Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Village Hall Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees approve Wold fee increase for larger village hall; geothermal option debated and not adopted
Summary
Trustees approved an $86,195 supplemental fee to Wold Architects for an expanded village hall/police facility but voted down a package that would have added a geothermal system; they directed staff to pursue high‑efficiency HVAC and insulation options and to return with clearer cost tradeoffs.
The Village of Cross Plains Board of Trustees on June 23 approved a supplemental fee for Wold Architects tied to the village’s decision to pursue a larger village hall and police facility, and spent an extended discussion on whether to pursue a geothermal heating and cooling system and a Focus on Energy efficiency package.
Wold asked for an additional $86,195 — about an 18% increase to the firm’s prior fee for the project — to reflect the increased building size and scope. Village staff recommended the board approve the supplemental fee and use vacancy savings and an internal transfer from the general fund to capital to cover the cost. Trustees voted in favor of the increase and requested the firm provide written confirmation that it will not seek further increases for work already completed.
Separately trustees debated a “Focus on Energy” set of optional upgrades and whether to include a geothermal ground‑source heat system. Supporters said geothermal plus rooftop solar and available federal tax incentives could move the building toward a net‑zero operational footprint over time; an email from a sustainability committee member urging geothermal was circulated to the board. