Comments on "Costs clarified for proposed sports fields – By Jennifer Smith - Vernon Morning Star"

The following article was written by Jennifer Smith in the November 16th edition of the Morning Star with comments in blue by The Eagle.

Coldstream residents are being given a better idea of what a proposed sports complex could cost them.

Mayor Gary Corner is concerned with some of the incorrect information spreading, such as cost estimates that have been thrown around in the $30 million range.

That is easy to correct. Give as an honest estimate of the costs. Something better than was given for the cost of the Master water Plan.

“That’s just insane,” said Corner of the amount which he suspects will be a lot less.

Costs on the actual project aren’t being released because details of what will be included on the land would still need to be finalized.

Greater Vernon Services Committee parks and recreation administrator Al McNiven confirms there will be a public input meeting to refine the details – if the project is given the public blessing from the Dec. 15 referendum and then approved by the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hopefully that will not be necessary.

For Coldstream, any costs of the project would be 17.6 per cent, as a GVSC member (Vernon and Areas B and C would pick up the remainder).

GVSC is in a major turmoil. The electoral area directors want to pull out from GVSC, thus, the whole structure of GVSC will change or be disbanded. What will Coldstream share be if the electoral areas pull out? What will be the governance structure of GVSC if those areas are no longer participating? Right now Vernon has three directors the electoral areas have two directors and Coldstream has one. What will be Coldstream role if we have one director versus three directors from Vernon? Would we have any voice? It’s bad enough as it is at present.

For the purchase price, McNiven says development cost charges (which developers pay into), the land acquisition reserve and funds from the 2005 parks borrowing referendum would be used.

“So that’s money we already have, all of this is,” said McNiven.

He confirms that $1.3 million would be used from the parks referendum borrowing funds, therefore Coldstream would pay 17.6 per cent or $228,800, plus interest, to be paid back over 20 years.

“And any construction costs, again Coldstream’s portion is 17.6 per cent.”

With the addition of the proposed playing fields the number of playing fields will increase well above the maximum recommended needs. We have problems maintaining the existing fields with our present budget. How well we manage the maintenance and upkeep of the present and the additional fields? How much additional taxes will be required?Just a few comments and questions!

For construction costs, McNiven adds that there has been no discussions about borrowing funds.

The idea is the construction would be like that of DND or Marshall Fields, which were built over time with money from the annual capital budget.

Corner reminds residents that the costs would also be affected by contributions from sports groups (the user groups have committed $1 million over five years).

That commitment cannot be enforced. Any change in the financial status of the sports groups could change their commitment.

McNiven also estimates that the footprint of the proposed complex could end up being closer to 80 acres, rather than the initial estimation of 60 acres on the 118-acre plot.

That is a remarkable comment. If the plan really changed as Mr McNiven indicated at the September 11th meeting with reduced number of parking stalls, elimination of the proposed banquet facilities such an increase in foot print is difficult to justify.

******************************