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
I also agree with Peachlander
I am going to leave it short..I completely agree with Mayor Quimby.
I want to amend what I have said in previous posts for this story by adding a qualification.
Yes, I continue to believe amenity fees are appropriate for reasons I have discussed before. It is one way to reflect the fact that existing taxpayers have paid over and over again for amenities new households will be using. This is absolutely standard in most if not all communities. I won’t expand on this further; see my earlier posts for the full explanation of the logic that is absolutely normal in the minds of most Councils and Town Planners..
However …
This “amenity fee” on new development need not be a cash fee let alone fixed in stone. It could be a donation “In kind” – which is to say that the new developer donate park lands, swimming pools, ice rinks, and the like for the use of all existing residents as well as new residents. Quid pro quo is the expression, is it not?
I repeat: Amenity fees are not set in stone. They are subject to negotation. If New Monaco builds an $X million dollar facility for the benefit of all Peachland residents, then I would have thought it quite obvious that that ameliorates the need for a substantial amenity fee on a per household basis. If a Developer comes to Peachland with absolutely no intention of building amentieis as part of his project, then he should be subject to a substantial amenity fee as previously described.
In a sense, the purpose of the negotiated amenity fee is to ensure that all new development that is undertaken DOES include amenities built by the developers for the benefit of all and that at least in some quantifiable sense the new amenities will balance with those existing amenities that new residents will have access to and which have been previously paid for by existing tax payers.
Does that satisfy everyone?
If New Monaco does build substantial amenities (and I’m not sure that is their intention, unlike, perhaps,Ponderosa), then waive the amenity fee; if not, charge them a substantial fee.
Could I also take this opportunity to bring to reader’s attention that I recently posted a comment to a “Letter to the Editor” as it does have some relevance to this subject. To find it, go to Mr. Preston’s home page, click on “letters to the editor”, find Dora Stewart’s recent letter relating to water, and click through until you have read it all. It may be of interest to everyone here.
Oh, and I forgot to mention above that the extended walkway/pedestrian overpass will bring pedestrians (tourists) from the beach up to New Monaco as well, which is a bit of a hike up the hill from say, the Gateway. With a scooter-friendly Centennial Way extended all the way to New Monaco, there will be opportunity for scooter/Bicycle rentals/drop-offs at each end of town and points in between.
\
On the amenity front, and further to my above posting, I fully support the emphasis on pedestrian activity in the development of Peachland. From the shops and noshes on Waldo Way in the south along the waterfront to the Gateway, to the Artisan Park at New Monaco in the north, to Trepanier Manor/Ponderosa Golf up the mountain to the west, all being accessible by foot and personal scooter. This would be made possible by a pedestrian overpass (over hwy 97) crossing at McKay Lane over to Greata Rd & Huston. This would also connect to the (perhaps little known) stairway up the hill. This stairway\path follows a right of way under the power lines right to the top of Trepanier Bench at Dryden Road. It’s just a short, flat walk from there to Trepanier Manor, Working Horse Winery and Parrot Island.
If I win the lotto Max I will donate a ski-lift style cable car that runs from Davis Cove to the top of Trepanier Bench, where there is a little (currently unmaintained) park, actually. Would make a nice landing spot.
Just having a pie-in-the-sky moment.
I would also like to think (and thank) that once Peachlander is elected he/she will continue to monitor and contribute to this forum (and encourage fellow councilors to do same).
\
Good to see a new candidate with fresh ideas! I think Peachland has a VERY unique opportunity here, one that we should dare not squander to “typicality”. It’s like we are the Land Before Time in a sense, off the beaten path, the backwater, but that’s a good thing. We haven’t (yet) been consumed by cookie-cutter development. We haven’t been contaminated by big-box/franchise food mentality (except for maybe A&W). I loathe the day a McDonald’s or Starbucks opens up shop here. I love seeing the expressions on people’s faces when I say that I live in a little one-traffic-light beach town. They mostly all are envious and want to see pictures (which I conveniently have).
We have a unique opportunity to not follow the lemmings. Look at West Kelowna for heaven’s sake, it looks like any strip of main street in anytown USA. Developments like Pincushion and New Monaco are a step in the right direction – uniqueness.
And I agree, Candidate Peachlander, that we can express our uniqueness (and desirable place to live cred) by integrating the needs of the young and old, the working and retired. Let’s do this right.
\
I moved here 10 years ago because of what Peachland had to offer – quiet, sleepy town with good access to the outdoors. I did not have to pay an entrance fee.
So, on this basis, I don’t feel that New Monaco (or anyone else) should have to pay entrance fees either.
They pay their DCCs to cover the additional cost of services, pay for power, water and sewer infrastructure and are encouraged (strong-armed) into including community features in their plans.
This is the way it should be and it is up to us, the existing residents and the new residents, to make of the town what we will. That means letting our council know what we want. I don’t agree that council are “dictators”, I just think they’re a bit single focused – all for the fogies and nothing for families. We can change that by changing council and I intend to throw my hat in the ring come November.
Now that I’ve lived here a few years, and my children are growing, I see that Peachland needs more amenities and work – I want my kids to live and work near me. More people means more amenities for everyone, more people means more customers, so it becomes feasible for small businesses to operate in Peachland, so more choices.
