GVAC Chair Cunningham "Nails" It

Albeit inadvertently.

At today's GVAC meeting, director Kiss asked the Chair why--in the draft minutes of the last meeting in today's Agenda prior to being Adopted--the $1.2 million Greater Vernon Water "overage", reported by Regional District CFO Banmen for the last quarter, was neither included nor referred to in detail.

No print record.

Reported by Banmen verbally.

The unadopted minutes of the September 3rd GVAC meeting stated: 

"Greater Vernon Water Revenue:
General Manager, Finance provided a verbal update regarding Greater Vernon water revenue, specifically regarding the impact of water restrictions".

Director Kiss suggested that the $1.2 million represented approximately 5 to 10 per cent more revenue than what the water utility had anticipated for the quarter -- considering that imposing Stage 1 water restrictions would lead to residents and farms reducing water using by ~10 per cent. 

Today, Mr. Banmen nodded at the reference to 5 to 10 per cent more revenue.

Likely more than one meeting attendee thought it odd--especially in the public gallery, let alone the media--that Banmen's had been a verbal report, especially considering that a provision for Late Items exists, even for the day of the meeting!

Unless of course, GVW doesn't want to appear to be a profit center...making a profit from providing water.
Versus serving the public (as a not-for-profit government utility.)

But today, Chair Cunningham responded: "Because the minutes aren't verbatim".


(Yet revenue shortfalls are often listed "to the penny".  Same with operating cost shortfalls.)

But non-verbatim minutes are THE problem!
Look at any past GVAC advisory committee minutes.  Unless you were present, can you discover specific suggestions and items proposed for inclusion or adoption, but not approved by the majority?
Do those ideas just go and die an anonymous death?
Yes they do, despite many having considerable merit for further thought "outside the box".

It was after the next item--the request by Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to hire "an individual with an arm's length relationship to the existing plan, to assist the (SAC) committee by providing GVAC with independent advice--that Director Garlick proved that to be the case.

A director stated that the SAC committee's review of technical memoranda (summarized by GVW) is going over the same material that formed the master water plan, and that it's not an independent review.
Because it goes over the same package that was debated previosly.  And it was the same package whose borrowing referendum was defeated by residents.  Director Kiss added "there's no mention of a 2002 or 2004 water plan.  (The SAC) people should know more about it."  Other examples of what SAC could be considering were presented, but that they would only re-hash the existing plan's details, nothing new.

Garlick asked, perhaps rhetorically:  "What would be the process to actually start looking at something like this?"  RDNO boss Sewell replied, in part: "I'm not entirely clear...there are technical and political components.  We need to be very clear what we are reviewing."

Apparently a request for a proposal of a review would be typical.

Garlick responded:  What type of person do we know to help us? 
Sewell responded that he was leery of reviewing a political decision. 

Kiss continued, referring to the Summary of TM1, stating that water usage numbers from 2009 and 2011 had never been updated and that the SAC group doesn't know that the statistics for water demand for the next 40 years were a guess.  But that "We have four years of parameters now."  


About then, Coldstream Mayor Garlick--obviously newly comfortable with his chairing from the inaugural meeting of the SAC committee--usurped the Chair's authority and basically took over the meeting.  He stated "Bring them up at the committee," despite knowing that director Kiss's application for membership on the committee had been overlooked during the selection process.  Director Garlick has obviously forgotten that he had been quoted in the newspaper recently as saying "we don't want people there just to snipe."  He was presuming that director Kiss' educated and knowledgeable and scientific dissection of the master water plan--and sharing that information--was sniping.  No matter, SAC seems to have discovered its own sniper in the person of a residential volunteer.

So when Garlick states "Bring them (suggestions/ideas) up at the committee", he surely must realize there's no avenue to bring it up...no provision for the public to address or contact the SAC committee directly with suggestions.  The terms of reference for the committee are mute on that.  And Garlick knows it, wanting the committee to finish their deliberations in March; after which, "if they feel that an independent review is necessary, they will recommend it to GVAC."  But "it's the cost"...after which it was suggested that existing consultants being brought back to speak to SAC are costing money too. 

Garlick continued:  "Ask the questions.  Submit a request that we have additional data.  We need to know that we are getting information."

As to a consultant, Directors Spiers suggested that Coldstream and Vernon have technical engineering resources for the committee.    And where would money come from for an independent consultant?  And how much should be put aside?  The number $80,000 was suggested, and Banmen stated "it could come from reserves".

Director Kiss reminded directors that the plan must be sold with another referendum and that $80,000 is not expensive (considering what has already been spent).

Engineering GM McTaggart stated that TM9 will be gone over some time in January, and that it was the "real meat" of the plan.  That would be the time to determine what aspects should be reviewed, he concluded.

Garlick concluded the discussion with "Let me and Cunningham know what should be added to SAC."

This was followed by a motion that Coldstream and Vernon Engineering staff be included in SAC.

As to the "non verbatim" issue that started this blog story, allow me to provide what this meeting's Adopted Minutes will say about it:  "Discussion ensued on the merits of providing the SAC committee with additional information from Coldstream and Vernon engineering staff."  

Is it any wonder good ideas languish, then die anonymous death?

Thoughts on other agenda items today, beginning with the annual Review of Water Rates and Fees Structure proposed by GVW staff:

After creating the current complex rate structure, bureaucrats now seek to reduce its complexity from this current 13 page format (whose "meat", to use the McTaggart term, begins on page 9).  Citing "rate confusion, conservation concerns, fewer tiers in domestic rates (some communities have only 3 tiers), and errors and inconsistencies in administration complexity" bureaucrats are undertaking gutting their own document in its entirety and starting again.

