Remember the
letter the Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association sent to the District of Coldstream in early May, with a request that their reply be sent to
each of our 37 members (with names/addresses provided)?
A simple task, given that the bureaucracy's computer can generate address labels for 37 members in...oh, about 20 minutes. Postage would've cost about 20 bucks, easily paid for by Petty Cash.
Well, the District has replied..."...It is
our policy to correspond to the contact person at the beginning of the list you have provided and I trust you will forward this information to the members of the Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association."
A sincere apology to the CAO family whose name appeared
first on the members list...obviously the District feels that you have a photocopier at the ready for distribution to the other 36 members.
Not to mention the time for the task.
Because that family is likely busy farming versus pushing papers around on a desk.
...but that's only a precursor that epitomizes
how this Mayor and Council
listen to their constituents.
Or not.
Especially when they themselves have asked for public input.
The District of Coldstream's dismissive, condescending, patronizing and disdainful replies follow:
CAO question: Has Council considered the Tax implications of rezoning property in Coldstream? What are council's plans to deal with these implications, specifically, if no additional taxpayers can be added through the subdivision of land...how does Council see managing the increased debt for the community (from approx. $100,000 to more than $6 million dollars to date). In light of the Antwerp Springs fines, twinning of the water lines (estimated up to $147 million calculated by Councillor Kiss), plus various other projects, Coldstream Acreage Owners (CAO) are concerned that the only solution will be to raise taxes rather than add new taxpayers.
DoC reply: "This question stems from some underlying assumptions that are not correct as follows:
(a) the increased debt (largely for the construction of the two fire halls in 2008) is quite manageable for the existing tax base and smaller than that of most communities of Coldstream's size;
(b) Antwerp Springs fines will be sufficiently small to be ignored in overall long-term financial and revenue planning matters;
(c) Twinning of water lines will not cost $147 million and will be paid for by the entire domestic customer base in Greater Vernon Water; and
(d) Increasing the density of rural properties does not reduce the tax burden on everyone else. In fact, it adds to the burden as it places pressure on farm use, and places more citizens in rural areas who then want urban-type services such as storm water removal, parks, pathways and street lighting which are extremely expensive to provide in low-density areas.
The conclusion is to restrict densification in rural areas in order to reduce the long-term pressures on taxation. Thus, if Council wishes to maintain a minimum 2 hectare parcel size in the RU2 zone, tax revenue generation should
not be the motivating factor."
CAO question: Has Council considered the business implications of rezoning rural lands in Coldstream? What will Council do to encourage business investment in this community? Any business that is considering Coldstream for their operations will be discouraged from locating here as there will be fewer opportunities for a variety of employee housing. It is unclear what the impact will be on potential new businesses and families.
DoC reply: "The rezoning of the RU2 properties to limit subdivision to a larger minimum size would be consistent with encouragement of business investment. First, the Coldstream Agricultural Plan has indicated that larger properties (i.e. those sized greater than 4 hectares) have a higher chance of remaining as viable farms based on Class 9 Assessment (Map 2.1). Second, if Agri-Tourism is to be considered, Section 2.5 of the Plan indicates that the minimum property size of overall properties used for Agri-Tourism should be 8 hectares. Coldstream is embarking on a Tax Revitalization Strategy to encourage business investment on commercial and other appropriately zoned properties."
CAO question: How does Council see limiting the use of both agricultural and non-agricultural property by rezoning? The impetus for this rezoning plan appears to be that Council thinks that be rezoning private property in Coldstream, agriculture will be protected. Or, is this an attempt by Council to stop what has often been referred to pejoratively as 'trophy' or 'manor' houses on both ALR and non-ALR designated property in Coldstream? Global studies prove that small parcel farming contributes to food security and keeps families attachede to, and intact on, their lands. By forcing people to "farm" 24.7 acres, does this Council think that farmers can make a viable living? We have greater than 500 acres owned by CAO's that disprove that anyone can make a living on 24.7 acres without additional income. This places a financial and social burden on some people in the community to maintain the "idea" of a farm. As for stopping the building of 'trophy/manor' houses, the Local Government Act does not legislate house size and style in this manner. So-called trophy houses might be houses that have a certain square footage (footprint), but these are called "complex" buildings and are defined and regulated in the Building and Plumbing Bylaw (#1442). There is an argument that the home plate model places unfair, unsafe, and onerous burdens on acreage owners with no quantified benefit to them.
DoC reply: "The follow-up to this question speaks to three issues:
(i) minimum lot size for viable farms;
(ii) size of housing and use of RU2 properties; and
(iii) size of the home plate provision.
These issues are dealt with as follows:
(a) The follow-up refers to "global studies" which "prove that small parcel farming contributes to food security and keeps families attached to, and intact on, their lands". The Farming economy in BC is not necessarily representative of the global farming economy. In fact, the ALC has taken the opposite view in which small plots are less viable as farms. As such, they become more desirable for simple residential estate use and are lost to agriculture. Coldstream's statistics bear this out, as the following Class 9 Assessment figures show that a higher percentage of smaller lots to not maintain Class 9 (Farm) status:
Lot Size % Class 9
0 - 2 ha 25.5
2 - 4 ha 62.0
4 - 10 ha 82.8
> 10 ha 80.4
These statistics indicate that lot sizes less than 4 hectares have substantially lower probabilities of being maintained as a viable agricultural use. The Coldstream Acreage Owners indicate that it is difficult to make a living on a 24.7 acre farm. This fact is not necessarily relevant to long-range planning, as it appears that the vast majority of larger parcels
are being maintained as farms, even though additional income is being earned.
(b) There is no desire by Council to prevent the construction of larger houses, as the size of the residence has no relevance to the property's use for agriculture.
(c) The size and location of the home plate does not put "onerous" burdens on acreage owners unless it is considered that proximity within 60 metres of a road is "onerous". The size of the home plate (approximately one acre in size) is generous enough for a very large building along with accessory residential needs. Where site topography places unique restrictions on the location of the home plate, a variance process is proposed."
CAO question: Has Council considered the impact on real estate values by this rezoning? It is possible that the rezoning of acreages in Coldstream will devalue farmland and non-agricultural land. While some individuals may benefit by increasing their holdings as land becomes more affordable, this does not benefit the CAOs who invested their money in their land under the current zoning. The rezoning bylaw creates a market of 20+ acres that cannot be subdivided and therefore must be managed as farmland (typically the solution is hay as 20+ acres is difficult for one family to farm and not large enough to create a viable living). How will a new young generation be able to become farmers if there are no smaller parcels available (20-74 acre parcels are beyond the reach of most people's financial ability)? In addition, some of the most intensive and productive farmlands have high value crops in greenhouses that do not require large tracts of property. Smaller holdings have this potential. Has this been considered in Council's deliberations? It has also been suggested that Agri-Tourism is a goal for this Council. Agri-Tourism consists of motor home parks and viewing small scale agriculture as tourist opportunities. However, visitors who come to Coldstream do so to admire the lake and the park and contribute little to the economy or the community, short of buying fuel for their vehicles and boats. Does Council have information about small scale Agri-Tourism studies that quantify the benefit of this option taking into consideration the size and uniqueness of the Coldstream community?
DoC reply: "The rezoning would put a stop to real estate values being artificially inflated by speculation on the subdivideability of ALR land. This would likely make the purchase of farm land less burdensome and improve the overall viability for agriculture. However, their ability to subdivide likely never existed, as subdivision of parcels less than 20 hectares in size has typically not been approved by the ALC. As indicated earlier, the Coldstream Agricultural Plan speaks to Agri-Tourism."
CAO question: What are the benefits to the taxpayers of Coldstream of this rezoning? Does Council have data to suggest a benefit to all residents of Coldstream, or is this rezoning for the benefit of some, and how do you quantify and qualify that benefit?
DoC reply: "The purpose of the proposed rezoning was not to specifically provide tax benefits to residents. In that sense, the question is irrelevant. The primary purpose of the rezoning proposal is that it improves the sustainability of the agricultural sector of Coldstream's economy. There are indirect tax benefits to residents as outlined in (d) above."
CAO question: Will Council ensure that every property owner be cntacted directly by mail to inform them of the pending rezoning? It has come to our attention during the formation of our Association that the majority of people in Coldstream did not see the newspaper notice regarding the rezoning proposal. The Agricultural Plan Open House on March 14,2012 had 100 people attend over two hours. Of the approximately 10,000 taxpayers in this District, this attendance record proves that people have not been advised so as to make informed decisions. The current configuration of lands in Coldstream has been in place for the better part of two generations. This rezoning removes property rights, devalues some properties, constrains decisions about outbuildings, barns, employee accommodations, etc., and severely limits growth, not what people bought into when they purchased land. This rezoning may not merely 'manage' land use in Coldstream as may have been intended. Vibrant, healthy communities have managed growth and encourage responsible growth. How does this Council intend to mitigate limitations that they will put on growth ('stymied' versus 'managed') through rezoning in Coldstream?
