Ad Hoc Admin Bldg Review Task Force

1 VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 2 AD HOC VILLAGE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING REVIEW TASK FORCE 3 MEETING MINUTES 4 THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2025 5 FINAL MEETING – NO APPROVAL 6 7 1. Call to Order, Roll Call & Declaration of Quorum 8 Chair Dick Burress called the meeting to order in the large meeting room at the Fire Station at 9 2:00 p.m. 10 11 Burress took roll call. 12 13 Present: Chair Dick Burress, Patrice Champeau (Trustee), Ken Church, Kurt Harff (Trustee), Ron 14 Kane, Brigid White (Trustee). Village President Nate Bell was present serving in an ex-officio 15 capacity. 16 17 Excused: Chris Hecht, Jill Wiebe. 18 19 Others: Denise Bhirdo (Trustee), Louise Howson (Trustee), gentleman named Rick. 20 21 Staff Present: Julie Schmelzer, Village Administrator 22 23 2. Approve Agenda. 24 Motion by Church, second by Harff, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried 25 unanimously. 26 27 3. Approve Minutes 28 Motion by Church, second by Harff, to approve the April 30, 2025, minutes. Motion carried 29 unanimously. 30 31 4. Comments, Correspondence, Concerns from the Public 32 (None.) 33 34 5. Discussion/Action Items 35 a) Burress Report on Hull Meeting 36 Burress updated the task force on his meeting with Ms. Hull and read an email between Ms. 37 Hull’s attorney and himself. In summary, Ms. Hull is not interested in exchanging a portion of 38 her 76 acres for the former Logerquist property. 39 40 b) Schmelzer Report on Former Traver Clinic 41 Schmelzer explained the building was built in 1985, size was 6072 sq. ft., parking was adequate. 42 She shared information from the architect that in his best estimation, without touring the 43 property and not accounting for any exterior work, it would cost approximately $1,669,800- 44 $1,912,680 to renovate the building. She also reported on information she received from the  1 DOT regarding the possibility of having an access point from the property to Highway 57 and the 2 DOT’s response that such access point would not be approved. 3 4 c) Discussion on Evaluation Criteria from First Meeting 5 Burress reminded the group of the evaluation criteria they established at their first meeting. At 6 that meeting the following were ranked as important to their recommendation of a site for the 7 new Administration Offices: the site being on sewer and water; the property had to be owned 8 by the village; overall cost; parking would be available for multi-use; there would not be ingress 9 and egress issues; there would be room for approximately 50 vehicles; the site would have 10 ‘presence’; there would be accommodations for expansion. 11 12 Comments from members included: 13 • Church – It doesn’t make sense that we need a pond at the Mill Road site 14 • Burress – We don’t need a building the size that was designed 15 • Champeau – We need to think of the future and growth; concern over parking at the Mill Road site 16 • Bell – Keep the disturbance on the Mill Road site under an acre and we shouldn’t need a stormwater 17 pond 18 • White – Perhaps we can bore under Mill Road and drain the Mill Road site into the wetland 19 • Burress - Perhaps we could have a lift station at the Mill Road site and lift the stormwater into the 20 pond at the Library 21 • Harff – The Logerquist site has room for expansion, building designed for the future, no traffic 22 issues, there is room for unforeseen needs 23 • White – We need a site with dual purpose parking, we need a site we own 24 25 Burress then reminded the group they were not tasked with designing a building, but he did feel 26 the Mill Road site had enough room for the village’s needs, including being large enough for a 27 building to accommodate elections [a stated need]. He concluded that based on the analysis, he 28 is recommending the Mill Road site be the home of the new Administration Offices, and made a 29 motion to that effect. That motion was seconded by Church. 30 31 Roll call on the motion: Aye – Burress, Church, Kane, White; Naye – Champeau, Harff 32 33 d) Discussion and Next Steps for final Meeting 34 The group felt it was not necessary to meet again. Burress was tasked with summarizing their 35 findings and presenting their recommendation to the Board in June. 36 37 Harff expressed his objection to the recommendation explaining the felt the task force was not 38 looking at the future and the village would be ‘stuck’ with a site with no room for expansion. 39 40 6. Matters for Future Agenda 41 (NA) 42 43 7. Next Meeting Date 44 (NA) -2-  1 2 8. Adjourn. 3 Motion by Kane, second by Champeau to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The final 4 meeting of the task force adjourned at 2:47 p.m. 5 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 8 Julie Schmelzer 9 Village Administrator 10 11 12 13 -3-