Perspectives on Lantzville/Nanaimo Water Deal Machinations

Well, by now Lantzvillagers should know that, at their regular meeting on Sept. 8th, Lantzville council, with only Councillors Mostad and Haime dissenting, voted to accept the modified agreement with Nanaimo for them to provide us with bulk water. What you may NOT know, is exactly how it happened! Do you remember those 'Community Update's that we receive from the District on a regular basis'? Well, the District had been telling us that the draft water agreement continues to be discussed with Nanaimo and, before any agreement would be signed for the provision of bulk water to Lantzville, there would be extensive, public consultation in the form of information circulars and meetings.

At their regular council meeting on Sept. 8th, before any of that consultation had occurred, Lantzville council decided to add the water agreement to the Agenda (meaning that no one who had been checking the District website to see what would be on that Agenda would have had any idea that the water agreement would be dealt with). However, given that the meeting was a 'full-house', it appears that a limited group of individuals were told in advance what would be transpiring at that meeting. As if all this wasn't bad/undemocratic enough, earlier in the summer, Lantzville council had negotiated some changes to the draft water agreement with Nanaimo, one of which took away the requirement that the residents of Lantzville would get a vote on whether or not to accept the water deal. Now I can already hear their bleating - 'since there was no capital expense involved, the water deal didn't have to go to a referendum vote'. Well, I can only see two things wrong with that assertion, the first being that there will be a significant expenditure to construct the actual connection to Nanaimo's water system and the second is that, even if it wasn't legally required, given the massive impact bulk water would have on our community, a vote was ethically and morally necessary.
In the recent Community Update specifically on the water agreement, Council says that the reason they signed the agreement without the promised public consultation was that it gives them the opportunity to obtain bulk water from Nanaimo but that is NOT an answer to the question posed! I would ask why they were in so much of a hurry to sign the agreement that they took the very undemocratic approach detailed in the preamble above. Did they have any specific reason to believe that the agreement would not be there next week, next month or next year, after the promised round of public consultations were completed? For my money, I believe that they were motivated by councillor Haime's remarks back on Nov. 28/11 that "there will be no change in service in the District over the next 3 years and everyone she's talked to wants stagnation for the next 3 years" and they desperately wanted to prove her wrong, sadly at Lantzville's expense!

Following are links to local media stories (just click on the ones of interest to you) about the water situation in Lantzville, the water agreement with Nanaimo and Letters to the Editor on same, as well as comments that I posted to the sources' website. Note that the Nanaimo Daily News does not routinely provide the ability for people to comment on their on-line articles:

Lantzville residents raise concerns over water deal with city

Lantzville should source its own water (Letters to Editor)

Lantzville's water issues misunderstood (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville councillor suggests sending water deal to referendum


   Lantzville Council would do well to listen to what the residents have told them in the Citizen Satisfaction Survey on water. Of those on wells who responded, only 13% [24] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quality and only 12% [22] say they are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the quantity of their water.
added 14 10 24 - Not meaning to ignore the feelings of those ~880 homes currently on the community water system, consider carefully the following results (also from the Citizen Satisfaction Survey): when asked if they supported an expansion of their water system, 28% [75] said 'YES', 39% [106] said 'NO' and 33% [88] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered feedback/comments. Also, of those on wells who were asked the same question (presumably to be able to supply water to their properties), 27% [39] said 'YES', 32% [47] said 'NO' and 35% [51] said 'MAYBE' and/or offered additional clarifying comments. While the District could have done an extensive 'water survey' to fully define the 'problem', they have chosen not to. Given the above data, at the present time there is no overwhelming evidence to support bringing bulk water to Lantzville!!!
   Under the Haime administration, all taxpayers of Lantzville have already contributed $200,000 to the City of Nanaimo just for the 'opportunity' to discuss emergency water with them plus ~$80,000 over 9 years to the City's Port Theatre just to be able to continue to talk water, with another request expected any day. Then there is the $78,000 those on the water system have also paid for an emergency water connection, which has yet to be used 7 years later. So, we have already paid dearly to the City without a drop of water actually having been delivered.
   Let's not forget that it was Lantzville council who brought in the requirement that the minimum size of property created without BOTH municipal sewer and water services would be 1 ha (2.47 acres), a requirement which 'motivates' vacant landowners to look favourably on the need for municipal sewer and water services.
   Given all of this, I think that a frank and open discussion surrounding the whole issue of water in Lantzville is long overdue and I would support that. This would also include the impacts of having more water than the current residents require, including facilitating large developments. We need to openly discuss how much development we are willing to accept and whether development is really "going to pay for itself", without fear of being labelled 'backwards' if we opt for low growth. Unfortunately, when there is power and money involved, that type of thing seldom happens!

Water deal with Lantzville waits on Nanaimo city council vote



Nanaimo councillors approve water deal with Nanaimo


Lantzville getting bargain on Nanaimo's water (Letter to Editor) 

Water deal should be put to vote in Lantzville (Letter to Editor)

Interesting that this letter was written at a time when the draft agreement between Lantzville and Nanaimo already contained a requirement that the agreement subject to a positive vote by Lantzville residents before it could be enacted (a clause that was later be asked to have removed by Lantzville council and agreed to by Nanaimo council).

