Budget time, 2011

Budget time, it is down and dirty with  a lot of hashing things out. All the Directors are trying to get the best deal for their areas.  Trying to keep their taxpayers costs down and the fact that it is an election year makes it all the more important.  However there is no use in keeping taxes down to the eventual detriment of the services provided or for future costs to go up. The numbers are approximate but the general overall average tax for landowners in the North Shuswap will be up about 9%. It depends in what area you live in the Area “F” as different VFDs maybe be higher or lower, some areas have services such as water works or street lights etc. that others do not so it is hard to be exact with comparing  what one area pays compared to another. The total area taxes needed for services from the CSRD will be about $ 1,375,508 ($ 1.375 million). The total value given to area “F” properties collectively,  from BC Assessment is $ 1,344,127,754 (1.34 billion) up 4% from last year.  The major increases have come from the CSRDs item called; “allocated overhead costs”, which has been the shifting of payments  to the function “Administration Cost Allocation”, from the  municipalities to Electoral Areas. This new function in the budget is a net increase in of $87,982 (General Government to area “F”). It also includes Information Technologies (IT) dept.  Building inspection has also gone up from a self paying service to $102,169 because of the drop in construction.   Recycling has gone up $82,854, GIS/mapping is up $45,880 and library is up $22,885.  Those are the largest increases in services, for area “F”. The largest decreases in tax requirements comes from Grants in Aid cost is down $78,883 and planning  costs also down $ 63,327.  These were the largest decreases that the CSRD has done.      

I have tried to keep the taxes down where I can. In general what I have heard/ I felt (from the residents) is that the spending on Parks function be kept at last year’s level and I have done this.  Grants in Aid have not been distributed totally out and the remaining funds from the grant are saved and returned to the tax payers. Directors remuneration & expenses have gone up 14% for all Directors showing that we are busier and that our costs of doing business is now being paid for (rather than coming out of our pockets). There are extra costs also from new technologies that we use to do our job in representing the area.  The next draft of the budget will indicate further adjustments.

 

911

The CSRD changed the fire dispatch service from the City of Salmon Arm to the City of Surrey in April of 2010. The Board had approved a total of $525,000 (as well $125,000 in 2009 and $400,000 in 2010) to upgrade internal communications systems  (of the CSRD VFDs) and establish a communications system with the City of Surrey. The actual cost of the project is projected to be $538,000 this is $13,000 higher than what was  the total budget estimate. Costs for the dispatch service will now be allocated over three years instead of two. The final fire dispatch service will be much better than it was planned to be. Additional improvements include; a new repeater at Queest Mountain and Mount Mackenzie, an upgrade to repeaters to accommodate narrow banding (insisted upon by the federal government) and an infrastructure improvement to communications with the City of Revelstoke. The CSRD is presently waiting for new frequencies from the federal government. The objective of the CSRD 9-1-1 fire dispatch  project is to; improve existing dispatch radio systems, to install repeaters at optimum locations, to install satellite back-up systems at remote VFD locations, and to integrate all radio and telephone systems for  municipal and rural fire departments to work together. The new repeater at Queest Mountain will provide a direct radio link to Revelstoke and better radio coverage is for the areas of Anglemont, Sicamous, Swansea Point, and Malakwa. Starting May, 2010, the annual operating cost of fire dispatch service was being reduced from $350,000 per year to $50,000 per year. The transition to the City of Surrey for fire emergency dispatch service suggested that an additional $15,000 annually in the 9-1-1 communications operating budget would be required for additional telephone lines. The projected increase to the annual communications operating budget will be $25,000. The annual fee for rental of repeater sites that were not originally planned for, accounted for some of the increase in the annual operating cost.

committee for the CSRD

New committee members for the CSRD, boards & committees,  was decided at the January Board meeting. The committees that I will be representing the CSRD/area”F” will be; Parcel Tax Review Committee, Weed Control Committee, Electoral Area Directors Board, Milfoil Control Planning committee, Shuswap Lake Water committee, Steering Committee, Solid Waste Management board, Shuswap Tourism Development Committee, Local Marine Advisory Committee, Okanagan Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (OSLRMP) and Shuswap Economic Development Committee. Some of these committees have not met in the last year such as the Shuswap lake Water Committee and the OSLRMP, it will be looked into them see if they will be meeting.   

FULL moon on North Shuswap

answer to email

IN response to your questions:

1. All current buoys that were in place prior to the dead line in the spring 2009 can remain on the lake those that don’t meet the new requirement of being owned by Lake Front or semi lake front properties are now grandfathered in. I think it was June 2009 so that does seem to be the way it is, yes.
2. Each lake lot owners can have a dock, their own boat launch, and two buoys. As far as I know. It depends where the property is and how much waterfront it has (for the # of buoys).  As well there needs to be an acceptance by the Province’s Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB).
3. Applying for a new buoy can only be done if you’re a lake front or semi lake front property owner. Yes
4. CSRD response for a public launch site location that is closes to St Ives, was Magna Bay, and added you cannot park a boat trailer there. Not sure what you mean by “response.” Though there are many people who support boat launches paid for by local tax payers, it is by no means a majority of the population that want to pay for them. There are other issues with boat launches that makes creating them difficult.
5. I asked why these regulations were put in place, CSRD stated it was to control the number of buoy placements. From my point of view it was an overwhelming response by the public to do something about the proliferation of buoys on the lake.
6. I now understand from CSRD that current buoys can be bought and sold knowing that some may be registered and some may not be. I suppose you can sell and buy anything it does not guarantee anything though.
7. I asked do I have to register a buoy if I was able to purchase an existing one that may not be registered, the answer it was not requirement to do so. 

This is what I’m hearing in the local grapevine communications:

1. The cutoff date for new buoy placement created a rush for property owners to put one or more in, which seems to have been counterproductive outcome to the idea of controlling the numbers of placements. Anyone could’ve put in a buoy; it was wide open to everyone you did not have to be a land owner anywhere to do that.  The adoption of the OCP ushered in control through Development Permits to have buoy owners required to apply to put in buoys/docks.
2. As some community areas are not currently zoned its being asked what legal right does any governing authority have in placing regulation controls in those areas? The Province, through the Local Governtment Act, gives the CSRD that right.  An OCP can introduce Development Permits, even in areas without zoning.  Also, the Feds and Province have additional rules, regardless of whether there’s local zoning or not.
3. As a new investor to the area I find it interesting to observe the dividing effect this seems to have had on communities, into those that have and those that don’t have equal lake access.
4. We all pay the same mill tax rate but don’t share in equal access, should that change? Example: Should BC assessment be looking at property values differently for those that have convenient lake access and those that do not? Lakeshore people tend to pay considerably more taxes than most other landowners. Any change in this would have to be taken up with BC Assessment.
5. Will these new regulations have a negative effect to the area, as it’s not hard to see that if you make it difficult for people to use this great lake resource then they will most likely invest elsewhere? Not sure what effect the regulations would have on investment.

Suggestions and comments for equable lake access:

1. Have all buoys registered so that there is a clear record of ownership and therefore the sale of buoys can be done securely so the buyer will know their investment is protected from disqualification. I asked CSRD how they would know what buoys were in place before the cutoff date, they stated photographic evidence they have on record would be used. You have to remember we have a finite amount of funds that we want to take from the tax payers and put towards policing of buoys and we are trying to do this in the most economical manner as possible.
2. Having all buoys owners pay a yearly fee may motivate those that have more than one a reason to sell. I would also suggest in this case that those that don’t have one and don’t meet the new reg. have the right to first refusal that could be taken from a waiting list. Or that these buoys be automatically turned into a community only use buoy. We’re at the beginning of looking at the issue.  First, the CSRD is looking at putting in rules and gaining a handle at indiscriminate placement of buoys.
3. There should be a sort term plan and long term plan in providing equal lake access. I’m suggesting that each community have a number of specially marked community buoys in place for day use only. In the long term each community should have public launch access. Who would police this? In which areas of each community, public access is usually small areas which would allow about 1 or 2 boats.
4. Suggest that buoy fees be used to support new public launch sites. User Fees Structuring has proved in other areas costly more so than leaving it the way it is with hiring a new staff to deal with it and than the cost of enforcement the cost of regulating such things over such a large lake is simply not fiscally responsible
5. As an example: In following CSRD Magna Bay public launch a site location direction as the closes to St Ives, which apparently does not allow trailer parking, would result in taking an hour to launch, on the other hand they can walk to the beach in 5 min’s. Would you considered that a reasonable expectation? Using this launch site means a 20 min drive to launch, return to St Ives to drop off trailer and return to launch site. Now multiply that by all those that are in the same position and I think it’s easy to say there’s going to be a problem. This also presents a possible safety issue as I’m told the lake weather can change quickly, so leaving the boat with say at worst with a minor while the adult is busy getting the trailer is at the very least disconcerting that most people would share in. Creating Boat launches is an expensive ordeal. Some could cost in the realm of $100,000+ plus maintenance and staffing costs. Right now the CSRD Parks run near a ¼ million in costs to the tax payers. Boat launches would add a considerable cost to the parks.  User pay fees could be set up but the cost of doing that would likely out strip the cost of the launch. All this for a 2-3 month use, many tax payers do not support the use of their funds for this. More so when there is a good boat launch at Scotch Creek with ample parking. Parking is a huge problem. The cost of land near the lake is so formidable, that it is a real problem. The largest thing against getting boat launches is DFO allowing the CSRD to put them in. Most areas that would allow a boat launch are also sensitive fish habitat and we would not be allowed to create one in most places. We have researched areas to put boat launches and there are very few areas. The Magna Bay boat launch will likely eventually be closed for that very same reason.  Is there any special reason why someone in St Ives would not use the boat launch in Anglemont? It is a pretty good launch unless your boat is too big.  From what I understand from other boaters, there are very few areas in southern BC that a boater has parking near public access for boat launches.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
   Hello Denis
   Thanks for your reply on the concerns and suggestion to improve lake access for all that I had presented to you and that your open to further discussion.
   With all due respect and in a nut shell I read your reply as “Thanks for your concerns, but it’s not going to change.”
   
