Barry Beardsell Weighs In

Former Vernon councillor Beardsell's letter to the editor, March 17, 2013 entitled Fiscal Challenges Add Up to Say No  (to the May referendum on the sports track at the College) tells it from an accounting and debt angle.

Affectionately called Dr. No during his council tenure, Barry is an accountant.
So he knows numbers.
And he knows planning processes that rely on numbers.

(Links were added by blog author).

"Greater Vernon is facing some difficult financial decisions regarding aging and inadequate recreational and cultural facilities.  In addition, the future cost of maintaining and replacing city infrastructure is a major concern.

"...$7.5 million referendum funds...borrowed at 4.1 per cent interest ... sit in an account earning about 1 per cent interest.  Meanwhile, we are making payments on the debt."  Beardsell

There is demand for a new museum and art gallery.  The politicians state that the need for a new pool be considered in 2014.  Where would it be constructed?  We are deficient in parks and facilities (we have no track and field facility).  We are told that Civic Arena will need to be replaced very soon.  Where will the replacement be constructed?

"...$13 million annual deficiency...infrastructure."

The obvious location is the area of Kin Race Track.  The multiplex was built with an ice plant sufficient to handle two sheets of ice.  Unfortunately, local government has allowed the horse racing issue to drag on for years with no resolution.   Horse racing is in decline everywhere and Vernon is no exception.  Kin Race Track needs to be set aside for a higher and better use.  The issue was before the Supreme Court of B.C. and rather than letting the issue drag on forever, let the court make a determination.

Financially we should be aware of what many consider to be financial mismanagement:

• Another $100 million for required improvements to our water system.
• The gifting of $1 million of land to Okanagan Regional Library, with the result that the city had to purchase another property at a cost in excess of $1 million for the proposed 25th Avenue extension.
• The lack of transparency regarding the repairs to the venting system of the swimming pool.  These repairs are necessary because of the complete failure of due diligence in the early 1990s.
• The failure of the regional district to implement new development cost charges at a cost to the taxpayers of $500,000.
• The fact that the $7.5 million referendum funds of 2003 have been borrowed at 4.1 per cent interest and they sit in a savings account earning about one per cent interest.  Meanwhile, we are making payments on the debt.
• The City of Vernon assuming the full costs of maintaining Polson Park and assuming all future improvements even though it is used by most of the North Okanagan.
• The agreement whereby the city will transfer millions of dollars worth of our land to the regional district and give up voting rights on park matters.

These are just some of the problems.

We have incurred the debt of $10.5 million for the two floors at the hospital, will now have to borrow a further $5.5 million and have already taken on $59 million in debt related to the new hospital tower.  This debt is just part of the $80 million that we are responsible for, along with the adjoining hospital district.

How will the city fund replacing city infrastructure over the next 15 years?  There is an estimated $13 million annual deficiency related to our infrastructure.

The city is in the middle of a core review.  It does not know how it can handle its existing financial problems.  Local government must implement a comprehensive 10 year plan which must address and define our needs and what we can afford.

The formation of the North Okanagan Sports Society should be able to assist but our elected officials must take the lead.

Vote "no" in the upcoming referendum and then the politicians will be forced to take a more sensible approach and let the taxpayers make informed defisions and hopefully result in our community being financially affordable."  Barry Beardsell

"Borrowed at 4.1 % and sitting in a 1% account," declares Kia, "sounds like NDP-trained bureaucrats are already here."

Savvy Taxpayers

They're watching Coldstream and Vernon more than ever.

And not liking what they see.

Yet another Letter to Editor, Vernon Morning Star, February 13, 2013, condensed for brevity:

"The electorate of Vernon have three mutually contradictory objectives:  low, zero or, (gasp!), even negative, changes to tax rates, no increases in user fees, and no reductions in services.

"Why is it always easier to find reasons to spend

than to not spend?"

W.Polnicky

These three goals cannot be attained simultaneously unless the overall size of the economy of Vernon grows, so that we have a larger tax base to fund the same level of services with no tax or user fee increases...
During the last civic election campaign a number of residents expressed concern about the parlous(sic...perilous) state of the local economy.

I recently attended the 'public workshop' in support of the...Core Services Review.  Most of the potential cost-savings opportunities presented, some of them in the millions of dollars per year, were summarily rejected by the public present.

Why is it always easier to find reasons to spend than to not spend?  Why is it always easier to hire more staff than to reduce staff, this at a time when the amount and proportion of the city budget dedicated to staff wages continues to grow faster than either the tax base or the population?  How can this possibly be sustainable?

Have we not learned from the Canadian experience in the 1990s, and the U.S. and European experiences right now that, while paying the piper can be postponed at a cost, sooner or later he insists on being paid?

...an obvious first step is for our political leaders to declare their vision and commitment to the world (business, investment, entrepreneurs, other governments...) -- that Vernon's exclusive focus is the economy, and that all other considerations, bar none, are of far less importance.

Ah, but I hear you muttering under your breath, what about my favourite crusade (insert personal agenda here)?  Well, if Vernon cannot afford to pay for your favoured program, it will have to be cut in the future if not today, so why don't we stop bickering over who gets a slice of a shrinking pie and instead try to make the pie larger?  

...If we continue on our current trajectory, our city will continue to slide into irrelevance, our taxes will increase, our services will diminish, and our city bureaucracy will increase until it consumes our entire budget.  We need to wake up from our Okanagan dreamland and face reality."     Wynn Polnicky.

"Preferably before we become another ghost town," offers Kia.

Ah...the North Okanagan experience.

I Hate Year-End

...not because it's a few days' work.

Because it's proof of local government's gouging. 

"Up, up and away, in my beautiful balloon..."

Sure I knew what I paid in 2012.

After all, I wrote the cheques. 

But year end is a chance to see it in black and white.

Or red, or in brackets.
In all its ugliness.
That's when the inequities, the unfairness, the lack of justice becomes apparent.
And it's always local government's invoices.
They hope nobody notices their tactics.

Consider water taxes.
I'll cut to the chase and declare that this property's water costs increased by 28% from last year.

Yup...twenty-eight per cent! 

Water taxes really get my goat.

And this goat knows they're only blowing smoke up your skirt when they say it's about Water Conservation.

There are 4 water invoices for this property:  The fire hydrant is billed annually, but the residence, irrigation, and clubhouse are billed quarterly.

Maybe quarterly billings are employed to make it easier for us to pay?
Kinda like paying for your car or fire insurance in installments.
Nah, it's so they can charge you a flat amount PLUS consumption in each Q.
Funny thing...I'm old enough to remember when a basic (minimum) charge was levied only if there was no consumption.
But I digress.

"It's to teach us to conserve the precious resource," you might say.
Bullshit.
Echoing bureaucrats' statements doesn't make it more palatable.

Last year, Highlands Golf irrigation usage was lower than in 2011.
Noteworthy for the previous year is that our irrigation consumption warranted a letter from the Regional District that proved we used only 10% (yes, one-tenth) of our paid-up annual water allocation.
No congratulations, but that's okay.

So we are conserving the water resource.
Yet our total water costs increased by $595.73 over the previous year.
That's why they call it precious.

And they manipulate timing of reading meters to serve their purposes, as in this example from Coldstream.
No date mentioned on when the meter was read.
Is that even legal?

Bureaucrats are the Tails that wag the Dogs, the elected officials.

Bureaucrats use reverse accounting to fill municipal coffers.
Governments decide upfront how much money they want and divide by the number of customers.

Governments extort money from residents with unsavory tactics.  Interesting indeed there's an example of how to report such tactics from, of all places, Quebec, that historical hotbed of graft and corruption.  Another deals with public sector transparency from Asia, also well-known for underhanded dealings.

Even where a community's population is increasing--and it hasn't appreciably around here--up go the rates.More than inflation, more than taxpayers' wage increases, more than can be justified...ever.
If only business could do that!

So it's increased service that raises rates?
Nope.

