Conflict over Olympic Village energy bills continues to heat up

Comments

As theGeorgia Straight went to press on September 21, uncertainty continued to linger over how the conflict over energy charges at the Olympic Village would be resolved. The dispute has pitted low-income tenants and seniors on subsidy against the City of Vancouver, a housing-management group, and a private billing company.

Earlier in the week, it looked like it was going down to this: either the residents would pay up or they’d get evicted.

“They’re not giving us even one concession, not a thing,” Pam Burge complained in a phone interview with the Straight on September 19.

Burge is a resident at 80 Walter Hardwick Avenue, a social-housing facility that has been advertised as a net-zero building. This means that it is supposed to be not only a model of energy efficiency, but also one that produces as much or even more energy than it consumes.

However, Burge and a number of residents have protested that they are being zapped with enormous energy charges that are being billed by Enerpro Systems Corp., a North Vancouver–based company.

For example, Burge, who lives alone in a one-room apartment, got an Enerpro bill for the period April 7 to April 30 for $85.16, which included an activation charge of $28. The bill covered heating, hot water, cooling, and cold water.

Residents at the Olympic Village also get a separate bill from B.C. Hydro for their electricity consumption.

Burge has maintained that residents were not made aware of Enerpro and the energy bills levied on top of the rent they have to pay, which is 30 percent of their incomes.

COHO Property Management Society operates 80 Walter Hardwick and another social-housing facility at 122 Walter Hardwick, as well as a housing cooperative at 151 West 1st Avenue, on behalf of the city.

COHO had previously informed residents that the City of Vancouver would cover their energy costs from June to August 2011 as concerns over Enerpro bills were being sorted out.

Enerpro billings will resume this month. At a meeting called by COHO on September 15, residents of 80 Walter Hardwick were told that they’ll receive the new invoices by October.

Present at the meeting were COHO executive director Thom Armstrong and Jennifer Standeven, assistant director of business operations in the city’s community services group.

In an interview on September 19, Armstrong told the Straight: “The tenancy agreements are very clear that utilities are not included in the rent. I hope that once everyone has thought about it, they’ll realize that paying for utilities is an obligation that they have. If they don’t, then ultimately we would have to seek the remedies that are available under the tenancy agreement.”

Asked about the range of remedies COHO may utilize, Armstrong responded: “We have to send notice demanding payment. Ultimately, I guess Enerpro and the neighbourhood energy utility [which is owned by the city] would have to try and collect the amounts, but if they’re not successful in collecting the amounts, then I think we have no choice but to begin eviction proceedings.”

However, on September 20, Armstrong sent emails to the Straight indicating that his comments the day before “are no longer accurate or applicable”.

Then, on the morning of September 21, Armstrong told the Straight by phone that COHO was still considering its options in dealing with the tenants. He said he couldn’t provide details.

Vision Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer and Non-Partisan Association councillor Suzanne Anton have met Burge and other tenants to discuss their concerns.

At the September 15 meeting, Anton, who is the NPA’s candidate for mayor in the November election, and Mike Klassen, a council candidate for the NPA, showed up to listen but were turned away by a guard.

Armstrong explained, “The city’s advice was to have a security guard at the meeting.”

COHO had previously told the tenants that they will no longer be charged for cold water, and that their future bills will not include the 12-percent harmonized sales tax.

Comments (10) Add New Comment
James G
This is no detail. The fact that Councilor Brownshirt, Andrea Reimer is welcome to discuss the issue with residents while Councilor Anton is turned away should be front page news.
1
1
Rating: 0
Lawson1945
Sounds like a completely screwed up situation caused by Vision Vancouver in the first place, they have to be Voted out on Nov 19,2011 some people just cannot handle power!
0
0
Rating: 0
Rita
The Olympic bid talked about 'low income housing'. The winning bid had the same wording. City was given 32 million to provide low income housing based on the bidding promises and guarantees! The bidding had guaranteed low income housing for 252. This was cut right after Olympics into 126 units. At the moment about 70 units have low income residents. Some of those residents have paid the bills even though legal advice has been to the contrary. Now, City and Coho both use the term 'affordable housing'? If you divide 32 million with 70 the cost of unit for city was $458,000. Now, no one would pay for these units, which by the way do not have marble flooring or top of the line appliances, more than $370,000 if they were marketable and not rental units. There are a lot more facts that just don't make any sense, and are not just "urban myth". So, these 70 units have been paid for or where did the 32 million go into?
1
1
Rating: 0
senior resident
It is apparent that COHO and the City implied atitutude is that anyone living in Olympic Village is lucky and if you don't get it we will evict you according to Armstrong. I find it deeply offensive when the suggestion that senior, disabled individuals are “free loaders” and would like to suggest to the City and Coho that if you qualify an individual for tenancy in affordable housing then that person (or persons) should be treated as any other tenant is being treated including market tenants in that building. Unfortunately Coho Management and the City of Vancouver see affordable housing tenants as slightly less than human. Since the time I have been here (well over six months) this building (At 80 Walter H A) which has a very nice lounge which was obviously meant for tenants to use to promote community, have locked all tenants out unless they pay a $300 deposit “in case of any breakage”. Since last week the deposit has been lifted for the lounge but is still locked to tenants before making all kinds of arrangements and written guarantees that any damage will be taken care of. I should point out that ALL the buildings in the Village have their lounges open where their tenants can freely meet, go to and read a book or whatever. Outside of our Laundry room was a chair that one of the tenants brought up and people (including the elderly) were using to sit in the sun while their laundry was being done has been removed by Coho because NOTHING is allowed in the hallways of a personal nature. Personally I find that little example of how Coho treats the tenants as very “mean spirited”. I also found that the city build a lovely gymnasium for all the residents of the village to use, again, to “promote community” has banned all residents from the affordable housing units because they would ruin the place. There is a constant demeaning and patronizing treatment of tenants by Coho and the City of Vancouver and wonder if some of the staff, many of which are from Eastern Europe (Russia, Bulgaria, Romania) are confusing institutional housing in their home countries with Canadian rental buildings? The really tragic thing about all of this is that it is all explained with a smile but with no substance to the explanation. COHO was given a cheque in Jan 2011 for $976,000 from the city to manage three small to medium buildings and I have to ask what they are doing with the funds. It must be a record payment in the history of Vancouver for property management.

