Renovations Go Underground in Coldstream

and no wonder, say many residents.

Fully eight months after Judy Paterson's building permit fiasco, last night's Committee of the Whole meeting at Coldstream municipal hall failed in all but one attempt to solve the dilemma caused by Coldstream's contentious Subdivision Servicing Bylaw #1535 that designates homeowners as Developers.  The desperate-for-funds measure makes homeowners subject to off-site works costs; all triggered by a homeowner's building permit application--for virtually anything...a garage, a renovation--of any kind and whether the $50,000 "trigger" mechanism will remain.  An unperturbed mayor Garlick was quoted in the local paper a few months saying:  "(but) you can still paint..." (your house without a permit).  ...Huh???  Paint my house?  Everything else needs a permit?

Well, the proverbial ka-ka hit the fan last summer when Judy and Dave Paterson were selected in the secret municipal draw to be the first homeowners to provide off-site works in a bylaw that had been in existence--yet never applied to a homeowner--since 2008 when the former 1989 bylaw had been amended.

The Paterson case began what will in future be recalled as Coldstream's Homeowner as Developer era. But not for critical infrastructure such as water or sewer or such; rather a multi-use path was deemed necessary in front of their acreage on Kidston Road.  The path was touted to be a cure for diabetes, take thousands of cars off the road despite being 6 km from grocery shopping in this sleepy corner of Coldstream where the road dead-ends a mile south, and reduce greenhouse gases by a whopping (but unsupportable) percentage.  A bike path...during these economic times!  When a councillor says "oh, but the money comes from Gas Tax Grant," it's important to remind them that they're still using our money, no matter from which government or agency it originates.

There was a fly in Coldstream's soup.  They didn't own any of Judy's land...not even the portion on which they wanted to build the path, so the Patersons were blind-sided...they had to either pay for the path (~$300,000), or a combination of gifting the municipality cash/maybe a bit of land in return for their building permit to construct a garage.  Outrageous nonsense from a public body over a permit to build a garage!

Eight months later, part of the path is finished, stopping at the Paterson property.  Enough of a recap!!!

On Tuesday mid-afternoon, I drove there to see how this multi-use path was being utilized.  Approaching the Red Gate (entrance to Kal Park, the approximate southern start of the path), I took some photos north and south along the path...the path that would cure all manner of ailments and keep our kids from becoming obese.  These photos show the multi-use path's ... er...a...... use about 15 to 30 minutes after nearby Kidston and Kal schools had dismissed their pupils.  

Looking S toward Red Gate

Looking N toward Vernon

Half-way, and the path crosses the road

There wasn't a soul on the path at 3 p.m. on a schoolday, let alone anyone on a bike or a pony.  An old groaner comes to mind:  Why'd the chicken cross the road?   Yes, why does the path cross Kidston when that road's reputation for danger was one reason the path was built, so children could have safe passage on foot to school!  Answer:  So it wouldn't pass in front of Councillor Kiss' house?  Maybe.

But progress has occurred.  Coldstream's elected officials have sent the contentious issue of Homeowner as Developer to a Committee of the Whole meeting.  (I had previously wondered where in-depth stuff was discussed--and suspected it might have been in-camera--because meaningful discussions never seem to occur during regular council meetings). 

An immediate plus is that Coldstream's mayor and council now appear to have stepped back a tad from their stance that flew in the face of Section 930 and 931 of the Local Government Act.  All the stuff about legality!  You'd think with a lawyer sitting on Council--previously two lawyers--that the municipality's legal bills would be low...but you'd be wrong.  I'm still deciding if that, in itself, means something!

Since the Fall, Coldstream residents have been awaiting--some dreading because they're planning renovations--The List...areas identified by Council that need infrastructure upgrades.

With such a list, residents surely would have a guide as to whether or not to apply for a building permit--or indeed purchase a property--in a listed area, and know at first glance if their renovation building permit would incur additional "off-site" charges.  Realtors too have been waiting for The List as they in all conscience must--through disclosure from the seller--advise potential buyers of the ramifications of any purchase.  Realtor Carla Dahlen (half-way down page at this link) stood up and said exactly that at an October 2011 council meeting, although members of the public who attended the meeting agree that her comments were entirely misrepresented in the official minutes.  Typing "yadda yadda yadda" would've been more accurate than what Ms. Dahlen was portrayed to have said.  Who edits/approves Council minutes anyway?  Who indeed!

One homeowner recently confided they're not going to wait for clarification of this bizarre turn of events, adding that council's tactics equate to hidden money-grubbing.   More and more of the following signs, in various colours, pop up daily, despite the worsening local economy which is lowering property values.  Why are people selling in these times?  "To get out of Coldstream; it's socialism," one resident confided, adding "there have already been a couple of foreclosures, with more to come."  

Just Listed...in Coldstream, one of many

Fortunately, there was scarce mention of a bike path during the CoW meeting.  The focus has now shifted to creating a list of areas that require drainage.  To me that's just a slightly less contentious topic, but it ultimately ends up achieving the same thing.  Drainage and ditches invariably follow either roads or property lines, so isn't it foolish to believe that multi-use/bicycle paths will not also form part of any upgraded drainage projects along roads? 

So where's The List?
 A link to the Infrastructure Assessment document comes up blank as, at blog publication, it is missing from the District website, but a hard copy was printed before it disappeared from the internet, entitled "Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw 1535--Infrastructure Assessment", portions critical to this story are excerpted as follows:


"A review of Coldstream's streets was conducted in consideration of the above scenarios.  A list of the streets and suggested drainage infrastructure remedies is as follows:

Ta...da...drumroll...The List:


1.  Buchanan Road, Aberdeen to Upland.  Remedy: ditch realignment/culverting;
2.  Cottonwood Lane, all.  Remedy:  infiltration chambers;
3.  Fairmont Place, all.  Ditching north side/infilitration chamber.
4.  Howe Drive, north of Kalamalka.  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
5.  Kalavista Drive, all.  Infiltration chambers.
6.  Ponderosa Way, all.  Ditching/infilitration chambers.
7.  Rendell Drive, all.  Infiltration chambers.
8.  Rockland Road, all.  Ditchingn on north side/catch basin at curb/ infiltration chambers.
9.  Scenic Drive, west of Upland.  Catch basins/infiltration, chambers on north side.
10. Springfield Road, 9900 block.  Infiltration chambers.
11. Tebo Drive, all.  Infiltration chambers.
12. Torrent Drive, all.  Infiltration chambers.
13. Upland Drive, Crestview to Aberdeen.  Culverting/storm sewer.
14. West Kal Road, all.  Infiltration chambers/drainage easements.


Another excerpt of interest:  Other than in commercial areas, infrastructure improvements have only been considered with building permit applications under two scenarios as follows:

1. the roadway fronting the property is improperly drained.  Remedies for this could include ditching, culverting, storm sewer, catch-basin, or curb installation.  Most commonly, the remedy requested would be an infiltration chamber to deal with localized storm drainage.
2. the road right-of-way between the pavement edge and the property is steeply sloped.  This creates a problem if there is a need for shouldering or if a bicycle or pedestrian lane is needed.  This infrastructure improvement would be permanently frustrated without cooperation of the property owner.

Yet another:  It should also be noted that there are large areas of Coldstream where the land use is single family or two family residential that do not have curbs, gutters and sidewalks even though the standards call for them in these areas.  Upgrading of these areas to include these has not been considered as part of this exercise.

The second part of the review was to determine if there were slopes that would potentially frustrate the future construction of bicycle/pedestrian pathways or road shouldering improvements.  The roads we reviewed where the Bicycle Network Plan showed a need for additional infrastructure in the right-of-way.(sic) (Ed. note:  find a copy of the Bicycle Network Plan)

In addition to Kidston Road, there are two sites where the slope locations can be considered as problematic for future pathway construction.  These are at 10900 Coldstream Creek Road and at 10008 Coldstreem Creek Road.  Coldstream Creek Road has been designated for widening to accommodate a future bicycle/pedestrian lane.  At this time the properties slope down to the road and cooperation from the property owners would be needed to facilitate pathway installation."  (Ed. note:  the poor folks who live at 10008 and 10900--anybody know who lives there?--better give 'em a head's up)


"Cooperation from owners?"  That sounds expensive.  Consider that virtually ALL of Coldstream is subject to drainage issues...this hilly valley on which homes and subdivisions are only permitted on sideslopes because valley bottom land is "protected" for agricultural use within the Agricultural Land Reserve virtually assures it.  New subdivisions were built by Developers, for whom infrastructure costs to serve those subdivisions were a normal and expected cost under a development permit.  Those costs were factored into the price of homes. No-one's arguing that point.  Developers built everything they were supposed to at the time.  But suddenly older subdivisions in older areas are identified as having deficient drainage because the rules of the day didn't require drainage, catch basins and the like for developers.  That's why Coldstream is now hoping for cooperation from owners.  Coldstream wants more than a "good morning" smile, I can assure you.

Cities and municipalities thought they had it made years ago...when they all bought into the then-new philosophy--hook, line and sinker--called "Infill", from that left-leaning bastion called the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), which allowed, even encouraged, large lot older properties to subdivide. Infilling allowed densities to increase without any new expenditure for infrastructure.

But soon 40- and 50-year old homes were interspersed with new homes, and frequent tearing up of old roads occurred, adding at the same time curbs, fire hydrants, some catch-basins.  With time, density angst created demands for walking paths and dog parks, and then bike paths.  New residents who arrived from metropolitan areas were accustomed to those amenities and wanted them here too.  Politicians weren't averse to the ideas because walking, biking would be good all around and so tiny communities strove to keep up with big cities' ideas.

Some items are decidedly infrastructure, but bike paths never have been part of infrastructure (and should not be called that), but Coldstream's elected officials seem hard pressed to let go of dreams that place tiny Coldstream on the provincial "poster child" wall picturing healthy and progressive Cities.  Coldstream wants to run with the big dogs, but the metaphor of racing barefoot compared to Cities' Nike-shod racers isn't lost on taxpayers here.   We simply don't have the tax base to run with the big boys. Or build empires.  Or Town Centres.

So, yes, Coldstream's adoption of an infill philosophy meant additional taxpayers, and council seemed happy to not create -- as councillor Besso put it some time ago -- "mile long subdivisions".   New infilled taxpayers were happily welcomed into the area's coffers. 

Was it lack of foresight?  Or sheer blindness?  More rainwater shedding from additional roofs and washing out dusty shallow ditches, more sewage in the same length of pipe, and even more challenges on poorly draining soil for properties still served by septic systems.  Much like the problem that occurred on Vernon's Mission Hill 25+ years ago--where effluent sprayed on the lands above began to percolate up into people's back yards on that clay hill--today we've all seen "water" coming out of the ground at the bottom of Coldstream Estates subdivision.  "Soup's on," they laughingly call out again.  Drainage...  Who would've anticipated drainage issues at the northern tip of Canada's only desert? 

Back to last night's CoW meeting:  So did council vote to increase the $50,000 "triggering" threshhold for off-site works?  No.  Did council vote to remove the trigger?  No. 

A good portion of the meeting compared Coldstream's now-hated servicing bylaw with those of other communities:  Kent (a tiny community administered by adjacent Agassiz), Kelowna, Vernon (halfway down page), Lake Country (page 4 of 26), Peachland (takes 30 sec to load); Metchosin (pgs 18/19 'essential services');  Penticton (DCC chart pg6), Summerland (pg7), West Kelowna/RDCO.

Reaffirmed at Monday's meeting is Coldstream's previous decision to adjust Kelowna's servicing bylaw--which does not charge homeowners for off-site works so that it conforms to reflect Coldstream's desire (to have some works charged to homeowners when they apply for building permits). 

Discussions will continue, both to fine-tune the bylaw and quell the homeowner uproar it initially created.

Options for council to consider, presented by staff, were:

1. exempt all single family and two-family dwellings (new construction, renovations, additions);
2. revise the City of Kelowna Schedule 7 Guideline to accommodate Coldstream's infrastructure requirements;
3. set a higher threshold or trigger for permit values;
4. restrict the type of required infrastructure to offsite drainage works where substandard facilities exist and/or where new construction results in a direct attribution in the localized substandard condition (i.e. renovation or new constructon compounding an existing drainage problem);
5. research right-of-way and road reserve issues provided legal question is resolved;
6. some combination of the above options. 

For those readers who, in the past, have said my opinions accurately reflect theirs (thanks, folks!), and are not interested in the following lengthy who said what (nearly-verbatim, my shorthand's not what it used to be!) words of councillors, I present the following summary in a Report Card that summarizes this taxpayer's essence of councillors' input during this meeting on the still controversial Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535, 2008.


Coldstream Council Report Card
Doug Dirk:  not present tonight but many residents have often heard his long-held biases--disguised as historical perspective--that span ~16 years as councillor.  I didn't miss him.

Guyla Kiss:  "Sewer man" (his chief bailiwick), seems thunderstruck with the decidedly unusual idea that all newcomers to Coldstream should pay taxes...back taxes, if you will, for all the years they were not here and infrastructure existed here.  Calling these residents latecomers, he's like a dog with a bone.  His idea was repeatedly offered...find a tool to get newcomers to pay.  Maybe even for as much as he's paid.

Richard Enns:   Seat warmer, this on-board lawyer didn't offer anything along his skillset that substantially contributed to tonight's topic (perhaps his gratis legalese is reserved for in-camera sessions).  Are we not allowed to benefit from his legal skills...so that bureaucrats don't have to keep going to pricey outside lawyers for advice?  Maybe he doesn't offer...I don't know.  During the November election, he proudly announced he is the first organic farm in Coldstream; alas Vale Farms in Lavington beat him to the punch 20+ years ago.

Maria Besso:  Thankfully she now "gets" the transparency thingy -- what it means to hurt residents by unfair practices or dubious tactics that a lack of transparency creates.  Likes to do her own research and will do more of her own in future because she can trust it.  Doubt she's as enamored of being a councillor today as she was at the start.  Readily adopts environmental issues.  Doesn't go whichever way the wind blows. 

Peter McClean:   Back as councillor after a few terms away.  A welcome addition, in my opinion, for his peculiar ability to see both sides of an issue, while still fulfilling the terms of his oath of office.  He never forgets that taxpayers sign the cheques.  Has other abilities rare among council...to be able to laugh at himself, and being equally effective working alone or in a group.  Not a back stabber.

Pat Cochrane:  Stints on Vernon's council now provide Coldstream with his considerable experience and apparent sensibility.  Appears honestly embarrassed--indeed ashamed--of what Coldstream did during last year's fiasco, the results of which linger into this meeting tonight.  He wants an end to Coldstream's bad reputation of how it deals with residents.  He knows a better job can be done.  Speaks only once an hour or so.  I think he distrusts bureaucrats as much as residents do.

Mayor Jim Garlick:  Appears frustrated (disappointed?) that the carte-blanche servicing bylaw to fill Coldstream's coffers won't be quite so, well, blanche.  Has stated in the past that he's not interested in the opinions of new people, as his family have resided here for 3 generations.  His apparent frustration may stem from that...that he's struggling to tolerate others' opinions.  As a teacher, he can turn on his skills--even coercion--to bring dissenting councillors toward a path he supports.  Doesn't work so well with residents.

End of Report Card.
Last night's discussions on the bylaw follow, naturally with a titillating ending (just to get readers there)



Peter:  "I think 'subdivision' is the key word, not strictly for a homeowner's building permit."

Maria:  "...someone wants to build a shed and it triggers off-site works.  Lake Country and the District of Kent have exemptions for this...based on this 2008 bylaw it does seem very onerous; I don't think we can remedy everything through this."

Richard:  "...helpful to have this list, I was surprised at the extent of the list.  We're in an area facing particular problems...if we are going to keep our taxes down..."  (implying that anyone with the cash to fix their homes should be responsible rather than the whole tax base).  "Whether it's beneficial to the property attached to it, or not."

Guyla:  "...re sewer, there are a number of properties in Coldstream...they have not been paying for sewer but eventually there will be sewer on that road, and for those who did not hook up when sewer was available, therefore they have not paid taxes and the rest of the community did...how are we going to collect the monies from them for latecomer fees?"

Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "There is no formal policy for latecomer requirements, but we will be looking at these issues; most were done by property developers; policy still has to be formulated. The original bylaw didn't contemplate sewer hook-ups.  Subdivisions do require sewer services and they are/were installed at the time."

Mayor Garlick:  "so are you saying that latecomer fees for sewer should be added into the servicing bylaw?"

Guyla:  "Yes, there are large properties near the lake..."

Richard:  "we have sewer lines running down roads and people are not hooking up (so) we need a tool to have people hook up."

Maria:  "We have discussed this before, maybe it could be done with local improvement, taxes, not through the servicing bylaw."

Peter:  "The waste management plan is going to be identifying long term plans for hook-ups?  i.e. Aberdeen Road, where we have potential sewer issues?  Did Stamhuis look at the waste management plan prior to creating the list?" 

Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "Yes, the intent was to update future extensions to sewer...this is a broad recommendation to look at providing infrastructure.  We can leave it as it is so council can interpret it broadly.  You can add more or leave it as it is."

Richard:  "On page 12 is where Vernon provides an element of financial contribution for under 50K 'towards future infrastructure'...'gifting' etc.  What if an amount charged a homeowner isn't sufficient to do the required project...do (other communities) just add the dollars?"

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "In Kelowna, if an amount is under $30,000, they pay 10% gifting towards future infrastructure in the area."

Maria:  States she does not understand why it was even changed in 2008.  "I recommend the option of exempting all single family and two-family dwellings for construction and renovation, as examples from Penticton, Kent and Peachland indicate."

Mayor Garlick:  "It was updated to more modern standards."

Bureaucrat Stamhuis; "The new bylaw makes reference to these specifically, and they're universal in the province among most municipalities.  It was changed to allow councils more flexibility.  The driver for the bylaw was to update it to fit with Master Municipal Specs in B.C., taking out some exemptions."

Richard:  "While there is a provision in Kelowna's design to exempt single or two-family units because those are unlikely to have an impact on infrastructure, it's still not entirely exempt in Kelowna, nor in Vernon."

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "Single family alterations or single family construction would not be required to do anything...new may be the road reserve re widening or stormwater drainage to go through the property; it will exempt single and two-family additions and renovations, and evaluates each application on its own merit...new buildings may or may not require a contribution for road widening that we could use to request work, but each are evaluated on their own merit."

Richard:  "so we do the same..."

Peter:  "In #932,1989 bylaw, three or more lots were required to provide works; yet #1535, 2008, it says 'any construction'.  I think the intent is that the development is a development, not a building permit.  We have changed the meaning and the intent of the bylaw.  We can't expect 20 years later to go back to those individuals and demand things on a permit."

Bureaucrat Broderick;  "Legal advice is coming...the intent is at the time of development...somebody has already been in existence for 20 years who later makes demands, and issues change; that's the other side."

Mayor Garlick:  "Example is Vimy Road, but there's no road, lots were subdivided 100 years ago.

