Sikora Town Hall Puts Water, Accountability and Town Hall Culture Under the Microscope

The two-hour gathering at the Elks Hall gave residents an open microphone—and showed both the value and the difficulty of building campaign policy in a crowded room.

A community meeting organized by Osoyoos mayoral candidate Dustin Sikora ran from approximately 10:30 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. in the downstairs room of the Elks Hall.

Residents began gathering and settling in at 10:30, with the formal discussion getting underway at approximately 10:41 a.m. What followed was close to two hours of questions, policy suggestions, personal stories and occasionally competing attempts to direct the conversation.

Some residents arrived expecting a candidates’ debate. Instead, the gathering became an open policy workshop covering drinking water, wastewater, public accountability, citizen committees, Town Hall staffing, taxation, recreation, election access and communication between council and the public.

Sikora opened by saying he did not want to simply deliver a prepared campaign speech. He wanted the people in the room to help shape the policies he would carry into the election.

“I’m one computer. You guys are about 50 or 60 computers,” Sikora told the crowd, referring to the collective knowledge and experience in the room.

That format allowed the meeting to cover a great deal of ground. It also demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of an open microphone. Residents were given considerable freedom to speak, but some spoke far more than others—and at several points Sikora had to work to bring the meeting back to the policy discussion.

No debate after other candidates decline

Early in the meeting, one audience member said they had come expecting a debate.

Sikora explained that he had issued public invitations and challenges through videos during the previous week. He said the other two potential mayoral candidates had privately declined.

With nobody there to respond on their own behalf, Sikora said he would limit some of his criticism.

“There are some things that I think need to be said in public in front of a group, but the others are not here to defend themselves,” he said. “That would be unfair.”

It was a reasonable boundary. A one-candidate gathering cannot honestly be called a debate, and accusations made from a microphone carry less weight when the people involved are not sitting beside it with an opportunity to answer.

Sikora instead described the gathering as an “idea-harvesting and policy-generation” session.

Water quickly takes over the meeting

It did not take long for Osoyoos water to dominate the conversation.

Residents questioned whether the Town had properly examined alternatives to its current water-treatment direction. Sikora criticized what he described as the limited range of options contained in an engineering report and asked why potential mountain groundwater sources or pipeline connections had not received fuller consideration.

He repeatedly returned to the possibility of finding cleaner groundwater at higher elevations, pointing to Miller Springs and other aquifers around Anarchist Mountain.

Sikora argued that bringing less mineralized water into Osoyoos could reduce the need for household water softeners. In turn, he said, that could make the Town’s wastewater less difficult and less expensive to treat.

These were proposals, not completed engineering conclusions.

No finished feasibility study, confirmed water licence, secured pipeline route, construction estimate or regulatory approval was presented at the meeting. Sikora acknowledged that any such plan could involve difficult negotiations with the province, Indigenous communities and other authorities.

His central argument was that Osoyoos should thoroughly investigate and price alternative water sources before committing itself to a treatment project he said has grown to approximately $81 million and could eventually approach $100 million.

Those figures were presented by Sikora during the meeting and were not independently verified as part of this article.

How far has the current project progressed?

One resident asked whether Sikora would stop the Town’s current water work if elected, noting that additional money could be spent before the new council takes office.

Sikora’s answer was more measured than some of his earlier language.

He said he would first need access to the Town’s records and a clear accounting of what had already been purchased, contractually committed or spent.

“If we’re going down the wrong path, the best thing you can do is stop and admit that you need to turn around,” he said.

That distinction matters.

Calling for a different option is easy during a campaign. Determining whether an existing project can still be changed without wasting even more public money is considerably harder. Sikora did not claim to possess enough information at the meeting to make that decision responsibly.

He said the difficulty of obtaining detailed information from Town Hall was one reason he could not provide a definite answer.

Immediate access to filtered water

While much of the water discussion concerned long-term infrastructure, several residents pushed for something that could be done immediately.

Suggestions included creating a central filtered-water station, installing filtration at community facilities and helping seniors and lower-income families who cannot easily afford bottled water or filtration systems at home.

Sikora agreed that access to drinking water should come ahead of less essential municipal spending.

He suggested that a portable filtration system could potentially be placed at Town Hall or another central location where residents could fill containers. He also discussed possible filtration at schools, the Sonora Community Centre and facilities serving seniors.

The practical details were not worked out, but the argument resonated: residents waiting years for a permanent water solution still need affordable drinking water today.