0
0
Rating: 0
senior resident2
On the other hand the problem of Enerpro is not that we can’t pay for it, it is because it is not reasonable and totally unexpected by the tenants (both market and affordable). For Armstrong to say we were all informed that we would be charged an additional amount from a second energy company besides BC Hydro is rubbish. He is trying to say because the box wasn’t checked in the rental agreement amidst a half page of box’s and what was coming with the apartments that was a FULL explanation that Enerpro was also charging us a monthly fee as well as charging us for water (there are NO other apartments in Vancouver that pay for their cold water). If that claim isn’t a clear form of entrapment by COHO I don’t know what is. There was NOTHING written that Enerpro was a component of our double billing in our apartments. When asked who collects the money for Enerpro because Enerpro is just a small billing company in North Vancouver servicing a number of clients and NOT as we are now led to believe is “one of western Canada’s leading energy providers” as quoted in their literature. Steve from Enerpro says that he passes on the funds to Coho after taking his connection fee ($25) and his monthly fee (which was 12.50). Coho on the other hand say they don’t get any of the money and it is passed to Neighborhood Energy Company located near the Cambie Bridge and they in turn say they give the money to the city which the city denies. It really sounds more like a bunch of children playing “who can keep the money without anyone knowing”
Now, for the most important issue, is that both the City and Coho acknowledge that the Net Zero system is having some problems as some people were billed $140 a month and other $70 for basically the same services by Enerpro. Some apartment have no heat whatever and are still charged and then charged again when they have to use electric heaters to heat their apartments. The city clearly admits that they are still looking into the metering system and says it will all be OK but during this time still billing us even though they know the system is not working. It is absolutely clear from all the literature on this building that there has to be a commercial tenant on the ground floor to have the heat from their refrigeration raising to heat the rest of the building. The problem is the area looks like it will be vacant for another year or more. Then amidst all of this the city and Coho say that the system is working fine and that’s why they are billing us. Where’s the logic? Is that a “free ride” or is it just common sense that anyone rich or poor would ask to be defined? Are we just forced to pay $70 a month is addition to BC Hydro without being called freeloaders or forced to leave the building?

Of all the many questions the tenants had for the original meeting in June about the building and mostly about Enerpro the only concession Coho and the City made was they brought down our monthly rate for Enerpro from 12.50 a month to 9.50 a month (which is what all the rest of the buildings in the village pay and they are not charged for cold water).

I
1
1
Rating: 0
senior resident3
t is so obvious nothing is going to happen and even while the net zero system is NOT WORKING we are going to be charged or forced to leave. At the very least it is shabby treatment of the cities most vulnerable citizens and the hypocrisy of all the literature in many of the City of Vancouver website, how the city is at last bringing affordable living to its senior citizens and deserves a pat on the back yet on the other hand charging the affordable housing tenants up to three times the costs of what the rest of the city pays nothing for (water/coldwater). We are told that everything is working fine when there is no commercial tenant on the ground floor and the cities own literature says is an essential part of this not zero system to work. It has also come to our attention that all the common areas are also being charged to the tenants (where one would have thought that million dollars COHO got would have covered).

There is no question that everyone loves being here and loves the apartments but to say we are unreasonable to inquire about this extra billing and we are doing so because we are poor is reprehensible to say. Any person with a brain would do the very same thing and to suggest otherwise is just plain nuts.

The net zero system is not working, period, and we are being charged for it. We are talking about what is fair and NOT a free ride! How did one company (Enerpro) get the full monopoly to privatize the sale of water without any of the residents of the city even knowing about it is something to also think about. Seniors are people too, if you stick a pin in our finger we bleed, just like you, and yes we also have brains that know the difference of being treated fairly and being treated chauvinistically.


1
1
Rating: 0
Goldorak
And who is linked to someone's re-election finances?
1
1
Rating: 0
Not in Low Housing
Living in the Olympic Village Area but NOT in the above mentioned building;there must be a problem with the heating, in this whole area. I have never turned the thermostat on all winter,since the building is so hot.
I MUST keep the windows open, year round. I'm not the only one. Several others in the building do too.(all home owners)
Fortunately I am just renting at $2,400/mth including utilities while the home I just purchased is under construction.
I personally would never buy in any of these buildings. I could only imagine the heating bills.efficient?.green?.NO!
1
1
Rating: 0
OV Renter
I also live here in the City Owned Building, the bills for A/C & Heating are high, and we have little control over temperature, no option to have the heat or A/C on or off. This place is crumbling ,it truly was rushed and it shows, future strata costs will skyrocket to fix poor craftsmanship. Hardly green energy efficient. Only a fools fool would buy here.
1
0
Rating: +1
Leslie D
Everyone pays for water.

Large residential buildings pay easily over $100,000 for water every year.

No water is free unless you are drinking from a stream.
0
1
Rating: -1
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.