First of all, don't know how that 00 per annum showed up at the right justification beside the heading!!!! Kismet? Wish? Strange...but I can't get rid of it *grin*.
Well, let's see how the Regional District "promotes fairness".
Quick History on the Highlands Golf fire hydrant:
(lest anyone's eyes glaze over too soon)
2000/2001: as part of the Development Permit for Highlands Golf construction, either sprinklers in the clubhouse or a fire hydrant "x" number of metres from the clubhouse had to be constructed. The fire hydrant option was selected, and the NOWA (North Okanagan Water Association, today called Greater Vernon Water, GVW) was paid to "hot tap" into the huge concrete pipe on the south side of Buchanan Road (which brings water from Duteau Creek all the way to Goose Lake). The hot tap was performed by a Vancouver contractor, after which NOWA staff dug a line across the road, installed a pipe to our fenceline. It cost a small fortune but was still cheaper than sprinklering the clubhouse. From there, our contractor installed a 6-inch pipe and installed the hydrant about 50 feet north from the fence. The rules for the NOWA line across Buchanan included a "latecomer" agreement whereby if a neighbour wished to hook up to it within "x" number of years, we would be returned a portion of his fee to NOWA. (We did, in fact, receive a cheque from NOWA about a year later when Ed Lane to the east of us subdivided his acreage and was able to hook up to our waterline terminus). Our consulting engineer, Jamie Torres, read from regional district documents that our fire hydrant must be inspected by their officials prior to "closing in the soil", and that it was optional whether we wanted to meter it. Mr. Torres told me "the cost to meter a six inch line is extremely high, and since no fire hydrants on the roadsides are metered, you don't have to meter it either." Great that it was an option to not meter it.
Since 2001, my private unmetered fire hydrant has served the community by providing fire protection as required by insurance companies within "300 metres of a fire hydrant". Two hydrants--one west, one east--of me are located 7/10 km (700 metres, 2,300 feet apart), with the eastern one at Ed Lane's roadfront; the west hydrant is at Randy Smith's roadfront. My hydrant is almost in the middle, evidencing that mine also "serves the community". Insurance companies measure distances "how the crow flies".
A fact remains: No hydrants are metered, public or private. None then, none now.
The Highlands Golf unmetered "private" fire hydrant |
00
per
annum
Now for the rate sheets.On page 11 of these 14 pages, scroll down to number 8, Fire Hydrants. See the next 2 lines? Utility charge to fire departments for 150mm hydrants and also 50mm hydrants. Note the ZERO dollars per annum? I found that strange. Why? Because I could've sworn (and probably did!) that the previous year's rate sheet (or was it the year before that? I don't recall) included a dollar charge to fire departments for 150mm and 50mm hydrants. The amount $195 comes to mind, but who knows what the actual amount was...last year's rate sheets are gone from the RDNO website. Same with the year before that. So much for transparency.
About a year ago, two things happened: I saw that the 2014 rate for the fire hydrant was going from $470 to $560!!!! Five hundred and sixty dollars!!!! Obviously these gouging rates had no end in the regional district's unquenchable thirst for revenue for the water authority.
The second thing is basically just coincidence and, at this time, the two contributors won't be identified as they also own "unmetered private fire hydrants" (reason will be clear later).
Imagine my surprise when Stranger No. 1 said to me: "no, I've never received 'penny-one' of an invoice for our private unmetered fire hydrants (plural) in, oh, 20 years or so."
Stranger No.2 mirrored that with: "never received an invoice for ours in all these years, from either the City of Vernon or the Regional District".
Huh?
Well, blow me down and call me Dusty!
Recalling that my lifelong role model was Maya Angelou whose motto has always been: "don't complain...PROTEST!", I set to work.
On September 17, 2013, I sent an invoice to the Regional District of North Okanagan.
Subject: "Charged in error, annual utilities invoice, private unmetered fire hydrant"
On it, I listed dollar amounts from 2012 back to 2002, for a total of $3,382.72.
On September 18, 2013, I received an email from Dale McTaggart, engineering at the Regional District stating that "$472.29 is correctly billed."
