Peachland View, May 14th, 2010

Service costs for Trepanier Valley and Brent Road to be explored through study
By Joanne Layh

The Trepanier Valley and Brent Road areas are not joined to Peachland, but their service and infrastructure concerns may have an impact on the community, whether they amalgamate with the district or not.

At the last Committee of the whole meeting, Peachland council agreed to support an application for the funding of a study that would provide detailed information about the costs involved with providing services and infrastructure to those areas.

Currently, District of Peachland policy PRO-265 states: "In the event that a request is received by the District for extension of municipal services outside the District boundaries, if the District wishes to provide these services, the property owner/applicant will be advised that the property must join the District of Peachland."

Peachland council are not entertaining the idea of changing that policy at this time, but they will likely be seeking more information so they can make a more informed decision about how to proceed with service and infrastructure concerns in neighboring areas, provided that none of the costs for the study are incurred by the district.

"Primarily with the Brent Road area, I have a concern that these people in that area have septic systems that are draining into the water. They are failing., Councillor Schierbeck said, "I think in the interest of our lake, that I would be very interested in seeing them come on board with the sewer system, but not at the expense of the general public of
Peachland, at their expense. That's why I'd like to see us follow through with this [study] just to find out whether they're interested in paying, whether we can economically do it."

Other members of council were more cautious about proceeding with the study.

"I'm a little uneasy that if we go down this road we may be opening a window that we really don't want to open, in terms of incorporating the Brent Road and Trepanier areas into Peachland," Councillor Condon said. "If we look at the potential tax revenue from those places then understand the services that we would provide in return, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it's a losing proposition from the town's point of view."

Mayor Fielding challenged that view. "I don't know that that is the case because if we create a local service area, we have the opportunity then to charge whatever we want in order to make that function," he said, adding, "We don't need to be out of pocket money. It may prove to be just non-viable from the cost point of view and something they're unwilling to pay for, but we would have all of the information from the study to determine what we want to do."

Mayor Fielding also pointed out that having more information would be a benefit to the residents of Brent Road and Trepanier Valley, as well, as presently neither party has any detailed factual information about what the associated costs would be or how it would work.

"If this [study] would give us an idea of some of the costs for it, I'm 100 percent behind this to find out," Councillor Moberg said.

Jim Edgson's impression on how the presentation for potable water and fire protection to Peachland went.

The feasibility study regarding fire protection for the Trepanier area had reached a point where it became necessary to talk to the Peachland Council and propose a way to provide water from Peachland to Trepanier without Trepanier joining Peachland.  Without water, fire protection would be difficult.  I worked with the Regional District to prepare such a presentation (attached), and made that presentation on Tuesday January 12, 2010 at Peachland's Committee of the Whole.  The presentation was well received; there were many questions - some of them very tough, but straight forward.  I do believe the case was made effectively for Peachland and the RDCO to work together moving forward.

Please note that the feasibility study done so far - in Draft Form - is for fire protection.  It became obvious that water was an issue which needed to be dealt with before fire protection could move forward.  There has been no water feasibility study yet.

Peachland has agreed to look at the proposal put forward.  The RD must understand the costs from the Peachland perspective.  In order for this to occur Peachland will need to take a look at what has been done, what the water capacity is and what - if anything - needs to be upgraded from their perspective, advise the RD of the costs which Peachland requires, etc.  Peachland has committed to keep both RD staff and myself updated.

What the RD needs is to understand the costs associated with hooking up to Peachland water so that the RD can then combine these costs with other (water) feasibility study costs, and thus be able to communicate as complete a picture as possible to you, the residents and property owners of Trepanier.  Once these costs are better understood, a meeting will be called (please keep in mind that meetings could be called before this!).  This is sometime in the future.

Nothing has been committed on behalf of Trepanier yet for water - it cannot be committed.  Once the RD hears from Peachland, there needs to be a study for Trepanier water (assuming that Peachland agrees to allow the RD to hook up to Peachland water).  Even when we get to the point of communicating the results of the final draft of the yet to come water feasibility study to you all, what we will be doing is asking you if you wish the RD to take it to the next step - the approval process.  If sufficient people say it should be taken to the approval process, then the RD will communicate to Trepanier citizens what needs to happen.  Amongst the things which will need to happen after the yet to come water feasibility study is as follows:

1): a letter requesting that an approval process for the provision of water services be done, noting the support for this occurring comes from signatories on the letter (the signatories commonly are from an ad hoc committee of Trepanier landowners/residents - there is already such a committee in place - TRIPOD.  RD staff and myself would work with whatever committee is in place to handle this issue);

2): once the RD receives this letter, the request will go in front of the RD Board for the approval to proceed;

3): most likely the Board will approve a RD approved petition process for a Local Service Area (LSA) to be set up for the provision of water.  In the approval (if it is to be accepted by the Board) the boundaries of the LSA will be defined; the costs will be defined, and other conditions will be defined.  In order for the petition to be passed successfully, two things must happen: 1): greater than 50% of the landowners affected must say yes; and 2): landowners with greater than 50% of the assessed value must say yes.  Both must be met.

You will note there has been no commitment on your behalf yet.  This can only occur at the point where a decision is made to hold the approval process, and even then there is no commitment on your behalf to spend anything.  The only time there will be a commitment to spend is if and when the approval process says go (subject to conditions noted and others which will come out in the public meeting).

Some may ask why we do not go to referendum.  In a referendum, not all the landowners will be able to vote (especially if they live out of the Province or are away).  In the petition, all landowners are sent a letter and will have an opportunity to vote - subject to the electoral laws of the Province for these type of petitions (this will come out in the public meeting).

You will note that if Peachland agrees to the suggestions presented to them which will involve giving this over to the RD to finalize, the only thing you will be deciding is whether or not you want water.  Not about joining Peachland.

As noted, this is an update.  Peachland is considering things at the present time; assuming Peachland agrees to support the suggestions given them, Peachland will be working with the Regional District to finalize a yet to come water feasibility study, and then the results will be brought forward to you in Trepanier for consideration and for a commitment to either proceed or not.

Timing?  That is up in the air - a lot depends on Peachland at the present time, but I will be following up as I usually do and keeping you in touch.

I hope this is a help.  Should you have any questions, please feel free to let me know.

Jim Edgson - Regional Director Central Okanagan West
jim.edgson@cord.bc.ca
Ph: 250-212-7296

Dead cow in Trepanier Creek