Peter:  "The lots haven't been developed...then you have the choice on a piece of property; it complied with all the rules and regulations of the day...and later a garage or a barn is added, but not by bringing forth all the charges."

Mayor Garlick:  "Are we responsible for Vimy Road?"


Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "Yes".
        (editor note:  I'll eat my slippers if this isn't absolute nonsense, if Stamhuis is inferring to Garlick that if the Coldstream Ranch wants to develop some lots that the municipality has to build Vimy Road (properly)!  At issue is an undeveloped cow-path like a lane through the middle of the Coldstream Ranch that somebody years ago named Vimy as it appears on maps today.  Vimy Road starts across from the Highlands Golf driveway on Buchanan Road and heads into the ranch, but it does not exit onto Highway 6.   Vimy Road runs adjacent to an area of 14 never developed five-acre parcels that were subdivided nearly 100 years ago.  If the Coldstream Ranch wishes to develop those 14 five-acre parcels (and good for them if they do!), the Coldstream Ranch, as developer, would apply for a Development Permit to create a 14 lot subdivision, to which current subdivision permitting, access and services all apply...the Ranch would have the responsibility of building the road to specs that including paving and curbing (just like up at Ranchlands above Coldstream Estates) with low-glare streetlights, all the bells 'n whistles.  But, yes, Coldstream would have to plow snow on Vimy Road in winter once the development was up and running, as they must do on all roads.)

Peter:  "So we are committed to build that road?"

Mayor Garlick:  "yes".

Peter:  "If the Coldstream Ranch sells off 5 acre parcels the municipality is responsible for developing the road?  The developer/development is the key word...if the Ranch wants to develop it, then it is their responsibility to build the road that leads to the development."

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "for example, there are lots approved many many years ago...we had to work something out with the developer.  He had to build a road and he built the houses.  There are 14 lots there in the middle of the property.  The owner built that road to the standards of the day, when there was no infrastructure."  (Ed note...again..sigh...Vimy Road was/is a private farm access road, not open to the public, see the No Trespassing signs???? It's not a road, despite having a name!  It's private!!!!)

Mayor Garlick:  "So did the 2008 bylaw give us that?"

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "We would not be able to entertain building permits unless there was a road.  Vimy would be the same as that."

Guyla:  "Coldstream is ... 14 roads identified on page 5 to consider, are those all?  How are we going to do it if we have no tools?  How are we going to change any road?"

Maria:  "What about Kidston Road?"

Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "It is already on Council's list...this list is on drainage.  If we don't get improvements through a building permit, there are two other mechanisms...local improvement process, give to all property owners to see if they want to contribute, or direct taxation."

Guyla:  "What happens if we don't own the land for the roadways that we need or for drainage if not through bylaw?  1.  we defer or stymie improvement?, or 2.  expropriate?"

Peter:  "Coldstream Valley Estates for example was built a long time ago, there are a lot of deficiencies.  We got them talking, we came up with ... if they wanted sidewalks, etc. and at that time they showed no interest.  Identified the areas of concern and identified where they were brought forward by staff or residents.  To me, do it through consultation and let area residents know in the long term and provide feedback and they might participate with them to address some of the concerns that we have.  Consultation is key.  If property owners are aware in advance then we will have better buy-in with no dissention."

Guyla:  "Coldstream is 100 years old...a mosaic all over the place.  We need to have some kind of tool.  Surveys for example are wrong and a resurvey shows a property owns some of the neighbour's land with some developments poorly executed."

Mayor Garlick:  "Two years ago, through provincial government grant stormwater management of Coldstream Estates to give a working plan, many of that involved easements and rights of way.  The lots were put in there years ago without any thoughts of drainage."

Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "We had to review that stormwater management report; this list incorporates some of those items."

Peter:  "So #9 is identified from that?  We worked with the people up there?  Have we gone up there?"

Bureaucrat Stamhuis:  "We have not.  In this list are remedies that work to the advantage of both the property owner and the district.  We would be putting in installations that would solve drainage including adjacent roadway.  If the building permit was used, then we could ask for certain things along that route."

Peter:  "Why wait until we have a (drainage?) catastrophe?  Maybe enact a long term plan with the residents as we are able to ... we can get these jobs done."

Guyla:  "Bylaws are tricky, re survey (repeated)...he had to buy the next door neighbour's part of the property because the survey was wrong; a road allowance was required from the seller."

Richard:  "We are on the right path looking at alternatives; I think we should resist cherry-picking."

Peter:  "We all know that in 30-40 years...what bylaws we have in place today will not satisfy 2050, nor did 1950 satisfy today.  We have to live with this.  We correct these bylaws and correct them, but we cannot look into the future and make 50-year changes."

Guyla:  "They have to know we are looking at all the issues."

Mayor Garlick:  "Kelowna...page 11 'each application will be reviewed individually'...clarification was requested (to Craig Broderick) and what do they ask of one or two-family households?"

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "None for single or two-family additions, rights of way for storm management they can ask for; we need legal on that; I'm asking Chris Murdy." (Ed. note:  I'm told this information is apparently already in the hands of the District, but they have severed it from the public record under 'in-camera' item).

Pat:  "If we go forward and pass our bylaw on the Kelowna example we are not providing the clarity we need.  It puts it in the hands of staff.  For consistency, I think it needs some more work.  I move that we send this back to staff and they come back with something more substantive...re roads and projects we need to be absolutely clear on what it is and where it is and not have any suggestion that it is at the whim of staff."

Maria:  "I will second that we send it back to staff...but nothing else."

Pat:  "It has been hanging for several months...instead of having the public trust....or them berate us when it gets to the next stage, I would rather do it right this time."

Mayor Garlick:  "is there a direction...are we heading in, i.e. the table (Kelowna's bylaw); how does that look?"

Pat:  "I don't like the Kelowna model where the public still has to go in and talk to staff; they have the ability to impose demands.  Where the permit triggers upgrades.  If we are going to choose not to apply something, I would rather we didn't have the ability to do it.  Instead of dumping it onto the general tax...and maybe it should be strictly drainage.  There is a better way to do this that the public can understand, so no-one or area is treated differently than another.  It has to be there for anyone to find and understand."  (Ed. note:  maybe Kelowna's staff has had better training in dealing with residents in an forthright and consistent manner!)

Peter:  "Development is the key word, or subdivision, not the building permit that renos a house on an existing lot.  Staff has to have a clear direction that it is for development and subdivision, not for a building permit."

Mayor Garlick:  "...where it should take place and also for consistency."

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "What exemptions does council want?"

Maria:  "The suggestion that we deal with them in a different way than just through the bylaw on building permits...I would not want to see Kelowna's here ... all single and two-family new construction and renos should be exempt.  We have to deal with deficiency with a definite plan and we bring the owners together and tell them 'you have a plan to do it over 10 years', etc."

Brief discussion ensued that it has to be a Motion.

Maria:  "Not by doing it piecemeal...you are driving building permits underground."

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "Re Kelowna generally...case by case basis.  Should we remove that for the homeowner?"

Pat:  "How (else) can anyone know where they stand?  Another item was the 50K threshhold.  I don't think it is totally fair to put it back to council...we should do some research."

Bureaucrat Broderick:  "50K figure?  ... is way too low if there is going to be a threshhold...or do away with a number entirely?  Alterations for commercial can stay.  It will become a shell game with 49K being reported on building permits if we leave it in.  I say drop the 50K."

Pat:  "Someone who wants to add a deck or a shed or a pool...make it simple.  Example:  single family homes, or whatever."

Guyla:  "We can anticipate some work will be needed.  This was the kind of schedule so people who are coming to ask for a permit...they should know what this is for...that we have to ask for this."

Mayor Garlick:  "Does Kelowna have a list of roads, or projects?"

Bureaucrat Broderick: "I don't believe so."

Guyla:  "Major problem I heard from people during the election:  I don't know if my permit will require a financial contribution."

Mayor Garlick:  "So identifying projects or deficiencies is a benefit."

Guyla:  "Yes."

Mayor Garlick:  "...to 2008 bylaw we need off-site works identified...a question of what happened before...were any off-site works requested on the Christie home?"

Building Inspecgtor Bibby:  "Before my time.  None were asked for since '04."

Peter:  "if my recollection is correct...it was a development variance permit to allow a house to be built, and in order to grant that development, variance states that proper storm drainage be built in.  So municipalities could request these off-site services."

Richard; "Kelowna upgrades necessary for safety reasons re directly attributable...is it the only focus of Kelowna bylaw?  Is stormwater or sewer enough?"

Mayor Garlick:  "The table ... so it needs to be more substantive than staff decisions?"

Maria:  "Re table, remove asterisked section...not required.  I would leave that up to the recommendation from staff.  I don't want to put the municipality in a negative financial case.  Yes, the options .. and we will pick up the options on page 13.  My choice would be #1, #2 and #3, some combination of the above."

Richard:  "In Vernon if you are under a certain threshold ... you have to contribute money.  We could adopt this and look to Vernon to check this out."

Peter:  "what's the triggering mechanism?  The simple thing is taking Maria's idea of what is considered a development."

Bureaucrat Broderick: "new development means 'construction'.  In Vernon this is used for future road widening...I am a little concerned about legality."

Mayor Garlick:  "So option #2, #4, #6 and revise Kelowna's schedule, restrict off-site drainage, research right-of-way demands for renovations, provided the legal question is resolved."

Maria:  "I still want #1 -- exemption of one and two-family dwellings.

Peter:  "Put #1 in."

Maria:  "Amend it to include #1, #2, #4, #5.

Peter:  "Seconded".

