Council Briefs – Town of Oliver

Gallagher Lake Siphon Repair – Oliver’s contracted engineering firm (TRUE) provided Council with additional information on the existing re-routing option and discussed alternative options regarding the siphon repair at Gallagher Lake. The design of a new pressurized “low head” option with 5 foot pipe may be a more viable choice financially and with a reasonable operational increase.

Staff will bring back additional information relating to new and previously discussed options.

Discussion on this issue centered in on:

1. Current Re-routing Option: to continue to use the canal system and re-route only a portion of the canal system away from the problem rockfall area. The size of the 96” pipe and excavation installation complexities is increasing the estimated cost to $13 million. This option adds a minimal amount of labour costs/maintenance to future operating budgets.

2. Alternate Intake at Buchanan Drive: this option adds additional yearly operating costs with a new pumphouse building and high horse power motors and controls. Many kilometres of canal, dam diversion and fish screens will be foregone reducing future operating and maintenance upgrades. The construction costs outweigh the future benefits of less canal upgrades. Estimate $7.2 million but high annual maintenance.

3. Low Head Siphon: this option adds annual maintenance costs; far less than the Buchanan Intake Option, and could be deemed reasonable with the addition of a new pumping station on the canal. Pipe is reduced to 60 inch which is a more common size for repair or replacement. Cost $7.9 millon with only a small annual cost for a pump that would be designed to raise the “head” by two feet.

***

 

Vacation Rental Survey Results and Policy Recommendations – Council received a summary of the public feedback received from the short-term vacation rental survey. Results are now available on the website under “What’s Happening”. Staff will bring forward the proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw, Official Community Plan, and Business Licence Bylaw that would permit Vacation Rentals in all residential zones, Town Centre zone, and rural zones. The Business Licence Bylaw will be amended to remove the $750 deposit for security however if the property is deemed a nuisance the deposit will be required at the renewal of the business licence. The licencing fee was proposed to increase from $75.00 to $200.00 which is on par with a hotel or motel business licence fee and will be brought back for Council’s consideration.

***

 

Affordable Housing Development – 5931 Airport Street – Council gave 2nd reading to amend the Zoning and Official Community Plan Bylaws to allow for the development of a 46-unit affordable housing development designed for families and seniors. To facilitate the development amendments to the Official Community Plan Schedule ‘B’ Map from Commercial Highway (CH) to High Density Residential (HR), and Schedule ‘F’ (Form and Character Permit Areas Map) amend from Commercial to Multiple Family; and further the Zoning Bylaw Map from Highway Commercial Site Specific (C2s) to Residential High Density One Site Specific (RH1s). The site specific regulation is proposing to carry forward the current building height limitation of 14.7 metres above 301.85 m (GSC datum) which relate to the operation of the Oliver Airport.

A Public Hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2019, 7:00 pm.

***

Non-Medical Cannabis Retail Licences – Council supported both the Non-Medical Cannabis Retail Stores at 6341 Main Street (Bluewater Cannabis) and 225, 5717 Main Street (BC Cannabis), and directed staff to send a recommendation of support to BC Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch. The public process for each location received one letter of support with 41 signatures from local residents and nearby communities relating to Bluewater Cannabis. Four feedback forms were submitted, two in support and two against the application feeling the location could negatively impact nearby residential areas and further that the store is unappealing and unattractive for Main Street. No letters of support or feedback was received for the BC Cannabis store.

***

Sister City Program Initiatives – Council authorized the entering into a new Sister City Initiatives Agreement with Oliver Tourism Association for the balance of 2019. During budget deliberations Council will consider the additional $1,000 increase request in the agreement to support Bandai Town. If approved, at budgeting, staff will amend the agreement with the increased resources and the term for an additional four years.

Source: Town of Oliver

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Council Briefs – Town of Oliver

  1. Kayla Nemes says:

    According to Castanet re the irrigation canal – “For every million dollars the town borrows for the project, water fees must rise 1.8 per cent”.

    Is that referring to water fees paid by residential tax payers? Im not understanding why residential tax payers would have to potentially foot the bill for irrigation that goes to orchards and vineyards and (as far as my limited understanding goes) has no impact on the residents of Oliver itself… would love to have someone clarify this for me!

    Publisher: I think I have written on this subject many times. All water in the Oliver Water Utility is from one basic budget. When a large concrete water storage reservoir is built in town – all users pay. If a new pump house is built in the rural area – all water users pay. This policy basically agreed to when the Oliver Water Utility was created in 1990 by the BC Government so that the rural area could access grant monies like the town. Most large vineyards not on the utility system – they have their own water pumps etc. off the river with a water license.

  2. Tiffany Beckedorf says:

    ” The store is unappealing and unattractive for Main Street” – more unattractive than an empty store? Please. At this point almost ANYTHING is better than nothing. If you don’t want to shop there, don’t.

    Publisher: Written by town staff – a bit unfair I think as well.

    • Larry Schwartzenberger says:

      To clarify, the comment that “the store is unappealing and unattractive for Main Street” came from a feedback form from the public and is not the opinion of Town Staff.

      Publisher: Larry for some reason the negative comments made it into the news and not the positive comments about the location. Am I right? Even tho the comments were made by someone – town staff decided that the negative response was to be printed. And yes I could have thrown the item out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *