Politicians experiencing pressure

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning StarPublished: November 25, 2012 1:00 AM
With multiple issues on the table, politicians are  feeling somewhat under the gun. The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee will consider its current meeting schedule and determine if another model is required to accommodate discussions over referendums, parks, water and culture. “We may adjust things to deal with what’s before us now,” said director Bob Fleming. Presently, committee members meet on the first Thursday of the month from 8 to 10:30 a.m. “We have a lot of issues on the table and what’s happened is it comes to a meeting and we’re presented with background information that we have to deal with in a short time,” said director Doug Dirk. “We need to be able to meet together, have discussions to flush it out and give staff direction.” Dirk suggests that separate meetings may be needed for the various topics instead of lumping them into one session. “If we can establish a process where things can be discussed, it will run more efficient,” he said. Chairperson Mike Macnabb admits the current schedule creates challenges. “We are hampered by time limitations because of other meetings on the same day,” he said, adding that can lead to delegations’ presentations being rushed. “For the public, I don’t want to short-change them.” One topic of particular concern is the April referendum on borrowing $8.5 million for a sports complex. “It alone needs a lot of discussion before we can carry it forward,” said Fleming. “We need to find something we think is viable.”

Vote date nears for sports facility

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: September 30, 2012 1:00 AM
Greater Vernon residents will soon know when they head off to the polls on a sports complex. The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee will decide Thursday on a date for a spring referendum on a track and football field at Okanagan College. “This is the obvious next step,” said director Rob Sawatzky. “We have to see what the community attitude is.” Director Jim Garlick is also pleased that staff have moved the process to a point where a referendum date can be selected. “If we leave it until the end of the term, it doesn’t show much faith in the project,” he said. The complex would include a rubberized track and an artificial turf field. The projected cost is $7.8 million but voters could be asked to borrow up to $8.5 million. “It’s a responsible practice to build in contingencies,” said Tannis Nelson, Regional District of North Okanagan community development co-ordinator. “We would only borrow what is required.” Nelson has met with groups that could use the facility. “We’re looking for support for proceeding with a referendum,” she said. “The resounding response was yes. There is a lot of excitement.” A citizens’ committee will then be formed to spearhead the referendum. “A spring date gives community organizations lead time to communicate information to the public,” said Nelson. Garlick believes a communications strategy will be critical to the success of a referendum. “We need to put effort into it. From the public, we need to get buy-in to move it along,” he said. The provincial Agricultural Land Commission, which approved a non-farm use on the site, says the facility must be constructed by November 2014. If the referendum is approved by the public, Nelson says there will be sufficient time to meet the ALC’s deadline.

Sports arena moving ahead

CASTANET by Wayne Moore -Jan 13, 2009

Despite objections from staff, Kelowna Council has unanimously approved a temporary sports complex for the city's north end. The proposed complex, which could accommodate ball hockey, basketball, lacrosse, floor and roller hockey, would be built on Ellis Street, north of Clement, next to the CN train station. Current Planning Supervisor, Danielle Noble, told council the 'Coverall Low Slope' building is the type often used in agricultural operations such as for storage, indoor equestrian arenas or bulk agricultural crops. "Staff have serious concerns with the form and character of this structure concerning the proximity to the urban centre core. The north area structure plan projects this area to develop from an industrial base to one of retail and commercial mixed use," says Noble. "As proposed the form of the anticipated temporary structure is typically found in agricultural settings and it's questionable whether this type of structure is suitable for a location adjacent to the Cultural District and an anticipated hotel site on the former Canada Land's property." Councillors had some concerns about improvements required for Ellis and St. Paul streets and the close proximity to the heritage rail station, however, felt overall the facility was a great addition to the area and filled a recreational void.

Bryan Ducharme, who put forth the application, told council he was prepared to make any improvements necessary to both Ellis and St. Paul and added there has been some thought into a buffer between the facility and the CN station. "Our first plan was to initially plant the biggest trees we could buy and transplant along that side that would grow and add sort of a buffer there," says Ducharme. "There are options of building sort of a false wall in front of there. At one point we had the idea of putting up something similar to the Laurel Building the way it is stepped, but that does add a lot of cost to our project." Ducharme has a 10-year lease on the property and told council the building is a temporary structure which can easily be moved if a permanent site is found. He adds there has been a lot of positive feedback from schools and sports leagues interested in utilizing the facility. "I think we have to find a way to make this work. A facility like this which is not coming to the taxpayer as a handout I think is a bonus we should be grasping," says Councillor Andre Blanleil. "I think it's a great facility and we need to find a way to make it work." While the CN station is a heritage building, Blanleil says the property is for sale and no one really knows what will become of it or when. Council voted to authorize the issuance of a building permit with several conditions including a provision that the applicant provide a Landscape Performance Security deposit in the amount of 125% of the estimated value of the landscaping within 180 days.

Sports field debate reignited at GVSC

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - January 25, 2008

The sports complex debate is back on Greater Vernon’s agenda. The Greater Vernon Services Committee has reignited discussions about future sports fields, including during a closed-door session Thursday. “We have a couple of things we are discussing but nothing of the magnitude of the previous one,” said Gary Corner, GVSC chairman. GVSC had originally proposed constructing a sports complex on a portion of Coldstream Ranch on Aberdeen Road. However, a December referendum resulted in a majority of residents preventing Coldstream council from sending a land use application to the Agricultural Land Commission. The concerns of residents varied, but the primary one was using quality farm land for sports fields, and that could lead to traffic problems and increased urbanization.Corner was unwilling to get into the specifics of the current discussions.“It may be one large site or a few around the community,” he said.

Corner added, though, that an outstanding issue is finding large chunks of property not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. One site that has been suggested by some residents is farm land just to the north of the Multiplex and Kin Race Track. Earlier this month, the City of Vernon requested that GVSC hold a meeting with it to discuss sports facilities in the area. No date has been set for that meeting, but Corner is open to pursuing the matter with the city. “We will certainly talk to the city and the city has three representatives at this committee,” he said. Vernon city council will also meet internally to discuss land issues regarding potential sites for new fields.

Opportunity knocks

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - December 19, 2007

The results of Saturday’s referendum in Coldstream were anticlimactic for me. Because of the ugliness of the campaign and the divisions it created, I personally stopped caring about the final outcome some time ago. But certainly what caught my interest was the number of people who voted.And it was obvious turn-out would be high as vehicle after vehicle made its way to Coldstream Elementary, one of two polling stations. A total of 3,376 ballots were cast, a stunning number when you consider there are only about 5,000 to 5,500 voters in the municipality. It was certainly good to see so many people embrace their democratic right, but the results were also surprising as the 2005 civic election drew a turn-out of 56 per cent.

Yes, the proposal for a sports complex on agricultural land was controversial, but it was strictly a one-issue vote. An election for mayor and council is significantly more important. After all, these are the individuals who are supposed to represent our interests and make decisions on our behalf. And the matters put before them are more complex and broad-based than just one item.I would hope that Saturday’s referendum is an indication of growing interest in Coldstream politics and leads to a higher participation rate during the civic election in November.

And for the victorious no side Saturday, it appears like they are already looking towards late 2008.As the results rolled in Saturday, a member of the no camp was heard to say, “We’re a force to be reckoned with.”That may be overstating the case as the referendum focused only on one issue, but for many, it will be the basis to challenge the status quo and what they see as the old-boys’ network in Coldstream. In fact, there have been some residents just itching to relive the 2005 election when Gary Corner narrowly beat out Andy Danyliu for the mayor’s chair. With Danyliu unable to run next year (he didn’t file 2005 financial statements by the legislated deadline), there will be a need for someone to fill his shoes. And one or two individuals from the anti-sports complex forces may be up to the task, namely Coun. Jim Garlick or Terri Jones, spokesman for the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee.

Corner’s standing as mayor has suffered through the referendum process, largely because he’s also chairman of the Greater Vernon Services Committee, which did an abysmal job of informing the public about the need for a complex and the associated costs. But a year is forever in politics and I wouldn’t rule Corner out for a second term because the public’semory is often short.As an example, Coldstream residents were upset that a new municipal office was constructed despite long-term borrowing being shot down in a 2001 referendum. But that didn’t stop Brian Postill from being re-elected as mayor in 2002.Certainly all eyes will be on Corner to see how, or if, he can help heal the deep divisions within the community. He took the first step by saying he would accept the referendum results and vote against sending the Aberdeen Road application to the Agricultural Land Commission.But not all of the onus is on Corner.The opposition forces always stated they were against a sports complex on Aberdeen Road and not additional recreational facilities, especially for youth. Let’s see if they are now willing to address sports needs in a meaningful way, or if their comments were nothing more than rhetoric.In the end, Saturday’s referendum could be just a blip on the radar or it could have long-term implications for Coldstream.

Coldstream Referendum Results

YES 1189 (35% ) NO 2165 (64%)

It's an issue that has divided the community and 3376 Coldstream residents have voted in the referendum.The question on the ballot, whether council can apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use of more than 100 acres of land on Aberdeen to be used for a sports complex. 1189 voted in favor 2165 voted against There were 22 spoiled ballots.

City administrator Wendy Kay says, she's hoping to have the issue on council's monday agenda

Starlee Speers- Astral Media Radio News, Coldstream

-----------------------------------------

By Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM

Coldstream voters have sent a clear message to District council about using farm land for sports fields. Saturday's referendum question asked if residents supported submitting an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for farmland on Aberdeen Road, to allow for a non- farm use, for the purpose of park-sports fields. The NO side carried the vote by a margin of 64 percent (2,165 votes) to 35% (1,189) for YES. One percent of the votes (22) were rejected.

At the Coldstream elementary polling station, the votes were 1,362 NO (62%), 805 YES (37%). One percent (18) were rejected. In Lavington, the margin of NO was even higher at 73 % (344) to 133 YES (27%). The votor turnout was 3,376 or 68 percent which is considered excellent for a municipal vote.

The referendum was an opinion vote and council is not bound by it but Mayor Gary Corner says he will stand by it when it comes before council Monday night. "I can't speak for all my councillors but in my case, the reason we had this referendum was to get the public's opinion, so as far as my vote is concerned, I will certainly vote against doing that (using the farm land for sports fields).Corner says the 64 percent NO vote shows that residents have a 'deep passion' for that piece of land.

Coldstream to Vote on ALR use for new Sports Complex ! "IF you don't vote don't bitch."

I think Will Hansma of Spall got it right when he said why have a non binding referendum to decide whether land should be excluded from the ALR for a possible sports complex. It should have been referred to the ALR Experts and if they decided that they would approve such a permanent exclusion it could have gone to a binding referendum of Coldstream residents for approval.

Aside from the cost and pitting neighbour against neighbour imagine the day after if the Council is confronted with a narrow 53-47 negative vote (or vice-versa affirmative margin) with a less than 60% turnout. Will enough Councillors defy their voters and put their collective gonads or ovaries on the line and forge ahead. (Sorry blogreaders, couldn't resist metaphor)

Our local councils seem to misunderstand the use of counter petitions when referendums are needed and in this case where non binding referendums are used instead of non prejudicial references to the ALR and other more expert bodies.

Good luck Coldstream. No matter who you agree with go out and vote.
"IF you don't vote don't bitch."

After all only a Councillor who wishes to become an political eunuch or odalisque can discard your vote and substitute his more learned opinion for yours.

Going to referendum - Video

Web posted on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 CHBC VIDEO

The possible development of farmland creates divisions in the north Okanagan.

"No" Signs Vandalised

Betty Selin, Astral Radio News

First it was the vote "yes" signs, now it is the vote "no" signs that have been vandaliaed. Greater Vernon Advocates Committee spokesperson, Sharon Lawrence says all the signs were hand painted and took hours to complete. Ten have either been stolen or broken. A "No" supporter recently donated money to the "yes" side to replace their vandalised signs. The committee is wondering if a "yes" supporter will do the same, as they debate if it's worthwhile to redo the signs ten days before the vote.

