----------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
coldstreamer@shaw.ca******* Issues related to the District of Coldstream, local government issues, political commentary, local area photos,oddities in the news etc....
Monday, August 30, 2010
Selected Articles - Morning Star News - In case you missed them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*************************************************
Readers write - Volunteers needed!.
Greetings from the Society for the Protection of Kalamalka Lake (SPrKL)!
.
On May 15th this year, we held a well attended and fun ‘Stream Clean up Day’. Since then, SPrKL, with the support of the District of Coldstream, has received a Federal ECO Action Grant to supply and plant vegetation along this reach.
We are asking for your support with further creek clean up and planting on September 18th from 10 am until approximately 1 pm.
We will meet at the Coldstream Municipal Hall at 10 am where a qualified professional will conduct a hands-on planting workshop before we begin the actual planting. Refreshments will be provided.
If you are willing to help out and /or want more information, please contact Trina Koch: tkoch@eba.ca
***********************************************************
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Readers write - Water issues.
The following email was sent by East-HillResident in response to A discussion paper on fair water pricing. The suggestions are worth considering by Greater Vernon Water politicians. Here are the comments:
Blogger EastHillResident said...*
There is ZERO incentive for conservation with today's billing structure.
There needs to be a better way to manage the financing needed to accomplish what was promised under the Master Water Plan.
Even back in 2004 when we were asked to vote in a referendum, the numbers did not add up correctly - the theory at the time was that rates should not increase, hence the borrowing. So what happened? We borrowed money, but our rates have only increased.
How about some public meetings regarding the MWP and where we are at, exactly? Who is making all these important decisions and when will we unwashed masses get to hear about it?
Why do we strike a drought management committee when we don't have an official drought? We don't have a committee reviewing our Master Water Plan and the $105 million+ price tag for the system improvements that we are required to undertake? What about system separation decisions?
How about adding in the cost of the reclaimed water utility ($1.5 million per year) that allows the large consumers of water in our area, the golf courses and hilltop resorts, to purchase cheap treated wastewater for their irrigation, which does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to financially support our regional water utility - that responsibility falls solely on the backs of all regular joe residents, taxpayers and water users of Greater Vernon.
The problem here is not just drinking water. Water and wastewater are undoubtedly interconnected, and until the system is considered as a whole, we won't be able to secure a better future.**************************************************************
Water issues - CHBCNews.
*****************************************************************************
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Selected Articles - Morning Star News
Coldstream Council does not blast NORD. They realize that NORD is the sum total of the participants. However, they must represent their constituents interest and if they feel staff need to be instructed to change some parameters it is Council's prerogative to bring those issues to the attention of staff. Coldstream Council considers NORD as us and not them.
******************************************************************
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A discussion paper on fair water pricing.
Greater Vernon Water Utility has the official policy of charging consumption based rates to its customers. This policy is to foster fairness, encourage water conservation and ensure that high water users pay more for their extra water use.
In theory this should mean that 100 m3 of water should cost ten times more than 10 m3.
In reality the opposite is true. The more water one uses the cheaper the unit cost of water is. Let me present some examples. Let us look at the unit cost of water for an individual using 100 m3 per year versus one who consumes 1,000 m3 per year.
Consumption of 100 m3 costs $219.08. Unit cost: $2.19
Consumption of 1000 m3 costs $1,047.08. Unit cost: $1.05
The difference is $1.14 m3 or 109%.
What it means is that low water users subsidize high water users.
There is no incentive to conserve since unit price decreases as consumption increases.
This is the opposite of what was intended to achieve, that is reducing consumption and making high users pay disproportionally more!
A high water consumer only pays five times as much for ten times the amount of water consumed.
What is the cause of this inequity?
It is the boogie word: tax.
While many politicians insists that we should only rely on water rates in financing water service costs, such as operation and maintenance and infrastructure financing, the reality is that we charge $200.68 annually to each customer that can only be characterized as a parcel tax. It is paid by all property owners who could connect to the water service even if there is no connection.
For the $200.68 we may consume 80 m3 of water annually. Deducting the value of this water leaves a net tax of $127.08 per customer. What does this tax cover?
To be sure I am not opposed to taxation but this thinly veiled taxation is unfair. Let’s analyze the situation a little further.
Everyone would agree that water service increases property values. The better the quality of the service the higher is the value increase.
Properties on the Rise and Turtle Mountain were worth next to nothing until water service was provided. Those property values went through the roof while they contributed nothing to the infrastructure costs as those costs were financed through water rates and initially they used no water. In fact, many of the vacant lots are still not using water. Was that a fair arrangement? I think not.
Fair financing would have been if all properties benefitting from the improvements were to be taxed accordingly. The present system is an improvement but it is still unfair to low water users. Property values increased proportionately, thus, taxes should have been levied proportionately as well. The ad valorem taxation is used for other infrastructure financing, such as the Multiplex and the Theatre with no apparent opposition from taxpayers. In my opinion that is the fair method of financing water infrastructure.
Taxpayers approved borrowing $35 million for financing needed infrastructure improvements. Annual financing costs of this borrowing is about $2,400,000.
Now, let’s examine how much the “access fee tax” brings into the coffers of GVWU. There are roughly 21,000 customers at $127.08 yielding an estimated $2,668,680. That’s about $218,680 more than needed for the infrastructure financing.
Could it be that staff considered the infrastructure financing when deciding the “access fee tax”?
The only problem with this tax is that low water users contribute significantly higher proportion of financing than do high water users.
I call upon both staff and politicians to enter into a dialogue to develop a fair and equitable water pricing system for 2011 and subsequent years.
Gyula Kiss
Councillor
Coldstream
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I invite comments on the discussion paper from everyone. Budgeting time is fast approaching and staff and politicians should be aware of your thoughts.
In theory this should mean that 100 m3 of water should cost ten times more than 10 m3.
In reality the opposite is true. The more water one uses the cheaper the unit cost of water is. Let me present some examples. Let us look at the unit cost of water for an individual using 100 m3 per year versus one who consumes 1,000 m3 per year.
Consumption of 100 m3 costs $219.08. Unit cost: $2.19
Consumption of 1000 m3 costs $1,047.08. Unit cost: $1.05
The difference is $1.14 m3 or 109%.
What it means is that low water users subsidize high water users.
There is no incentive to conserve since unit price decreases as consumption increases.
This is the opposite of what was intended to achieve, that is reducing consumption and making high users pay disproportionally more!
A high water consumer only pays five times as much for ten times the amount of water consumed.
What is the cause of this inequity?
It is the boogie word: tax.
While many politicians insists that we should only rely on water rates in financing water service costs, such as operation and maintenance and infrastructure financing, the reality is that we charge $200.68 annually to each customer that can only be characterized as a parcel tax. It is paid by all property owners who could connect to the water service even if there is no connection.
For the $200.68 we may consume 80 m3 of water annually. Deducting the value of this water leaves a net tax of $127.08 per customer. What does this tax cover?
To be sure I am not opposed to taxation but this thinly veiled taxation is unfair. Let’s analyze the situation a little further.
Everyone would agree that water service increases property values. The better the quality of the service the higher is the value increase.
Properties on the Rise and Turtle Mountain were worth next to nothing until water service was provided. Those property values went through the roof while they contributed nothing to the infrastructure costs as those costs were financed through water rates and initially they used no water. In fact, many of the vacant lots are still not using water. Was that a fair arrangement? I think not.
Fair financing would have been if all properties benefitting from the improvements were to be taxed accordingly. The present system is an improvement but it is still unfair to low water users. Property values increased proportionately, thus, taxes should have been levied proportionately as well. The ad valorem taxation is used for other infrastructure financing, such as the Multiplex and the Theatre with no apparent opposition from taxpayers. In my opinion that is the fair method of financing water infrastructure.
Taxpayers approved borrowing $35 million for financing needed infrastructure improvements. Annual financing costs of this borrowing is about $2,400,000.
Now, let’s examine how much the “access fee tax” brings into the coffers of GVWU. There are roughly 21,000 customers at $127.08 yielding an estimated $2,668,680. That’s about $218,680 more than needed for the infrastructure financing.
Could it be that staff considered the infrastructure financing when deciding the “access fee tax”?
The only problem with this tax is that low water users contribute significantly higher proportion of financing than do high water users.
I call upon both staff and politicians to enter into a dialogue to develop a fair and equitable water pricing system for 2011 and subsequent years.
Gyula Kiss
Councillor
Coldstream
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I invite comments on the discussion paper from everyone. Budgeting time is fast approaching and staff and politicians should be aware of your thoughts.
