After volleys of discussion by supervisors of the Vilas County board, they gave approval for a new forestry department building not to exceed $3.2 million during its Sept. 22 meeting.

Directly tied to the building project, they also signed off on a resolution to establish parameters for the sale of $6.58 million in general obligation promissory notes which was authorized during the August meeting. That money is earmarked to pay for the forestry building as well as fund much-needed highway projects in the county.

According to plans put together by Kueny Architects and presented by Forest Administrator Chad Keranen, they are looking to build a 13,545-square-foot facility that would house an office and personnel area, storage and meeting spaces, and a backup of the county’s technology infrastructure which currently is housed in the basement of the aging building.

The building would be mostly new construction, but also incorporate one of the existing storage buildings that’s only about 10 years old into the plans. It was designed to meet the needs of the department going into the future, saying in the resolution that the “replacement of the building is a prudent and forward-looking investment in the county’s infrastructure.”

Existing building is ‘junk’

As was brought up at the August meeting, the price tag on the forestry building has alarmed some supervisors. But between water damage that has been occurring since 2010 and resulting health hazards like mold, the lack of office and work space, ventilation issues and the rodent problems, everyone on the board seemed to agree that the need for a building exists.

“That forestry building is junk,” said Chairman Jerry Burkett.

Keranen gave an overview of the project as well as explained the due diligence that went into crafting multiple plans with help from Kueny Architects, saying this was the most expensive plan but also the best option of the five originally drawn up.

“We’ve been talking about fixing the building for five years,” Keranen told the board. “We have to do something about this building once and for all. It’s a health issue.” He also offered to bring anyone over to look at the state of disrepair and bad working conditions he and his staff have been in. The building was originally constructed in 1991.

Burkett told the board to consider the question, “Do we have a need for a new forestry building?” while also noting that he was pushing for lower costs on the project.

“This resolution acknowledges we’re going to do a new building. The vote is to proceed with a new building, not spend $3.2 million,” he said.

‘Backed into a corner’

Supervisor and Vice Chair Carolyn Ritter again contested the hefty price tag on the building despite others on the board quelling those fears by saying that is the maximum amount that could be spent, and the goal is to bring that price down during bidding and before the construction phase.

Given the direct tie-in between the approval of the building project and the promissory note which was the next agenda item, Ritter said, she “didn’t like being backed into a corner this way.”

She also questioned why the plan information included in the September packet had not been presented at the August meeting to give supervisors more time to explore the plans in-depth.

“We’re on a time crunch with the promissory note so we’re basically being forced into it,” she said.
She also cast doubt that the price tag would come down.

“If we approve $3.2 million today, we approve that project. There is no guarantee it will come in any cheaper,” Ritter added.

Second-Vice Chair Joe Muehlbach who has been heavily involved with the building planning process, said there are contingency costs rolled into the do not exceed amount, but the real goal is to bring the project cost down under $3 million.

“Don’t read too far into the specifics (included in the original draft plan presented at the meeting), because they are likely to change,” he said.

Supervisor Bob Hanson said that with the final approval amount being public record, he found it likely that it would end up costing the full $3.2 million amount. Meanwhile, Supervisor Michael MacKenzie also wasn’t thrilled with the price tag, but also said he had real concerns about what future costs might be if they were to hold off.

The approval required a ¾ majority vote, which was received, although Ritter indicated during the vote that she was a “reluctant” yes.

After okaying the forestry building, the board then unanimously passed the second resolution establishing parameters for the $6.58 million promissory notes. Supervisors had authorized the sale during last month’s meeting.

Finance Director Darcy Smith said this move would keep the county’s tax levy level and wouldn’t cause residents’ taxes to go up from what they paid in 2025. Burkett also noted during this segment that supervisors had the right to add amendments to the resolution to limit spending.

Full information and proposed plans can be found in the agenda packet included on the county’s calendar at vilascountywi.gov/calendar.

Other actions

During the meeting, supervisors also ratified and extended the county disaster declaration arising from the July 27 severe weather event; created a second public health nurse position; authorized participation in the Wisconsin DNR’s County Conservation Aids; and approved an amendment to the county board’s standing rules to change the reporting structure of the human resources manager. A number of appointments also were made to various committees, and the county is looking to fill two vacancies on the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (NCWRPC).

During the committee reports segment, Supervisor Aron Houdini mentioned that Vilas County Tourism is in the early stages of beginning a housing needs assessment with help from NCWRPC.

The IT Department also was conducting a beta test to record meetings so they can begin providing recordings to the public who cannot attend.

Lastly, the board moved its October meeting due to scheduling conflicts. The next board meeting will be Tuesday, Nov. 10, at 9 a.m. at the courthouse. As one of the agenda items, the board will likely decide at that meeting whether or not to install a 12-month temporary moratorium on data centers in the county. (See related story in this week’s edition.)