Besso Proves the ALC Doesn't Need Help

Coldstream Councillor Maria Besso--in an email to the Coldstream Ratepayers' Association (which was formed in opposition to the development of Coldstream Meadows' retirement community by Jack Borden)--made an urgent plea for the group's support during the last day that Comments were allowed for the new Coldstream Agricultural Plan.

Members of Council noticeably bristled when I referred to the group's origins during my comments Monday night.  
And rightly so...because the CRA (not to be confused with the Canada Revenue Agency, although through this Council's recent bylaws, money-grubbing parallels do exist) is alive and well on Coldstream Council, and continues to work behind Coldstream's supposedly open political scene.

Apart from being proof that the Ag Open House may merely have been a required formality to be transparent--and acreage owners' comments were likely to be relegated to the "we knew you'd say that" bin--perhaps Councillor Besso is helping the Occupy Movement maintain a foothold in Coldstream.  Yes, they also bristled at my comment of that.
 

But it is obvious that even after the Open House and evident opposition to the proposed changes in the Agricultural Plan that some members of Council continue to ignore what the farming community is saying.  The statistics are a fair assessment, but Councillor Besso's interpretation and application of these facts goes against what the farming community is saying.  It's not what the farming community has asked for.  Her statement proves there is no need to change the parcel size to a minimum of 25 acres as the Agricultural Land Commission--with very few exceptions--have not allowed any subdivisions within the ALR.

Decide for yourself from these forwarded emails:

"From: Maria Besso [mailto:mariabesso@shaw.ca]
Sent: March-29-12 12:36 AM
To: Coldstreamer
Cc: Doug Dirk; Jim Garlick; Pat Cochrane; Peter McClean; Richard Enns; Mike Stamhuis; Keri-Ann Austin; Michelle Austin; Craig Broderick
Subject: Re: Urgent message to CRA members

Perhaps it would be useful to inform the readers that  the ALR land in Coldstream is already very heavily parcelized.  

57 % of Coldstream's land base is within the ALR. The total land base in Coldstream is 6,429 ha.

According to Map 2.1 of the July 2009 Coldstream Agricultural Plan, there are 824 parcels in Coldstream that are all or partially in the ALR, of those 824 parcels, 640 of them are already less than 4 hectares ( ie 77.6 % of the parcels are NOT sub dividable because they are already under 4ha.) 

* note that under the present RU-2, it would imply that the minimum parcel size you could subdivide to would be 2 hectares, since you could not subdivide anything smaller than 4hectares to arrive at parcels 2 ha or bigger, then all the parcels that are already less than 4 ha are non-subdividable (unless they are excluded from the ALR, or qualify for a homesite severance.) 

The reality of owning property in the ALR ( regardless of the implied zoning under the Official Community Plan OCP)  is that all subdivision must be approved by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) .  In the last 10 years in Coldstream there have been 17 applications for subdivision in the ALR ( apart from ALR exclusions or non-farm use, or Homesite severances ) of these 17 applications to subdivide - all were refused by the ALC.  So wether(sic) you designate your minimum lot size as 2 ha or 10 ha, if your land is in the ALR, the ALC, for all practical purposes, does NOT approve ANY subdivision. 

So designating all the ALR land in Coldstream as RU-10 changes nothing for 77.6% of the parcels. Wether(sic) they are called RU-2 or RU-10,  they remain the same size that they are, and they are clearly not able to be subdivided.  The perceived change comes for the owners of the remaining 184 parcels (22.33% of the parcels), these parcels are over 4ha.  

We have already established that the ALC practice is NOT to approve subdivision in the ALR regardless of the minimum parcel size stipulated in a Community's OCP.

