Coldstream's Billing Tactics Hitting the Fan

ADDENDUM 3:30 pm POST-PUBLISH: 
Oops...sorry!

"Just to clarify, the sewer rate for the year is set using the first quarter readings ie: Jan 1 - Mar 31 each year (or whatever dates DoC actually read the meters prior). "  D.McDonald




Sure, water bills are high.
As are sewer charges.

Ever on the hunt for more money from residents' wallets, the District of Coldstream has resorted to inflating your sewer rates by reading the fourth quarter late--adding another week of water consumption--as discovered by Duncan McDonald of Coldstream when he gathered up his bills.

What tipped him off is they showed his household using more water in the fourth quarter, with no change in habits.
Every year.
Always in the fourth quarter.

Something stank in Coldstream.
Proof was when meters were read (which Duncan had noted).

It's the last quarter's water meter readings that determine residents' sewer charges for the year.

Reading water meters 7 or 8 days beyond the end of the last quarter equates to another week of consumption, hence, flushing the toilet!

How convenient this coincidence is for Coldstream's coffers!

Sure, invoices always state the period covered, and the quarters are always stated as ending when we expect them to end...March 31st for the 1st Q, June 30th for the 2nd Q, September 30th for the 3rd Q, and December 31st for the 4th Quarter...365 days a year divided by 4 equals meter readings approximately every 91 days.  Except the fourth quarter, which Duncan discovered was ~98 days.


He calculated that one additional week resulted in an additional $70 being added to his annual sewer charges.

"the district has picked up some much needed cash through deceptive practices."     D.McDonald

So he contacted the District.

Here is Duncan McDonald's "comment" (placed on this blog's "Developer" article of January 10, 2013).


"Duncan McDonald January 11, 2013

How's this for a pound flesh from potentially each and every sewer customer in Coldstream... different topic (to the Developer story) but related all the same.

Maybe it was only myself who was naive enough to believe that my water and sewer invoices were billed as indicated. I contacted DoC to find out what dates my water meter was read as it seemed we had pretty high usage for the first 8 days of January when the latest bill arrived. I was advised that the billing dates and the actual usage dates were not in sync and our meter had actually been read Sept 4th and again Dec 6th to comprise this latest bill, despite what is clearly stated on my invoice, "Billing Period: 01/10/12 - 31/12/12". Officially, the software DoC uses is apparently not sophisticated enough to reflect each individual users ACTUAL billing cycle. Right.

"I estimate I was overcharged roughly $70 for the year, which isn't a lot of money, but is (was!) mine. Of greater concern is whether or not everyone in Coldstream was subject to this "stretching" of their billing period as well. 3000 users (give or take) overpaying $70 each per year equals a tidy $210K... not bad for doing nothing."   D.McDonald.

No biggie except that when I then requested my meter reading dates from the past year they were as follows, according to the email from DoC; 'In your particular case, your water meter was read on December 6/12. Prior to this it was read September 4/12, June 4/12, March 9/12, and December 2/11.'

Dec 2/11 - March 9/11(sic.../12) is 98 days, about 9% longer than an average quarter. Again, this would not matter at all except this is the period that DoC uses to calculate the sewer rate for the ENTIRE year! I estimate I was overcharged roughly $70 for the year, which isn't a lot of money, but is (was!) mine. Of greater concern is whether or not everyone in Coldstream was subject to this "stretching" of their billing period as well. 3000 users (give or take) overpaying $70 each per year equals a tidy $210K... not bad for doing nothing.

My query was very quickly escalated to senior management (Thanks Trev!) who promptly dismissed my query as an uninformed rate payer unable to understand basic mathematical principles. After several emails back and forth they simply ignored me and left their stance as follows (email from Seibel):

""""Your query was not dismissed and I certainly apologize if that is the way it came across. As noted previously, there is a defined process for the timing of the meter reads and this process is applied to everyone the same. There was not a miscalculation of the consumption rates for the 1st quarter 2012 billing cycle as it was based on the meter read taken at that time. I understand your concern with the 7 day variance between a “normal” (or equal) quarterly cycle of 91 days and the 98 days for the 2012 1st quarter read. However our meter reading process was followed consistently and all meter reads obtained under the same approach. There is no definitive way to say that the consumption values were equally incurred over the 98 days and as a result there is no way to validate the figures you provided.

There are many factors that impact the meter reading for the 1st quarter including weather, human resources and functioning equipment (meter reading equipment and obtaining a read from the house meter). Based on the fact that the process was applied consistently for all meter reads in the 1st quarter of 2012 I find no basis to provide a rebate to your account.

