With Abbotsford City Hall’s unsurpassed record of spend, spend, spend taxpayer’s dollars, it came as no surprise that council voted itself an unending, unlimited stream of yearly raises.

Neither should any Abbotsford taxpayer have been surprised that city manager Frank Pizzuto presented a staff report that recommended the increase since management and council have a very cozy, incestuous, salary relationship.

Council gives management yearly raises – and bonuses – is anyone surprised management recommends council give itself a raise? Or that it was recommended council get a yearly salary raise? Or that council promptly gave itself this limitless pay raise?

To add insult to the injury done to taxpayers tax bills by this never-ending, no limits pay raise, council and management started throwing around Abbotsford City Hall Math in regards to the pay raise.

[Abbotsford City Hall Math: City hall calculates a profit for taxpayers and the reality turns out to be multi-million dollar yearly losses that taxpayers must cover.]

Abbotsford City Hall Math:

The mayor’s increases work out to an average of 1.8 per cent a year, for the past five years, while councillors would get an average of 1.4 per cent a year over the same period of time.

Reality:

Other than the fact that dividing the raise by 5 makes it seem much smaller – what does the past 5 years have to do with this pay raise?
Perhaps council is seeking to have taxpayers forget that council enriched itself over the past three years with the 44% pay increase they gave themselves just three years ago?

A 44% raise that after receiving, council quickly cut the number of council meetings in half.

But then council, city management and Tim Dillon and Associates were very careful to just compare what surrounding councils were paid – and not what value taxpayers in those municipalities received for the wages they paid their councils.

Hardly surprising since even the most cursory comparison between what the taxpayers of Langley paid for their Sports and Entertainment Centre (and received for their investment) and what the taxpayers of Abbotsford paid, and continue to pay, (and received for their $$$$) would inevitably lead any independent party to the conclusion that 1) council does not deserve a 9% (mayor – 7% council) raise and 2) the taxpayers of Abbotsford are entitled to a refund, a BIG refund.

Instead, council will receive yearly raises in an amount which is unknown and on which there is no cap to limit the size of the raise in any given year.
Raises that will continue to have no relationship to the manner in which council fumbles its responsibilities.

Council gets the $$$$$$$$ and taxpayers – as usual – get the shaft, footing the bills for councils profligate ways.

So, council paid Tim Dillon & Associates $9,000 to provide justification for giving themselves (council) yet another pay raise? A raise that is to include health benefits, a yearly allowance for attending community events and an annual conference allowance?

With all the council promises and decisions that have turned in black holes sucking millions of dollars out of the city budget, infrastructure (e.g. Matsqui Pool) that is falling apart, the city mired in a financial quagmire, the need for water rationing (in one of the wettest years on record) in order to have water for the Fire Department to use…….how could anyone, even Abbotsford’s council, possibly think a raise is either deserved or in order?

What’s next? A golden retirement plan like the ones provincial and federal politicians have gifted themselves?

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of this pay raise proposal is to increase the mayor and city council’s wages every year – forever – without the politicians every having to face the taxpayers and publically vote to push their personal hands deeper into taxpayers pockets. If council has its way raises will happen quietly, behind the closed doors of City Hall, without any need to bother taxpayers with the knowledge that council has gotten yet another automatic yearly raise – unearned and undeserved or not.

So much for Mayor Peary’s “Getting good value for money [for taxpayers] is our number one priority.”

And while I include council’s current salaries as well as the proposed salary raises and perks in stating that taxpayers are not getting value for the wages they currently pay council – I do not include the $9000 paid to Tim Dillon & Associates in this lack of value.

Not that I don’t consider the $9000 paid to Tim Dillon & Associates to permit council to squander yet more taxpayer dollars – in this instance directly stuffing taxpayer dollars into council’s personal pockets – a misuse of city funds.

It is just that $9000 seems a fairly cheap price, perhaps even a bargain, when you contrast the outcome, the proposed 9% pay raise, with the nearly 50% pay raise council arrived at, and gave themselves, on their own 3 years ago.

“Getting good value for money [for taxpayers] is our number one priority.”

Laughable.

If there was any relationship between ‘value for money’ and the wages paid to Abbotsford’s current council, taxpayers would be getting an extremely large refund of the wages city council has paid itself.

Instead council is going to give itself ongoing yearly salary increases, benefits and perks. Business as usual – council (or friends) get the mine and taxpayers get the shaft.

““I’m not sure it’s fair to deny this [4633 Sumas Mountain Road] development,” she [Councillor Lynne Harris] said.”

It seems extremely fair to me to withhold council’s rubberstamping of another development on Sumas Mountain until the study on the effects previous developments had on property downhill and downstream is available.

If we are speaking of lack of fairness it seems extremely unfair to: 1) be making this decision without waiting for the IMSP study that would show whether development has negatively impacted property downhill and downstream; 2) that council in prior years routinely rubberstamped developments without studying what effect development had on property downhill and downstream; 3) to sneak the matter back before council for approval after deferring the decision on the development at a meeting attended by those who own property downhill and downstream; 4) to hold a re-vote when one of those who originally voted on the matter wasn’t present – especially given that councillor voted to wait for the report on the effect development has had.

