view in the public forum makes media partners with politicians and citizens clinging to wilful denial in our current sad state of affairs and the inauspiciousness of our future.

Media’s ‘news’ should, at the very least, resemble a broadcast containing facts, balance and thought, rather than having every appearance of being a promotional video for, in this case, Abbotsford’s mayor and council members seeking re-election in November.

Municipal, Snafu

Taxpayer Terror

Leave a comment

Experience has made ” making profits” and ” saving taxpayers money” words and concepts that strike terror into the hearts of Abbotsford’s taxpayers when spoken by members of Abbotsford City Council.

Paying to cover the losses of Council’s ‘profitable’ get rich quick schemes or the costs of repairing, completing, redoing or living with the consequences of Council’s ‘saving taxpayers money’ has (and continues to) impoverish the taxpayers and citizens of Abbotsford, not just monetarily but also in terms of City services, infrastructure, amenities, the cost to use facilities etc.

One would have Hoped (Prayed) Council would have learned, after all their costly squandering of taxpayer dollars, to consider possible consequences of their actions instead of simply doing the math to arrive at the dollars that would be earned or saved IF and ONLY IF everything went absolutely perfectly.

What makes council’s recent announcement of their latest plan to reap big profits from electronic billboards notably worrisome is not the fact that once again council has, behind closed doors, created a fantasy world of imagined big profits that has little or nothing to do with the real world that rules existence outside the confines of City Hall. Nor is it that council still refuses to hear or consider any questions or objections raised by those who don’t share council’s fantasies.

No, what raises dread about council’s latest get rich quick ‘sit back and let the $millions$ roll in’ scheme is that, apparently unable to find any new financial disaster to pursue, council has RETURNED to the electronic billboards business.

Remember, council had to have a big, multicoloured, all the bells and whistles billboard for ARC because council could then simply ‘sit back and let the $dollars$ roll into city coffers’?

Since its installation no advertising dollars have materialized – none, zero, zip, nada. The ARC billboard has only been used, until recently at least, to deliver information about ARC’s programs and events that a smaller, simpler, far less expensive billboard would have sufficed to deliver at a substantial savings to taxpayers pocketbooks.

Yet in spite of the fact that none, zero, zip, nada of the advertising revenue promised by council ever materialized, council has returned to electronic billboards as a source of ‘profits’.

[Recently the billboard has been used to increase the dollar value/cost of council’s hidden subsidies for the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports complex by advertising upcoming events at the AESC.]

In light of Mayor Peary’s statements concerning the City’s agreement with the Pattison Sign Group one has to wonder if it is the ability to use the billboards to provide new, major advertising subsidization for the AESC and the Heat that led to the agreement?

The black hole that AESC is for taxpayer’s dollars – multi-million dollar subsidies to the Heat ownership group, multi-million dollar operating subsidies so the Heat have an arena to play in and the growing cost of council’s hidden (from taxpayer’s) subsidies – would seem about to consume millions more taxpayer dollars thanks to city council’s agreement with the Pattison Sign Group.

What makes me say that? Two things.

First is that councils big fancy digital billboard at ARC failed to attract advertising; that the only non-event  advertising on the Tradex electronic billboard is City advertising; that the display on the Automall’s very large, easily seen from Highway 1 electronic billboard is……..the time and temperature.

If there is no market for your product, in this case advertising on large electronic billboards, you are going to find yourself stuck holding said unsellable product.

Second, whatever else people have to say about Jimmy Pattison, they acknowledge that he is a sharp businessman.

The Pattison Sign Group is about to spend millions of dollars erecting 3 large electronic billboards in Abbotsford, were the lack of advertising dollars being spent on existing electronic billboards suggests there is a strong possibility that the Pattison Sign Group’s billboards will fail to generate sufficient revenue to break even on the billboards and their multi-million dollar cost.

Given council’s demonstrated willingness to provide revenue guaranties (a la the Heat) and the sharpness of Jimmy Pattison as a businessman – I want to know just how much Abbotsford’s taxpayers are potentially on the hook for when the billboards, which will operate in the real world and not council’s fantasy worlds, fail to generate enough revenue to cover their costs?

Unfortunately, what this agreement can cost Abbotsford’s taxpayers to pay for council’s latest get rich quick scheme’s ‘profits’ is undoubtedly something council considers taxpayers ‘don’t need to know’ and since it involves a private business they can (and will undoubtedly) refuse to disclose this information to taxpayers (as they do with the Heat).

Sigh.

I wonder how long it will be before council decides the problem with the AESC, as it would appear they did with ARC’s billboard, is that it is too small and that building a three or four times larger complex will have umpteen tens of $millions$ rolling in?

It is well past time that, if council wants to gamble on get rich quick schemes, they use their own money.

And if they cannot, as the BC lottery ads put it, learn their limits and play within them……

Because councillors are elected to take care of the City’s business and taxpayer’s best interests, not to be impoverishing taxpayers pursuing nonexistent business ‘profits’.

Consider, Federal, Municipal, Provincial

Do as I say……

Leave a comment

Just a few days ago Richmond BC resident Selina She Yin Tsui, who had held herself out as a “holistic healer”, lost two properties she owned after both were “declared instruments and proceeds of unlawful activity” under the province’s civil forfeiture laws.

What was unusual was not that someone collected money, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars for something they didn’t, couldn’t (Tsui had no actual medical training) deliver; rather it was that her ‘marks’ got some restitution.

Most often the reports are about how the con men (or women) made promises or claims, took people’s money, delivered nothing and kept the money or there were no assets or funds to repay the ‘marks’..

Citizens are always complaining that politicians lied or that they did not keep their promises.

The new television season of Holmes on Homes begins tonight, where Mike Holmes rescues homeowners from builders or contractors who made promises about what they would do, took the money to do what they promised, didn’t deliver what they promised and kept the homeowners money.

And on the news last night, there was Christie Clark coyly smirking about getting out of repaying Ottawa the $1.6 billion BC took to implement the HST.  Undoubtedly most British Columbians are cheering for Clark to be 100% successful in reneging on British Colombia’s written agreement with the federal government on implementing the HST.

As a society we like to talk the talk about integrity, morals, ethics, and principles as long as it isn’t costing us, as individuals or a society, anything or any inconvenience.  But as soon as it becomes inconvenient or is going to cost us effort, or worse money, we walk away – ignoring integrity, morals, ethics and principles.

We had an agreement with the federal government on the HST whereby the province of British Columbia would receive payments totalling $1.6 billion dollars in exchange for implementing the HST.

In that agreement it was clearly set out that we had the right to change our minds and extinguish the HST. It was also clearly set out that if we chose to change our minds and not participate in the HST, the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid to Ottawa.

The fact the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid to the federal government if we voted to extinguish the HST was oft cited in the discussion leading up to the referendum on keeping or extinguishing the HST. Prime Minister Harper clearly and definitely stated that if British Columbia chose to extinguish the HST the province would have to repay the $1.6 billion dollars to the federal government.

Knowing that a major consequence of choosing to extinguish the HST would be repaying Ottawa that $1.6 billion dollars, British Columbians voted to extinguish the HST – we voted to return the $1.6 billion to Ottawa.

That may be an inconvenient truth, but for a people or a society of integrity, morals, ethics and principles there would be no option other than returning the money.

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

The news has recently been full of the fact none of the rioters from the Game 7 debacle has been charged, much less meted out any punishment or consequences. About how the rioters needed to pay the penalty for their decisions and actions; and on the same broadcast we have Christie Clark sitting there acknowledging her efforts to get British Columbia out of the consequences of voting to extinguish HST.

Harper may well decide to forgive all or part of the $1.6 billion repayment due the federal government from British Columbia. Not because it’s a good idea, but as a matter of politics – an opportunity to buy votes in British Columbia. If Harper were a leader instead of a politician, he would clearly be saying “No, we had an agreement.  You made a promise, a commitment, to the federal government. We, the federal government, made the promised payments to British Columbia. But the province of British Columbia chose to change its mind and not participate in the HST. In the agreement it was clearly set out that if British Columbia chose not to participate it was required to repay the$1.6 billion.”

“It would be unfair to the other provinces and territories not to require British Columbia to repay these funds.  More importantly, it is necessary to require the repayment of these funds in order to protect the integrity of agreements made between the federal government, the provinces and territories, as well as agreements between the provinces and territories themselves.”

Consider the effect upon healthcare should the agreements between provinces, territories and the federal government become ‘flexible’ (not worth the paper they’re written on). Definitely a path we don’t want to start down, a can of worms we don’t want to open.

If Christie Clark was a leader instead of a politician, or if Stephen Harper was a leader and not a politician, there would be no question about the agreement between Ottawa and Victoria being kept as this is the best course for Canada and ultimately for British Columbia. It is in the fact they are politicians and not leaders that the possibility of a portion, or the entire $1.6 billion, not being repaid per the agreement lies. Because the question for politicians is not what is good for the country or province but what political gain is available to be had.

The reason we have politicians who lie to us rather than leaders, is that we are not a People or a Society, not a province or a country, of integrity, morals, ethics and principles as we like to lie to ourselves we are.

True integrity, morals, ethics and principle are not things one puts on when it is convenient and sets aside when they are inconvenient or uncomfortable or require sacrifice or the paying of a price.

As Martin Luther King Jr. stated “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy”.