Solving recreation The age of the second class Rossland recreation citizen has now grown into a five year saga, with no solution seemingly in sight. As a reporter at the time I covered the breakdown of regional recreation, the introduction of the TRP card program, and the mass exodus of Rosslanders from Trail recreation facilities and programs, or the mass exodus of cash from wallets for those who braved the doubled pricing structure. During that time and since I’ve been pondering the issue and thinking of various solutions. Just this past week, a solution we found in our renewable energy company flicked on the lights to a strategy that is now working there, and could work to end the recreation stalemate, reuniting Rosslanders with the great Trail Facilities like the Aquatic Centre, and getting Trail the financial contribution it seeks. This year, with new leadership coming into Trail and in Rossland, may well be the best opportunity yet to get the two sides together, get to know one another and set a tone of cooperation and collaboration on finding mutually beneficial solutions to regional issues. Let’s start by establishing the issue. For those interested, have a look at the article link posted in the comments (sorry FB is not cooperating at the moment) which I wrote approximately one year after the introduction of the TRP Program. While I’m not as fired us about the issue as I was at the time, it provides a glimpse at the results the program was having, and why the simple solution of Rossland paying a fee ($147,000 a year, was the initial ask) to The City of Trail to maintain equivalent access for Rosslanders is not the best solution. I noted when reading it again years later that I commended Rossland on not taking a bad deal. While it was a wise move to not take that deal, it was unfortunate they were not able to come up with an acceptable alternative solution. What will it take to end the current system? Trail’s goal is to receive a cash contribution from Rossland, as it does from most of the other surrounding municipalities, in recognition of the facility being a regional one, to help pay the bills. Rossland’s goal has to be, to regain access for our people to facilities and programs at the same cost as it is for people from anywhere else on earth. A win for Rossland of course would be to gain that access at as low as possible a cost, and ideally with some form of representation in how the money is spent. Rebuilding regional recreation is not likely to happen soon, and would be a significant resource and time consuming effort, that may or may not lead to a more equitable solution than at present. I think there is a way though that Rosslanders can achieve equal access, and the City of Rossland can do it for no money out of its pocket, while Trail gains the desired financial contribution, plus significantly more than they asked for, to run the facility. Sounds like a dream solution, no? The quick background. My renewable energy startup company has been chasing investors, and funding for going on three years now, and we are very close to the finish line. The holdup was new, relatively untested technology and a low appetite for that perceived risk. We found an insurance company, got them educated on the technology to the point that they were believers, and they offered a performance guarantee to our investors. What that means is that if the facility only generates 70% of the revenue we told investors it would, the insurance company covers that 30% for them. Now it’s a no-brainer for the investors to come on board. It clicked for me, that this too could be the solution to the recreation stalemate. How? The numbers will have shifted around slight since my article in 2010, but not by a lot in either direction. If you read the article you learn that at the time an estimated 13% of the Aquatic Centre’s traffic and revenue was coming from users from Rossland. Post TRP program that usage plummeted, leading to an estimated $150,000 + revenue loss to the facility. Keep in mind the bill Trail wanted Rossland to pay to play was only $147,000 at the time. Had Trail not implemented the TRP program they actually would have come out ahead. This is the key to my suggested solution. Rossland offers Trail a performance guarantee, such that it would guarantee Trail will at least get what they originally asked for ($147,000), and once again Rosslanders are equitable recreators. Trail then keeps using the TRP program as that is the simplest form of measuring direct statistics on how many users come from Rossland. At the end of the year, tally up the total revenue from Rossland citizens spent at the facility and at all recreation facilities. In 2009 that number would have been around the $150,000 mark, just at the Aquatic Centre, let alone the rest. The performance guarantee Rossland signs with Trail says that if the amount of total revenue coming in to your recreation facilities is less than the $147,000 you originally asked for (perhaps a slightly increased number for the 5 years that have passed since), than the City of Rossland will cover the difference. This guarantees The City of Trail that they get the contribution they wanted from Rossland, and it also as a side benefit to Trail, puts a motivator on The City of Rossland to promote as many Rosslanders as possible to use the facilities. If Rosslanders spend the $147,000 or more in the course of the year, than the City of Rossland doesn’t have to pay a dollar from its budget. Based on 2009 numbers Rosslanders will far exceed that usage level, when they can play at regular price, and there is little to no threat of that spread not being covered, thus no need to involve any insurance companies as was needed on my renewable energy project. It may seem overly simple, but I think it’s a new take on solving the issue that has not been looked at before, that meets and exceeds both Trail and Rossland’s needs in a simple manner.
Posted on: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:59:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015