DoC Control Freaks

No lack of fodder from Coldstream's Mayor and Council.

Seems it's the Coldstream Ranch's turn...again.

This from the Agenda for the November 13, 2012 council meeting:

"THAT staff be directed to send a letter to Coldstream Ranch, advising that

parking of transport trucks on the property at the southeast corner of the

Kalamalka Road and Highway 6 intersection, legally described as Lot A,

Plan 29697, is not a permitted use in the Rural Two (RU.2) Zone and that the

appropriate process to legitimize such use is through the Ranch making

application for a temporary use permit."

"...is not a permitted use in the Rural Two Zone"?

Huh?

Let's do a little quiz here...

How does Coldstream's Mayor and Council think the Coldstream Ranch has moved their cattle to market in the past?

The past being referred to is the time before the list of permitted uses in Rural Two.
Indeed, the past refers to the time before zoning designations.


These control freaks, formally known as the District of Coldstream's elected officials, have forgotten the Coldstream Ranch also predates the District!

"The Ranch should revert to moving their cattle west along the meandering cattle-trail called Highway 6," suggests Kia.

A temporary use permit!
How moronic!
 
Anything to keep paperwork moving back and forth on bureaucrats' desks, eh?

Coldstream Council's Fear: Snow!

Their 13-day fear anyway.

One key to diagnosing a phobic disorder is that the fear must be excessive and disproportionate to the situation, according to ThePhobiaList. 

In the case of Coldstream, it certainly is disproportionate to the situation.
Because Council doesn't admit what the situation actually is.

To those of us who know how this local government manipulates information--or has the newspaper do it for them--this Mayor and Council's fear of snow, as reported in The Morning Star, Oct. 28/12, entitled "Coldstream considers cutting staff overtime costs" is a smokescreen that belies the fact their finances are going in the wrong direction.

Seems that Coldstream's district office will be closed 13 days beginning December 22nd, and Mayor and Council are scrambling because of maintenance wages.  

Snow in the Okanagan?
Bet on it.
On average, our area--in a winter period spanning 40.8 days--can expect 40.5 inches (102.9 cm) of snow.

So, in THE understatement of her term "...if there's a snowstorm we'd have to pay overtime," said Councillor Besso, pretending that this Council is the first to consider such an earth-shattering topic in the community's history.

It's not that Councillor Besso can't think ahead (proof is her willingness to preserve farm parcels--suitable only for forage--for the future, and also this Council's penchant for planning drainage improvements in anticipation of the 100-year storm). 
It's because this Mayor and Council, time and time again, possess an inherent inability to think like business. 

So what would a business owner do?
Apart from wondering whether he should be closed for 13 days, and realizing that he's in big trouble if he is juggling to make wages...(the District of Coldstream is 3+ million in debt for a population of only 10,000), he'd start here:

• A business would recognize the importance of their maintenance department (and not leave day-to-day operational decisions to those holders of "broad powers" holders, who know the least).

• A business would look at previous years' labour costs.

• A business would delegate and have the Maintenance Supervisor provide two holiday plans--a best and worst case scenario:  one for wages based on average snowfall years, and one for wages based on high snowfall, complete with the requisite maintenance supervision that includes a chargehand. 

Come to think of it, would a business close for 13 days?

Coldstream Council's snow-itis is indeed excessive and disproportionate.  Unless they're having trouble making wages...or wondering how to fund their employees' defined benefit pension plan...or...

"Fear makes the wolf sound more important than he is," offers Kia.

Bylaw-ed to Death...

The District of Coldstream says they do it.
They say they act on complaints.
...from neighbours.

But first, a sentiment that sprang to mind when I read the article:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Winston Churchill

Seems the City of Vernon acts on complaints from neighbours too, according to this Letter to the Editor in the October 24th, 2012 issue of the Morning Star:  

 "My husband and I live in a two-level home built in 2010 with a suite in the basement built solely for the purpose of housing my elderly parents.

As a former nurse, I am able to provide support for my father and mother so they can continue to live together in a safe environment.

