EDITORIAL - THERE’S NOTHING SILLY ABOUT REQUESTING INFORMATION
Posted on 23 February 2010 by admin
OSOYOOS TIMES-February 24, 2010
Mayor Stu Wells cast an unfortunate shadow over commendable efforts by Osoyoos town council and the Town of Osoyoos to be open and transparent to the public when he complained during the Feb. 15 council meeting about Town staff spending time responding to requests for information.
For more than a year, council and Town staff have been noticeably committed to sharing information with the media and the public.
Such efforts have been refreshing and our leaders should be thanked for making valiant strides to include the community in the decision-making processes taking place at Town Hall.
This administration is much more open than the one that preceded it.
No government, however, should ever chastise those people it serves when it comes to seeking information.
Looking for answers from governments and their complimenting bureaucracies is part of the democratic process and helps keep public leaders accountable.
To express frustrations about people requesting information about the Northwest Sector Sewer Project is even worse.
A number of people affected by this project have been caught off guard about its costs and scope and they have every right to question their local governments about what hooking up to the pending extension of the Town’s sewer system may mean to them.
Such information-seeking is especially pertinent now as details about the sewer project have often been slow to come to light and have changed radically from year to year and even month to month.
While Wells may be right that some volume restrictions on information requests may be necessary to limit the amount of time and money the Town spends on digging up answers for the public, those limits, and the reasons for such restrictions, should be explained to the individual in detail on a case-by-case basis.
Regardless of whether a request for information from the Town is frivolous or “silly,” as Wells said, it’s even sillier to bring up such thoughts in a public forum.
To do so paints a picture of a municipal leadership that favours being closed, rather than open.
Maybe Mr. Wells is having second thoughts about being a public servant? The Centre for Public Accountability defines Public accountability as the obligation of authorities to explain publicly, fully and fairly, before and after the fact, how they are carrying out responsibilities that affect the public in important ways.
I hope it wasn’t my line of questioning alone which caused his apparent melt down on the 15th?
To explain, I was on a fact finding mission in order to find out who’, when & why the 87th street non-lakeshore properties were being included in the NW Osoyoos Sewer project. Many of my initial questions were to the RDOS which led to further questions as I picked up bits and pieces of information. Some of the answers I received just didn’t make sense. Assumptions were made by people like the Area “A” rep without really having any factual information. There seemed to be a lot of mis-information from the start. I found it very unusual that the decision makers didn’t really have a very good understanding of the details of the project. As the saying goes “Who’s minding the store?”
To explain further, I first approached Mr. Wells on Jan18/2010 because it had been suggested to me that Mr. Wells was refering to our homes when he was quoted in the 10/22/2008 Osoyoos Times as saying “The original number of homes that would be connected to the system through the project was 121. But Wells said 12 more property owners along the sewage line’s path wanted to join the system as well.”
Now concerning that question he has either not been able to remember which 12 properties those were or maybe the answer is just uncomfortable for him.
I did have other questions for him and it does surprise me that he was now complaining about Town staff spending time responding to requests for information. After all it was he who suggested on Jan18,2010 “so you can probably obtain better information from closer sources including: T.R. Underwood, Mark Pendergraft, and Barry Romanko.” and then for other questions on Jan19,2010 he said “Hi Rick, I really believe that you should make contact with Barry Romanko, Chief Administrator for the Town. Mr. Romanko is the person to supply the answers to your technical and financial questions.” and “I suggest you contact Town staff and our engineering contractor for those answers”
Things looked worse when I reviewed the tender documents. Not only are we being forced into paying for a sewer system without being consulted but now I find we’ll also be paying for constructing a 5 meter wide by 120+ meter gravel road plus a 100 meter by 12 meter gravel road into and through a private orchard. A further review of the plans seemed to suggest that there may have been some preliminary subdivision building going on. I’m not one to beat around the bush so on Feb 11/2010 I asked the Town’s consultants some very direct questions.
This is where the problem lies; I guess that it was OK to ask questions, just not uncomfortable ones.
Now the town has accused me of “micro managing” the project and asking unreasonable and invalid questions.
I guess they believe the best defense is a good offense.
To date I still have not received an answer and that $600,000. estimate for phase one has come in with tenders between $708,461.25 and $1,312,490.50
I am writing concerning the Feb24,2010 article in the Times entitled ‘Town expresses frustration over freedom of information requests”
Its amazing how the town has taken a simple line of questioning and managed to twist the facts of those requests into a reason to evade answering those questions. When questions are not received with complete answers but instead are re-directed, skirted, trivialized or attacked, one has no choice but to be suspicious.
I highly doubt that much time has been expended by the town folk in researching records in order to answer questions which I have asked. Nothing I asked should have warranted research and probably should have already been available for anyone in the service area.
Each and every question asked was legitimate and purposeful. Initially when I asked Stu Wells which “12 more property owners along the sewage line’s path wanted to join the system as well” I sensed that he had became somewhat uncomfortable. But only when I asked Terry Underwood in my Feb 11-2010 email “why are you constructing a 5 meter wide by 120+ meter gravel road plus a 100 meter by 12 meter gravel road into and through a private orchard? Surely this isn’t necessary in order to run the sewer mains? Access to the lift station comes from 81st street so that can’t be the reason? Was this done as a trade for easement access and loss of fruit trees?” did the questioning become “Silly”.
I would be happy to discuss the reasons behind each and every question with anyone who is interested and have posted all those questions/answers on a web site to do so. http://www.funkngroovin.com/silly_questions.html
Mayor Wells statement about “fewer than five who consistently make requests” is also somewhat misleading in that he was well aware that my questions were not only on behalf of myself as I was asking for “others” also. And yes Mayor Wells, if I see you speeding in our snow plow down the wrong side of the street I’ll call you on it.
