Level playing field needed

Dear sir:
In your editorial of Sept. 1, 2004, you stated that “free property taxes is not the solution to its [the curling club’s] current woes and town council should nix that request.”
I respect your opinion, however, I am sure that it was arrived at without considering all of the facts.
I am sure also you did not intend to classify the curling club as a business, like Plaza Lanes which, although it provides a recreational facility, does generate a profit for its owners.
I ask you to consider what are the true costs for sports which use publicly-funded facilities such as the sports complex, sports fields, and school gymnasiums. The user fees which are paid by athletes do not come close to covering these costs.
We, as curlers, know the true cost of operating a recreational facility since we have been doing it for the past 105 years. Please consider the following before commenting again.
Most communities in Northwestern Ontario subscribe to the fact that like hockey players, figure skaters, swimmers, squash players, fitness enthusiasts, basketball players, volleyball players, tennis players, badminton players, football players, baseball players, gymnasts, bowlers, and soccer players, curlers also should have the benefit of a publicly-funded facility.
Of the 23 communities in Northwestern Ontario that have active curling clubs (note: there are 25 active curling clubs in Northwestern Ontario, three of which are in Thunder Bay), 19 are community-owned facilities.
In these cases, curlers pay a user fee similar to that paid by most of the sports enthusiasts in Fort Frances. Not only does the town pick up all costs related to the operation of these facilities through the recreation budget, but they also paid for the construction of these facilities (note: provincial government grants and private donations helped to offset these costs).
Unlike curlers in these other communities, curlers in Fort Frances bear the full burden of hydro, natural gas, water, sewer, snow removal, and garbage pickup, as well as the added burden of $28,000 annually in taxes and $25,000 in mortgage principal and interest payments.
Since the curling club moved into its new facility (a $1.8-million facility which is 90 percent paid for) in 1992, we have paid close to $300,000 in municipal and education taxes.
Had we been responsible for only half of this, we no longer would have a mortgage and would not be having this discussion.
The initial shock came when we got our first tax bill for the new facility ($24,000), which was four times the taxes of our previous facility across from the Civic Centre.
Not only did the community retain the taxes from the old site, which is now owned by Abitibi-Consolidated, but it is receiving the added revenue from the new facility which sits on a piece of swampland which probably would not have generated any revenue had we not built there.
Our board of directors, at the time, immediately took steps to have this tax burden reduced, but to no avail. The past three years, the curling club has received a tax rebate of $5,000—roughly 20 percent of the total, which is only one-half of the rebate the town is authorized to give.
Since moving into our new facility, the cost of hydro, water and sewer, and natural gas also has tripled. We have managed, until now, to offset these costs through increases in dues, with the result that we have the highest dues in the northwest.
Further increases of this nature, sadly, would decrease our membership, which likely would result in no net gain.
CAO Mark McCaig has indicated that “It’s not a request for an in-kind service” and that “we’re [the town] not in a great position to be doing things like that.” It is my understanding that in-kind services are those which are given gratis to the recipient.
Perhaps we could look at other expenses of the club which could fall in this category (i.e., water and sewer, garbage pickup, snow removal, and hydro—we currently pay the highest fee for hydro based on our peak usage from the running of the ice plant).
Some reduction of these costs, which are covered by the town and the board of education in other recreational facilities, also could solve our problem.
Further to your comments which state that other “not for profit” organizations also would be making requests for tax subsidies, I agree that this is highly likely. However, the town only should consider requests from organizations that provide recreational facilities which are publicly-funded in other communities.
I recognize that the tax burden on individual homeowners and businesses in this community is astronomically high already and we, as curlers, would like to avoid adding to this burden, as we have for the past 105 years.
The reality is, however, that in order to maintain a first-class curling facility in Fort Frances, the town is going to have to come to the table with some major concessions.
We are not asking the town to take over our facility and operate it for the curlers, which would be a much heavier burden for the taxpayer.
We only are asking that we be given a level playing field with other sports so that we may compete for the recreational dollar and maintain a first-class recreational facility in Fort Frances.
(Signed),
Tom Fry
Fort Frances, Ont.