Midway council weighs phased Town Square building and ice-rink replacement amid grant timing and budget questions

Midway Town Council members and staff spent more than an hour reviewing preliminary drawings, grant rules and budget lines for a proposed Town Square activity building and for replacing the town’s aging ice rink, and agreed to finish plans and return with contractor pricing at a meeting in April.

Council and staff said the projects are linked but can be staged: the activity building is tied to a grant that must be spent within two years and is “earmarked for the building itself,” while an outdoor-recreation grant that could pay for rink work will not be decided until May 1. Nancy, the grant coordinator, told the council, “It is earmarked for the building itself.”

The discussion matters because council members said the two projects together have multi‑million-dollar estimates and because the rink’s piping and slab are reportedly old. Staff described an FY25 budget line of $325,000 for Town Square improvements and a separate ice-rink fund balance of $55,000. Participants said the town has already secured one grant the transcript calls “600” and has applied for an additional grant described in the meeting as “6.50.” Council members repeatedly framed the conversation around how much of the overall cost can be covered by grants versus local funding.

Council direction and next step

Rather than make an immediate construction decision, councilors asked staff and consultants to finish working drawings and seek subcontractor bids. The group agreed to reconvene in April (the transcript records a target date of April 18) with completed plans and more concrete cost quotations so members can decide whether to proceed this season or phase the work. A planner/consultant present described leaving several site elements (for example, some retaining walls and planters) as alternates that could be added later if grant funds arrive.

Design, phasing and rink condition

Rob, a project consultant working on the drawings, and Wes, a project engineer/contractor, described options for how the activity building would sit relative to the rink, and whether to connect the new building to existing facilities. Wes said moving the rink slightly north (his team described about a 10–11.5 foot shift in sketches) would improve circulation but would require modest mechanical adjustments at the chiller header. Wes also said the rink slab and piping are due for replacement: “we really don’t even know how old they are,” he said, and participants agreed that replacing the slab and piping would likely require tearing out the existing concrete and reinstalling a new slab and refrigeration piping.

Council members debated whether to: 1) build the activity building now and delay rink work until grant awards are known, or 2) wait and do both projects together. Several members said building the activity space first could be done with design alternates so the building remains functional even if the rink is replaced later. Rob recommended making the retaining walls/planters bid alternates so the core building could proceed if the rink work is delayed.

Budget and grant timing

Staff (Brad, finance staff) said the FY25 budget includes $325,000 for Town Square improvements and that the ice-rink fund shows $55,000 as a placeholder for improvements/equipment; he reported no FY25 spending to date on the Town Square line. During discussion participants referenced an overall combined cost estimate for the projects in the range discussed as “roughly 2.4,” and noted that with the grants they expect to need “about $1.25 million” in additional funding (statements taken from participant estimates during the meeting). Several members emphasized the timing risk: the outdoor recreation grant decision will not be known until May 1, so committing to rink construction before that date could leave the town responsible for local costs if the grant is not awarded.

Operational concerns and community use

Councilmembers and staff stressed that the activity building should be sized and arranged for year-round, multiuse programming (concessions, receptions, classes and rentals) rather than as a small “closet”-like addition. One council member said the building ‘‘needs to be useful’’ for community groups that lack other space. Staff said connecting the building to an existing pavilion (the transcript references a “pie room”/“pyrum” area) is feasible with a modest hallway and minor grade adjustments.

Rink technical and lifecycle issues

Engineer comments and staff input emphasized uncertainty about leaks and pipe age. A project speaker summarized the risk: the existing brine piping appears to be more than 20 years old; the town loses coolant each summer and can only conclusively diagnose hidden leaks by removing and replacing the piping. The engineer recommended engaging an ice-rink specialist to evaluate the existing piping and advise whether an overlay or full replacement is the best long-term approach. Wes said he had calls out to rink specialists and recommended the council authorize a rink engineer inspection.

What the council decided

Council members did not approve construction contracts or make a formal budget vote at the meeting. They directed staff and consultants to finish working drawings, prepare bid packages with alternates, pursue technical evaluation of the rink piping, and return with contractor price proposals and more-complete estimates at a meeting in April (the council set a near-term follow-up date during the meeting). The transcript records verbal agreement to proceed with those next steps rather than immediate construction.

What remains open

Key open items are (1) the May 1 outcome for the outdoor-recreation grant, (2) final contractor bids and any subcontractor discounts that may change the current preliminary cost estimates, and (3) a technical determination about the rink piping (pressure-testing or replacement). Staff and consultants recommended moving forward with completed plans and bids before committing to major construction spending.

Ending note

Council members indicated a preference to “do it right” even if it means phasing the work over multiple years; they agreed to return with concrete bids and technical analysis before approving construction contracts.