Qualities Of A Prospective Councillor

If we were to identify the qualities that mark effective elected officials, I would choose the following broad categories: character, competence, temperament, and service. 

Character

When we begin to consider whom to support or vote for, the first question that usually comes to mind is, “Who is this person?” Apart from identifying where someone comes from or exploring their background, we want to know whether this person is trustworthy. Are they honest and transparent in their relationships with others? Can we expect them to take responsibility, even when they have failed in some manner? Do they respect others, regardless of personal differences?

Character also requires courage and independence of judgement. An elected official must be willing to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions when the evidence and the long-term interests of the community point in that direction. Public opinion matters, but responsible representation requires more than simply determining which position is most popular. The question I learned to ask myself was: What is in the best interest of the community as a whole?

Newly elected officials will obviously be inexperienced and will make mistakes. Competence can compensate for inexperience, but it cannot compensate for deficiencies in character.

Competence

What, then, are the basic competencies we should look for? Does this individual have strong thinking skills? Can we expect them to exercise common sense and sound judgment? Given the nature of the position and the consequences of the decisions involved, we should expect intelligent people who not only can learn, but want to learn. After all, the initial learning curve is significant.

We also need individuals who can think strategically and systemically. A competent elected official must be able to see how today’s decisions contribute to the city’s long-term direction. Transportation, parks, utilities, housing, and other municipal responsibilities are interconnected rather than isolated issues. Is this candidate a big-picture thinker, capable of balancing individual projects and immediate concerns against a broader vision? The question that should always remain at the forefront is: What is best for the city as a whole, rather than simply for one neighbourhood or interest group?

An effective elected official must also understand that major infrastructure and community development unfold over decades, not election cycles. Just as importantly, they must understand where the city is headed and recognize that a sequence of decisions is required to get there. No major decision exists entirely in isolation.

We should also expect the people we elect to understand the principles of good governance. Without that understanding, the result can be a dysfunctional Council, impaired in its ability to respond to unexpected challenges or alter course when circumstances require it. And there is one further competency that should concern every taxpayer: Will this candidate exercise fiscal responsibility in the interests of all residents and future generations, rather than responding primarily to the immediate demands of a vocal minority? The financial consequences of Council decisions can extend far beyond a single term of office.

Temperament

The third category—temperament—may be underestimated or overlooked. Municipal government is almost entirely a collaborative enterprise. One of its unique strengths is the presence of nine independent voices and opinions around the Council table, working together to govern the city. A Councillor who possesses excellent ideas but cannot work constructively with colleagues will usually accomplish less than someone with perhaps fewer ideas but stronger interpersonal skills.

Is this candidate a collaborator—someone who has not only the ability but also the willingness to work as part of a team? Are they open-minded enough to seriously consider points of view that may be unfamiliar, contrary to their own, or even unorthodox? Can they disagree without becoming disagreeable? Can they accept that, on occasion, the majority will reach a conclusion different from their own and then continue working constructively with their colleagues?

If I have learned one thing from my 21 years on Council, it is that patience truly is a virtue. It is a virtue I have struggled with at times. I have learned, however, that in the context of my role as a Councillor, patience has generally resulted in better decisions. Rushed decisions, particularly when dealing with complex issues, can produce consequences that are difficult to undo.

Service

A fourth quality is a genuine commitment to public service. Why is this person seeking office? And whom do they believe they are there to serve? This category speaks to motivation and purpose. An individual may pass the first three tests but fail to appreciate that elected office is not about status or influence, nor simply about advancing a particular cause. Does the individual demonstrate a genuine desire to serve the community as a whole?

Public office is a position of trust. Those elected are given authority to make decisions affecting people they may never meet, with consequences that may extend well beyond their own term of office. Effective elected officials understand that the position is not about themselves. They are temporary stewards of a community entrusted to their care.

Of the four qualities, character comes first. Knowledge can be acquired. Experience comes with time. Skills can be developed. But integrity, humility, and courage provide the foundation. Service gives those qualities their purpose—a genuine commitment to place the interests of the community ahead of personal ambition, recognition, or gain.

Is An Appeal Realistic

 Opinions have flowed freely on how the City ought to respond to the recent Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) decision regarding the King and McKenzie Roads property. There is evident optimism that reconsideration will result in a different outcome. In fact, too many Council election candidates appear to be offering hope that other options remain. Is their hope justified or just "election bait"?

Beware! Are they familiar with the history of ALC decisions? Are you? 

Recent history provides some useful perspective.

On December 11, 2023, approximately 14.2 hectares (35 acres) in Surrey were removed from the ALR for the Surrey–Langley SkyTrain Operations and Maintenance Centre near Fraser Highway and 176 Street. Importantly, however, this land was removed by the provincial government through Order in Council 709/2023, rather than through a conventional ALC exclusion decision.