So in changing the zoning to RU-10 in our OCP we are simply bringing the Community zoning in line with the reality of the rules of the ALC, and the desire to maintain land in the ALR in the Province of British Columbia, rather than see it cut up into smaller and smaller chunks.  In Coldstream there are only 32 parcels totally or partially in the ALR that are larger than 20 ha., so theoretically they may still be sub-dividable into minimum 10 ha. parcels but that is unlikely because it would also require ALC approval.  That portion only represents 3.9% of the ALR parcels in Coldstream and the Agricultural Advisory Committee felt that there would not be significantly higher advantage to increase the minimum lot size to 30hectares ( as recommended by the MInistry of Agriculture) because it would be perceived as too harsh. So therefore the 10 ha minimum parcel size is a compromise, but it does not change the reality of ALC policy and historical decisions. 

The sad reality is that Coldstream's ALR has already been subdivided into small chunks, it just may not appear that way because many of those smaller chunks may be farmed together as one larger entity. For example; the Coldstream Ranch is made up of 129 parcels, and 47% of these parcels ( 61) are already subdivided into chunks that are less than 4hectares in size.

We have just witnessed the sale of Jamie Kidston's orchard, it had appeared to everyone as one farm, but it was actually made up of 4parcels ( that were subdivided long ago), three were sold off to separate owners, and they risk becoming Country Estates. Fortunately, for now, the new owners have agreed to keep farming the land as one orchard and pool their resources, hopefully this will set a good example and keep farming viable for those owners. 

Gyula please feel free to post this as I hope it will serve to better explain the reasoning behind the changes to zoning proposed in the new Coldstream Agricultural Plan.

Thanks, 

Maria Besso"

and...

"From: Roxanne Ronan

Date: 28/03/2012 3:49:34 PM

To: coldstreamer

Subject: Re: Urgent message to CRA members

This is a misrepresentation.  This OCP makes it harder for the smaller farmer to find ALR to farm.  It does not protect farm land – just the opposite.  It just provides the wealthy a chance for estate homes.  Please try to present a more unbiased way of soliciting support.  The 99% will thank you."

and...

"From: coldstreamer

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:47 PM

To: coldstreamer

Subject: Urgent message to CRA members

Hi Urgent Message To the CRA membership: If you are in support of Coldstream Council's Zoning Bylaw Amendment (to preserve ALR land) which specifies that future subdivision of ALR land be limited to a minimum parcel size of 10 hectares, please go to Municipal Hall and fill out the appropriate form, or go to Coldstream's Website: http://www.districtofcoldstream.ca/notices/comment_sheet.php And fill out the form online and email it back to Council.  The deadline for doing this is today (Mar. 28). Since this is such short notice, please respond at least by supporting the item entitled New Rural 10 (RU.10) Zone – lot area 2ha to 10ha, as it sends the message that you support this council in its endeavours to honour the OCP and protect and preserve our agricultural lands. Thank you for your support. Steve Heeren, Acting President, Coldstream Ratepayers Association" (Steve Heeren was the moderator at the All Candidates' Meetings during November's civic elections in Coldstream). Honouring the OCP?  You mean the Official Community Plan that this Mayor and Council have changed to support the Agricultural parcel changes?  Yup, that one. "The World According To Besso," offers Kia. Or at least, Coldstream According to Besso.

Math vs. District of Coldstream

Michael Tindall's excellent letter to the editor, published today in the Morning Star.


"So, there's a deficit in Coldstream of $284,000 due to decreased revenues and increased expenses.
The district is floating a 6.59 per cent tax hike to remedy the situation.


But wait a minute, light industrial development on the old glass plant site would increase tax revenues nicely yet the district leaves it empty.


As for expenses, let's remember the district 'oversight' regarding HST on the grid road ($151,310 deficit), the 'shortfall' regarding Park Lane paving ($39,096 deficit), the 'unexpected challenges' on Kidston Road ($37,739 deficit), the 'additional asphalt shortfall' on Kalamalka Road ($14,173), and the 'unexpected flagging charges' for the Kalamalka Road beach ramp ($10,316).


Add them up and these oversights account for $252,634,  or  89 per cent of the projected deficit.


A thinking person might deduce that Coldstream taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill not so much for increased costs or reduced revenues.


Hopefully other Coldstream residents do the math and make their views known to Council.
Michael Tindall".


Michael's letter is timely indeed, considering Monday night's Council meeting had in attendance the BDO Auditor, who affirmed the district's Financial Statement for the year ended December 31, 2011.  

"In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the District of Coldstream as at December 31, 2011 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards,"  states BDO.

Good though, that BDO's post-audit letter includes the phrase "...but not for the purposes of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control."

Phew...that let's BDO off the hook.
So that leaves only the District of Coldstream playing the smoke-n-mirrors game.


"I like games," offers Kia.

Coldstream's residents are certainly getting used to games from this Mayor and Council.

But Math always wins...it's just a matter of time.

Ken Dahlen's presentation to Coldstream Council March 26/12

Ken Dahlen's comments:

"Topic:  Coldstream Subdivision and Development Bylaw

 

As you are all aware I have attended several council meetings in regards to this bylaw: To date I have not heard any public support to this change you are about to vote on tonight.

I would like to be clear once again on my concerns:

1. Standard building permits were never to have the subdivision and development bylaw applied to them.

2. The approving officer does not have the right to ask or demand road upgrades, gifting, drainage upgrades as a condition of a standard building permit that meets all regulations.

3. You now say you can change the bylaws on our land we own without our consent! You also say you can charge what ever you want for these new regulations again without our consent.

4. Please let me ask this question: If I wanted to change the rules on my bylaws that apply to my property how would this work? I know I would have to make an application to The District of Coldstream, then post a sign on my property and inform all affected property owners in my area. But you don't have to do this? This is not right. So do we have two sets or rules? This is not fair!

5. You have now identified 15 different roads that will now be subject to a drainage charge when a building permit is applied too. So how do people know or do they just find out when they come for a building permit? Should they not be now called (R-1a) because they are special?

6. I find this very offensive that you feel you can change the rules on land we own without our consent! This is not the Canada I know and love.

7. So in the end lets just take the pig out of the dress and call it what it really is! You need money and you need new tax revenue. This should not be placed on the backs of 15 roads in our community. This is a community issue and should be identified on a OCP and budgeted for appropriately. Possibly we can only do 5 road repairs a year but let's have a plan and do this right. This way it is open, transparent and honest! The roads, drainage, curbs and gutters are to be maintained by the District's annual budgets on a on-going basis.

8. I am not sure you are aware that in Friday's paper Vernon has now dropped from 20th in Canada to 175th and major issues identified are affordable housing, lack of jobs, and low household incomes. I am only one company and I have informed you in the past I have lost well over a million dollars of work that has been frustrated at the Building permit stage by excessive demands! I am only one company and the loss of these jobs would employ several people and increase our tax base

9. I would ask this council to be aware they need to help the community and support it, versus  making new bylaws or laws that get in the way. The only Answer I have to date is for some reason you have a plan to run us over a cliff.

10. In closing I want to be clear that you have said to the tax payers the following:

You can change bylaws without our approval

You can charge what you want for the new drainage fee and change the price at any time without the taxpayer's approval.

I also assume you can add to this list and change this from drainage to bike paths, or curb and gutter again without our approval.

So in the end you own the land and we don't!

Sorry to say we own the land and we are Coldstream, you were voted in, but not to take our rights away and treat us like mushrooms.

Last meeting in Lavinton you only had time to listen to 5 or 6 people, and you cut off anyone else that wanted to express concern on this bylaw. If you are not going to allow more people to speak please look at the crowd and understand clearly we do not want any new bylaw that will add cost to a standard building permit! 

No to the Bylaw."

"...and Council voted YES to the Bylaw," offers Kia.

Yes.

Unanimous.

 

Coldstream's Mayor and Council Should Be Ashamed

Printing here what I wasn't allowed to continue saying at the Council meeting tonight:

"I wish to say how disappointed I am with this Mayor and most of Council, and how you're handling things in Coldstream.

Residents are routinely over-governed, perhaps for no other reason than to hide the fact they're being under-served.

As to which item on the Agenda I'm speaking to, it could be said all of it.

With few exceptions, you are proving that you are your own little special interest group, having begun as opposition to Coldstream Meadows years ago.