He also stated (pay attention...ahem...):
"We currently bill 17 individual customers with a breakdown as follows:
1 - 75 mm unmetered main
2 - 100mm unmetered main
8 - 150mm unmetered main
1 - 200mm unmetered main
1 - 250mm unmetered main
4 - 150mm unmetered hydrant
Plus we bill the municipalities:
District of Coldstream: 327 - 150mm hydrants
City of Vernon: 1193 - 150mm hydrants and 6 - 50mm hydrants
Areas B & C: 73 - 150 mm hydrants and 9 - 50mm hydrants"
He closed with a whammy: "We thank you for bringing forward that several properties may not be paying their appropriate fees in accordance with the Bylaws and we are currently researching our current data base and record plans to identify these properties not being billed under Section 7. Properties that have been missed will be billed prior to year end."
...I'm inclined to summarize that paragraph as "buggered if I do, and buggered if I don't", but...
Remember the phrase 17 individual customers...
Not feeling defeated (yet), it occurred to me to legally donate my fire hydrant to Coldstream.
Talking to surveyor Jason Shortt, he reminded me that I need to get the permission of the receiver of that donation...to receive it. Oh, OK.
I contacted Fire Chief Shane Code of Coldstream that I wanted to donate my hydrant, asset value $13,000 to the fire department, because the hydrant serves the community, not just my own residence.
Shane responded thusly: "the fire department can't receive the donation of the hydrant, but I'll forward your request to the municipal office for reply."
Several days later, I received this from Michael Baker, director of engineering services at Coldstream:
"I have been asked to respond to your request to donate the private hydrant located on Highlands Golf Course. I have reviewed the situation and discussed issues with officials in our office as well as at the RDNO. I offer the following:
- As you may be aware, the District of Coldstream does not own the water system or any of the public fire hydrants on this system. Any donation, if accepted, would have to be to Greater Vernon Water.
- My understanding is that the fee is charged because the private hydrant is not metered. I believe you have the option of metering and paying the associated fees.
- Upon review of the file history, it appears that the hydrant was required by RDNO building officials as a condition of either rezoning or development permit. If GVW was to accept the donation, the hydrant would either need to be moved to public property (not permitted if it was a DP requirement) or a Right of Way would need to be granted over the Highlands property to access the hydrant. I do not believe GVW would be interested in acquiring the additional works into the water system.
As stated above, the District of Coldstream cannot accept your offer to donate a private hydrant to the municipality at this time....I have also copied Zee Marcolin, Manager - Greater Vernon Water....Michael Baker, A.Sc.T. Director of Engineering Services, District of Coldstream"
So...on April 23, 2014, I sent my offer to donate the Highlands Golf fire hydrant to "Directors, Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, re: I ask Directors' permission to donate my private fire hydrant (via right-of-way, registered at Land Titles) to GVW as the annual tax has become very onerous.
Annual taxes on the hydrant have totalled approximately $4,000 in 12 years. The last few years, the tax was $475, however the new rate schedule indicates that the tax has increased to $560. To be frank, that is equivalent to 56 golfers (after-tax dollars)."
The Regional District's Paddy Juniper advised that it would be included in the Regional District's July 3rd Agenda for the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee...reference to my document is located on page 3 of 49, item 6. The "report" from engineering re my donation request and rate challenge is located on page 47 through 49. (Remember when I asked readers to remember the phrase 17 customers? Read it and see if you find the discrepancy in Dale McTaggart's report.)
Like anyone or any project that needs to be explained to various decision-makers--and in this case, the diverse group of elected officials known as the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee--I took the liberty of calling them to explain my issue. After leaving a quick--but thorough overview--of my proposal on numerous answering machines, a few called me back to ask questions, but nada from most of 'em.
Mayor Sawatzky of Vernon was one of a few that returned my call, asking "what do you get for that annual tax?" I was almost stumped with that one. "Nothing" I replied.
Let's deal with the discrepancy (ies) in McTaggart's June 18th, 2014 report to the GVAC directors:
"Following discussion, the following recommendation was passed": no record of who said what.
"That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, staff be directed to report back to the Committee on the number of private hydrants that exist and the breakdown of costs." No such breakdown of costs have been provided, i.e. how much do munis and cities/fire departments pay per hydrant if I'm paying $560? Where is the transparency?
"Staff advise that the number of existing unmetered fire mains in use on the Greater Vernon Water Utility system number approximately 123." One hundred twenty-three????? What happened to 17? Seventeen from the same author in his September 18, 2013 email to me? Does that mean that 106 customers had been missed, further aggravating the inequity? Or is it that the number 123--and the revenue that represents--is an easier "sell" to GVAC directors to deny my donation request (than 17 would be?) One can only surmise the reason.
"Schedule 4.d Unmetered feee where metering IS possible (added to Infrastructure Base Fee), etc. etc." What the heck is THAT schedule doing in a report? It talks about unmetered water consumption, which has nothing to do with my fire hydrant! There is no consumption!
"The majority of private fire hydrants are set back a considerable distance from the road and to fight a fire on an adjacent property a public fire hydrant would typically be used." What a bunch of hooey, as my fire hydrant is 60 metres from the front door of my west neighbour (versus the closest public hydrant being 300 metres west of him).
"An option....would be to ... install a water meter and pay a base infrastructure fee and consumption rate for water supply availability. While this may provide a net savings to those properties that have an unmetered fire main and only use minor volumes of water, staff note that the cost to supply water to an unmetered fire main is not known at this time." More hooey, what the heck is the reference to 'only use minor volumes of water' ... my hydrant has never been used for anything! as to cost to supply water to an unmetered fire main, wouldn't the cost be the same as supplying water to a public fire main, also unmetered? Is all this diatribe intended to pull the wool over directors' eyes which--by now--are probably glazed over? There is NO consumption. Nor are hydrants on roads metered! So what's with the ongoing emphasis on metering a hydrant? None are metered! That's why it was optional when I constructed mine.
"Staff recommend ... no benefit to GVW customers to assume ownership of private fire hydrants." Only a bureaucrat wouldn't see the benefit to customers of getting a $13,000 asset donated. Allow me to remind you: The customers wouldn't have had to pay $13,000 to construct it because I did.
Private--or public--fire hydrants are INFRASTRUCTURE, but seems I'm the only one who knows it!
Following an expression of my frustration to a Coldstream councillor, it was recommended that I reapply to donate it to Coldstream.
At about this same time, Councillors Kiss and Besso had been attempting to find out on my behalf what Coldstream pays per hydrant to GVW, since neither the GVW rate sheet (as mentioned earlier) includes that (transparency) amount any more, nor--you've likely noticed by now--was the amount ever disclosed to directors at the GVAC meeting. At long last, Councillor Besso stated she had received an amount from Trevor Seibel at Coldstream. Coldstream's 327 hydrants attract a charge of $42,918.75, or $131.25 each! Finally! A dollar amount per hydrant. $131.25 while I pay $560.00 this year!
Thank you to Gyula and Maria for their efforts to lift the veil of secrecy.
So on July 10, 2014 I did just that, and was advised that my donation request--this time (again) to Coldstream would be heard at the July 28th, 2014 Council meeting as Item 7 c, and include a Report from their Engineer, Mike Baker.
So let's now deal with Mike Baker's "report" to Council on my donation request:
"Coldstream ... has no authority to accept a donated hydrant." My request of Council was for them to feel they have the responsibility to recognize that the Highlands hydrant is indeed part of Coldstream's infrastructure, and deserving of procedural fairness so lacking in GVW's policies and rates.
"There is a hydrant approximately 180m to the east of Highlands Golf Course and one approximately 550m to the west....the private Highlands hydrant does not cover any additional residential properties that these two hydrants do not cover. The private hydrant could be removed with no adverse effects to the surrounding properties other than Highlands Golf." Patently untrue that it doesn't cover any additional properties. My hydrant is 60 metres from the west neighbour's house; does Baker really believe that the fire department is going to drag hoses from the neighbour's closest hydrant on his west 300 metres away when mine is 60 metres from the house? If my fire hydrant weren't there, the distance between the hydrant east of me to the hydrant west of me is seven-tenths of a kilometre (approx 2,300 feet). point is that my hydrant WAS considered infrastructure, that's why the next hydrant west is so far away. Even Baker's own math proves that!