Drinking water found by Foothills developer

Deal is still on after developer locates water

Lantzville considers options on water

We already know how the large landowners, the media and council came together to 'convince' us that we needed sewers ("literally a cesspool") and now its happening again on water. There are far less expensive ways of dealing with geographically limited boron/salt water contamination than piping water from 30 km away.
If the majority of Lantzville residents do not want major development, why should their wishes not be respected - each of us has the same voting power as a single large landowner?! We should be allowed to live in peace in our 'backwater' without being made to feel stupid. We will be fine without this added infrastructure but the developers will not. Also, one of the biggest myths concerning development is that it pays for itself - which is very seldom true. The off-site costs and the disruption caused by the construction are significant and the taxes typically fall short. In the 9 months between now and the local elections, let your voice be heard, loud and often.


Motion on water referendum fails

Councillor offers up water option 

Enlist technology in making water available (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville council has yet to ratify agreement that will see water sharing with Nanaimo 

Lantzville residents seek the truth on water deal (Letter to Editor) 

Lantzville councillor calls for referendum

Town's water wars continue

Lantzville water vote called premature

Lantzville residents can't be complacent (Letter to Editor)

 City Log: Water-sharing agreement comes before council

Council approves changes to water agreement

As you can see, the Nanaimo Daily News left out the most important change requested by Lantzville council, and now approved by the City of Nanaimo, that being the removal of the requirement for there to be a vote by residents of Lantzville on the water deal. Interestingly enough, the Nanaimo Bulletin didn't mention it in their piece either. Strange that neither paper could see the importance of such a significant change!

Lantzville council votes to sign water deal with Nanaimo

We were promised public consultation via meetings and information mail-outs and we didn't even get the chance to speak to this major, major issue for our community at that fateful council meeting. Shame, shame, shame!! I guess we should have known the 'fix was in' when Lantzville council took the decision out of the hands of those who would be paying for it and put it in their own - several of whom will now stand to benefit from their decision. Many questions will remain unanswered - how much will Lantzville water users be paying for water usage (more or less than currently?). Are we now going to be required to waste as much water as Nanaimo does since we are required to adopt their water conservation regime? We have had an emergency water connection for years (which cost us $280,000) and have never had to draw a single drop). The vast majority of Lantzvillagers [on wells - added 14 10 13] were satisfied or more than satisfied with their quantity and quality of community-water so this has to be all about development. Mark my words, this is the end of Lantzville, folks! How long do you think that the province is going to allow us to play at governing ourselves when our sewage is treated in Nanaimo and now our water comes from Nanaimo? 

Public meeting set to discuss Lantzville water deal

Isn't that just wonderful - except for the fact that we were promised meetings BEFORE council would even consider accepting the water agreement. I suppose that we had to know council was going to approve the agreement no matter what the majority of Lantzville residents thought when they lobbied the city of Nanaimo to remove the requirement of approval by the residents of Lantzville. In my more than 20 years of watching local politicians do everything they could to keep the voters out of the process, but never could I have imagined that Lantzville council would be the one to stoop to a new low - leaving the water agreement off the Agenda and then adding it just prior to dealing with it.
Also, it certainly didn't take long for the developers to swoop in. Almost before the ink was dry on the water agreement, the District was signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the new owners of the Lantzville Foothills regarding development on their lands.
Really - what is there for us to discuss?!

Lantzville signs water agreement

Rather than his service with the tiny Lantzville Improvement District almost 30 years ago, I strongly suspect that Bob Colclough's ownership of a 5-acre piece of property adjacent to the Lantzville Foothills Estate's (Lone Pine) properties and his ownership of a company that does "land, community and economic development" consulting did more to inform his position of not seeing any reason not to sign the water agreement. The people of Lantzville, who have consistently said that they are satisfied with their water quantity and quality, might beg to differ. Sadly for democracy, now they won't even have that opportunity they were promised by council!

Lantzville's dry spell is over

Water agreement seems a bit leaky (Letter to Editor)

Lantzville Council Size 2014 Referendum

As a result of calls from the Editor of the 'new' Lantzville Log (who we now know to have been former Mayor, Colin Haime) for residents to weigh in on the question of the size of Lantzville Council (currently a Mayor and 6 councillors), I submitted the following:

