With LOST funds, council looks at community building project

Referred to as \'all-seasons rec center\'

FAIRMONT-- The Fairmont City Council held a second work session on Wednesday to discuss the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) funds. At the first, held on July 16, the council indicated that it would like to spend the majority of the funds on a large, community building project and a portion on future lake projects. At the meeting this week, it attempted to talk about more specifics on the large project.

The LOST funds have been being collected since the ballot measure passed by voter majority in 2016 and they were to be used for recreational amenities, trails and a community center. To date there is $12.7 million available but just over $6.2 million cash on hand. The city's approved sales tax authority is $15 million.

Since the Fairmont Area Community Center Foundation (FACC) announced in November of last year that it was no longer pursuing a community center project, the city has been left to decide what to do with the funds.

Some of the money has been spent, including $150,000 toward the Amber Lake boat landing, $767,000 on design for the community center and $144,725 on legal work from Taft. Just over $2 million of the funds were also used to pay for the ice mechanical equipment and design work for a new ice arena, which was expected to be phase two of the community center project.

On Wednesday City Administrator Jason Baker said that while the first was to discuss what to do with the funds, the purpose of the second was to define the community vision, goals, desires and outcomes to the project.

"It's intending to move the discussion from project selection to project definition," Baker said.

He provided what he called a project road map with different phases to help guide the council through the process.

Some of the items listed included discussion of potential facility components, user groups and programming as well as site selection criteria and ownership and operating considerations.

Council Member Britney Kawecki said, "I feel like we're kind of discounting all of the previous information that's been done. We're not recapping everything, all the surveys, all the input. It's all been done previously. I don't know that we need to do all this again.These questions have all been answered."

She said that it has already been determined that a community center in 2026 cannot be afforded, which is part of why the FACC group, which had been working on the project for roughly 10 years, walked away from it.

Kawecki said instead she thought the council needed to look at what it could build for $10 million as a multi-purpose building and then also decide who wants to operate it.

"It seems like we're starting back in 2016, 10 years ago, and I feel like that's a lot of extra work," Kawecki said.

Council Member Randy Lubenow said he thought there were a few decisions to be made, one of which was location. He questioned whether the original location the former community center project was going to be placed on would be available. He also said they didn't know yet if the building could be on school property.

"Location, location, location is a big question. What's available? And then we really need to ask who's going to partner with us on this," Lubenow said.

He also questioned whether the donors who had previously pledged to the former community center project were willing to give something toward this, too. Later during the discussion Mayor Lee Baarts pointed out that some of the people who had pledged to the community center have since given money to the Fairmont Opera House.

"I'm not speaking for them, I'm just saying a couple big donors changed their idea and went to the Opera House," he said.

Baker said he recognized that there's been a decade of discussion surrounding a community center concept but that over that time community expectation has evolved, financial realities have changed, potential partnerships have shifted and both council and staff have experienced turnover.

"Because of that I believe it's important that I hear directly from the current city council regarding its vision, priories and expectations before staff proceeds further," Baker said.

He further said that the purpose of the discussion guide was not to complicate the process, but to create a clear path forward while creating transparency for the public.

"My role is not to revisit the past, but help the current council establish a clear direction for the future and ensure that staff has the guidance necessary to move this project forward successfully," Baker said.

Council Member Jay Maynard said he believes they have lost themselves in the weeds.

"I think it's important at this stage that we don't lose sight of what problem we're trying to solve," Maynard said. "Just building a community center, to me that's not what we're trying to accomplish. We're trying to solve problems that the community has expressed to us and we need to make sure that what we're doing addresses those problems."

He said that he thought that deciding what goes into the facility is premature until they figure out what problems they're trying to solve.

Kawecki agreed with Maynard but said she still thought they were discrediting all of the work that has been previously done.

"I also think that some of the decisions and questions, neither council nor staff are equipped time-wise or trained to make these decisions. That's why in the past, you call on an owner's rep or a project manager to make these decisions," Kawecki said.

She said that after spending what the city has so far of the LOST funds on design plans, that they should find the information or get it from people previously involved with the former community center project.

Council Member James Kotewa said that while there was a vision 10 years ago, the council needed to come up with a new vision that they can all get on board with. However he pointed out that the public would not all be in favor of it.

"We have to decide what we're going to put into a $10 million facility and we'll have to agree on that," Kawecki added.

She said her personal vision did not include a pool and it wasn't a community building or a senior center.

"I've had over 250 inputs. Overwhelmingly, it's an indoor recreational facility of some kind. What goes into that facility is not up for debate I don't think tonight," Kawecki said.

However she rattled off a number of activities that could take place inside including pickleball, tennis, volleyball, basketball, places for kids to run around, a track and a batting cage.

"They explain over and over again, the winters are long," Kawecki said. "They want something to do year-round inside."

Baarts said he thought a good way to word the project was by calling it an all seasons rec center.

"I think we need to keep the word community center out. I think it's a sore word," Baarts said.

Baker then asked what the potential user groups would be and ticked off some potential activities and events that could happen in a rec center facility.

"The more people's needs we can meet, the more type of tournaments or use we can get out of it, the better, but obviously the community's needs are the priority. I'd like to see not a Taj Mahal. I'd like to see minimal expense on the exterior," Kawecki said.

Maynard said he thought it had to be balanced as a larger facility would have more maintenance costs.

However Lubenow said with any building it would need to be one level, disability-friendly and senior-friendly. He said that right now walking in the mall is being discouraged and he questioned where people would walk in the winter time if the mall wasn't here.

Baarts added that if they'd want to add a walking track, they would probably need a second level for that, which will get more expensive as an elevator would need to be added.

"I know we're getting ahead of ourselves," he said.

As for location, Baarts added that he thought the soccer field location could be used and that they could pick whatever field was in worse condition to build on.

However Lubenow said that in his conversations with Tegra, the former owner's rep on the past community center project, they thought the Johnson Street land, called the "Mayo land," where the former community center was going to go, was the perfect location.

Lubenow also pointed out that the parking lot at the soccer field is not big enough and that the area gets very busy.

Moving to another topic, Baarts asked the council who city staff should contact for past plans.

"So you want the plans from 2018? Is that my understanding?" Baker asked.

Maynard said that the scope of the project changed greatly since then.

"Those plans were developed specifically for a YMCA facility and the YMCA is out of the picture," Maynard said.

Lubenow shared a similar sentiment as Kawecki in saying he thought they needed to check in with some groups that were previously involved in the community center project.

"I think just getting a group together to talk about who's interested... I think that starting with the FACC group.. starting with the school, starting with hockey. I think we should definitely ask them," Lubenow said, also mentioning Project 1590.

However Kawecki expressed hesitation with getting so many groups involved in the project.

"We as a council need to move forward. We have a $10 million budget. If we start saying you get involved... let's work with them... I really worry that if you start saying 'how does the school want to be involved'... the school programs and associations, they wanted to attach it to the school because they don't have enough court time," Kawecki said.

She added that the city contributes money to hockey and that some of the LOST funds have already been used on ice compressors for the ice arena. She said the overwhelming support from the community is that the funds should be used on an all seasons rec center.

However, Lubenow said that an issue is who is going to run the facility and that the school and the hockey association have both alluded to having the ability to run it.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Kawecki said she thought they should contact Tegra or another owner's rep to start looking into what the costs would be.

She also said that after some discussion, she didn't think that the former information would be needed as much as they're going to be working on a scaled down project.

"Maybe we scratch the idea of using old plans because it's not what we want. It's not what we're going to build," Baarts said in agreement.