Why is PGs sports and recreational sector getting punched in the gut?
By Peter Ewart
One of the remarkable aspects of Prince George has always been its dynamic sports and recreation sector. Hockey, baseball, soccer, football, track and field, swimming, golf, ice skating, ringette, martial arts, tennis … The list of activities goes on and on. All of this is testimony to the enthusiasm of city residents of all ages for healthy and vibrant living.
This sector depends upon literally thousands of volunteers who spend countless hours organizing, supervising, refereeing, fundraising, and all the other tasks that go into staging events and running clubs and organizations – often on a shoestring budget. Many parents are involved, either as volunteers or spectators, as are youth, seniors, and others. Coming up in 2015, of course, are the Canada Winter Games, the successful organizing of which will depend heavily on volunteers.
There is no doubt about it. Those, both young and older, who participate in sports and recreation contribute hugely to the community at large and its social cohesiveness, whether as direct participants, by maintaining their levels of health (and being less of a cost to the health care system), as volunteers in donating their time and labour to make it all happen, or in making the city a more attractive place for employers and employees who are considering relocating or investing here.
So why is it that, in the KPMG final report to the city on the Core Service Review, this vibrant and invaluable sector is getting sucker punched in the gut? What did it do to deserve this treatment?
Take a look at KPMG’s recommendations. Recreational fee increases, adding up to as high as $1,530,000 for the sector as a whole, including fees for aquatics ($400,000), ice rinks ($930,000), and sports fields & parks ($200,000). Who will end up paying these jacked up fees? Cash-strapped sports clubs and recreational organizations who have to rent the rinks, fields, buildings and parks. Kids who want to play sports or go swimming. Adults who want to keep fit. The elderly who want to maintain their activity levels. Indeed, it is ironic that the very volunteers who are already donating their time for free could end up having to dig in their pockets even more to keep their organizations going. KPMG is also suggesting enhanced “inclusion subsidies” for low income earners, but the fact remains that fees are going to rise for the majority.
But these jacked up fees of $1,530,000 are not the only way that the sports and recreation sector (and the people of Prince George as a whole) will take a hit. It also takes one in that KPMG actually recommends selling off another sports facility – the city-owned Pine Valley Golf course – to land developers. Of all the city land proposed to be sold off, it is interesting that a parcel of land devoted to sports is the biggest chunk of all (as much as $17 million), none of which (judging by KPMG’s report) would come back to the sports and recreation sector.
In addition, KPMG is also recommending that the Four Seasons Pool be handed over to a third party operator, possibly the YMCA. What that will mean to future pool fees for youth, adults, seniors and swimming groups, is anyone’s guess. But experience in some other cities, where similar third party handovers are done, show that fees can go up significantly.
And so it is, according to the wisdom of the KPMG consultants – most of whom were flown in from Toronto and elsewhere, and had little knowledge about the city and its traditions – that the sports and recreation sector of Prince George is to foot the bill for the spending excesses of the current and previous city councils. This, of course, is the same city council (a couple of councillors excepted) which refuses to examine how the city’s debt was run up in the first place, and especially the role of some the big capital projects of the past. According to the mayor, such an examination of past practice is not part of the Core Review process.
But punching the volunteer-driven sports and recreational sector in the gut is apparently very much part of the process – the biggest part it appears, when you get down to actual dollars and cents.
The public meeting at 6pm on Tuesday, November 13 (sponsored by I Heart PG, CUPE, Stand Up for the North Committee, and Faculty Association of CNC) is an opportunity for those concerned about sports and recreation in the city to come out and have their voices heard. Everyone who would like to will be given a two minute slot to speak their mind on KPMG’s final report. This is important, as city council, in the days and weeks ahead, will be making decisions on which portions of the report it will adopt.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
To the wine and cheese crowd physical exercise is so plebeian.
Back to Toronto for the KPMG where the Mayor can abscond a transit bus (kicking off the passengers who were using it) and redirect it to give his high school football team, that he coaches, a ride home.
Don’t worry bean counters we don’t have a desire for that level of excess.
How true Peter’s statements ring. I for one would much rather see pine valley land kept as a golf course than turned into another car lot or big box retailer. Turn the clock back a bit and the city had no problem buying the old PG hotel at an inflated price ensuring a 1/2 million dollar profit to the original purchasers. City council also had no issue promoting a dike along river road that was to cost taxpayers another 5 million dollars not to mention the raising of river road itself for several million. Throw in the so called energy system for another 15 million dollars.
If the city is going to start selling land start with the bundle of downtown properties that generate no tax dollars and were wanted by no one else but the city. Does the city just have a reaestate dept just to justify purchasing uneeded properties. Get out of the realestate business.
Before selling off facilities and land that are linked to sports lets start with the vacant lots downtown and also ensure no more money is wasted on a uneeded PAC.
I’m still not seeing any alternative proposals from Ewart. Does he think money grows on trees?
If we reduced the city work force by 10% we’d save almost 5 million dollars a year. There’s a place to start.
Stop fluoridating the water would of saved money. Stop wasting money would of save money too!
What 10% would you cut or is just a fix all blanket statement?
The City needs to tread lightly when it come to increasing user fee’s. One result could be less people using the facilities, hence the same or less revenue.
If we use the CN Centre (Cougar Games) as an example we would see that they are in a catch **22**. attendance is low and they are losing money, however if you increase the price of a ticket there is a good chance that attendance would drop further. So the City then subsidizes the franchise (using tax dollars) to keep it around, and the taxpayers get it in the ear.
Why is the Cougar franchise not on the Core Reveiw list of things to get rid of??
What about the Charles Jago Sports Centre. Taxpayers pay $300,000.000 per year to keep this facility going. Thats $3 million dollars in 10 years that could go to infrastructure.
Why is the Northern Sports Centre not on the Core Reveiw List.
We need to watch the City very closely on the Core Review and do everything possible to ensure that any and all savings are directed to infrastructure. (That is the main excuse that they are using for the review). If we allow these savings, to be directed into a Capital Projects Fund, then over time it will all be pissed into the wind.
“What 10% would you cut or is just a fix all blanket statement? “
I’m not privy to the information necessary to determine which workers and managers would get cut. It’s a little more complicated than drawing lots. But I’m quite confident that we can easily lose 10 percent of our workforce with no noticeable consequences.
As usual, Peter offers no alternatives.
The path we are on currently is not sustainable. We can’t keep running up the credit card and racking up debt.
We can either raise taxes (user fees) or lower services? Which will it be?
“Why is the Cougar franchise not on the Core Reveiw list of things to get rid of??
What about the Charles Jago Sports Centre. Taxpayers pay $300,000.000 per year to keep this facility going. Thats $3 million dollars in 10 years that could go to infrastructure.
Why is the Northern Sports Centre not on the Core Reveiw List. “
They’re not core services.
“They’re not core services.”
Should be a ? at the end ’cause I really don’t know. :)
Selling the Pine Valley golf lands is probably a good idea, even though the proceeds would be a one time shot in the arm for the city coffers. I can’t imagine that with our city operating the golf course it could ever be profitable, and people have plenty of other golf courses to choose from in the area, to get their exercise. Allowing development to proceed on these lands may be distasteful to some, but it would also increase the tax base.
The dumbest idea the bean counters from the big smoke came up with is to increase the cost to users of our recreational facilities. That sort of thinking comes from the 1930’s. If there is one thing that should be maintained it is low cost recreation and physical exercise. Raising the cost to use these facilities will only result in reduced patronage. Real short term thinking, fits in well with our current crop of councillors.
metalman.
“We can either raise taxes (user fees) or lower services? Which will it be?” .. apparently for the past few years it has been both. I don’t know about you but my taxes have gone up every year since I bought here and the services have declined, right from talking to the pinheads in city hall to the condition of the infrastructure and services.
I dont understand why if a third party can come in and operate at a profit, then why cant we just keep our buildings and assets to realize the profits for the city itself?
If there was no money to be made there would be no third party interest. So why can someone else make money on our facilities when the city can no longer afford them?
If fees are going to go up anyhow once a third party comes in to run the various facilities, then we might as well just raise the fees ourselves and maintain control of our own assets.
It appears to me like fees will be rising regardless of who does the increasing, but privatization will only result in us losing the ability to control the changes.
“We can either raise taxes (user fees) or lower services? Which will it be?”
But: “apparently for the past few years it has been both.”
Not nearly enough to right the ship and stop accumulating debt. You haven’t seen anything yet.
“I dont understand why if a third party can come in and operate at a profit, then why cant we just keep our buildings and assets to realize the profits for the city itself?”
Government’s are extremely bad at running businesses. Take a look at the no layoff clause they have for outside workers. Seriously, you can’t run a profitable business if you can’t lay off employees when times get slow.
Very good comment, “cougars fan”. Of course, one way a third party can make money is to cut staff and their wages/benefits. This will result in poor service for the public and the elimination of decent paying jobs, but profits for the owners. It’s a lose, lose, win.
Third parties CANNOT come in and run arenas or pools at a profit without HUGE increases in user fees.
Every single example of a third party running municipal recreational facilities where user fees are kept comparable to the provincial average are still very heavily subsidized by the municipality. In almost all cases public access goes down, facilities are run down as no capital investment is made, and user satisfaction falls through the floor.
According to the National Recreation Facilities Association it costs an average of $300- $350 per hour to maintain ice, and an average swim admission would need to be almost $20 to fully cover costs.
Good luck selling that to the public!!
Private ice rinks in the lower mainand are able to survive by selling ice to adults at a high price, selling beer, and being able to rent 24/7 which would never happen here because we do not have the volume, nor would anyone play at 3am in the morning like they do in Vancouver.
Any ice at these facilities that are for youth pay the same high rates and in many cases are subsidized by the municipalities.
Chew on this one- Average ice rental for minor hockey in Nova Scotia $250-$300 per hour. PG = $100.
First off our recreational properties should be ,”user pay”. Why should we provide recreatinal property for the masses.
We have all these ice surfaces for who? Its for these people that want to be hockey players, pay for your ice time. And if you need exercise there is nothing finer then a walk around the block.
Cheers
“First off our recreational properties should be ,”user pay”. Why should we provide recreatinal property for the masses.”
If we -as a society- don’t encourage people to adopt a healthier lifestyle we end up paying a lot more in the long wrong when we’re all obese and start draining the health care system.
A walk around the block isn’t much of a team building exercise. One of the benefits of a team sport like hockey is that it teaches our children how to function in a social environment.
I’d rather see and pay for our kids to play hockey rather than have them sitting around the basement playing with their XBoxes.
My kingdom for an edit button! “Long wrong” should read “long run”. Yowsers.
I think we have to decide if it’s in the best interests of the taxpayer to subsidize these recreational facilities.
If we do support it, taxes have to rise as a result to cover costs. If we don’t support it, the user should bear most (if not all) of the costs.
“I think we have to decide if it’s in the best interests of the taxpayer to subsidize these recreational facilities. “
There have been numerous studies that show just how beneficial recreational facilities are to a community; especially for the children in the community. Better grades, healthier kids, kids that are less likely to smoke and I think some have even claimed a reduction in crime.
I believe it’s in our best interests to keep subsidizing them; the benefits outweigh the costs.
It would be funny if not sad that we have a mayor who just over a year ago wanted to spend millions of our tax dollars to build another ice rink and now she and her band of merry men are instead going to debate big increases to user fees for our arenas and pools.
Well at least they all were up front with us when they ran for office last year on a platform of service reductions, privatization, increased user fees, and a cut to all social and environmental programs.
Um, wait a minute, I am going to have to re-read all their campaign material, I might have missed some of those campaign promises. LOL. And they wonder why we view politicians with such disgust.
I believe it’s in our best interests to keep subsidizing them; the benefits outweigh the costs.
——————————————
Its in the best interest in the community if the parents look after their children.To think that hockey enhances the lives of our kids is abit far fetched. It teaches them to become focused on their own lives and studies show they realy are not interested in our society.
We dont need studies to see what enhances the lives of our kids.Many of those in organized sports become self centred and expect to be Gordie Howes or some such elitist.
