Sendero Canyon Development

[fluffy]

I'm surprised this issue has stayed under the radar, especially since there is a considerable chunk of coin involved. In an article in Wednesday's Herald it was said that "A $1.7-million upgrade to the city's Upper Carmi water system, mainly to service a major new subdivision, has gained initial support from Penticton council." The alternate approval process is in place to acquire voter support for the borrowing of this money, but it is my understanding that the money is committed regardless of voter support or not. Work on the new development is well under way, with plans in place for over two hundred building lots.

[XT225]

I'm surprised this issue has stayed under the radar, especially since there is a considerable chunk of coin involved. In an article in Wednesday's Herald it was said that "A $1.7-million upgrade to the city's Upper Carmi water system, mainly to service a major new subdivision, has gained initial support from Penticton council." The alternate approval process is in place to acquire voter support for the borrowing of this money, but it is my understanding that the money is committed regardless of voter support or not. Work on the new development is well under way, with plans in place for over two hundred building lots.

Good comments, Fluffy. I thought that councils usually insisted that the developers pay for most of the services needed for new subdivisions? Why should the taxpayers pay for this, if someone else (the owner/developer) is going to profit from it, at our expense? Almost smells of public/private partnership such as the SOEC that we built for someone else to run; they make the profits (guaranteed to them) and we (the taxpayers) take the hit for any losses. Something isn't right in the equation. Also, who is going to buy these homes in the new Sendero Canyon? Why not take orders and IF they have buyers willing to purchase ahead of time, let it go ahead; otherwise don't push our luck. Look at the P2 development where the old Super Valu used to be..how much time and money was wasted on public forums, and wasting staff time. That project is far from being started. We are in tough times here; council needs to wake up; perhaps they all have colds and can't smell the roses.

[spacecadet]

Whenever improvements were made in my neighbourhood, i.e. new roads, curb and gutters, it was always added on to my taxes for my particular neighbourhood, not the City's taxes as a whole. The Developer should be bearing the costs of any site mprovements and services required, as they are the ones enjoying the profits. I will be heading down to City Hall on Monday and picking up one of those petitions and working my way through my neighbourhood.

[fluffy]

That's just it, the money is pretty much spent already, whether the electorate approves the loan or not. The project is going ahead, the pipe is in the ground. With upwards of forty million in play here you can bet that the developers have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". I'm thinking it's way too late to go back and ask them for the money. Keep in mind that this deal was put together a couple of years ago when the financial picture was a little brighter.

[XT225]

That's just it, the money is pretty much spent already, whether the electorate approves the loan or not. The project is going ahead, the pipe is in the ground. With upwards of forty million in play here you can bet that the developers have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". I'm thinking it's way too late to go back and ask them for the money. Keep in mind that this deal was put together a couple of years ago when the financial picture was a little brighter.

Ok, Fluffy...but I am missing something here...if the petitions (Alternative whatever program) are going ahead NOW, how could they have spent the money already? No Savey. I'm not at all against development as long as everyone (including the developer) pays their fair share and don't saddle the average joe taxpayer with more than we can handle at the moment. I also have to wonder "who are gonna buy these homes"? We already have several condo developments that are having a hard time selling what is on the market now, let alone flood the market with additional homes (though, these ARE different in that they are single family homes; not apts or condos will appeal to a different buyer).

[fluffy]

...but I am missing something here...if the petitions (Alternative whatever program) are going ahead NOW, how could they have spent the money already?

That's the big question isn't it? The subdivision is under construction. It's a done deal. The water system improvements have to be made to service this new development, no getting away from it from what I understand. The big question for council is where is the money going to come from? The Alternative Approval Process (which requires at least 10% of the electorate to sign a petition in order to force the question to referendum, otherwise it is considered "approved") is in place at the moment to authorize council to borrow the $1.7 million to cover the cost of the upgrades. Even if the AAP fails the money will still have to come from somewhere.

[Giants Head]

Something isn't right here, there is no way council would make a commitment for that kind of money without having the ability to follow it up with the cash. If you are right about this Fluffy and the Reverse Referendum is a sham with the results meaning nothing someone has some serious explaining to do. How stupid do they think the taxpayers are? What does Dan Albas have to say about this? I see that he voted in favour of the Reverse Referendum.

[fluffy]

Something isn't right here....

That is the same thought that has been bouncing around in the back of my mind for the last couple of days. There is huge money involved here and I can't see the developers forging ahead to the degree that they are without ensuring an adequate water supply for the new homes is in place. So the question here would be are the improvements under consideration absolutely necessary? The way this question is being presented by the city implies that it is not a done deal, that the taxpayers still have the option of postponing or canceling the improvements thus avoiding the $1.7 mil expense at a time when money is tight. My source (close to the project itself) is saying otherwise, that the improvements are necessary, and that the developers are counting on the system improvements being in place as the new subdivision fills up. I won't go so far as to say that the city has guaranteed the improvements, I honestly don't know that for sure, but I can't see the city granting permits to proceed without ensuring an adequate water supply would be available for the new homes, unless the current water system would be able to carry the load. So that would bring us to the point where either it is a done deal and it's just a matter of where the money comes from, or the improvements aren't necessary at this time and the expense can be avoided without risking failure of the project. Either way this could prove to be another tight spot for a council already being squeezed from a few different directions.

