Midway workshop advances plans for ice-rink resurfacing, building redesign after two grant opportunities

At a planning workshop, Midway stakeholders heard updated cost estimates and grant details as they weighed whether to resurface the town’s concrete rink, move it up to 10–15 feet north, and build a new community facility that would serve year‑round events.

The discussion focused on two grant opportunities: a $600,000 economic‑development award that the group said must be matched (the city must provide a local match and has 28 months to spend the funds), and a second competitive grant the presenters described as a $500,000 request (the program can scale up and the applicant said it can go as high as $1 million). Nancy O’Toole said the earlier estimate for one of the grants had been understated: “the grant that we got, I think I told you was 400... we actually got the full 600,” she said, noting the city will need to identify the local match and that both grants require matching funds.

Why it matters: participants framed the work as an opportunity to transform the square into a more usable, year‑round public space rather than repairing the rink piecemeal. Presenters and contractors urged bundling concrete, utilities and building work where possible to reduce repeated tear‑ups and construction impacts during busy events such as Swiss Days.

Key project choices and funding

• Grants and timelines — Meeting participants described two separate grants as the primary near‑term funding paths. The $600,000 award was characterized as targeted to economic development and building improvements and carries a 28‑month spending window from contract signature; presenters said the city must provide a local match (one presenter said the 600,000 requires a 10% match). A second grant the group is pursuing would fund rink covering/amenities; project staff said they planned to apply for roughly $500,000 but could scale toward $1 million depending on competitiveness and prior awards.

• Match and budget planning — Participants repeatedly emphasized the need to identify the city match and to assemble a full budget before committing to a construction sequence. One contractor urged the group to coordinate with public‑works staff on utility work to limit duplicated mobilization and reduce cost.

Design options discussed

• Move vs. resurface — The design team presented two main approaches: (1) resurface and redo the rink in place, which would be less complex from a permitting and design standpoint, or (2) shift the rink north by roughly 10–15 feet and rebuild piping and headers. Contractors and consultants said moving the rink would require engineered plans and some re‑routing of the refrigeration header; a consultant who visited the Olympic Oval advised that the header could be reconfigured and “it’s not a big deal,” but presenters noted the piping under the slab is about 25 years old and would likely be replaced during a full rebuild.

• Single‑phase construction benefits — Multiple presenters argued that doing the concrete, utilities and building work at the same time yields savings and reduces the overall period of disruption: “the tear up is a real huge consideration,” one participant said, arguing economies of scale on demolition, footings and retaining walls.

• Building program and layout — A revised schematic of the proposed community building showed a concessions area with a fridge and sink, a small event room intended for about 40–50 people, a fireplace, storage for stacked tables and chairs, and an added single‑user restroom intended to reduce the need for users to exit the building during events. Participants asked the team to add a few feet of interior width to improve circulation around bistro‑style tables. A figure presented as a rough size was “just over 3,100” square feet, but the architect cautioned that figure was provisional and would be confirmed in the final design set.

Operational and program concerns

• Swiss Days and circulation — Several participants raised that the current walkway beside the rink becomes a bottleneck during Swiss Days and other events. The group considered whether moving the rink or widening the path would meaningfully ease crowding; one presenter suggested 10–12 feet of additional clearance would be beneficial but said moving the rink farther than that would create a sense of separation.

• Utilities and Wi‑Fi — Presenters said earlier grant language includes funding for upgrading Wi‑Fi infrastructure across the square; workshop participants said better local network capacity is needed, citing cell‑service drops during busy festivals. Public‑works staff indicated the city’s crews will need to coordinate closely on utility routing and drainage so the scope and costs are clear in construction documents.

• Mechanical/rink piping — Discussion noted the rink’s refrigeration piping and chiller header will be a technical driver. Staff explained the piping system has a single connection point where a header shift would need to be sealed and reconnected if the rink moves; one contractor observed that moving header components could require a booster or re‑zoning of refrigeration runs if a future “ribbon” layout is added.

Timeline and next steps

Workshop presenters said a final design and structural engineer package is weeks away and that construction pricing could be produced “in a couple weeks” after that set is complete. Participants asked staff and contractors to: (1) reconcile the city match for each grant, (2) coordinate public‑works utility work into the construction schedule to limit repeated mobilization, and (3) return with a line‑item cost estimate so the council or decision body can decide whether to proceed this fiscal year.

What was not decided

There was no formal vote at the workshop. The meeting produced direction to refine drawings, coordinate utility scopes with public works, and to prepare bid‑ready documents and a more detailed cost estimate. Participants repeatedly said a decision about whether to move the rink should be made after the project receives firm cost estimates and after staff confirms available match funding.

Voices from the meeting

Nancy O’Toole (grant lead) said the larger grant award changed the funding picture: “we actually got the full 600,” and she urged staff to identify the required city match. Rob (design lead/consultant) described the square concept as creating a “central gathering area” with circulation paths and seating surfaces intended to support both winter skating and summer events. Wes (public‑works staff) told the group his crew would need to sit with design and construction teams to align utilities and costs.

What to watch for

- A finalized design/engineering packet and line‑item bids, expected within weeks. - Confirmation of the city match and a decision on whether to pursue moving the rink. - Any grant award notices and contract execution that trigger the 28‑month spending window.

Ending

Workshop participants asked the design and construction leads to return with updated drawings and budget numbers. No formal commitment to construction was recorded; the project leaders said they will return with bid‑ready plans and a more precise cost estimate so the governing body can weigh funding and phasing options.