Why Aren’t Ice Arena Users Paying Their Fair Share?

"This is the line for free money, right?"

Highlights

• Despite consistent large surpluses, Madison Ice, Inc. has failed to make a single payment on the land contracts for the city’s ice arenas in over four years.
  

• The mayor’s proposal forgives $1.6 million in principal debt owed by Madison Ice, Inc., plus accrued interest, and authorizes the fee simple sale of both city-owned ice arenas for $1 each.
  

• A small facility fee of $0.30 per visit will generate $120,000–$135,000 annually, enough to cover Madison Ice, Inc.’s payments.
  

• Having arena users pay ensures fairness and keeps public funds for kids with the greatest needs, where they will have the greatest impact.
  

A Better Solution for Madison’s Ice Arenas

Madison taxpayers recently approved a permanent increase in the property tax levy after the mayor claimed the city was financially stretched thin and warned of cuts to basic services. Now, she’s proposing to forgive $1.6 million in unpaid debt, plus accrued interest, owed by Madison Ice, Inc., while authorizing the sale of Hartmeyer Ice Arena to East Madison Ice Collective and Madison Ice Arena to Madison Ice, Inc.—each for just $1. The mayor claims the only alternatives to approving this bailout are for the city to take back the arenas, subsidize their operations—including $3 million in deferred maintenance—or close the arenas entirely, further pressuring taxpayers to accept this deal.

But what if there were a way to resolve this issue without putting taxpayers on the hook? A facilityfee offers a simple and equitable solution—ensuring that Madison Ice, Inc. meets its financial obligations while shifting the cost to those who directly benefit from the arenas.

But what if there were a better way to resolve this issue—one that doesn’t burden taxpayers? A facility fee provides a simple, equitable solution. Unlike general admission or rental fees, a facility fee is specifically designated for the capital costs of the building, such as acquisition, maintenance, repairs, and long-term upgrades. It ensures that those who use the arenas contribute to their upkeep, relieving taxpayers of the financial responsibility while maintaining access to these valuable community facilities.

The Case for a Facility or Facility Fee

Madison Ice, Inc. reports that the two arenas host 400,000 to 450,000 visits annually. Based on these numbers:

• A $0.30 fee per visit will generate $120,000 to $135,000 per year—enough to cover Madison Ice, Inc.'s total annual payments of $123,700 for the land contracts.

  
  

• A slightly higher fee would generate funds for a sinking or reserve fund to cover future capital expenses—something Madison Ice, Inc. appears to have never established—and provide financial assistance for those who truly need help paying the facility fee.

This fee represents a minor cost for skaters, hockey teams, and community groups using the facilities, while ensuring Madison Ice, Inc. pays their debt to the city. Although many users are adults, youth participation remains significant. According to the Aspen Institute’s 2019 State of Play report, families spend an average of $2,583 annually on a single child (ages 1–18) to play youth hockey. Additionally, a study by the National Sporting Goods Association found that the median household income of youth hockey players is $82,000, compared to a median household income in the US of $51,000 at the time of the study. This highlights that the families benefiting from these facilities typically have significantly higher incomes than the median household income.

Why Should Users Pay?

The core argument is fairness. Users of the ice arenas directly benefit from these facilities, so it’s reasonable to expect them to contribute to their upkeep and financial viability. Forgiving the debt places the cost on taxpayers, many of whom do not use these facilities. This is especially problematic given the city’s recent tax increase. A facility fee ensures that those who use the arenas shoulder the cost, encouraging Madison Ice, Inc. to better manage its finances and meet its obligations to the city.

Lessons from Other Cities

Cities across the United States have demonstrated the effectiveness of facility fees in sustaining public recreational facilities, ensuring users contribute to capital costs, maintenance, and improvements. Consumers are already familiar with paying small surcharges, such as facility fees on tickets to events or maintenance fees at gyms. These fees are widely recognized as a fair way to ensure the upkeep and improvement of the facilities they use. Madison Ice, however, has yet to adopt such practices. By integrating a facility fee into its pricing structure, Madison could align with these proven strategies, ensuring users of the ice arenas—who directly benefit from these facilities—contribute their fair share. This approach balances accessibility with fiscal responsibility and sets a precedent for equitable funding of public amenities.

What’s at Stake?

The mayor’s multi-million bailout of Madison Ice, Inc. will have significant consequences for the city:

• Subsidizing a financially successful nonprofit that has failed to meet its obligations sends a troubling message and sets a precedent for future deals.

  
  

• Critical funds that could address urgent needs—such as affordable housing or public safety—would instead be redirected to benefit a narrow group of users.

  
  

• Without a facility fee, the city continues to lose out on sustainable funding options, leaving taxpayers to cover costs that should be borne by the facilities’ users.

A facility fee shifts the financial responsibility back where it belongs: to those who use and benefit from the ice arenas. This approach ensures fiscal accountability, protects public funds, and secures the arenas’ future as community assets.

For more background on the mayor’s proposal to bail out Madison Ice, Inc., check out my previous blog posts:

• Rhodes-Conway and Guequierre Propose Forgiving $1.6 Million Debt Plus Interest Owed to City by Financially Successful Nonprofit 

  
  

• Rhodes-Conway and Guequierre Pair Up On Proposal to Forgive $1.6 Million in Ice Arena Debt and Sell Them for $1 Each 

  
  

• Despite Red Flags and Financial Irregularities, City Committee Supports Mayor’s Controversial Bailout of Madison Ice, Inc.

I reached out to Mayor Rhodes-Conway, Alders Latimer Burris and Guequierre, Dan O'Connell of Madison Ice, Inc., Tom Conti of East Madison Ice Collective, Matthew Mikolajewski, and David Schmiedicke, the city’s finance director, for comments on this proposal. As of publication, I have not received a response but will update the blog if and when I do.

How Madison Can Implement a Facility Fee—A Call to Action

Madison residents deserve a transparent and fair solution to this issue—one that doesn’t burden taxpayers. A facility fee is a practical, equitable approach that ensures the ice arenas remain accessible while protecting the city’s finances. Your voice matters in shaping this decision. Here’s how you can help:

• Contact your alder to express your support for a facility fee and your concerns about the proposed bailout. Email addresses can be found here.

  
  

• Write to the City Council at allalders@cityofmadison.com to share your thoughts.

  
  

• Share this blog post on social media or email it to friends and neighbors. The more people who know about this proposal, the stronger our collective voice will be.

  
  

• Attend the Common Council meeting on January 14, either in person or via Zoom, to make your voice heard. Details on how to register and speak will be available here the Friday before the meeting.

This is your chance to advocate for fairness and fiscal responsibility. Together, we can ensure the city makes decisions that benefit everyone—not just a select few.

If you enjoy this content, please like and share. For questions and media inquiries, email asaloutos@tds.net or call (608) 345-9009.

© Alex Saloutos 2024.