Council's appreciation of our long-time Fire Chief.

The dismissal of the Fire Chief of Coldstream is another major disservice brought upon the taxpayers and the volunteer fire department by the dysfunctional Council.

Since Council did not see fit to release reasons for the firing one can only speculate why this happened. It appears the Chief's undoing was his dissatisfaction with the handling of the construction process and lack of communication during the construction of the new fire hall. It seems, management had no need to consult with the fire department when changes had to be made due to budgetary constraints.

This is not a legitimate reason to fire a long term employee. In fact, when Mayor Corner acknowledged that "I think he is a great fireman, that's certainly not the issue here", he exposed the Municipality to a potential wrongful dismissal suit. Our labour laws protect employees against wrongful dismissal.

Another nasty, underhanded aspect of the dismissal is the timing.
The Chief is only a month away from completing 25 years of meritorious service a feat generally honoured with a commemorative pin or watch. This Council chose to honour his long service with a handshake and a pink slip.

The Chief was instrumental in fighting for the new fire hall which should be opened later this month. It is incredible how mean spirited Council was by firing the Chief before he could enjoy the fruit of his labour.

Taxpayers and Council should be grateful for the sacrifices members of the volunteer firemen. This action relayed their utter disconcert for those sacrifices.

Shame on Council! They better come up with some explanation before November or they will have to explain their action during their election campaign.

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

Responses to firing of Coldstream Fire Chief.

The following comments are from the Vernon Blog. They are responses to the reports on the firing of Coldstream's fire Chief. My only comment is that as long as a person pays taxes to Coldstream that person IS a Coldstream ratepayer. The difference is that some people contribute to functions the Ratepayers Association organizes through their annual membership. Judge the comments for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

This is soooooo wrong....

Can you say !!!!.."The Coldstream Rate Payers as a special Interst group has influenced this because of the councillors on this present council".. CORNER is useless as a Mayor...Like Wayne MIPPERT, he can't or won't make a decision

He's allowed a disfunctional council wreck Coldstream and in doing so,removed a dedicated member of the Coldstream Fire Department..

This is eexactly what the people will get when special interest groups (Including Veron) try to control the agendas of council..

As a former member of the Rate Payers..these people are radicals and only want to stir up "crap"..

Just wait..this is "silly season" and the proof is in the pudding.

I've heard rumor that the former head of the RCMP detachment in Vernon, Mr KALABABA, might be running for Mayor of Vernon..PLEASE convince him to run for Mayor of Coldstream..We need true leadership

9:04 PM, August 07, 2008

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

Anonymous said...

You want Kolibaba to run do you?
Talk about "special interest"!!

Listen Pal the Coldstream Ratepayers and the Vernon Taxpayers are the only groups who are NOT special interest!

THE ONLY GROUPS!

They are the majority of the citizens in both jurisdictions

You are right come November you will realise that the weary long-suffering taxpayers shall speak as one and out with the 'special interests"

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

Further notes on Latecomer Charges.

The latest project by Sugoi Development requires the construction of a sewer trunk line down Aberdeen Road by the developer. This development will require a latecomer contract similar to that drawn up between the District and Coldstream Meadows in Bylaw 1487. A copy of the bylaw is attached for your perusal.

As you can see 48 properties were included in the bylaw and if they connected within the next 10 years they would have to pay almost $10,000 latecomer fees each plus accrued interest of 6% a year. On the 10th year this fee would be between $15,000 and $16,000. These properties are directly adjacent to the new sewer line. No properties distant from the sewer line were included in the deal, such as Bel Air, Bona Vista, De Jong, etc.

If we apply the same principles to this new development we would only have about 20+ properties involved in the latecomer agreement. Imagine the size of the individual latecomer fees due to the developer for up to 15 years with potential accrued interest.

Council purchased the CM contract for $250,000 using operating funds from the existing utility (your money and mine) and offered a carrot to residents to connect to the line for a fraction of the initial latecomer fee ($2,000 per connection instead of the $10,000). There are few takers to date. After all, the $2,000 fee is only a down payment followed by the physical cost of installation and the annual sewer fees presently at $568 per year in addition to their tax of $97.54 per year.