Sikora described clean water as the most basic responsibility of municipal government, ahead of festivals, recreational additions and other discretionary spending.

Citizen committees—but only if they have teeth

Residents repeatedly called for the return of citizen committees focused on major municipal issues such as water, wastewater, engineering and essential services.

Sikora supported the idea, but another participant offered an important warning: creating a committee means very little if council gives it no resources, no meaningful role and no path for its recommendations to be considered.

Several people described previous committees where residents volunteered their time, prepared recommendations and then watched their work sit unused.

The room appeared to agree that committees should not be created merely to produce the appearance of consultation.

If restored, they would require clear responsibilities, regular reporting and a commitment from council to respond publicly to their recommendations—even when council disagrees.

When participation begins to look like direction

The open format encouraged residents to contribute ideas, but at several points a well-known realtor in town moved beyond offering suggestions and appeared to take control of the discussion.

She repeatedly told Sikora what he needed to place on his policy board, which issues he should emphasize, how he should present himself and what he needed to do if elected. She also pressed him to spend more time discussing his background and accomplishments.

Her comments were generally supportive, but their frequency and length began changing the dynamic in the room. Rather than asking a question and allowing Sikora to answer, she would sometimes continue explaining what his answer or policy should be.

A few muffled grumbles could be heard elsewhere in the room as the interruptions continued. Nobody openly confronted her, but the reaction suggested that at least some attendees felt one participant was beginning to occupy too much of a meeting intended for the whole community.

The problem was not that she participated. It was that she occasionally appeared to be running the meeting—directing the candidate, setting priorities and consuming time that could have gone to other residents.

Sikora remained patient. He listened, extracted usable points from her comments and tried to reduce longer interventions into specific policies he could write on the board.

At one point, following an extended discussion about committees, he asked for the idea to be summarized in a single bullet point.

That moment captured both the value and the weakness of the meeting’s format. Sikora wanted detailed public involvement, but without firmer limits, the most persistent voice could easily become the dominant one.

A separate, lighthearted exchange later in the meeting should not be interpreted as criticism. When Sikora received enthusiastic advice about promoting himself and producing another campaign video, he joked that the speaker sounded like his campaign manager. The comment appeared friendly and was not a complaint about anyone taking over the meeting.

Sikora proposes a recall mechanism

One of Sikora’s first proposed policies was some form of municipal recall mechanism: a way for voters to remove a mayor or councillor who failed to honour major commitments.

Questions were immediately raised about whether a municipality has the legal authority to create such a bylaw.

Sikora did not establish that it does. Instead, he committed to examining whatever legally binding mechanism might be available and said he would support applying it to himself as well as the rest of council.

That proposal will require serious legal examination.

A campaign promise cannot give a municipality powers it does not possess under provincial law. Even so, Sikora said he was prepared to sign whatever lawful and binding personal commitment could be created.

His broader point was that elected officials should not receive four years of practical immunity after winning an election.

Town Hall culture and staff turnover

The discussion also turned toward staff turnover and the loss of institutional knowledge inside Town Hall.

Sikora claimed that approximately 16 positions had turned over in a workforce of roughly 40 to 42 employees during a relatively short period.

That figure was not independently verified during the meeting, but it became part of a larger conversation about workplace culture, staff retention and the difficulty of attracting experienced municipal employees.

Sikora compared the claimed turnover with his own businesses, where he said he employs approximately 40 people and maintains a much lower attrition rate.

He described himself as demanding but said strong leadership should direct pressure outward toward solving problems, not inward against employees.

Residents also suggested interviewing former Town employees, particularly those with experience in public works, water and wastewater, to recover some of the knowledge that may have left with them.

Residents ask Sikora to explain his record

After being pressed to speak more about his background, Sikora discussed his previous military-police experience, his private businesses and his involvement with the Osoyoos Wildlife Federation’s firearms range.

He said he had invested a substantial amount of his own money into improvements at the facility and credited volunteers with helping complete the work.

According to Sikora, the improved facility has attracted training activity from the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and other law-enforcement organizations.

He used that experience to illustrate the leadership style he would bring to Town Hall: stubborn, persistent and willing to continue with a project when others doubt it can be completed.

The stories provided residents with more information about his background, although at times they also took the meeting some distance away from the municipal policies being developed.

Communication must involve actual conversation

Residents expressed frustration with the Town’s current communication methods, including online surveys and tightly controlled opportunities to address council.

