Oxbow RV Resort - Offer to Purchase

[Darkre]

Could you post a couple of the links twobits? The only ones I was able to find were completed in 2011 using data from 2006. Not exactly relevant considering how much things have changed in the last 10 years. It would also be interesting to see what they classify wineries as. Agriculture or Agritourism? That could have a profound effect on the numbers due to the proliferation of wineries since 2006.

[southy]

Could you post a couple of the links twobits? The only ones I was able to find were completed in 2011 using data from 2006. Not exactly relevant considering how much things have changed in the last 10 years. It would also be interesting to see what they classify wineries as. Agriculture or Agritourism? That could have a profound effect on the numbers due to the proliferation of wineries since 2006.

Here is some interesting information - perhaps not as specific as Twobits but some good overview numbers.

http://www.penticton.ca/assets/Business ... rofile.pdf

And this link to provincial park camping:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/resear ... 4396800042

[Darkre]

Those reports aren't very helpful Southy. As you said they lack specific numbers. What's worse is that the report swaps between talking specifically about Penticton and the region as a whole.

As someone that RV's I hate to see the loss of even more RV lots but as a taxpayer in Penticton I recognize that the RV crowd doesn't contribute anywhere near the same amount to the town as the hotel crowd. Most RVer's bring their own food and beverages with them. They might do some of the more touristy things in town but are usually content to stay on site and just relax. The biggest hit in Penticton if we lose these RV sites would probably be to the operations geared towards kids.

[Poindexter]

Suppose the question is, do we want to be a retirement community, tourist destination or both?

I tend to think we need both and should think twice before adding more high end condos at the expense of camping spots because once they pave over the land, there's no going back.

[twobits]

Suppose the question is, do we want to be a retirement community, tourist destination or both?

I tend to think we need both and should think twice before adding more high end condos at the expense of camping spots because once they pave over the land, there's no going back.

Who should think twice? Simple question. If you owned a piece of property operating as a campground that netted you 9k/yr that was worth a million dollars plus and you had an offer to purchase it, would you sell it or think that it was your duty to preserve camping facilities?
I doubt it. And why should the City be in the business of subsidizing campgrounds for private profit? Remember too, that this is not public parkland.....it is just a chunk of land across the road from the beach that is not logical to annex into parkland.

[fluffy]

But isn't that's the same line of reasoning that necessitated the ALR? I'm not one to tell a private property owner what he/she can or can't do with their own property, but most of the land under consideration here is a public asset so, like many other tourism focused ventures on city property, we have the option to make profit a secondary consideration. We are a tourist town and there are plenty of businesses that depend on summer traffic to make their nut for the whole year.

[Bunnyhop]

Good point twobits.

Although the CoP subsidizes "for profit" events like Challenge, ITU Multisport, Ironman Canada, (does Gran Fondo get city money?) on the premise that all of those athlete tourists will spend money around town. Same can be said for the campground tourists?

On the other hand, selling the property would bring some cash that the city could use for upgrading infrastructure. That money has to come from somewhere.

[twobits]

I'm not one to tell a private property owner what he/she can or can't do with their own property, but most of the land under consideration here is a public asset so, like many other tourism focused ventures on city property, we have the option to make profit a secondary consideration.

The lease rate has to reflect what a decent return on the value of the asset would be if it is for private commercial use. Anything short of that is a public subsidy for a private profit. Does the Trio sweet deal ring any bells? The City also owns numerous houses and they are rented out at market rates despite the fact that we have a problem with affordable rentals. Should the City discount rents for these homes as well to help the situation or is it beyond the mandate of a local government? I think it is.
The other aspect to this property use is competition. People lament the disappearance of campgrounds. It is all about higher value uses displacing these campgrounds. There are lands where campgrounds would be suitable but who is going to invest in the land and improvements when there is competition that only has to pay 9k a yr for the same facility and can walk away from it with no loss at end of lease?

Edit to add- If the City is going to be in the campground business, then they should run it themselves with the profits of operations flowing thru to the taxpayer that owns the asset. The water slide fiasco might have been completely different too had it been a City venture. Not sure I would want to see that kind of participation in enterprise by a City gov't but it is way more palatable than for profit private with taxpayer assets.
Summerland has municipal land that is leased to operators of a campground. That one makes sense as the land is not under pressure for a higher use.......it's farmland.

[fluffy]

So in your mind it would be better for the City to cancel the lease and put the current operators on payroll than to continue with the current arrangement? I mean as opposed to raising the lease rate to "market value" which may just render the business unable to compete and ultimately result in the loss of that campsite? Actually you've already answered the second question, let's stick with the first.

