Warrenton city officials last week renewed talks on the possibility of constructing an indoor recreation facility, more than two years after voters narrowly shot down a sales tax increase. Last Tuesday’s work session was the first extensive discussion about the proposed project that had been put on hold due to the downturn in the economy. The proposed one-half cent sales tax sought by the city was defeated 1,587-to-1,463 on Nov. 4, 2008. A simple majority was needed for passage. Had the proposal passed, the sales tax would have increased from 7.975 cents to 8.475 cents. The proposed indoor recreation center was going to be around 35,000 to 45,000 square feet in size and include an aquatic center, gymnasium, walking track, fitness equipment area and multipurpose rooms. It was to be built on 7 acres the city previously purchased along Market Street behind the Warrenton 8 Cinema complex. City officials, in 2008, expected the new sales tax to generate around $722,000 annually. The projected cost of the new facility — with an aquatic center — was $10.5 million. Aldermen, at last week’s meeting, appeared to support the idea to update a feasibility study from 2008 to help determine if the public wants an indoor recreation center in the city. The board is expected to approve a contract with Ballard King and Consultants, a firm specializing in recreation facility planning and operations, at its next meeting on Aug. 2. The feasibility study will provide new estimated construction costs and operating expenses, along with surveying residents a second time to see what attractions they want in the facility and whether they would support a tax hike. Thorn said residents will have multiple ways to offer input about the indoor facility. She cautioned that the city is only in the preliminary stages of determining whether there is enough public support to warrant proceeding with the project. The city has until Jan. 24, 2012, to decide whether or not to place a sales tax measure on the ballot for the April municipal election. “I think it is important to look at what is out there that could impact this,” Thorn told the board, referring to similar proposed projects in Wentzville and Troy. “I think it is important to obtain new public input to make sure results that we received from the last survey have not changed. My belief is that it hasn’t changed, but it’s beneficial to make sure we involve the public.” Though the sales tax measure failed to gain the necessary support from voters, results from the 2008 survey showed residents were receptive to having an indoor recreation facility in the city. Seventy percent of the residents who responded wanted the indoor center to have an aquatic center in the first phase of construction, the most expensive portion of the project. In the same survey, only 14 percent said they would favor a one-half cent tax hike, while 38 percent said they would not support a tax increase of any kind. Ward 1 Alderman Phil Tallo said he still has residents approach him asking about the indoor facility. He also felt the city could take advantage of a strong bidding climate to have the facility built cheaper now rather than continuing to postpone the project. “I still think we would get good bids,” Tallo said. “We could probably build it less expensive now even though it’s two years later down the road. I still think we need one in the area. I think it’s something that would go over really good if we can build what we wanted before, especially the aquatic part of it.” Darin Barr, of Ballard King, attended last Tuesday’s work session and agreed that contractors remain hungry for work. He said in some instances bids are 20 percent lower than the project estimations. “If there is a time to build, now is the time,” Barr said. Some aldermen did express some reservations about the current economic situation affecting residents and how that would play out in the polls. Ward 2 Alderman Don Broering, who was not on the board three years ago, noted he did not like the idea of a tax increase. However, he supported the need to update the feasibility study and gather feedback from residents. “That way we can make a good decision, an educated decision, on whether this should be placed on the ballot in April,” Broering commented. “We may get the feasibility information and it could be better than what we had before or something’s changed, or we could get the feasibility information and go, this is not going to work. You just don’t know until you have good information to look at.”