Non-residents fees argued over at council

Times Reporter 

 

Administration brought forward a new fee bylaw proposal to the Dec. 18 regular town council meeting. The bylaw would see all fees combined into one document that council would be able to review every year and make changes to by resolution. 

The current bylaw includes a 10 per cent increase in the fees for the Family Centre, Civic Centre and Aquatic Centre. 

Councillor Denise Peterson proposed an amendment to the Family Centre non-resident seasonal fees. 

“The proposed amendment would be to remove the non-resident fees in schedule D effective Jan. 1,” said Peterson. 

She explained that in previous discussion in the chamber her understanding was that the Family Centre brings in about $500,000 annually in fees and revenue and approximately $15,000 of that comes from non-resident fees, which is about three per cent of the total amount. 

“If we take that three per cent and we make that consideration of that $15,000 in consideration of the tax fees that are paid by Strathmore residents it is now (an) absolutely miniscule amount,” said Peterson.

“The same non-resident fee however, has caused a great deal of consternation in our county residents and has impacted our relationship with our county which we have seen in our meetings with our county counterparts.”  

Upon researching when the fee was first introduced, she said it appeared that one reason for the fee was for the initial building of the Family Centre.  The county did not contribute to that cost and council at the time introduced a non-resident fee. That council had believed that any money due to them through county participation would be recovered through the non-resident fees, said Peterson. The fee was to stay in place until that dollar figure was met.  

Peterson said now is time to move forward in a collaborative mode in hopes that the county will work with them in the future, and council should remove that fee.

Councillor Bob Sobol said it has always been his understanding that if you don’t have a non-resident fee, then the residents are paying more to support the pool than the non-residents because they are paying admission and taxes for the facility.  

“I find that unfair, I find it unfair that our residents would pay more to get into the pool than non-residents. I just look at this as evening the game and $15,000 may not mean much to anyone on council but it means $15,000 to me that my taxpayers don’t have to pay,” said Sobol.

He agreed with continuing to have and pursue good relations with all of the town’s neighbours, but feels some people using the facilities are coming from places outside the county and therefore the non-resident fees should stay in place.  

Councillor Rocky Blokland agreed that in one year $15,000 may seem miniscule, but when adding it up over the years it becomes significant.  

“It’s a money-losing facility we have sitting here in this town that has to be paid for some way or another and has to be operated as such,” said Blokland. 

Mayor Michael Ell was torn about the amendment. He knows the recreation facilities run at a deficit and will always run at a deficit, but “I would like to come up with a solution that allows us to get rid of the non-resident fees.”

“I do think that having just spent $10,000 of taxpayers money to support Hockey Alberta makes the case that the $15,000 that the non-residents are paying just is not that big a deal, especially for the grief that it causes,” said Peterson. 

“I think the $1 a household is a really good exchange for the fact that county people shop in our community, they don’t have to but they do, they eat in our restaurants and they contribute in many, many other ways. When people in the satellite area of Strathmore when they leave our community they don’t say they’re from the County of Wheatland they say they’re from Strathmore.

“We either are one community or we’re not. I think there have been far to much made of the fact that we are a separate entity when we are not and it has not worked to our advantage.”

Ell and Peterson voted in favour of the amendment to waive fees. The motion was defeated and all other amendments were approved with the policy being given third reading. Peterson clarified that she was in favour of the bylaw as a whole but was still not in favour of the non-resident fees.