Suspicious eyebrows shot up here and there in the public gallery, and one whispered comment passed between two seats:  "They must be running out of paperwork."

Personally, I'm reminded of a time when this also occurred.  For example, years ago rate sheets used to include the dollar amount charge from the water utility to Fire Departments in each community per public hydrant.  Then years later when I became aghast at being charged $470 and then $560 for two years of "Private unmetered fire hydrant fee", I was dismayed to NOT find that section on the rate sheet that detailed what fire departments were charged for each public hydrant.  So, folks, what will suddenly be lost in a rehashing of these rate sheet classifications/descriptions?  Don't laugh.  GVW is even playing with died-in-the-wool, motherhood and apple pie issues like eliminating (very small/unusable) allocations.  Allocations?  Wow.  Yes, allocations run with the land, yes they are a legal entity and yes GVW will get legal advice on eliminating an allocation or two.  Tread carefully folks.  Despite the nearly impossible ability of these historical (one or two) subdivided too-small properties to become farms and actually use their allocation, an allocation is still an allocation.  A legal right to water that runs with the land.  It cannot be sold, transferred to another property if the owner moves, and a GVW bylaw provision allows for tax relief only up to .4ha annually if the property is not irrigated.  GVW is getting legal advice on whether eliminating those properties' allocations and perhaps granting them a credit, as a retroactive Development Cost Charge (DCC), is the way to go.

It occurs to me that allocations have always been--and today remain--water rights, but the constant reference by GVW to farming allocations is onerous.  Many allocations exist--including my Highlands Golf property--that are not farmed, yet the allocation--water right--remains.  Nothing to do with farming the land.  And that had better not change, GVW!

I'm reminded of: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner."   But I digress.

One excellent feature of the proposed revised rate sheets beginning at page 16 through to page 29 at this link is the History and Purpose of the item is clearly presented for GVAC directors' perusal.  Whether it was "inherited from VID (the former Vernon Irrigation District), etc. is interesting indeed, and allows GVAC directors to better understand GVW's purpose in revising specifications and parameters of classifications for all manner of water users.  

...which leads me to the revised rate sheet on page 24 "Private Unmetered Fire Hydrants" issue...blog stories of GVW's gouging and procedural unfairness/inequity are here and here and here and here (just a few of the many blog articles on the topic) as they relate to Highlands Golf's challenge of GVW's outrageous annual fees.  The rate sheet "history" states only "Inherited from VID...in 2013 GVW found 90 new mains and started billing the owners in 2014.  In the 2015 fee bylaw, the fee was dropped to $132 per year for all main sizes".  Details were omitted, provided below.  It was also unreported that Highlands had been paying annual private fire hydrant fees since 2001 until lodging an appeal. 

Another example of what non-verbatim minutes produce:  Not unexpectedly, director Macnabb--in his typical biased style--commented yet again today on the apparently (to him) unfairness that private hydrant owners already receive fire insurance savings from the hydrant proximity to their homes...and presumably that we aren't to expect more concessions (the annual rate was dropped to $132 from $560).  A thinking person would realize that any homeowner adjacent to a public fire hydrant would also receive fire insurance savings!  Director Macnabb (and GVW) conveniently omitted any reference that GVW had not been charging the majority of private fire hydrant owners any fee at all for years and years.  Director Spiers had, last year, gone to bat for Highlands' appeal by stating a response to McTaggart's comment that there would be a $62,395.00 loss in GVW revenue if the appeal succeeded.  The Spiers comment was "yes, that would be true if GVW were actually billing the 84 customers who owned 150mm hydrants...when in fact you billed only 8 + 4 in that category."  Mr. Spiers continued:  "Of the 120 customers with all sizes of unmetered hydrants, only 17 were billed in total, so the revenue is $24,000.00, not $62,395.00!" 

Director Spiers today asked whether credit(s) were forthcoming to those customers who had not been charged previously but had in 2014 received large private fire hydrant invoices (before the rate was changed after Highlands' successful appeal).  In a nutshell, GVW's response was that "legal opinion was obtained and that "regional districts cannot issue a refund; however, municipalities are not bound by the same legislation...".  A big tip of the Highlands hat to Director Spiers (Vernon councillor) to thank him for staying with the topic and seeing it through to its "procedurally fair and equitable" (my appeal basis) conclusion.  Thank you, director Spiers!

The next topic was community garden water rates.
A blog backgrounder is provided here and here, and indicate that the community garden at OUC had been audited by GVW.  They now have reduced water usage by approx. 50 per cent (still use more water than Highlands Golf's 15 acre property that irrigates during the same period annually).  A 2-acre community garden!  Wow.

The last three pages (of the 87 page agenda) provide unadopted minutes for the inaugural SAC meeting.  From a blog perspective--and presumably also from CCMWP's perspective--there are so many "issues" concerning the committee's "review" and terms of reference that another blog story is warranted.
But not today.

 

Hopefully, GVAC Chair Cunningham will realize that a "happier medium" needs to be achieved between non-verbatim and verbatim minutes of meetings.  Because the present system of recording what really transpires at meetings is untenable.
Unless good ideas should continue to die.
Unless obfuscation is the goal.

"Giving money and power to bureaucracy is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys," offers Kia.

Supervision and analysis remain paramount.
And, reading between the lines is often required, too.