Signs, signs everywhere a sign

I'd best not continue on with the lyrics to that song.  
Don't want a R rating coming down on this blog.

I've recently joined the modern era and got a facebook and twitter account.
The intent was to possibly use it as part of election campaigning.  
So far it remains largely unused....

In my Facebook browsing today, I did happen to notice a post regarding signage and a comment to an Elections BC violation.  No credit was taken for whom took the photo, and the presentation of the information could be perceived to be ridiculing an individual. 

I really hope the election campaigning does not descend into personal attacks.  It is interesting to note that the picture posted was taken from one of the candidates yards.  I walk my dog up Northwind Drive frequently and I recognized the fence in the foreground of the picture.  

Anyway - on to the facts about the violation.  

*  Elections BC has brought in a new rule regarding campaign advertising.  The image I've posted next is directly from the "Guide to Local Elections Campaign Financing in BC"

* During my dog walk sessions, I've looked at the signs in question and this is what the violation was -  the sponsorship information was not present. 
* Elections BC has stated that many candidates have not been in conformance on this requirement.  This applies not only to candidates in Lantzville, but province wide.
* Elections BC has also stated that it is not just signage where the violations have been occurring.  This information has to be present on newspaper or magazine advertisements, mailing inserts, clothing, public address announcements, websites, etc. 
* Elections BC is not actively searching for violations of this nature.  A violation or potential violation has to be reported to them.   Elections BC notifies the candidate in question for them to correct the violation, if one exists.

More information can be found at
Guide-to-local-elections-campaign-financing-in-B.C.pdf

Pages 50-55 are specific to elections advertising.

It's a spending spree - and we are all invited !!!

Warning ...
For those of you who are already frustrated by the out of control spending by the District and Council you may want to stop reading now.  This post will only add fuel to the fire.


The 5 year, 2014-2018, financial plan for Lantzville is not an encouraging read. 

Something that jumps out immediately is the fact that the District is planning on operating a deficit for the next four years.  This information is found in the line item "Contributions to/from Surplus (Deficit)".  The four red circled items are deficits.

I like to break all this down into what is the tax increase - or equivalent tax increase to me. 
(Note: every $15,000 spent by the District is equivalent to a 1% tax increase)

Working with 2015 numbers from the 5 year plan only:

1) We have a deficit of $101,449.  This is equivalent to a 6.76% tax increase.

2) We have to add in the payments to Nanaimo as a result of the newly signed water agreement.  Published at $50,155.   This is equivalent to a 3.34% tax increase.


3) We have a 2% tax increase included in the budget.

The net total = 12.11%


 
Twelve percent.  This would be the tax increase required if the District did not run a deficit for 2015.

However, they plan on running a deficit, so our tax increase will be around a "mere" 5.3%.  The deficit will be drawn out of the cash reserves in order to keep the tax increase from being double digits.

So I suppose the good news is that we will only be hit with a 5.3% tax increase next year.
The bad news is that the District is drawing down it's cash reserves to accomplish this feat.  The true increase is actually 12.1%.  

One can only kick the can so far down the road before the cash reserves become zero.  At that point, residents will be hit with a whopper of a tax increase.

Now I cannot speak directly to wages for the residents of Lantzville, but I think it's a fairly safe to say that there were very few working residents out there that received a 12% pay increase last year.   If the taxpayers are not seeing increases of this magnitude for their paycheques, why does our elected Council and District think it's acceptable to budget in this fashion?


I now go back to the 5 year plan for more spending highlights.  I have two numbers in red squares - this is Phase 3 sewer.

For those of you who have plenty of cash kicking around because the tax increase was only 5.3%, the District will help ease you of the burden of that extra cash by presenting you with a bill for a sewer connection.
(I am not delving into the pros/cons for Phase 3 sewer, nor making any declaration if I am for or against this project - I just wanted to mention it as it is a cost that may be coming your way next year.)

According to the 5 year plan, the difference between the grant and the project expenditure is $4.1 million.

So there you have it.  Sizable tax increases, drawing down the town cash reserves, and costly capital projects, all coming your way in the near future if this path is not corrected.

Welcome To Those Coming From The FUAL Website

I noticed a reference to this blog on the FUAL website.  For those coming to this blog via that link – welcome.  

I went on to the site today to have a browse. 

While snooping, I noticed that I was not one of the candidates recommended by this site for a “balanced” council.

That’s fine - all part of being in an election campaign.

I do find it interesting that no one from FUAL, or any individual claiming to be affiliated with FUAL, has asked my perspective on urban agriculture…

While on the site, I found a section that says “What We Are About”.  It states:

• We are Lantzville residents who support growing healthy, local food.
• We invite friends from Lantzville, the Regional District of Nanaimo and elsewhere to join us.
• We believe urban agriculture is an important community value in Lantzville.

I did not find any information/goals/solutions on how to achieve these objectives.

Since I was thinking along the urban farming thread, I thought I’d post up some information on aquaponics, or what I consider urban farming - on steroids.

What is aquaponics?

It was invented separately in ancient times by some badass farmers in both China and the Amazon.

It combines the raising of fish (aquaculture) with the growing of plants in nutrient-rich water (hydroponics).  The fish fertilize the plants, and the plants clean the water.

It doesn’t matter where you live.  It works in the desert, it works in the tropics.  You can do it in urban areas, or rural areas.

An 8’x16′ aquaponics greenhouse, built on a frugal, put-your-own-sweat-into-it over-the-weekend solution would cost around $3,000 to build.

In one year, a healthy, well operated system can grow the following fish and produce:

150 lbs of trout/tilapia fillets

75 lbs of basil leaves

50 lbs of spinach

40 lbs of fresh unwashed lettuce

If you were to buy this food at market prices, it’s about $3,500 worth of food produced per year.  Operating/production costs for the system are approximately $1,000 per year.

And all in an 8’x16′ area.

A Brief History of Water

Back in school, we had a motto in engineering "Why create what you can copy.  Why copy what you can cut and paste." 

In that spirit, a fellow Lantzville blogger has penned a great article on the Nanaimo/Lantzville water deal.

Perspectives on Lantzville/Nanaimo Water Deal Machinations

Do we need a mathematician on staff?

I continue to be amazed at the hard work by the District of Lantzville to control and manipulate information to ensure that the residents of Lantzville do not get a vote on the water agreement.

On October 10th, 2014 I was informed by the CAO via email that the District did not have to obtain elector assent (aka referendum) for the water agreement "essentially because the agreement is operating in nature, not capital."

The following excerpt was included in the email response:
 

Part 2 — Exemptions from Elector Approval Requirement

Commitments that are not calculation liabilities

6  Approval of the electors is not required under section 175 (2) [liabilities under agreements] of the Community Charter unless the liability is one of the following:

(a) a liability of a capital nature, whether or not it is or includes a contingent commitment;

                                      (b) a loan guarantee given by a municipality.

I found this a weak defense, since the water agreement clearly speaks to capital liabilities in Section 14 - "Future Nanaimo Water System Capital Costs".   At the public information session on October 15th, 2014 I questioned the staff further on this matter. 

At this time, the District's lawyer spoke to a referendum not required as Lantzville fell into an assent free zone.  This was new information to me at the time, and a change in their position.  They are now acknowledging a liability is present, but it is a small one in their opinion.

What is an assent free zone?

Basically, approval of the electors is not required if at the time a liability is incurred, if the value of the liability does not exceed 5% of the annual revenue of the municipality.

We can ball park one of these numbers.  The District revenues will be just north of 3 million dollars per year over the next few years.  Let's say $3,100,000.   5% of this is $155,000.

So our magic target is around $155,000.  Lantzville cannot be presented a bill from Nanaimo for greater than $155,000, this will keep us in an assent free zone.

Ok, let's move on to what the liability is - the second number required in this assent free comparison.  The liability comes from the water agreement, section 14 - "Future Nanaimo Water System Capital Costs".  This is a future liability that has not been determined.  It's value is unknown.

How can the District declare that an unknown, future liability is less than $155,000?

You cannot perform the mathematical determination on being assent free - because one of the variables is unknown.  It is simply not possible. 

Bear with me a bit longer - it gets even better.

I sent an email to the District and Council requesting the information on the assent free determination.

Here is an excerpt from the response:
"As the information you are requesting is not considered routinely available you may wish to consider making an FOI request for records."


