I am a hockey parent and pay through the nose for ice time. My kids don't play baseball, soccer, softball or football. But you can be damn sure i'm paying a portion for the maintenance of those facilities, yet I am not petty or childish enough to gripe about it like some people in the above article. Grow up and do your part too, those are selfish statements, made by selfish people. It should be about the kids and not about the trivial amount of money that you are not even going to notice is coming out of your pocket!

So it is selfish to want to keep one's own money, but not selfish to want to take someone else's money so you don't have to pay as much for your kid's sport of choice? Interesting. So how about you cut me a check to subsidize my daughter's dance class and swim class. If you don't, you must be selfish.

Comparing an ice arena to a baseball field is a pretty good stretch in my opinion. There is far more public use of parks and fields than there is an ice rink. Most ice rinks are also shut down 3-4 months out of the year, yet the infrastructure and grounds still must be maintained.
The issue J.A. and all other rink proponents is where does it stop? What if 10% of the people want a skateboard park? Or 25%. All sports are expensive, hockey being one of them. How often are the outdoor rinks used? We never saw the inside of a hockey rink when I played until it was time for the playoffs. Are there any games scheduled outside now? What are you and STMA hockey association doing for fund raising? Monticellos group raised enough funds to pay for their rink and more. To arbitrarily put every taxpayer on the hook for a facility for a select group to enjoy is the definition of selfish.

One correction to the article. I did not suggest user fees for parks. That would be a nightmare to administer and enforce.

The suggestion was to charge user fees for soccer leagues and baseball leagues to both cover the cost of field maintenance and the person at city hall who has to take time to schedule all the fields.

However, a better suggestion was made at the meeting . Simply lease the fields for $1 to the soccer group and baseball group respectively. I would add the requirements that they must keep the fields in tip top shape and keep them available for public use when a scheduled game or practice is not happening. (That said, I haven't seen any pick up games anytime I've gone by the various fields, not to say it doesn't happen.)

Eric and Rick, excellent points. I'd love to have the city pay some of our gymnastics costs too...heck, how about piano, etc??

I just can't believe that we can't cut $150,000 or so from the budget. My husband took a deep pay/benefits cut less than 2 years ago...why doesn't the city start a new trend and lower the pay/benefits for everyone. Relieved area cities will start to say "hey look, they lowered costs like your average business has been doing, I think we should do that too!" Instead of hearing that we have to give this public employee or that a big raise because <insert an area city> just did it and we have to remain competitive, we can finally stem that rising tide. And for those who say that we'll lose the talented workers our city has if we do that...where are they going to go in this economy?

To those not in favor of the ice rink I want to clarify some discrepancies...1) the rink is used ALL YEAR ROUND! 2) you can use it any time you want. There is scheduled open skate. Don't say you can't use it because you can. 3) Our hockey players are having to travel to St. Cloud, Princeton, Blaine, etc. to just practice. 4) We do use the outdoor ice for practices. But unfortunately weather comes into play in that area. We were scheduled for all week but unfortunately due to the weather the rinks are not in good condition. 5) we have been doing a TON of fundraising, including Bingo and meat raffles, etc. What fundraising did the baseball teams and soccer teams do to get those fields in place? Now with that being said, yes it is our choice to participate in hockey but it also is unfair that the city/cities shell out a ton of money for the park fields, etc. I think before you put down the STMA Hockey Association you should attend a board meeting and see/hear what the need is. You should also maybe attend the meetings that are held with the cities to address the strong need for another sheet of ice. It is funny how people can complain about issues but don't know the true facts. Get your facts then we will listen.

Becky, here's the very first sentence from my comment above: "Comparing an ice arena to a baseball field is a pretty good stretch in my opinion." Here's the real deal. It's NOT a sheet of ice. It's another building. It's doubling the maintenance and operational costs of the current ARENA. This is a very common ploy when people want other people to pay for their toys. Minimalize. It was done with that joke of a school levy, it's being done here by the STMA hockey group by trying to get everyone to think it's a big ice cube and will cost next to nothing. Let me tell you something. Just the cost to install the HVAC to run one rink would pay for the maintenance and upkeep of a baseball field for at minimum five seasons. One "sheet of ice" with accompanying building, stands, licensing, insurance, regulatory approval (if you feel the need to vomit, check out how many local, state and federal agencies get involved in something like building an ice rink. Purely that is the definition of Big Government gone wild), chiller system, HVAC system, locker rooms, scoreboard, intercom/sound system, concrete pad, and the "misc" costs put you at ~$2.5M. That's alot to ask of both city councils for them to put their constituents on the hook for that kind of money. And please tell me when the local arena is used year round. I drive by this one everyday of the year and in the summer time, it's deserted.
Please reformulate your argument before you call me out on my facts.

Well said Becky!

I love the À la carte taxing method, I think that there is some third world country's that will let you take up residency.

Here is the problem. Nobody should be forced to subsidize some one else's sports. The soccer teams should pay the cost of building and maintaining the soccer fields, the baseball teams the baseball fields, and the hockey teams the ice arenas. It is not right to forcibly take another's money, which is the fruits of their labor, time, and effort, to fund things that only relatively small groups use. To those who support hockey and complain about the cost, you chose one of the most expensive sports to play, not me. It's time that everyone pays fully for the cost of their own recreation. As stated previously, I pay the full cost of my daughter's swim and dance classes. It's time for the hockey families, baseball families, and soccer families to do the same.

À la carte like I said. Your kids play sports mine do too! Quit whining!

The dance studio and the swim school are private businesses with their own facilities. They receive no subsidies. Since it is "for the kids" just like hockey, soccer, and baseball, they should receive a subsidy, right? After all, I am being forced to subsidize hockey, baseball, and soccer through my city property taxes. Are dance and swimming somehow less worthy? Of course not. The real solution is to quit subsidizing any of them. Let people pay the cost of the sports they choose. That is the most just and fair way to pay for the costs of these activities.

Please don't complain that you have your children in "PRIVATE ACTIVITIES".

I am not complaining about private activities. I am complaining that hockey, baseball, and soccer are somehow deemed "public activities" and that everyone, regardless of participation, is forced to pay for them under threat of having your home seized and sold at a tax auction.

That is extreme! There is a 3rd world country off the coast of Africa that is looking for residents. lol

It's extreme to expect people to pay for services they use? You're funny.

Pay only for the governmental services you use? Welcome to Fantasy Island.

Are your kids in the Sea Devils program and/or high school level? All residents are paying for those programs as well through taxes, etc. by use of the buildings/pools. Same as we do in the Hockey Association. I pay my kids hockey fees 100% out of pocket. That pays for their ice time and registration. No one else pays my fees. And I pay for the fields around the two cities as well. I am not complaining, I am a citizen in a young community where kids have great opportunities to play all types of sports. I support all of the recreation/non-recreational (or private as you would call it) programs so that our community has great activities for our children. Sadly you don't especially when you say you have children. Oh, and one more thought...your "Private Businesses"...you are paying for their facilities, that is part of your costs, and ours in tax dollars!!!! Just ask to see these "private activities' financials and how they break down your costs. Nothing is free my friend.

No, the private places I go to have their own facilities. No school pools or rooms are used.

Becky, your hockey program uses a building subsidized by my and everyone else's tax dollars. You pay your fees, but those fees do not cover the costs. If they did, the arena wouldn't need money from the city.

Basically, if all of these various sports were paid for by the participants, then all our taxes would be lower and we would be free to vote with our pocketbooks and support the activities we each like. It would be the ultimate democracy.

AMEN ERIC! The fact is, that is not how it is. So for those that complain about a rink and say they pay "nothing" for their facilities is just an ignorant comment!

Just for clarification for everyone commenting on this story. The soccer program has roughly 1400-1500 participants on a yearly basis. The soccer fields in the area are located in city parks which would need to be maintained regardless of if the soccer programs were using them or not. The soccer club also contributes money on a yearly basis to stripe and maintain those fields and has also recently purchased the city of St. Michael a striping machine for them to use on all fields. In addition the soccer club also purchased a water wheel a few years ago to water the city parks in St. Michael. Moreover, if adults wish to use the fields there is a fee for them to do so as the city only allows youth players to use them.
In conclusion, tax payers are not on the "hook" for many of the costs except for the typical maintanance of the city parks

Youth baseball also donates money to the city for field maintenance. Get your story straight Eric or find something else to complain about.

JT and Tom,
I did look at the actual receipts verses expenses for 2010 and 2011. (There are only estimates for 2012.) There are line items for receipts and expenses for both ball field and soccer field maintenance.

Baseball receipts for 2010-2011 = $7514.63
Baseball expenses for 2010-2011 = $18516.75
Subsidy for baseball = $11002.12

Soccer receipts for 2010-2011 = $2400
Soccer expenses for 2010-2011 = $14378.05
Subsidy for soccer = $11978.05

Those are both decent chunks of money. That also doesn't include a clerks time to schedule the fields.

There is one other receipt line item from 2010 only called Team Fees, resulting in $1130.72. It was $0 for 2011. Not sure what that goes to, soccer, baseball or both, but it is well short of the subsidies.

I should include the ice rink for fairness.

