Coldstream All Candidates' Meeting

The first of three scheduled meet-the-Coldstream-candidates Q&A sessions was held last night at Lavington School, leading up to the November 19th municipal election and corresponding Shop referendum.

There were some surprises--and I may have been alone in my feeling that they were positive--but they nevertheless occurred.  And, having not had time to speak to any audience acquaintances before--or following--the meeting, positive sentiments are likely mine alone.  Perhaps the results of the election and referendum will determine if that's the case.

In no particular order...
With the exception of one, all incumbents attended, joined by mayoralty candidate Dave Hrabchuk, and two of three councillor candidates Peter McClean and John Hegler.  Candidate Glen Taylor sent an email stating he was unable to attend.  Present Councillor Bill Firman did not attend as he withdrew his candidacy for this term last week, stating he was getting too old and that he had had enough of personal attacks.

Unknown to mayoralty candidate Hrabchuk, it's "a given" with the audience that he could not be expected to relay issues in an in-depth manner due to the very fact he hasn't been involved in the inner workings of the municipality.  Despite that, he tried hard to be "up" on all the issues, but I felt that his placing blame on this Council for pre-existing issues was misguided.  In particular, appearing to blame this council for the onerous environmental impact on a creek from the location of a 50-year old Shop was off the mark.

What the candidate for mayor should have blamed this council for, beginning with the Shop issue is for things that occurred during their term, not for things that society's evolution has taught us are now critically important on the environment.  So, on the Shop, what occurred on "their watch"?    

• their decision, with the expensive work of Kelowna-based consultants Urban Systems, to erect a new shop.  Mitigating the environmental impact of stormwater runoff on the creek, including equipment oil and grease leaks--indeed the serious impact of an old buried fuel tank--should be the chief focus, not building a new Shop.  But wouldn't the old--and too small--Shop still affect the creek?  No.  At considerably lower cost, sloping berms could be constructed, leading to catch basins, from which contaminants could be recovered and disposed of properly.  Even the sloping-to-the-creek staff parking lot north of the recently-constructed municipal hall--which isn't being addressed in the plans, can and will in time contain oil/battery acid/anti-freeze contaminants.  Building a new ~$2 million Shop won't address that.  The projected cost of the new Shop does not include what might be discovered in the soil when the old fuel tank is dug up, so projected costs are conservative. 

So what should occur?
This is exactly what raised the ire of taxpayers last time with the referendum on the (now-built) new Municipal Hall.  The question on the referendum wasn't whether to build a new municipal hall, it was whether to borrow money for a new municipal hall.  And this referendum is no different.  The referendum does not pose the question:  "Should we construct a new Shop?"  No, its question is "Are you in favour of the Council of the District of Coldstream adopting Bylaw No. 1590, 2011 to authorize the borrowing of up to $1,335,320 to construct a new Mechanic Shop, address environmental concerns, WorkSafe BC standards, and works yard site improvements?"  There should be NO referendum on a new Shop!

After digging up and the (expected) soil remediation of the old buried fuel tank and construction of berms and catch basins on both sides of the creek, retrofit the existing shop for employee safety (a WCB requirement) by installing a new venting/heating system.  So where would the equipment go?  In the existing retrofitted shop PLUS the empty old two-bay Fire Hall for additional equipment storage.  And, frankly, during difficult economic times, employees don't NEED a new lunchroom!

Yes, there'd be space for the new mower (already accounted for as "new mower" in the drawings, appearing to predate this council's public announcement to leave the regional--Greater Vernon--parks and recreation function).  The word "function" was placed in italics because I'll never understand the incorrect use of a verb as a noun for something as important as this...why isn't it just called a "department"?  Could it be that many of our regional disagreements resulted from this misnomer? 

What else "on their watch"?

•  Urban Systems.  Coldstream municipality apparently was billed close to $2 million by this Kelowna consulting company in the last year, culminating in the plans for the new Shop.  Two things rattle my nerves on this issue:  (1)  why do we hire a consulting firm from diversity-rich and thriving Kelowna to the south to formulate specs on and in Coldstream?   (2)  why are drawings for a Shop or plans for a street or a multi-use path not done in-house?  

Are there no consultants of merit in our own community? Seems to fly in the face of this council's dedication to "supporting local businesses", I'd say.  Coldstream has well-remunerated engineers on staff and, frankly, the drawing for the Shop referendum handout at last night's forum could've been designed by a drafting student at Okanagan College University located here in our own community.  Could it be because staff engineers' job descriptions don't include using their skills for our community's advantage?  (Same thing occurs at the water authority...Al Cotsworth, Arnold Badke, etc. are all professional engineers, yet they hire a consultant(s) who are also professional engineers to design water systems).  Why are bureaucrats, overseen by elected officials, not more business-savvy?  Unless their chief goal is to expand employment, which they certainly appear to be doing!  And the lack of business savvy among elected officials is increasingly evident.  All of which leads to increased costs for taxpayers!  This, in itself, leads taxpayers to believe cost saving isn't of paramount importance to either this Council or bureaucrats.

Another issue:

• Antwerp Springs well(s) contamination of drinking water lawsuit launched by the provincial Ministry of Environment against the District of Coldstream and a private farmer (Palfrey) whose cows graze on adjacent pasture.   This was a once in one hundred years "rain on frozen ground event" and was anticipated, as the following excerpt will prove.  Can that be blamed on this council?  What can be blamed on this--and previous officials' terms--is that Antwerp Springs well(s) were not to be used for domestic water beyond a certain time.  But that hasn't been the case.

When bureaucrats move into different job responsibilities, there's often a loss of continuity.  No-one at the water authority seems to have provided necessary continuity.  Or they haven't read the file left by Mike Stamhuis, the architect of the Master Water Plan when three local irrigation districts were amalgamated, who is now chief administrative officer at the municipality.  And those elected officials who proudly state they're lifelong--indeed two and three-generational residents here--are implicit in this as well.  Perhaps it was easier to allow the residential water hook-ups to remain on Antwerp wells versus designing and implementing a system (yes, in-house!) that would keep these residents safe from contamination.  Whatever the reason, domestic use continued well beyond the phase-out recommended in the 10+ year old report from Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. for the account of North Okanagan Water Authority (available on the internet): 

(bold type and underscoring for emphasis: this author). 

In the upper portion of the valley, the Antwerp Springs groundwater wells have supplied

the Lavington water system for a number of years. This water, however, is very hard

(325 mg/L) and has necessitated the use of home water softeners. While the continued

use of this water source was contemplated in the early stages of the plan, the feedback

from water users was that the hardness made the long-term use of the water unacceptable,

particularly if a high-quality water was available from a regional treatment plant.

Evaluations carried out comparing hardness removal from the Antwerp Springs supply

versus supply from the Middleton Mountain water treatment plant concluded that the

latter was more cost effective. The decision was thus made to discontinue the Antwerp

Springs supply as a domestic water source, after the regional water treatment plant was

on-line. 

Groundwater in the Coldstream Valley will continue to play a role in irrigation water

supply. The existing Wells Nos. 1 and 2 in the western part of the valley will continue to

feed into the existing irrigation water system. The current Antwerp Springs wells could

be used for either local irrigation or will be tied into the regional irrigation grid. This

should be evaluated further in the preliminary engineering stage.

As the Antwerp Springs supply will continue to be used as a domestic source until 2008,

a well-head survey, conducted in 2002 or 2003, is recommended to confirm that the wells

are not influenced by surface runoff and the current method of disinfection provides an

adequate level of public health protection. (end of excerpt).

Now for the biggest bone of contention, the recent bylaw regarding subdivision servicing.  I'll "cut to the chase" here, since we all know what has recently been said by bureaucrats and elected officials.

• Coldstream Council recently imposed a "trigger point" of $50,000 (in a consecutive five-year term) on building permit applications from residents, lumping individual property owners into the Developer category (blog entry prior to this) for off-site works that trigger infrastructure requirements.  

Incumbent councillor Richard Enns--during the October 11th council meeting--queried the open meeting's audience "Do you want me to vote 'no', resulting in a Zero trigger point?"  And again at last night's meeting, the same councillor queried the audience "would you rather that ALL taxpayers are charged for the work (there)?"  

This shows a flagrant and ongoing disregard for the property rights of homeowners to NOT be designated developers as well as the fact that a multi-use "kids and pony" path is NOT infrastructure.   What the incumbent mayor and council--conveniently--seem to not understand is that we demand that homeowners are not to be classified as developers.  The City of Kelowna has verified "we don't do that (to homeowners)".  If this council desires revenue and the much-touted "smart growth", why on earth would they want residents, fearful of the horrendous costs of off-site works, employ a tactic that sends residential building permits plummeting?  Or, as many people have said, "sends renovations underground". 

Homeowners who apply for a building permit for, say, a new garage, or an additional bedroom, or for a larger kitchen place NO ADDITIONAL BURDENS on the municipality's infrastructure -- unlike Developers' construction of subdivisions of 60 homes, or Developers' four-storey apartment complexes housing 30 units.  And since NO ADDITIONAL BURDENS on the municipality's infrastructure are imposed by residential permit applications, NO triggering of off-site works should occur.   Many people have stated that election results could "hang" on this issue alone.

Since we're talking money, let's address Council's spending.  In a community of 10,000 residents where nearly three-quarters of the land is locked within the Agricultural Land Reserve, is it RIGHT to be $4 million in debt?  "The legislation limits debt to $19 million, but we just have to balance our budget, and it is", offered an incumbent. 

• "We needed those two new fire halls," stated Councillor Doug Dirk last night.

 ...and ostensibly also the new municipal hall, and new shop, and new Town Centre plan.
Seemingly blind to everyday realities, this council is convinced that a doctor's query whether he could open an office in the proposed Town Centre is justification for having a Town Centre.  Proof was stated last night by a member of the audience when he reminded council that three-quarters of leasable space at the newly renovated Polson Shops--a stone's throw distant--remains unleased by merchants.  And the proposed Trintec shopping mall at the corner of Aberdeen and Hwy 6 has been searching for an anchor tenant for two years!  Which merchant--in their right mind--would ignore the number one tenet for justification of store location:  demographics/population/competition.  Of those who do, they soon learn the peril of retail...they're not in the phone book any more.  Just because an idea is on the wish list of this mayor and council doesn't mean it would fly. 

Sure it would be nice for residents to drive (sorry...bike) on a snowy cold January morning only 1 kilometre for a litre of milk.  But reality says it won't work because locating in a small, isolated community is not to a merchant's benefit, unless a property-tax-free deal (or no development cost charges deal) is negotiated.  And how would that benefit the municipality's coffers? 

That's what's sorely missed in this Council...retail experience, commonly referred to as "real world" experience.  With the exception of one councillor who has a mobile/service business that doesn't require a bricks-and-mortar location, nobody on this council has so much as owned a hot dog stand to earn a living.   They'd learn some valuable lessons about debt then.


It was said that the former Coldstream Market (across from the municipal hall) should not have closed.  That's all very well that people would like a store there but the owner chose to avail himself of what became available...an application for a Rural Liquor Agency licence.  The proposal was not supported by Council because it would mean that alcohol would be sold next to an elementary school.   Yet today, numerous gas/grocery stores sell liquor in this municipality.  But not next to an elementary school, you say?  Not in Coldstream...yet down the road in the City of Vernon, there's East Side Liquor Store (with no groceries) right across the street from W.L. Seaton School...a secondary school.    This isn't the first time this Mayor and Council have tied the hands of a commercial enterprise.  No point in resurrecting that dead horse.


After the servicing bylaw, the next bone of contention:

• Water Rates and the Interior Health Authority demand for filtration.  

The concrete foundation of the new Duteau Creek Water Treatment plant has barely cured and now we're told that "separation of irrigation water should have occurred first because the plant(s) cannot handle the volume of water without separation."  A bureaucratic faux pas?  Perhaps.  Pandering to residential complaints about "brown water"?  Likely.  Dealing with the brown water would reduce the volume--not of water--but of complaint phone calls to the water authority.   So that was done first "because grants supporting that work were available, whereas the B.C. government didn't support the separation of irrigation water from that of domestic."    Not surprising view from the B.C. government, considering they spend their lives in an urban environment.  Rather than spending time convincing the B.C. government of their need to expland their understanding, council and bureaucrats took the easy way out and accessed the treatment plant's grant, knowing full well that--not a year later--the treatment plant would not be able to cope with the health authority's demand.