Is Council going to purchase the latecomer contract from Sugoi Development as well? If so, what will they use for money? If not, will it not appear as favouritism to some taxpayers (and developers)? Why should Aberdeen Road residents pay full latecomer fees when McClounie-Mackie residents pay only a fraction of that fee? Why should Sugoi wait for his potential latecomer income (which may not materialize to a large extent) while CM got more than 50 cents on the dollar in advance?

When Councils make hasty, poorly researched decisions they find themselves in an untenable situation like this. Staff, supposed to be experts, are there to provide advice that would prevent situations like this. They are paid good money for their expertise. In my opinion, this time staff failed Council or Council gave the wrong direction to staff. Either way it is not a happy situation for Council.

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

Little known facts about latecomer charges.

When a municipality or a developer finances a service, such as sewer and water, properties subsequently connecting to said service are charged a latecomer charge. In case of a developer it is the municipality that request the oversizing of the particular service and the cost of this oversizing is covered by the latecomer charge. This latecomer charge can only be collected for a maximum of 15 years.

So how does a developer handle the uncertainty of latecomer income? He can’t wait 15 years to recover his investment. It is also possible that much of the income never materializes as the 15-year time limit expires.

Recently I discussed this problem of latecomer charges with a developer. He told me that the only way this dilemma can be solved by making sure that the development is viable without the latecomer income. The cost of the total infrastructure cost is written off against the project. Of course, this cost is calculated into the purchase price of the properties. He considered any amount coming in from latecomer charges as a gift. This approach makes total sense as 15 years could be an eternity for a company.

In this context the latecomer buyout of Coldstream Meadows by the Municipality was an instant gift of $250,000 to CM. Providing a sewer trunk line gift worth $665,000 and paid by the sewer utility could also be construed as a gift.

It is worthwhile to consider the following prohibition in the Community Charter (Division 2. – Restrictions on Providing Assistance):

General prohibition against assistance to business and exceptions

25 (1) Unless expressly authorized under this or another Act, a council must not provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business, including

(a) any form of assistance referred to in section 24 (1) [publication of intention to provide certain kinds of assistance], or

(b) an exemption from a tax or fee.

Is it possible that the provision of an extended sewer line to assist Coldstream Meadows in reducing its sewer costs could be viewed as "assistance to business"? I wonder! Don't you?

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

The trouble with a lie.

The trouble with a lie is that if one repeats it often enough one starts believing it oneself.

That is what seems to be happening with Coldstream Council and staff. They insist that the extension of the McClounie-Aberdeen Road sewer trunk line had nothing to do with Coldstream Meadows' need for sewer connection. It was repeated to me again today by the Coldstream Director of Finance.

They must ask themselves and answer honestly: would we have constructed this trunk line if there was no Coldstream Meadows? The answer is obvious: NO.

Think about it! Council conducted a survey of residents along the proposed line and got a resounding “NO” from them.

Having this information, does anyone believe that Council would have gone ahead with the construction of the line if CM did not need it? I very much doubt it.

There are only 35 residential properties on this route. None of those residents connected to date so they have no benefit from this “service”. Yet they are paying $97.54 annually in taxes for 20 years to pay part of the capital cost of this line. The utility “invested” (they did not want to but Council did it anyway) $665,000 of reserve funds. They are not having any benefit from it either. Who is the beneficiary? Coldstream Meadows. Now you got it!

So Council and staff, keep lying to yourselves and convince yourselves that it was for the benefit of the majority of taxpayers. You provided the “well sewered community” but most you are not participating. Pat yourselves on the backs, you have done a good deed. The question is: for whom?

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

Council meeting --July 28, 2008

Tonight's Council meeting was quite a tame affair. I was not allowed to present my submission to Council, it was received and filed. I wonder if they even read it. Councillor Garlick is traveling and no other member would make any comment on my pointed questions.

However, a few irate citizens showed protesting the major traffic tie-ups in front of their residences by the Kalview boat lunch. Apparently, during weekends there are line ups of boats trying to get in or out of the lake and residents are blocked from entering their homes or leaving. Chair person Mallerby was not saying much about the wonderful resolution of the increased capacity GVSC created after purchasing the old home.

Some of you might remember the public outcry trying to prevent the expansion. They were reassured that it will all be fine. It seems all is not fine. One resident complained that a boat flipped off its trailer and landed in his yard. These residents are paying high taxes living on the lake and they find themselves in the middle of a commercial zone. It seems boat owners rather fight through the congestion since boat launching is free here, while they have to pay a few bucks if they launched at Kekuli Bay. Go figure!

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

Who is running Council in Coldstream?

Following is my correspondence with the Chief Administrative Officer of the District Of Coldstream in chronological order. The issue revolves around whether the Auditor should appear before Council for the presentation of the Audited Financial Statements. It is customary to have the Auditor present to answer relevant question regarding the financial status of the Corporation.

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

July 11, 2008

Hi Wendy.

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

Jul 19, 2008 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jul 22, 2008 Gyula: Keri-Ann has passed your email onto me regarding a request to appear as a delegation with respect to the Auditor. As previously advised, Council has denied your request to have the Auditor appear before Council. I would suggest you forward a letter to Council outlining your concerns for Council direction on your correspondence. As you are aware, the delegation portion and public opportunity portion of the agenda provides an opportunity to provide input to Council on a specific matter or issue of concern, this is not an opportunity to debate amongst people in the gallery or those making presentations. Although Council is versed on my subjects, it would be unfair to assume they can answer all of your questions, hence the suggestion to put your concerns in writing for the appropriate people to respond. Noting the above, this matter will not be placed on the agenda under delegations, and I urge you to provide your concerns in writing, addressed to Mayor and Council. Wendy Kay Chief Administrative Officer 9901 Kalamalka Road Coldstream, BC V1B-1L6 Phone: 545-5304 Fax: 545-4733
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jul 22, 2008

Wendy

Thank you for your prompt reply and for your suggestion. Hence I have my letter to Council attached. I hope this will satisfy the reasons for my request.

I am quite aware of the fact that Council may not be able to answer all my questions. That is exactly the reason why I want to have the Auditor present who may be able to sort out these questions. Once again I wish to point out that when a corporation's Audited Financial Statements are presented to the shareholders of the corporation the Auditor's presence is mandatory to answer questions posed by shareholders.

Thank you for your attention.

Gyula Kiss
President, CRPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequently the following letter was sent to members of Council in support of my application:

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

Council meeting --July 14, 2008

REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM

TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008
IN THE MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9901 KALAMALKA ROAD, COLDSTREAM, BC
AT 7:00 PM

Items of interest:

Page 17 f. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Options
· Email from Maria Besso, dated July 8, 2008

Maria Besso will be in attendance to speak to this matter.

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

8. BYLAWS

a. District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008

· Bylaw No. 1529, 2008 (previously circulated)
· A bylaw to change the designation of Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 from Residential to Multi-family Residential and to amend Schedule G by including Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 within the Multiple Family Development Permit Area

Recommendation

FINAL ADOPTION

THAT “District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008”, be passed and finally adopted.

It seems there is no change in the requirement that the developer construct a sewer trunk down Aberdeen Road. This is strange since Council made the following motion at their April 14th Council meeting:

"(3) Policy Re: Sewer Extensions to Serve Existing Neighbourhoods Currently on Septic Service

· Report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated March 26, 2008

Moved by Dirk, seconded by Taylor, THAT the report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated March 26, 2008, regarding Policy Re: Sewer Extensions to Serve Existing Neighbourhoods Currently on Septic Service, be received;

AND THAT this matter be tabled to a future meeting of Council.

NO. REG20080177

CARRIED ."

