City of Iqaluit considers new policy for letters of support
Staff, council seek to streamline process for endorsing funding requests, facility use
The City of Iqaluit is drafting a new policy on how it responds to requests for letters of support from community letters and organizations. (File photo)
The City of Iqaluit is drafting a new policy for providing letters of support to groups seeking funding or requesting free use of a city facility.
Clerk Brianna Longworth presented the draft to councillors at Tuesday’s governance and priorities meeting.
The changes are aimed at ensuring a “fair, consistent and transparent” process for processing requests.
“The City of Iqaluit recognizes that a letter of support can be very helpful for the success of community projects and local initiatives,” the policy document says.
The draft policy clarifies that issuing a letter of support “does not create a legal partnership or a promise of money” unless approved by council.
Any organization or person conducting research or hoping to help the community can request a letter of support.
The new policy would have people submit requests by emailing the clerk. From there, administration officials would decide whether the request needs council approval or not.
Council approval would not be required for requests from charities or people “providing non-profit services that benefit from the community,” requests that don’t require a donation from the city, when the request aligns with city goals and policies, and when the city is not in competition with the request.
In these cases, the mayor and deputy mayor would be able to jointly approve the request. The mayor would inform councillors at the following meeting.
Council approval would be required if a request comes from a government or business, involves land activities or research, asks for a city donation, involves a policy not approved by council, or requires approval for alcohol use at city facilities.
Applicants would submit requests at least 14 before they need the letter of support, and at least seven days before the next council meeting if they need council’s approval.
The draft policy was unanimously accepted by the committee without debate and awaits council’s approval.
Hockey mom here. I’m not writing on behalf of the hockey association. I know parents spend countless hours fundraising to pay for ice time. In a community with very few recreational options for kids does it mske sense for the city to collect significant revenue from youth sports?
What is the city’s plan to support the kids who play hockey, an outlet for some? Access to recreation should be encouraged not treated as a source of revenue.
Dear entitled hockey mom
I am a hockey dad but understand the city has spent millions on recreation facilities and millions ongoing every year to operate them.
I am also a tax payer dad and happy to see minimal ice time fees in place to lower the burden of the tax payer.
Research around Canada and you will see these fees are very reasonable and as tax payer dad I may lobby for them to go up
Let’s look at the actual numbers: Iqaluit already has some of the lowest, most aggressively subsidized ice rates in Canada. While southern cities and our neighbors in Yellowknife charge up to $350 an hour, we’ve been skating on heavily discounted time. But keeping subsidies this artificially high completely destroys the city’s ability to actually maintain the infrastructure.
The entitlement around hockey here needs a reality check. Hockey serves only a small, specific portion of our community, yet it expects the lion’s share of municipal recreation funding. How a town this size is trying to float two separate ice rinks that mostly sit empty outside of prime time to cater to this is baffling.
I appreciate the perspective of fellow taxpayers and hockey parents, but I think comparing Iqaluit’s ice rates to those in southern Canada or even Yellowknife without considering the broader context is misleading.
In many southern communities, hockey is increasingly a sport accessible primarily to families with significant financial means. More importantly, children who do not play hockey often have access to a wide range of alternatives: swimming pools, libraries, recreation centres, dance studios, arts programs, indoor play facilities, community leagues, and year-round organized activities.
In Iqaluit, recreational opportunities are far more limited. Hockey is one of the few structured, healthy outlets available to many young people, and notably, participation here is often intentionally subsidized to ensure accessibility for children from households across the income spectrum. That is something our community should be proud of.
The discussion should not simply be about recovering costs or benchmarking hourly rates elsewhere. It should also consider the social return on investment. Nunavut faces disproportionately high social challenges compared to the rest of Canada. Providing children with safe spaces, positive mentorship, physical activity, and a sense of belonging is not merely a recreational expense; it is an investment in community wellness and prevention.
No one disputes that arenas are expensive to build and operate. The question is whether, in a community with limited recreational options and significant social needs, maximizing revenue from youth recreation should be the priority. To me, ensuring that children continue to have affordable access to one of the few meaningful outlets available to them is a worthwhile investment, and comparisons to southern fee structures alone are simply comparing apples to oranges.
P.S. Most homeowners are from the South and have means more than many Inuit.
When you have 500 plus registered players between the glorified NHL league and the awesome program IAHA runs. I think hockey is the most popular sport. The only heavily subsidized recreation facilities is that failure of a burden to us tax payers is the aquatic centre and curling rink.
Hockey Mom: I’m surprised by the backlash to your reasonable comments.
Should kids be charged $100/swim to use the pool, just because it’s expensive to maintain?
Access to extracurriculars is an important part of a thriving community. If the City can make it a little easier, shouldn’t they?
I think this is getting framed the wrong way. This isn’t about whether hockey, swimming, or curling is more valuable. All three provide important benefits to the community and all three deserve public support.
The real question is what level of subsidy is reasonable which Hockey Mom asserts Hockey is not subsidized enough.
But according to the City’s 2024 audited financial statements, on its website, arena users paid for only 12.5% of operating costs, with taxpayers covering the remaining 87.5%. Aquatic Centre users paid 19.4% of costs, with taxpayers covering 80.6%. Curlers paid 83.7% of their operating costs, with taxpayers covering just 16.3%.
In other words, the City is already heavily subsidizing both hockey and aquatics, and hockey receives the largest subsidy relative to its operating costs by a significant margin.
As a taxpayer, I’m comfortable with the current level of support. Recreation facilities improve quality of life, support youth development, and contribute to community well-being. That’s a legitimate use of public funds.
What the numbers don’t show is that hockey is being neglected. Quite the opposite. Taxpayers are already covering nearly nine dollars out of every ten dollars required to operate the arenas.
Reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be, but the audited financial statements suggest the City is already making a substantial investment in hockey, aquatics, and recreation generally. The conversation should be about maintaining a fair and sustainable balance, not about whether hockey is receiving enough financial support from the City.
The city and GN offer grants for sports and youth initiatives. There’s already plenty of money, people just need to put the effort into accessing it.
For seekers of sport distractions on the relative cheap, might I suggest Frisbee Golf.
With all the money made from the bingo’s for IAHA
Pretty sure the ice time can be paid in full