AREA RESIDENTS PUSH RDOS FOR LOWER TAXES, BETTER ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERHAUL OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
Posted on 16 March 2010 by admin
OSOYOOS TIMES-March 17, 2010
By Paul Everest - Osoyoos Times
Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS) officials were put on the hot seat on the evening of March 15 at a standing-room-only information session on the RDOS’s proposed 2010 budget.
Roughly 70 people from rural Area A, most of whom are Anarchist Mountain residents, crowded into a room at the Sonora Community Centre to bring up their concerns about taxation rates, a lack of services and some alleged accounting discrepancies to Mark Pendergraft, director for rural Area A, Bill Newell, the RDOS’s chief administrative officer and Jim Tarves, the acting finance manager for the RDOS.
A breakdown of the 2010 estimated tax burden rates for Area A services such as building inspection, animal control and regional trails drew out a number of emotional responses from the gathering.
Many attendees applauded when Anarchist Mountain Community Society President Mark McKenney said the “consensus” in the room was that people are paying taxes for many services they don’t receive.
Another attendee asked why residents living outside a municipality pay similar tax rates to those living within a municipality but receive fewer services.
Newell responded, however, that residents aren’t paying for any services they don’t receive, which was met with replies of skepticism from the crowd.
One person asked how Area A residents could get out of paying for some of the services and was told the area would have to go through a referendum at a cost of up to $15,000.
Newell said if a referendum was undertaken by Area A residents, other RDOS areas receiving the same services could veto any effort to opt out of the services.
McKenney demanded that the RDOS officials tell the gathering how Area A’s taxes would be reduced, adding that his taxes are the highest they’ve ever been.
“If your federal and provincial taxes were going up this much, you’d be having a fit and we’re having a fit.”
He said people are looking for a “zero-based budget” and a five-per-cent decrease in taxes over the next several years, not news that taxes are again going up.
Newell said such a request would have to go to Area A’s elected official and Pendergraft added that he would take such concerns to the RDOS board of directors.
In the wake of a day-long meeting on Feb. 25 where RDOS staff and board members trimmed the proposed budget, Area A is facing a 2010 tax requisition of nearly $840,000, a 20 per cent increase from 2009.
For every $1,000 of assessed value, Area A residents would be paying $1.67 if the budget is approved.
Joe Simoes, who last month presented a petition signed by 74 of Anarchist Mountain’s 80 resident electors to Boundary-Similkameen MLA John Slater requesting that the province support a bid to remove the mountain area from the RDOS, grilled Pendergraft, Tarves and Newell about a surplus listed in the RDOS budget for Area A.
A surplus of $9,786 is listed for the “Anarchist Mountain Electrical System” and Simoes wanted to know why the RDOS is using that surplus to offset all of Area A’s tax requisition.
He said the surplus should be used to pay back the people who bore the cost of the $55,000, 20-year loan approved by the RDOS in 1981 that was used to bring power to the mountain.
Simoes said it is estimated that 30 properties took on the cost of the loan 30 years ago and were supposed to pay $8,790 a year for 20 years, but those 30 properties have split into roughly 100 parcels over the years.
He wanted to know why the original property owners were still paying off that loan as late as 2008 and said it was impossible to figure out how much those owners have paid over the years because the RDOS has not cooperated in providing information to the affected residents.
Tarves replied that if that service has been paid off, the surplus should be refunded to the taxpayers who paid into it.
He said he didn’t have an immediate answer to Simoes’ questions, but added that he wanted “to research this issue.”
While many in the crowd said they wanted the RDOS to provide accounting information on the electrical system surplus, another man in attendance used this issue to bring up the Northwest Sewer Project and asked how long it will take for residents serviced by the project to pay back a loan for the sewer system.
Ultimately, many who attended the meeting said the RDOS should have discussed budget issues with Area A members weeks ago, rather than three days before the budget is scheduled to go before the RDOS board for adoption.
Some said many of the “useless” services the area is currently paying for should be cut to bring taxes down.
news@osoyoostimes.com
Pendergraft’s Shinny white stallion looks more like a combination between a two humped camel and a pink elephant
I expect that Paul must have had a deadline as he left prior to our meeting with Director Pendergraft. Now this was “THE” meeting of the night and here’s the highlights concerning the Northwest Osoyoos Sewer Project :
The group was concerned with a number of items, the first of which was the Mis-Information which was being passed on. An example of that was concerning the amount of money that was being reported that the 130 would have to pay yearly to service the debt that the RDOS was creating on our behalf to pay our portion of the project. Initially when the question was asked by Area C Regional Director Alan Patton he was told $575 per year for 20 years. Shortly thereafter new figures came out indicating our total debt would be $1,045,000. or $8000 each or $890 per year and Mr. Pendergraft re-assured us that “the estimated $8000 per home is worst case scenario and will likely be lower” So we asked him why did the RDOS enact bylaw 2504 which authorizes the borrowing of $1,248,000 or $9600 each. RDOS finance manager Jim Tarves was asked to explain to which he indicated that this was a +20% allowance for expected cost over runs due to price increases between the time the estimate was done and the time the project goes to tender. So much for “worst case scenario”
Another example of Mis-Information noted was with the award of the tender. The estimate for phase one of the project was given at $600,000 but after the $708,000 tender was awarded and $67,000 lift station was purchased the Towns Engineers are quoted as saying that the project has come in under budget with a project surplus of $186,196. When asked how a $175,000 overrun can be interpreted as coming in under budget he was at a loss to explain but agreed to investigate.
The next item of Mis-Information mentioned was concerning why the non-lakeshore properties were added to the project for the reason that they ere contributing to the ill health of the Osoyoos Lake. We explained that we had spent the last three months reviewing each and every report available on septic systems and phosphorus emissions and at no time has anyone or any report given any support for this flawed reason to include the 87th street & 98th avenue non- lakeshore properties in the project. In fact it was noted that the governments own study on phosphorus emissions only studied 87 lakeshore properties of the 130 that are included in the project. It was explained to Mr. Pendergraft that it has been determined that 50% of the phosphorus in a septic system is removed by settling and subsequent pumping. Of the remaining 50 % approximately 85% is removed within 1 meter of the drain pipe entering the field. That works out to 92.5% being removed. We explained that this would be a problem for lakeshore properties where the water table is higher or where the septic system is close to a community well. We went on to explain that the combination of the distance our properties are above and away from the lake makes it near impossible to have any effect on the lake at all. We also explained that it had been determined in a recent report prepared by a U. of S. graduate student that it was fertilizer nitrates used in the orchards and not septic tank nitrates which are responsible for the high levels of nitrates in the lake. Mr. Pendergraft indicated that it was his understanding that higher density areas like 87th street were also areas of concern but no-one agreed with his assumption.
The next area of concern was the basic Accounting for the project.
Mr. Pendergraft, Newell and Tarves were asked to confirm or deny if our accounting was accurate.
Based on a estimate project cost of $6.4 million dollars we were able to show that with a
$4,514,000 government infrastructure grant
$ 950,000 debt reduction (based on a $80,981 OBWB 20 year yearly grant)
$ 950,000 Willow Beach contribution and
$ 436,500 Reflection point contribution
$6,850,500 would be available to go towards the project
$ 450,500 is the excess amount which should cover any cost overruns and if all those numbers are accurate none of us would be required to pay anything towards the project.
All three were obviously stumped and were not willing to confirm or deny.
Mr. Pendergraft was then asked why he had made such a bad deal with the Town of Osoyoos, why no one was looking after our interests and basically who’s minding the store. We went on to show how the Town of Osoyoos is profiting big time off this deal. First they are receiving an additional 20 % amenity from Willow Beach and Reflection Point which totals $277,000. Money they can use anywhere they like! They are also receiving $1,470,00 for upgrades to their collection system from the project funds. We had no idea where this was being used as the upgrades to their sewage lagoons had already been made and we the taxpayers through provincial & federal grants have already paid for it. All this plus the RDOS has given our infrastructure to them. Because this has been given to them they (instead of us) will be able to charge fees for “Latecomer” connections. They’ve indicated that the system is designed for 220 connections but our information indicates that it can probably handle much more. Subtracting our 130 , Willow Beaches 40 & Reflection Points 22 leaves them a minimum of 28 connections. Now if we use Mr. Pendergraft’s estimate (from a earlier email) of $22,000 per connection that would net them an additional $616,000. We didn’t give him the total but that amounts to $2,363,000. One lakeshore resident expressed his displeasure in that he thought all 28 additional connections should be reserved for existing lakeshore properties and the group agreed. We suggested that the reason the Town is rushing this project through was because they were financially doing so well off on it that they didn’t want to jeopardize that We asked why we were being treated differently from OIB who in 2007 had been given an additional 164 connections over a 10 year period for the favorable price of $6000 per connection. We explained that OIB who we believe didn’t give away their infrastructure are able to charge Bell Star or whoever whatever they like knowing anything over $6000 is pure profit. If we were charged the same rate or had not given away our infrastructure we could have saved a bundle. Mr. Pendergraft tried to indicate that the OIB were constructing their own sewer system but this did not go far to explain any differences in the relationship to the town as we both pay everything up to the town boundary.
Next a somewhat heated discussion occurred when we asked why the project was constructing access roads at a cost of $37,000 into and through a private orchard and why the sewer lines were being aligned to accommodate future development. We explained that in a meeting with Mr. Romanko we were told by the engineer that he had been given a plan for a 40 lot subdivision and basically told where the easements (gravity piping/manholes) could go. We asked Mr. Pendergraft to confirm if the grant monies were not to be used for “future development” We expressed our united objection to urban sprawl and any future development in our neighborhood. We also expressed our displeasure with the lack of checks and balances and questioned why the RDOS consultants Earth Tech was not keeping an eye on the project for us. We suggested that the project be halted and a review carried out. We also suggested that the 87th street & 98th avenue non-lakeshore properties be excluded from the project thereby eliminating any need to provide future servicing and road building as those easements would no longer be required.
Mr. Pendergraft volunteered the supposed reasoning for the access roads and zig-zaging sewer line but we insisted that it was nothing more than payment for easements and plans for ALR exclusion, re-zoning and sub-division.
The meeting would have carried on longer but the caretaking staff needed to set the room up for the following day.
Mr. Pendergraft said he would meet with the town and the engineers, address our concerns and get back to us. We await his findings.
Rick D
Yes, I’m in agreement with the reasoning with”cleaning up thr lake” however I’m displeased with the lack of transparency given by those in charge of the project.
I’m still baffled with the reasoning to include 87th st. area as an important component in these goals.
The question that I constantly think of is– Who’s needs are being met?” It’s clear that they are not those who live on 87Th St.
10019 87th
Don Lilley