Two youth athletic organizations (Burnsville and Prior Lake) are looking to persuade the Savage City Council to approve a $3 to $6 million dollar sports facility (depending on which article you read) to be built with a dome so that a variety of different sports would have indoor practice space to utilize. With city budgets as tight as they are and property values continuing to decline, some within Savage are opposed to the idea mainly because they do not care for the eyesore the dome could become and have signed a petition asking that the idea be abandoned.
According to the Savage Pacer, “the youth sports organizations are requesting that the city bond for the project and in turn they will pay off the debt with revenue generated from the facility,” however as has been seen with other similar city-funded projects across the South Metro, it may be difficult for these organizations to meet their financial goals of $350,000 to $600,000 a year.
According to the Star Tribune the domed sports complex would include a laundry list of featured amenities:
Proposed is a 225-foot-by-453-foot bubble dome spanning an area the size of a football field and covered with artificial turf for soccer, lacrosse, football, softball, baseball and track, according to Brian Flakne, co-chairman of the Savage dome task force. Attached would be an 8,000-to-10,000-square-foot solid structure.
If hard courts were put in, volleyball and basketball could also be played in the facility. An attached building would have restrooms, concessions, meeting rooms, lockers, storage space and offices.
At the park, a fenced-in baseball diamond, skating rink, warming house and horseshoe pits would be kept, while a couple of tennis courts and several other baseball fields could become artificial turf fields outdoors, for an additional $1.5 million, Flakne said.
While this is still only in the most preliminary stages and Savage’s City Council readily admits that there are many things left to iron out, there are several questions which this discussion raises:
1. Will residents be permitted to utilize the domed areas if they are not members of the youth sports organizations or would they be locked out much like they are from Apple Valley’s newest sports fields at the corner of 160th and Pilot Knob? Should a taxpayer funded facility only be used for organized sports teams?
2. Do you believe the youth sports organizations will be able to raise the necessary funds ($350,000+) per year to fund the bonds if they were issued by the city or would this be yet another publicly funded monstrosity which fails to meet its financial goals and must be subsidized by the taxpayers?
3. With the failure of the Metrodome and the lack of interest in building other domed sports arenas for our professional athletes, do you think it’s appropriate for those in recreational sports leagues?
Whatever you have to say about the prospects for a $3 to $6 million dollar sports dome being built for rec sports in Savage go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 6th, 2011 at 7:39 am
But this is for the CHILDREN, the CHILDREN damn you.
We ran into this very issue concerning Apple Valley ice time for the Apple Valley Hockey program years ago. There aren’t enough sheets of ice for all kids who want to play hockey. The city should look at building a new rink of somesort towards the East View side of town. The association wouldn’t be able to pay for it no question.. but the city would use it for other services, as they do the AV High School Rink and the Hayes Rink, rec skating, city rec lessons etc.
I would be in `favor of the new dome for the local youth oganizations to use, this isn’t highly paid athletes and owners looking have us pay for a stadium to support thier business. However, if the city builds it, it damn well better be open to the public for our use at some point during the week.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Uggg… more money for youth athletics. Why should tax payers take the financial risk for a domed sports arena? I would not willing to take that chance so little Suzy can play soccer all year in a climate controlled bubble.
Sure, they say the arena will pay for itself, well money just doesn’t grow on trees. The costs will, I assuem, be generated by user fees. A strategy that effectively keeps poor and uncommited families out. Far too many cities are reserving public land for the use of passionate and vocal minority.
Also, what real benefits will this project provide to the community? Yes, athletics can teach a whole host of skills to kids. But, a domed field conveys no additional educational or developmental benefit.
And an option for OUTDOOR artificial turf fields? YOU HAVE TO BE #$%#$@#$ KIDDING ME! Does grass not grow in Savage?
January 6th, 2011 at 8:23 am
My brother played hockey when we were little. Games might have been at an area but ALL the practices were OUTDOORS. I can’t believe the kids are the ones saying “we need a dome to play under in the winter”; therefore, it has to be the parents who want it. If these parents have so much money let them pay for it. I pay enough in taxes.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:47 am
1. Any publicly funded facility should be open for public use.
2. The facility will not pay for itself. The youth sports organizations will not be able to raise the money. Period. This, however, does not mean we shouldn’t build it if we want to.
3. I think it is more appropriate to build facilities for amateur sports with open enrollment than to build stadiums for clubs that could build their own damn stadiums.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:03 am
I think we need more horseshoe pits and I think the government should pay for it with our money. It is a total win/win for us in the horseshoe racket.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I’m still scratching my head as to why there are sports in the schools, rather than community-based sports programs.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:03 am
ARGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!!
If the model these organizations are presenting to the City so confidently proclaims the revenue will pay off the debt, BUILD IT YOUR FUCKING SELVES.
Approach a bank or a corporate partnership. What is with the mentality of the citizenry? Local governments are not banks there to give you a loan to build whatever the hell you think would be neat to have in the community.
Besides, a privately built sports dome would have a heck of a lot more potential revenue. Attach a wannabe-Applebees to it and all the MILFs can get wasted on $8 appletinis and riblets while Suzie and Johnny kick the ball around (with a portion of the proceeds going to the organizations).
No, no, no.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Given the choice between a sports activity center and the BPAC, I would have chosen the sports activity center. However, I was not given a choice.
AS MSPD points out, if this will pay for itself, they should go to a bank and get the money and leave my tax dollars alone. But it wont pay for itself and probably none of the people involved want to actually be on the hook for the money.
I am a huge sports fan. Kids should try sports, and hopefully continue to participate thoughout their youth imo. That said, sports have been around for literally hundreds of years, without domes and indoor facilities. We are in MN. Play the sports that match the season.
Anyway, my two cents is that the timing is horrible, the plan is poor, and the idea is flawed. I cant afford this and neither can Burnsville, Savage, the state, or the federal govt.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Perhaps they saw what Soccer Blast was doing and how well it’s working, and want a piece of the pie for themselves. Soccer Blast started out as just two indoor soccer fields, but due to it being indoors, grew to the point where they now have an outdoor field that turns into a domed field for the winter months. They also have an indoor simulated golf facility.
I think most people are of the mindset that we’re already giving enough money to the government. With that train of thought, it is easy to say that if Soccer Blast is able to make this work (As they also have hosted Lacrosse practices/games, for example, in their dome along with having almost 18 hours a day of fields in use), why couldn’t the youth organizations do something similar?
January 6th, 2011 at 10:33 am
No.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:35 am
user funded??
bb
January 6th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Along those lines. Who paid for the hockey rink over next to the Fireside in Rosemount?
I have been to hundreds of hockey games/practices in my many years, and have never seen a cooler idea than a bar attached to a rink. Ice time was always a bitch to procure during non school/non sleep hours back in the day and I wondered then why private hockey rinks were not a viable option other than the fact that public ones probably would be too cheap since the taxpayers pay the difference.
I would have loved to sip a beer with fellow parents (because everyone knows that hockey parents are big drinkers) while the kids did the practicing.
If the Fireside is making money, maybe some entrepreneurs (such as the athletic committees themselves) can get together and attach an attractive option for soccer parents and the like (but not Applebees for the sake of all things holy).
January 6th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Looks to me like the current privately owned sports dome in Burnsville is doing just fine.
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/97995704.html
I think that this existing facility needs to ensure it is being used completely and if it is, why private funds should not be used to build another if the demand is so high.
Fed up with the taxpayers taking on the risk of nice to have amenities and bearing all of the downside financial implications of government idiots in office.
The idea of if you build it, they will come, is not a valid business case.
If the requester of such a dome get their way and put it up without going to a referendum, (if you are unsure on how to do this please contact the Mayor of Burnsville, Elizabeth Kautz), I hear there is a great facilities management company by the name of VenuWorks that would love to manage it for you.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:19 am
So the argument is…what? Is this so we can have summer sports year-round? Is it because there isn’t enough space to play elsewhere? Is it in case of bad weather during the summer? Why exactly do we need this?
I have a hard time believing that there aren’t enough existing sporting facilities in the area to accommodate demand. Soccer, softball, track and lacrosse are not cold weather sports. There is plenty of space in Savage to accommodate those sports in their appropriate seasons. Playing them outside of season is not a neccessity. If it rains when they’re supposed to practice, tough shit. One missed practice isn’t going to make or break them. Perhaps if the kids do something else in the winter from what they do in the summer, it will help them become more well-rounded human beings. (To disclaim: I am obviously not a sports fan and feel that they are paid far too much attention!).
However, if the kiddos MUST play warm-weather sports year-round, I’m not sure why my folks (with adult children), who already have to pay for other child-related amenities in Savage, should have to pay for it.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I’m pretty sure the location over in Rosemount is privately operated and either leases the space from the property owner, or is operated by the property owner.
Farmington tried to pull that crap with a sports facility at the new high school. Basically sports groups trying to leverage the credit of the local municipality to get a favorable interest rate or make it easy to walk away if it doesn’t work.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, at least when income from taxes is so low. When financial situations are good, that’s when cities should be improving things. When financial things are bad, cities should be trying to control costs and eliminating unnecessary expenses.
If a Domed field is commercially viable, commercial entities should do it, get the city to donate the land in exchange for 1st right to purchase at below market rates should the owners eventually want to get out of it.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I’m under the impression that the demographic trends for the South Metro are for an aging population, so any planned sports venue should provide access and facilities for “the olds” as well as the young, especially if taxpayers are expected to pay for it.
January 6th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Why not play summer sports in the summer and head to the YMCA in the winter? We had four adult kids in our family and they did not have time for this stuff because they all had jobs to pay for what they wanted that we could not afford to give them. This could be another Burnsville PAC in the making which milks the taxpayers for at least $1.5 million each year. Lets hope the Savage folks get all the facts before this one gets rolling. The folks in Burnsville got only the facts Mayor Kautz was willing the share and that continues today with the Burnsville Performing Arts Center.
January 6th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Whit said “no”. I’m with her.
MSPD referenced appletinis. Appletinis are a great example of what the heck is wrong with people. Appletinis; the new wine coolers.
January 6th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
But stronger. Mmm, strong wine coolers.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
ummm, i don’t agree with lefty on the booze/hocky dads deal. i think the ‘dads’ are on the edge with junior being the next wayne, and maybe getting unfairly tapped, might push good old dad over the top!! next stop, a chat with backstrom:)
bb
January 6th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Yeah, I can see the brawls.
And can the kids drive Dad home from the game?
January 6th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Is this school district based deal, or a city issue? And why are they suggesting Savage if it’s for Prior Lake & Burnsville?
Jill, isn’t that what Skateville over on 13 is for? :)
I remember going to a conference over in IGH a couple years ago and it as in their newish ice arena. That building seemed to be multi-purpose. Is that a city owned building?
January 6th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
JaL,
It’s two rec sports leagues which likely have Savage residents in both. It has nothing to do w/the school districts.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
We don’t have kids, but we remember when we were kids. We played all our sports outside. Why can’t kids do that now?
January 7th, 2011 at 6:59 am
if there is a demand, why not some type of public/private partnership, with both public and private investors getting profits. I also agree with the demographic comment..needs to be open to all and address adult rec issues as well as youth sports.
when i was a kid we used to walk 2 miles in the snow to school, uphill, both ways.
January 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
The norm is for it to be paid for with public money so either every other city that has done it is dumb or there is a real benefit. I am going with that there is a real benefit. So lets do it.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Todd, how is “the norm” working for our country’s financial situation?
How is “the norm” working for the State?
How is “the norm” working for our south metro cities?
How is “the norm” working for consumers who “just joined everyone else” into unsustainable home loans and consumer debt to buy things that were beyond their sustainable means?
Maybe you haven’t picked up a newspaper lately, but “the norm” has driven everyone and everything from individual citizens to the federal government into a years-long economic recession. ENTIRE COUNTRIES (e.g. Greece, Ireland) have gone insolvent because of “the norm”.
Thank you Todd for shining the spotlight on the true issue at hand. This is yet another wonderful example of how far off track our governments, and *our expectations from government*, have gone. The government isn’t our means to get “nice to haves” into our communities.
Again, if this is a solvent, sustainable project, it should be built privately. Savage should not subsidize, or even be involved in funding this project at all.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Perhaps they will but intelligent private entity wouldn’t at least attempt to get an interest free loan to build the complex without being on the hook for any of the responsibility if it did indeed go under? Taking advantage of those willing to hand over money is part of good business.
The simple fact that Savage is even wasting time researching this at taxpayer cost is even more troubling to me. It’s clearly not going to be viable, the taxpayers will end up on the hook for a huge loss leader, and the majority of those paying for it will never be permitted to step foot inside.
Being that the Savage Council chambers are as small as they are I can’t imagine it would be difficult for those opposed to it to pack the place and make it known that this is a very very bad idea in every single way.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:06 am
This is an extremely narrow point-of-view. Yes, you may net short-term gains, but in the long run, the community around you will crumble, partly due to your practices.
To me, that’s not “good business”.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:15 am
It was all over last nights news that Woodbury’s domed facility is 16 years old & they may have to bond for a new one. Don’t any of these cities ever budget for repairs and capital improvements? If Savage does stupidly build this facility will they have the same problem 15 years from now?
January 8th, 2011 at 6:24 am
They should try to do the Rosemount dome model.
Rosemount high school provided the land at no charge to a private enterprise who built and runs the dome. The high school gets to use the dome rent free before school and until 5pm on school days. The private enterprise gets evenings and weekends to charge the local athletic associations for usage or anyone else that wants space.
The dome reverts to school ownership in like 25 years.
It’s a great facility, I think it’s the largest of its kind. You can fit 2 softball games or 3 lacrosse/soccer games at a time in there in addition to full-time batting cages for baseball/softball at each end.
January 8th, 2011 at 6:30 am
Here’s a link to an overhead of the Rosemount dome to give you perspective on its size. That’s the Rosemount high school baseball stadium just to the left to give you some idea of the dimensions.
http://www.dakotacountyproperties.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Rosemount-Dome.png
January 11th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Savage claims that if the numbers don’t work out for self-sustainability that will be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately as the StarTribune article on the topic states, they’re already sinking too much money into this obvious money loser:
July 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
From: http://savagepacer.com/bookmark/14788166
Yet they’re just one vote away from approving it. Wow.
December 20th, 2011 at 9:27 am
From the Savage Pacer: http://savagepacer.com/bookmark/16838753
December 21st, 2011 at 1:19 pm
How many in Savage REALLY think this is a good idea.
Why don’t the residents of Savage have a say in spending their money on private organizations?
