Village Board - Regular Meeting

Can you explain? Sure. That that's what we normally refer to and since you're both here, he's willing to stay after this agenda item and explain to you because it was on the agenda last month. So, he has some updates for Fair enough. Fair enough. Thank you. All right, we will move on. Approval of previous meeting minutes for December 11 of 25. Any need for corrections or edits from anybody that you saw? If not, then the motion is in order. Move we uh accept the minutes as presented.

Is there a second? Second. Todd, Rob, and Todd. Any further discussion? All right. Hearing none from the plan commission. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries. Uh, village board. I'll make a motion that we sec accept the, uh, plan commission's approval of the minutes for the meeting. I'll second it. Motion and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes from the village board for December 11:25, say I.

I. Anyone opposed? That also curious. Correction. That was the plan commission. What's that? That was the plan commission. What minutes? The meeting minutes. We're going to do them both together. Yeah, it's all in one. Okay. Correct. They approve it. We approve it. Yep.

All right. So, discussion of possible action on a request for petitioner Rebecca uh Fedek. Sorry if I said that wrong. representing Tall Pines Conservancy Incorporated for discussion and consideration of conceptual amendments to the village ordinance chapter 42 zoning to add a new permitted use called land preservation and educated or education, excuse me, to the A1 agricultural district. The proposed amendments would potentially apply to property owned by Tall Pines Conservancy at West 270 South 5745 River Road with three different tax keys. Um, so Sean, you want to start? Sure.

Uh, if you remember back in 2001, uh, Tall Pines was in front of us, um, for a a similar change to the zoning ordinance at the time, it was not going to be a a permitted use within the egg district. It was just going to be a basically a new zoning district called ag, you know, based f focused on agra tourism. Um, since then in in 2022, they um they took ownership of the property uh that was mentioned in the in the notice. Essentially, it's 269 acres uh at the very southwest corner of the village. This is River Road. Um here's one portion of the property. Here's another. And then there's a tiny piece here. But again, it's 269 acres. Most of it or over 50% of it is within wetland and flood plane uh or environmental corridor. So they own the property now. They were donated the property from the previous owner. Um Tall Pines Conservancy according to their website is uh it says they are a nationally accredited nonprofit land trust focused on preserving the Lake Country region and beyond. We believe in protecting farmland, water, and open spaces within our community to honor generations past, maintain a connection to our rural heritage, and preserve these irreplaceable resources for future generations to enjoy. So they took on this property, they accepted this property with that uh with that goal in mind. Um back in 2021, they were they weren't going to be owning the property at the time. At at that time, Waka County Land Conservation was going to own the property and and they along with the Savannah Institute would have an interest uh in preserving it, but that's changed. They are the sole owners of the property now. Um, so what they're asking for, um, is you to consider amending the A1 zoning ordinance to add this new permitted use to to the district. Back in 2021, I think there were some mixed reactions from the planning commission

and the board. Um, when we discussed this, some of the concerns were um because at the time at this, you know, this northern property here, there's there's a house and there's a bunch of different outuildings. at the time they were looking to split that off entirely from the the rest of the operation and then sell that. Uh there was concern over the number of accessory buildings in such a small parcel. Um another concern was the the uses that were listed in the in the draft ordinance. Um they weren't well detailed and there was there was concerns about you know fleshing those out some more to know exactly what was what was coming. So they have done that. Um, again, this is all going to stay part of the property at this point. They're not looking to split that off. That will actually be part of the operation in terms of offices and education facilities. Um, so the the the new use is different than the old one um that that had a tourism component to it. This one is really just uh preservation with some offices to to manage it and then an educational component. They are also looking to do some, you know, potential storage uh in some of these existing buildings, but we'll get to those details later. I I wanted to start with just talking about permitted versus conditional uses. And they're they're looking to this to be a permitted use in the A1 district. And again, for you know, most of you know this obviously or all know this, but the difference between permitted and conditional uses in the state of Wisconsin is very little. Um in our ordinance permitted uses we require site plan of operation review for anything but single family and two family residences that come forward. So whatever you're proposing even if it's permitted you have to come in front of the village plan commission board to get a site plan plan of operation approved. We we do the same thing with conditional uses. They have to have a site plan plan of operation approved. And state law basically says that as long as the applicant can meet reasonable conditions that are

established and based on substantial evidence um they can prove that they can meet that that you can't deny the conditional use. So they're really very very similar except that a conditional use requires a public hearing on top of it. So, the way this is currently proposed, it would be a permitted use just very similar to the the equestrian facility um language that we added to the A1 zoning district. That's a permitted use as well, but there's a number of uh conditions that are in there that basically, you know, nails it down. So, we we're get what we wanted it through, permitted use um just without a public hearing. So, that's the track that they took. They essentially borrowed the language that we put into the ordinance for equestrian facilities and and tweaked it to for their particular use to cover most of the bases. Um, okay. So, that's how that's how it's going to work or that's how it would work if this goes forward. So, the plan commission and the board really needs to determine whether or not they're even open to the idea of this um before getting to the details, whether or not it's a benefit to the village or whether or not you perceive it to be a benefit to the village. Again, the intended use is long-term preservation of egg, but it also allows for office space and educational facilities. Um, our comprehensive plan does speak obviously to agricultural preservation. Uh it's it's certainly encouraged through our through our comprehensive plan and it recognizes that we have some you know some great soils class one and class two soils for egg productivity and really the southwest portion of the village itself are some of the areas that's still preserved for agriculture where it's not some other district. It's not zoned some other district not planned for some other district. So the southwest portion of the of the village is really the, you know, the future of any preservation that would happen in in the village going forward. Um, if you would choose to move this forward, you

think it's a good idea. Um, essentially the village has a policy that petitioners cannot really petition for a change to the zoning ordinance. Conceptually, they can. We're bringing it forward tonight conceptually to talk about it. But if it goes forward, it has to be the plan commission, the board that pushes it forward. And so it would be a function of the village moving this forward in terms of the language and changes. I have looked at the language. I've already made my uh suggested changes to the language. So the so the uh the document that you have in front of you tonight is got my suggested changes as well. I won't get into the details um of that yet until maybe we hear back from the hear from the petitioner or the plan commission and board. But I would just say if this change does um make it to the the district A1, obviously it's you know they're pushing forward it would it would apply to the 269 acres that are that are owned by them, but it it could apply to any um other property owner as well as long as they can meet the conditions that are specified and they have at least 200 acres in one holding which is probably rare uh in the village. So, it's probably not going to apply many places if any besides this one. So, I'll leave it there before I get to the details of the ordinance if there's any questions or you want to hear from the petitioner first. Um, any initial questions always petitioner can come up. No. Okay. Is that you? Come on up to the microphone. Just give us your name and if you want to use this address, that's fine. Um, yeah, my name is Rebecca Rebe or Becky Fedak and um I don't even know the address off hand. Um, and it's West 270 something

574. Thank you.

Um, and I think the last time Tall Pines came before this body, it was not me in this position. I've only been here about a year. Um so my predecessor Susan Buchanan would have been the one engaging in some of these conversations and other members of our staff. Um as John outlined um we have made some revisions to the request based on feedback from the last go round and our current standing as the owner of this property. Um, a lot of the motivation for the requests here is based on actually a some of the requests of the donor who donated this land to us. Um, she is a former educator and um has a strong passion for education. So, the intent is to restore the barn into an education center focused on conservation, preservation, agriculture. um so not you know broad education but more focused on our intent as a land trust and a as a conservation organization and aligning with her vision um as a former educator. So that's the main reason um for the education piece of it and then um the office pieces us being able to have staff there that would oversee not just the education center but also um our operations of the farm. are actively working on um some restoration work in the river corridor um and have a stewardship stewardship staff that are coming onto that site. It would be nice for them to have place to set up shop for the work that they're doing. Um and also some of the agriculture activities. We have a 15 acre agroforestry system that we've recently planted. Um and again people are coming onto site to check on that system. it would just be nice to have a space um where they could um be working from um especially if we are going to have that education center there. So, that's really the intent. Um we have the opportunity from the donor who donated the property to also provide

some resources for the restoration of that barn and she's really excited to get moving on it. Um but we don't want to put the cart before the horse and want to make sure it's something we're going to be able to do um in terms of the restoration that she envisions for that property. So that's the reason for coming before you tonight was to try and get this piece of it moving forward so that we can really see her vision come to life. Um and just because we're so grateful what she's offered to us as an organization. So um I think that's all I have for now and happy to answer any questions.

So I can quickly go through what the or you know the suggested ordinance language says. Um this really just outlines the uses the land preservation and stewardship activities and then the administrative offices for the land owner for the purpose of carrying out land preservation and stewardship uh the education center and educational programming seasonal non-farm storage and existing farm buildings. That's what I mentioned originally that so that there's a lot of space there. They were looking to you know store rent out space essentially for people to store things in the buildings. um special events related related to the operations and then retail and food sales limited to the education center and the operations as well. As I mentioned, there'd be a site plan of operation that would be submitted. Architectural and landscaping requirements would apply to any new construction. Um site plan would include all the uses, the buildings, parking areas, sanitary facilities. Again, similar to the equestrian uh facility language that we had, plan of operation with max employees, um description of the uses, proposed hours of operation, frequency, types of events, uh maximum number of attendees of events, number of facil sanitary facilities um for regular use and also for special events. This talks about the minimum area 200 200 acres essentially. Um, this limits the maximum area for administrative offices in educational facilities. This basically says 20,000 square feet. So even though they have more square footage there, they'd be limited to 20,000 square feet for for those uses. Um, any any building accessible by the public would be uh meeting commercial building codes, sanitary facilities always accessible during plans of or hours of operation. um administrative offices, education center will have restroom facilities that would meet uh building code, commercial code, etc. Um storm water management approved by the county. Special events may include the use of a

public PA system with 65 dB of the property line limited the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Now no outdoor storage unless it's authorized as part of the plan of operation. Um special events essentially would have to be approved. um signage according to the code and then exterior lighting uh limited to security lighting not shining upon neighboring properties etc. So that's that's the gist of the ordinance itself. So other questions comments

just like to ask about how big of event type of events would you have there what's your vision? Yeah. So events would be really would not necessarily be large. So for example, we have what's called our stewardship society, which is our largest donors, and we like to get them out onto properties that we own and steward to demonstrate the work that we do. Um, so I would say our last event of that was maybe 50 people. Um, so really that's the intent. It's not to be throwing big parties, but really just to wedding bars. Yeah. just to have a space that we can be showing people what we're doing and it's nice to do that around some sort of celebration or event.

And how many parking spots do you have are you including in this? Um I'd have to we have actually been working with an uh architect that's been helping us with the design for that. Um everything is very conceptual at this point because we wanted to see what would be approved. Um but there are plans for us to be putting in parking based on what the the needs would be and what would be approved for number or capacity for those types of events but I think parking would be largely driven by the education center. So thank you and and to to clarify this is again just to get the language in the code they would they or anybody else that utilize this would have to come back with a complete site plan of operation where you'd have full control over number of events size of events all that stuff. Thank you. type of offense.

My concern is that this applies to any property, you know, that that can meet the requirements, not just theirs. What's to prevent somebody to come in here and put up a 20,000 square foot barn and say, "We're going to have, you know, a a a barn venue for weddings." I mean, there's nothing here to prevent that. Well, this is limited to education and conservation and preservation. So, we would if someone came in and wanted to do that, we'd ask them, "What types of events are you having?" And they'd say, "Well, we want a wedding bar." And we'd say, "No, because it doesn't meet the uses outlined in the ordinance." Does that does that make sense?

Yes, to a degree. But what's to say, you know, somebody doesn't come in and say, you know, we're gonna we're gonna hold a a fundraiser event with, you know, several hundred people and and uh yeah, and say it's for educational purpose. If they're a bonafideed educational if they're a preservation organization or educational organization, we could we could potentially say yes, but they need 200 acres and they have to be all those things to be approved. And I'm I'm not I'm not pushing for this. I'm just saying I'm playing devil's advocate. If someone came in, that's what I would tell them.

Yeah. I mean, that's the door I'm hoping we're not opening is is another route just to do a big venuey, you know, opportunity, whether it's for weddings or anything. I don't think that's what we want is another big venue opportunity just to pop up and and this is a roundabout to get to that point. I I definitely hear your concern.

And if I when we were pretty intentional when we put together the proposal to that end, acknowledging with like the the acreage limitation and the language of what kinds of activities it would be supporting, we'd be open to revisions to help that be tighter if it needed to be, but really that was our intent was it to limit it to to not open that door because we knew that that was a concern from past conversations. From what I've gathered, I think this is going to be just for this property. I don't know how many other properties are going to be over 200 acres are going to be able to meet all these requirements as restrictive as we're going to get.

Well, I understand that somebody could go out and start buying up land and all of a sudden have 200 acres and say, "Well, this is, you know, I'm going to do something, right?" It it doesn't preclude that from happening. So yeah, to to what Becky said, I think we can maybe tune up the language a little more to to explicitly prevent that or or put something in there that says, you know, explicitly what this is and what it isn't.

