Bad news for Totino-Grace & Tri-City

Reggie Dunlap · Post by **Reggie Dunlap** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:15 am

<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/ ...  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The two ice sheets at Columbia Arena in Fridley are headed for the big thaw. The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission will close the antiquated, 38-year-old arena and build four additional sheets of ice at the Schwan Super Rink at the National Sports Center in Blaine. The commission will sell the 13-acre site to a developer who likely will build housing. The commission will use $3 million from the sale to help finance the $10 million addition at the Super Rink.<hr></blockquote> I'm sure most people won't shed a tear for TG, but this is a blow to the Tri-City youth & HS program. I found it ironic that this article was just under the article about the demise of HS hockey in the cities. <a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/ ...  This could be the begining of the demise of hockey in the "inner ring" suburbs as well. It also appears that Bethel Men's & Women's teams will be looking for a new home as well. Edit - The link worked for me for the first article, but I fixed the second one. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p074.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... lap>Reggie Dunlap</A> at: 9/15/05 10:40 am

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:24 am

Link didn't work. Can you post the article, or is it to long. Do you have it saved, if so can you email it.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:27 am

I will miss that place. Nice building, good seating. 38 years old is antiquated? What does that make Wakota? Say, come to think of it, what does that make me?

HockeyFan91 · Post by **HockeyFan91** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:47 am

The Super Rink is a great facility. It provides much needed ice in this area. However, they're also leading the pack in ice cost increase every year. They're up to $160./hr this year. How will they pay for these new buildings? Can they do that with the revenue from the land sale? Or will they end up rising the cost of ice again? It's similar to gasoline, where's the breaking point? What's the threshold where most people can't afford it anymore? I find myself hoping for long cold winters again, with plenty of outdoor ice.

kenny06 · Post by **kenny06** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:11 am

I feel the sorry for the players at both Bethel & Tri-State. traveling back and forth to practice will become a hardship. Especially the high school kids, for both the boys and girls teams. The superrink is not exactly next door. Columbia was a very nice home for Bethel. Good luck to all the teams affected.

NPGandyDancer · Post by **NPGandyDancer** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:40 am

packer. nice post. your hitting on eight today.

Sparlimb · Post by **Sparlimb** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:46 am

The Super Rink is a great facility. It is a unique building which will only add to itself by adding 4 more rinks. It already is the largest ice rink of it's kind in the world (4 olympic sheets in one building). I'll tell you, with the National Youth Golf Center here, the soccer fields and a coming Viking stadium, I like it here in Blaine. Funny thing is Blaine doesn't play at the Super Rink as they have their own 2 sheet facility.

Gray Mullet · Post by **Gray Mullet** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:18 pm

Well just another "sign of the times" Corporate hockey rinks replace nostalgic venues becuase they are deemed "not good enough". Goes right along with corporate hockey.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:36 pm

None of us like to see a loss of a rink no matter where or what kind. But the drive of five miles through traffic? There is a high school girl in Lake of the Woods that has a thirty mile drive (one way) every day for practice. But she does not complain. She tries to help the girl sitting next to her get her homework done, because the girl sitting next to her has to drive home seventy miles after practice is over. (140 miles every day for practice)

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:23 pm

Is this going to take place this year or when? Sorry if it was said in the article but i haven't read it

Reggie Dunlap · Post by **Reggie Dunlap** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:35 pm

elliott - I'll venture to guess that the same time that it takes to drive the LOW girl to commute will be the same amount of time it will take players to commute the extra distance from Columbia to the Super Rink. The other part of this that is very upsetting is that when the MASC decided to buy Columbia from Anoka County, they said they would put $20 per ice hour away into a Repair fund. (This was covered in an earlier Star Trib story). This never happened. In fact, Barclay Kruse claims that he never remembers that. Everyone else involved in the sale does. The MASC states they have put $450,000 into repairs over the last nine years. That's ONLY $50,000 per year, really nothing for a building that was in such disrepair. Fogerty arena spends more that that a year. It's about 25 years old and looks better today than when it opened. Plus, not all of that was out of pocket, some of the repairs where done when the Mighty Ducks 3 was shot and they also recieved grant money to make repairs. With $160 ice hours, this is going to price the less affluent communities (like Tri-City) straight out of hockey. That's never good for the game. And why does it cost so much to play there? Ice rental, kids fall/spring leagues, tournaments are all higher than their competitors? With 4 rinks, shouldn't there be some economies of scale in play? That being said, I do like the Super Rink, I just think that there were other ego's and agenda's in play here and people like Kruse are only looking out for their own best interests, not the interests of their customers. Tri-City and TG may be stuck, but I hope Bethel takes a look to the Coliseum since St. Thomas & Hamline are no longer playing there.

Reggie Dunlap · Post by **Reggie Dunlap** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:42 pm

it sounds like they'll start construction ASAP in hopes of having it ready in a year. They won't demo Columbia until after the new rinks are ready.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:05 pm

An hour or so fo rfive miles inrush hour traffic, I really love living up north. Also, in Bemidji the ice rates are about $75 per hour and no more or less around the district. I really enjoyed Columbia. I guess we will always have the Mighty Ducks movie. But if I lived down there I think I would press the matter of the $20 per hour (where did it go?). And the local city's to subsidize ice cost (or have them pressure the legislature to pressure the super rink for less costs, especially for youth groups.) Life in the big city, I hope there are people willing to take up the cause.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:40 am

$160 an hour for ice is mid range in the Twin Cities. It is very expensive but there are places that charge more. Most cities ,to a degree,subsidize ice costs already in that most rinks lose money or break even. But it is interesting when you think about the budget that most communities have for ball fields and parks which bring in little or no revenue. A well run ice rink will only lose a few thousand dollars. Whats it cost to establish and maintain a citys parks and ballfields? A few hundred thousand in a small community. Thats the main reason hockey is so expensive. We have to pay for the use of the facilities. Soccer, baseball ,etc dont. Basketball in some areas pays gym costs but still no where near hockey.

undfan · Post by **undfan** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:49 am

Speaking of Mighty Ducks, what towns and arenas were those movie shot in in Minnesota?

HockeyFan91 · Post by **HockeyFan91** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:49 am

Good point packerboy. By the way, $160./hr at the SuperRink was last year rate. Just found out that it's going up to $165./hr this year. Other "city rinks" I do business with in the area are between $135 and $145. I'm just curious to know which rinks are the most expensive in the Twin Cities. Anybody?

MNPuckster40 · Post by **MNPuckster40** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:24 am

If you take a close look at the annual operating costs of an arena you will see that most of them cover those costs from the various revenue sources of ice rental, concession stand sales, and advertising sales. Where an arena loses money is in paying off the bonds or major financing for either intial building or improvements. Yet a city state they lose money on the arena if it cannot cover the financing costs of construction, while the only costs they even attempt to recoup on baseball fields, soccer fields, and basketball courts is annual maintenance / utility costs. Interesting double standard eh? Even more interesting is the usage density for an ice rink is typically 4 times that of any of these other facilities (calculated as kids in any particular sport vs. the courts, fields, rinks available to support that sport). The folks up north have it right. City pays for the construction of the rink. Users pay for operation often with the employees and in some cases the utilities just being part of the general city budget. But in the end it is still simple supply vs. demand economics <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat">

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:13 pm

Puckster, good points. If I ever go to another meeting about building a new ice rink, I am taking you with. I especially like your density point. But, I think the reason "we" get stuck and the football, baseball, soccer etc people dont is because there just arent that many of us. Hockey people are enthusiatic but few compared to soccer etc. That being said, I doubt the current distribution of financial responsibilty for use of facilities is fair, even taking the numbers into account. It wouldnt make much difference to most of us anyway. We would just pay less for hockey and more for baseball.

bdabbt75 · Post by **bdabbt75** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:31 pm

well the other point is the cost entry point of a city baseball/soccer fields (schools typically build FB stadiums out of their mil levy). It's easily $500K for a one rink in a stripped down implementation (50K for a servicable used zamboni). A baseball/Soccer field that is 'youth' quality can be built for less than 10K (grading, dirt, fence, aluminum stands). And they require usually less than $200 a week in maintenance (chalking, mowing, leveling the infield) for 30 weeks (3K per year) . So it's easy to approve these in a onesie twosie items.... Land? most new housing developments are required to set aside land for these items. So the cost of entry is minimal vs that 500K.

puckhead80 · Post by **puckhead80** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:08 pm

It's my opinion that the numbers for building and maintaining a baseball/soccer field are extremely low. That said, consider this…If a city in the suburbs took a soccer field, which are almost always in a prime location, and divided it into city lots, I’m guessing that the city could easily get 100K per lot. Assuming that each soccer field can accommodate 5 city lots, that’s 500K in land value. The city essentially has 500K in land costs, plus build costs and maintenance costs. The real cost of the soccer field is not passed on to the users as is the cost and operation of the hockey rink to it's users.

bdabbt75 · Post by **bdabbt75** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:15 pm

land prices... I think your confusing cost with value. to the city the land was free. And to be honest, if you developed the park land, the adjoining house prices would diminish (no park... no yuppies with escalades and 2 strollers and potential hockey players in the neighborhoods;-) , and therefore the net may be a tax loss (the real value to the city is not the land value but the tax revenue). and obtw, in Rochester, it wasn't too long ago that most baseball diamond parking lots had ice rinks built in the winter, and that was where the house league teams practiced at least 25% of their ice time. So the space is put to good use some of the time;-).

HockeyFan91 · Post by **HockeyFan91** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:28 pm

I just read a few interesting things in the paper. "Kraus Anderson Companies, which will build the four new (NHL-style) rinks at the Schwan Super Rink, has offered $3 million for the Columbia property. If this offer is accepted, Kraus Anderson will build the four new rinks at the Super Rink at an additional cost of $7 million." The article also said that"The Amateur Sports Commission indicated the expense of keeping Columbia operational will mean investing $1 to $2 million over the next five years. This is not a practical situation because the commission has also indicated that funding of this kind is not available." And last:"The NSC has already invested $450,000 in repairs and updates over the last eight years in keeping the facility operational"

wildhockeyfan · Post by **wildhockeyfan** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:19 am

Most expensive rinks: St.Thomas and Ridder & Mariucci - both at $175.00 and rising. Re/ Wakota - would be the best arena if they could somehow get their ice a little harder; especially their older sheet.

mnhockey39 · Post by **mnhockey39** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:44 pm

To All: After reading this thread, I find many factual comments and statements. I have been forced to learn more about community and politics of this phenomenon and here are my comments. At the end of the day, each and every household (typically per City) subsidizes the baseball/softball fields, football fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, gym space, and recreation parks for our kids! When we build schools within communities, each household not only subsidizes outside use infrastructure, however inside extra curricular activities as well, such as drama/theater, band, and gym space for a multitude of activities. Why do we do this? Because our grandparents and parents supported the youth and today its is our turn to support the youth. The purpose of this is to create a safe environment for our youth, regardless of whether or not we have children that can participate in any of these activities. It has been the American way for centuries! Typically, each household subsidizes both capital expenditure and costs of goods sold (operational costs), as it pertains to the infrastructure, at the local level. A major majority of this is funded through school referendums, Park and Rec budgets, and minor user fees. Today, we spend millions of dollars for a good cause (ours and others youth) and should continue to do so! My only complaint is why are so many hockey arena's typically built only after the youth hockey associations fund raise for a large down payment and then debt serviced (debt and COGS) through high user fee's? At first, I thought that it was simply based upon the number of participants, as one poster stated. But then I thought, what if the entire facility was subsidized? Would hockey be as expensive as it is today to participate in? Would hockey participation numbers be greater? What if it cost baseball/softball, football, basketball, swimming, drama/theater, band, soccer, and ect.. $1,000 - $3,000 per year to participate in the activity? Would these other activities have the participation numbers that they have today? I know in our community our hockey participation numbers are equivalent to football, basketball, and hockey participation numbers are greater then drama/theater and some other participant numbers! I thought that we live in the State of Hockey? I closing, the MASC is playing this smart in that it has political support at the legislator and is spreading the fiscal impact across an entire County! Mr. Paul Erickson is a very smart man who has marketed the creation of the entire MASC Empire like a business and has demonstrated thus far, his unique model as a success. Have all benefited from his theme, no! Have some promises been broken, yes. Have a major majority benefited, absolutely! It is amazing what you can do if you throw enough money at the task at hand! The jury is still out to see if the Empire can be fiscally supportive of itself? Regards, mnhockey39 PS. Does anyone know if the KA deal was competitively bid?

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:56 am

You make some good points mnhockey. You are right. We have a long established practice of paying for the use of our facilities which makes our sport more expensive which keeps our numbers lower. When was the last time the local baseball program came up with $50,000 top help pay for the constuction of needed new ball fields. And then after they are built pay user fees to maintain them. An ice rink will usually break even or lose a few thousand a year while being in almost constant use for 6 months. Parks and ball fields cost hundreds of thousands to maintain and are in use for 4 months. Go figure. To those who posted that building ball fields and maintaining them isnt that expensive....take a look at the park and rec budget for your community some time. I think you will be surprised.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Bad news for Totino-Grace & Tri-City

Bad news for Totino-Grace & Tri-City

Re: Bad news for Totino-Grace & Tri-City

melt down

Columbia Arena closing

Re: Columbia Arena closing

Re: melt down

Re: melt down

Corporate Rinks

DRIVES

Re: Columbia Arena closing

Re: DRIVES

Re: Columbia Arena closing

Re: Columbia Arena closing

ice costs

Re: ice costs

Ice costs

Re: Bad news for Totino-Grace & Tri-City

Ice, ice , baby

Re: Ice, ice , baby

Re: Ice, ice , baby

Re: Ice, ice , baby

Columbia sale

Re: Ice costs

Re: MASC's Creative Business Model

Costs and fairness