Pat:  "I'm OK with withdrawing my motion."

Mayor Garlick:  "call the question."  Called.

Pat:  "In favour."

Opposed:  Besso, Kiss, Garlick, Enns

Mayor Garlick:  "Recommend page 13, selecting #1, #2, #4, #5."  (note that public attendees have no copies of any documents to which councillors refer)

Peter:  "Seconded".

Richard: "I am concerned about how we are just restricting this to drainage and ignoring safety issues...safe travel to school, proper turns on roadways.  One of the reasons we have to exercise our power, we must give it some thought."

Pat:  "This is not poviding clarity to see...I wonder about bulleted number 5.  It's not doable if you have #1 included.  Especially if council wants the ability to ask for road right-of-way or road reserve, pending legal advice."

Richard:  "I'm voting against this."

Mayor Garlick continued the discussion...with Pat Cochrane adding he's prepared to let staff come back with more info. Mayor Garlick concluded with "staff will be coming back to another CoW meeting with further recommendations."

Richard: again stated that he was opposed.


Mayor Garlick:  "It is broad right now.  I suggest we get more along the lines of what you are saying, so a recommendation #2...and you are pulling from these bullets at the bottom."

That's where we're at after 8 months.

A municipal mechanism called Local Improvement Area was mentioned during the meeting to deal with area-specific issues.  Here's a photo of one such project on Tassie Drive, implemented in 2000.

A curb installed in 2000 on Tassie Drive

Back in 1999, residents were canvassed to ascertain who was in favour of the $12,000 per home cost for curbing along their small lot frontage (about the time Sage Drive became a through street from the previous cul-de-sac configuration).

On the condition of anonymity, the resident stated that "half were for it, half against, but Coldstream built it anyway."

So does storm water now take a different route?  "No, during heavy rain it still comes over top of this shallow curb into our yards."

The resident added:  "We pay $84 a year for 20 years, but one neighbour paid the $12,000 up front."

Both neighbours are dead wrong.  Firstly, the $12,000 cost for that 50-foot length of 3-inch high curb is ridiculous, but it is the amount the municipality charges you because it includes interest and inflation.  The neighbour who paid the $12,000 up front should have called for a quote from an independent contractor.  The actual cost was likely $3,000 per residence and, because no borrowing occurred--therefore no interest/inflation factored in--the neighbour should have offered the municipality $3,000., which was the actual cost of the work per residence (based on the competitive quote). 

As to the neighbour who is paying "$84 a year for 20 years".  Think about it. That's only $1,680 in 20 years (with no compounded interest), and the municipality is charging you $12,000? Whatever rates the municipality factors onto the cost of the initial work, the curb will have self-destructed before you've paid the money back.

As Coldstream appears to be considering Local Improvement Areas for future work, take heed of the above, folks!

Understand what really happens when a community borrows money for a project and allows residents to put it on installments ... maybe have a glance at the bottom of your VISA statement "if paying the minimum amount, it will take "x" years to pay off.

"So what's the promised titillating ending," asks Kia, "after all THAT?"

My suggestion:  that bureaucrats are no longer allowed to attend annual UBCM meetings!
Actually two:  ...and remove UBCM from bureaucrats' speed dial phones.

Oblivious to the Obvious

It's 2012 and, since this New Year brought some new faces to municipalities following the November elections, a renewed fervor to fine-tuning budgets appears appropriate.

Those new faces want to prove they deserved your vote.

When the City of Vernon's bureaucrats rolled out their department's wish lists, the potential tax hike of 8.5 per cent likely shocked the newcomers, second only to the reaction of residents.

"We'll be disappointed if we don't knock three or four per cent off," offers newly-elected mayor Rob Sawatzky, reported by The Morning Star newspaper's January 25th issue.

At the risk of giving the newspaper more credit than it deserves, Mayor Sawatzky and New-Crew need simply read the rest of that newspaper's pages (including the political cartoon) to get their toes pointed in the right direction.

But first, let's consider the topics the New-Crew is pondering as they hope to limit increases to "zero to 2.3 per cent":  (from Richard Rolke's article) "...renovating the current library for city staff offices, road rehab on 25th Avenue and Silver Star Road, sidewalks on Alexis Park Drive and $80,000 for a core review of city services."

And maybe increasing parking fees.
That ought to immediately have the Downtown Merchants' Association wringing their hands in disgust.
Why?
Because they're already suffering from free parking offered by the big box stores at the North end of town.

Is that what New-Crew is oblivious to?  Yes, but there's more.  A lot more.

Afoot are plans to have all City of Vernon workers together at one 14,000 square foot site.  This means renovating the current library building--once the library staff have moved to their new digs on 30th Avenue--moving staff from a rental office on 30th Street as well as staff from a city-owned (the old Coldstream Hotel) property.  "Staff with similar duties will be together, and they will be close to city hall," justifies manager Kim Flick.

Plus that allows the ground floor of city hall to be used for the RCMP, whose offices next door to city hall are too small.

So what?

So $600,000 is what!
Plus the planned $80,000 for a "core services review".
Why is it that the sheer number of bureaucratic employees doesn't make it obvious what the problem is?  But let's throw another $80,000 at it to prove we're right in our view that there's too much bureaucracy, too much governance, too many high-paid government employees, especially while the private sector is dwindling.


In an age of fibre-optic corporate intranets, video conferencing, and workgroup emails--all of which the City of Vernon already has, including corporate cars as a last resort--why is this plan even being considered during these cautionary economic times???? 

Because Vernon's economy is improving?  Nope.

Just look at another headline in the same newspaper issue:  "U.S. company acquiring Vernon-based tekmar".
Watts Water Technologies of North Andover, Massachusetts, CFO William McCartney was quoted as saying:  "We remain committed to the facility and the workforce there."

Rings a bell...where have we heard that before?

Oh yes...when Owens-Illinois purchased the Lavington plant of Consumers Glass, a major employer here. OI closed the plant in 2008, with 300 workers out of a job.

Sixty-five employees work at tekmar.

Even the newspaper's political cartoon hints--virtually screams--of the problem:  "Hey, there's no category for adjusting ... salaries...pensions...perks" under author IRice "Balancing My BC Budget".

"Clear to me," intones Kia, "but opaque to Vernon's New-Crew."


So...does this focus on Vernon's woes imply that Coldstream's New-Crew has their budget in line with residents' wishes? 
No, Coldstream's woes are deserving of a separate storyline.

Coldstream's new-crew--with one exception--is the old crew.
Their continuing lack of economic focus designates them as No Clue.

Rail Rage?

More bizarre than road rage, a Coldstream resident was arrested Saturday morning for...wait for it...threatening a train:    http://www.vernoncentral.ca/news/local-news/1456-choo-choo-ch-angry

How appropriate, then, that Coldstream is enacting a new...yep, another...bylaw; this time "to regulate or prohibit the making or causing of noises or sounds in the municipality."

A good thing that Coldstream will place controls on train whistles--especially during the night or early morning hours.

Oh...the bylaw doesn't cover train whistles during the night?
Nope.

What is covered by the new noise bylaw then if not the shrill whistle of a train while the population is abed?

General regs begin with "...any noise in or on a public or private place which disturbs or tends to disturb the quite(sic), peace, rest enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of any persons in the neighbourhood or vicinity....noise or sound which occurs thereon or flows therefrom, play or operate any radio, stereophonic equipment or other instrument or any apparatus for the production or amplification of sound...no person shall own, keep or harbour any animal or bird which, by its cries, unduly disturbs the peace, quiet, rest or tranquility of the surrounding neighbourhood or the public at large."

Hours:  on any day before 07:00 hours or after 21:00 hours:  construct, erect, reconstruct, alter, repair or demolish any building, structure or thing or excavate or fill in land in any manner ... no person shall for profit or gain on a Sunday construct, erect, reconstruct, alter, etc. etc.

Other:  no outdoor public address systems (without a permit), shall not operate a snow vehicle, motorboat or motorcycle which makes or causes noise, no person may operate, or cause, suffer or permit the operation of any gas powered or motorized lawn mower, weed cutter or other motorized lawn-grooming or garden equipment that produces a noise that can be heard from an adjacent property between 21:00 and 07:00, including "Jake" or any type of engine brakes.

Surely after the mention of engine brakes would be "railway whistles"!

Nope.  Not there.  Anywhere.

This hastily scribed bylaw replaces one that stood for 27 years.

In the new bylaw, "noise" is "any loud outcry, clamour, shouting or movement, or any sound that is loud or harsh or undesirable.

Somebody ought to whisper in Coldstream's ear that no noise control bylaw is worth the paper it's written on without defining decibel (maximums) to back up the fuzzy and subjective claim of "tends to disturb".

And the district of Coldstream had better hurry up and order a few decibel meters to loan out to their citizens.
Without a record of the decibel reading at the time of the "infraction" to prove there was an infraction, as well as its duration (no mention of that at all), the hastily scribed bylaw is incorrect, therefore moot.
Another recent Coldstream bylaw shares its reputation.   

"I also don't want to suffer from mowers around here, too," admits Kia, "but I worry most about movement being listed." Movement is a noise?


So, with no reference to train whistles, we residents can only hope that Coldstream's next move will be to second a motion that the District of Coldstream supports the railway. 

What will that do, you ask?

Why, just like our farming sector recently learned, when Coldstream states their official "support" of an industry, they swifty follow it with bylaw(s) regulating it (most recently local farms received a bylaw that limits/designates where and how many farm signs they can display; and the Coldstream Ranch is now also "supported" with regulations on its landfill, which soil has to go where, and which roads their trucks can use.)