   
   As you yourself have pointed out, this is a summer vacation area, which we all know the lake is the main draw for existing and potential new investors.
   You point out that lake front owners pay more tax, and I would agree with that fact as we know BC assessment bases the amount paid on property value.
   Those that invested 20-30 years ago I would suggest are quite happy that their property value has increased exponentially however the fall out of that gain is their tax dollar has increased.
   As noted before we all pay the same mill rate therefore we all pay an equal amount based on property value.
   Therefore I fail to see why people think others pay more when it is base on property value and its eventual return to the investor.
   The expectation is from any rate payer that these taxes should also support equality in services as well.
   However lake access is currently not equal and I’m suggesting we need to find ways to improve that discrepancy.
   
   
   You’ve suggested there is only so much money to go around for improvements.
    I would like to know what the tax money we pay in our area of ownership like St Ives is supporting, given that I paid separately to have the septic dealt with, I paid a yearly fee for water delivery, I paid for hydro hookup and delivery, and for each garbage pickup via a garbage tag.
   So I’m asking what do my taxes pay for in this area?
   What I see is roads, one school on North Shuswap, and??? What am I missing?
   
   
   I’m assuming the tax revenue for North Shuswap area is a fairly large dollar amount given its population size.
   Therefore I’m still having a problem with the idea, as you’ve pointed out in your reply, the cost to improve lake access for communities to either draw in new investment or improve it for existing owners not feasible or cost effective.
   I think we should all be opened to discussing new ideas to address the concerns that others that have in this area.
   As the population continues to grow so will this problem on not improving fair and equal lake access.
   As you’ve pointed out it’s already a problem in Scott Creek.
   
   
   Can you direct me to the information source that details how our tax dollars are spent for this area?
   
   

   
      I think there could be minor changes but generally I think over all- in the big picture we have spent an incredible amount of time dealing with issue and discussing with people the problems and solutions. Making it work in an affordable and practical way (we are limited by the laws of the land) this is the best balance we can come up with. Not to say if a better process comes we cannot change it however any changes tend to a long time.

   
   

   - Hide quoted text -

       THe discussion on fairness of who pays what because of valuation is not up to me but has been decided a long time ago by the province. It is what it is. There are people who bought many years ago are on a fixed or less income who have had the cost of their taxes increase beyond what they can afford(so I have heard) and have had to move out of their home because of it. Or has made them have to cut back in other areas of their living expenses. Is it fair for them after 15-30  years wanting to live out their last days in their homes that they cannot do so? I don't know I know some people are driven away in part by these high taxes on the lake shore but it is sad, to see these old timers have to leave the area. Not all of them are rich that own lake shore land. I should make it clear that there are many people who live away from the lake shore that have no interest in seeing their taxes go up for boating access for 2-3 months of the year.
         Taxes and what the tax payers get for their land tax dollars I do not have the figures right in front of me but generally the CSRD gets about somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the land taxes. The rest goes to general revenue, hospitals, schools, libraries and policing. By no means do they fund all those services (except libraries) but help. The CSRD tax bill pays for General Government- the biggest user of funds, then Parks, Environment management, Fire Departments, Grants in Aid, Solid Waste,   Recycling and then GIS mapping. It is broken down further in very small tax request ions (below 40,000). house numbering, Shuswap Search & Rescue, Emergency Planning, milfoil control, weed control, fireworks bylaw, Economic Development, First Responders, and in areas there are specific services such as mosquito control, street lights, water systems and Liquid Waste Management Plans.

     Dennis these are great discussion points I would like to take them to my blog  http://northshuswapregionaldirector.blogspot.com/

   so the rest of the world can weigh in on these topics. I just started it so you can be the first one to respond. In fact I would not mind putting out whole evolution of our discussion  there.

