The Real Test of a Municipal Council Is What It Leaves Behind

Municipal elections have concluded, and across British Columbia, newly elected mayors and councillors are preparing to assume responsibility for the governance of their communities. Some have been returned to office; others will be serving for the first time. All face the same fundamental challenge: reconciling the aspirations of their residents with the financial realities of municipal government.

Election campaigns naturally focus on what communities need and what candidates promise to deliver. New recreation centres, aquatic facilities, arenas, parks and other public amenities frequently feature prominently in those discussions. These are legitimate aspirations. Growing communities need infrastructure, and residents reasonably expect their municipal governments to provide it.

But there is an important distinction between identifying a need and determining how, when and at what cost that need can responsibly be met. During its last term, the Township of Langley pursued an aggressive approach to addressing its infrastructure deficit, particularly in recreational facilities. That approach was not without internal opposition, and the divisions became evident last Saturday when the incumbent mayor and a majority of incumbent councillors were defeated at the polls.

The Difference Between Promising and Governing

During an election campaign, candidates are free to advocate for ambitious projects and new services. Once elected, however, they assume responsibility for the entire municipality, not simply the priorities that attracted the greatest attention during the campaign.

Police and fire protection, roads, water and sewer systems, drainage and numerous other essential services must be maintained. Existing infrastructure ages and eventually requires replacement. Population growth creates additional demands, while inflation increases the cost of services residents already receive. These responsibilities seldom attract the same public attention as a new recreation complex, but they are no less important.

A council's responsibility is not simply to determine what its community would like to have. It must also determine what the community can afford, what must take priority, and what financial obligations it is prepared to pass on to future generations.

Borrowing Is Not Free Money

Municipal borrowing is a legitimate and sometimes necessary means of financing major infrastructure. Long-lived assets can reasonably be financed over time, allowing future residents who benefit from those assets to share in their costs.

There is nothing inherently irresponsible about municipal debt. The question is how much a municipality can prudently borrow while preserving its ability to meet other obligations. Borrowing allows construction to proceed sooner, but it does not eliminate the cost. It spreads that cost over many years, with interest. Every dollar committed to debt servicing is a dollar unavailable for other municipal priorities.

Equally important, the cost of a new public facility does not end when construction is completed. Aquatic centres, arenas and recreation complexes require ongoing expenditures for staffing, utilities, maintenance and programming. These costs become permanent obligations within municipal operating budgets, often requiring continuing subsidies from property taxpayers.

Consequently, decisions to construct major facilities create financial commitments that may extend well beyond the terms of the councils that approve them.

The Value of Financial Flexibility

Municipalities differ considerably in their capacity to finance infrastructure. Some have opportunities to expand their industrial and commercial tax bases. Others face geographic, agricultural or environmental constraints that limit future development. Residential growth generates additional tax revenue, but it also creates demand for infrastructure and services. Growth does not automatically pay for itself.

One of the most valuable assets a municipality can possess is financial flexibility. Healthy reserves, manageable debt and prudent long-term planning allow councils to respond to emergencies, address unexpected infrastructure failures and take advantage of funding opportunities. A council that has already committed much of its future revenue to debt servicing has fewer options when unforeseen circumstances arise. Maintaining financial flexibility ensures that today's decisions do not unnecessarily restrict tomorrow's choices.

A Responsibility to Future Generations

Municipal councillors are elected for limited terms, but the consequences of their financial decisions can extend for decades. Residents deserve more than assurances that a project is needed or that financing can be arranged. They deserve to know what it will cost to build, what it will cost to operate, how it will be financed, and what other priorities may be affected.

Good governance requires vision and ambition. Communities cannot prosper if their elected representatives are unwilling to invest in their future. But good governance also requires restraint, sound judgment and the willingness to make difficult decisions.

As newly elected councils begin their work, perhaps the most important question they should ask is not simply, "What do we want to accomplish during our term?" It is also, "What financial condition will we leave our municipality in when our term is over?" The lasting legacy of a council should not be measured only by what it builds, but also by the financial health and opportunities it leaves for those who follow.

 

Experience and Continuity Matter

As I conclude six terms on Abbotsford City Council and prepare to step away from elected office, I have been reflecting on what effective leadership requires. Having served under five different mayors, I have learned that the responsibilities of the mayor’s office are not always apparent from the outside.

A mayor does much more than chair Council meetings or represent the City at public events. The mayor is often Abbotsford's principal advocate with other levels of government and an important voice in building the relationships upon which major municipal initiatives can depend.

That is particularly important at this moment in Abbotsford's history.

Since the devastating flooding of Sumas Prairie, our City has spent years developing relationships with the provincial and federal governments, First Nations and other partners. Those relationships are now producing tangible progress. Discussions that began years ago have matured into partnerships, funding commitments and direct access to senior decision-makers.

Relationships of this kind are built over time. So is an understanding of the complexities of municipal government: its finances, infrastructure, land-use challenges, relationships with senior governments and the limits of what a municipality can accomplish on its own.

I have served with mayors who came to the office with Council experience and with one who did not. From that experience, I have come to place considerable value on having a mayor who understands municipal government before assuming its most demanding elected position.

That does not mean that newcomers to public life have nothing to contribute. They certainly do. New voices and new ideas are important to local democracy. But there are times when experience and continuity deserve particular consideration.

I believe this is one of those times.

Abbotsford has considerable momentum. Important work on flood protection, transportation, infrastructure and our relationships with senior governments is underway. In my view, maintaining that momentum should be an important consideration as residents decide who will lead the next Council.

As someone who has worked alongside Mayor Ross Siemens on Council, I can speak to what I have personally observed: he knows the City, understands the issues before us, and has established working relationships with the people and governments whose cooperation Abbotsford will need in the years ahead.

For those reasons, I support Ross Siemens for another term as Mayor.

The Strength of Local Government

Democracy traces its roots to Ancient Greece more than 2,500 years ago. One of the distinguishing features of Athenian democracy was its legislative assembly, in which eligible Athenian citizens participated directly in public decision-making. Rather than being governed through political parties or representatives acting under party discipline, citizens exercised their own judgment and cast their own votes. Although their rights were not protected in the way we understand constitutional rights today, they nevertheless enjoyed a remarkable degree of political liberty by participating directly in the governance of their city.

Canadians have become increasingly cynical about the political process and about politics in general. This growing disillusionment is reflected, in part, by declining voter turnout. Many citizens no longer feel that their individual voices carry the same weight in the democratic process. Party politics, so dominant at the federal and provincial levels, has contributed to this sentiment. Members elected to represent their constituencies often find themselves constrained by party discipline, making it difficult to advocate fully for the views of those who elected them.

Local government has, for the most part, avoided many of the pitfalls associated with party politics. One of its greatest strengths is that those elected to office are generally free to exercise independent judgement and represent their communities without direction from a party leader. That independence allows councillors to weigh each issue on its own merits and to vote according to their conscience and their understanding of the community's best interests.

Over the years, I have come to appreciate another important strength of this model. Testing my ideas against the perspectives of eight other council members has made me a more thoughtful and confident decision-maker. Rather than debating only two or three competing viewpoints, each of us may be challenged by as many as eight different perspectives. Through that respectful exchange of ideas, assumptions are tested, weaknesses exposed, and stronger decisions are more likely to emerge.

As political slates become more common in local government, it is worth remembering that one of municipal democracy's greatest strengths has always been the independence of those elected to serve.

Several years ago, I heard Rex Murphy describe communities as the "texture of the nation." I would extend that thought by suggesting that the diversity of independent voices within local government reflects the diversity of the community itself. It is that diversity of thought that gives each community its unique character and strengthens its democratic foundation. In a culturally diverse community such as Abbotsford, the importance of independent voices becomes even greater.

When nine men and women exercise independent judgment, each seeking what they sincerely believe to be in the community's best interests, the texture of that community is enriched and strengthened.