Developer balks at amenity policy
by Dave Preston
A proposed council policy and associated Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment are not sitting well with the people behind the biggest development ever planned for Peachland.
“We believe there are many questions to be addressed regarding the establishment of a funding mechanism to fund future amenities in the community and the effects will be far reaching for future projects, particularly large mixed used and multiyear time horizon projects,” wrote Paul Tsang, managing partner of New Monaco Enterprise Corp. to the District of Peachland.
At issue is the district’s Amenity Contribution Policy, which would require future developments to contribute funds to the town so that public amenities can be built in the future.
Peachland council and staff have been working on the policy for months. The idea came from a Master Development Agreement between the district and Ponderosa/Pincushion Ridge developer Treegroup, which outlines contributions the developer will make to the town for amenities.
“As a result of anticipated growth in Peachland there will be an associated need for community amenities/facilities,” said CAO Elsie Lemke, in a report to council Tuesday. “Staff has been reviewing how such amenities/facilities could be planned for and funded into the future.”
“Every member of our community will benefit from amenities,” said Coun. Peter Schierbeck, who cautioned that the district shouldn’t be seen as “jumping all over developers.”
“I really feel we don’t want to discourage development,” said Schierbeck. “We could scare them away.”
Staff is proposing that developers pay $2,163 for every residential unit built. The money would go into an account that would fund future public amenities.
“I think the cost is way too high,” said Coun. Vern Moberg.
Coun. Lindsay Bell said she is concerned that developers of large developments won’t put amenities in their developments if the district charges for future amenities.
“One thing we were trying to do… was to try to be very consistent with what other communities are doing,” said Lemke.
“To implement a significant fixed sum of amenity contributions on top of Peachland’s DCCs may cause new homes to be unaffordable and businesses to fail, especially when the market is slow and construction cost remain constant or increase,” warned New Monaco’s Tsang.
Other concerns raised by New Monaco include:
* Each development project is unique and how each development contributes could differ vastly;
* Unreasonably high development costs make the risks too great for developers and will drive away development and business investment;
* The proposed amenity contribution charge is at least 50 per cent higher than what Treegroup will contribute for its development.
Dave Smith, director of planning, said staff has calculated that the proposed $2,163 fee per residential unit is very close to what Treegroup has agreed to.
“When the community experiences growth on the scale we are looking at, there are enormous costs,” said Mayor Keith Fielding. “That’s why DCCs are levied. There isn’t any mechanism to collect revenues for amenities.”
Fielding said it is not fair to put the cost of future amenities solely on general taxpayers.
“It may seem a lot of money, but if we don’t generate it through this mechanism, we have to find the revenue,” said Fielding.
Current development cost charges, which are levied against developments to pay for such things as road and water system upgrades, range from $14,000 to $17,000 per residential unit, according to Smith.
Council decided to hold off on the OCP amendment and policy until a consultation process can be started with stakeholders, including existing developers of significant projects.
New Monaco is proposing construction 2,600 to 2,800 living units on land it owns at the intersection of Hwy. 97 and Hwy. 97C.
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Well said Northerner, I couldn’t of said it better myself and hats off to Mayor Quimby on this one.
Desert Pines: I’m glad to see at least someone appreciated my attempt at injecting a bit of humor into the forum. It was tongue-in-cheek and I’m glad it was taken that way as it wasn’t really my intention to attack anybody specifically. Just a general reminder to everyone to play nice in the sandbox or Dave will send you home.
Dave: You’ll be very aware from both Castanet and your earlier blog that these discussions can get out of hand and spiral downhill very quickly into a bottomless pit filled with caustic sludge. No, nobody has violated your guidelines yet in my OPINION either. But some do need to ease up a bit and I took offence at Mayor Quimby’s comment which you have inexplicably decided to post as the heading on your website this week. It is offensive (to me and probably to others) that some apparently feel that there is a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ point of view on any issue. There are just different OPINIONS about the direction the community should be taking. And it is hardly a black and white situation anyway.
(And as DP points out, there is a difference between OPINIONs and FACTs)
For PVOR, Desert Pines and others who might be interested. AFter Mt. Boucherie Arena was built, Westbank Council (might have been Regional at the time) added a specific itemized charge to everybody’s tax bill at the time to reflect the explicit charge of paying for this amenity. It was something like $200 per year per household but obviously varied with the house. Not a petty $20 or $40 that was suggested might be the case in Peachland for our amenities. Different town different amenity, I know but worth mentioning I thought.
Interesting to note to that they no longer itemize this figure seperately. It’s now just lumped in with general taxes in some way. In my OPINION this was because too many people each year were having heart attacks when reminded of how much they were forced to pay for something many (admitedly a minority after their own referendum) didn’t want. But add the $200 per year they paiy for Mt. Boo to all the other amenities that are built at public expense and pretty soon we’re talking real money here aren’t we.