   Having spent a fair bit of time researching and thinking about this issue, I support reducing our council to 5 members. Let me share with you why.
   On the aspect of representation, it is the quality of the members, not the number that is important - more bodies does not necessarily mean better representation! On the aspect of quorum, 57 5-member B.C. municipalities are still able to function. On the issue of fostering diversity of opinion, I note the previous Council had 3 accountants, two of whom who were co-habiting!
   Population alone is a very poor indicator of government workload. Other factors such as the no. of permanent employees, the amount of annual expenses and the length of pipes+roads also should be considered. The Town of Qualicum Beach (6.5 x our # perm. employees, 4.5 x our expenses, 2 x the km. of pipes+roads, 2.5 x our population) has had 5 members for the past 71 years, and have provided capable oversight.
   Lantzville spent $927,000 on Administration in 2012, on total expenses of 2.6 M$ - 2 councillors plus expenses costs $24,000/yr at current levels. We need to look at all ways to save money and council should not be immune to that.
     Back in 2011, former councillor Negrave introduced a motion to have a referendum to reduce council size - it failed due to lack of a seconder - in other words, no one on that Council wanted to even discuss the pros and cons. Why would council, who works for and is paid by the taxpayers, not want to give the residents the opportunity to determine the size of that council? We didn't have a say on the original council size so it is entirely appropriate that we have our say now 10+ years on. And if it should increase voter turnout, how is that bad?!
   Send all council members an email sharing your opinion in this election year.

Interestingly, they published the piece, as submitted, except for the second sentence in the first paragraph and the last sentence in the entire piece?!
[UPDATE 14 11 18] We now know that, according to the preliminary results, the residents of Lantzville have voted 59% in favour of reducing our council size from 7 to 5. Even though returning councillor David Scott recently tried to use the very same Qualicum Beach as a reason to reject reducing our council size, the residents of that community actually voted 70% in favour of keeping their council size at the same level (5) that they have had for the past 71 years. Part of his argument was that Qualicum Beach had been paying their 4 councillors as if they were doing the work of six (I would assume based on some impression of time commitment) so that Lantzville wouldn't save any money by reducing our council size but, as one can clearly see from the above information, we don't have nearly the same workload as them so there is no reason to expect that we would have to similarly increase the pay of our 4 councillors. I think both communities got it right!

Raises, Raises Everywhere (At Least For Politicians)!!!

It all seems to have begun with the District of Lantzville giving themselves big raises (44% for the Mayor, 37% for Councillors over 3 years, plus conferences) early last year, followed by Abbotsford (9.1% for the Mayor, 7.2% for Councillors, plus stipends and conferences), Nanaimo (24% for the Mayor, 11% for Councillors over 3 years), Parksville (17% for the Mayor, 18% for Councillors+COLA [cost of living allowance]), Port Coquitlam [2010] (27% for the Mayor, 42% for Councillors), Prince George (0% for the Mayor, 29.5% for Councillors), Revelstoke (27% for the Mayor, 27% for Councillors) and most likely others (they just don't seem to be able to help themselves!). It must be nice to be in a position to give yourselves a significant raise on a salary of which a third is tax free, especially when most working people are lucky to be getting 'cost-of-living' increases (~3%/yr). To shed some more light on this subject, here is a piece I wrote and submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News, which they almost published as submitted (they just don't seem to be able to help themselves either, usually making both meaningless, small changes and/or omitting significant phrases/sentences). For example, they edited out the phrase about "realizing that any one of them doesn't actually have to do anything". I guess they just weren't ready to accept the sad truth of that statement:

Dear Editor,
Re: Raise in pay for city council gets the O.K., Daily News, Sept. 20/11

Well, that certainly didn't take long - from Staff Report to voting themselves (sorry, the next Council) a 24% increase over 3 years in less than a week! This all based on wanting to achieve the median remuneration from a list (which doesn't appear in the report) of 12 'comparables'. The problem is that they aren't even comparable in population, with an 84% spread! One would think that the well-paid bureaucrats at Nanaimo City Hall would be able to come up with a better plan than basing such an important decision on population alone. If they really felt this was the best route, at the very least the list should have taken into account other important 'attributes' of a municipality, e.g., the size of their annual budget, the number of full-time employees, etc. Another option that was given short shrift by staff was to form a committee of residents who actually work to earn the money to pay those salaries and have them do some fact-finding and then make recommendations. It would have made eminent sense to actually look at what Council members do (realizing that any one of them doesn't actually have to do anything) to get paid. Interview them, have them fill out a survey - how many hours in meetings, how many issues did they resolve, etc. Remember that Council members need no academic qualifications or specific experience - all you need to do is convince about 25% of the registered voters that 'you're their guy' and voila, the money starts rolling in. The well-qualified and regularly appraised teacher's of B. C. are fighting to see their first raise above cost-of-living in about 8 years based on 'comparables' to other provinces that have them well behind - so why should this work for politicians but not teacher's?

While some of the jurisdictions actually did consider forming a committee of local residents, each found interesting justifications as to why they weren't going to go that route - would have difficulty finding a 'representative' group, not enough time to implement given the 'specialized' nature of the task, committee would probably make the same recommendation as staff, and (reading between the lines) they might decide to cut our salaries, etc.
Finally, even the math-challenged can see that, under this system, every time one Council on the list gives themselves (sorry, I mean the next Council) a raise, they all immediately qualify for another one and round and round it goes!

For details specifically on the Council raises in Lantzville, have a look at my recent piece, http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2011/05/lantzville-administration-too-big-and.html