Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates ice‑rink upgrades and grant strategy; city staff says grants may cover much of cost
Summary
Councilors and staff discussed options for the Midway ice rink — resurfacing, replacing piping, a new chiller, possible building, and a retractable or partial roof — and reviewed two grant opportunities that together could approach $1.6 million but impose different eligibility rules and matching requirements.
Midway council members and staff began narrowing priorities for possible capital work at the town square ice rink after staff reported two separate grant opportunities that, combined, could yield roughly $1.6 million for rink and adjacent town‑square improvements.
City staff member Nancy told the council the city already has an unrestricted $600,000 award the city may apply toward the building because that grant is framed as economic development. Nancy said the city can also apply for up to $1 million in a separate recreation grant but that award requires a local match and cannot fund some building components that are considered indoor recreation if a solid enclosed roof is installed.
“We're looking at the whole project: the cost of the ice skating rink, the retractable roof maybe, the concierge buildings, the trees, everything,” Nancy said. She also said her recommendation was to focus the $600,000 on the building (the economic component) and pursue the recreation grant for floor, piping and other recreation‑related costs.
Council discussion focused on three potential priorities: (1) replacing the concrete surface and the piping underneath to address summertime usability and safety, (2) constructing a permanent building or replacing temporary trailers that currently house operations, and (3) adding a roof or retractable covering. Several members and a construction adviser warned the council that doing surface/piping work without coordinating building location and other town‑square elements could force later rework and increase costs.
Council member Jeff and other speakers argued the concrete replacement and building should be higher priorities than a roof because those two projects are mutually beneficial and could be phased together. A construction advisor observed that consolidating work reduces repeated mobilization costs and allows the city to install sleeves or provisions for future additions so subsequent phases are less disruptive.
Council members expressed differing views about how large a building should be and whether to move the rink to accommodate a different plan. Council members also raised operational concerns about how the boosters and the city currently manage rink operations: city payroll and responsibilities have created friction with the booster group that has run the rink.
On technical items, Jeff and others sought estimates for chiller replacement and piping; attendees recalled previous chiller replacements around $200,000–$250,000. Nancy said state grant staff suggested the city request a more modest recreation grant (for example, $500,000) rather than a full $1 million to improve the chance of award.
Next steps: staff will obtain firm quotes for (a) replacing the rink surface and piping and (b) building costs, and will meet with designers (Rob Ballas and Russ Watts) and booster representatives to refine site plans. Nancy will continue grant discussions and bring grant applications and clarifications about match requirements back to council for formal direction.
