Mayor's Dumb Comment

"It seems like a considerable change -- a doubling (of the cost of water)," said Coldstream mayor and GVAC member Jim Garlick.

A considerable change?
Ya think?
Duh!

"...water prices are rising astronomically.

  The average quarterly bill was about $1,500

 when the business opened five years ago

...now it's about $3,000."

Michael Parent, Sunshine Laundry Express owner

Maybe as a GVAC member, Garlick's been asleep during GVAC's annual water rate setting meetings.
Whatever it is, like a typical politician with tunnel vision, he's simply blind to the political inefficiencies that exist in the North Okanagan...and the problems they themselves create.

At issue is the Morning Star's story today, headed "Laundromat Drowns" which indicated Sunshine Laundry Express closed its doors Thursday...permanently.  The owner stated "...water prices are rising astronomically.  The average quarterly bill was about $1,500 when the business opened five years ago and it's now about $3,000."

Think back to the KPMG-recommended governance review from years ago...which was summarily rejected by all the local politicians.  It recommended consolidating the various governments into one--or two.  That in itself would've provided a ton less of administrative and bureaucratic costs.  Why?  Well, just think of the proximity and administration of Vernon City Hall, five minutes drive there's the Regional District of North Okanagan, five minutes from there is the new Municipal Hall at Coldstream.  And don't forget the MLA's office somewhere in the middle of all that government.  They--and their bevy of bureaucrats--cost a whack of money.  Year after year.

Today's editorial states, in part, "...increased water rates can't be avoided as Greater Vernon's utility needs to replacing(sic) aging infrastructure as well as meeting evolving water quality standards enacted by government agencies.  GVAC officials weren't aware of Parent's (laundromat owner) challenges but they insist they will investigate."

Huh?
Investigate?
What the hell is there to investigate?
We have among the highest water rates in the Okanagan...and there's no indication those increases will stop.

The editorial concludes:  "...GVAC needs to always consider how utility rates impact all businesses and particularly high-use users of water, whether it's a laundry, car wash, brewery or golf course."

Ah...the voice of reason.
Unless, of course, those types of businesses are no longer welcome in the North Okanagan.
Many owners of those businesses suspect that's not far from being true!

Sleepy Garlick concludes:  "are there efficiencies we could help them out with?  Is there (efficient) equipment that could be used?"


Equipment?

Jeez...
Maybe there's a robot mayor available...

How about the sheer numbers of high-priced engineers running into one another at all these bureaucratic levels?
And all the consultants they hire to do their jobs...also high-priced engineers.

"Yeah, Garlick could help load the moving truck," Kia would've said, "as it heads south to a more business-friendly community."

Sorry to see you close, Sunshine Laundry!

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.

Resplendent Rotarians

It wasn't because the article was about water that I thought of the Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings when I read the history of the Klamath Water Wars.
Or maybe it was.

But something other than water connected the two.
Or, more accurately, separated the two events.

Before you "x" out of here and return to TV, read the compelling story on Water Wars link.  An excellent story in the publication Rotarian, December 2016 issue, "Common Ground", healing a troubled Oregon community at odds over water.

Apart from the distance that separated the Klamath Oregon area from the North Okanagan, the glaring separation for me was what a Rotarian provided Oregon...trust.

The Rotarian organization has something called The Four-Way Test, and it goes like this:

(1)    Is it the TRUTH?

(2)    Is it FAIR to all concerned?

(3)    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

(4)     Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

With this entrenched tenet, Rotarian Jim Root waded deeper into the human community that was his home, and he got committee members together, many of whom had become enemies during the water issues. 

Jim--at the first meeting, a breakfast meeting--set up a whiteboard that stated:

Develop trust.

Actions consider the entire community.

Balance flow of water in and out of the community.

Improve water quality considering "good ecology equals good economy."

The bureaucratic/political system (polar opposite to the Rotarian Way)

While Jim Root wasn't a miracle worker, he did get people to continue talking, and venting too.
He said they'd take a time out after venting and then start again.

All the while my mind returned to the four-way test and whether it should have been a prerequisite during the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings. 

Would the four-way test have changed things with the "citizen review" of the master water plan? 

While reading the story, I couldn't help but think that our area's water stakeholder advisory committee meetings, (many local government meetings for that matter...yes, having attended many!) are just sedentary exercises, never resembling the potential to become kinetic...living, functional things, leave-the-meeting-feeling-good type of events.
Even on good days.

It was all bureaucratic and political machinations and manipulation of the public!

So much for "Is it the TRUTH?" and "Develop Trust".

Greater Vernon Water customers--residents--didn't believe they were hearing the truth either in the meetings or in the sparse follow-up newspaper stories.  So no-one was surprised that trust didn't develop.

So, folks, next time there's an important meeting--or an election--invite a Rotarian.

Maybe even to run as Mayor(s).
That'd be very hopeful.


