Soccer at the Alfred Jenkins Field House (Submitted Photo/Prince Albert Youth Soccer Association)

By Derek Craddock

Angry & Frustrated

Non-resident rec fee fuels outcry from rural residents & nearby towns around Prince Albert

Feb 9, 2024 | 12:31 PM

The news that non-residents of Prince Albert are being asked to pay more to use recreational centres in the city is not sitting well with many rural residents.

As part of the 2024 City Budget, which passed last December, the City of Prince Albert has instituted a $150 fee for non-residents to use indoor recreational facilities and $75 for outdoor fields like the ball diamonds.

The city said these fees would be collected upon registration with facility user groups. As well, Prince Albert residents will be given the first opportunity for early registration access to swimming lessons.

“We have attempted to work with the RMs in the past to discuss funding support for recreation facilities that their residents benefit from,” said Mayor Greg Dionne following the passage of the budget. “Unfortunately, we did not receive a commitment, so we are pursuing other options to protect the interests of our taxpayers who fund these facilities. We remain open to discussions from the RM if they are interested.”

Those discussions with Rural Municipalities and nearby towns are still going on.

FSIN

Chief Bobby Cameron re-elected for fourth term as FSIN Chief

16h ago

Battleford Municipal Election

Laing seeks fourth term on Battleford Council

17h ago

Softball Sask Hall of Fame

'I just wanted to give back': Local softball legend gets rewarded for her years of dedication

19h ago

Don Fyrk, the Reeve for the RM of Buckland, said they have not been approached by the city yet but are awaiting that meeting.

He told paNOW that the RM office has received a few letters worried about these new fees. He said it’s not entirely fair to ask for more money from rural residents, given they already contribute to Prince Albert’s economy.

“Everybody that goes into the city from the RM and surrounding RMs, they all spend their money in the city. A lot of people living in our RMs have businesses in the city and pay taxes in the city. It’s a trickle-down effect.”

In the last couple of days, paNOW has received three letters from concerned rural residents sent to P.A.’s city council regarding the recreational fees.

The writers asked to remain anonymous but all of them stated that the new rules are “ridiculous”.

“As an RM of Buckland resident, myself and thousands of others, purchase clothes, food, fuel, entertainment, meals etc. all in the city of Prince Albert,” read one letter to City Council, “Each month I spend thousands of dollars on purchases, clubs, and services in your city. Yet your council’s biased decision is now discouraging out-of-city residents from your services.”

(Submitted)

The letter writer goes on to criticize the city’s handling of finances regarding the increasing costs of the new arenas and aquatic centre.

Another letter shared the same sentiments when it came to contributing to Prince Albert’s economy.

“This is where we spend our money on groceries, gasoline, building supplies, and anything else we might need and are unable to purchase in our small rural communities. As Rural Residents, we spend “our fair share” in the city of Prince Albert.”

(Submitted)

Last week, at his State of the City Address, Mayor Greg Dionne talked about the user fees, defending that decision, saying that the city is not asking for much from rural residents, given that city residents pay their fair share in taxes to support these buildings.

The letter writer quoted that statement and condemned it.

“Is it too much for a rural family of 6 (who spend at least 80% of their income in the city) to pay for 4 of those family members to enjoy an indoor sport in Prince Albert? Go ahead. Do the math. It’s unaffordable.”

“If this isn’t changed, you can expect us to move our support to a different city or town that will appreciate our business,” said one more letter from an angered rural resident. “We are almost equal driving distance to Shellbrook and Christopher Lake as we are to Prince Albert – with these charges, there is no reason for us to continue supporting the city as we have been.”

(Submitted)

Nearby towns have also chimed in on this decision.

Amund Otterson is the Mayor of Shellbrook, a roughly 30-minute drive from Prince Albert.

While he doesn’t agree with the fees, he said he understands why the city is implementing them, given that the recreation facilities in P.A. are in high demand and that will only grow once the new aquatic centre is opened.

“We have residents going in there now, it may influence their decision,” he said, “It just depends on the family, depends on the interest.”

He gave an example of girls’ hockey, something they don’t have in the town currently, meaning those players will likely have to pay more to continue playing in the city.

Otterson admitted that there are still some unanswered questions about the implementation of the fee including what programs specifically will be impacted or exempt and whether First Nations communities fall under the rules as well.

He said Shellbrook has considered a similar fee for outside residents in the past but opted not to because of the potential backlash.

Prince Albert is not the only municipality to implement a fee for non-residents. On Feb. 1, the Town of Midland, north of Barrie, Ont. announced it was implementing this fee to outside residents who use the North Simcoe Sports and Recreation Centre. The fee is $200 per household.

On his Facebook page, Mayor Bill Gordon said they were introducing the fee not by choice but because of necessity. He cited a lack of funding over many years from different sources as the big reason for the change, along with the rising costs of some sports including hockey.

“This is not Midland vs kids or Midland vs Hockey and to characterize it that way is disingenuous,” the Facebook post reads. “This is Midland for Midlanders and what every resident should demand from their local government. I hope to see our neighbours rally around their residents and come to us with a funding arrangement that would negate non-resident fees for their community. Unless and until that happens, we will look after our residents first and foremost, and find ways to reduce the burden on our taxpayers while keeping this wonderful asset funded, repaired, upgraded and available to all those who wish to use it.”

That decision has led to outcry from residents outside Midland and a petition has been started by the Youth of North Simcoe calling for the fee to be revoked.

“Instead of grown adults coming to a table and negotiating, the youth of North Simcoe are being used as political pawns,” the petition reads. “Mayor Bill Gordon has been screaming subsidization from the rooftops but it simply isn’t true.”

Meanwhile, the Mayor of Birch Hills, a town about 37 km southeast of Prince Albert, is using this debate as a chance to showcase the recreational options they have.

“The City of P.A. has authority and is free to establish fees or taxes as they see necessary to manage the assets under their control,” said Stewart Adams. “As a community, we welcome outsiders to be part of our town.”

Adams touched on the town’s skating and curling rink along with their Seniors Club, a golf course, tennis courts and pickleball facilities.

paNOW has reached out to the City of Prince Albert asking how many letters they have received from rural residents and if they had any comment on the concerns but have not received a reply.

—

derek.craddock@pattisonmedia.com