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?

The truly damning thing is that Abbotsford city council does not even see what is wrong with their behaviour. Indeed, given their comments on having a supporting legal opinion council is busy congratulating themselves on their cleverness in having circumvented the provisions of the Community Charter in signing their ethically challenged pact with the Abbotsford Heat ownership.

Among the purposes of the Community Charter, the BC law setting out how municipalities are governed, is preventing municipal politicians from the type of financial misconduct Abbotsford council has entered into with the ownership of the Abbotsford Heat.

The Community Charter seeks to prevent local politicians from saddling/committing taxpayers with/to responsibility for large liabilities as Abbotsford’s council has done with its agreement with the Heat.

Taxpayers are on the hook for $200,000 to $300,000 for the first year of operations. While it is unlikely that taxpayers will be stuck paying the entire remaining $51,300.000.00 liability council has made taxpayers responsible for, with an agreement that spans ten years and is tied to the fortunes of a hockey team there is an unacceptable potential for the taxpayers of Abbotsford to be stuck with a $multi-million$ dollar bill.

The Charter also seeks to prevent sweetheart deals between municipal councils and businesses, groups or organizations within the community at the expense of other businesses, groups, organizations or the community as a whole.

If local amateur hockey teams, or other local groups, wanted to use the Entertainment and Sports Centre they would be paying hefty fees for the privilege. A privilege that the professional hockey Heat receive for free, while city taxpayers are out of pocket for the cost to operate the arena for the Heat. A cost responsible for a significant portion, if not all, of the $2,000,000 arena operating loss taxpayers are also digging deeper into their pockets to pay.

And although I doubt those who crafted the Community Charter ever thought of the particular transgression Abbotsford’s council is engaged in, buying a favoured ownership group a hockey team, I think it a safe bet that the Community Charter was written to prevent violation of the taxpayers in this manner.

Make no mistake; Abbotsford’s council has effectively bought the team for the Heat’s ownership group. Council has assumed a huge liability in guaranteeing the Heat $5,700,000 as a minimum yearly income; council has made citizens responsible for paying the multi-million dollar costs of operating the arena for the benefit of the Heat who get use of the arena for free; despite promises by council the city, in guaranteeing the Heat’s minimum revenue part of which is designated to cover the cost of travel for teams coming to Abbotsford to play the Heat, taxpayers are paying the travel expenses of professional hockey teams to and from Abbotsford.

As a result of the actions of city council the taxpayers of Abbotsford have assumed a large liability, are contributing millions of dollars to the Heat and their ownership by absorbing the operating costs of the arena while not charging rental and contribute further taxpayer dollars to the Heat’s ownership to top up revenue to $5.7 million yearly.

City council, on behalf of taxpayers, has assumed all the risk associated with the hockey team and is pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into the Heat.

If the Heat fail be profitable the taxpayers pay. If the Heat are successful the taxpayers still are paying but it is the Heat ownership group that reaps the financial rewards of owning a successful hockey team.

Given the actions of Abbotsford city council, the question of the legality of council’s attempt to use Global Spectrum to evade the Community Charter must be determined and any needed amends made to the Community Charter to close the loophole Abbotsford’s council slithered through.

Given the pride council evidences at having circumvented the purpose of the Community Charter it is clear that there is no hope council will resign. Instead it is probable council will simply continue to do as it wants to do while ignoring the consequences of its actions on the City of Abbotsford, the citizens of Abbotsford and Abbotsford’s future.

Leaving Abbotsford’s besieged citizens forced to wait, counting down the 19 long months until the next municipal election, to replace the current councilors with a council with councilors possessing common sense, financial responsibility, ethics, honour and integrity.

And Praying that the additional damage this council and these councilors do to the City’s finances, facilities, infrastructure and citizens is not so great as to be irreparable.

“Pizzuto said city staff were capable of dealing with hockey operations.”

My ten year old niece is capable of dealing with hockey operations – as long as she too is given a blank cheque by the city.

The question is not whether council and staff are capable of dealing with hockey operations but whether they are capable of doing so with competence.

Pizzuto said funding the hockey team is different than coming up with money for roads or the Matsqui pool. “Closing Matsqui would save an operational expense every year,” he (Pizzuto) said.

Let me get this straight, we close Matsqui pool to save a $100,000 operational expense every year but we pay $275,000 of the Heat’s operating expenses plus however many additional hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to operate the arena for the Heat every year.

Matsqui pool yearly operational expenses Bad; the considerably higher Heat/Complex yearly operation expenses Good.

City council and staff’s attempts/threats to close Matsqui pool have become a yearly ritual with never a whisper about the plus side for the community of the pool and “it is in the City’s best interest not to fund those operational expenses”; on the other hand council and staff have demonstrated the determination of lemmings to have the Arena open for business with a hockey team as a tenant – so one hears a mighty chorus from city hall about all the wonderful benefits for the city of the arena operations and it does not matter how many $millions$ operational expenses cost the taxpayers.

The truth, the reality, of the agreement between the City and the Heat lies in Mr. Pizzuto’s statement “This is what it took to have a team in Abbotsford,”

As beleaguered taxpayers recall, at the time Abbotsford’s city council began its mad scramble to put a hockey team into the arena citizens with an understanding of basic financial reality raised the point that Abbotsford City Council had to have the discipline and willpower to leave the arena without a hockey team, if the financial numbers said that was the action in the best financial interest of Abbotsford’s impoverished taxpayers.

Given city council and staff’s demonstrated reckless adventurism when it comes to the finances of Abbotsford any reasonably astute taxpayer has reason to be concerned on that point.

Council was urged to make the decision on whether to sign an agreement with any hockey team (or to leave the arena totally dark) on the basis of the financial numbers – not on the basis of saving council from embarrassment by signing an agreement based on ‘a team at any cost’.

And what kind of agreement did the Abbotsford enter into with the Heat?

“This is what it took to have a team in Abbotsford”

An agreement that will have the taxpayers of Abbotsford out of pocket a city estimated $275,000 this year plus the additional $hundreds of thousands$ of dollars spent to operate the Complex for the Heat to use.

An agreement where it is the taxpayers of Abbotsford that have assumed all the financial risks involved with the operation of the Heat while it is the Heat ownership that will reap all the rewards if the team is successful.

With the agreement the City entered into with the Heat, the City would have been better off to purchase the Heat themselves. Taxpayers are already on the hook to pay for the team if it fails and ownership would have allowed the City to reap the rewards for this risky venture should the team somehow succeed.

“This is what it took to have a team in Abbotsford”

The agreement that city councillors have committed the taxpayers of Abbotsford to, with all the financial risk taxpayers are now on the hook for, was not about sound financial decision making or about the best interests of the citizens of Abbotsford.

It was and is about having a team in the arena to permit council to save face by offering more false promises of profit, at some point in the future if everything goes unrealistically well.

Unlike council I do not favour decision making based on vague promises, although there is always the chance that with the Heat in the building something could go wrong with the ice surface and in making repairs city workers could hit oil and the arena cease to be an millstone dragging taxpayers down into poverty.

As the front page of The Province screamed this agreement is a Hockey Nightmare in Abbotsford because the agreement was signed not because it was good for Abbotsford, but because council was determined to have a hockey team at any cost and

“This is what it took to have a team in Abbotsford.”

We need to ban the word and concept of ‘profit’ from use or even consideration by Abbotsford City Council.

Not only can taxpayers not afford to pay for any more Abbotsford City Council ‘profit’, but the evidence is overwhelming that such a ban would save the beleaguered taxpayer’s of Abbotsford millions of dollars.

The agreement between Abbotsford and the Heat and the statements made by the City illustrate just how important it is to the future financial health of the City of Abbotsford that ‘profit’ be banned.

Here are the things council (and taxpayers) need to consider when the agreement is presented to them Monday March 15, 2010.

“I use the example of a WestJet 747 parked on the tarmac. It can only make money if you use it,” said Abbotsford Mayor George Peary.

It is erroneous assumptions/statements like this that have placed Abbotsford in its current dire financial state.

A little homework would have revealed that scattered across deserts in Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico are 5 aircraft storage facilities full of a broad assortment of aircraft sitting there in storage in order to save money.

I want to introduce Mayor Peary, council and staff to an important piece of financial reality – “a penny saved is a penny earned”. When it is going to cost you more to use Mayor Peary’s 747 than it will generate in revenue you profit by leaving it parked and saving the expenses (losses) you would incur in operating the plane.

“If we didn’t have a team, then where would we be? We’d be worse off,” Pizzuto commented.

As was pointed out by those with a firm grip upon financial reality when the possibility of an AHL team in the Sports and Entertainment Centre first arose – if the costs incurred in having a team in the building are higher than the revenue you generate from having the team in the building you save money – are better off – not having a team.

So Mayor Peary’s statement “The prospect of no hockey team and an empty arena would be a huge drain on the city” is currently inaccurate and untrue. Currently it is having a hockey team that is a drain on city resources, whereas no team and an empty arena would have saved the taxpayers of Abbotsford significant amounts of their tax dollars.

But having an empty arena would be embarrassing to council and city hall so one could hardly expect council and city hall to put the financial wellbeing of Abbotsford and its taxpayers above face saving for council and city hall, could one?

I could, but then I am accounted as one of those ‘nay sayers’ – you know, those citizens who oppose council’s continuing practice of recklessly spending the City into an ever deepening financial black hole. I do admit that I am puzzled as to how being opposed to council and city hall’s financial mismanagement is a negative (nay sayer) thing?

On the other hand attacking those who are asking rational questions and demanding full disclosure of revenues and expenses is a time honoured way of avoiding having to disclose embarrassing facts.

A way to avoid answering questions that would let citizens evaluate the mayor’s claim that “the deal had to get done” or whether this was a ‘deal’ the city should have run away from.

Questions any reasonably astute person would ask before agreeing to such a major financial commitment. Questions, the answers to which will undoubtedly give rise to further questions, as undoubtedly would a close reading/examination of the agreement itself.

Questions such as what is the cost, what are the expenses incurred, in operating the Centre for the Heat as tenants? And exactly how are these costs accounted for? Are they included in the Heat budget as part of hockey operations as they should be or are these costs excluded and hidden in other operating costs of the arena – thus providing a major hidden subsidy to the Heat and its owners?

What happens financially in regard to the concessions vis-à-vis the Heat? Does the City get the profit? Does the Heat get the profit? Just who does profit from the concessions during Heat games, how and what are the numbers?

Questions about attendance projections as the accuracy and reality of these projections have a direct impact on whether Abbotsford continues to pour major amounts of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the Heat ownership.

Attendance is of particular importance given evidence from the WHL, AHL and NHL suggesting that the first and second years are the best/easiest years for attendance and that attendance declines after that. Take the case of the WHL Chilliwack Bruins who have suffered a 30% decline in attendance from their 2^nd year attendance levels.

Is the $5.7 million a) an annual revenue guarantee; b) the point at which the team becomes responsible for expenses incurred; c) the break-even point?

Since we are dealing with Abbotsford City Council and City Hall – exactly how fixed is the $5.7 million fixed? Is the $5.7 million going to remain at $5.7 million or will it, like so many other amounts declared ‘fixed’ or ‘guaranteed’ by Abbotsford Council going to balloon ever upwards? Does it seem reasonable that the Heat expect their expenses to remain at $5.7 million dollars over the ten year period?

Why is “The city’s agreement is similar to standard entertainment deals, which ensure a payment to the entertainer, and a profit-sharing equation for any remaining revenue”? Since we are talking about a hockey team should an agreement not be similar to standard rental/tenancy agreements between hockey teams and cities elsewhere? Is it because in other cities professional hockey teams not only pay rent, but pay rent at a level that covers the costs incurred in operating the arena with them as tenants? Is it because in other cities the City does not pay the professional hockey team to play in their arena?

What other information is contained in the agreement that city council and staff deems that taxpayers ‘Do Not Need to Know’? What arrangement has the city put in place so taxpayers read the agreement themselves in order to arrive at an informed opinion on the agreement?

To understand why those two questions are important you need only read Mayor Peary’s statement concerning whether of not the city is paying the travel costs for other AHL teams to travel to Abbotsford – “The city itself is not making cheques out to the AHL for travel. You have to remember, the AHL took a huge leap of faith to come out this far west”.

It does not matter that the city is not making cheques directly out to the AHL for travel when the city is subsidizing the Heat who are making the cheques out to subsidize travel. Following that logic how long before the city is claiming they did not pay anything to build the Sports and Entertainment Centre – that it was the lenders who paid for the arena and the fact that the city is repaying the lenders does not mean the city paid for the arena.

The truth is that the city, in spite of its promise not to subsidize the costs for other AHL teams to travel to Abbotsford, is subsidizing the travel costs of AHL teams to come to Abbotsford – Reality as opposed to the council’s semantic games.

