Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I know it's just building inspector actually doesn't say anything like so many people anything we tried like two years ago The only ones that we've released are more

but they were it was a while too. So, so we propose to be like pretty I mean we're talking middlet house we're at 30 cents a square foot and I'm proposing This is Scotts as well.

We have Jason started with us. Then we have a couple guys that are

all over like you guys. So we're like you guys Hi,

how are you doing? Oh, they're not. Okay.

Oh, I think Right.

I was going to Good evening. We'll get the meeting started for the uh March 12, 2026 village of Walkaaw Joint Plan Commission and Village Board meeting. If you could all stand for the pledge of allegiance, please to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Roll call. Roll call. Fine. Buckolds here. White here. Niles here. Nelson. Peckers. Dable village board. Stigler here. White here. Niles here. Adams here. Buckles here. All right. Open meeting law compliance check verifying that the uh agenda is posted properly on or before March 11th. Yes. Very well.

Citizens comments. Anyone would like to speak? Come on up one at a time to the microphone. Give us your name and address and give us your comments. Sandy West 230 South 3827 Milky Way Road. Um, I wanted to address I forget what item number it is, but the building permit fees and I've addressed them before on a number of occasions. Um I see a I went through every single line item and and went to see what the percentage increase is. Some of them 40% for uh above ground pool. I guess there's some minimums that I think will affect small develop people like putting up a garage or shed or something like that. Um you know electrical is up 33%. uh so is uh HVAC and a bunch of other stuff. Um, the other thing is I I struggle to make sense of uh the request and the document because I don't have any sense of what this means in money and like we do with the fire department and the sheriff's department where we get a report, excuse me, and this may not be part of the contract, but it would be really interesting to know how much money was brought in in 2025 in permit fees and what is the anticipated ated uh revenue from the next year and none of that information is here. So when I mention a large percentage increase and there's a whole bunch of factors, it could have been a long time since it's happened and it could be that it's not very much money in the end. Um and it could also be that a lot of these items hardly anybody signs up for them and we just have the prices and but

without having the the metrics behind it, I just don't have any understanding. I couldn't decide the value of some of these things. And then overall my question is for this whole program um is it supposed to be revenue generating and cash positive? Is that the goal for the village? In which case, I don't know why we don't raise all of them as much as we can. And if it isn't, then I think we should be paying attention that we're not losing money and we're covering all of our expenses. Um, but without knowing the numbers, I have no idea what's really happening. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else in our public comments? All right. If there's no others, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, approval of the minutes from February 12th of 2026. Any comments, questions, concerns on them? Things that need to be addressed? Move to approve. Uh, plan commission needs to do it first, sir. Sorry. I'll move to approve as printed.

Okay. All right. Uh, Dan and Vicki. It's been motioned and seconded on the plan commission side to recommend approving of the minutes. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in the plan commission in favor of approving the minutes say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Carries. Village board. Bob, would you like to? We'll make a motion to approve minutes from February 12th, 2026. I'll second the motion.

Right. Any discussion on the village board side again or no? All right. All those in favor of approving the minutes for the village board say I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries. Up next, uh notice is hereby given that a joint public hearing involving the village walk plan commission and the village board will be held tonight uh at the village hall in consideration of adoption of proposed amendments to the village ordinance chapter 42-83 subb sub1 to add land preservation education as a new permitted use in the A1 agricultural district along with associated use standards. So, we'll open the hearing at this time. John, you want to start?

Sure. Um, we've talked about this the last couple months conceptually. Um, now it's obviously part of the public hearing. I won't go over every detail here, but for anybody anybody's benefit that hasn't been part of the discussions, I'll give a sort of a brief overview here. Um, this would be the A1 zoning district. As a permitted use, we'd be adding the land preservation education um component. Um it would the principal use would be land preservation and stewardship activities. There would be a number of accessory uses that would also be allowed including administrative offices. Um there would be potential for education center, educational programming, seasonal non-farm storage and existing farm buildings, community gardens. They'd be able to host special events um related to the organization. and then would also allow retail such as the sale of produce and concessions limited to the education center operations and landowner organization. Um this would require site plan uh and site plan approval when they come forward. Um minimum area is 200 200 acres. The maximum building area for administrative offices and education facilities is 20,000 square feet. So that would be limited. Um, any building accessible by the public would meet commercial building codes. There's requirements for off- streetet parking areas, sanitation facilities. Um, they'd be required to have a storm water management plan if required by Waka County. Special events would be limited. Um, noise limited to 25 dB of the property line only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. Those would be approved as part of the site plan of operation. The seasonal non-farm storage will be limited to existing buildings only. Um limited to only a certain portion of the buildings. Um it's only for personal recreation and seasonal vehicles and equipment would not be construction equipment,

commercial vehicles, etc. would not be allowed to be stored. Um outdoor seasonal farm non-farm storage is prohibited. Um indoor farm related storage would not be limited. That would be that would be fine. Um again special events are are approved as per the site plan of operation. We could limit um number of events, type of events, maximum number of attendees, hours of operation, etc. And then exterior lighting would be um would have to follow the rules of the ordinance and then any exterior lighting would have to cease within one hour uh of any of special events. So that's the basics. That's a summary. I'd be happy to answer questions about specifics. Um that's it.

Okay. Uh any public comments? Hi. Um, I'm here giving public comment on behalf of Anita Cougler. She is not well and not able to be here, but she wanted to make sure her voice was included in this. So, I'm just going to read her words. Give us your name and address. Yeah, sorry. I'm Becky Fedek, South 54 W315000 State Road 59, Jennese. Thank you.

So, Anita's words. I taught school in Wauaaw for many years while we farmed almost 300 acres on the river road in Wacaaw. My father had purchased two farms in 1949 while I was still in high school. I was very familiar with Wauasha because my mother's brother lived in the town. I went up here for summers and helped during the haying season. It was very difficult to manage the farm from Chicago where we lived. So after I married, my husband and I decided to move up to the farm to see if we couldn't help. We milked 80 cows twice a day and raised corn and hay to feed them. We never had even one vacation, but we enjoyed what Wauaasha had to offer. There I raised my children, learned all I could to help with the farm. Um, when my children went to school, I graduated from Carol College and started teaching school to supplement my income. Um, I always loved the town of Wakaua and never once did I think of going back to Chicago. I have not farmed since 1968, but farmers in the area farmed the land for me. Even after my husband died, I never thought of moving off the farm. And then six years ago, I formulated a plan to fight back against carbon dioxide. My plan involved after studying how the nature natural growth of trees can help solve the carbon dioxide problem rather than totally dissolving energy from fossil fuels and replacing them with wind, nuclear, and solar energy. I told Talpines I wanted them to protect my land and I would gift the land to them if they followed through with my wish to plant trees and for the study and also to renovate the historic barn on River Road for a learning center. When I learned that the zoning would have to be changed to allow this learning center, I hesitated, but I hoped that my family's long-term residency since 1949 would have some bearing in the town's position. I love the village that I live in and I

would never suggest anything that might be do harm in any way. With a learning center, as people are educated and more and more people will plant trees and cities and towns will have will be required to plan for the green spaces every quarter mile. Our village will be doing a service to mankind. I am hoping that these teachings will spread throughout Waka County and across our state and go from sea to shining sea. I am even hoping that we can spread the word across the world. The learning center will have a groomed road leading to a parking lot. The barn will be kept in excellent shape and inside it will be restored according to all the codes necessary to make it safe and comfortable. There will be highly trained professional staff planning the programs with top flight scientists called in to share their knowledge. There will be no political influence added to the agenda. This will be the top-of-theline programming of which you'll be very proud to have to been a part of. By passing the new zoning law, such a structure will be with such a purpose will be permitted. This will be an amazing step on your part and I believe time will bear out that you have done the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Sandy Ham, West 230 South 3827 Milky Way Road. Uh, just seems mandatory that I show my continued support for this project. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? Board members, commissioners, go ahead. Um, on the changes, didn't we talk about making it operating hours at 8 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m.? That was one of the discussions we had at the end of the last conversation. Yeah, we we certainly did. Um, I think I made the change on number 13, but may have neglected. So, yeah, number 13. It's changed, right? Do you have the It's in there. Yeah. Yeah, it's in there. But in number 10, I didn't change it. So, number 10's got to be updated to 8 a.m., right? Yep. Thanks.

No, that's one of the purposes of the public hearing. It doesn't change. Anybody who would be concerned about that change in the audience Good thing that you catch there. Thank you, Rob. Anything else? Yeah, I guess I give Make sure microphone's on, please.

Yeah, I guess my input for Nina Ransom, she actually was my teacher back in the day. Um, great lady. And I think what she I'll echo what uh Becky had to say that u top of the line program. I really believe that's what's going to happen here. And I appreciate that. Let me know. She did a great job. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone else public comment wise want to speak? Okay. Hearing none, we will close the public hearing on the agenda or on the item. Uh moving on to discussion of possible action on the proposed amendments for ordinance 42-83 subb sub1 that we were just discussing. Uh discussion by the plan commission of village board. I think they did a good job putting it together. I'll make a motion that we approve the amendments to chapter 4283B1 as presented by the planner

and to include that 8:00 change for line 10. Yes. Okay. And I'll second that. I heard Vicki starting to say it first. Quietly. All right. Any other discussion on the plan commission side? All right. Hearing none. Uh, all those in favor of approving to include the one minor change to 8 a.m. say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? It carries. Village board. I will make a motion that we accept the planning commission's recommendation and accept the ordinance as provided with the amendments of the times to 8:00. Okay. Go ahead. I'll second it.

There you go. Now you got one. Any other further discussion hearing? None there. Uh, village board. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? That motion carries as well. Changes made. Very well. Thank you. Moving on to the next item. Discussion, possible action for the site plan, plan of operation uh for the village walk property here. um tax kwakt 136099 uh regarding building the new uh 10,300 368 foot department of public works building

who wants to talk. So obviously the site plan board asked us to put um site plan gradient plan together for this new public works building. We didn't complete a review per se because of that. Um did put together a summary of some items that I think we would have normally reviewed just to be consistent here. Um site plan, you're you're looking at total land disturbance um as well as impervious surface added underneath the county's thresholds for storm water management. So as far as a a pond or some some other best management practice for storm water, not needed for this project on site. Um, we talked about this a little bit last time. The building's being placed at an elevation such that we're not directing storm water directly to it. Um, the land gradually slopes from south to north and from east to west. And so, um, there's kind of a drop off as you go from the south to the north side of the building. So, some structural fill will need to be brought in to to get the building up to that 817 elevation. Um the yeah so structure fill ranges from one and a half feet to three and a half feet from from south to north for the building. We did complete soil borings at the site. Um obviously those that report will be given to any biders. Um so they're they're looking at consistent information for subsurface. Um generally that consisted of about 12 inches of top soil, three to four feet of possible uh fill material, organic fill material and then um uh underlying native clay material. So I mean that that information just gives us what we need to not only design the asphalt but for the the contractor when they get to that point to build the building. Um asphalt will consist of two inches surface course, five inches of base course. It's going to be a a modified asphalt mix for heavy slowmoving

traffic. Um sanitary sewer service line proposed to be connected to the existing service line that's out here. Um so obviously we're going to be installing cleanouts with that service line is proposed to be 6 in. However, we're going to ask the contractor to verify that. Contractor is going to be putting together uh a plumbing plan that'll need to be approved by the state. Um and so as part of that process, we'll be verifying size and and flow coming from the building um to be approved by the state. Um kind of a similar note on the water main service. We're connecting to the existing service um at the corner of the existing public works building. The intent is to match the size there, which u we were able to find information ver that that service is one inch in size, but obviously we'd be asking the contractor to to verify that as part of their plumbing approval that needs to be approved by the state. Um we're currently showing the location of future um storage bins at the site. These are not being installed as part of this project. However, we will be placing asphalt underneath those. And so the limits of asphalt you see on the site plan you have will actually be extended about 15 feet to the west to be placed underneath those bins. Um based on discussions at our last staff meeting, we are not going to be including any chain link fencing right now. um DPW staff felt that they could make do with the fence that's currently on the site knowing that there's going to be a lot of improvements coming down the line in the future that will need fencing. If um you know this building needs fencing around the perimeter of it at at that time we'd revisit installing all that fence at the same time. Um and then just a note on the exterior lights. Again, the the electrical plan is going to be put together by the contractor once this is bid out. So,

there likely will be exterior lights um on the face of the building that will be required to to meet the the villages ordinance for exterior lighting. Um in general, I mean, there's more to go over than that. I'm sure everyone has questions. Um Sean, I don't know if you had anything to add.

Sure. Just a couple things. All I wanted to say is essentially, you know, what's being proposed here meets the requirements of the the P1 zoning district, which is the existing zoning. Um, I just had a couple comments for consideration for architecture and landscaping. This is obviously a metal building. Um, it is, it's hard to see on the overhead here, but here's the existing, you know, municipal building. Here's the existing DPW building. The building is behind those, right? So, from center, you can't really, you can't, you won't be able to see the new building. So, one of the requirements or ordinance is basically for industrial or warehouse buildings, which this would qualify for. You have to anything facing a public road needs 50% of the facade to be an upgraded material like breaker stone or whatever the plan commission would determine. You can't see it obviously from center because it's behind the building. So, in in cases past, we've never required upgraded materials. the north um you know the north face of the building um that that's basically faces Bur Oak Boulevard to the north. It's it's 400 feet away and it's obscured behind all of the trees in the in the park area essentially. So that wouldn't necessarily be a candidate unless the plan commission and board felt that it was necessary. So in terms of landscaping again normally uh the foundations of of new buildings have to be landscaped. In this case, obviously the south is asphalt pavement and to the east is the existing DPW building. So that only leaves the north side and the west side. Um that is slope. So that's that's basically, you know, graded down from there. And again, we're we're looking at 400 feet to the north for the next road and then to the west. Um I think it's a couple hundred feet away to those residences which also have landscape screening along their the east side of those properties in the in the city of Wacaaw. So, it's up to the plan commission essentially to determine whether or not the base landscaping is required. I will say that typically we

don't require building foundation landscaping or it's not visible. So, just uh for precedent purposes and then exterior lighting. I understand that there'll be some lighting on the south face of the building probably building mounted downward facing lighting. Um so that hasn't been provided as part of this. um it would need to meet code essentially in terms of lumens at the property line and basically where it'd be located there's no way it's going to spill over on the adjacent property line. So, you know, I just I guess I'd recommend that staff would just take a look at that before, you know, before it's installed and then we'd make sure it meets the requirements of the ordinance. So, that's all I have is just a list of standard conditions for site plan of operation approval in my staff report. Did you draw up something from what we talked about yesterday?

I have not, but Morton is working on making that change if you want to discuss that. Yeah, I just I guess throw it out now as part of the discussion before we get into all the the details of what anybody has comments on. Uh it was brought to my attention yesterday through Greg that um there was an issue brought up with the design. So if Sean's able to pull up that specific um overhead of the one that shows like the floor plan from above.

So the firewall that's in the middle of the building there um did not get adjusted when we um asked for the building to be expanded to add on the additional bait to this. Um, so there's going to have to be some revisions to the drawing because what happened was with expanding to the west or to the left of that drawing, that created that larger portion on the where the firewall separates to be larger than the 5,000 square feet that requires the firewall to be there. If we leave the wall where it is, it would limit us to not being able to put snowplow trucks on the large side because of the size of those vehicles and the purpose behind that wall. Um, so there is going to be some revisions that need to go to this before it can go out to bid. That wall is going to move to the left, basically be center of the building. The garage door directly to the left of it now is going to have to shift over and um and it'll split it basically in half then to accommodate that issue. So I just wanted to point that out for everybody. Um, what do you guys have comments discuss?

Splits the building in half. That still doesn't meet the 5,000 square foot requirement. You're 368 square feet over on the one side. So I think that square footage is exterior. Interior it's almost exactly. I mean I subtracted from for wall thickness and stuff. So it's pretty interior. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's it's pretty close, but I mean, it's just to divide the building in half doesn't meet the requirement on either side.

Well, I said half, but I don't have the exact measurement of where it's going to go. When they draw it, they they're going to have to move the wall to where it meets that on the on the left side there so that we can put the plow trucks in where they're designed to be.

Yeah. On that note, I was going to bring that up, Chad. Whatever because that that uh that code 93.2 whatever you stated that 5,000 square foot thing uh that code and I was spot on. Whoever did cut it, but I had the paperwork and I show that that 5,000 square feet was we're going to have to do something or shift that the wall one way or the other, whatever, figure something out. Yeah, I I just brought up as a discussion point that we're going to have to make some changes to the interior final design that way. But I guess for the purpose of the rest of the discussion for tonight, um just want to make you guys aware of that. So for the rest of the purpose of the discussion,

what do you guys have? I believe the grading plan's going to have to change as well. I said there's six by six foot stoops that come out on several sides and drop off on a four to 5% grade slope that doesn't meet code for fire exit ways. So that's going to grading plan's going to have to change so that it accommodates that code. So we can't do that. I I see what you're saying. And the grading plan I guess doesn't account for the detail of the the stoops. We do have a typical concrete stoop detail on the last page of the plans that limits the the slope of the stoop to eighth of an inch per foot. Yeah, that doesn't show on the drawing. So,

sure, we we could adjust the grading and add spot grades, but obviously they they wouldn't be installing the stoop at a, you know, 10% slope. Well, the stoop would but even after you step off the stoop, it has to be fairly level for certain distances. I don't know what that is. I could pick on the fire chief and ask him to come up here and tell us what that is, but I'm not going to do that. He's glad, but that's something that's got to be fixed. I'd like to make a motion to approve the site plan of operation to build a 10,368 foot DPW with the changes that that were just discussed.

Second. I'm not done discussing it yet. I'm not either. That's fine. What? That's the purpose of the discussion under the motion. So, motion's on the floor. It's been seconded. What's the discussion?

Um, I believe that the north side of that building, it faces Burke. Yeah, there's a wooded area out there, but those trees, the foliage is anywhere from 25 to 30 feet above the ground. I said that building is extremely visible from Buro. Um, if I lived along Buro, it was nice to watch kids play ball out there. Now I have to look at that. I don't think that's very good. And I think the back side of that building is a terrible eyesore. Our our code require or doesn't require but says that we should have or we can have uh architectural design breaks on anything 75 ft or longer. And I think that needs to happen. I said that's just way too blank. Um way too mundane to be sitting out there like that. It's it's very visible all the way from the corner of Center Road and Buro all the way down. You can see that building even when it's full foliage. I mean the tree branches are 30 feet in the air. I was going to say the same thing to be honest with you and I've known that there's a in these type of buildings you can put Wayne's coating around the outside which really really makes it much more attractive than a plain metal and and if there's damage done to the bottom part of the building all you have to do is replace three feet instead of the entire length of the or height of the building. So I I agree with Dan it's it's pretty blaszeise when you look at it that way. I think whether there's trees obstructing it or not, somebody's going to see that building from Bur Oak and even the neighbors to the west here to have that out in their backyard. I think we ought to be good neighbors here and put something there. Like I said, the Waynees coating that it's available on all old buildings now is looks pretty nice when you get it done. And I think that would be suffice here to make that much more attractive.

The print calls for steel wings coat panels on the bottom. Pardon me. The plan the plan calls for that. Where does it call for that? See where that line goes straight through the door. Y right below that line is the steel wings pan. Okay. I didn't see that on the main plan there. Another thing that's missing though is we have no color palette or anything. We don't know what color this building is going to be. We have no idea what it's going to look like. That's why we hired these guys to make sure they know what they're doing. Well, unfortunately, it's our job to do that. I understand that. It's our job to do that.

The next thing I have is that the windows We have a few windows, but why couldn't we make vertically stacked windows and break things up a little bit vertically, too? I said, um, you know, why don't the windows go up at least garage door height and make like a vertical window stack in some places to make some design to this thing? If we're going to have a tin building, we got to make it look like something. And this is just we're putting it in a residential area. This isn't in an industrial park. This is a residential neighborhood we're plunking it into. Um I agree, Dan. I said we need something better than that.

That's I was going to motion that we table this tonight until we get all the all the ducks in a row because we're not prepared to approve this yet. It's things are not ready yet. What about additional landscaping on the north and west side, too? So, you certainly could, too. You know, you could at intervals every 10, 15 feet, you know, have an evergreen tree or something in front of the the building to break it up. Give it some I was going to say some clump plantings along along those lengths. Something to to break it up as well. Um,

technically a motion to table is in order even though there's another motion on you don't have to repeal that or anything. I just want to under parliamentary procedure if someone makes a motion and seconds someone else after discussion can table. Okay. So I'm not saying you do that yet or right finish the discussion but we don't have to withdraw on all that stuff. We just note the minutes. There was a motion made seconded and then a subsequent motion made.

Um with the ashal pads there's no dimensions or anything on those. Those need to be dimensions so we know how much space we're actually approving out there. I said there's just there's a lot of details missing yet. There's no electrical plan. We're supposed to approve the outdoor lighting and such and and there's no electrical plan. Uh there's no plumbing plan. There's no heating and ventilation plan. There's a lot of things we can't even discuss because it's not there. There's no plan for it. And that's our authority to do that. And uh I think the village should be held to their own ordinances. So I think we should be doing what we're supposed to be doing. For those reasons, I think we should table it tonight and get all the ducks in a row, get all the materials together, and then come back if that's what we choose to do to to discuss it further. But I think we should table it tonight. And that's my motion.

And there's not a lot of discussion on a motion to table, so we should continue the discussion before we second it as to exactly what you want staff to bring back next month. Fair enough, Mr. President. Sure. If we get this before the next meeting, can we have a special meeting? Because I I'm probably they want to get started building when the weather is nice. So,

so if I could responded something Dan said. So, when the village chose last year to have Morton put together the building plans, this is what Morton gave you. Three three sheets. They are not putting together a plumbing plan. They are not putting together an electrical plan. They are not putting together an HVAC plan. That requirement is being put onto the contractor to submit those plans to the village and subsequently to the state after it's been bid. You how do you build a building if you don't know what you're bidding on? Well, there is a 600page document the project specifications that tells them the exact materials they have to use. They have to put together a plan.

Greg, can I just I don't mean to interrupt. You said after the bid is submitted. You mean as part of their bid? As part of the bid, they would they would be giving the village a cost after. And I I think I thought you meant as part Well, they'd be putting together the plans. Maybe I heard you wrong, but they would be submitting as part of their cost to build this building, the cost to put together those plans and submit them to the state using our specifications. So, those plans still have to come back here for approval. So, you did state it correctly. They're not going to do it as part of the bid. going to bid as part of the cost the drafting of those additional plans.

And again, this is this is the route the village chose to go when they asked Morton to put together the building plans. So now let's ask let's your question. Those plans would have to come back, John. Correct. This lighting Well, you certainly can make it. You could you could you could make the approval now and say they don't have to come back if you wanted to do that and staff would review them if that's what you wanted to do. But you don't have to do it that way. No, they need to come back. But I'm a little confused here. Who is you go out to bid to build build the building? Who's going to bid the electric plan and the plumbing plan and the heating ventilation plan? Who's going to bid those? The builder of the building.

The builder will be doing that and the costs for those will be built into their lumpsum cost to build the building. Greg, that is not atypical. When you have a general contractor, he goes out and gets all those bids. Correct. Yeah. He may have he may have more specificity upfront than he has now, but that if you have a hire a general, they go and find their electrician and their plumber. I just want to find out the norm. That's the norm. We're well, yeah, that's the norm for a general contractor. Typically, typically they they would have as part of the civil set of plans of plumbing, lighting, electrical plans to go along with it. So, what we're saying is Morton is our general contractor and they're going to get those bids.

Absolutely. Morton is is drawing these drawings for us

out of the kindness of their their heart that that they're doing this with no cost to us. And and Greg brought it up before. I I was going to say the same here that this village board, the five of us sitting here voted and and approved going the route we're going with this, which is putting it out to bid as Greg just mentioned. That's why he his firm has been working on all the specs based off the specs provided from these drawings from Morton um to be able to take this to the point that we are. I asked that we bring it before you guys tonight so that you could see the location because part of this is the location in that. So the idea here as Greg's pointed out is to show you where we've discussed as a village board previously and approved of the location and the initial drawings to this. Um, but they aren't doing all that extra work for free that's coming with the bid to show us the lights and where they're going to be and all that stuff. So, I have no problem bringing that back before the commission at that point.

Who's going to get those bids for those contractors? Who who will do that? If I if I take this on as a general contractor. So, I That's why I said who's the general contractor? That's the thing is let's answer the question. They're putting out they're putting the bids out. Greg will correct me if I'm wrong to see who you're going to pick as your general contractor. General contractors are being asked to bid on this package. Correct. Correct. They will be on, you know, April 15th of February. If I could please. Okay.

So, I work for a general contractor. You see their crane up at the hospital every day. So, what this is going to do is go to offices like mine. the general contractor. We send whatever we need for electrical, plumbing, everything else. The only people you're going to have to deal with is the general contractor. If I, ABC Construction, bids on your project, I'm the only person that has to deal with everybody else. Nobody. The village doesn't have to deal with the plumbers. We don't have to deal with the HVAC. We don't have to deal with the sprinkler fitters. Anybody. That's my job as a general contractor. He sends out the book and if you're all different contractors, you all get the same book

and then we all bid equally off of it. Yeah. The diff the difference here though is that when something a a new building comes to us, for instance, all those things are already in line and in order. And that's that's the difference. That's typically how it should be. I mean, here we're kind of doing things backwards. We're doing things I guess I think the word was atypical. Very, that's how this project has been from the start. Um anyway, so again, back to where we were. What's that? Oh, back to where we were anyway. We're kind of off the subject a little bit.

We we did allowing it because there's some discussion you guys wanted to have and that's fine. Um but going back to the point here, the idea is being a be able to allow Greg's firm to go out to bid on this with a very extensive packet of information that he's been building um to bring all that back. So, there are going to be final drawings and things that have to be approved. um once the general contractor is selected that they can show us what those lights and those things are. So there's no issue with bringing that before um both the commission and the board at that final stage to be able to do that. But what we're trying to do is continue the project forward uh because who has designed it thus far has been doing it all for free. Um because we as a board chose not to pay somebody to do it. we had that in front of us as a board and we didn't. So, we're going the way that we've chosen at this point.

All right. Then I'll get back to the last thing and you kind of touched on it about where it's located. Personally, I'm not in favor of getting rid of the Bald Diamond without an alternative plan for recreational activity in our park. I said the Ball Diamond is the only thing we have. Um I think there was a better location for it than than that when they were talking about moving up to the south of the existing building. So, I I I think that's not the best place to be putting the building. I guess those are my comments.

All right. So, let me I guess respond to that part. Um to me, a baseball diamond by itself is not a park. Um typically, there's more to it than just a baseball diamond. At least as far as what my definition of a park would be. Um, I don't have anything in front of me right now because I'm trying to get through two very frustrating projects as you all know because you're all frustrated just as much as I am on these two topics. Um, provided that we continue in the path that we are on both of these and they're done. Um, my goal, my next goal if I'm still sitting in this chair is to develop the rest of land into an actual park. Um, there are parks in the area that actually have a lot of functionality to them. The newest one that that is a lot bigger of a square footage, so we wouldn't be able to go as big as that. Um, is up in Wawa, so they just opened about a year ago. I forget the name of it, but it's Firefly Something. And u, there's some pretty cool decorations out there as far as, you know, yard things that are within the the artwork and stuff of it. There's a bike trail. There's all kinds of stuff involved. And it's a it's a very good use of that space. So provided we get further in this with the fire department project and this and all that, we still have half the campus where all the trees and such are that we could be developing into an actual park people come to. Right now the baseball diamond is not a park. It's used by one or two baseball teams for some practices. Otherwise, it's an kind of an eyesore if you look at it sometimes throughout the summer. And it's an expense to the village because we're having to upkeep something that really nobody uses. I've seen pictures of that park and it's fantastic. I think it would be a real draw for all the kids in the area and probably people from outside the area.

So, I know I know there are sentimental reasons for the baseball diamond amongst the board members or some of you maybe um but it's not used anymore. Let's put something in in the rest of the campus once we get through these other portions and make it so people come here and do something besides the fire station in Village Hall. Other comments? I'd like to make a comment on the uh the electrical.

Yep. Go ahead. Um, I would like to see all the electrical put underground that is now on the poles and the wires back here. And I would like to see one generator for the whole complex. We had a quote back in I don't know 27 2017 I think it was of about $65,000 to to do all that. As far as a generator, we had quotes on a standby generator for the whole complex. Um, I would like to see one generator for the whole complex to make it functional. I can't see peace mealing it. One generator for the garage, one one generator for the fire department. I I don't I don't agree with that. Um, I'd like to see one standby generator for the whole complex and bury the electric lines underground. Was it a year or two ago? They took out the electric wires for a dump truck, I believe, or something. So, I mean, it's a hazard to everybody. So, if we can get them underground, love to see it. Okay, other comments. We still have 's motion to entertain with a second.

I have a couple comments. Go ahead, please.

Well, we caught the the wall in a bill which going to change it later in interior. We already talked about that might change a drain floor that we already have in there. So, that might have to be changed that the drain in the floor. It does show a 28footer with a one catch facing on the other side, but it doesn't show the width of that drain drain drainage tile that's in the floor. change the length but not the width on that. Be nice to know what that is and maybe we'll redo that. Maybe change it the opposite direction that it's already in the floor. Something that we I think we should look at. The other concern I really had was I brought up the last meeting was the bad insulation that's considered here 9 in. I still recommend that we do a spray foam especially on a steel building. I think most buildings that are steel are sprayed. Um, I would I would recommend that we would check into a spray foam in that building versus a bat. Um, with uh Trusty Paltz's comment about the generators, we talked about that many of times of uh having one separate ones for each each building or department here. Possibly three, one for the village, one for fire department, one for the DBW building. Whatever direction we ended up going, it doesn't really matter at this time. uh or it does if we want to go to one one, but I think we should have a raceway built into the uh into that building or building if we do one so we don't have to knock out concrete later on down the road. I think we need to be a step ahead of that and that should be I think uh bid on so we have a raceway and have four later on so it doesn't cost us more money later on down the road. An electrical part of it too. I don't know if they want just one tenant or 220 in there. Uh we never had the discussion, I guess, if we were going to, you know, have a what kind of service we're actually going to put in

that building. I'm not sure exactly what we're going to end up being going to be on that. So, and I guess the the big one that I got is and you trying to look at a little everything. I'm really confused of how maybe board could come to explain it explain it act talk to us and I like to know how the footings actually go. There's no footings on this thing and it seems like the the wall or the the posts are going into the ground, but if this I I never seen how they're doing it before and I just see somebody explain it why there ain't a footing or maybe there isn't. I'm not reading the drawing right. I'm not sure, but I'd like to have somebody explain it to me how that actually works. Um how the poster would be set into the ground. Um it's something different I've never seen before. and the general contract that we've been talking about. I, you know, to get this exact number, we've been hoping that it's going to be under the dollar amount that we've uh all approved and past meetings. Um, we're still guessing exactly what this price is going to be until we really get all the different contractors or the general contract to get all these different bids in for all the uh utilities and that we need to have to function this building. I would like to see these numbers. So, make sure we're underneath that dollar amount

because we're all guessing what it's going to be. I mean, everybody's guessing is this, that that's the biz. That's why the bidding is done. So, let's I guess let's Okay, that's that's that's just my we're I guess we're veering back into redesigning this project yet again. We are. We are. Which design right. I've been on this board for three or four years. From day one, we have gotten close. And the same three people, love you all, same three people throw monkey wrench after monkey wrench after monkey wrench. Do we want to move forward or don't we? I mean, these aren't monkey wrenches. Monkey wrench.

We're not going to start an argument here. We're going to stop that violation that they didn't even do. Okay. Has to be moved. It's not a a monkey wrench. This is a cold violation in the story. But when we start talking about other things like spray foam is triple the price at minimum on the building. But we got to watch the money, but we don't want to go triple the when we start every time we I'd like to see windows added on there, too. Every time somebody opens their mouth, it's more money. I I understand we want to do it right the first time, but you guys have seen this building for two months now, and just now it's coming up that we need windows.

This is the first time it's come to the plan commission. I've I've seen this design the last year when they the exact same drawings were brought to us by Orchard last year. That same building and now it came to the plan commission. It never came to the plan commission. Exactly. Right. But somebody would have said, "Hey, when we do this, can we put windows in it or I'm not going to vote for it?"

I understand where you're at with it, but I also in the same regards I've been over a year I've been watching this. Everybody wants to have a design in this building. That's his job to make sure it's all run by code. That's why he's got 600page book to go out to bid. Yes, this is atypical. But if we keep doing this, it's never going to happen. So why do we continue to spend money on him, on architects, on silo boarding? At this point, it's wasted money. And it continues to be wasted money. Two years ago, if you'd have built this building, it would have probably been a third less. But if we keep going like this, it's going to be a third more next year. Gotta stop looking at the finite details. And do you want a building or don't you?

It's all about process. And we're doing a really abnormal process. If we' done a normal process, we'd probably had a building built already. It would have been I respectfully disagree with I don't. But also either way I guess the agenda item is the site plan and plan of operation you are way way off of the site plan to have this kind of discussion when someone comes in with a new building in in a industrial park would be totally out of place. You don't you don't pick apart somebody's plan and their design of their building as the plan commission. You can make your comments to the village board that you think that they should be doing some of these things. I respect that. But the issue is the site plan and plan of operation. Sean, do you have a proposed motion?

Well, it sounds like we should table it. I'd like to clean up my motion and clarify it a little bit. Okay. Well, we we tabled the tableabling motion allow some further discussion. So, go ahead. I'd like to make the motion that we table this and have them come back with all of the drawings with all of the details um including the floor plan modifications, the electrical plan, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, plumbing plans, uh cross-section details, especially like the firewall. We need a cross-section detail of that landscape plan and a modified grading plan.

Okay. Okay. So, I hear your motion, but a lot of the things you've just mentioned are already things that the plan commission would be ruling on. Electrical plan is for sure. Okay. But HVAC isn't wait is it is is under site plan and plan of operation. the electrical plan. We we generally look at the interior of buildings as a plan commission to make sure that the space functions properly, but we don't we never look at someone's electrical plan as a planning commission. Um it specifically says in our ordinance that we were supposed to to look at the exterior lighting that has to do exterior exterior lighting. But when when like Midwest Trill Foundations came in, did we look at their electrical plan? No, but we looked at their exterior lighting.

Sure. Yes. I Okay. Well, that that's different. That's what I'm getting to. So you don't it's part of electrical. Sure. The lighting for sure is is one thing. But but these drawings could come back for what your concern is there with the lights on the outside of the building, but to be able to say on the inside the plan commission wanting to see where the light switches are and where the inside. Well, but you're but you're saying you want the full plans and that's now making us bring all of that back here. The way that you're motioning

to a certain degree, you're going to need some of that, but at the building permit stage. I mean, when it when it goes to building permit, that's, you know, that's when it's all usually we we the the plans we get for buildings don't include detailed plumbing plans, electrical plans because that happens with building permit approval, right? Okay. So, your motion is the table list uh until all of the plans, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, etc. um are presented all at the same exact time. Yes. Is there a second to that? I'll second. Okay. The effect of that motion is it won't be coming back for two, three, four, five, six months because I would say a year probably a year. You got to be kidding.

No, because who do you want who do you want to do the lighting and plumbing electrical plans? So, hold on. That has to come back to the board. Sorry, Chad.

