Surface statistics: ice rink study gives the cold, hard facts about facility ownership and amenities.

Although rink ownership is split fairly evenly among private and public/municipal entities, the latter group holds the edge, according to findings of a recently conducted study to assess the state of ice and other rinks in the nation. According to the study, 44.5 percent of the rinks surveyed are publicly/municipally owned, while 43.5 percent are privately owned.

"We felt that the responses confirmed what we thought," comments Pat Kelleher, chief operating officer of Colorado Springs-based Serving the American Rinks (STAR), which, in conjunction with Iowa State University performed the study. The objective of the National Rink Industry Survey was to identify and to collect basic information on all rink facilities in the United States.

"Although the recent rink-building 'boom' of the mid-90s was fueled by private business in non-traditional ice areas of Florida, Texas and Arizona," relates Kelleher, "the majority of our facilities are either operated by a municipality or another public entity, such as schools, universities and other non-private organizations.

"The ownership trends are for the most part, geographically driven," he adds. "in Minnesota, for example, there aren't any truly privately owned and operated facilities, while in Florida or California, none of the facilities are municipally funded or operated."

According to Kelleher, the majority of the facilities are located in what he calls "traditional" ice areas: New England, New York and the Upper Midwest. "These are our older facilities that have been in operation for a long time," he explains. "Until recently, nearly all the facilities in those areas would have been municipally owned and operated." One ownership structure about which STAR concedes it has little data is a public-private arrangement. "At this time, we don't have data on the number of public-private ventures," indicates Kelleher, "but it does look like this model can make a lot of sense for future rink projects."

One such facility based on the public-private model is the new Hoffman Estates Community Center ice arena in Hoffman Estates, Ill., which was realized through a joint endeavor of the Hoffman Estates Park District and the Chicago Wolves Hockey team, an American League franchise that uses the facility as a practice venue. (See "Cool Collaborations," December 2004 Parks & Recreation.)

"Both users incur benefits from sharing this facility," remarks Kate Ditchman of Williams Architects, Carol Stream, Ill., who served as the manager of the design project for the facility, which opened in 2004. "Sharing costs has allowed them to afford a state-of-the-art ice rink incorporating more amenities than would be the case if they were to individually invest in a facility."

According to Kelleher, the presence of a professional hockey team can serve as a catalyst for ice rink development, as was the case in a number of communities during the previously referred-to boom years.

"At that time, the National Hockey League (NHL) was expanding to 'non-traditional' hockey areas such as Florida, Texas and Arizona. Each of these areas, along with several others in the country, then started to build ice rinks," he relates. "In Florida, we had four ice surfaces before the NHL went into Tampa Bay and Miami with teams, and now there are more than 20 ice facilities in the state."

Surfaces Studied

With the four states that lead in number of rinks--New York, Michigan, Minnesota and Massachusetts--yielding the highest number of respondents, the study analyzed other basic information, including surface characteristics.

Information derived about rink surfaces addressed the number and type of surfaces at rinks in the nation, as well as size of surfaces. While 612 rinks have exclusively ice surfaces--ranging from one surface (401 rinks) up to five surfaces (one rink), 75 rinks feature surfaces for in-line skating. Of these, the majority (66) has one in-line rink, while a handful (eight) has two; only one facility reported having three. Study respondents reported various combinations of ice and in-line surfaces. (See chart on page 54).

Kelleher offers some insight as to the geographic location of rink surface types: "In-line only facilities are more prevalent in the non-traditional ice markets such as California or the Southeast, while we don't have too many in-line surfaces in New England."

The survey also elicited information pertaining to surface size, offering response options of "NHL" (200'x85'), "Olympic" (200"x100') and "Other." The vast majority (719) of the respondents reported having NHL-size surfaces, compared to a mere 75 Olympic ones, which number only one-third of those reported to be "Other."

Although Kelleher does not spot any correlation among surface size and ownership of a facility, he does identify a relationship between size and age of facility. "Our older facilities in the East and Upper Midwest are primarily NHL-sized ice surfaces," he explains. "In some of the newer, twin-pad facilities, we may see an NHL surface alongside an Olympic-size sheet.

"Some facilities see that having both size surfaces may make them more flexible to host events or accommodate certain groups," he adds. "In some ways, especially with the higher-level NCAA programs and their new facilities, it comes down to personal preference of a coach or business owner."

Ditchman concurs that owner objectives and program requirements will influence decisions concerning facility features. "While regulation-size NHL ice rinks serve the needs of most communities," she comments, "some owners may prefer to have one Olympic-size rink for maximum programming flexibility."

Don't Sweat the Seating When it comes to seating capacity trends, the study revealed that the largest percentage of rinks that responded (30 percent) have from 500 to 999 seats. Only 20 percent have seating capacity that exceeds 1,500, while the bulk of the facilities have fewer than 1,000 seats.

"The majority of the facilities in our country are community-based facilities, so 'attendance' is not really an issue," suggests Kelleher. "They aren't concerned with filling the bleachers as much as they are concerned with filling their ice surfaces with skaters."

The cost associated with the space necessary for large spectator crowds, he argues, may not generate increased revenues for community rinks. "Our community-based rinks need to be built to be sustainable, long-term business operations," he asserts. "We have seen too many rinks that were overbuilt. A 'Taj Mahal' of an ice rink may look great, but is it efficient?

"We have a lot of ice rinks in the United States that are of a simple design, are kept clean and safe, and run a solid business," he notes. "These will be around for the long term to provide opportunities for kids and adults to skate and play hockey."

The ice arena in Hoffman Estates, Ill., features two sheets of ice; one rink is configured for larger events, while the second rink serves the needs of ice users without incorporating unneeded audience seating.

"Programming is a vital phase to designing an ice arena," stresses Ditchman. "Translating community needs into a useful and efficient building is the key to a well-designed and profitable facility."

According to STAR, its two founding partners, US Figure Skating and USA Hockey, will use the survey data to "serve and enhance the U.S. rink and arena industry." Future survey efforts will conceivably seek more detailed facility information, such as information about types of refrigeration system and age of facilities. For more information about STAR, visit www.starrinks.com.

Striking the Right Balance Between Supply and Demand

According to Pat Kelleher, chief operating officer with Serving the American Rinks (STAR), Colorado Springs, Col., whether the demand for ice time is being adequately met by the inventory of ice varies throughout the United States.

"Everyone would love to get their youth hockey program or figure skating club on the ice during 'prime time' hours in the traditional season of September through March, but what happens from April to August?" he asks. "We could use more ice rinks to grow our participation numbers in the U.S., but they have to be built as practical and responsible business models."

Kelleher reports, for example, that in one Northeast market nearly 20 ice surfaces were added through a four-year time period. And while the number of skaters in that area expanded, it lagged behind the amount of available ice that had recently introduced. "We had populations of existing skaters shifting from rink to rink, while our total number of entry level or grass roots participants might not have grown as much."

Although Kelleher acknowledges that more facilities are needed to expand ice sports participation, they must have the right combination of amenities and be located in appropriate markets to succeed. "The ice rink business is extremely difficult," he asserts. "You can't just turn-off the rink when you go home at night, and our best rinks can only fill their ice time for 14-16 hours a day.

"A new rink built down the street from a successfully operating rink could give us two mediocre businesses instead of one good business operation," notes Kelleher. "And that doesn't help us to get the next facility built."

Chart 1. Number and Combination of Rink Surfaces

         0 Inline   1 Inline   2 Inline   3 Inline   Total

0 Ice       0             11          2          0      13
1 Ice     403             36          3          0     442
2 Ice     170             17          2          1     190
3 Ice      34              1          0          0      35
4 Ice       3              1          1          0       5
5 Ice       1              0          0          0       1
11 Ice      1              0          0          0       1

Tota 1    612             66          8          1