I attended a recent work session, the neighborhood meeting, and the council meeting. What a love fest with the private youth organizations and the council.
Hard to say how many actual Savage residents were at the council meeting Monday night but the vast majority of people attending displayed their “colors” from Burnsville and Prior Lake and had addresses from said cities.
Doing research on the history of this project, it smells like city hall crumbling to lobbyists and back office politics with little regard to what the Savage residents think about a $5.6 million pay-to-use business venture located in our city park.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:48 am
Jet,
The City seems to feel that the sports organizations will foot most of the bill. Do you feel that isn’t the case?
December 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 am
No, you are correct, the city of Savage does believe the sports organizations will rent all available time slots which will cover all costs and the city will breakeven.
(replay 12/19 council meeting http://www.cityofsavage.com/savage-tv-online)
From City of Savage webs site:
“The cost of the project is estimated to be $5 million, with funding to come from the sale of lease revenue bonds paid back over 15 years. The $500,000 annual bond payments would be made with rental fees paid by teams that use the facility. If revenues are insufficient to meet the bond payments, additional dollars could come from the City’s Park Reserve or General Fund.”
I question the assertion.
Currently in the Twin Cities there are no less than seven for-rent large sports domes, with Edina and West St.Paul actively developing plans for their own large domes.
Seems to me we’re going to have a supply and demand problem in the future with Savage being left to deal with the largest dome in the state (excluding the Metrodome).
December 23rd, 2011 at 10:17 am
Has the City provided any numbers from the other domed fields as evidence of potential success? Have these leagues signed a lease or is it simply “we promise?”
As to the supply/demand issue. How many of these local suburban sports leagues are going to travel to those other stated cities for use outside of tournaments? I don’t like the idea at all but I doubt there’s a supply/demand issue.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Based on performance of other domes around the Twin Cities the city of Savage believes their dome should not have any problem breaking even. The associations that are aggressively lobbying for a sucker to build them a dome have informally stated they might sign a lease for a year or two and they “promise” to use the dome.
Supply and demand….time will tell. Today’s Mpls Star Triibune has an article about Roseville city council trying to issue $27 million in bonds for a fire station and park upgrades….I wonder if they are thinking about getting into the dome business too (just thinking out load).
December 29th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Someone was out staking the proposed Community Park park expansion yesterday.
The city has kicked it into high gear.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
I have been involved as a volunteer in youth sports in the Cities of Savage and Burnsville for the last 12 years. There is definitely a need for the proposed Savage Dome, which was amply documented by the proponents of the project in several well publicized public meetings.
As proposed, the Dome will be built with proceeds from the sale of bonds, which will be paid back by the dome user fees. I can confidently report that the projected user fees will be more than ample to cover the bond service over the life of the bonds. My confidence is based upon documented actual current usage of other domes in the metro areas by the various youth organizations and the still unmet need that exists.
Savage children play sports in both Prior Lake and Burnsville. Because Savage doesn’t have its own stand alone youth organization, its children and residents have become integrated into the BAC, PLAY, and PL Soccer, which welcome these families and children as our peers and team mates. At the public meeting in December 2011, several Savage athletes who have played in the aforementioned youth organizations presented their personal stories, which underscored the importance of that experience in preparing them for Minnesota State High School Championship success.
As this community celebrates, the BHS boys Baseball Championship, the BHS boys Lacrosse bronze medal at State, and the BHS girls soccer silver medal success at the recent State Championships, we should not forget that those athletes were first given their training by the youth organizations and parent volunteers in Burnsville, Savage and Prior Lake.
Like it or not, youth sports are an important part of the fabric of this community. If this community is to have continued success at the highest levels we must keep our facilities state of the art. The Savage Dome is a key to insuring the future competitiveness of our teams and the development of our children. Training children to be successful on the field translates into success in all facets of their later lives. If we value our children then we need to lead the way by providing healthy and appropriate opportunities. The men and women of this community, who volunteer thousands of hours every year to coaching and caring for our children have come together and unanimously endorsed this project and are committed to its success.
Savage City leaders have heroically met the challenge of paving the way for future generations of Savage, Burnsville and Prior Lake children to succeed. All who read these comments should thank Mayor Williams, the Council Members and the entire Savage City Staff. Without these fine leaders our community would be diminished and our children impoverished.
January 26th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Brian K. Flakne,
If your business plan is so persuasive, why don’t you borrow the money from a bank like any other business would and stop using taxpayer money?
lefty
January 26th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
The historical twists and turns of this project have been many. Changing dome size, location, cost, etc. For the most part these fine city leaders have caved to lawyers and lobbyists directly connected to organizations that of course would love to have the city take all the financial risk and build them a state of the art facility on a conveniently obtained piece of public land. As we speak there are other neighboring cities that have recently either opened “for rent” sports domes or are in the process of looking at constructing similar structures.
There has never been a city-wide survey performed to ask the Savage residents what they would like to see in an expanded community park, their opinion of losing existing public sports amenities, and the appropriateness of a huge, 70 foot high, lighted structure sitting on one the highest elevations in Savage. Excuses easily flow from city leaders when asked why commercial property or school district property isn’t a more logical location for this business venture. Reduce the footprint of the structure and/or spend the additional money needed to do it right.
A few vague newspaper articles, light on details, in the local paper and one neighborhood meeting for residents within 500 feet of the dome concept in December 2011 doesn’t really give the community much of a forum to garner ideas and opinions.
I look forward to the legions of Minnesota State High School champions produced by a city funded sports dome. I feel better about the future of all our youth.
January 26th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
A ton of words, yet lefty boiled it right down to the crux.
To add to lefty’s question, if your business plan fails to achieve its proponents’ projected fees, who’s on the hook for the shortfall?
It seems to me there’s a facility just a bit east on Highway 13 that was built in a similar manner and, as Bob Uecker would say, has fallen “juuuuuuust a bit outside” of the proponents’ business plan.
January 27th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
The land proposed for the Savage Dome project is owned by the City of Savage. The City is in the business of providing amenities to its citizens. Parks, trails, golf courses, swimming pools and similar recreational facilities are typical of city functions though out this State and indeed our country as a whole. We celebrate these amenities as adding to our quality of life, and increasing our home values, by making our community more desirable. This is particularly true in our suburban environment of large homes, where it is axiomatic that future buyers of the homes in this community will be young families with children, who will look for amenities such as those at issue in this debate.
The land parcel to the immediate north of Community Park is part of a long ago adopted master plan to increase the size of this facility. A legitimate goal of the City is to develop and improve recreational opportunities for its citizens. The Savage Dome is consistent with the master plan for this site, and the broader goals of our community.
We are facing a health crisis in this country. A generation of overweight children will soon overwhelm our health care delivery capabilities. In addition, under supervised children can cause mischief, or worse. The rich opportunities located at the existing Community Park and as potentially expanded by the Savage Dome, provides this community the opportunity to address both these issues in a positive fashion. Youth programs both exercise and supervise children in healthy and productive ways
Criticizing the Savage Dome proposal from the perspective of a “for profit business” is logically flawed. The youth sports groups are all not for profit organizations. We rely on the thousands of volunteer hours and our partnerships with the cities of Burnsville, Savage, and Prior Lake to make this community a better place for our children. We are not in business to make money and our model is not designed to hoard cash. We plow every penny generated in fees back into the experience enjoyed by our athletes and their families.
The City of Burnsville owns a golf course and is home to the ice arena. Users of these facilities pay for their upkeep, but the original cost was incurred by the City. I do not play golf or skate, but I do not begrudge those that do. Moreover, I see the golf course and the hockey arena as valuable additions to the broader community. Government built these facilities, exercising leadership and vision, and generations of citizens have benefitted. Similarly the users of the Savage Dome will be responsible for paying for its use and upkeep and I believe that our community will be stronger and better because of it.
January 27th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, but you’re still not touching on the question. The City of Burnsville is having trouble maintaining BASIC SERVICES because of the financial drain the golf course and the ice arena (and the $20 million Performing Arts Center that you conveniently omitted) are causing.
You bring up attracting new residents. How attractive to potential buyers are a city with crumbling infrastructure, pressure to raise taxes to cover “nice to have”/unsustainable amenities, enormous vacancy rates, and struggling police and fire services?
Yes, in a utopian model, the City should subsidize ANYTHING that you argue is a matter of quality of life, but as you can see by the financial mess our cities, State and country are in, these notions HAVE TO be questioned.
You still failed to address — who is on the hook if the facility fails to meet YOUR (meaning the supporters’) financial projections?
This IS a risk to the taxpayers. Some find it an acceptable risk and some find it an unacceptable risk. Unfortunately, its much, much easier to document with examples (the B’ville ice arena, the Garage, the PAC, municipal golf courses across the south metro) why it is an unacceptable risk. I see almost zero examples of facilities like this that aren’t a financial drain on their host cities.
January 27th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
MSPD,
I think you are getting a bit dramatic. Did you even get the point that the Savage Sports Dome is going to wipe out childhood obesity in America?
Save the children is what I say, man.
lefty
January 27th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
You exposed me lefty. I hate kids (including the ones I drive from my house in Burnsville to the Pond in Rosemount every Sunday for hockey and to the Irish Sports Dome in Rosemount for baseball practice). 10 miles away and the kids STILL want to go! Crazy.
January 27th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
City leaders have started saying that ice arenas were NEVER meant to make money and never will. This is what will happen with the various sports domes across the area.
Oh and your children can survive just fine outdoors without a dome. We have these things called hats, gloves, jackets, and pants. We wear them and they keep us warm in the winter months. Humans have survived for thousands of years w/o the need for domed sports centers. Let’s cut the crap already, ok?
January 27th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I like it MSPD and Bill….
Indoor Sports Facility Neighborhood Meeting #2
Thursday, February 2, 2012
6:30 PM
Savage City Hall Council Chambers
The neighborhood gets to see the grand plan.
January 28th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
The soccer team I coach just had a scrimmage here: http://www.ci.maple-grove.mn.us/content/323/10176/default.aspx fantastic facility!
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:58 am
Reminder: Come and see the best way your city has come up with to spend millions of dollars of bonds.
Indoor Sports Facility Neighborhood Meeting #2
Thursday, February 2, 2012
6:30 PM
Savage City Hall Council Chambers
Re-zoning meeting in the next few weeks to change the laws so the city can build a structure currently not allowed.
February 3rd, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Savage Pacer covers the most recent meeting: http://savagepacer.com/bookmark/17391542
February 5th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
To Brian Flakne – you entire opinion is completely slighted not to put the dome at Prior Lake High School b/c your organization from Burnsville doesn’t want to be associated with Prior Lake-Savage HS facility. You know and the rest of us know it. You can argue and argue all you want, but let the truth be known. Your lawyer big man tactics don’t scare anyone even though you as co-chair strongly influenced the rest of the site task force into picking Community Park instead of Prior Lake-Savage High School. How is it that a Burnsville resident and BAC rep was a co-chair on a Savage Task Force to pick a site selection any way? This whole plan is far from being approved as the opponents of the dome location have a few more tricks up our sleeve and willl delay this plan for as long as it’s planned to go into Community Park……
February 6th, 2012 at 9:44 am
How is it that Mr. Flakne was co-chair on the site selection task force? This is captured at the 1:30:52 mark of the December 19 city council meeting. (http://savage.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=472). He lives in Burnsville and is a BAC lobbyist. His input would have been acceptable but how in the world did this guy end up as co-chair of the site selection committee. I think everyone knows PLS High School would have been a much better choice, the task force meeting minutes even state any dome location should not have any residential impact, but somehow Mr Flakne was able to influence this final recommendation. You’re telling me that it won’t be great to have one of the fields at the PLS High School be given a dome and brand new artificial turf by the City of Savage?
Most of the people on the site selection committee including Barry Stock wanted to build the sports dome near the high school. It was the BAC and Mr. Flakne that opposed the high school site. They somehow managed to get their way and force the Community Park site.
Final curious thought, is Mr Flakne attending all the city council and neighborhood dome meetings pro bono or is an organization paying him to attend to make sure Savage citizen’s great ideas and suggestions do not influence city officials?
I suggest reading both task for minutes to learn more. I wonder if Barry Stock even followed up and looked into the PLS high school or just thought it might be too much work and they didn’t have the time to delay the project for some reason.
http://www.cityofsavage.com/indoor-sports-facility
I can’t wait to see who is awarded the build contracts but I have a pretty good idea they all have history with city hall.
The whole thing smells fishy….
February 6th, 2012 at 10:15 am
They probably know that opposition would be much broader if they built it on school grounds. Can you imagine the hundreds of people screaming bloody murder about how “class sizes are so huge, they are laying off teachers, shoving levy after levy down peoples’ throats and they are building a $5 million dome with artificial turf for sports?!?” It sounds like they are taking the path of least resistance.
I still think it’s disturbing that the headline of the Pacer article is “Noise, Height, Aesthetics are Main Concerns”.
Where is “Lack of Sound, Risk-Averse Funding Plan is Main Concern”?
Is there still nobody talking about the taxpayers being left holding the bag when this thing falls short of net revenue expectations??
February 6th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Good point, that’s a great observation. The financial risk is always included as one of the major issues but Barry Stock and I believe the City Council have been convinced that the rental income will more than cover the bond payments. Low interest rates, “handshake” use agreements and conservative estimates for other revenue sources are what is most often referenced. It’s pretty much a blow off when the financial risk is questioned.
One thing I really hate that the city doesn’t seem to think the bond issuance is not taking on more debt. I know, that’s how cities fund projects but if this thing doesn’t pay for itself the cavalier attitude that the city will simply transfer monies from other departments and services to make bond payments doesn’t seem to help the city.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
More from the Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/138726704.html
February 10th, 2012 at 11:24 am
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2012/02/10/fire-deflates-braemar-golf-dome-edina.html
February 19th, 2012 at 11:25 am
http://savagepacer.com/bookmark/17560026
February 21st, 2012 at 8:47 am
Some friends and I had the opportunity to attend a sporting event at the Rosemount High School on Friday 2/17/2012 from 7-9 pm. As you know, the Irish sports dome is in close proximity to Rosemount high school. We found it extremely interesting that the dome was not open, when this would be considered a ‘peak’ rental time.
Out of curiosity I looked up available time slots for rent in March and April on the Irish Dome website and was shocked to see so much time is still available.
Based upon the information to date, the city of Savage plans to have the dome open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, which implies that this is the peak rental time the city is relying on to meet its financial obligations.
