Vernon referendum

Ingevan22
Fledgling
Posts: 123
Joined: Nov 8th, 2011, 11:04 am

Re: Vernon referendum

Post by Ingevan22 »

bob vernon wrote:What possible costs to the Tatoo and the farmers' market would the city have to mitigate? Not to mention the costs to etc?


What Bob, no interest in discussing the cost to rehab or tear down Civic that will be placed on the backs of Vernon taxpayers only, not greater Vernon's? If we all play, we should all pay.

To answer your question: If an organization rents a civic facility, they have an expectation of being able to use that facility for their event. If the City is conducting construction at the facility that affects this rental, then the City has an obligation to mitigate those impacts - clearly there will be some costs involved, whether that is re-routing construction traffic, or making available other space to use. I don't expect city staff to admit what concessions Tattoo organizer Norm Crerar may have already managed to wrangle, but it was obvious from his letter to the editor that he was expecting the City to work with him on reducing these impacts. I don't expect that effort would be free of charge to taxpayers.

Anyone else surprised to learn that renting the Kal Tire Place parking lot for 55 days costs $3,100?
(._.) ( |:) (.-.) (:| ) (._.)

Putt's Law: "Technology is dominated by two types of people, those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3815
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am

Re: Vernon referendum

Post by Hassel99 »

Ingevan22 wrote:
What Bob, no interest in discussing the cost to rehab or tear down Civic that will be placed on the backs of Vernon taxpayers only, not greater Vernon's? If we all play, we should all pay.


Is not the civic under the umbrella of Great Vernon Parks and Rec? thus would not the Greater Vernon Parks and rec be the ones who have to allocated funding for upkeep/demo and not the city of Vernon?
Ingevan22
Fledgling
Posts: 123
Joined: Nov 8th, 2011, 11:04 am

Re: Vernon referendum

Post by Ingevan22 »

Hassel99, usually there is a distinction made between operating costs (to keep the arena open, maintain the building, pay staff, etc), and capital costs (rehab or replacement, tear down, new construction, etc). Depending on the agreements, and whether the facility is considered local, sub-regional, or regional, operating costs may be shared. Capital costs can sometimes be a different story.

Here are the answers I received from the City of Vernon prior to the referendum:

1. What is the cost to tear down Civic and rehab the property?

Answer from the City of Vernon:
"It hasn’t been determined yet if the Civic will be a tear down or repurposed like Armstrong’s Hassen arena. Currently the City of Vernon Official Community Plan identifies the Civic Arena property to become a park. Council’s Strategic Plan 2015-2018 identifies developing a park plan for the Civic Arena block and considering re-purposing the Arena building."

2. Will that cost be borne only by City of Vernon residents, or shared with the residents of Coldstream and Areas B & C?

Answer from the City of Vernon:
"The City of Vernon owns the property that the Civic is on, so a teardown or repurpose of the Civic would be under the City budget."

3. Who will be on the hook for maintenance/replacement/upgrade after the facility reverts to City ownership in 20 years? Only City of Vernon residents, or all Greater Vernon residents?

Answer from the City of Vernon:
"Currently under Greater Vernon Recreation structure costs for maintenance/replacement/upgrade of the twin Kal Tire Place facility for operation purposes would fall on Greater Vernon residents."

Now, that last answer seems to blend the line between operational and capital costs, but then, so did my question. Note the answer was qualified "for operation purposes".

Does anyone else think it strange that our sub-regional neighbours help us pay the mortgage on a building they won't own? Hence my comment - if we all play, we should all pay. And... the sub-region ought to retain ownership of these facilities. Perhaps owning these arenas is an asset for City bookkeeping, but that also attracts more liability to City taxpayers.

If it was necessary to tear down a small arena in Vernon so that the sub-region can enjoy a larger arena in Vernon, then I don't believe it is unreasonable to share those costs with the sub-region.

And if this referendum had proposed building an ice sheet in Coldstream or Areas B or C to add to our inventory of ice sheets in greater Vernon, I would have been happy to assist with that effort as a City of Vernon taxpayer.
(._.) ( |:) (.-.) (:| ) (._.)

Putt's Law: "Technology is dominated by two types of people, those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."
Post Reply

Return to “North Okanagan”