More fun with the sewer debate!

The following request was emailed to Coldstream Mayor and Council on July 11, 2008:

This request is addressed to Mayor and Council.

During my service on the District's Council it was customary to have the Auditor present at the presentation of the Annual Financial Report. This practice was continued at least the past four years as the Auditor was present at each of the meetings except for this year. I had some questions for the Auditor and his fee for the Audit includes his presence to answer questions from the taxpayers, who actually pay for his services.

On behalf of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association I respectfully request that the Auditor be made available at the next or a subsequent Council meeting to answer some questions regarding the 2007 Annual Financial Report.

Gyula Kiss President, CRPA

The response arrived today as follows:

Gyula:

The Auditor generally comes to present the Annual Financial Statements and not the Annual Financial Report. Council received the Financial Statements earlier this year and determined the need to have the Auditor to be present was not required.

The Annual Financial Report is prepared by the District of Coldstream. Council has denied your request to have the Auditor attend our next Council meeting. If you have questions related to the Annual Financial Report, I urge you to put these in writing and forward to the Director of Financial Administration for appropriate response.

Wendy
---------------------------------------------------

My Mistake, forgive me. However, as the Auditor was not present at either occasion, it is immaterial when he should have been there.

When I requested the audit last year I did not get it. Instead I got a note that a lawyer presented his opinion that everything was done legally. A lawyer is not an accountant. His response was a legal opinion and not an audit. I did not even get a copy of his opinion.

This time I wanted to ask the Auditor, who signed the annual financial statements, how he could accept a financial statement in which the basic assumptions were wrong. The statement by the Director of Finance that

"In the past, major sewer lines have been constructed with the aid of government grants. In total these various grants provided for up to 93% of the cost of the sewer line. This meant that the residents being provided with sewer were paying 7% of the capital costs of the sewer lines."(see attached)

Even if one could accept a flawed argument such as this (which I cannot) her statements are wrong on at least two counts.

First of all, only a blind person could not see that if the old customers contribute any amount to the new sewer extension, their cost for the sewer capital costs will significantly exceed the 7% the DF referred to in her letter. We know that neither Santa nor the Tooth Ferry contributed the additional 93% of the sewer extension but it was the sewer users who were robbed.

Using this argument it would be logical to conclude that if we wanted equality those new customers should also be paying more than the 7% Council requested. Logic is a precious thing and some people seem to lack it.

Second, the sewer system constructed by Trintec was without government grants. Since those sewer costs were transferred directly to the new residents, they paid 100% of their sewer system's capital. As they have been paying their share of the sewer fees that also accumulated in the sewer reserve, one can argue that Council actually hit them up for 193% of the sewer costs. In fact, the approval of the Aberdeen sewer extension will create another set of taxpayers who will be contributing to the near free sewer connection of Coldstream Meadows. This whole mess could be an interesting legal battle.

Another interesting question is this: if each of those residents fronting the McClounie-Mackie Drive sewer line must pay $2000 connection fee why is it that Coldstream Meadows with its 160 +/- units did not have to pay connection fees to the McClounie-Aberdeen sewer line that was constructed with funds fleeced from sewer customers? It was Coldstream Meadows that connected their line to the above trunk line therefore they should pay compensation to the utility for connecting to it. Why was it not done? Why is Coldstream Meadows more equal than the rest of the customers on Kalamalka Road (see George Orwell: Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?)

These are some of the questions I would like to pose to the Auditor who affixed his signature to these false conclusions. As a taxpayer I have the right to ask these questions of the Auditor who gets paid out of my taxes. Why is the Auditor afraid to show up to answer these questions? Or is it staff that show the reluctance? It was my understanding that the taxpayers are on top of the organizational chart!

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