Henry's Blog

In my August 15, 2012 Blog posting, I noted that finding a new water source wasn’t the real challenge facing our water system. Instead, the real issue was Hydraulic Capacity, i.e., the City’s water delivery system is not adequately sized to deliver all of the water that is currently available from various existing sources.

Now that Abbotsford and Mission Council’s have jointly agreed that the requirements for a new water source is at least 20 plus years away (based on the past 5 years consumption data), you can imagine my surprise when I learned that there is another major issue facing the City’s water system – the need to replace existing Asbestos Concrete (“AC”) waterline pipe. Staff report that this type of pipe is reaching the end of its useful life and, as it does, is prone to failure.

Neither of these two issues (Hydraulic Capacity and AC waterline replacements), were mentioned during the referendum and yet both seem to have been well known by staff. The 2012 to 2016 Water Capital Plan, which was reviewed and approved by Council a mere 8 months ago, included $2.25M for “Asset Renewal Program “ – money apparently earmarked for AC replacement.

Staff estimate there is a $14M backlog of AC waterline replacements that need immediate attention. Although I have raised this matter several times, I have yet to receive an adequate answer to this question:

“If the AC pipe replacement issue was a known problem and the backlog was calculated, why did senior staff spend $20M on the Stave Lake water mains (recently renamed to Gladwin Transmission Line) along Gladwin Road over the last two years?” This money was spent on a project that was not approved by the voters and now appears to have been premature. If the AC waterline replacement is as urgent as staff now claim, the wiser choice would have been to replace the AC waterlines over spending $20 million on a pipe that will now largely be used as a very long reservoir.

Staff indicates the City has approximately 114 kms of AC pipe requiring replacement. Eight months ago the plan was to spend $2.25M per year on resolving this problem.

More recently, staff advised Council it would like to increase the annual amount spent on AC waterline replacement to $3.5M. This is a 50% increase in budget from just EIGHT months ago. Sudden changes of this magnitude cause me concern.

To be clear, no one wants to see water mains break and service interrupted. However, the taxpayers don’t want to see money spent unnecessarily replacing AC water lines that have many years of useful life remaining.

The residents of Abbotsford are well aware that water rates have increased dramatically over the last 6 years. The City now collects $8M per year more than it costs to operate the water system. Instead of reducing water rates to more reasonable levels, staff are now recommending that we spend this extra money as quickly as possible on AC waterline replacement.

Here’s what needs to be done before any more money is spent replacing AC waterlines, namely;

1. Prepare a risk analysis of AC waterline failures

1. Identify and cost leakage and failure rates

1. Determine a reasonable replacement strategy/timing (the City of Surrey replaces 6 km per year)

1. Develop affordable and achievable budgets

1. Allocate budget amongst existing and new residents if appropriate

In my last blog post, I explained why I’m concerned with the water rates charged to residents. These rates appear to be excessive, unjustified, and unsustainable and collectively represent many millions of dollars. This post explains what the City did with the money that was collected from residents.

The surplus funds have been used to subsidize two main groups. The first group is the Industrial, Commercial, Institutional and Agricultural sectors, more commonly referred to as the ICI sector. These groups pay a water rate much less than the rate paid by residents. The residential rate is $1.15 m3, while the ICI rate ranges between $0.69 & $0.92 m3. Since water is a basic life necessity, a common rate should be charged to all users since the cost of water is the same regardless of who uses it.

The second group that receives a subsidy from the residential water users is the Development industry. Developers pay a Water Development Cost Charge (DCC) to fund the costs of adding new water infrastructure to support the growth that comes as a result of new development. The City’s policy is that growth pays for itself. In other words, existing residents should not have to pay to increase the size of water mains or expand water sources that arise because of new development. Those costs are supposed to be paid for with DCC funds.

Between 2007 and 2012, residential water rates increased 80%. This large increase led to surplus funds in the Water accounts. For example, in 2011, the surplus amounted to $4.6 million. The City used this money and $23 million collected from previous years (2007 thru 2010), to fund the construction of capital projects.

In the 2012 Capital Plan, the City plans to spend $25 million on new water projects. Most of these projects are identified in the Water Master Plan. These various projects are classified by group with a notation as to who should pay – existing residents OR developers. Well over 80% of the Capital projects listed in the Master Plan are directly linked to and required by development growth.

A good example is the Stave Lake Water Main project, which was recently renamed to Gladwin Road Transmission Line. This project significantly increased the size of the water main along Gladwin Road and is clearly a growth related project. The cost of this project is estimated to be $20 million. Approximately half of the pipe was installed in 2011, with the remainder scheduled for 2012. Without question, this is a DCC project; however, it was funded entirely from funds provided by residents via the surplus water accounts. Not one dollar came from Developers. Why? Because there are no DCC funds available for ANY projects.

At December 31, 2011, the DCC Reserve Fund (basically the money saved from DCC contributions available for these projects), had anegative balance of $1.955 million. It is noteworthy that the average DCC’s earned per year over the last three years is $990,700. At that rate, it will take another two years before the DCC Reserve Fund is replenished to a zero balance. Going forward, there will not be enough DCC money to fund any project of any size for many years.

How did this happen?

While residential water rates rose 80%, the DCC rates remained the same from 2008 to 2012 – there was zero increase. There’s another factor that comes into play regarding DCCs. The Province allows the City to reduce the DCC rate by what is more commonly referred to as the Assist Factor. This provision recognizes that even though a capital project is required by growth and necessary for new residents, existing residents will receive some benefit from the project. In many neighbouring communities, the Assist Factor ranges between 1 and 5%. Historically, this has also been the case in Abbotsford. In other words, the residents pay a very small percentage of some projects required as a result of growth caused by new development.

Currently, the Assist Factor in Abbotsford is 30%. This means that the residents are paying a 30% subsidy for infrastructure costs that should be borne by the development community that caused the need for new water infrastructure.

Whether past Council’s clearly understood this, or not, this policy is simply unfair; is unaffordable; and it’s unsustainable. Residents shouldn’t have to subsidize development by 30%. If the Stave Lake Referendum had been approved by the voters, the Assist Factor would have increased to 90%, while 10% would have been paid by DCC’s – that too is unsustainable.

Following is what is needed:

1. DCC program needs to be updated ASAP
2. DCC rates need to be increased to take into account the true cost of development – Focus on what projects will cost and less focus on what the DCC rates are in other jurisdictions
3. DCC assist factor be reduced back to a range of 1 – 5%
4. DCC reserve debt must be repaid ASAP
5. Major capital projects and growth overall need to be slowed down while DCC reserves are replenished to a level commensurate with a City of our size.
6. Encourage development in the ‘core areas’ (where roads and other infrastructure are already in place), while discouraging growth in the outlining areas, unless developers are prepared to fully fund the cost of infrastructure required to support those developments, including future downstream costs – perhaps a two-tiered DCC rate structure needs to be put in place.

Many residents were upset to learn that their water bills were projected to rise from an average of $349 per year to $550 per year – a 58% increase – if the Stave Lake Project was approved. This was on top of unprecedented increases over the previous 5 years.

In 2007, residential water rates were $0.64 per cubic meter (m3). In 2012, rates had risen to $1.15/m3, an increase of 80%. This is an unacceptable increase at a time when inflation was less than 10%.

Residents are diligently working to conserve water and overall volumes have steadily declined since 2007. Instead of being rewarded for reducing their water consumption, residents received higher and higher water bills.

The City’s cost to provide all of the water it used in 2011 is approximately $0.69/m3. When the total volume is reduced because of water lost to leakage, required for firefighting, and consumed by other non-chargeable uses, the cost rose to $0.83/m3.

The current residential water rate is $1.15/m3, which means that residential water users are paying a 39% premium over cost. For the City overall, this works out to $millions from the overcharge. The City’s water system is not supposed to be a “money maker” – it’s a utility and billings should recover costs.

Unfortunately, it gets worse! The billing rate for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI), sector is as follows;

1 – 10,000 m3 $0.92/m3

10,000 – 100,000 m3 $0.85/m3

100,000 + m3 $0.69/m3

Up until 2008, residential water rates were always the same as the first tier of the ICI sector (1 – 10,000 m3). Beginning in 2008, the water rates for residential users increased at double the rate of the ICI sector. Apparently, this began at a time when the City could afford to charge lower rates to ICI customers in order to attract new businesses, some of whom used water at non-peak times. Regardless of the reasons, water bills are tax deductible for industrial, commercial and agricultural businesses, which means that they are receiving an additional benefit over residents who must pay with after-tax dollars.

