Area "F" ... Metaphor?

Dana Mills expresses his frustration in a Letter to the Editor which will hopefully be published by the Morning Star.
(See this blog's previous entry entitled "Cooking the Water Books").

His letter succinctly explains the Enderby resident's challenges -- in this case simply to receive a reply, let alone a logical answer to a thoughtful question -- when dealing with the uncommunicative chasm called the Regional District of North Okanagan and its area director(s).

"To The Editor, The Morning Star:                                                                               2017 February 10

When we relocated just outside of Enderby a few years ago we knew our residence was serviced by Enderby water and this influenced our decision. We knew that the RDNO billed us for this water and we also had to service a debt they incurred on our behalf. Our RDNO Area "F" Director at the time was Jackie Pearase. She made some public comments indicating our water bills would soar far beyond what other Enderby subscribers would pay, which prompted me to contact her. She responded and set up a meeting for me with her and some senior RDNO managers.

"...the user rate

 was going up because

 "we hadn't had an increase

 for quite some time".

An Engineering manager said our increase was due to maintenance of a pump station owned and operated by Enderby. She was very dismissive when I questioned this. She finally said that the user rate was going up because "we hadn't had an increase for quite some time". Ms. Pearase failed to prevent it then, but we kept in touch and she did move to prevent a planned increase for the subsequent year.

I stayed interested and began a slow learning process. I discovered multiple water subscribers within Area "F" who were serviced and billed directly by the City of Enderby, and that our Water Local Service Area was quite unique and not very efficient. Extensive lobbying, including a rather naive presentation to the RDNO Board of Directors, finally resulted in us being billed directly by the City of Enderby as well. However the RDNO still collects an annual user fee and a debt service tax.

This was a huge relief. It's been one full year now and we saw our total water bill lowered by a few hundred dollars. Kudos to Enderby staff and Council for trying hard to keep their water rates affordable for most of their users. They charge us an out-of-town Parcel Tax too and use these funds to maintain our services.  RDNO now has very little direct involvement with our water and this is how it should be.

"...recorded the

 Chief Financial Officer (at the time)

 stating that they do not leave financial decisions

 in the hands of politicians."

I attended a second meeting with RDNO senior staff during this process and realized meetings with them were largely an exercise in futility. Learning from the past, I audio recorded it and later noted many contradictions. I also recorded the Chief Financial Officer (at the time) stating that they do not leave financial decisions in the hands of politicians. What?

"...he has never responded

 or acknowledged

 any correspondence."

"I'm often the only layperson

 at these meetings.

 Get involved, people, or you will lose the right!" 

Now our area representative is Herman Halvorson. We didn't question water rates last year during transition, assuming they would be fine tuned later. I have initiated contact with him numerous times on other matters but he has never responded or acknowledged any correspondence. The only times I have ever been able to communicate directly with him is just before Board or Committee meetings.

Note - I'm often the only layperson at these meetings. Get involved, people, or you will lose the right! Please check their website and direct your feedback to RDNO Board members.

"...As per normal, I got no response from anyone."

This brings us to the 2017 preliminary budget. The Small Utilities Rates Imposition Bylaw 2735 plans to increase our RDNO Infrastructure Base Fee by 14.3% over three years. I attended the Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting December 15, 2016 where the budget was initially presented and sent an email to Director Halvorson the next day expressing concerns and raising questions. As per normal, I got no response from anyone. The next meeting was January 4 where they were to discuss the Bylaw but I couldn't get in because of public outrage over the gymnastics club fiasco. (I witnessed Ms. Martens' presentation in December and saw the disgusting reactions of RDNO politicians and staff) Later I found out the Bylaw was sent back to staff for revision and thought maybe they were considering the very valid points we raised in our letter.  No such luck.

"...gave Mr. Halvorson copies before the meeting.

 He refused to accept what he called "last minute items"."

The next EAAC meeting discussing our rate increase was February 9, 2017 so we refined our position and, as per normal, gave Mr. Halvorson copies before the meeting. He refused to accept what he called "last minute items". The Agenda was published only three days before the meeting, which is when we discovered nothing had changed with the proposed rate increase. Isn't that last minute too? I pointed out he has been aware of our concerns for a long time and that he didn't respond. He said that since I had cc'd the RDNO Small Utilities Manager, he didn't have to respond because staff would. Staff didn't, and their position is they only reply when a letter is actually addressed to them; not a copy. I asked him to make a motion to keep our fee at 2016 rates and he refused.

                                  "...to advocate on our behalf.

                                        Isn't that his actual job?" 

Now I have to request to appear as a delegation at the Board of Directors meeting where they adopt the Bylaw, whenever that may be. We have very strong arguments that a rate imposition increase is not warranted this year but we cannot count on Director Halvorson to advocate on our behalf. Isn't that his actual job?  Perhaps a four year term is too long without recourse.

Director Fleming is concerned that the RDNO does not communicate very well. He was there when staff and Chair Halvorson tried to sanction me for using a recording device. I've got news for him - Board members don't communicate amongst themselves or with RDNO staff very well either.  So sad."

Dana Mills,
Enderby, B.C.


"Area F  might be a metaphor for how Dana's been treated," Kia would've said.

Cooking The Water Books?

The North Okanagan Regional District's tentacles incessantly shuffle costs of water supply and infrastructure.

This isn't the first time a resident has suspected that some may be charged more than what is actually owed.  And elected officials either are -- or are not -- "on the ball" to prevent their constituents being gouged.

"Mable Lake is $192 for infrastructure base;

 Grindrod is $290 for infrastructure base;

 and Gunter Ellison is $300 for infrastructure base."

First, let's have a look at RDNO's sphere of influence:

RDNO boundaries have been described as a drunk tossing an open box of pushpins into the air.

Then click on this Board of Directors list as well as Advisory Committee lists to see who's involved in which area.
And how complicated it can--and does--become.
Especially with RDNO's senior bureaucrats tugging at directors' chains.
And circling the wagons.

So, could it be that RDNO's cooking the water books?
Are its tentacles spreading into new territory?


You decide, after this plea from a resident of Enderby:

"Get involved, people, or you will lose the right!"

                  Dana Mills, Enderby resident             

Dana Mills' Executive Summary to the Board follows:

"Gunter Ellison Road Water Local Service Area                                   2017 February 22

 Regional District of North Okanagan Board of Directors

 (Executive Summary Last Page)

We live one km outside of Enderby city limits and are supplied with potable water from the Enderby Public Utility. In fact, we share a distribution pressure zone with a number of Enderby residents. At City limits we are connected with a 2km length of 150mm C900 PVC pipe.

This, plus a few stop valves, is really the extent of our infrastructure. We're currently paying for the full capital cost of this pipe and will have paid for it by 2024 through a fixed rate parcel tax. Currently, the industry expectation of this class of buried pipe is that it has an service lifespan of 105 years. For reasons known only to himself, Mr. McTaggart thinks the service life will only be 80 years. You should note that this discrepancy does affect all taxes considerably over time. Be that as it may, our distribution main is only 13 years old and has no history of needing any maintenance over this period.

Our water meters were paid for by us when initially installed, and paid for by the Regional District through a grant when they were upgraded to "smart" meters a few years ago. The City of Enderby now covers all repair costs, including replacement, and charges us an out-of-town parcel tax to do so. Their fund also covers flushing, testing, and their billing administrative costs. They now deal with us as they would any other water subscriber within their jurisdiction.

The only direct infrastructure cost to the RDNO would be for "major events" like a watermain break. We have a substantial reserve fund already built up; enough to repair at least 10 major breaks according to Mr. McTaggart. Staff has the ability to draw on reserves for atypical expenses with the option of replenishment later. Perhaps the transition to direct billing caused RDNO administrative costs to spike last year, but that's over now and shouldn't penalize us forever.

Now, an Infrastructure Renewal reserve is a thorny issue for us considering that we're paying entirely for the initial pipe, and that this will be for the benefit of future generations to use. They won't incur the capital cost to install it, but that's a discussion for another time.

Our pipe is stable and will be left alone unless someone with a backhoe accidently digs it up. Our Water Local Service Area is very precisely defined with only one property charged but not yet connected.

Another property may be included in the future, but unlikely because of cost. The owner says he doesn't currently pay any RDNO water fees. So there's not going to be any expansion without serious negotiations, which is unlikely to happen during our tenure.

So we're not really sure what our Infrastructure Base Fee actually pays for, nor why it's increasing at all. To say that the increase is due to the Canadian cost of living index doesn't make much sense. For RDNO staff to say that a fee like ours is increasing due to cost of living, but with no other information provided, should raise your suspicion that they aren't doing much to be efficient and accountable.

