Selected Morning Star Newsclips - In case you missed them.

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

Letter to the Editor - Readers write.

I watched the incredible Canada Day fireworks celebration at Kal Beach whistling and hollering along with the crowd! What a great display, culminating in a crescendo of explosive power that had us all thrilled. It is therefore with some trepidation that I dare raise this issue – a lot of garbage is going into the our drinking water supply for a few minutes of wonder. This is a photo of the fireworks debris we collected in a few minutes along a small portion of lakefront the morning after. It felt like a hangover, not worth the fun of the night before.  And this is just the pieces that we could reach, much more was visible on the shallow lake bottom.  How much more covers the north end of the lake?

About 2/3 of the debris was paper and will bio-degrade with time, but the rest is plastic that will never disappear.  Between the annual Halloween fireworks and now Canada Day on the beach (rather than on land as in the past), we are polluting our drinking water source at an increasing rate.

So at the risk of being labelled a grumpy old man, I would at least like to get a discussion going among all of us who love Kalamalka Lake.

Paul Christie

Concerned Resident

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

Letter to the Morning Star and a response.

In response to Mr Simon’s letter to the Morning Star let me assure him that the plant had no “major equipment malfunction”. There was a problem with the BC Hydro transformer that had been a point of contention by two disagreeing partners: GVWU and BC Hydro for some time. Had it been resolved earlier this problem would not have happened. 

There are all sorts of pumping needed to allow even DC water to be delivered to many of the customers. There was only an electrician needed to attend the MH problem. A stand by generator could have avoided the MH shut down. We have trained staff to do emergency services as part of their jobs. Any expense to rectify small problems like the one  we had on Boxing Day would be infinitesimal to the cost of supplying filtered water to hay fields and other agricultural crops even if we ignore the cost of the construction and operation costs of additional facilities to provide such filtered water. Kalamalka Lake and Okanagan Lake may eventually be invaded by mussels if we are not vigilant. GVWU already has made plans to eliminate the problem by these nasty organisms by including an extra pipe to the Kal intake extension so that chlorine could be injected into the lake at the intake discouraging any mussels from the neighbourhood.

Just to be accurate, the DC plant cost is closer to $30 M. Power is less expensive than the annual treatment costs at DCWTP. Furthermore, even today a lot of power is needed to distribute water to residents of higher elevations like the Predator Golf Course, Silver Star Foothills, the Rise, Turtle Mountain, etc. Contrary to Mr Simon’s statement we do have significant water rights on Okanagan Lake if we consider changing the point of diversion of our licenses from BX Creek, Deer/Coldstream Creek and Kalamalka Lake to Okanagan Lake. That would be a net zero transfer and with justification should be no difficulty of achieving it.

As far as the local group is concerned: they should be commended for getting involved in the future of their water supply just as you should be commended for voicing your opinion. The issues are not as simple as they appear to the casual observer. Some of us noted that during the election campaign many of the political aspirants who originally supported the Master Water Plan changed their position on their support of the referendum. They assured the electorate that they would vote against the referendum question. Obviously, even those intimately involved in the process were not totally sure that it was the right direction. That’s why they appointed the Stakeholders’ Advisory Committee (SAC). Unfortunately, only staff and Consultants are permitted to provide information to this Committee. Information they are given might be considered biased. No "opinion biased in the opposing side" (this writer) nor an independent expert were allowed to review the current plan and comment on it. Hopefully, despite these less than fair decisions by the majority of GVAC the SAC will make the right decision in the end.

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

Readers Write - Letter to the Editor (published with permission)

I believe the resounding defeat of the master water plan referendum shows that you cannot fool all the people all the time and underscores the need for politicans to take off their rose coloured glasses.

The provision of an adequate amount of safe drinking water is absolutely essential and elected officials need to hold those senior members of the water utility who have just been showing part of the overall water picture to the public to account.

