Is it time for the Town of Barrhead to investigate a two-tiered payment schedule when it comes to its recreation facilities? Most notably, should people who don’t live within the town’s limits and don’t support its recreation programs through their county taxes have to pay extra?
That is the question the Barrhead Leader would like to pose to its readers.
Last week, Barry Kerton in his column said in all likelihood recreation facility users should brace themselves for rate hikes, possibly service cuts, or a combination thereof.
We still believe that is the case, especially after the town council meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 24 when mayor Gerry St. Pierre said that the Barrhead Curling Club for a number of years have basically been given the use of the facility for a nominal fee and suggested after that they too may face a rate increase. In past weeks and months the mayor, along with other councillors, has suggested other organizations, non-profit and business alike will have to pay their fair share when it comes to taking a bite into the recreation operational deficits of the town’s facilities.
It certainly seems reasonable.
It also goes without saying the operating deficits for all the town’s rec facilities would be considerably less if the County of Barrhead would contribute more towards the operation that both the town and county residents use.
Currently, the County of Barrhead contributes about 14 per cent of the overall recreation operating budget, much to the town’s chagrin. This is despite that according to the town’s estimation, depending on the program and facility, that 40 to 60 per cent of users come from the county.
One of the county’s arguments for not contributing more, besides not having the money and an unwillingness to ask its ratepayers to foot more of the bill, is that they are the town’s facilities and therefore the town should shoulder the majority of the responsibility and that they should be self supporting.
Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that any government service, recreation or other, can be provided on a strict cost-recovery basis, but an extra levy would bring it closer to becoming a reality and would be in line with the county’s user-pay philosophy.
If this were to happen, it would have to wait until the current agreement expires after the municipal elections in the fall. As a condition to get the county’s $5 million for the pool the town agreed to accept whatever recreation contribution towards recreation operation costs the county deemed fair.
We are not suggesting that the town goes this route, or that it is even logistically possible, but are putting it out there for discussion. Other jurisdictions have done something similar.
Let us know what you think by answering our poll question listed above as well as by sending us your letters.
