Greater Vernon Governance - Amalgamation

[Hassel99]

http://www.greatervernongovernance.ca/index.html

The Mission of the Society for the Future Governance of Greater Vernon is to foster a discussion amongst the citizens of Vernon, Coldstream and Areas B & C. Our intent is to improve the functionality and efficiency of the governance of these areas and to identify possible cost reductions in administration of the areas in order to ensure tax dollars are dedicated to the priorities of services required by our citizens.

The recent Core Services Review done by KPMG, for the City of Vernon, identified "local Governance as a complex web of local government institutions." They further identified "the result is duplication of skills effort and resources at the senior management level, complication of operations, and even misalignment of priorities and policies between the entities."

KPMG went on to recommend a preferred resolution of: "Amalgamation of the City, the District of Coldstream, and electoral areas B and C to create a new municipality with exclusive responsibility for all of these service areas would be the most effective approach, allowing reduction of senior management positions, alignment of operations and consistent policy direction."

The Society for the Future Governance of Greater Vernon believes that the citizens of these areas should make an informed recommendation to local and provincial polititians about the size, cost and functionality of our local government. Join our conversation and participate in the process... it is your tax dollars that need to be spent wisely on what is important to you.
Petition question:

"As a citizen of Greater Vernon, I support a review by local and provincial authorities, to develop a plan to combine our regional governments (City of Vernon, District of Coldstream, Electoral Area B, and Electoral Area C) into a single entity, for the purpose of more efficient use of our local tax dollars."

Do you support the amalgamtion of Greater Vernon? If so why? If not, why not?

[chrisv]

Yes, streamline the beauracracy.

[grammafreddy]

Makes sense to me. Might also consider the ward system.

[Silverstarqueen]

I would not be in favor of amalgamation. While it might streamline and save some costs, those in the outlying areas may lose a lot in representation and power over decision making. The interests of those within the city are often quite different that those in the country, the management of our water being just one example. Another might be now much and what type of development is allowed on rural lands. Suppose down the road Kelowna starts talking about amalgamating with Vernon, then we have people here in the North Okanagan having to live with decisions made in a very different community with a very different agenda. I already think there is far too much interference with various levels of government. If it were rural communities amalgamating with rural communties, there might be more common philosophy behind decisions made.

[grammafreddy]

I would not be in favor of amalgamation. While it might streamline and save some costs, those in the outlying areas may lose a lot in representation and power over decision making. The interests of those within the city are often quite different that those in the country, the management of our water being just one example. Another might be now much and what type of development is allowed on rural lands. Suppose down the road Kelowna starts talking about amalgamating with Vernon, then we have people here in the North Okanagan having to live with decisions made in a very different community with a very different agenda. I already think there is far too much interference with various levels of government. If it were rural communities amalgamating with rural communties, there might be more common philosophy behind decisions made.

That's why I mentioned the ward system.

[bob vernon]

I was surprised by the lack of coverage on this issue by Castanet. So far. This issue is going to become a major one over the next year leading up to the civic election. Of course, it's easy to favour "streamlining" and "cutting the fat" but if this issue does get to referendum next fall, does anybody realistically think that it will pass in all the jurisdictions.

The MLA, Eric Foster has tried to distance himself as far as he can from this issue. He'll only be in favour of it if everybody else is. And the province won't force amalgamation on anybody because there are provincial votes at stake in 4 years and we wouldn't want to alienate anybody by doing the right thing, would we?

Here's a prediction: Vernon will favour amalgamation. Coldstream and the Regional District areas around Vernon will vote against it. Why? Vernon residents want a bigger tax base to pay for things. And Coldstream and the RD areas are happy to let Vernon pay for a lot of stuff and they can use it for free. Yeah, we've got Recreation and Library and other stuff that is paid for jointly, but if you lived in Coldstream or anywhere around Vernon, you know darn well that your taxes are going up if you join.
End of story.

And if anybody in Coldstream wants to know what it's like joining the city, just ask some of the folks in Okanagan Landing who were promised, in writing in the early 1990s, that they'd be hooked up to sewer, and it wouldn't cost anything if they joined Vernon. And they joined and it's costing them plenty. Silly people. They actually believed a Vernon politician.

Of course it will be more cost effective to have just one jurisdiction. I suspect there are some local businesses behind this push for a referendum, hoping their taxes will go down. But unless the province steps up and forces it, it just isn't going to happen. The province isn't going to alienate thousands of voters. Rutland was forced into Kelowna in the 1970s when the province forced the issue. Holding a referendum on it is a waste of time.

[Ingevan22]

It is no secret that Vernon taxpayers wish to share their burden with as many other taxpayers as possible.

We are one community - how would Coldstream survive without Vernon?

Did you know that it costs thousands of dollars less to hook up to sewer in the Coldstream than in Okanagan Landing, when in fact one is connecting to one and the same sewer system, yep that one with the big poop plant located right within the city of Vernon? Comparing rates, it looks as if Coldstream residents pay an extra $50 a year, compared to Vernon residents.

