BRODHEAD — Changes to the city’s planned community and senior center resulted in its current demise as officials clamored to accommodate staunch opposition to proposals while opponents questioned the integrity of those working to finalize the project.

Mayor Doug Pinnow, who is a member of the Brodhead Senior/Community Center Committee, expressed frustration at being informed that a Community Development Block Grant of $500,000 was rescinded March 7. 

“We were trying to do something good and it just backfired,” Pinnow said. 

The city’s comprehensive plan passed in 2017. One of the four most common responses in a community survey as part of constructing that document was to “construct a community/senior/youth center.” Over 50 percent of respondents were between 35 to 54 years old and roughly 60 percent were city residents.

But a question on a survey asking for ideal projects does nothing to address costs and physical plans, resident Tim Stocks said. As a member of the current senior center, he was one of roughly 30 members who opposed plans to move the senior center into a former fitness building within the city and couple it with a community center. 

“I’ve never seen or heard a positive comment about this,” Stocks said, adding that the committee had “poor representation” from council members and that no one within the large group is a user of the current senior center.

In late 2014, engineers informed the city that a senior center would be eligible for a grant up to $500,000 from the state. The former fitness center on the south side of the city was initially considered. The plan was to combine a senior and community center use into one building to ensure state grant funding could be secured for the project. 

Pinnow said after the grant was officially designated to Brodhead in May, there was “sudden criticism” of the plans to secure donations to match the $500,000 funding from the state for the project. It was secured July 31. Pinnow said in September, because city officials decided to change the project due to urging from opponents, the city contacted state officials and asked whether the grant could be accepted after a referendum. The Brodhead schools referendum was on the November ballot, so in order to avoid putting public school funding in jeopardy, the city referendum was moved to the April 2 election. Pinnow said the state was “not happy about” the delay, but agreed.

The referendum in question asks citizens whether they would approve of the city borrowing up to $500,000 to match the grant as a way to ensure the city receives the funding if unable to raise the money by donations alone. The plan shifted to constructing a senior center with a multipurpose room for community and senior center use, which is what led to the state cancelling the block grant, according to a letter from Dave Pawlisch, director of the Bureau of Community Development Division of Energy, Housing and Community Resources sent to Pinnow on March 7.

In the letter obtained by the Times, Pawlisch noted that the city’s original application cited a need for a two-story, 10,000 square-foot building to serve as a senior center. Community block grant funding cannot be used for a community center, only for a senior center. The application estimated the provision of nutritional meals and a facility to address the needs of 400 senior users. 

Pinnow noted that the current senior center, used by roughly 30 people, has little space. However, its users were unsupportive of the idea to cater to a larger population, he said. 

In Pawlisch’s letter, the director noted that the city had communicated with the state about the planned changes. However, current changes noted that roughly 1,200 to 1,600 square feet of eligible space would be used exclusively for seniors. 

“This is much less than the original space proposed and well below the 10,000 square feet of space specified by the City as necessary to adequately address the current needs of the City’s senior population,” Pawlisch wrote, adding the “award is hereby rescinded due to the significance of changes made to the proposed project.”

Pinnow said the state was misleading in its handling of the changes with the city and should have indicated there was an issue before simply cancelling the grant.

But Stocks said the way the city handled the information was negligent and from residents’ perspective, seemed like fraud. Pinnow said the word “fraud” has negative connotations and could impact the city’s ability to gain state funding in the future.

Stocks, after being told by residents following the first community meeting meant to highlight the project to the public in early March that they were given no answers to questions regarding the plans, sent an email to the DOA asking for resources “that addresses what constitutes inaccurate or incomplete information submitted during the application process.” Stocks said he was seeking information like a researcher would, but also said he “certainly didn’t want the city to go forward with this if we were doing something wrong.”

“This is a very troubling event for most people,” he said.

Pinnow noted that the city did nothing underhanded and placed blame on the DOA for drawing out an inevitable rejection. 

Because the referendum question was placed on the ballot before the grant was rescinded, Pinnow said the Wisconsin Elections Commission indicated it will simply serve as an advisory vote, not a binding requirement. The city will use it to measure whether residents want the center, he added.

“All we want to know is whether we should move forward or not,” Pinnow said.