[kgcayenne]

Is the new water system somehow also benefitting existing users? Is there a brand new reservoir going in that is designed to hold more water than what would be allocated to the new users? Do the water system improvements augmet fire flow protection for other neighbourhoods or rurals? Was there grant funding under the infrastructure grant program? Is there some aging infrastructure that will be replaced in conjunction with the proposed works?

[fluffy]

Is the new water system somehow also benefitting existing users? Is there a brand new reservoir going in that is designed to hold more water than what would be allocated to the new users? Do the water system improvements augmet fire flow protection for other neighbourhoods or rurals? Was there grant funding under the infrastructure grant program? Is there some aging infrastructure that will be replaced in conjunction with the proposed works?

Information is scarce on most of your question kc, but all reference to the issue so far has been that the improvements are specific to the Sendero Canyon project.

[logman]

*removed/Jo*

[Al Czervic]

Is the new water system somehow also benefitting existing users? Is there a brand new reservoir going in that is designed to hold more water than what would be allocated to the new users? Do the water system improvements augmet fire flow protection for other neighbourhoods or rurals? Was there grant funding under the infrastructure grant program? Is there some aging infrastructure that will be replaced in conjunction with the proposed works?

All very good points KC,

From my own experiences in the past, generally a developer these days will put up a cash contribution towards whatever civic infrastructure they require. Typically the municipality will front the remainder of the infrastructure funding as ultimately it will become an asset owned by the municipality.

Once the development is complete then each lot has DCC’s (Development Cost Charges) and related latecomers fees. The fees all come back to the municipality and this is how they recover the costs of the initial money the City put out (in other words recovering the original capital expenditure). Naturally the city also get’s benefits of the property taxation benefits of the development and of course the building, furnishing, etc,etc of all the homes also benefits the local economy.

I would expect this is a similar situation here however your City should be explaining this to the taxpayer’s. This project doesn’t sound offside but you need to know…

Total cost of project
What contributions the developer is paying towards that
How many lots are created?
What will be the DCC/late comer fees for those lots
How many homes will the new infrastructure ultimately service ?

This information should help clear up the clouds on this issue.

[Giants Head]

I spoke with two people this weekend who follow local politics very closely, neither of them knew anything about this deal to fund the water upgrades for the Sendero Canyon development. It appears that this was never discussed in an open council meeting and must of been a private deal done with the developers. One point that was made to me was that running a Reverse Referendum through the Christmas season is a really sleazy move on behalf of council. People are very busy this time of year and don't have the time to raise objections and lobby support for their position if they disagree with the proposal. Another comment was " I've never heard of raising water rates to encourage development". I still feel that we haven't heard the whole story here and council should do a better job of explaining just what is going on here. I wish we had a local newspaper that would ask pointed questions of council and report the findings to their readers.What will council do if the Reverse Referendum is successful, where will the 1.7 million come from then? We all know that Dan Albas reads these forums and that he voted in favour of this move to raise the water rates, now would be a great time to speak up Dan. It would appear that you think it is acceptable to increase every taxpayers water bill starting in the new year without an explanation.

[kgcayenne]

Make no mistake, water rates across this whole valley WILL be going up, not just Summerland, everyone will be paying more. Notice more boil water notices and 'Water quality advisories' that have been happening in recent years? The Interior Health Authority has mandated tighter water quality standards based on federal guidelines for drinking water. The water districts and municipalities have to implement certain (not going to get into it k) water treatment measures, which is going to cost some areas a whole pile more money. Some purveyors are applying for a deferral because a lot of our water here is very good quality, others don't have a hope of meeting the standards without making significant system improvements. Speaking of system improvements... we're coming up on a time when our underground utilities are reaching their useful life expectancy and are going to need to be repaired as they fail and replaced altogether soon enough.

While I really dislike developers, increases in water and sewer rates are not as easy to pin on them as one would think, developers have to pay DEARLY for the privilege of connecting their lots to the system, you can find the prescribed rates in any of the Bylaws sections of municipalities, water districts, and improvement districts. It's not like they just walk in and take. Why do you think building lots are so damn costly? Besides, how do you think those new residents feel about increases in water rates to pay for repairs and replacement of the aging infrastructure ten miles away from where they reside having already paid for their end of the distribution system. As much as I hate the way development is done in this valley, more people putting money in the pot means that the burden of system renewal is going to be spread around more residents... some who have already paid for their new infrastructure through the developer passing along the expense at cost-plus.

It sure would be nice to blame everything on the evil developers, but alas, this is not the case.

[Giants Head]

I agree with what you said about costs going up because of the water delivery systems getting old and needing upgrading but this money will be spent to service new lands that currently have no homes built. Not one existing water user in Penticton will see any benifit from spending this money, yet every single water user will have an increase on their bill.