"GVW owns the hydrants with the local municipality paying for the yearly maintenance of the hydrants. There are no annual fees paid by member municipalities for the public fire hydrants." Didn't RDNO say that they don't own the hydrants? Only that they supply water to them?
"Fire hydrants can be metered..." Sheesh...but they weren't then, and aren't now? And it wasn't compulsory for mine to be metered!
"The rational(sic) for charging for an unmetered hydrant is that GVW has no means of knowing if a private hydrant is being used for alternate purposes (such as driveway cleaning) as well as they have limited control over the maintenance of the hydrant, which may lead to leakage and lost water." Oh for heaven's sake, didn't I prove that GVW/NOWA officials inspected the construction and close-in of the hole, then tested it? If those GVW employees doing the across-road construction haven't created leaks on their public projects why would they have created leaks on mine?
Baker's last point is grasping at straws.
"If a hydrant is public the location and even existence of any hydrant becomes a political (regional as it is GVW) and/or operational issue". As though GVW or Coldstream would ever remove a hydrant!
At the close of Coldstream's council meeting, it was suggested that I reapply to GVW for fairer rates/fees after I've convinced directors that my private hydrant is part of infrastructure and should also attract the same annual charge of $131.25 versus the current $560.00. That's yet to happen...but I did say if my charge for the hydrant was $131.25, that they'd never hear from me again.
But punitive and discriminatory policies at GVW aren't going away by themselves, even if it's written into a Bylaw.
Maybe the issue should go to the Ombudsman.
Signed by all 123 private hydrant owners.
Or was it 17?
While on the topic of Greater Vernon Water, you'll likely be wondering where the much-touted Communication Program--in a lead-up to this November's $70 million borrowing referendum--is hiding. You can see the plan here on pages 7 through 13.
Councillor Gyula Kiss has seen through the thick fog that surrounds the new Master Water Plan.
Here's his review:
"Why was $68 million collected for Master Water Plan infrastructure when the approved borrowing was for $35 million and the cost of the borrrowed money to date is only about $15 million? That is an average overcharge of over $6.5 million per year (to users). $6.5 million cold have financed an additional $90 million borrowing. That was direct cash out of the customers' pockets. And no future customer will contribute to that $53 million collected from us beyond the approved borrowing."
Wonder if anyone will answer.
Heck, wonder if anyone will ask other than Gyula Kiss.
"That fire hydrant stuff put me to sleep," admits Kia.
That's what officials are probably counting on.
Barb:
ReplyDeleteYou say the water flowing through this hydrant is unmetered? Well dang girl, get a different adaptor for it and get your $500 plus dollars worth of irrigation water from it. Does anything say it has to sit idle? I wouldn't think so! I would think you would have the right to "test" it to see that it was working!
RR
I'd NEVER do that! I believe in changing stooooopid rules "above the table", not under it. I don't believe in becoming as crooked as the bureaucrats that implemented this punitive and discriminatory system.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, you have been unjustly penalized and are entitled to compensation. If they can rip you off, then they can rip any one of us off at any time, at their discretion. Keep fighting for any legal form of redress you can obtain!
ReplyDeleteThank you. It's a fact that regional district--and specifically, Greater Vernon Water--bureaucrats rely on Greater Vernon directors to keep up the squabbling and turf wars. It leads to less scrutiny of policies than is warranted.
ReplyDeleteTo your second sentence, Councillor Kiss' statement on the now defunct old Master Water Plan--replaced by the new Master Water Plan--is very telling of what has already occurred. He stated: "Why was $68 million collected for Master Water Plan infrastructure when the approved borrowing was for $35 million and the cost of the borrrowed money to date is only about $15 million? That is an average overcharge of over $6.5 million per year (to users). $6.5 million cold have financed an additional $90 million borrowing. That was direct cash out of the customers' pockets. And no future customer will contribute to that $53 million collected from us beyond the approved borrowing."
He's absolutely 'bang on' with that!