Editorial: So much for the Pump Track
By Spencer Hall
After reading the Valemount Council report published in The Goat’s Dec 19th issue, I was incredibly disappointed to learn that VARDA is unable to move forward with its pump track project.
In a letter to Valemount Council, executive director of VARDA Curtis Pawliuk said after “several rounds of back and forth” with Village staff, the association determined that options proposed by the Village were not viable for the association.
Significant barriers highlighted by Pawliuk were VARDA having to cover annual property taxes and surveying costs, as well as the price of insurance and planning for the asset’s management lifecycle.
Valemount is a mountain biking village and for those not quite confident in their mountain biking abilities, pump tracks are a fabulous way to work on those crucial beginner skills before hitting the trails. They build confidence in beginner riders, which can help to prevent injury. They also provide a no-cost child and youth friendly space. You don’t need an expensive mountain bike to use a pump track, you can use a basic bike to hone your skills. This would make Valemount more accessible to those who don’t usually mountain bike, but want to learn.
I understand the Village has a legal obligation to plan for the replacement of its assets, but in my opinion assuming each asset will need replacing within 20 years is a bit silly and not grounded in reality. In a March 26th staff report, Village Land Use Planner Krista Etty estimates the cost of amortization at $47.5K per year, coming to a total of $950K after 20 years. She recommended to council that they decline to take ownership of the proposed pump track due to “financial implications.”
In her report, Etty included a budget plan that outlined the estimated costs for the project, which included replacement insurance, track maintenance, washroom costs, amenities, and amortization. In total, Etty estimated the total cost of the track to be about $1,629,269 over 20 years, equating to an 8.4 per cent tax increase for residents.
Another option presented by the Village was that VARDA lease the land from the Village to the tune of about $169,882, which includes a $10K surveying cost. While Yanciw says the Village understands the association not wanting to take the pump track on as an asset, VARDA Committee Chair Sean Kelly told The Goat the association didn’t have a problem taking on the asset, but had trouble getting land designated and allowed for the placement of the track.
I don’t believe it’s fair for the Village to demand a non-profit to cover property taxes on free community assets built on village-owned land, especially on a non-revenue generating asset that is being built to enhance the lives of those who live in Valemount and those who visit our community. These are the same principles the Village was founded on: to facilitate village-wide assets that make Valemount a better place to live.
In her report, Etty said feedback from one community estimated its annual maintenance costs for its pump track at $25-30K. However, according to feedback collected by Maggie Inrig and Sean Kelly on behalf of Project Pump It Up, only a small percentage of this figure is used on track maintenance. In fact, those who provided feedback from all five communities Kelly and Inrig spoke to said that the asphalt tracks required very little maintenance. This research was shared with Village staff.
Etty estimated the annual maintenance cost of the proposed Valemount pump track to be $15,000, though it’s unclear how much of this figure would go toward maintaining the track itself.
Another factor adding to my disappointment is that Project Pump It Up was a resident-led initiative with a significant amount of community support. I hope this isn’t how the Village intends to treat all possible projects brought forth by the community. In this case, the Village should’ve offered more opportunities to negotiate terms of the potential lease agreement and asset management plan. I feel that if this had been done, it could have made a difference in the outcome of this project.
