Notice of Disposition

Posted Friday, January 5, 2018

http://www.rdno.ca/index.php/news/public-notices/notice-of-disposition 

Pursuant to Section 286(2) of the Local Government Act, Notice is hereby given that the Regional District of North Okanagan intends to dispose of park lands by transferring legal ownership as noted in the Public Notice in exchange for $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration.  This transfer of ownership is part of the restructuring of the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service whereby local parks will become the responsibility of the local government in whose jurisdiction the park is located. The title transfers are effective January 1, 2018.

For more information or to view a map of the properties being transferred, click on the links below:

• PUBLIC NOTICE - Disposition of Park Lands
• MAP - Paddlewheel Park
• MAP - Marshall Field Park
• MAP - Hurlburt Park
• MAP - Creekside Park

Efforts Proceed In Bid for BX Park Land

Vernon, BC, Canada / 1075 KISS FM Tom Mark July 04, 2017 08:08 am

A group hoping to retain a large section of BX Ranch land for future green space is buoyed by the support is getting. About 50 people turned out for a meeting to discuss the issue. The 55 hectare section is owned by the regional district, but has been marked for possible sale. Spokesman Terry Donnelly with the BX Ranch Land Task Force says they discussed going before local councils. “We hope to appear before the regional district board and the city council and Coldstream Council in the fall. We hope to have a little time, you know what we hope to see fore the future of this parcel of land.” They’d like to see it as an Agricultural Park. Donnelly thinks the group still has time to try to save it. “There’s things that they have to do first before the subdivision is finalized. The land commission has put some conditions on the subdivision so it’s not two parcels of land yet.” One parcel will be used to link BX dog park with Mutrie park. The other is a 55 hectare stretch that is currently being farmed on a lease but could be sold.

Highway Bypass Not In Plan

KISSFM POLL RESULTS Final

Do you believe a highway bypass is needed in future plans for the City of Vernon?

Yes	68.6%
No	29.0%
Not Sure	2.4%

Posted on 10/14/2016 10:41 AM by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
A Vernon councillor isn't giving up on his demands to have a highway bypass in the long term vision for the city.
Bob Spiers voted against official community plan changes at council's meeting Tuesday, upset the highway doesn't get mentioned in the master transportation plan. He hopes residents agree with him when a public hearing is held on the OCP later this year. "Hopefully enough people will come out, and maybe we can convince the powers that be and the rest of council, to put in a bypass (into the plan)." Spiers says the city's advisory planning committee agrees a bypass should be in the plan. "We both thought we should have better bypass language. We should at least put a bypass route in there," adds Spiers. Councillor Scott Anderson also voted against the OCP changes concerned about the parks plan making part of Marshall Field on-leash only for dogs. "It is a difficult decision, but it's one that I stand on because I feel very strongly that I am representing a great number of people who use that consistently as a dog run, and I'm speaking for them," Anderson told Kiss FM. Councillor Catherine Lord also had concerns about the master parks plan outlining the Civic Arena site to become a park, which she feels has not been decided, and the building may be kept in tact for future uses. "We were talking about getting public consultation on this issue," said Lord
Councillor Juliette Cunningham pointed out the master plans can be changed over time, adding it's basically a blueprint, and doesn't force council to do anything specific.
=======
THAT Bylaw #5609, "Official Community Plan (ParksMaster Plan, Master Transportation Plan, &Community Wild Fire Protection Plan) Text Amendment Bylaw Number 5609, 2016" – a bylaw to amend the City of Vernon’s Official Community Plan Bylaw Number 5470, be read a first and second time; AND FURTHER, that the Public Hearing for Bylaw #5609 be scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2016, at 5:30 pm, in Council Chambers. (City of Vernon) (P. 621)

Vernon politicians not satisfied with long-term plans

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Vernon posted Oct 13, 2016 at 6:00 AM

Some Vernon politicians still aren’t satisfied with long-term visions for parks and roads. On Tuesday, the master transportation and parks plans were incorporated into the city’s overall official community plan. However, some council members used the opportunity to challenge the fine details. “There’s still a lack of a bypass,” said Coun. Bob Spiers of why he raised his hand in opposition. Spiers insists there should be some mention of a possible highway bypass through Vernon in the transportation plan. On another front, Coun. Scott Anderson expressed concerns that the parks plan restricts dog access at Marshall Field. “The plan designates the strip along the creek as a on-leash dog park,” he said. “In practise, everyone uses it as an off-leash dog park, and I would like to see the latter formalized. I have fought for that every step of the way through the parks process, and this was a last kick at the cat.” Anderson says there is also a need for the transportation plan to include a bypass reference. Staying with the parks plan, Coun. Catherine Lord pointed out that the document only indicates a park being built where Civic Arena is. “We could still do something with the building,” she said, adding that there is a need for public consultation to determine the future of the arena. Coun. Juliette Cunningham was clearly frustrated with the debate over the parks and roads master plans, which have already been adopted and are just being added to the OCP. “It’s a blueprint. It doesn’t mean we’re committed to anything but we won’t get anywhere without a plan,” she said. Cunningham added that the master plans were developed after consultation with residents. “We’re supposed to be leaders of the community and to put down what we heard from the community. We’re not signing any cheques,” she said.

Foothills Park Proposal

Posted on 6/10/2016 12:08 PM by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM
Local government is being asked to consider purchasing land for a new park in the Foothills area of Vernon.Wynn Polnicky from the 250 member Foothills Community Association, says it would be at the top of the bluff above the present development. The 19.5 hectares is currently privately owned in three large lots, but not slated for development. "It's in an environmentally sensitive area. We want to leave it as a natural park," Polnicky told the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee. He says much of the land is too steep to put houses on. "It would be expensive to develop due to ravines at the top." Greater Vernon Advisory Director Mike Macnabb says the request has been made before. "The biggest concern is how much it would cost. I remember the dollar value was well into the millions, and there is not pot of money we have that would allow us to purchase all of that property." Macnabb says they also have to balance that with the benefit to the community, and what other projects are needed. "If a project comes up that could scale to the benefit of the public, then we would certainly look at that as opposed to something else that may cost a lot of money, but it's good to have the discussion," adds Macnabb, the RDNO director for BX Silver Star. Polnicky says there's no great rush to buy the land as it's not slated for development, but he would like to see a plan in place. G-VAC will get a staff report on the site at its next meeting in July.
---------------
Vernon Parks Master Plan-( Not yet incorporated into OCP.)
https://www.vernon.ca/sites/default/files/docs/parks/final_parks_master_plan.pdf

BEYOND THE HEADLINES: Fence fiasco predictable

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted May 11, 2016 at 1:00 AM
City of Vernon staff should have expected a backlash over ripping out the fence at Sawicki Park. After all, kids and playgrounds are motherhood issues and parents and grandparents traditionally get alarmed when something they perceive protects their children is suddenly taken away. No sooner was the fence down April 12, and social media went viral. Complaints also started to roll into elected officials. “The opposition to it is unanimous,” said Coun. Scott Anderson at city hall Monday. A two-page report was presented to council defending staff’s decision to eliminate the four-foot-high fence, but it did little to divert criticism. “I’m not convinced by the rationale here. A chain link fence does not impact visibility,” said Anderson. In the report, staff states, “the fence was removed to place emphasis on increasing accessibility, visibility and transparency for safety, and to enhance the landscape and provide more shade through additional tree planting.” As someone who drives past the park semi-regularly, I almost forget there is a chain link fence there. It virtually blends into the landscape and it’s difficult to know how a fence impacts sight lines more than a tree once it becomes fully mature. But the biggest reason many parents and grandparents are upset over the fence removal is the speedway known as Middleton Way. Yes, the speed limit is 30 kilometres an hour in the playground zone, but very few motorists do that. Obviously there is a need for increased RCMP enforcement of the speed limit there, but you can’t have an officer sitting all of the time. A fence provides an established boundary for kids, who can be unpredictable when running around. Staff insist that other parks don’t have fences around them, but instead of taking out the fence at Sawicki, one should question why more fences aren’t installed. In the case of Girouard Park, 20th Street has become a busy link between the north end of town and East Hill. The only support for staff at Sawicki came from Coun. Catherine Lord. “If you are going to take children to the playground, you will be with them. Why do we need a fence there?” she said. Of course parents must be responsible but you can be the most diligent parent in the world, and your kid is still going to zig when they should zag. Things can happen at a blink of an eye. A fence is not about bubble-wrapping kids but ensuring there is a basic safety standard for them and for motorists. In the end, the biggest mistake by city staff was the lack of communications. Before the fence was removed, park users and immediate neighbours should have been consulted to see if there was any interest in the plan. And while the role of council isn’t to interfere in day-to-day operations at city hall, the politicians should have had advance warning about a contentious action, and perhaps they should have been asked for guidance. As well intentioned as staff was, the reality is that considerable time and effort has been wasted and a fence is going back up. Any future fence removals at parks must be placed on hold until council provides further direction.

Council orders fence return to Sawicki Park

by Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star posted May 9, 2016 at 6:00 PM
A fence is going back up at a Vernon park. Council directed staff Monday to consider options for a fence around Sawicki Park on Middleton Way after its removal April 12 led to numerous public complaints. “The opposition to it is unanimous,” said Coun. Scott Anderson. “No one thinks it’s a good idea.” Coun. Brian Quiring is concerned a child may dash out on to Middleton Way, which has a 30-kilometre-an-hour speed zone, which many motorists don’t follow. “People rip down that road and I heard that within days of the fence going down, there was a near-miss,” he said. Staff’s argument that there aren’t fences around other parks didn’t go over well with Coun. Juliette Cunningham. “The one size fits all approach doesn’t always work,” she said. “You can’t compare the speed on this road to Armoury Park or Kin Beach.” Staff say the fence was taken down to improve sight lines and to improve access in and out of the park instead of the limited gates now. “If someone is chasing you in the park, you;d have to go to one of the entrances to get out,” said Kendra Kryszak, parks planner. Support for staff came from Coun. Catherine Lord. “If you are going to take children to the playground, you will be with them. Why do we need a fence there?” she said. Mayor Akbal Mund is reluctant to see fences come down at other parks, including Lakeview. “That’s a busy park with the (peanut) pool so I hope that’s not on the list,” he said.

Disagreement over use of Vernon dog park has council at end of leash

September 30, 2015 - 9:00 PM By Charlotte Helston INFOTEL.CA
VERNON - City officials continue to spar over the use of a green space near Marshall Fields as an off-leash dog park. Residents have been using the area, which runs alongside Marshall Fields by the Lakers Clubhouse, to let their dogs run off leash for years, but now the City of Vernon is now tightening up the rules, and that doesn’t sit well with Coun. Scott Anderson.“What I’m concerned about is the people who have walked their dogs there for eons, because dogs need to be off leash,” Anderson says. “This is one of the nicest dog parks we’ve got here.”Greater Vernon has five designated fenced off-leash dog parks in addition to a number of other on-leash only parks, including Marshall Fields. City staff told council allowing off leash dogs at the site threatens the spadefoot toad that inhabits the creek, but Anderson insists that argument is moot because of possible airport expansion plans to reroute the creek or pave over it.“Clearly that is going to affect the frogs much more than anything any dog could ever do, even hoards of dogs,” Anderson says.He’s heard somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 people use the area to let their dogs off leash and expects an uproar if the city starts enforcing on-leash restrictions.“I’ve got a whole whack of people who are ramping up to be quite vociferous about this,” Anderson says.Anderson opposed a new Parks Master Plan at a public meeting Sept. 28 on the basis that it calls for the area to be on-leash only — a move that left at least one fellow councillor visibly frustrated. Coun. Juliette Cunningham felt the issue shouldn’t ‘unravel the parks plan’ but rather be dealt with separately by the city and regional district. She pointed out the topic was debated at length during council’s last meeting.“I’m not going to sit here for another hour and discuss dogs (going) off leash, that’s what we did last time. I’m not going to do that this time,” she said.

Coun. Bob Spiers also opposed the Parks Master Plan, but for a different reason; the one per cent tax it calls for over the next ten years for park improvements.“The Parks Master Plan has merit but I still want to see the financial implication,” Spiers said.The plan was ultimately accepted, with Spiers and Anderson the only councillors who voted against it.
-------------
Don Quixote Note:
My Concern is that the revised estimated shortfall on this 13.1 million 10 year plan is stated to be $3.9 million. The shortfall is determined to be only 3.9 million after allowing for items such as outside contribution of $1.1 million, $1 million from parkland dedication and $7.1 million from DCC's. While this is a shortfall that is better than the $5.4 million shown to the public in the original DRAFT plan  this will only be the actual shortfall if DCC funds can be used beyond the $3.2 million for property acquisition. If only property acquisition can be funded from DCC's then there is an additional $3.9 million shortfall.  (Total $7.8 million)

The projected taxes required could go from an estimated 1.2% to 2.4%. (Each year for 10 years).

The final estimates should be incorporated in the Master Parks Plan (P.92-231) before placing it into the OCP (After a public hearing)
---------------------------

Difference between Total $$$ figures is rounding

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/DCC_Best_Practice_Guide_2005.pdf   (p.42 & 43)

Parkland Acquisition and Improvement Projects While section 933 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act generally mentions “providing” and “improving” parkland, sections 935 (3) (b) and 936 provide some clarification to the conditions that make parkland acquisition and improvements eligible for a parkland DCC program. Regarding parkland acquisition, the land must have: • a location and character acceptable to local government; and, • a market value that is at least equal to the amount of the charge (section 936 (2)). Regarding parkland improvements, works are limited to: • fencing; • landscaping; • drainage and irrigation; • trails; • restrooms; • changing rooms; • playground equipment; and, • playing field equipment (section 935 (3) (b) (ii)).

When compiling a parkland acquisition DCC program, DCCs should not be used to make up past deficiencies in parkland. For example, DCC funds should not be used to acquire parkland in an older area of the municipality which is not experiencing new development. In the case where a parkland deficiency exists, parkland acquisition funding must come from general revenue or means other than DCCs.