Just a question. How would this 2nd sheet of ice be beneficial for any of the other sports clubs in town? It seems to me that the only time the other clubs (baseball, soccer, football etc) would need the space would be in the winter time, the exact same time that the hockey program would use it. I can't see how there could be a sports complex? Perhaps I am missing something?

Excellent comment Eric.

We don't even have 1 community center...The gyms are full as well. Very hard to rent an hour for indoor practice. All of our sports teams are a LARGE % of our communites...

Taxpayers already pay for all other sports...Hockey currently is funding itself...All others get to rent for free pretty much. No other sports team has to pay the city $185 per hour just to practice or to play a game...They play on fields that are ran by the city as well.

STMA Hockey Supporter, you have no idea what you are talking about. As a parent of kids who play soccer, baseball, (take) gymnastics, basketball, football and tennis, there is no free ride for these sports. Everyone pays. I'd like to see the cities and school district getting OUT of the habit of subsidizing sports costs, even though my kids participate in sports.

To suggest that hockey is funding itself is not being honest. To also suggest that it's the only sport club that has to pay? Totally uninformed.

Robin, everything you described can be utilized for free. Please tell me when you can walk into the arena and skate for free. It's $5 for open skate, and open skate is only twice a week tops. Baseball diamonds, senior center is combined with the library and St. Michael city offices. This is an apples and oranges comparison. And I'll add this for the record. I played hockey. I want my kids to skate and play. So yes, I would utilize the rink. What gets me is the outside rinks are empty or very modestly used at best, and we have had perfect weather and dedicated city employees keeping excellent care of them. So until I see games and higher usage on the outdoor rinks, I say no to "another sheet of ice" which of course is a misnomer. It's NOT another sheet of ice. It's another rink which will suffer the same demands as the current arena is experiencing right now.

You are correct. We all subsidize many things that only a fraction of the population use. I am in favor of transferring the cost of those services and facilities to the users of those services and facilities as well. The City of St. Michael operating costs over the last couple years for things like the soccer and baseball fields, minus the contributions from the various clubs, has cost the city approximately $5,000 a year for each. The Senior Center gets approximately $80,000 per year. (This is quite out of balance given there are far many more kids and adults using the sports facilities than there are seniors using the Senior Center, but that is beside the point.) In all these cases, the costs of these facilities should be paid for by the people that use them. Note these numbers do not include capital costs, which are very high for an ice arena.

Your argument of the arena bringing in business doesn't hold water because the increased taxes to pay for such arenas also drive away businesses and makes all of our pockets a little lighter. You may be able to point to some extra hotel stays and restaurant visits on the plus side; but you can't quantify how many businesses stay away, don't expand, or don't hire and local people that go out to dinner less because of these taxes. Anytime people argue for some big new arena or community center, they always point to the seen, but they always discount and ignore the unseen.

Eric...here's another way to look at the business aspect of this. Since I'm out and about for 1.5-2 hrs during my son's hockey practices, I try to to get my errands done and I like the close proximity of grocery stores, gas stations, hardware stores, liquor stores, etc to the STMA arena. Guess what happens when my son has practice in Buffalo, Monitcello, Rogers, Princeton, St. Cloud, Delano, and I have errands to run. Sorry Coborns, Little Dukes, DJ's, Westside Liquor and the other fine local businesses...I just spent a few hundred dollars in another community that could've/would've/should've been spent here. Sound familiar hockey families? It should since I often times run into you at our "homes away from home". Unfortunately, we "can't quantify how many businesses stay away, don't expand, or don't hire..."

Finally, can anybody in youth hockey share how much we're spending on ice time in other communities? I wish I knew, but I don't.

KR .... I have no doubt that additional business transactions are done in locations where sheet time is currently rented because time is not available as desired.. You have noted some of the "close in proximity" businesses that might have additional business if another Arena was built. I'm sure there are others that could be included.

Yet, one also needs to include the additional amount of property taxes that all businesses (as well as residences) would be required to pay for this.

If you truly believe that certain local businesses suffers as a result of the "opportunity cost" of lots of people going elsewhere - I am suggesting that the Hockey groups go talk to the local businesses about this theoretical loss of current business. Any rational business person will weigh what they believe that impact is to their business and contribute to the cause to mitigate their estimate of their loss.

I'm as pro business as it gets -- and I believe government at all levels has inappropriately taken over societal roles that private business (the source of jobs and taxes to support government) should be filling. A "community center" is a prime example of that. Go check the fiscal record of community centers , etc across the area (Monti, Elk River, Maple Grove) and you'll see that the property tax payers have been heavily subsidizing these.

Genuinely -- what does city government spending have to do with a child's "education"? Spending on a hockey rink doesn't have anything to do with an "education". Children and their activities are primarily a parent's responsibility. Society does need to provide for the academic education of all children.

Al, exactly right. Educational responsibility is so watered down right now it's sickening. The decisions should be made at the local level by the school board under the watchful eye of it's residents. Not some overpaid stuffed shirts in St. Paul and a totally disfunctional entity titled the Department of Education.

I don't believe anyone in this area is saying "don't build the second rink".... the argument is that the building and operational costs should be fully paid for by the users of the facility.

@ Becky.... just another question as I am trying to gather all the information I can on the matter. Has Lacrosse, baseball, soccer or any of the other "summer" sports ever used the current space in the summer for any training? I have not seen many cars over there in the summer months so I would gather the answer is no. If they are using it then that's great. If not then I find it hard to believe that they would start using it when/if a 2nd sheet is built.

As I said, I'm just curious to know if the other sports are currently using it as I have seen numerous statements from hockey supporters in this and other stories about how beneficial this would be for other sports in town in the summer months. If they aren't using the space now, why would they start after another space is built?

Robin, we all understand hockey is expensive, primarily because an indoor ice arena is very expensive to build and maintain. However, why does the fact that hockey is expensive and ice times difficult to get give anyone the right to force their neighbor to pay for it? What portion of my or anyone else's income do you feel entitled to take?

"IF there were another sheet of ice, during the off season where there isn't AS MUCH ice used (but it is stil used) the other sports could use it."
Becky, you're now operating on assumptions. What happens "if" the other rink is in demand for hockey in the summer?
Next, Lacrosse is an outdoor sport, period. If you're driving to the cities listed above, sorry, but in my world that's crazy. Why can't those kids practice in the gym??? As for baseball, anyone can drag a batting cage containment system into a gym. They aren't playing games in the gym.
The real question is this... Who pays for it? We've been soaked for a levy (btw, my share is $1300 a year) because of the school board accepting temporary federal funding which ran out and they had obligations to cover and also because of a state disparity in funding. Maybe if our wallets weren't hurting from that there would be a little more sympathy.

I concur Eric --- and your quick analysis assumes its only 20 players on the ice during that time.

We are charged $185 per hour to rent the ice from the cities and the school board. They are the ones who own the rink. We are not saying we will not help pay for this 2nd sheet of ice. We are willing to help pay for this rink...

Eric, will you be the one granting the hockey association a multi million dollar loan at 4%? If so, problem solved.

JT, 4% is less than the going rate for a 15 year mortgage.

Becky, please don't accuse me of not being factual and making assumptions. I grew up in Canada and played lacrosse outside all of the time. We NEVER played indoors. I also played hockey the first sixteen years of my life, both in Canada and Burnsville. We NEVER practiced inside and the last six games of the season were over a three week period at the end of the season because the outside rinks were iffy. And we used to practice before school at 5am regardless of temperature. If we got cold, we hit the warming house for a fiver.
It's like I said above and can speak for a few others here. I am not against a second RINK. It's not just a "sheet of ice" it's a rink. With a building around it. And a million+ dollar HVAC and chill unit to support it. What I am against is spending more of my hard earned money on something that will benefit 10% of the community, if that. I might digest it a little better if I wasn't shelling out $1300 a year towards the school levy. Why don't you look into the student spending disparity in that?

@Rick - Are you ever going to quit crying about the levy? You were in the minority. The majority agreed with investing in the youth of the community. The levy may have not been necessary if the state school funding formula was more equitable. If the levy is too much for you to swallow, you can always vote with your feet.

