After hearing a new multiplex in La Ronge could be as near as five years away before construction began, I was a little surprised to find this statement on the introduction to a survey about such a facility on the Town of La Ronge website: The life expectancy of Recreation & Leisure facilities are approximately 40-50 years. The Mel Hegland Uniplex was built in 1977 therefore the life expectancy is reaching its end. The Town of La Ronge will produce a feasibility study to build a New Multipurpose Recreation & Leisure facility in the Town of La Ronge. This will be a 10-20 year project; to begin we would like to poll our community members regarding a new facility such as this. Please let us know how your opinion. Ten to twenty years... not what many in La Ronge were hoping for. For me, the rink (though a driving force for my interest) comes secondary to the theoretical walking track and swimming pool that would come along with a multiplex. My personal opinion is the town is in dire need of the pool facility, closely followed by the indoor track. So what's in the survey? 1. Age Group? 2. Rent/Own in which community? 3. Will you use a new facility? 4. Will you help fund raise? (Also asks for contact info if yes) 5. Willing to allocate some of your taxes to new facility? 6. What percentage of that? 7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: My taxing authority/municipality should raise property taxes to build a new Recreation & Leisure Multipurpose facility. 8. Are you willing to pay user fees? 9. What would you be willing to see in the facility? Rate (1-low, 5-high) Swimming Pool, Rink (Hockey/Curling), track, fitness centre, conference centre, field house The results will be posted in March. The survey deadline is February 29th. You can take the survey at the town website: http://www.laronge.ca/index.php Obviously the ten to twenty year timeline is the eye-popper of the whole thing. I think most would agree that the Mel, despite being only thirty years old, is pretty much at the end of its life, not nearing. It won't match the 40-50 year life expectancy because its construction wasn't meant to deal with the traffic and use that it sees. I will be contacting the town to find out more about the project, which at the very least, seems to be taking steps forward (if a little slowly). UPDATE: I spoke with Mayor Thomas Sierzycki this afternoon about the project and survey. It was pretty positive as he mentioned the 10-20 year number is to stay away from overly ambitious goals. They're definitely looking towards the lower end of that spectrum. If things fall into place properly, I get the impression it can move quicker. They are battling some issues including low census numbers that can delay the project. You can listen to my full interview with Mayor Sierzycki Monday night when the Ice Wolves take on the Bombers in Game Three of the Survivor Series on MBC Radio. So far there are only around 300 respondents to the survey, and the town is hoping for many more, so like commenter Northern Boy says, head over to the town site and take the survey. -D CommentsNorthern Boy 02/23/2012 2:24pm
Recently Cameco just signed a 10yr - 4 Billion dollar agreement with China to sell our province's Uranium for their power requirments. The community should be lobbying multimillion dollar companies, such as Cameco, to provide major funding to a project such as this. 40 million over 10 years, is peanuts to a company who just signed a multi-billion dollar agreement to sell the North's Uranium. FYI I have taken the survey and urge everybody to do the same. sylvia harris 02/29/2012 5:00pm
Two reasons why this is a good idea....first to make the population healthy in the community. We all have the right to have access to exercise which will lower heart disease, diabetis, and over weight youth. Second this will create employment in the community. Making sure when the project goes to tender that it is established to the main and sub-contractors to hire northerners. And all apprentices have to be northerners indentured to the Northern Apprenticeship Committee (NAC). Comments are closed. |

RSS Feed