Not too long ago, someone in the neighbourhood reported that we had an illegal suite and the nightmare began.  True, my basement has a stove.  My father is a very good cook and provides all meals for them both.  Apparently, this was the main concern of the bylaw officer.

Bylaw 1520 may also be cited as the 9-page Rental Unit Standard of Maintenance Bylaw.

First of note is that this bylaw is referring to rental units, ours is not a rental unit.  What it becomes should we sell the house in a few years is of no consequence to us and we should not have to pay to have a rental unit just because one day it might be a rental unit.  Also for interest sake, did you know that bylaw officers have no concern about your rental suite unless someone complains about it?

"it has cost us $200 for an application for a permit for a secondary suite, $90 for the initial inspection, $100 for a building permit and $60 a year for a business license."

Now, from my understanding, all of the renovations we need to make are simply because my mother and father's home has a stove in it.  We are asked to put in two solid, steel fire doors (that makes three doors within three feet of each other) at a cost of $1,400, dampers in all of the vents upstairs and fireboard the furnace room walls (the ceiling of the entire suite has fireboard on it already).

The total cost has not yet been established but it has cost us $200 for an application for a permit for a secondary suite, $90 for the initial inspection, $100 for a building permit and $60 a year for a business license.

I was able to convince city staff we are not a business.  We make no profit off this suite and therefore we are not running a business but are simply providing a place for my parents to live.  They agreed we did not need to pay the business license.

Bylaw 1520 addresses water and sanitation, heat, light, egress, security and mandatory provision of services and utilities.  Nowhere does it address the issue of having a stove in the suite.

Nowhere does it provide direction on how the suite is to be secured because of a stove.  Nowhere does it say that if there is a stove, there needs to be fire doors, dampers, fireboarding or even smoke detectors.

Page eight of the bylaw addresses the notice to comply standards and once again it is referring to a rental premise.

So why is the city making it so difficult to keep relatives, especially elderly family members in our own homes?  All of the requirements made to us by the bylaw officer were based on the fact that there is a stove in my parent's suite.  Where does it say in this bylaw that we need to make all of these costly changes because of a stove?

To add insult to injury, they now say we need to pay separate water, sewer and garbage for the suite.

I guess that means we pay the base rate twice.  Not sure on that one.

I hope this will help someone else navigate the muddy waters of bylaw 5120 of the City of Vernon.

Be prepared.  Someone wants your money and don't make your neighbours upset because they obviously have more power than you do.

No grace for those who are trying to do the right thing and keep their relatives safe and comfortable. 

Debbie Sparrow"

Many know exactly how you feel, Debbie, getting caught up in the bureaucratic maze that seeks firstly to empty your wallet and, secondly, for your remaining cash to provide economic stimulus to the community (buying new doors, vent baffles and fireboard, etc. etc.)

And the impact of a neighbour's complaint doesn't go away anytime soon.

The City of Vernon's bylaws page (not so easy to find, by the way...it was under "Residential Services" heading).  

"They're creating an East German 'snitch-society'," offers Kia, adding, "and look at how that worked out for them."

Good point, Kia. 

 

Water Consultants admit to lack of resources...water woes diary continues

Huh?

Lack of resources?
Staff?  Data?
Yup to both.

A full 10 years (in my case) after installation of three water meters (irrigation, clubhouse, and residence), neither elected officials, nor bureaucrats, nor water consultants have any idea how much water is used by domestic customers on the Duteau Creek Water System.

"What information did we use to design our treatment plant at Duteau Creek?  Simple.      It was a guess."  Councillor Kiss

By extension, they then also don't know how much water is used by commercial, farm, industrial/light industry/institutional.

Nor how much revenue was received from quarterly water billings.

This can't be true!