To put in plain English.  No - you cannot have the information.  Put in a freedom of information (FOI) request.


Is it me, or is this not totally ridiculous.  Why is the public not able to see this information? What is there to hide?

Which then leads me to question what is being hidden? 

Maybe this is the District and Council showcasing Transparency-In-Action...
This is just wrong.  Why is so much effort going into controlling and manipulating information to ensure that the residents of Lantzville do not get a vote on the water agreement.

 

Team Building

Here's another snippet from those mad geniuses at Despair.com.

This made me think of the current Lantzville Council.

Is it wrong for me to say that in public???

 

Alternative Water Option

I have four main frustrations with Lantzville’s path to water.  

1. The fact that new development in Lantzville is the major beneficiary of the Nanaimo agreement as opposed to existing residents.
2. Payment for the Nanaimo agreement is being tied to development.
3. There was no referendum on the Nanaimo agreement.  I think this is ethically wrong.  This impacts the entire community, the entire community should have a voice in the outcome.
4. The lack of solutions presented for water supply.

This post speaks to item 4.  

I know there were other solutions explored over the years.  These solutions have not been discussed in any detail in public.  Given some of the deficiencies with the current water agreement with Nanaimo and how it was signed prior to public consultation, one cannot help but question the motives behind such actions.

I would like to present one of the “other” solutions to you.  We’ll see if it makes sense together.

The Pleasant Valley Option:

There are two wells in the Pleasant Valley area on property owned by the Caillet family.  Each well produces approximately 850 usgpm.   Enough for 3400 residences, if both wells were utilized at max capacity. 

Lantzville was offered water from these wells.  The District estimated a cost of $5,000,000 for this option.

Lantzville’s OCP is based on a maximum population of 5,000 people – or about 2,270 homes.   This population level would utilize 66% of the maximum capacity of both wells combined.  Essentially, this means there is plenty of water available from that source.

Attached below is some comparative information between the Pleasant Valley option and the Nanaimo water agreement in its current form.

 


















Note the average connection charge per user for the Pleasant Valley option is based on the 1500 “up front” connections.  If we base the average on the maximum build out based on the OCP (~ 2,270 homes), the average connection charge lowers to $2,200 per user.   Two and a half times lower than the Nanaimo connection charge.

Next is a list of Pros and Cons regarding the Pleasant Valley option.  

I think there is a pretty compelling list of pros with the Pleasant Valley solution.  What happened to it?  Why was it not pursued further?

Was there a reluctance to negotiate with the ALR that moved this solution off the table?  I certainly hope this was not the case.

Was it that some particular Councillors wanted a solution with Nanaimo, and Nanaimo only?

This Pleasant Valley option seems pretty attractive when one looks at the numbers and considers the benefits to the broader community. 

What is Taxpayer Money?

This post is going to be light on facts when compared to my previous efforts.

I'd like to pose a question to you.  What do you consider taxpayer money?

1)  Is it strictly money that comes directly from your pocket book and goes to the District in the form of property taxes?

2)  Is it money that you pay in property taxes (#1 above), plus any fees for services provided by the District?

3)  Or could it be any money that the District receives?


I would like to present the perspective that it is case #3.

Any money that the District receives, regardless of the source, is taxpayer money.

Off to Alberta:
Let us consider the province of Alberta for a moment.
Alberta has no sales tax and no health premiums.
 
Why?  Part of the answer is the handsome sum of money the Alberta government collects in oil royalties.
They can pass that along as a tax savings to the residents of the province. 
If there were no oil royalties - there would be a tax increase for the residents.

So while the money is not directly coming from a resident's wallet, the oil royalties are revenue to the Province which ultimately saves residents money.

An example closer to home: 
Lantzville has a sizable sum of money in Gas Tax Funds.  Money provided by the Government of Canada that may be used towards designated public transit, community energy, water, wastewater, solid waste and capacity building projects.

It is estimated that Lantzville will have $914,000 in gas tax funds by the end of 2014.  
This money is currently tagged for use to pay for the first phase of water.

Considered from a different perspective, it represent approximately 60% of the total property taxes collected in one year.
Or $253 for every person in Lantzville.

That is your money. 


Why is this important?
To us folks here in Lantzville, when a politician tells you that water coming to your area of Lanztville will not cost you anything - we can politely educate them on what taxpayer money truly is.

Something Is Rotten In The State Of Lantzville

Shakespeare said it slightly differently but I think the phrase applies nicely to our town these days.  To quote Wiktionary, the phrase “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” means:

1. Something is not right, rife with errors from top to bottom, leading to suspicion of motive.    If the administration knew about the problems and chose not to prevent them, then clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Allow me to outline the details I have discovered over the past month.

Regarding a water agreement:

• Did you know that the CAO of Lantzville had a draft water agreement from Nanaimo in 2011. 
• A draft agreement which would have supplied water to 651 homes in Lower Lantzville.  This would have freed up the Harby Road well field to supply homes in Upper Lantzville at Lantzville’s discretion 
• In February 2012, the City of Nanaimo resolves to not conclude a final agreement on water supply to Lantzville due to uncertainties surrounding the City’s water needs.  At this time Nanaimo had not received a reply from Lantzville regarding the draft agreement it had provided. 
• It appears Council was not notified of the existence of this 2011 draft agreement until June 2013.  A material piece of information that could have drastically changed the nature of water supply to Lantzville – and it is not revealed to Council for one and a half years

To develop the plot:

In the minutes of the March 24, 2014 Council meeting, members of Council asked “if the 2011 draft water agreement came before Council.”   Staff “advised the 2011 draft was received at an in camera meeting of Council.”  This confirms the existence of a draft water agreement in 2011. 

I questioned a Councillor regarding the draft agreement and when they received notice of it.  They acknowledged that they were not aware of the 2011 draft water agreement until June 2013.

I questioned Council on this timing during the September 29^th, 2014 Council meeting.   One Councillor stated that they were notified of the agreement before June 2013.  We now have one Councillor stating they didn’t know till June 2013, another stating prior to June 2013.  Either, one of the Councillors is misrepresenting the facts, or information is distributed on different timelines to different Councillors.  Neither option is acceptable.

Having firmly established that such an agreement existed, the debate is the timing.  The answer lies in the in-camera minutes which we, the public, are not privy to.  I strongly believe this draft agreement was received at the June 23^rd, 2013 in-camera meeting and I would welcome Council or the District to prove otherwise by releasing the in-camera minutes.

To make matters more perverse, during the June 23, 2013 regular Council meeting, Council passed a motion that “affirms the direction of staff the past two years”.     

Let me walk through this with some fictional role playing.

The Stage: The District Office

The Date: June 23^rd

The Lighting: On full, because it’s very hard to read that small print otherwise

----------------------------------------------------

CAO to council:  You know, I had this draft water agreement back in 2011 that I did not tell you all about. 

Council:  [Insert expletive].  Really, a draft agreement back in 2011.   [Insert expletive].  What do we do now.

Brainstorming session …..

Some member of Council:  I know, we could pass a motion that says we are on board with everything you have done the past two years.  It’ll just be like we back dated an approval.

Another member of Council:  Can we do that?

Some member of Council:  Sure.       

Council to CAO:  No worries - our motion will affirm the direction of staff the past two years. Problem averted.

  -----------------------------------------------------

Back to being serious.

During the meeting when the existence of this draft agreement is finally declared, is Council disturbed or troubled?  Clearly not.  They pass a motion which basically says “that’s ok staff, we agree with you, you’re doing a good job”.  Rather than placating the situation, Council should have served those they represent and asked for a letter of resignation.

* Why did staff not inform Council it had the 2011 draft agreement when it was received from Nanaimo.

* This draft agreement could have drastically changed the nature of water supply to Lantzville.

* This draft agreement, if accepted,  would have had far different outcomes to the existing residents of Lantzville when compared to the agreement that is now in place.

For further reference, I sent a question to staff regarding the communication mechanism between staff and Council.  I received a detailed reply from Major de Jong in which he stated “It is my view that communication is well structured and all of Council is well informed”.

If communication is indeed well structured and all of Council is well informed, Council should have been notified of the 2011 draft water agreement when it was received from the City of Nanaimo, not one and a half years later.

This sequence of events is just wrong - ethically, morally, philosophically, and so forth.

Or maybe I just have trust issues.