This is just another indicator to me that the financial feasibility of the project is flawed. I hope the residents of Savage take this information into account and persuade the city council to take a serious look at the true risks associated with a sports dome this large in Savage.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:26 am
I’m probably saying the same thing I’ve said a few times already but….has anyone in the Savage debate looked at the Irish Sports Dome financials (current and historic) during this conversation?
It would seem logical that they are analyzing the financials of similar/identical facilities in neighboring cities.
BTW, jet, if they do build it, do me a favor and insist that it include a snack bar or something and maybe a bench or two for parents. When the kid has 2 hours of baseball in that Irish Sports Dome, there’s nothing to do/noplace to sit for the 50 parents that are there. So you have 50 people sitting out there in their running cars for 2 hours.
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
A recent letter to the Editor of the Pacer contained inaccuracies which needed correction. A portion of my responsive letter to the Pacer is included hereinafter to address similar issues raised in this discussion above.
Between 2000 and 2010, I was the Commissioner of Competitive Soccer for the Burnsville Fire Soccer Club. In that capacity I also served as Board member of the BAC which includes the entire City of Savage in its service community. Upon my retirement as the Soccer Commissioner, the BAC asked me to use my experience as a development lawyer and my knowledge of the youth sports, to explore the feasibility of building a domed facility to enhance the youth programs in our community.
In furtherance of that vision, the Savage Dome Task Force was established to bring together in common effort Burnsville, Savage and Prior Lake, residents who are interested in a sports dome. This group was not created by the City of Savage or its staff, and its sole mission is to promote a domed sports facility to benefit our shared community. During the last two years I have been honored to co-chair this all volunteer organization.
The Task Force approached the City of Savage with a proposed dome site at Warren Butler Park. During the subsequent feasibility investigation the Savage City Council decided to create a Dome Site Selection Committee, to make recommendations to the City from an expanded list of possible sites to see if there might be a better alternative. By action of the Council, membership in the Site Selection Committee included a representative from each of the School Districts serving Savage, members of various city commissions, and a representative from each of BAC, PLAY and PL Soccer.
The BAC appointed me to represent the BAC on this committee. I was not the chairperson of the Site Selection Committee. The Committee looked at nearly every possible park and school site in Savage. I had originally promoted the Warren Butler site and believed that to be the best candidate at the start of the site review process.
The Prior Lake High School site was specifically considered by the Committee, and was ultimately rejected due to land ownership issues, space limitations, and school district concerns for student safety and privacy. The Community Park site was favored due to its ownership by the City, its central location within the broader service area, its access to major traffic arterials, and the synergy possible in locating this facility next to the other amenities already located or planned at the park. This site was thoroughly analyzed and found to be superior to the other options presented.
After careful consideration the Committee (which included school district officials) unanimously recommended the Community Park site as the best site for a dome from those reviewed. I concur with that recommendation.
Brian Flakne
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Sounds like a bunch of adults with too much time on their hands making up committees to provide themselves with a false sense importance who are driven to pat themselves on the back after their tax draining initiative gets done to the pleasure of very few who will not be looking when the place starts losing thousands of dollars every year even though there were clear warnings that it was going to happen long before the shovel ever hit the dirt.
Did I get that right?
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Yep.
And still no mention of an independent (aka not provided by soccer club interests) financial analysis, comparison to neighboring facilities like the Irish Sports Dome, or explanation of how financial shortfalls will be handled.
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:19 pm
“all volunteer organization.”
Not sure how this is relevant. You are still asking for our tax dollars, correct?
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
I stopped reading after he used the term “vision”.
I’d like to see Mr. Flakne answer the questions raised here with the same vigor he uses to respond on this blog to a letter to the editor which was published in a completely different venue.
February 24th, 2012 at 7:57 am
MSPD,
I tried to look into the Rosemount Irish Sports Dome finances without much luck. The Rosemount Irish Sports Dome was conceived, proposed and built by a private party, the Irish Dome LLC in partnership with the Rosemount school district. I’m guessing that’s why its impossible to find out any financial information on it’s performance.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:46 am
The city of Savage just sent out only 42 notices to property owners on the west side of the proposed sports dome location to notify the residents of the Planning Commission Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan/Bldg Permit review meeting. The law is to notify only residents within 350 ft, but they bumped it to 500 ft.
The meeting is March 8, 2012 at city hall from 7:00PM – 10:00PM
The more residents that can get to this meeting, the more they will learn about the project adding $5,000,000 in debt to the city. You will also have the opportunity to share your concerns to non-elected city commissioners.
Time is short….
February 24th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I sent a letter to the Editor of the Savage Pacer earlier this week, addressing some of the factual inaccuracies of others who have previously written to the Pacer concerning dome issues. I did so because I believe the public will benefit from knowledge of the truth as opposed to the opinion and conjecture of some uniformed commentators, which is also the reason I have posted in this forum.
This project calls for the City of Savage to use its bonding authority. The proposed bonds are sold to private investors and the proceeds then used to build the structure. The bond holders are repaid by the revenue (rental) from the facility.
It is true, that in the unlikely event that revenue were insufficient to cover the bond payments that the City would be responsible for the payments, just like any other project in which bonding is used to pay for infra structure. That does not necessarily mean that taxes would be collected as the City of Savage has already identified potential alternative means of satisfying this obligation, if that were necessary. Of course there is always some risk. None of the dome proponents have ever suggested otherwise. While there is some theoretical risk, we believe it to be minimal and manageable. The trade off is a facility that will benefit this community in many possible ways.
Brian Flakne
February 24th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“The trade off is a facility that will benefit this community…….” and surrounding communities with absolutely ZERO financial risk to the biggest benefactors, which is BAC and PLAY and other given groups. Again, as I stated in the editor, if a single resident is negatively impacted (and this case numerous residents), the City Council should vote the dome down to protect its residents instead of looking out for the other groups.
February 24th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
That’s exactly the point. Savage residents shouldn’t be on the hook for a $5,000,000 facility that benefits a few. This is not an infrastructure project, it’s a pet project placed in the middle of parkland, right on top of residential neighborhoods (current and future).
The shortsighted thinking that the best use of land obtained via early park dedication is a dome complex right in the middle of the property frustrates a lot of residents.
February 24th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Mr. Flakne, would you be willing to accept financial liability for any revenue shortfall?
February 24th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Brian, I think you’re still missing the question and the evidence is in the following statement:
YOU BELIEVE IT to be minimal?!? Where is the HARD DATA to support this “we believe” statement? Do you have results and data from comparable facilities? Do you have financial projections ON PAPER based on realistic assumptions and/or REAL/contractual commitments for usage?
This is the bottom line of why, if I lived in Savage, I would be voicing opposition to this right now.
Are there commitments from these “private investors” IN PLACE or is the City just assuming they will materialize? Who are these “private investors”? Are they the same ones that were supposed to purchase bonds for the Burnsville Performing Arts Center?
This is perhaps the most disturbing statement you made. Really? What other “alternative means” has the City identified? Name them. Unless the City has identified and secured (on paper) something like a health grant from a private corporation, all other “alternative means” = money from taxpayers. Maybe they’re federal, state, or county dollars, but they are still taxpayers’ money.
The Burnsville Performing Arts Center had “identified potential alternative means” too. Friends of the BPAC. Naming rights. “Adopt a Seat” purchases from citizens. I’m wondering how well you think that has worked over here. I’m thinking not so well.
February 28th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Please sign our petition against the rezoning and conditional use permit applications for the Dome going into Community park.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/citizens-against-savage-sports-dome-location/
February 28th, 2012 at 9:21 am
I have deleted a mostly duplicate comment and removed the above linked URL from the reader’s name. One link per comment is sufficient.
February 28th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
The idea of commercializing a nature park seems to make no common sense. Anyone check out the Burnsville Sports Dome? Located off 42 & Burnsville Parkway, “behind Taco John’s”. The thing is absolutely awful looking. Worst looking building on the block. The idea of polluting the great nature park seems to make no common sense. By recklessly fast tracking this project, many concerns still need to be addressed. Who will make up the financial shortfalls? Of course ; THE SAVAGE TAX PAYER! Seems City Council has no respect for the SAVAGE TAX PAYER! Sure seems Environmental concerns are being ignored. By locating this BIG PIG, in the middle of the great nature park, seems City Council has no respect for the Environment. Neighbors concerns seem to be ignored also. Why are the other domes located at High Schools or commercial zones. This PIG is in the back yard of a very nice neighborhood. Seems City Council has no respect for the neighboring-neighbors. The whole dam thing seems to make no common sense. Stay on top of these guys/gals. Politicians seem to go where the money is.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Mr Flakne – How do you answer this question – if this ‘project makes financial sense’ – every scenario in the financial analysis given to me this week by Barry Stock has this project losing money, EVERY single one. What you right is complete inaccurate, check your sources before making a statement that is untrue Mr Flakne.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:21 am
I guess that settles it. Facts from the city administrator overrides conjecture and opinion.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Brian, your post is full of misleading information and outright fabrications. A few to note:
“Municipal bonds are a common means for cities to raise money to build public infra structure.”
The idea that this sports dome is public infrastructure is somewhat in doubt. This is no more public infrastructure than a new Vikings Stadium. Less really.
“Interest on the bonds is guaranteed and not taxed.”
Not true at all. There is no such thing as a guaranteed investment. If a financial advisors ever tells you the return or interest is guaranteed you should fire him or her on the spot. Interest on bonds is backed by the taxing power of the municipality. If the municipality were to go bankrupt, the bond would likely go into default. Not likely to happen, but certainly possible. Your next paragraph makes this clear, as if the return was guaranteed there would be no need for potential investors to evaluate risk.
You go on to say all the costs of issuing the bond are paid for as part of the issuance. Again, misleading at best. That’s like saying that the closing costs for refinancing your home are rolled into the loan, so you don’t have to worry about paying them. Ooops. Still have to pay them, you just also have to pay interest on them for the next 30 years.
You are correct in noting that there is significant appetite in the investor community for this type of investment, but again you mislead. The appetite is there because this is a low risk investment in very uncertain economic times. You fail to actually spell out the reason investors see this as low risk. You jump into a nice story about how a bunch of local youth sports organizations are going to pay the bills. This has zero to do with the risk the investors are evaluating, and I would guess you know it. It is low risk because the City of Savage is on the hook for the interest payments. You make this whole bond thing sound warm and fuzzy. Lets simplify. What you want the city of savage to do is take out a mortgage and agree to make the payments on it for your kids to have a nice place to participate in sports. Selling bonds is BORROWING MONEY. They are taking out a loan to pay for this. Its money they DON’T HAVE.
There is no meaningful financial commitment from the local users. If they don’t pay, what happens to them? NOTHING. The city is on the hook to repay all of the borrowed money (bonds).
I am not making any sort of comment on the feasibility of this, or the need for it, or even if its justified that the city pay for it. I am making the point that you are being dishonest and misleading in your posts and in lobbying for this. You want something that will benefit you, your kids, and your friends, and rather than pay for it, you want the city to spend our tax dollars to pay for it. Instead of trying to sugar coat that, why not explain why its actually a good idea and more specifically answer some of the questions asked by MSDP.
I will assume by your lack of response to my question in post 74 that you are not willing to accept financial liability for any shortfall by the local sports groups? You probably prefer that the city and taxpayers bear that burden?
February 29th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
If the dome financing was a safe, secure and profitable decision, why does Barry Stock and the City Council continuously bring up the fact they have reserves to use for operating losses (Park Reserve Fund, Community Investment Fund, Liquor Funds, etc)?
February 29th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Brian K Flakne is a classic troll, except that he purports to use his real name.
Stating opinion as fact.
Not responding to perfectly acceptable questions
Makes shit up
Alters stories to fit his vision
Wait, did I say troll, or career politician?
February 29th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Seems Brian is looking to have BUBBLE BOWL STADIUM in his name. Maybe he would like to have it in his back yard? How about it Brian?
February 29th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
I am a resident of Savage and vehemently oppose the rezone and conditional use permit for building a sports dome in Savage’s Community Park and I’ll tell you why.
Not anywhere in the Twin Cities is an athletics sports facility located in a community park, nor are they funded by a City, with bond funds, which by all accounts, ARE taxpayer dollars. This is a foolhardy venture that the residents of Savage should not have to shoulder, both fiscally nor aesthetically. I find it unconscionable that to appease a group of sports clubs, who are primarily NOT Savage residents, the City Council is willing to move ahead with a fiscally irresponsible business venture, that should be left in the hands of entrepreneurs. Has the City thought about what happens when an actual need within the City arises? How will it be paid for if funds have been used to build a sports dome that is, by all accounts, not a necessity, especially when there is a privately owned and successfully operating sports dome, less than 5 miles away across the Burnsville border?
Residents want pothole free roads; we want fully funded all day Kindergarten in all Savage school districts; we want to be able enjoy the basic upkeep that a City is responsible for to sustain a high quality of life. Will this be sustainable if available funds are going to a 75 foot, glowing bubble?
I implore the City to not rush headlong into this venture. Two years may sound like a long time to have worked through this issue but clearly it is not enough time if residents are coming forward with logical, valid concerns. Do not ignore us. Do not ignore our concerns. There is still time to put this project on hold until the right location is found that all involved parties can agree on and an appropriate financial backer can be found. Wait for the right opportunity, of which Community Park, is not.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:51 am
Obamagal,
Great post. I know there are more folks out there that share your concerns. This would be great letter to send to the City Council (maybe you already have) and to read at the upcoming city meetings we should all attend.
Mark your calendars and try to attend to have your democratic voice is heard.
City Council Meeting – March 5th
EAW petition request analysis presentation
Planning Commission Meeting – March 8th
Review Re-zoning and Conditional Use Permit
City Council Meeting – March 19th
Rezoning, CUP and Site/Plan Bldg Permit Approval,
Authorization to advertise for bids,
EDA authorization for setting date for Sale of Bonds
March 1st, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I understand that reasonable people might disagree about this project and its merits, but I have endeavored to be respectful at all times to the opposition point of view. Moreover, I have had the courage to post, every comment made in this forum over my real name. Unfortunately, similar respect and fortitude have been abandoned by other participants herein.
In several recent posts to this forum, it has become apparent that a bankruptcy of ideals has caused some participants to engage in character assassination and derogatory name calling to further their position. Those parties who have felt it necessary to resort to such personal attacks have revealed their baser nature. This is a sad commentary on the continued vitality of intelligent discourse.
Brian Flakne
March 1st, 2012 at 2:29 pm
BKF,
You continue to purposefully ignore questions asked by others and you have purposefully misled everyone. Claim all the high standards you like but it’s fairly clear you’re not playing by the same rules you pretend to be.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Mr. Flakne,
In speaking only for myself and in the spirit of being fair and accepting accountability for our words and actions, it is unfortunate that the discourse within this social media outlet (and others) has become heated. As you know, this topic causes very passionate feelings on both sides of the issue.
Those of us opposed to the site location of the dome oppose it for very valid reasons, as evidenced in the numerous emails, letters, and conversations circulated over the past few months. Does this mean we should abandon civility in the face of opposition? No. But please understand, in the absence of logical, valid reasons for placing a sports dome in an inappropriate venue, people’s hackles are going to be raised. Especially when the needs of a few (sports clubs) are seemingly being considered over the needs of the many (Savage city residents). Remember, it’s easy to support something when it doesn’t negatively affect you. The singular benefit of a few should not be gained on the backs of the many.
Those who oppose the dome site are not saying they are against the building of a dome, rather, we are saying it needs to be placed elsewhere and it needs to be funded, built, and maintained by a private party or parties, not a municipality, whose role is to govern and manage the quality of life and safety of its citizens not worry about potential financial shortfalls of an unnecessary capital project. I think you can agree these are not unreasonable demands. Thank you for your attention.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Mr Flakne,
Please feel free to respond directly to any of my questions to you. In addition, please feel free to correct anything I had wrong in my response to your (in my opinion) misleading synopsis of bonding and the issue of the dome in general.
Short of that, I think its been established that you are not credible, you have an agenda, and are not looking to have an intelligent discourse. You are merely looking to obfuscate, mislead, and confuse for your own gain.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Chad, that sound like the definition of a Career Politician to me!
March 1st, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Seems Brian knows whats best for all of us!
Seems Brian knows whats best for all of us!
March 1st, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Seems your keyboard is broken, dude.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 am
I think Private funds should build it and public funds should operate it. It will be a public asset that will be enjoyed by many, but the capital cost needs to come from the private sector through donations or fundraising. There are some local businesses that would contribute to this cause.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Chad:
As to post # 91. (“You are merely looking to obfuscate, mislead, and confuse for your own gain.”)
I have never run for political office. I have never held political office. I do not intend to run for political office. I have no children currently in any local sports programs and no prospects of any children being in such sports programs in the future. I have no foreseeable personal use for the dome. The only benefit to me in having the dome built is improving the overall quality of life for our community. I have worked as a volunteer on this project because I know that others have a need and will use it. I generally support improvements to this community and I see this as a valuable addition to the offerings that will be available to families living south of the river. In my opinion this project is sufficiently worthy and beneficial to the broader community, to justify me personally taking the heat that you and others are generating.
As to post # 74. (“personal guarantee”)
Since you seem to have some more familiarity with the bond issues than many of the commentators herein, you must know that my “personal guarantee” of the bonds would be of no benefit, as any such personal guarantee would not be a factor in rating the bonds. Of course the City guarantees the bonds, and of course that is part of what makes them attractive to the investor community. Such a guarantee is axiomatic in the market for these types of investments. I have never suggested otherwise. I firmly stand by my assertion that municipals bonds are a typical mechanism of paying for public infrastructure, and that a City owned sports dome is no different than a library or a park in its public nature.
Brian Flakne
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Brian,
Thank you for the response. While I understand it would have no bearing on the actual bond rating, the actual underlying sentiment of my statement was to drive home the point that you actually understand, as you seem to be a reasonably intelligent individual, that this is going to cost the city money. It will not generate income sufficient to pay for itself, nevermind the upkeep over time.
As I truly believe that you understand this and are willfully stating something other than this, I think you are misleading people here. Its possible its not for your childrens or your own gain in the sense that your kids will use it, but certainly its because an organization you are deeply involved in will use it and gain from it. You clearly have a horse in the race.
Now, while it would not change the bond rating, it would be intersting if you dig up the title to your house and take it with you to the next meeting and pledge that as collateral to be used before city tax dollars are taken, in the event that use fees and local groups dont cover the operating expenses, which I think EVERYONE (you included) knows will not be the case.
I do however appreciate your response, however obtuse it may have been.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
BF: We’re still waiting for responses to MSPD’s questions, and to the substantive questions of Chad’s post which remain unanswered.
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:05 pm
We too would like to express our strong opposition to the proposed dome in Community Park or anywhere in Savage if it is publicly funded. If a dome is built it should be a private party who takes the responsibility and potential risks. It definitely should not be in a park. How about building it in an industrial area?
With the current economic conditions we should only be focused on needs not nice to haves or wants. In the past year due to a job loss and change we personally have experienced approximately a 30% reduction in our income plus loss of benefits. We are sure that many others have had similar experiences in the past few years. This in addition to our property taxes for the coming year increasing by $505.00. Now gas prices are rising dramatically which we will increase the cost of other products and services as well. What about senior citizens on a fixed income who will be paying for somebody else’s wants. But we are so fortunate to have city leaders who think we need a sports dome and have the nerve to tell us it won’t affect our taxes. Somewhere we will all end up paying for it whether it be for making up for lack of revenue to cover costs, future repairs, snow removal, other maintenance, increased police coverage for safety, etc. What if snow collapses the dome like the Metrodome? What about heating costs, insurance costs, etc.? Are they growing money on trees at city hall?
A dome seems like an ugly monstrosity for a peaceful, natural area of the park. The Twins and Vikings couldn’t wait to get out of their dome and play outside. What makes sports lovers in this area think they will like a dome here in Savage any better?
We have been living in a spoiled society for many years where most people seem to be living above their means, relying heavily on credit and credit cards. Government seems to be even worse than most individuals. Bonding in any form is the same as using a credit card in our eyes. Maybe the city should think about putting some money aside for repairs to roads, parks, city buildings, etc. and more important things to come in the future. Let’s not use the taxpayers as a government ATM machine. There is no guarantee that we won’t slip back into another recession which could cause shortfalls in tax revenue to pay for shortfalls in projects like this.
There really should be a referendum to vote on this oversized TENT.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:21 am
I have failed Tim here. Even though he’s the oldest top 50 commenter on the site I didn’t properly recognize his 1000th comment. For that I apologize. Life has been hectic but I won’t use that as an excuse. My bad dude.
Congrats to Tim on becoming the sixth person to reach the 1000 comment milestone.
Chad was first:
http://www.lazylightning.org/apple-valley-plans-to-spend-77600-on-website#comment-54488
MSPD was second:
http://www.lazylightning.org/favorite-sandwich-poll#comment-67076
Mrs. Marcos was third:
http://www.lazylightning.org/moser-roth-chili-infused-dark-chocolate#comment-105562
Mikeh was fourth:
http://www.lazylightning.org/minnesota-state-fair-coupon-book-deals#comment-112926
Lefty was fifth: http://www.lazylightning.org/d-spot-maplewood-mn#comment-120512
It took Tim 6 years, 8 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes and 42 seconds to reach 1000 comments. You can find his first comment here: http://www.lazylightning.org/metropolitan-airports-commission-noise-oversight-committee-refusing-apple-valley-mn-a-permanent-seat#comment-2104
Thanks to Tim for the 6+ years on the site and congrats on the big milestone!
March 5th, 2012 at 9:50 am
I’m sure I speak for everyone here at LazyLightning by sharing this note of congratulations:
WTF took you so damned long?!?
Way to go Tim.
March 5th, 2012 at 10:09 am
NChan’s comment above should be required reading for any politician at any level. Our govt has forgotten what they are there for.
Its certainly not the job of govt, in particular in lean times, to provide entertainment for the citizens.
The only point I disagree on is the referendum. We have elected officials to represent us. If we do a good job electing qualified and intelligent people, there should not be a referendum every time money needs to be spent. Sadly this does not seem to be the case. Hopefully Savage gets this one correct and puts the breaks on using public money for this venture.
March 5th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
EAW Petition Refused.
City council 1
Nature/Environment 0
March 6th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Thanks Bill, and thanks MSPD for your congratulations as well. :)
March 7th, 2012 at 8:00 am
StarTribune Announcement:
Public hearing set on sports dome
Friend or foe of the sports dome idea, here’s a chance to speak out.
Savage’s planning commission has public hearings planned for Thursday night on two aspects of the $5 million plan to add onto its Community Park.
The 7 p.m. meeting at City Hall will feature opportunities for public comment on two issues:
• A change to the city’s long-range plan so that a portion of land is switched from “medium density residential” to “park.” The park is located at 13450 Dakota Av.
• A rezoning, site plan and building design review, and a permit to allow for the park’s expansion and construction of an indoor sports facility.
The city’s goal is to get the facility built in time for use next winter season.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Is their a community or
ganizing meeting tomorrow?
March 7th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Will the GREAT Brian F. attend tomorrows community organizing meeting?
March 8th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Hello Everyone,
We oppose very strongly, our biggest fight is the economy along with the wrong location to build something as hideous as a dome in a park. We don’t understand how anyone can ask for 5million dollars for a dome we don’t need at a economic bad time like this, and we will never use or even see the inside of it!! We don’t think it is right that our Mayor is able to spend money like this without a vote from our city. I was unemployed for over a year and can’t afford anymore taxes! All this Mayor has done is spend spend spend since she has been unfortunately voted in. Can anyone tell me how much our ELC has made any money? We really want a private entity to build a dome somewhere other than the beautiful park that we do enjoy. The city of Savage cannot afford a big loss like this! Which is what it will be.
Thank you,
Chuck and Lori
March 12th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Savage Planning Commission voted in favor of rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for the Savage Sports Dome last week. The vote for the CUP was favored, but only by a 4-3 decision and also a condition was placed on the CUP for a complete redesign for the entry road into Community Park that currently goes through the parking lot by the ball fields.
The fight isn’t over yet. City Council has an upcoming meeting where the real facts will be brought to light.
March 14th, 2012 at 12:39 am
This afternoon, the City Of Savage yanked out the dock from the mini pond by the tennis courts. This was a very depressing sight. I took pictures and film of the ugly event. Was this in the plans? I don’t remember any talk about it. Well anyways, they took our DOCK and looked bad doing it.
City Council 2
Nature/Environment 0
March 20th, 2012 at 7:27 am
Well….we lost last night, kiddies. Savage City Council voted 3 to 1 for an unneccessary, $5.5 million sports dome paid for by taxpayer money. All because spoiled sports families are tired of driving all over the cities so their entitled children can play sports year round.
My neighbor said it best when he pointed out that only those who are morally and ethically decrepit would negatively impact the lives of those they are supposed to serve when they had a reasonable alternative site to put the sports dome near the high school. That about sums it up.
Off to write a thank you email to the one council member who had enough sense to see the ludicrousness of this situation.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:43 am
Was there ever any doubt?
March 20th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Great job to those who fought the good fight! Lets not let them enjoy any glory! Many,many,many eyes will watch the price. Over 300 Business friends have now been introduced to, BUBBLE DOME. With more to inform, I don’t think this issue will go away any time soon! Thanks to Lazy Lightning for an outlet to express our DEEP-DEEP emotions!
August 21st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Here is what happened to one city stupid enough to say yes to this. At least they have a way out.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21358672/vadnais-heights-city-council-dumps-financially-troubled-sports?nstrack=sid:2605504|met:300|cat:0|order:3
August 21st, 2012 at 2:18 pm
If anything should be scaring residents who think of letting their city take on such projects, that quote above should. Such a drop from AA to BBB is going to hit the pocket book of the city significantly. Every bond they issue will cost them more in interest payments.
Burnsville has received Moody’s AAa to AA1 credit rating over time.
August 22nd, 2012 at 11:59 am
Brief update…a neighbor shared this bit of info…
“I talked to the guy who is installing the turf. He thought based on how wide the dome is it was going to end up 90′ high from his previous experience with domes. I am not sure how reliable his opinion is.”
What do you call a 90 foot high, white pimple attached to the face of the Savage landscape?….wait for it…”the zit”
November 8th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Flakne – you are a joke. The only ‘fantastic legacy’ that is going to become of the dome is how much it is going to cost taxpayers. The dome has been open for a week now, it sat COMPLETELY empty last night. Nice work idiot council members for building something that isn’t even getting used. The night before last, one field was being used. To cover debt and operating costs, $850k is needed……there is a 0% chance this be successful.
November 8th, 2012 at 10:43 am
As of November 5th there are 5,248.5 available hours for rent until the lid comes off in April (source: Savage Sports Center website). That calculates out to only ~$271,000 in revenue (1805 rented hrs * $150)….Looks like there is quite as ways to go to get to $850,000 per yr. I’m sure all the speeches and propaganda promising usage volumes to cover costs just need to shakeout. We’ll see what happens after the USA falls off the fiscal cliff in 01/2013.
December 4th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Thisweeklivecom/~3/XbJ9Rp9btoc/
December 4th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Sam Griffiths sounds like a tool.
As “Jet” says, now let’s see how much the taxpayers end up picking up when the revenue falls short of their hypothetical projections and “vision”.
December 4th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Savage taxpayers will be picking up $100,000′s annually if current occupancy levels stay the same as the first month as the dome was dark many nights by 7 pm and that includes weekends. You can see how much time is yet to fill on the dome’s website. Good luck taxpayers, I hope you enjoy the tax increase to come since our city council was looking out for Burnsville and Prior Lake youth programs so they can practice indoors…….
December 5th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Extrapolating statistics for publicly available rental times, as of 12/04 the facility has 1880.5 hours rented and will generate $282,000 in revenue through April 2013.
I wonder what it costs to heat, light, and manage the facility?
December 5th, 2012 at 8:40 am
Jet,
Contact the City of Savage and ask.
December 5th, 2012 at 9:19 am
This post, beginning with Bill’s original question up to the debate between Flakne and M Savage/Jet and others, and up to and including the projections that this place is going to be yet another taxpayer funded debacle that falls horribly short of revenue projections with no back up funding should be read by every local city council person charged with voting to spend local taxpayer money and the risks involved.
What those people should also notice is the fact that cowards like Flakne won’t be back here to defend his position now that his suppositions have been proven wrong in the reality of his side “winning” the idiotic sports dome. Now that somebody else is on the hook for it, I highly doubt he cares.
I suspect that similar debate exists here or elsewhere about the BPAC, and about any other type of project that was not thought out but still pushed through because of poor methodology and fake revenue/expense projections and bullshit justifications about quality of life, etc.
Unfortunately, it’s just rinse and repeat.
Thanks for playing…
December 11th, 2012 at 9:34 am
http://www.savagepacer.com/news/opinions/letters/letter-a-dome-we-can-call-home/article_6d1d468a-c25d-5369-ba6a-d40777846e65.html