DoC reply: "Council has directed that further information be provided regarding the proposed minimum lot size for subdivision in the RU2 Zone. This wold include a mail-out to property owners in this zone. This will be in addition to the extensive consultation that has already taken place on this issue (three open houses, a public hearing, and ongoing collaboration with two separate Agriculture Advisory Committees over the course of three years). It should be noted the underlying premises to the follow-up commentaries are incorrect, and that the zoning amendment does not remove property rights, nor does it make any properties non-conforming. The propose amendment to the RU2 Zone minimum lot size does affect 'growth' in bona fide agricultural areas. Council has set this as an objective in ALR land in order to protect its viability for agriculture. In this sense it has been consistent with the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission. The proposals do not have any impact on agricultural outbuildings as suggested, and employee accommodations are being researched to determine requirements that are relevant and workable. The District is under no obligation to mitigate limitations on growth in agricultural areas. It is precisely through land-use regulations that Council can both stimulate prevent or shape the type of growth that happens in targeted areas. This is done in consideration of the long-term vision that Council has for the District."
CAO question: Council is saying that bona fide farmers are the only ones who will get farm water. Who is payhing for the water allocation and meter, irrigation pipes/sprinklers/emitters for the demonstration garden at the College demonstration garden initiative? The demonstration garden at the Okanagan Universit College site needs $2,500 for seed and $10,000 for a coordinator next year. And, since no new water allocations are available unless people are bona fide farmers, which group of farmers has given up their water so that the College's demonstration garden can have water? Are Coldstream taxpayers going to be contributing for annual seeds, coordinators, and water for this latest initiative?
DoC reply: "Council has never passed a resolution saying that bona fide farmers are the only ones who will get farm water. Any policy regarding farm water rates is set by the Greater Vernon Water Utility, not by Council. However, Council members have expressed general support for the farm water rates being limited to those customers whose needs are legitimately related to agriculture. Presumably, as the irrigation needs of the College will be for a demonstration farm/garden, Greater Vernon Water would supply the College at the agricultural allocation rate. However, this decision is up to Greater Vernon Water, not Coldstream Council. Coldstream taxpayers are not paying for the irrigation infrastructure at the College. The letter asserts that farmers must give up water to allow the College to have farm allocation. This premise is incorrect. While the College is fundraising for contributions to the project, no commitment has been made by Council at this time."
CAO question: Is Council aware that this RU10 and RU30 rezoning removes the right of access that all land owners have to the decision making authority and adjudicators at the Agricultural Land Commission? The only exception to this fact would be the second or third largest land owners in Coldstream who, under the new rezoning, would be able to subdivide and thus potentially have access to the Commission. The Agricultural Land Commission has always been the final authority on agricultural land. For those homeowners who are over 55 and cannot make a living here, the option is to defer taxes on their properties. While this may appear to have no impact for this Council's budgets, it does place burden on the province in transfers. If an increasing number of subsistence farmers defer their taxes in British Columbia, how does this Council perceive the province will respond?
DoC reply: "The premise underlying this question is incorrect. Landowners have no right of access to the ALC. It is Council that has full discretion regarding any referral or non-referral to the ALC. If Council is supportive of subdivision in ALR land, then it must submit the application to the ALC. However, Council is under no obligation to submit an application if it is not supported by Council. What has been happening is that subdivision applications that would result in parcels less than 10 hectares in size have generally been rejected by the ALC. The proposed zoning amendment is unlikely to change the practices for subdividing agricultural land. It merely aligns with current ALC practice. In doing so, it eliminates fruitless costs and time in pursuing these applications and aligns expectations with reality. The letter makes reference to deferral of taxes by seniors. Where the land meets the revenue requirements of BC Assessment, overall taxes are low and the need for deferral becomes a non-issue. "
DoC closing: "As the organizer of the correspondence dated May 1, 2012 to the District of Coldstream, I am writing to you so that you may pass on the above information to interested members of the Coldstream Acreage Owners. (signed) Michael A. Stamhuis, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer, cc: Mayor and Council"
...Mayor and Council, during a July meeting, deleted these comments from the reply:
"As a result, by implementing a higher limit on the minimum land area, farm land property values will likely drop." and
"For those property owners who had invested in their properties with the intent to subdivide, it is true that their property values may decline." and
"If property values are devalued, any such value reductions stem from inflated property values based on incorrect expectations of subdivideability."
Interestingly--coincidentally--another topic surfaced about the same time as Council was considering the bureaucrat's draft reply prior to mail-out to Coldstream Acreage Owners.
...seems the
provincial Ombudsman has produced a checklist for "administrative fairness" in dealing with complaints from the public.
"The Ombudsman must have the District of Coldstream on speed-dial by now," explains Kia.
The District of Coldstream
recently implemented a
written formal policy process where questions/issues from the public now go to Michael Stamhuis (bureaucrat-author, above)...if it remains unresolved, then the issue goes to Mayor and Council.
Kia adds: "So they're not only firmly nailing the door shut on any contact with the ALC, now access to their Mayor and Council has been removed and residents must deal with a bureaucrat."