Proof is in the following correspondence, available on the District of Coldstream website, as a late agenda item to the October 9th, 2012 Committee-of-the-Whole meeting:

"October 5, 2012 memo from Councillor Kiss to Mayor Garlick and Council:
Hi Jim, ...here is a request I sent to David Sewell, copy to Trafford (Hall at RDNO), with the response.
It is beyond me how we can plan if these basic questions can't be answered.  What information did we use to design our treatment plant at Duteau Creek?  Simple.  it was a guess.  In order to design the treatment plant, one should have known what domestic water demand would be placed upon the Duteau source.  Putting in a treatment plant that would supply 2,000-3,000ML a year could have cost a fraction of the $29 million even with a small caliber parallel line to supply domestic users.  Who knows?  There is no evidence that a thorough analysis was carried out to determine the most cost effective plant.
I am perplexed about the reports the consultants are working on.
Tech Memo #2:  evaluation of water supply sources
Tech Memo #3: source storage and supply
Tech Memo #6:  water conservation strategies
... but should not we have had these reports before we built our treatment plant at Duteau?  ... Don't we have the information from the previous water plans?  

MWP (Master Water Plan 2002) produced 14 Technical Memoranda, as follows:
Technical Working Paper No. 1:  Inventory of Existing Systems and Water Demands
TWP No. 2:  Review of Financial Considerations and Strategies
TWP No. 3:  Community Development and Land Use
TWP No. 4: Water Conservation and Reuse
TWP No. 5:  Projection of Water Demands
TWP No. 6:  Water Quality Goals
TWP No. 7:  Evaluaton of Water Supply Sources
TWP No. 8:  Evaluation of Water Treatment Needs and Alternatives
TWP No. 9:  Development of a Separated Water System Concept
TWP No. 10:  Domestic Water System Development
TWP No. 11:  Irrigation System Development
TWP No. 12:  Options for Long Term Water System Development
TWP No. 13:  Implementation
TWP No. 14:  Water Rate Strategy

All we needed was an update of the above information...We need to have a thorough discussion on the water issue to mitigate the financial pressure placed on our taxpayers.  Gyula Kiss"

Councillor Kiss' memo to the Mayor and Council was prompted by this reply from the water consultant:

"October 4, 2012 email from David Sewell to Councillor Kiss, copy to Trafford Hall:
Gyula, As you know, the billing information for the customers of GVWU resides within each of the respective jurisdictions.  As these information systems are not integrated and use different platforms, a calculation of billing volumes and revenue summarized by water source would be an extremely time consuming and challenging process that at the present time we do not have the resources to accurately undertake.  The accuracy is further comprised(sic) by the degree of inter connection being built into the system. 
In discussions with the Administrator, it was suggested that if you would like to see this information gathering project advanced, please bring it forward through either GVAC or as part of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Master Water Plan process for discussion and prioritization relative to other resource draws.   Thanks.  David."

That was received after Councillor Kiss sent the consultant this question:

"October 3, 2012 email from Councillor Kiss to David Sewell, copy to Trafford Hall:
Hi David, I need some information regarding water revenue and volumes billed so I can contribute to the upcoming (District of Coldstream) budget preparations.   
I want to know what was the total domestic volume billed from the Duteau source and what was the revenue  as well as the same info relating to the Mission Hill treatment plant.  Domestic water includes industrial/commercial/institutional as well as home use.  I would appreciate receiving such info as this would help evaluating the cost effectiveness of each plant.  Thank you in advance.  Gyula".

Repeating Councillor Kiss' question is appropriate:

"...how we can plan if these basic questions can't be answered. " Councillor Kiss

Something else jumps out at this point, and that is Councillor Kiss' statement:  

 "Domestic water includes

 industrial/commercial/institutional as well as home use. "

 
 
Huh? 

So "domestic" includes EVERYTHING BUT FARM USE, including Okanagan Spring Brewery, Vernon Jubilee Hospital, car washes, golf courses, nurseries, water slide, restaurants, gyms, and...oh...residences.

Strange!
All those classifications.
All broad-brushed as "Domestic".

As a taxpayer, I need to know what my taxes and water fees are used for.  Yes, the Federal Government contributed $12 million of the $29 million cost of the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant...but the Federal grant is taxpayer money too!