And the other thing I have is is um storage of non-seasonal equipment. Obviously then I mean you kind of mentioned that this is they want to rent out space then and store boats and campers and stuff there. That's the intent. pro I think I think similar things or you know probably things like that. Um that was uh I don't know a lot about that portion of it that was just mentioned to me that there's extra space in the property and that so that would be a way to raise money essentially to to be able to store some things on the property. If we look at the

Yeah, part of that's just being opportunistic as a small nonprofit. If we had the extra space and we could rent it out to help support some of our stewardship activities on the property, that was the intent. Um, so if there were outuildings that weren't being used as part of the education center, that would be a way for us to generate additional revenue for us to kind of continue our mission as a land preservation organization. I think that language needs to be tightened up, too, because I can see somebody come in and then, you know, I have these two big sheds and I'm just going to rent them out all the time and make money and and that's not the intent either, I don't think.

No, I think you're going to have you could technically if you don't tighten that down, you're going to have some trucking out want to move in there and park trucks and heavy equipment or, you know, a multitude of different things. So if you don't have it nailed down to like boats and campers just during the winter season or something. I think that needs to be done. Okay. I mean it's a blanket deal here. You know, you can put anything you want in there. You can see it is except we do approve the plan of operation when they come forward. Well, I guess that's what I'm trying to get that we're going. Maybe I'm ahead of ourselves here with that, but that's one of the concerns. We will be able to tell them exactly what they can and can't store when they come forward with their Okay. part of operation. We can put in the language now too if we if you want to tune it out.

Well, I guess we just want to make it aware of that. That's what one of our intents is going to be right off from the start to not do that. That's that's not the main purpose of the of the property. And I don't think that we should emphasize that. I mean, I I wouldn't want to open that door to say this is, you know, here's a here's an opportunity for you to make money. And yeah, it's clearly accessory to very accessory. Yeah. I I guess the question is, you know, before we move forward and getting further into details, is it is it a good idea in general or is it not?

There's such a need right now for educational programs and I so I I value that. I think maybe if you could limit the amount of parking, we wouldn't have to worry about a venue because they would have a limited amount of parking. I mean, not too small, but certainly, but I I don't have any problem with it because I like to go to those educational programs. I think one of the things that's listed on there is grass parking, wasn't it, Sean? That's allowed.

That that would be potentially allowed. Again, we we'd be able to see everything when we get the site plan and be able to say yes or no to to whatever they propose. um whether or not we'd allow it or not, how many events, how many people are the events, which building is used to store boats or whatever it would be.

I like I like the idea of the land preservation education at that site. I think it's it's a good thing for the youth, for everybody. Not even the youth, but adults, the whole nine yards. I'm just uh what Mr. Bold said about the renting part of it. I have concerns with that. I think that really has to be tightened up. Again, this is something that's supposed to be educational. I know you want to make, you know, obviously add to your profit to, you know, make your educational center work for you easier. Uh but I have a concern of the rental part of it. Thanks.

This is probably a premier farm as far as that goes. It's And I hate to start hacking it all up with asphalt and turning it into something that it's not. Then it's not educational anymore because now it's no longer I would call a working farm. That's what their goal is here to do is to preserve that part of it. I think they're looking to limit all that to right here. Pardon me. I think they're looking to limit the education and and offices.

Yeah. And as we're talking about worrying about parking, but I guess I'm I'm not opposed to the grass parking and we start putting in asphalt all over it. I don't know many farms around here that have large parking lots that are paved over things like that. I I'm all for preserving the land and preserving the the buildings as they are because it this was a very in its day a very large working dairy farm at one point. So I kind of like to see that if you want to educate people that's the way to do it is to give them the actual buildings and the the way things were done. So, I'm not opposed to that, but like I said, we need to tighten up some things. I don't once we approve things like that, somebody will comes along later on and find, oh, there's a loophole here. We can do this here, too. You know, I just don't want that to happen. So, that's why I think Dan and we're talking about making sure these things are are buttoned down good and tight so that can't happen. I want to keep the intention here as as is.

What are your initial drawings looking like for that for the parking? You said you've already been working with an architect.

Yeah. So, right now, I mean, everything's very conceptual, but kind of in that area I was just pointing to is where they're looking at parking. And again, being a conservation organization, we don't want to pave the world either. So, um we've been looking at grass parking or some sort of permium payment or whatever that might be um with how the area would be um managed. Um, so that's kind of what we've been considering um, and some of the initial concepts that we've been working through with the designer that we've been working with. And with regard to like the storage and some of those other things, like I said, we were trying to incorporate all the things we envision, but if some of those kind of ancillary things will would be dealreakers, we're happy to have conversation and um, consider what removal of them would be. really it is about the education and land preservation piece of it that is the primary goal for what we're trying to achieve here

is is there going to be animals on this site at any time or I mean agriculture covers a a big umbrella of things

y so that a lot of that depends on our staffing right now we're a team of four people so I mentioned the 15 acres of agroforestry that we have installed called um which is kind of I guess would be south and west of the barn area. Um and one of the concepts of the agroforestry includes what they call silver pasture which is grazing um of animals within and amongst the fruit and nut crops. So we've talked about that as part of our long-term plan as some sort of rotational grazing on parts of the property. That is a long-term plan just because we would need staff on site to be helping with managing of that. So, it is something because we also are wanting to use this as a demonstration site for some of the conservation practices around agriculture that we're trying to advance as an organization. So, it is something we've been talking about, but it's not within our short-term plans at this time. So in those buildings at some point you may be storing your own farm equipment or whatever and and you may be housing animals in some of those buildings as well potentially.

Yeah. Or I mean we see a lot of people that do that kind of rotational grazing that they'll um put up uh temporary structures for winter housing or do winter grazing. Um so there's all kinds of options for the animal piece of it. Right now we're using a few of the outbuildings for storage of some of our restoration equipment in a small tractor that we have. Um, so included in the design for the ag education center also includes some equipment storage because we also have intent as part of that education for this to be an incubator space for new and beginning farmers, those that are trying to um understand the the different ways of the future of agriculture. Um, and so we want to have space for them to be able to store equipment and things like that. So that is included in part of the design for the education center as well. What what do you have planted in those 15 acres? I mean, on looks like you got a bunch of seedlings in there right now. I'm just curious.

Yeah, so we have Aronia berries, elderberries, some um pawpa, which Paul, who's our land uh protection manager, that's his favorite. If you've never had a pawpa, he raves about them. Um some chestnut trees, and then we've got an oak savannah um kind of in the center of it. So there's it's a lot of different fruit and nut crops that um we've been partnering with Savannah Institute to demonstrate um and hopefully evaluate marketability of those different crops into the future.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve this based on um getting getting a better plan laid out. So this is conceptual only right right now. So the next the next step would be if you want to direct staff to work on some additional language, tune up some language, we can either bring it back one more time or multiple times conceptually and then at some point we'll set a public hearing uh to actually uh adopt the language if you if you have in mind to do that. But it sounds like there would be some potential changes. You want to see some tweaks to a few things and button it up a little bit on a few things and bring it back at least conceptually one more time before it gets to public hearing. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I'm definitely in favor of this. I think it would bring something special and unique to the uh to the community, something to draw. You know, educational is always good, but something special and unique to the community. And I understand that we don't want to open Pandora's box. So, I I think I'd fall in favor as long as a lot of the stuff is tightened up so that we can't have, you know, somebody go, "Well, they did it. Why can't we?" So, 100%.

I would like to get some clarification on the storage since that seems to be because I've written many of those and Sean has also and either you could provide us with some thoughts or we could Sean and I could share for for I'll give you one extreme example. We have a community that allows the storage and the rental of the barn space, but all of it has to come in in this month and has to go out in this month. Now, there are neighbors near that site. So, there was a reason for saying we don't want year round moving in and out of the U trailers and boats and campers and things like that. That's that's the most extreme that I know of, but I'll defer to Sean if he has other examples that he has done in order to address narrowing and limiting, you know, not restrictively limiting, but dealing with that issue. Since two or three of you have mentioned it, I'd like Sean, do you have any other examples of how you've dealt with that issue? No, not not specifically. But the other way I was I was thinking about it would be just like we limited a percentage of the buildings or we 20,000 square feet to to the educational office, maybe we limit a percentage of the buildings on site that could only be used for storage of you know seasonal whatever whatever it might be. I I still think the best way to to deal with that is on a case by case basis. So, you know, when they come in, essentially say, you know, here are your buildings or here's what you're proposing to build cuz cuz we know what's on site, right? We know there's this many buildings on site and so we can say, you know, you can use once we know more about what they want to use everything for. Yes, you can use a portion of this building to store this seasonally or, you know, and if we want to lock it down further to say this month or this month, it'd be another thing. But I don't know. I

that's not what they told us. They said they want to nar they want to clarify this. Well, that's so Yes. It's either month to month or it's or do that. But what I'd said first was a portion of a certain building or a portion of a footprint or so much of the buildings. Again, the sky's is kind of the limit there. Talking about being clearly accessory to the permitted, you know, to the principal use. That's that's the kind of thing I was thinking about adding to the language and then going from there. But if you had another thought in terms of how to lock down the storage component. Well, storage seasons basically go from 1st of October to 1 of April for boats, right? Uh campers, that kind of thing.

But there's also winter sports that are out there. And maybe when they're out there in April, maybe we have a a season of say April 15th to uh September 15th, so they can store snowmobiles or something to that extent. I'm not going to limit them to have that place emptied for four or five months either if they want to make. So what is your what were you attempting to do by for those who were wanting to clarify that or limit it? You want to limit it to what the what can be stored. Well, we said seasonal and I think that's kind of a statement that Yeah. boats. So So does it have to be seasonal first?

No, I guess that's what I'm trying to get away from the seasonal part. But you got two different seasons here. I mean, we say seasonal is, as somebody says, 1st of uh October till the 1st of of April, right? What do we do with the summertime? Do we leave it vacant? That's I guess maybe that's the question. Maybe we do leave it vacant. I don't know. But that's Well, there's so many people looking for old car storage. Close car storage is another thing, too. Yes, you want that there necessarily. That's a winter storage things, too. So, well, I guess my point is is that I'm not going to I just don't want to see it narrow down to we have to limit it to to things like I mean you could put say a landscaper wants to come in there and run a business out there. I don't think that's going to work operation again for that and a whole different animal you're looking at,

right? So, I'm I'm not against people want to designate one of those buildings for for winter storage and and it turns out to be I mean it's got to be limited to boats and campers and cars. So, Commissioner Bolson White, you both had thoughts on this. So, well, my my thing is if it's going to be one building of storage or multiple buildings of storage, and then with your plan that you're planning on doing, what you need for offices and your facility to make your your operation work or whatever, I think you're going to be a be able to tell us how many square feet each building is going to be rentable. And we obviously we don't know that. Yeah, we don't know that yet,

you know, yet, but u and if there's going to be multiple storage buildings or just one building. I guess that's what I would like to see here. Yeah, again this is just my opinion and we can go anywhere you want. I would rather keep it open-ended. Talk about seasonal storage of cars, boats, trailers, RVs, campers, snowmobiles and the like. Simil similar things clearly accessory to the you know to the principal use of the property which is preservation and education. And then as the site that doesn't apply to boats and trailers. What doesn't apply? That's an accessory to the purpose of storage

ex well a secondary use then clear a clearly secondary or tertiary use to the main use of the property which is education and office use and that the specific location and and what buildings it's in and how much of the buildings is handled through the site plan of operation. We tell them when they come in which buildings you can use and for what and when. I mean I I don't see I don't I don't think I don't think that's I don't think you're interpreting it legally correctly and we'll talk about it in staff. Your hands are you do not have cart blanch if you give somebody a permitted use to put any restriction on you want. I'm just telling you.

I'm sorry I don't understand restriction on what? You're saying you're going to control it by the site plan of plan of operation. And I'm telling you, if it's a permitted use under the permitted uses, you can't put you can't come up if if you want restrictions on that permitted use, you have to include them in the ordinance. The underlying, right? So, all we have to say, John, is that that that the location and how much seasonal storage is determined through the site plan of operation. I I we do that with we do that with everything.

That's a conditional use and that's for specific use of So you're saying that we also can't dictate how many uh events they can have and how many people can be at the events because that's was also something that we adopted through the equestrian permitted use through the site plan of operation. It's the same it's the same exact thing. Well as I said we can discuss it at staff but special events is different than storage. Okay. And you know storage is the concept that the storage is that facility barn or whatever it is is used for storage and it can be used. I think the petitioners would have a really good argument. You gave us a permitted use to use for storage. How can you now limit it?

Because it says right in the ordinance that we can limit it. Okay, we can talk more about it, but we've done this time and time again where we've said here's the here's the condition. We'll negotiate this through the site plan of operation in terms of where and how much. So, we'll talk more about it. Is there anything else to add for for the storage? Um, I would suggest like Bob said before, I don't think we want construction equipment, that kind of stuff in there. So, make sure that's excluded. And I don't think we want any kind of outside stuff. We don't want people parking their motor home out there or something like that. Right.

Would it be wise to put as you're talking about this storage wise, something in there that's restricting. They can't put up storage buildings to not not not construct a brand new storage building. It's got to be something exist. They don't want like what's over at, you know, by Sunset Park where it's actual storage units are like what we've been doing on Sunset. Yeah, that makes sense.

So, I mean, let us think about it some more. We I'll talk to John more. We'll get to the we'll we'll figure out what uh the crux of the issue here is and we'll we'll come back with some more language uh for next time. That sound okay? Did we I don't know why this is coming to my mind now, but didn't didn't we talk at staff about there being like community gardens or they're renting space or something like that? Is that going on now or something they wanted to have done? I don't know. We can ask the petitioner.