It is ridiculous how much emphasis has been put on getting drinking water from Duteau Creek whilst largely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in Coldstream and Vernon get their water from the Mission Hill waterworks that draws its water from Kal Lake. Doing so distorts the water reality.

I suspect a lot of people currently getting their drinking water from Duteau Creek could be switched at reasonable expense to the Mission Creek water that comes from Kal Lake.

Problem is, from the perspective of those with vested interests, that would really show what a white elephant Duteau Creek is as a source of drinking water.

Intially, we were told that we needed to spend millions on the Duteau Creek waterworks because the province would not give us enough water rights to take water from Kal or Okanagan Lakes to meet our needs. That drum is no longer being beaten with much enthusiam perhaps because it’s credibility has been undermined by the fact that other communities bordering the lakes have water licences permitting them to draw what they need from the lakes. It’s hard to believe that the province would deny Vernon what it has granted to Kelowna, that is unless we fail to make a good case that we need the water licences. The horrendous cost of turning Duteau Creek water into something drinkable makes a darn good case, does it not?

Another thing the senior people at the water utility have told us is that Interior Health has ordered us to filter our drinking water. Quite frankly, that’s pretty hard to swallow. I think it far more likely that Interior Health has said that our drinking water needs to meet certain standards and left it up to our water gurus to figger out how to meet those standards.

I’m thinking too that Interior Health has few if any concerns about the bulk of our drinking water that comes from Kal Lake. Duteau Creek water is another matter entirely. Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars poured into making it drinkable, Duteau Creek water, especially at the time of spring runoff, has too many suspended particules that diminsh the efficacy of chlorination or ultra violet treatments. The fact that a lot of cattle poop in the creek and a lot of runoff from nearby fields contaminate it as it meanders through agricultural lands on it’s way to the multi million dollar waterworks does not reduce the cost of purification to drinking water standards either.

I’m no expert but I am a firm believer that you do not have to be a chef in order to criticize the cooking. What amazes me is that our elected officials ever approved spending so much to make water from a nonsuitable source drinkable in the first place.

Now, our elected officials need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more economical plan. They also need to do so with their eyes wide open. It is common knowledge that fudging terms of reference can hamstring outside experts into being unable to recommend what they otherwise would do if not so fettered.

Over to you, our newly elected officials. We need you to sort this out for us. An adequate source of drinking water is a fundamental need, having it done at affordable cost is a fundamental need too. Kindly roll up your sleeves and get on with the job. Give the raspberry to any so-called experts who expound taking water from a source that is so initially unsuitable for making it drinkable that it will never be affordable.

It upsets me that letter such as this needed to be written. For goodness sake you elected officials, do you not realize that your constituents rely on you to determine how many beans make five on the provision of a need so fundamental as enough safe drinking water. Shame on your predeccessors, shame too on those of you who held elected office whilst some of the prolifigate water decisions were made over the past several administrations.

I am one irate citizen who feels badly let down.

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

Water woes - and a response - letter to the Morning Star

 Dec 5, 2014 at 1:00 AM

I recently received my third quarter utility bill and the water cost portion of this bill is enormous.

.

Last year when I received the same third quarter bill (which I also thought was enormous), I decided to do something about it and adjusted my water consumption, bringing my water usage down by almost 20 per cent. Guess what?

My bill this year was almost the same as last year.

A review of what has happened here has brought me some interesting results. On March 19, the Regional District of North Okanagan board approved a new tiered fee structure, including the infrastructure base fee, increasing the cost to domestic (residential users) by almost 20 per cent. Yes, almost 20 per cent.

This in the face of inflationary guidelines of two per cent. I guess the cost of water is not included in the calculations for inflation.

Don Graham

Vernon

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

The above letter points out the unusual way Greater Vernon Water Utility charges for water. It charges a consumption fee on a tiered basis and adds to it a fixed tax (called "base fee") of $99.80 per quarter. Up to a consumption of 66 cubic meters per quarter this tax is greater than the consumption cost. At 40 cubic meter consumption the tax is more than twice as much as the consumption fee. This is what we call a "user pay system". It shows that at lower consumption levels there is no incentive to conserve water because the consumption cost is negligible as compared to the fixed fee.

The reason given for this huge base fee is that it must cover "fixed costs". However, I was never given the actual value of fixed costs. In an annual budget there are two ledgers: an expenditure ledger and a revenue ledger. The expenditures must be equal the revenues or else we have a deficit or a surplus. Thus, I believe that the fixed costs are the costs identified in the expenditure side of the budget. If we wanted to cover all the fixed costs by base fees then the base fees should cover the entire budget. In our budget of $17 million the annual base fees would then amount to about $710 per year or $178 per quarter. All customers should then pay the same regardless of consumption (it used to be that way until quite recently - extremely unfair but there were no meters). 

There are major problems with this system aside from being unfair to low consumers: the utility would lose control of consumption. As indicated above the current system is already showing less incentives to conserve water at lower consumption rates, a universal flat rate would be unmanageable. Unfortunately, the current trend of ever increasing base fees is heading in the wrong direction.

In my opinion a conventional user pay system based on unit cost of treatment and delivery of domestic water with a small base fee (that would also be based on unit cost of water) would be the most effective and fairest way of charging for domestic water.

Just for the record, the "base fee" of $399.20 currently charged by GVWU would be the annual General Tax for a property worth $177,000 in Coldstream.

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

News clip from the Morning Star and a reply.

It is very arrogant of a former city Councillor to tell the taxpayers of Coldstream that they should give up their chosen form of governance and join the City of Vernon. He should have learned from the debates of 2008 (see clips) that these debates do not work unless each one of the jurisdictions agree to proceed based on demonstrated, tangible benefits to each.

As a Coldstream resident I get the services I need: water from GVW, sewer services for which I pay the going rate to the city and the collection fees to Coldstream, I pay my share for recreation, culture etc.

My property taxes in 2013 were 10.25% lower than it would have been had my property been located in the city (that's about $290 in real figures).

You may think Vernon is over governed and that you have to take up with your Council. Coldstream is not over governed and tries to keep taxes at a level its taxpayers can afford. So do not covet our way of life from the outside. If you wish to join Coldstream you may purchase a property and move to Coldstream. Otherwise let us live as WE please!

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

Selected Letter to the Editor - Morning Star.

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

Letter to the Editor - Morning Star

Former Councillor Shawn Lee is somewhat optimistic in his evaluation of Kal Beach. As a beach the property is a liability as it requires continued maintenance with no direct revenue. In order to change the value of the property Coldstream Council would have to rezone the property to something like tourist commercial. I wonder how such change of zoning would affect Council's popularity? I fear even to think about it!

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

Readers write --Letter to the Editor.

The article "Dairy Farms key to Local Economy" in the Vernon Morning Star of April 22nd should be followed by another article entitled "Factory Farms deterrent to Local Economy" highlighting the hidden and not so hidden but little-known costs associated with these factories.

Factory farms are a threat to public health due to their heavy use of chemicals and antibiotics and to the toxic gases emanating from them. Chemicals are used to drench the surrounding monoculture fields that grow the GMO crops that feed the animals, and antibiotics are needed to compensate for illness resulting from extremely crowded conditions. These find themselves in the water, air, and soil as well as the food chain contributing to pollution and the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Factory farms are also a threat to the natural environment due to the toxic gases that emanate from them and due to the over application of manure that runs off the land and accumulates in waterways and kill aquatic life. In addition, factory farms "take over" communities by making it unattractive for any other kind of development to occur. They destroy the charm of rural communities, lower the values of properties, kill tourism, and make it impossible for small family farms and rural attractions to survive. It is telling that tourist brochures never showcase an area by showing these factories.