To state that the "wealthy must give back" (and yes, that was said, and no, I'm not wealthy), is the Occupy Movement alive and well and entrenched in Coldstream's own government.   It's your job to serve everyone, yet you serve only the minority that helps further your own agenda, which is narrow-minded at best.

You've bought into NIMBYism with RU 10 and RU 30, and locked the gate to Coldstream.

We have six months of winter, yet you appear to believe our Valley will one day feed the world.

Maybe you're hoping for rice paddies to start up.

Under the guise of "supporting agriculture", it took you two meetings to figure out that one farm sign might not be enough for hard-to-find farm gates.

So now there's a bylaw allowing three farm signs.

Do you people even live in the real world? 

You're the masters of paperwork, with myriad ridiculous bylaws that prove you've spent too much money and you're broke.

Bylaw 1535 the Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw is proof of that, sending renovations underground or to a complete standstill.

Now you're wondering where to get the funds to annually maintain the new park's wetlands walkway.

Wait until Selkirk residents find out they cannot take their kids and dogs to the new park but they have to contribute via taxes to its maintenance.

Yet another example of a bylaw that isn't worth the paper it's written on is the Noise Bylaw, which rears its ugly head tonight.

Despite having one -- and formerly two -- lawyers on Council, didn't any of you even get an inkling how utterly subjective your noise bylaw is?

And subjective means unquantifiable, with loose terms such as "tends to disturb".

Your noise bylaw is not legal without decibel parameters that can be read by a decibel reader, which you also don't have.

And Imagine including "movement" in a noise bylaw!

So if you get a complaint that a resident was startled by, say, the movement caused by a field trip of students past his windows, the Bylaw officer is going to be sent out to investigate that?  Maybe levy a fine?  Ridiculous!  Yet that's what subjective bylaws create.   Nonsense.

I'm all for the Lavington festival in August.

But you've stated that they are to have amplifiers facing East, so that music travels AWAY from residents' homes.

This...with a physics teacher as mayor!  Does anybody on Council even understand Physics?  Apparently not."

At this point, Councillor Kiss stated "that's the 2 minutes," and Acting Mayor Maria Besso agreed.

 I asked why--at the meeting two weeks ago--we were told it was "Council's meeting", and not ours, and we couldn't speak further.  So we're not allowed to speak tonight either.  Doubt the newpaper will print this--they tend to shy away from the really controversial stuff--but here's the rest of it that Council, and standing room only crowd didn't hear. So here`s the rest of it:

``And your FS states the District is now starting a Drainage reserve...how on earth did the community previously ever run without you?  Well, it did run, and it ran well, all without the senior government draft bylaws that originate at annual UBCM meetings.  The biggest drainage failure is your own pet project, the new multi-use path, engineered by highly-paid consultants, and approved by your own engineer.    It failed!  And despite what Councillor Besso was quoted as saying, the event was NOT TWO IN 100year rainfall events.  That's still ahead.  For this council to state that the multi-use path is the panacea to greenhouse gases and diabetes is abject nonsense, as I doubt a sixty year old will return from shopping 7 kms away, holding a shopping bag under each handlebar.    

It dead-ends at a park, where tourists could be expected to spend money, yet this Council wouldn't allow so much as a popcorn stand there.  Like the fellow you turned down who wanted to set up a stand to sell sunglasses at the beach.

This Council wants Coldstream to be the "poster child" -- to use the Mayor's own phrase -- at annual UBCM meetings in Vancouver.

Coldstream must be the laughing stock of those meetings, as those senior bureaucrats KNOW Coldstream's tax base isn't diverse enough to support this council's plans.  And grants won't do it all, as Council has discovered.  But you'll just raise taxes, 6% this year, and who knows how much next year?  This when communities all around you are really trying to hold the line on their increases.  It's downright shameful.

Your Town Centre plans are ridiculous at best, and nobody will fund it, certainly not taxpayers.

Nor will retailers, knowing that demographics determine the viability of business locations.  Yet this Council is completely unfazed by the fact that Polson Shops remain half empty now one year later.   