One of the clearest recent examples of the ALC itself approving a substantial exclusion in the Fraser Valley/Lower Mainland occurred in the Township of Langley on March 10, 2020. The application involved eight properties totalling 14.58 hectares (36 acres). The ALC Executive Committee approved their exclusion from the ALR, subject to conditions relating to buffering, fencing and drainage. The intended use was ultimately industrial development.

The ALC's current application and decision records identify File 51725 as “Exclusion — Approved,” South Coast Region, Township of Langley, dated March 10, 2020. Interestingly, the same records show another Langley exclusion application, decided in 2018, being refused.

Another instructive example occurred in Delta in 2024. On August 7, 2024, the ALC Executive Committee conditionally approved the exclusion of 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres). According to Delta's reporting on the application, the land had limited agricultural capability because of historic filling, compaction and other disturbances, while surrounding development had substantially isolated it from viable agricultural use.

There has also been at least one small ALC-approved exclusion in Metro Vancouver since then. The ALC's annual reporting, however, identifies exclusions by regional district rather than necessarily identifying the municipality involved.

Acreage Approved for Exclusion Is Very Telling

The amount of land the ALC is approving for exclusion is extraordinarily small.

In 2024–25, the ALC approved the exclusion of only 3.78 hectares throughout the entire South Coast region. These figures represent land approved for exclusion by Commission decision during the fiscal year; the actual change to the ALR boundary may occur later, after any conditions attached to the decision have been satisfied.

The South Coast region includes Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Langley, Mission, Pitt Meadows, Richmond, Surrey and other municipalities.

That is an extraordinarily small amount of land.

Agricultural Capability Is the Threshold Issue

This is perhaps the most important distinction between municipal planning considerations and the ALC's mandate. A council may ask: “Is this the best location for an important community use?”

The ALC's starting question is closer to: “Does this land have meaningful present or future agricultural value, and would removing it impair the agricultural land base?”

Abbotsford's 2018 industrial-land application provides an important example. The City sought the exclusion of approximately 201 hectares (497 acres) in Special Study Areas A and B. The ALC found Area A capable of agricultural use, with most agricultural soils in Classes 2 and 3, while Area B contained Class 1, 2 and 3 soils. It rejected drainage and irrigation deficiencies as sufficient reasons for exclusion.

The Commission's conclusion was unequivocal: “the Properties are capable of supporting agriculture and are therefore appropriately designated as ALR.” It also made clear that whether the land happened to be actively farmed at that particular time was not determinative.

That distinction is important. Land does not necessarily lose its agricultural value simply because it is not currently being farmed.

Municipal Need Carries Surprisingly Little Weight

This may be the most important lesson for municipal planning.

Abbotsford's 2018 case was not casually prepared. The City had completed a three-part Industrial Land Supply Study, demonstrated a diminishing supply of industrial land, identified employment requirements associated with population growth, and selected areas with excellent transportation and infrastructure characteristics.

The ALC acknowledged those considerations but did not regard them as overriding its agricultural mandate. Although Abbotsford pointed to the “dwindling supply” of industrial land in the Lower Mainland, the Commission stated that addressing that supply problem was not its role.

That is an important statement for everyone to take note of.

Arguments such as “Abbotsford desperately needs additional industrial land” or “Abbotsford needs land for recreational facilities to serve its growing population” may be compelling municipal planning arguments. But they do not, by themselves, answer the questions the ALC is required to consider.

The same principle appeared in the ALC's refusal of an exclusion application in Aldergrove. The Commission emphasized that local governments should consider density, infill, redevelopment and other ways of accommodating urban growth rather than progressively eroding the Agricultural Land Reserve.

That history should temper expectations about what might happen next at King and McKenzie Roads. The central question is not simply whether Abbotsford needs additional recreational land. Few would dispute that need. The more difficult question is whether that municipal need provides a sufficiently compelling basis for the ALC to reconsider its determination that the land should remain protected for agriculture. 

Furthermore, are we prepared to wait multiple years to explore possibilities without any certainty of a positive outcome?

 

 

Reflections for Prospective Members of Council

 Planning, Priorities, and Fiscal Stewardship

Every newly elected Council inherits a city shaped by the vision, planning, and decisions of previous Councils. While each Council has the authority to establish its own priorities, it also assumes responsibility for commitments made years earlier and for decisions whose financial implications extend well into the future.

For prospective Council candidates, understanding Abbotsford's long-term financial planning is therefore as important as developing new ideas. Municipal government is not simply about identifying worthwhile projects. It is about determining which projects should proceed, in what order, at what pace, and how they can be financed responsibly.

From Vision to Implementation

The 2016 Official Community Plan established a vision for Abbotsford's future growth. It recognized that a growing population would require substantial investments in transportation, utilities, emergency services, parks, recreation facilities, civic buildings, and community amenities.