The kikds are the responsiblikty of the parents and for starters its not the kids that are the problem its their parents and the Dads that should be home playing with their off springs but are out playkng kids games like hockey. If they want to play let them pay.
Cheers
And a walk around the block is a start. After many years of walking before my work day started it makes for a productive and a m uch better attitude towards others even tho it is an individual recreation that is far mor productive health wiise then arganized sport which pro ably happens once a week or so.
A walk of eight to ten k’s aday is alot more productive then organized sports will ever be. I have been walking daily for over 30 years and all it costs is a new pair of shoes ever so often.So dont get to snotty about a walk around the block.
Cheers
Yes retired02, we should cancel all sports and tell the kids to go walk around for a few hours… good grief
Why stop with a walk around the block?
-Add a healthy dose of bran to the daily diet for all kids.
– Make wearing your pants so the belt just below the nipples the latest fashion statement.
-Bushy eyebrows are HOT!
-Turf the Beebs and bring back Frank Sinatra.
-Scratch Snookie and revive Andy Rooney
-Have kids chase other kids off the lawn:)
Subsidize the kids but the adults in the beer leagues should pay the full tab(or at absolute minimum 75%)
I have no issues with subsidizing sports programs for kids as I do think they are beneficial from a health and social point of view. That said, so are arts programs and other recreational activities so let’s subsidize them as well, as we likely already do. As a community, anything we can do to help keep kids off the streets and turn them into productive members of society is beneficial.
I’ve also no issue with having adults or even rep hockey and groups like that paying more. At that level, participation is less about development and societal benefits and more about personal goals and the pursuit of the activity for pure recreation. They can pay more IMHO, especially if analysis shows that the city is subsidizing the activities to a much greater extent than similar peer communities. If people want the city to the become more fiscally accountable, then perhaps they have to do their part as well.
Pretty sure Johnnybelt is a troll…..
Maybe we should tell city council to sell off City Hall and move into some of the other properties they have bought. The police station will be vacant soon as well.
Maybe that would bring them back to reality a bit.
Peter,
Generally, I like your commentary. This article however, is a load of tripe. Some folks are never happy I suppose, no matter what you do though. Taxes too high, they whine. Cut services to lower taxes, they whine. That leads me to believe that they just have a negative sort of nature and that speaks way more about their personal lives than I think it does about the world around them.
The harsh reality is that subsidized recreation and cultural services are less crucial than roads, water, & sewer infrastructure. I think we can all agree on that, so when things get tight, of course these are going to be the first luxuries and niceties to go. That is a no brainer. I get plenty of recreation, without using any of the City subsidized services and I still don’t have a problem subsidizing these things, but if it’s a choice between those things and being able to flush my toilet, there is no question which has to go.
People who love sports will find a way. I believe in user pay systems. People should start realizing the full costs of these facilities. Think you can run them better, fine, offer to buy the facilities and run them yourself. Otherwise, start coming up with some solutions of your own or your sniveling will fall on deaf ears I’m afraid.
PS KPMG are not the people who came up with these suggestions. It gets said over and over again that they came from City staff, Councilors, and the public. So point your ire in the right place.
Could be worse – Look up the Abbotsford Heat hockey team. The city signed a deal that guarantees them a 5.7 million revenue per year. So far they have paid 450k, then 1.3 million and this year 1.7 million… yikes!
“We can either raise taxes (user fees) or lower services? Which will it be?”
The thing is that no one seems to be talking effectiveness/efficiency.
How do we know that this city is doing things as effectively and efficiently as possible or as is reasonable?
Before we raise taxes or lower quality and amount of service, we should know that we are working as effectively as we can be.
gus: “The thing is that no one seems to be talking effectiveness/efficiency.”
That too. We all know the government is inefficient on many levels. Just like someone else noted above, you could probably cut 10% of City Staff without noticing much difference.
At the end of the year they should give us our tax form and allow us too allocate what percentage of our taxes we want to see given to each category, ie arts, sports, infrastructure. Then no one can complain. Except council. I dont see many people wanting to pay there percentage.
Retired02…1802, 1902 or 2002?
Comments for this article are closed.