So about that pre-amalgamation letter dated January 27, 1993 and its so-called promises:

(and as one of those property owners in the Landing currently charged for sewer without being connected to it @$200/year... with a connection fee of $5,500 that automatically increases 5% every year)

...I could have saved myself a lot of trouble if I had read the actual text of that letter.

The letter says:

"3. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY:
a) CONNECTION FEES: Each property will be required to pay the standard connection fee, or the actual connection cost, whichever is the lower."

What was not predicted in 1993 was that the sewer system to service the Landing past the Yacht Club would have to be a pressurized system that requires properties to purchase, install and maintain their own poop grinder pump. This is an additional cost to the property owner, beyond connection.

Ex-Mayor McGrath was willing to point out that he had not contemplated this extra cost, but again, he also explained that no one was ever promised FREE sewer (or water) connection in the Landing. That is simply not the case.

[bob vernon]

The reason that the sewer line out through the Landing was a pressurized line was so that Predator Ridge could have access to Vernon's sewage treatment plant. The developers of Predator Ridge built and paid for the line and because the line had to cross higher terrain between Predator and Vernon, it had to be pressurized to pump the sewage. Then when Landing residents were to hook up to the line, they had to install a vault with a check valve, grinder and pressure pump to force their sewage into the line.

Imagine...... (sarcasm) a Vernon politician allowing a developer to have access to the city's services. And then forcing Landing residents to pay for the vault, grinder, check valve, pump, and, oh yeah, hydro hookup for the pump to get onto the sewer line. Any Landing residents out there who'd care to let us know how many thousands of dollars it took to get onto sewer? They're still paying it off.

[Ingevan22]

That is not quite correct, Bob!

There are in fact (at least) 3 sewer lines under Okanagan Landing road (from approx. Smith Rd to the Yacht Club):

1. The smallest sewer line is sized 75mm and also services the Outback Resort (see Bylaw 5083) - this is the high pressure line that we property owners in this area must hook into, which requires the aforementioned poop grinders, to a service connection at your home sized 38mm.

2. The other two lines are sized 200mm and 250mm, and are connected to Predator Ridge and Sparking Hill. See Bylaw 5271 - No, these are NOT high pressure lines, this is the Smith Creek GRAVITY sewer project! The City shared in the construction cost ($536K) while the developers shelled out the remaining $1.2 million. These lines are apparently not available for residents to hook into, despite these promises:

From the City's news archive at http://www.vernon.ca/news/archive.html:

The project benefits business and property owners in the Okanagan Landing area with the multiple enhancements to water and sewer project that have been financially supported by the Sparkling Hill development. These projects include the Mount Royce water reservoir extension and the Smith Creek gravity sanitary and sewer project. Fees paid by Sparkling Hill have been in excess of $1.6 million. These improvements to the vital services infrastructure benefit the entire community.

Before we get that "Woe Poor Us in the Landing" refrain again, let me say:

1. I am a Landing resident. Our property is on septic and connected to a private water (well) system. This property predates the Regional District (pre 1965) and of course the City (1993), and sewer was not available till 2007. Our private water system has been on a boil water notice for years. When we inquired with the operators before we purchased 2 years ago, they failed to mention that. Septic was serviced when we bought, but if we have to connect to GV water we might as well do sewer too, and thereby, wreck our yard/driveway only one time. Yes, we will have to shell out major $$$ to connect to sewer and water in the next year. But I will be glad to do so, and know that I am not having to worry about failing septic or depleting the groundwater in our area!

2. There are other areas in the City that are also serviced by similar pressurized systems that require property owners to install the same type of equipment. Property owners who want to connect to sewer in these areas also face the same installation costs as Landing residents.

In my particular neighbourhood:
- Our connection fee increases 5% every year. There is no expiration date on our "Latecomer Bylaw" which means it increases by 5% per annum in perpetuity. The longer we wait to connect, the more it will cost.
- Those of us who are not hooked up but happen to live next to OK Landing Road pay an annual septic parcel tax with our property taxes, and we now also pay $200/yr to the City for sewer services we cannot access. Tell me, how does paying that extra $200/year help us connect any faster???
- I realize the cost of installation is a staggering burden to those who have lived in the area for the past 40 years and were not planning to upgrade. It's a little different for us new-comers, or those developer types who are bulldozing the old homes to make way for the new monster houses. Approx. install cost for the grinder, etc is about $20K for a simple installation. Not including landscaping/driveway repair, or the necessary earthworks for a more complicated installation. We are located high above the road with a challenging driveway, so our install is more likely $40-50K - $11K in connection fees, $20K equipment & install, $10K earthworks, $10K driveway repair? Yikes!

So back to my original question - why is it so much cheaper to connect to sewer in Coldstream?

[Ingevan22]

Ah, the silence truly is deafening! On to something other than sewer, then...

Who else got a chuckle out of the Coldstreamer (aka Coldstream Councillor Kiss) commenting on the number of Anonymous signatories to the online Greater Vernon Governance petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/greater-vernon-governance-society/ - meanwhile, the Coldstreamer continues to allow Anonymous comments on his blog!