   Thanks again for your interest

Comment from email

Greetings;

I’m e-mailing you as I understand you’re our representative for North Shuswap.

I’m a new investor in St. Ives and I have a concern over the new regulations on buoy applications.

I’ve been communicating with CSRD to better understand where things are today on these new regulations..

From these conversations I’ve presented questions and possible solutions to CSRD as I believe there should be further discussions to better serve all current and future property owners in having equitable access to the main resource “the lake” that we all use and pay for.

What I now know:

1. All current buoys that were in place prior to the dead line in the spring 2009 can remain on the lake those that don’t meet the new requirement of being owned by lake front or semi lake front properties are now grandfathered in.
2. Each lake lot owners can have a dock, their own boat launch, and two buoys.
3. Applying for a new buoy can only be done if you’re a lake front or semi lake front property owner.
4. CSRD response for a public launch site location that is closes to St Ives, was Magna Bay, and added you can not park a boat trailer there.
5. I asked why these regulations were put in place, CSRD stated it was to control the number of buoy placements.
6. I now understand from CSRD that current buoys can be bought and sold knowing that some may be registered and some may not be.
7. I asked do I have to register a buoy if I was able to purchase an existing one that may not be registered, the answer it was not requirement to do so.

This is what I’m hearing in the local grapevine communications:

1. The cut off date for new buoy placement created a rush for property owners to put one or more in, which seems to have been counter productive outcome to the idea of controlling the numbers of placements.
2. As some community areas are not currently zoned its being asked what legal right does any governing authority have in placing regulation controls in those areas?
3. As a new investor to the area I find it interesting to observe the dividing effect this seems to have had on communities, into those that have and those that don’t have equal lake access.
4. We all pay the same mill tax rate but don’t share in equal access, should that change? Example: Should BC assessment be looking at property values differently for those that have convenient lake access and those that do not?
5. Will these new regulations have a negative effect to the area, as it’s not hard to see that if you make it difficult for people to use this great lake resource then they will most likely invest elsewhere.

Suggestions and comments for equable lake access:

1. Have all buoys registered so that there is a clear record of ownership and therefore the sale of buoys can be done securely so the buyer will know their investment is protected from disqualification. I asked CSRD how they would know what buoys were in place before the cut off date, they stated photographic evidence they have on record would be used.
2. Having all buoys owners pay a yearly fee may motivate those that have more than one a reason to sell. I would also suggest in this case that those that don’t have one and don’t meet the new reg. have the right to first refusal that could be taken from a waiting list. Or that these buoys be automatically turned into a community only use buoy.
3. There should be a sort term plan and long term plan in providing equal lake access. I’m suggesting that each community have a number of specially marked community buoys in place for day use only. In the long term each community should have public launch access.
4. Suggest that buoy fees be used to support new public launch sites.
5. As an example: In following CSRD Magna Bay public launch a site location direction as the closes to St Ives, which apparently does not allow trailer parking, would result in taking an hour to launch, on the other hand they can walk to the beach in 5 min’s. Would you considered that a reasonable expectation? Using this launch site means a 20 min drive to launch, return to St Ives to drop off trailer and return to launch site. Now multiply that by all those that are in the same position and I think it’s easy to say there’s going to be a problem. This also presents a possible safety issue as I’m told the lake weather can change quickly, so leaving the boat with say at worst with a minor while the adult is busy getting the trailer is at the very least disconcerting that most people would share in.

If there is any clarification that could be given I’m open to hear from you as my area representative. I’m sure there are good alternative yet to be explored and we are hoping you can shed some light on what is being proposed in supporting equitable lake access for all property owners.

Snowshoing Shuswap Jan 13 2001

Farrels Field Ice Rink

	22 039.jpg

North Shuswap Ice Rink

Farrell's Field ice rink got the red and blue lines painted on the ice. The Spooner crew installed two more lights and the big one, it looks like we have a skate sharpener and a Zamboni donated.  That's great but now they have to build a garage to house the sharpener and Zamboni. As well they are always looking for  more skates and hockey equipment- as always. When they started gathering skates the focus was on the kids. What they found out was many kids have man sized feet?.  Some kids go through two or as many as three pair of skates per year if they are in a growing spurt.  An interesting aside is how many mature locals gave up skating years ago and got rid of their skates. Now with the rink close by and free they have a renewed interest to skate again. Isn’t  that just great!  Also they  have had many guests to the community hear about the rink and come for a look only to find we have loaner skates should the want to go for a skate, they love it as well. Weekend evenings often find the locals hanging around the fire talking about the day's events. It's become a gathering place at no cost but to bring an arm load of fire wood if they can spare it.    The Lions have donated new goal nets.Thanks to all those people who created  the Ice Rink.