Official dedication of Highway 6 upgrade.

Written by Peter McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM Friday, 14 March 2014 16:34

The BC government held a news conference to officially put a wrap on the upgrade to Highway 6 near the Coldstream Ranch. 

 

Vernon Monashee MLA Eric Foster says the 11 million dollar project has improved traffic flow and made it safer over the 2.2 kilometre stretch between grey and Ricardo roads. 

 

 "Everybody is really, really happy with it. It doesn't make the trip to town faster or anything, it just makes it more comfortable," states Foster. 

 

Foster, who has lived in Lumby for 30 years, remembers first starting to lobby the province for the upgrade back in 1986. 

 

"I was at a meeting with the then minister of transportation with Lumby council and Coldstream council. Ernie Palfrey was the mayor (of Coldstream) and Dave Simpson was mayor of Lumby. We we're lobbying then." 

 

Lumby Mayor Kevin Acton, who's been driving the route for 23 years, says taking out the section near the ranch has been a major improvement.

 

"Any time you can save a life it's huge. That corner was definately a huge danger, and a huge risk," says Acton.  

 

About 9,000 vehicles use that part of the highway daily. 

 

Vernon Mayor Rob Sawatzky says the added safety is not just good for motorists. 

 

"It won't be long before this is one of the favorite bike routes in the North Okanagan, and people come from the prairie provinces, and all over, to ride here in our area." 

 

The section saw 119 crashes between 2000 to 2009, many in the dangerous part that ran by the Coldstream Ranch. 

 

The contractor was Windley Contracting of Nanaimo.

 

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

Yet another amalgamation poll on KISS FM.

Click on image to vote (if you want)!

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

Photo gallery - The Bohemians have arrived in droves - Waxwings that is - Debbie

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

Click on Agenda, Page 140 for Water Issues.

Visit Power Point Presentation for more information.

Request for Peer Review of Master Plan.

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

GVAC Meeting - past and future.

Councillor Besso made an excellent presentation at last Thursday's (March 6) GVAC meeting explaining the geological history of the Okanagan Valley. She pointed out why the two major valley bottom lakes provide the best quality and most reliable domestic water supply.  

In her presentation she pointed out that Okanagan Lake is the most reliable and best quality domestic water due to the fact that it is extremely deep and much of its water comes from aquifers which provide well filtered water without having to perform expensive treatments.

My presentation was postponed due to the lateness of time and it will be rescheduled for next Tuesday at 9:00 AM at the RDNO Board Room. I will try to point out problems with the current Master Water Plan and will try to convince my fellow politicians to refer the plan to an extensive, independent peer review.

One of the principle reason for this request is the fact that after 12 years of intensive work and the expended funds totaling $68 million we have not been able to provide a solution to the dilemma of trying to provide domestic quality water through the irrigation system. The proposal of irrigating agricultural crops with highly treated, expensive domestic water does not sit well with me and with most of my constituents. 

The other problem I see is the fact that we selected the least appropriate water source to supply domestic water mainly to Coldstream and the Electoral Areas. This represents about 15-20% of the total domestic water demand but uses an inordinate proportion of our water dollars. 

The biggest mistake was made by ignoring Okanagan Lake as a potential water supply. This issue alone tied the hands of the consultants and left them spending most of their efforts and our dollars on studying the Duteau Creek water source almost to the exclusion of the others.

Anyone interested in the presentation is welcome to the next GVAC meeting where this issue and the issue of the future of the Civic Arena will be debated.

Both Councillor Bessoe and I are in favour of an extensive, independent peer review of the plan. We also oppose the proposed expenditure of an additional $111 for the current plan, starting with the referendum of $70 million in November. 

Your comments would be welcomed and helpful in our effort to bring a better alternative to Greater Vernon Water.

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

Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Meeting - March 6, 2014

 Click on Agenda above. In new window go to Greater Vernon Advisory Committee and click on Agenda.

Note items 10 and 11, page 67-147: Motion for Peer Review (see below). Also see Power Point Presentation (click)..

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

RDNO Board Meeting - March5, 2014

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

Domestic/agriculture cost sharing or the lack of it.

 Quote from MWP 2012 Technical Memorandum 8, page 3.:

"The 2002 GVW Master Water Plan originally recommended that the domestic and agricultural distribution system be separated over a five year period. System separation would eliminate the need to use more expensive treated water as agricultural water. Once the systems were fully separated, it would also be possible to accurately determine the true cost of operating and maintaining each system individually. Future pricing in both networks were to be based only on their own costs. The 2002 Master Plan recommended that agricultural water pricing remain stable with only consumer price index adjustments to be made over time. Due in part to higher than anticipated capital costs and the lack of grant funding for separation projects, the separation program has been implemented at a much slower rate than originally anticipated and is now being re-evaluated as the preferred long term technical strategy. The agricultural water pricing strategy that is based on year-to-year rate stability (but adjusted to inflation) continues essentially unchanged today since 2002. This version of the Master Water Plan needs to identify a technical and administrative solution that will enable the GVW to provide the most economical system to all users in a manner that is transparent, fair, and equitable."

Determining true costs of the two systems will remain a serious problem. One of the first major issue came up at the last GVAC meeting debating the budget for 2014. One of the items debated was the "Hedgates Dam Improvements" to be financed from current revenues to the tune of $2,000,000. I support agriculture but I believe this cost should not be born in its entirety by the domestic customers.

Domestic customers only use at most 20% of the water originating from Duteau Creek. The dam would need repairs regardless of domestic use. My argument was that agriculture customers should be paying at least half of the $2 million cost.

Something is wrong with this picture: Agriculture's contribution to the 2014 budget is $904,452 yet domestic customers pay the full repair bill for the dam improvements. Am I wrong?

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

Coldstream Committee of the Whole meeting - March 3, 2014

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

Justification for using taxation for water infrastructure or pay true user pay.

Taxation for repaying taxpayers approved loans to finance various infrastructure projects is the commonly used method by all local governments. We have used this method to finance, among others, the Performing Arts Centre, the Kal Tire Centre and more recently the new playing fields by Okanagan College. 

The process begins by identifying the infrastructure project, determining the cost, informing the electorate and calling a referendum. All taxpayers of the area who meet the eligibility requirements can vote on the issue and if the referendum passes all taxpayers pay the taxes. In the case of the water infrastructure loan repayment by properties outside the  water service area would be exempt from such tax even though they are eligible to vote on the issue.

While taxation for water infrastructure borrowing is allowed by the pertinent legislation Greater Vernon Water chose to use water rates to pay for all water related expenses, including infrastructure costs.

In fact, water infrastructure costs are more legitimate for taxation than the earlier mentioned projects. Water infrastructure of a home is directly connected to the municipal infrastructure. It is more like the transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) that connects to your driveway and is financed by taxes.

Borrowed funds are repaid by calculating mill rates and each property contributes based on the value of the property. This is how we pay for sports facilities, cultural facilities, etc., which are not even connected directly to the properties. The current debt would require a mill rate between 0.25 to 0.3 approximately.

The arguments against this method of financing is that higher valued properties are contributing more to the cost of the infrastructure than those of lower values. The same arguments could be used for all other taxation financed infrastructure yet that seems to be tolerated by those who argue against taxation for water infrastructure costs. No one argues for financing these facilities through user pay as user pay system would never cover the cost of financing. In fact, most facilities require taxation to cover operating and maintenance expenses.

The prevailing argument for using water rates to cover all costs is that this system will make everyone pay their fair share. Unfortunately, the system we are using does not do that. Since our base fees are extremely high (covers 62% of total revenue requirements) low water consumers pay higher percentage contribution.

Distribution of water consumption was calculated for the first quarter of Coldstream customers on depicted on the table below.

A proposal to use true user pay system is demonstrated below using an interactive calculator. It also compares rates adopted by GVAC and potential rates proposed by the true user pay system. The unit cost per cubic meter was calculated by dividing the total revenue required to meet the budget by the anticipated volume of water ($3.18/m3). Base fee was determined by multiplying 20 (quarter minimum usage) by the $3.18 unit cost. All customers pay this base fee. All additional volume would be charged at the calculated rate of $3.18.

Using this system all customers would be paying fair rates. Currently any customer using over 50 m3 per quarter is getting a subsidy. Industrial customers are Paying $1.50 per m3, less than half the true cost yet they are using the same water as domestic customers do.

The GVAC proposal would collect 63% of revenues from flat fees. The user pay system would reverse this trend: 35% of revenues would be paid by base fees and 65% by user fees. You be the judge which you think is more fair.

I am sure this proposal will again be defeated as there is no political will to increase rates for high water consumers although it is their high daily demand that requires the huge infrastructure and it is not unfair that they pay fair rates.

The issue will be on the Agenda of the next GVAC meeting on March 6, 2014 at the RDNO Board Room starting at 8:00 AM.

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

Photo gallery - Winter beauty but Spring is definitely in the air! - Debbie

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