Effective July 1, 2011, these already high water rates were further increased via tiered water pricing, a decision that was reversed in early 2012. For reference the tiered water rates were priced as follows;

1 – 60 m3 $1.13

61 – 90 m3 $1.43

91+ m3 $2.26

Large volume ICI water users are barely covering the cost of $0.83/m3. In fact, the largest users are paying LESS THAN COST. One of the largest water users is Matsqui Institution with a water bill of $81,440, based on 2010 consumption figures. Applying the residential water rate to the Matsqui Institution would have increased their 2010 water bill to $136,703, an increase of $55,263.

The residents of Abbotsford can no longer afford to subsidize the 3,000 plus ICI users, which collectively account for approximately 20% of our total water consumption in any given year. More particularly, why are the residents of Abbotsford subsidizing the operational costs of a federal prison by $55,263?

We need to realign water rates. Residential rates must come down and ICI rates must rise so that all users are paying the same rate. Water is a basic necessity and should be priced the same for everyone. Other large cities, like Surrey, do not offer preferential rates to the ICI sector – the City of Abbotsford shouldn’t either.

ICI discounts can no longer be justified as the City’s water supply comes under pressure. Increasing ICI rates would also encourage conservation efforts in this sector, thus further reducing the demand for water. Businesses are very good at finding ways to be cost efficient. However, there is no incentive for businesses to conserve water under the current rate structure.

The residential sector has decreased their average day consumption by approximately 15% during the past 5 years. Unfortunately, their reward has been that the City has increased rates from $0.64/m3 in 2007 to $1.15 in 2012 (an 80% increase), while the ICI sector rate only increased by 43% over that same time period. There is no rational justification for this – it is unfair and most stop.

Future water rate increases should be directly related to increases in costs or related to specific capital projects. Either way, future rate increases must be justified and the residents told what the rate increase will be used for.

In a future water blog post, I’ll explain what the City did with the extra money it collected from the residential water users.

With each passing year, I hear more and more people expressing their dissatisfaction, disengagement and disillusionment with government. The effects of this are clear; voter turnout has been on a downward trend for twenty plus years.

The reasons given for this decline are often attributed to a public that is uninterested, apathetic or just plain ignorant of the political system. Is this really true, or could there be other reasons that better explain this recent trend?

At the municipal level and, as a newly-elected Councillor, I noticed something very odd at every informational meeting the City hosted – regardless of topics – only a handful of people attended. Often, the staff outnumbered the public. I soon concluded that something was very wrong with this picture!

As I began to ask the ‘why’ questions during interactions with the public, I heard some common themes emerge;

1. Frustration: The voters don’t believe their voices are being heard
2. Their opinions don’t matter: Unless you are someone of means and influence
3. Lack of transparency: There is dissatisfaction with the number of in-camera meetings and a perception that decisions are already made prior to the public consultation process
4. Perceived gap between the ideals of democracy and the reality of what they see and experience
5. Disillusionment with public institutions: in general
6. Disengagement from the political process: A direct result of negative interactions with some public servants and/or elected officials.

Could it be that disengagement from the public process is a learned response as opposed to “the public doesn’t care”, which is often the explanation I hear from those in government? If it is a learned response, what can or should elected officials do to address this?

The solution may actually be quite simple. The public wants: to know that someone cares about their particular problem/issue; their elected politicians to keep their promises; and to come away from the process feeling as though their views were heard and duly considered. Most importantly, they want the final decision to be in the best interests of the community as a whole, instead of a ‘select’ few and/or the special interest groups.

In my view, we are fast approaching a crisis point in governance. Instead of government “by, for and of the people,” conducted in open legislative sessions, as opposed to in-camera (Closed) meetings, we have elected officials focused more on serving a narrow segment of our society rather than making principled decisions for the greater public good. Too often, our public institutions are not providing inspired leadership or effective government suited for the times we live in.

If elected officials don’t acknowledge and address this, thereby creating a more transparent, open and accountable government, we can expect further public disengagement. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS), movement in all its varied forms may be just a fore-shadow of what is yet to come.

Last fall, the City of Abbotsford promoted the development of a new water source from Stave Lake and the “yes” response to a referendum. An aggressive, $320,000 advertising campaign was launched to support this initiative.

Many voters were not pleased with the tone and style of this campaign and, more importantly, had serious concerns about various aspects of the proposed waterworks program. The referendum was overwhelmingly defeated by 75% of the voters.

Since being elected, I continued to ask questions to better understand the City’s water system issues and problems. I reviewed numerous City and consultant documents, studies and reports.

The reports and studies were complex, lengthy and at times getting answers to my questions was much slower than I would have liked. Some information that I would have thought was readily available, had to be assembled by staff. At times, data was inconsistent or changing, which led to more questions. In short, it was an arduous and somewhat frustrating process!

