Sugar Grove board hears $5.4 million police renovation plan, directs staff to seek engagement letter

Architects and the police chief presented a concept and cost estimate Wednesday for a renovation and limited expansion of Sugar Grove’s municipal building that houses the police department, and the Village Board agreed staff should pursue an engagement letter to complete design and bid documents.

The proposal would reconfigure the building’s bifurcated layout, add a secure sally port and modern evidence storage, increase locker and training space, improve HVAC and life-safety systems, and refresh the exterior. Architect Bridal of Corrigan Clark told trustees the concept addresses safety, operational workflow and accreditation deficiencies. The design team estimated a total project cost of about $5,400,000 including contingencies and soft costs; the schematic phase package in the board packet included a line-item FF&E allowance of about $75,000.

Trustees and staff said the project aims to correct long-standing safety and operational shortcomings in the 1992 facility and to accommodate modest staffing growth for roughly the next decade. Chief (unnamed) said the building lacks a soft interview room, sufficient evidence storage, ventilated modern lockers and a secure armory; those gaps affect evidence chain-of-custody, officer safety and the department’s ability to meet accreditation standards.

Architects described a secure vestibule, a public records counter, a multi‑purpose training room, a gender‑neutral locker room with changing/shower stalls, two holding cells and interview rooms, a dedicated evidence processing area with temperature control, compact rolling shelving, and a west-side sally port for vehicle processing. The plan also includes an upgraded entryway, new windows and roof replacement, plumbing and HVAC upgrades, fire-alarm and life-safety system replacement, and optional exterior and parking improvements.

Trustees pressed about logistics during construction, relocation of staff and squads, and how long the work would take. Architects and staff said a full renovation requires vacating the building, temporary relocation of police operations (options include space at 160 S. Municipal Building, leased commercial space or trailers), and an estimated construction timeline of about 10–12 months once the project has full access. Staff and the architect noted phased construction inside the building would be slower and more expensive. Staff also said permitting and utility work informed choices about the sally port location.

Board members asked about security systems, fence relocation, natural light, restroom privacy near the chief’s offices, storage and high-density shelving, and future expansion options. Architects said a second floor would require substantial foundation upgrades and is not cost effective; horizontal expansion to the west or north offers more practical future options. Trustees discussed terrazzo vs. porcelain tile for the lobby, whether to include parking-lot milling and resurfacing as alternates, and modest energy-efficiency upgrades (insulation, LED windows) that could be included while the walls are opened.

On cost, the presentation showed a conceptual budget with construction plus contingencies and soft costs. The working committee and board members discussed funding options and cautioned the board that market escalation likely would make the project more expensive if delayed. Several trustees and the village president said they preferred to move forward rather than defer and risk higher prices.

Trustees asked staff to return with an engagement letter so Corrigan Clark can complete design and bid documents and provide firmer proposals and alternates for board approval. The board signaled support to authorize staff to advance the design phase and present contract language and a recommended budget at the next meeting; staff said design would take roughly three to four months and bid timing could target a late‑summer or early fall construction start.

If authorized to proceed, staff said they would bring alternates (parking, terrazzo, exterior upgrades) back to the board after bids are received and proposed a construction contingency and thresholds for board approval of change orders.

The board did not adopt final construction documents or award a contract at the meeting; trustees directed staff to prepare an engagement letter and a budget to return for formal action.