Yeah. So, we we have we had gotten a small grant to put in some raised beds um for a community garden towards the um um because of our location, it's difficult to gain traction with interest because we're kind of far away from any residential areas or people that would um take advantage of something like that. we are working with some partners so that we have those raised beds installed but there's not an active program at this point. Um but it is something that again ties back into some of the um education and agriculture related things and just another way that we're trying to get people um out and activating that space.

So So if that's something we could we probably should add community gardening if that is one of the intentions. Okay. Just to be clear on it. Is that what you were thinking? Yep. And just back, is that free space or is that rented space or

um we were I think it was minimal um or nominal in terms of what we had posted last year when we were looking to to rent them out and just offer them up for people. Um like I said, we didn't get any takers this last year. I'd have to talk with Jessica, who's our stewardship coordinator and runs that program, of what their thoughts were for this year. Um, we had also talked at some point about us just managing those gardens and um, having a partnership with like a food pantry or something like that just as a way to utilize um, some of those raised beds. And um, we've been working on some partnerships with the local school district of potentially getting students out to um, work on those gardens in a way that we might be able to um, again give back to the community through the food that comes out of them. But those are all just ideas that we've been talking about at this point. no real active program at this time. And just for the record, John, I with regard to the storage, it is really not the main focus here. So, I don't want the group to get hung up on that. If it is easier just to remove it, we're okay with that. Um, it's just something we had thought was something we could use to um, again help generate some extra revenue to support some of our search activities on the site, but I don't want that to kind of, like I said before, kill the deal. So, we're happy to remove it if if that's easier for the group. It

It sounds like the group is willing to to go through that, but yes, it is definitely easier if you just removed it and said it's totally your choice. It's open to being discussed obviously but yeah if you don't want to if I may ask a general question here where does your funding for the whole operation come from? It's come from the governments come from grants where does it come from? So for our entire operation or for this property for the for the property for for the oper Well yeah

yeah so well so right now the well the land was donated so a lot of our staff time is funded just through our general operating fund as an organization um when it comes to anything that we're doing on the farm we have grants that are supporting a lot of the um buckthornne removal on the river corridor we've received what's called an equip grant through NRCS for the aggro forestry system. Um there is a residence on the property, so we're generating some income there. That's rental. Huh? A rent a house rental. Yeah. So that covers some of our just general operations for the farm. Um but a lot of what's funding the projects that we're doing right now is grants. Um and then just our general donor fund.

Is that a federal grant, state grant? What what kind of The all the ones we have currently are all federal. So, um they're through NRCS um and some programs that they have for conservation agriculture. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Well, I guess end it there and move on. Yeah, we'll be back. Okay. Well, that was the only item for the plan commission. So, up next, the adjournment. What are you going to do? motion's motion. What's that? What are you doing? Throw it on the back. Never. That's okay.

Never had a chance to, but that's Yeah. Well, anybody could have along the way. Okay. Okay. I think Sean already kind of clarified that. It's been directed back at them to keep working on it. Yeah. Motion for a journment. Second. Plant commission. Okay. Rob and Todd again. Second. Oh, sorry, Dan. All right. All those in favor adjourning for plan commission. I I Anyone opposed? Stay longer. Very. Very good. We'll move on. Uh discussion of possible action for the village board 2026 road paving program road selections. Greg. Yeah. Evening everybody. Good evening.

Um this is about the time every year where we kind of try to make some progress on selecting roads for the road program. So, past years we've had about a million and a half in budget. This year's a little different. Working with about um $500,000 is what the village has committed for this year's program. So, we've, you know, there there are a lot of roads that obviously need improvements. There's about a mile and a half of roads at three or less. There's 10 to 15 more miles of roads at a four, which has kind of been our basis for selecting roads in the past. Um

obviously we can't do all of them this year with that budget. Um but we've worked with the village over the last you know year really Rob considerably Chad consider considerably to kind of create a list of high priority roads that we feel like even with a limited more limited budget we should be prioritizing with this year's program. Um, so we put a group of roads together and by kind of basis of what I was asked to do, I put together a recommendation of what roads I think should be base bid versus what could be an alternate bid. If you remember what we've done in the past is, you know, put roads out to bid as a base bid. Roads that we are committing to improving regardless of cost of what the bid comes in at, but also including some alternate bids so that let's say, you know, bids come in favorably, we have a little extra funding. um we add a road or two on to the program. The roads I'm kind of recommending, I don't know that I'd look at as either base or alternate bid. I think, you know, ultimately that's that's still a wise way to go about things, but I think the board kind of has to make a decision on what you want to be a base bid, what you want to commit to doing with this budget this year. So, the roads I suggested, one was Donald Drive. This is a residential road um on the west side of the village. One of the worst rated roads in the village. Um that one, you know, we could do for somewhere in the neighborhood of $120,000. Um the other road that we've heard, you know, both from public works and from many resident complaints is uh Prairie Avenue, both the portion south of Sunset and the portion north of Sunset. It's in very poor shape. Um the north half is a truck route. It's concrete. I just drove it today. It's in terrible shape. Really probably should be at the top of the

list. Um so those are all roads I think in consideration. The other piece that I added for an estimate within the base bid section is Hillside Drive. This is a a road that's split between the city and the village in terms of um jurisdiction ownership. Um the village committed to doing it last year as part of the road program. Obvious ultimately we removed it because it it didn't fit within the the budget. The city has approached the village saying that they would like to do their portions this year. The impetus being utility project. They want to replace water man and sanitary sewer underneath the roadway. came to the village asking if, hey, if we did this, would you commit to paying for your share of essentially pavement replacement for the village portions? Um, one thing I'd like the board to kind of give us guidance on, I think it's a great idea to to do, the city is going to move forward with their utility project regardless of villages uh cooperation with the pavement. And so if the village chose not to include that road in part of the funding for this year, they would essentially replace the utilities through the village portions and then just patch over the top of it, which doesn't really get you much in terms of pavement improvement, but um gives you a construction project regardless. Um so that cost just under $100,000 is included in this estimate as well. would not be bid out by the village, would not be managed by the village, but would be still paid for by the village and would have to be factored into the funding this year. So, you'll notice um on the alternate bid cost, I talked about Prairie Avenue North, which is a section of Prairie from Sunset to the railroad tracks in the villages right ofway. Um, in

terrible shape, it's wide. It's made out of concrete. Um, you'll notice that the cost I I included two different alternates. One to replace it with eight inches of concrete, one to replace it with a heavier heavy duty mix of asphalt. Both are a little bit more prohibitive in terms of cost to include in this year's program. Concrete would be somewhere, you know, between $400 and $450,000. Asphalt 300 to $350,000. Um, if you're committing to doing that road, there's not a whole lot of room in the budget to do other roads. Um, so keep keep that in mind. Um, if you wanted to include it as an alternate there still might be some um something to gain from that, you could see what it would cost and could go after it in future years. Um, but I don't think if you chose to do, for example, the south side of Prairie Road and Donald Prairie Avenue and Donald Drive, there wouldn't be the budget to do everything. Um, so again, my recommendation as the base bid was to commit to Hillside Drive, which I I think is a great idea. The city's going to move forward with that. Um,

which you said they're going to bid out. We don't have to. We just have to commit the funds.

Just have to commit the funds as a cost share, you know, at the end of the project when when it's all said and done. um commit to Donald Drive, again, one of the worst rated roads in the village, and commit to Prairie Avenue South, which is south of Sunset until village jurisdiction ends. That puts you somewhere in the ballpark of, you know, $350 to $400,000 with a healthy contingency factored in. Um, now obviously with a $500,000 budget, that leaves a little bit of room there. Not enough room to get the north side of Prairie done, but enough room to do another road like I included another residential road, Winnebago Way. Um, again on the west side of the village, just another poorly rated road that would kind of fit in with that $500,000 budget range. Um, alternatively, I would say the other option may be let, you know, maybe the board decides, hey, we really should address Prairie Avenue north of Sunset to the railroad tracks. Address that as a base bid knowing it's going to eat up most of your budget and maybe throw in another couple roads just to see what you can pack in as alternates. Alternates, you're not committed, you're not committed or obligated to to do. It's more or less, you know, you see what the costs come in at and then decide. Um, I would say the challenge this year is trying to pick and choose priorities out of many, many priorities and not being able to address all of them within a $500,000 budget. Um, so, you know, last year we got a project rolling around this time. We got a bid out by March. We had a a contractor selected by late March, early April. I would say I think that timeline worked pretty well.

Um, you know, if possible, we'd like to make a decision soon so we can kind of keep track on that same timeline this year. Um, but looking for some guidance from the board on um what roads you want us to include in this year's program, both as a base bid and maybe attach some others as an alternate bid to see where the costs come in. So, I'm going to start off, I guess, with Hillside. We need to just commit to that. Either way, it does it it'd be foolish and kind of a waste of our money to allow the city to come and do the work they're going to do and then say for us to come back next year and say we're going to do it uh for our portions that need to be done and now we're milling up with some brand new asphalt to put down nice smooth road through there. It makes sense we just do that now. So, that's a 100,000 off the top roughly. you know, obviously the last quarter of the estimates, but just rounding up that way. Donald Drive was top of our list going into the year as Greg mentioned because of the condition of it. That was the road that we used um basically as highlighted for the ELRIP program. It's um correct me if I'm wrong, but from the response we got back from the ELO program when we were denied the grant for the the money that we asked for um is because Donald Drive is a low traveled road frequency wise compared to others.

Um we put it off already because I think it was on the plans for last year and we pushed that road off, right?

So we pushed off yet another year here um to get to this point. But if Prairie is heavily as as it is as far as traffic goes, to me it makes sense that we would do Prairie North with the asphalt and then do Hillside and that's where we end for the year. If we're under our budget, that's fine because just to remind you, while we did budget $500,000 towards roads, it's a loan. We don't need to take out that much in the loan if we're not going to do it all. So I while we budgeted for it, I'm not hardressed to like push the issue and say, you know, we got to go find another road to get to that number. It just means we we borrow less this year for the roads. Or if you're that strongly opinionated that we say do north with the asphalt, which is roughly 345 according to estimate, we do hillside for 90. Um, if you're that strongly opinion about it, then we could do a budget budget amendment and we add Donald on top of that and we go above the 500. But I I think we could put Donald at the top of list for next year uh and accomplish Prairie to the North first because it is so heavily traveled. I think to add on to what Chad's saying too, we do have the option of of bidding out Donald, sorry, Prairie Avenue north of Sunset as both concrete pavement replacement and asphalt replacement. So, we don't need to decide now whether or not you want to replace it with it's concrete currently and I think it's concrete currently for a reason. It's a heavily traveled truck route. Um, obviously would would prefer to keep it that way if the costs make sense with the village's budget. But, you know, we can do alternate bids and and select that after the costs come in.

Well, if it's a truck road, I think it's needs to be concrete. It's my opinion. It will never last. I mean, we can put it in and a couple years later it's going to be back to where we're at right now. I kind of think we do both and figure out later when the bids come in which one you want to do if it's a but I think like you said we need to do hillside for sure and that's a silly thing not to consider not doing that but prairie to the north I think we put the bids out for you know asphalt pavement see

maybe we get lucky and it's less than what Greg's got here for the concrete and it gets us in budget Do we need to put another bid up for something as an alternate now or can we do that later on if these things come in less? Well, we select something do it all at once because otherwise we're going to have to pay for bids twice with Greg and all those different things. Although, you know, I will say what we did last year was we uh was it high view court? We saw a need kind of during the project for that road to get done.

There at the time was budget to do it. You you can amend projects with change orders and add roads in later if there's the budget to do that. Um, again, it's with it's within a certain p. You can't double the size of the project mid project, but there's the ability to change the project during the summer as well. I don't think you mentioned it, but this is including gutter and all the stuff around prairie.

Yeah. So, prair prairie and really one of the the road quality is is one thing. There are catch basins both north and south of sunset that are in very poor shape. um that would be included with this project. That's another kind of driving factor for replacement of prairie. Um we did not include replacement of all of the curbon gutter. It' be more or less, you know, spot check what's out there, replace the bad sections. So we assumed a percentage of curbon gutter would be replaced with the concrete. Um we assumed eight eight inches of concrete. Admittedly, I do not know what the existing thickness is. So that may factor into the ultimate design of what um section of concrete goes back in. Um but there are some kind of healthy assumptions factored into the cost in terms of contingency subgrade replacement. So to to Chad's point, you know, if you want to be optimistic, it may come in less than the, you know, $461,000 I have estimated for concrete. You bid you figured eight inches of concrete for pretty much sure that's standard.

Yeah, that's pretty I mean it's minimum for sure. We need a motion to Yeah, if we would. It'd be make sense to act on it tonight so we can get the bed going. So Make a motion to authorize Milky to advertise the bids. Is that the right terminology here? Yep. For Prairie North. Both options. And then you want an alternate or no or just to put it for that road? Let's put it in for Well, we got already got Hillside in too included in that. But that's not for us to

Yeah, that that would be more or less for we're allocating that money in the budget. That's what I meant. Don't we don't need to have that. Well, don't I guess you can make that part of the motion that or we could do a separate motion for that if you want. I think we just put it in one and put Donald Drive down as an alternate. Does that make sense? It really doesn't hurt to. I mean, if the costs don't come in favorably, then you just remove it. So, that's my motion. All right. Okay. So, Prairie North, both options. Mhm. Donald secondary. Uh, and then the motion also is to approve to do hillside with the sharing with the city. Yes.

