Addendum to "Mayor's Dumb Comment"

As is customary--and sincerely appreciated by residents--Gyula Kiss has some comments that follow the newspaper story, entitled Mayor's Dumb Comment, on a dry cleaner's permanent closure because of the area's ridiculously-high water rates.

Here's Gyula Kiss' "take" on it:

Surprisingly, nobody seems to know the reasons for the high price of water. Those in charge are not interested in my opinion but I might be able to shed some light on the reasons for the high cost of water. Here are some of the reasons:

1.     Wasted too much money on altering the recently improved VID system. It needed no changes. Wasted infrastructure cost about $40-45 million.

2.     Overestimated water demand and sized the capacity of the MWP accordingly, significantly increasing costs.

3.     Procrastinated with the MWP. 15 years passed since the original plan was announced in 2002 and it is still not finalized.

4.     Doubled the 2004 Referendum approved borrowing by collecting cash over and above the approved $35 million during the past 12 years.

5.     Ignoring the results of the 2014 Referendum and continuing to collect direct cash from customers in order to avoid going back to ratepayers for their approval.

Those are some of the reasons for the high water rates. Keep watching: those rates will continue escalating and reaching to the stars. 

In contrast, Kelowna is going to solve their identical problem by removing domestic customers for the South East Kelowna Irrigation District (SEKID) irrigation lines and extending Kelowna's domestic water supply from Okanagan Lake to the current SEKID domestic customers. Total estimated cost: $64 million. Learn more about Kelowna's plan here.

GVWU's estimated cost: over $200 million. Wasted time over 15 years. 

More wasted money: continue treating water for agricultural irrigation estimated to be $1-2 million annually. You, the domestic customer foot the bill. The agriculture community does not need treated irrigation water.

Could it be improved? I say yes. Staff say no. An independent reviewer is needed to review the plan and possible alternatives. Kelowna will do it's plan for less than a third of the cost and no wasted water on agricultural irrigation.

Just my opinion now!"

And Gyula just did!
Thank you, sir! 

The Blame Game

It begins...

And it's not unexpected.

Greater Vernon Water bureaucrats are pulling out all stops in promoting the existing Master Water Plan.

"...but as the MWP was "up in the air",

 there was little hope that this project would be considered..."

GVW bureaucrats

Stakeholder Advisory Committee members have likely forgotten just how many times they've heard the phrase "we have an approved Master Water Plan" from bureaucrats.

Well, if that's the case then how can their newest statement--to SAC members in preparation for Thursday's session--be true?
You decide.

"...GVW submitted applications for both grants to fund the following projects:   (1) raising Aberdeen Dam and (2) installing radio readers for the Meter Improvement Program.  GVW did not receive any money from either grant application.  GVW would have applied for a grant to fund filtration at Duteau Creek WTP but as the MWP was "up in the air", there was little hope that this project would be considered and the projects submitted were ones that will move forward regardless of the MWP.

There is another round of application intakes coming up in April 2016; however, without an endorsed MWP, successful grants may be difficult to obtain."


Remember their statement "We have an approved MWP?"
That the referendum was only for the 7 listed projects of the (failed) referendum?

"How can the Master Water Plan be 'up in the air' if it's been approved?" asks Kia.

The blame game is in full swing at GVW.

The link to the GVW document is on page 14 (of 26) here. 

Mayor Garlick's Betrayal of Councillor Kiss

...that's what it is.

Things were apparently fine for a long time, despite Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss being a thorn in the side of bureaucrats whose plan to further the 2012 Master Water Plan kept moving along...that is until the public rejected the $70 million Greater Vernon Water borrowing referendum in November of 2014. 

Councillor Kiss has always acted on behalf of the majority of his constituents who are domestic water customers and domestic sewer customers.  And he continues to do just that.

His common-sense proposals, springing from an analytical, scientific mind during his seven-year tenure on GVAC and even longer service as councillor weren't welcomed by bureaucrats at GVW and long-serving elected officials who abandoned the 2002 Master Water Plan and approved the 2012 Master Water Plan.

He is one man with ideas frequently contrary to those held by the political and bureaucratic majority in a region so deeply fractured in its governance structure that it's even been called dysfunctional by one or two incumbents and newbies vying for seats in election campaigns.

As long as Kiss remained an island, the bureaucratic and elected bullies at Greater Vernon Advisory Committee meetings felt no compunction to withhold their ridicule of his proposals--indeed, the man himself--during open meetings.

Fast forward to January 2016.
The grassroots group Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan passed its one year anniversary, having obtained ~1,000 petition signatures from the public that demanded an independent review of the MWP.
The Stakeholders' Advisory Committee--entering its last phase of the MWP "review" following denial of the petition request for an independent professional consultant's review--comprises 18 individuals who were interview-screened by bureaucrats at RDNO for their acceptability quotient.  

