TAKE YOUR CHOICE

Option #1 or #2?

   Criticism is easy – it’s the decision-making that attracts criticism that is difficult. Are mistakes sometimes made? They most certainly are and hopefully, lessons are learned in the process. I welcome constructive criticism, but when criticism is only that, I become disinterested in listening. That kind of criticism is often just a cover for the critic’s own shortcomings, whatever they may be.

   Over the last year, and particularly now, during the election campaign, the topic of drawing on the City's Reserve funds to construct the two interchanges has been often raised. It is that issue I wish to address here.

   In 2008, the world economy went into a serious recession. Within the year, our federal government realized intervention was needed, and they launched the Economic Action Plan to generate jobs. Grants were offered across Canada to invest in infrastructure. The government wanted ‘shovel-ready’ projects, and offered one-third funding, contingent on the provincial and municipal governments each contributing one-third as well.

   It must also be noted that the federal government was in the practice of not making their one-third contribution until completion of the project. The choice that Council of the day faced was: 1) turn the offer down, or 2) draw on Reserves to provide our one-third of $50m. (each interchange was priced at $25m.). Council chose the latter option.

   Both projects were completed under budget, with the Clearbrook interchange significantly under budget. On the Clearbrook project, the City built it with its own supervising Engineer. A total of 21 local companies were awarded contracts in the construction of that interchange, creating employment for many local workers, and thereby providing for their families during a very serious economic downturn.

   In both cases, the City could have settled for the lower cost and saved money in the short-term. However, the City requested that it be permitted to apply those saved dollars to other necessary infrastructure projects. The federal authorities agreed on condition that the projects would be “connected” in some way to the two interchanges.

   At the McCallum interchange, the most significant additional work was the climbing lane on the freeway, between Sumas Way and McCallum Road, where traffic bottlenecks were common. Additional projects included the McCallum parking lot and bus stop, as well as some water/sewer infrastructure. At Clearbrook, where much more money was saved because the City did the building and contracting, significant road infrastructure was completed, namely, Clearbrook Road, from the interchange to King Road; and Marshall Road, from the traffic circle to Mt. Lehman Rd.

   That entire extra infrastructure was paid for on the basis of 33 cents to the dollar, instead of having property taxpayers shoulder the complete cost of constructing, which would eventually have to happen. Our citizens were saved millions of dollars in property taxes. Criticism is often based on only part of the story, at the expense of the truth – the other part of the story. 

   I haven’t mentioned the airport infrastructure improvements, which also entailed a $25m. investment, and also including additional work due to completion under budget. The new terminal is the result of those extra dollars, with the Airport Authority picking up only 33 cents-on-the-dollar costs.

   In all my difficult decision-making at the Council table, I am guided by the principle of what is in the best interests of the community at large. There were two options: Council chose the latter; based on the criticism leveled, I assume the critics would have chosen the former. I’ll gladly take the criticism; in this case, the City certainly benefited. I take encouragement from the words of Aristotle, who said:

“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”