Technical Corner

November 10, 2025

Recreation operations have always been a political football. A recent media headline identifying Wingham Minor Hockey Association (WMHA) asking the Town of North Huron to decrease its ice rental rates to be in more in line with surrounding communities is a classic case of users that play in a Hilton level recreation facility but are wanting Motel 6 pricing. The North Huron Wescast Community Complex is a good example of how communities have advanced the local recreation experience by constructing multi-purpose facilities to meet the current and future needs of the region. However, the vision of community leaders appears to be not matched with the reality of what owning such a significant building would cost to operate and maintain. This classic case of how the dream state of facility construction can turn into a long-term financial nightmare that requires commitment not only by the users of the facility but also the non-user residents of the surrounding regions.

The WMHA’s request reflects a time gone by. In the 80’s, minor youth sport was every community’s priority and in fairness, it was probably a reasonable political approach to subsidize these services as most every local child was utilizing these investments. In these days, house league play was the opportunity that allowed fair and equal access. Only skilled players moved on to traveling teams as they were scouted through their house league play. Now, as a result of sport governing body changes, all teams are travelling which consumes significant financial resources from both leagues and parents. The common reaction by sport coordinators is to focus on the rental cost as being a barrier, where the reality is the ice cost is often a very reasonable cost associated with the sport. Consider a youth hockey game with 40-players and the cost of the ice is $200.00 an hour (200/40 = $5.00 per-player for that hour’s usage). That includes additional amenities such as dressing room use.

According to a 2023 survey by Hockey Canada, the average annual cost to play minor hockey at the competitive level surpassed $5,000 per player, with some families paying upwards of $10,000. House league participation costs are lower, but they’ve also crept upward, averaging between $800 and $1,200 per season not including travel and gear.
Source: How Much Does Hockey Cost? | Elite Level Hockey

When ice hockey was in its glory days, the rink would often open at 5am everyday of the week to accommodate demand. Youth players had to earn a later time slot by paying their dues of early ice time use. Today, many rinks sit under utilized on weekends as users focus on sport/life balance and smaller communities not attracting enough participants to field teams. Add the changing demographics of ice users competing for ice times and a perfect storm of not enough ice to meet demand has formed in communities of all sizes. Refer to: Ice time is expensive and in demand. So why do arenas sometimes sit empty?

Setting ice user fees to satisfy what users feel they would like to pay is the same as attending the Keg for a steak dinner and wanting to pay Wendy’s prices. It can be done, but someone else has to absorb the difference as the cost of putting the steak dinner on the table stays the same. In the case of community ice rink user fees, it is often the non-user (taxpayer) of the facility who is paying this short fall.

Ice arenas and recreation facilities across Canada are in or entering the final stage of lifecycle, a large proportion being more than 50 years old. Many are failing prematurely based on a historical failure to adequately invest in daily operations and plan for required capital investments. Often core equipment has a run-to-fail philosophy, while the bones of the structure receive little byway of structural inspection and upkeep. Most communities have forensically calculated all aspects of municipal operations and slowly moved towards a 100% cost recovery. Consider the increases in potable and wastewater costs or how user fees are calculated if a homeowner or business requires fire equipment and services to assist in an event. An invoice for 100% of the human and equipment cost plus an administrative fee often is now arriving post attendance. When calculating recreational fees, there still remains a historical heart string attached of “it’s for the kids” so keep it reasonable. However, the use landscape has changed as structured sport under the control of larger sport associations now use the majority of municipality subsidized recreational spaces, this often limits participation levels while gaining access to premium rental times. Often these structured sports are disguised as not-for-profit, but there are lots of unrelated costs associated with the sport that must be covered (i.e. travel, rooms, meals, sticks, sweaters, etc.). There is no doubt that having high calibre sport teams in a community has benefits, but at what cost to the non-user and tax paying community?

When a community decides to construct a walking trail that meets or exceeds AODA compliance requirements it is a recreational asset that has fair and equal access to everyone in the community. Over building recreation facilities that have no real business plan and that are only accessible by a small group of structured sport users that are seeking a subsidy on use rental rates is no longer palatable by the whole community. Consider recreation assets in a community such as a private golf course, curling club, dance studio, or theatre who all need to not only set fees to cover operational costs but must also pay municipal taxes unless the community wishes to waive the tax submission.

So, what is the solution? Community leaders are tasked with developing policy that is equal, fair and transparent. If a community organization wishes to subsidize any part of a recreation operation, it should be performed using a financial grant program. For example, if facility staff calculate an hour of ice time or field time costs $100.00 to produce (staff, equipment, supplies, fuel, insurance, utility costs, etc.) and community leaders want to provide an hour of youth ice or field for $50.00, then they should proactively place an additional $50.00 in a revenue grant budget line that facility staff would draw from to meet the true $100.00 rental cost fee. A system that allows a higher subsidy for programs such as an open public skating could be considered.

In the case of the request in Wingham, it would not be unreasonable based on the quality of the infrastructure to find a calculation of $350-400 an hour to produce an hour of ice, where their neighbouring rinks that are smaller would be $150-200 an hour yet both hope to pay the same rental rate. This is a sensitive subject that will require keen leadership from both elected officials and municipal staff moving forward or future taxpayers will find themselves in the same situation as current community leaders trying to determine how to fix an economic problem for recreation services that has been kicked down the road by past elected officials.

The ORFA has had an unofficial mantra for many years of “just because we a have always done it this way does not guarantee that it has been done right”. The ORFA has been raising awareness of the topic of user fees and revenue generation challenges and opportunities since 2018 with several resources that explore the topic. Refer to: Ready, Shoot, Aim – Recreation Facility Revenue Generation and Analyzing and Calculating Recreational User Fees.

Today’s recreation manager will be continually challenged to provide accurate and transparent information on operational costs. There should be no expectation of provincial or other subsidy for operational costs, and they should be prepared to have non-users ask more questions as their annual tax bills continue to increase. This subject will not be going away anytime soon.