Nobody's Sayin' Nothin'

Double negative, sure.
But the fact remains that following November's public rejection of the $70 million borrowing referendum of the Master Water Plan, there's been nada issued to the public.
Despite lots going on with the regional district's water/engineering department.

Lots going on?
Such as 2015 water rates?
Nope, not new water rates, despite public eagerness to find out what water rates will be as of April 1st, 2015.

Those who rely on the Morning Star to keep them informed of timely issues will be dismayed and disappointed in the newspaper's ability--indeed apparently, desire--to fill the perennially-vacant position of Devil's Advocate.   Rolke and Smith prefer to schmooze in safe territory.  Safe territory where the public is seldom warned of significant goings-on among the bureaucratic enclave.

Also silent is coin-toss winner Juliette Cunningham, a Vernon councillor, who fills the GVAC Chair role for her second term.

So if not new water rates, what's happening that the public needs to know'?

The Regional District of North Okanagan engineering department, still smarting from the slap of the failed referendum, have put demands forward to the beleaguered Greater Vernon Advisory Planning Committee, none of which even remotely resemble what the public wants:  that NO chlorinated--and proposed filtered--water is applied to farmlands, fallow acreages or golf courses.

Freshly re-armed after their lengthy--and compensated--Christmas/New Year's break, water engineers have come out swinging at the first GVAC meeting of the new year.  With no approved budget (as yet), they appear hell bent on "designed confusion" at the table.  And certainly with little explanation forthcoming, that the majority of directors (save perhaps three, in my opinion) see through the smoke 'n mirrors of the department's recommendations.

A succinct analogy may more accurately represent the decidedly dysfunctional relationship between professional engineers at the regional district and the elected members of the Advisory Committee:  two 12-year olds needing to get permission for their actions from two 6-year olds.
That in itself doesn't bode well, methinks.

Having not been warned of the continuing (and continual) need for diligence, the public continues to doze while water engineers have submitted the following requests in their typically-lengthy (this time 127 pages) agenda at this first meeting of the year:

1.  To expand on Thursday, January 8th story ($2,270,000 NOW), bureaucrats are requesting "Early Budget Approval" for these 5 projects, requested on page 2 of 127 here:

• Claremont water utility $700,000.
• Highway 6 water main replacement $660,000.
• Pleasant Valley Road water main replacement $490,000.
• Aberdeen low level outlet $400,000.
• Bleach tank at Mission Hill water treatment plant $20,000.

Plus a conveniently Late Item, consisting of two heretofore unknown (to the public, anyway) plans:

• Water Metering Improvement Program to install radio read meters;
• Raise Aberdeen Dam including height for flood protection for Lumby and to support fisheries flows.

The last two are eligible for grants, and approval is sought to apply for the grants.

Engineering states:

  

"The Engineering Department has compiled a preliminary list of long-term capital projects required for the services that it manages and have identified two projects within the Greater Vernon Water (GVW) utility that best meet the criteria of the grants above. Other projects for other services managed by RDNO Engineering have also been identified, but they are generally smaller in scale and other grant funding sources have been identified that will be pursued for these projects."  

So it seems to the uninformed writer here that suddenly the Aberdeen Dam is eligible for (partial) grants because it mitigates Lumby flooding (which Lumby mayor Kevin Acton had requested for several years, all with no response) plus it protects fish.

That while residents not having sufficient access to reasonably-priced water to support our own activities was not eligible...ever.

Thanks!

Especially since the first grant opportunity...the New Building Canada Fund-Small Communities Fund allows for one-third funding from each Federal, Provincial and Local Governments.  Wait a minute.  That means we residents would kick in one-third the cost, so we pay...again.  And since our tax dollars also go to the Federal and Provincial governments, yup, we residents would've provided the two-thirds as well.



So let's look at the second grant "opportunity":  Strategic Priorities Fund.
It's a Federal program (so we contribute(d) to that) under renewed Gas Tax Agreement (so our gas taxes paid for that).  While this grant is up to 100% funding, we residents should be prepared to chip in more, especially when you consider how Engineering's quotes are so out to lunch, as is the vernacular.

Recalling the failed referendum in November, let's look at engineering's "preliminary list of long term capital projects":  Seems Greater Vernon Water spent $50,000 in 2014 to undertake a review of equipment, meter reading methods, compatibility and cost of software and equipment and purchase the equipment needed to collect meter readings with radio transmitters and install approximately 100 radio transmitters on RDNO meters that are classified as "difficult to read".
They spent $50,000 on that "review"?

Seems a hell of a lot of money just to review what amounts to basically paperwork they either already had in their files or could get by asking a supplier.  Presumably bureaucrats already get paid for every eight hours they're at work, so why was there $50,000 for a review?  Did people work overtime to do the review?  Why was there a need for $50,000 when hourly employees, presumably also paid, were already in place?

Why the heck are radio transmitters needed?  "Difficult to read" meters.  Why are they difficult to read?
Weren't they installed by GVW (to specifications) when the water meters were installed?  (Ours were, all three of them).  So why are they--today--difficult to read?  To make matters worse, GVW is looking at a 3 to 5 year term for a fixed radio read system, presumably for ALL water meters.

They state it costs $250,000 annually to read water meters.
Huh?

Are they suggesting to lay everyone off and have water meters mirror Hydro's smart meters?
Of course not!
Then what was the purpose of that information?  Filling the page?
 
Are you sitting down for the next revelation?
Turns out GVW says water meters over 15 years of age will likely need to be replaced!
PLUS:
A preliminary estimate for the full implementation of the Meter Improvement Program is
as follows:  Note that approximately only one-third is eligible for any grant!!!
• Infrastructural renewal portion (not eligible for grant)     $5,950,000.
• Remote reading equipment and fixed communication system  $2,400,000 (eligible portion $800,000.)

Where does engineering plan to find the two-thirds not covered by the grant?
Yup, you guessed it.
The $1.6 million will come from residents, whose tax dollars have ALSO funded the other grants (Federal, Provincial and Local).  Plus the amount we (will) pay for the 2015 water rates.

Is this the payback residents should expect for shooting down the borrowing referendum?

The ONLY item above even remotely connected (pun intended) to the failed referendum is raising the Aberdeen Dam, whose 2022 implementation is being fast-tracked because of the sudden grant eligibility as mentioned earlier.

While many residents would agree that the dam likely needs to be raised, it won't make water cheaper.  Nor will any additional volume be available to users. 

But it's the abject disparity between the MWP's planned Raising Aberdeen Dam cost in 2022 and what engineering is now proposing it will cost TODAY that will make residents gasp (as it did me).

The failed, but undead, Master Water Plan

Here's an example of how Engineering does their "quotes": 
Seven years from now, the MWP 2022 budget was $6.4 million to raise Aberdeen Dam 4 meters.

That plan for 2015 will now raise the dam by 5 meters.

Doing the work 7 years earlier at 2015 (un-inflated) costs,  4 meters would cost $6.5 million PLUS a further $3 million for the 5th meter of height for a total cost of $9.5 million...a One Hundred Forty-Six per cent increase over what Engineering said it would cost in seven years, but the work would be done now!

Based on that, I don't think it would be unreasonable, had the work waited until 2022, to believe their $6.4 million proposal would've probably been shy by 600 per cent!

No wonder no-one's sayin' anythin'.



"The public will hit the ceiling when they learn of this," warns Kia, adding "the GVAC Chair needs to each month provide a public statement to apprise people of what's happening at the table."

Sorry, Ms. Cunningham.
But Rolke or Smith could publish it in the Morning Star.