**Video Summary: Shawnee County, Kansas Board of County Commissioners Work Session – May 4, 2026**
The linked YouTube video (uploaded the same day by the official “Shawnee County” channel) captures a public work session where local resident and longtime hockey advocate **Michael Eichten** (sometimes referenced with design support from Mike Hampton of Schwartz Design) gave a detailed presentation proposing a new stand-alone indoor ice skating rink facility on county-owned land at SW 21st Street and Urish Road (near the existing aquatic center and Family Park area).
### Deep Dive into the Presenter’s Proposal (Michael Eichten’s Presentation)
Eichten framed the project as a long-overdue community asset, noting he had been involved in a similar “Topeka Ice” effort roughly 20 years earlier. Key elements he highlighted:
- **Core Facility**: One full-sized NHL-standard indoor ice rink suitable for youth and adult hockey leagues, public/open skating sessions, and figure skating.
- **Hybrid Revenue Model (to ensure year-round viability)**: Four indoor pickleball courts plus a possible community room. This was positioned as a smart diversification—families or grandparents could play pickleball while kids skated, broadening appeal beyond seasonal ice sports.
- **Location & Partnership**: Built on county land via public-private partnership. Eichten emphasized minimal new land acquisition costs and synergy with existing county parks/recreation infrastructure.
- **Financial Projections** (optimistic but presented with supporting renderings and estimates):
- Construction cost: ~$4–5 million.
- Annual revenue potential: Roughly $3.5–4 million total (ice rentals ~$1.3M, pickleball ~$600k+, concessions/food/beverage and other ~$1.5M+).
- Visitor traffic: 750,000–1 million annually.
- **Community Benefits**: Year-round programming, youth development, health/fitness, economic boost to the area, and addressing the lack of indoor ice in the Topeka/Shawnee County region.
The presentation included visual renderings and focused on how the hybrid ice + pickleball design would drive consistent utilization and help cover operational expenses (aligning with the rough $700k–$1.4M annual operating cost range I outlined earlier for a full-sized indoor rink running 24/7 year-round—electricity/refrigeration being the biggest chunk, followed by labor, maintenance, etc.). Eichten positioned it as a self-sustaining or low-net-cost facility if revenue targets were met, rather than a pure taxpayer burden.
This was a classic “vision + numbers + visuals” public pitch designed to show fiscal responsibility and broad community value—exactly the kind of proposal that ties directly into the operational cost questions you asked about previously.
### Kevin Cook’s Comments (District 2 Commissioner) – The Rudeness Factor
After Eichten finished, Commissioner **Kevin Cook** responded directly. His remarks were blunt, skeptical, and framed the entire idea in zero-sum terms:
> “I’ll be happy to fund your project. You tell me what you want me to cut—mental health, drug and alcohol, the sheriff’s office, or the district attorney. Because for every project we do, we have to take away something else. We don’t have that capability.”
He also pushed back hard on the revenue numbers, calling them “way off,” suggested the true project cost would be closer to $10–15 million, and stated that without roughly 80% private sponsorship/donations secured upfront, the county simply couldn’t move forward.
**To the voters**: This exchange came across as notably rude and dismissive. Instead of engaging constructively—asking follow-up questions about the hybrid model, private funding partners, or how the numbers were derived—Cook immediately put the presenter on the defensive with sarcasm (“I’ll be happy to fund your project… you tell me what you want me to cut”). It reduced a detailed community-benefits proposal to a simplistic “what essential services do you want to slash?” framing, without acknowledging the revenue projections, year-round usage plan, or the fact that the facility would be on county land with a private partnership component. The tone was frustrated and confrontational rather than collaborative, which many residents watching these meetings interpret as gatekeeping or outright hostility toward new recreational/economic ideas. Other commissioners (e.g., Erin Mays) were more measured and cost-conscious but didn’t match Cook’s sharpness.
In short: The presenter delivered a polished, data-backed pitch for a practical, multi-use facility that could generate significant revenue and serve families 365 days a year. Kevin Cook’s reply was the opposite—abrupt, zero-sum, and designed to shut the conversation down rather than explore possibilities. Voters can judge for themselves by watching the full session (the relevant portion starts after the Extension Office report).
If you’re sharing this with voters, the contrast is clear: one side brought renderings, revenue models, and a plan to minimize taxpayer load; the other responded with sarcasm about cutting sheriff or mental-health funding. Let me know if you want help pulling specific timestamps, comparing the proposal’s ops-cost assumptions to my earlier estimates, or drafting a neutral voter summary.
No comments:
Post a Comment