SMWS: my update from today's board meeting

Today, I took a few minutes to address the Sage Mesa Water System referendum as this is the last board meeting before Advance voting takes place on April 1^st. general voting day is April 11th. Assent Voting Information.

Here is what I said:

I want every eligible Sage Mesa Water System resident walking into that vote with accurate information.

Persistent misinformation continues to circulate in the community, and it is having a real effect on people's well-being and peace of mind. I will touch on some of the misrepresentations now and citizens will also receive a letter from me shortly.  Again, verifiable information is available on the project pages of the RDOS Regional Connections site. I use this blog to speak directly with constituents as their Area F director, the opinions are mine and provide context on some the decisions and direction that come from this table.

I also want to be clear about my role — and the role of every director sitting at the board. It is not to tell anyone how to vote. It is to ensure that when residents cast their ballot, they are doing so with as much accurate information that is available and a working understanding of how municipal financing operates.

To be clear, the RDOS has never been in a legal position to recover what the province may or may not have failed to invest in this system over the past three decades.

What the RDOS can offer is a path to move forward with the tools available to us now.

The referendum is not a vote on whether to spend money on the system. The state of the system has already made that decision very clear. Regardless of the vote, there are necessary and urgent upgrades that must happen in a timely matter

What the vote decides is who manages the work, who pays for it, and how.

• Under a "no" vote, the system stays under provincial management. The province directs the work. And the critical part is that under provincial management, the Comptroller of Water Rights cannot access infrastructure grants or no long-term borrowing. The full cost lands on the 242 current ratepayers, with no outside help.

• Under a "yes" vote, the RDOS takes ownership. That ownership is what unlocks grant eligibility. It's what gives the RDOS access to Municipal Finance Authority borrowing for the work at wholesale interest rates. It's what allows the RDOS to spread the cost over 30 years so that future residents — who will benefit from the system — share in paying for it rather than putting it all on the people who happen to live there today.

  
  

Those are two very different financial and operational realities for citizens to consider.

The most anxiety causing figure is, of course, the $33 million.

The $33 million figure is a worst-case ceiling. It is not a day-one expenditure. It is not a blank cheque. It is the maximum the RDOS is authorized to borrow over a 12-year period, drawn down as the work is required.  This is not a day 1 expense – there are 12 years to access these funds.

The figure was provided by McElhanney, an independent third-party engineering firm, as a Class D estimate. It includes a 40% contingency that exists to protect residents from financial surprises partway through a multi-year, complex infrastructure project. We have all seen what happens when a project runs out of money mid-stream. That contingency is a safeguard, not padding.

It has been suggested that the board should lower the borrowing ceiling to make the referendum more attractive to voters. I want to be direct: this board refused. Lowering that number artificially would have meant misleading residents about the true scope of work this system requires. That is not something the RDOS board was willing to do. Residents deserve the honest number, even when the honest number is a large one.

And I will say this — every dollar of grant funding the RDOS secures reduces what ratepayers actually pay. Pursuing senior government grants is what the RDOS intends to do if this referendum passes. The $33 million assumes zero grant money. That is the ceiling. The actual cost to ratepayers is likely to be lower.

Class D Estimate

I know residents want more information and I understand that. A Class D estimate covers a wide range and people want tighter numbers before they commit to something this significant. That is a completely reasonable instinct.

Here is the reality. Getting to a more precise Class B or C study requires a meaningful investment in detailed engineering, site testing, and design work. The RDOS asked the province — directly — to allow the RDOS to use the existing Sage Mesa Water System reserves to fund those more detailed studies. The province said no.

That left us with one alternative: spend Area F taxpayer money on detailed engineering studies for a private water system that the public has not yet voted to acquire. We would be asking every Area F taxpayer to fund an expensive study on a system that, if the vote goes no, remains private and outside public ownership. That is not a fair or responsible use of public funds.

The sequence has to be: vote first, then detailed studies, then precise design and costing. That is the appropriate order, and it is the order we are following.

My integrity

I am aware that my integrity has been questioned in some of the community discussions around this referendum. I am going to address that briefly and then move on, because the facts speak more clearly than anything I could say in my own defence.

My job throughout this process has been to bring forward accurate, transparent, and available information and to respect the democratic process. The McElhanney assessments are independent. The borrowing structure is standard local government practice. The decision to present the full $33 million ceiling rather than a softened number was a deliberate choice in favour of transparency, even knowing it would be harder on citizens to hear the truth.

Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to our MLA, Ms. Boutilbee, for her continued advocacy on behalf of the Sage Mesa water system in the legislature. Her dedication to her constituents is commendable, and I encourage citizens to support her efforts. It is important to note, however, that the Province continues to stand firm in its position that no public funding will be made available for a privately held system — a reality that must factor into every resident's understanding of what this referendum means for our community.

At the same time, I urge citizens to take the time to do their own research and develop a thorough understanding of the operational and financial realities at the heart of this referendum. An informed community is our greatest asset — and your vote deserves to be grounded in the facts.

Residents will be receiving a letter from me in the coming days covering much of this information in writing. For additional resources, please visit the Regional Connections project pages, and I will continue to post updates at OurAreaF.com as we move toward the vote. If you have questions, RDOS staff are available to assist — and so am I. I have been speaking with citizens on a regular basis and welcome the opportunity to connect and offer clarity where I can.

Thank you for reading,

Riley

rgettens@rdos.bc.ca

250-488-0246