[Darkre]

The website for the Oxbow is terrible. I actually couldn't find the daily/weekly rates anywhere. They did however have monthly rates posted. To rent one site year round costs $7250. It appears that this includes power, water and sewer but again the website is pretty bad. As they are limited to a 50 amp breaker power consumption wouldn't be that much but even if we allow for $2250/yr for utilities it would only take 2 yearly rentals to pay for the lease on the 2 city owned pieces of property.

Maybe the city should look at using these properties for low income type housing. $600 a month including utilities is very reasonable, especially in this area. This is a complete guess but if there are 30 sites on the city owned land that would mean over $200,000 a year to the city. If they can get the provincial government to provide the modulars as they have indicated this would mean a lot more revenue for the city and help solve some of our housing crisis.

[Bsuds]

The website for the Oxbow is terrible. I actually couldn't find the daily/weekly rates anywhere. They did however have monthly rates posted. To rent one site year round costs $7250. It appears that this includes power, water and sewer but again the website is pretty bad. As they are limited to a 50 amp breaker power consumption wouldn't be that much but even if we allow for $2250/yr for utilities it would only take 2 yearly rentals to pay for the lease on the 2 city owned pieces of property.

Maybe the city should look at using these properties for low income type housing. $600 a month including utilities is very reasonable, especially in this area. This is a complete guess but if there are 30 sites on the city owned land that would mean over $200,000 a year to the city. If they can get the provincial government to provide the modulars as they have indicated this would mean a lot more revenue for the city and help solve some of our housing crisis.

Found them on a review site and Summer rate was $56 and off season $46 which is pretty high for an RV park with Wifi not included either. The owners/Mgmnt were reviewed as being rather rude. As an RVer myself I would probably not go here.
They only have 30A service as well which makes it difficult to run A/C and anything else at the same time.

[twobits]

So in your mind it would be better for the City to cancel the lease and put the current operators on payroll than to continue with the current arrangement? I mean as opposed to raising the lease rate to "market value" which may just render the business unable to compete and ultimately result in the loss of that campsite? Actually you've already answered the second question, let's stick with the first.

In my mind it would be best if the City received the highest rate of return as possible for the owners of the property. That would not include a campground operation that subsidizes a for profit private operation. And my position is consistent with my view that the City had no business leasing for cheap (at best unknown and speculative rate) of extremely valuable lakefront property of Skaha Lake.
The City should be in no shape or form be subsidizing private enterprise for profit. I'll even extend that further in that it really irritates mean to see all of the money and "in kind" services we provide for all the bike races etc. To me, the people that should be funding these for profit enterprises should be the people benefiting from these events. The Accommodation industry and food services as two examples. If they think these events are so worthwhile.......let them pony up the dough! And if they don't, then what and to whose benefit are these performances? They certainly don't benefit me and quite frankly, I don't think they benefit the majority of the taxpayer.
There's the devil's advocate position for ya lol.

[fluffy]

I still can't pull awY from the thought that real estate prices have been eating away at our tourist services for a long time now, and that in itself may be playing a part in the apparent drop in tourism numbers. I would support any effort by the city to bolster the tourist industry even if it means forgoing potential revenues from the outright sale of city assets. At the very least a prime chunk of real estate stays in public hands for the time being as opposed to trading it off for short term gain.

This is probably all academic anyways, after the Skaha Park blowout the city will be treading lightly around any possible repeat performances, and real estate developers are a prime target for demonization by some of the more vocal elements of our citizenry.

[twobits]

I still can't pull awY from the thought that real estate prices have been eating away at our tourist services for a long time now, and that in itself may be playing a part in the apparent drop in tourism numbers. I would support any effort by the city to bolster the tourist industry even if it means forgoing potential revenues from the outright sale of city assets. At the very least a prime chunk of real estate stays in public hands for the time being as opposed to trading it off for short term gain.

This is probably all academic anyways, after the Skaha Park blowout the city will be treading lightly around any possible repeat performances, and real estate developers are a prime target for demonization by some of the more vocal elements of our citizenry.

Or is it just nostalgia to a past business model and industry niche? Imo, tourism will continue to be a player here just because of our weather and amenities. It just won't be camp grounds close to the beach and people coming to buy boxes of fruit to take home to can.
And campgrounds will continue to exist if there is a demand for them. They just won't be on real estate that is too high a value for that use. It makes about as much sense as saying the vacant Gables property downtown could be a Campground. The land is just too valuable.

[Bunnyhop]

Agree with twobits on the subsidies and "in kind" contributions by the city to for profit endeavours. Let those people and/or businesses that benefit do the contributing.