Strand site assessment: Shorewood DPW site has encroachments, retaining‑wall and contamination costs

A consultant for Strand presented a draft DPW site assessment to the Village Board that identified site constraints and preliminary cost estimates for repairs and redevelopment of the public works property.

The consultant said the DPW site comprises four parcels totaling about 3.3 acres and is largely paved. An ALTA survey found 21 encroachments (most under a foot) and four easements; the most operationally relevant easement gives We Energies access through the site to a substation. The consultant said a conservation easement tied to installed cisterns will expire in the near term.

Retaining wall condition and replacement were central issues. The consultant described a long east‑side retaining wall that varies in height (typically 6–7 feet) and noted sections where the wall and fence have deteriorated and where utility poles sit adjacent to the wall. The report evaluated three construction approaches for replacement in constrained areas — reinforced concrete with block, sheet piling with a facade, and H‑pile with lagging — and recommended a mix of methods depending on site access and overhead utilities. The consultant advised that reconstruction will require coordination with adjacent property owners for tiebacks and might require easement or access agreements. "There'd have to be excavation and installation of the tiebacks on the adjacent properties," the consultant said.

The draft included high‑level cost estimates: demolition of existing buildings $430,000; retaining wall replacement and related work approximately $1,600,000; environmental handling (excavation and landfill disposal of known impacted soils) about $700,000; and stormwater management $75,000–$100,000. The consultant said site costs assume We Energies can temporarily de‑energize sections of overhead lines for construction; We Energies provided a de‑energizing cost estimate included in the draft and separately gave a partial relocation estimate of roughly $2.7 million.

Board members asked about testing coverage for contamination and whether unexpected impacted soils could increase costs; the consultant replied that samples were taken in multiple spots, the known impacted areas could be landfilled, and additional testing would be required if excavation reached untested zones. The consultant cautioned that costs would likely differ if the DPW site were cleared entirely for redevelopment because many constraints (garages, adjacent improvements, overhead lines) limit construction options in the current configuration.

Trustees thanked the consultant for the comprehensive assessment and directed staff to include this analysis in future decision making and scheduling. The board also moved into a closed session later in the evening under Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(e) to discuss prospective properties for a new DPW site.