Uniontown is frank about future of sausage feed building

UNIONTOWN, Wash. – A dispute has arisen in Uniontown over control of the historic building that hosts its popular annual sausage feed.

The town’s attorney advises the council that the lack of a formal written agreement with the Uniontown Community Building Board is a serious liability. The board has managed the town-owned building since the 1950s, apparently based on a verbal agreement at the time.

“The town cannot continue to allow a private organization to manage a public property without a formalized and transparent agreement,” Mayor Mike Shore said.

The Uniontown Sausage Feed is traditionally held on the first Sunday of March, when the Palouse town of fewer than 400 people feeds more than 1,500. The event started in 1954 as a way to celebrate the town’s German heritage and to raise money to support the building. It continued as a drive-thru during the COVID-19 pandemic and last year due to a decline in volunteer force.

Board President Lynn Smith said the board hopes to bring it back to an in-person sit-down meal inside the building.

But in December, the council and mayor gave the board two options to lease the building, with a 30-day notice to decide.

The idea of forcing the all-volunteer organization to lease the building it has maintained on behalf of the town for generations offended many community members, who overflowed the tiny town hall a block across the street during a council meeting Wednesday night to comment on the issue.

No agreement was reached, and the deadline is Saturday. If the board does not sign an agreement by then, control of the day-to-day operations of the building will revert to the town.

Shore drafted a proposed short-term agreement with a liability waiver that would allow the board to continue using the building through April 30 to give it more time to discuss a long-term solution.

The board has not signed it yet, Smith said, because its attorney, Joshua McKarcher out of Clarkston, has advised it not to until he has a chance to review it.

Smith said it was difficult with the short notice over the holiday period to find an attorney without a conflict of interest with the town council. They have not had a chance to meet with McKarcher since he has been out of the country on business.

Both sides are adamant they want the sausage feed to continue and agree that the community building is an indispensable asset to the town.

But the building board has complained that the town council has had poor communication and hasn’t given it enough time. The mayor and council members say the board has lacked engagement since the issue was first brought up a year ago.

The building facilities can be rented out throughout the year, and Uniontown residents are charged half-price. Townsfolk have many fond memories of dances and wedding receptions there.

Built in 1922, the school district used the building for its gym and auditorium before turning it over to Uniontown in 1948.

According to research by longtime resident Ed Garretson through archives of the now-defunct Uniontown Journal, a group of volunteers stepped up to renovate the building in the early ‘50s. Eventually, a committee was appointed by the council in 1956 to manage and maintain the building.

Garretson was “shocked” to learn about the lease offer.

“It never had a lease because it is not a tenant of the building,” Garretson said. “The building belongs to the town; the town didn’t want to run it.”

Shore read a prepared statement during Wednesday’s meeting that pointed to rising insurance costs picked up by the taxpayers.

The building’s insurance premium is nearly $14,000, while the board has contributed an average of $3,136 a year over the past 10 years. But the board pays much more than that on utilities and maintenance.

Last month, the council gave the board two options: either lease the building from the town and assume the entire insurance premium, or turn the building back over to the town and simply rent the building once a year for the sausage feed.

During public comment, town members said the council risks losing the free support of its many volunteers over this issue.

Ultimately, Shore said the town and its elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to oversee its public resources.

“We cannot in good conscience go forward without being good stewards,” the town’s attorney, Adam Papini, said. “We cannot do things with a chat and a handshake like it’s been done for 50 years.”

The community building board acknowledged this concern and say it is willing to work with the council on it. It just doesn’t appreciate how it has been approached.

A third option proposed in recent days appears more likely to satisfy both sides. This would involve the board chartering as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the town. This option would take a long time to negotiate, however, so some kind of short-term agreement would still need to be made.

The town went through a similar process a few years ago chartering the public development authority, the Uniontown Community Development Association.

The town council scheduled a public hearing Feb. 20 to discuss the community building.

Shore said the council is open to continue negotiating with the board, even if it doesn’t sign the short-term agreement by Saturday, in the interest of seeking an amicable long-term solution.