Or perhaps Councillor Harris meant it was not fair to the developer not to rubberstamp (business as usual) the development but to use evidence (the ISMP study) in making the decision on whether to approve the development. Or perhaps Councillor Harris meant it was not fair to put the interests of Abbotsford’s citizens and area residents ahead of the interests of the developer?

“Councillor Lynne Harris said after “serious reflection” away from the “emotion of the table,” she had changed her mind.” So Councillor Harris was unwilling to stand up and face Abbotsford citizens whose property will be negatively impacted by the development in a forthright manner and vote to approve the development, but is quite willing to slither into a council meeting where she would not be facing those whose property will be negatively impacted by the development and sell out the interests of those citizens ?

There are several words that describe the behaviour of Councillor (Et tu) Harris vis-à-vis this development, but there was nothing fair in her betrayal of the residents of the properties downhill and down stream.

In addressing his guileful return before council of the development on Sumas Mountain Mayor Peary attempted to use doublespeak (language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses meaning) to hide the fact that he was once again placing the interests of developers ahead of the interests of the citizens of Abbotsford (notably those property owners who will be negatively impacted by the development).
For example: ” Peary said he only has 30 days to ask for a reconsideration and had he waited for the next meeting, it would have been too late.”

To late for what?

To take advantage of the absence of Councillor Ross who was not a supporter of approving the development before the ISMP study was complete?

To have the development approved before the ISMP study provided evidence to support the position of property owners downhill and downstream that development on the mountain has negative effects upon them and their property is available?

Why else the rush to decision? As Mayor Peary himself acknowledged when he stated “We would just be reconsidering it in February…”, the decision was due for reconsideration next month (February) – hardly an unreasonable delay.

Or for example: “Peary told The News that the watershed is 1,500 hectares in size, and the 65-unit townhouse development is “a tiny dot” on it.”

What does the size of the watershed have to do with anything? The important point is that “tiny dot” that is the 65-unit townhouse development is right above the “tiny dots” that are the properties of Abbotsford citizens.

How about: ” What’s more, he [Mayor Peary] said city staff assure him that water detention requirements in the development will mean there will be less runoff from the developed land.”

Would this be the same staff who assured citizens the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports Complex would make a profit and not be a black hole consuming millions of taxpayers dollars?

“… less runoff from the developed land.” Less runoff than what? The floods currently hitting Australia? What is a little more flooding, eh Mayor Peary? Given his drive to have the development approved at any cost the mayor would not want to remember that just a few years ago a “little more flood” would have had the Fraser River breeching its dikes and pouring into Abbotsford.

Contrast Mayor Peary’s doublespeak with the words of Councillor MacGregor who demonstrated a clear grasp of the situation when he stated ““We need to see this report. … we need to wait.””

I would suggest that Mayor Peary needs to remember that his duty of care is owed to the citizens of Abbotsford and not to developers, or wealthy citizens purchasing a professional hockey team, et cetera. But…… given the mayor’s behaviour since he took office and the manner in which he snuck this matter back before council when the timing would ensure that the development was approved – reminding the mayor of the duty of care he owes Abbotsford’s citizens would be a waste of breath.

……city council practice what it preach?

The editorial on Abbotsford Today that began with “Last night we were roundly criticized by a City Councillor for not doing our bit to support the Abbotsford Heat hockey team” came to mind today as an irate citizen approached me (having had no success approaching the mayor or councillors) to speak about Heat attendance.

What he had to say brought the above article to mind and had me thinking that, before council starts chastising others they might want to look at their own behaviour.

But then blaming anyone or anything they can is a trademark behaviour of Abbotsford’s City Council. Well, more accurately the trademark behaviour is not accepting responsibility for the consequences of their (council’s) decisions and/or actions and always having an excuse or someone or something whose ‘fault it is.’

It is possible that council would accept responsibility for a positive outcome but we are most unlikely to ever find out given that the probability of this council making a decision based on sound, responsible decision making and fiscal management……approaches zero.

When this citizen spoke to me I did suggest that he could go as a ‘delegation’ which would give him the opportunity to address council at a council meeting – although many citizens who have ideas or comments are not comfortable standing up in public and addressing council at a council meeting.

Admittedly he is not a wealthy individual seeking to have council subsidize his purchase of a profession sports team nor did he contribute to the election campaign of local politicians nor is he likely to contribute to any politicians campaign in our fast approaching municipal election.

Still, since it was obvious he had given thought to the matter and that he had a valid point that council should consider I said that if he was agreeable I would like to write and share his point and comments with his fellow citizens.

He is a big Heat fan and as such would like the attendance to be much higher so that the Heat remain in Abbotsford.