Nevertheless, the more I read, the more convinced I became that the data the City had in its possession provided justification for discontinuing the promotion of the Stave Lake plan before it went to referendum. The evidence indicated that, not only was our water system sufficient to provide water to 2020 – 2025, as I and others had asserted during the referendum campaign, these dates could be extended out as far as 2030 – 2032. In my opinion, had the voters approved the Stave Lake Referendum, it would have created a major financial blunder that would have brought this City to its financial knees. Moreover, the citizens of Abbotsford would have had to pay for two water source systems when only one was required. To date, no one wants to answer this question; which one of the two systems (Norrish Creek or Stave Lake), would be underutilized; Norrish Creek, which is a gravity feed system, or Stave Lake which required pumping, i.e., significant ongoing electrical pumping costs?

In broad terms, there are four major water system concerns which require further work:

1. The real need and timing for a new water source must be conclusively determined
2. Residential water users are being overcharged for water
3. Development is not paying its share of growth costs
4. Plan needed to replace existing water mains and distribution pipes

Each of these will be discussed in more detail in future Blog postings. In the meantime, given the controversy surrounding this whole matter, the best way to move towards resolution of item 1 above (what is the real need for a new water source), is through an independent third party review. The taxpayers of Abbotsford are demanding that we get it right this time.

During the referendum, we were told that the most critical concern was a new water supply source and that Stave Lake was the only viable, long-term solution.

Of course, I disputed that conclusion based on the evidence I had available at the time. Since being elected, I spent countless hours reviewing the Water Master Plan, staff reports and consultant studies, trying to find the truth.

TRUE: The water supply source Is not as urgent a matter as was portrayed. We are now being told that system capacity seems to be the overriding concern. In other words, based on the latest Abbotsford Mission Water Sewer Commission (AMWSC), Reports; our current supply system should be sufficient until 2030, maybe even 2035. But, we can’t deliver the water to where it is needed through the existing piping system – that is an entirely different problem than what the public was being told just nine months ago.

WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENT: In a nutshell, the Average Daily Demand (ADD), in 2011 was 68.5 million litres per day (MLD), which is a decrease of 7% from 2010 (73 MLD). Our present water supply capacity is 170 MLD +/- 2 MLD per day. This means that on a daily basis we are only utilizing less than half of our source capacity. According to the Water Demand Chart contained in the Report WSC 74 – 2012, this would meet our water needs beyond 2030.

WATER DELIVERY INSUFFICIENT: What is now becoming evident is that the configuration of the water delivery system limits the outflow to the customers to only approximately 135 MLD. So it appears that the water source is not the real problem. The problem is trying to pour 2 litre’s of water into a 1 litre container.

REDUNDANCY, (a backup system): This, was also a topic that frequently came up during the referendum campaign. We have redundancy in our current water system – 98 MLD (89 MLD from Norrish Creek and 9 MLD from Cannall Lake), located on the north side of the Fraser River and 70 MLD from 19 ground water wells located in Abbotsford on the south side of the Fraser. Will we need to add to our water supply source at some point in the future? Absolutely, but that day is much further down the road than we were told nine months ago. However, even if we increased our water source capacity to 220 MLD by upgrading Norrish Creek at a cost of approximately $50 – $60 M (considerably less than the $300 M proposed for Stave Lake), that does not solve the distribution system limitations issue (135 MLD), that has now surfaced.

The time has come to be open and transparent about the real problems with our city water. The public resoundingly defeated the water referendum despite heavy promotion paid for by the city ($320,000). In fact, it now appears that the new water source idea was a Trojan horse that diverted attention away from the real issue: the entire waterworks distribution system has been overtaxed to the point where major upgrades are required.

By focusing voter attention on “fixing” the supposed sources of water crisis, the major cost of the system upgrades would be unfairly shifted to residential users. It was development over the past number of years that should have picked up the costs to upgrade the deficient system all along. Unfortunately, the Development Cost Charges (DCC’s), may well have been insufficient. In any event, the DCC accounts have been depleted and, in several cases, are now in the red. Hence, we have nowhere near enough money to fix the deficiencies in our delivery system unless we borrow the money.

This entire situation is not acceptable. Given the history of this matter, the people of Abbotsford need to know the truth. City Council and staff need to regain the confidence of the public in order to move forward. I believe the time has now come to quit spending more money on self-serving studies that appear to avoid rather than confront the real issues. The sooner we get to the truth, the sooner we can begin to do what is necessary to fix the problems. One way to do that is to have an independent Peer Review, which is what I called for by tabling a Notice of Motion, so that the AMWSC can discuss this matter at its next meeting, scheduled for September 13, 2012.

Until we have objective, supportable and independent information, we cannot move forward with decisions, and we cannot give the voters of Abbotsford what they deserve: the truth about the real water issue.

The transition from private business to the very public world of politics has been both interesting and more challenging than I had envisaged. Based on my first seven months in office, the most challenging issue facing our City is financial sustainability.

As I have reflected on this issue, I have concluded that two things may have contributed to us moving from a municipality whose Reserves totaled $100 million dollars just a few short years ago, to one where we are now the second highest indebted City ($94 million dollars), in B.C., after Vancouver. Without a doubt, Capital spending has brought us to a place where other services vital to the health and well being of a community will have to be deferred for many years.

Groupthink may be a second contributing factor, which is a subject that I wrote about during the November 2011 election campaign. That article entitled; The Importance of Independent-Thinking and Principle-Based Decision Making, can be found under archives section (November 2011), at www.henrybraun.ca .

The City of Abbotsford’s vision statement deals with livability, sustainability and prosperity. While I agree that Abbotsford is one of the most livable community’s in B.C. (that is why I have chosen to live here for 59 years), our present course is simply unsustainable and we are certainly not the most prosperous city, although we spend money as if we are!

Regardless of the reasons that brought us to our present situation, one thing is crystal clear; the people of Abbotsford are demanding greater transparency and accountability, coupled with a more meaningful public participation in the shaping of policy that affect their lives. The public is looking for more scrutiny; however, there can be no public scrutiny without access to information, which brings us back to transparency and openness.

Citizens expect public servants to look after the public’s interest with fairness and that we manage limited financial resources and public assets with integrity on a daily basis.  If we want to begin to regain the public’s trust, we must demonstrate fair , open and transparent decision making, resulting in predictable, as opposed to ad-hoc decisions, where some may argue that City Hall is picking ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Decision making done successfully, creates a level playing field for everyone.

Integrity, transparency and accountability of the public service, both elected and unelected are prerequisite to and underpin public trust, as the keystone to good governance. When there is honest and open dialogue, the public’s trust will return!

Milton Friedman, one of America’s most respected economist, statistician and the recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wisely observed that we spend our own money on ourselves very carefully. We spend other people’s money less carefully.

As a young teen-ager, I worked on a poultry farm, catching chickens from midnight until dawn. The money I earned went into a savings account to buy a car when I turned 16. In addition to my earnings, my father would give me money for my birthday and other special occasions. I still remember that this ‘free’ money disappeared relatively quickly and without much thought.

The obvious truth and lesson that I learned early in life was that it is much easier to spend someone else’s money than my own. Elected officials and civil servants at every level of government need to rethink how we spend taxpayer’s money. Expenditures should be evaluated as though it was our own money that we are spending.

The City of Abbotsford has increased expenditures at a far greater rate than the average taxpayer’s income. Since September of 2008, many of our citizens have experienced wage decreases, or worse still, have lost their jobs. Abbotsford’s unemployment rate has increased for three consecutive years and is now one of the highest in the country. We have reached a point where the general public can no longer bear the burden of taxation and all the other fees they encounter at every turn.

The obvious question is this; how did we get here? Let’s begin by looking at the division of tax revenue. Federal and Provincial governments receive 92 cents of every tax dollar, while local government receives the remaining 8 cents. In recent years, Abbotsford has taken on many costs that have historically been the responsibility of our two senior levels of governments, i.e., 3 freeway interchanges and social housing to name two, but there are others. Many local governments, including Abbotsford have bought into the concept of paying 33% of infrastructure costs that properly belong to the two senior levels of government who collect 92% of all tax revenue.

Abbotsford’s largest single line item expenditure is made up of salaries, wages and benefits. While we have many great employees throughout the organization, we cannot continue with the kind of increases we have seen in recent years…it is simply unsustainable. Tackling this issue will be difficult, but one that is necessary if we want to improve the sustainability and quality of life in Abbotsford.

Historically, public sector employees were generally paid less than an equivalent private sector position. The primary reason for this was because a public servant position usually has less uncertainty, while private sector employment is subject to the free market forces and hence employment is less certain. Unfortunately, poor public sector employees are grossly overpaid while good public sector employees are grossly underpaid. Salary schedules tend to be uniform and determined far more by seniority than any other factor.