Okay. Any uh second to that? I'll second that. Okay. Any discussion on that? You were going to do prairie both north and south? No, we don't have that much. It'd be just to the north. And the main problem is up to the north. Correct. Well, they they both are problems because to the south is on the top of the recommendations as well, but we can't with the budget for the year. We can't do all of that. South is not part of the truck route and it's the apron. I guess the entrance to the road is concrete, but it's primarily asphalt. I don't think it's in as bad of shape um kind, you know, visually and driving it. So, between the two north is I think the bigger priority,

right? Legally, it's not a truck road. Yeah. Gets used as one though. See, we have a deputy for that. Whatever he is. If he's out there watching him right now. Could be. Just woke him up.

Oh, he's there. There he is. He's not watching the road right now. If there's any truckers listening online. All right. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing none. Uh just to repeat, the motion would be to authorize uh Greg and his firm to go out to bid on Prairie Avenue North to the two options for asphalt uh and concrete as a um alternative for us to choose from later um to authorize to do the cost sharing for Hillside Drive with the city of Waca with their project they're working on and then a alternate that we can look at to to authorize for Donald. Okay, sounds good. All those in favor say I. I

I anyone opposed? That goes. Very good. Okay. Up next for those in the gallery. Hopefully there's enough copies. If you guys were trying to look, we put some copies out on the table back there. Um if not, I guess you can share with each other. Otherwise, we can get some more handed out. Um so there's two different line items. one for updates to the public works building, that project that's been ongoing for quite some time here this last year. Uh the second item is for the fire station uh updates. The packet as it was put together and handed out uh the actually backwards a little bit. So if you go to the back of the packet, we'll go through the public works portion first. So, um, the drawings were get provided to us with the updates that we last talked about a few months ago at a board meeting. Um, if you recall from fall when we took a little tour on campus, we walked the property. We changed the location of what was originally suggested, which was to the north of the existing public works building, uh, up to like the northwest corner of the fire department. We uh voted as a board to change that to put it to the south of the current existing garage um and to at the same time take down the other two buildings on the south side. Um the way that we look to do this, we oriented the building so that the um overhead garage doors would be facing south, not towards the street. uh and with uh the discussion of removing those two buildings that are existing, storage became an issue. So, uh just to remind you all, we voted to expand the size of this building, which is where we went back and changed the

drawings uh to include an additional stall. This added roughly 20ish feet from the last iteration of this drawing to tonight's version that's in front of you. um because of way the way we rotated it and then putting it close to the public works building that we're keeping the garage that's out there the orientation of the building flipped it mirrored itself. So now where the office and bathroom were in the top left of your picture when you're looking at it from you if the garage doors are to your to the bottom of the page for you. We flipped that so they're now in the top right corner, putting them closer to the other building that already has the utilities to it. So we wouldn't have to try and run utilities from the back of the building up towards the front. So it makes shorter runs for the utility connections for us. Um there is still the firewall based on the size of all of this. Um I I we've keep talking over and over again as far as wanting to um get this going. So, I I did not go the route of trying to get that removed through waiverss and stuff with the state because that's an unknown and it's going to just take us that much further into the future to try and get this done. So, what we last talked about was trying to about this time get going down the bid for this building and so the firewalls is remaining. They were able to add in the extra stall with an additional bit to the building, but distance-wise, there's not much difference between the garage doors that there was previously. Uh they expanded the garage doors from the last meeting when we talked through all this, we voted to go from 14t doors with the previous plan to 16 foot doors with this plan. They were able to accommodate that without having to extend the building additionally for that purpose. um

in the discussions with the designer of of um the drawings and such. Uh and then talking through the location in that um I had them take out the concrete wall around the bottom. That was um part of what we looked at previously. There was discussions amongst you that um didn't really want that there. Um so the plans as they are presented to you um are full of full length wall on the sides not having concrete on the first six feet of that. The designer of the building said that was not something he was pushing. Um he um that was given to him by somebody from the village that's not here tonight. So, uh, the designs, if you look at the pages, um, have that portion removed. He indicated that that would be a significant cost savings on this project to not have to put six foot walls of concrete poured all around the out, you know, the perimeter of the building. Um, the way it was described to me without giving me hard numbers because we have to put this out the bid, but we could Rob, close your ears. um we could have public works building employees hitting the side of this requiring repairs multiple times before we would come to the cost difference of the concrete that's there. So that's not an authorization to run into it back there. Um but the difference in cost the way he described it to me was significant to not have the concrete there. Also, um if you recall from the the plans previously, the original drawings um had fascia and stuff on them, but the siding because it was facing the road. It was visible from the road, and so there was more decorative work to the outside of the building that um based on where it is, it's going to be more in line with our other building. So, I had them remove that as well.

It'd be just standard siding all the way around because now it's hiding, the building's hiding in the back corner. um and not visible any longer. So, those are the drawings. Uh talking to Greg this week is I just got this um I think let's say Thursday. I think I got these emailed to me Tuesday if I'm not mistaken. Um with the updates here and um that's where we're at. But sorry, I started talking and I lost my train of thought there. So, Greg and I talked a bit about this. There's some work that he's going to have to do with his his firm uh to secure up the specs on this from what we had previously with what we have with this to be able to put it out to bid for us to get this project moving forward. Um, as far as location goes, doing some mapping on Google, which we don't have a projector anymore, uh, to show you guys here tonight, but this is the actual spot. I've learned since we last met on this, this is the same spot this building was actually designed to be put in roughly 10 years ago, give or take, whenever the the prior um then town board actually had this already bid out and then they canled the project. Um and this is the same spot that was that was a 60 by 80 building that was initially specked out. I know this because the person, and correct me if the information is wrong, but the person that made these drawings is the same person that made those drawings back then. Um, so he's quite familiar with the location and and all of that. Um, looking at uh where this is going to go, we would need 10 ft of space between

that and the existing building. So if you take this um if we go what would be the east side of the building. If we put that even with the face of the existing or the the remaining garage u the back of the building will put us about 10 ft from the fowl line on the the baseball diamond and about 20 25 ft from the third base. So, we're pretty close to just encroaching the actual baseball field with it in that location. Uh, I'm going to recommend to you to consider that we actually remove the baseball diamond altogether. Um, and we end up probably using the outfield as the public works yard for where they're going to put mulch and other piles of, you know, things like that. Um, it gives us opportunity from that perspective because if you recall from conversations we have to be correct me if I'm wrong but a minimum of 200 feet from the well that's on the back of our building we're sitting in right now that puts 200 foot mark roughly the back corner of this building. So, if we go out into the outfield u with the public works yard, that would give us the opportunity that in the future when we look to uh do something with our salt storage, it would put it out in that space well outside of that distance that we need to have from our wall for the DNR. Um, either way, we still have to do some figuring of what we're going to do with our yard waste project as far as where that's going to go because it's not going to remain where it is. There's going to be somewhere between 20 and 30 feet of clearance from the front of the

building to the south lot line on this location. So, that's going to be kind of tight, I think, for the trucks when they're coming in and out. Um, but that's what we talked about as far as location goes. Um, there's also concern and we had talked previously that these two buildings would be connected. Uh, the designer was pretty concerned about that because the existing building is not rated for all the snow that could come off of this large roof onto that one and that we'd have to do some structural work to that building for reinforcing the roof and things like that. So, um there's separation between the buildings for those reasons. So that's the updates from that perspective. Thoughts, comments? Greg, you got anything you want to add?

Uh I can talk about the work. I guess that goes into our end um for for bidding at some point, but um no, let you guys ask questions first. My point is that we've got a a big project going here and the uh the ball field as far as an option to be taken out so that we are better situated to bring this whole project into into some kind of synchronization is uh I think uh a minor issue and should be I don't think that the the uh quality of life in this in the village of Waka is going to be uh affected by removing that. It will be more affected by the positives that come from removing it and making it part of the overall program. So Chad, I'm with you with on that that idea as far as removing it.

Yeah, you know, best and back Chris, you can speak up, but to my knowledge, there's one or two baseball teams that I guess pay us a a pretty small amount of money to rent it out during the season. Um it's nothing that's going to affect us revenue wise. It's less than $1,000 revenue for the year. Correct. Um but I think we're probably not far off from that on the expenses that Rob has to do to maintain it with um to be able to keep doing using it for that purpose. So we're not really we're not going to be harmed in removing it from that perspective. If anything, it might be better because it's less that his guys have to change their task to fixing the the field. I have a couple.

Okay. I guess first of all would go back to the beginning I think of how many stalls we had initially the uh we're going to have and I for garage you know doors or whatever and my recall I thought we had six we're going to add to seven or is that I think it was five to six. Five to six. Okay. This is an additional stall. Okay. Um, I just got a question with the trench trenches that are in the floor. You know, how they're ran in there. If they could be I know you got one running like east and west and you just got a um a catch basin and the other stall

uh north south for the the one. Yeah. On the north one is a catch basin and to the east east one. Yeah, east one. So the smaller of what I'll refer to as like the large bay and south bay or small bay, right? Your picture has got the long trench in the center of the floor that's running from north to south. The catch basin is on the east side of the building. Correct.

That'd be in the smaller of the two bays. I'm just curious if that's a, you know, if there's other options to run maybe the whole length of the the width of the building instead of just in the middle of that because I know you're going to pitch a floor at a center or whatever. That's just a question that just would be better. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out at you.

I I don't know that I know that either. I I think that's probably pretty standard for these for these buildings. I'm going I guess defaulting to that this is what they designed and we can certainly add longer if we really wanted to. But also keep them keep in mind I guess you know that the way this was laid out was that back wall to the north uh and then the wall to the side to the west or excuse me uh likely some type of storage. So you're not going to necessarily have trucks or equipment in that probably 10 to 20 feet of wall space. Right. I I I think it'd be fine where it is, but if you want to add a few feet to it or something, I guess.

No, I just wanted to see if it would be better to run it the opposite direction that the u that drainage in the for the trench in the floor. Oh, you want to rotate it, right? Oh, well, I mean, so this gets into a little bit of

saying the front of the door instead of pitch in the center of the room. I think one thing that's lacking in these these plans and Chad and I talked a little bit about this is kind of overall context to where this sits in the site. If you if I'm up and I'm looking at this, I I see all the information I need to build a building. Other than the site kind of um details on where this is going on the site and utilities it's connecting to. Um I don't know, you know, where is this catch basin and the trench train connect? What what are they connecting to on the site? Do we have the pitch to connect it to something? It, you know, where is it discharging? Um, some of that context I think is needed. Um, Chad and I talked a little bit about the development of some kind of preliminary site plan to put this out to bid where some of those details would be a little more apparent to biders. Um, and not just for utility purposes, but again, grading, you know, asphalt replacement, any any kind of site details needed to actually put the building, you know, in the ground here in a specific location. Um, so that, you know, might impact the orientation of the trench train, you know, if if if that's kind of what you're getting to. Al,

the other the other question I had was um one of the drawings show the truck inside the fire station here, you know, and it doesn't really show where the squad car is going, if we're going to even have a squad car, where where that one's actually going to go. So, that was kind of uh incomplete where that squad car is going to sit. Now, that's being that the two other sheds are going to be removed, where the squad car is going to be um put the parks at. And why is that? Do we have a plow truck in the fire department now? I guess drawing at least that's what mine showed if there's still one to be parked there or not.

No, no, because altogether they got nine plow trucks. We're never going to have nine plow trucks. Well, this be ridiculous,

right? The way this is designed now is we've got basically eight points. The four doors to the large portion is going to be your eight salt trucks that we keep talking about going into the future. The part to the right, um the smaller bay probably is the squad. Um you have what the bucket or um the cherry picker truck, whatever you want to refer to it as. Uh there's a small dump truck. What was it? A one ton. Um so you've got a couple vehicles. So there's likelihood that there's more than enough space there for the truck for the Tahoe that the the deputy has. If nothing else, we still maintain the other garage that's out there. That probably is even better for that. It's empty right now according to the drawing. Correct.

The existing building. The the building we keep Yeah. is also for this equipment as well, right? So the the the small trucks may just go in there and the deputy could park in there as well from that perspective and leave this new building just for public works equipment. So because you figure also we've got a project that Rob's working on for a I know we talked initially a skid loader, but he's looking at those mini front-end loaders we we discussed at the budget meeting. So that would also go into this space as well. So there's room for it. It's just we figure that out as we go with exactly what's going to be best for which building.

I know. And then we we had talked about adding on to the building. Obviously you explained that that the snow load or whatever that would you know add on to the additional building. So now we and you explain it that we're going to add another bathroom and office. So they're going to have two bathroom offices. Now, is that how it we're going to try to eliminate one of them or we're going to try to keep both of them? Well, it doesn't cost us anything to keep both of them.

We're we're we're keeping This is our future building going forward, right? Eventually, the existing building we have now is probably going to come down. This is this is our future, this building. So, this needs the office and stuff in it, which is what we've talked about, already agreed to previously. That's why it's kept in this drawing. um what we do with that space in the existing garage out there that stays. We can Rob can figure out what he wants to do and maybe he shuts the water off and no longer uses that bathroom. No, I was just kind of curious what our plans was for. Well, but that's

because part of that issue out there that office needs to come out anyways because of code issues with the opening to the door. So, the existing office is not going to stay as it is in in that building. They're going to have to do some work in there and Rob and his crew probably take out some walls. Then the water for the building would use the water that's existing here. We're going to was going to tie into the well. Yep. That was what we tie. Yep. Just like we had already agreed and discussed. Okay. Uh and then sewer is going to tie into the sewer line just like the rest of the property.

And I know we never discussed this either, but I'm just curious between like a a wood truss and a metal truss if there's a how much a difference in prices that would be any figures. Can we get a figure on that? Yes. Or is that something that

we should look into? I'm just throwing an option to say, "Hey, should we look into that or not?" I mean, we already said that even that you guys said if we hooked on the other building's a snow lo problem, not to say that wood trusses are good, but I'm just saying I think metal is better in my opinion. And u I just thought that if we could get a a price difference between the two, that'd be good to do. And that's something we can talk about. Well, we we did discuss that at a previous meeting and we decided to continue with the drawings and the plans as they were with the wood that that has been discussed in the past. Um so I if we go to the point of saying we want to do that that I think that's going to change specs and it's going to change potentially the engineering of the building and

to switch between one or the other. So that's it's like creating a second set of drawings and spec plans to to give two options for the building is rough. Yeah. They start over again is basically what you're doing. Not really. Well, if you're going to double if you're going to change the truss as you are. Trust is trust is a trust size building stays the same. Just a trust just a manufactur material. That's all it is. Price difference. Melon wood. That's all it is.

Yep. My opinion is we go with what it is already for the design. We can if you want to make a motion to to do those things, we can we can vote on that. Um but that'd be my stance. Um, so there is still, as Greg kind of touched on, and we, what we don't have with these drawings, because this is bringing back to you what we tried modifying at the last meeting with this is we don't have the actual site plan put together um to have a a speced out scaled diagram of where this all goes, um, how much fencing we're going to put up and all of that. So, um I guess it's up to you guys. Do you if we agreed that that corner is the back wall is 10 ft. It's designed the site plan is designed that it's 10 say 11 ft something like that whatever we want to do. Um from the the remaining building and we put the two faces of them flush to each other. Do you need to see the site plan to keep going with this or could that be part of the motion and then Greg's able to either with his guys do that or we put it in as part of the specs with the bid of where that goes? Are you going to require us to bring that back with the site plan so you can actually see it like one of those drawings to say okay now we can go to the bid

because that's going to delay that further. That's why I ask. Yeah. The only thing I would like to see in the thing, I mean, I'm all for where it's going, um, and the size of the building and all that, um, the only thing I I would like to see in a site plan would be how the yard waste is going to work and how you could enter and leave or how they going to exit enter that yard waste, I guess, because it's going to be in back of everything. I mean, is how are we going to get back there? We're going to go through the DPW area or are we going to come around the other side of the building? I'm just I'm just kind of curious how that's going to how how that's going to work out.

So, I will clarify a prior statement. I said there was like 20 or 30 feet, but I don't know what I was doing before when I came up with that number. Um, if we do 10 feet off between the two buildings for space, you take the 80 ft depth of this building, that leaves us about 75 ft from the face of this where the garage doors are to the south line, which would be the you the side of the ramp of the existing um yard waste area. So, there's about 75 ft of space in front of these doors. Yes, that I guess I would personally I would say This is my preference. We can allow Rob to give us that input on where he would want it in his yard. Um, and then that could be drawn in based on that. I I don't want to designate say you have to put this here. I think Rob and his crew would know best on where they want to lay their stuff out there. So, give them

Yeah, that's fine. All I'm saying, I think it should be on a site plan of operation so we know where it's going to Oh, yeah. It will be in there. But I mean, I think for tonight's purposes, I don't think we need to designate where that's going to be. No. No. Like I'm saying, that's where I would say I would allow that to be Rob and his crew to have that input

um with this to be able to put that in there. Um because keep in mind then too, if we're doing all this, the face of the gated area where the gate is now roughly is going to be about a 75 foot length there. Uh we're going to have probably two to 300 feet of fencing along the south lot line to this uh going to the back of the area and then another 75 to 100 feet along the west end, you know, out in the outfield and then bringing that back to connect the to the back side of this building. So, we've got probably 500ish feet of fencing to surround this area is um from a project that uh I worked on with my full-time employment in this last year um or two years ago now, we did a 90 by90 um square of fencing and that was about $15,000. So, if I round up with all of this, I'm guessing we're 50 to $100,000 in fencing after you add all that in. Probably closer to 100 when if we want to do some kind of a rolling gate versus a swinging gate. I'd rather be a rolling gate on the face of it. So, other things that way. So, um thoughts, other things?

I got one. I got one more. the insulation, the bad insulation that's in there. And you've got like a 9 in, I think, going in the walls or whatever. I didn't put these plants together. I do not know. Sorry, I'm not Okay, that's okay. I'm just curious if um why we don't go to a foam insulation instead of a bat. And I think we should definitely check into that 100%. Most metal billings, I think it was seven inches. Most B most most metal buildings have a uh well say most um spray insulation that they're sealed a lot better. The art factor is better and um they're just seal up better versus a bad insulation.

Is is that a change? I mean because I think at this point any change would have to go back to Mortensson, right? I didn't get to see it till now. So we never got to this point. Well, as part of this is to give an opportunity to review it, but you know, any change delays the bidding process and so forth. So I don't know that doesn't sound like a big change or to even ask his opinion on.

Well, at least to get an opinion, I guess we can start there and if u where that would lead us, whatever. Um the other thing I would like to do other thing I would like to see we can you know think about that a second but the other thing I'd like to see is there's any way they can bring a most of these buildings sometimes we have bring in a samp material samples could they bring possibly some material samples in especially for like like now if we're taking out that 4 foot concrete wall that goes all the way around they're going to put up some kind of a different kind of a material in that first 4 foot frame around the building I would like to see what it is you know what happens when you hit a truck with a metal building and it's not there no more. And I just like to see what is what it's all made of, what it looks like.

Actually, the whole building if they had samples of the whole nine yards, it'd be great to see. Well, that's going to be with our eventually it's going to be with whoever we end up awarding the contract to, correct? to have them show us their Well, I mean, you're you're telling them as part of this bid package what you want the building to be built out of. So, I mean, yeah, I think you'd have the opportunity to ask the low bid or the winning bidder to bring in a sample material. You could potentially change it at that point, but then you're talking about a change order and and a change in cost to change material because you've already put the project to bid and you know told the contractor this is what we want the building made out of

which but if they don't bid the same kind of metal that's out there, galvanized one, painted steel one or whatever, that's already all that's that's already in the that's included in the

that's not in tonight's drawings because tonight's drawings were updates to the size and location of garage doors. and things of that sort. That's already all been approved in our previous drawings as far as all of that goes. That's all on those specs. Um, so the specs, like I said before, that that are already all designated on from the previous meeting is what Greg and his crew would be using towards this. The outside of the building, we've already agreed to what the siding was going to be with the previous set of these drawings. The only difference is the bottom half isn't going to have the decorative siding because it's kind of waste the money to put the extra decorative stuff on when it's facing a neighbor's yard and not the street.

So, since I don't remember what we approved for the metal sighting, does anybody know what it is? Well, the plan steel siding. Um, that's pretty vague, right? So he put the designer put together some again pretty simplistic technical specs which would is what we'd be using to put this project out to bid. Um you know I would have to look through what he put together. Um if that's something we want more detail on certainly you know going to find it.

Siding east west north prefinished metal siding panels. I don't know what that is. Panel substrate is 19 h00s of an inch minimum thickness commercial steel sheet with G90 zinc metallic coating. Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't see it last time, so I'm sorry. So, I mean, there is a good amount of detail here on the siding itself and and what's being asked for. Thank you. Who are these drawings done by? There's no name on him or nothing.

Uh the designer, it's the same guy that we already talked about is the designer from U. Morton buildings and and as we've previously discussed over the last year with us and how long this has been taking us um these are generic specs so that any of the manufacturer of these types of buildings can bid on them. Okay. Yeah. I was just wondering who designed it because there was no name on it. Thanks. All right. So, there's a lot of different things discussed there. Where are you guys feeling as far as next step?

Would you say you're going to push the new building back so the face of it is or the east side of it is in line with the existing building? That's that's what we had previously discussed and that Yeah. to to keep it the same.

That's where we would line it up that way. So you don't have that jugg. Okay. Anybody else? Be kind of a long motion if we're going to make one.

A long one. Well, with all the different things we just discussed as far as authorizing Rob to put his yard waste where it goes to allow um Greg and his firm to shore up the site plan or however we end up deciding to do that. I don't think Rob's thing has to be part of this, does it? Well, to Al's point, it would make sense. But yeah, I guess if you want to lay that out later, we can do that lay that out later to keep this part going. I I guess whoever's going to make the motion, I guess. I guess I'm looking at this that we approve this is the building It's got nothing to do with site plan or any of that stuff at this point. That can all be changed later.

The site plan's already done. Yeah, we're pretty much Yes and no. We got plans in front of us here. Are we Is this what we're going to allow to go out to bid? That's what I'm getting at. That would be our next step is to authorize this

because we already had voted and agreed that Greg Sherman is going to put it out to bid. um we don't have a site plan drawing. So that's what I'm saying is that that would be a part of this package with the agreement that it's 10 ft separation between the buildings. The east side of the building is equal to the face of the existing remaining building. Like that's why I'm saying it could be a long motion with all those little contingencies that way um to allow us to to progress. Yeah, Fisher Fisher T has the site plan. That's for the fire station. That's the fire station. That's not this. No,

that's not that's a conceptual just like all those other things are conceptual. That is not the actual site plan for this building. They don't have the specs of this building to be able to say that. That's that's what I'm saying is that's a conceptual location of it. And that's where I'm giving you distances and things that could be part of a motion to say exactly where it is going to be put. So that the actual scaled site plan drawing is going to be done. Am I saying that wrong, Greg?

No. And so I think maybe to put it in terms that I don't know if it's been stated like this yet, I think we have two options for the site plan. Either prior to this stuff going out to bid, we or somebody else puts together a site plan that gets included in the bid package that biders are then basing their prices off of. They're saying the building's going here. The utilities for the site are are here. You know, the sur the the grades of everything is is as depicted on the site plan or we put these plans out to bid with the specs and everything and we ask the bidder to put together a site plan that would then I guess be brought to the village whether to the board or to staff to approve of the site plan at that point. So either putting together a site plan now or later.

I think the latter is going to be a problem. If you don't like the site plan, it's usually better to have the card. Yeah. No, I I agree with that. Those are the options that we've discussed. Um well, I'll tell you what. I'll make a motion we get to site planner operations with the drawings that you put out. I think that's a first thing you need to know. Exact even the people bidding I want to know if they're going to put five feet of pipe in there or 10 feet of pipe. Hold on because you're making a motion but you keep talking after that. So what's the actual motion you're making?

I think we make a motion that when you come back you got a site plan of operation the exact location of the building and exact location of the new yard waste location. Well, he's not coming back to us if if we're making a motion to authorize him to put all this together to go to bed. That's it. It'd be either he his firm if we want him to do it to put that site plan together and put it with the bid or we have it as part of the bid that they have to bring us the site plan which you're saying is not to your opinion is not the proper of the two options.

I heard the trustes motion to direct the he didn't say the village engineer to put together a site plan and bring it back. I'm sorry. That's how it not to go to bid to bring it back fully authorizing the preparation of the site. You're correct. So that's the motion that's on the table. Is that a correct statement of the motion? Yes, it is. Is there a second to that? And your motion does not include going out to bid. No, that would be after he Greg, I'll add that to the motion, but it'll be a second motion, but obviously I would like to get the site plan first. Now I'm confused.

Restate your motion. Restate your motion. I'd like to have a site plan of operation for the yards and the DPW where it's located. Okay. And then also we can add on a motion that you put this out to bid. If I can add on, if you want to see it beforehand, they can go out to bid now because now the bid is contingent on I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Now the bid is contingent on them bringing the site plan back to us to us approve the second, you know, the official drawings. Yep. That's why motion of the site plan offers to bring back. Thank you. And bring back to the board. Yep.

Okay. Okay. So, the motion is to authorize recruiter Milky to draft up the site plan and bring it back to the board. You just say of the building and the yard. You keep saying the two things. So, I just want to give specific direction and I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm paring what you said. Okay. Having restated that, is there a second to that motion? Do we want to put a date on? That's his motion at this point. There's nobody seconding it right now. So, let's get through that first. I'll second it.

Okay. So, the motion is to authorize Ruger and Milky to draft the site plan um including the building and the yard and then bring that back to the board. Any discussion on that? I will Greg, what's your rough timeline do you think it'll take for that to occur?

Well, it really depends on the level of detail here. If we're looking at just building orientation, distance from other features on the site, I think that's I mean that's a rudimentary kind of level of detail. I think we could aim to have it at the next board meeting. If we're talking we want a site survey done with with grades and utilities and things like that. Um maybe a little more detail. I mean we'd still aim for the next meeting, but you know I would have to check in with some other folks to to see what the timing would be on those things. Um so if I I think I'm understanding the the aim of this is where is this building oriented on the site? Where's kind of the general operations of the public works campus taking place? Where's the building in relation to other buildings on site? You know, that to me seems pretty straightforward in terms of detail. We're not looking for a comprehensive site survey prior to the site plan. Correct.