Ice rink receipts for 2010-2011 = $0
Ice rink expenses for 2010-2011 = $9417.94
Ice rink subsidy for 2010-2011 = $9417.94

The city's budget is $5.2 million. Lets say you take $10,000 out of that and pass it to youth sports to cover field expenses. You result in a city property tax savings of 0.19% and more than likely drive kids away from participating because the activity is now too expensive. Enjoy your pack of gum with your tax savings.

The three activity's subsidies comes to $15000 per year or 10% of the proposed tax increase.

Now we have other areas to tackle besides these sports. There is approximately $456,864 budgeted for parks and recreation, $106,405 budgeted for the senior center, etc. There must be room for cuts in these areas. Every area, especially those that tax all for the benefit of few, should be targeted.

Assuming Tom's soccer participation rate of1500 kids per year, the soccer subsidy of ~$5000 a year could be covered with a $3.50 per kid fee. Looking at the Senior Center, there is a receipt for $17500 of Senior Center Aid. It is not clear the source, but I assume it is either the state or Albertvilleand Hanover's contribution. With a budget of $106405, that comes to $88905 of St. Michael taxpayer dollars. Per the 2010 census, there are about 1000 residents 65 and older. If there was 100% involvement, that could be covered with an annual membership fee of $89. Assuming only 200 participants or 20% of the senior population, the fee would be $37 a month or$445 a year. That's not much for one person considering the cost of just one of my kids activities is basically the same per year. My daughter's dance class is $40 per month or 9 months x $40 for $360 a year for a one day a week class. Between the sports subsidies and the Seniorsubsidy, we tackled 70% of the tax increase.

On a separate sort of related note, adding the proposed 2013 money for “Paved Streets”, “Unpaved Streets”, “Ice & Snow Removal”, “Curb and Gutter”, and “Street Lighting”, the city spends just over $1 million or about 18% of the proposed budget on roads, but pays for them with property taxes. (There is another significant line for “Equipment”, but no clarity as to what the equipment is. Some may be for road maintenance equipment, increasing the amount by up to another $281 thousand.) Ideally, these should be paid for with user fees such as a gas tax. Why should a household who doesn’t drive or barely drives pay the same as a household who has three cars that all put on significant mileage?
Using very rough estimated numbers, St. Michael residents use about 3.2 million gallons of gas a year. That would equate to a $0.31 cents per gallon gas tax to offset the property taxes used to pay for roads. However, if this was added to local gas station’s prices, people would simply fill up elsewhere and our local stations would go out of business.
Thus a transition to a user fee (gas tax) for local roads would require State action. Basically, we would trade property tax reductions for a gas tax increase with money specifically earmarked for local roads. The funding would have to be distributed with some impartial formula so it essentially becomes a net wash for city, county, and township budgets around the State.

Of course I fear handing over more control to the State government. You can’t trust politicians, especially the more removed they are, with your money.

What color is the sky in your world?

Eric how much money is in the budget for the fire department? I have never used that service, so I guess I shouldn't pay for it, right? A high % of their medical calls are from senior citizens so I guess you could just add that to your new $37 per month "senior fee". Seems fair. To pay for city trails, the city could put up toll booths every quarter mile and have users pay a fee. What nonsense.

The fire department calls used to be paid for with home owners / fire insurance just like ambulance rides are paid for by health insurance. That is not a bad model, but property taxes in this case are not a bad substitute.

I stated in one of the very early comments that charging fees for parks would be "a nightmare to administer and enforce". Thus I see no way to pay for parks themselves except as they currently are, so nice straw man on the trails.

The "senior fee" was intended for usage/membership in the Senior Center, not essential services like police and fire. Again, nice try putting words in my mouth.

I find it so sad that so many feel they can use government to rob from their neighbor to pay for their favorite program/sport/subsidy. What about "Thou shall not steal".

Like it or not Eric there are very few people in this country who haven't received some sort of a government subsidy. Posting on the patch wont help your cause. Either run for office or quit complaining.

JT, I know. With the way things are structured, it is almost impossible to avoid it. I don't expect to ever get to the ideal situation were everyone pays for exactly what they use because it is often not practical. The trails and general parks being a good example. However, in areas where it is practical, we should strive for it.

I do disagree that posting on the Patch does nothing. It does get a conversation started. Ideas have power. Of course as you suggest, running for office would, win or lose, go further. Maybe someday. Like many of you, work and kids keep me a little occupied right now. Anyway, best wishes and Merry Christmas.

Tom and Eric, I have to say THANK YOU for bringing concrete information (numbers) to the conversation. It's so stupid to waste our time bickering when a little research and a calculator can shed light and rid the conversation of accusations and blame. Please, both of you, save those numbers and show up at the next city council meeting! :)

Haiti is looking for Tea Party Patriots, I hear they have Low Taxes, you should look at moving there! You may want to take up residency in a cave If you don't want to pay taxes here in the beautiful City of St Michael!