As to the horrendous rates, as one woman from the audience reported, Councillor Dirk's lengthy diatribe on the evolution of the water system pointed to other players being responsible, especially for today's rates.  He failed to mention that a councillor from each jurisdiction currently sits on the board as director.  Councillor Dirk also failed to mention that the directors were the ones who ratified the water authority's request a couple of years ago, in the interest of conservation of water, that rates would be doubled for the third quarter.  Councillor Dirk also failed to mention that this year, when reservoirs were full and we were assured that sufficient water was available for the entire winter, those same directors never thought to put forward a Board motion to rescind the doubling of water rates for Q3.  So, does that sound like a conservation focus?  Sounds like a revenue issue.  This is not unlike the B.C. hydro "conservation" tactic, where prejudicial Step 2 (higher) rates "kick in" at approximately 1350 kW hours usage per month.   Prejudicial?  Yes.  Someone at B.C. Hydro forgot to factor in that there are rural homes to whom natural gas lines are not available, yet those very homes were included in the averaging that determined at what point Step 2 would occur.

And, yes, like our water authority, there's the hydro revenue dilemma when people conserve too much electricity.  

Rather than going on ad nauseum about each incumbent's comments about the troubles that today affect Coldstream, I'll add two that no-one else has mentioned:  unelected committees and rent-a-cow "farmers".

•  unelected committees.  We can't vote them in or out, much like bureaucrats, yet they either volunteer or are appointed--hopefully because they have something to offer other than available time--to many committees that today provide recommendations to the Mayor and Council, mostly unbeknownst to residents.  Is there a screening mechanism in place where council weeds out the NIMBY-ists?  In my view, there's an overabundance of committees making recommendations to Coldstream council.  Perhaps a sign of the times, the Okanagan Basin Water Board and many many other appointed, unelected committees now decide on many factors affecting residents everywhere.  From virtually a fledgling group doing water studies years ago, the OBWB now bestows grants from the Provincial government to municipalities...an absolutely meteoric rise to power.  Unelected power.
• rent-a-cow farmers.  While a majority of locals are struggling to pay their property taxes and water bills, there is a minority of farm classifications that don't deserve support because they increase costs for the rest of us by not paying their fair share.   You don't need a calculator to figure out that a "farmer" whose sole farm income--not to mention activity and effort--is the difference between what he paid to rent a few cows for 3 or 4 months from a bona fide rancher and that of the cows' selling price does not give him $2,500 in "farm income".  Yet using this creative accounting for which dubious paperwork likely exists, he qualifies for the much lower farm property tax rate and the farm irrigation water rate.   You and I pay more for property taxes and water because, unlike these "farmers", we don't play the system.

So what were the positive surprises during last night's meeting?  It was the depth of discussion offered by incumbents.  While I haven't attended many of this council's meetings (for good reason), I have attended enough meetings during my  residency to wonder where these deep discussions actually occur because it's seldom evident in open council meetings.  The discussion period that is provided during council meetings on various agenda items seems to provide abbreviated results, and rarely gets into "the guts" of a topic, with each councillor expressing reservations or support.  So, are topics decided in-camera so no dissention is in the public eye?  During conference calls?  Via email among the councillors prior to public meetings?  In-person and privately?  Hmmm.  Almost seems so.  

From many, many residents:  Thanks to the new candidates who have let their names stand for the November 19th election:   Dave Hrabchuk as the new mayoralty candidate, John Hegler, Peter McClean and Glen Taylor for Council.  


Good luck! 

Coldstream vs. Residential Homeowners

and I know who'll win.

Tonight's open Council meeting should--in itself--be viewed as an indication of the failure of Mayor Garlick and his Council's term in office.   One after another, attendees addressed the Mayor from the podium indicating their abject disgust at how this Council is handling a bylaw that sees homeowners as Developers, which automatically triggers a requirement for off-site works, similar to the process with Commercial and large developments.

Back-peddling by saying the bylaw has been in place since 2008, Mayor Garlick agreed--when questioned--that the bylaw has been idle until recently, when Judy Paterson's building permit application mysteriously resurrected it.

Quickly switching the municipality into reverse gear, Mayor and Council now wish to be seen as heroes, advising that District of Coldstream Subdivison, Development and Servicing Bylaw No. 1535, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1595, 2011, Amendment No. 1--which is slated for third reading (and passing) tonight--would exempt off-site works and service requirements for development with a construction value less than or equal to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) cumulatively over any given five year period.

No matter, it seems, that real estate representatives stated they could not in all honesty recommend to their prospective purchasers that a planned renovation might incur a set dollar cost--with a factual formula.  There is no formula, as each case is "judged" on its own (dollars-to-the-community) merit.  "So can I recommend to a purchaser that they buy a 'reno house' in Coldstream...I think not," concluded the rep.

No matter that a building contractor stated he could not in all honesty hope to gain work for his employees doing renovations in Coldstream, as a $50,000 renovation budget would--to quote Councillor Firman--"not build you a shithouse" (This candor from the same councillor who was overheard to say at Fisher's Hardware two weeks ago, "I'm only drunk half the time now.")   Contractor Dahlen indicated that renovations would "go underground", or stop entirely. 

And a Mr. Hegler indicated that in the Council's next newsletter--instead of promoting their "works"--that the publication informs the public that residents are now considered Developers, and are subjec to off-site development costs.

No matter that several residents stated they would not choose to renovate in Coldstream and trigger the off-site works and services bylaw... for drainage...or perhaps for sidewalks and curbs...or for a bike path.  One resident said that a prospective building permit for a renovation in Coldstream Estates might trigger a sidewalk development cost.  He reminded the Mayor and Council that "there isn't another piece of sidewalk or curb for miles on either side of that property."

Dave Paterson took the microphone to indicate that for any bylaw to be legal, it must be transparent and predictable...you must know what will be incurred if you apply for a permit.  Judy Paterson's research quoted text after text which indicated the District of Coldstream's bylaw borders on a travesty as it teeters precariously on the legal fence.

So, are Garlick et al heroes for "upping" the building permit application trigger to $50,000 from the previous Zero Dollars?  That's what they'd like you to believe.

Councillor Enns put it in his most patronizingly superior attitude, "so, let me get this clear...you'd like me to vote tonight to turn down the bylaw amendment (and return it to Zero Dollars trigger)."  He and Mayor Garlick reminded attendees that the "Zero" bylaw in 2008 (which had never been enacted) was "put in place by a previous Council"...(yes, Mayor Garlick was a Councillor on that previous council).

...and earlier, amateur councillor Mario Besso tried to make a point by reminding attendees--only a little less condescendingly than Enns--"that Coldstream is bestowed with broad powers...", trailing off, as though that were sufficient to quell the unrest from the public, ultimately making no point at all.  This the same councillor who--as one resident reported--"attends every bloody meeting there is for 100 miles around, and claims her dollar "attendance fee" even if she's not on the bloody committee."


And all through the hour-long "delegation" process, Councillor Dirk--the longest serving councillor in Coldstream--made no effort to hide what has become his trademark when things aren't going well for council...a smirk.  A smirk so permanent for the hour-long to-and-fro that I squinted to more easily see if tape on each corner held his mouth upturned at the ends.  No tape was evident on Councillor Smirk.


CHBC-TV recorded what I've missed reporting here, and the link to their news broadcast will be added here tomorrow.  
EDIT ADDING CHBC-TV VIDEO LINK:  http://www.chbcnews.ca/video/new+bylaw+illegal/video.html?v=2152546993&p=1&s=dd#video

What wasn't reported by anyone at the podium was this:

• Mayor and Council have a duty to represent (act on behalf of--not against) their citizens.  Part of that duty is fiscal responsibility.  If at this juncture of their elected term they decided the municipality is short of funds for their precious Wish List that includes bike paths, they need to spend less money.  Plain and simple.  Just like families do.  Just like business does.

• The bylaw at hand is a farce.  Had the Mayor and Council wished to be transparent in their dealings with residents, we would now be at third reading of the bylaw with its "trigger amount" at $500,000., not the paltry $50,000.  How could this Mayor and Council dare to be at third reading for the $50,000 trigger amount?  How stupid do they think residents are that we'll believe they're doing us a favour in enacting that!

But we should have seen this coming.  Remember when this Mayor and Council indicated that with the closure of the Owens-Illinois (Consumers Glass) plant in Lavington they were short the property tax dollars, and they'd have to raise taxes to make up the shortfall?

I remember it.  A business owner would've lowered their budget, as would a family if income dropped suddenly. 
They're even believing their own press...the loss of group conscience and responsibility to their taxpayers isn't a good sign.

Long before the meeting ended, I left, feeling disgusted with being over-governed and under-served.

Municipal elections are a month away.
Time to clean house.

I believe we now know the questions we'll put to candidates for mayor and council. 

"I'd love a $50,000 doghouse," offers Kia, adding "but streetlights would keep me awake."

Coldstream Municipality's Brow-Beating of Taxpayers

...and "selected" taxpayers, at that.

Crying "we're broke" is no excuse for Mayor Garlick and his council--spurred on to dizzying heights of sleaziness by the ever-protected bureaucrats at the municipal hall--to use tactics that place only a thin veil on what otherwise would be called extortion.
 
Extortion is a felony, but apparently only for vassals.

Since applying for a building permit to renovate her Kidston Road property,  Judy Paterson has been told that "the wealthy should give back to the community" by either gifting land, money or adopting the project of building a multi-use path (affectionately termed a kids-n-ponies path) along her roadfront to the tune of $~300,000.00, she's been told she is a Developer because she applied for a building permit to renovate her 80 year-old farmhouse.  By declaring Judy a developer, all alterations to buildings are now considered "development" and subject to off-site works and services - like road works, sewer, etc.

CHBC-TV interview with Judy Paterson is found here:

So are these Coldstream's scare tactics?  Likely.

But why, if funds for a kids-n-ponies path are available through the provincial Gas Tax Fund and the Healthy Communities Act  "to plan for, develop and operate environmentally sustainable infrastructure".  

Judy Paterson has an answer to that:  because communities need to own the land on which they wish to develop environmentally sustainable infrastructure.  "And I own these 5 acres," says Judy.   

Wait a minute.  A kids-n-ponies (multi-use) path is infrastructure?  (Eligible projects are listed on page 31 of 48 pages here).  

Not according to Wikipedia: 

The term infrastructure typically refers to ... roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications...facilitates the production of goods and services, and distribution of finished products to markets, as well as basic social services such as schools and hospitals, etc. 

So, a kids-n-ponies path is relegated to a community's Wish List, not infrastructure, especially when the path leads to nothing but a Provincial Park.  But since the municipality of Coldstream is broke, councillors fervently believe the end justifies the means.  They are complicit in this brow-beating of Judy Paterson.

One good thing the Union of B.C. Municipalities meetings have stressed:  Point 3.3, bottom of page 11 here:  public Annual Reporting and Annual Meetings to ensure transparency and accountability.

Transparency and accountability?
As transparency and accountability requirements have somehow been lost during this Mayor and Council's term in Coldstream, how about adding:   decency and respect for residents.


Speaking of transparency and accountability, imagine this scenario:

Wealthy Judy Paterson is no longer wealthy.
Judy has written a cheque to the District of Coldstream for $300,000.00., ostensibly to end this nightmare.
So, Coldstream Municipality:  where / how is Judy's gift recorded on your Financial Statement? 

Probably under "Lost and Found," offers Kia.

Look under Lost principles.
Or Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness.
Neither of which have been used by Mayor Garlick and this Council for some time.

Mayors and Councils are Puppets of the UBCM

My, my, how things have changed in communities all over B.C., thanks to the powerful Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), whose umbrella of assistance and protection to bureaucrats now touches us all.

More on that later.

Thankfully when I was building Highlands Golf Course 10 years ago, then-Mayor Postill and Council of Coldstream were still “of the mind” to help a resident realize her goals.  Councils of the day encouraged staff—the bureaucrats—to be inclusive in development guidelines; in other words, to allow the development to occur if all development permit specs had been achieved.  I remain grateful for that, despite the near-requisite two years of red tape.  All the requirements of the day were met.

But I wouldn’t even apply for a development permit today.

Not with Coldstream’s present Mayor and Council, referring to Mayor Garlick’s quote in a recent Morning Star (in reply to Judy Paterson's appearance at Council), “you still don’t need a permit to paint.”  Really?  Really?  Implying that everything else does need a permit?  And for residents to be considered Developers is ludicrous.

Rather than being fiscally prudent, Coldstream’s Mayor and Council have little, if any, business experience and it shows.  They—and other communities’ officials—have become the bureaucratic ideal:  puppets of the UBCM.  Staff increases—in both quantity and dollars of remuneration—at both Vernon and Coldstream have left residents shaking their heads...tell us why a community like Coldstream—with ~78% of its land in the ALR and with only 10,000 residents—needs a Chartered Accountant.  Or an Executive Research Secretary.  And on and on.  By the way, the remuneration “standards” are set by, you guessed it, the UBCM.

So why do we need Mayors and Councils?

Why indeed!

Especially since Mayors and Councillors are today merely signatories to committee and bureaucratic recommendations.                                                              

If every bylaw text originates with the UBCM—and most texts do start there—then what purpose do municipal elections achieve?  Especially when additional committees—all unelected by taxpayers—make recommendations to Council for adoption:  the Technical Advisory Committee, Environmental Committee, Advisory Planning Committee, now also a Kal Neighbourhood Committee, etc. etc.  Add to that the growing list of “provincial” committees such as the Okanagan Basin Water Board and the Sterile Insect Management Board, etc., and there are literally tens of people making recommendations to Mayor and Council, all of whom are unelected by us.  Most of us don’t even know who these people are.

And that’s still not all.  The North Okanagan Regional District, on whose boards a councillor from each community sits, rarely agree on “Greater Vernon” issues, whether it be parks or water.  The RDNO has its own committees.  There are committees for growth management, bicycle paths and recycling and—one of my personal favourites—culture.  Culture?  Isn’t that the job of grandparents?  Or maybe a bureaucrat can do it better (sigh). 

One tiny example is the North Okanagan Regional District’s burning regulations—they allow burning for one month—whereas Coldstream allows a two-week burning window (spring and fall).  Anybody noticed that smoke doesn’t obey a vertical boundary (fenceline) between two jurisdictions?

But what could we have expected from the UBCM—whose power became entrenched during the NDP’s two terms of terror?  It seems that no-one is tugging on the reins of the UBCM’s power, even after the North Okanagan’s governance review call by sometime-minister Ida Chong a few years ago.  After 6 months of submissions and thoughtfully-worded suggestions, she chose the status quo.  And kept her job, I might add, after her boondoggle.  What a waste of time!

So what’s the solution?

Well let’s try it the unelected and bureaucratic way.

But with one proviso.

Governance by committee of unelected and appointed (by whom we’re not sure) people.  No mayors, no councilors except the “amalgamator” cities.  Put the responsibility squarely in the lap of the bureaucrats that are creating this socialist bureaucracy. 

Taxpayers are fed up with paying for over-governance, as fully 50 per cent of what we pay goes to wages and benefits. 
                                                                                                                
Shut down Regional District(s), amalgamate Areas B & C (affectionately called F’n’G) into their physically adjacent community.  For example, Cherryville would automatically become part of Lumby, and Lumby could certainly use the tax money.  No more NORD director for Cherryville.  Spallumcheen?  Give them to Armstrong or Vernon.   Etc. etc.  And Coldstream?  While I hate to see the historical name disappear after having been a resident for 35 years, give Coldstream to Vernon! 

There would be so much money left over for multi-use paths and bicycle lanes and park land and park benches, and mechanics' shops that residents’ taxes would be manageable.  Infrastructure upgrades could be planned each year instead of hoping for on-our-knees grants from either the Federal or Provincial governments. 

The North Okanagan would then comprise Lumby City, Vernon City, and Armstrong City.  The boundaries of each would not resemble the current delineations (akin to an inebriated individual throwing into the air an open box of pushpins, and where they landed designated the present boundaries).

We’re fed up.  You should be too.

...oh, and a sincere thanks to Judy Paterson for showing me just how bizarre the situation has truly become in the ensuing years.  Shame on all government bodies for allowing the UBCM so much power, and for permitting bureaucrats and committees of unelected people to set policy.

"I thought UBCM stood for United B.C. Mutts," mused Kia.

Hegler Fuming over Duteau Creek water

Another good letter to the editor of The Morning Star, published August 17, 2011:

Who in their right mind would spend millions of dollars to treat water to Interior Health standards and then pump it on to the land as irrigation water?  John Hegler, Coldstream resident

Who indeed!
But we're already irrigating with chlorinated water, so why not spend another $20 million to filter water at the one year old Duteau Creek water treatment plant, and then we can irrigate with even better water.

But we digress from Hegler's letter...

"As a Kalamalka Lake water customer for more than 50 years, I find it deplorable that I was forced onto Duteau Creek water.  In my opinion, this plant is the most ill-conceived and opulent spending of taxpayers' money, as it is turning out to be nothing more than a white elephant.

We have invested $29 million in this plant, $6 to $8 million for operating costs, and now Interior Health wants us to spend another $20 million to upgrade to their standards.  In my opinion, the biggest mistake that was made was that there were no twin waterlines, one for residential and one for irrigation purposes.

Who in their right mind would spend millions of dollars to treat water to Interior Health standards and then pump it on to the land as irrigation water?

It's probably the most expensive water in Canada.  The high water rates we pay for this plant run by Greater Vernon Water and we, the taxpayers, are paying the top brass well in excess of $100,000 yearly salaries.  In return, we are receiving continual water advisories.  Weren't residents left with the impression the need for these advisories would virtually disappear if this plant was built?

Seventy-five per cent of all water use is for agricultural and commercial use, 25 per cent for residential use.  We put water restrictions on the 25 per cent usage, charge an arm and a leg, are told to boil our water for most of the summer and then they try to brainwash us that there is a shortage of water.  If that were true, wouldn't there be a moratorium on house construction?  How can you pat yourself on the back and give yourself a raise for doing such an outstanding job?

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
John Hegler

"We've brow-beaten Greater Vernon Water continually," admits Kia, "and I think it's time we pounded on Interior Health's door to tell them they're taking their government jobs much too seriously.  We aren't Walkerton Ontario!"

You may just have a point there, Kia.

It's one government agency (Interior Health) telling another government agency (Greater Vernon Water) to meet their NEW standards.

Akin to the make-work projects for which government (at all levels) has become famous.