No, no, no. You're you're fine because you're we're echoing probably some of the same things. If we're doing this and we're going to table this, both the commission and the board need to understand we're now going to be fronting a lot of money to do these designs, right? That's roughly 10% of the cost of a project like this. Morton is doing the this portion the way that we designed this project for free. They're not going to give us all of those details because if they do, they can't bid on this project. So, we're going to have to have a different firm do the full design, which is what we've talked about this for the last eight months of this this setup. The way that we've done this,

Mr. President, not necessarily. We just they just won't get approved site plan and plan of operation till much further down the road. We can Greg can continue exactly the way he is. He doesn't have to have a site plan of plan of operation approved in order to go out to bid. that the the village board can actually approve except the the general contractor's bid without there being a site plan. We as a staff thought it best to bring it in as a courtesy earlier than later, but it can you know many people who build buildings get everything said and done before they ever come to us, right? I mean, we're we may be here too early,

but you won't have any say in it. Then it'll be done. You'll just have to accept what the village board accepted as part of the bid and that's fine. But there's no reason they can't we can't proceed. We just don't have a site plan and plan of operation approved. We won't get a building permit. Right. I mean I don't I'm not You do have the other option is that go and do it the other way and have everything like Greg's firm offered to do and the village board opted not to go that route. And so Greg's proceeding as he was directed to proceed. Correct. Yep. No, that's a good excellent point. All right. Any other discussion on the motion on the floor to table us?

I guess one question I guess so you know help me clarify this I guess. So most of this if we would get all these different bids, do most of these have to be done be before this gets state approved or if we can go build a building halfway up and then get it state approved or where does it come in? The permitting process, the approval process would take place before they ever break ground in anything. So, we would bid this out, you know, as early as possible, secure a general contractor. They would give us a lump sum price to do everything. Yep. So, you know, the cost including electrical, plumbing, HVAC, everything for the building, site work is included in that lumpsum cost. Right. Well, that's what I was trying to

And then then we do the permit approval process through the state, you know, and and building permit and everything. Get all those approvals in place. Then I start the project. Well, thank you. And that's what I was trying to get at. No matter what we have, we have to have all these things done anyhow eventually. Have somebody bid on all these things eventually. No, it's not true. Okay. If we put this out on bid for a general contractor, they do all of that. We don't bid it. No, we're not. I'm just saying. But it's got it's got to be bid as well. They will do the bidding. We won't. No, I say I'm just saying somebody general. A general is not required to bid.

No. that the electrical and the plumbing general is required to hire. He can hire the highest and people that he wants. He just has to stay under contract, right? So those things will not necessarily be bid. Right, Greg? You're not putting in they have to bid them out. He can go hire whoever he wants the electrical plant for whatever cost, but he has to stay within the contract cost that he gave us when he bid on the project. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion on the tableabling motion? All right, hearing none. All those in favor of tableabling this say I. This is just the plan commission. Yep. Okay. All those in favor of tableabling for the plan commission as discussed say I. I. All those opposed?

Nay. Nay. So yes was Al and Dan and then no is Vicki Rob and myself

so All right. Further discussion. Well, the motion to table fails. So, the other motion is back on the table.

Yep. So Vickiy's original motion still on the table, which is to approve and move forward with the current setup that's in front of you in the packet what's been discussed. So I'm in favor of having Greg I and I respect all the decisions you're looking for in this process, but we can't get too far into the weeds on this as far as what we're doing because it's again It's my frustration and my passion because a I do this for a living every day and I know we're making too much of this. We're getting too far into the weeds in this. We We need to step back and let the professionals do what professionals do. Bob made a good point. Wayne's coding would look great on the side of this building. Okay. If we want to make the the wall has to be moved before it goes out for bid. Yes. Make the changes that are necessary to bring it within code. Nobody's going to be able to build a building out here that's not in code because their job is to enforce the code. And if we fail our own codes, tell me that won't hit the news. But we still I don't want to be on the news for anything that ever happens in this room. So I think we can proceed forward with the bid process with the changes you asked for. If you want to see some landscape on the backside, that's fine. It's going to cost us a little more money, but let's do it. That's the right thing to do. The stoops are going to fall within requirements. They have to. It's just that's our and if they're going to come in and go if they don't know the requirements before they put the bid on the stoop, it's not us that's going to need the cost.

It's that's why we hire him and we hire general contractors. They have to get it right. We don't have to deal with the rest of the trades. We don't have to go out there and make sure they're getting the H back in the right place. we can go forward and if you want numbers on everything else is going to happen when the bids come back, you'll get the numbers you're looking for and you'll get the plan for what you're looking for because they're just not going to come in and go, "Well, we're going to charge you $200,000 for electrical," but not tell you what you're doing. They're going to have to have a picture of it so you can look at it. They comes out with a spec book. Every project I have, the first thing I have to do is look at that specbook. That's 600 pages. I'm responsible for making sure every nut, bolt, screw, coaul, plastic, the thick thickness of the tin. I'm responsible for everything that goes into that building follow correctly. He'll come out and tell me, "Rip the siding off. It's the wrong thickness. All it is is for our job to move forward and get what we need in this village. And right now, we need to move forward. So, if you guys want to continue this, we're just wasting money and burning money every time it comes up and it's going to come up next year and cost more money. Al, I love spray foam. I think it's great, but in this situation, like I said, every time you guys think of something, make sure you're writing in your checkbook how much more it's going to add to it. It's a lot of money for spray foam. So, at this time, I would propose or make a motion that we move forward with the bid process.

That's already seconded. All right. Well, that's what we're discussing. I personally look forward to this whole campus changing. I look forward to working on the fire department issue next. Can we get this done so we can move forward and get something good for the village as a whole because otherwise we're stalling or spending a lot of money. Good piece. Call the motion.

Okay. All right. All those on the plan commissioner plan commission in favor of um approving the site plan of operation for the DPW building as we've been discussing. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed. Nay. So it's this flip the votes the three and two.

All right, village board. I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation or the the plan commission. I'll second that motion. Other discussion what's going to happen with these requests that we're putting in then as far as changes. Well, why don't we ask Sean and Greg what notes they have? Good question. Yeah. How did you interpret the motion? So, I think landscaping is one thing. If that's a requirement, you know, if that's something you'd like to see, that's something we should get on the plan before it goes out to bid.

Um, All right. So, just to clarify on that because we talked a lot of different things. You're wanting landscaping to the north and to the west. Is that what was discussed? Yes. Well, the village board hasn't discussed anything. Well, but it was a joint discussion and it was brought up. So, that's why I'm asking for clarification. If landscaping something we want to add, we're going north and west on on the property. Correct. From the building. What about the electrical? Okay. I'm just one thing at a time. Okay, I have I wrote all the things you guys were talking about. Um, what about windows? Was that on the list

again? Okay, going down the list so that we can go through all these really quickly here. So, landscaping, is there anything different than what I just said, north and west? Yes. No. Okay. So, we'll have to make those changes. Um, do we need to Well, the first thing that was brought up was the grade around the concrete pads. Is there anything that we need to discuss on that or is I think that's a simple change to the grading plan that we can make before it goes out to bid. I think that's fine. Any issue with that with the board that we can make that change?

Okay. Uh windows was discussed. Diana was the one that actually brought it up as far as changing the layout of windows or adding windows or doing something different there for the board. What do you guys want to see us do with that for Greg with the specs? I don't know if we want to go height. I'd like to see more windows on the north side and on the west side. I don't think that's a big ticket item really, but that's going back to Morton and having them change the drawings which they're already doing for the firewall. So maybe we could put in those window and make them remember that landscape place over on Arcadian

Arcadian that we made them put in those up upper windows. Maybe we do something like that across the back. Trying to remember that, but they were up high. I mean, keep in mind this is to get light into the building. Oh, you mean those different the pullb barn fiberglass things that they allow light in. I'm looking at more of a visual. No, they were actual windows, but they were up high. We wanted windows across kind of sim similar to what's on there now, but across the top to allow natural lighting from up above, but on the walls. There is another way to do that, too. But that's I understand now what you're saying. But this is an insulated roof, so it's not going to be like the see-through paneling like you're saying.

Yeah. I don't know if I sort of see them. You can see out of the building and let light in. I I think it's going to be pretty dingy in there if you don't have lights. I think we should take a look at the windows. Although it's my opinion, I disagree. I think we're looking at a shop where trucks are being parked. If you look at other DPW buildings, look at the county highway building. There's zero winding windows at all in the building. Uh because it's for trucks and working on the trucks and parking the trucks. This this isn't office space and things of that sort that um that we're designing from that perspective. So I personally I'm disagreeing with with that. But if if the consensus is you want to add more windows, then we'll go back and ask.

I'm not looking at making the trucks nice and shiny inside and then the trucks be I'm looking at from the outside people looking at the building. That would be more aesthetically correct. But to you guys. Yeah. But if we're putting landscaping in, the windows aren't really going to be that much visible either. Okay. And if you recall from the discussion on Arcadian, one of the things that was discussed there is the more windows you put in, the the more um insulation issue have because the window is less R value than the walls are. Take a ride out past the sticks building on 164 and see how pretty that looks. Looks pretty.

Yeah, but that's visible from 164 though. This is going to be hidden by landscaping and such. So, what's the consensus on windows? I can go either way. Roger G said a thing. It's unlike you.

As far as windows are concerned, this is a this is a DPW building where you're getting uh performing the tasks that are necessary for everything. And whether it has you need a couple of windows, but whether you're trying to make this whole thing so aesthetically pleasing, I'm at the point where I just don't we're doing something, but we're not doing the most that we can do as far as the neighbors are concerned. And what they're looking at, they're going to get used to it. So what what's your I am saying I don't Windows more windows or no? No, not more windows other than what what we're talking about here. Still,

I disagree with what Ro Audrey just said. I I think we should be friends to the neighbors and I think we should make it look good to them. Okay. So, you want to entertain more windows? I mean, if I had to sit and look at a metal building all my life, screw it. I would not do it. All right. I guess just in in the interest of trying to move the conversation on, which I know I just gave some of my own language here as far as my thoughts and stuff, let's just go yes or no to these questions so we can move on in our life here tonight. So yes or no to windows. Adding more windows. Yes. Yes. Okay. So Al wanted more windows. Bob wanted more windows. Ste wanted more windows. Sounds like the poll from that perspective is add more windows.

How many more windows? Where and what side? I need I need to go back because this is not something my my firm did not put this together. We have to go back to Morton and tell them and they're going to ask me that question and I need to know how many I need to know how many windows. Oh, see that's how I started this conversation about windows. I'd say two more in between the two that exist there. Two more on the west elevation. The west and then two more on the Can I interrupt for just a minute how they're going to design and what you're going to put on the first floor. idea who I don't know Bob did you have it of the windows on top then you can move anything around down below you still get the light it looks attractive but you're not blocking how what you can put against those walls

okay so can we maybe go the route with myself Greg and uh in conversations with Morton then do we have to set the number of windows can we just say that it's reasonable if we add some more higher elevation I guess if that's the right word as far as higher on the walls for some more windows to get more lighting in there or do you have to specify how many and what size? I mean, obviously they've designed buildings like this before. Yep. Just tell them to make it aesthetically pleasing. See what you can come up with. They think that's pleasing. Okay. So, are are you guys okay with that? That's aesthetically pleasing. Honestly, I'm trying to move on with with our night here. We're

we're getting bogged down on things that I I didn't anticipate, I guess, because we've already approved these plans so twice with the exception of having to make it bigger. Are you guys okay with that? if if we work with Morton to redesign that part. Yes. Anybody opposed to that? Okay, we'll do that. Um, next item that was brought up was the generator. We've already approved adding a generator to this building separate from the fire department build. We had separated them. We making those separate things. Are we going back against that or are we keeping generator for each? Bob, yes or no? I'm for keeping the separate thing.

I think you keep it separate, but I want to make one comment. I think we should I'm trying to stop from comments right now because we want to keep moving tonight. I want to separate them. I want two generators there. I won't for each. Doesn't matter. Okay. So, we're keeping one generator. Well, whatever. Hey, you got windows. I did it. We're giving and taking a little here. All right. Power underground. Was that already in the works or I forget what we talked about? It was not. I don't know if that's something I mean you don't have to do that as part of the public works building, you know, installation that could be done separately by any other contractor.

