Sugar Grove trustees agree to advance police station redesign, include storm‑shelter upgrades

Sugar Grove trustees on May 20 gave staff direction to continue preparing construction documents and bidding for a planned remodel and modest addition to the village police station, after architects and the police chief outlined changes driven by code updates, evidence‑storage needs and security improvements.

The redesign includes a sally port and evidence garage addition, expanded evidence processing and storage space, an updated public vestibule with bullet‑resistant glazing, renovated patrol and administrative areas and site improvements such as new roof drainage and planters to improve security. Architects said meeting current building codes reclassified the station as an “essential facility,” bringing structural upgrades and a storm shelter requirement that added roughly $157,000 to the project estimate.

Architect Brian (Ford and Clark) and Bridal Crowbinder, principal with Coordinate Park (design team), described a schedule that moves from completed design development to bidding in July, contractor selection afterward and construction starting in mid‑ to late August with a target completion in August 2025. The design team said they expect 12–15 separate bid packages and a contractor walkthrough between July 18 and July 21.

Why it matters: The project responds to documented shortfalls at the existing station—chiefly evidence storage and processing facilities—and to recent code changes that treat police stations as essential facilities for life‑safety standards. Trustees and staff said moving design work forward now preserves the village’s ability to use existing capital funds and to bid while equipment and material availability remains uncertain.

Trustees and staff discussed project cost drivers, design alternates and how the work will be funded. The design team listed several optional alternates to be bid alongside base work: replacing gable overhang details with a composite siding treatment (~$37,000), cast‑aluminum backlit building letters (~$8,000), a monument sign (~$35,000) and ballistic film for first‑floor windows (~$16,000). The design team also recommended removing existing vinyl siding and replacing soffits and trim with composite materials and cedar where recommended.

Architects walked trustees through how the storm‑shelter requirement changes construction methods for the addition: reinforced concrete block perimeter walls, fully grouted cells with rebar, storm‑rated doors and precast concrete planks acting as a load‑bearing lid. “That whole section will be built to storm shelter standards,” Bridal Crowbinder said. “Storm‑rated garage doors … would have to be able to withstand a projectile coming at 250 miles an hour, 2 by 4 if you will, so it wouldn’t penetrate into the storm shelter.”

Design team members urged trustees to treat some site work—parking milling and drainage improvements—as separate capital projects if the board preferred to use the road/parking program budget for resurfacing; the team estimated front‑lot milling and resurfacing at about $165,000. The architects recommended adding curb barriers and concrete planters near the front entry for vehicle‑collision mitigation.

On budget and funding, village staff said roughly $5.6 million is currently set aside in the capital fund for the project. Village administration confirmed that, depending on bid results and contingencies, the project can be funded from available cash without issuing debt, and that larger paving or storm‑line work could use road‑fund dollars instead. Contingency in the estimate is now 8% with escalation at 6%.

Trustees asked several operational questions during the presentation: whether interview rooms would be soundproofed and separated by gender and age needs; whether offices could be reconfigured to reduce walking distances; whether IT/server and records storage were properly separated; and whether generator and toilet facility requirements for the shelter had been captured. Staff and architects said those items had been addressed in the design notes or would be refined in construction documents.

Board direction: Trustees did not take a binding construction vote that night but provided direction to staff and the design team to proceed to construction documents and to prepare bid packages and recommendations for award. Village Administrator Matt (last name not specified in transcript) told trustees the architectural work is budgeted across two fiscal years and that moving design work forward now would not commit the board to construction costs before bids are reviewed.

What’s next: The design team will finish construction documents, publish bid packages in July, evaluate bids and return to the board with contractor recommendations and any alternates the board may choose to accept. Staff said they expect to return with bid results and recommended contract awards for trustee consideration once bids are opened and vetted.

Trustees stressed maintenance and longevity in choices of exterior materials and asked staff to return with cost‑and‑benefit comparisons for alternates. The trustees generally expressed support for continuing design and bidding; the board scheduled a follow‑up in August to review bid results and next steps.