An example is the unparalleled gouging for Highlands' private fire hydrant which, in 10 years, has never consumed the "precious resource". 

In 2012, the fire hydrant tax was $454.38.
In 2011, it was $383.80.
In 2002, it was $266.00.

And property taxes...in 2012 property taxes increased by 37.8 per cent (yup...thirty-seven point eight per cent) over 2011.
...so I posted a sign in the clubhouse to show that.
Customers expressed outrage and recounted their own tales of local government gouging. 

"My kibbles only increased 3 per cent last year," admonishes Kia.

Should've bought Gold in 2005.
Just to keep up with local government's gouging. 
It was $518.00 per ounce then.

Fire Hydrant Gouging

Eleven years ago when Highlands started up--as part of the Development Permit's commercial zoning rules--the requisite fire hydrant here had to be situated within "x" (if I recall, it was 75) meters from the clubhouse front door.

To comply, the hydrant was installed approximately 30 meters inside the fenceline, making it a "private" unmetered hydrant.  It provides fire protection for myself and my immediate neighbours, as no municipal fire hydrant is nearby to duplicate the service.  More than that, my private fire hydrant provides deep discounts for my immediate neighbours as they're now within the three hundred meter distance that fire insurers require as "full" protection.

So each year I get an invoice for my "private 150mm unmetered fire main" from the Regional District of North Okanagan.

What started in 2002 as yet another nuisance tax bill from one of the myriad local governments has, in 2012, culminated in my abject outrage at the ferocity of tax gouging.

The invoice in 2002?  $266.00
In 2011?  $383.80
In 2012?  $454.38!

These invoices appear to be growing inexplicably (my hydrant has never fought a fire, luckily).
So I phoned James dePfyffer at the Regional District to enquire about the "private" designation.

I asked James whether Coldstream is also charged for their private fire hydrants by the Regional District.
Since, like me, Coldstream doesn't own the water.
And like me, they do own the unmetered hydrants on their land (the road rights-of-way).

Maybe it's water ownership.  So who owns the water?  The Greater Vernon Water Authority, administered by the Regional District of North Okanagan.
Maybe it's hydrant ownership.  So who owns the hydrants in Coldstream?  The District of Coldstream, also located on their own land...municipal rights-of-way between fencelines and roads.
And also unmetered.

It could therefore be argued that Coldstream's hydrants are also "private".
Possibly successfully argued.

James dePfyffer said: "That's a good question."

"Certainly has nothing to do with downloading of any imaginary services," muses Kia.

The question stands:  Is Coldstream also taxed on their private fire hydrants on their land?

The "good" question was never answered.

You'd Think Local Government Would Get The Idea...

...from all the Letters to the Editor about how local government SPENDS, SPENDS, SPENDS our money!

Another compelling letter, this time from Gabe Siska:

"As one follows the local media, it is always full of aspirations of various residents who talk about requiring this or that service or facility, giving no consideration as to the cost of the same and who will pay for it.

Without mentioning our own personal financial situation, there are many people that require a better or newer car or kitchen stove or perhaps moving up to a larger home.

However, because of more important needs, they make do with what they have.  If they have a leaking roof, they spend a few dollars and repair it.

We presently have a museum, an art gallery, a swimming pool, a running track at Polson Park and facing financial challenges at all three levels of government, not withstanding the governor of the Bank of Canada reminding us to pull in our belts.

Thinking back to Sunday shopping and how it was voted on continuously until it finally passed, certain people will continue to pester and lobby until the money is spent and the vicious circle goes on.

We now have three arenas in Vernon alone, perhaps we should build another one just in case more people move to town.

Or another half-dozen more ball fields because Funtastic is getting more popular.

When these referendums come around in the near future, I believe we should look at our wallets before we vote and remember that it is the taxpayers that end up with the costs of these dreams of the few who think they represent the masses."       Gabe Siska

"Couldn't have said it better, Gabe!" offers Kia.

Vernon's Council has Free-Thinking Councillors

"Accusations of anti-development policies are coming from within Vernon city hall," begins a Morning Star story titled Application spurs development debate (Rolke June 27/12).