We brought this up years ago about doing that was the first step in building a building here and that got shot down by some people on that board at the time, but I think that's something that we should do eventually. Okay. So, I guess let's let's reward this then. I got the proposal for this building. For this building, can we run the power to this underground and make that simple? Yes. The rest of the campus we can discuss at a different point. Yeah. Right. Does that building have a separate service? This the new building will so you need two generators. Two separate services from two generator.

Well, that's that resolves that then. I guess they have to be separate. So we will bury the underground for this new project and then we'll discuss and further I don't disagree with you Steu but trying to get this project done since it's separate from the rest of it. Got the information in my hand right here. So from what? That's fine. From what? The proposal that we had from previous. Yep. Yeah. Which nobody bid on um the firewall. Any other discussion on on that other than the guy designing the building? It was an oversight he admitted to from

Yeah. Yeah, I think what what Dan had said was, okay, the interior is technically over 10,000 square feet. So, if you split it in half, both sides are still over 5,000. So, the question, I guess, is do we want to make the interior of the building exactly 10,000 square feet so that when you split it with a firewall, you're under 5,000 on both sides? Do the offices in that section count towards the 5,000? Yes, which is why it's placed where it is, I think. And that's what Brent from Morton had told me is that was where he was told to put it originally. So that one of the sides would be under the 5,000 at least. And that was with the original plan. That was with the original plan. Then obviously it got extended and it changed and then it changed again beyond that. So

So it's and we're talking over 10,000. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's technically if you split it down the middle with a firewall, both sides would be barely over the 5,000 square foot threshold, right? But if we moved it slightly to the left to make the left side exactly 5,000, the right side would be more than 5,000. But does the 5,000 include or like Yes. I think it's any floor space, right? Right. But but those are separate walls to that back room, right? There's separate office and bathroom space. So does that count or does that get deducted from that side? Yeah, I'd have to ask Morton that go ahead and look at that area. What's that? That would be another fire separation.

So it would be the open area open area minus So you'd have another firewall between the office and fire doors there. Okay. Separate space. Would those walls have to be rated as three hours like the other firewall? Exactly. It's a three-hour wall. Yeah. A three the big one's a three-hour wall. I'm guessing you put a three fire three hour rated wall on the bathroom and the office there that you'll be under that 5,000. You would change that wall. Okay. Well, we'll sense

we'll look at that if if necessary. Um are you the board good that we potentially have to shrink the building by a few feet in width on the screen to get to that that mark. Or if we can make that a firewall on the bathroom and office building, they could keep it down, but we don't know for sure without where the wall's going to be in figuring that out. So, I I think Well, yeah. Right. I guess I don't know for sure, but I think if you excluded the office and the bathroom area from that 5,000 foot total, you'd be under Are those two spaces 368 ft? Because that's the difference.

Yeah, I guess we have to So, I guess we'll try that again. We we'll look at that with the designer of the building. If the board's good with it, if we can't meet that 5,000 for both sides with the dividing wall being moved, we would, if you're good with it, we will be authorized to shrink the building by a couple feet to be able to make that accommodation. Anybody opposed to that on the board? That's only 170. Okay. So, we're going to have to remove probably a few square feet or a few feet width to accommodate that that extra.

Okay. So we will do that if need necessary we'll shrink the building by a few feet. Uh drainage was brought up as the next item. Anything with the drainage that we need to discuss as a board. The drainage may or may not move on the left side. I with it now being full widths on both sides. We probably do need to make the right side a strip, not just a a um catch basin. Yeah. Again, I think these are all things for Morton. Yep. So,

all right. Insulation. We've we've hashed and rehashed this in the previous meetings when we voted on this. Are we I guess yes or no on redoing that portion of this. Bob, I'm confused here. Are we undoing bats? Is that in the bid? Bats. Is it in the Is that what we're putting in now on this plan? I think so. And Al's wanting to go to to foam. Okay. I have a question. Hold on. Well, I'll leave it as as it is. That's work. Okay. Al, you said styrofoam or whatever. I I would go fing if I could explain my weight. I'll make it really short. You've already talked about it a couple times now. I'm trying to keep us moving. I think

we've already had that discussion. You've brought it up three or four times now. There's there's a reason there's a definitely a reason why. But well, but you've already discussed that. And so again, I'm trying to move us forward. Roger. Yes or no for the styrofoam or the the bats? That's I got a question first. How much better is the foam than the styrofoam? I meant how much better is is the bats than the uh than the foam insulation. Bats work. The bats work, right? been working for years. They're in my house in a metal building. Bandits slowly fall in a metal building. I'll ask that again. So, what happens in a metal building? What happens?

Guys, let's let's keep things in order, please. We don't need three, four people talking at the same time. So, that's my question. What What happens? What makes what makes uh uh spray insulation better than than bats? Greg, do you want to answer or no? Or I don't Jared, do you want you have an expert opinion as the building inspector? If you want to talk, just come up to the microphone so everybody can hear you, please. If you're going to talk, just because there's people in the audience and on the web that wouldn't be you need less thickness to get the same R value. It just it's more efficient from a vapor barrier standpoint. Uh, seals all the moisture out, but it will be extensively a lot more money.

Well, that's the point here. I mean, does it work? Is it going to work for the for the requirements that we have? We are not Hold on. We're not again. Just trying to keep this as yes or no. You had a question. He's answer the question. So, is it yes to bats or styrofoam? Thank you, Jar. Bats. Okay. St. Boom. All right. So, we're again three to two on that at this point. So, it stays as is. uh service. Can you just touch on that, Greg? What was the plan? I I assumed it was at least 220. I I guess I didn't see

I Yeah, I don't know. I have I'd have to look at the specs Morton put together, but um I don't know off the top of my head. Okay. Well, we can't have it at 110 because they're not able to run at least a compressor in the building for what they've got to do. So, it's at least got to be 220. Jared, if you want to again, come up to the microphone so everybody can hear you. It will be 240 unless there's three phase available then it's 208 but any service is 120 240 240 sorry I said 220 y okay anybody have a strong opinion on it being higher than 240 I I don't that's more factory related stuff like that right anything we would be doing here is sufficient with that

and everything else okay so service we will confirm is 240 not 110 Um, last thing Al brought up was the footings. Greg, do you have any I guess you know, all I have is what Morton gave us. Um, Morton was the designer of the building. It looks like um to a depth of, you know, five feet below grade concrete column is placed. I don't know exactly how that's built to be honest with you, but that's in the specs as far as what you're putting together. Yeah. I mean, there's a there's a division specifically for all the materials involved with with the footing.

That part's what came from Morton with their design. Correct. They designed that. Um, and they provided the kind of barebone spec for the materials. We're expanding on those as part of our spec building process before it goes out to bid. Uh, I know Al, your question was maybe more out of curiosity than anything. So, you know, I can Well, I just probably find out that answer for you. I've I've never worked on a building like this to be honest with you, so I I do not know. But Okay. Did would it be sufficient for you all if if Greg gets that answer and he Chris can email it out to you after the fact? Just do you have the information?

Somewhat because I built the building and that was on the issue there with the concrete columns like he's got on there or versus putting the wood. If you have the answer, sure. This is a better deal. I would go along with this. Okay. All right, that was the list of items that I wrote down as everybody discussed all the different items. So getting through all that, is there any other discussion? Because that was everything that had been brought up tonight during this. All right, hearing no more with the items being addressed as discussed here, which we'll follow up with Greg and with Morton and so on. Uh, all those in favor of approving the site plan as discussed say I.

I. I. I. Anyone opposed? No. I'm approved. I I don't Yes or no? I didn't hear you. Nay. Okay. So, three to two. The two nays being Steu and L. Okay. All right. Thank you everybody. Um, we'll move on to the next item which is adjournment of the plan commission. I'll make a motion to uh adjourn the plan commission. Second. I hear Al first. Uh, all those in favor of adjourning say I.

I. I. Anyone opposed? Carries. Uh, plan commission is adjourned. Up next, discussion on possible action for the village board operator's license for Koi Lago, if I pronounced that correctly, Chris, no record was found. So, I would recommend approval. Uh, looking at the form, it's scanned in, it says regular and provisional are both checked on the left, but then it doesn't look like either is checked on the right. Oh, it should be just regular. Okay. So, we're going to be approving just a regular license, not provisional.

No, not provisional. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the license for Coil Lago. I'll second it. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor of approving Coil Lago's operator's license say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Carries. Up next is Rebecca Reits. um which is for Tally's tap. Yes, there was no records found for her either. So, I would recommend recommend recommend approval. All right. And the boxes are checked on top appropriately. So, um I'll make a motion to approve Rebecca's license. I'll second it.

Roger. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? All right. curious. I'm gonna go out of turn here real quick. Um, are you sticking for everything or if you I have we haven't discussed that, but if you need me to, I can. The the proposals for the MS4 is not on the no longer on the agenda. Right. So, that's I just wanted to point out everybody. So, if that's all you're sticking around for, then that's why I'm asking. So, if you're going to stick around No, I wasn't planning on.

Okay. All right. All right. So, going out of turn here, letter D, we're going to um strike uh at uh Greg's request. Um there's some more work he's doing on that that uh we're going to bring back probably either April or May. We've got until November to approve all of that. So, um that just allows you then to not have to sit through the next if you don't want to.

Thank you. All right, back to C proposal for the 2026 building permit fee schedule adjustments. Um, I'll start off with and then you guys can come up to the microphone and if you want to or actually you can sit at table and they've left. Um, so you guys can sit up there and bring another chair if you'd like to to introduce uh your partners here that some of the board maybe has not met yet. But um I'll start it also start this off with the discussion as far as um the building um inspector came uh approached me asking to consider adjustments to the fee schedule. Um, I said I'd bring to bring it in front of all of you, provided that he put together some work on this to um, look at and compare to other communities surrounding us um, and where they're at compared to where where we are currently today and where he's proposing to put us. Um, so having said that, go ahead. Well, as we had discussed, uh this is Joel, by the way. He uh recently started with us, and then Scott's been with Wisconsin Building Inspections for 20 years. Um but the fees haven't been uh adjusted since 2017. So, we were just uh kind of going through some of them and I was looking at some surrounding municipalities and our fees were lower, which is good. Um but typically every three to four years they do get looked at um just to kind of keep up with uh the surrounding municipalities. So I did a breakdown. I looked at Jese, the city of Wauaawa and the village of Vernon. And I pretty much just went through and proposed um to match the village of Vernon since we're very similar municipalities in size and everything else. Um to give an example,

um for like a new house at say a standard 2,000 foot house, a building permit would increase $320. Um uh an addition or remodel, which averages about $50,000, it would cost an additional $50 for the building permit increase. Um going through some of the mechanicals, we charge uh a square footage fee. So that would go from a 6 cents to an 8 cents. Um on that same uh 2,000 foot house, you're looking at a $90 permit increase. So that's uh like I said, just trying to compare to some of the surrounding municipalities. I I will point out I guess one thing I I guess one directive I did give um give him when he was working in this is that I was not willing to entertain that ours by increasing them becomes the highest of the comparables. Um I don't want to be there either. So, uh, the there was a question posed within the public comments that I actually was I feel is worth addressing. Um, just so the board's reminded of the awareness as far as how this works. Um, if it's a $100 fee to a permit of whatever sort, just using numbers, 75% of that goes to you and 25% of it is goes to the village. Correct.

That's correct. Okay. So in 2025, we did 175 or just under $175,000 in the various building permits across the village. So 75% of that went to his firm to cover the expenses of of the work that he does or his team does for us. I had 143,225. Well, the number she gave me at the start of the meeting when I asked her for it was 174. So I just looked at my spreadsheet when I when Sandy had made his comment. That's what I had in my budget. But budget budget and actual numbers are different. Yeah, I'm thinking there's a crossover for the end of the year. Is there January February? You said 145,000

143 225. Yeah, that that tracks with how much. Okay, that was on the expense side. So we're 2024 was 151,578. So very close. All right, that was uh gross. So correcting that's about 143,000 you said right? Yep.

