Other Polls 
 Online Poll
Do you agree with the decision by city council to support a detailed design study for a second ice surface at Kenora Recreation Centre?
No   121     83%
Yes   24     17%
 Total Votes: 145

Comments   Add Your Own
egk  ( April 24, 2018)
l find it very hard to believe this council is spending more money on another study. Look at your streets and roads first look at all the business's have shut down in the last five years and not replaced. l think any councillor that supports this idea should be turfed out next election. This addition will add at least 10 per cent on to your tax bill plus the city can hire another three or four more employee,s just what we need.
Lyndon  ( April 24, 2018)
My thoughts on this question is the same as always. Kenora cannot affort this project. $250,000 of Kenora taxpayers’ money for just a portion of what is just the “undertaking and preparing tender ready drawings for the expansion” is not sound financial management for a “city” (denoting Kenora a city instead of what it really is, a town, is a story for another day). Requesting $500,000 from the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund for the other two thirds cost could be requested for something we really need. Twinning the ice surface should be way down on the priority list of what we need. We will never recover any financial benefit from this project, only more costs. Infrastructure is costing taxpayers a fortune which the city is trying to recover in increasing sewer and water bills and taxes. The sewer and water bill is minimum $98 per month before using even a drop of water in a household. Next in line is the Rotary Club’s request for taxpayers to cover the $112,000 upgrade of water pipe costs for their Splash Park project. Next we will be asked to cover unforeseen costs on the upcoming Kenora Art Centre. Meanwhile the hospital is in a constant state of deficit and our health care put on the back burner. We have to be smart about how taxpayers’ money will be spent.
who's hand is in my pockets?  ( April 24, 2018)
This is a user pay world we live in. I pay for trash pick-up with bag tags. My utilities (including sewer and water) expense is based on the way I use or consume those services. Why would I subsidize someone else's enjoyment? I agree there are some charitable reasons for communities to support development of children that have fewer opportunities but this is not an example of that.
jojo  ( April 23, 2018)
I think any new facility should be for a large multi-user facility. Our area endures six months of hard core winter. We all need a facility that all age groups can exercise, play and do multiple activities for many age groups to lead a healthy, happy, active lifestyle ie. indoor track for walking, running, sprinting, tennis, basketball, volleyball. Scope out something for everyone.
At a 23% cost recovery it is time taxpayers start asking some hard questions. Why do we subsidize hockey and figure skating, particularly adults, when we don’t subsidize soccer, curling, golf, music, arts, etc. And when we look at the cost to participate in hockey/figure skating it seems obvious that taxpayers are subsidizing the most affluent of our citizens. So it would seem that taxpayers with lower income, unable to enroll their kids, or themselves, in ice sports are actually subsidizing those most able to afford to pay for those sports. At least if the plans are done citizens that most desire the twinning can step forward to say they will fund it and Council can ensure those that use the rinks pay the operating costs. The time has come that taxpayers challenge the culture of sponsoring elite athletes. Any subsidizing of costs should only be for margainalized youth. If the twinning, as is said, is good for the economy, that should first and foremost translate into tax relief for the residential taxpayer, now. No net loss for taxpayers, that’s the only way to justify an expansion.
Gerald  ( April 21, 2018)
So who is the lucky person that gets the contract for these shenanigans? You need a study to design a hockey rink? Insanity.
John  ( April 21, 2018)
This is for the town council. We do not want it. We need our water and sewer rates lowered, taxes lowered, streets and roads fixed - not to spent money on another white elephant like the Harborfront tent.
Taxed to Death  ( April 20, 2018)
The current Kenora, Keewatin and JM complexes cost tax payers approximately $2 million every year because revenues collected are only 25% of the actual cost to run these facilities. At an estiamted cost of $30 million to build a new facility and an annual loss of who knows how much (perhaps another million?), I cannot support a new recreation centre or study. Spend some of this $30 million on our deplorable roads. Roads and bridge maintenance is a meager $3 million per year.
Concerned  ( April 20, 2018)
Looks to be like most aren't interested in taking another look at this unneeded project.
Josie  ( April 20, 2018)
Deep pockets Kenoraites, here we go again! The last addition to the Rec Centre left residents once again paying off the debt after the fundraising. The population is dropping with less children per household and some members on Council think it is okay to spend more rather than fix the infrastructure. We still have home owners in Kenora who do not have proper sewer and water installations and who still receive water delivery by truck. To those four Council members who voted in favour of this new expenditure, give your heads a shake and please do not run in the next municipal election in October. We cannot afford you any more.