Desert Pine: Good questions about tax allocation though. But think of it a different way perhaps. Rather than from a tax paid point of view, what did it cost to build the assets which are now the rec centre etc etc etc over the years? What are the value of the assets that the existing tax payers have paid for over the years. Is it $10 Million (wild guess). If so, then that works out to around $10 Million divided by 2,500 households (is that the number) or $4,000 per household bought and paid for by existing taxpayers in some way and at some time. If that’s the number, doesn’t that help come up with an amenity charge for new development? All guestimates so don’t quote me on those figures for God’s sake!!!!!!!
BUT as Bill pointed out, whatever figure it turns out to be must be adjusted for any amenities a developer might provide as part of that development.
More stuff to think about. Interesting topic.
BTW: interesting developments in the world of water. Highly recommend everybody have a look at the link recently posted under Dora Stewart’s water letter to the editor. Puts Dobson’s water change of heart in a whole new light.
In response to your offence at my earlier comment, you are entitled your opinion, as I am mine. The comment was in response to the previous comment about quality of life being changed because of a development on the outskirts of town. My response is that a community isn’t made of houses and buildings, but the people that live in it and thus, people and their attitudes towards each other and the activities in the town have a much greater influence on quality of life.
Not to mention, one small comment can sometimes bring about greater discussion.
“This means the new people in town are actually paying for these amenities while the old time Peachlanders are getting a free ride”.
By “This” are you saying that because the Centennial Way walkway consumed all savings in the kitty (contributed to by whom, old Peachlanders, old developers?) and because of “this” Princeton sidewalks took a back seat? That new Peachlanders and developers are now expected to repay the kitty for Princeton sidewalks with the new residence amenities fee?
\
The district of Peachland contribution to the Centennial walkway came totally from the Development fees. The council and staff have pointed this out as a highlight in that no taxes were raised.
The side walks on Princeton were supposed to be built with development fees but there was not enough development to raise the fees,
The development fees are for new development and are by definition paid for by by new Peachlanders.
I hope that clarifies my point.
the sidewalks on Princeton did not get built this year because there was not enough money in the development fees kitty.
The municipal portion of the Beach Avenue pathway came from the development fees and not tax increases. There was no need for a loan an AAP and a referendum
This mean the new people in town are actually paying for these amenities while the old time Peachlanders are getting a free ride.
I do not have facts nor your access to your assessments or overall tax bills but common sense dictates that only a very small portion of our taxes go toward amenities. The bulk will go towards the mundane expenses of providing required infrastructure and services. If you want to call this obvious opinion as need of a facts check then that is your opinion.
Folks, respectively, I know it’s not easy to do, but I have seen it done, where in forums like this, persons who cite hard statistics like “X number of Y was allocated to Z” follow that with a foot note or hyperlink to their source, unless it is a truism. That includes accusations of bias.
\
I respect that, Dave. I don’t want people barred, but it gets frustrating when hyperbole distracts.
Based upon ‘your doubts’ about the existence of tax allocation reports, we can then surmise that PVOR is inventing stats, unless he/she has inside information. And I’m not trying to sling mud PVOR, everyone’s opinion is welcome and must be so – I take off my hat to northerner for that witty post.
\
Dave, is it published anywhere how our tax dollars are allocated? The Mayor said there is no funding mechanism for “amenities” ergo, they aren’t funded by taxes. Did any tax dollars go to Swim Bay, etc.?
PVOR, “Peachlanders obviously don’t want to pay for amenities… sidewalks… as shown by the curling referendum.” I think that is a stretch. How are sidewalks and a money-losing business venture in any way related to an “obvious” viewpoint of all Peachlanders? Stop with the spin already.
Again, factual discussion please, not rhetoric. Anyone continually spewing misinformation as fact should be barred from posting as it only serves to undermine constructive discourse. We need a “Fact Check” service on this forum.
\
\
Published? Not that I’m aware of. One could go to the district office and seek the information. It could take a while, but they’re always good at trying to find information.
I know where you’re going with that question about where tax dollars have gone. I have my doubts that there is any kind of report on the shelf that states what ‘amenities’ taxpayers have paid for in the past. Even if there was, it would be muddied a bit by senior government grants, which Peachland has been quite successful in gaining.
As for your suggestion about barring people from posting, I shall decide if anyone’s posts warrant that treatment. There will be no fact check service on this website. It would be impossible to implement. Remember: One person’s rhetoric is another’s opinion.
The people that have been in Peachland building up the amenities over the years have to consider what they have actually contributed to amenities.
I believe their 20 year total will be humbled by the $2,163 grab they want each and every new comer to make.
