Which politicians' salaries are listed by RDNO?

Councillor Spiers listed the remunerations paid by RDNO to various politicians between 2012-2015. It appears that in 2015 RDNO forgot to list my pay although they have sent me a T4 slip for $2015. Previously in 2012, 2013, 2014 my name was accompanied my wages for each year. It appears that I am not only removed from GVAC but I am now invisible as a politician in the eyes of RDNO. Go figure!

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

Mission Hill Treatment Plant open again!

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

Readers write - Observations on the MWP review process.

The following is my brief summary of the MWP review process over the past 15 months:

 

In the fall of 2014, a referendum was held to approve funding for the GVW's 2012 MWP.  That referendum proposal was soundly defeated.

 

GVW management and elected municipal officials claimed the public didn't understand, and later admitted enough may not have done to inform the public.

 

In response to continued pressure to review and revise the MWP, a SAC was formed.

 

SAC members were selected based on their lack of involvement in developing the MWP.

 

All information and facts provided to assist the SAC in their review came from GVW staff and the consultant who prepared the MWP; no independent experts were allowed to contribute.

 

SAC was told they could only review and make recommendations on non-cost topics, even though the SAC was formed in response to a failed funding referendum.

 

To further ensure the desired SAC response, GVW and the elected officials leading the SAC focused the SAC members on choosing wording for non-cost evaluation criteria; lest SAC try to get into the substance of the MWP - like maintenance & construction, operation, infrastructure, water rates, domestic vs agricultural use, water supply, water treatment, etc., etc.

 

While the SAC review was underway, GVW carried on with projects and expenditures consistent with the MWP, as if the referendum had never occurred and there was no review.

 

The exercise is now almost over and it is seems certain that GVW, and the associated elected officials will proclaim "An extensive review of the 2012 MWP by a large and diverse SAC has found no need for substantive change".

 

The foregoing is a sad statement about abilities and responsiveness of our local government bureaucracy where elected officials and staff are supposed to act in the best interest of the rate paying customers and voting public.

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

Water source switch - Mission Hill to Duteau

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

Getting soaked for water!

by Darren Handschuh | 

Sep 17, 2015 / 5:00 am

Photo: Contributed

If North Okanagan residents feel like they're getting soaked on their water bill, it's because they pay the highest water rates of the Okanagan's three major cities.

Vernon residents pay for their liquid gold per cubic metre, and the cost is set by the Regional District of North Okanagan on a tiered-rate system.

The first 10 cubic metres cost 51 cents each, but it only goes up from there. For 10-20 cubic metres, the Tier 2 cost is $1.07. For 20-40, the charge is $1.22. For 40-80 cubic metres, residents pay $1.53 and, in the top tier, for 80 cubic metres or more, the price jumps to $2.19.

In Kelowna, residents pay $0.412 for the first 60 cubic metres of water; $0.554 for the next 100; $0.84 for the next 90 and $1.618 per cubic metre for the balance used beyond that.

Kelowna also has a bi-monthly flat rate of $24.10.

Penticton communications officer Simone Blais said the southern city charges a fixed rate of $19.77 per month plus a variable consumption charge of $1.67 per 2.83 cubic metres.

The rates also vary from industrial to residential use.

“There are 10 different fixture rates based on your meter size,” she said.

According to Jennifer Miles, water sustainability co-ordinator with the RDNO, there is also an “infrastructure base fee" in the North Okanagan, which is $101.80 per quarter.

"We have to have a base fee that covers the majority of expenses over the year," she said.

However, Miles said it's difficult to compare Vernon to other centres because “different water systems have different treatment systems. We have different sources in Vernon.”

Vernon gets its water from Kalamalka Lake and the Duteau Creek watershed, while several Okanagan communities draw water from Okanagan Lake.

Miles said Kelowna and Penticton have different treatment systems and may have accessed grants over the years to help offset the expenses of building and maintaining water treatment facilities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do not have to cover the majority of expenses by base fees! That flies in the face of our principle of user pay system. The 2015 budget proposes a 55/45% split in favour of base fees. However, a low water consumer (10 cubic meters or less) can pay as much as 95/5% in favour of base fees. That is the bigger problem here (aside from the selected MWP).

 

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

Two view-points and the reality.

View-point 1

 

View-point 2 

Are we really short of water? (click)

Reality September 1, 2015 

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

Greater Vernon Water Utility Annual Report - 2014.

Click on image above to access report.

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

Financial effects of potential Stage 2 water restrictions.

The following report was published in the June 28th edition of the Vernon Morning Star:

The above proposal was neither cleared by GVAC nor the RDNO Board so I rely on the report for the accuracy of the proposed water conservation move. However, the financial consequences of this proposal should be investigated before it is implemented.

For my own information I attempted to analyze the effects of a 10% consumption decrease. I am sharing the results with you.

Assuming that all rate classes (Tiers A, B, C, D and E as well as ICI) will comply with the 10% consumption cutbacks there will be a 10% reduction in revenue as well. It is also assumed that agricultural customers are not subjected to the general water restrictions and only the fiscal consequences on domestic customers are treated here. 

GVWU has a revenue expectation from their domestic customers of $17,845,332 for 2015.The base fee component of this sum is $9,905,140 and will not be affected by the reduction in consumption. Only the consumption revenue of $8,161,328 will be reduced. Reducing consumption by 10% will reduce the revenue by 10% as well creating a budget shortfall of $816,133 (see Table 1). There are 24,325 water accounts in Greater Vernon, thus, the budget shortfall will be $33.55 per account. 

Table 1.    Revenue losses by rate classes with 10% water consumption reduction.

This shortfall should be recovered in 2016 by increasing either all components of the rate structure used by GVWU by about 4-5% or simply add the $33.55 to the annual base fees. The latter is more reliable for recovering the needed revenues so it is likely that staff would recommend this method for recovery. The new base fees, then, would have to be increased to $445.75 ($110.19 per quarter, an 8.24% increase) just to cover the shortfall of 2015. It is quite likely that other increases in expenditure will be required resulting in further rate increases.

The big question is: how would these changes affect customers of the various Tiers financially? I made some calculations and the results are demonstrated in Table 2 . As the table demonstrates, low water consumers would be bearing the brunt of the costs created by loss of revenue due to the water saving measure.

Table 2: Effect on the various rate classes created by 10% water consumption cut.

 A customer using 10 cubic meters of water a quarter would reduce consumption by 1 cu. m. per quarter (4 cu. m. per year) and would save $2.04 a year. At the same time the $33.55 additional base fee would increase his/her bill by $31.51 (33.55-2.04). A customer using 80 cu. m. per quarter would save $15.41 while a customer using a 1000 cu. m. per quarter could save a hefty $843.65 per year.

There might be other measures staff will recommend to GVAC but the unavoidable fact is: water conservation measures will create a deficit for 2015 and the deficit would have to be recovered in the next budget year. This point is missing from the news article.

The real user pay rate system I proposed would resolve this reduction of water usage by simply multiplying the volume of water originally estimated to be sold by 0.9. The new base fee and water rate would be revealed instantly. Every customer would be bearing the cost of the water saving initiative equally.

I would be happy to answer any questions regarding to this analysis.

Gyula Kiss

GVW Information Bulletin - Water storage update.

This potential water shortage is just the harbinger of many more to come as long as agriculture has to share water with domestic customers. Okanagan Lake could supply all the domestic customers and Duteau could be retained by agriculture.

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

Should water supply be used to fetter growth?

Key Principle "e." states  that "Water supply would not be used to fetter growth. I assume the same principle was used in California when they believed that growth has no boundaries. California now is beginning to face the reality.

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

GVW Media Release - Snow pack report.

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

Water focus of session.

by  Staff Writer - Vernon Morning Star
posted Nov 12, 2014 at 1:00 AM

There’s one more chance to find out details for a multi-million-dollar water plan in Greater Vernon.

The Regional District of North Okanagan will hold a public session Thursday at 5-7 p.m. at the Schubert Centre.

“This will provide information on the borrowing referendum and the master water plan priority projects,” said Zee Marcolin, Greater Vernon Water manager.

The lead consultant of the master water plan and Greater Vernon Water staff will provide an information presentation starting at 5:30 p.m., followed by a question and answer session.

On Saturday, residents will be asked if they support borrowing up to $70 million for six projects outlined in the master water plan.

For more information, go to www.rdno.ca/water.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the last opportunity for residents to listen to the sales pitch by the consultant, staff and Director Macnabb for the support of the $70 million MWP referendum.