Ya think?

Some councillors, O'Keefe, Nicol, and Quiring deserve credit for not buying into the new bureaucratic strategy that stymies development. 

Councillor Mary-Jo O'Keefe wonders why council is attempting to interfere in what has previously always been a market-driven process.
Councillor Patrick Nicol is concerned that accepting staff's recommendation to deny the development application creates artificial boundaries for developers.
Even Mayor Sawatzky sees the merits of recognizing that investors/landowners already considered the official community plan when they made their land purchases.

But haven't we all seen Official Community Plans change?
It's just a matter of when you bought your land.
And what successive elected officials have done to your family's investment plans with their "laws".

Coldstream is a prime example:  previous elected officials, over many terms, determined future growth would occur on the hillsides, protecting the valley bottom for agriculture.
Made sense to everyone.

Along come Mayor Garlick et al and suddenly there are tweaks to bylaws and official community plans, underscored by "no mile long subdivisions" (quote attributed to Councillor Besso).   They even want to create their own Town Center!  With the exception of Councillor Peter McClean, Coldstream's elected officials--buoyed by the urban vote--are now lockstep with any document created by the bureaucrats of the Union of BC Municipalities.

Obviously staff in both Coldstream and Vernon have fully adopted the North Okanagan Regional District's Growth Management Strategy, to which surrounding communities are signatories.  Hence they now only recommend approving new development in the city center and designated neighbourhood centres in which infrastructure already exists.


Staff philosophical similarities aside, Vernon's elected council actually considered WHO they serve--taxpayers--and defeated the staff recommendation that sought to stymie development to all but the newly-acceptable "Infill" corridors. 

Coldstream?
Nope...they've long since lost sight of serving their taxpayers.
Mayor Garlick et al are busy vying for the municipal poster-child position in Victoria.


"The opposite of a Wanted Poster," affirms Kia.

Open Letter to Environment Minister Barry Penner

An oft-heard complaint is -- "Where are the police when you need them?  When you don't need them, they're everywhere!" 

Okanagan residents can now add Environment Minister Barry Penner to that perennial complaint.

He was nowhere to be found at the end of April when Stage 3 water restrictions were imposed in the North Okanagan, and we're guessing he hasn't kept track of the decidedly dysfunctional Regional District of North Okanagan (whose directors come from Coldstream, Vernon, and Areas B "etc." and sit on the equally dysfunctional Water Board).  Minister Penner likely hasn't read the 10 year old report that stated new water source(s) should be sought for a growing community.  He likely also wasn't aware that the Water Board's budget this year included $100,000 of taxpayer dollars for yet another water study.  Residents are still shaking their heads that yet another study is being commissioned, wasting another year or two.
 
Minister Penner was today quoted in The Province newspaper as saying: "People can help (water levels) by using less water now."   Is he finally getting his cattle prod aimed at the inefficient directorship of the water board at RDNO so that new--or deeper--water sources can be acquired on the Aberdeen Plateau?

Nope.  He's talking about fish.  Not people.

Fish?

Yes, indeed.  Environment Minister Penner wants water conserved so that returning salmon can spawn (warmer water makes salmon more prone to disease and parasites, the article explains).  

"...if we don't," Minister Penner concludes, "water levels could fall to where voluntary measures may not be adequate.  People can help by using less water now."

Really?