The hidden costs of factory farms are borne by all of us through our degraded environment and reduced health. We pay again through increased taxes for extra water treatment, farm subsidies that go mostly to factory farms, and for increased health care costs. The social costs are damaged communities, loss of potential tourism and business revenues, and loss of good farmland and family farms. 

Huguette Allen

250-547-0272

Lumby BC

 

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

 

Letter to the Editor, Morning Star.

This letter is printed with the permission of the author.

Dear Editor,

It is with great interest that I read Richard Rolke’s article covering the dispute between Vernon’s mayor Wayne Lippert and Coldstream’s mayor Jim Garlick. It's interesting to me that Richard Rolke attends most GVS meetings and has witnessed first-hand the complete lack of respect that Wayne Lippert shows other board members. So why does Richard Rolke choose to slant an article portraying Mayor Lippert as being the level-headed misunderstood victim. I have witnessed Mayor Lippert’s lack of professionalism first hand and I am amazed that his fellow board members don’t walk out of the meetings. I have attended about a dozen GVS meetings this year. Some of them key meetings, others just your day-to-day meetings. Based on the very few attendees present during these, I think I can safely say 99% of the people governed by the GVS have never been to a meeting. The issue of why GVS does not work for Coldstream is simple and everyone involved understands the problem.

Simply put, four jurisdictions agreed to pool resources rather than have redundancy. This sounds great but the problem that I can see is Coldstream pays about 20% of the GVS budget. The GVS board then approves the budget. GVS then has administration costs which come off the top of the budget. Then GVS staff hires Vernon Park's Staff to do work. Then The City of Vernon has administration costs managing the work. Then Vernon Parks subcontracts out that work to a private contractor who then runs around Coldstream, Lavington and areas doing the work. This is the greatest example of misused government spending at a local level that I have ever seen. What it costs Coldstream taxpayers based on their return is borderline neglect. I would be more upset if Coldstream Council was happy with GVS status. This is insane for our level of government to be run like this.

The next problem is that Coldstream has no ability to change this. They have tried repeatedly to change it however Vernon has voted them down. This is Vernon, the benefactor of the funds from GVS, being able to vote down changes to the structure which would cause them a revenue loss. It is almost a fraudulent practice, GVS hiring one of its members to do work, who then hires a contractor to do the work for less. What happens to the difference? Do those funds just go directly into Vernon coffers? When asked, Vernon does not respond.

Let’s look at this even more. According to the City of Vernon financial records for 2010, the City of Vernon employs 8.1 employees per 1000 residents or 315.7 employees. The City of Vernon claims that 2.1 employees per 1000 people work exclusively for the Regional District (GVS); therefore the actual number is 6.1 employees per 1000 residents or 238.5 employees. It has averaged almost 10% employee growth per year from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Even when it was reported that housing starts were down, the City of Vernon increased staff at the Planning and Building office. The City of Vernon is out of control with spending. Why is this important? Let’s look at Coldstream: they have 3.47 employees per 1000 residents. That is almost half the staff. If you use their calculation on staff time with Regional District, then the number drops to 2.75 employees per 1000 residents. Coldstream has staffing levels at 40% of Vernon. That is a huge difference. If you look at Tax increases in the area, Vernon has increased taxes continually, while Coldstream continues to have little increases. If you look at property taxes, Vernon is almost double Coldstream. DOUBLE.

If I were the City of Vernon, I would be thinking amalgamation. It’s the only way they can make those books look better. The city tried to make things look better through 'smoke and mirrors' or “Enron-ing”. On a recent report that I saw, showing the number of employees for the city of Vernon, the staff actually reversed the calendar so at first glance, it looked like staffing levels had dropped since 2006. In my 25 years of business, this is the first time I have ever seen that. If my accountant had tried that, he would be un-employed. Perhaps if Vernon keeps buying land for parking, and waterfront with no plans or approving GVS to spend funds on useless reports then maybe no one will take a really close look at what they are doing. It sure doesn’t look like Richard Rolke will. There are real issues why the relationship between these two areas is broken, and for Coldstream taxpayers I am glad we have a council who see this.

My reason for wanting Coldstream out of the GVS is that we have chosen to partner with a junkie. Vernon is a 'tax junkie' who will do anything to get more taxes. Who will just keep spending and spending. When dealing with addicts, it is best not to be an enabler but to stand back and allow them to deal with their addiction themselves. The City of Vernon is addicted to taxes and the GVS is one source for that addiction. If we stay in GVS, then we could be pulled to the bottom with them. I hope Coldstream pulls out of GVS. I believe we could supply the services at a better rate, with local management and true accountability.

The only thing Wayne Lippert said in the article that rang true was that residents are talking about amalgamation. Coldstream residents are saying NO!

Rob MacKay
Coldstream
Rural living at its best (and balanced)

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

Water bottles - A letter to the Editor and a response.

Vernon Morning Star

Published: June 12, 2011 1:00 AM

I read with interest the article written by Richard Rolke in the May 15 edition entitled, “Fountains reviewed for recreation facilities.”

Mr. Rolke quotes Greater Vernon Advisory Committee director Gyula Kiss as stating that, “the overwhelming majority of bottles end up in the landfill and pollute the environment.” This is incorrect.

According to industry steward Encorp Pacific, more than 75 per cent of plastic beverage containers, including bottled water, were diverted from landfill in B.C. last year. We have no objection to the installation of water fountains on municipal property, as long as they are maintained to public health unit standards. Why? Bottled water does not compete with tap water. It competes with other bottled beverages. About 70 per cent of Canadians drink both. They drink tap water at home and consume bottled water away from home.

GVAC director Mike Gavinchuk had it right when he said, “Why should we dictate to people how they drink water?”

The fact of the matter is that Vernon residents have the legal right to purchase and consume bottled water wherever they may be, unencumbered by well-meaning but misinformed environmental activists, some local elected representatives and competing commercial interests.

John Challinor,
Director of corporate affairs
Nestle Waters Canada
Ontario

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


Mr. Challinor takes exception to my remarks at a GVAC meeting in a letter to the Editor (Morning Star, June 12, 2011, attached for reference). He questions my statement that “the overwhelming majority of bottles end up in the landfill and pollute the environment.”

Perhaps he is right in the proportion of un-recycled plastic bottles. However, even if he is right we loose an entire annual production of bottles every four years. Where do those bottles go? Landfills, ditches, lakes and even to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

The debate was about eliminating the sale of bottled water at GVAC facilities and providing an alternative source of drinking water through reinstatement of once popular drinking fountains. While we can’t save the World we can do our part to reduce our share of pollution. Local politician do have the right of regulating what is sold at their facilities.

Is there an environmental cost to producing a plastic bottle for a single use? You decide! Here is another link to help you in your decision.

http://lifewithoutplastic.com/en/about-plastic.html

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

Letter to the Editor and the response.

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

Re: Letter to the Editor, NOT RIGHT, from John Hegler Sunday June 5th, 2011

Dear Mr. Hegler.

In response to your recent letter in the Morning Star, and your concerns about my expenses, expressed at the May 24th Coldstream Council meeting, I am providing here, an explanation of the total number of meetings I attended and reasons for them. As I have already stated, "I make no apologies for trying to be better informed, in order to make better decisions".

Courtesy of Vernon blog, I have pasted below, a chart listing remuneration amounts for Greater Vernon politicians (I have confirmed that these figures match those reported in Coldstream, Vernon, and Regional District (RDNO) financial reports). The chart speaks for itself: In terms of expenses as well as total remuneration, I am 5th from the bottom in relation to the others.

