63° and Overcast
Image
You can’t lock up a chamber filled with the hockey community but you sure as heck can lock them out of their rink.
And on queue, from the office of the Corporation Counsel, came this Thursday announcement on the city Website:
9/18/25
STATEMENT OF THE OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
REGARDING THE HYDE PARK ICE PAVILION, FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL VOTE REJECTING THE AWARD OF AN OPERATIONS CONTRACT FOLLOWING THE RFP PROCESS
Due to the volume of inquiries this morning about what will happen to the Hyde Park Ice Pavilion after last night’s council meeting. the following status report is being provided. Any further calls about this matter will not be taken.
Unfortunately, we have been put in the position of having to examine our legal obligations and responsibilities in light of the council’s action last night. Specifically, by a 3-2 vote, the council voted down approval of a contract award to the recommended operator selected by an RFP process. The current operator, NST, was not recommended for various obvious reasons, including its track record over thirteen years and a simple comparison of the proposals.
As a result, we are really at a point where, as described in the agenda item and made clear during the debate, the failure to approve the recommended operator results in a closure of the facility. This is because there is no contract with NST, and the council has not authorized the negotiation of a contract with the recommended operator, Legacy.
Pursuant to the City Charter, the administration cannot unilaterally enter into a contract with Legacy, as there is no emergency present to justify that action. Conversely, the council has no ability under the Charter to compel and/or negotiate a contract. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the council majority opted for closing the facility, given the chance to maintain the activity at the Pavilion for about another month to ensure a smooth transition in operations from NST to Legacy. Of course, Council members have a fiduciary duty that they owe to City taxpayers. So, perhaps closure of the facility was the intended goal in view of the sums owed to the City by the current operator. Whatever the majority hoped to achieve, this office is reviewing the City’s legal obligations and responsibilities, the results of which will be communicated directly to NST’s attorney.