"With the fooled taxpayers in the middle, paying for it," adds Kia.

Abuse of Power by District of Coldstream? So, who's really surprised?

Judy Paterson's letter to the editor appeared in The Morning Star on Friday, August 12th.

...happy indeed to add Judy to the ever-growing number of Coldstream residents who are fed up with Mayor Garlick and his council's expansion of municipal powers....to some it's abuse, while others just call it "creeping socialism".  

"I am commenting on LM. Nuefeld's letter in The Morning Star.  The letter provided examples of road projects that seem to have 'missed the mark.'  As much as we all want pretty roads and some of us do want bicycle paths, the question that Nuefeld exposes is -- who are these projects serving and why are certain decisions made by municipalities with respect to bike paths and road works?

The point of this letter is to peel back some of the layers of how decisions are made at the municipal level that allow for what may look like (or are, in actuality) liberal use or abuse of power at the municipal level.

The Local Government Act and the Community Charter bestow broad powers on municipal governments.  There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is to grant municipalities responsibility (and cost) for the upgrading of roads and such within their jurisdictions.  This removes the cost burdens of road maintenance from the province.  Road maintenance at the local level is supposed to be paid for through our local taxes.  Lately, however, a new form of funding is on offer.  The provincial government responded to the economic downturn by allowing municipalities accesss to gas tax money for certain community-based projects.  Bicycle paths fall under this category.


Projects are generally spoken about in terms of benefits to the community.  Presumably these benefits outweigh the process of acquiring lands and gifts necessary to build them.  This is one of the reasons that bicycle paths are popping up in all sorts of places.  It is hard to say that a bicycle path doesn't contribute to better health, or a more sustainable community, and face it, who wouldn't want a "free" bicycle or multi-use path?  There is one problem:  the land necessary for these projects must be available to the municipality if they don't currently own it.  This is the missing piece of the "free" path or road upgrade.


Up until very recently, it is developers, large and/or profit-based businesses, that "gift" land or services.  If you are a business, the assumption is that you can afford to support the community to a greater or lesser extent.  Sometimes, the cost of doing business in the North Okanagan is steep, however.  Especially if your profits are being eroded by the economic downturn and you are struggling to keep afloat.  Is this a problem?  It could be for your business.


Many of us assume that the passing of bylaws is fair and consistent with people's values.  For the most part, they may be, but anyone who has gone to council and objected to a bylaw will soon find that this rarely has the effect of stopping or adjusting the bylaw.  The reason:  broad powers as it relates to bylaws -- those laws that allow local authorities to dictate how we all go about living our lives and how simple words such as building permit, development and gift get encoded into law.

Very recently, the notion of development (often a word that embodies a negative connotation) has taken on a more ominous meaning in the North Okanagan through the wording of bylaws.  The term development is now being applied broadly to any type of building permit.


That means for you, the taxpayer and property owners, your municipal government has the power to force you to give them land for whatever purpose they demand.  For example, in return for such requests as to upgrade your home, build a raised deck, or add a bathroom, you may be singled out for special "gifting" to your municipality.


This labeling (of) private individuals as developers in return for standard building permits puts every private home owner in this valley at risk for providing at least some form of funding for community projects such as road works and bicycle paths.  Cash, road works, or land -- it's all up for grabs.


We all love beautiful roads and community spaces.  But when individual citizens are expected to pay privately, we should all take note:  which neighbour really pays?"      J.Paterson

Need more proof that Judy Paterson is correct?
Read on...an example from the same issue of the newspaper:
Councillor Bill Firman "was upset that a map in the regional growth strategy," (produced by yet another level of government whose office is a few blocks from the District of Coldstream), "identifies a portion of Buchanan Road as a future development area."  Firman was then "told that the only reason the regional growth strategy includes the Buchanan Road site is because that area has been identified for growth by the District of Coldstream."
To which another councillor, Maria Besso replied "Huge swaths of land are identified (Ed. note: for development) near Lumby and Spallumcheen."

Huh?  A Coldstream councillor wants to forfeit a larger property tax base by giving it to other areas?  Huh? 

Getting back to Judy Paterson's point, we quote Councillor Gyula Kiss who responded to Councillor Firman:  "Developers must still come to us and it's up to us as a council to decide what must be done for the development," Kiss said. 

Perhaps a multi-use path?
Maybe cash to move along the approval process for a simple building permit?
(Note to self:  look up Extortion in the dictionary).

By the way, Councillor Firman (other councillors and Mayor Garlick), let it be known that it was the decision of a previous District of Coldstream Mayor and Council that Buchanan Road become a future development area.

"...a much smarter District of Coldstream Mayor and Council than the present ones," offers Kia.

Can you say AMALGAMATION?  Come on, Genie in a bottle, grant our wish!

The North Okanagan...over-governed and under-served

And today's Morning Star headline story "Mayor draws sharp attack" (by Richard Rolke) is simply more proof.

Jim Garlick, Coldstream mayor, says he is increasingly frustrated with Wayne Lippert over the future of water and parks and recreation.

"The main instigator of virtually every service review or the instigator of disruption (at meetings) is Wayne Lippert," Garlick told the Morning Star.  "I don't believe anyone can get along with Wayne Lippert.  We've seen that with the fire dispatch at the regional district."

Garlick is particularly upset with comments Lippert made about Coldstream not supporting Vernon withdrawing from water distribution.

"It just shows they can't hold to an agreement, so if you can't hold to an agreement with someone, what kind of partnership can you expect to have?"  Lippert told Kiss FM (radio station).

Garlick says Coldstream has been consistent about keeping the water utility intact and has been part of the negotiation process.

"Wayne Lippert has a way of turning everything into a fight,"  he said.

Garlick claims the ongoing disputes may be Lippert's way of encouraging amalgamation of Greater Vernon's jurisdictions.

"That's his main goal.  I don't think it's the City of Vernon, it's Wayne Lippert.  He wants to bring the Ontario amalgamation model here,"  said Garlick.

Lippert denies he is forcing amalgamation.

"Amalgamation will happen eventually if it's something citizens want," he said.

Lippert stands by his concerns about Coldstream's handling of the water utility.

"We all agreed to sit down with the province to work out an agreement and look at the best models.  Coldstream agreed to that but never signed the agreement.  They stalled it," he said.