Al, the levy is an example of taxation out of control. In this case, a perfect model was setup for maximum impact on families with kids in school, a majority in this town. Keep in mind, the levy did not pass overwhelmingly, and there was plenty of dissent in the community. This is the issue that I see with a lot of folks these days. It's this "my way or the highway" attitude, and then the veiled threats etc. Ramming down something that's popular with a minority segment of the populations throat is dictatorial. The argument still has not been made on total funding, if this will stand alone on it's own if built, etc etc. As the naysayers have voiced over and over again, I really wonder if many of you realize the precarious economic climate we're in. Hockey rinks might be a slight example of Keynsian economics depending on funding, but overall they are another tax burden. Like I've said, if it was self sufficient, fine. But they aren't. The arguments so far is the facility would be multi-use, yet there is no proof that that would occur.
Maybe you should take your own advice and vote with your feet. Move to Blaine or another community that has multiple rinks.

Rick - The levy was put to a vote of the people. The majority (not all) of the people were of the opinion that the additional tax to fund our schools was worth the cost. This is the way a democracy is supposed to work. I do not understand how you can say it is "an example of taxation out of control". It was not rammed down the throat of anyone. Everyone had the right to have their vote heard.

By the way, I am very happy with the STMA communities. So I have no reason to vote with my feet. You seem to be most unhappy though.

Al, the levy was a scam, period. The school board hired a lobbying and research firm to see what they would have to anchor to a lobbying effort for approval. Temporary federal funding to hire 10 teachers had run out, so that was number 1 (and never mind that this school board or any other entity for that matter should NEVER accept "temporary" funding, because of course it will run out eventually and then the hands come out again). Computers were deemed outdated. I could have hired an IT firm and had two guys sweep the entire districts computers each summer for less cost than what was asked for. Then of course cutting back on the bus pickup radius. Of course every parent within that affected area is going to vote yes. So this thing was set up quite well. Like I said below, put it to vote. Funny Al, you keep pointing fingers too. Telling me to move, trying to make me appear bitter. Nice tactic trying to make me out as the bad guy when all I would like to do is keep my money where it belongs which is my pocket. And in case you haven't looked at your paycheck yet, we got hit with SSI returning to previous levels (that did wonders for the economy) and now our federal tax has been raised and on top of that, our Governor is attempting to saddle us with the largest tax increase in state history. Please tell me where the money is going to come from.....

Uhhhh, JT, some of us are at work...

Robin

If the opportunity is as significant as you say it is -- some private business would jump at the chance to build this building. A private business will also ensure that the availability of the facility would be properly managed.

The taxpayers in this state have enough burdens (with lots of increases coming - e.g. Obamacare, increased exposure to sales taxes, increasing city school taxes) than to say "yes" to items that serve a relatively small (yes not just hockey) population that would use this facility.

It's not about "helping hockey" it's about spending MORE money when both cities are making budget cuts, city employees have been laid off, the school district consistently asking for more money, I could go on. Let me ask you this Robin, and all others... what kind of taste would you have in your mouth if your employer laid you off and a month or even a year later announced they were embarking on a radical expansion that will cost them over $1 million? Private business that's one thing. They can drive themselves into bankruptcy. But what happens when a gvmt entity does that? Then the cuts are so radical everyone is hurt, or, they raise taxes. al made a good comment above. If it's such a great idea, why isn't a private company building it? Better yet, try this: why doesn't the hockey board write a business plan and then go to the bank and try to secure financing? The bank of course would demand real numbers, not "well, if we get lacrosse to play there and put in a mini-putt golf course in the summer time then we'll see positive numbers. Then you'll find out exactly how prudent building another rink would be. A good example would be the movie Field of Dreams. Better yet, put it to vote. Do the residents of St. Michael or Albertville approve a bonding measure financed by their tax dollars to build a hockey rink.

Everyone is entitled to have their opinion heard -- whether others like it or not.

It's easy to say that "nay sayers" are short sighted....its just as fair and accurate to say that those who want others to pay for their activities are selfishly myopic.

Robin, a *fiscal* conservative would not want this sort of gov't spending. It is an important difference, the difference between a cultural/religious conservative and a fiscal conservative. I get where your heart is coming from, wanting these things for the hockey families, but I balance it with fiscal conservatism, where it's wrong for a small group of families to demand that taxpayers at large pay for their particular sport's needs.