Well, Minister Penner,  you're obviously also unaware of a letter to the editor of The Morning Star by one of this province's taxpayers--a  Mr. Greg Allan--whose water conservation efforts have resulted in an alarming scenario.  His letter follows:
   "I received our second quarterly bill for water consumption and it showed our household used 12.5 cubic metres from April 1 to the end of June.  During the previous three-month period, we used 15.5 cubic metres, for a six-month total of 28 cubic metres.  We were expected to use 40 cubic metres in that same period, so we conserved 12 cubic metres of water, more than half of a three-month allotment.  We get this water conservation concept.
However, we paid for 40 cubic metres, or put another way, we paid 30 per cent more for that water than a customer who used 40 cubic metres.  It sure pays to conserve.  When I received our first bill, I went to the North Okanagan Regional District office and spoke with Al Cotsowth and he told me that 'snowbirds' were to blame for the new water rate structure.  Apparently they are not using enough water, yet are benefitting from the infrastructure improvements being made to the water delivery system.  As well, our household is in the very small minority of households that uses less water than the average (20 cubic metres/three months) household.  He mentioned that only four or five other households had contacted him after receiving their first bill under the new rate structure.  I suggested to him that households that conserve water should have their balance carried forward to the next period, just like cell phone minutes.  
This logical suggestion seemed to be beyond the capability of the billing system and might I suggest, beyond the grasp of the politicians and bureaucrats that set the water rates.  At the end of the day, our household will stop conserving water if the rate structure does not change (bold--Editor).  Twelve cubic metres would be a good start to filling an in-ground pool.
Congratulations NORD, you have just created a water guzzler. (bold--Editor).  Now I just have to figure out how to get some level of government to give me the money to pay for my pool?
Hey, Colin Mayes, I have a shovel-ready project.  Is there any infrastructure money left that needs to be spent?"


Thanks, Greg Allan, for pointing out who the real culprit is...the North Okanagan Regional District.


"The fish can blame NORD, too," suggests Kia.

Minister Penner should too, now that he's finally interested.

Thank goodness the Salmon are returning, or the minister would still not know what's wrong in this area...NORD!  

Jim Bodkin Letter to the Editor re: NORD

Vernon resident, Jim Bodkin, submitted a thought-provoking letter to The Morning Star, published July 28, 2010, that deserves reprinting.

"It was sad to read that NORD (North Okanagan Regional District) turned down supporting a second bus from the Kalamalka campus of Okanagan College to UBCO and the airport despite the obvious need.  I am glad that Vernon stepped up and decided to underwrite the necessary bus subsidy on its own.  Why support was not forthcoming from Coldstream and Areas B and C completely baffles me.  Surely they too have live-at-home students attending UBCO and travellers interested in accessing the airport via bus.

Perhaps the time has come to take a hard look at the viability of the North Okanagan Regional District and its worth to local taxpayers.  The compensation of politicians reported recently shows heavy five-figure double dipping by both Vernon and Coldstream representatives at NORD.  We taxpayers pay for this double dipping from a single pocket but service on NORD is an integral part of a Vernon and Coldstream politician's job and taxpayers should not be billed for it twice.  Surely it is excessive to pay each of these reps from $10,500 to almost $15,000 extra to represent Vernon and Coldstream at NORD.

I was amazed to read that the head staff honcho at NORD is paid more than Vernon's head guy.  NORD embraces a huge area but the vast bulk of the population is in Vernon and there is far less complexity in the NORD job.  There are lots of other $75,000 and up jobs at NORD too.  Do the citizens of Vernon and Coldstream really need them?  Does it not makes sense for NORD to just deal with the rural/village areas where there is more commonality than exists with urban centres?

Both Vernon and Coldstream have issues with NORD over parks, especially the creation and maintenance of tot lots, small urban green spaces and play areas in city neighbourhoods.  The rural NORD directors think these are just urban fripperies that are expensive to keep up so they refuse to have NORD fund them.  Likewise, some of them opt out of funding for historic sites such as the O'Keefe Ranch and leave the cities to bear the brunt of the cost.

Vernon got so frustrated at NORD lack of action regarding Polson Park and its long ago burnt down grandstand that it finally took matters into its own hands and forced a confrontation that led to something being done...a 'something' that will dig deeper into the pockets of Vernon taxpayers than it should and something that should have happened years ago if the NORD parks and recreation was not so dysfunctional.

Remember the sports complex fiasco that NORD initiated in Coldstream then washed their hands of once a controversy started?  NORD parks and recreation stepped back to observe the fireworks from the sidelines saying it was up to the locals to decide despite NORD being the initiator and largely responsible for the whole mess by doing such a poor planning and presentation job in the first place.