For the total amount permits 75% of that goes to the to the inspection firm. Um so important with this is as costs rise for everybody. Um we haven't done anything for our building inspection firm uh with costs for at least nine years. Uh so that's why this was brought before you for consideration. discussion nine years. Well, 2017, right? Correct. So, nine years.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's everybody's costs have gone up to agree with Chad. I think we need to treat them fairly and increase needs to be made. And I think this I think this is a good uh comparison, you know, with with the facts here because of the fact that we what the other people are charging and we're not charging more. I think we're giving a fair value to all to our our community here in the village of Wakaua and my vote will be to accept. Okay. Discussion others I I agree with that. I we I think we brought this up was it last year? I don't remember a couple years

couple years already and it may have been a discussion. We didn't raise it then did we? Correct. We did. Right. We did not do it then, but I think now it's time to move move it up a little bit. So, and I agree with the numbers. I'm glad you brought them up as we're not the highest. So, I'm glad to see that. Appreciate that.

I agree. I think I think it's a good thing that we uh raise this thing. You guys have been saying for nine years, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. And that we're definitely in the means of other communities in the area. So, I agree with it. your average home that we're seeing being built in the village. I know you gave some numbers there, but total cost, what do you anticipate for a new house to be an average house in our village? What's the increase overall like all all the different permits combined? I'd say about $600.

And what would be the normal like today cost if it's 600 increase or 600 total? I would say the average cost is probably around 3,200, three grand for building, electrical, plumbing, um, erosion control, zoning, um, which is a feat of, uh, both everything besides the bond. Okay. All right. Any other discussion?

Okay. Anyone make a motion? I'll make a motion to uh accept the new schedule and and to uh uh support it as is. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Just somebody asked what the law was? No. Okay. Um Go ahead. No, he asked um what I think one of the the citizen made the comment that we're not overcharging and the taxpayers aren't subsidizing. You can agree to pay them whatever you want because that's a contract. Okay? Anything that we get can't exceed our portion of it cannot exceed the cost of what it does cost to do business.

Okay? So, you cannot make money. Somebody said, "Can you make money on building permits?" You cannot make money on building permit. You can't make money on any permit. Only charge what it costs you. You can pay them anything you want, but your portion of it cannot exceed what it's costing your staff to operate the process. Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. Any other discussion hearing? None. All those in favor of approving the proposed adjustments to the fee schedule say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. You'll work with Chris on updating forms and from here forward. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, D.

Uh, all right. Up next, ordinance 26-02, fire department donation fund. Uh, this is something I've been working on um for some time now. Um, as it relates to discussions we've had the last two or three years at le well at least as long as I've been a part of the board uh with the annual um audits. Um the way that um as you guys are hopefully all aware by now, the way that fundraising has occurred so far is there is a separate account uh that is under the control of the fire department treasurer. Um we don't have any ordinances that dictate how that money is is handled. Uh we don't have anything as far as protecting the money. There is a state statute that um relates to this u which is 66.0668. That sounds right. I believe that's it. Um actually yeah it's it's in the ordinance itself now I'm looking in front of me here 66.0608 that deals with um the state saying that we need to have an ordinance in place essentially to protect the money in short. You can look up that statute if you haven't previously, but we've talked about it.

So, what I've done is I've drafted an ordinance um to keep us, I guess, in compliance with that statute for money that's that's uh raised in these ways. Having said that, uh in the last year of discussion with us with the fire department, uh which I'm pretty sure you guys already all know because I think it's been discussed in 2025 at some point in the meetings. Um the way this was presented to the fire department uh was they had basically two options. We keep the money in the village um using an ordinance like this but for audit purposes to keep the treasurer portion of this clean the money needs to be handled by Chris and and the treasurer's office. Uh because right now it's subject to audits but it's not handled by them. So that's one of those errors or flags so to speak on the audit that we see year after year. So we're trying to get in compliance from an audit perspective. Um so with that discussion uh the fire department has chosen to create a 501c3 a charitable organization that is specific to raising funds uh that benefit the fire department itself. Uh I'm going to recommend through this discussion that the current balance of the account that has been solely from excuse me fundraising uh will be at a one-time u transfer here to the new organization from the fund that it's currently in. The current account that it's in would be closed. uh and this money would then become the charities to disperse back to us um as the fire department sees fit when they want to buy stuff with this money. The way I've designed this is that that that money is not noted in this that will be a separate motion I'll make here shortly. Um but the way this is set up then is if if there's other funds specifically donation funds that were to comes directly to the village that are

in the name of the fire department. Say there's a resident or a company or whoever that it is decides to um donate funds maybe through a trust or a will or something to that effect uh that that money would go under this ordinance and be protected so that that the village board isn't using it to remodel this room or buy a new plow truck or things of that sort. That's the intention behind this. Um and so that's why it's drafted the way that it is at this point. Uh, so what do you guys have for discussion on I guess what I've talked about so far? I I Well, anybody initially, I'll say one more thing.

I I think it's a great idea. I think it's long overdue. This has always been a hassle for years. So, I think it's time to clean it up. Sure. You're right. Okay. Has this been a fun with substantial dollars in it? For instance, what's the current balance? I don't have the exact dollar amount, but it's in the mid40s. Uh 40 40,000 40,000 roughly. That's substantial. Correct. That's why it requires more oversight. And I I agree with

Well, it's not it's not it's not more more oversight. The it it's the issue comes down to that we have funds that are in the name of the village being expended and approved and and received by somebody other than the village treasurer. uh which is why it becomes a flag on the audit every year year after year. So removing this fund in the current way that it's being operated or worked takes that issue away. Funds that will come in the name of the fire department in the future will come to the village and be in a separate account as stated in the ordinance.

Right. Um, and as it's in there, which I didn't mention before, uh, it's still the authorized officials, which is in line with the statute, uh, would be that the fire chief and the fire department's treasurer, um, that would be the ones that are authorized to decide on what to spend the money on. And the way we've designed this, you know, if they if uh the chief wants to, you know, say use 5,000 of this, buy a couple sets of turnout gear, he's able to do that without having to come to us. If he's going to buy another grass rig or something that's, you know, exceeds the $10,000 mark that's in section six, well, then that'll have to come before us because technically, um, well, this money is already accepted as a donation, but I was going to say something else. So there is still like we're not just Kurt Blanch saying spend it all on whatever you want, right?

Um if it's a larger ticket purchased item like that, then that's how we're going to go with that. So two people will be making decisions on this fund as far as u dispersement for you said the fire chief and the assistant fire chief if it Yep. That's how the ordinance is written. That's um fire chief and treasur. Yes. So, okay. So, it would be they are the ones authorized. It doesn't mean both of them necessarily have to sign off on it. Okay.

Um but again, that's this is the money remaining in the hands of the village. It'll be, you know, the check actually will be written by the treasurer as it should be from again from a clean audit perspective. Uh but they're the ones that are authorizing it. No different than if the chief is buying some gear now with his budget. Well, I think it's necessary because it takes a lot of pressure off of the the fire department. Anybody, you know, mind to to make some kind of a some kind of a statement is what about this? What about that? Having two people being involved with it makes it makes it legal.

And it is still subject to audits and all that through the annual audit for the village. So, um if they spend money, there's still going to have to be receipts. are going to get turned in because as I said before, Chris is going to have to write the check for it. Um so it's still all all accounted for that way. And I will I guess I'll leave it at this and I'll make a motion in a second, but um this is well overdue from the perspective of talking with um members from the fire department and and years beyond or past. Uh there was an ordinance like this 10 plus years ago that a prior board decided to remove. Um, and so since then, uh, talking to members of the fire department, there's just always been this concern that the village is just going to do what they want with this money. And, um, and so that's ultimately why they chose to go the 501c3 route versus keeping it all in this fund. U, which that was an option and that's what they chose to do. That's that's perfectly acceptable. Um, so having said all that, I'm going to make a motion to approve ordinance 26-02 as it is in the PAGA.

I'll second it. Any other discussion?

It's got to be sent to me for review. Um, all right. So, yeah, you're right. You didn't look at it other than the one when I showed it to you. Um, okay. So, I'll correct my motion to include that it has a legal review. um and then be put into um ordinance form.

All right. Any other discussion? Yeah, I'd like to say that uh I like this a lot because it's all about trust and verify and uh takes all the pressure off of staff as far as their their ability to be trusted and they are they are okay. Uh any other discussion hearing? None. All those in favor of approving the ordinance say I. I. I.

Anyone opposed? Motion carries. going to make a second a motion as I've already mentioned at the start of the conversation uh that we authorize uh the current fund balance um from the fire the fundraising account that the fire department has uh be authorized to be transferred to the 501c3 uh and then that account be closed. I can second that.

Okay, any discussion on that? And I I will point out with that talking to Paul, our auditor, um he is good with the one time. That's why I mentioned it that way earlier. Um so we will do this this once, but we're not, you know, other funds come in, they're not going to be brought back before you guys to uh to approve to being going to the 501c3. They're going to go into account with this ordinance as drafted. So, if there's no other discussion and I hear none, uh, all those in favor of approving the moving of this money and closing the account say I. I. I.

I. Anyone opposed? That carries. Up next, um, consideration remodeling uh, schemes and possible referendum for the fire department building project. So, as you know, we had this at the last agenda or at the last meeting. Um, we we talked a few a few through a few things which I'll bring up again here. Um, but Bob wasn't here to give his uh his fair opinion on this and uh so we ultimately tabled it to this meeting also for you guys to have some time to think about it. I'm going to go through a couple things um and then open it up for discussion. So it was put back in your packet. Um so you could see some of the numbers that I had I had presented at the last meeting as far as uh what the cost estimate is for scheme B which is the heavily remodeled version where remember scheme C is the uh remodeled but primarily more of a addition option. um if you added on the north asphalt that would need to be done in front of the garage bays and then adding on the design fees for the architect to do the work and then what the cost estimate is at this point for furnishings that brought everything up to about 4.6 million. Our threshold just as a reminder is just under 4.4 million for referendum. uh if you removed a good majority of the generator money uh and then the roof money because half the roof was what's above us right now, not the fire department. Uh if if we did all of that, that brought us down to on estimate side just under 4.2 million, a couple hundred thousand under the um referendum

threshold for consideration. As I as a reminder, as I had mentioned at that meeting, this was something that was brought to me by uh one of you as well as the fire chief as something to consider. That's why I presented it. Um and in talking with uh the Fisers, specifically Connor, as Kiad or they had discussed in in our workshops when it came to all of the original designs of this, um we can set the budget amount and then they have to design and build it with that budget amount in mind. So if we don't want to be close to a referendum amount and we wanted to proceed with this option, we can set a design budget and then they find materials, you know, uh siding materials or whatever else that way to find ways to uh bring the design within that cost. That was one of the options. Uh, another option that was discussed uh, that night was the referendum that we've previously discussed a couple meetings back. Uh, and then Stu brought up another option which has been discussed in the past, which is a whole new building. Um, so the question came up as far as timelines for these things, where we're at with it, if we stay on track with uh what we've discussed tonight on the public works building, the goal in discussing with Greg is keeping everything in uh in line there. That building would be done uh by spring of 27, next year. I don't have an exact start date because we have to get through the things we've talked about tonight, get through the bids and the state permits and all the rest of it. Um, and that's why he's trying to keep the April dates. So, uh, what we talked about there was having a

window to allow them some leeway in within their schedule. Uh, which was, uh, meant to be that it would also lower the cost versus us telling them they had to do it at the specific time. Having said that, um that would allow that building to be open looking into next year. Um as far as when this build goes. So if you look at this option as discussed for scheme B adding in um all of those things and we say just for discussion sake here we set the budget amount at 4.1 million to to do this project and then it's designed accordingly. Um that would be roughly a 6 to9month project to get that to happen from what the fisers have presented to us in the past which means assuming we were to start that this spring and go six nine months out. You're likely talking that we're bidding and um going through all those portions of the project in winter or in spring next year uh winter this winter or into spring of next year with the potential that that building is built in 2027. again with a window that we would provide to the contractors uh for start and end dates for that. Um if we don't go with that option and we continue with a referendum, which we've discussed previously, you're talking now then the the next few months between now and August as a deadline, but we would want to have this set July, I'd say, at the latest. Uh we need to determine what it is we're moving forward with with the referendum. Is it an ask of the village residents to allow us a dollar amount to build? Is it to give them one of these schemes and say, "Will you let us build this scheme?" You we have to figure that out. So that's not an a tonight answer. Um if that's where we go with this. So having

said that, that means that the referendum goes in November at the November general election. If it's a yes, that six to nine month design window starts then. So now you're talking the design phase is probably go well into 2027. Well then the builds or the sorry the bidding process probably into fall at the earliest be my guess into 2027. Uh and then with that uh realistically then the build isn't occurring until good weather in spring of 28.

