Home | Politically Connected | Local Politics
Rosemount voters deny funds for athletic fields
A big majority rejected a proposal to raise taxes for a sports complex and an arts center.
Rosemount kids playing softball and soccer on overcrowded fields will have to make do, voters decided Tuesday.
By more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters rejected an $8 million bond referendum for a new athletic complex northeast of downtown Rosemount, as well as upgrades to an old Catholic church where many residents hope to see an arts center someday. Roughly 25 percent of the city's 11,000 registered voters cast ballots on Tuesday, with about 70 percent opposed to raising taxes for the projects.
But that doesn't mean plans are necessarily out the window, Mayor Bill Droste said Tuesday night. "The land is still there," he said, referring to 57 acres that Flint Hills Resources donated for the athletic complex.
"It's just very expensive to build ballfields," he said. "... With the economy being very soft, we should probably just look at various options" for moving forward after the vote.
Some residents and city leaders promoted the complex, which would have included 10 new fields, as a way to serve young families who have moved in and signed their kids up for baseball, lacrosse, soccer and football.
"We currently turn away kids in our in-house [baseball] program, and to me, that isn't right," said Tom Thaden, who coaches 13-year-old ballplayers and organized efforts to pass the referendum.
The Rosemount Area Athletic Association has had to turn away as many as 50 ballplayers in the last couple of years, and demand for fields is so heavy that the association has had to shorten its playing seasons to eight weeks instead of 10 or 12, said association president Dan Shaw.
"Baseball's gotta end before soccer can start, and soccer's gotta end before football starts," he said.
The new complex would have enabled local teams to host more tournaments, an important fundraising source that also brings business to the community, Shaw added.
But some residents opposed the expense, arguing the athletic complex should be funded through a user fee. "I don't think that we should have to pay for other people's leisure time," said John Woolery. "If they want to have a baseball field, they should pay for it themselves."
Just more than $1 million of the bond money would have paid for upgrades to the old St. Joseph's Catholic Church, which the city bought three years ago along with land next door where a new Dakota County library is under construction. Many residents envision a full-blown theater or arts center in the church, but the city asked for less money than it would take to make that dream a reality, planning improvements to make the building suitable for public events.
Rosemount's population has jumped by 40 percent in the past eight years, to more than 20,000 by 2006. That growth has put pressure on the city to build new facilities, including a swimming pool and a senior center, Droste said.
"Even though the economy is not the best, we still have been working on amenities for our community for the last four to five years," he said.
Sarah Lemagie • 952-882-9016
Featured comment
(Point being...)
(I meant to add that I shouldn't have to foot the bill for an $8MM ball field that I have no intention of using). Let the users find the … read more money through creative fund-raising, not more taxes on an already struggling community. What do you need? A fence? A couple of bases? Some white chalk and maybe a few lights? Solicit donations/sponsors from those who stand to "profit" from all the proposed business this ballfield is supposed to bring. No need for a big expensive scoreboard unless a sponsor is going to donate that as well. And I do have a teenager at RMS... she just doesn't isn't into playing "ball" either. However, she is engaged in several other activities that I pay for as a parent - let the ballplayers pay for their activities as well.
Add your own comment | Close comment