Is the New Tourist Booth a Move to the Better?

I understand the Tourist Advisory Committee’s argument but I really feel that we are not putting our best foot forward. The vagaries about the future of the Civic Arena and unclear timelines for a future park in the area to my mind make the decision to move the tooth information functions to this location to say the least premature and at most unwise. Cheers, Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer blog

Council Did Away With A Critical Committee.

I think the job of Council is difficult one .When faced with a potentially controversial decision they should strive to get as much good information and advice as possible especially when it comes to the use of and investment in city owned properties. The present Council has been functioning without the benefit of the advice of the Vernon Land Use Advisory Committee. This was an in camera committee  composed of city staff, informed citizens and a Councillor that would examine  in detail the potential uses of city owned properties and at the request Council offer recommendations. Unfortunately the present Council did away with this committee early in their term. Thus they have made many important land use decisions without this committee’s unbiased advice. Too bad for Vernon..  Cheers Shawn Lee a  Vernon Taxpayer

Tourist Booth Decision

Perhaps Vernon City Council would be wise to reconsider their intention to abandon the two existing Tourist Info Booths in favor renovating the city owned building just north of the Civic Arena on 39^th ave.

Public support for Council’s decision on this matter has been non-existent. Response at the recent public hearing by those potential most affected by the change traffic flow was adamant in the negative. The expressed concerns should be enough to influence Council to back up a bit on this issue but I believe there other important uncertainties to consider when considering the proposed site for tourist traffic.

Highway 97 through Vernon is particularly busy during the tourist season. Our visitors will have to make a left hand turn on to 39^th to reach the new center. Does the existing left turn lane have the capacity to magazine the RVs and trailer traffic that could consider stopping at the new location? What will be the effect of a new left a new left hand turn light ($140,000) on a vacation congested route through town?  Will the province approve the traffic control change for the highway as it passes through town? There is another question that needs answering. Are we really putting our best foot forward with this new location?

The City proposes to renovate the older single story cinder brick building ($300,000) to serve the tourist needs for our area. This building is located on the north end of the same block of the Civic Arena adjacent to an unpaved parking lot next to the railway right of way. In spite of positive future plans at the moment the location remains one of the most unappealing blocks in the downtown:  certainly not an ideal spot to invite tourists to spend time if we are trying to make a good impression on our visitors.

 Finally the fall referendum on the future of the civic arena adds uncertainty to the development of the block. It would be prudent for Council to wait and see what the people decide and proceed only if the proposed location proves indeed appropriate.   It would be great if they have really listened to the public input.

Cheers Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer Blog

Dispatch Still Based Out of Region.

So it seems that Vernon wasn’t even given the chance to bid on the new fire dispatch contract. Evidently our elected officials at the Regional District Table are happy to send a $170,000 out of the region to get services from the Fraser Valley Regional District that could have been provided locally by Vernon Fire and Rescue. Our tax dollars will now be spent in other communities. We will lose the multiplier effect of money that could have been spent in our area. Why was this direction taken by the regional district?

Vernon representatives at the district table praise the new atmosphere of cooperation which has resulted in the yet to be provincially approved parks agreements. What was the result when Vernon came last fall “’hat in hand” to request the opportunity to bid on the new contract? We didn’t even receive the support from our nearest neighbours. I am speaking of Coldstream and B and C. Why was this case? Why were the arguments for an integrated dispatch service for the North Okanagan ignored and discounted by regional district staff?

Not even to be given the chance to bid! It makes you wonder where this new spirit of cooperation is leading us. 

Cheers Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer

Vernon City Council to Determine Its Own Compensation:Is There Another Way?

Vernon City Council is again facing the often difficult an uncomfortable question of setting the level of its own compensation for the service it renders.

Being on Council is a lot of hard work. Generally the public is unaware of the sometimes onerous time commitment required of those who serve on city councils. A side from the statutory required attendance at the regular Council meetings there are a myriad of other meetings that elected officials need to attend.

Each meeting requires conscientious preparation on the part of the elected officials. Regular City Council Agenda can exceed several hundred pages and are usually only received the Thursday before a Monday meeting. Effective debate and decisions require a great deal of time; time away from regular their personal and family pursuits.

The time commitment is the greatest for the Mayor and in the City of Vernon this office is considered to be full time and is compensated as such. Such is not the case with the rest of council who though busy are still able with some juggling of schedules and  the kind of understanding employers and clientele, are able to continue in their vocations. The work of Councillors in a City the size of Vernon is not full time and is thus reflected in their compensation.

It should always be remembered however that the decision to serve in public office does carry with it a spirit of volunteerism; a desire to give back to the community in which one lives. In short, one should not seek a political office in a community the size of Vernon as a way of finding gainful employment. Still there is a widespread sentiment in favor of some financial compensation to be awarded to our local politicians. I believe this a correct practice. Nevertheless the sticky question remains how much should they be paid and who should decide?

Historically our council has put the burden of recommending levels of Council compensation on the shoulders of a citizen “arm’s length” committee. Once presented with the committee’s unbiased recommendations Council is free to reject, adopt or modify the committees report as they see fit.  Here is where the difficulty comes. If the majority of Council is seeking re-election it would be unlikely for them to support an increase for themselves and risk the ire of the electorate. If this scenario is repeated over several election terms the council levels of compensation can actually become a deterrent to those qualified informed individuals who might consider running for public office. It is really hard to shake the image that Council is taking on role of the fox guarding the hen house if they support a committee sanctioned increase. As a result the report is ignored or modified beyond recognition forcing arm’s length committee to wonder if their efforts were really worthwhile. This is the conflict and challenge regarding compensation faces elected officials province wide. I would like to suggest that the solution may lie with the provincial government.

Why couldn't the Provincial legislation contain a detailed formula for determining the salaries paid to elected municipal officials? Such calculations could remove the tendency for these decisions to be too politically driven. The algorithm could take into account the size of communities and could provide for some degree of parity among similar communities. It could look at the burden of management responsibilities as well the size of the budgets administered. The provincial government is in possession of much more detailed and precise economic information on a given community’s ability to support their City Councils and I would argue that making this difficult decision into one that is truly arm’s length would free Councils attention to deal with more pressing matters. I believe the province should at least look of somehow introducing some rationale into how municipal elected officials are valued and compensated.

Finally, we would then be spared the coy hand wringing that always accompanies debate over council compensation.

Cheers Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer

Why Not Ask the People?

I agree with Councillor Spears that the Citizens of Greater Vernon should be given the opportunity to have their say on whether to ask the provincial government to do a study on options for a new governance model for our communities. I sincerely hope that Vernon City Council will put the question  on the Fall ballot. Why not ask the people?  Whatever the result it surely would give some sense of direction for the new Council. This direction will be important because in all likelihood the new Council will be in office for a four year term.

Nevertheless amalgamation will be one of the election issues this fall whether it is on the ballot or not.

Cheers , Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer.

Public Hearings are Challenging But Worth It

One of the most challenging experiences in local government is the holding and participation in a public hearing. It is a statutory requirement to hold such hearings if the action contemplated by Council involve changes in zoning. In Vernon we recently had such a hearing regarding the Zoning changes necessary to relocate the tourist info booth to a city owned building near the old Civic Arena.

A public hearing is an opportunity for members of the public, in a situation governed by a formal protocol, to express their views to council on the defined topic. Public hearings can be frustrating for both for those whose responsibility it is to listen and for those who choose to speak. Why is this so?

A Public hearing is not a debate. It is the final information gathering session for Council before a change is made or decision taken. The public however, who often feel strongly about the proposed action of council, may view the hearing as a chance to do just that, debate Council.  Emotions can begin to rise when it becomes apparent that Council is just there to listen. Council has already publically debated the question at hand and by the rules is not permitted to further debate at the hearing. The occasional clarifying questions asked by Council of those who choose to speak should be the limit of the interaction of the public and council. Council’s commitment is just to sit there and listen.  Councillors cannot give reasons to the public in attendance as to why they are considering the action.

There is no place for sarcasm, demeaning remarks or unseemly innuendo by the members of the public or the elected officials and staff. Order is to be maintained by the chair who is the Mayor.

So you there have it, a room full people itching to debate but restrained from so doing by the rules that govern public hearings. Emotions can and do run high. I believe that this set of circumstances are a sure fire recipe for frustration. Frustration that could lead to remarks that are perceived as aggressive or impolite: frustration that could lead the gathering to focus on persons or personalities rather than the narrow topic covered by the hearing.  Public Hearings are exhausting for all concerned.

Now for perhaps the most frustrating issue for public who attend such meetings. No matter what the public input has been whether pro or con the Council can still deal with the matter as it sees fit. Often, the decision is to go ahead with the planned changes despite opposition expressed at the public hearing. So the question is honestly asked; what is the point of the hearing if council is just going ahead anyway in the face of publically expressed opposition? Good question!

Occasionally Council becomes aware of new information obtained from a public hearing that will cause it to reconsider its plans. That is why you hold a public hearing. That is why the Mayor needs to keep tight control of the meeting so that all present will feel safe from ridicule as they express their opinions. That is why councillors should be very attentive and non-judgemental during public hearings. They should put aside their own predilections and listen with an open mind so as not to miss pearls of wisdom offered in good faith by a member of the public who took the time to make a contribution to the good governance of our city.

Cheers Shawn Lee a Vernon Taxpayer Blog