GVSC drops the ball

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - December 05, 2007

It’s interesting to listen to the pro-sports complex forces bash the no side. They absolutely insist that the opposition is spreading misinformation about the scope and costs of the proposed facility on Aberdeen Road. And that may possibly be true, but nobody knows for sure because the public is operating in an information vacuum.And that vacuum is completely the responsibility of the Greater Vernon Services Committee.Since the District of Coldstream opted to go to referendum on the land use issue, GVSC has completely sat on its hands. Officials have been so quiet you’d think they’d discovered Velcro. Barely a peep has been made about the design of the facility, and even less has been said about the cost to purchase the land and construct fields and other structures there. As a result of the lack of details, residents have been allowed to speculate or come up with their own interpretation of what is planned. Some of it may be accurate, some of it may not.Certainly sports user groups have attempted to state their case for a complex, but the reality is that they’re technically not in the loop.

All decisions rest completely with GVSC and only that agency can answer to the matter at hand.Recently, chairman Gary Corner defended not providing more information prior to the Dec. 15 referendum.“The problem we have is this really isn’t a GVSC issue right now,” he said. But Corner tends to ignore the facts. It was GVSC that put together the idea for a complex. It was GVSC that offered to purchase a chunk of land from Coldstream Ranch. It was GVSC that made a preliminary approach to the Agricultural Land Commission about changing the land use on Aberdeen Road. It was GVSC that ultimately sent an ALC application to the District of Coldstream, which triggered community debate and the referendum.For Corner to say it’s not a GVSC issue is a joke. And ultimately the joke is going to be on GVSC because the lack of information and the perceived arrogance of officials could lead to a resounding no vote Dec. 15.

There’s been some talk about GVSC putting together an information campaign now. But it’s too late. The damage has been done. GVSC has allowed the opposition forces to take control of the issue and any wrong information has taken on a life of its own. At the 11th hour, it is highly unlikely that any effort would be effective. The only thing that could save GVSC’s bacon is the sports users rallying their troops and residents of a like-mind. Dec. 15’s vote is going to become a numbers game and it’s going to be crucial for both the yes and no sides to get their people out. And while the divide within Coldstream is pretty deep, there is a small group of residents who are undecided. They see the merits to a sports complex, but there are concerns about the loss of agricultural land. Their ultimate decision could send one side over the top. But no matter what happens during the referendum, one thing is clear — GVSC has bungled the matter completely and avoided its responsibility to those who pay the bills — the taxpayer.

Anonymous Donation to Repair 'YES' Signs

By Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM

There's a new development to the story about some Coldstream referendum signs that were
vandalised. More than 20 of the signs supporting a YES vote were torn down or destroyed earlier this week. Now, an anonymous Coldstream resident has made a one thousand dollar donation to the YES campaign to make up for the damage and mend some fences. Bill Tarr from the Outdoor Sports User Group says a note that came with the money, said the person supported the NO side, but was disappointed at what took place. 'This is very important for our community because we really feel that the community does not need to be divided on this and that we can work together. This is very impressive for somebody to come forward and offer up to replace the signs.'Tarr says the money was left in an envelope at the work place of councillor Jim Garlick who passed it on to the group

Referendum Signs Hit by Vandals

Betty Selin, Atral Radio News

The Coldstream referendum is less than three weeks away, but things have already gotten ugly.
The Vote Yes to Parks Committee is shocked that almost half of their signs have been vandalised. Spokesperson, Bill Tarr says 16 of their 35 signs were vandalised in less than 8 hours. The signs cover a 6 kilometre area, so they don't think it's kids. Some of their vote yes signs had "No" spray painted over while others were torn down. Tarr says the signs cost over one-thousand dollars and the money was donated by several sports groups. Coldstream Residents will vote on December 15th on whether the application for non-farm use of the land on Aberdeen to allow for an outdoor sports complex should be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission.

Complex issues go unanswered

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - November 25, 2007

The Greater Vernon Services Committee is refusing to get into specifics about a proposed sports complex. Directors received and filed a letter from a Coldstream couple questioning the cost of the facility planned for Aberdeen Road and whether other sites have been considered. Chairman Gary Corner defended not debating the issue.“The problem we have is this really isn’t a GVSC issue right now,” he said.Currently, the District of Coldstream is being asked by the GVSC to forward a land use change application to the Agricultural Land Commission for consideration. Coldstream council has decided to put the matter before residents in a Dec. 15 referendum. If the vote is successful, the ALC would ultimately decide the fate of the land use issue.“If there is approval from the ALC it would come back to the GVSC and we would deal with it,” said Corner, who is also mayor of Coldstream.

But the Coldstream Ratepayers’ Association says a lack of discussion now shows GVSC is avoiding its responsibilities.“It’s their issue, it’s their request,” said Andy Danyliu, association president.“Coldstream is simply responding to their request.”Danyliu added that GVSC initiated the entire process by offering to purchase the Aberdeen Road site from Coldstream Ranch. Danyliu is also concerned about the process that would be followed if the referendum passes and GVSC proceeds with planning for a complex. “Coldstream will never have a say again on the issue,” he said, referring to the fact that Coldstream only holds one vote on the GVSC board compared to three for Vernon and one each for the adjacent electoral areas.

Corner is confident the Aberdeen Road property is ideal for a sports complex and he is hopeful the referendum will be successful.“I understand the opposition to it but you’ll find there’s a fair bit of support,” he said.Danyliu has suggested alternate locations for a complex which he believes should be considered. Among them is a site south of the landfill, which Danyliu insists would be better suited for adult-oriented ball tournaments while youth sports could be closer to residential neighbourhoods.“What I am trying to do is separate the adults from the children,” he said.

---------

GVSC can’t avoid issue Nov 25 Editorial

Recent comments from Greater Vernon Services Committee chairman Gary Corner would be laughable if they weren’t so concerning. After the committee filed a letter about the proposed Aberdeen Road sports complex, Corner said, “The problem we have is this really isn’t a GVSC issue right now.”Not a GVSC issue right now?Isn’t it the committee that has offered to purchase the land from Coldstream Ranch? And isn’t it GVSC seeking a land use change from the Agricultural Land Commission? It should also be pointed out that the District of Coldstream is only considering a referral to the ALC because it has been asked to – once again by GVSC.

It’s increasingly obvious there’s a significant need for additional sports facilities and the Aberdeen Road site is a suitable location because of its proximity to existing Coldstream and Vernon neighbourhoods. But that said, why is GVSC hiding from very legitimate questions about the proposal? As an example, the letter filed by the board dealt with overall costs and alternate sites.And these questions will continue to persist unless GVSC politicians and staff deal with them head-on. With full information out there – including about the complex design – perhaps public support would grow.Being transparent would also counter some of the misinformation coming from opposition forces. In the end, GVSC initiated the entire sports complex process and it’s time to do the right thing and take ownership for the issue.

GVSC must divulge figures

November 16, 2007 EDITORIAL Morning Star

What does the Greater Vernon Services Committee have to hide? GVSC excuses that costs for the proposed Aberdeen Road sports complex can’t be released because specific details aren’t finalized are growing tiresome. The electorate is intelligent enough to know that any design is a work in progress and the costs may change. But as Coldstream residents head to the polls Dec. 15 on the agricultural land use issue, they deserve a rough idea of what the project could cost. Keep in mind that taxes keep escalating in Coldstream and GVSC water rates have skyrocketed. As a result, residents are increasingly concerned about the hit in the wallet and how much worse the situation could get. It makes sense that the price of the land remains confidential because that is part of purchase negotiations, but there is no good reason to withhold cost estimates for the fields and any related infrastructure.

And focusing on the financial breakdown between Greater Vernon jurisdictions and the use of reserves and development cost charges is just a smoke-screen. Ultimately, taxpayers throughout Greater Vernon would have to cough up cash for a sports complex and that should be acknowledged by GVSC. By not doing so, all GVSC does is alienate residents further and feed conspiracy theories that the costs will be extravagant. With just a month left before the Coldstream referendum, it is time for GVSC and Coldstream politicians to be completely transparent about how they want to spend public dollars.

Contradictions abound

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - November 14, 2007

The contradiction wasn’t that obvious and it certainly wasn’t picked up by North Okanagan Regional District officials. Last Wednesday, directors unanimously agreed not to forward an application from a BX resident to the Agricultural Land Commission to use his land for a seniors care home. Staff indicated that property in the Agricultural Land Reserve is not on the table for conversion to other uses, and that concept was hardly challenged by the politicians. But on the other side of Aberdeen Road from the NORD office is 118 acres of prime farm land many of the same politicians want to purchase and turn 60 acres into a sports complex.

NORD directors may suggest the situations are completely different. That the BX property would be permanently removed from the ALR while the Aberdeen Road site would remain within the land freeze, just the use would change. But that’s just smoke and mirrors because once millions of dollars are invested in sports fields, farming is gone forever.NORD may also make the argument that it is in the interest of the entire community to have sports fields for recreational, social and economic purposes. But with our aging population, wouldn’t a seniors care home also serve the public’s interest? I am not going to comment on whether the Aberdeen Road site should be converted into sports fields. But certainly the directors should realize the argument to do so is undermined when they are not willing to follow the same rules they forces on to others, or the recommendations of their own planning staff.

Contradiction, though, isn’t just reserved for those sitting at the NORD board. Opponents to the Aberdeen Road sports complex have stated the location is poor because it will force people to drive there, creating traffic problems and pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Their alternative — a chunk of property just south of the Greater Vernon landfill on Highway 97. With this site being halfway to Oyama, everyone would have to drive there, creating traffic headaches in their gas-guzzling, environmentally reckless automobiles. At least with the Aberdeen Road property, it would be within walking and bicycling distance for many Coldstream residents, as well as some from Vernon.

I am all for looking at other potential options for a sports complex, but they actually have to have some merit. Keeping with the same subject, the Coldstream Ratepayers Association is right to demand some financial costs for the proposed complex. How can the public actually determine if that site and the proposed design are worth supporting if they don’t have a sense of the long-term financial implications? The Greater Vernon Services Committee — an arm of NORD — states that providing a cost now is useless because the scope of the project could change. And that may be true, but a ballpark figure would be better than nothing. GVSC must remember that taxpayers from Coldstream, Vernon and Areas B and C would be paying for the land purchase and any improvements, so they have a right to know how hard they could be hit in the wallet.

And finally I found recent comments from Jim Garlick, a Coldstream councillor, surprising and somewhat troubling.Wanting the Dec. 15 referendum in Coldstream to fail, Garlick said, “If we go ahead with this, I see no use in being there (on council) anymore.” That sounds like the kid, who not liking how the game is going, storms off the field with his ball.Was Garlick elected to represent all of Coldstream or just those he agrees with? Is he saying he knows better than the electorate?

A complex debate CHBC VIDEO

A complex debate - Video CHBC
Web posted on Wednesday, 07 November 2007

An ambitious proposed sports facility in generates controversy in Coldstream.

Ratepayers target Aberdeen sports complex

Vernon Morningstar Nov 2.

An organized effort is being made to spread awareness about the implications of a proposed sports complex.The Coldstream Ratepayers’ Association is gathering the community for a town hall meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Coldstream Elementary gymnasium.All residents who are in favour of preserving agriculture land are invited to attend.The association hopes to educate the public on the implications of the sports complex project prior to an upcoming referendum. Voters will be asked Dec. 15 if they support Coldstream Council submitting an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for a 188-acre parcel of Coldstream Ranch lands. The application requests non-farm use for the land at 9325 Aberdeen Road for the purpose of a park/sports fields.If a majority support the referendum question and the project proceeds, Coldstream Ratepayers Association president Andy Danyliu wants to inform residents about the possible implications.