"You forgot the consultant's fee too," quips Kia.

Coldstream Council DOES Listen

They asked for public input concerning the proposed RU10/RU30 re-zoning of acreages.

And they received it...chiefly from the hastily-formed Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association, once it became clear to landowners that Mayor Garlick and his council were seeking to re-write the rules governing acreages in Coldstream.

But would Council back off the plan to rezone people's lands?

                "...taking two steps forward

                     and one step back."

Jennifer Smith's Morning Star story on October 5th, 2012, explains:  "After being met with considerable opposition, Coldstream has scrapped its original efforts to retain larger parcels of agricultural land.

The district had initially proposed to create a 10-hectare (24.7 acre) minimum  for future subdivisions of Agricultural Land Reserve property.

Among others, members of the Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association spoke out against the proposed limitations.  With the current land prices and economic situation, the association points out that many farmers cannot afford to purchase, or manage, large parcels of land.  Therefore smaller parcels are sought and also provide opportunities for aging farmers to cut down their workload while giving interested future farmers the chance to grow their own.  

In light of the concerns over proposed limitations, Coldstream is going back to the drawing board on its agricultural plan.

Instead of rezoning lands, Coldstream is renewing dialogue about the appropriate size for agricultural lands -- as part of an upcoming review of Coldstream's almost 20-year old Official Community Plan.  

The recommendation is for each non-farm use, subdivision or exclusion application to be considered on its own merits and based on a number of factors such as soil capability, land use, topography, utilities and roads, etc.

But not everyone is eager to rework the plan.

'This is like taking two steps forward and one step back,' said Coun. Maria Besso.  'But maybe it's a necessary step back.'

Besso sticks by Coldstream's efforts to retain large parcels of agricultural land, as she points out that there aren't many.

'93.2 per cent of the parcels within Coldstream are already less than 10 hectares.  That's a point that wasn't made clearly enough.'

Coldstream's new director of development services, Mike Reiley, adds:  'It is a bit of a dance but I understand it was a bit of a contentious issue here in the community.'

Coldstream will begin to initiate dialogue with residents and property owners in December and throughout 2013 as part of its OCP review."


Oh yes, Ms. Besso, the point was made clearly enough.
It's the point of the Coldstream Acreage Owners that isn't getting through to our elected officials, and that point is:
DO NOT REZONE OUR LANDS...  

Ignore our point at your peril, Mayor and Council!

And now we landowners get to deal with this Mayor and Council all of next year as they manipulate acreage rezoning into the Official Community Plan. 

"Two steps forward and one back, indeed," sighs Kia, adding "they've been tripping over their feet with the legality of this from the get-go."

UBCM reputation

Their reputation isn't great.

Seems more and more people are noticing that.

         "Many UBCM issues are

          just for media attention"

Political observer, Norm Ruff, explains not all of this year's 200+ resolutions will actually be considered, says a story by Jesse Johnston.

"Ruff says the convention is often more about gaining public support for an idea than swaying the BC government to take action," notes Jesse.

So we'll take a look at the IDEAS that are being presented by North Okanagan elected officials in Victoria this week....in between lavish dinners and taxpayer-funded hotel accommodation.

Resolutions submitted by our area:

Regional District of North Okanagan, 4 resolutions: 

• B12 SUPPORT FOR PROVINCIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROGRAMS; 

• B53 REQUIREMENTS TO EXEMPT NECESSARY WATER WORKS PROJECTS FROM ELECTOR APPROVAL;

• B63 PROVINCIAL FUNDING FOR CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE; 

• B150 TAX BENEFITS FOR VOLUNTEERS.

Vernon, 5 resolutions: 

• B31 USE OF RECLAIMED WATER; 
• B124 WILDLIFE TRAPPING;
• B129 SCHOOL PROPERTY TAX REBATE FOR CLASS 6 BUSINESSES;
• B138 BUSINESS CLASS EXEMPTION;
• B145 BUILDING REGULATIONS - NON-POTABLE WATER.