Another factor is the debt levels that Government’s have taken on and Abbotsford is no exception. In B.C., Abbotsford’s debt obligations are second only to Vancouver. Contrast this with Surrey – their debt is one-tenth that of Abbotsford, while Chilliwack has no debt. How is it that Chilliwack has an arena, a cultural centre and pools and yet has no debt? One thing is clear; the average taxpayer in Abbotsford is upset and is demanding that elected leaders figure out a way to relieve/reduce the tax burden.

The subsidies that arose as a result of Plan A, also present a formidable property tax challenge. Instead of breaking even, or having a small surplus (which is what we were promised), we have poured millions of tax dollars into these projects every year, the most notable being the Entertainment and Sports Complex (ESC). We have to find a way to reign in these subsidies; otherwise, we will fall further behind in other areas. The good news is that this message is beginning to gain some traction at City Hall.

In my view, the City of Abbotsford does not have a revenue problem, the real problem lies on the spending side.

Elected officials and senior managers need to keep all of this in mind when it comes to developing our 2013 Budget.

My observations and impressions of City Hall during my first six months in office can be summed up in one sentence; some things are better than expected while others are worse. However, you will have to visit this website in the weeks and months ahead to learn what those are!

My apologies to those who have been checking my website for new material…the original plan was to resume blogging within a few months of taking office and post a blog every two weeks thereafter. However, the learning curve has been much steeper than I had anticipated, especially with respect to the 2012 Budget.

You will have noticed that my website has been changed to “Councillor Perspective”. The views expressed on this website are my own and may not necessarily be the majority view of Council. At times, democracy can be a bit messy, however, our constitutional form of government has proven over and over again that it works and is preferable to what we see in many other countries around the world; dictatorships, violence, guns and far too often, bloodshed. I don’t claim to have all the answers, so please feel free to express your thoughts and opinions.

Since being elected, I have had the privilege of interacting with people that I would not have otherwise met and the comments received have been most helpful. Two common themes have emerged from those interactions; the people of Abbotsford care deeply about our community and they are concerned about spending and the impact of that spending on property taxes. For those who followed my blog during the campaign, fiscal responsibility was a key component of my platform. Therefore, it will not come as a surprise that my first post election blog will touch on that subject.

In 2012, Budget Expenditures will exceed Budget Revenue by approximately $30 Million. People have asked me how that is possible given that the Community Charter requires a balanced budget – good question. The Community Charter permits internal borrowing from other Fund Accounts (usually DCC & Reserve Accounts). During 2010, the City internally borrowed $20 Million. In 2011, an additional $9 Million was borrowed for a combined total of $29 Million as at December 31, 2011. Although the Community Charter permits internal borrowing, it also requires that these ‘borrowed monies’ be repaid within 5 years so that they can be used for the intended purposes for which they were collected. This means that the $20 Million borrowed in 2010 needs to be repaid by the end of 2015 with an additional $9M in 2016. I have expressed my concern that the City could find itself in the position of not being able to repay those internal borrowings, which could result in the City having to seek electoral approval to borrow monies on the open market.

From this Councillor’s perspective, the City’s spending needs to be reigned in, which is in large part why I voted against the 2012 Budget. Whether as individuals, corporations, or governments, we all must learn to live within our means. When we don’t, there are consequences and we need look no further than the daily news, where we see countries that are on the verge of financial ruin because they ignored some basic financial principles – spending more than you receive can have negative downstream consequences. The City does not have a revenue problem; it has an expenditure problem and this is where we must begin in order to get our financial house in order.

My sincere thanks to everyone that voted for me, I am truly humbled and look forward to serving all the citizens of Abbotsford.

To my campaign team and the many volunteers, friends and family that demonstrated their support in so many ways…thank you to everyone!

A special thank you to my wife who supported me with her words of encouragement and wise counsel at key points along the way and for enduring hearing me give the same message over and over again as I met with various groups.

Thank you to all of the candidates who allowed their names to be placed on the ballot – I have a whole new appreciation for those in public service and what it takes to run a campaign.

Abbotsford is a great city and I want to keep it that way. Working together, we will make it an even better place to live, work and raise a family.

To those who put their trust in me, as well as those who voted for others, you are not without a voice. I vow to continue to listen. What kind of city do you want? Now is the time to speak up. This blog will remain open to encourage future dialogue with you. Feel free to email, post your comments or call me. Together we will make City Hall a place that really listens.