He points to traffic impacts and the irreversible damage that could be done to the land if the project proceeds as currently planned, with a stadium and 1,000-car parking lot.“I think it’s important that people understand that if council were sincere then council would have no objection to placing a covenant on the land that no permanent building be put on the land for at least 20 years,” said Danyliu, demanding that the project provides a compromise between what is planned and what local residents would like to see.“I personally would withdraw my objections if a covenant were put in place, and I don’t expect I would be the only one.”The association has also sent out letters to residents to sign and send to council if they do not support the ALC application, do not support the referendum but do support preserving prime farmland.While the future of any plans are in Coldstream’s hands, Danyliu reminds residents that this a key time for the community to speak up and be heard.“Once the land is bought there is no obligation for the GVSC (Greater Vernon Services Commission) to come back to us for anything.”

He also reminds residents that since no dollar figures on the project costs are being released, they are being asked to sign a blank cheque.“We’re talking about public funds which could go up to $20, $30, $40 million, who knows?”Danyliu has also suggested alternative land options for the project. Those include land just south of the Greater Vernon landfill on Highway 97 and land along Old Kamloops Road that could be incorporated into Kin Race Track.GVSC chairman Gary Corner, who is also the mayor of Coldstream, has stated that these options have been considered but that the Aberdeen Road land is best suited for the project.The project proposal includes fields for baseball, soccer, football, slo-pitch, dog agility and a stadium. Planners have stated in the past that these are just preliminary plans and that details can be changed.

Complex alternatives offered

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - October 28, 2007

The Greater Vernon Services Committee is being accused of ignoring other locations for a sports complex.The Coldstream Ratepayers Association claims GVSC is so focused on a sports complex on Aberdeen Road that two other potentially viable sites aren’t being explored.“If we can find these things, why can’t the people with six-figure salaries find them?” said Andy Danyliu, association president, of GVSC staff.Danyliu says a 78-acre parcel just south of the Greater Vernon landfill on Highway 97 would be ideal for sports fields because of its view of Kalamalka Lake.“It opens up the vistas to the tourism industry,” he said, adding there would be opportunities for hiking trails which appeal to many residents.He also believes major sports events could also be held there without disrupting existing neighbourhoods.

“The only ones they would disturb are the coyotes and the cattle,” said Danyliu.Half of the Highway 97 site is in the Agricultural Land Reserve while the remainder is out. Danyliu describes that portion in the ALR as being marginal farm land.The owner of the property, who asked not to be named, confirms he has talked to GVSC.The price tag is $1.8 million, but the owner says he would deduct part of the cost for levelling the grade.“We would sell it to the regional district for $1.3 million,” he said of the property which has been on the market for a year.

Beyond this site, Danyliu is urging GVSC to look at land along Old Kamloops Road that could be incorporated into Kin Race Track.He says such a plan would breathe new life into the race track and benefit nearby motels, hotels and shops.Danyliu’s group opposes turning the 118 acres on Aberdeen Road into a sports complex, but if that site proceeds, he insists it should be restricted to just playing fields.“I challenge them to put a covenant on the land so no permanent building can be put on it for 20 years,” he said of the need to preserve the agricultural integrity of that land.

Gary Corner, GVSC chairman, denies Danyliu’s claims.“We’ve been looking for sites for years. We have looked at options,” he said.According to Corner, the Highway 97 site near the landfill is too steep.“Staff looked at the property and determined about 50 acres is only useable,” he said.He added that GVSC’s attempts to purchase land north of Kin Race Track have been unsuccessful in the past and it is too expensive because of the potential for commercial development there.Corner, who is Coldstream’s mayor, stands behind the Aberdeen Road property.,“This isn’t about a big stadium. This would be similar to what’s in Polson Park but with soccer fields,” he said.A referendum will be held Dec. 15, asking Coldstream residents if they support council submitting an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use at 9325 Aberdeen Road, for the purpose of a park/sports field.

Council debates referendum question

Morningstar Oct 24

Coldstream voters will be heading to the polls sooner than expected.Despite suggestions that a referendum be held in conjunction with the November 2008 election, the district will be seeking the opinion of residents Dec. 15, 2007.Residents will be asked if they support council submitting an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for non-farm use at 9325 Aberdeen Road, for the purpose of a park/sports field.The 188-acre Coldstream Ranch lands, commonly known as the Spicer Block, are proposed to be partially developed with a sports complex. The 60-acre footprint includes: parking for 1,000 vehicles, four dog agility fields, two baseball fields for ages five to nine, a soccer/rugby field, one football/rugby/ultimate field, four soccer pitches (two with lights), six slo-pitch/fastball fields (two with lights) and a lit stadium with a track and football field plus room for a banquet hall, storage, offices, washrooms, change rooms and bleachers.

While these details are not written in stone, they are about the only pieces of information residents are being given about the project.Officials are not releasing cost estimates of the project, and that has several voters up in arms.“What informed consumer considers buying any item without first knowing the cost?” questioned resident Joyce Gershony at Monday’s council meeting.

Another resident, John Hegler, questioned Coun. Mary Malerby (who he referred to as Mrs. Mulberry) for changing her position from the initial Sept. 11 public meeting after seeing a petition of 2,500 with 686 Coldstream names signed in support of the project.“If this was passed at the Coldstream meeting and I came to you with a 1,000-signature petition, would you change your mind? Of course not,” said Hegler.Malerby defends her position, saying she felt she owed 686 Coldstream residents a voice.Council also debated the wording of the referendum question, which originally stated that this is a proposal for change of use, not removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Coun. Bill Firman said essentially there is no difference, referring to the Coldstream Meadows application, which was still able to develop with non-farm use status, but just had conditions.“You’re trying to pretend that non-ALR use is any less intrusive than removing land from the ALR,” said Firman. “You’re saying ‘don’t worry about this, this is not a drastic event.’”Coun. Jim Garlick, agreed.“There’s no way that land will go back to agricultural use. You’re playing with words and if you’re going to play games that’s silly. Don’t do it,” said Garlick.“Because people don’t think too much anyway.”The Dec. 15 referendum date was set according to the Community Charter and Local Government Act, which states that a date must be set for other voting opportunities within 80 days of the resolution being passed by council. The decision to hold a referendum was passed at council’s Oct. 9 meeting, after Coun. Glen Taylor pushed those against the project to reconsider and look at the number of local residents for the project. A referendum costs anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000.

-------------

Don Quixote Note: Vernon Council passed a resolution on Oct. 12 to go to a referendum on Jan 26 on the Library/Complex issue. The # of days between that resolution date and the referendum is 107 days. If the above section of the Charter is stated correctly then Vernon may have problems? Of course the actual question that will be posed has not been set and perhaps that resolution when passed will comfortably fit within the 80 day window?

Research update: LGA ACT

General voting day for other voting: Section 162 (b) in the case of a bylaw or other matter for which an alternative approval process was provided, not more than 80 days after the deadline for receiving elector responses under section 86 [alternative approval process] of the Community Charter;

(d) in the case of other bylaws, not more than 80 days after the day the bylaw receives third reading;
(e) in the case of another matter, not more than 80 days after adoption of the authorizing bylaw or resolution.

Don Quixote Opinion: (For what it is worth)

It appears that the Coldstream referendum is not constrained by a 80 day rule under (b) as it never was part of an alternative approval process but is under either one of 'd or e'.

Vernon would seem to fit this (b) criteria but the Question used in the original alternative process of 'long term financing of 20 million over 20 years" will be substantially changed. If the question is whether the actual project and location should proceed with a long term borrowing of 'x" dollars then this would be a new referendum question and the 80 day rule would apply starting from the day of the actual resolution. It appears that the resolution question must be set by Nov 8th or later for the Jan 26th 2008 referendum date to conform to the LGA regulations.

Lot of legal mumble jumble signifying nothing !

Referendum Date Set

Sun FM

Just ten days before Christmas, Coldstream residents will be voting in a referendum. Rather than the proposed date, council voted to hold the vote December 15th. Residents will decide if they support council sending an application to the Agricultural Land Commission for the non-farm use of land for sports fields. Several hundred people signed a petition asking council to allow the referendum regarding the property at Highway 6 and Aberdeen being used as a sports complex.