He is also (as are many) a smoker and as a smoker he finds being “confined to the building for 3 hours” more than simply uncomfortable. Heat fans who are smokers are condemned to making a choice between watching the entire hockey game or giving into the need to smoke and watching the game only to the point they need to leave the building (and the game) to smoke.

The gentleman had checked and both the Vancouver Canucks and the Chilliwack Bruins have designated smoking areas so that fans who are smokers are not forced to choose between watching the entire game and their need to feed their tobacco addiction.

Being a fan he attended the sold out game between the Heat and the Manitoba Moose (the Canucks farm team).

6000 extra bums in the seats. An opportunity to impress the people those 6000 bums belong to and to sell those people on returning to watch more games. Thereby reducing the subsidy Abbotsford’s taxpayers shell out for the privilege of having the Heat play in Abbotsford.

And what do these potential future customers find, besides the well known built in parking problems? The smokers have the unpleasant surprise that they cannot take a smoke break between periods and then return to the game to watch the next period.

Smokers must choose between suffering through the entire hockey game without a cigarette or giving in to the need to smoke and leaving the game. Council has mandated that if you leave the building to smoke, you cannot return.

Leaving aside the fact that such a policy encourages smokers to find somewhere inside the building to sneak off to in order to be able to have a smoke and return to watch the game, can you think of any policy council could choose that would discourage smokers more from attending Heat games?

Not according to the Heat fan who spoke of all the smokers who had the unpleasant surprise of discovering council’s no smoking disincentive to attending Heat games at the sold out Manitoba Moose visit.

There is nothing that can be done about the huge parking disincentive council chose to burden the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Complex with. But something can be done about the major disincentive to attendance of councils no smoking policy.

Perhaps if council were to spend less time blaming others, they would have time to remove their own disincentives to Heat attendance.

When I read that headline in a local paper it struck me as being more like the headline from a news report of flooding in the third world than in a city in BC.

It is a little concerning that Abbotsford’s mayor, an ex-school teacher and ex-principle, does not see a clear connection between cutting down trees; removing the ground cover; replacing the trees and ground cover with asphalt, concrete and acres of shingled roofs; and increased runoff.

It is also concerning that Abbotsford city council was unaware of the Agricultural Land Reserve and of the federal fisheries regulations concerning streams. After all, if council had been aware of the land reserve or fishery regulations they would have taken those restrictions into consideration when planning and approving development on the mountain wouldn’t they? That would be the prudent, common sense course of action would it not?

Surely if council had been aware of the land reserve and fishery restrictions and prudently taken those restrictions into consideration in planning and approving development on the mountain they would not now be using the land reserve and fishery regulations as excuses for not taking action to help citizens and remedy a problem they caused or significantly contributed to – would they?

Why is the mayor, council or anyone for that matter surprised that increased runoff has resulted in the stream bottom accumulating sediment? It would seem to me that the increased sediment in the stream is a symptom or supporting evidence of a runoff problem, not another convenient excuse for city council to do nothing.

The most mindboggling aspect of the report on the problems with flooding was the mayor’s statement: “The mountain hasn’t seen a lot of development in the past two or three years, but the flooding keeps happening.”

WHAT? Let me get this straight.

The city approved development without requiring any remedial action by the developers involved to compensate for the difference in runoff that occurs between land with trees, bush, grass and other assorted ground cover versus the same area covered with asphalt, concrete and shingled roofs.

The development took place, there was an increase in runoff that occurred after the development took place, this increase in runoff resulted in flooding for those located downhill from the development (hardly unexpected in light of the laws of gravity), city council has done nothing to address or remedy the flooding problems, and the mayor is surprised that the flooding hasn’t, somehow miraculously, stopped?

Moreover the mayor cites the fact that the flooding hasn’t stopped, even thought there has not been much new development, as ‘evidence’ that development is not causing runoff problems.

HUH?

The development caused increased runoff leading to flooding, nothing was done to address the issue/problem of extra runoff, why would Mayor Peary, or anyone, be surprised the flooding continued? Having done nothing to solve the problem of flooding why would you apparently (from your statement) expect the flooding to stop?

Expecting the flooding to stop when no action has been taken is illogical; to use the fact that, having done nothing to solve the flooding problem, the flooding continues as proof that the development had nothing to do with the flooding is……mindboggling and extremely concerning.

The responsible, thoughtful response would be to hold off approving the new development until the Integrated Stormwater Management Plan is prepared.

Why is it unlikely council will act responsibly and put the development on hold until the Plan is done?

Money.

Abbotsford has been so financially mismanaged that council desperately needs the development fees to fund their spend, spend, spendthrift ways.

No doubt the City will cry ‘we are to poor’ to take any action to address the flooding – even though council has unlimited funds when it comes to behaviours subsidizing the purchase of a professional hockey team by privileged, wealthy Abbotsford citizens.

Which in light of the revelations in the diplomatic documents released on WikiLeaks, is behaviour in keeping with that of a third world government.