I reiterate that in 2010, I attended 196 meetings. Some of these meetings were shorter but for the most part they were 2 hours or more, plus preparation time before, and follow–up time after. Of these meetings, 41 qualified for the $139 meeting pay, 151 meetings did not. Of those 41 meetings, only 24 meetings were for RDNO or GVAC (Greater Vernon Advisory Committee) and the rest were for the Okanagan Regional Library (ORL).

The RDNO and GVAC meetings are often long, and have important presentations from staff and public on Parks and Water. For Coldstream taxpayers, RDNO and GVAC taxes are 30% of our total tax bill. Another way to look at this is that, the dollar value of these taxes is equivalent to 62% of the dollar value we pay for the municipal Coldstream taxes portion of our tax bill. The one designated Coldstream rep. on the RDNO Board has a large responsibility, and does a great job, but often another set of eyes and ears helps for more informed discussions and decision making at our Council meetings. You cannot capture all the information in the Minutes and a 5 minute summary.

As for the Regional Library(ORL), it has been a very busy year - in great part because they are building the new Vernon Branch. (Incidently, I am happy to say, I believe that I may have been instrumental in helping to keep the Vernon Branch in downtown Vernon.) I made many trips to attend meetings in Kelowna for the Vernon Building Committee, plus I sit on the Library Finance, and Strategic Planning Committees. Further I attend 4 ORL Board meetings per year. On top of the 17 meetings in 2010, I was compensated in 2010 for 8 ORL meetings from 2009 because I had never put in for pay for those meetings (theses are not included the 196 meeting count). The reason I had not put in for meeting pay is that I was not told that these meetings qualified until September 2010, when the policy was clarified by an inquiry made by another Councillor.

So perhaps this clarification can help explain to you and the electorate, Mr. Hegler, why my wages at $15,996 may seem high compared to Councillor Cochrane’s $8,885.

As for my 2010 expenses of $3,360, these are calculated as the expenses attributed to me for attending meetings or Conferences sanctioned by Council. For 2010 these were: a 1day transportation meeting in Kelowna; a 3.5 day Southern Interior Local Government’s Association (S.I.L.G.A.) Conference at Sun Peaks; and a 3.5 day Union of B.C. Municipalities (U.B.C.M.) Conference in Whistler. These expenses include the 'Conference Fees', and the 'accommodation fees', (paid through the office and generally out of a Councillor’s control), and a 52 cents per km mileage charge (for wear and tear on your private vehicle); and a $100 per diem for any other expenses – note there is NO meeting pay for these meetings. Is it any wonder why Councillors who have a regular job or business, are not falling over each other to attend? If you have to take time off work to attend, it actually costs you money and more importantly in my case, time, to go to a conference.

Now you may wonder why my fellow Councillors, Enns and Cochrane, actually defended my salary and expenses. I believe the reason is because they know and value how much work I do, and they realize that it is beneficial and necessary for Coldstream to be represented at these conferences. (witness the Grid Road funding, Hwy 6 improvement funding, SILGA resolution for Agriculture, support of RDNO resolutions at SILGA, UBCM resolutions, meeting and networking with other elected officials and ministry staff). Our Council works as a team, some of us offer expertise, some of us offer our time, some offer wisdom, it is all a balance.

I know that there have been some politicians who have abused expense accounts, meeting pay and perks. I am not one of them. I welcome it when the public holds those people to account. For my part, I know that my Council has full knowledge and support for all the meetings and conferences that I attended - otherwise I am sure they would not have approved my requests.

Mr. Hegler, I offer no apologies because I have a clear conscience. If you think you can offer better value to the voters, I would welcome you running on that platform at the next election.

Sincerely,
Maria Besso
Coldstream Councillor

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

Response to Letter to the Editor: Ranch history by Doug MacGregor.

The following letter to the Editor appeared in the May 20, 2011 Morning Star:

Ranch history
Vernon Morning Star

Published: May 20, 2011 1:00 AM

The folks in Coldstream are so lucky to have someone so informed and knowledgeable as Mr. Kiss sitting on their council. His statement to the council that we have our own ranch here in Coldstream shows the depth of his understanding and knowledge of our local heritage.