                    "Isn't that really rationale for a decrease?"

On first glance the Small Utilities Rates Imposition Bylaw proposes to increase our total fees by 6.3% over three years. But wait a minute, 6.3% doesn't seem quite accurate. Our Debt Service Parcel Tax is fixed and doesn't change, so all of the increase is being applied to our Infrastructure Base Fee. This puts the essence of the total increase to 14.4% over three years.

Grindrod has a debt service parcel tax too, although it's not well documented. We don't know about any Mable Lake debt. Why is our debt presented to you as part of our RDNO total water bill whereas Grindrods' is not?

Comparisons can still be made by stripping out the 10% discount. Including debt service charges, Grindrod water rates with consumption will increase 3.9% over three years. Gunter Ellison water rates, with no consumption, will increase 6.3% over three years.

Without any debt parcel taxes considered, Grindrod water rates will increase 9.2% over three years, Gunter Ellison will increase 14.4% over three years, and Mable Lake 16.2% over the same period.

Confused? You can imagine how we feel.  So, for the rest of this presentation, let's just go ahead with the dollar numbers published before you. We think a 10% bill reduction is weirdly confusing and should instead be replaced by a delayed payment surcharge.

                         "...it's obvious that the CSRD does a

              much more efficient job of managing their affairs."

Our total RDNO water bill is $686, with no consumption, with $300 of that as the Infrastructure Base Fee. The rest goes to service our debt. Grindrod, on the other hand, pays $580 total for unlimited consumption. They have a hidden $705 debt service tax which allowed them to get a river intake, still well, pumps, treatment, distribution, and SCADA. We simply have a distribution main. It seems that their Infrastructure Base Fee is $290, which is $10 less than ours for much more infrastructure. Mable lake is interesting too.  Their Infrastructure Base Fee is $192; considerably less than ours.

Now, percentage based increases don't sound too bad on the surface, but tend to compound radically over time and are quite misleading. Even with the appearance that both Grindrod and Mable Lake will have higher increases applied, at the end of 2019 they will still both actually have lower Infrastructure Base Fees than us despite them actually having infrastructure.

Staff rationale for increasing our fee at all is that Enderby bills us directly for consumption. Isn't that really rationale for a decrease? Remember, Enderby maintains our services and charges us directly for this.

A much more interesting comparison is between the Regional District of North Okanagan and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District. Their border is less than 10km from us. The CSRD looks after ten small water systems. Of these, over the next three years, three will have a 0% increase, one will have a 2% increase, and six will have a 6% increase. Remember, our increase is proposed to be 14.4% over the same period. They say that due to differences amongst their water systems, proposed annual increases will be implemented accordingly, thus the three with no increase.

This is the point we are trying to get across here. Gunter Ellison is different than any of your other small Utilities. Looking at the overall picture of all CSRD and RDNO small utilities, it's obvious that the CSRD does a much more efficient job of managing their affairs.

Back to User Fee comparisons. Mable Lake is $192 for infrastructure base; Grindrod is $290 for infrastructure base; and Gunter Ellison is $300 for infrastructure base. Why the discrepancy? Why are we charged the most? We have the least infrastructure of all. To be fair, we also have the fewest number of subscribers.

 

Candid pic of RDNO's lunchroom?

So, because nobody contacted us to address our concerns in a timely manner, I'm standing before you now at the last minute. We don't think our user fee rate is justified to simply send us an annual bill and to take care of our debt. Ancillary functions such as the Cross Connection Control Program are done "at no extra cost" to us, and I have a signed letter from the RDNO stating this.  All of our maintenance is now done by the City of Enderby through their out-of-town parcel tax, and our pipe should last well beyond our lifespans. The issue of Reserve Funds is very contentious these days, and will probably remain an ongoing discussion, but our fund is already significant.

Therefore we request a motion to keep our Infrastructure Base Fee at 2016 rate, and furthermore to lock this rate in until 2020. Failing this, we request a motion to refer Bylaw 2735 back to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for further consideration.

Thank you for your time.

Dana Mills

Gunter Ellison Water User Ratepayers' Association

So...will Director Halvorson accede to the request for a bylaw amendment?

"Look at the Directors' names on that link again," Kia would've suggested, "and then the odds will be clear." 

The reserve fund today contains $42,000.
Skewering the books...and residents.