Your Firearms bylaw (in its yellow zone) allows the discharge of firearms east and west of a bona fide C-5 commercial recreation facility, where customers are, naturally, outside.   Sigh.

Although there's a slight improvement, this Council's ADOPTED minutes gloss over and sanitize comments from delegations, presumably so that the historical record will show there was little or no dissention.

But you'll just blame the recording secretary for missing some things, yet it was Council who adopted the minutes, each of you knowing full well what was really said.

This Council completely ignores worthwhile projects.  You could work on a plan to protect the area's drinking water supply from contamination in the hills above Coldstream Valley, and the Ministry of Environment could help you achieve that.  Yet neither this Council nor the MoE are recommending that the water authority should own--or at the very least--be the primary stakeholder on that land.  But this Council probably doesn't even know that Capilano's drainage (Vancouver's water supply area--is owned by Vancouver, and fenced).   You're entirely silent on the subject.

While I have little accounting training, your Financial Statement has a category for "Cash Received From" called "Other" to the tune of $1.7 million in 2011, versus 2010's $2.2 million.   "Other" is kind of like "miscellaneous", a pretty big category, and yet you state you're being transparent.  Sounds like an auditor general is definitely needed for this council's creative accounting.  Presumably, Coldstream is allowed to borrow up to $90 million, to use Councillor Kiss' quote, but if Council did get that much farther in debt than you already are, residents would ride this council out of town on a rail. 

Your own employees know how disgracefully you've dealt with residents...they know what has been said during closed door meetings with certain residents. 

This Council has unfunded defined benefit pensions for its staff, who's going to pay for that?  And when?

You refuse to even consider that soil remediation at the old Mechanics' shop, adjacent to a creek, will create the need for a fund.  Or is that the $358,000 earmarked for "site improvements" there? 

This Council will simply dig deeper into our pockets when soil remediation is necessary. 

You're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and yet no bells appear to ring in the collective Council head.

Council is wearing out the word "sustainable", yet your spending habits are anything but.

And because of this Mayor's and Council's lack of ability to govern effectively and serve the ENTIRE population, nulli secondus "second to none", should be changed to Primum non nocere.  First, do no harm.

You need to be reminded that despite your obvious aversion to capitalism, the District of Coldstream is a business entity itself.  It's time this Mayor and Council acted more responsibly than what's been seen so far in this term as well as the previous.

Otherwise you're merely proving that common sense isn't that common any more.``

"They wouldn't let you finish speaking?" gasps Kia "they're in big trouble."

 And if this Council only knew how many in the audience agree with the above, they wouldn`t have been so arrogant, but that`s nothing new for this bunch.

Kiss Drops Water Bombshell

Last night's Committee-of-the-Whole meeting at Coldstream municipal hall started innocuously enough, but ended with a bang.

First, the stuff that was on the agenda:

Wetland Walkway Project
Trina Koch of Society for the Protection of Kalamalka Lake (SPrKL)--who last year received an award for her group's work on Coldstream Creek--explained the two phases of wetland protection for the District's newest (almost owned) Park west of the Regional District building between Selkirk Drive and Highway 6.

Trintec's (adjacent mall) development permit stipulated an environmental impact assessment of the wetland and, as Trina advised, a (one) Great Basin Spadefoot toad was present (not clear whether he was seen, or merely heard), triggering a requirement for wetland compensation by the Trintec developer. 

Phase I sees $6,425 in funding from TD Friends of the Environment, and provides planning, Ministry of Environment permits and volunteer work for weeding of Canadian Thistle and Common Burdoch (arriving on disturbed groundwork that resulted from RDNO's two renovations). 

It's Phase II's cost for stringers and walkway for the raised boardwalk--whose $65,000 cost, admits Trina, is double her planned $30,000. that had Council looking back and forth at one another, finally admitting "there's no budget".  Undaunted, Trina stated she had applied for a Gaming Grant last month for which no reply had yet been received, adding that other potential funding sources were Ducks Unlimited, EcoAction, Habitat Conservation, SPrKL ($2,000), and "maybe we can ask Tolko for help with the cedar railings and stringers..." (pilings are metal, and will last longer than wood in the wetland).  Coldstream is requested to "provide an engineered walkway drawing for builders and commit to walkway maintenance".
There's still no budget.