I would also assume it portrays his vision of the need to support this and other community projects.

To compare the O'Keefe Heritage Ranch operations to the Coldstream Ranch would in my opinion show his ignorance in understanding the problems encountered by the O'Keefe heritage ranch.

For your information Mr. Kiss the Coldstream Ranch, as most of us know, is a private enterprise that makes an income from ranching, logging, gravel sales etc.

I am sure Ted Osborne has no intention of asking Coldstream council for money to keep the Coldstream Ranch afloat.

The O'Keefe Ranch is a heritage museum with dedicated volunteers and staff, that are trying to preserve and maintain our heritage buildings and in doing so they try to keep us and our children connected to our past and a way of life experienced by our pioneering citizens

It would appear Mr. Kiss has very little knowledge of the history of the ranch and its important role in the building of this great province and the community he lives in.

With his fixation on water issues I am also surprised Mr. Kiss wasn't on board to help the O'Keefe Ranch with its water connection.

I am not sure the citizens of Coldstream will be as proud of their council's $600 contribution to the ranch as the council members seems to be.

Thanks again for the contribution Coldstream Council.

For your generous contribution, the ranch may want to give you a free day pass so that you would be able to go out and see what is being done on your behalf to preserve our heritage treasure.

Should that not happen, and knowing the budget constraints you must be encountering, I will gladly support the purchase of a day pass for you.

I am sure the citizens and businesses of Coldstream will be a lot more supportive of the O'Keefe Ranch than the existing council.

Doug MacGregor

Coldstream

Since Mr MacGregor is a Coldstream resident and his information seems to be incomplete I feel compelled to clarify my position. My response follows:

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

Thank you, Mr MacGregor, for your compliments and for recognizing my contribution to the taxpayers of Coldstream. I do consider my options carefully when it comes to spending my constituents’ hard earned dollars. I have taken an oath to faithfully manage the finances of Coldstream’s taxpayers.

In fact, Coldstream Ranch has just as long a history as does O’Keefe Ranch. Both of the Ranches are of historic value. As for operations I have never considered them comparable. Coldstream Ranch is privately owned and operated by a Coldstream resident at a profit, while O’Keefe Ranch is owned by the City of Vernon and operated by a volunteer Board. Their business plan does not seem to include profitability even though it is operated as a business. Coldstream Ranch pays taxes to Coldstream, using those taxes to bail out Vernon owned O’Keefe Ranch does not seem to be compatible with my oath of office.

As for Mr Ted Osborn, he is not going to request money from Council on behalf of the Ranch as he does not own nor does he manage Coldstream Ranch.

While Coldstream Ranch is not declared a heritage ranch, in the past Coldstream Days were conducted on the ranch. There were exhibits demonstrating the past history of the ranch and hundreds of people took advantage of the festivities. They learned the history and enjoyed demonstrations of present day activities. I assume Mr MacGregor is aware of those past events.

I believe the fact that GVAC approved the connection of O’Keefe Ranch to GVW was a significant gift to the Ranch as it is outside the boundaries of the Water Utility.

The $600 contribution by Council, which I did not support, was indeed generous considering that it was the sum total left in the 2011 grant budget. The grant application was submitted by O’Keefe Ranch late and after our budget was finalized. I am hoping most Coldstream residents appreciate the fact that I try to keep their taxes at a reasonable level. If they can afford contributions to O’‘Keefe Ranch they are free to do so privately and individually.

I must decline your “generous offer” of a day pass to O’Keefe Ranch since accepting that gift would be contrary to my oath of office as well.