Then at the regular Monday January 11, 2016, Coldstream Council meeting the machinations of the decidedly dirty side of politics were enacted, as explained on Councillor Kiss' blog entry the next day:

"Further to my earlier comments on GVAC issues here are the newest developments:

Above are the recently re-discovered Terms of Reference for the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee. As it turns out we have been carrying on business in contradiction of that Terms of Reference. Only two people were eligible to be on the GVAC and the RDNO Board of Directors. In Coldstreams' case it was only the appointed Director and his Alternate could sit on both bodies. Thus, effective today I am out of a job as the Director on GVAC and am only appointed as an alternate, in case the two appointees are not able to attend.

It appears that only Coldstream is affected by this strange rule. Four members of Vernon Council are eligible for Directors of RDNO each of whom are eligible for directorship on GVAC.

Another wrinkle of the RDNO rules is that neither the RDNO Director nor his alternate can advise Coldstream Council of any discussions or decisions made in camera at the RDNO in-camera meetings unless specifically authorized by the Board. 

So as a result of these rules I am afraid I cannot represent your interests on the GVAC. I can sit in at the meetings but I cannot vote unless one of the two Directors are absent.

I wanted to let all of you know before you hear it from the Media. I guess it is fair from RDNO's point of view but I am not so sure it is fair for Coldstream. It all depends on whose ox is being gored!

Cheers!" (end of Councillor Kiss' quote)

The 2015 list of directors and alternates is here.  The new list is not yet posted, which will reflect Coldstream Mayor Garlick's betrayal of Councillor Kiss.  Willing to sacrifice his community's weight at GVAC, Mayor Garlick has rejoined the RDNO mob that wants rid of representative Kiss.  Or else it wouldn't have happened!

How effective on GVAC were alternates Dirk and Enns?
See Kia's reply.

"About as effective as teeth on a tree," Kia says.

Mayor Garlick buckled under the weight of all that dirt.
Some of which he flung himself.

I wonder what Mayor Garlick will see when he looks at his face in the mirror while brushing his teeth.

Poof...Suddenly a Miracle Proposed for Duteau

...anything to protect Sacred Duteau.
and for bureaucrats and elected officials to save face.

"If we can make this work for 20 years, there may be other technologies than filtration," said Dale McTaggart, general manager of engineering, of the plan to--now during SAC committee review of the 2012 Master Water Plan--try UV treatment and air scrubbing, reported by Rolke's article "Duteau filtration could be abandoned."

The cost for filtering Duteau's surface waters, the article says, is between $18 and $36 million dollars.
That's quite the range, typical of bureaucratic schemes where taxpayers foot the bill.
All that contingency stuff, you know, easily adds one-third to their spuriously-developed costs.

Spuriously-developed?
Yup...even consultants who formulated the 2012 Master Water Plan since the 2002 version was abandoned--when asked how current their figures were three years later during the grassroots-demanded "review"--stated "costs remain current."
Wow.

So news of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee applying for a $10,000 provincial grant for the pilot project borders on a decidedly lame attempt to consider an option that was available three years ago (indeed longer).

Only one-quarter of the pilot project's cost will be funded by the B.C. government if the application is successful.  The $40,000 project will still proceed.

"...will still proceed" is what bureaucrats are used to saying to GVAC--and taxpayers--for a long time on the 2012 Master Water Plan.

"Give it a chance," suggests Kia critically.

A chance to protect Sacred Duteau.
Sure, will do.

SAC members may be pacified by this miracle, but hopefully they'll see through the veil of wool that protects Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant.

Bureaucrats--and elected officials who approved their plans--just want SAC and the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to go away.
Permanently.

But we need to remember that any plan that continues applying chlorinated water onto farmlands remains unacceptable.
Now.
Or tomorrow.

An Overbuilt and Underused Water System

You won't hear bureaucrats at Greater Vernon Water--or Greater Vernon Advisory Committee members (with the exception of Councillors Kiss and perhaps Spiers)--ever using that phrase to describe the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant.

Especially since Greater Vernon Water has imposed a consumption reduction of 10 per cent with Stage 1 Water Restrictions.


A betting person would win hands down if the soon-to-be appointed members of the new Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) don't hear that Duteau Creek is an overbuilt facility in an underused water system.

You know...the new advisory committee to the old advisory committee.

The Greater Vernon Water process
 

So let's look at the much-touted future needs of residents--on which the 2012 Master Water Plan which replaced the 2002 Master Water Plan--were based.

The first table, produced by Gyula Kiss, shows the predicted water consumption for 40 years to the year 2052.  