Councillor Besso said she had received requests from Selkirk Drive residents for picnic tables to be added to the area for family use.  Trina replied that while the wetland's signage and boardwalk features promote wetland education, a fence would then need to be installed as family activities (kids, dogs) would impact the pond's sandy beach perimeters.

Poor spadefoot toad...if the lone resident isn't impaled by the pounding of metal pilings, he'll surely pack up and head off for the culvert under Highway 6 for protection from Selkirk's kids and dogs.  The Ministry of Environment's efforts would be better utilized preventing recurring contamination of the area's drinking water around the Duteau Creek reservoir.  Must be too big a job for the MoE, because they're noticeably absent at the Duteau watershed.

Public Information Session on Ag Amendments to Zoning Bylaw  
Council--including three members of the public--were interested in comments that arose from Wednesday's open house on RU10 and RU30 zoning, forced on acreage owners valley-wide by Council.  Craig Broderick offered it was well attended, with approximately 75 to 100 people showing up throughout the two-hour session.

In the understatement of the new Century, Craig indicated there were concerns about lot sizes changed from existing to RU10 and RU30, homeplate footprint, and how existing properties could add on to their house for pools, garages, etc. without existing properties becoming non-conforming, and rebuilding concerns following a fire, for example, and some written comments had arrived concerning other aspects, including farm workers' housing.  "There were good comments, mostly concerning lot sizes and farm plate,"  he offered, adding  "March 28th is the deadline for comments, with 10-12 received Wednesday and six or seven emails since."

Councillor Dirk suggested compiling FAQs (frequently asked questions), so that all questions can be answered, posting on the District's website.  "Examples are what people want," he offered.  Craig stated that a report could be added to the website, but that people generally are making comments versus asking for examples to be provided.  Discussion continued, with Councillor Besso adding:  "They need to know their 8 ha parcel will stay as an 8 ha parcel."  She stated that 77.7% of the parcels in Coldstream in the ALR already are (emphasis Besso's) under 4 ha in size.

So the balance of acreages in Coldstream presumably will be punished.

Leading up to the end-of-meeting bombshell by Councillor Kiss, Mayor Garlick stated some concerns were regarding farm water allocations.  "Yes, you will always have an allocation," he affirmed, but added that all allocations were under question in the future.   Councillor McClean stated "People bought 5 gallons per minute per acre; now we are telling them that's probably only for farms, but they didn't buy it for farm use; more information should be provided." 

Councillor Kiss began (tough to hear him though)..."(there is) recommended meeting agenda (Greater Vernon Advisory Committee) on water rates co-mingling...you will never figure out how much because everyone is going to get treated water...there is going to be continued friction with domestic and ag users...it will upset...until we are totally separated."

Councillor Enns asked if anyone--any delegations--were speaking at the GVAC meeting on Thursday?
Discussion continued around not knowing the financial aspects or what type of plan they are putting forward.  Councillor Kiss affirmed that there is not enough money to create full separation between domestic and farm use, adding:  "Total separation is $50 million or more, in addition to annual costs of about $4 to $5 million at Duteau." 

"Are we going to put extra water into Kal Lake?" Kiss continued: "We have licences available, Coldstream Creek...King...we just have to transfer it.  There has to be some kind of intelligent ... on it.  I am writing an observation on it and I am making my comments on Thursday...they are protecting the plant...$29 million...it will be another $50 million just to bring it up to standards...it would be good to discuss it."  (Ed...the continuing curse of no microphones).

After the $50 million water bombshell, the Log House Vision discussion was anti-climactic, and "a community's gathering place," as Councillor Besso called it, not worthy of mention.  Since acreages -- and acreage owners -- aren't important any more.

"A bombshell?  We should call National Defense," offers Kia.  

National?  They're only good at collecting taxes, not offering help to acreage owners.