Just for additional information: Director Macnabb is unbiased as he is not connected to the Greater Vernon Water utility so he is not subject to paying the costs. He is just asking the rest of us to pay!

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

Unsolicited comments for the Borrowing Referendum.

As mentioned before my opinion is that borrowed funds for water infrastructure costs should be repaid through general taxation just like any other infrastructure loan. It is more justifiable to use taxation for water infrastructure than it is to use it for ice rinks or performing art centres because our homes water infrastructure is directly connected to municipal infrastructure unlike he above mentioned facilities.

In 2004 the majority of taxpayers approved the borrowing of $35 million. The annual cost of servicing that loan is about $2.45 million or a mill rate of about 0.25. A property worth $400,000 would pay a tax of  $125 annually. 

Did you know that to impose a tax of $399.20 your property would have to be worth about $1,600,000?

Why do I say it is a tax? It's because the $399.20 base fee (tax)  is not related to either unit cost of water nor to property value. You pay it regardless of what your property value is or how much water you consume, if any.

This is a unique idea of a user pay system where one user pays $104.80 for 10 cubic meters of water for a unit cost of $10.48 while another pays $242.30 for 100 cubic meters for a unit cost of $2.42. At the same time we are encouraging customers to lower their usage so they would get a bonus of further rate increases.

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional customers also pay the base fee but only pay $1.50 per cubic meter even though their water fees are part of doing business and are tax deductible. 

Furthermore grazing lands, hay fields, fruit and other crops enjoy the same quality water with less restriction than domestic customers and at a fraction of the price at about $0.07 per cubic meters.

This is another reason to support the $70 million borrowing referendum. We will have the pleasure of paying even more unfair water rates in the future!

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

Councillor Spier's review of the borrowing referendum.

How is the Water Increase of 30% over 5 years explained ???

IMPACT OF VOTE ON RATES

1. 7How will borrowing $70 Million for the Master Water PLan (MWP) priority projects impact water rates?

A “Yes Vote” would mean that the total GVW budget would increase by 30% for debt servicing (principle + interest payments).  This increase would be phased in over 5 years. This is based conservatively on a 4% interest rate and a 20 year borrowing term through the Municipal Finance Authority. The following provides an estimate of the impact to rates based on an average domestic GVW customer:

• Average GVW Domestic Customer Water Bill in 2014: $585/year (based on 175 cubic meters of water used in one year)
• Percentage Increase: 30% phased in over five years averaging 6% per year
• Annual Increase to Water Bill: $36.00
• Increase to Water Bill by 2019:  $180 (total annual bill in 2019 = $765)

It should be noted that this increase is only to fund the MWP priority projects and does not include additional increases due to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), increases in operations and maintenance, costs associated with any legislative changes, or other capital works projects required outside of the MWP (e.g. emergency repairs or infrastructure renewal). This projected increase for the MWP priority projects is for project construction costs in 2012 dollars using the 2014 rate structure for domestic customers (Greater Vernon Water Rates (Bylaw No. 2622, 2014).  

A “No Vote” would mean that the projects outlined in the MWP will not proceed as presented. The impact on rates is unknown and would only be determined following a review of the MWP with elected officials and Interior Health.

---------------------------------------------------

Don Quixote Note:

If we borrowed $70,000,000 for the Master Water Plan Capital Requirements this is the repayment schedule we would have for a 20 year borrowing at the RDNO predicted conservative lending rate of 4.00%. http://mfa.bc.ca/long-term-lending-rates (This chart is for comparative purposes only as rate are only guaranteed for the first 10 years.)

The Annual Financing Costs would be $5,150,722.
For 2014 the revenue required from rates was $18,600,840.
Of this $16,968,524 was to come from Domestic (Residential) ($14,224,499) and Commercial & Institutional. ($2,744,025) Balance from Agriculture was ($1,025,616) with other fees and charges bringing in ($606,700.)

Consequently the revenue required after this borrowing (if approved) would increase to $23,751,562 or a further 27.69% rates increase. (assuming rate increase spread equally over Agricultural, Residential , Commercial and fees)

However it appears that the rate increases will be applied only to the $16,968,524 For Residential,Commercial & Institutional and thus the %age increase will be (16,968,524 +5,150,722)/ 16,968,524 = 30.35%  (click here for more)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost implications are bad enough but the worst news is the fact that we continue to treat the worst quality and most expensive to treat water forever. 

The combined cost of the two treatment plants at Duteau will be over $55 million ($3.9 million annual cost for 20 years). The annual treatment costs will amount to about $2.5-3 million. And to boot 80-90% of the treated water will be used for agricultural irrigation. 

Domestic use (includes household, industrial, commercial and institutional) from  the Duteau treatment plant only accounted for less than 1,500,000 cubic meters in 2012. Cost of treatment in the same year was over $2.2 million. Estimated cost of 1cubic meter of domestic water from Duteau is $1.44. At the same time the Mission Hill treatment plant produced about 4,300,000 cubic meters of domestic use water at a cost of $524,275 for a unit cost of $0.12. Somewhat of a difference. The filtration will add more costs. So now you have more of the facts to help make up your mind.

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

 

More about water rates.

Further to my earlier discussions on fair water rates it is educational to have the evolution of water rates reviewed.

In 2003 the rates were set at $24.00 base fee (quarterly) and $0.56 per cu. m. with a 10% discount if paid by the end of the month. This basically reduced the fees to $21.60 base fee and $0.504 per cu. m. consumption fee.

As the attached table demonstrates base fees increased by a staggering 360% since 2003. This base fee increase is in direct contradiction of the “user pay” system. How did we get to this ridiculous situation? I’ll elaborate.

Finance officers like to use flat fees to cover cost of services. It is an easy way to ensure that budgets are balanced regardless of the pain it creates for low volume consumers. Greater Vernon Water staff suggested that we should actually increase the base fee. They would like to have 80% of the budget covered by flat fees or even worse, all of it.

Politicians, however, insist that we are employing the user pay system. Nothing is further from the truth. Low and middle water consumers carry the biggest burden of the total cost. Incidentally, if we were to usage total flat fees each account holder would be paying $712 per year ($178 per quarter). If every customer were charged that rate we would meet our budget requirements. As it is we are already paying over 56% of the fees as base fees.Staff’s argument in recommending higher base fees is based on their argument that there are “fixed costs” and we must ensure that these fixed costs are covered. That argument is bogus. If we fail to recover any part of the budget presented we will have a deficit, as we have done for the last 3 years (total $3.1 million). The entire budget must be covered by the revenue stream. Since our stated method is the user pay system we must ensure that these revenues are collected through that system. It takes planning but that is what we pay staff for. It is up to the political representatives to ensure that policies and bylaws are enforced.

It is curious that staff did not recommend the same cost recovery system for the agricultural customers. Why not recover 56% of total agricultural fees through flat fees and the rest of it on a user pay system?

We invested millions in water meters so we could institute the user pay system yet we are working towards a universal flat fee system. At the same time we want to reduce water consumption but we punish those who reduce by raising their water rates. Where is the rationale?

Before you vote on the $70 million borrowing referendum make sure you investigate what you are paying for and how! And remember: there was no independent review of the current Master Water Plan!

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

An argument for fair water rates!

Councillor Spiers has developed an online water rate calculator (below) utilizing the complicated water rate system  Greater Vernon staff devised.

The system is composed of a large base fee component ($99.80 per quarter) and a five tier rate scale. In addition special rates apply to Industrial, Commercial and Institutional customers at a cut rate of $1.50 per cubic meters.

By entering your quarterly consumption your actual bill for the quarter is presented. You are also presented with the cost per cubic meter at the bottom of the calculator. Note that the less water you use the higher the unit cost is. This is in direct contradiction of principle d. of the key principles adopted by all parties at the creation of the water utility, namely:

    "d.  All non-agricultural rates would be on a volume basis and uniform throughout the service area."

The intended policy of the utility is to encourage water saving and reward customers for saving water. In reality we punish customers who save water by selling them water at a higher unit cost. A customer who uses no water at all pays $99.80 per quarter for nothing. A low user of 20 cu. m. per quarter is charged $5.77 per cu. m. while a user of 10 cu. m. is paying $10.48 per cu. m. Hardly uniform rates on a volume basis! In contrast a customer using 500 cu. m. is only charged $2.20 per cu. m.

We all agree that everyone within the service area should contribute something for the ability to connect to our system. However, this contribution should be minimal if we believe in the user pay system: you pay for what you use. A true user pay system must be implemented to be fair to all customers.