The next table shows the actual consumption (based on GVWU annual reports from 2011 to 2014).  Look carefully to note the difference between predicted and actual consumption.

  Did we build too big a system?

  Did we pay too much for the system?

As Councillor Kiss' table points out, if we were expecting to use 9,670 in 2011 should we not use that as the base for the 10 per cent reduction in water consumption?  After all, the utility was predicting that volume!  If the planners expected to have the consumption based on those figures, is it not possible that our rates are influenced by the reduced consumption?  If we cannot provide the necessary volumes today at 6,000 ML per year, what can we expect in 2062?

The last attachment utilizes the July 15th volume graph with some explanation.  During the first nearly three months of hot temperatures, we used about 4,000 ML of water from Duteau.  On September 15th the irrigation system is typically shut down.  In order to be in the Stage 1 zone in September, we would have to use over 7,000 MLs from the Duteau reservoir.

  Is this likely to happen?

So, the big questions now are:

Is the reduced consumption request justifiable?

  Is the reduction in revenues resulting from the

reduction in usage justifiable?

  Will the increased rates to recover

shortfalls of revenue be justifiable?

Answers to questions in Bold print:

Yes.

Yes.

No.  

No.

No.

No.

 "Quite a detour from the lies my father told me," says Kia.

...but your Dad meant well.

Homeowners Trump Mayor in Knowledge Base

Vernon Mayor Akbal Mund says water costs have risen 150 per cent over 10 years on the Greater Vernon Water system because "we are so far behind in filtration infrastructure".

Nonsense.
He's obviously "bought" the bureaucratic diatribe -- hook, line and sinker.
Probably because he's the new kid on the block as a director of the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.

Kathleen and Hugh Cameron, in this Shaw news feature, stated their water bill has gone up exponentially; last year it was $800 over a three month period.
"Where is the money going?", asks Kathy adding "We're not wasteful people!"

Where indeed is the money going?

Kelowna gets its water from Okanagan Lake, and it's not filtered.
Their water rates are approximately one-third those in our area, and Penticton's rates are about half.

...Why was Duteau Creek (called Duteau Slough

by a resident) chosen as a water source

in the first place?

RDNO's Zee Marcolin says the Duteau water system was "very vulnerable" before the water treatment plant was constructed.  But why was Duteau Creek chosen as a water source in the first place? That's the question asked by the grassroots group Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan, especially when Okanagan Lake is available.  Especially since the original consultant had recommended Okanagan Lake as a water source for the North Okanagan (in conjunction with the Kal Lake source, currently used today). 

No wonder Duteau was--and still is today--"vulnerable".  Mud-boggers, campers.  Unlike many water sources on the Lower Mainland, there is no fence to keep the public out at Duteau Creek.  The regional district has done absolutely nothing to protect the public from those risks.  They simply increase our costs to pay for increased mitigation (which hasn't been done).

So the Regional District's water treatment plant at Duteau Creek is a weak-kneed attempt at mitigating "risks", despite more than 80 per cent of that (chlorinated) water going onto farms and crops and golf courses during the summer months!

"Unlike politicians, bureaucrats have no relationship with the electorate," offers Kia, adding "bureaucrats only deal with other bureaucrats.  There's a disconnect, and results prove it." 

Water users' statement to GVW bureaucrats

So that's it?
Relationship?
That's why bureaucrats feel no responsibility towards the paying public?

Probably.

Schubert Centre Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Wonder if Schubert Centre has enough space for all who've said they'll attend!

A Morning Star article published May 15th follows:

"Fresh Look at Water Urged:

The Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan (CCMWP) are extending an invitation to all Greater Vernon water users to joi them for a public forum on Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the Schubert Centre.

The CCMWP will offer an illustrated presentation highlighting the need to take a fresh new look at the direction of the current master water plan (MWP).

"The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee (GVAC) continues to promote Duteau Creek as the main source for drinking water, but at the same time this treated water is used extensively for agricultural irrigation, resulting in the cost of residential water escalating to unacceptable levels," said Terry Mooney of CCMWP.

"Current domestic, commercial, agricultural and recreational water bills are unsustainable, are a disincentive to new business locating in our region, and are creating a hardship for the entire water user base.

"The residents are now facing water bills that are three times the cost in(sic...of) Kelowna and twice the cost in(sic...of) Penticton."

"This treated water is used extensively

for agricultural irrigation."  Terry Mooney

The group says it has identified factors contributing to the excessive costs, which will be discussed at the meeting.

The group says preliminary data suggests that the original Master Water Plan was flawed, and that choosing Duteau Creek as its water source for Greater Vernon was a mistake.

"There is significant evidence that water taken from Kalamalka Lake and Okanagan Lake would have been much less expensive, and today's water rates wold have been substantially different," said Mooney.

"Our group aims to ensure that the public will, as expressed by the Nov. 15 referendum, is upheld, and we are concerned that no alternative plan has been provided since the referendum defeat.  It is noted that upgrades to the Duteau Creek facility continue in total disregard for the wishes of the Greater Vernon water users."

"Residents should insist on IQ tests for prospective Greater Vernon Advisory committee members," offers Kia.

That's an idea.

Doublespeak

Today's Morning Star story by Rolke "Waiting game upsets board" is just so much fluff from the RDNO.

They continue looking for an easy way out (to continue with the Master Water Plan) by meeting with the Interior Health Authority despite IHA having stated they were not going to force filtration; that they simply wanted to see progress on meeting drinking water standards...eventually.

Kudos to Vernon councillor--and RDNO director--Catherine Lord who "wants a focus on accessing water licenses from the government or possibly transferring licenses to other water sources such as Okanagan Lake."

Chief RDNO bureaucrat Sewell says "We're working through all of the questions of what we want to achieve."

Huh?
How about focusing on what the public wants to achieve?

He attempted to add detail:  "Our objective is a plan that is not only endorsed by the board and IHA but has support from the public and we have political support."

There ya go...with the failed $70 million borrowing referendum, obviously there's no public support.

Of political support--if one were a betting person--one could avow that the gap is narrowing between Macnabb's "proceed at full speed" supporters and the politicians at Coldstream and Vernon who've had second thoughts since receiving the Powerpoint presentation from the grassroots group "Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan."

No mention by Sewell of the planned May "workshop", which had been promised to the Citizens group.
That doesn't bode well.

Maybe the push by the board for answers will nix the workshop entirely.
That would be a serious mistake by RDNO.
Very serious.

Finally making sense, Sewell added "We will go through what we did and the options we investigated and the options we didn't investigate," he said.

"As long as the options they didn't investigate cover more than three minutes," says Kia suspiciously.

Bureaucratic--or political--language.

Smoke 'n mirrors.

The lost art of Plainspeak is likely on a museum shelf.

42.9 Per Cent Water Base Rate Increase?

NOTE (Apr.17/15):  GVW's Zee Marcolin phoned Wed., Apr.15/15 to state that Coldstream "made a billing error" by including a $118.07 Fire Hydrant Charge on the 1st Q irrigation invoice.  Zee added that base and consumption rates "had only gone up 2%", and that the fire hydrant charge should be $33.00 per Quarter. 


Wow.

It's for 1st Quarter (Jan-Mar 2015) golf course IRRIGATION meter.
Irrigation?
In the first quarter?

Zero consumption, both in 2015 and 2014 (obviously, during winter).

But the Greater Vernon Water base rate has jumped to $425.87 from $297.95 for the same period last year.

That's a 42.9% increase.

Presumably base rates are used to pay for infrastructure renewal (ahem...cough cough).

So why would it cost more for the pipe to go along the street past Highlands Golf than it does as it passes residences along the street?

Same pipe.
Same cost to renew the infrastructure.

"Same majority group of morons approving Greater Vernon's budget,"  Kia sneers.

Deceived by the deceivers...again.

An Open Letter to Terry Mooney

I don't know how to reach Terry Mooney, so hopefully someone will forward the blog link to him.

"Kelowna built the UV treatment plants in 2006-2007 for

about $7 million and have no trouble at all." 

Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss

First, Terry, I want to thank you and your group for choosing to form a residents' committee to oppose what Greater Vernon Water's bureaucrats are doing and have done.  As no doubt Peter Moore and Bruce Shepherd--from the failed amalgamation push in the North Okanagan--would tell you, it's a thankless job, and one fraught with odds for failure.

"...look at the nearly $200 million (yes 200 million dollars!) proposal...(what should be, but is not...) the best solution for the long term viability of the water system."

Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss

While residents are thrilled the $70 million referendum failed in November, the fact that its question didn't include a "cause and effect" statement has now allowed GVW's bureaucrats to move along as though nothing had occurred.  There was no statement on the referendum on what would occur if the referendum failed, i.e. a peer review, for instance. 

The simple solution?  "Duteau no treatment, all for irrigation.  Domestic all treated and from the

 Kalamalka/Okanagan Lake sources."

Coldstream Councillor Gyula Kiss

Bureaucrats continue to ride the donkey that is the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee.  And that donkey stupidly goes along with most everything demanded of it.  A simple majority rules, and yes, the majority of elected representatives have simple views that show a complete lack of understanding.

The critical question to ask is: 

 what does Kelowna do in an emergency

 with only one water source -- Okanagan Lake?

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee is simple indeed.  There are no thoughtful questions, none of substance, no discussions of consequence, no demands of a peer review, no proper supervision of bureaucrats!  Nothing.  GVW bureaucrats have appointed elected director Macnabb to head one of their committees.  So what you say?  Director Macnabb lives in the BX area, and he's on a well.  So none of his "vote decisions" affect him!  And GVW bureaucrats know that! 

Proof is what has occurred with the private fire hydrant two-year long issue (and about 10 other links on this blog!).

Proof also is Greater Vernon Water's abject rejection of the simply smart recommended process and solution proposed all along by Coldstream councillor Gyula Kiss:

"To me the issue is simple:  Duteau no treatment, all for irrigation.  Domestic all treated and from the Kalamalka/Okanagan Lake sources.  When we look at the nearly $200 million (yes 200 million dollars!) proposal, the cost is secondary, the important issue is the best solution for the long term viability of the water system.  The attached table sows the rate changes over the years.  The most alarming change is in the base rates which have nothing to do with consumption."   

Bureaucrats and the "simple majority" of Greater Vernon Advisory Committee (elected) officials aren't the least bit concerned the referendum failed!  

Councillor Kiss' position:  "The presentation by the staff went as if there was no referendum and we are following the same plan as before."   When Councillor Kiss objected, he was told by Juliette Cunningham, chair of the committee that he "should not be negative"!  So much for Cunningham acting on behalf of her water-using (and angry) residents!  Should we be surprised?  Nope...she did the same thing with the private fire hydrant issue, first stating the annual tax "appears exorbitant", and then doing absolutely nothing to supervise bureaucrats' mishandling of the issue, let alone saying a firm "NO" to bureaucrats!

Kiss continues:  "I maintain that the system for agriculture should return to agriculture and all allocations should be honoured.  Domestic supply should be coming from Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes.  It is that simple.  Had we started out from those principles we would have an unaltered VID system working without any money (having been) spent on it and we would be using Okanagan Lake without filtration like Kelowna is doing.  Kelowna built the UV treatment plants in 2006-2007 for about $7 million and have no trouble at all (with either high turbidity or the Interior Health Authority, who are demanding that GVW filter Duteau Creek water).  You can find Kelowna's turbidity reading for today (and every day) here.  Obviously, there is no need for filtration at those low turbidity readings. 

And what of GVW bureaucrats' claims that their dual source system (Kal and Duteau) for water customers?  Some years ago they spouted that was important so they could change / reverse water in cases of emergency.  

The critical question to ask is:  what does Kelowna do in an emergency with only one water source -- Okanagan Lake!

"Kelowna had the balls to say no to ridiculous ideas from their bureaucrats," suggests Kia, "why doesn't that occur here?"

And obviously Kelowna has more intelligent people at their Interior Health office.

What's really sad is the pathetic silence from the Okanagan Basin Water Board, whose head Anna Warwick-Sears, who holds a Ph.D, actually should get involved in this (instead of all the other "fluff" they stick their noses into, including a sojourn into dealing with the Okanagan Indian Band which was never part of their mandate!)  So much for the OBWB's attempts at "tenacious involvement".

Councillor Kiss deserves our unmitigated support and thanks.

And now Terry Mooney and his committee of concerned citizens deserve that as well.

Good luck, Terry Mooney et al.

...and thank you and Gyula Kiss!

GVAC Directors Disappoint

Communication failure.
Deferring to bureaucrats.
GVAC directors are failing the public.

Imagine my surprise when--as part of my invoice from the District of Coldstream--last quarter 2014 water invoices arrived for my three water meters (residence, clubhouse and irrigation) and a new charge appeared on my Irrigation invoice:  $560.00 Unmetered Fire Main 150mm.

So what, you say?
Well, a refresher on the fire hydrant history is probably needed.

The last I heard, after I made a personal presentation to the Regional District of North Okanagan's Greater Vernon Advisory Committee back in September or early October, was GVAC chair Juliette Cunningham's comment about the "exorbitant" rate, and that the issue would be reviewed.

How idiotic of me to presume the exorbitant rate would be reviewed (and I would be advised of the outcome of the "exorbitant" rate) at the same time 2015 water rates were being considered by the Board!

Yes, the hydrant was a Development Permit requirement during the Highlands Golf planning stage.  Nobody ever said that there'd be an annual tax on the bloody thing.
And what for?
It's never been serviced by the RDNO; hell, they never so much as looked at it after they approved its installation as part of the DP approval.


So...it was:
"moved and seconded by Director Sawatzky and Alternate Director Garlick that it be recommended to the Board of Directors, staff be directed to bring forward all relevant information regarding private fire hydrant fees and to review what is done in other jurisdictions with recommendations and options for the committee to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee" page 5 of 82 here.