Gyula Kiss
Councillor
District of Coldstream

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

Letter to the Editor - Re: Proposed Sports Facilities at Okanagan College Kalamalka Campus

January 3, 2011

The current proposal to locate sport facilities on the Okanagan College Kalamalka Campus site appears to have broad community support, however I think it is worthwhile to consider why the college site is currently configured the way it is before we proceed. The following presents a review of the site history: why the land is in the ALR, how the college buildings and parking areas were located, and why this large field where the sports facility is proposed is currently vacant.

The general area of the college site was designated Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in 1974. Apparently, the area where the sports facilities are proposed was historically used for pasture but has not been cultivated or grazed for the past several decades. Note that about half of the Class 1-4 land in the Okanagan ALR, as well as in the provincial ALR, is not currently used for crops. These lands are being protected for food production for future generations.

In 1979, Lots 4 and 5 (the site) were transferred from the Ministry of Forests to Okanagan College. I was the Professional Agrologist retained by Doug Huggins, the Vernon architect who designed the college, to carry out an agricultural assessment of the site and to assist in the preparation of an application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) to use a portion of the site for the college facilities.

The agricultural capability of the site ranges from Class 1 for the level areas to Class 7 for the steep slopes of the ravines. With irrigation, a wide range of crops, including vegetables, grapes and tree fruits, could be grown on the site. These lands have essentially the same soils and climate as their counterpart benches across the lake on Kidston Road where the orchard and dairy are located. The intent of the original ALR application was to use the less agriculturally suitable areas of Lot 5 for the college facilities and to save the larger, level area of Lot 4 for future agricultural or forestry use, related to the college curriculum.

The ALC supported the proposal, stating (in part): …to allow for the construction of a college campus and related uses on lot 5, …subject to the condition that no buildings or structures be located on …lot 4…it is the commission’s understanding that lot 4 is to be used by the college for agricultural or forestry related uses. The ALC subsequently authorized additional parking areas, amounting to about 2 acres within Lot 4.

Three years ago, we saw how passionately Coldstream voters feel about agricultural land protection when the sports complex was proposed on the Spicer block area of the Coldstream Ranch. Most of us were not against the development of sports facilities in the community, we just didn’t want to see it on prime agricultural lands. The District of Coldstream then made a commitment to try to find other sites where sports fields could be constructed, knowing that the most likely locations would also be in the ALR, but hopefully on much lower quality land.

There are two major reasons why I question putting the proposed sports facilities on the Kalamalka Campus site. First, thirty years ago, Okanagan College and the ALC made an agreement that allowed the construction of the campus while also protecting the good agricultural land for future research use. Why is this no longer valid? Why would we try to undo decisions and commitments that were rational then and are even more valid today in light of current global food production issues?

Secondly, it would be very difficult and expensive today to put together a comparable college site in the Okanagan with 10 acres of highly arable land attached that could be used for crop research and teaching students about local food production.

There are currently no agricultural courses taught at the college but Dean John Lent supports the idea of incorporating food production courses into the curriculum. I have been working with Dean Lent and Mayor Jim Garlick on the development of a crop research plot at the college which is currently under construction in the area between the parking lot and the ravine. Clearly the desire is there to support agricultural courses and to start doing crop research at the college.

In summary, it is encouraging to be moving forward with constructing a crop research plot at the campus site but I believe we should also be protecting the prime land that was set aside for this purpose in 1979. A review of ALC files shows that subsequent applications and proposals have been made over the years to use Lot 4 for non-agricultural uses, and that the Commission has been steadfast in refusing these uses. I believe that it will be difficult for the ALC to reverse their original, well thought out decision. However, if a decision is made to allow the sports facilities, Coldstream hasrequested that a legal covenant be placed on the 5 acre portion of the remaining area of Lot 4 that would restrict all future development to green field or crop use. Five prime acres would be taken up by the running track, the turf field and associated buildings while the capacity to develop crop research plots within the adjacent 5 acre site would be retained. In my opinion, this would be an acceptable compromise.

Paul Christie
13012 Westkal Road
Coldstream BC V1B 1Y5

Published with the author's permission.

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