Garlick opposes amalgamation and says the current governance structure allows his council to address the specific interests of Coldstream and to be financially accountable.

"In the case of amalgamation, service in the area would go to the service levels and costs of the city.  This would include garbage pick-up, transit and other departments that would have little if any benefits to the outside areas.  There will be the need to take on the costs of roads in the electoral areas from the province with increased expectations of service by the residences for those roads," he said.

However, Lippert says residents in all jurisdictions are considering amalgamation because of the disputes over water and parks.

"People are talking to me about it," he said.  "Areas B and C should be amalgamated with Vernon or Coldstream or incorporated as a municipality on their own.  In the long run, (amalgamation for) the whole North Okanagan should be looked at."  (end of Morning Star article)

Hmmm.....
 "...the current governance structure allows his council to address the specific interests of Coldstream and to be financially accountable. "

Allows?  to be financially accountable?  Allows?  Hmmm again!

"Maybe Coldstream's Mayor Garlick has spent too much time over an open formaldehyde jar in his lab," suggests Kia.

So typical of Garlick to not fathom the dollar savings of amalgamation...just think....we would save millions of dollars annually if Coldstream and Vernon amalgamated, if the Regional District were "gone", and Areas (affectionately named) F'n'G were absorbed into the nearest City. 

There might even be money left over to disinfect drinking water at Duteau Creek...

Emery Bardock off to Simon Fraser University

We first met Emery when she was just a teen, and the Kal Tire Junior Linkster Tour played Highlands Golf as part of their Okanagan circuit.

She's all grown up now, and this September is off to join the highly-touted golf team at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

Emery Bardock, all grown up

 

 

 

 

Emery shot a 61 at Highlands today..."...took a double on number seven", she grinned, adding "great practice for my short game."

As a youngster, Emery participated in the Junior Linkster Tour under the leadership of Scott Harnett.

We'll be watching for your success at SFU, Emery!

Premier Christy Clark and the Liberals damaging Small Businesses

Occasionally a compelling Letter to the Editor warrants reprinting.

Mr. Jeff Wuolle--a small business owner in the North Okanagan--wrote the following, printed in The Morning Star on Sunday, July 3, 2011.

"Small business takes a hit, again
I had to wait so I could collect my thoughts on your most recent action plan announcements contained in The Vancouver Sun, in regards to the food and beverage industry being required to provide nutritional information on menu lists.  This, Madam Premier, is the final straw for many small businesses.

I am going to list some salient points that you and your cabinet members just don't seem to comprehend or deem important enough to consider.  I am but one operator in this province who is feeling the onerous and excessive weight of your policies while you pander for the votes of the general populace.

Since HST was introduced (Ed.note:  July 1, 2010), or should we say shoved down our collective throats, I have experienced the following:

• Closed one of our three operations and reduced our workforce by seven staff members at a payroll impact of over $85,000, plus their spending in the local economy of a 2.5-to-1 ratio impact as an economic generator.
• Returned our provincial liquor licence at a loss to the province of liquor tax and HST.

The increase of the minimum wage, while justified, could have been spread out over a longer impact period.  While I currently pay well over the new pay scales, I have now been approached by some staff to ascertain my plans to increase their wages because "they are now experienced staff members."

The possibility of your raising the small business tax by two per cent to cover the HST rebates to the general populace, and of course, that tax increase may never be rescinded in the future.

The ongoing increases in operating costs experienced daily (that are almost impossible to pass on daily to our customers and would they pay the rising costs anyway?) -- food, B.C. Hydro, telephone and all other operating expenses.  Oh, and let's not forget the increasing municipal costs from taxes to water to utilities, local assessments and on and on.

All of this while indexed pensions, salaries and expenses to our elected officials carry on unabated.

And then recently, I am being told that you are going to require nutritional contents on menus.

Notwithstanding daily efforts to provide home-cooked quality, meals and baking, we also provide all information that we have available when infrequently requested to do so.

The cavalier attitude of the president of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservice Industry that "it only costs $500 per menu item to have your menu analyzed for content" is absolutely a ridiculous scenario.

As of today, that would be approximately $32,000 to cover off our basic menu items, not including ongoing daily specials and other products.  The upside, of course, would be that it would generate additional revenue for you to so wisely spend in the province.

Our industry sector is being flagellated to death with your policies and taxes.  I and everyone else would like to know where you and your staff are obtaining information that proves we have recovered from our recent recessionary economy, to the degree that we should be inundated with additional costs at this time?  I would dearly love for you to take some time out of your schedule and come put on a small business owner's hat for just one day and experience the pleasure of currently conducting business in this province.  Have you even asked about the number of food and beverage operations that have closed or are on the edge of the abyss of doing so?  How much are you and your colleagues prepared to pay for your daily food intake, without it coming out of taxpayers' pockets through reimbursed expenses?

As you slowly but inexplicably grind the provincial economy to a halt, I and most others would like to know when you will step back from these cavalier policies and also take your hands out of our financial pockets?"
Jeff Wuolle

"I don't need nutrition info on my kibbles," suggests Kia.

Thanks, Kia.  
And thanks, Jeff Wuolle, for perfectly expressing my own feelings as a small business owner.  The province's new Premier continues to shift policies decidedly to the left.

10 kW Wind Turbine Running Again

After 4 months and 4 days of downtime due to 2 blown 6 kW Power One inverters, we're back up and running today.

Add to that the 2 months it was down in 2010, and that adds up to 25 per cent downtime in two years.

Paul Wende, Energy West, installs the two new Aurora 6 kW inverters

And the problem?

"A loose bolt on the heat dump," says Paul.

In the Roses and Thorns department,  a bouquet of Thorns to Power One in California for the horrendously slow response from their Customer Service department.  After more than 3 months of back and forth--with no decisions forthcoming on inverter failure and replacement--Paul contacted the Vice President of the company.  Obviously the VP had the authority to make the decision, whereas others did not.

New Inverters en route from California!

Four days from today, we're at 4 months turbine production downtime (plus two months last year), so it was good to hear Paul Wende report that two new inverters were on their way from Power One in California.

"It took an hour on the phone with Power One's vice president of Global Renewable Energy group to discuss the inverter issue and Power One's customer service," advises Paul.

The vice president made the correct decision. 
Customer service dragged their heels.
Sales/warranty dragged their heels.

So the morale of the story is "start at the top, not at customer service" admonishes Kia.

And I'll cease calling them Power None...promise!

It'll be good to be up 'n running...again.

Now if only British Columbia's net metering system wasn't such a sham!

Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss needs a Dictionary

It could be pre-election posturing by Councillor Kiss.
It could be that he needs a refresher / reminder of historical water decisions here.
Or get a dictionary and look up what subsidy means.

Or maybe he just needs to believe Al Cotsworth, water utility manager, when Al stated "These six businesses don't need treated water," referring to the fact that chlorinated water is all that is available from the water utility to two golf courses (one of which is Highlands Golf), two nurseries, a light manufacturing facility that uses water for cooling, and a tourist attraction. 

Councillor Kiss' objection to the six businesses being billed about one-third of the cost the public is levied could be an attempt to garner residential votes for the November election.

Or maybe he needs a reminder that in 2005 we six businesses were faced with (former Vernon mayor) Sean Harvey's demand to the North Okanagan Regional District board that the non-potable commercial irrigation water category be eliminated in its entirety.  We six companies obtained a solicitor's services to represent us at the NORD board meeting and proved that while other communities were increasing the number of categories based on their users' needs, then-Mayor Harvey sought to reduce this area's to two:  "residential or farm", he was quoted as saying.  Ultimately the Board voted down Sean Harvey's request.  And ultimately Vernon elected a new mayor.

Now, six years later, the rest of the Board today seems tongue-tied, and Councillor Kiss' admonishment "(other) commercial and domestic customers are subsidizing the use of this water," was printed in The Morning Star on April 24, 2011, under the heading Water Use Charges Questioned. 

Okay, Councillor Kiss, so you want to talk about subsidies?

Pull up a chair and listen.
Highlands Golf C-5 commercial zoning is calculated by your Council as a multiplier of the residential rate of 2.95 to 1.
Highlands Golf pays three times the mill rate of residential property taxes.
Does that meet Councillor Kiss' definition of subsidy?

And until recently (before C-4 screamed bloody murder), major industry paid four times the residential rate.  The district of Coldstream is striving to reduce the class 4 tax rate by 2.5% per year in future; likely because they want to prove communities aren't built "on the backs of business". 

You also may be interested, Councillor Kiss, that Highlands Golf received a letter from NORD dated March 7, 2011, that confirmed this property's annual irrigation use and maximum flow available based on this property's allocation.  In 2010, irrigation water totalled 2,117 cubic metres.  The allocation on this property is -- are you still listening, Councillor Kiss? -- 22,275 cubic metres. 

As your "subsidy" comment proves you need help with math, Councillor Kiss, allow me to spell it out for you this way.
In 2010, Highlands Golf used less than one-tenth of its annual water allocation.
Yup...one-tenth.

I'd say that was damn commendable.

Back to golf courses.  Let's compare golf course water sources and competition for the retail golf market.
Of 15 golf courses surveyed by NORD research in 2005 in an area covering about 100 miles, only two (Hillview and Highlands) are on a metered system through the Greater Vernon water utility.  Predator Ridge and Vernon Golf are on meters, but use spray effluent, under contractual low-cost agreements with the city.  Seven other golf courses--including Royal York in Armstrong--are on "self" (wells).  The same is true of the two nurseries here:  Swan Lake and Art Knapp are on Greater Vernon water utility, while their competition (Bylands) is on a flat rate in Westbank.

So has it now come down to a case of wishing we had built our commercial facilities in another jurisdiction?
We commercial irrigation users would've been treated considerably better in Armstrong, Kelowna (both Glenmore and Black Mountain districts), Spallumcheen, Salmon Arm, Kamloops, Osoyoos and Westbank. 

Thirty-five years ago--when water allocation began to be purchased for the property that would one day feature Highlands Golf--taps spewed beige water, sometimes even containing lumpy organic debris.  Perfect for irrigation.  Today, irrigation water is chlorinated and additional demands by Interior Health to disinfect water at the new treatment plant is still "on the table".  The Greater Vernon Water Utility has plans to separate drinking water from domestic via dual lines, but the earliest (and unlikely) forecast for separation is 2015.

I'll happily bet a water official that separation does not occur by 2015.

And I'll also bet that Councillor Gyula Kiss will not regain his council seat in the November municipal election in Coldstream.

And I bet the other five commercial ventures wish they had located elsewhere.

"So we're moving?" queries Kia.

It's difficult to move a golf course.
But six-to-one say Councillor Kiss should move out of his director and councillor seats if he continues to lean whichever way the wind blows that week.

Coldstream Council's Surprise Tax Spike

Even Council is surprised.  Imagine that!

Coldstream Council is surprised the 0.7 per cent tax increase has "nearly doubled to 1.35 per cent", as reported in Wednesday April 13, 2011, Morning Star under the heading "Coldstream tax rate takes sudden spike."

"It was really a surprise," said Councillor Maria Besso, after staff presented the rate which is necessary to cover a drop in assessment values.

Apparently the unexpected doubling of taxes is necessary to achieve the same revenue targets as in the adopted financial plan.  "It would have cost us so much more in staff time," (to revisit the financial plan) said Besso.

Perhaps business could adopt that approach.
It'd save me time too, as it does their staff.

Lemmesee...expected annual revenue "x", divided by the number of golfers "y" gives total "A".

So, a decrease in number of golfers annually naturally means that each golfer should pay more per round to meet annual revenue projection.

What a novel idea.
Charge more per person, and always get the revenue you want.

Councillor Besso concludes, however, "if there was a huge outcry, then we'd have to eat crow."

"I can offer a Magpie," suggests Kia, "they taste the same as crow."

Kia's Lonely Winter Ends

...and she's ecstatic to see her friends again, despite the cool and wet weather.

Ione and Lynda braved the chilly weather to golf today while Kia waited for their return at the clubhouse.

"Oooh, that feels so good, only friends know how to rub my back." admits Kia.

2011 Golf Season

Forty-nine calls on the answering machine this week...
Tournament bookings coming in.

Okay...okay.

Highlands Golf will open for public play on Thursday, March 24th.

Men's Nite Tuesdays will begin on April 12th. 

"Golfers should wear two gloves," advises Kia, "It's still cool out there."