Answers To A Councillor’s Questions

I recently received an e-mail from a member of City Council questioning my decision to vote “No” with respect to the Stave Lake Water Referendum.

My response was as set out below [where necessary the questioning comments of the City Councillor are highlighted in bold and placed in square brackets]:

Thank you for your email, received late on October 31. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to what I expect are questions that other Council members are also asking.

In general response to your questions, it seems that you have missed the point of my position on this very important issue. It is the Referendum itself that fails to address key needs of the voting public. As stated in my blog post on this topic: (1) the Referendum, at 185 words in a single sentence, is too complex to be understood; (2) the Referendum makes uncertain and controversial assumptions (both express and implied) regarding water needs, alternatives and timing; (3) the Referendum and available information do not disclose enough about the proposed P3 to make an informed decision. In addition, I believe that: (4) conservation efforts must be given the opportunity to work and be measured; (5) the data available does not support an immediate need to opt now for the Stave Lake alternative; (6) the implications of Mission withdrawing its support need to be better understood and considered.

Now let me respond to your specific questions and concerns:

First, let me confirm that this was a difficult decision for me, which I made only after careful consideration. I can assure you this was a principled decision based upon what I believe to be the best interests of the people of Abbotsford at this time. It was not based on political realities or personal relationships. For clarity, it was not based upon any allegations made by or any alignment with positions taken by Patricia Ross or any other candidate.

[Nevertheless, the one piece that I hope you considered is the risk factor. Had you reviewed Metro Vancouver’s experience with a traditional build model? The litigation they are in because the original contractor backed out, leaving them with a court battle, and the task of securing a second contractor. I understand the costs to the Metro taxpayers is going to be significant. One political observer noted that with respect to high water costs, “you haven’t seen anything yet”.

The Stave Lake project entails tunnelling under the original river bed, to the middle of the lake, coming up from the bottom. The risk in that alone is very great. A P3 model protects the City against a Metro Vancouver scenario; the risk is all transferred away from the City. Furthermore, the costs are nailed down in the Performance Contract prior to commencement of construction. I am not a businessman, but I have enough lifetime experiences to know that there are always “additional” costs in big projects. The AESC construction story included an unforeseen contaminated site, which added $1M. to the cost. A P3 model would protect the City from those additional costs. ]

Second, on the issue of risk, my experience in business tells me that when you assume there is no risk you are most vulnerable. No matter the mode of delivery, any project the size and complexity of the Stave Lake alternative has risk. The negative experience of Metro Vancouver with the traditional model can be weighed against the experience of other local governments using the P3 alternatives without coming to a definitive conclusion. Simply put, P3 alternatives may be viable and appropriate, but they are certainly not risk free, and may in fact create additional risk.

[I would be interested to know your counter-proposal. Deloitte has a 150-yr. history; C2MH Hill has a 60 –yr history. Both are globally respected – the best in what they do, and they come up with this recommendation. It was not City staff. The Sewer & Water Commission studied and discussed the project for about 3 years, and arrived at Stave Lake as the best option. The Commission consisted of 3 members of each Council, and at the end of their deliberations, they UNANIMOUSLY endorsed a P3 Stave Lake proposal to the two Councils combined. Take a look at who sits on that Commission; the Public Minutes are very clear that there was no doubt as to their recommendation. ]

Third, despite the apparent support of some consultants for the Stave Lake P3 alternative, for whom I have nothing but respect, there are competent and well-reasoned differences of opinion. Consultants can be wrong. They can change their views. In the same way, the Sewer & Water Commission, while comprised of respectable individuals, may not come to the same conclusions if the facts are different than presented. You have asked for my “counter proposal”. Your request misconstrues my position. I am not yet in a position, nor could I be expected to be in one, to make a “counter proposal”. That reality does nothing to erode the basis for my conclusion that at this time, under these circumstances, and for the reasons set out above, I must vote “No” to the Referendum question.

[The matter of proceeding without Mission has clouded rational arguments about the project. … Mission is a 12% partner, in terms of amount of water they use. They do not meter water in Mission; everyone pays a flat rate and uses as much as they wish. I (as well as all Council members) were elected to represent our municipality, not Mission. I will not stand by and have our supply of water jeopardized because several Councillors in Mission got cold feet at their Council Mtg., due to a vocal group of opponents, and voted against. That is their business; their residents. For Patricia to say it’s a hostile takeover that we’re involved is a gross overstatement. If anything, I would say to do nothing because of their decision, would be tantamount to being held hostage, and by a minor player in the game (12%).]

Fourth, I cannot agree that Mission, even as a 12% contributing partner, is a “minor player in the game”. As correction, I believe the correct number is 22% (refer to Tables 4.3 & 4.4, located on page 4-2 of the AMWSC Water Master Plan prepared by AECOM). To ignore or unduly minimize the importance and involvement of our neighboring community is, in my view, a mistake. At 22% of $230 million ($50.6 million), plus their annual share of operating costs, is a significant factor.

I believe that leadership, after listening to all positions with an open mind, must make tough calls, even if they are unpopular or contrary to the positions taken by friends. This is my first time to run for public office, and my intention is to do the best I can to win. However, if because of making this decision to vote “No” I lose the election, then so be it. For now, we must agree to disagree.