Lacking the appropriate policy it is premature to approve the above bylaw amendment as the consequences on unsuspecting residents could be significant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. District of Coldstream Sewer Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund Expenditure Bylaw No. 1526, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1532, 2008, Amendment No. 1

· Proposed Bylaw No. 1532, 2008

· A bylaw to amend the amount of funds already committed, by adding $43,800, to go toward the construction of a new sewer line on Aberdeen Road between Kalamalka Road and Wisbey Drive.

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

e. District of Coldstream Road Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund Expenditure Bylaw No. 1516, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1533, 2008, Amendment No. 1

· Proposed Bylaw No. 1533, 2008

· A bylaw to amend the amount of funds already committed, by adding $21,900, to go toward upgrading a portion of Aberdeen Road between Kalamalka Road and Wisbey Drive.

These funds are in addition to the $617,000 plus the $35,000 approved for asphalt bringing the total of the Fire Hall Off Site costs to an incredible sum of $718,700 (of what we know!).

Is this in addition to the $4,000,000 approved by the referendum for the Fire Halls? If so it is a sneaky way of spending nearly $5 million on the fire halls although we only approved $4 million.

Here is a breakdown for the off site costs:

Road DCC's................................. $316,800
Sewer DCC's.................................$156,600
Short term borrowing........................$177,700
2008 Revenue................................$ 31,600
Asphalt?....................................$ 36,000
Total.......................................$718,700

Does this sum include the off site works for the Lavington Fire Hall?

Using the Road DCC's is a disingenuous move. Those DCC's were established for construction of new roads in the Municipality and not for repairing old roads. The initial purpose for the Road DCC's was for the eventual connection of the Ring Road of Middleton Mountain to Highway 97. However, it appears that anything goes without challenge. The depletion of these DCC's could have serious consequences in the future when the connection to Highway 97 becomes unavoidable.

The short term borrowing of $177,700 is also somewhat dishonest. The approved borrowing was to be a maximum of $4 million. Even if we call the additional sum a short term borrowing it is still borrowing and exeeds the approved maximum amount by 4.4%.

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

Why we should not build the Aberdeen sewer line.

I made the following presentation to Coldstream Council last night:

The last election was a closely contested one. Your Worship was elected by a slim majority of about 20 votes. However it was still a majority and you had the privilege of sitting in that chair making decisions in the name of the people.

Unfortunately, your decisions did not always reflect the wishes of the people. Some examples are this Municipal building, approving the huge expansion of Coldstream Meadows, the extension of the sewer line from McClounie to Aberdeen Road at taxpayers’ expense and the Sports Complex. You seem to forget at times that Organizational chart you included in the financial report where taxpayers are supposed to be in the top layer.

This latest effort appears to be another attempt to ignore the wishes of the people. You believe we should build a sewer trunk line down Aberdeen Road. You would not allow anyone addressing that issue during the last public hearing. It seems, your mind is made up and you would not want to hear from those not agreeing with your point of view.

Last year Council commissioned an environmental report, carried out by Golder Associates. While they did report of poor septic systems especially in the Paisley-Shamanski-Rendell Drive area they also polled the residents within the study area wether or not they wished to have sewer. Of the 140 respondents 63% answered “no” and only 29% answered “yes”. Now, that is a substantially larger margin of “no” than your margin of victory in the last election. These taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill related to sewer connections and not you nor the rest of Council. Heed their wishes!

You may ask why this issue should bother me.

As the Acting President of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association it is my duty to represent the wishes of the ratepayers. All residents are ratepayers even if they are not paying membership fees. They are paying their taxes to this Council and they expect appropriate representation.

The developer is also paying the required fees and he should be treated fairly. He has an alternative sewer system to which he could connect. Council has already set the precedence when approving the adjacent development to use the alternate sewer system. Changing the parameters now for this developer could be considered a biased decision.

It is also my understanding that the developer would be committing to $1 million for the construction of this system. Judging from the site work at the Fire Hall (presently at $617,000) I am certain that the costs of the 1.7 km trunk line will be far beyond $1 million. I hate to think who will be settled with the difference. The problems for a new Council will be tremendous.

