Ramara is still discussing its approach to Orillia’s non-resident user fees for its recreation programs and services.
Late last year, Ramara decided more information was necessary before committing to the $260,000 annual contribution Orillia says it can pay on behalf of residents who use its programs and facilities.
As of May 1, non-resident user fees were increased by 20 per cent, bringing the total to 50 per cent more than Orillia residents.
Orillia reports that 56 per cent of users are non-residents — people who reside outside Orillia’s boundaries and do not contribute to its tax base. Of that 56 per cent, 13 per cent are Ramara residents.
Township staff met with Orillia staff for more details about resident usage and to understand how these numbers were calculated.
On May 11, Ramara’s committee of the whole (COW) recommended continued collaboration with Orillia and collecting more data over a six-month period. It also recommended that Ramara staff develop and implement a plan to gather resident feedback.
Mayor Basil Clarke and Deputy Mayor Keith Bell agreed with the motion, while others expressed degrees of opposition.
“I’ve had several kids go through recreation programming in Orillia and I was happy to pay the non-resident fee,” said Coun. Dana Tuju.
She noted that people who want their kids participating in the programs will pay and those who don’t should not have to pay.
“It’s kind of a slippery slope,” said Clarke. “If you make (fees) too high you lose the customers and you’re less profitable.”
He supported the motion, but articulated being against the municipality paying on behalf of residents.
In its report, Orillia cites 3,547 unique Ramara users of its recreation facilities.
With regard to learning more about usage, Bell said maintaining swimming pools is a considerable cost.
“I think I’d like to understand how much we participate in that portion,” he said.
Coun. David Snutch, on the other hand, disagreed with the entire motion.
“I don’t think we should be looking into this at all,” he said, also noting that he was against the subsidy.
Coun. Sherri Bell wanted to amend the motion, removing Ramara’s community engagement strategy.
“I support a respectful request to work with (Orillia) staff …. I think six months of data has to come back before we can go out there and talk to Ramara residents about what they think,” she said.
Brittany Wilson, Orillia’s director of human resources/health and safety/recreation, was in attendance and contributed to the discussion.
“I can see the value in either direction,” she said. “Even if we’re not holding on entirely to the end of the six months, that even if we could gather some of that data initially to find out what the right questions are to ask the public, maybe that is the route that we should go.”
Coun. Jennifer Fisher seconded Bell’s amendment, but suggested developing a community engagement strategy while deferring the implementation of it to another time. Bell changed her mind about that later in the discussion.
“I was just being friendly when I agreed to Coun. Fisher’s amendment, so I would not be implementing any kind of engagement strategy prior to receiving more data. I don’t actually see the value at all,” she said, noting the related costs.
The mayor was in full support of community engagement and more data, such as which particular programs Ramara residents are participating in.
“It might be something we can start to provide here as well,” he said.
“It’s not the job of this council right now. It’s the job of the 2026-2030 council to figure out what kind of relationship it wants to build with Orillia and recreation would be just one component,” said Coun. Bell.
Her amendment was defeated, which led her to request separating the motion.
Clarke mentioned the value of receiving both the staff report and the results of public feedback to council at the same time.
“Now they can face a decision,” he said of the future council. “If not, you’re just kicking the can further down the road again.”
“I agree with the first two parts but I don’t agree with the third part,” Bell said about the same topic of community engagement when trying to separate it from the motion.
The mayor turned down her request because the amendment was already defeated.
“The motion is what the motion is,” he said.
Councillors Snutch and Bell were the only two in opposition.
The recommendation, passed as originally written, will be considered for ratification at the June 8 regular council meeting.
By Danielle Pitman, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on May 25, 2026 at 13:54
Recent Comments