Where's the "recommendations and options for the committee"?
Where are the minutes of GVAC's discussion on what they decided?
Bureaucrats likely were blunt in their suggestion:  "yes we screwed up, but now we have previously un-invoiced private hydrant owners to invoice...thanks to this applicant for 'procedural fairness'."

Look at it this way:
Also included in the DP was a Landscaping requirement, duly completed, along Highlands' roadfront.

"Expect an invoice for an annual tax on EVERY TREE/SHRUB that you planted," scoffs Kia.

The fact remains GVAC let me down.
This isn't the "procedural fairness" I was (rightly) requesting.

So did the District of Coldstream for not providing a letter stating under what authority the RDNO has now transferred the unmetered fire main invoice for $560.00 to the District.  To be fair, they probably don't have a clue.  They just do what the Regional District bureaucrats tell them to do.

GVAC communication failure?

There's still no justification of why the annual tax goes up by ~$100 each and every year.
And where is the discussion among Advisory Committee members?

"An invoice is how elected officials and bureaucrats communicate," offers Kia.

Latecomer to Public Opinion

He actually used the words "peer review might be possible".
Yesirreebob, that's what Coldstream mayor Jim Garlick was quoted as saying.

Councillor Gyula Kiss must be wondering why the contagion (of asking for a peer review) took so long to have an effect.

That was one of the comments of Coldstream mayor Jim Garlick in The Morning Star story January 4, 2015, with a few excerpts reprinted here.

Garlick theorized about why the public turned down the water referendum.
"Some were upset over the $70 million or using treated water on agricultural land."

Or?
Did he say "or"?

Read our lips, sir!
The public is upset, actually angry over BOTH the cost AND applying treated water to agricultural land.
Got it?
BOTH.

And the public will not approve...repeat...WILL NOT approve a minor tweaking of the master water plan.
We demand no chlorinated water be used on farm lands!

And heads should roll that the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant was built in the first place!
$29 million (of which $12 million was a Federal grant) has been wasted.

It could have been applied to increasing the capacity of the Mission Hill Water Treatment Plant so that it handles ALL domestic accounts.

Garlick added:  "...Greater Vernon Advisory Committee must find a model that meets the guidelines but is acceptable among taxpayers.  There is no way this will move forward without public support for borrowing.  We have to build public support, adding that a peer review of the plan's technical components could be possible."

That's right, mayor.
There is no way this will move forward...
...if chlorinated water continues to be applied to farm lands.

The public won't allow it!
So change it.

And, remember that it still can't cost $70 million.

...So the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee--the group that approved this doomed water plan after recommendation from engineers and consultants--is now tasked to find a new model? 

"Do you really think that the same people (GVAC) that engineers and consultants convinced to bring this to the public will find a new model?"

Kia is incredulous at the mayor's optimism.
And that it took him so long to realize what the public is upset about. 

Who's Making Decisions?

Who is in charge of Greater Vernon if--as a blog commenter recently posted--the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee is just that:  an advisory committee, with no decision-making responsibility in their mandate.  

The commenter writes:  "Committees are forums to allow stakeholders to discuss specific issues in detail but all committees are advisory in nature, decision making remains with the Regional Board" this from the RDNO website. No mention of governance or management here. Perhaps that is the problem, the terms of reference or the lack thereof."

The Regional District of North Okanagan--one of 28 in the province of B.C.--lists six municipalities and five electoral areas under their "membership" purview.  The regional district's Board of Directors are drawn--ostensibly for representation purposes--advisory committees.  The word "under" is paramount.   The Board of Directors of the regional district is supposedly in charge of all committees, once bylaws have been approved by the provincial Inspector of Municipalities.  (During last year's recycling plan change in this area, it was reported that 18 regional districts of the province would each receive $1 million from the recycler to launch the program...which led this blog author to believe there were only 18, although the government website states there are 27 (or 28) regional districts in B.C.)

On governance, the regional district states: 

Governance
Regional districts are governed by a board consisting of two types of directors:

• Electoral Area Directors are elected directly by rural area voters, and serve three-year terms.
• Municipal Directors are first elected to a municipal council, and are then appointed by their council to the Regional District board for a one-year term.

The board selects its own chairperson, who generally sets up committees to deal with issues such as planning, environmental management, and regional growth.
The Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan consists of 13 directors – one from each of the electoral areas and one from each of the municipalities, with the exception of the City of Vernon, which appoints three directors.