Correct. Okay. May I ask Greg question? Yep. Um what in order that the bids can go out and the biders have will is what you're recommending or suggesting you're not recommending you're paring what you heard um enough for them to bid or are they going to have to go and do all kinds of I don't want one bidder to come and say I'm going to get the sewer and water and gas and electric from this direction and somebody else saying I'm going to get it from a different direction. So it seems to me

we we might need a utility survey for that reason or we want to tell them where the utility connections are coming from. So that's not vague and not open to interpretation. Elevation. I'm that's another thing I'm thinking about. We're not necessarily telling them what elevation the the finished concrete slabs going at. That might determine asphalt, new, you know, new asphalt replacement, removal, things like that. uh you know other site grading. I'm not going to know that without some kind of level of a site survey being done. You know, we can estimate it based on the county has topographic information available, but it's 15 years old or, you know, 10 years old.

May I ask the maker of the motion, was your intent that the product that was produced would be all the information that a bidder needs to know so that they're all bidding on the same information? Yeah. So eventually we're going to have to do that anyway, right? Eventually, you know, somebody's going to have to do it now or before. And I think um either we pay for it now, we're going to pay for it later. Who pays for it, the contractor or whoever? I don't know how that's going to work, but I think it's all going to have to be done eventually.

So then is that the direction you need? That's the maker of the motion. That makes more sense more in depth than you said. Your your answer was you would try to have that done by the next meeting, but you need to check with others to see if that's possible for that level of detail to be done in one month. Again, I'm only paraging what I heard. Is that Did I am I stating it correctly? That's what I said. Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, I can and I can get back to Chad and the board on a timeline, I guess, once I have one for that level of a site plan. That makes sense. Well, if it's approved, then we're waiting until it's done either way, unless we put on the next agenda to to cancel this if this is approved. So,

we're contingent on your timeline either way. Um, yeah, John, you asked the question I was going to ask is to what level of detail do we need for this uh this drawing that's being motioned? So, any other discussion? Yeah, I'm still confused. I mean, I don't Are we asking them to do the whole site plan in and before we can go ahead and approve this? Are we approving this building? No, I am. We're not approving this building. This motion is to get the site plan before we go any next steps.

I thought we already did all this previously. Well, from memory, without going back to find the minutes, u and the the the actual specs were handed out to us that at the August meeting, um they weren't in a packet that we can go back and look online. So, we'd have to find those uh to Al's prior questions. Um but from the discussions we had back then was um similar to tonight that we would either have somebody do that on the front side or we have that as part of the bid that they have to provide app site plan drawings to us with the engineering and all that that goes with us. So, um any

I think you'd be better off having ahead of time because then everybody's bidding the same thing. I didn't dis bidding on on something different each with each one and then you're going to really you're going to end up with another box of worms, right? And and I wasn't to disagree with that in the earlier portion before the motion was made, but what I had said before was were you good with that being part of the bid process that he's putting together and then it goes out to bid or did you want to see it ahead of time? Al's motion is to see it before we go to the next to see it ahead of time. Yep. That's the difference.

So you contemplated in your presentation that they would do that before they went out. Yeah, we talked about that or I I mentioned that that that would because that's going to we have the only issue is whether it's going to be seen by the board before we go to bid or not, but it will be done at either event. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we can't build a building without a site plan and all of that, right? That that's all got to be done. Like everyone has said, better to know ahead of time. It gives everybody the same amount of information for site plan before you're asking for bids. So, yes. So,

it's just going to delay the whole process here. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of Well, you want me to restate the motion? You guys all know what it is. Please, just for clarity. Okay. The motion is to uh direct the engineer firm Rier Milky to create the detailed site plan uh drawing for the property with this building. Um before we go to the next steps and that includes the building and the yard.

Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed. All right. So Al, Roger and Steu are Yes. Bob and I are okay. To your other question, Bob, we can I guess it's kind of already indirectly approved through Al's motion, but if you want, we can have a second motion that we approve this these drawings in the the building. Um, if you want to at least get that part out of the way so that hopefully All we do is say, "Yep, that's a good site plan. Let's go."

And that motion would be subject to approval of the site plan. The engineer is authorized to go to bits. That means you're not revisiting what you see tonight. And re don't mean to put it in a negative way, rehashing what you saw tonight. You're approving what you saw tonight and you're just saying he's authorized to go to bid once you the board has approved the site plan. I would make a motion to approve the plans that's presented tonight. and authorizing them to go to bid subject to approval. Authorizing them to go to bid subject to the site plan. Approve. Good enough.

The motion is to approve the building plans as presented. No authoriz authorizing subject to the approval of the site plan.

I'll second that. All right. Any discussion on that? The only thing I add again just bring it up one point real quick is this talking too much. You agree, right, Chad? I'd still like to see the uh the installation different but that's my opinion if anybody want to discuss that a little bit but all

okay any other discussion right hearing none all those in favor or do you need that motion restated or you Can you restate it? The motion is to approve the building plans. Um, as presented. As presented. Yeah. I'm trying to read. I'm trying to read exactly how it is, John. Approve the building plans as presented and authorized to go to bid subject to approval of the site plan by the village board. All right. All those in favor of that motion say I. I.

Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Four yeses and ST is a no. All right. Anything else on this topic? We have another one to go over. All right. Moving on then to the fire station um project and cost estimations. Um, so the other portion of this packet that uh was handed out and um is before you is what we authorized uh Greg's firm to um go out and get us cost estimates for scheme B and scheme C that have been on the wall over here um in the room. So, as a reminder, B takes the existing building and heavily remodels the um floor where the current the area where the ladder truck is. Now, that floor would be remodeled into the living space um for kitchens um you know, bathrooms, all that kind of stuff. There's the addition to the north, sorry, to the west of the property of that portion. That would be the uh area where there'd be some bathrooms with showers and then the living quarters for sleeping. There would be additions to the garage space to be able to move those vehicles that are in this existing space uh down to the garages that face to the north. That's what more or less a synopsis of B. synopsis of C is that ladder truck area is more I don't want to say abandoned but it's unallocated space. Uh the garages are all all of the garages are extended to the north so that they're double stacked for the vehicles. And then the east side of the building that's facing the street would have a large addition that would encompass all

of the living quarter and living space area that we've been discussing. Um so that's a quick synopsis of the two. So what's before you is uh what um the firm put together for us. Uh page one if you look scheme B the overall cost estimation for uh building of B of what I just described is approximately 3.8 million. Uh there are three asphalt caving sections underneath that. in discussions we had with some meetings um in preparation for this that included um Brian and Connor Fischer included Greg uh having some different discussions if you recall it's I think if you're looking at the wall the draw the far left drawing has a different entrance that was what was designed and and discussed uh in the conceptual drawings to be part of scheme C. Scheme B was likely going to be using this existing entrance point off of the road but with asphalt extensions to the north to accommodate for turning radiuses and such with the uh expansion to the garage. So that was there. Um part of what we discussed in the meeting in preparation for this is uh also including because of the public works portion that we are discussing we just discussed a few minutes ago. There's likelihood that um we have asphalt work to do on all four sides of the campus of the buildings. So Greg was gracious enough with um working through this process with Lee from his firm um to give us cost estimates for the east, west, and south portions as well. Also, you have that in front of you to get an idea of where that would be. That includes Greg, you can correct me if I'm wrong with this, or Brian and Connor are back there as well. Um, some of that is going to be thicker concrete because it's going to accommodate for the heavy traffic of our dump trucks that are heavy. That would also include because

of the heavy weight of our our fire engine and and those other apparatus for the fire department with the water and such that are on them. So, portions of that would be thicker. The portions where your standard cars and trucks would park would be um you know shallower, thinner asphalt 4 inch versus four and seven.

Um so that's part of what's in there for that. Um if you go I think are those drawings in there? Look. Yep. That should be in between the public works drawings and then these cost estimations. You can see there's the blue and green sections around the building. Um, Greg, blue is the seven inch and or sorry, Greg, uh, green is 7 in and the blue is 4 in. Is that correct? Trying to get to that drawing to verify. The blue areas we have denoted for the 4-in kind of standard section of asphalt. The green areas would be the heavier duty 7 in section. Correct.

Yep. Um, so that's what those other costs are that are underneath. So if you were to just with how it's laid out here, if we were to do all those sides with this project, the scheme B segment or option would be approximately 3.9. No, excuse me. If we do the north section, that would come with be kind of necessary because of of expanding garage doors and stuff. Um, the scheme B plus north asphalt is the 3.9 figure that's in front of you. If we did west, south, and east, that would be another 370ish thousand estimated to be added onto that on top. Um, scheme C then is um for the building portion of the project is 4 roughly 4.5 just under as far as the estimation goes. Again, with the north, south, east, west, um, asphalt portions as options there. Again, they're numbered below is 4.6 six million, but that includes that north asphalt with the new entrance that we'd have to put in. What's not included in those totals? If you look in the small print underneath on page one, there's um roughly a 10% fee that's going to be u assessed through the work being done by the engineering and architecture for designing this uh seeing the project through and everything that we discussed back um when we had the firms come in including Fisers where we ultimately went with Fiser. And if you recall with all those discussions, they have a lot of work that they have to do to get us to the point of building this and then seeing the building through. That's an additional 10% of the building cost. So, scheme B is 3.8 million. Figure roughly $380,000 is their their fees roughly being 10%. Um, similarly then for Scheme C, you're in the range of about $440,000ish

uh for that that fee at 10%. That's on addition to the 39 and the 46 figures in front of you. So you're closer to what four fiveish for scheme B with that added. And then similarly you're at around five or 51 for scheme C. On top of that um soft costs as far as um that's listed below is the soft costs on the bottom of that page. What's not also included in this is the furnishings. That's going to be separate from this. That's not in the cost estimation. So, um, lockers for the turnout gear, uh, beds, desks, chairs, tables, uh, all of those types of furnishings are not included in this. If there's additional equipment like, uh, the turnout gear, washing and drying units, all of that different stuff is all going to be added on top of these numbers. Just out of curiosity, um I looked last night just going through some of this. Just a turnout gear washing machine, depending on what capacity of one of those you buy, is anywhere from three or sorry, $8,000 to $32,000 for just that washing machine. Um what I looked online for for the drying unit to to dry the turnout gear is between 10 and $15,000 that I just again just doing some quick looking online. Um, so right there alone, you're talking probably in upwards of $50,000 if we have to buy a washer, a dryer for the turnout gear to put in the new building. That's just that piece. Lockers, tables, chairs, desks, beds, all of that on top of that. So you're probably in the $400 to $500,000 range when you add up all of those different things that need to come in on top of all these numbers. So if we're at about four well four four million for scheme B with just the north asphalt plus add in the you know the soft cost for engineering and and design fees you're at what 43ish

44 somewhere in that range you're close to $5 million all included with all those totals for scheme B up on the wall you're probably in upwards of 5.4 5.5 million for scheme that's out there. You say 5.4 million

somewhere in that range. Just with a a guesstimation of 4 to $500,000 for all the furnishings that are going to go into this building when we're done, kitchen stoves, all that kind of stuff that's not included in these costs. referendum uh threshold for 2026 is about 4.475 million. Anything above that number would have to be referendum. Say that again one more time. Sorry.

Just under 4.5 million. So round it up to 4.5 because it's about $25,000 less than or 50,000 somewhere. So all-in cost for one of these two options is going to require referendum. Brian, Connor, Greg, any you guys want to add before I I guess open up for further discussion?

Go ahead. Okay. Board members, any discussion? This is uh this is it. Okay. You're saying 4.5 million for this, which means it's it's going to any of these are going to go to referendum. Correct. Is that my assumption?

Yep.

Okay. If we do an all- in one-time project to do all of this, guess if we as a guess say $400,000 for all those furnishings, beds, tables, all the stuff I was kind of listening and that's that's not everything. Probably that was just kind of the the bigger items you can think of off the top of your head. Um scheme B is going to be just under 4.6 million. using the same number.

I didn't add in the asphalt when I said that. So, it's like 4 point what I say 4.6. It's closer to 4.8 8 million with the north north asphalt. I did not do that when I just did the calculations. So the low end then becomes or the end becomes 4.8 We're in the range of

again with $400,000 estimating for furnishings. That's 4.75 million. Okay. U for scheme B. and five 5.5 million um for scheme C

just for both of them just rounding it guessing 400,000 Okay. My question is this. As far as the equipment and everything that we're going to be adding to our fire station. Um, what are the parameters that we're using for buying all that equipment? Is it is it by code to maintain our fire department that we need all this stuff or Well, a tradition a traditional washing machine won't handle a a turnout coat and turnout gear. It's big, thick. It's Oh, I understand. Yeah, I've seen it.

We have to buy the commercial machine for that if that's what you're asking. No, I'm I'm just Okay, that Okay. What other I mean, are there other things that we are adding that we don't have right now as far as what we're dealing with now as far as what we're using now as opposed to what we're going to be adding to the whole package. Uh beds, desks, chairs, we don't have any of that. Um, kitchen, appliances, refrigerators, stoves, we don't have that.

Um, lockers for the turnout gear, we have none of that. Like most of everything I just mentioned, with the exception of maybe the washer and dryer for the turnout gear because we do have something back there that's already being used. Now, if we reuse that, that might save us instead of 400,000, maybe we say it's 350,000 estimating for that. And that's um that's intense. Either way, it's we're still above our thresholds if we're doing an all allin-one project. I think that washer and dryer that's out there is about its life cycle.

Yeah. I'm I'm just we're building a whole new area that it would make sense if something's pretty aged like that that we're putting in a new unit because a year later we may be replacing it otherwise. So, and again, those are just rough guesses. I I could be totally off. It could be 300,000. It be 600,000. I'm just guessing. Well, I mean, if we're going to be over uh 4.6 million, we got to go referendum anyways, correct? Yep. Okay. Well, so what do you guys all think? I just want a quick question. Paperwork. Yeah. Is this bid for 2027? Yes, that that's 2027 bid period.

That's part of what's in there. That's the pricing assumptions. Page one, first statement is 10% escalation factor has been included for bidding in January of 27. And these are single beds, not bunk beds or queen size or anything like that. Or sorry, single bids, not single beds. You're not going to be able to do anything in the referendum now until November anyway.

So if we want to proceed with this uh to referendum, we have a short window of time here to get something together. what our questions would be if it's binding, non-binding, all that type of stuff. Um, and could still be on the August election, which is the primary partisan primary election. We're too late for the April election at this point.

So, if you wanted that one or we can either way, we can still do either August or November right now. I think this whole thing comes down to, okay, we're going to go to a referendum. Does everybody believe in this project? Do you think we need it? It's been 13 years been working on this thing. Do you can you get behind it? Do you believe in it? I do because I've seen what this what this community has has has gone through, especially the last couple of years. Can we get behind this? Stu, can you help us help us sell this thing? you guys that have fire fire experience, can you help us sell this thing? Because we can, but everybody's going to have to be behind it. So, is this my my decision is that we have spent so much time in this, we've done everything properly. We are the second as of 2003, we were the second lowest taxed municipal facility in the state of Wisconsin. change that.

What's that? Are you going to change that? Well, a little bit. I'm saying I think that we have a great opportunity with all the work that we've done here to get this thing done and we just need to get get behind it. It sounds like the next referendum opportunity is in August. Is that correct? Either August or November. August is the partisan primary. November is the general election. I do you know which one is generally more um November election. Okay.

Okay. The difference is that's three months of inactivity if if it were to be approved. By June, I would need a referendum question. August 25th, I would need a referendum question for the November election. What was November? August what?

25th. Those are the deadines. the the way that this is laid out and it's mentioned in their uh middle of the pricing assumptions page one is that there's no phasing to any of this project. So that would be an option that we take this in phases. We build the garages next year.

Okay. And then in 28 we build the rest of it. But at this point either way we're still spending that much money on this project. So does the community want that? I think that's the question, Chad, right there. Is the community want it? I think it's got to be the referendum and let them decide. That's my opinion. Why this help this uh we're not the only people here that got to pay taxes. There's other people out there that were spending their money and I don't feel comfortable sitting here saying that we're going to get behind it, so to speak. We're just going to put it out there. We've done the homework.

No, unfortunately. Let me just The state law requires that you're supporting it if you send it to referendum. It's right in the state. So, we have to How do we do that? By voting on it, you're telling by voting to go to referendum. Okay. Because the let me just explain why the legislature said if the board's not going to if the board's just going to say we'll let the citizens decide. Well, obviously that's what the referendum does, right? But as we read it, it says the board votes that to go to referendum and and they're supporting. I just want to lay that out right from the beginning that that I could look it up and and see if that's changed because the referendum like I don't know that you can even have advisory binding only. Okay.

So, there's been a lot of changes, but a lot of my boards over the years before going to referendum saying, "Well, I don't really know if I support it or not, but I want to hear what the citizens have to say." And I think the legislature said, "No, the board has to be behind it." So, is that a tough research to get, I guess, those questions? Is that tough research or could we No. I mean, we we've written opinion letters on these. Every time our boards have referendums, we write about what you can say and you can't say and publicly and things like that. So that research, a lot of that research is done once you give us a list of questions.

Here's a question for you, John. You've seen a lot of these. You've seen them in all kinds of uh uh election circumstances in school in school districts and things like that. Doesn't it come down to who makes the best case for their side of the story? Unfortunately, you don't get to make a You know, you just get to give the facts. There are pro and there are proponents and opponents who make a case, but they're the citizen groups. It's not the board out to sell it. That boards get in big trouble. School boards.

Now, they hire consultants for a great deal of money to put the best face on it. Okay. Oh, it's still but in a very objective way. Um, we've had one board that, you know, got slapped, you know, for putting in their newsletter, you know, a nonobjective commentaries.

So, I just all of those things will we can get you the the direction at the time you decide to go. As far as election cycles are concerned, if you've got a an August, let's say a uh something that's that's that's not an you got a November election and then you've got uh a election that's not as important. What do they say about that? Yeah, I don't have that kind of expertise, but I can tell you that the candidates sometimes don't like the fact that you've thrown a referendum on because the turnout ends up to be substantially higher than would ever occur. Many sometimes if the referendum is well publicized and going to be a lot of an issue, let's just put it simply. if the referendum is going to be an issue and you had a normal primary where hardly anybody would come like do we have a primary at all in April or do you have one

in February? No, we do not have a primary. Some some boards have a primary in April that's you know five people are running for school board instead of four. So they're going to narrow it down to four and there wouldn't be a huge turnout. But if you put a referendum on that day you might have a huge turnout. So I I don't know the statistics. Those companies that do this and they would tell you, you know, but but that that's not where you why you pick the date is because you think it's going to pass or not pass because of the number of people. Some people Chris has already advised you the the biggest turnout will be in November. I think that's a given, right, Chris?

Yes. Now there are if if this could be compared to a referendum for for schools or something like that. There are opinion letters and things that are put out by the u school boards for instance. They have to be totally objective and just factual. Okay? You can't say we're you know that's all I'll say. They have to be totally objective.

Well, here's what I think needs to happen. I'm for this. I'm I'm I'm really for it as far as things are concerned. And we can approach this one of two ways. We can approach this if you're for it, then you can approach it enthusiastically. Or if you're not for it and and and you're not going to support it, then then we then we have a little bit of a problem. So that's what I'm saying. We can approach this when we make our presentations. We have people up to to see exactly what the costs are and how long it's been. We've got a heck of a case in this community because we haven't done anything for 13 years. Everybody in this community that I c says to me, "Boy, we sure don't pay much taxes here. We sure don't pay much taxes here." I said, "Well, that that comes with a with a cost." And I'm willing to to to tell them about that. I'm saying we put together a program to promote this in a legal way and I uh certainly would uh would be willing to uh take the helm on something like that because I know it can be done.

Still really? Yeah. As long as you're on your soap box, I'm going to get on mine. Yeah. I'm going to go right back to day one. I think by the time we put these numbers together, you're at 5 million already. Mhm.

You could, like I said before, I think we had an estimate roughly of 6.5 million. You could build a brand new fire station. You could put the DPW in the existing fire station with no problem. No remodeling, no nothing. To me, it makes logical sense to build something new, state-of-the-art, and cover all the bases. I mean, you're killing two birds at one stone. Um, we used to be probably one of the highest respected fire departments in the county. And right now I think we're about second from the bottom just because we don't because we don't have the sleeping quarters. We don't have we're so far behind the eightball as far as safety for the fire department with all the cancer going on nowadays. Um to me it just makes logical sense to build new and start right from the ground up. Tell me if I'm wrong, but if I'm going to stick six million into two stupid buildings, one remodel that's 1950s and a DPW building where you could stick them in here, no problem at all. I mean, I I guess logically I think that'd be the way to go.

All right. Well, I guess logic's out of the realm nowadays. I guess logic's out of the realm nowadays. I disagree with that, Ste. I don't want you anything else. Boy, that was a mouthful. Take that. Yeah, we we went around that tree once with this, too. And I'll tell you, we got voted down on that. um moving we didn't have any numbers

and uh so I think we have to move forward in that I would have loved to had a new building new fire station uh um especially with the numbers that are coming in now with a new DBW building plus the new addition of the firehouse that we do is if you add the two together we're going to probably be we might even be cheaper building brand new fire stations um but by size that point Um, the fire station needs some. We haven't done anything for x amount of years. We've seen so many damn drawings. Nothing ever happens. Fire department stands still. Nothing moves forward. So, I'm all for a referendum to move something forward in this facility here to get a better fire department. So, I'm all for the referendum. Bob, anything else?

Well, I want I think we need to decide this one way or another and I think that's the way to have it is the referendum. We never had the numbers before as we said to get this point. This is why we went ahead with the drawings and get all this to get the information and that's what we have to present to these people is the information. We need to figure out what it's going to cost each taxpayer too is what they're really going to ask. I mean that's going to be the bottom line and they're going to look at that and say, "Well, I'm not spending another $800 on my tax bill to pay pay for this." I mean, that's going to be their decision. They can sit there and say, "We want to sell it, but they're the ones that got to pay for it." So I think they need to have you're talking about giving information about you know this plan here is information obviously we know that but the other half of this is the cost what it's going to cost each taxpayer. So I mean we got to do all of that part of this this deal too. This isn't just the only thing is this part tonight. We need to put the dollars out in front of each individual and that part of the facts that we have to present to them. I'm I'm all for a referendum. I It's the only way you're going to really get make any progress here. We can we're going to you don't do that, we're going to go right back to where we've been before. Nothing. If they decide they don't like the addition and somebody pushes the new building later on, I mean, I don't know. Maybe that's what'll happen, you know. But right now, we got this in front of us and yay or nay, whichever they decide to do. If I may one more time I think back in the early stages which is months ago

years years ago years

where us trustees I guess for the last year I guess a year and a half we never had firm numbers we were like saying that might be this might be that never had real numbers now we got some real numbers And what Stu what Mr. Bukult said um maybe would change somebody's mind differently if they knew these exact numbers because before we only had we didn't have numbers for both the DBW and the firehouse exactly the same time. Never. And we finally have them. And the numbers are coming in well high or lower, whatever, whatever you guys want to say you want to say. Um, but now we have them. And will it change your mind if you want to do something different now? Is it too late? But I just wanted to say that the numbers weren't always there. And now we got some really firm numbers and uh headed out for bid and consultant checking into it to make sure what the prices are are right. Um so the architect that was drawn up at the beginning we went out further uh spent some money got some firm figures to guarantee the numbers closer um than we had in the past.

I said we had four we got 4.8 to rejuvenate this building and I think the numbers we had on a new building were like 8 million is what I'll give you the numbers because I pul it up. Would you please I'm let go and talk about I'm I'm saving my stuff for last. I guess between six and eight. We looked at some other existing buildings that were already done and that was the cost for for other fire departments that had built new buildings. So, is it possible to put the referendum out there to make a choice? One, you can't do that. Okay. No. All you're all you're doing is saying you're gonna We need the money.

Let me answer the question. Could you go to the electorate in a referendum and say we would like to raise the the the you know levy and increase it to obtain $10 million to uh to improve the fire department. I I don't know you know and then you could give the facts on remodeling versus but you know you take a chance if you ask for the the the new building and they say no then you're not building a remodeled building. you have no money.

So there's a real So do I could you be could you try to be vague in that regard? I think legally you could say we want $10 million to build to improve the fire department facility and not state whether it's a remodeling or building. You might get heavily criticized for not having greater specificity, but I don't know that legally you couldn't do that. Let me state it that way. The language of the referendum is in the statute. You can't you can't change it a lot. It's we want x amount of money to increase the levy. I'm paraphrasing for the purposes of blank.

Can I can I maybe I phrase that wrong. Can we put on the referend I mean on the ballot or however a pick a or pick B? A being remodel B being a new one. And again, I'd have to check that because some people some school districts tried to do that and I I thought the legislature, you know, tried to close. I guess I just I don't know that if that's that's doable or not, but

Well, let me just ask you strategywise. If you were to put two questions on, they'd be separate questions. One is we would like to raise the levy, and I'm paraphrasing the language because I don't have it, by five million to remodel the fire station. and you put another one on that says we want to raise the levy to 8 million or seven million to build a new station. Which one do you think is going to pass? That's what I want to find out. You don't have a thought right now as to which one if you were asked that if you ask the general population. Well, I guess if you put the information out there though, what it's going to cost each one of them per taxpayer, you know, they may say the $8 million one because it's not going to break me, you know, fair

when they get a new one. I mean, that I think that's the I would like to know. I could buy a new car.

I want to know if I get a Cadillac or I get a Chevy for seven. I'm going to take the Cadillac for eight because I got a whole lot more stuff on it. It's a better deal than one. I have a couple things. I guess I've been allowing you guys to go back and forth and have some open conversation to this. Uh due to your prior comment, I'm going to give it to you with logic and not emotion. I'm not emotional about this. I know some of you are on the fire department in the past and some of you aren't. Give me a second, Brian. Um but I'm looking at this purely logically. Uh removing because there's a fire truck coming to my house if it's burning. There's an ambulance coming my house that it's burning. Is it going to be there in two minutes or 20 minutes? Right now, don't know. Depends on the date and time of the day. Okay. With this new project, is it going to be two minutes or 20 minutes? I don't know. They may be at a different call and now we got to neutralize a different agency still to come to my house. So, taking all the emotion aside from this, looking at the numbers because numbers have been tossed about about what was presented by the fisers back in February of 2025, almost a year ago now, and comparing that to what we have today. So, option B, while it's different in some of the drawing that you see up there to what actually it's not a lot different to be honest with you, um to what um what they had presented to us back in February of last year, their estimation that that building addition or B remodeling uh was going to be about 3.4 for including the engineering cost, the soft cost, the design costs and stuff that did not include asphalt work or the furnishings like beds and equipment and things like that. Okay, their number for that back in last year was 3.4 with the way that they estimated those numbers. We're talking about that tonight, a year later. Um, granted there's a year difference, so some costs have gone up obviously with things because that's

what happens. Our number for that is over $4 million. Okay. More than $600,000 difference between the initial estimate we had last year that got us to where we are tonight uh to what our numbers are, which are more concrete because of how they've broke this out so detail. Okay. Similarly, because you've brought it up before, again, using logic for all of this, the Fiser's estimate for a new building, 14,000 square feet total, um was $7.3 million. that did not include the the um furnishings like again the equipment, the lockers, all that kind of stuff. That was a question mark and it did not include any asphalt work that would go with that. Okay, that's $7.3 million. So if you liken the two of those estimates to what we have tonight, we went up roughly $600,000 between these two estimates for the B option. How much more is the new building going to go up? because it's at 73 according to what they put together with that drawing using just some generic square footage costs. Okay. So, I knew it was going to come up through with the way this was going. I'm not saying that we got to steer away from a new building if that's how you want to do the referendum. But using logic, not a motion, we are not going to have a new building for the cost of the addition to this building, whether it's B or C that's up on the wall. It's not going to happen. Guarantee it. Their estimations a year ago was $7.3 million. Costs have gone up. We're talking another year or two more beyond that from that cost estimation from a year ago. By the time this actually would even be a shovel in the ground, we're going to be close to $10 million by the time that building is built. It's not going to be 7 million. It's going to be eight or nine or 10. Just putting all those factors together. Okay. So, having said all of that, we don't I don't want anybody to make a there's no decisions tonight is my

opinion. We are not going to make any motions about referendums, what the questions are, any of that kind of stuff. There's way too much emotion on this topic tonight. We need to sit and digest these numbers, digest all the different options that have been discussed. What I'm going to ask you guys to do is consider a couple different things. One, do we want to take this to referendum or is it just dead in our eyes? Sounds like the answer is yes to a referendum, but think about that. Two, with John's ability to give us some stuff in a in a meeting, say at maybe the next meeting for an answer to it, can we do a binding or non-binding difference? Correct me if I'm wrong if I explain this correctly. Binding, we have to go with what the residents say. Non non-binding is advisory. So, we can still make our decisions beyond that, right? But that would be uh we're as John was indicating not non-binding still doesn't necessarily get us where we need to. Um so I I'd like I guess an answer to whether we can do the binding or not. So let's let's find that out and where that would lead us. Um if there is an option there, what what that option uh would include for for the referendum. The next thing I want you guys to just to to consider, I think Bob's the one that just brought it up. Are we going to give some kind of an option because you you and John were talking about that. Are we going to give them the option of either we do an addition where it's B or C or do we do D which is a new building? Okay. Uh they were numbered in the the diagrams from February of last year. Uh but just making it up here now. D is a new building. So, um, consider which way you want that to be on the referendum. Are we going to do an addition like one of these or are we going to give them the option for a new building? Okay. And you may have already answered this question, but something I wrote down before you started talking about it, John. Um, consider, I guess, if it's an option. Do

we do it where we don't have them tell us A, B, C, or D for whatever the option is? We ask them under referendum to authorize us to spend up to a specific dollar amount for this project and then we determine which version we go with from there. So things to consider I guess but it's going to be like at the earliest the next meeting. Obviously we're not going to hold a special meeting between here. Um but I I think we need to sit down and actually think through those things individually of what it is we want to do. Am I case than anything I just said. Again, I I think this is too raw and too fresh for all of you. I I saw this a couple days ago and it um so I I and I saw it a week ago when we met about it uh to finalize these details for you all, but the numbers are higher than what we we saw originally with the um before we finalized this for you. So, that's what I think we need to do. Brian, you wanted to add something?

Yeah, just come just come up to the microphones because there's complaints from residents who watch online after the fact that can I hear from the microphones?

I'm glad I'm sitting in the back of the room rather than where you are tonight. I mean, I understand you got a lot to deal with, a lot to struggle with, many, many issues out there. Earlier in the evening, Chad, you asked whether Connor and I wanted to add anything to the cost estimating. I mean, other than being complimentary to Greg and the people who put that together, I think one thing you really, really need to think about. We've been kind of pounding this drum for a year. scheme B or scheme C. You're not going to do either one of those without vacating that end of the building for several reasons. I mean, the cost the cost estimate Let me just Yep. May I just finish just real quickly? I'm trying I'm trying to be helpful. Okay. No, I appreciate that.

Trying to be helpful.

The cost estimate says no phasing. Understood. Even if you attempted to do that, the disruption to that part of the building in terms of electrical, plumbing, HVAC systems, security, your station alert systems, there's no way that any general contractor is going to take on that project without having you vacate that building. their insurance carrier would pass out pass out if they know they were trying to work around that from a safety point of view. So this is from the bottom of the heart. We spent a lot of time talking about it but you for a minute I think really need to step back from the numbers and say do you have a solution to do that? Do you have a solution to vacate that? What is the cost of that terms of money relocation temporary space whatever? So, I just thought I I may feel obliged to offer that to you. Thank you. I

I apologize for attempting to cut you off there. I was going to basically agree with with most of what you said, but um that has been discussed over and over again in all these, you know, two years of discussions on this. Now, I actually have come around on that because I was pushing that we would put gerbal tubes in and stuff that I see commercial projects all over the place constantly. Anyways, and I don't know why that we wouldn't be able to do the same here. Uh, but I have come around on that too that we would just vacate the space, make it done. We've already talked about that with the project that we just approved in the previous um item on the agenda. We have a very large building that would be erected that would house those vehicles temporarily. Um, I think at one point I've already talked to the chief and said we and even to Chris that we may have to have them in here temporarily for the couple people that need a desk. uh in the the front office here. Um while that goes on, it's going to be kind of a crappy situation, but we'll get there. Um yeah, without trying to interrupt just to make it as fast as it can go. So I I agree with you, Brian, that that will be vacated if that's the the route we go and we will figure it out from there. Even if it means we have to rent some conx boxes or something to to put gear in outside temporarily, I we'll figure it out. Um, so I appreciate that, Brian. Again, I apologize for cutting you off there. Um,

yep. Connor, go ahead. And I won't I won't interrupt you. This is

Hi, good evening. This is also just trying to be helpful. Um, worked with Chad and Greg and Brian and Lee was the cost estimator on this. We've been kind of talking behind the scenes basically to get this ready to go live with you. Um just trying to help because I know these are numbers and some big numbers. Um if you do go digging kind of deep into the pages of all of both of these cost estimates. Um we did include a line item for re-roofing the existing building as part of the project. Like we're not trying to hide it, but we basically threw everything in here to the tune of $360,000. That's a big chunk. And there's also a new generator in there for $250. So that's kind of a swing of $600,000 already. Um, and if you flip to kind of the subtotals of both of the schemes, there are some what I'd call pretty healthy contingencies right now. The hope is that that like really covers anything you could ever imagine during design or construction. We're basically I I won't speak for Lee, but we're kind of padding padding it right now with some heavy contingencies. So that's part of why you're seeing different numbers, bigger numbers than we had last year. Okay. Thanks.

I I appreciate Yeah. I I didn't go line by line through this with all of you because it's there's a lot there to to to go through. So I I do appreciate that. That's actually a good point. Um we've we've gone over and over again on the generator part. I just that was in there because I thought that was kind of a given as part of this project that we need to have a generator there. So that I didn't even didn't even cross my mind to bring that up to you like Connor did. So thank you for that. Um so realistically from that perspective, if you want to change the price slightly, it's um not re- roofing the entire building, but we talked about that last year when we did some um repair work to the when Mike uh worked with somebody and did some repair work to the to the roof that we need to re-roof this whole building. So, it makes sense that when they're redoing the roof for the addition that they're redoing the whole roof at the same time. Um, so no, that's that is a good point though. Thank you for pointing that out. I don't know that that changes our answer regarding referendum in those discussions or not. Um, so

I think it's I got one thing as far as the building wise like scheme which one's which now is C on the right. is remodel sees on the right. Yep.

That one there. I I I not a big fan of backto back vehicles without double doors. I mean, the fact is if your front your front engine's dead, dead in the water, you're not getting your second one out. Goes with any of the vehicles. The first one's dead, you're not getting the second one out. And then number two, where they got the uh the laundry area for the for the commercial dryer and washer, you're still dragging all your your gear through the the main parts of the of the station that you're trying to avoid dragging the cancer and causing carcinogens and all that through the through the building. You're still doing that. So, that has to be redesigned. Um, also in these numbers here, they got 14 by 12t doors. It's not going to work. That ladder truck needs a 14t door. Just a couple of things that I've noticed. Yeah, I I I to that point too I I don't know that we need to get de detailed into the details from that perspective because um we said going into those drawings and how they were presented and and discussed and voted to go to the next step of this estimation process. That's not the drawings. That's con concepts of the drawings. There are things that need to change there.

Um it that's just renderings to get us to that point. Um, so you know, if we were to say if these numbers were drastically different, like let's do this tonight, that's not the final drawing. That's a concept to the final drawing. And we've we've talked about those. The chief's talked about his concerns there and all that. So, um, that that'll still be at play if this goes referendum and referendum and it and it does pass. So, that's the next phase. And I I know you'd probably say if you don't like the the backto back trucks, then you got the other scheme. Well, the other scheme I don't like either because who wants their bedroom pointing out here towards the when they're banging around in the winter time with snow plows and everything else getting ready to go at 2 3 in the morning to go out and plow and they're banging around and

which we we've already talked about all that too. I again that's why I don't want to I'm trying to like rain it into these costs. We've gone through all those things and tonight's not really the night to discuss all that. You know, it keep it about the numbers and what what our next step is here because again, those are just concepts. Um, we've already addressed some of those things with Rob with public works. The snow plows that are in the other building when it's built. So, let's stay out of those. Let's stay back to the numbers and what we want to do next. I I got a comment. Go ahead.

And and and this is this is This is emotional. It's how it has to do why I'm sitting up here now. And that is the fact that in this community between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the next morning, it takes to get our of service from from on on fire now. I'm talking about medical service from an ambulance. It takes somewhere between 10 and 11 minutes. We are almost the highest in the community for that. and who I'm talking about. I had a situation where it took 12 minutes when my wife was severely hurt. It didn't amount to anything. But I'm telling you that we have to improve on that. We have to be the same as everybody else. I'm talking to the people that are over 65 years old. We are the ones that need those services. I I'm the champion of those people first as far as this is concerned. And as a consequence, we need to do something to get that addressed. I think we can. We can do this. But I'm very motivated to do that because it's personal to me. It's personal to Bob. It's personal to to Sandy. It's personal to Brian. It's it's personal to Dan. It's personal to Al. We all have are over 65. We have wives that are over 65. As a consequence, we need to do something. and this is our best shot.

Well, I I appreciate your comments. Again, let's we have said over and over and over again for three plus years I've been a part of the these tables up here. Something needs to happen. Nobody's disputing any of that. So, let's move on from that discussion. And again, look at the numbers. Let's move on tonight. We're not doing anything with this tonight. you need to all sit and I guess evaluate what you want to come back and propose um towards the referendum because Roger to your point I'll leave it at this I don't care if you're 60 or or three if you need help they need to be there

yeah well guess what there's a segment of our it doesn't matter Roger if you need help you need to be there yeah well that's true that's true but you know what it has more of a consequence for people that are going to be more of the service than someone that's 25 years old. You make my point? That's what I've been running on for three years. Anything else? I'll give you 10 10 seconds. I'll make a quick chat promise.

I agree with you. Too much information, a lot of dollars that we have to make and a decision should be made tonight. And I agree with you 100%. And I recommend to have a workshop. There's 400 different numbers here that they spell out what they're going to do with a new or addition to the fire department. I like to have a workshop and go through every item one by one and uh say, "Hey, I think we should change this or that before it gets any any further and one and then secondly so we're all on the same board if we want to do wherever them." And I know you asked for that, you know, during the next meeting, but I think we should have a workshop and and to get all these things hashed out prior to that. I'll ask one question then I'm going to say we move on. What is it you are wanting to hash out in the estimations?

Yeah, all these 400 things like Stewie says, yeah, I guess we don't need it to that gets, you know, we have a rough number. We don't need to hash out whether it's going to be $10 more or less for the window. Like that's okay. The estimate is there. We need to decide which route our our future is. Okay. I would like to make a motion. Go ahead. To approve the bills in the amount of 17 3219. Okay, I'll second that since we're moving on officially. I think we Any discussion on the bills? I was thinking that was a good idea. I think that was a great idea.

If there's no discussion on the bills, all those in favor of approving 17 321 at 9 cents say I. I. Anyone opposed? I say I. All right. Then a motion to adjurnn. I made a motion to adjurnn. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of adjourning say I. I. Anyone opposed? You're what?