Director news on Schroeder Creek, Feb 2

SCHROEDER CREEK CONGESTION:

I am aware of and have been actively pursuing solutions to the congestion in Schroeder Creek, however, transportation via roads and water are under provincial jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Transportation, responsible for public access points, has clearly indicated that any requests for development of public access points be done by the RDCK. For the RDCK to do this, it would require acquiring the land under License of Occupation, starting a new service inclusive of new staff- referendum plus 2-3 years of getting it in a long line up of other lands waiting for management plans ie: Lardeau (10 years so far).

We have parks staff, but we do not have transportation-based staff for the reason stated above, in rural electoral areas- transportation is the responsibility of the Province.

As your Director:
– I am working on a public survey inclusive of exploring other options for public access.
– I have met twice with Ministry staff onsite to discuss Orr Rd and a variety of issues at Bickel Rd. Both times they point to the RDCK to take over ownership and develop as a response to the community needs.
– I have also met with Ministry staff in Nelson.

The only success I have had in three years of lobbying for the residents is the Ministry ‘allowed’ the Schroeder Creek Home Owners Association a sign, that Area D had to pay for, indicating where other public access points are- this took over a year of negotiating.

So far, two accretions for the Orr Rd properties have been approved despite any comment received by the RDCK Area D Director or the Area D APC in opposition. Add several water access only communities that were approved for subdivision, again, under the Ministry of Transportation. None of these were approved with an overall review of impacts to the community and thus, here we are with congestion, limited access to the west side of the lake and community pressure.

With a continual increase in local taxation and a constant request to take on services that are those of another order of government, I have a hard time adding yet another service to your bill especially when I have 0 staff available for any of the work let alone the discussions. Combine this with the fact you are already paying provincially for services not being delivered; I cannot in good faith charge you as well. It’s like opening our own hospital because the provincial system is not working for our rural residents. I have certainly been asked for that, but the cost would be completely prohibitive given our tax base.

My next step is a survey, it will not have RDCK letterhead, as again, this is not our jurisdiction, but is indeed being carried out by your local elected official.

Post survey, I will investigate a community meeting to determine, hopefully with the Ministry of Transpiration, next steps. From there, if the residents want to see the RDCK take this on, it will need a petition to initiate a service case analysis that provides the basis for a referendum. If successful, local taxation would pay for the service and its operational needs.