With this principle in mind a reasonable user pay system would have a minimum rate based on, say, 10cu. m. minimum at the calculated unit cost (in our case $3.20 per cu. m., or $32.00 minimum). All properties within the service area would pay this quarterly fee for which they would be eligible to use up to 10 cu. m. of water.

Customers who use more water per quarter would pay the used cu. m. multiplied by $3.20. Example: consumption of 45 cu. m. would cost $144 (45*3.20). Even the base fee for a lot without structure would be more fair at $32.00 per quarter.   

This system would reward low consumers and charge a fair rate to all customers based on their consumption. Industrial, Commercial and Institutional customers should pay the same rate as everyone else. There is no reason for the general customer to subsidize ICI customers. Water prices are business expenses and tax deductible. 

Most customers use less than 47 cu. m. during the first quarter of the year. Those will all benefit from the true user pay system but still pay the fair rates. Additional consumption is not charged at an artificial subsidized rate but at true cost.

Ask your representatives why they don't support fair user-pay water rates!

2014 ONLINE WATER CALCULATOR

A Calculator where you can interactively enter your quarterly consumption totals in m3 and see your $ increase can be found at:  Rates Effective April 1, 2014

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

Additional information re: MWP - Key principles for creating the single water utility

Key principles for creating the single water utility.

The above principles were developed and adopted by the founding members of Greater Vernon Water. Let us examine how those principles worked out over the years.

a.     Currently GVAC is an advisory body to the RDNO Board. GVAC is composed of 3 members from Vernon, 2 from Coldstream and the Directors of Electoral Areas B and C. However, all final decisions are made by the Board of Directors representing Greater Vernon with the composition of 4 Directors from Vernon and one each of Coldstream and Electoral Areas B and C. The current Governance structure is contrary to the key principles of the GVWU agreement.

b.     The water quality is not the same for all non-agricultural customers. It is not a reality now and will not be the reality 5 years from now after the $70 million is expended. Currently the MHWTP water quality is better than that of DCWTP water. Five years from now the situation will reverse when the water will be filtered at Mission Hill. This is contrary to the key principles of the GVWU agreement.

c.    The agricultural industry is indeed insulated from high water rates. However, this comes at a tremendously high cost to the domestic customers. Agriculture’s contribution to the 2014 budget of $18,600,000 is $904,452 or 4.86%. Would a stand alone agriculture irrigation system could sustain itself for $904,452? It’s anyone’s guess. Estimated agricultural water consumption is about 60% of total water consumption. Average cost of 1 cubic meter of agriculture water is about $0.07 while the same volume of water of the same quality is costing domestic customers at least $2.16 if the customer is using 5000 m3 per quarter. I a domestic customer uses 50 m3 the unit cost goes up to $3.10.  Industrial, commercial and institutional customers get a break at slightly over $1.50 per m3. The key principle of insulated agricultural rates meets the intent but at an exorbitant cost to domestic customers.

    Water use for domestic customers is also strictly controlled as to when they can use their water and are urged to conserve water. The same water for irrigation customers is a fraction of the domestic cost and much less controlled as the attached photo illustrates.

d.    Non-agricultural rates are not based on a volume basis and are not uniform throughout the service area. In fact, low volume users pay the highest rates based on a unit volume. 

Examples:

        Customers with no consumption:           $99.80
        Customers using 10 m3 per quarter:      $10.48/m3
        Customers using 50 m3 per quarter:      $  3.10/m3
        Customers using 100 m3 per quarter:    $  2.42/m3
        Customers using 1000 m3 per quarter:  $  2.18/m3
        ICI customers pay                                   $  1.50/m3 plus $99.80 base fee
                                                                                                  
It is obvious that the non-agricultural rate structure does not follow the key principles adopted by the founding parties.
             
e.    This principle does not make sense. How can we grow beyond our ability to provide water to the growing population?

It is obvious from the forgoing that all of the principles were broken. So was the trust customers had in the Master Water Plan.

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

Back to water: Comparison - domestic customers - irrigation customers!

Rules, water rates and budgetary contributions for your information. Are we getting a fair deal?

Domestic customers' rules:

Domestic water rate samples:

           Customers with no consumption:           $99.80
        Customers using 10 m3 per quarter:     $10.48/m3
        Customers using 50 m3 per quarter:     $  3.10/m3
        Customers using 100 m3 per quarter:   $  2.42/m3
        Customers using 1000 m3 per quarter: $  2.18/m3
        ICI customers pay:                                $  1.50/m3 plus $99.8 access fee


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrigation customers' rules:

 

Water rate:  ~$0.07/m3  domestic quality treated water!

Budget contributions:

      Total budget:           $ 18,600,000       100.00%
      Agriculture:              $     904,452           4.86%
      Other income:         $      600,000           3.23%

      Domestic plus ICI:   $ 17,095,548         91.91%
 

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

New Water Restriction Bylaw for GVWU

 

 For information!

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

Campaign Set For $70M Water Vote

Written by Peter McIntyre Friday, 04 July 2014 12:18 

 

Media adds, a flyer in utility bills, community presentations, and a web page dedicated to the issue

Those are ways the Regional District of North Okanagan will use to inform Greater Vernon residents on the pros and cons of this fall's 70 million dollar water referendum.

Coldstream Greater Vernon Advisory Committee director Gyula Kiss was the lone opponent to the campaign, feeling it's biased toward the Yes side, and he plans to vote No in November.

"I can't tell somebody how to vote. I'm telling them how I will vote, and why I am voting that way, and then they can make up their mind if they want to vote against or for," Kiss tells Kiss FM.

Kiss is opposed to the direction of the plan which includes $26 million in filtration at the Duteau Creek water treatment Plant, which he feels is wasted spending when most of the water will be used for agriculture.

Kiss also wanted the plan put to a peer review, believing it would be beneficial to get another opinion on it, as he says the same consultants have worked on it since 2002.

BX-Silver Star director Mike Macnabb calls it a good communication strategy that is simple and clear enough for the public to understand.

"What we're trying to do is have some certainty going forward," said Macnabb.

RDNO administrator David Sewell say both the Yes and No sides are presented in the campaign, and they are trying to be as factual as they can.

"We're not trying to have dire consequences of a No vote," said Sewell, in response to Kiss's comment the information is like "threatening people with hell-fire" if they don't vote Yes.

As for how much a Yes vote would cost the average household, that's described in the material as "below a dollar a day, less than the cost of one litre of bottled water between 2015 and 2020."

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "carrot and stick" approach to public information is what GVW used in the 2004 campaign to "encourage" residents to vote in favour of the $35 million borrowing referendum. Below is a sample of the information provided to voters.

It is quite apparent that the  promises did not materialize and the meteoric rise of water rates surpassed that of the indicated "no" vote rate. While the  Kalamalka source received ultra violet disinfection the Duteau source only received cosmetic improvements, no disinfection other than chlorination.

Total cost up to 2013 on infrastructure improvements was $67 million, well over the $35 million approved by voters.

The current approach to "encourage" voters to vote "Yes" to the $70 million referendum is similar to the technique used in 2004. Note that the recommendation by staff was to use the Alternate Approval Process instead of the referendum. That was not accepted by the politicians. 

Check out the selling plan below.

The above image is the GVAC approved strategy to provide balanced information to voters.

You can observe that if we voluntarily agree to borrow $70 million we will avoid the ire of Interior Health (IH) and complete a yet undetermined set of improvements within 5 years. Failing to approve the borrowing "IH may order GVW to complete the system improvements at any time."

That means if we do not voluntarily spend $70 million then we may have to do so by order. IH is an appointed body. We'll have the opportunity to appeal their order to the Provincial  Government and also have a better reason to request grants to fulfill the order. Further more, IH did not give us this plan, it was the majority of GVAC that gave this plant to IH for approval without an external review. There is nothing we would lose by voting "NO" and there is a potential that the current MWP would be reviewed by an external group.

Just to provide another bit of information: the current loan of $35 million is costing us about $2.45 million annually. That represents about $102.00 per household if we use the base fee as a guide. The additional borrowing, thus, would add an extra $204 per household (using the current number of connections of 24,000).

My major concern, however, is the fact that for a projected $180 million expenditure on infrastructure we would still have an inferior product. We would continue spending $2-2.5 million in perpetuity on treating Duteau Creek water to obtain a quality that is provided by Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes without treatment. In addition, most of this expensive water would continue to irrigate agricultural crops.

My intention is to provide further information in future postings. I would be quite willing to respond to any questions posed by the readers.
 

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