Council on Nov. 24 authorized the city manager to hire engineers, architects and other consultants to develop preliminary site and architectural plans for replacing the city’s Caustic senior center, focusing on two options at The Hawk campus while preserving the option to return to the Caustic site if the Hawk plans are later judged unacceptable.

The motion, introduced by a councilmember who noted staff and consultant recommendations, passed on a 4–3 roll-call vote: Dwyer, Knoll, Aldred and Mayor Teresa Rich voted yes; Starkman, Boulware and Bridges voted no. The motion directs the city manager to procure the necessary consultants to prepare plans for council review.

Consultants from Sports Facilities Companies and HRC told council they had evaluated three locations: rebuilding at the existing Caustic Center, building a new standalone center on The Hawk, or pursuing a land-lease arrangement at the OCC site. The presentation used a $30 million placeholder for the new facility and estimated that building at The Hawk would require roughly $2.5 million in site and access improvements (a preliminary figure that consultants said would be refined by geotechnical and engineering studies). They also said a new building would be materially more efficient than the existing Caustic Center, with any new site projected to yield roughly $330,000–$430,000 in annual savings compared with continuing the existing facility; locating the center at The Hawk added an estimated $300,000 in annual operational savings, consultants said.

Ellen Schnackl, director of Special Services, recommended a standalone Hawk facility and asked council to keep the current Caustic Center open during construction. "We believe the path forward is to build a new standalone center on The Hawk property," Schnackl said, and she stressed the need for a Hawk master plan if that location is chosen.

Many public speakers representing seniors and the Commission on Aging urged the council to keep the Caustic Center location. Dan Fantore, chair of the Farmington Area Commission on Aging, told council that listening sessions found a strong preference for the 11‑Mile (Caustic) location and warned that The Hawk’s distance from the 11‑Mile signal, traffic patterns and multi‑level designs could deter frail elderly users. "Seniors, folks 50 and better, want one floor," Fantore said, urging council to protect accessibility and familiar access for longtime users.

Other residents raised concerns about parking, the potential loss of outdoor program space and the visibility and wayfinding of a Hawkside location. Council debate focused on balancing the consultants’ financial and operational projections against repeated testimony from seniors who said they preferred the Caustic site. Several council members asked for more detailed, itemized evidence of the asserted $300,000 Hawk savings before fully committing to a long-term site.

The approved action directs staff to bring back prepared site and architectural plans for council review; if council finds those plans unacceptable, the motion preserves the ability to reconsider the Caustic site. Consultants told the council the predevelopment decision and funding process could take about a year, and construction and delivery of a new center would typically be a 2½–4 year effort depending on scope and funding.

Next steps: staff will begin procurements for master planning and site engineering for the Hawk options the council directed, then return costed plans and analyses to council for a subsequent determination.