At present, Vernon and NORD are at war over water.  Legal action has been initiated by Vernon to get out of what it sees as NORD-created extra costs on the management of the water distribution system in the city.

NORD has spent millions getting Duteau Creek water, water that was never originally intended for human consumption, to look better, taste better and get rid, hopefully, of the ongoing boil water advisories.  Next they will come looking to dig deeper into taxpayer pockets to spend more to raise the dams, build better weirs, etc. to get some more quantity into the Duteau system.  Virtually none of the mega bucks spent to date have added to our water supply.  Time to change gurus from my way of thinking or at least get the NORD fuddle duddlers out of the picture.

All things considered, it seems prudent to put NORD under a microscope and see what makes sense from a taxpayer point of view.  Cherry picking opting out or collective vetoing by the various rural NORD entities is too expensive for the city taxpayers of Vernon and Coldstream to continue to tolerate.  The rural-urban differing viewpoints have degenerated into an unacceptable waste of taxpayer dollars for all concerned.

NORD costs too much, does too little and is too animosity prone."  Jim Bodkin
     
"Mr. Bodkin for Mayor," offers Kia!

...of Coldstream!, suggests Kia's owner. 

Governance -- North Okanagan

Hot topic.
So much so that North Okanagan Regional District officials issued 5,709 questionnaires in 2008.
What percentage was returned?  19.

Were the 4,606 unreturned questionnaires indicative of a "status quo" feeling among residents?  The North Okanagan Regional District reads it that way today, 15 months later.

But I don't.
Judge for yourself:

Question 1:  "Do you want to change the way your Electoral Area is governed, either by joining and(sic) existing Municipality or becoming a separate Municipality?  Answered by 97.5% of respondents:  Yes 20%, No 80%"  But 4,606 questionnaires were not returned!

The Results on Page 4 here  stated 80% of respondents were not in favour of change.
Creative accounting indeed! (and I'm not referring to the Arthur Anderson accounting firm's name change!)

My contention is that the 4,606 people who didn't respond remain, 15 months later, disgusted with--and apathetic to--the entire region's governance woes and continuing squabbles.  And if I am correct in that assumption--from talking to people--the results of Q1 would then be:  4,826 Yes, and 883 No, a resounding 84.54% YES.

Proof that NORD's "open" questionnaire design was flawed?  Easy.  "It is impossible to predict the full range of opinion..." according to GATech rules for designing questionnaires.

Then add that the questionnaire was not "successfully delivered" -- to use NORD's phrase -- to residents in Coldstream, Armstrong, Lumby or the City of Vernon, and you can see where objectivity flaws begin to ramp up.

One might be tempted to ask:  "Surely the Regional District wouldn't issue a flawed questionnaire."
Sure, if it meets their goal to maintain the status quo.

First we have to look at the North Okanagan Regional District's "governance map", whose colour-defined boundaries could not have been more arbitrarily set if an open box of pushpins had been thrown into the air by a drunk.

The electoral area map reminds me of the ALR map along my property's road...after years of searching for the reason that ~5 per cent of my rocky property is locked within the Agricultural Land Commission, a chance conversation with Russell Short, area Land Surveyor in the 1990's provided the answer.  "Yes, we drew those (broad, felt-pen) lines around 1972," he said, adding "and we always intended to go back and fine-tune those ALR boundaries along your road, but we never did because there was so much work to do in such little time."  The Agricultural Land Commission still uses those felt-pen boundaries today.
Sigh.

Based on the preceding paragraph, it's probably a logical extension to conclude the NORD electoral area map was also haphazardly drawn with a wide felt-pen tip.

One may now ask...so why do I--living and paying taxes in the Municipality of Coldstream (adjacent to--but not within--the purview of NORD's electoral area) care about how the North Okanagan Regional District conducts its business?  Because they affect me and my business as well.

In addition to paying taxes to Coldstream, I also pay taxes to NORD.
Really?  Yes.
And you didn't receive a NORD governance questionnaire? Right.

