Petoskey debate centers on Winter Sports Park master plan: residents press for sledding, ski-hill, rink repairs over large pavilion

Petoskey City Council spent the bulk of its Feb. 2 meeting discussing a proposed Winter Sports Park master plan and its capital-improvement priorities, with residents asking the council to focus first on restoring classic sledding and skiing amenities and on making the ice rink reliably usable.

The plan, presented by contractual planner John Echalangeli of Beckett and Raider, compiles nearly two years of neighborhood meetings, an August open house and a large online survey. Echalangeli said the process produced a preferred concept through a “master plan by subtraction,” and that the packet’s CIP is a suggested multi‑year budget rather than an immediate funding commitment. “This is a master plan that has activities… There’s really nothing that’s being suggested at any time,” Echalangeli said, adding the plan is intended to provide a long‑term vision and that most projects would be implemented over multiple years as funding permits.

Residents and some council members objected to the prominence of a proposed pavilion and refrigerated chiller for the hockey rink — a line item the plan shows as a multi‑million‑dollar lump sum. Resident Ken Todd told council, “We feel strongly that the first priority should be restoring the ski and sledding hills for the use of the general public and also focus on improvements to the main ice rink,” and asked why a roughly $4,000,000 pavilion appeared as a top priority when it was not in the community survey.

Planner Echalangeli responded that the pavilion and rink work were already moving along separately: council had previously authorized pursuing a DNR grant, design work and bidding on that project, so staff placed an engineer’s lump‑sum estimate into the CIP to show the park’s total potential cost. He said the packet contained a transcription error on page 30 that misstated some figures; staff committed to provide corrected, reconciled tables at the next meeting.

Council members pressed staff for additional cost breakdowns and public‑facing numbers before advancing the plan or pursuing voter approval. Councilmember Moore said embedding the unfunded pavilion and chiller cost in the master plan without specific survey input was “problematic” and said he would not vote to move forward with the $3.7‑plus million rink estimate left in the package without clearer public guidance. Other council members favored keeping core pieces — skiing, sledding, skating and the hockey rink — as priorities while separating the larger pavilion/chiller conversation for later public review or a distinct ballot question.

Technical questions dominated the discussion: council asked staff to compare the cost and usability of a portable rope‑tow versus a magic‑carpet conveyor for the hill, and staff provided preliminary figures (surveyed infrastructure costs in the low hundreds of thousands, with snow‑making infrastructure and electrical work likely adding roughly $400,000 in baseline infrastructure). Council asked staff to return with detailed estimates for snowmaking, lifts, and the equipment needed to maintain refrigeration and overnight snowmaking.

Residents who spoke during public comment emphasized the park’s legacy uses. Ed Russell of the Petoskey Speed Skating Club and other longtime users asked council to preserve the 250‑meter outdoor oval used for competitive speed skating; several residents urged modest, high‑value fixes (restoring the rope tow, re‑contouring runouts, improving lodge ADA features) rather than extensive new commercial amenities. Nancy Duann and others warned against converting the park into a pay venue and urged that the city retain free public access for families and volunteer programming.

Council did not adopt the master plan at this meeting. Members and staff agreed to correct the packet’s cost transcriptions, to provide the requested line‑item cost detail and to continue public engagement. The council scheduled a focused work session on Winter Sports Park priorities for Feb. 10 to refine cost estimates and draft a recommended set of priorities to present at a subsequent meeting.

The next procedural step is for staff to provide corrected cost tables and the comparative equipment estimates requested by council; the plan’s proponents say projects will be funded over time through grants, donations, millage options or other funding sources rather than by an immediate city general‑fund appropriation.