Public interest ignored
By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star
Published: December 07, 2010 7:00 PM
The dispute over Greater Vernon parks, recreation and culture is starting to tread into dangerous territory.
At today’s North Okanagan Regional District board meeting, BX-Silver Star director Mike Macnabb will present a notice of motion that could be discussed in early January.
The motion reads: “That the parties in the Greater Vernon parks, recreation and culture service (namely Vernon, Coldstream, Area B and Area C) be requested to provide their respective consent to an orderly wind down of the service by Dec. 31, 2011.”
The old Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District was formed back in the 1970s so the four jurisdictions that make up Greater Vernon could provide programs and facilities for all residents in a cost-effective manner. The structure of the function has evolved over the years, but the basic principle has remained the same: a collaborative approach to meeting the needs of the public.
There is the prospect that Wesbild Centre, the Performing Arts Centre and Grey Canal trail could become the anchors of a smaller, more focused service. Virtually everything else would shift into the domain of the individual jurisdictions.
That may not be a huge issue for Vernon as its employees already provide the services under contract to the North Okanagan Regional District. But for Coldstream and NORD, a significant expense could arise if staff and equipment must be acquired for their parks and facilities.
Vernon taxpayers could also be digging deeper as they would be completely responsible for all facilities within the city (presently they cover about 70 per cent, with the remainder coming from the other three partners). The bill could be hefty for replacement of Civic Arena or major renos to the recreation complex.
Macnabb calls for an “orderly” process but that’s unlikely given that all jurisdictions have paid into the parks and facilities — no matter who owns them — for almost 40 years. In other cases, property in Vernon and Coldstream is actually owned by NORD. There is also money sitting in reserves.
For anyone that’s been divorced, they know that dividing assets can be ugly.
In a worst-case scenario, suggestions could also surface as to who can use the facilities. Will residents from Coldstream and the BX pay more at the pool than their Vernon counterparts? Will only Coldstream residents be allowed to use the fields there? There’s talk of a sports complex next to the college, but can those plans withstand any divisions that erupt?
In a letter to NORD, Macnabb states that Vernon is “very urbanized” compared to the other jurisdictions, and the “current service can no longer meet the unique needs of each participant.” I don’t accept that for a minute, as Macnabb’s own constituents swim at the pool, play minor hockey at the arenas or go for picnics at Polson Park. The so-called rural/urban split is an excuse put forward by politicians on all sides desperate to justify their actions.
Each side blames the other for the mess, but quite frankly, who may have first requested a service review, or who has said what, is increasingly irrelevant.
The bottom line is very little of this debate actually has anything to do with services to the public. It’s all about control over decision-making. A pissing match is putting decades of co-operation at risk.
Is the current parks and recreation structure perfect? No. But instead of grandstanding and inflexibility, it’s time for our elected officials to get back to work. If more local input is needed on parks maintenance, find a way for that to occur. If one partner wants to focus on tot lots, make it happen.
The politicians have been heard ad nauseam but taxpayers haven’t had a voice at the table.
It’s time for residents of Vernon, Coldstream and the electoral areas to tell their elected representatives that they are disappointed with how this issue has been handled, and they expect better.
By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star
Published: December 07, 2010 7:00 PM
The dispute over Greater Vernon parks, recreation and culture is starting to tread into dangerous territory.
At today’s North Okanagan Regional District board meeting, BX-Silver Star director Mike Macnabb will present a notice of motion that could be discussed in early January.
The motion reads: “That the parties in the Greater Vernon parks, recreation and culture service (namely Vernon, Coldstream, Area B and Area C) be requested to provide their respective consent to an orderly wind down of the service by Dec. 31, 2011.”
The old Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District was formed back in the 1970s so the four jurisdictions that make up Greater Vernon could provide programs and facilities for all residents in a cost-effective manner. The structure of the function has evolved over the years, but the basic principle has remained the same: a collaborative approach to meeting the needs of the public.
There is the prospect that Wesbild Centre, the Performing Arts Centre and Grey Canal trail could become the anchors of a smaller, more focused service. Virtually everything else would shift into the domain of the individual jurisdictions.
That may not be a huge issue for Vernon as its employees already provide the services under contract to the North Okanagan Regional District. But for Coldstream and NORD, a significant expense could arise if staff and equipment must be acquired for their parks and facilities.
Vernon taxpayers could also be digging deeper as they would be completely responsible for all facilities within the city (presently they cover about 70 per cent, with the remainder coming from the other three partners). The bill could be hefty for replacement of Civic Arena or major renos to the recreation complex.
Macnabb calls for an “orderly” process but that’s unlikely given that all jurisdictions have paid into the parks and facilities — no matter who owns them — for almost 40 years. In other cases, property in Vernon and Coldstream is actually owned by NORD. There is also money sitting in reserves.
For anyone that’s been divorced, they know that dividing assets can be ugly.
In a worst-case scenario, suggestions could also surface as to who can use the facilities. Will residents from Coldstream and the BX pay more at the pool than their Vernon counterparts? Will only Coldstream residents be allowed to use the fields there? There’s talk of a sports complex next to the college, but can those plans withstand any divisions that erupt?
In a letter to NORD, Macnabb states that Vernon is “very urbanized” compared to the other jurisdictions, and the “current service can no longer meet the unique needs of each participant.” I don’t accept that for a minute, as Macnabb’s own constituents swim at the pool, play minor hockey at the arenas or go for picnics at Polson Park. The so-called rural/urban split is an excuse put forward by politicians on all sides desperate to justify their actions.
Each side blames the other for the mess, but quite frankly, who may have first requested a service review, or who has said what, is increasingly irrelevant.
The bottom line is very little of this debate actually has anything to do with services to the public. It’s all about control over decision-making. A pissing match is putting decades of co-operation at risk.
Is the current parks and recreation structure perfect? No. But instead of grandstanding and inflexibility, it’s time for our elected officials to get back to work. If more local input is needed on parks maintenance, find a way for that to occur. If one partner wants to focus on tot lots, make it happen.
The politicians have been heard ad nauseam but taxpayers haven’t had a voice at the table.
It’s time for residents of Vernon, Coldstream and the electoral areas to tell their elected representatives that they are disappointed with how this issue has been handled, and they expect better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above column was published in the Morning Star and it requires a critical review. Once again I must emphasize that the comments that follow are that of this writer's and may not represent the entire Coldstream Council. So, here it goes.
Mr Rolke has more questions than answers. Had he asked the right people he could actually inform his readers rather than asking them questions.
As Mr Rolke notes that “The old Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District was formed back in the 1970s”. He should have also noted that the five (5) participants were Vernon, Coldstream and Electoral Areas A, B and C. There was a balance in the governance of the service; none of the individual participants could ride roughshod over the others. As it stands now there are three Directors at NORD from Vernon, one each from Electoral Area’s B and C and one from Coldstream. After the next census Vernon is expected to gain another Director, thus, Vernon could effectively dictate everything related to Greater Vernon Parks as well as to Greater Vernon Water. There will no longer be a need for consensus or amicable agreements. Vernon could vote in any change they desired. The balanced governance model would be out the window.
The initial GVPRD agreement was quite narrow in scope and included the newly built Recreation Centre and Swimming Pool, which were the principal reason for the partnership, the Civic Arena and a number of existing parks.
As years went by various other facilities and programs were patched on to the system without a thorough assessment of the consequences on the partnership. Eventually the function became large and complicated. A review to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the service became necessary. It is quite easy to visualize that what was agreed upon in the early 1970's and patched up over subsequent years might not be the ideal partnership in 2010.
At present all Coldstream parks (with the exception of small tot lots) are signed over to NORD by Coldstream. Vernon declined to sign over some of their properties (such as Kal Beach, Kal Beach Parking, Marshall Fields, etc.) yet they are being maintained as part of the community complex. Why should those parks not be part of NORD properties?
Coldstream contributes about $1.3 million to the parks service in addition to the financing costs of the Theatre and the Wesbild Centre. It would be irresponsible for Coldstream Council not to ensure that these funds contributed by their taxpayers are providing the expected values.
While the function is administered under the auspices of NORD the operation of the service is contracted to the City of Vernon. City administration prepares the budget without any input from Coldstream Council or staff. The budget is then approved by the NORD Board. Overhead expenses are charged by both the City and NORD so administrative cost to Coldstream are quite significant.
Mr Rolke may not accept that “...current service can no longer meet the unique needs of each participants...” but he seems to have no need to have evidence for his conclusions. As a reporter he can hold that position but we, elected representatives of taxpayers, must require that evidence. Residents of Coldstream can be assured that their Council is working to ensure that they get the best bang for their buck. In fact, this service review has everything to do with providing the best and most cost effective service to the taxpayers.
Gyula Kiss
Councillor
Coldstream
Mr Rolke has more questions than answers. Had he asked the right people he could actually inform his readers rather than asking them questions.
As Mr Rolke notes that “The old Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District was formed back in the 1970s”. He should have also noted that the five (5) participants were Vernon, Coldstream and Electoral Areas A, B and C. There was a balance in the governance of the service; none of the individual participants could ride roughshod over the others. As it stands now there are three Directors at NORD from Vernon, one each from Electoral Area’s B and C and one from Coldstream. After the next census Vernon is expected to gain another Director, thus, Vernon could effectively dictate everything related to Greater Vernon Parks as well as to Greater Vernon Water. There will no longer be a need for consensus or amicable agreements. Vernon could vote in any change they desired. The balanced governance model would be out the window.
The initial GVPRD agreement was quite narrow in scope and included the newly built Recreation Centre and Swimming Pool, which were the principal reason for the partnership, the Civic Arena and a number of existing parks.
As years went by various other facilities and programs were patched on to the system without a thorough assessment of the consequences on the partnership. Eventually the function became large and complicated. A review to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the service became necessary. It is quite easy to visualize that what was agreed upon in the early 1970's and patched up over subsequent years might not be the ideal partnership in 2010.
At present all Coldstream parks (with the exception of small tot lots) are signed over to NORD by Coldstream. Vernon declined to sign over some of their properties (such as Kal Beach, Kal Beach Parking, Marshall Fields, etc.) yet they are being maintained as part of the community complex. Why should those parks not be part of NORD properties?
Coldstream contributes about $1.3 million to the parks service in addition to the financing costs of the Theatre and the Wesbild Centre. It would be irresponsible for Coldstream Council not to ensure that these funds contributed by their taxpayers are providing the expected values.
While the function is administered under the auspices of NORD the operation of the service is contracted to the City of Vernon. City administration prepares the budget without any input from Coldstream Council or staff. The budget is then approved by the NORD Board. Overhead expenses are charged by both the City and NORD so administrative cost to Coldstream are quite significant.
Mr Rolke may not accept that “...current service can no longer meet the unique needs of each participants...” but he seems to have no need to have evidence for his conclusions. As a reporter he can hold that position but we, elected representatives of taxpayers, must require that evidence. Residents of Coldstream can be assured that their Council is working to ensure that they get the best bang for their buck. In fact, this service review has everything to do with providing the best and most cost effective service to the taxpayers.
Gyula Kiss
Councillor
Coldstream
**********************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment