QUICK LINKS:
January 11, 2010 REGULAR BOARD MEETING
January 26, 2010 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
January 11, 2010
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
7:30 p.m
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Gary Beck, Mike
Weinkauf, Chris Johnson, Ed Chart, Bob Lancour and Chris Bennett present.
Clerk – Treasurer, Betty Novy, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer, Sandi Swan, Public Works
Supervisor, Chris Birkett and Zoning Administrator, Jon Schattner were also
present.
There were approximately 52 residents present in the audience. A sign-in list is
provided as an attachment to the minutes.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Bennett to approve the minutes for the December 7 & 14,
2009 meetings. Motion carried.
Period for public comment.
Pat Gerber, 412 N. State St. commented on the new garbage vendor, John’s
Disposal. She stated that she has witnessed John’s Disposal transferring garbage
from one truck to another on N. River Rd. She stated she had to drive around
them into an oncoming lane to get by them. She has also witnessed them doing
this behind her commercial building on Beck Dr. She feels that neither place is
an appropriate place for this. She asked that the Village contact the vendor and
suggest that they do that somewhere where it will not interfere with traffic and
become a hazard or on private property. She suggested that maybe Case Eagle Park
would be a good place.
Birkett stated that he will call them right away.
Department Reports
Sheriff’s. A written report was reviewed showing the following statistics
for December: three accidents; nineteen speeding citations, zero traffic
citations, eight parking citations and fourteen warnings were issued.
There were four ordinance arrests. Complaint statistics were as follows:
Twenty-one complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s
Department; Deputy Castillo assisted with five additional complaints, originated
forty-eight on his own and performed follow up on thirty-two. He reported
twenty-two working days, 183.5 hours and 1,668 miles driven. Twenty-five
foot patrols were conducted.
Public Works. Chris Birkett, Director of Public Works, submitted the
following written report:
Sewers/ Lift Station.
Weekly exercise of generator and valves. Yearly maintenance on the Fox River
Prairie generator is scheduled.
Roads.
Snow removal has been on going with new snow fall and blowing and drifting.
Addressing concerns from residents about our plowing, mailboxes, widening out,
etc. Potholes are developing and will be addressing them over the next two
weeks. There was a threat of violence against a snowplow driver.
Buildings.
I’ve solicited quotes for our furnace and air conditioning maintenance needs. I
haven’t received all of them back yet. I hope to have them in for a decision by
the February meeting.
Animal Control.
Somebody dumped 16 chickens and a young goat, all dead, on Rowntree Rd. I looked
for ritualistic abuse and found none. It appears that the chickens were starved
to death. The goat had very little in its stomach as well. Checked feed stores
and also with neighbors if they might have any information. No information was
forth coming. I don’t believe there will be any resolution.
Birkett reported that the threat of violence against the snowplow driver has had
a good resolution. Deputy Baumeister from the Sherriff’s Dept. spoke to the
disgruntled property owner and is confident there will be no
more threats of violence from him. Birkett stated that this situation was
handled quickly as the Village will not tolerate this behavior.
Engineer. John Tierney, Engineer, submitted the following written report:
Trail of Pines Condominiums
-
Coordination with the developer and site work contractor regarding outstanding
items and the letter of credit.
Coyote Territory Subdivision
-
Provided a recommendation for Letter of Credit modifications and amendment to
the developer’s agreement.
Rookery Landing Subdivision
-
Coordinating with Clerk and Attorney regarding status of west side drainage
easements particularly revisions to the basin operation and maintenance plan.
2009 Street Improvements
-
No activity at this time.
Settlement of Rochester – Phase 2
-
No activity this period.
Millgate Convenience Store Plan Review
-
No activity this period.
Ag School Drain Tile
-
No activity this period.
Honey Lake Equalization Culvert- Plan Review
-
No activity this period.
Basic Village Engineering Services
-
Coordinate with Village Hall architect’s engineering consultant regarding the
Pro Health Care detention basins and overall development drainage system
operations and maintenance.
Presentation by Architect and Clerk-Treasurer Public Hearing on potential
purchase and remodeling of the ProHealth Care Building, 231 S. Millgate Dr., for
relocation of the Village Hall
Craig Ellsworth, architect from The Architectural Firm addressed the Board and
the public. Ellsworth presented an analysis the he compiled to renovate the
existing Municipal Building and also what it would cost to purchase the
ProHealth Care Building with some renovations. He stated that the cost analysis
was based on national averages adjusted to the region. He also incorporated
information he has received from recent bidding jobs to come up with a final
cost. He stated that in using this formula, he usually finds that he is within
10% of actual costs.
In summarizing the analysis of purchasing the ProHealth Care building, the
building as it stands is a 6700 square foot building that was built to
institutional grade specifications. It has 10,000 square feet of available
expansion space for the building itself. The building has little or no
depreciation.
There are presently eighteen parking stalls with the immediate expansion
capability to thirty –two spaces, and even more if needed in the future.
The drainage and storm water management is already installed to support the hard
surface area for this location. There is already excellent landscaping in place
with an irrigation system on site. The site lighting is more than adequate.
The HVAC system is of top quality and in good operating condition. The
renovation plans to add an assembly hall would mean that a second HVAC system
would be necessary, which Ellsworth feels is good because then you can isolate
the hall from the other areas of the building to keep energy costs down.
The electrical systems are top grade quality in the building. There is a
substantial amount of wiring in the facility, not only for line voltage but for
communications, internet, alarms and security.
There are currently two developed bathrooms in the facility, with the rough work
already installed for a third. Although the bathrooms would be adequate for
office use, Ellsworth does not feel they would be adequate to serve the assembly
hall if it were to be utilized at its full capacity. Ellsworth’s recommendation
would be to install a multi stall bathroom facility to accommodate the assembly
hall uses.
The building does not have a sprinkler system, but he is confident that the
Village could obtain a variance granted from the state that would not require a
sprinkler system.
The building has a layout that would accommodate the uses and functions of a
municipal hall. The entrance area has a built in reception area, which has a
separation between the public area and interior office area to provide better
security and privacy to the village hall functions. There is plenty of office
space and a nice size conference room.
Ellsworth summed up the overall cost in purchasing the ProHealth Care building
with the recommended renovations to a cost of $179 per square foot; for a total
cost of $1,198,678.00.
In summarizing the analysis of renovating the current municipal building, the
building would need extensive remodeling which would include a new HVAC system
to replace the three stand alone systems that currently serve the building.
Electricity and lighting would need updating; which would be equivalent to a new
building project. The plumbing is in mediocre condition and bathrooms would have
to be brought up to ADA standards.
Substantial interior renovation would be necessary to address security, storage
and additional office space issues. Substantial exterior work would also be
needed to address the multiple complaints the Village has received about the
exterior aesthetics of the building.
Confirmation of asbestos in the roof deck could pose to be problematic.
Renovation would require that the office staff and assembly functions be
relocated during construction.
Ellsworth reported that the total project cost would be $214.00 per square feet
for a total project cost of $1,002,734.34.
Ellsworth then provided a feasibility study on a “new” building option based on
a regional cost analysis.
He reported on a similar case in Edgerton, Wisconsin; the proposed building to
be constructed is 5000 square feet on city owned land. The proposed borrowing
for that new project is $1,200,000.00 or $240 per square foot.
Based on that comparable the replacement value of the ProHealth Care building is
valued at $1,680,000.00
Beere asked Schattner to explain the zoning issues and setback issues that would
be placed on the current municipal building should something substantial, i.e.
fire, tornado, happen to the building. Schattner explained that right now the
existing municipal building is a non-conforming structure, if more than 50% of
the building is destroyed at any time the Village would have to conform to
today’s zoning ordinances, which dictates 25’ front and rear yard setbacks as
well as 10’side yard set backs. The building would have to be rebuilt much
smaller than it is today.
He added that there is still an issue of parking. He stated that there are
existing commercial facilities in the downtown area that do not have adequate
on-site parking for their particular commercial uses and rely on
street parking for their commercial businesses even though it may not be in
front of their commercial building.
Novy identified the needs that brought about the decision to renovate the
existing building.
Novy reported that currently the sheriff deputy, public works supervisor,
building inspector and zoning administrator all work out of the same office and
desk space. This has the potential of causing chaos when four people work
out of the same desk.
While desk space is adequate in the Clerk-Treasurer’s office, privacy and
security is a concern as there is no separation between staff and public entry.
Additional space is needed in the waiting/reception area to accommodate lines
and security concerns.
File storage space is inadequate and limited. As the Village grows, more file
space is needed. There are many vacant lots in Rochester that offer the
potential for growth. Since the Village took over zoning functions from
the county, the county would like to transfer all files that pertain to
Rochester to our facility. This will require more storage than the current
building allows.
The mechanicals, such as HVAC, plumbing and lighting, all need updating. The
HVAC that serves the existing building is made up of three stand alone systems
and requires multiple service calls per year to address different issues.
The bathrooms and front entrance right now are not ADA compliant. Being a
municipality, the village has a higher degree of obligation to comply with ADA
standards.
The existing lot is very limited (land locked) and does not provide for
substantial expansion in the future. Expanding upward in the existing building
is problematic due to the cost of required structural alterations as well as the
confirmed asbestos in the roof decking.
Parking is limited to street spaces only. Expansion of parking is difficult and
a cooperative arrangement with Community State Bank has not materialized.
Multiple complaints have been received over the past years as to the exterior
aesthetics of the building.
Novy then explained the financing portion of the project. She stated it is the
policy of the village that all municipal building costs and improvements are
financed 50% by the village sewer utility and 50% by the Village general fund.
The reasoning for that policy is that the staff and equipment in the building
serve both entities.
Therefore, the Sewer portion of the purchase and renovation of the Pro –
Healthcare Building would be $600,000. That money would come out of sewer
utility reserves and there would be no financing necessary. There would be no
impact on the sewer utility rate as well.
The Village portion of the purchase and renovation would be $600,000. That
amount would be rolled into another outstanding loan of $110,000 for a total, to
be financed over a twenty year period, of $710,000. The tax impact would be 9.4
cents per assessed thousand.
Novy then identified some of the options for the disposition of the current
municipal building. They were discussed as the following:
Open Market Sale. Benefit: Sales value will offset the cost of the new building.
Drawback: does not alleviate concerns of what type of business will occupy the
building or the aesthetic improvement of the building.
Solicit use and improvement proposals in a bid environment that would entail an
agreement to complete work and bind the property to a specific use for a
specified period of time. Benefit: The Village would exercise control over
immediate use of the building and could demand aesthetic improvements as part of
the proposal. Drawbacks: Control over the use would terminate at some point,
sale would be less than an open market sale, may not be able for someone to
obtain commercial financing due to non-conforming status of building and lot.
Offer from Community State Bank to purchase at a negotiated price to expand
their parking lot and add an additional drive thru lane. (taking into
consideration costs to perform environmental remediation and raze building)
Benefits: Would create additional parking and green space for the downtown area,
addresses a shared well issue(the well that serves the bank is in the municipal
building), “Squares” property of bank (bank owns land to the ease and south of
the municipal building), Would create a lot that conforms to minimum square foot
requirements of the B-1 “Central Business” District(min. lot size is 10,000
sq.ft.) Drawbacks: Removes potential for additional business and associated
traffic from downtown Rochester.
Distribute survey to residents and request their choice of identified options
and/or additional input as to what residents would like to see happen with this
building. Benefit: Gives all residents and opportunity to provide input and
gives the Plan Commission and Village Board supporting data on which to base a
decision.
Comments were taken from the audience. Concerns and comments were highlighted as
follows:
Loss of tax revenue from the lot and building being purchased.
Some people are on a fixed income and can not handle any increase in taxes.
Concerns over the future use of the existing municipal building.
Building by the Fire Station could be cause for safety concerns, i.e residents
or voters parking in front of garage doors of the fire department, volunteers
not having anywhere to park if they get a call.
Some people felt that it would be cheaper to build on Village owned property.
The state of the economy and the burden on the tax payer of higher taxes.
The dollar figures that are given are in accurate.
Decision should be given to the taxpayers in a referendum.
New building has a good location with ample parking for large events, i.e.
elections, hall rentals.
The new building still does not have adequate parking.
Taking the Village hall out of the downtown area.
More options for the residents.
The Board is looking to the future and an opportunity like this may not come
again.
ProHealth care building is on a private road, what is the financial impact of
making it a public road.
Residents won’t be able to walk to the Village Hall.
Beck moved, 2nd by Weinkauf to adjourn the public hearing at 10:04
Public Hearing: Ordinance #2009-6 “An ordinance to Rezone Land at 31740
Washington Ave. from M-4 Quarry District to A-2 General Farming and Residential
District II
Novy reported that this was the second of two required public hearings. Rezoning
of this property is necessary to correctly designate the property to reflect
residential use. It was inadvertently zoned M-4 (mining) in the 1970’s
when an abutting property was zoned that way.
Schattner reported that the zoning would be consistent with the existing Land
Use Plan for the Village of Rochester; is consistent with the statement of
purpose and intent of the zoning district as identified in the Village of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance; is compatible with surrounding zoning and uses; and
will not adversely affect the surrounding property values.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Lancour to close the public hearing at 10:08. Motion
carried.
Receipt of Plan Commission report and recommendation regarding the location and
architectural design of a public building, that is, the proposed purchase of the
ProHealth Care building and its remodeling/conversion to a village hall for the
Village of Rochester
Weinkauf reported that the Plan Commission met prior to the Village Board
meeting. Weinkauf stated the location and architectural design was acceptable to
the Commission for the purposes of a municipal building and approval was
recommended.
Review of inspection reports and any other documentation, correspondence or
other items related to existing Village Hall and the building and property 231 S
Millgate Dr. Craig Ellsworth , architect, and others.
Ellsworth supplied an executive summary building inspection report for the
existing ProHealth Care Facility for the Board to review. In summary, he stated
the building is built to institutional grade specifications and that the
inspection of the primary and secondary structure indicates that everything was
installed properly and is in good condition. The building was designed for
higher volume, more intensive user traffic similar to that found in a municipal
setting.
Ellsworth included in his summary that he found no conditions that would unduly
add excessive life cycle expense and hardship to the Village of Rochester after
its purchase. If maintained properly, the Village of Rochester should enjoy a
long-term ownership with limited life cycle costs over and above normal periodic
maintenance and depreciation schedules.
Ellsworth feels the condition of the existing building is excellent. It is his
opinion that the building and site are being purchased at a 50-60 % discount
from their original development cost and replacement cost for a public building
of similar size. No major depreciation has occurred and the building remains in
virtually new condition.
Ellsworth reported that there were confirmed samples of asbestos in the rooftop
of the current municipal building.
Actions: Finding of adequate community support for the purchase and remodeling
of the building and property at 231 S. Millgate Drive for use as a village hall;
Final approval of purchase and remodeling of the property at231 S. Millgate
Drive. For use as village hall, contingent on satisfaction of all contingencies
set forth in offer/contract for purchase.
Beck stated, by the comments made from the audience, he does not feel that there
is adequate support from the community. He stated that even though the Board may
feel that they are making the best possible decision by purchasing the ProHealth
Care building, it may be a mistake to continue with the purchase.
After further discussion, Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Chart to request an extension
until April 15th on the offer to purchase the ProHealth Care Building for the
purpose of holding an advisory referendum on acquisition and/or construction of
a Village Hall and to allow further investigation of building options.
Votes were: Beck: Aye; Beere: Aye.; Chart:
Aye; Johnson: Aye; Lancour: Aye; Weinkauf:
Aye; Bennett: Nay. Motion passed.
Action: Determination of necessity of full Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment, and/or with any other testing or inspections, and authorization to
proceed where appropriate.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Beck to table this action item until a future meeting
date. Motion carried
Actions: Authorization for Architect to proceed with application for variance
from WI Dept. of Commerce from sprinkler requirements. Authorization for
preparation of Architectural Services Agreement for renovation of the building
property at 231 S. Millgate Dr. for use as a village hall. (contract to be
approved at a later meeting). Authorization for Village to proceed with well
water testing and well system inspection at 231 S. Millgate Dr. Any other
authorizations necessary to proceed with he purchase of the building and
property at 231 s. Millgate Dr.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Beck to table this action item until a future meeting
date. Motion carried.
Action: B-4 Conditional Use to convert the use of the previously owned medical
building and occupy it as a municipal building for the Village of Rochester
Applicant: Village of Rochester Owner: Waukesha Health Care, Inc.
Parcel Id # 176031911009040
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Beck to table this action item until a future meeting
date. Motion carried.
Action: Ordinance #2009-6 “An Ordinance to Rezone Land at 31740 Washington Ave
from M-4
Quarry District to A-2 General Farming and Residential District II
Johnson moved, 2nd by Weinkauf to adopt Ordinance # 2009-6 to rezone land at
31740 Washington Ave. from M-4 Quarry District to A-2 General Farming and
Residential District II. Motion Carried.
Application for Kennel License (Renewal): Michael & Catherine Los, 401 N. River
Rd.
Birkett reported that there are five German Shepherds at this residence. He
stated that the dogs are well trained dogs that are bred for intelligence. He
reported that the yard is kept clean of dog waste and that the dogs have
adequate living quarters. Birkett recommended approval of kennel license.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Chart to approve a kennel license for Michael & Catherine
Los at 401 N. River Rd. Motion carried.
Generator Maintenance Proposal: Cummins Power LLC
Birkett left the meeting and was not available to go over proposal. Weinkauf
moved, 2nd by Bennett to table this issue until the next Village Board meeting.
Motion carried.
Correspondence was read from:
Southern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission regarding the 2008 Annual
report. Copies are available in the office. Racine County Planning &
Development regarding distribution of the Racine County Comprehensive Plan.
The Village received one hard copy and one compact disc. Both are
available in the office. Burlington Chamber of Commerce: Government
Relations & Communications Committee regarding a breakfast meeting invitation
for Monday, January 25 at 7:00 a.m.; Tria Braun regarding the possible adoption
of ordinances involving sex offenders.
Committee Reports:
Public Works Committee: There was no meeting in January. Next
meeting will be held February 2, 2010
Ordinance Committee: Beck reported the next meeting will be held January
18, 2010.
Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District: Weinkauf reported on bid
openings for a district culvert project and district efforts to crack seal roads
and playground.
Western Racine County Health Department: There was no meeting in
December. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, January 23, 2010.
Finance Committee: Approval of 1-11-2009 Disbursements and Investments.
Beck reported the recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve all
disbursements listed on the check detail of December 15 – January 11, 2010.
These were no certificates of deposit due. Chart moved, 2nd by Johnson to
approve the finance committee’s recommendations. Motion carried
Beck moved, 2nd by Lancour to adjourn at 11:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandi Swan WCMC
Deputy Clerk- Treasurer
JANUARY 26, 2010
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
6:30 P.M.
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with board members Ed Chart,
Gary Beck, Chris Johnson, Chris Bennett, Mike Weinkauf, and Bob Lancour present.
.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer; Sandra Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer; and Atty.
Marcia Hasenstab were also present.
Presentation and Discussion of “Amendment to Offer to Purchase” for 231 S.
Millgate Drive submitted by Waukesha Health Care, Inc.(Pro Health), dated
January 22, 2010 and/or subsequent offers
Beere reported on Waukesha Health Care’s initial response to the Village’s
request for an extension of deadlines to allow for a referendum on purchase of
their building on the April ballot. Waukesha Health Care’s amendment,
dated January 22, 2010, proposed that the Village make its earnest money of
$8,000 non-refundable in exchange for the extensions. It also proposed
that several contingency inspections and/or approval deadlines be moved up.
Beere reported on meeting with Waukesha Health Care’s realtor the previous
night. At that meeting, it was explained that Waukesha Health Care did not
feel confident a building referendum would pass. The realtor explained the
purpose of making the earnest money non-refundable was to make sure the Village
was invested, that they continued to move forward, and that the necessary
efforts would be made to ensure a successful referendum. Beere
reported his response to the realtor was that he did not believe the Village
Board was receptive to making the earnest money non-refundable.
Novy then reported Waukesha Health Care had prepared a revised amendment to the
offer to purchase just a few hours in advance of the meeting. In the
revised amendment, the extension requests are granted and all previous deadlines
restored, however, the earnest money is forfeited only if the purchase contract
is not cancelled within two days after the referendum is held.
Review of public input to date including petitions, documented attendance at
January 4th and January 11th public hearings, and summary count of individual
positions* (*Positions stated as “For ProHealth”, “For New Construction”, “Do
Nothing”, “No Indication”, “Requested More Options”, “Remodel Existing
Building”)
Novy presented a tabular summary of individuals who attended both hearings and
what their position appeared to be on the building issue based on comments made
at the hearing, or comments received after the hearings. Two petitions
received in advance of the public hearings were also presented.
The attendance summary was prepared in order to quantify where most people who
attended the hearings actually fell on the issue. She reported receiving
numerous comments from residents after the hearings who felt several people who
spoke had set such a negative tone at the Village Board hearing that they were
afraid to state a position of being in favor of purchasing the ProHealth Care
building- or even to ask more questions on the issue. Novy was concerned
that the opinions of a few individuals at the hearing were given more
consideration than those who took a more reserved or inquisitive approach to the
issue. Ninety-seven residents attended either one or both hearings. Of
those, only sixteen vocally expressed opposition to a new village hall or to
moving the location of the village hall.
Two petitions were reviewed that had been received in advance of the public
hearings. One, stating “Get a Local Contractor to Bid on renovating the
Old Municipal Building”, was signed by 48 residents. It was noted that, by
law, local contractors are never restricted from bidding on municipal projects.
A second petition stating “We do not need a new Municipal Building- our taxes
are high enough!” was signed by 51 residents. It was noted that only one
individual on this petition had attended either public hearing.
Two additional comments, one submitted via email and one submitted via regular
mail, were also quantified. One spoke in favor of purchasing the ProHealth
Care building, and one spoke against a new village hall.
Receive information from Rochester Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company regarding
feasibility of building a new Village Hall as an addition to or as a separate
structure adjacent to the firehouse on Academy Road
Novy reported on input received from Tim Dahlberg, Fire Chief, on possible
construction of a village hall on the property that houses the fire station.
Dahlberg initially expressed concerns generated by a previous Town Treasurer
that Racine County placed a restriction on the land when they deeded it to the
Village and Town. (The land was previously owned by Racine County.)
Lillian Henning remembered a condition that it could only be used for the
purpose of a fire station. However, research with the Racine County
Register of Deeds showed no recorded restrictions or agreements that would limit
use of the land.
Dahlberg indicated the biggest concern expressed by Fire Company members is
parking. Lack of parking is the reason they relocated from the previous
fire station (the current municipal building). At the previous
location, there were several instances of firefighters having to leave their
personal vehicles in the middle of the street and/or stop and re-park their
personal vehicles in the fire station, after pulling the fire truck out, because
of the lack of parking. This slowed down response times. However,
if the parking issue can be addressed, Fire Company members are receptive to
sharing the land surrounding the fire house with the village hall.
Board members discussed potential conflicts with municipal functions and the
provision of emergency services. It was noted signage is not particularly
effective in stopping people from parking in restricted spaces when other
parking spaces are full. This was noted as having the highest potential in
the instance of high attendance meetings or elections. They also discussed
the current configuration of the fire house on the lot and possible locations
for the Village Hall and additional parking spaces. Concern was also
stated about whether relocating the village hall to the fire station land would
cause problems if the fire station needs to be expanded in the future.
Discussion on format and limitations of referendum questions on an election
ballot, with particular reference to a question on acquisition and/or building a
Village Hall
Novy reported on the allowable format of referendum questions. Initial
interpretation of State Statutes were such that the question had to be phrased
for a “yes” or “no” response. However, further research with the State
Elections Board indicated multiple choice referendum questions are acceptable
for advisory referendums. A sample of a resolution drafted by the Village
of Hazel Green for a similar referendum election was reviewed.
Communication with Hazel Green’s clerk indicated the primary purpose of their
referendum was to choose the location for a new village hall.
Discussion on other methods of soliciting public input on acquisition and/or
building a Village Hall, including direct mail and/or phone surveys
Possible Action to reconsider motion to obtain an extension until April 15th on
offer to purchase ProHealth Care Building and hold an advisory referendum on
acquisition and/or building a Village Hall.
Novy reported these items are on the agenda due to Waukesha Health Care’s
initial response to the Village’s request for an extension on the offer to
purchase. If the timeline on the decision must be shortened, surveys could
be utilized to solicit input from residents instead of waiting to hold a
referendum election. A direct mailing with return cards was identified as
one option. Another identified option was to contact those individuals who
had attended the hearings by phone to solicit their final positions on purchase
of the building. There was discussion on the costs of a special mailing
and board members agreed that a mailing is desirable under either circumstance-
a referendum or survey- to educate residents on the options. There was
also direction that two open houses be scheduled at the ProHealth Care building
so that residents can see the building.
Consensus of the Board was to move forward with the original direction given at
the January Board meeting and for the attorney to move forward with drafting a
resolution to pose the referendum question in a multiple choice format.
Additionally, direction was given to draft the resolution with the following
choices: to purchase and remodel the ProHealth Care building for a village
hall; or to construct a new village hall. Price estimates are to be
solicited from several local contractors to construct a building similar to the
ProHealth Care building. Atty. Hasenstab directed that contractors be made
aware that their estimates must take into consideration the Village’s
requirement to pay prevailing wages as determined by the State of Wisconsin.
Contractor estimates, along with the architect’s estimate, are to be included in
the informational mailing.
Possible Action on “Amendment to Offer to Purchase” for 231 S. Millgate Drive
submitted by Waukesha Health Care, Inc., dated January 22, 2010 and/or
subsequent offers*
Discussion continued on whether to accept the revised amendment from Waukesha
Health Care dated January 26, 2010. Board members discussed potential
forfeit of $8,000 in earnest money if the purchase contract is not cancelled
within two days of the referendum. There was discussion about
what other inspections and/or approvals must be completed so the Board could
comfortably make a decision at that point. Approval of a variance to sprinkler
system requirements (specifically for assembly areas) is crucial in determining
whether the building can be modified as a village hall. Novy reported
confirmation with the architect that a whole set of construction plans is not
necessary to support a variance application. He can make application to
the State at the cost specified in his contract ($2,520 plus the $1,000
application fee). He was also confident, after meeting with the Fire Chief,
that the variance would be approved. Beck moved, 2nd by Bennett to direct
the architect to proceed with the variance application. Votes were:
Beck: Aye; Beere: Aye.; Bennett: Aye;
Johnson: Aye; Lancour: Aye; Weinkauf: Aye;
Chart: Nay. Motion passed. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by
Lancour to approve the amendment to offer to purchase dated January 26, 2010.
Motion carried.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Johnson to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC
Clerk-Treasurer