As an aside (and he'll probably be angry if he learns of this...)

Yes, I receive the truth from him.

Grant Appeal to Federal Liberals

...from the riding that voted to remain Conservative.

Oh well, GVAC's gonna try.

A month before the election in 2015, the North Okanagan's election signs were everywhere. 
Then Justin ("T2") Trudeau's Liberals swept in virtually everywhere else but in the Okanagan.

Maybe it'll work in our favour, i.e. the federal Liberals wouldn't be so obvious as to not award infrastructure funds to a community that voted against them during the election?

Or would they?

It's said that payback is a tough pill to swallow. 
We'll see.

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee will apply for $7 million dollars from Infrastructure Canada.  In the scheme of the Liberal's giant economic stimulus, seven million bucks is a pittance.

The money would be used to construct Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant's UV treatment system, and help stave off Interior Health's demand ("we can Order you") to filter the water.

What if the Feds say "no?"

In many ways, it really doesn't matter...North Okanagan residents will pay for it either way.

Whether we--and our children and grandchildren--pay down a ballooning deficit, pay we will.


We as taxpayers will pay for "economic stimulus"--more accurately called deficits, the Liberals spending money they don't have--or we'll pay for it through increased water base/consumption rates (by the utility borrowing money, or using the reserves they have already accumulated).  But maybe with a federal grant in place, the continued gouging of water users won't be so severe all at once (again).

If you have a particularly strong stomach, have a look at Canada's debt clock.

Kia would've said "The only difference really is that infrastructure money might arrive in GVW's pocket sooner than if they had to accumulate it from water users."

Money is scarce for everyone.
But government at all levels will continue to gouge us.
They've grown accustomed to it.

$7 million...maybe GVW should buy lottery tickets too.

CCMWP Objective Officially Denied by RDNO

More than one person said opposing GVW's plan would fail.
And that was way back following the 2014 failed $70 million water borrowing referendum after which the grassroots group Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan was formed.

Many of the group's members are of a generational mindset that scoffs at quitting for that reason alone.
Forecasted failure simply meant more work was required.
So the group persevered.

The group's diverse membership was spurred on to proceed.
An outraged public attended numerous presentations, the most notable being a standing-room-only event at the Schubert Center. 

CCMWP members were aghast at the lack of procedural fairness (indeed, common sense) with Master Water Plan 2012 (versus its predecessor MWP 2002 which planned line twinning and raw water for large irrigators).

Little line twinning would occur with Plan 2012 and domestic customers would continue to bear the brunt of a growing agriculture industry that irrigated lands with chlorinated -- yes, chlorinated -- water.   Agriculture paid barely four per cent of Greater Vernon Water's annual budget.

The deeply-entrenched Ag industry took solace from a majority of elected officials who "had their backs".  But for a lone elected official at the District of Coldstream--councillor Gyula Kiss--who sounded frequent warnings of the inequity of MWP 2012, domestic customers felt powerless that they would continue to fund the North Okanagan's water system improvements.

In a monumental flip-flop during the municipal and city elections, the majority of elected officials even assured their constituents they would vote No in the $70 million referendum.

And then changed their minds!
And continued on in their Greater Vernon Advisory Committee roles, whose decision would ultimately decide the fate of the water plan...albeit after a stakeholder committee was formed, spending eight months hearing biased data from politicians and consultants.  Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan were instrumental in the formation of a SAC committee, having recommended a professional peer review.

Spurious data--many of which showed water consumption 50 per cent higher than actual--formed spreadsheets and consulting reports that promoted the "need" for the gravity-fed upland water system to be enhanced, versus citizen wishes that Okanagan Lake would be less vulnerable to climate change than the "Duteau Ditch", as it has been called.

Councillor Kiss was even turfed from regular voting on the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee due to a recently discovered and conveniently-timed technicality that applied to Alternate directors.
While it thankfully didn't silence Mr. Kiss' opposition, it gave elected officials at GVAC a bit of a smoother ride during meetings.

Such was what awaited the Stakeholder Advisory Committee 
Basically a stacked deck.

This hit the local paper on July 24th (Knox story, Morning Star), as featured on Bob Spiers' vernonblog:

"Greater Vernon Water’s 2012 master water plan will not be reviewed by an independent engineer. Regional District of North Okanagan directors voted almost unanimously with a Greater Vernon Water Advisory Committee recommendation not to hire an independent engineer to conduct a peer review as requested by the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan. RDNO directors voted in favour of nine recommendations from the advisory committee, including a scheduled review of the MWP be completed every five-to-10 years or prior to the construction of any significant capital project. The lone dissenter was alternate Vernon director Scott Anderson. “Asking for a peer review is not way out there in left field, it’s something that’s a fairly standard operating procedure,” said Anderson. “With a small investment in a peer review, we’ll potentially save money, gain credibility with the public and do what’s actually expected.” But Vernon director Juliette Cunningham said a review of the plan will take place “each and every time a major investment to the plan happens.” A 2014 referendum to borrow up to $70 million to undertake Phase 1 projects identified in trhe plan failed, which led to the creation of a stakeholder advisory committee to review the MWP. “I’ve sat at every stakeholder meeting with people representing commercial, agricultural, residential and industrial interests,” said Cunningham. “Part of that committee is made up of at least three engineers. “A tremendous amount of work has already been done.” The stakeholder advisory group voted in May to recommend to Greater Vernon Water that Duteau Creek and Kalamalka Lake be maintained as drinking water sources and that two treatment plants remain. It also wants partial separation of agricultural land from treated water primarily in eastern Coldstream. GVAC is also being urged to proceed with filtration at the Mission Hill treatment plant before the Duteau Creek facility. RDNO directors agreed to the recommendations Wednesday. The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan had pushed for a peer review of the water plan, but that request was denied by the stakeholders. The full scope of the master water plan is about $108 million over 50 years but the cost could depend on factors such as government grants and filtration being deferred or not occurring at Duteau. While another referendum is possible, funds could also come from reserves and existing revenue."

Bob Spiers summarizes:
"The 'recommended chosen' option 2 by SAC Committee is a $111 million dollar expenditure that should have a peer review or an engineering/operational/financing review before it is reincorporated into the master water plan for Interior Health blessing and approval.

We originally managed to get a Peer Review of Duteau Filtration and that $30,000 study concluded that the cost of this method could reduce the Filtration Costs at Duteau from the $26.5 million Filtration in Option 2 (http://www.rdno.ca/docs/TM10_Financial_Plan_FINAL.pdf ) to between $8 and $10 million for the ultraviolet and scrubbing method as recommended in this peer review (if approved by IHA)"

Bob Spiers continues:  "I asked for a peer review before the last election and referendum and still feel that when we are requiring a $111 million expenditure (with $26.5 million for Duteau Filtration and $30 million for Mission Hill Filtration in 2022) that we pursue a professional review."  Bob Spiers

bureaucrats' operating procedures...

So...citizens turned down a $70 million borrowing referendum only to now be faced with a Cadillac system that will cost $111 million!
CLARIFICATION RESULTING FROM READER COMMENT: 
The option 2 which was incorporated into the master water plan was always to cost $111 million. The $70 million borrowing was for the first phase with an additional $41 million to be borrowed in 2022. (mostly for the Filtration at mission hill.)   At the borrowing rates at the time this would have necessitated a 30% increase in water rates with a further 17% in 2022.

So where to from here?
Terry Mooney, chair of CCMWP states:  "on September 27, 2015, the membership of CCMWP adopted the following Mission Statement:

"The main objective of Citizens for Changes to the

 Master Water Plan is two-fold: 

- achieve a Review of the 2012 Master Water Plan by the GVAC, and

- achieve the inclusion of an independent, expert, funded consultant,

whose mandate is to provide unbiased, professional,

technical support to the Review process"

A Reluctant Good-Bye:
Terry Mooney, chair of CCMWP continues: 

"The Review process called for was initiated largely due to pressure generated through the public outreach efforts of the CCMWP culminating in the formation of the SAC in June , 2015 and active involvement of our group in an eight-month Review of the 2012 MWP.

Now that the regional district has officially denied our request for involvement of an independent consultant, it is incumbent upon our group to report to the public our perceptions of the outcome of the Review process.

As press officer, I have informed the Media that we would report following the final outcome.  Due to personal reasons, I am unable to continue my involvement with this effort and wish to bring to a close my involvement in this chapter of the water situation.  I believe that the fight should continue and for the immediate future, will watch from the sidelines as it evolves."  T.Mooney


The public is grateful for what you and your group have achieved, Terry.
Please be assured of that.
Without CCMWP--and your leadership--the stacked deck that for many years has defined area bureaucracy and political governance would've assured an angry and uninformed electorate.

At least now the public is informed.

This blog will leave the last word to Councillor Kiss:

"As it happened the Staff supported Option 2 prevailed, eliminating all of the options that would have used Kalamalka and Okanagan lakes for fully separated domestic supplies. Never mind the threat of climate change and higher treatment costs! 

The process will totally dismantle the original VID irrigation system and replace it with a complicated new system. There will be three supply lines (domestic only from Mission Hill, mixed irrigation/domestic water from the Duteau Treatment Plant and a new untreated irrigation water supply directly from Harvey Lake). All those systems will be the financial responsibility of the domestic customers. They will pay the cost of construction, operation and maintenance and the replacement value of the total system. The current 4% agriculture contribution of the total budget is a smidgen of those costs."


"So, folks, when you purchase fresh fruits and veggies from the local farmers' markets," suggests Kia "remember to look the grower in the eye and say You're Welcome."


...for subsidizing (actually, almost free) his water costs this year.
And into the future.