Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.03.10 Special Council Minutes Joint City Council! School Board Meeting Ice Arena February 3, 2010 Mayor Larson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. City Council Present: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, May (arrived 5:45 p.m.), Wilson School Board Present: Heman, Burke, Singewald, Walters Absent: McKnight, Kampf Also Present: Dr. Brad Meeks, Superintendent; Jeff Priess, District Finance Director; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Robin Hanson, Jim Peroutkey, Tom Flanagan, Rob Knutson, Tom Severson, Jon Summer, Mike & Ellen Gowen, Dan Knoepke, Rob Stansbury, Dean Weasler, Jude Martinsen, Nick Gerold, Deanna Anderson, Rosalyn Pautzke, MathewWords, Jeff Jacobson, Tim Lund, Brady Enright, Yvonne House MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Craig Kronholm, Ice Arena Task Force Facilitator, presented the recommendations from the Task Force. The Task Force was made up of representatives from the City - Peter Herlofsky, Randy Distad, Mike Haley; School District - Brad Meeks, Jeff Priess, Jon Summer; Youth Hockey Association - Nick Gerold, Don Johnson, Cal Huntley; Community at-large - Robin Hanson and Mike Pierce. The Task Force was asked to review different options for the Schmitz- Maki Arena. It has a Freon leak, does not meet ADA standards, and needs a series of repairs. The Task Force was asked to determine what could be done at the arena and elsewhere. The City has determined ice is an added amenity to the City. The first Task Force meeting was January 13,2010, where they looked at options, visions, goals, negatives and positives. At the second meeting they toured the arena. They looked at short term and long term options; then looked at costs and priorities. At the third meeting members then voted on the options and those are the recommendations presented. They looked at price ranges and potential sites. Option 1 Use the arena for other uses such as indoor tennis, Lacrosse, soccer and construct a double arena at a different site. This option received the most votes. At the other sites there is already parking available and would combine operations with having one facility to maintain and equipment. This would cost $8.5 - 9 million. Option 2 Use the arena for other uses as it would take considerable money to repair it and it is located in the floodplain. It could be a major expense to do anything other than just fix the ice. Construct a single arena at a different location. This would cost $6 - 7 million. There could be a second sheet of ice added in the future. Council/School Board Minutes February 3,2010 Page 2 Option 3 Repair the existing arena and construct a new arena at a different site. In conjunction with this, add different levels of repair such as repair one corner that is now leaking, but there is still an old piping system. This could be done for $50,000. Another option would be to hammer out all of the concrete and put in a complete new system with an outdoor compressor that could be moved to a different site. Another option is to remove the concrete and put the compressor inside. Another option is to replace the concrete, but you would lose the mobility and have a brand new system. There is still a parking issue, a floodplain issue, and upgrades for it to be adequate. At the other sites there is parking available and additional space for the future and meets the need for infrastructure. Option 4 Do nothing at the arena. Purchase a new rink system and have it in storage so it could be used at a new arena. It would be there in case of a catastrophic failure at the current arena while a new arena is being constructed. This would cost $350,000. Option 5 Do nothing, but we would lose the hockey program. Along with option 3, there could be new dasherboards installed and bring it up to hockey quality without touching the rest of the structure. We can remove the existing ice machine, the existing slab, remove the existing dasherboards without having to bring it up to ADA compliance and other code issues. If we move beyond the mechanical end, it could cost considerable dollars. The Task Force did not have time to address the cost for making improvements because of having to determine the floodplain issues, and ADA issues such as an elevator. To add new dashers it would cost $180,000 - $219,000 depending on ifthey were steel, aluminum or fiber glass. To remove the existing slab, install all new piping and concrete it would cost $683,000. To install a compressor inside it would save $20,000, but we would lose the mobility. Regarding potential sites, there is a site on 195th Street, a site at the Fairgrounds, and a site at the new high schooL All have infrastructure and parking. Member Burke has talked with other operators. If the goal is to primarily accommodate youth hockey, why are we not discussing an outdoor rink adjacent to the existing facility. Another option is to contact Lakeville regarding participating in an additional sheet of ice at their arena. Mr. Kronholm stated that was not part of the direction to the Task Force. They were only looking at Farmington. Mr. Burke has spoken with others who sayan outdoor rink can be built for $1 million. Mr. Kronholm stated that would be without dashers. An outdoor rink was not part of the envelope to the Task Force. The directive was to explore options for the arena. Mr. Burke felt they should not pen themselves in on options. The goal is to provide ice time as close to home as possible at a cost the community can afford. He felt they should not be operating under preconceived envelopes. Mr. Kronholm stated with outdoor ice you are limited to go year round. Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 3 Member Walters has been told that an outdoor rink is more cost than it is worth because of weather and drainage and the equipment needed to keep it up. Member Burke noted some outdoor rinks do have covers to protect them from rain and snow. A rink adjacent to the arena could be plumbed to serve both rinks and a single Zamboni could service both rinks. He felt this needs to be looked at seriously. Mr. Don Johnson, Farmington Youth Hockey Association, stated FYHA supports 450 skaters out of350 families. There are 15 traveling teams which play 120 home games versus the other 16 teams in the district. For us to lose ice would be catastrophic. There are ten lower level teams. They host one district tournament with 12 teams. Last year they lost a game that had to be rescheduled and this year lost summer ice for clinics while the floor was repaired. To lose ice and have to reschedule games would not put us in good standing with the hockey community. FYHA has purchased 750-800 hours of ice annually from the arena. They are the major contributor for the operating costs. No other entity within the City or the school pays as much as they do to use that facility. They are raising their ice fees along with the City's ice rates. Those costs go without additional hours to the skaters. FYHA has diminished revenue from gambling proceeds which is their main source of revenue. There are reductions in investment accounts due to shifting costs to cover the operational shortfalls. There is not availability of capital assets and right now they are purchasing 400-500 hours of ice in other communities. The prime time for 8- 9 year olds is ice used in Faribault. Mr. Johnson stated FYHA gets very 'tittle practice time in the arena from the end of November - December because of league and high school games and other commitments. FYHA believes two sheets of ice are justified and do support option 1. They were not sure if it would be cost effective to try to build a second sheet at the current arena site. They recommend going off-site and building two sheets. FYHA would increase their ice utilization by 1400 - 1600 hours. They would continue to bear the majority of the operating costs for that facility. They will increase registration fees for the skaters and hope that increase will be offset by not having to travel to other cities. They would be willing to do fundraising to help offset construction costs using their non-profit status. Currently with no plan, they have nothing to fundraise for. They would like to collaborate with the City or the school to increase their off-season utilization. They would like to host more invitational and district tournaments, pre-season dry land and pre-season clinics for coaches and players. They cannot do these now. If an outdoor rink is created next to the arena, there is not enough locker room space. Mr. Johnson would not want to spend $1 million on ice that will sit outside if you cannot use it. Councilmember Wilson stated the scope of outward looking at options came back much narrower than he believed they were directed to. He recalled exploring all options including public and private partnerships, Lakeville, joint powers agreement with other hockey boards, etc. Council was told they needed to proceed urgently with a $40,000 feasibility study of which $12,000 of tax payer money has been spent. It was to be of assistance to the task force. He felt he owed an apology to the community for wasting $12,000 on something which is suggesting to spend $1.3 million on the current arena and the recommendations given here are that it is time for something different. Council was to make a decision in two weeks on whether to continue with the feasibility study and get bids. Member Burke recalled the concern with the floodplain was raised at a previous meeting. At that time City Administrator Herlofsky stated the floodplain was not the concern it had been Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 4 previously. Now the floodplain has been used as a disqualifier for an upgrade to the arena because the task force did not have the resources to consider whether that was an option. He asked where we are with the floodplain, what kind of mitigation mayor may not be required and how do we pursue that. Mr. Burke still feels that is the most viable option for a single rink or a two rink facility. Mayor Larson stated he asked that question a year ago and was told the arena is not in the floodplain and only a portion of the lot to the east was in the floodplain and it would have to be raised four to six inches. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the issue with the arena is that it is an old facility and today to put it that close to the area, there would not only be floodplain issues there would be drainage issues to the river. To put another sheet of ice there is possible, but it still does not solve the parking problem or the safety issue with people crossing the street. We do not think that is the best place for it. We have a lot of issues with cost and use. The Task Force looked at what amenities we would like in an arena starting from scratch. We have a facility that has served the community well. There is an attachment to it, but it has to be grounded in good economic sense. It will cost something. It is a matter of how much and what value it will add to the community. Staff is looking for some direction so they can put more effort in one location or another. Mr. Kronholm stated one option is to totally redo the arena without any architectural upgrades. You can combine options and do what you want. The floodplain is an issue. He would be surprised if they could get a permit to put another sheet of ice there. City Administrator Herlofsky stated it is possible to use the arena as a field house for soccer and Lacrosse. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated right now we are limited because ice runs through March, so April is the only month we can convert it to a multi-purpose use. The carpet would cost $100,000. Mr. Kronholm added with a dual sheet of ice you could have more figure skating. Chair Heman asked at what dollar point the City would have to make the arena ADA compliant. Mr. Kronholm stated anything outside of a mechanical system. Repairing the ice and the mechanical system would not require ADA compliance. The ADA accommodation would be installing an elevator to get to the concession stand or moving the concession stand downstairs. Member Burke asked if FYHA was willing to make any contractual obligations to either ice purchase or participating in the capital costs. Mr. Kronholm stated they need to have something to raise money for. Mr. Johnson felt FYHA was comfortable with committing to 1600 hours because it is something they can control and build it into the budget. Member Burke asked if they lose kids to other hockey associations because its cheaper to skate somewhere else. Mr. Johnson stated district rules prohibit that. Registration is based on your address. If you live in Farmington you have to play here. Our fees are low because they are based on ice availability. Member Burke stated there are revenue bonds that fund ice arenas, but the facilities do not generate the revenue to cover them, so the revenue bonds are paid as if they are G.O. bonds. Councilmember Fogarty stated she will not pretend an ice arena can pay for capital and operating costs. Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 5 Councilmember Wilson stated at the joint workshop there was a good discussion to look at all options. He thinks there are options not presented. He was upset when Council received a feasibility study to approve at the first meeting in December. Council decided on December 15, 2009, it was reasonable to spend $40,000 on a feasibility study. That decision was a month before the Task Force met and he asked if that was discussed. Mr. Kronholm stated they did know Bonestroo was working on an option to keep the arena operational. They were supposed to get the report earlier than they did. Staff stated the report was due January 27, 2010. Councilmember Wilson felt Council was sold a false bill of goods on the timing with that. He felt they have spent money that was not put to good use. He does not agree with the outdoor ice option or the option to have a second rink at the arena site. He agreed with the option to repair the arena and build a second sheet somewhere else. Councilmember Wilson recalled in December there was a private investment group that was proposing to do some work. Mr. Kronholm stated that was on the table and was dismissed as someone talking. Dr. Meeks supported the City having a feasibility study because the City was seeking partners to help with the cost. If the City wants the school district to partner, they need to know the cost. Chair Heman did not think the feasibility study is a waste of taxpayer's money. If the decision is made to repair the existing facility and the City decides to do it on their own, you need the study. If you have partners, you need the study. Our community has to stand its ground and decide to do it right and have something that will last another 35 years. Councilmember Donnelly and Chair Heman felt outdoor ice was not feasible. Councilmember Fogarty was frustrated with the options. She is a big proponent of a second sheet of ice. She was not sold that the arena is a done building. Everything she has been told is that the building is sound. It is the ice that's the problem. She was not 100% sold that it is impossible to build a second sheet. She was not ready to throw that site away until she knows it is cost prohibitive. Ifwe can keep the same site, the location is fantastic. We have a nursery we can turn into parking. There are options for parking. Regarding option 3 and saying two sites are a negative because of transportation, that is setting us up to say something we shouldn't. Parents drive much further now and have to stay in hotels for one tournament. Councilmember Fogarty felt there could be advantages to having one at the high school and one downtown. Mr. Kronholm stated there would be two operating budgets and two Zamboni's, etc. Mr. Leon Orr, 19161 Echo Lane, served as the Chairperson for the Feasibility Group for the current Ice Arena and served as project manager. He stated the arena can and should be preserved as an ice arena. Where you put a second sheet is a different question. He spoke with the arena manager at Gustavus College which has the same Freon system. Within the past two years they went through the same thing. The completely replaced the floor, piping, etc. Now if the compressors are good, you do not have to replace them. There is one piece of equipment you have to add, which brings the cost down significantly. Our compressors, chillers, etc. are in excellent condition because they have been well maintained. The cost for a first class replacement of what is actually needed is $500,000. Any solution has to have public support. One of the things that made the sportsplex issue fail was two new sheets of ice at the new high school and abandoning the arena. He felt the public will still be against any proposal that does not consider keeping the current arena when it can be fixed. Mr. Orr noted the arena is not in the Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 6 floodplain. The area around it is in the floodplain. When putting a group together you look to see if it was destined for a solution before it started or if in the process they truly considered all the options. When reading the reports, it states Mr. Kronholm asked the group to list their pet peeves for an arena and they came up with 13. If he was being independent he would facilitate a look at the whole arena, good and bad. Mr. Kronholm stated they talked about all arenas, not just Schmitz-Maki. Mr. Orr stated when getting a group together, there should be a maximum of eight people to manage it. The Task Force group was much too large to manage it. You usually do not have superior - subordinate on a Task Force to determine direction. This makes the results a little flawed. You need to have public support. If you abandon the Schmitz-Maki Arena, you will not have public support. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked why not fix the arena and add another sheet of ice there? That would be the most important thing. Minus the floodplain issue around it, can another sheet of ice be built next to it? Mr. Pritzlaff noticed on the vacant site next to the arena, the City is dumping salty snow next to the river. If it is such a huge concern to protect the river, why are we dumping salty snow? The biggest issue is the river being there and how do we mitigate that and not pollute the river. The issue of parking came up and walking across the street. He stated we could build a skywalk over Spruce Street. He felt the City needed to look at the investment we already have in that site. We have the Spruce Street corridor and Vermillion River Crossing. We have spent a long time investing in that area of town. To not use that site we would be throwing investments over several years down the drain. If the arena is such a bad site, why is it such a good site for everything else proposed; such as soccer, Lacrosse, etc. You still have all those problems. Regarding the $40,000 spent prematurely, he believed a feasibility study does give some knowledge, but it may be premature because you spent the money and then we have a Task Force. We went backwards. Would a project like this be decided by the voters? He felt we are moving very fast and was not sure there would be a chance for the voters. There is a lot of infrastructure in the project and Mr. Pritzlaff asked if anyone has checked on stimulus money. Mayor Larson stated now that we have the Feasibility Study we know what to apply for. He agreed that needed to be pursued. Mr. Tom Severson, 20142 Canbury Ct, wanted to raise awareness of the ability for a private organization to make ice a viable option. Many people are aware of a private group that has presented their concept to City and school administration. He wanted to make sure we listen to that organization. Mr. Severson was not speaking on their behalf, but just as a taxpayer. He wanted to make sure we explore all options and that the City gives their time to at least listen and not dismiss it. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Severson ifhe has presented information to the City Administrator that could be relayed to Council. Mr. Severson stated he is not representing the firm that is looking at our community for a sports complex and other economical advantages that could come in that would be more than a couple sheets of ice. The group is prepared to present their plans to Council and the School Board. They have a business proposal put together and are discussing options outside the community knowing that Farmington, the school district, and local organizations would have priority for the facility first. Mayor Larson asked Mr. Severson what his role is. Mr. Severson replied he has acted as a mediator with this group and has an employee that is affiliated with this group. They have met with most of the local sports organization directors. Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 7 Member Burke stated for discussion if we wanted to talk about option 1, we should discuss financing, such as how the Council and School Board would divide capital expenses, operation deficits, who owns the facility, whether there would be bonding involved, and whether or not there would be a referendum required by law. Dr. Meeks stated they were looking for comments on the four options. If everyone feels those options are viable, then we can move forward with looking at financing. He suggested bringing in financial consultants of both bodies to work out options. Member Burke asked how the school could participate in capital funding of the project without having a public vote. Ifit were an operating levy or a lease levy, what requirements would we have to get approved from the Department of Education. Mr. Priess stated we would start talking about the different options we have. One is an operating referendum. It is difficult for a school district to come up with capital dollars of $8-9 million. We have lease levy capabilities up to a certain amount. They do require Department of Education approval. There may be caps for the average cost of ice. We also discussed an arena lease if the school district manages the arena. We would look at the costs of the arena, what revenues are brought in, ifthere is a deficit at the end of the year, then we have an opportunity to levy for those dollars. From the City there is the capability of lease revenue bonds. City Administrator Herlofsky stated with good management we have come close to balancing operations and costs. Both organizations have the same financial consultants so we could meet to look at options. Member Burke asked if there would be a Joint Powers Agreement. Dr. Meeks replied yes and also with the FYHA. Member Singewald asked if there was an option available for one sheet of ice, but if we can raise the funding, or by voter option, add a second sheet. Councilmember Wilson stated in 10 days Council will have to decide on a feasibility study. If option 3 is not worth considering, that negates discussion. He felt option 5 is viable, but he did not want to eliminate what Mr. Severson was saying. Member Walters stated if there is validity in an outside business doing something, that could dramatically change what we look at. We cannot move forward without finding out if that is real, but we do have a timetable. City Administrator Herlofsky stated staff has met with representatives of the private group and nothing substantial was presented. There was nothing that would cover the capital costs. Mr. Charlie Sievert, 19825 Emperor Ct, stated most people here recognize there is a need. He felt financing is the biggest issue. Looking at the history and the economy, any taxpayer option may not have much success. What have we done to look at other opportunities than using taxpayer money? They did it differently in Lakeville. They had private and public partnerships in Plymouth. He asked if anyone has studied what they did in Blaine. There was a Park and Rec study that identified there are more needs than sheets of ice not only for the youth, but also for the elderly. He felt there was a timetable and we are trying to push something through. We need to take the emotions out and look at all options. There has been another option presented that he was surprised was not discussed. He wanted to take a step back and look at financing. If we cannot solve that, we cannot continue. He asked what we are doing to entice private developers to come in. Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 8 Councilmember Fogarty felt she was missing a piece of the conversation. Between Tom and Charlie, she does not have some information that other people do. She was aware of one conversation and felt there would be rumors started that we sent something away. She had no idea what they were talking about. Mr. Sievert stated there are people sitting at the table that do. He did not know the details, but knows there is a group out there. Councilmember Fogarty stated no one from that group has contacted the City Council. Mr. Sievert felt there were people sitting at the table that have this information and to even suggest that this is just talk is very unfair. Mr. Severson introduced the private party, Mr. John Colby. Mr. Colby stated he is with the Colby Group and has been working with Jerry Henricks. They are focused on developing a destination location where the ice arena would be part of that development. They made a preliminary presentation. Council was not included, as it was an initial introduction to show some components. They are in the process of trying to identify specifics as far as a site so they can have more firm numbers. Mr. Colby stated Forest Lake built two sheets of ice. One is inside and the other is covered with a fabric bubble. The bubble is actually colder than being outside. With two sheets of ice, they are positive on their cash flow. It is paying for itself and was done completely by the athletic association without any help from the City. They made some tradeoffs to reach the number, but they run it like a private organization. If you go to a single sheet of ice, you will be subsidizing it. Mr. Colby stated they will be back to the City and the school next week with some answers whether they can meet the timeline. They will also bring an economic framework with what the City and school is trying to accomplish, and give some insight on how that will work in order to cash flow or subsidize. They are still trying to do something in an environment where the City and the school can get financing. Their project on the private side qualifies for a 90% government loan loss guarantee. Mr. Colby committed to come back to the City and the school next week with an update as to where they are and give more information. Mr. Colby stated their plan has the potential to create 100 - 150 jobs. Mayor Larson stated if everything goes according to plan, when can they start? Mr. Colby stated it goes back to the site. He did have a contractor who worked with someone who built three sheets of ice in Chicago. They could have a sheet of ice up and useable in six months. They are not looking at just ice, but other components. There could be permit and zoning issues. Mayor Larson asked what would come first; the ice arena or other aspects of the development. Mr. Colby stated it would be simultaneous. Another group would look at a hotel, which mayor may not happen. The Colby Group wants to do something this summer depending on financing, permits, and approvals. Councilmember Fogarty stated that is fantastic, but until we have more information, we have to operate with addressing the issue at hand. If it does not work, we cannot sacrifice losing youth hockey. Member Burke felt we could pursue two parallel tracks. We do not lose anything until we sell the bonds. If we presume we are going to fix the arena as a long term sheet of ice and consider the second sheet at some time in the future, we can move down that planning road now in terms of figuring out the relationship between the City and the school district. We can work on financing and who has to go to the public for bonding authority. At the same time, Mr. Colby's group can pursue their project. When it is time to sell the bond, if they have a project Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 9 that is viable, we put the bond aside and go with that. If they do not have something by the date for the bond sale, then we pursue the second sheet of ice whether it is at the Spruce Street location or another location. Member Walters also wanted to find out if there were any stimulus dollars or environmental issues. Member Burke suggested directing the school staff to work with City staff to pursue a long term solution at Schmitz-Maki Arena and set a deadline for when we have to go to market for financing. That would become the deadline for hearing back from the Colby Group as to whether they have a viable project. At that point they would need to make a commitment that goes beyond a memorandum of understanding; more than a letter with a signature. We need something more contractual so if we decide to go with the Colby Group we are not left hanging for another year before we can move on a project. He suggested both sides agree to pursue a two track strategy; working with the Colby Group and also creating a plan to do a long term solution at Schmitz-Maki with the idea that a second sheet of ice is a future decision. Chair Heman stated he would not be comfortable having two members on the school board who have not heard this conversation to vote on that option. Mayor Larson hoped they would leave the meeting agreeing on an option. Councilmember Fogarty would like the arena as the primary site for a second sheet of ice. She wanted to know if it was a viable site for a second sheet. She directed staff to explore that. If it is not possible, then she would like to have some ideas as to where a second sheet could be. Mayor Larson agreed with using Schmitz-Maki Arena for long term ice and work on fundraising and other options for a second sheet wherever it may be. Member Donnelly recalled Mr. Kronholm saying two sheets of ice at difference locations does not work financially. Mr. Colby stated the first recommendation was two sheets of ice at another location. His group will come with a proposal for that. The concern seems to be should we repair the arena and can we put a second sheet at the arena, or should it be somewhere else. His suggestion is to focus on fixing the arena and is there a possibility for a second sheet at that site. His group will come back with two sheets of ice at another location and the City and school can use that information to make a decision. Mayor Larson hoped the finance people would explore whether two locations would work. Chair Heman stated if Mr. Colby comes back with a presentation we cannot refuse and he supplies all the ice and our arena goes away, would the City accept that? Councilmember Fogarty replied yes; she does not have an emotional tie to the arena. Mr. Don Johnson, FYHA, stated the arena is run down to a critical end. The only thing with private is that the high school has some say over when their games and practices are. As a tenant we need to have some