That in a nutshell will be my platform – develop Peachland for families. Families that include old and young alike.
In times past, people of all ages lived together in actual communities. The old cared for, taught and entertained the young, and in turn the young looked after the needs of the elderly.
Modern town planning has changed our social connectivity, because now all we have are silos of homogenized groups that rarely see one another. In this model, people are grouped together based on financial similarity.
The wealthy live over there behind electric gates; the elderly are “housed”, like so many lonely battery-hens, working families live over there with a scrub of land or an Xbox for the kids to play on while both parents are at work.
So, where I’m going with this, is that there may be an opportunity for Peachland to create a community model where residents of all ages can coexist.
The elderly are NOT useless. They can provide many things including daycare, babysitting and teaching. They have valuable life skills like knitting, sewing, woodworking, cooking, or a million other things. Kids and the elderly were made for each other, as anyone who is a Grandparent (or a Grandkid) surely knows!
What better baby sitter than your neighbor who raised her own kids in the middle of the depression and knows a thing or two about making a penny stretch? What better gift for your family that inviting that same neighbor over for a family Christmas dinner? And the elderly are better than geese as watch-keepers so woe betide a criminal who wants to B&E a house in their neighborhood!
And the young are NOT selfish and useless either. They can provide companionship, simple home maintenance (try changing a light bulb when you’re 85 years old!) and security for the elderly.
So, in age-neutral communities, it’s likely that policing costs are reduced, daycare costs are reduced, sociability and manners improve, loneliness is reduced and there can be a transfer of the wisdom from one generation to another.
I’m not a great scholar or philosopher, and much smarter people than me need to work on this, but I can’t help feeling that I’m on the right track here.
We need affordable housing for working families and we need community housing for the elderly and we need to reduce the cost of social services like policing, care-giving, and treating medical depression. We could put two-and-two together and make five.
What do people think?
What constitutes an amenity? According to the dictionary it is “any feature that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure”. Heritage Park, Cousins Park, the public boat launch and Centennial Way to name a few, all fall into that category. And to Anonymous’s question, “What has [council] done to really bring our community together”?, I think Centennial Way is a good example. As to your amazement about “how they still afford to function”, I’m a little perplexed. I think what you are referring to are private enterprises, not amenities. Coffee and groceries, gas and haircuts are the result of organic growth, demand and supply. As to not seeing our elected reps at the IGA, well perhaps they can’t afford the prices.
From what I understand, New Monaco is going to have a lot of amenities – all paid for by the developer. My question is, is this going to be a private community? Will I be able to hang out at the meditation garden and read a book or am I going to be asked for my pool pass? If so, shall we then ask “New Monaconians” for their walkway pass if we catch them on an unauthorized stroll down Beach?
Or we get creative instead of divisive. The additional amenity charge for New Monaco amounts to around $5.5 million. That would probably be the cost to extend Centennial Way all the way to New Monaco. Hmmm. Instead of putting the funds into a “holding tank” for some future amenity why don’t we get the developers to “donate” a specific amenity, something tangible. They could extend the walkway to Davis Cove, then up to a pedestrian bridge over the highway to Huston Road and on to New Monaco. This would bring droves of pedestrians from Trepanier Bench and New Monaco down to the waterfront, to patronize the businesses.
Interesting that the Mayor said there is no mechanism to fund amenities. Where did the funding for the walkway come from? Heritage Park Pavilion? Oh right, donations. How about that?
\
Very well said…
The “dictatorship” (council) has yet to set any examples of use of our amenities. How many times has anyone seen any of them in IGA, the gym (lol), or really supported any of the amenities we have now. They represent the town and are alleged leaders in our community.As much as I would like all the amenities to keep me from leaving town daily, I feel some would just turn into another bat house/cashcow. Since I have lived here, I have not once heard or seen any dictatorship member spend money here on anything but the post office and I believe “Cheap Charlies”. One member actually goes to IGA regularly, but that is about it. The rest just sit around and drink coffee. I’m amazed the “amenities” we have now can still afford to function. On the other side of the coin, maybe we should build a Wal-Mart downtown and completely finish off the remaining businesses. This dictatorship has set the bar. Either we change the dictatorship, or we keep following. Nothing personal, just business.
p.s. what has the dictatorship done to really bring our community together?
this blog is the largest sense of Peachland community I’ve come across to bring people of different opinions united… thanks(councilor) Dave
Peachland News is the only local media I entertain.
iga
You talk baout the citizens of Peachland not wanting these large developments to go ahead. As far back as I can remember no one has every asked me, my neighbours or anyone that I have talked to. So when you comment do not use the word to the effect that no one in Peachland wants them. Why is it or was it ok for you to break soil to build or buy your house and and move in to this area. but not ok for anyone else to do the same now.
I want to see new development come into Peachland, new shops, new housing, more new golf courses, theaters, (no not a curling rink) new firehall (which we need) new stores, new people, this will or should give us less taxes and many more ammenities. Why give our money to Westbank or West Kelowna, or what ever it is called, Penticton. I had stated this before. We had the land, we had the space for the town hall and firehall, but we got a bat house instead