Councillors found themselves being kept in line while discussing a motion regarding non-taxpayer use of city recreation facilities.
Introduced in a notice of motion earlier this month, the motion before council at its April 28 meeting was to have staff review recreational funding models used by other local governments and recommend "equitable usage contributions from non-taxpayers either through updated funding agreements with surrounding Electoral Areas or through residency-based usage pricing or a combination of both."
The motion was introduced by Couns. Debbie Cannon, Kevin Flynn and Tim Lavery, in response to concerns around there being higher demand for "programming and usage of key City recreation facilities," while "city taxpayers currently subsidize all recreation facilities by approximately 50% of actual operating and maintenance costs for all users…"
The motion asked that staff have the report done for the the Oct. 14, 2025 meeting. Cannon asked this be amended to an earlier date, so the report is available for a longer period before budget time, and council agreed on Aug. 25.
The motion also asked staff to show projected revenue and cost implications of potential new systems of usage pricing, and review "possible agreement language and apportionment approaches with Electoral Areas that are currently not fully paying for these recreation usages."
Lavery noted concerns around non-taxpayer use of facilities are not unique to Salmon Arm. Regarding the motion, he asked that staff recommend a "proposed timeline for implementation if it is a residency based pricing model that would be effective as well as appropriate for staff to … put in place." Lavery said he'd also like input from Salmon Arm residents before any decisions are made by council.
"In my view this is not a fall 2025… I think we need to be measured and stepped in our approach," said Lavery.
Flynn agreed recreation facility funding is a significant issue throughout the province, but disagreed on the approach.
"This is a significant issue throughout the province and I would suggest that the results we’re going to get are going to show we are probably the least supported regionally for our rec facilities that are shared, and therefore I will disagree with Councillor Lavery on one thing," said Flynn. "I think if we get this information and work with it, we should be implementing any differential pricing if that’s the decision for the 2026 user year…
"I don’t know how a Salmon Arm resident couldn’t question why the are paying the same plus significant tax dollars for use of facilities…," said Flynn, who was reminded by Mayor Alan Harrison the motion asks for information, "so we’re not going to debate what we think the information is going to be."
Coun. Sylvia Lindgren said she supported the motion, but had another question for staff. She referred letters received regarding people who "travel here from another community to use the pool or skating rink" and wind up spending money here in other areas of the community.
"I wonder whether or not we have ay information about that or any way to collect information about that what kind of economic impact it will have if we drive people to perhaps take their kids to their activities in Vernon instead of Salmon Arm," asked Lindgren.
City administrator Erin Jackson said staff could have a conversation with the Salmon Arm Economic Development Society to see "if there’s a way for us to incorporate that information into the report when we bring it back."
Returning to her amendment, Cannon began to explain why she wanted the report sooner than Oct. 14 but, as with Flynn, was reminded to talk only about the motion.
"Councillor Lavery said what dates he was wanting it to go for his reasons so I’m wondering why I don't have that latitude," asked Cannon.
"Well he took that back because we amended the date to Aug. 25," replied Harrison, who said he would support the motion "to bring information to us, and it’s clear we all need it … so that we can consider what the next step should be."
Council voted unanimously in support of the motion, after which Harrison apologized for what he called a "little bit of a prickly conversation."
I
