Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Ice Rink topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Recreation subcommittee outlines options for an ice rink; land availability and cost are major obstacles
Summary
A Recreation Board subcommittee presented four options for a community ice rink, ranging from municipal-funded construction to using Pease/Pease Development Authority land; members cautioned the city lacks suitable land and that private partners typically require multiple acres.
A Recreation Board subcommittee reported to the Portsmouth City Council on Feb. 18 about its review of options for creating an ice rink in Portsmouth. The subcommittee contacted private operators, Pease Development Authority representatives and other stakeholders and distilled findings into four viable approaches.
Options included: (1) a city-funded facility placed on the CIP (capital and construction costs would be high—two-sheet facilities in other communities were quoted at roughly $7.7 million); (2) building in or filling a wetland buffer zone (the subcommittee did not recommend this option and councilors expressed reluctance to develop in buffer zones); (3) locating a nonprofit-operated facility on Pease/Pease Development Authority land such as the north apron or back apron concrete areas (the subcommittee noted the apron is technically in Pease/Newington and would require PDA/DOD approvals and suitable nonprofit sponsorship); and (4) a public‑private partnership in which the city provides land or an inducement to a private operator—those operators generally require several acres to make projects financially viable.
Rec board members and councilors said land availability is the main constraint: private operators want about five acres (two sheets of ice plus ancillary uses), which the city currently lacks. Some councilors noted previous planning work that anticipated a rink pad behind the high school; that location has parking and other constraints today. Subcommittee members said Pease expressed interest in converting portions of unused apron into athletic fields and that certain Pease options may be limited to nonprofit partners; the PDA’s control of the land and federal ownership complicate direct city control.
The council did not take a vote; members asked the subcommittee to continue outreach to Great Bay Community College, private operators and Pease/PDA leadership, and to return with any feasible land options or partner commitments. Councilors emphasized that if the city were to build a municipal rink it would be a multi‑year CIP effort and that private partners are unlikely to pursue a rink without a substantive land contribution or multi-use revenue opportunities.
Why it matters: Local youth and adult hockey leagues and other ice-sport participants have urged a local ice facility. A rink could provide recreational programming and tournament revenue but requires land, operating subsidies and capital investment. The city’s next steps will focus on clarifying land availability at Pease/PDA and seeking nonprofit or institutional partners willing to host or operate a rink.
Next steps: The Recreation Board subcommittee will continue outreach to potential partners and report back with options, cost estimates and any partner commitments that could change the city’s land or CIP calculus.