Note that nowhere on that governance link is it stated who--or what--has the ultimate power to make decisions, or indeed to veto a planned service or project at any planning stage.   The Inspector of Municipalities sets the rules since regional districts were created in the mid-1960s.  Interesting though is that one of the first things stated in the Act is that:  The inspector is to be attached to the office of the minister and is to be under the control of the minister.

No such statement is made under the regional district or advisory planning committee's mandate.  

Service providers that pre-date regional districts are improvement districts, who generally provide one service such as water, or waste management, governed by an elected board of trustees.  One such improvement district is the Black Mountain Irrigation District, about whose water management success--and managing water costs--this blog has written previously here and here and here.

The upcoming Referendum on Greater Vernon Water's plan to borrow $70 million has raised considerable furor among residents, many of whom don't even know if they're eligible to vote.

Lately, many residents have expressed abject surprise (mostly pleasure) that incumbent mayoralty and councillor candidates--most of whom sat on the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, the group of decision-makers that approved the Master Water Plan going to referendum--are stating they will vote "No".   It's been stated that this referendum is just one phase of the plan, with no indication of what future phases will include or at what cost.

Could it not also be said that current Greater Vernon Advisory Committee members--by allowing the contentious Master Water Plan to proceed to referendum--have not "safeguarded the 'public interest', while providing a balance between local government broad powers and autonomy and the transparency and accountability owed to the electorate." 
People may recall the comment from acclaimed mayor Jim Garlick of Coldstream--who was on the GVAC committee that approved the plan--that the referendum "is educational".


Autonomy?  Did Greater Vernon Advisory Committee members consider moral responsibility to their constituents as they learned of the plan from bureaucrats?  Or were they simply harangued into agreement?  In numerous and increasing ways, a local government corporation (despite it also requiring committee members) may in retrospect now appear to be superior to the governance exhibited by members of this regional district.  

Is the preliminary "no" vote of committee members an indication they've listened to their constituents concerns about water rates?  
Or are they now waffling on something that they were instrumental in allowing to proceed to this point?
Or are bureaucrats at the regional district so powerful that the Master Water Plan has been pushed through without the apparent ability of committee members to serve their constituents?  


 Is it any surprise, then, that last year's "amalgamation" push by the Society for the Governance of Greater Vernon perhaps focused on the wrong target?  
"Way too much government" the public was heard to say, yet Coldstream's elected officials saw no benefit in participating in yet another a governance review (think back to Ida Chong's call for a governance review...)

I believe it was Vernon Councillor Mary-Joe O'Keefe (now a Vernon mayoralty candidate) who last year summarily commented on the area's three administrations that included the regional district with the description:  "It's dysfunctional".  Many today would agree.

Perhaps the Society should have focused on maintaining the status quo in Coldstream and Vernon and eliminating the regional district.  "Give the outlying areas--now governed by directors of the regional district--to their nearest municipality or city as they can certainly use the tax dollars" was suggested, i.e. Cherryville to Lumby, Spallumcheen to Armstrong, etc. etc.

Perhaps the best kept secret was the reply from one anonymous senior elected official:  "That's probably a good idea".

...and we'll maintain the individual's anonymity.

Did we learn who is in charge?
Where does the buck stop?
 

"We've learned that bucks are being pulled out of residents' wallets at an alarming rate," offers Kia.

Councillor Kiss' Stance Corroborated by Five Mayoralty Candidates

Frankly, it's high time that Gyula Kiss' long-held opinion on the amended Master Water Plan received stronger support than that received from his own mayor--Jim Garlick of the District of Coldstream, who is also a Greater Vernon Advisory Committee member.

Councillor Kiss has been stalwart in his condemnation of Greater Vernon Water's plans for a $70 million referendum this November.  His educated and reasoned opinions were this week corroborated--indeed vindicated--by all five candidates vying to be Mayor of Vernon.
All five will vote "No" in the referendum.

This blog has featured Gyula Kiss' stance on the topic:   June 28th story here and April 9th story here and February 7th story here and June 27th story here and October 9th story here and March 8th story here.  And more.

The five candidates in Vernon have obviously listened to neighbours and residents.

Acclaimed District of Coldstream mayor, Jim Garlick will again likely not support Councillor Kiss' relentless pursuit of a peer review for the plan...he certainly didn't push very hard when he had the opportunity.
Actually, opportunities.
Also silent on the topic are the District of Coldstream's candidates for councillor positions.

"The referendum will receive assent from a few engineers at Greater Vernon Water," forecasts Kia.

What really ticks people off is the continual fear-mongering by engineers at GVW that "Interior Health could order the work" (if the referendum fails).

After almost a year of silence, an Interior Health official last week stated that wasn't necessarily going to occur.

 

It's refreshing indeed to hear candidates for political office share residents' opinions--versus that of the majority of elected officials (except Councillor Kiss) on this topic.

 
At least for now...until bureaucrats begin chipping away at successful candidates.

Swaying Directors 101

First, baffle 'em with bullshit...apart from the requisite myriad lengthy reports, prevent any director (and heaven forbid, multiple directors) from declaring that a bureaucrat's incompetence should lead to their termination.

Secondly, remember the motto "time heals all"...Greater Vernon directors are--monthly--faced with an Agenda that frequently exceeds 70 pages (the October 2/14 agenda was 82 pages), so if a bureaucrat drags an issue with successive "reports"--preferably lengthy reports--from one meeting to another, to yet another, directors will by then have grown tired of the issue's "lack of newness" and want it to go away.

Seemed to work.

Case in point:  the Highlands Golf private fire hydrant.
You may recall earlier blog entries (here and here and here and here and here) where I first tried to donate my private fire hydrant to Coldstream, then to Greater Vernon Water, with some to-and-fro'ing.

All because my annual tax on it is $560 this year, up from $470 last year.
But there's more to it than that, as many other "private fire hydrant" owners have never been charged Penny One for their hydrants.
So I was asking for procedural fairness, an obviously unknown term at Engineering.

And RDNO engineer McTaggart either outright lied when he said there were 17 private fire hydrant owners, and then a month later that there were 123 private fire hydrant owners...or proved his incompetence with the disparity between the two numbers.  It could be either. or both.

Back to how to sway Greater Vernon Advisory Committee directors.

The latest bureaucratic installment to directors on private fire hydrants is the 3-pager found on pages 10 thru 12 here.
Doubt there's anyone who believes that that document addresses the lack of procedural fairness in charging me $560.

Nor does it touch on--let alone reply to--GVAC chair Juliette Cunningham's comment at the September meeting regarding the $560 annual rate:  "I think we (directors) agree the rate for your private fire hydrant is exorbitant."

So, while Engineering has not addressed the "exorbitant rate" with an explanation--any explanation at all, they have managed to confuse directors.

Confuse them?
Really?
Engineering has confused directors.

Taking the heat of incompetence off themselves, Engineering has now soft-shoed nicely and pointed directors to new (albeit related) issues: 

• that there are indeed people who use unmetered fire hydrants for washing driveways (ours has never issued a drop for any purpose, even to fight a fire),
• that the annual tax for my fire hydrant is higher than that levied by the City of Vancouver ($500), the City of Kelowna ($301.44 flat fee), and the City of Prince George ($150 annual fire hydrant maintenance fee),
• that some owners contract parking lot, road and sidewalk cleaning, (we do not...ever) with contractors connecting to a private hydrant, which is unmetered water use that puts the drinking water supply at risk from cross connection contamination,
• that Engineering proposes staff develop policies and procedures on use and maintenance of private hydrants.  They want to track annual maintenance of fire hydrants, outline acceptable uses and conditions (requiring backflow prevention), educate private hydrant owners and develop enforcement measures for non-compliance.   Policy direction would see rates for unmetered use reexamined in 2015 based on policy conditions.  Use?  we do not use it...ever... and lastly,
• that staff time will be required to not only develop the policy and procedures, staff time is also needed to track annual maintenance, liaison with private hydrant owners and provide education on the GVW policy and carry out enforcement.

It took a year to find out that public hydrants are charged $133 annually versus my charge of $560.
No-one (not directors, not politicians, not bureaucrats) have given a reason for the disparity.

Did I receive procedural fairness?

No, not even an explanation why I was charged so much when other private fire hydrant owners (some are large facilities in Vernon) were not charged at all...ever.  On the contrary, Greater Vernon engineering tars everyone with the same brush by announcing to directors that some private fire hydrant owners use hydrant water to wash parking lots and driveways. 

And naturally, Engineering blames the three separate software programs in Coldstream, Vernon and the Regional District for not being able to put together a valid and substantial--and meaningful--list.

Any business owner or someone with a modicum of accounting acumen would know what to do:  get a clerk in each community to enter each annual invoice to a spreadsheet by certain categories, i.e. name/address, size and quantity of connection(s), metered/unmetered, historical cubic metres consumed, and invoice amounts, regardless of the software used to produce their invoices.
Presto!
Information!

So my "exorbitant rate" issue will likely lead to the hiring of more bureaucrats, as well as new bylaws.

"Do you think GVAC directors know they've been led through a maze by their noses?" queries Kia.

Most certainly.

It's sure a far cry from:  "I think we (directors) agree the rate for your private fire hydrant is exorbitant."

Like any old issue in an 80-page agenda each month, directors just want the topic to go away.

It's by design that the individual on the scale is small and insignificant.