Well we finally got an answer to those silly questions!
March 9,2010
At a 10am meeting that Mike Mortimer had arranged with Barry Romanko the following questions were asked again and this time answers were received. Mr. Romanko arranged to have Steve Underwood join us via speaker phone in order to answer our technical questions.
1./ Why is it necessary to build new access roads into & through the Demelo orchard in order to lay the sewer line? (TRUE drawing 302-962-09 & 302-962-100)
Mr. Underwood indicated that this was done as a negotiated trade for ROW easements through the Demelo orchard. When I asked if this type of arrangement could be used to acquire other easements between us & willow beach he indicated that it was totally possible and they would probably have to do some earth moving anyways due to the terrain issues. Mr. Romanko suggested that this was common practice in negotiations with land owners for right of way easements.
2./ This question concerns the sewer piping running from the middle of the 87th street run towards the lower gravity piping. Why is it necessary to to jog the sewer run & thereby install two manholes “with stubs for future connections” (S15 & S14) Aren’t only one connection allowed per parcel? (TRUE drawing 302-962-06 & 302-962-07)
Mr. Underwood indicated that this was also done as compensation/trade for easements on the Demelo properties. He indicated he provided him with a 30 lot subdivision plan for Demelo lots A, B & C and the easement was placed to help facilitate that subdivision plan while also acting to service the 87th street properties.
3./ Since the Country Squire Lodge & Retirement village properties in themselves have as large a population (therefore sewage) as the combined total of the 87th street properties why are they not included.
Mr. Romanko indicated that it was a RDOS decision on which properties were being included. When asked if the town would have included them if asked and he replied in the positive. In asking Mr. Underwood why they were dropped from the project he indicated that negotiations broke down when the Willow Beach agreement to pay for the sewer route died. He indicated the owner Norma had referred him to a gentleman by the name of Scott who had a multi unit lakeside development being planned on part of the Country Squire Property.
4./ Why were the five 87th street houses(on 4 properties next to the town of Osoyoos boundary not included in the project.
They were not included because the RDOS didn’t request for them to be included.
5./ Will the tax levy charges to the property owners be per parcel, per connection or per house?
Mr. Romanko indicated that the charge will be per connection with the 1st connection being included as per the RDOS owner share plan and any additional connections for existing additional houses will be at cost. He wasn’t clear however on if the additional connections would be receiving any benefit from grant monies.
6./ Will additional connections be allowed after the project is complete and if so how will that be charged for and what will be done with those proceeds?
Mr. Romanko indicated that the amount of additional connections could only be determined after the project was complete and flow tests were carried out. After that, any approved RDOS lots making application for servicing would be decided on by the council of the day.
I asked Mr. Romanko to confirm that since the RDOS was giving ownership of the infrastructure to the Town, a latecomers provision (where the project paying property owners could be compensated for any additional ‘latecomer” connections) could not be implemented and the Town would be able to charge any amount they please. He indicated that since we were not part of the town, my information is correct. He went on to explain that this is a business for the town and other than taxes it was one of the few ways the town has of earning an income. The amount charged and how it would be used would also be decided by council.
7./ I suggested to Mr. Romanko that the Town statements that both Willow Beach and Reflection Point were subsidizing the project was incorrect and the opposite was actually true. I indicated that it was my understanding that the government grant was for the benefit of existing dwellings only and was not to be used to accommodate new development. I presented him with the following breakdown (as I see it). He re-stated his assertion and explained that Willow Beach was paying $980,000 + 20% plus paying for all the sewering costs from the end of the project’s final phase. He indicated that Reflection Point was paying $436,150 + 20% and was also paying for all their own servicing required to hook in to our forcemain. We confirmed that the 20% additional that they were receiving does not benefit the project and the town can do with it as they please. I made a statement that it was my suspicion that the inclusion of Willow beach and Reflection point were costing us extra in that if they were eliminated we could probably have ran the shorter route directly to the Lacey Point liftstation and possibly used a 4 inch forcemain instead of 6 inch. He confirmed that 4 ” could have been used but said for the price difference they would probably gone with the present design anyway. He also indicated that running up to 92nd ave at 87th street was a better option rather than pumping to Lacey and uphill from there.
NORTHWEST SECTOR SANITARY SEWER
Budget
Town Collection System
$1,470,000
NW Sewer Project
$4,930,000
total
$6,400,000
Units
Proportional share
Contract amount
Deficiency/overpayment
Willow Beach
40
$1,163,636
$950,000
$213,636
Reflection Point
22
$640,000
$436,150
$203,850
Property owners
130
$3,781,818
Govt Grant
$4,266,667
OBWB Grant
$80981 year/20yrs
**
$950,000
$1,434,848
Town- additional capacity *
28
$814,545
$814,545
220
$6,400,000
*
The town has designed the project to allow for additional connections.
As the town will own the system the property owners will not be able
to receive any latecomers compensation for connections after completion
The town will fix the price and receive all monies for latecommer connections
**
Payments of $80981 per year for 20 years would secure a loan of aprox.
$950,000 which sum would be used to reduce the amount owning from
the property owners share of the project.
Based on the assumption that the grant monies are not to be used for
future development and considering 2/3 funding, the Govt’s portion should be only
$2,521,212 leaving a balance attributed to the property owners of $1,260,606
After the OBWB grant the property owners would be responsible for $310,606
or $2390 each
This would result in a savings of $1,745,455 to our government and thereby the taxpayer