BANFF – Local Banff user groups hoping to score a discount on fees at the Banff recreation grounds and new seasonal field house will have to wait a little longer.
Banff council unanimously defeated cutting resident fees for use of the indoor turf field at the Fenlands arena and the pavilion at the recreation grounds.
But while a no was given, council noted it was better to discuss any potential reduction during service review when a more fulsome picture could be provided.
“To change those fees halfway through the year, even with the best of intentions, somebody’s going to deem that unfair,” said Coun. Barb Pelham, who pitched the move at the June 26 council meeting.
“In an effort to create fairness, you’re actually creating incredible unfairness and probably an avalanche of complaints.”
Under the potential reductions, resident fees per hour for adult indoor turf at prime hours would have been cut from $150 to $75 and $90 to $45 during non-prime hours. The youth indoor turf prime hours would’ve dropped from $135 to $67.50 and $85 to $42.50 for non-prime hours.
Using the pavilion at the recreation grounds for 12 hours would’ve gone from $550 to $275, while the pavilion outdoor barbecue area for six hours would’ve seen a dip from $75 to $37.50 or $150 to $75 for 12 hours.
At the existing fees, Banff locals get a cheaper rate than non-residents, of between 10 and 30 per cent.
The discussion was raised at the June 26 meeting to potentially make the facilities more open to Banff residents since at the time only about 19 per cent of estimated revenue had been generated halfway through the season.
Shawn Carr, the Town’s manager of family and community services coordinator and social programs, said roughly 500 hours of booked time had been made through Town programming in indoor soccer, ultimate frisbee and men’s rugby for dryland training.
Chris Hughes, the Town’s director of corporate services, noted if the change had been made an estimated $17,000 would be lost in revenue. However, he cautioned lower fees could increase demand and see less revenue lost.
“It’s hard to know what this will do for demand, so it could increase our estimated demand, which could lead to a lower than $17,000 reduction,” he said. “It’s really difficult at this point to know what this will do for demand for these spaces.”
In May, the Banff Bears men’s rugby club was looking for more wallet-friendly options amid concerns the existing fee structure would put a financial burden on the club.
Lee Garrett, head coach and treasurer for the Bears, said the lower rate at the indoor field house would pique the club’s interest in using this facility for pre-season training.
“The 50 per cent fee reduction at the pavilion would also make this facility more appealing, but we probably wouldn’t be booking the whole facility outside of special events, tournaments or final games,” he said in a letter to council.
“We support the BBQ area at a 50 per cent reduction, this would likely see us booking it each week we had a game in town. We don’t see the need to change the fees at the sports field as we feel this is good value for our club.”
Garrett said the Town of Banff’s revamp has made the field a “really good facility”.
“We wouldn’t like to see a situation in the future that by reducing fees across the board and running rental programming at a loss would lead to future cuts in upkeep or heavy future fee restructuring,” he said.
A Town of Banff assessment of fees in other municipalities, including Lake Louise, Calgary, Okotoks, Airdrie, Strathcona County Sylvan Lake, Beaumont and Edmonton, shows Banff’s rates are typically lower.
The one outlier is peak time fees at the Fenlands field house are more expensive than in other communities.
At the July 10 governance and finance committee meeting, the discussion of the financial plan suggested an anticipated tax rate increase could be near double digits for 2024.
Mayor Corrie DiManno noted the Community Social Assessment and Banff Community Plan processes are ongoing, so if either were to highlight cost being a barrier to recreation council could consider potential solutions.
She added housing, the environment, and quality of life are all things she had heard are a higher priority to the community.
“To make broad sweeping changes based on one user groups' feedback to council is setting an unstable precedent,” she said. “I think if the consultation with the community shows this is an area where there’s a challenge I’d be willing to look at solutions, but for now … I want to maintain this.”
