3.0 SR Email Handout
Allard, Tina
From:Portner, Cal
Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:19 PM
To:Allard, Tina
Subject:FW: Arena project & tonight's meeting
From: David Williams \[mailto:djw62563@hotmail.com\]
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 11:19 AM
To: Mayor John Dietz; Westgaard, Matt; Wagner, Jennifer; Ovall, Nate; Olsen, Jerry
Cc: Portner, Cal
Subject: Arena project & tonight's meeting
Mayor & Council Members, my name is Dave Williams & I’m the Resident Member of the Arena Design Team. I didn’t see an open forum area in tonight’s
meeting agenda so I’m sending this to each of you prior to the meeting. I chose to serve in that position because I believe that it’s important that a member of the
community was involved in the process to help get this project completed as a long term viable solution. My entire goal was to see this project be something that
is a viable asset for the long term while at the same time staying within a budget framework.
I completely understand the people that are concerned about their taxes going up. I’m a taxpayer & I’m not anymore excited to see my property taxes go up than
anyone else. My preference is 100% for a local option sales tax which could not only pay the debt service for this project as well as parks & rec capital projects
but that will be determined by the residents of the community voting. It will the residents choice how we pay for this, not the council choice. That being said, the
alternative of doing nothing or even just keep letting this arena nickel & dime the city seems completely fiscally irresponsible. I also believe that the condition of
the ice making systems makes this something that can’t be ignored. The possibility of a complete system failure makes this makes this project a priority to
me. I’m not a member of the hockey community, there is no “what’s in it for me” but I do believe it’s important to move forward with this project because it’s
what’s best for Elk River. I also believe that it was very clearly defined in the literature for the Community Center Referendum, that if it failed, decisions would
have to be made to move forward.
I was able to spend some time both in the general seating area & the operations areas of the Metrodome for a period of time a few years ago. It was so evident that
it was built for value instead of viability. In all honesty, the Olympic part of our current arena reminds me a great deal of the Metrodome. Built for value & set up
to fail which is where we are now. Using a previously used ice plant, having beyond substandard locker rooms & cutting the corners off the building are just two
instances I can give as short sighted value based thinking in my opinion. I’ve seen the uproar that building Target Field & US Bank Stadium caused but once they
1
opened, a vast majority love them & think they are both amazing facilities. I believe the same thing will happen with this project. You will have a vocal group
creating a uproar until it opens & the vast majority will love it.
Regarding tonight’s upcoming discussion about going back to voters with the previous project. I was completely in support of the previous project & think that it
was a better bang for the buck. My concerns with going back to voters are simply from a fiscal standpoint. Are we wasting all of the dollars that we have already
spent getting to point where we are at now on the current project? How will going back to the voters for the previous project affect the school district as well as
the city from a fiscal standpoint regarding their upcoming high school projects if another vote would fail? The school district has their parking lot project slated
for 2019 & football stadium project in 2020. If a referendum would fail again & the current project is resurrected for a 2019 build, how would that effect both of
those projects from a fiscal as well as need standpoint. The school district is a taxpayer entity as well & I really believe that needs to be taken into account.
Lastly, I was born & raised in the Mankato area & I have seen what they have done in the City of New Ulm, a town with approximately 10,000 fewer residents
than the City of Elk River. I believe that Elk River should be moving on a forward path, not being provincial & being on a neutral or even reverse path. In my
opinion, previous councils have kicked this can down the road for years. I completely believe this project moves the City of Elk River forward. I also completely
understand that this is a tough controversial project but I believe this council has the foresight as well as the fortitude to proceed ahead & move Elk River forward.
Thank You for your service to our city
2