Okay. If you recall from the discussions we've had, um, this new building out here that would house our salt trucks, the the the phases that we've discussed and agreed to thus far is that building would be open, it would be used, but when this project occurs because we have to vacate the garage space for the fire department, those vehicles are moving into the DPW building so that they're housed internally uh during this project. Having said that, that's why I say the build under the referendum at the earliest is going to be spring of 28th because we're not going to kick the public works people out of their building in the winter time because that's defeated what the purpose of the building was um to allow us then to get the garages built and such in in that good weather of 2028. That's with a yes to the referendum in November. If it's a no to that referendum, whatever the referendum is, now we're bringing it back and kind of back to the starting board or starting phases of this and reassessing what are we doing. Are we going back to scheme B? Are we doing something else or abandoning the project altogether or what's happening next? Um, so that's really kind of the timeline because there were some questions about that that had been posed. So that's why I wanted to go through that for you. So if we were to look at option B and doing the things I have already referenced and mentioned at the last meeting, provided we can continue to agree and sometimes disagree and all that that goes with that at these meetings, uh we're looking at probably a build in 2027 of of whatever the final project looks like. If we aren't going to do that, then we're going to referendum um and deciding which way it's going to go from there after November. All right, with that, uh, because now Bob's here as well. Um, what do you guys want to discuss?

I've always said I'd like to see this go to referendum regardless of the cost. Okay.

I think the people should decide this and feel comfortable with that. Like I said, I'm bringing it before you as a couple options because it was asked of me to do that and so that's what I'm doing. So, whatever the board wants to do as a whole, we're we're good with, right? That's what we're doing. The majority does. So, um if we go the route of the referendum, we're hoping that it goes through. However, we end up structuring the referendum. Um, and that's pushing it off probably an entire year or close to it between the delay from now till the referendum to get it passed. Uh, and then with not building during the winter to at least the garage space not being built in the referendum,

would we have to adjust then the amount that we're doing this to ask for because of inflation and between now and then or how?

Well, it's not inflation. It's the reassessments each year. So year over year whenever the assessments are done the equalized value of the village properties goes up and then uh the referendum threshold is a quarter of a percent of that number. So if you take which is we're at about 1.7 billion for the equalized value of all the properties in the village which gets you to the 4.4 rough roughly 4.4 I think it's like 3 4.374 million. Um, that's what our current threshold is. And and the other part I didn't mention with this is if we go the route of the estimate and we continue to move forward with everything kind of how it is designed with the estimate and not modify the budget amount and we go by saying, well, we think the estimates are at 4.1 something under 4.2. If the bids come back at 4.4 four or 4.5, we're back to rough random anyways. We've done all the design work on the front side. That's all done. We we then have to pay for um regardless of whether the building is built, which is in the range of $400,000. Um but then the village residents have said no and then it stops. So that's where I think if we're going to look at scheme B and proceed that route then we need to do it in a way that um we are looking at some of the items within the the project and then designing it to meet that budgeted amount not just hope that the budget amount you the estimate is accurate that way.

So Bob you said you still felt the referendum and that's fine. I'm not discounting anybody's opinion on this. Scheme B then would be that, right? Scheme B, if you look on the wall, is the one on the left. Yeah, scheme C, that's the one on the right, that's primarily blue and green on the the drawings is either way, if you cut a lot of stuff out of it, you're not going to meet that number. I'm just trying to glance through this thing to find it, but I see that electrical are we talking the generator again? Was 250,000 in there? he the way that that was designed in the cost estimates was a full campus generator.

Yes. So, we know that we're not doing a full campus generator. Um and a uh generator isn't going to be $250,000 if we're looking just for the emergency, right? Electrical of the fire department that needs to occur. Ticket item if it comes out of there. That's what I'm saying. That's why you if you look at that page, it brings it down considerably on that initial cost estimate.

Roger or Al Bob gave some initial thoughts?

Yeah, I just I know you want to hear this, but I'm going to give you my two cents again. way back when, when we say long-term goals for the fire department, the number one goal was sleeping quarters, which would help would bring better response times. One, two, expand boundaries areas for more talent selections for the EMS and the fire department. That's one reason why we're trying to do a remodel or a new build. Okay. And the second big thing was that we talked about was NFPA standards. and would bring up for better for the health and safety and wellness of the fire department and EMS programs and uh and bring the decon area that we don't have in the fire department and bring all those things in and the last thing would be the good traffic flow for personnel throughout the building and reselling efficient and effective operations. Them are the two big things. So that's why we're trying to redo this project. I hate to bring that up, Chad, but I think that we all need to think about that. It is because if it was just the sleeping quarters, that's a couple hundred thousand dollars to put on a a box in the back with some beds in it,

right? But I I think that the whole picture I just wanted to say those are the two main goals that we were trying to get through this and and move on and and help the fire department and he has program out here and I think we just want to lose train of thought of that. No. And I I don't I don't think any of these options schemes are full building or whatever. I don't think any of that's lost on that. That's why it's four plus million dollars regardless of which version of whatever it is that we do, right? It's it's accommodating all those things that you just mentioned and and that is the overall project because if this was done 10 years ago or 15 years ago in the initial phases of this, we would have built a whole new fire station for less than what we're probably talking about. But we're not there. So yeah, that's why we are where we are.

Yeah. So when you So I guess to the point of these things as as Bob's already pointed to, are you looking more towards a referendum or are you looking towards scheme B or something else? I'll give you the answer just one second. Okay. So when you say the design budget cost to stay underneath that budget amount so we don't go to referendum. Can we get the two things I just talked about on a budget? If you can get those things accomplished and the uh you know scheme be so be it. But if we're going to cut it short and you know and not get everything that we really wanted, I think we need to go to referendum. So that's where I'm getting hung up by the

Okay. So if we're going to come up $100,000 short and and cut something out that we should have had. No, no, no. Let me clarify. I guess that it's not a matter of cutting things out. So we're not going to like if you look on the wall in the designs, we're not going to remove like the ambulance base to that green box on the bottom of the map, right? is not that. It's tweaking things to say instead of a a goldplated sink, it's your standard American standard or colar sink like like that kind of stuff where there's adjustments that could be made within the design from that perspective. But it's not like we're removing a portion of the project because that is defeating what we're doing and we're going lack of a better term we're halfassing it again. Yeah.

Okay. So that we're not going to go down that road from that perspective. But talking with Connor on those issues or that concern, it's again tweaking some of the things. Instead of maybe a high-end TV on the wall, it's your standard Walmart like things like that that you have ways that can add up to being some cost savings. And I I guess I understand that. I I just uh I get the assumption that some of the things could be affected the operation affect this whole thing,

but that that won't be. So, it's and and the other part to this which I didn't mention tonight is I mentioned at the last meeting when Bob wasn't here was in talking through some of these if you look through that whole packet you'll see spots where there's cost escalations 10% 15% things like that because they're making assumptions this is in 27 excuse me this is in 27 and they're making assumptions on what the general contractor has profit is and things of all those different sorts um that talking with Connor and the fisers, it's likely that there some heavy cost escalations there. So, we may say we want this budget at 4.1 and the bids may come back at 39 because there's some overages on the estimation side for for those.

I guess that's where I'm hoping we get if we're going to do this referendum, make sure we got enough money into that thing or requesting it that we're going to cover everything we want to do as Al said, which again, that's the next phase. If we go the route of a referendum, if that's where we want to go as a group, then that's like the next couple months of probably some workshops of how we want to go about it. Tonight in these meetings is not the place for it because it it kind of goes south into discussions. That's more of like let's discuss just that topic and not all the other things like tonight. So what are we discussing tonight now? as mentioned if you want to consider scheme B with sorry I'm getting

some of the adjustments as I mentioned um because that's what was asked me to present or do we want to continue with a referendum discussion with workshops to determine what the referendum is just with the understanding now tonight and March 12th or whatever it is we need to have that resolved by the end of July at the absolute latest to get it on referendum you mean yes Yes, because there is an August deadline for the referendum to be uh put in the ballots. So, does that answer some of what you were asking? Yes, it does. Okay. So, one one more little one. Okay. Okay.

April 7th, 2025, we asked the Fishers and and paid them a sum of money to do a schematic floor plan proposal fit test. And I'm not that we 100% completed that or not or we going to have one more meeting. I I forgot how it went down or how it finalized out. Uh we did. They're on the wall and the fire chief has already said. Okay.

The fire chief's already said either of those would work with the agreement as I've mentioned probably 10 times over these meetings. Those drawings on the wall are not the final design of that portion. Just like how we talked tonight earlier about having to move a firewall, there's walls and things within that structure on each of those drawings if one of those is what we choose that are going to be tweaked a little bit because to make sure that the decon room's the right size and things of that sort. So that's the rendering or the concept, but the final drawings is what's comes next. To make sure and to tweak those things from that perspective. Fair enough. Yeah. So he kind of wanted he he's suggesting referendum. What are you thinking?

Well, I'll tell you. I'm on the I'm on the fence. I can tell you that right now. This uh u they're going either way. I can tell you that right now. And I if they can, like I said, make all this happen, which way you're saying, they're going to make it happen without a referendum, you know, and and uh and do a design budget cost, whatever. So, we get it underneath the referendum and get everything that they wanted, you know. department agrees that the chief agrees that's what he wants and that's good enough for him and it meets his goals and obviously that's the cheapest way to go and I just want to cut anything short like we've discussed and I'm having an issue of making my mind up I can tell so we'll move on to Roger thank you very much I'll listen to everybody else for a minute

Roger go ahead

here's what I feel I mean we've been looking at this thing for 13 years okay if we go with plan B we're going to have a fire we're going to have a DPW building and a fire in essentially over a period of what is going to amount to to about uh 15 years. If we go with a referendum, we're going to have all of that done. If the referendum goes through in 16 years, I'm saying we have been kicking this can down the road so often that it's like we've often like we've lost perspective of what are we going to do here? Are we going to do something? We just look at the discussion that we had today about uh different things that have to do with the DPW building. We don't need to have those conversations anymore, folks. And besides that, um the chief has said that plan B works for him. And I said, well, on on on I think reasonable information, 75% of that redo on plan B is going to be new anyways and will help us and will meet the requirements that we have. We've got about a $300,000 cushion as far as plan B is concerned. Anyways, we want to add some things or things come in as as as they are. We have an ability to do something. We started out with $400,000 worth of extra furnishings and all that. Well, that got cut down to $250,000 dollars. And I think that that uh there is more of that in the plans that have been submitted for plan B. Well, the other thing is I'm not I'm not afraid of a referendum, but I can tell you there is just um I don't know what the future holds here, but I know that if we don't go out to referendum, we're going to

have a fire station in 2027. And that fire station because of the newness of everything that's going to be put into it and how it's all going to be coordinated, it's going to last us for 30 years. As a consequence, I got to tell you that uh um we could still haveformational services. You say, "Let the people decide." The people that I talked to say, "How come our taxes are so low? How come our taxes are so low?" I mean, why go through all that and spend another year with a lot of uncertainty going out to referendum uh when we can start work on this thing and get something done finally. Okay. So, you said a lot. Which way do you want to go?

I'm I want to go with I want to go with it. Uh no referendum. I want to go with it. You want to proceed with scheme B? Plan B. Okay. St. Well, my can's been kicked around the road too much. So, I'm going to start with a new can. Okay. I I I think that if we're going to go with one of these schemes, I think scheme C is going to be the best fit. And I think if it's done properly, I think we can get it under the borrowing limit the same as scheme B if we take a look at it. And I think I think scheme C would be a better fit.

Okay. So, you want to go the route of trying to make scheme C work under the referendum versus scheme B. Yeah. The borrowing limit is without going to referendum. Correct. And and I believe with the numbers I don't have the the sheet that you gave out last week like this. Yep. If we could get one like that on scheme C, just give me two minutes as you're talking. That would be great. But from the numbers that I looked at from what I had, we're too far north, I think, to be able to do that without probably some to Al's concern. But then just uh give me a second here. I'm trying to get to that page again.

I think we can fit it in there. And I think what we should do is eliminate the roof for the existing building and and do that as a separate project, which that's part of what part of the scheme B discussion tonight is. So if you take that out of scheme C from what I was looking at, we're going to be pretty close to the borrowing limit. All right, Al, coming back to you.

I like I like I like Stewie's idea. if we can make it work. Um because I think it's a better um fit for the fire department. I believe u and maybe u I know remodeling costs a lot of money and I think we can get more putting on a a newer building versus an add-on building. Um and that that might be a way to go. We still got an old infrastructure underneath this end that we're going to be connecting up in the with the remodel no matter which we do or whatever. But I think more in scheme B than on scheme C. It's the one behind you. The green with the bumper.

The blue and green one. Keep going. Right there. Right there. That's scheme C.

And if I think of that $250,000 whatever it was was for a whole a whole complex generator. I think you ought to stick with that. To me, it makes a lot of sense. So what was your final

Chris? Do you have another marker? This thing's dead. No, I want a marker that's easier to read. Disregard. I got one. That's what I'm working on here. Just one second. We don't have it yet.

We We do, but I'm trying to do the same formula as you asked for that other one. Right. So, yeah.

No. No, he sent it.

I can't find it. Scheme C. Well, that's what I'm saying. It's not anybody's well it's in the original stuff that was presented during the cost estimation a couple months ago while back but to break it down like this sheet is which is in your packet now.

Okay I'll make I'll have Chris make some copies of this quick but just to give you your numbers too. So scheme C's cost estimate was $4,487. The north asphalt work that was estimated again just doing that section is 1481 159. The design fees are more for a larger building because it's roughly 10% of the cost. So that's a $448,71.90. Furnishings keeping them the same for the two is $250,000. That brings the total to 5,333,879.90. If you minus the same 250 for the generator and the same 157 for the roof, your final number there then is 4,926,265.40. So you'd have to move about $500,000 off that plan to get it to the to the referendum amount and then cut from there even further. So you're going to have to take probably a million dollars off of that to bring it to the same budget item as what we're talking about for for B. I don't know how you can get a million off of it. I I would agree you can take money off of it just as we talked with C. Um but I don't know you're going to find a million off of it. So can you make some copies that for them please?

You had this and you had one of these in that package in my you want this with well you got one there's right for sure. So if you guys want more to think about let's Let's go home and think about it some more. Right. Get these ones. Chris prints copies for you guys. So, it's the same projection as the scheme B one that I gave you guys last time. We're at a point where another two weeks isn't going to make a difference, especially if we end up in a referendum. Right. So, I have no problem pushing it off yet again so we can have further discussions. I will make a motion table of the discussion until we got the clerk. Would you like her to come back so you can see it first? And she's not here either. as a matter of

so the basic difference between B and C is what there's a basic difference in there what is it both of them will do the same thing the difference is scheme C has a tremendous amount of addition to the building that B does not and because if you look at Thank you if you look at the wall you've got that tan and the blue section in the center of the building. That's existing building that's being remodeled to fit the needs of all the space that we need to do, right?

With some some garage space add-on for the the trucks to be um in there. Scheme C, that whole space is abandoned. It's it's unused. It's there's no designated purpose for it. It's all just white space, right?

And then what would be that section in the remodel is now an addition on the front of the building. And so that's why it's so much more money is because you're adding on that whole I forgot what the total number is, but it's several thousand square feet of new building um to house all of that with then what would be that space in B is a large empty garage space and then storage in the back. That's just un unallocated unused space. Okay. So what are you going to do with that space on C in the middle there? What do we do? Well, that was part of what we talked about in a previous meeting. The fire chief said, "We'll find a use, a purpose for it, find a use." Well, that's a great

um but that's not um that's not factored into this and that would be if there's work to be done to it, that's additional costs to remodel that for whatever that future purpose is going to be.

Gentlemen, our population in this community is not growing that much. You know, it's not like we're going to be at 15,000 in about 10 years. That's just not going to happen as far as things are concerned. It's this the the reason people move to this area is because they want that home. They want that rural feel to things. We're not talking about putting up uh big buildings like uh that big problem we have over in uh that they're have they're going to be having over in north of us there um or south of us there. Um I just don't see why we need all I don't see why why we don't need all of it.

Okay. So you've you've given your opinion. Ste's given his that he wants to try and bring C down to that same dollar threshold. Um, Al, did you give a final answer on what your thoughts are? We're divided at this point either way, but Right. I I if you said it, I missed it because I was writing all that out.

No, you did you you did good, Chad. Getting us, you know, scheme C's numbers closer than Well, we didn't have any before, but back to some good numbers. Um, I just want to add in scheme C. Everybody says, what are we going to do with that? We talked about that many of times of the village hall maybe using some of that space and and if there's actually growth for the fire department or whatever, the the area is already there. So, we never would have to add on this building ever again because once we do this remodel job, it's done. We're not going to remodel again. So, that was the extra space. why scheme C was some extra space not accountable at this point in time but um and and plus the funding like Chad says we don't have to do um I didn't realize there's going to be a million dollar difference

plus there's no workout room yet yeah or whatever they want to do be a vacant space okay so we are even more divided than we normally are because it usually has three to two in one of the directions. Um, we're at like twos and ones and ones and

uh I I will tell you I guess of the options because I've allowed you guys to give your thoughts. I and I did not other than presenting it to you. Um I'm of the opinion that we would go with scheme B um and get this built. Um, I fully agree with you, Bob, as we've talked in the past that uh a referendum allows the residents to um voice their opinion. I I don't discount that whatsoever. U but we're at a point where without getting I'll make one statement getting off topic on this. We have lost a couple medics in the last couple weeks to other agencies because the things that we keep arguing about are not done. Uh, so we now have staffing issues for our medics in the village to where we're going to be more reliant on the village of Vernon until more medics are back on on staff, which are in training. The fire chief's got people on training for that, but they're not usable. Um, and we're just somebody said we're kicking the can down the road, so to speak. We we keep doing that. So, my opinion would be is that we would move forward with scheme B uh with some limitations as discussed. Um, if we're not doing that, then we're going to end up on a referendum. Scheme C. I'm pretty I'm confident we're not going to get that down to that level to Al's concern that things aren't getting cut out of the project. So, having said that, um, we're not clearly not going to make an answer tonight. So, take this home with you, I guess, ponder on it some more. The likely thing is next is um probably going to have to do a workshop to try and talk about it there, but not here in one of these meetings

because we're not getting anywhere in these meetings. So, we're going to have to hash out some of those details. Um and then bring it back to an actual meeting. Can can we get ahead one other answer? Sure. If the gentlemen who are looking at C at the moment, do they want to do the referendum or do they want to try to find another million dollars to cut? I mean, which way do they feel? I don't have a sense. They just want C. No, I I had the feeling because he said there was things we can cut to get under that number. That's what Ste had said originally. Okay. So, so he that's why I broke the numbers down. He doesn't want the referendum. He wants C. Is that how That's correct. Right. That's what you were That's what you had stated basically without those exact words. But you said you thought we could get the numbers down underneath the threshold.

That's what I thought. Yeah. Right. And what does it help out? Well, I think so too, just because there's extra room, maybe some of that new addition that is in blue on scheme C, they could put it. I'm going to laugh, guys. Where I'm going with this, just so you know, is the two of them should come to that workshop forever and say how they're going to get it under the referendum. That that should be like their homework assignment. Sure. You know, I'm not don't appoint a committee because then they can't talk to each other. But if if it just so happens that two people decide they want to get together and try to figure out how to get under the referendum number because that's where they're at. That would be a good thing to have brought in and not try to do that night as a as a group of five. It won't work. It won't work as a group of five.

I'm I'm good with that. That's what you guys want to do. I mean, I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth. I'm just saying we did do that in the past. We gave people homework assignments. You're being very straightforward. They like C and they think they can get it under the referendum number. We should have that brought back. Yeah, I think that's a fair request. That Yeah, that' be the next step that way. I agree. Pardon? Well, I say thanks, John. I mean, I hope that wasn't a good way until until John interrupted, I started laughing, Al, because you're talking yourself into why aren't we just doing B? If if we're trying to like shuffle things back into that vacant space, why aren't we just doing B? Mhm. I don't understand.

Right. So, if you want C, as Stu said, then we're building C and trying to find a way to do it with with finances on it, right? Because if we're going to say, well, no, this building this piece is going to go back and this piece is going to go back. At what point do we get to that number where we're just back to B? Understand? So, um I don't know that we need to have a motion to table anything here because we're not making any decisions at this point. Um, we'll just, um, unless anybody else has anything else they want to add as a last thought, I'll give you like 30 seconds, but I'm not going to have you go for 10 minutes. One, zero. Well, I'm just You were talking about I'm the only one want to hear the think that we should go to be with a referendum, but

Well, but we wouldn't need to go to referendum. I know. That's not my point. I guess my point is, as I said, let the people decide this because this is a lot of money. Roger, what's the problem?

There's a it's just as far as things are. Yeah, this is a lot of money, but there are laws on the books to prevent this circum these circumstances from getting out of hand. And that is you keep it under $4.4 million. And we as the elected elected uh staff here uh are are given the op are given the responsibility to make those decisions. We're given the responsibility or given the option to if you want, but I really think that this doesn't we're not going to argue back and forth. We've had enough of that tonight and quite honest here, I guess. And I thought that's we don't need to be talking of each other and having a back and forth that way. I said I'd give you another 30 seconds because you've given us your peace of mind. You wanted to to add on something and that's fine.

Um but we don't need to argue for another 20 minutes when it's just another argument. Okay. Okay. I don't know if you saw this or not, Bob. um if that was should have been passed on to you from the last meeting or not, but that just gave some rough numbers on um if it was a $4 million project at that percentage at a 20-year loan, what that would lead us towards for cost per resident based on the value of the property per thousand.

Per thousand. Yep. And then it breaks it down. So like a $300,000 house, it shows you what the increase in revenue or increased village tax will be on that property to cover the loan for $4 million loan just as a reference that way. So and I'll and I'll end with if we're at a $4 million building, it doesn't need to go to referendum. No, this makes a lot of more sense to me now. Okay. Absolutely. It's when it hits that $4.4 million that we have to go to referendum, right? Okay, I got you now. I guess my that was my concern. Okay. represent the people to appoint here, you know, right? They have a right to say their dollars are spent. I don't know where my agenda went, but I'm pretty sure the next thing is the um bills.

The bills. So, I'll make a motion in the amount of $87,1711 uh to pay the bills. Oh, I want I'll second that. I'll I'll remove my motion allowing Stu to make the motion. I'll second Al. Any discussion besides Stu wanting to make the motion? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. Everyone say yes. Yep. All right. Anyone opposed? All right. Bills are paid. Uh adjournment of the board. Make a motion to adjurnn. Ste, do you want to second that? No. I'll second it. All right. Bob and Roger. Ste, let's discuss. Two that want to go home, I guess.

All those in favor of adjourning say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? All right. We arejourned. Thank you gentlemen. You say discussed