Truthfulness – a concept that together with financial common sense would have saved the taxpayers the financial pain of the city’s current financial straits.

Speaking of semantic games one cannot overlook that Mayor Peary’s ongoing semantic game of “the decision made by the previous council has given this council a huge challenge” is getting old or alternatively could be a sign of a major problem/worry for Abbotsford taxpayers.

Mayor Peary might I suggest at the next council meeting you look around at the faces on council? You will find that this council is pretty much made up of the members of the previous council. So please spare us the disingenuous blaming of prior councils for current problems while ignoring the fact those previous councillors who are current councillors.

Finally as regards Mayor Peary’s challenge “There is an election in a year and a half time. I hope some of the critics come up with better ideas and run for office”.

Unfortunately by that point in time council will in all likelihood have committed the city to the agreement with the Heat and engaged in who knows what other financial misadventures. As result of which, no matter how much better the ideas new councillors come up with, all the new councillors and council will be able to do is lessen the negative fallout of the decisions and actions of our current councillors.

Still Abbotsford and its taxpayers will be much better off with new councillors with financial common sense and who have enough common sense to know that when you find yourself in a (financial) hole – you stop digging.

It is … adequate, in a barely sort of way, that Kiwanis has stepped into the hole left by the City’s food concession embarrassment at ARC to provide food and earn some money to fund their good work.

Still, this embarrassing misjudgement is typical of Abbotsford City Hall  and Council and yet again leaves one slowly shaking one’s head sadly at yet another faux pas.

Leaving aside the fact that the only way the public, the people who pay for City Hall and Council’s numerous misadventures, have any idea of what is going on is because the family who operated the Café had an opportunity to share their take on the situation with the public in the newspaper …

As a city you know that in February 2010 ARC will be hosting the Japanese speed skaters and the Russian figure skaters which will mean crowds and foreign visitors; that after that ARC will serve as an Olympic live site with more crowds and (possibly) visitors; so of course the course of action to take, if you are Abbotsford City Hall and Council, is to close down the Café in November

If you are the City of Abbotsford  you don’t wait until after the Olympics to address the situation –– that would be far to sensible. No you close it immediately in order to highlight Abbotsford’s inability to manage something as simple as a food concession

City Hall and Council spend over a hundred $million$ on vanity projects under the mistaken assumption they can buy their way into being considered a ‘Big’ city. They don’t understand that it is the little things, a decent place to have coffee after 11 pm or dinner after the movie or a hot chocolate while watching the skaters at the arena that are important. The little things that are the difference between being a well run, urbane metropolis as opposed to Abbotsford’s maladroit Keystone Kops routine.

Given the secrecy and behind closed door proceedings taxpayers cannot know the details of the dispute between the City and the operators of the Café. In light of the City’s ‘mushroom’ policy towards taxpayers (keep them in the dark and feed them lots of bu**s**t) the best information we have on the matter is the newspaper story giving the facts as the operators sees them.

I do know that, as so often happens, the City has taken actions without any consideration of the effect it will have on the Café. Actions that have had negative financial consequences for the Café; so that the claim the ex-manager waived the rental increase as fair compensation is realistic and believable.

However, the details and who is right or wrong is not what the City needs to focus on. The City needs to focus on answering the question of whether they want a food concession in ARC or not?

If they do not want a food concession at ARC management and council are behaving in a manner that will achieve that goal.

If however they want a food concession at ARC they must move away from their pie-in-the-sky, dollar signs in their eyes behaviours and get in touch with reality.

They could start by speaking to the long term regular pool patrons.

Of course they will need to hurry if they want to find any since more and more long-time pass purchasers are dropping ARC and moving to the less expensive private facilities.

Long term regulars would tell management and council that, in light of the market at ARC and the resulting fiscal realities for the operators of any food concession the city should be focused on the quality of the food and operation and that if the City wants a quality food concession the City will have to be prepared to charge minimal rent.

The reality here is that there were originally two families involved with the operation of the Jolly Time Café but the operation could not support two families. It cannot really support even one family and the operating margins are so thin that wages paid to a non-family worker results in an operating loss. Given the operating realities the market at ARC imposes it is hard to see finding a replacement that provides the quality product the ex-operators provided.

I know it is totally against their standard operating procedures and behaviours, but if city council wants a quality food concession at ARC they are going to have to acknowledge financial reality.

Should city council not want a food concession operating at ARC they are well on their way to achieving that.