SEH recommends new southeast station, two‑station/three‑station model; estimates Phase 1 at about $11.9 million

At the March 17 Onalaska Common Council meeting SEH presented a long‑term facility assessment that linked operational staffing needs to physical station design and offered phased options for expanding the fire department’s facility footprint.

Why it matters: SEH said building design, station siting and turnout logistics materially affect how quickly firefighters can get on apparatus and reach emergencies. Consultants showed test‑fit designs for new stations, highlighted health‑and‑safety shortcomings at the current facility, and gave construction cost estimates and a property size recommendation for future stations.

Facility observations and deficiencies cited by SEH: - Lack of clear separation between police and fire vehicle storage and shared spaces used by multiple city departments. - No dedicated decontamination area for turnout gear, which SEH said increases cancer‑exposure risk by allowing contaminants into living quarters. - Exercise equipment and training storage placed near apparatus bays and public space; a workout area was described as a radio dead zone that impairs turnout notification. - SCBA compressor intake located near the apparatus apron, drawing potentially contaminated vehicle exhaust into breathing‑air equipment. - Limited accommodations for nursing mothers and constrained gender‑equity features that SEH said should be addressed in modern station designs.

SEH’s space and siting recommendations: - Test‑fit station footprints: SEH presented a roughly 25,000‑square‑foot model for a primary new station and a roughly 22,000‑square‑foot model for a later station in a multi‑station scenario. Both models incorporated decontamination space, gender‑balanced living quarters and improved adjacency between bunks and apparatus bays to reduce turnout time. - Parcel recommendation: SEH advised seeking sites of approximately 2.0 to 2.5 acres for each new station to allow apparatus parking, training area, and event parking. - Near‑term accommodation: SEH said the existing building has “good bones” for current staffing levels but recommended modest short‑term accommodations if the council moves to add full‑time heads; large investments in the current facility were discouraged pending long‑term decisions.

Cost estimates and timing: - SEH presented a 2025 cost model showing an estimated construction cost for Phase 1 of about $9,000,000 and a total Phase 1 project budget including soft costs of about $11,900,000 (2025 dollars). A Phase 2 station was estimated at about $10,600,000 (2025 dollars). SEH warned of inflation risks and said delays could increase project cost materially; the consultants used a higher post‑pandemic escalation assumption in their model.

SEH architecture lead Trevor Frank summarized the turnout‑time benefit of an optimized layout: "The average turnout time based on a person walking 3 miles an hour, from all points of the station is roughly 37 seconds," he said, and added that the test‑fit designs reduced the farthest distance from bunks to apparatus to about 23 seconds.

Next steps recommended to council included beginning property‑search conversations for preferred southeast locations, planning modest interim accommodations if staffing is increased before construction, and prioritizing staffing actions concurrently with land acquisition to ensure facilities match operational needs.

Ending: SEH urged the council to view the facility and staffing recommendations as complementary: land, staffing and station design should be coordinated rather than pursued in isolation.