The tax dollars we pay go almost exclusively to paying salaries of District employees, policing, snow removal equipment and infrastructure… sidewalks and roads, water and sewers
The $20-40 / year of your tax dollars that go to swim bay, he senior centre and the rec centre and parks really don’t add up to a lot.
Peachlanders obviously do not want to pay for amenities (or even sidewalks to be paid for from DCC) as shown by the Curling referendum. But the District and people on this forum seem to think the newcomers should pay to cover the amenity debt we have built up over the years.
I would like to take a moment and thank everyone who has commented here and elsewhere on the website. You have all (perhaps unknowingly) commented without breaking the Comment Rules of Conduct. Some of you have been passionate about this and other subjects and you’ve expressed yourselves by dealing with the issue at hand… Not by attacking those with differing views.
To the best of my recollection, I’ve only had to edit one comment in the past few weeks, and that was a minor edit. Thank you for participating in civil public discourse.
Carry on.
I’ve got to say that like macdonald, I agree with Quimby as well though I’m not going to be quite as brief as macdonald in this post.
We really do need to be more careful in future about making sure than only the right kind of people move to Peachland as we grow in size. And obviously by right kind I’m talking about people who only have exactly the same opinions and views as the three of us on the direction Peachland should be taking. The fact that I don’t always agree with Quimby is neither here nor there as those are just small details that we can talk about later.
But why stop there guys? Shouldn’t we have some other entrance tests as well to make sure we only have “our kind” of people move here.
You know, there’s this family that lives about six doors from me. Cutest kid you’ll ever see. Only problem is that his skin is a little on the dark side. You know what I mean. And we don’t really want Peachland populated with his sort now do we? Best if one of us quietly approaches the family and suggests they might want to move south don’t you think? Do you want to take care of it or leave me to handle this one.
And that woman who works in one of the shops down in the mall. You know the one. Lovely woman. Charming and always a smile on her face. Only problem is she’s from somewhere in Asia from the looks of her. She’ll have to go too I’m afraid. If she looks different, she probably thinks different from the rest of us and we can’t have that now can we. We want to be sure we only have people who think exactly the same way we do on all issues now don’t we?
And did you know that one of the more prominent names in one well known Peachland organization was once a candidate for the communist party of Canada? I’m 100% serious. Not making that one up I guarantee you. Check her out. A long time ago of course, but it just goes to show you can never tell can you. A communist? In Peachland? How do their brains function? And just think of the negative effect she would have on the children if her kind of thinking were to infect them. Do you want to be the one to ‘out her’, or should I do it?
Anybody who votes Liberal has to go. That goes without saying. NDP? Surely you’re not serious. Not in Peachland. I hate to think we’d have anybody here who voted anything except Tory blue. Difficult to enforce, but maybe we should think about bringing back public in voting that we had a couple of hundred years ago. That would make sure that we only had the right kind of thinkers in Peachland.
And speaking of “outing”, we sure as heck don’t want any of “their kind” living in our community now do we. None of those ho-mo-sex-u-als. We only want people who think exactly the same as the three of us. Can’t let them have a say in the growth of Peachland either. Don’t know what they might be thinking do we. The very thought sends shivers up and down my spine . On the bus with them as well.
But wait a minute…. Quimby … Quimby … sounds a bit Jewish to me. Gall darn it, Quimby I’m afraid you’re out as well. And as for macdonald. Bloody Scots. Eating stuffed sheep innards all the time. Begone, I say. “Out out, damn Scot” as Shakespeare once wrote.
(… and as for Preston! A writer. Gall darn it a writer. We all know what they’re like. Who the heck let you in in the first place, Preston?)
So who’s left after we clear out the community of all the undesirable types. Hang on, looks like I’ve got the place just to myself. Ah, paradise …
Seriously, one or two people on this forum need to learn a little tolerance and appreciate that an ideal world is NOT somewhere where we do, think and say exactly as the they do on every single topic for God’s sake. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said quite famously, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” Words of wisdom and words to live by.
I respect your right to say what you want to say, so the least you could do is respect the right of myself, Bill, Desert Pines, Citizen Voice and whoever else wants to participate in this forum to express themselves as well. If someone makes a factual error, correct them. If you disagree with an opinion they have expressed, refute them with facts that will overwhelm them with logic. Bill does it regularly. I try to do it. I would like to think most people here do that.
For the record, I don’t agree with Citizen Voice’s last post either (on the effect New Monaco would have on property prices) but if I cared enough I’d express a rational argument about why he might be wrong; not just hurl personal abuse and post that we don’t want people with his views living here. Enough already.
Frankly, the thought of a Peachland filled with people who all think exactly the same way should scare anyone to death. Too much like the Stepford Wives for my liking anyway.