Blogger Coldstreamer said...
"There seem to be a lot of Greater Vernon Citizens named "Anonymous". I wonder if they are all related and if so, ho do they know which one of them is being addressed at any given time. So far I counted 32 of them."

I also enjoyed this goody from a slightly less anonymous "P.Sault":
"Those seeking amalgamation should keep in mind the old saying: be careful what you wish for. Vernon is a disaster and cannot look after what they have properly. It has become a Podunk town of dollar stores, big box stores, cash stores, pawn shops, thrift shops, fast food and soup kitchens and empty storefronts and weedy or concrete landscaping. They've lost every good employer to other cities without a whimper."

Yep, Vernon is nothing compared to the economic hub that is Coldstream. Glass plant, anyone?

[bob vernon]

Some of the rhetoric is getting over the top. Letters in the Vernon paper referring to BOTH the Coldstream and Vernon civic governments having "bloated" hierarchies of civil servants. And how it would all be solved if only there was amalgamation. I'm refusing to sign the petition because it assumes that amalgamation will allow a better use of our tax dollars, which I think means some kind of tax reduction. Some of the areas under the regional district have snow clearance and other road maintenance done by the province. If they joined an amalgamated city, the new city would pay for it all. And Silver Star would want into the new city. And that road up to the resort is expensive. So would be the water line up.... and the sewer line down.
Developers around the city have already had the rest of us pay for their water lines. They'll do it again.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Glacier]

Amalgamations do not save taxpayer's money, nor do they improve efficiency. As a matter of fact, one big government is less efficient than two small governments in most cases. There is no real need to amalgamate since services and infrastructure are already "amalgamated."

[Ingevan22]

Which two small governments? :-)

No doubt "big city" taxes would be at least as expensive as Vernon taxes. As a Vernon taxpayer, I support the notion that all who benefit should pay their share. We need jobs in Vernon and nice places to live in and around Vernon, and parks to explore and fields to farm. We need green hills as much as we need green development - and how about green industry? We deserve the right to pay the same taxes too.

Check out residential tax rates in Spall, so many roads. As far as sewer, similar to current City policies, installation in any area does not proceed unless a majority of residents vote for it.

But about being "amalgamated" already.... we used to have a sort of "virtual amalgamation" under various Greater Vernon constructs. Now parks has been restructured into local, sub-regional and regional.

Councillor Bob Spiers and the City invites you to view and comment on the new Park- facilities & programming agreement (MOU) before noon Friday:
http://www.vernon.ca/images/uploads/council/agendas/other/Recreation_Facilities_and_Programming_MOU.pdf

[Ingevan22]

Interesting math in today's Morning Star:

Page A4:
Apparently, everyone will save by splitting apart parks. According to local politicians, it will be cheaper to go it alone with each jurisdiction covering their own parks overhead (aka "administration") as they can then determine their own service levels. Huh? How can we in fact save money with this approach unless we accept lower service levels? Where are the economies of scale? Now every jurisdiction has to invest in their own parks maintenance equipment and personnel and administration.

Only Vernon has the necessary equipment to maintain beaches... gee what a surprise.

Area C is cleverly considering other options as the Area Director sees no cost-savings in sight, and now realizes the only opportunity to cut costs for his taxpayers will be to contract out to Venture Training or depend on volunteers to maintain parks in his area. Anyone getting concerned yet? Does anyone out there truly care who owns what park, or do we care how it is maintained and how much that all costs?

Page A8:
The first priority for the City of Vernon will be a new Parks Master Plan.

Great, so let's add that to the overhead/administration costs, shall we? How much, exactly? Wait, we won't even have a planner in-house to handle that work or to help guide our decisions, so we'll have to contract that out... a shame indeed.

One more comment:
An interesting editorial that once again ignores the greatest cost-savings suggested by KPMG's Core Service Report (e.g. save $1 million + per year by disposing some wastewater to the lake instead of only to spray irrigation, or reduce duplication and increase efficiencies via amalgamation). Instead, the editorial brings attention to 2 valuable programs with measly budgets ($60K/yr) - spring chipping and clear bag program - that are funded by YOUR recycling fees. So if the City chooses to cut these services, you bet I will be demanding a rebate on our recycling fees, it's only fair.

[bob vernon]

Here's a prediction:

If the unification goes ahead and we are all joined under one municipal government, a developer will step forward with a development on land currently in the regional district. He'll promise to build a large number of houses, but the new "city" will have to service the developments with sewer lines, paid for by all residents in the new city. Ditto twinning of water lines to bring good drinking water to areas that only have irrigation water now. Water rates for all of us will have to go up. And Development Cost Charges will have to be reduced. Sufficient pro development candidates on the new council will be supported in the first election for the new council. We'll save a few hundred thousand dollars by unification and spend several million on sewer and water lines.

Civic politics in the Okanagan cities is driven by developers. It always has been. Look what happened in Kelowna in their last civic election. And remember what happened in Okanagan Landing 20 years ago. Average homeowners lose. Developers get rich.