****************************************************************
Monday, August 23, 2010
Notice - Tonight's Coldstream Council meeting.
Greater Vernon Water staff will be making a Power Point presentation on the water system at tonight's Coldstream Council meeting. Those interested in the various water sources and how water is supplied to various areas should make a point of attending the presentation.
2. DELEGATIONS
Page 119a. Central Coldstream Water SupplyArnold Badke, General Manager, Engineering and Al Cotsworth, Manager, Utilities, both of the Regional District of North Okanagan, will be in attendance to speak to this matter.
************************************************************
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Council Meeting, August 22, 2010 -- Public Hearing
***********************************************************
Do not be fooled! - Caution!
If you receive an email such as the one below and purportedly from Shaw do not pay any attention to it. Shaw does not require you to reveil your password. Discard it, it's a fraud.
Here is the email:
Notification from SHAW Webmail Maintenance Unit,We are currently carrying out an upgrade on our sitefor it had come to our Notice that some of our subscribers are introducing a virus into our site and it is affecting our network.We are trying to find out the specific subscriber. Reply with the details below to prevent account from been deactivated.Information to send;First Name:Last Name:User Name:Password:Copyright Shaw Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved******************************************************
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Revenge of the bull.
Bull fighting turned ugly when an angry bull jumped into the crowd. See Video. (Bull jumps into crowd).
************************************************
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
B.C. ministry outs non-compliant firms
CBC News: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 | 3:14 PM PT
For the first time, the B.C. government is outing companies and individuals who flout environment, health or safety laws in the province. The Ministry of Environment has named names in its quarterly compliance summary after the law was changed last year to provide more transparency and deter people from breaking the rules. Even a dozen people who littered were named in the report. Domtar Inc. and Seaspan International of North Vancouver, the North Okanagan Regional District and Gracia Financial Corporation of Delta were all issued compliance or enforcement orders over environmental or public safety concerns.
In the first quarter of this year, Environment Ministry staff handed out five orders to stop impacts on the environment or human health, almost 60 licensing sanctions, more than 200 tickets and had six court convictions. Many of the tickets issued were under the Wildlife Act where people failed to have a hunting or fishing licence, were caught hunting outside the season or were fishing where they shouldn't.
View the Quarterly Compliance and Enforcement Summary (1st Quarter, 2010)
Pay special attention to Page 4 of the report!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The amazing South African ranger.
For more amazing photos please visit Ranger.
***********************************************************
Monday, August 16, 2010
Joke of the day. - Rejuvenation.
A fifteen year old Amish boy and his father were in a mall. They were amazed by almost everything they saw, but especially by two shiny, silver walls that could move apart and then slide back together again.
The boy asked, "What is this Father?"
The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, "Son, I have never seen anything like this in my life, I don"t know what it is."
While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, an old lady in a wheel chair moved up to the moving walls and pressed a button. The walls opened, and the lady rolled between them into a small room. The walls closed, and the boy and his father watched the small numbers above the walls light up sequentially.
They continued to watch until it reached the last number, and then the numbers began to light in the reverse order.
Finally the walls opened up again and a gorgeous 24-year-old blond stepped out.
The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to his son..... "Go get your Mother."
The boy asked, "What is this Father?"
The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, "Son, I have never seen anything like this in my life, I don"t know what it is."
While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, an old lady in a wheel chair moved up to the moving walls and pressed a button. The walls opened, and the lady rolled between them into a small room. The walls closed, and the boy and his father watched the small numbers above the walls light up sequentially.
They continued to watch until it reached the last number, and then the numbers began to light in the reverse order.
Finally the walls opened up again and a gorgeous 24-year-old blond stepped out.
The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to his son..... "Go get your Mother."
****************************************************************
Photo Gallery - Kalamalka Lake scenes. Courtesy: Debbie Gibson
****************************************************************
Coldstream Council Technical Advisory Committee meeting.
*********************************************************
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Selected Articles - Morning Star News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
***Coldstreamernews***
We must protect our rights and freedom! (Photo courtesy of D. Gibson) Click on eagle to watch EAGLECAMS
About Me
- Coldstreamer
- I have been a resident of Coldstream since 1976. I have had 15 years of experience on Council, 3 years as Mayor. As a current Councillor I am working to achieve fair water and sewer rates and to ensure that taxpayers get fair treatment. The current direction regarding water supply is unsustainable and I am doing all I can to get the most cost effective water supply possible.