Thank you,
Trevor Seibel""""

In reading Mr Seibel's response, it is pretty clear that all residents were subjected to this little cash grab and the district has picked up some much needed cash through deceptive practices. So far, it appears the buck really starts and stops with the utility provider and is not regulated or overseen in any fashion.

I guess I will contact the mayor next, we'll see how that goes!"

"How convenient for Coldstream," admits Kia, "probably why the District NEEDED to hire a chartered accountant."

Coldstream received ~$210,000 over and above what residents owed for sewer!

Mr. McDonald will be interested to learn even that amount is conservative.
Because the Highlands Golf property is on septic ... as are most rural properties in Coldstream.
And rural properties on septic pay sewer charges.

Anybody willing to take odds on the same gouging tactic occurring in Vernon?
And the regional district's septic areas?

No takers...
No surprise there.

Sustaining Coldstream...Nulli Secundus.
Second to none in deceiving residents.
Add it to the list.

Coldstream's vague dictionary

Funny how words can be misconstrued.
Or misused.

Coldstream mayor Jim Garlick offered their lawyer's advice, "You can make this request for works to be done,"  on whether or not the district could legally charge Judy Paterson for a ~$300,000 multi-use path in front of her Kidston Road property when she applied for a standard homeowner's building permit a year ago to build a garage...yes, one year ago!

That legal advice has only recently been requested--and received--by Coldstream, and is reported in Jennifer Smith's excellent story in The Morning Star newspaper issue of February 19th, 2012.

Coldstream's lawyers need to do more work, though, and perhaps highlight the sentence to more accurately reflect their costly advice, since Coldstream Council still haven't caught on to the limitations of their much-touted "broad powers."

Future legal advice for Coldstream might then appear this way:  "You can make this request for works to be done," providing emphasis--via the bold type--to what Coldstream should be cautious about.

Hmmmmm...  "can", "request"

"Can" isn't a synonym for "should", nor is request a synonym for "demand".

It's as simple as that.
Coldstream's lawyers are saying you CAN ask Judy ... you can REQUEST that Judy build the municipality a $300,000. bicycle path.

But you can't DEMAND, which is what Coldstream's mayor and council and staff have done for an entire year.

In other words, Judy Paterson may accede to Coldstream's request for a bike path.
Or she may not, which she did last year.

Judy's lawyer has offered his advice, too (albeit earlier than the response from Coldstream's lawyer):  "In our opinion, the district has acted outside the scope of their authority.  Our opinion is that they are attempting to strong-arm you into granting the (right-of-way) for the pathway and have no legalistic basis on which to request the works and services sought," stated the letter from Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy LLP.

So has getting the proverbial kick in the cargo-pants enticed Coldstream's mayor and council to apologize to Judy Paterson for the year-long Coldstream fiasco as they deliver her now-approved building permit?

No.
No apology.
No building permit.

The Morning Star article continues:  "While Coldstream maintains its right to make such requests, under the Local Government Act, council is examining its current practice." 

"It's a tough problem that we're dealing with," said Councillor Richard Enns, a lawyer by trade (prior to last November's election there were two lawyers on the district's council), adding "But I don't think at this information-gathering stage we should be making decisions about narrowing our focus just yet."

Narrowing their focus?
After one year he calls it an information-gathering stage?
Somebody check his pulse as it's obviously too slow.

Judy Paterson is concerned, as the article states, about what this could mean for other Coldstream residents wanting to renovate.

Getting up out of the dust, now Coldstream Council is adjusting/reviewing its infrastructure needs to determine if specific requests for off-site frontage works may be appropriate).  Shifting gears, the focus now is on a list of drainage requirements, since they seem--finally--to be convinced of our view that bicycle paths are NOT infrastructure! 

But rest not, folks...drainage affects virtually every one of us, every property in this hilly valley.

The next meeting is a Committee of the Whole event, 6 p.m. Monday, February 20th (tomorrow).
And remember, in this quasi-socialist system, members of the public are NOT allowed to speak to the meeting.

Or sneeze.  Or cough...without a permit.

"We should invite Judge Judy to settle this nonsense," offers Kia.

The article concludes:  "Coldstream has also compared its practices with other communities and has found that the district's are more onerous than many others."

Maybe Judy should follow (and quote) the lead recently set by the B.C. Government itself (where persons charged with crimes--but not scheduled for trial because of too-long delays in getting courtroom time-- are being let go...set free).

Quote that, Judy, as "case law".
Put a shovel in the ground and start that garage...without the permit.

Abuse of Power by District of Coldstream? So, who's really surprised?

Judy Paterson's letter to the editor appeared in The Morning Star on Friday, August 12th.

...happy indeed to add Judy to the ever-growing number of Coldstream residents who are fed up with Mayor Garlick and his council's expansion of municipal powers....to some it's abuse, while others just call it "creeping socialism".  

"I am commenting on LM. Nuefeld's letter in The Morning Star.  The letter provided examples of road projects that seem to have 'missed the mark.'  As much as we all want pretty roads and some of us do want bicycle paths, the question that Nuefeld exposes is -- who are these projects serving and why are certain decisions made by municipalities with respect to bike paths and road works?

The point of this letter is to peel back some of the layers of how decisions are made at the municipal level that allow for what may look like (or are, in actuality) liberal use or abuse of power at the municipal level.

The Local Government Act and the Community Charter bestow broad powers on municipal governments.  There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is to grant municipalities responsibility (and cost) for the upgrading of roads and such within their jurisdictions.  This removes the cost burdens of road maintenance from the province.  Road maintenance at the local level is supposed to be paid for through our local taxes.  Lately, however, a new form of funding is on offer.  The provincial government responded to the economic downturn by allowing municipalities accesss to gas tax money for certain community-based projects.  Bicycle paths fall under this category.


Projects are generally spoken about in terms of benefits to the community.  Presumably these benefits outweigh the process of acquiring lands and gifts necessary to build them.  This is one of the reasons that bicycle paths are popping up in all sorts of places.  It is hard to say that a bicycle path doesn't contribute to better health, or a more sustainable community, and face it, who wouldn't want a "free" bicycle or multi-use path?  There is one problem:  the land necessary for these projects must be available to the municipality if they don't currently own it.  This is the missing piece of the "free" path or road upgrade.


Up until very recently, it is developers, large and/or profit-based businesses, that "gift" land or services.  If you are a business, the assumption is that you can afford to support the community to a greater or lesser extent.  Sometimes, the cost of doing business in the North Okanagan is steep, however.  Especially if your profits are being eroded by the economic downturn and you are struggling to keep afloat.  Is this a problem?  It could be for your business.


Many of us assume that the passing of bylaws is fair and consistent with people's values.  For the most part, they may be, but anyone who has gone to council and objected to a bylaw will soon find that this rarely has the effect of stopping or adjusting the bylaw.  The reason:  broad powers as it relates to bylaws -- those laws that allow local authorities to dictate how we all go about living our lives and how simple words such as building permit, development and gift get encoded into law.

Very recently, the notion of development (often a word that embodies a negative connotation) has taken on a more ominous meaning in the North Okanagan through the wording of bylaws.  The term development is now being applied broadly to any type of building permit.


That means for you, the taxpayer and property owners, your municipal government has the power to force you to give them land for whatever purpose they demand.  For example, in return for such requests as to upgrade your home, build a raised deck, or add a bathroom, you may be singled out for special "gifting" to your municipality.


This labeling (of) private individuals as developers in return for standard building permits puts every private home owner in this valley at risk for providing at least some form of funding for community projects such as road works and bicycle paths.  Cash, road works, or land -- it's all up for grabs.


We all love beautiful roads and community spaces.  But when individual citizens are expected to pay privately, we should all take note:  which neighbour really pays?"      J.Paterson

Need more proof that Judy Paterson is correct?
Read on...an example from the same issue of the newspaper:
Councillor Bill Firman "was upset that a map in the regional growth strategy," (produced by yet another level of government whose office is a few blocks from the District of Coldstream), "identifies a portion of Buchanan Road as a future development area."  Firman was then "told that the only reason the regional growth strategy includes the Buchanan Road site is because that area has been identified for growth by the District of Coldstream."
To which another councillor, Maria Besso replied "Huge swaths of land are identified (Ed. note: for development) near Lumby and Spallumcheen."

Huh?  A Coldstream councillor wants to forfeit a larger property tax base by giving it to other areas?  Huh? 

Getting back to Judy Paterson's point, we quote Councillor Gyula Kiss who responded to Councillor Firman:  "Developers must still come to us and it's up to us as a council to decide what must be done for the development," Kiss said. 

Perhaps a multi-use path?
Maybe cash to move along the approval process for a simple building permit?
(Note to self:  look up Extortion in the dictionary).

By the way, Councillor Firman (other councillors and Mayor Garlick), let it be known that it was the decision of a previous District of Coldstream Mayor and Council that Buchanan Road become a future development area.

"...a much smarter District of Coldstream Mayor and Council than the present ones," offers Kia.

Can you say AMALGAMATION?  Come on, Genie in a bottle, grant our wish!