We still have not resolved the problems created by the gifting of a new sewer trunk line to Coldstream Meadows. Staff and Council is in a real conundrum over this issue and adding to this mess is totally unfair for the next and subsequent Councils. The present Council inherited the difficulties from the previous one, thus, they should understand the unfairness of passing on a new set of troubles to future Councils. The financial implications are mind boggling. You only have five months left to resolve present issues. November is election time!

Proposed policies tabled at an earlier Council meeting will require residents fronting this new line to connect to it within five years. In the meantime they would have to pay the operation and maintenance costs of the sewer system presently calculated by the Director of Finance at $320 annually. That is a hefty unexpected expense to unsuspecting residents who are supposed to be the BOSS and should be the first to know.

You should also be concerned about the beleaguered residents who are already on the sewer system and are paying inordinate sewer fees. Those same proposed policies I mentioned earlier also require those residents to put up 50% of the replacement costs of the existing sewer main from McClounie to Alpine Centre. That line is only 30 years old. They only finished paying for it in 2005. The only reason that pipe needs to be replaced is due to growth. Why should existing sewer customers pay for a new line that is requiring replacement because of growth and, in fact, put up half of the replacement cost in advance? I have heard of some assistance for growth but what Council has done by requiring these same residents to put up 111% of the cost of the McClounie to Mackie Drive sewer extension was already criminal. To require these same taxpayers to pay half of the replacement costs of their own perfectly functional sewer trunk line in advance is beyond words.

In order to demonstrate what mindless actions create let me show you one map sheet created by Golder Associates. It portrays the suitability of lands for on site sewer disposal. Note that the most suitable sites are along the “urgent” sewer line from McClounie to Mackie Drive. Can you explain that? Why did we have to put up all that money for an unnecessary sewer line? It was not an urgent issue. Since the developer needed that connection he would have constructed it at his own expense and collected latecomer fees from residents connecting to it at a later date.

But of course, except for two of you, you don’t have to pay these costs so why should it bother you? My suggestion is: it should! Remember the Organizational Chart: you are the second layer and the bosses will have to make a decision again in November.

Gyula Kiss
Acting President, CRPA

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

Who is the BOSS?

Page 7 of Coldstream's 2007 Annual Financial Report depicts the Organizational Chart of the District of Coldstream. Note how it should be: the Citizens of Coldstream are on top, Council and Staff. Do you agree that this chart actually depicts reality?

Just remember the referendum to borrow money for the construction of a new Municipal Hall and Fire Halls. The Citizens rejected it, Council built the Municipal Hall anyway. There were major objections for the expansion of Coldstream Meadows Development. Who won? Not the citizens.

The overwhelming majority of people along the new sewer line on Kalamalka Road opposed sewer, those who knew that the money for it came from the utility's reserve opposed it. Council awarded the contract as their last act before the election. It was almost like they were scared to leave the decision to the next Council. No environmental study, no referendum, no information on the need, they just rammed it down our throats. Do you know what the study commissioned last year shows? Check it out! It shows that the most suitable locations for septic systems are along the new McClounie-Mackie Drive trunk line. There was no urgency for a sewer line there except for the fact that Coldstream Meadows' development depended on it. Had we done the study in advance of the actual construction we would have known that there was no urgency. Or perhaps we did not want to know that.

Remember the fiasco when Mayor Corner tried to have an end-run around Council and the citizens of Coldstream with regards to the Sports Complex? Obviously, the citizens did not occupy the top layer the Mayor kept that for himself. Fortunately, the citizens finally spoke up.

Now Council wants to have a new sewer trunk line constructed on Aberdeen Road. The same study that produced the above suitability map also ran a survey among people in the area of the sewer line. Of the 140 respondents 63 said "NO" to sewer and only 29% said "YES". it is obvious that the majority do not want it.

Should Council honour the Organizational Chart? I say YES! The cost of the sewer connection will be born by the Citizens. The developer who would be constructing the trunk line would only be responsible for $1 million. Who would pay for extra costs? Did you know that the Fire Hall sewer connection now is at $617,000 (page 4). How much would an additional 1.7 km sewer line cost? What do you think? More than $1 million?

Come to Council on Monday, June 23 and express yourself. The elections are only five months away! We don't want this Council to download a huge mess on the next Council as was done by the previous Council.

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

Opposition Leader meets with Vernon and District Taxpayers.

Carol James, Leader of the of the Opposition NDP Party and Adrian Dix, NDP Health Critic held a town-hall meeting at the Schubert Centre this morning at 8 AM with several members of the public discussing the critical status of the Vernon area health care. Carol James praised the efforts of the Taxpayers Association and reflected on the success of the petition initiated by the group.

Adrian Dix revealed the problems associated with the P3 (Public Private Partnership) ideology of the Liberal Government. Contracts under the partnership are signed for thirty years and this creates major problems in initiating changes in the system in response to changing needs and changing health issues. The fact that the ideology tries to combine to opposing systems (maximum profit by the free enterprise and most cost effective provision of health care) is difficult to rationalize.

Following the meeting a media information session was held in front of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital with a large number of media representatives participating. Ms James declared that this meeting was one of many in the coming 11 months. She intends to hold numerous town hall type meetings in preparation for the next election.

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

District of Coldstream 2007 Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2007

Coldstream's Financial report is now available either from the Municipal Office or through the internet.

Page 9 contains the Municipal Mission Statement as follows:

Mission Statement of the District of Coldstream

"We, the Council of the District of Coldstream, are committed to a long-range plan for Coldstream, which fosters orderly growth and which enhances rural living at its best. Our mission is to make this a living plan supported by efficient fiscal management, appropriate policy and procedure development, and effective delivery of services."

I am not sure if Council is entirely successful in this endeavour. In six years our water service changed only in price but the quality remained. My sewer service now includes paying for new development at an outrageous rate. A couple of new sewer lines are in the ground but serve very few people.

Anyway, enjoy the report it seems to be well presented.

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

Council meeting -- June 9, 2008

Let me reprint the motion that sent the OCP Amendment Bylaw to Public Hearing:

FIRST READING

Moved by Taylor, seconded by Williams,

HAT the report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated May 7, 2008, regarding Sugoi Property Management – Rezoning and OCP Amendment Application for 9728 Aberdeen Road, be received;

AND THAT the applicants for the rezoning of this property be advised that sewer servicing for any development will require the installation of a trunk sewer to direct sewage south on Aberdeen Road to Wisbey Drive, regardless of the outcome of the Rezoning and OCP Amendment process;

AND FURTHER THAT “District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008”, be read a first time by title only.

No. REG20080235

CARRIED

With Councillor Garlick opposed

This is a clear proof that the installation of the sewer line IS a prerequisite of the OCP Amendment, therefore should been the subject for discussion. The Mayor's decision not to allow discussion of sewer is, in my opinion, a violation of the rules.

You be the judge!

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

Excerpts from Agenda -- Council meeting, June 9,2008.

Staff is recommending third reading of the following OCP amendment with the requirement to construct a sewer trunk line down Aberdeen Road at the developer's expense. However, residents along the trunk line will have to contribute to the sewer maintenance fee presently pegged at $320 annually.

The requirement will also put a tremendous pressure on future development of small holdings and agricultural land. It is against the character of Coldstream and is against the wishes of the majority of people who wish to maintain the rural character of the community.

The proposed bylaw is as follows:

c. District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008

- Report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated May 7, 2008

- Proposed Bylaw No. 1529, 2008

- A bylaw to change the designation of Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 from Residential to Multifamily Residential and to amend Schedule G by including Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 within the Multiple Family Development Permit Area

FIRST READING

Moved by Taylor, seconded by Williams,

THAT the report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated May 7, 2008, regarding Sugoi Property Management – Rezoning and OCP Amendment Application for 9728 Aberdeen Road, be received;

AND THAT the applicants for the rezoning of this property be advised that sewer servicing for any development will require the installation of a trunk sewer to direct sewage south on Aberdeen Road to Wisbey Drive, regardless of the outcome of the Rezoning and OCP Amendment process;

AND FURTHER THAT “District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008”, be read a first time by title only.

