CCP 10-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e 1. tit e Valentine Park Ice Rink Process - How did we get to where we are now? A. Resident Comments B. We asked council member Rem to ask around the neighborhood for a response. C. We then used attendance stats from past few years in combination with maintenance issues and comprehensive study issues to bring to Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee for a decision. D. The Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee made a recommendation to City Council to not have a rink at Valentine Park. E. The Council was made aware of the committees recommendation and approved the decision. II. Attendance A. 1997/1998 - 363 skaters (Lowest attendance of any of the other 4 rinks = 1,224) 1998/1999 - 236 skaters (Lowest attendance of any of the other 4 rinks = 980), Average skaters per day: 1997/1998 - 49 days open - Average of7 skaters per day/night. 1998/1999 - 45 days open - Average of5 skaters per day/night. III. Maintenance Issues A. Location of the warming house (continues to flood) B. Slope of the ground (How lone ooes i\ take +0 0€-\ Ice) !-IDw fors does i+- last::) C. Comprehensive plan has identified this location for a future holding pond. D. Cost to maintain rink and manpower IV. Inadequate Lighting - A. The rink was open different hours than the other rinks. Valentine Park was only open till 7:30 p.m. versus 8:30 p.m. for the other rinks because of only having one small light. We also questioned the safety at night with very little lighting. B. The argument has been brought up that a hockey rink would help with attendance. While this may be true, the hockey rink would have to have rink lights added. The neighborhood would have to agree to that and also it would have to be decided, does the neighborhood NEED a baseball field or a hockey rink. Ice rinks inevitably kill grass!!!