Uncategorized

Why am I running?

Leave a comment

“If you don’t like the way the city is being run, run for city council.”
George Peary

I don’t like the way the city is being run and so I am running for Abbotsford City council to change the way the city is run, the way council behaves.

I believe that when an action council wants to take is against the Municipal Act council should obey the law – not ignore the law and/or find a way to circumvent the law. Particularly when the Municipal Act prohibits the action in order to protect municipal taxpayers from being saddled with multi-million dollars subsidies for the purchase of a professional hockey team. As the taxpayers of Abbotsford were when Abbotsford Council ignored the law and as the taxpayers of Chilliwack were NOT when Chilliwack council obeyed the law.

When a city council has such contempt for the Act that governs the way they manage the municipality that they feel it is their right to ignore or circumvent any law that interferes with what they want to do – what other laws, rules and regulations they have chosen to ignore or circumvent?

I believe that when a matter is before council that involves a person, company or organization that has made political contributions to the election of councillors those councillors must disclose this conflict and disqualify themselves from voting on any matter that affects a contributor to their election campaigns.

No councillor or mayor should sneak a matter that was voted down at one council meeting back before council at the next council meeting when one of the people who voted against the rezoning to permit the project is out of town; should they lack the integrity not to sneak the matter back before council, they should NOT be voting to approve the rezoning of a project proposed by a contributor to the mayor and councillor’s election campaign. Particularly when the other councillors vote against the project and it is only the two votes of those who were……contributed to by the developer that result in approval for the matter under consideration.

Council’s behaviour sets the tone for the behaviour of city staff. if council behaves in illegal and ethical ways……

I believe that a councillor must have a grasp of financial realities, an understanding of basic mathematics and an ability to step back in order to avoid getting so fixated on one aspect of the matter you make costly, millions of dollars costly, errors.

Abbotsford current council is so fixated on getting $61 million dollars of federal money for the water infrastructure upgrade they have not only poisoned the working relationship with Mission (buses, waste treatment, Norrish Creek water) but have spent $200,000 for a PR campaign to convince Abbotsford’s voters that paying an extra $127 million dollars in order to secure $61 million in federal grant money is a good idea.

Now if the mayor, council and staff each want to give me $127, I will be more than happy to give them $61 for that $127 because I will make $66 per person. What would you say if I offered to give you back $61 if you gave me $127? This is why the only choice for financially sensible taxpayers is to vote NO on November 19th’s P3 referendum.

I believe that an apology to the mayor, council and citizens of Mission for the boorish behaviour of Abbotsford’s mayor and council is due and that the most intelligent, fiscally responsible, course of action is to work with Mission as originally planned before Mayor Peary and councils temper tantrum at not getting their own way.

Under the original Mission/Abbotsford water infrastructure upgraded Abbotsford was to pay 2/3 of the cost and Mission 1/3.

Mayor Peary, council and staff are insisting that Abbotsford proceed alone to get federal funds to cover 21% of the project.

” I believe that a councillor must have …… an understanding of basic mathematics.” Anyone with an understanding of basic mathematics knows that 1/3 or 33% is larger than 21%. That working with Mission and having them pay 33% is a smarter financial choice than Abbotsford proceeding on its own in order to get a 21% federal grant.

Take into account the $1 million per year ($30 million over the 30 year planned operating period) extra it will cost to operate the water treatment under a P3 and going with the original partnership with Mission is a ‘No Brainer’. Except perhaps those who are mathematically challenged or , like the scarecrow in the wizard of Oz lack a….

I believe that council has a duty of care to manage the city’s business in a prudent, thoughtful and fiscally responsible manner that reflects the best interests of the City and its Citizens.

It is not council’s job to be looking for profits. Being prudent, thoughtful and fiscally responsible means council should not be chasing ‘profits’. Being prudent, thoughtful and fiscally responsible requires council to be aware that it is not savings when it costs you more to repair or finish a project.

I believe in behaving in a financially responsible manner, solid financial management and the need for leadership on finances.

Strict budgeting, financial discipline and squeezing as much bang from my bucks as possible are required in order to stretch a extremely limited income to pay my rent and cover my bills. I believe that council should behave as they would with their own money.

Properly used budgeting is a valuable management tool to control costs and understand where money is actually being spent. But this only applies where budgeting is treated as a serious exercise. However, with the fudge-a-budget Abbotsford’s staff and council currently produce, no benefits to management of the city’s operations and finances occur. Abbotsford’s budget process needs to be restructured so that the operational and financial management benefits of a well-managed budgeting process can be realized.

In a tight economy council should be showing leadership through such policies as no management salary raises, eliminating luxury budget items such as the mural recently painted on the walls at ARC and cutting actual budget items, not just items placed in the budget so council can be seen to be making budget cuts. If citizens have good ideas or suggestions then council should have no hesitation to make use or adopt these ideas or suggestions. If council is going to ask the public’s participation in the budget process they shouldn’t ignore or criticize the public suggestions and ideas simply because they are not what council wants to hear.

I believe in financial transparency; that taxpayers have the right to know how and where their money is being spent without the need to file FOI (freedom of information request) after FOI after FOI.

Council is there to serve the interests of all citizens, not just those who contribute to their election campaigns, have wealth or influence.

Facilities, fields, participation in sports and sports leagues should be accessible to all citizens. Membership at city facilities should not be the most expensive in the city. When it is significantly cheaper to be a member at a private gym than to be a member at a city facility, council’s priorities need to be realigned.

Houses in older residential areas of the city should not be torn down and replaced with monster homes. It is important to preserve the affordable housing that older neighbourhoods with smaller houses comprises.

Council should be providing leadership in the areas of affordable housing, homelessness, mental health and addiction services and support programs, poverty and hunger. Understand that leadership does not mean the city should be spending significant sums of money to address these issues. That is the responsibility of senior levels of government.

Abbotsford’s current mayor and council like to excuse themselves by pointing fingers at the provincial and federal governments. However, when the province makes available $11 million in capital funding to build affordable housing and an additional $650,000 per year for 25 years for support programs leadership requires that Council make use of those funds, no matter how politically uncomfortable showing that leadership may cause Council to be.

Abbotsford has many good people who want to help address these issues. What Abbotsford doesn’t have is the leadership that would give people, churches and other groups who want to be part of addressing these issues a focal point to come together, set priorities and work on accomplishing those priorities.

The first thing I did when I moved to Abbotsford 20 some odd years ago, was to get a library card. I consider the library or libraries in a community to be the most important public buildings; particularly in this day and age of rampant illiteracy, and functional illiteracy. A library is the crossroads of the community.

Over the years I’ve watched the demand for floor space at Clearbrook library make the library more and more crowded.

Clearbrook needs more study carousels, study rooms for students working on group projects and a space suitably large to house the children’s sub-library. The reason that the Clearbrook library building was built with a basement was to provide space for the library to expand into as Abbotsford grew and the demands on the library grew.

Unfortunately for the library, the librarians, patrons and the community the library isn’t a priority for mayor or counsel. Especially when there is money to feed councils spendthrift ways available by renting out the basement space to UFV.

Councils priorities should be the needs of the community. Not that needs the mayor and councillors.

One final point, I believe that the deal the mayor and counsel made to subsidize a professional hockey team – The Heat – is an illegal and therefore null and void. That the province must act on this violation of the Community Charter that governs municipalities in British Columbia.

Municipal

Your Abbotsford Tax Dollars at Work

Leave a comment

It would appear that the $200,000 taxpayer dollars City Hall is spending to hire PR and sell the P3 to the public is working.

Friday’s Global News Hour Final’s unbalanced reporting on the water system upgrade issue in Abbotsford was not only a one sided promotion of the current mayor and council’s position on the P3 issue, but did a great disservice to the taxpayers of Abbotsford by implying that the Mayor and Council are correct in their assertion that the P3 is the most cost effective way to upgrade Abbotsford’s water system.

Several people have performed and written about calculations that document that only under the most optimistic assumptions (everything goes perfectly and not a single tiny thing fails to go according to assumptions) does the cost of the P3 – possibly – come in under the cost of proceeding with the upgrade as a public project.

Failing to inform the citizens of Abbotsford that there are analysis that show a P3 is not the most cost effective way to accomplish the water upgrade (even with a $65 million grant from the federal government) gave Abbotsford’s citizens the impression that City Hall’s financial claims are correct is a great disservice to the citizens of Abbotsford.

The knowledge that there is serious doubt as to whether the City’s proposed P3 is the most cost effective (lowest cost) way of proceeding with the water upgrade is vital to citizens making an informed choice on November 19th.

The report also failed to note that the federal Conservative government is ideologically wedded to the idea of P3s and that the purpose of the grants is to make the cost of proceeding with P3’s competitive with the cost of a public project. And to tempt financially challenged politicians into fixating upon the idea of all those $millions$ of federal dollars and ignoring any evidence that demonstrates the cost of the P3 exceeds the cost of a public project – even after you subtract the federal grant dollars.

It is also important to know that as the cost of the water upgrade increases the savings to be found in using public financing increase. Given the nature of P3’s and Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s record of pie in the sky financial forecasting and cost overruns…..the probability of the cost soaring past the current number of $291 approaches certainty.

However, all those arguments are based on Abbotsford’s mayor and council’s insistence on going  it alone on the water upgrade.

As I point out as part of my platform in seeking election to Abbotsford’s council if we return to the original partnership with Mission and the announced 2/3 and 1/3 split of the cost of the water upgrade Abbotsford Mayor and council plan to spend an additional $127 million in order to get a $65 million dollar federal grant. (see http://www.jameswbreckenridge.ca/?p=2176 for the calculations).

Would anyone – other than Abbotsford’s mayor and council – give someone $127 in order to get $65 back?

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.