Spallumcheen, 1 resolution:

• B102 COMMUNITY WATER SERVICING.

Lumby...to their credit, they sent neither representatives, nor a resolution to the UBCM!

 

Coldstream, 1 resolution:

• B35 BUY BC.

The full UBCM document (183 pages) of 200+ resolutions, by number, is available here:

So let's have a look at what Coldstream's Mayor and Council have decided to send to delegates for their consideration:

     "B35 BUY BC Coldstream

WHEREAS the former BUY BC program has been the most successful food and beverage advertising

program every jointly undertaken by the provincial government and private industry;

AND WHEREAS the current economic climate has created challenges for our agricultural sector:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the provincial government of BC reinstate and fund the BUY BC

program for agricultural products.

ENDORSED BY THE SOUTHERN INTERIOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION

UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Endorse

UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE COMMENTS:

The Resolutions Committee notes that the UBCM membership has consistently supported the promotion of local BC agricultural products (i.e. tree fruits) as well as the promotion of BC products, generally (2007-B175, 2002-B98, 2010-B100). In 2011, members endorsed resolution B56, which called upon the Province to honour its commitments from the BC Agriculture Plan, “Growing a Healthy Future for BC Families”, to invest $2 million annually in an industry-led marketing program that would increase public awareness and branding of BC grown and processed food; and increase support for agricultural extension services by $500,000 annually. In response to the 2011 resolution the provincial government stated (in part):

“The Ministry of Agriculture (Ministry) recognizes the benefits of increased promotion and marketing of local production, both to producers and the public. The BC Agriculture Council (BCAC) and the Ministry have extended the current Buy BC licensing agreement to 2015. In addition, the trademarks associated with this program have also been re-registered for another 15 years. The Buy BC licensing program forms the foundation of the branding program and clearly demonstrates government’s commitment to this initiative. Ministry staff are currently reviewing options to re-instate this program.”

The Province has highlighted promoting BC products abroad as one of the elements of its recently released BC Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth as part of BC’s Job Action Plan. (March 2012)

Conference decision: __________________________________________"

Yawn!

Why "yawn"?

Because right here at home...not 400 km away from the UBCM meetings, someone is actually DOING something.  The Armstrong Food Initiative Society is hosting a Food and Farm Celebration Tour this Saturday.

Not lobbying bureaucrats and officials on the Coast!

They're promoting local farms!

"This is a chance for residents and visitors to see where our local food comes from," states AFIS rep Lisa Scott.

Today's Morning Star reports: "Among the farms slated to take part in the tour are the Armstrong Community Garden, Village Cheese, Chocoliro Finest Chocolates, Armstrong Farmers' Market, Maw's Orchards, The Tree Farm, Pilgrim's Produce, Roger's Foods and the Pumpkin Patch.  Also included will be stops at Hullcar Hall for an old-fashioned breakfast, followed by the North Okanagan Ploughing Match.

Each stop is free and tours are self-guided.  In addition to the Food and Farm Celebration Series, AFIS hosts two community gardens in Armstrong, facilitates its Food Exchange Program and Gleaning Program and offers an almost-monthly Speakers Series."

Now that's being effective at promoting farming, not asking for a marketing program to be resurrected, as Coldstream's elected officials are doing!

Congratulations, AFIS, on your efforts to promote farming!

Back to the UBCM Resolutions:

Other resolutions that may be of interest to local residents are:

• A2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN MUNICIPAL TAXATION
• B8 EXPERT PANEL REVIEW OF BUSINESS TAXATION
• B11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS
• B12 SUPPORT FOR PROVINCIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROGRAMS
• B13 INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING CRITERIA
• B14 FLOOD PROTECTION INFRASTRUCTURE

So these are the resolutions our elected officials are contemplating during the annual UBCM, as well as ministerial meetings.

"They're spending our money schmoozing on the Coast," sniffs Kia.

Coldstream's Mayor and Council are good at that.
 

Thanks, Brent, for the Good News

It was wonderful to see Brent Pederson again the other day.
Really wonderful!

Brent and his wife (and his mother-in-law) came to play golf.

So what's so special about that?
Everything!

Brent said to me after their golf round:  "You know, your neighbour Todd Schwartz, was in my barber shop the other day and I asked him 'how are 'things' going with the golf course next door'?"

I held my breath at that.

Are you sitting down?

Brent smiled at me as he replied:  "Todd said to me 'it's perfect now, no problems at all'."

For the first time since the troubles began--and there were many, many challenges--I actually felt a weight removed from my shoulders that had been present for years (and frequently resurrected in the media, public hearings, and with the municipality's mayor, etc.)

Thank God, I thought.

"The neighbour could've picked up the phone and told you that himself," admonishes Kia, unimpressed.

Job Change from Bureaucrat to Realtor Equals Dose of Reality

Before becoming a commercial realtor, Craig Broderick was director of development services at Coldstream municipality.

Now that he's the listing agent for a two-acre C-2 zoned parcel on Kal Lake Road, it's his job to promote the land to the widest market possible.

That's where the problem arose.

Turns out the parcel had a couple of covenants on the title--placed by the municipality.


Back in 2008, the owners wanted to construct 24-foot by 24-foot cabins for tourism rentals, so they applied for rezoning from C-1 General Commercial to C-2 Highway and Tourist Commercial.  See Application for rezoning 07-017-ZON on page 2 of 4 here:

Advisory Planning Commission members raised concerns regarding full basements, full-time occupancy, length of use, ownership structure, and enforcement.  The zoning change was initially not supported, based on the proposal as presented.

A further Motion, by APC member Paul Christie, seconded by Wayne Samland, stated support for the concept of using the property for tourism-related campground use and that staff and Council be encouraged to work with the applicant to achieve that.

Subsequently, two covenants were placed on the property to address the stated concerns, which Council approved.

Fast forward to 2012.
Tourist cabins were never built, the property is for sale, and Craig Broderick is the listing agent.

Turns out these covenants (allowing tourist cabins) are barriers to the development--indeed the sale--of this property by prospective owners.
Duh! 
Whether a property is listed as C-2 Highway and Tourist Commercial, or C-1 General Commercial, a new owner will want the same opportunities here as he would receive with a similarly-zoned property in another community. 

In other words, natural justice ad procedural fairness.
Words foreign (especially) to this Mayor and Council.
And their Bureaucrats.
And the Advisory Planning Commission.

Nobody cared about the ramifications. In their collective minds, they were "working with the applicants".

I'm reminded of the covenant on the title of Highlands Golf.
Back in 2001 when Highlands was ready to open (after almost a year and a half of red tape), there was a hue and cry from some residents about hours of operation, and a covenant was placed on the property (1) can only operate during the golf season, and, (2) must close to the public 2 hours after sunset daily.

It was the "2 hours after sunset daily" that was unfair and inequitable, so I petitioned Mayor Postill and Council who, by the way, were the last good government this municipality has had).

In my request I stated:   Laws in B.C. covering local governance allow a Covenant to be legally removed without a new public hearing, which is the avenue Mayor Postill and Council elected. During a Council meeting in October of 2002, after discussion on the inequitable impacts of the Covenant (versus other golf courses' hours), a Resolution was passed which legally removed the Covenant.  All the details are here.

Six years later, imagine my surprise when I discovered the covenant was still in place! 

So I sought to have Mayor Garlick and Council remove it so that Highlands Golf wasn't in conflict with the liquor license which stated closing of 11 p.m. 

Coldstream's slide into quasi-socialism was evident as Mayor Garlick and his Council reinstated the "2 hours after sunset" closing.  Full details here:

So...go ahead, Craig Broderick, and get the covenants removed on that 2-acre parcel to make it more attractive and equitable and fair to a prospective purchaser.

Because Mayor Garlick and this Council ONLY understand issues when there's a legal quandary.

"Especially a precedent-setting quandary," offers Kia.