So what taxes do I pay NORD--in whose jurisdiction I don't reside?

I have no idea what most of the following are, but the property tax breakdown for NORD on my Municipality of Coldstream property tax bill is:  Residential:  $52.43, $1.66;  Business: $78.53, $3.52;  Recreation $88.72,  Septage $51.48, and  Unmetered Fire Hydrant $306.00.

The total taxes I pay to NORD equals $582.34, approximately 10 per cent of my annual property tax bill.

So, back to governance, and two decidedly hot-under-my-collar issues relating to my property:

• My property is entirely on a septic system, and no sewer hook-up is available on the street.  Why does NORD impose an annual "septage" tax of $51.48?  

• My unmetered fire hydrant was installed by my contractor as a requirement of the Commercial Zoning bylaw, entirely at my cost, inspected by the building inspector prior to the line being backfilled, and is on my property.  I am providing a service of fire protection to not only the District of Coldstream, but also my immediate neighbours.  Why does NORD impose an annual fire hydrant tax of $306.00?  

These two issues alone warrant my not only receiving a questionnaire from NORD, I'm considering sending an Invoice to them for my service in extending fire protection where none existed previously.  I may still do that...retroactive to 2001 when the NORD taxes for the fire hydrant started arriving.  And the Septage bylaw?  Haven't a clue, as NORD Bylaw 4004 "Septage" link goes nowhere.

Lemmee see...my historical fire hydrant taxes totalled $2,506.00 since 2002.
But before I issue NORD my retroactive invoice, I'll contact the provincial authorities in Victoria, who are well aware of "the problems" we Okanagan North residents face with over-governance (via duplication) and outright tax and fees gouging and ultra vires bylaws.

In the past, successive provincial municipal affairs ministers have been aware of the territorial infighting and castle-building synonymous with our region.  But we still had to raise our own swords and shields, most recently in 2005 when I was tipped off to attend the public session of a NORD meeting--scheduled for the next day--to hear then-Mayor of Vernon Sean Harvey's diatribe (replete with pounding fist on the table) that "farms pay 6 cents (for water); all others pay 42."  At a time when other jurisdictions south of us were redefining their water categories to more accurately reflect their users, Sean Harvey--as Chairman of NORD, whose mandate included the water authority--our North Okanagan Regional District was surreptitiously planning to entirely eliminate one category...the Commercial Non-Potable Irrigation group, to which my recreation facility belonged.

I--and the other five in that category--hastily hired a Solicitor to represent us at the Board level, after which Sean Harvey and other board members quickly learned the error of their ways.  Transparency in local government?  Nope.  Had I not been tipped off to attend that meeting, we six commercial irrigation users would likely have gone the way of the dodo bird within a few short years.  Today, we remain grandfathered, as noted in the Greater Vernon Water Utility "Rates Imposition Bylaw No. 2387, 2009" where the following proviso is now added: "...not available to new customers".

Yet regional growth appears to remain a top priority here, as headlined in the January 13, 2010 Vernon Morning Star Newspaper, with NORD chairman Herman Halvorson admitting a regional growth strategy "is required by the provincial government."

So, it can be deduced only certain growth is welcome, judging by the "...not available to new customers" referenced in water categories.

The North Okanagan purportedly wants commercial growth.  And why wouldn't they?  At 2.9 to 4.0 times the residential tax mill rate, businesses are easy to service...and gouge.  Business owners can't even vote in a jurisdiction where they own the storefront if they don't reside there, yet tenants (of all people!) can vote, despite their not contributing to property tax coffers.

Reminds me of an anonymous adage:  "Overserving some people and underserving others is a good plan for getting elected."  

As if to underscore that statement, NORD Chairman Halvorson admits "the regional district can't be everything to everybody simply because of limited financial resources."

"Ever heard of procedural fairness?" questions Kia, adding "that might go a long way to getting at least 50 per cent of questionnaires returned."

For your next questionnaire, NORD, first consider designing it correctly, then add a Comments section for each question you pose.  You'll be surprised at what you can learn.