Councillor Says Parks Deal Is 'Flawed'

Written by Peter McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM Wednesday, 11 December 2013 10:17
Vernon council is backing Greater Vernon's new parks and trails agreement, but one councillor calls it flawed. On Monday, council authorized the mayor and corporate officer to sign the Greater Vernon sub-regional Parks and Trails Service Agreement, with one councillor opposed. Bob Spiers says city taxpayers will have to pay for more capital upgrades to some parks, costs that used to be shared. "Polson Park is an example. The original plan was about 8 to 10 million dollars worth of improvements there. We had some chance of that getting by the regional partners to share the cost. Now it's going to be 100 percent ours," Spiers tells Kiss FM. The deal turns some former regional parks into local ones, giving care and control to the jurisdiction where they're located.
-----------
Don Quixote Note:
The Vernon sub-regional Parks and Trails Service Agreement can be found at P.57t0 83  of http://www.vernon.ca/images/uploads/council/agendas/packages/131209_1.pdf

The Polson Park  Conceptual Redevelopment Park Link and Costs ($10,055,156) can be found at http://vernonblog.blogspot.ca/2013/12/polson-park-plan-proceeds.html
This Plan was never adopted or endorsed but it gives you an idea of possible future costs.

Among the 'flaws' in the Parks agreement that made me oppose it were:

• Distribution of the DCC's on a assessment allocation basis rather then how they were collected. (Vernon shortchanged by $253,695)
• Polson Park being classified as a Local Park (with subregional interests) All maintenance and capital costs will be borne by Vernon Taxpayers 100% of total assessment instead of the 68% on improvements only.
• Transfer of title (Ownership) to RDNO for all sub-regional Parks. (Kin Beach, Marshall Fields, Kal Beach) instead of utilizing a licence of occupancy method as was provided for in the initial draft agreement.
• The referendum funds (7.5 million) will remain with RDNO to be utilized 'Funds in the Statutory Reserve will remain with the RDNO to be used for the purposes for which it was collected.'  This seems to mean that the funds can be used only for 'sub-regional parks purposes' and no money can ever be used for purchases of local parks. The Ballot Question that I voted for in 2005 was 'for the purpose of acquiring various types of parkland '
• The structure of this agreement adds costs to Parkland Maintenance for Vernon Local Parks etc and hopefully a corresponding decrease on our RDNO tax requisition.  However taxes charged by RDNO for Parks is levied on the basis of improvements only while taxes at the City for Parks must be levied on both Land and Improvements.  There will be change in tax $'s required but the individual levy to a property owner will change. There will be winners (Will pay less than before) and losers (Will pay more than before.)  The same relative effect will be seen as when the Fire Tax was changed from Improvements only to land & Improvements in 2009

These are some of the reasons I could not support this agreement and join the other 15 elected officials who did. Perhaps my calculations as to the costs to the Vernon taxpayers in the long run are mistaken but only time will tell. There is always the possibility that our valley neighbours will approve amalgamation and render my concerns moot.