No. REG20080235
CARRIED
with Councillor Garlick opposed

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

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

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

Regional Governance.

For those of you interested here is the decision by the Honourable Ida Chong Minister of Community Services etc. As you can judge the money was well spent. It confirmed that we are OK and any change may not result in much improvement.

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

Sewer policies and the upcoming Public Hearing.

One of the residents of Whisby Drive addressed Council at the last Council meeting. Her presentation summarized the consequences of the proposed new policy of Council on unsuspecting residents. She lamented that after weeks of enduring road construction noise, traffic problems, dust and other realities going on with the servicing of the fire hall she now learns that she will have start paying $97.54 additional taxes (even if she does not connect), $340 sewer maintenance charge and within five years she must connect to the sewer and pay the annual fees (whatever that will be with the new schedule). She was not consulted in advance and it all happens because she happens to live next to the fire hall which now will be connected to sewer.

This scenario will be a fact for all the residents of Aberdeen Road if the proposed Community Plan Amendment is accepted in its present form. This is due to the fact that Council is demanding from the developer the construction of a sewer main along Aberdeen Road.

Let me ad that I am not against sewering the community. However, people who will be affected by these unexpected expenses should be consulted on these issues. They must have a say in the direction Council is taking the community and the financial and lifestyle changing consequences these directions will have on their lives. We have not elected dictators, we elected community leaders who will do our bidding. Their decisions must be in harmony with those who elected them.

So, remember to attend the Public Hearings on the 9th of June and have your input. Inform your neighbours who may have missed the ads about the hearings and are not aware of the blog. Also, call your Councillors and express your concerns about the sewer policies and the 50/50 proposal.

If you have any questions regarding those policies contact me and I’ll be glad to explain what is happening with the sewer policies.

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

District of Coldstream -- Notice of Public Hearing.

Anyone interested in commenting on the proposals should make a note of the upcoming Public Hearings.

Public Hearings -- Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Coldstream residents will have not one, not two but three public hearings to enjoy on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 7:00 pm, in the Municipal Hall Chambers. These decisions were the result of Monday's Council meeting.

Public hearing # 1:

District of Coldstream Zoning Bylaw No. 1382, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 1524, 2008, Amendment No. 20

· Proposed Bylaw No. 1524, 2008
· A bylaw to amend Schedule A, Map Sheet 8202423 by changing the zoning of part of Lot 1, Plan KAP54491, Sec. 22, TWP 9, ODYD, and Part Lot 23, Plan 455 (shown on Plan B3644), lying east of RightofWay (shown on Plan A308), Sec. 22, TWP 9, ODYD (Except Plan 25629), from C1 General Commercial to C2 Highway and Tourist Commercial

Comment

As per Council’s request, staff has discussed the proposed bylaw amendment with the applicant. Mr. Dalgarno has committed to registering a Restrictive Covenant on title that will only permit the subject property to be used for the rental of cabins as proposed and that RV pad and tent site rentals will not be permitted on the areas proposed to be rezoned to C2. The Restrictive Covenant would need to be on title prior to Fourth and Final Reading.

This property is at the entrance to Coldstream on Kalamalka Lake Road by Alpine Centre.

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

Public hearing # 2:


District of Coldstream Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1445, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 1529, 2008

· Report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated May 7, 2008
· Proposed Bylaw No. 1529, 2008
· A bylaw to change the designation of Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 from Residential to Multifamily Residential and to amend Schedule G by including Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 within the Multiple Family Development Permit Area

Recommendation

FIRST READING

THAT the report from the Director of Engineering Services, dated May 7, 2008, regarding Sugoi Property Management – Rezoning and OCP Amendment Application for 9728 Aberdeen Road, be received;

AND THAT the applicants for the rezoning of this property be advised that sewer servicing for any development will require the installation of a trunk sewer to direct sewage south on Aberdeen Road to Wisbey Drive, regardless of the outcome of the Rezoning and OCP Amendment process.

This issue is tricky. We are again requesting the extension of a sewer line without a detailed plan. A normal plan would identify the total boundaries of the specified area, costs and time-lines for those being served, public input including a referendum for those required to connect, etc.

In fact, there are more issues that must be investigated before we jump into the program with both feet. There are two pipelines that could deliver sewage to the Vernon treatment plant. The more direct route would be the existing line from the existing subdivisions of the area. A problem here is that the capacity of the line from 15th Street towards the treatment plant is limited.

However, the trunk line from McClounie to the Alpine Centre connection and from that connection to the treatment plant is also limited and will have to be replaced in the near future. A study to identify the most cost effective alternative route must be investigated before a decision to spend the dollars on the Aberdeen connection is finalized. Coldstream Valley Estates are in dire need of connecting to sewer. With those residential connections and those from other residential on the Aberdeen route the need for this replacement will be very soon.

We should not repeat the mistakes made with the McClounie-Aberdeen trunk line construction. Smart people learn from the mistakes of others, less smart individuals learn from their own only ignorant people repeat their own mistakes (I deliberately made the expression polite!).

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

Public hearing # 3:

District of Coldstream Zoning Bylaw No. 1382, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 1528, 2008, Amendment No. 21

· Proposed Bylaw No. 1528, 2008
· A bylaw to change the zoning of Lot 2, Sec. 25, TWP 9, ODYD, Plan KAP84722 from Rural Two (RU.2) Zone to Residential Apartment and Multifamily (R.3) Zone

Comment

The applicant has verbally agreed to place a Restrictive Covenant on title prior to Fourth and Final Reading that would restrict the proposed land use to townhouses rather than other uses allowed in the R3 zone (i.e. 3 storey apartments). The applicants will be providing a letter in writing confirming their willingness to place a Restrictive Covenant on title.

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

This is the zoning change if the OPC change is approved.

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

Water, water plans and cost increases but where is the beef?

A big “Thank you” to those responding to my report on the sewer issues. One lady wrote: “I’m all in favour of “pay as you go” sewer costs” hit the nail on the head. Why should we pay for crap that will come down years from now?

If you think we are skinned on the sewer costs, just imagine the “hosing” we are getting on the water rates. Our politicians approved a further rate increase to $.80 (about 5.5%) with an additional $110.52 per year access fee (up from $104.76). An average family of three could expect to pay almost $350.00 a year for household use only. Outdoor use will be extra.

My question (and should be everyone’s question) what is happening to this money? GVSC and especially GVW are in a big turmoil. Nobody knows what will happen with them. So why do we continue collecting money far beyond the cost of service? They could not deliver the goods why collect more and more money?

GVW will collect about $9 million this year. The cost of service is around $5 million. As of last year GVW borrowed $13 million of the referendum approved $35 million. Servicing that debt is just under $1 million a year. What happens to the difference? Do our politicians know the answer to that?

For six years now we have been soaked by Greater Vernon Water. Our water rates steadily rose from $0.35/m3 in 1999 to the present $0.80/m3 this year. We were told that our water was dangerous to our health and needed immediate improvement. No time to wait for senior government grants. Today most of us in Coldstream drink the same quality water we drank 20 years ago. We just pay more for it. There was only a minimal investment in Coldstream by GVW over the last eight years.

We were lied to over and over, promised improvements that never came and today we again have a boil water advisory for residents served by the Duteau Creek water supply. A lot of improvement for a 130% rate increase. Not! The sad part is that not even an explanation or apology come from these politicians. They carry on as if everything is on schedule and there is nothing wrong.

How did we get here? What were the promises, the plans, the cost projections and the time-lines given by the “fathers of the Master Water Plan”?

For an overview of selected news articles, letters and GVW publications please visit newsclippings.

Does anyone believe that after the Duteau Creek Treatment Plant is complete we will have no more boil water advisories? Just curious.

The Eagle.