Recently we’ve covered many stories about how cities are cutting unnecessary services due to budget setbacks and their insistence on spending money on needless items. One of the most popular ways to save money is to cut Parks and Rec offerings. Burnsville did it by closing numerous ice rinks around the city and now Lakeville is doing it too. Fortunately for Lakeville one concerned and motivated resident went ahead and found a way to keep at least two of the five rinks they were planning to close open–without a single dollar needing to be spent by the city! Here’s an excerpt from an e-mail I received from this resident:
For several years I worked for the City of Falcon Heights. During the summer I helped run their summer programs (t-ball, soccer, etc.) during the winter I worked with local schools to run their after school programs. But I also watched 2 of the cities ice rinks and each night we had to clean and flood the rinks.
[...]
I don’t ice skate but I have seen what it does in the community they are in. For the most part kids did not get rides to the ice rinks they were within walking distance. I went to look at one of the closed rinks and it was right behind several homes in a large community. Take it away and these families wont get in the car and drive their kids to play for a hour or two in the cold.
So I wrote the Lakeville city council asking, what if I found a sponsor to cover the water costs, they get a banner outside the rink and I will volunteer my time to clean and flood 2 rinks during the winter. I figured 2 was the most I could do myself. The hockey boards are up and the pleasure rink you just use snow to make the outline.
So here we have a Lakeville resident willing to spend the time to care for the rinks and find sponsorships for them so that the city doesn’t have to sink one dime into keeping them running this year. Great deal, right? A complete win for Lakeville and its residents, right? Not so according to Lakeville Parks and Rec Director Steve Michaud:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry as we had a City Council meeting Monday night and the issue you question was to be discussed. The City Council did approve the closure of the five recommended sites. Further the notion of persons having the resources or the ability to find the resources to sponsor reopening one of the closed sites was ruled out. It was thought the reopening of one closed site and not opening the rest would not be fair to those neighborhoods without the same ability or resources.
Really? Seriously? You are going to use the excuse that it “would not be fair,” as the reason that you’re going to deny the request? You weren’t going to give something just as lame like, “we don’t want a citizen caring for our property because it would piss of the union,” or, “we don’t want a sponsor for a public facility like we have at the baseball diamonds,” or, “we just want to be more like Burnsville”? You had to say that it wasn’t fair? Please.
So weigh in on this one. What do you think about Lakeville denying an offer by a resident to care for two of the five closing rinks to keep them open? What do you think the city’s real reason in doing this was? Whatever you think go ahead and comment on as I’m sure the city and the residents would love to hear what you have to say.
Related posts:
Lazy Lightning Store
Month's Top 5 Commenters
BPAC Financials Archive
Dakota Criminal Complaints
Loading ...
November 5th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Lakeville Refuses Offer to Reopen Two Closed Rinks: http://tinyurl.com/yheyeen
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I was expecting something like “there is still monetary potential liability to the City having them open/extra liability having citizens do maintenance” or talk of having to maintain unnecessary insurance.
Their response is absolutely lame.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Unbelievable. I probably could have accepted a reason of liability or insurance, or since we are not providing these rinks by the city we do not have to insure them and we are recognizing these savings as well, more plausible than it would not be fair. I hate the word “fair”. The word fair is defined differently in everyone’s mind based on their specific situation and is a lousy excuse for any argument if this is the only position for making a decision, as it is being used here. The word fair is used as a cop out, similar to “hope”. I hope that this will occur. No, get off your ass and increase the probability of something happening or coming to fruition and not leave things up to “hopeâ€. In the private sector, I have seen people fired on the spot for presenting to clients and using the word “fair†and “hope†as their basis in a response to a client.
We have a citizen who is volunteering their time and sweat equity for the better of the community and the city says no. I would get the names of the people on the council who voted this proposal down and make it clear that it is not “fair†that we have these complete idiots in office making stupid “unfair†decisions. It is not “fair” that you are getting paid with our tax dollars to spew such shitty responses solely based on “fairness” to those who are paying your salary.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Is “fairness” reason to keep rinks closed? RT @SouthMetroNews: Lakeville Refuses Offer to Reopen 2 Closed Rinks: http://tinyurl.com/yheyeen
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
November 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
The fairness reason is ridiculous. I was also expecting a liability or insurance thing. The city has unfortunate priorities.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Wow. Fairness. What a noble goal. My advice to the homeowner is F-u and do it anyway. In our neighborhood we’ve flooded a rink with gardenhoses, and an neigbor snowblows it off after a snowfall.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
So if five kids were drowning in a municipal pool and the lifeguards could only save two of them, would they have to let them all drown?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Yeah, a fairness issue makes little sense. In addition to insurance and liability mentioned above, I would also add that they probably don’t want to start a precedent of letting individual citizens take over city services as a pet project. Even if this guy did a good job with the two rinks and got sponsors, other people might not have the same follow-through and would leave projects half done, etc. It could be a huge pain in the ass.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Umm . . . wow. http://tinyurl.com/yheyeen (via @garciasn)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
November 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“Fairness” so absurd a response, I’m left wondering what the truth is..
November 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
RT @garciasn @SouthMetroNews http://tinyurl.com/yheyeen “Fairness” so absurd a response, I’m left wondering what the truth is.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
November 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
ben – I’ll bet there’s a lot of truth to the precedent argument as well. This guy might do a decent job, but not everyone will. It is also highly likely that there are additional costs associated with ice rinks that the well-intentioned volunteer may not be aware of.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I will agree with MSPD on the liability part. If the individual signed a liability release, then that’s all that should be needed in all practical logic.
I don’t agree with the cities denial past that in any form, so the heck with them. What would be the difference if this individual did it on his own property (liability aside) vs. at Park property?
My suggestion is to find a local business with a big unused parking lot or space they aren’t using (as I bet there are plenty) and work with them to create a social rink.
May be a bit underground for some, but if the community shows what it can do without the involvement or advisory/monetary support of the city, it will be seen as a huge sore thumb on the city hand of authority, and cause more negative PR about the board canning local things that won’t cost the city a dime.
Emily: I’d say no – good comparison, but dammed if you do, and if you don’t! They’d just shut down all the pools, because it wouldn’t be fair to chance little Timmy drowning in one pool, and little Tommy having a lifeguard at his pool. :)
November 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Its more about sending a message. The parks and rec department know the costs associated which each rink so its not like they would guess a number.
Should also point out that nothing had been worked out yet. A request was made to the city council to look into doing it. There would have been hurdles after that, that would have to have been discussed.
We have Burnsville worried about flower pots, Apple Valley worried about Red bricks. It should not have to be left to the people to try to come up with solutions.
The problem is the the response. 5 rinks were closed that does not seem fair, wouldn’t it be more fair to close all rinks just to make it fair?
Do we no longer resurface a street because it would not be fair to have one neighborhood with nice new streets while another one does not.
If anything this is about trying to think outside the box. Sure it may not be the perfect answer or solution but isnt it time we step up and take back our community?
Liability would have been a fair response, but they did not go there. They made it clear that in exploring options not just this one, that opening back up 1-2 rinks would not be fair. It had nothing to do with intentions, cost, liability this had to do with being fair. Tell that to the 5 areas that had their rinks shut down. How is that fair.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I think the fairness reply from the city is pretty lame, but I know from first hand experience that one of these rinks was almost never used. I live near it and walk my dogs past it almost every day. It was almost always empty. In fact I had often wondered if they would shut it down even before the economy hit the skids. It’s too bad though because I hoped to take my kids there when they were older. It sucks, but if the other rinks were being used as little as this one it might have been a reasonable decision.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
So we have all pretty much agreed that it was a dumb response and that they should have offered something else. Some have posed the question, “well, what was the real reason?” I’m wondering that myself and dovetailing off of both, why didn’t they choose to just be upfront with the response and instead give such a lame excuse?
What was it that motivated the city to respond like they did? Are the residents of Lakeville to be treated like children and not responsible adults?
November 5th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
The real reason is they are afraid people would realize their bureaucracy is unnecessary and they would be out of their piece of cake job. If Lakeville residents took care of their parks, then there would be no need for a highly paid Parks and Rec Director.
I do find this excuse particularly lame though….they can do better than that!
November 6th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Have to agree with everyone. The city response was pathetic, and the person who tried to do this with thier own time and labor should be commended.
As stated above, if fairness is the issue, 5 rinks should not have been closed. All the rinks should have been closed. For that matter, its not fair that some places have rinks and others dont. Idiots who make statements like this should be fired on general principal on the spot.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Do you think that the Parks and Rec director was the one who decided on the wording or was he directed by the council (or City Manager) to word it like he did?
November 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Wow. That just proves that the city council doesn’t care. Do people actually have their kids walk to the neighborhood rink. No suburb is walkable and in the winter I’d expect most parents to drive their kids places so what difference does the location make?
November 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Actually you would be surprised when it comes to ice rinks how local they really are. Working a ice rink for 3 years a majority were kids within walking distance. Thats why you dont see parks in the middle of business areas. They usually are the center of a clump of homes.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Bill, I guess my general idea was directed at the council. I know this guy did not make the decision. Although in my experience alot of how things are decided usually comes down to the presentation. I would think this guy had some input on the final decision, and certainly should have been smart enough to push back and say we have to come up with a real reason, this is not something I can take to the public.
All that said, he probably thought this was a total blow off and would never see the light of day, so he never thought about having an actual justified reason.
So, I guess I am back to fired on general principal. Him or the council, take your pick.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I just found out about the decision to close our neighborhood rink tonight from a neighbor. We used our neighborhood rink frequently and are saddened to hear it won’t be opened this year. I understand there is a city council meeting this Monday where there is a grass roots effort to get residents together to show the council that residents would like to figure out a way to keep these rinks open. Whether it be staffing the warming houses with volunteers, charging admission or even getting a neighborhood fund to cover a some portion fo the operating costs – there has got to be something that can be done! Our neighborhood rink is great – it brings people together, it is a beautiful winter site and was one of my favorite things about living in LAKEVILLE. I seem to remember hearing about some neighborhood wading pools being closed in St. Cloud last year and the neighbors raised enough money through neighborhood and business donations to open, operate and staff the pool. I am just hoping something can be done. There is nothing like kids enjoying winter skating OUTDOORS vs. in some arena.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Well, as long as it isn’t near my house, it is fair and doesn’t bother me!
heh :)
December 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Well, several of my neighbors and I went to the Lakeville City Council meeting to see if we could influence the decision to close our ice rink. A couple of us spoke and we even had a petition with 168 signatures from neighbors saying they support our ice rink staying open. As tax payers with ever increasing property tax, I think we have that right to let the council know how we want our dollars spent. We got a polite “thank you” and “yes, it is too bad” from the council. They took the petition but it is obvious they will do nothing with it. Steve Michaud, the Parks & Rec Director does seem to care, but it seems as though his hands are tied.
Also, the Star Trib had an article on this recently:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/78602777.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
December 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
It is time like these where cities are cutting services, both needed, and nice to have that it is important to really watch these people like hawks. Government can easily become penny wise, yet pound foolish, in the end costing the taxpayer much more than they ever could really save.
I don’t know if I would have accepted the attitude from the concoul of it being “too bad”. The council is who made the decision, and they have the power to change it. Too bad isn’t why your ring is being closed. They should have clearly discussed the reasons behind the closing and skip the platitudes.