Friends and Neighbors

This is a follow up from the information message I sent yesterday. Jim Burkett is a Delavan Lake resident and as you can see from his email below is concerned about the Lake Lawn LLC plan

Regards

Greg Selep

This is the next step in the process allowing Delavan Lake Lawn LLC to add those 37 homes on the shoreline near the outlet.

Attend if you can. If you cannot, here are the email addresses and phone numbers for City of Delavan officials. Let your voice be heard! Please forward this to as many Delavan Lake property owners you can.

Mayor Ryan J. Schroeder (Common Council Chair):
rschroeder@ci.delavan.wi.us 262.728.5585 x.113

Alderperson Alondra Barbosa (Common Council member):
abarbosa@ci.delavan.wi.us 262.348.6902

Alderperson Karen Sempf (Common Council member):
ksempf@ci.delavan.wi.us 262.374.0347

Alderperson Megan Armstrong-Garcia (Common Council member):
marmstrong-garcia@ci.delavan.wi.us 847.254.7352

Alderperson Matt Bieser (Common Council member):
mbieser@ci.delavan.wi.us 262.989.0308

Alderperson Calvin Square (Common Council member):
csquare@ci.delavan.wi.us 262.949.9239

Good Morning Assembly Park:

For those of you who may not be aware. Delavan Lake Lawn LLC is requesting to "change the future land use recommendation Parks, Recreations & Conservancy to Single Family - Sewered to allow for development of about 37 single family homes on 16.3 acres along the lakeshore."

Below is the Zoom meeting link for the Tuesday Delavan Common Council meeting at 6:30pm

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82842952115?pwd=oinboEQEcUVqbxb9jWRnknIe9aDuCD.1

Passcode:485594

Fellow leaseholders, friends and neighbors

On Friday, we closed the special vote on the new construction approval for Assembly Hall. This vote is the result of a year and a half effort by our Assembly Hall Committee. 33 residents volunteered their time and skills to: gather requirements, find an architect, work with that architect to develop a design that meets the needs identified by the community, and to develop cost estimates. Twice this committee voted to recommend moving forward with this once in a lifetime project.

The design and floor plans were presented to the community in multiple monthly meetings. Renderings were posted in the mailroom and throughout the process all the documentation has been posted on the website.

On January 15th the Board called a special meeting and the committee reviewed the process and presented their cost estimates. 100 residents attended. To ensure all questions were answered the Board held an additional Q&A session on January 29th attended by 79 residents

Of course, no effort of this size and scope is going to gain unanimous approval and there certainly have been compromises along this journey that started in 2018. Over the weekend the votes were counted. 187 of our 211 leaseholders voted (88.6% ) with 101 voting “Yes – I vote to approve rebuilding Assembly Hall pursuant to the building drawings presented to the Leaseholders at the Special Meeting on January 15, 2025” and 86 voting “No - I am voting to not approve rebuilding Assembly Hall”. With this result the board has instructed the Assembly Hall committee to move forward and prepare for the town and county variance hearings.

The Board would like to thank everyone who participated in the multiple meetings and expressed their opinions. We would like to thank the committee for their efforts and countless hours of work. And we would like to thank everyone who voted.

We hope with this decision we can begin to unite around this project as a community. The time for second guessing needs to be behind us. Our success is dependent on moving forward together as an Assembly.

Sincerely

DLA Hall Committee

DLA Board of Directors

This morning a reminder email was sent to anyone who is registered to vote electronically and has not yet voted. The email will come from: kkempaccounting@yahoo.com via surveymonkey.com with a subject line of: DLA – Assembly Hall – New Construction Approval - Reminder - Please Vote. If you do not find this email in your in-box please look in your junk and or spam folder.

Voting will remain open until 5pm on February 7

Last night, a Q & A session was held via Zoom. 78 residents attended. The meeting minutes and recording will be posted over the weekend. It was a very healthy and productive exchange. If you still have questions please send them to: gselep618@comcast.net

If you are a member of a multi-owner property, please reach out to your voting member and express your opinion.

We thank everyone who has taken the time over the last year and a half to attend these meetings and become informed on this important decision. We would also like to thank the 33 leaseholders who volunteered their time to participate on the "Assembly Hall Committee" and their hard work: to gather requirements, find and select an architect, review drawings and renderings, gather quotes from builders to estimate costs and make multiple presentation to inform the Assembly.

The issue of what to do with the hall started in 2018 (7 years ago). It's time to make a decision. Your vote is important.

Thank You and Please Vote

DLA Board of Directors and DLA Assembly Hall Committee

The DLA Board has been made aware of a series of emails that are being circulated to select members of the community regarding the proposed new Assembly Hall from a former member of the Board.

Everyone has their right to express their thoughts regarding this project, in fact we encourage this dialogue and discussion so all can be best informed. We have recently sent out a FAQ document to all leaseholders addressing some of the questions raised about the project, and we are hosting an open Question and Answer meeting with the Assembly Hall Committee and Board on January 29th to further provide our community with opportunities for dialogue.

However, we are concerned as these communications are being sent out to what appears to be a broad group of leaseholders, with falsehoods being presented as facts. The individual coordinating this effort has not once reached out to the committee or Board directly with questions or concerns. We were presented with a copy of the communication by a concerned leaseholder, worried about the misinformation. We, the current Board and members of the Assembly Hall committee, felt it important that we address the key points with some factual information.

In the communication, it was stated that “our Board of Directors is woefully unqualified and very inexperienced in construction projects” and “has little to no experience with the planning and coordinating of a public building”

Response: This statement does not take into account the previous and professional experiences of the Board and the Assembly Hall Committee members. Participation in the Assembly Hall Committee was open to all leaseholders, garnering a wide range of personal and professional experiences valuable to the project.

One of the primary members of the Assembly Hall Committee, leaseholder Brian Hatlen, President and Owner of Troop Contracting, Inc., has been highly instrumental in leading the process. Among Brian’s credentials, previously shared at the initial presentation for the project includes major Chicago buildings and structures, including a redesign of the Shedd Aquarium. His firm does over $45M in revenues annually. He offered the following statement in response to the comments:

“I have been doing Architecture and General Contracting for 25yrs. This is exactly how the process should work. Establish a design-to budget (Not-to-Exceed), get the budget approved, and then move forward with the rest of the design, with the cost of the rest of the design included in the project budget.

This is NOT a typical project that would make sense to a typical layperson. Most people would incorrectly assume this process should be exactly like building a house or residential addition. With a house project, you select and pay an architect to do the complete design (100%), then you bid it out for hard bids. It is very straightforward, you put your trust in an architect to design to your budget. You can’t do that here because we have a community of 211 leaseholders, and we simply can’t get to 100% without a vote, nor can we pay $35k to have a full set of FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS together needed for hard bids.”

In addition to Brian, Jeff Schultz, a degreed architect working in the field, also offered key insights towards the development of the new hall. We feel quite fortunate to have individuals like Brian and Jeff, and the other professionals on the Committee to provide guidance in both the development and financial aspects of this project. If the Assembly votes to move forward with this project we will be hiring an experienced general contractor and form a committee of board members and leaseholders to help manage the project and ensure that we stay on time and budget.

Another statement presented that we take a strong objection to is, “Our Board gave us three estimates from contractors, but these are not written estimates, but rather non-binding guesstimates….”

Response: What we asked for and received from our contractors was realistic budget numbers in writing (not guesstimates), with several of the quotes going into great detail regarding all phases of the project, from demolition and permits to landscaping. We were specific in what we asked of the contractors. It should be noted that 4 of the 5 contractor’s had very similar estimates, as reflected in our presentation. We discarded one proposal for concerns that it was non-specific and vague without supporting information to back up the quote. Each contractor was provided with the plans and documents to make an informed and accurate proposal for the project. We are well beyond what would be called guesstimates. A realistic number is essential in order for the Board to bring this in front of the leaseholders for approval, with a “not to exceed” projected budget.

Full construction documents have not yet been contracted, nor are they essential for this phase of the project. We will not proceed with this cost until we receive approval from the leaseholders, approval from the town of Delavan and variance approval from Walworth County.

Another statement by the author: “I suggest that once legitimate, written estimates come in and all of the associated costs are included, the price will be 2 million dollars and each leaseholder can expect a special assessment of $10,000 and not $5,000”.

Response: It is important to note that the author offers no explanation on why he believes this project will have a $750,000 overrun. We showed the facts, and we established a NOT-TO-EXCEED cost based on the estimates we received and the establishment of a contingency. We have designed to that cost and have stated in the presentation that compromises in the design could be made if needed to control the costs. The community is being asked to vote on this “not to exceed” budget.

The author also stated: “Our Treasurer expects to get a bank loan for those Leaseholders who wish to stretch out their special assessment over a five year period. That will never happen.”

Response: Our Finance Committee, consisting of individuals with significant commercial lending and banking experience have been in direct discussions regarding this issue, and will enter into more serious conversations once the project is approved and the amount to be financed is known.

There was a statement posed by the author that: “Our Board made no mention of a surety bond and this cost is at least $20,000. A surety bond is essential to protect our Leaseholders investment.”

Response: The Board presented to the community overall costs for the project, not a line-by-line budget proposal. This issue and other similar items have been discussed and will be addressed. For those unaware of what was being raised in the question, Brian Hatlen provided the following, “What is referred to here is Payment and Performance Bonds (2 actual documents, but typically are executed together). A surety company (e.g. CNA, Northwestern Mutual, Travelers, etc.) will provide Payment and Performance Bonds on behalf of the awarded GC.

These are required only at the Owner’s discretion, and there is a cost that the GC will add to the overall cost of the contract. Depending on the GC’s standing with the Surety, the range is typically 1%-2% of the total cost of construction

Payment Bond says that the Surety will protect the owner from GC default on paying its subcontractors

Performance Bond says that the Surety will protect the owner from the GC default on the overall performance of the contract

If a GC defaults, e.g. goes out of business, the Surety steps in and finishes the project at no expense to the owner. Stated simply, the Surety will hire a new GC and the project will get finished.

There is also what is called a Builder’s Risk Policy, which would also be a good thing. It is typically cheaper than the Payment & Performance Bonds, but protects the new work (during course of construction) from Acts of God (tornado, flooding, fire, etc.)

Brian has recommended that a Payment and Performance Bonds and Builder’s Risk Policy be part of our agreement with a general contractor.

The author also states that, “……Capt. Ed Butzirus (1608 Assembly Lane) has advised the Board that the proposed structure’s footprint will completely block his view of the Park & the Lake and that he has retained legal counsel to block this project from moving forward. He will do this and the Board has been advised of this several times. They have completely ignored his cautions.”

Response: This issue has been addressed in open forum at Board meetings and in direct meetings with the Butzirus family. In fact, the leaders of the Assembly Hall Committee met directly with representatives of the family before any plans were shared with the community to listen to and best address their concerns. In addition, members of the committee met with Capt. Butzirus to hear his concerns, explain our rationale for the structure, and to share adjustments already made in concern for the family. From these conversations, items such as relocating the HVAC system and design improvements on the west wall have been made.

Our architect originally presented plans that were significantly larger than the current building design. Although this plan was within the buildable footprint and would not require a variance they would have been a greater obstruction to the Butzirus family. This design was immediately rejected by the committee out of concern for the Butzirus family and other neighboring properties.

The committee and board have worked to develop a mutually beneficial design that meets the identified needs for the community and fits the look and feel of the Park We are working with legal advice and counsel to best address this issue through the variance process.

It is interesting to note that the previous design for the hall, promoted in 2018 while the author was an Officer on the Board, was larger in size and a greater obstruction in width and height to the property at 1608 Assembly Lane. That design was developed without prior notice to the community, nor approval for the expenditures for the preliminary designs. The proposed structure was two stories, with the second floor identified as a board room, complete with an elevator and deck.

The author also speaks in general terms for the community, stating, “We, the leaseholders, don’t want to spend $35,000 for building prints for a structure that will not be built.”

Response: We do not wish to waste valuable resources of our community and will not spend funds for engineering drawings until the project is approved by our leaseholders and then approved at the Town and County level. Then and only then would the full construction plans be contracted. We do feel, if approved by the community, this project will move positively towards completion.

In the communication, the author points out the issues with the technology and viewing capacity of the Special Meeting.

We have already publicly apologized for this inconvenience. We have also made the recording of the meeting, the presentation and related documents available for all members of the community. We have created a Frequently Asked Questions document from the questions asked at the Special Meeting and we will be hosting a Question-and-Answer meeting for all leaseholders to participate in on January 29th.

We hope that this communication has provided some clarity to the issues and questions the author’s statements have raised. We encourage you to attend the January 29th meeting to share your thoughts and questions in advance of making a decision regarding the proposed new hall for Assembly Park.

In conclusion, the Board of Directors took on this project in response to the overwhelming sentiment from the majority of leaseholders that the Assembly Hall was of paramount importance. We ensured the Assembly Hall committee was inclusive and accessible to all leaseholders, fostering a collaborative and open approach. Throughout this process, we have continually strived to address the concerns and needs of our community, reaffirming our commitment to creating a functional space while maintaining the character of Assembly Park.

Sincerely

DLA Board of Directors

Wednesday January 15 at 7:00pm
Special Meeting – Assembly Hall

Friends and Neighbors,

Please consider this official notice of a Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday January 15 at 7:00 pm. The Zoom invite and agenda will follow.

Thank You

Greg Selep