An Official Community Plan, however, is fundamentally a vision document. It identifies where growth should occur and what kind of community residents wish to create. It does not answer equally important questions: What infrastructure will be required? When will it be required? What will it cost? How will it be financed?

The City's Plan for 200K process was intended to help answer those questions by translating the broad vision of the OCP into practical implementation strategies.

One of its strengths was the recognition that infrastructure cannot be planned in isolation. Transportation, water, sewer, drainage, parks, recreation, fire protection, policing, development financing, asset management, and long-term financial planning are interconnected. A new neighbourhood requires far more than houses. It requires infrastructure and services, together with the ongoing resources to operate and maintain them.

The planning process revealed that accommodating future growth would require investments measured not simply in millions, but in billions of dollars over several decades. To understand how those investments could be accommodated, the City developed a 25-year financial plan.

Among the major initiatives identified were a new Police Headquarters, replacement of Fire Hall #6, Fraser Highway and arterial road improvements, water and sewer infrastructure, recreation facilities, park development, and renewal of aging civic infrastructure.

No municipality can undertake every worthwhile project simultaneously. The central challenge is therefore one of prioritization and sequencing.

The most difficult decisions seldom involve choosing between a good project and a bad one. More often, Council must choose among several worthwhile projects competing for the same financial capacity. Saying "yes" to one project frequently means saying "not yet" to another.

Fiscal Discipline as Stewardship

Fiscal discipline is sometimes equated with keeping taxes low or resisting new spending. Neither definition adequately describes responsible municipal financial management. Fiscal discipline is better understood as the careful stewardship of public resources: balancing present needs with future obligations while ensuring that today's decisions do not impose unreasonable burdens on tomorrow's taxpayers.

Every major capital project carries more than its construction cost. Once built, infrastructure must be operated, maintained, and eventually replaced. Those costs become obligations for future budgets and future Councils.

Fiscal discipline also means preserving financial capacity. Healthy reserves, manageable debt, sustainable taxation, and realistic capital plans provide the flexibility to respond to emergencies, changing priorities, and unexpected opportunities.

Nor does fiscal discipline necessarily mean avoiding debt. Borrowing may be appropriate when it finances long-lived infrastructure that will serve residents for decades. The important questions are whether the debt is affordable, whether the asset justifies the obligation, and whether sufficient financial capacity remains for other future needs.

Abbotsford's experience since 2010 demonstrates that significant infrastructure planning and investment can occur while maintaining comparatively moderate growth in property taxes and charges. According to provincial statistics, Abbotsford's average annual increase in property taxes and charges over the past 15 years was 2.78%, compared with 3.82% provincially and 4.17% in the Township of Langley.

Fiscal discipline, therefore, should not be measured solely by the size of an annual tax increase. It should also be measured by whether a municipality continues to improve essential infrastructure and deliver required services while maintaining a tax burden that is reasonable and sustainable.

The Responsibility of Future Councils

Annual budgets do not begin with a blank slate. They are often the implementation of decisions and plans established years earlier. Long-range planning establishes the direction; annual budgets determine the pace.

Projects may be accelerated, delayed, reconsidered, or replaced as economic conditions, construction costs, funding opportunities, and community priorities change. That flexibility is a normal and necessary part of responsible governance.

Every newly elected Council has both the authority and responsibility to revisit priorities. Fresh perspectives are healthy and often necessary. But responsible change requires understanding why existing priorities were established, what commitments have already been made, and what consequences will follow from changing them.

The question is seldom simply whether a proposed project has merit. More often, Council must ask: Is this the appropriate priority? Is this the appropriate time? Can it be financed responsibly? What other projects would be delayed? What ongoing operating costs will result? What are the long-term implications for taxpayers?

These are questions of stewardship rather than ideology.

Effective Councils also think beyond their own four-year mandate. Infrastructure should be planned according to its useful life and the community's long-term needs, not according to the length of an election cycle.

They must also be able to step back from individual requests and consider the needs of the community as a whole. Community organizations, neighbourhoods, businesses, sporting and cultural organizations, and other interests all bring legitimate concerns to Council. Good governance requires listening carefully to those voices while retaining responsibility for determining what best serves the broader community.

Fiscal discipline is not an obstacle to progress. It is what makes sustained progress possible.

Conclusion

Every generation of civic leaders inherits a city it did not build. Roads, utilities, parks, emergency services, recreation facilities, and civic buildings represent decades of planning and investment by earlier Councils and taxpayers. Likewise, today's decisions will shape both the opportunities and obligations inherited by those who follow.

The responsibility of elected officials is therefore not simply to respond to the issues of the day. It is to understand what they have inherited, exercise good judgment in determining what should come next, and leave the community stronger than they found it.

That requires vision, discipline, and above all, stewardship.