Thankfully, our farming sector is exempt from the new noise bylaw (otherwise they could put up one more sign...a For Sale sign).

Somebody on council should make a Motion to support the railway.

Because only then can train whistles be included in the noise bylaw.
And maybe people will stop threatening the train.

Coldstream's Convoluted Consumption Calculations

Intricately folded, twisted or coiled is the definition of Convoluted.

I expected the next dictionary definition to state:  District of Coldstream's water "consumption" fees

Bureaucrats and politicians have missed veiling the desire for revenue with their stated focus to conserve the water resource.  Missed it by a long shot.

The Fourth Quarter (Oct.1 to Dec.31/11) water invoices--complete with "but" charges--for 3 meters on the Highlands Golf property are as follows:

Irrigation meter: 
Invoice amount:  $178.90
Consumption:   0 cubic metres

Clubhouse meter:
Invoice amount:  $132.50
Consumption:  14 cubic metres

Residence meter:
Invoice amount: $86.48
Consumption:  36 cubic metres

Qualifiers (the "but" charges) ... Residential water base $66.20 includes 10 cubic metres; above 10 cubic metres the rate is tiered.  Sewer charge is based on first quarter water consumption and charged each quarter.  If consumption is less than 15 cubic metres, a base rate of $88.84 is levied.  If over 15 cubic metres, the charge is $54.19 plus $2.31 per cubic metre used.

Nowhere on the Irrigation or Clubhouse Invoice is a "but" charge Commercial explanation provided.  It's simple...Highlands Golf used zero cubic metres of irrigation water in the third quarter, but the invoice is $178.90!  No qualifier has ever been provided on the commercial invoices.

Ah...who said community coffers are not built on the backs of commercial business?

Nobody dares to complain that the less water one uses, the more one pays...

"The only thing they omitted," suggests Kia, "is that you pay more if you have blue eyes."

Folded, twisted AND coiled.

Occupy Movement

Ordinarily, it would be fairly easy to brush off the Occupy movement by responding to some TV photos of bedraggled and unkempt youth--and the very sad illicit-drug-induced fatality of a participant in Vancouver.

If it weren't for the truth the movement conveys.

Mark Milke's five principles hit the nail on the head in the December 2011 issue of Thompson Okanagan Business.

Excerpt: 
"I sympathize with the protesters' concerns but for those sincerely interested in creating a better world, slogans, demands and a snap of the finger won't do it.

Thus, to make poverty scarce, to foment prosperity and to avoid political favouritism for anyone, here are a few general principles Occupy protesters should grasp and promote:


Principle One:  Subsidize only people in need, never the wealthy or corporations.
People occasionally need help and the exact parameter of that is a constant source of debate as is who should do the helping.


Nonetheless, let's be clear about who doesn't need a subsidy:  the wealthy and corporations.


The rationale here is not difficult to understand.  Obvioiusly, the wealthy don't need income transfers from taxpayers.  As for companies, they are artificial entities which will rise and fall, so let them.


Real people work in companies but that's rather the point:  when flesh-and-blood human beings are down on their luck, help them, not corporations who come and go.


After all, trying to "save" corporations through taxpayer money only sets government up to intervene between competitors and to pick winners and losers.


Wall Street protesters are right to oppose the socialization of losses on Wall Street; same goes for Detroit automakers and anywhere else where private losses are paid for by taxpayers.


So as a general principle, end all corporate welfare and means-test all social programs.


Principle Two:  Be neutral in tax policy.
Whether in Canada or the United States, the personal and business tax codes are riddled with loopholes disguised as "tax credits", "deductions" and "exemptions".


Regardless of where one thinks the overall tax levels should be, job creation (except for accountants) could be helped by broadening the tax base and simplifying collection.  Lower, flatter and simpler taxes are always preferable to higher, convoluted and confusing taxes.


Principle Three:  Always favour consumers over producers.
Want cheaper food prices for the world's poor?  Then stop favouring farmers or anyone else with subsidies, protective barriers, and "supply management" boards (which are essentially cartels).


All that does is protect the market share and prices of producers at the expense of consumers.  Instead, embrace open competition.


Principle Four:  Oppose government-sponsored "Ponzi" schemes.
Insofar as anyone thinks governments should throw another borrowed billion or trillion dollars at the economy, it's an attempt to generate political returns now at real costs to future generations.


That cost includes more debt to be repaid in the future with higher taxes, slower economic growth and fewer jobs--for the younger protesters on Wall Street.


That's almost akin to a Ponzi scheme.  It's an inter-generational "borrowing" of wealth that forces the last people into the scheme to pay for not only their own government services but also those delivered to people who came before.


There's a good example of where that leads to:  Greece.


Principle Five:  Favour opportunity, wherever it appears.
Some Wall Street protesters decry so-called entry-level jobs but that's an insult to those who hold them and who work hard to imiprove their life.  There is great dignity in all work, in any field.  For most able-bodied people, it beats dependence on a government cheque.


So in general, embrace opportunity.
Look at what it did for Steve Jobs.  


Consider how he improved the world with his inventions and entrepreneurial drive.  Ponder how many people's lives he improved with employment and expanded opportunities.


That's a smashing success story and one worthy of emulation."
end of Excerpt from Mark Milke's article.

A sincere thank you to Mark for saying it as it should be.

But where to start?

I think a very good start would be if all the people--starting at the beginning...with the former Goldman-Sachs executives, whose intentionally fraudulent acts bundled worthless mortgage paper into bona-fide investments and created the sub-prime debacle--actually were charged with fraud and went to jail.

Send them to jail.
To prove that cheating and lying are not acceptable.

"And don't collect $200 as they pass 'Go'," offers Kia.

Contrary Coldstream

"Public debate over a controversial bylaw in Coldstream may soon be eased," begins a December 2nd, 2011 story by Jennifer Smith of The Morning Star, under the banner Information compiled on development bylaw.

or, more correctly, will be compiled.
As should have been done prior to the triggering of the bylaw.

The article continues: 
"A list of all general and specific off-site works requests from the district is being compiled following public concerns around a proposed Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw.

'There's some uncertainty and confusion among the public as to when and where off-site works may be required,' said Coun. Doug Dirk, who pushed (Ed.note:  only recently) for a list to be drawn up.

Despite some concerns about the amount of staff time required to create such a list, the request was unanimously passed by council.

'We were attacked severely during the election on this bylaw,' said Coun. Maria Besso, who suggests some information for the public may have eased some resident concerns.

'We never actually publicly made a press release or put anything up on our website and that's something we need to do.'

Since the bylaw is already in the process of being amended, it is hoped the information might aid the process.

'I think it's work that has to be done anyway,' said Coun. Pat Cochrane." (end of article)

Some uncertainty and confusion?
Staff time required to create such a list?

So it sounds as though Coldstream Council was flying by the seat of their pants during the recent fiasco.
How so? 

Charging one homeowner ~$300,000 for a multi-use path along their new property's roadfrontage, based ostensibly on either the 600-name (or 370-names as was later commented) petition from residents further afield didn't ring any alarm bells for this Mayor and Council.  One has to question whether this prejudicial treatment of one homeowner--without either earlier publishing a list of desired community works or, dispensing with Council's normal tenet of "user pay"--was intentional or accidental.  Neither denotes confidence in this council's planning.

If intentional, printable words don't exist that accurately reflect people's disgust.
If accidental, then the lack of confidence in this Mayor and Council by 829 voters (who voted for mayoralty candidate Hrabchuk...more than half of the incumbent mayor's votes) should give them pause. 

Whether 600 or fewer people requested a multi-use path along that stretch of Kidston Road is a moot point if "users (demanders) pay", according to Coun. Dirk.

In addition, mayor Jim Garlick, at the fiasco's culmination, indicated that Council would look to Kelowna to see how they handled their off-site works requirements. 

Well, it's been months since the proverbial mincemeat hit the fan and the mayor is likely unwilling to admit that our thriving neighbours 56 km to the south do not charge homeowners off-site works.  Nor do they call homeowners Developers.

In case our elected officials' phones don't work and they're walking those 65 kilometers, Kelowna's treatment of homeowners is easy to find, excerpted here:

It's under Schedule 7, entitled Types of Development that will Generally have a "Directly Attributable Impact" requiring installation of Works and Services.

RESIDENTIAL:  Single/Two Unit Additions/Alterations Accessory Bldg.
Water:  NO; Sewer:  NO;  Drainage: NO; Roads: NO; Road Reserve: NO; Right-of-Way: NO.


Not one mention of a residential homeowner being a Developer.


Could it be that Coldstream's Mayor and Council were anticipating the sentiment -- albeit predating it -- of the Occupy Movement? 

"As with transparency, I wouldn't say anticipation is one of Council's skillsets," offers Kia.

So which is it, Contrary Coldstream?
User/demander/petitioner(s) pay?
or the object of the petition should pay?

Your 99 per cent await The List.

Palm Trees Protected for Winter

...and not a moment too soon, with a -10.7C low at 7:00 a.m. on Sunday, November 20th.

Hughie the carpenter had some extra help this year...Hayden and Patrick...and the Trachycarpus fortunei's panels went up quickly.

After electric heater and T-3 Thermocube were installed and hooked up to the GFI, the palm is all set for winter.

Now for the two Washingtonia filiferas and three Yucca rostratas...A more substantially-insulated covering (than shown below...a stop-gap measure) will be needed for the five-month winter ahead. 

  

 

 

 The first Washingtonia is heated with two strands of C-9 Christmas lights, set on a T-3 Thermocube, again into a GFI...the light string continues on the ground (un-needed bulbs are unplugged) to the three Yucca rostrata (about 10 lights each) , concluding with the last two strands of lights at the last Washingtonia filifera.

