I hope this is the last time I have to come before you on the sewer issue.
I am not going to rehash my previous grievances. That said, I am not conceding that Council was fair and right in their decision to clean out our reserves and spend our operating funds on providing easy access for Coldstream Meadows Development to sewer service. I trust you will consider this relevant issue that is going along with the twisted arguments and revealing the erroneous conclusions.
The previous Council based its decision to remove $625,000 (which ended up to be $665,060) from the Sewer Reserve Fund based on the assumption that there would be no grants from other sources. Not withstanding the facts, that if proper plans and procedures were followed government funds likely would have been forthcoming. There are all sorts of grants coming along from senior governments for various infrastructure projects. However.............
The real fact is that you received 18% grant from the Okanagan Basin Water Board. Therefore, using your arguments, the reserve fund should only contribute 75% of the construction and other costs. I hope you agree with this statement, right?
Using the same argument the operating funds that were used by this Council to buy out CM’s latecomer’s fees should also contribute only 75% of that purchase price. (View overhead)
As it stands now with the 18% contribution from OBWB the original sewer customers are paying 113% of the cost of the new sewer system.
What should be done? Council should borrow the difference from MFA and repay the loan from the payments from OBWB and also from the taxes paid by the unwilling property owners. (Incidentally, why are you using parcel taxes when you decided earlier with the Fire Hall loan repayment deliberations that general taxation was the fair way to go? Consistency in decisions is important.) The borrowed funds should be returned to the appropriate funds (reserve and operational). This way you only have to collect fees based on cost of service.
The notion that the Director of Finance related to me is ludicrous. She told me that the reason we have to continue large increases in fees is to build up the funds so we can pay for the replacement of the trunk line delivering sewage to Vernon. That is preposterous!
First of all, the present sewer users have paid for that line. In fact, the last instalments of that loan appeared on my 2005 tax roll. The reason for its replacement is growth, which should pay for the replacement.
Second, if new infrastructure is required, it should be financed through borrowing. The loan should be repaid through general taxation. If we are amassing massive reserves for new infrastructure undesired consequences can happen. We might get a rogue Council that decides that the reserve should be used for a different project. I think our present situation is an excellent example of that potential happening. Besides, we have plenty of expensive projects to pay for now as it is and the notion that we pay for projects years down the road is insane. Just look what happened with the Master Water Plan! We have been paying ever increasing water rates for something promised but not delivered for six years.
If we use taxation for financing infrastructure, as we have been doing for years, we pay as we go like we do with the mortgage on our homes. Also, as new properties join in the financing, our individual payments are being reduced. With the system you employ with the water and propose to use for sewer infrastructure, more customers do not result in rate reduction.
Politicians of late seem to abhor consultation with those they supposedly represent. Examples are the City of Vernon’s ill fated attempts to build a new Civic Complex, Coldstream’s defeated Sports Complex proposal, etc. If Councils started to use meaningful interactions with their constituents our communities would be better for it. There are talents out there that may be of use even to this Council if they care to utilize them.
*************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment