TERRACE CITY council may have twice now turned down requests for money by a local non profit group which wants to buy the Shames Mountain ski facility but it may yet become involved in some fashion.
A council session last night with members of the My Mountain Co-op group suddenly turned private so financial information could be discussed.
The result is several recommendations which council isn’t releasing now but will surface when council meets in full session Sept. 12.
“Because it involves Shames Mountain Ski Corporation it had to be held in that in-camera session,” said mayor Dave Pernarowski of the co-op’s ongoing purchase negotiations.
He said that for the city council to decide if it is going to help the co-op, it needs to understand detailed financial information involving a third party which neither the city or co-op have permission to tell the public.
“We were having a pretty frank discussion on where they were at with their negotiations,” said Pernarowski after the meeting.
But during the public portion of the meeting, council and My Mountain Co-op did talk business strategies and issues.
During this, councillor Bruce Martindale wanted to clarify what the benefits and liability of a membership are, as he’s observed some public confusion over the meaning of this.
“Their liability is risk associated with loss,” said My Mountain Co-op director Jon Hopper, explaining that members won’t be accountable for business liability so much as losing money they’ve invested after the purchase.
Once the hill is operating, members can request to pull their membership and get their money back, but if the ski hill can’t afford to give it then that’s the risk, he said.
The benefit to membership includes voting power, he continued, it is the pride of ownership in something important to the community.
No preferential treatment will be given to members as it is not in the ethos of the business model, he explained.
Councillor Brian Downie suggested that in terms of incentive and reward for members, the co-op might consider a form of business advertisement like displaying logos for business members, or give certificates or a proof of membership to private members.
Co-op director Darryl Tucker’s the co-op hasn’t had the manpower to do everything but that member certificates have been prepared and are awaiting approval.
One of the concerns brought up at the meeting was the expense of skiing for low income earners, meaning they do not then regard a ski facility as an asset.
“It would seem to me that any sort of business plan that has broader community ownership is going to have to address that kind of vision,” said Bruce Bidgood, asking what the co-op’s plans are to create access to lower-income users.
Members of the co-op said the group has some ideas, like having one or more free days, an aboriginal ski day or weekend or two for one passes for parents who bring children.
The co-op did note that the Kitimat-Stikine regional district will give the co-op $100,000 to help operate the facility but only if it is used to subsidize low income earners.
Bidgood also noted concern about giving money to the group, saying the city would have to borrow and then pay interest on a loan. Paying interest on that to help buy the mountain and pay debts is not something looked upon favourable by some members of the public, he said, but helping with day-to-day operations is.