priority for prime ice time. It might be a deal you cannot refuse, but this is a Farmington community. Councilmember May felt we have to repair the arena because of the time frame. We cannot run the risk the ice will fail in mid-season. Council needs to decide if we want a permanent or a temporary fix. She was not sold on a $4 million solution, but did like Mr. Orr's recommendation of$500,000. Regarding the work of the Task Force, it is addressing future needs for 1-3 years. There is a huge advantage for two sheets if we repair the arena. The immediate need is to repair Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 10 the ice now. Ifwe do put a second sheet at the arena site, then we are talking about revamping the entire building. Member Burke asked Mr. Colby if we did a permanent solution at the arena, would that hurt your program if we had a sheet of ice competing with you? Mr. Colby stated they would look at a cooperative basis. If you fix the arena and build a second sheet somewhere else, that may fit into what the Colby Group is doing. You could not have two sheets of ice trying to compete, because you have already asked youth hockey to commit. Who would they commit to? We would do it in cooperation and operate it as one entity. They would have the needs of youth hockey and the school as a priority. Chair Heman felt with repairing the arena we are not any further ahead; we are back to where we are today. Councilmember May stated we would have ice. She felt they should be talking to Lakeville regarding their arena. Mr. Matt Words, 18623 Explorer Way, if there is a new building in Lakeville, they will use all of that ice and we will still be in the same place we are now. Lakeville uses as much ice away from town as they do in town. Councilmember Wilson felt it was reasonable to contact Lakeville as Joint Powers Agreements work really well. Member Walters agreed the School Board needs to get input from the other two members, but exploring the Lakeville option is not bad. We can proceed on two parallel tracks at the same time. In looking at repairing the arena now, you have to look forward as to what will be best for that facility in the long term. It is something this community has invested in for so many years and part of what this town has built itself around. If we are going to commit to keeping it, let's do it right. Maybe we do not have to do everything at one time, but have forward plans. Right now we do the ice, then the concessions area, then ADA compliance. We need to be forward thinking if we are going to keep it in the community for a long time. She does not see it being an inviting option if we don't. As far as the Lakeville option, it is great to have the information, but she wants to invest in Farmington. Mr. Dean Weasler, 20575 Camden Path, stated he wants his money to stay in Farmington. If it is in the right location, and there are restaurants and hotels that will bring other things to the City. Ifwe go with Lakeville, they will use it. We could use another sheet just on our own. We should do something where we can bring more to Farmington, rather than a quick fix. Mr. Charlie Sievert, 19825 Emperor Court, asked if a decision needs to be made tonight. Councilmember Fogarty replied no, we are trying to gather information to get a direction. Mayor Larson stated if we are going to fix the arena, contractors are filling up. We have to draw up plans, get bids, and set the schedule. If we start in April we will be okay for fall ice. If we start in May, we may have late fall ice. Mr. Sievert was concerned with getting bogged down in the details. We should look at all options including Lakeville. There is an option at Lakeville and they have the infrastructure. They are also open to considering other communities for ajoint project. Council/School Board Minutes February 3, 2010 Page 11 Members Walters felt we should get more financing for a second sheet and if it is possible to have it at the arena site and go down the two parallel tracks. Mr. Leon Orr, stated in repairing the arena, you are repairing an existing City facility so the public would not expect that to be on a referendum. If we are going to have a new arena, he would strongly recommend no matter what the financing options are, that you do nothing that does not go to the public for a vote. Two rinks and closing the arena was a part of the failed Sportsplex which went down overwhelmingly. Not that the people did not think we needed more ice, but it was seen as excessive. Any new construction should involve a public referendum. Dr. Brad Meeks suggested looking at the four options, an agreement with Lakeville, and a second sheet at the arena. They can look at financing in a variety of ways. Once we have the information, we can schedule another meeting and that would give Mr. Colby time. Councilmember Fogarty noted we are looking at 11 days before the next Council meeting and we have to look at whether or not to approve a feasibility study. If we do not make a decision within three weeks there is very little chance we can repair the system. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /. r -ef ~~ ;>>-7~J L_~ ,.-' ~U.,.~~ " Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant