Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Museum Yonkers Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Door County Board advances scaled Yonkers Building renovation after sharp public debate
Summary
After months of study and public comment, the Door County Board voted 13–6 to authorize next design phases for reusing the Yonkers Building as museum archives and tenant-ready space, approving a plan that consultants say can meet core needs within a reduced budget while critics pressed to sell or demolish the property.
The Door County Board of Supervisors voted 13–6 on Dec. 16 to advance a scaled renovation plan for the Yonkers Building that would provide archival and workspace for the Door County Historical Museum and prepare the remainder of the building for lease or other county use.
The resolution before the board authorized phases of design and construction management work after a consultant presentation that compared renovating the Yonkers Building with building new adjacent space. Paul Mardski, who identified himself as representing the contractor engaged for the study, told the board that reuse was the more economical option within the study's $3 million cap and that the structure ‘‘is in fair condition and with the improvements necessary can be reutilized.’’
Why it matters: the Yonkers property has been the subject of repeated reviews and public scrutiny for nearly two decades. Opponents said the county has already spent heavily on studies and should return the real estate to the tax rolls or use the money for other county needs. Supporters said a more modest, controlled renovation preserves downtown fabric and serves long-term museum operations.
What the plan would include: the consultant and staff described a three-part funding and scope outline included in the materials. The package presented to the board sets $1.7 million for renovation to accommodate museum archives and storage; $800,000 to ready the remaining square footage for a tenant or other use; and $185,000 for Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades to the existing museum building. The consultant said those estimates include design, permitting and contingencies.
Public and supervisor concerns: multiple residents urged a sale or demolition. Public commenter Ray Demaro said the county should ‘‘sell it. Use the money to improve the museum’’ and argued that prolonged indecision had already cost taxpayers. Roland Smith told the board the county had spent earlier sums on property and studies — ‘‘We have spent $675,861 on property. We have done 10 studies totaling $614,680’’ — and questioned further expenditures. Younger resident Michelle Grama suggested the money could be directed toward drug treatment, affordable housing or roads.
Board debate was split. Supervisors opposed to the measure said the county should not act as a landlord and questioned whether the archives and public uses warranted the outlay, noting $1.6 million already spent and prior studies that found the building unsuitable. Other supervisors argued the board had pared the scope from an earlier $8 million-plus plan and that hiring a construction manager to work with the architect would help keep final costs within the approved budget. Supervisor Thais said the vote before the board was to pursue the ‘‘next step’’ — final design and cost verification — not to spend the full construction amount immediately.
Outcome and next steps: the motion to proceed carried 13 yes, 6 no and 2 absent. County staff said the construction manager and architect will complete designs and return to the committees and the full board with final construction costs and, if necessary, a notice to proceed — targeted for a June follow-up if schedules hold.
What was not decided: the vote authorized next-phase work and design effort; it did not obligate the full construction appropriation. The board did not commit to selling the property or to a long-term disposition; supervisors noted future opportunities to revisit partnerships or offload portions of the building later.
From the meeting: the consultant’s recommendation and the board’s vote came after several public commenters and a long round of supervisor questions about past costs, potential tenant revenues, whether archives could be stored at the library and the risks of cost escalation. The board heard that roughly $5.6 million had been allocated to prior iterations of the project and that past bid rounds had returned numbers above $8 million, prompting the narrower scope now on the table.
The board chair said the item would return when firm construction bids and a final cost estimate are available; in the meantime, the county will contract for design and construction management services to control scope and price.