Several called for regular public town halls where residents could ask questions, receive answers and follow up when those answers were incomplete.

Sikora supported holding public meetings at least quarterly.

He argued that residents need more than a short speaking period followed by a promise that somebody may respond later by email.

The frustration expressed in the room was not simply about information being unavailable. It was about residents feeling that communication had become one-directional: the Town distributes information, conducts surveys and controls the format, but meaningful back-and-forth discussion remains difficult.

Budget pressure and community affordability

The meeting later turned to municipal budgeting and the effect of tax increases on residents.

One participant asked for a budget policy that more directly connects municipal spending with what the community can reasonably afford.

Sikora agreed with the concern but resisted turning it into an immediate campaign promise because the proposal had not yet been made specific enough.

He said he did not want to bind himself to a financial formula that a future council might be forced to break.

“My word is my bond,” Sikora said, explaining that he wanted every policy to be clear enough that residents could understand it, repeat it and hold him accountable for it.

That was one of his stronger answers of the meeting.

It would have been easy to promise lower taxes or place an arbitrary limit on increases. Instead, Sikora acknowledged that some infrastructure spending is unavoidable and that a rigid campaign commitment could leave council unable to respond to circumstances it cannot currently predict.

The affordability issue remained on the board for further development rather than being presented as a finished policy.

Recreation remains secondary to essential services

When asked about future recreational infrastructure, Sikora said essential services must come first.

He dismissed the likelihood of Osoyoos constructing a costly indoor aquatic centre in the near future, pointing to the expense of the building, heating, ventilation and humidity-control systems.

Instead, he floated the possibility of a less expensive outdoor pool and hot tub that could operate year-round, potentially through a partnership similar to projects completed elsewhere.

He also suggested that future improvements to wastewater treatment might reduce the amount of land required for sewage ponds, opening space for recreation or a municipally operated campground.

Those ideas were highly preliminary. No land-use study, business plan or engineering analysis was presented.

Sikora described them as secondary or tertiary priorities—not projects that should displace work on drinking water, wastewater or municipal finances.

Election access and learning about the candidates

Residents also asked how voters would learn about other candidates and whether further debates would be held.

Sikora said debates in previous elections had depended on local organizations or news outlets being willing to host them. He said he did not intend to wait for another organization and would continue inviting candidates to discussions and interviews.

He said he would keep an open chair and microphone available to anyone else seeking office.

Another resident raised concerns about voting access for people who travel or work outside the community during the election period. Suggestions included expanding mail-in voting and beginning the process earlier so seasonal residents and workers would not be excluded.

It was not established during the meeting which changes could be made for the current election or which would require future action from council.

More workshop than campaign rally

By the time the formal portion concluded at approximately 12:15 p.m., the meeting had covered far more than any conventional campaign speech could have addressed.

It was not a polished campaign launch and it was not a debate. It was closer to a community workshop—productive in places, repetitive in others and occasionally pulled off course by people who arrived with strong opinions about how it should be conducted.

That looseness worked both for and against Sikora.

It allowed residents to raise questions that would never fit into a tightly controlled debate response. It also permitted large technical and financial claims to enter the discussion without being independently tested.

Some ideas moved quickly from audience suggestions to the policy board even though their legal, financial and practical limits remain unknown.

Sikora’s better moments came when he acknowledged those limits.

He would not say exactly what water work should be cancelled until he could see the Town’s records. He did not pretend that a municipal recall bylaw was unquestionably legal. He declined to make a binding budget promise before its wording and consequences were clear.

Those answers were more credible than simply telling a supportive room what it wanted to hear.

The meeting also demonstrated something less comfortable but equally important: genuine public participation can be messy. People interrupt. Some speak much longer than others. Helpful advice can turn into an attempt to control the conversation, and an open microphone does not automatically produce equal access to it.

The emerging priorities included investigating alternative water sources, providing interim access to filtered drinking water, rebuilding meaningful citizen committees, improving public communication, examining stronger accountability measures and reviewing municipal spending against community affordability.

None is a completed policy. Some may prove impractical, unaffordable or outside the Town’s legal authority. Others deserve serious investigation.

What the gathering at the Elks Hall accomplished was to put residents’ concerns directly in front of a candidate and require him to respond without a prepared script.

It was imperfect, occasionally chaotic and revealing—not only about Sikora, but about a community carrying years of unanswered questions into the next election.