Topped off with waterproof covers after setting black garbage bags filled with leaves (for additional insulation near roots), the electricity is plugged in and ready to go.  Remote sensors register temperatures in all the palm enclosures, and display it in the residence.

Fortunately, this unappealing set-up isn't visible from the road!

And then there are the tropical, indoor palms. ...some require a rather cool temperature during winter, so they're in the clubhouse:

And then there are the warm-winter loving tropical palms...back into the residence.  So that's what a foyer is for!!!

The seven-foot Wodyetia bifurcata (Foxtail) above is one of about a dozen large tropicals that overwinter in the residence.  Others are Hyophorbe verschaffeltii (Spindle palm), Hyophorbe lagenicaulis (Bottle Palm), Cocos nucifera (Coconut palm), Phoenix roebellenii (Pygmy Date Palm), three (yes, 3) Dypsis decaryi (Triangle palm), Strelitzia nicolai (Bird of Paradise), as well as Cycas debaoensis and Wollemia nobilis among others.

"Did you apply for a building permit for the outdoor palm huts?" quipped Kia.

Kelowna's "Servicing Bylaw"

"We'll be looking to an example from Kelowna," said Jim Garlick, reaffirmed Coldstream mayor.

Kelowna's bylaw will be viewed by Coldstream officials--and tweaked for use in Coldstream--after the recent off-site servicing fiasco in our community where homeowners were designated as Developers and subject to servicing costs.

(To recap, from recent blog entry:  So, Mr. Purchaser from the coast...pay attention.
Think that 5-acre parcel on Hill Drive, complete with quaint cottage that you've been hankerin' to own is fairly priced?  Perhaps.  Imagine that you purchase it with help from the bank.  You and the Missus take your drafted renovation plans to the Municipality to apply for a building permit.  You'll add a three-car garage and enlarge the home's footprint with an additional two bedrooms.  Maybe a pool in a few years.  You soon learn that the building official, accompanied perhaps by a senior bureaucrat, will visit the property to ascertain what off-site works are necessary....on your dime! 
Shell-shocked?  Probably, as off-site works could escalate to $300,000 if you have a large road frontage.  You know you cannot go back to the bank for more money...because you can't get a loan (or insurance for that matter) on something that you don't own (which--to the bank--cannot be repossessed), i.e. road frontage owned by the District.)

A face-value look at what this blog author considers are pertinent clauses, to what will undoubtedly be remembered as the Coldstream Fiasco, within Kelowna's Subdivision Development and Servicing Bylaw:

The first mention of applying for a building permit occurs on page 10 of 22, and deals primarily with developing land/subdivision, presumably for multiple dwellings:
"6.1 Application for Building Permit. An Owner who wishes to Develop land must make an Application for Building Permit in accordance with the Building Bylaw and provide the City with such other information, documents, agreements, covenants, bonds and Fees as it requires to consider the Application for Building Permit. The Building Inspector may impose such conditions on his approval of the Application for Building Permit as are required by the City in connection with the Development including, without limitation, the requirement that the Owner provide Works and Services, and that the Owner provide the City with a Servicing Agreement. If the City advises the Owner that Works and Services are required, the Application for Building Permit must include..." (list follows in their PDF file)

The next page, 11, qualifies--and appears to separate Homeowners (without mentioning it)--from Developers of multiple units, to ensure that lakes/waterways are protected by city-wide hook-up to sewer:
"BL8572 amended Section 6.1(h):  (h) The Owner of any land or parcel on which exclusively a Building Permit is desired, and which is not being Subdivided or otherwise Developed, must service the building with a sanitary sewage collection and disposal system, including a service connection, designed and constructed in accordance with the Works and Services Requirements. In the absence of a Sewer collection system in the area, an on-site sewage disposal system will be considered, if:
 the on-site disposal system complies with Schedule 4, Section 2.18, AND
 If the parcel is within 150m of Okanagan Lake or Mission Creek, the Ministry of Health Special Conditions for placing septic systems within Environmental Control Zones will apply;"

This important sentence follows:  "and if the Works and Services include Excess or Extended Services:
(i) Design Drawings as referred to in Paragraph 11.1(a);
(ii) an estimate of the cost of Excess or Extended Services as referred to in Paragraph 11.1(b); and
(iii) subject to Section 11.2, a Latecomer Agreement duly executed by the Owner; ..."

"If", would indicate that exceptions exist, otherwise the word "when" would have been substituted. 


The next section deals with Performance Bonds--typically not required for a Homeowner applying for a building permit for, say, a garage addition to a residence.

"BL8680 amended subsection 7.1:  7.1 Performance Bond. If the Owner wishes to submit an Application for Subdivision Approval or Application for Building Permit to the City before a Certificate of Substantial Performance has been issued in respect of Works and Services, the Owner, in accordance with Paragraphs 5.2(o)(xi) and 6.1(k), must provide the City with a Performance Bond..."

Works/services not necessarily used to service the property / not immediately required is covered on page 13:
"8.1 Design and Construction of Works and Services. The City may elect to design and Construct all or certain parts of the Works and Services (other than Excess or Extended Services) that are otherwise required to be designed and Constructed by an Owner pursuant to this bylaw. These Works and Services would be part of a larger project being planned by the City and are not immediately required to service the
development. In such an event:
(a) the City will advise the Owner of the specific Works and Services that it has elected to design and Construct;
(b) the Owner must pay the City, in cash, 125% of the cost, as estimated by the Consulting Engineer and approved by the City Engineer, of designing and Constructing such Works and Services; and
(c) such Works and Services will be designed and Constructed as and when required by the City..."

Or, if the property connection to services is involved, same page:
"8.2 Connection to City Works and Services. The City may elect to connect all or certain parts of the Works and Services to the City’s Works and Services. In such an event:
(a) the City will advise the Owner of the specific Works and Services that it has elected to connect to the City’s Works and Services;
(b) the Owner must pay the City, in cash, the cost, as estimated by the City Engineer, of connecting such Works and Services; and
(c) such Works and Services will be connected following confirmation that the
provisions of Section 9.7 have been satisfied..."

Here's (page 14) where Kelowna's bylaw gets interesting.  Is it a Subdivision? or Development?  A stand-alone building permit may be splitting hairs, but in the general sense of a development or subdivision, a building permit for a renovation to a residence would not, in my view, be included. 

"BL8993 amended sub-section 9.3:
9.3 Required Works and Services
(1) (a) The Owner shall design and construct such Works and Services as are required by the City, which are:
(i) in the case of a Subdivision:
 all onsite Works and Services, and
 all offsite Works and Services on that portion of a highway(s) immediately adjacent to the site, up to the centre line of that adjacent highway(s), insofar as their requirement is directly attributable to the Subdivision.
(ii) in the case of a Development via Building Permit:
 all onsite Works and Services, insofar as their requirement is directly attributable to the Development; and
 all offsite Works and Services on that portion of a highway(s) immediately adjacent to the site, up to the centre line of that adjacent highway(s), insofar as their requirement is directly attributable to the Development.
(b) The determination of which Works and Services are required, in the case of a Subdivision shall be made by the Approving Officer, and in the case of a Development via Building Permit shall be made by the Building Inspector.
(c) The Approving Officer or Building Inspector, as applicable, in determining whether a directly attributable impact is present shall have regard to the guidelines outlined in Schedule 7 to this Bylaw “Guidelines for Determining Servicing Requirements for Certain Developments Having a Directly Attributable Impact on Infrastructure”.
Where a determination has been made that certain Works and Services are required either at Subdivision or at Building Permit, those Works and Services shall be designed and constructed to the applicable standard for the zone or proposed zone in which the parcel or proposed parcel is located, as set out in Schedule 1 to this Bylaw “Works and Services Requirements."


Obviously, the key phrases (above) would appear to define the exceptions...whether the application for a permit  has any impact on infrastructure AND/OR whether the determination has been made that Works and Services are required on that application, i.e. some applications would be exempt if works and services are not required and/or infrastructure is not impacted (or, presumably already exist).

The next pertinent section, on page 17, obviously (to this blog author, anyway) refers to City infrastructure...big systems...hooking up the development or subdivision to City Systems...presumably natural gas hook-ups, sewer/stormwater hook-ups, light standards, etc.:

"9.7 Connections to and Use of City Systems.   Subject to the City’s election to perform the work in accordance with Section 8.2, the Owner must connect the Works and Services to the City’s Works and Services; provided that the Owner must not connect the Works and Services to any of the City’s Works and Services or use the City’s Works and Services until:
(a) the Approving Officer or Building Inspector, as the case may be, has approved the Owner’s Application for Subdivision Approval or Application for Building Permit;
(b) the Owner has registered in the Kamloops Land Title Office all documents required by the City to be registered therein;
(c) the Owner, in his capacity as a Latecomer wishing to use or connect to Excess or Extended Services, if applicable, has complied with the provisions of Section 11.3 of this bylaw; and
(d) the Owner has made a Service Application, paid any assessed charges and the Service is installed..."  


It'd be a decidedly severe stretch of the imagination (even for Coldstream) to view page 17 to include a multi-use/bicycle path as any city's Works and Services.  More like an imagination gone insane...

The next section, #6, EXCESS OR EXTENDED SERVICES AND LATECOMERS is the fuzzy one.
Could this section of Kelowna's bylaw be what triggered the Coldstream fiasco?  Judge for yourself:

From page 19:  Here's the word 'IF' again...
11.1 Information Requirements. If the City requires the Owner to provide Excess or
Extended Services, the Owner, in addition to providing the information set out in Part 2 of this bylaw, and prior to Constructing any Works and Services, must provide the City with such information, documents and agreements as may be required by the City Engineer, including without limitation:
(a) Design Drawings for the Excess or Extended Services showing:
(i) the size and length of the Excess or Extended Services required by the City; and
(ii) the size and length of the Works and Services, prescribed by Part 2 of this Bylaw, that would be required to serve the Subdivision or Development if Excess or Extended Services were not required by the City;


While I scratch my head at what might denote an Excess or Extended Service, I cannot believe this section could even remotely include a Multi-Use/Bicycle Path...sounds as though it would be something that the owner of that property required, something unique to that property so that permit work could be completed, or something required if its absence would prevent the work from being completed.

And latecomers?  Aren't we all, in a sense, latecomers to our communities? But as it relates to Services (true and necessary infrastructure) such as sewers and waterlines, it does make sense that whichever property  benefits should pay a proportion of the cost of what someone else has put in place. 
 
Kelowna's bylaw explains here, on page 19, again qualified with the word "IF" and also, in this case, "WHETHER":
"...11.2 Latecomer Agreements. If the City determines that all or part of the costs referred to in Paragraph 11.1(b) are excessive and should be paid for by the Owner, the City will:
(a) determine, by Council resolution:
(i) whether all or part of the costs of the Excess or Extended Services referred to in Paragraphs 11.1(b) must be paid for by the Owner;
(ii) which lands are Benefiting Lands;
(iii) which part of the Excess or Extended Services would benefit each of the Benefiting Lands; and
(iv) the Latecomer Charges that would apply to each of the Benefiting Lands;

Sounds as though Kelowna is insisting that lands that benefit, later, must (correctly, in my view) follow the User Pay philosophy, which supposedly Coldstream also supports (at least in lip-service).  How does that relate to Coldstream?

I'm reminded of Judy Paterson's application for a garage building permit on her 80-year old residence which triggered the "off site Works" of a ~$300,000 multi-use/bicycle path along her substantial Kidson Road frontage.  At first we heard from Mayor Garlick during an All Candidates' Forum that "600 people on Kidston Road approached us...", then an Anonymous comment on this blog stated it was "370 people and a couple of dozen emails...".  Even long-serving councillor Dirk espouses User Pay as fundamental.

Whatever the number of petitioners was, the petitioning residences are benefitters of the works, as the path certainly was not an Excess Service required to build a garage on the property.  Successfully constructing a garage did not depend on a multi-use path fronting the property. 

While the above excerpts are just that -- excerpts -- from a bylaw that reads akin to an insurance policy and could be a drug-free remedy for insomnia, the excerpts do seem to prove Kelowna's sensibilities when officials state "we don't do that (to homeowners)"...

ADDITIONAL LINK (POSTED 2:51 P.M.) This is Kelowna's list of determining factors for impact on infrastructure.

Sounds as though Kelowna and Coldstream officials should get together for lunch...soon.

"Lunch?" awakens Kia.

Abyssmal Voter Turnout

With approximately 33 per cent turnout by Coldstream's eligible voters -- down 19 per cent from three years ago -- some would point to complacency as the cause.  "My friends say that nothing will change, so why go?" intones a resident in the parking lot outside the voting station yesterday. 

A high voter turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system, according to political scientists and economists, as this Wikipedia definition explains.

The article continues:  "Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population."


VernonCentral.ca published a quote from Coldstream's mayor Jim Garlick that may--or may not--be a factor:  the contentious homeowner-as-a-developer debate.  "We'll be looking to an example from Kelowna," admits the mayor.  But tweaking it to Coldstream, apparently. 

Candidates' votes received:
In Coldstream:  incumbent Mayor Garlick 1578, Hrabchuk 829.
Councillors:  Dirk 1668, Cochrane 1630, Besso 1602, Kiss 1451, McClean 1299, Enns 1263.

An even lower voter turnout was experienced in Vernon...just 31 per cent.
in Vernon:  new Mayor Sawatzky 4421, Lippert 2538, Davies 1858.
Councillors: David 5634, Cunningham 4019, Lord 3829, Spiers 3714, Quiring 3413, O'Keefe 3353

in Lumby:  incumbent Mayor Acton 306, McEwan 229, Green 133.
Councillors:  Ostafichuk 500, Mindnich 403, Fisher 337, Hodge 299.

And, since Mayor Garlick wishes to look at Kelowna's subdivision bylaw for guidance, here are the numbers for candidates there, you may wish to know names of their elected members...they might have tips how their servicing bylaw affects Kelowna homeowners:
in Kelowna:  new Mayor Walter Gray 13995, Shepherd 13574, Condy 1000, Chung 749, Ouellette 370.
Councillors: Zimmerman 18857, Given 13111, Basran 13073, Hobson 12413, Blanleil 12081, Stack 10279, DeHart 10206, Singh 10077.

Whether or not your personal candidate(s) were successful...all who let their names stand in this election deserve thanks from those who did vote.

"I'll arf that sentiment," adds Kia.

Homeowner as Developer

One last chance to reach voters, states The Morning Star today, ahead of tomorrow's municipal elections.

Or to deceive them, as in Coldstream's case.

Replying to the question "What is the No. 1 issue in Coldstream and why should residents vote for you as mayor?" incumbent Garlick provided a litany that covered four paragraphs.  And he left nothing out in those four paragraphs.

Hedging his bet, he included all the right "stuff", stopping just shy of actuallly wearing out the cliches.
But one phrase should've caught in his throat:  "...ensure fairness to all parties..."

How can Mayor Jim Garlick -- and indeed, incumbent councillors -- look in the mirror each morning while brushing their teeth and not cringe at the abject prejudice that triggered a $300,000 "charge" of a multi-use path for a Kidston Road homeowner's building permit application for a garage? 

Fairness?

Residents of Coldstream not only HOPE for fairness, we DEMAND it.
Ignore it at your peril.

It was your job to be fair...

Tomorrow night as the votes are tallied, reflect on it.
Because it may also be your legacy.

You and incumbent councillors have said you will not rescind the "Homeowner as Developer" designation--which triggers unpredictable off-site works. 

"Is this available in a bumper sticker?" queries Kia, and adding "there's no space on the tag for the consecutive numbers of Coldstream people that'll need one."  

Remember to ask for a volume discount. 

Occupy the Voting Booth

So says Tom Fletcher, columnist at Black Press.

And he's right.
Stating "local government elections are always overshadowed by louder events," such as the Occupy movement, teachers' strike, and the economy, local government elections are often relegated to the complacency bin.  Do your eyes glaze over at the sight of yet another grouping of "Elect me" roadside signs?  Has it been three years?  Feels like much, much longer in some communities.

Tom adds:  "Public indifference to local government has left it mainly to self-serving politicians and special interest groups.  Community newspapers soldier on through the three years between elections to highlight issues and choices, but few people join the debate when it's time to vote."  (Coldstream's electorate turnout at 2008 civic elections was 51 per cent). 

Complacency comes at a price, to which Coldstream residents can most fervently attest.

"The recent Union of BC Municipalities--(this blog author's absolutely favourite thing to hate)--convention demonstrated this," he states, "as local politicians love to tell senior governments what to do.  They'd much rather debate smart meters or bad old Ottawa's RCMP costs than talk about their own performance."

Tom says "Most of the mayors and councillors on hand were unhappy with the province's plan to appoint a municipal auditor-general to examine the efficiency of municipal spending." He continues:  "There is much that is not discussed and it goes beyond technical details like performance auditing.  How about amalgamation in places where there are clearly too many municipal boundaries...and administration is duplicated?"

Tom Fletcher must've spent some time in the North Okanagan--specifically Coldstream.

"Candidates don't want to talk about the fact that B.C. municipal spending, adjusted for inflation, is now growing almost four times as fast as population growth.  Pay and benefits for municipal employees grow much faster than private sector rates."

The link to the November 2011 release of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business Municipal Spending Watch is here.   Last year's municipal spending watch is here, and that year's blog story is here.

Little tiny Coldstream--with its ~10,000 residents and over half the land locked within the Agricultural Land Reserve--may smugly pat itself on the back for being far down on the "bad list" of per capita spending of $541 in 2009 versus $566 in 2008 and $501 in 2007, but the 60.7% increase in per capita operating spending from 2000 to 2008 should ring some alarm bells when a community isn't -- or can't -- growing.

What the municipal spending report lacks, in my view, is debt accumulation.

With the upcoming referendum on the Mechanic's Shop, where residents will vote on whether to borrow $1.3 million, little tiny Coldstream's debt will total $5.3 million if the referendum passes.

Businesses know what debt means.
Families know what debt means.

Ominously foretelling of debt yet to come to Coldstream's residents, an incumbent councillor said during the October 28th event "The legislation limits debt to $19 million."

Gee, thanks, B.C. Government, for setting a limit.
Thanks a pantload, too, B.C. Government, for allowing our municipalities to do this to their residents.


Municipal spending is growing at almost four times the rate of population growth.

A family--or business owner--might ask, so how can debt be repaid without things completely grinding to a halt in the years to come? 

Perhaps this Mayor and Council plan to not reside in Coldstream to help residents repay the debt...  Almost seems so, as their modus operandi was obviously learned from another industry -- Baffle them with Bullshit.

North Okanagan amalgamation won't occur in time to reel in the rod of debt.
So bring on the municipal auditor-general.

"People have to clean up in Dog Parks," muses Kia, "but who cleans up after bull?"
Residents.
That's why we have to Occupy the voting booth.

Mayor Garlick's comment

The comment occurred during the All Candidates forum at OUC last week.

Ostensibly offering a reason for the now-obvious singling out of Judy Paterson's building permit application--which triggered the contentious Servicing Bylaw for off-site works of a Multi-Use Path along her roadfrontage--the Mayor stated "six hundred people on Kidston Road approached us..."

Huh?

Do six hundred people even live on Kidston Road?
Click on the link and have a look for yourself.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Kidston+Road,+British+Columbia&hl=en&ll=50.213287,-119.272513&spn=0.009269,0.016844&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=38.417382,68.994141&vpsrc=6&hnear=Kidston+Rd,+North+Okanagan+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&t=h&z=16

Six hundred people?

The incumbent Mayor qualified the nearly $300,000 cost to Judy Paterson for off-site works with that statement, offering that any group of people, on any road in the area, could "get a petition together" to submit to Council asking for improvements to the area that would, unknowingly (until it was too late), trigger the bylaw to a single homeowner? (Judy Paterson has now, understandably, cancelled her permit application).EDIT*  5:55 p.m. Judy Paterson has not cancelled the building permit application.

Holy cow, to put it bluntly.

"Maybe they counted the cows," offers Kia.

In Coldstream, it all comes down to one word

Since Coldstream homeowners are now considered Developers by the incumbent mayor and council, election signs appear to underscore what has otherwise taken (how many??) previous Blog pages to convey.

But "developers" isn't the word...not today.

"My" or "your" Coldstream...the crux of the issue.

."My" or "your" Coldstream...what philosphy would you support a Mayor possessing?



For our incumbent mayor, it appears to come down to the first-person possessive.
That Coldstream is his.

Candidate Hrabchuk's "your" denotes plural ownership.
That Coldstream belongs to all who reside here.

"My, my..." sighs Kia, adding "primum non nocere." 

Buying a house in Coldstream? Check Mayor Garlick's "Have/Have Not" list before you buy.

...especially if you plan to renovate the home.

And don't count on your realtor to advise you...the list will likely only be available at Coldstream Municipal Hall.

"What list?", you ask.
Let's back up a bit to answer that.

At last night's third--and thankfully, final--All Candidates' meetings at Okanagan University College, all candidates except incumbent Doug Dirk were present.  One audience-posed question was:  (for each candidate) "Yes OR No...will you remove the Homeowner as Developer designation?"(which triggers the off-site servicing/works bylaw if the building permit amount exceeds $50,000 in supplies and labour in any consecutive five-year period).

Saved the banality of speeches, the audience of ~55 heard:
NO:  from incumbents Mayor Garlick, Councillors Besso, Enns, Kiss, Cochrane
YES:  from new candidates: for Mayor:  Hrabchuk;  for council: Taylor, Hegler, McClean.

Is that the list? 
No, but we're getting there...

Referring to the incumbent mayor's remark from the last meeting:  "We may have to look at certain roads/areas in Coldstream where work is needed". 

And the list is born. 
"Have" areas will, understandably (because they were built recently), start with the subdivisions on Middleton Mountain, some older areas such as Priest Valley and Long Lake Estates, as well as Kalavista and Coldstream Estates.

It's the "Have Not" list that should pique a purchaser's interest.  And interestingly, this list would include what the incumbents would have you believe is their chief priority these days...rural areas, including farmlands.  Whether it's rural Kalamalka Lake Road East, Warren or Buchanan Roads, Hill Drive or Springfield Road, all are decidedly rural, but they share another commonality:  no sidewalks, no curbs, no sewer, no cable TV (and only recently, highspeed internet, no kids-n-pony-n-bike paths (which isn't infrastructure anyway!), no streetlights, no mail or newspaper delivery, etc.

So, Mr. Purchaser from the coast...pay attention.
Think that 5-acre parcel on Hill Drive, complete with quaint cottage that you've been hankerin' to own is fairly priced?  Perhaps.  Imagine that you purchase it with help from the bank.  You and the Missus take your drafted renovation plans to the Municipality to apply for a building permit.  You'll add a three-car garage and enlarge the home's footprint with an additional two bedrooms.  Maybe a pool in a few years.  You soon learn that the building official, accompanied perhaps by a senior bureaucrat, will visit the property to ascertain what off-site works are necessary....on your dime! 

Shell-shocked?  Probably, as off-site works could escalate to $300,000 if you have a large road frontage.  You know you cannot go back to the bank for more money...because you can't get a loan (or insurance for that matter) on something that you don't own (which--to the bank--cannot be repossessed), i.e. road frontage owned by the District. 

Enraged that your realtor didn't warn you?  Your realtor isn't at fault.  Realtor Carla Dahlen advised during the last meeting "I don't know what to say to prospective purchasers of land in Coldstream!" She received no reassurance whatsoever.

Is Mayor Garlick and his entire council so naive as to not see the potential for abuse during the bylaw's enforcement?  What abuse, especially if this bylaw was enacted four years ago and, according to Mayor Garlick "has only been employed once."  Candidate McClean reminds him "no, it's been more than once, twice to my knowledge."  Maybe three times...apparently the raving-mad contractor and his client have  contracted the contagion "loss of clarity".  Their about-face likely means neither are well health-wise.

Warning of the potential for abuse and corruption doesn't mean it exists now, it's merely a warning that it CAN (and probably will) occur.  Human nature being what it is...will we wait for the bylaw official to be on an all-expense paid cruise before the Homeowner as Developer bylaw is relegated to the shredder?  Will postcards to the District from Japan, penned Wish you were here, prompt a hasty rollcall to see which bureaucrat has been absent for two weeks?

But fret not, existing homeowners and property sellers in the Have Not areas of Coldstream.
Why?
You can always appeal your property tax valuation with B.C. Assessment come January.
Because valuations will drop like a stone once the "lists" are published.
Or maybe not published.
Just held in a vault.

We residents know in which Have/Have Not Coldstream area we reside.
Purchasers will, however, be blind-sided if this Mayor and Council have their way.

"Have Not seen a dog biscuit this week," Kia attests, adding "I may move...but first I'll vote on November 19th."

Nulli Secundus

The District of Coldstream's motto--Nulli Secundus--needs to be changed.

Translated from Latin meaning "second to none", it's now become a sad reminder of this Mayor and Council's term.

They just don't seem to get it.

When communities such as adjacent Kelowna and Armstrong state "we don't do that to residences," Coldstream's elected officials are not prepared to let go of this newly-found Golden Goose.  Stating "no, we won't rescind the bylaw (designating residential homeowners as Developers and triggering unpredictable and varied off-site works charges)," incumbent mayor Jim Garlick appeared frustrated during the second All Candidates' Forum at Coldstream School on Tuesday night, presumably because such a hue and cry from building contractors and their association, realtors, and homeowners had resulted.

Ignoring his own councillor's twice-uttered statement "This is a public relations nightmare," (Councillor Cochrane), Mayor Garlick stated that the bylaw was under review...again.  This even after Council and the Mayor in October gave third reading to the $50,000 "trigger point" at which--in any consecutive five-year period--a homeowner's building permit application could, and would, trigger off-site works charges.

"We may have to look at certain roads/areas in Coldstream where work is needed", Mayor Garlick offered as a consideration to the audience of 100+ attendees on Tuesday. 

As though that would provide any predictability!

He's obviously forgotten Carla Dahlen's presentation to council in October, where she indicated she was a Realtor and asked Council "what do I tell prospective buyers of property in Coldstream?...how do you tell someone that the District may require costs/gifts for off-site works?"  Neither her question, nor summation, and indeed not her occupation were recorded in the minutes of the meeting, as she offered "Or do I just tell people not to buy in Coldstream?"

So how was Mrs. Dahlen's presentation recorded?  Judge for yourself whether Carla Dahlen's comments were accurately reflected in the minutes:  "Carla Dahlen (address removed by blog author) expressed her concern that the Subdivision, Development and Serving bylaw was too subjective overall. She also requested that Council consider a threshold greater than $50,000 as proposed in Bylaw 1595" (reprinted from Council Agenda, page 2 of 138 here.) 

Huh?

If those "minutes" reflect the accuracy of Council's recorded meetings, perhaps residents should donate a tape recorder for future meetings.

Back to the All Candidates' Forum:
Incumbents and new candidates were asked--by way of an audience-posed question on a card--whether they would rescind the homeowner as Developer designation (Yes or No).  Some didn't listen to the question, and stated they would NOT rescind the BYLAW (that wasn't the question, folks...the homeowner as a Developer was the question!).  Other candidates squirmed and waffled and offered a speech. 

The incumbents seem to want it all...a sports field at the College, "because our (regional) partners are requesting it," offered Jim Garlick.  Whether or not a sports field is of prime importance during an economic downturn never came up, neither did the necessity of "making do" (as many residents have been forced to accept during these times) with a retrofitted Mechanics Shop--utilizing the old Fire Hall and the existing Shop, neither did the feasibility of incurring further debt with the Shop referendum...and on and on, including the much-touted Town Centre.  It seems the old Fire Hall was rented out in May of 2011 to Friends of the Library (pages 15 and 16 of 294 pages) for the budget-balancing and whopping tune of ~$480 a month.  Sigh.

The incumbents simply aren't doing what we elected them to do, which is to "look after the municipality".

Yes, Nulli Secundus is no longer something to brag about.

Coldstream's new motto?  Primum non nocere.
First, do no harm.

The next All Candidates' meeting, prior to the November 19th election, is slated for:
7 p.m. Monday, November 7th, at Okanagan College, Room D310.

"Do no harm?  I'm not allowed to bite people," reminds Kia.