Public Hearing Submission – Bylaw Amendment 1529, June 9, 2008.

This is a reminder of the upcoming public hearing regarding the OCP amendment bylaw to be held at the Council chambers on Monday, June 9th at 7:00 PM. This will be an important decision for the future of Coldstream with regards to development patterns and future sewer costs. Whatever your opinion is on the proposed changes you should appear and have your voice heard.

Just a reminder, the land in question is NOT in the ALR so that is not an issue. The main issue in my opinion is laid down in my submission presented below. The decision will have a major impact on Coldstream's future so come out and have your say.

Public Hearing Submission – Bylaw Amendment 1529, June 9, 2008.

(Re: District of Coldstream Official Community Plan
Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008)

My submission could be entitled: “A tale of two developments” (with apologies to Dickens).

It is incumbent on Council members to familiarize themselves with all the relevant facts that will have an impact on their impending decisions.

It is incumbent on staff to provide all the relevant facts to Council so that they can weigh all those facts in their deliberations.

The tale of the first development.

When the sewer trunk line was laid on Kalamalka Road Council relied on incomplete information.

In this instance Coldstream Meadows Development was approved with the proviso that they must connect to community sewer. Council did not specify where and how this objective should be met but since the nearest sewer line was at McClounie Road it was assumed that the developer would have to build his line to McClounie Road.

For some inexplicable reason Council felt magnanimous (just days before the last election). They decided to help the developer to the tune of 665,000 taxpayer dollars and constructed a sewer trunk line for him from McClounie to Aberdeen Road. The fact that it was taxpayers’ dollars and was originally earmarked for important upkeep of the original sewer system did not seem to matter.

The developer connected to the new line at Aberdeen Road and then pocketed a further $250,000 as Council purchased the latecomer fee contract from the developer. The only thing missing was the gift wrap.

It is my understanding that when Council inquired about available funds to buy out the latecomer agreement from Coldstream Meadows they were told that there were available funds in the sewer operating funds. This was true but Council did not ask the relevant question namely where the funds were coming from.

Now Council has a major problem: how to implement the connection of all the existing residences within the collection area and how to finance it. There are major problems arising from trying to connect the south-east section of Giles Drive, Bel Air and other streets within the new sewer line. Had these problems been resolved before the sewer line was plunked down on Kalamalka Road, Council would not face these challenges now. Relevant information should have been completed in advance of the construction.

Now let’s look at this other development proposal.

It is at the stage where an amendment to the OCP is required. However, Council indicated that the developer will have to connect to a SPECIFIC sewer line which he will have to construct at his own expense. The fact that another sewer connection is available at a significantly lower cost does not seem to matter.

Why should Council specify that the development must connect to the Kalamalka Road sewer trunk line? The previously discussed developer received a nearly gift wrapped sewer connection, this developer must build a specific sewer connection at his own expense. Council must be fair!

During the first reading of the Bylaw Councillor Garlick asked the relevant question of how many properties could be serviced by this expensive piece of sewer line. He was told that between 300-400 properties are located along the proposed sewer line.

I went home and carried out the tedious task of counting all the lots along Aberdeen Road that would connect within the five years Council is considering. There were about 35 such lots, many of them are huge and do not require sewage connection. To be sure I also verified the numbers in the field.

If Council wanted to extend sewer to properties along adjacent roads such as Rendell, Shamanski and Paisly Drives, Matner Lane, etc. they might get as many as 100-150 properties connected. Of course, getting these extra properties serviced will require major undertaking, including public hearings, developing detailed plans, identifying funding sources, time lines and a dreaded referendum with predictable results.

In this case staff provided a guess rather than accurate, reliable information misleading Council and another erroneous decision could be reached.

There are further complicating factors.

According to the Trintec engineer there is available capacity in the northern sewer trunk connecting to the City system at 15th Street. This would be far less expensive for the developer and Council could negotiate a fair contribution by the developer for the eventual up-sizing of that line to accommodate sewer from Coldstream Valley Estates which are in need of sewer service. Thus, Staff must obtain information on cost projections for that potential up-sizing project.

As the Director of Finance’s May 15,2008 memo indicated replacement of the Kalamalka Road sewer line from McClounie Road to Westkal will have to commence sometime in the next 5-7 years if sewage volumes continue to increase through that line. She estimated the cost of this project at $1,300,000. Interestingly, Mr Greg Betts estimated that same project at $2 million in 1997, thus one of those estimates are a bit suspect. I don’t think costs have gone down in ten years.

Mr Betts also identified further costs involved with this extension. The transmission line from Alpine Centre to the treatment plant through Vernon will also require up-sizing. The more sewer is delivered through that trunk line the sooner the up-sizing must be carried out. No cost estimates are available for those projects.

All of us, existing and pending sewer customers, will be burdened with these costs. I ask you, how can you make intelligent and cost effective decisions without these vital pieces of information? Here you have a plethora of existing financial problems relating to existing sewer extensions and you intend to dig deeper into our pockets without truly investigating the alternatives. I urge you to resist this temptation at this time. Do not take on huge extra costs for sewer users before you resolve the existing problems. Any additional section of new trunk line would need to be maintained at the existing sewer customers’ expense.

If the development is in the best interest of Coldstream then consider the following:

The developer is willing to go with a lower density subdivision. If you do not require him to spend huge sums of money on a low priority sewer trunk line construction he can afford a lower density subdivision and staff can negotiate a fair contribution to future sewer expansions through 15th Street. It would be in Coldstream’s interest as we would have two viable sewer connections to the city’s sewage treatment plant. Council would have longer time to weigh the options and obtain vital cost estimates for the future development of the sewer system.

Gyula Kiss

******************************************************************************