Coldstream Awash in Plans

...and obviously money, too, as new plans indicate.

The contentious Coldstream Agricultural Plan--with its RU10/RU30 proposed zoning--has neither been changed, cancelled nor completed despite harsh criticism from Coldstream Acreage Owners.  It's simply fallen off the radar.

Despite the unfinished Ag Plan business, this Council's Strategic Planning Session on July 30th, 2012 identified a new project:  reviewing the nearly 20-year old Official Community Plan for $61,000+ (not including mapping) and $12,550+ for Communications (+$5,000 contingency). 

Perhaps they're planning to include Ag rezoning into the rehashed OCP; perhaps not.

Nobody's saying.

But, frankly, Coldstream Acreage Owners are so upset that they hope to never hear of RU10/RU30 again.  And if their Communications Plan is as effective as their Mayor and Council's communication skills, perhaps we can hope for the same result? 

Let's look at Coldstream's rationale for an OCP review:

"Several incremental changes have been amalgamated into the plan to incorporate different planning initiatives and new Provincial legislation; for example, the "Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan" and the Provincial "Fish Protection Act" and "Riparian Areas Regulation".  A major amendment was processed in 2007 to consider the implications of major utility upgrades along Kal Lake Road and in particular, the ramifications for proposed expansions for the Coldstream Meadows retirement community development."

Also requiring consideration in a revised OCP is the Regional Growth Strategy from the Regional District of North Okanagan, the Memorandum of Understanding to which Coldstream is already a signatory.

But there's more:  "...several recent planning initiatives, completed studies and Provincial regulatory changes require consideration in the OCP, among them:  hazard lands assessments, sensitive ecosystems and terrain suitability for development. Also, Provincial legislative changes have initiated a requirement that the District of Coldstream must consider greenhouse gas abatement strategies in the OCP." (wasn't that the application grant claim for the Bike Path????)

So...apart from one level of government initiating paperwork revisions/plans to other levels of government, what's ahead in Coldstream?

Of interest to acreage owners:

"A comprehensive review will also enable a new dialogue with the residents and property

owners in the District of Coldstream. For example, there has been more than one

occasion over the last few years where residents are raising the issue of density of

development; most recently, the appropriate size of a duplex lot. Coldstream Council is

of the opinion that it is timely to enter into a dialogue on land use matters generally in the

District and to develop new or improved policy directions that could address the issues

being raised by residents and property owners."  (blog emphasis)

 "Part 26 - Division 2 of the Local Government Act outlines the required content of an Official Community Plan as well as other matters that Coldstream may consider.  Municipal policies outside of these parameters are non-enforceable and essentially have no meaning.  Therefore, these terms of reference are specifically pointed towards only matters where Coldstream has some authority and jurisdiction." (blog emphasis)

Here's what Part 26 Division 2 says:

Required content

877  (1) An official community plan must include statements and map designations for the area covered by the plan respecting the following:

(a) the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years;

(b) the approximate location, amount and type of present and proposed commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational and public utility land uses;

(c) the approximate location and area of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for future sand and gravel extraction;

(d) restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive to development;

(e) the approximate location and phasing of any major road, sewer and water systems;

(f) the approximate location and type of present and proposed public facilities, including schools, parks and waste treatment and disposal sites;

(g) other matters that may, in respect of any plan, be required or authorized by the minister.

(2) An official community plan must include housing policies of the local government respecting affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing.

(3) An official community plan must include targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the plan, and policies and actions of the local government proposed with respect to achieving those targets.

Effect of official community plans

884  (1) An official community plan does not commit or authorize a municipality, regional district or improvement district to proceed with any project that is specified in the plan.

(2) All bylaws enacted or works undertaken by a council, board or greater board, or by the trustees of an improvement district, after the adoption of

(a) an official community plan, or

(b) an official community plan under section 711 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, or an official settlement plan under section 809 of that Act before the repeal of those sections became effective,

must be consistent with the relevant plan.

"Sounds to me as though the Ag Rezoning is illegal," offers Kia "because it's not in the OCP to change the size of agricultural lands before subdivision would be considered."

New dialogue with residents and property owners? 

We property owners know all about dialogue with Coldstream's government, and the lack of trust that resulted.

We also know of all the backroom dealings with "homeowners as developers" and the "requests for gifting" of land or money which, by the way, continue today!

No communications program, no matter how spiffy, can rebuild the trust we've lost in Coldstream's Mayor and Council. 

Forget plans to change Coldstream's logo, folks.

But you can change Nulli secundus to Primum non nocere:  

It means: First, do no harm!

UBCM's uselessness

Soon to be the UBCLG's uselessness.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) has struck a sour note with legislative reporter, Tom Fletcher, as evidenced in his September 12th, 2012 article "Towns tackle modern problems" in the Morning Star.

About time too.

First, Tom's story, parts of which are condensed:

"Local politicians are preparing for their annual convention, to be held September 25 to 28 here in the provincial capital.

One of their first orders of business this year will be a vote to raise the dues paid by local governments to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to cover rising travel costs for staff to serve on provincial committees.  The plan is also to change the name to Union of B.C. Local Governments, to reflect the participation of the regional districts and aboriginal communities.

So what do these committees and conferences accomplish?  The UBCLG, as it will soon be known, is mainly a lobby group for local politicians to seek changes to federal and provincial laws to keep up with changing times.

The resolutions offer a snapshot of modern problems facing local governments.  A major theme is public safety..."

(condensed list):  "Columbia Shuswap Regional District wants more provincial policing money for rural communities;  Surrey wants better notice and control of a growing number of medical marijuana licenses issued by Ottawa.  Pitt Meadows, home to a Hells Angels clubhouse and drug-related crime familiar to most urban communities, wants B.C. to follow Alberta's lead and give police authority to remove known gang members from bars and clubs.  Metchosin is seeking support to decriminalize marijuana ... and make Ottawa's sex-offender registry public for convicted repeat offenders; Ashcroft wants to give emergency services authority to deal with...hoarding...little or no authority (at present) to enforce compliance with health and safety standards when a building is owner occupied."

"delegates voting with wireless devices to condemn smart meters..."

"Other resolutions tackle complex and important issues, such as the effect of hydro development on municipal water supplies.  But alas, most will be lost in the convention noise, overshadowed by political posturing over matters best left alone."

"Last year's convention featured the low comedy of delegates voting with wireless devices to condemn smart meters..."  (blog: absolutely hilarious!!!!)

"This year, in addition to factually challenged railing about oil tankers, there will be a tough stance taken against shark's fin soup, which will no doubt strike fear into the Chinese fishing fleet."

"Once delegates vote themselves more taxpayers' money to run this show, perhaps they should keep their grandstanding to a minimum. 

Tom Fletcher" 

The UBCM's Mission Statement shows they want to be all things to all people.

Get a load of this: 

The values we want associated with UBCM as an organization are:

• Credibility and accuracy in what we do
• Timely and effective in how we respond
• Valuing teamwork and respecting diversity in everything we do
• Being non-partisan and objective in how we present ourselves

Our vision is to most effectively represent and serve all local governments in BC.

Guided by our values and to achieve our vision the purpose of UBCM is:

To represent and serve all local governments in BC by:

• Being the recognized advocate for their common interests
• Meeting the members' common needs

We will be the recognized advocate for local government in BC in:

• Policy development and implementation
• Government relations
• Communications externally
• Liaison with other groups

Our priorities for meeting the members' common needs are through:

• Communication to members
• Advice and training for local government officials
• Convention
• Information sharing

We strive for continuous improvement in all that we do."

And all that striving for continuous improvement has led to a resolution on hoarding. Oh my God!

Taxpayers are continuing to realize how useless the UBCM actually is.  Many people have said the best thing to do is to kill elected officials' attendance.

"Or maybe the UBCM itself," offers Kia.

And the UBCLG.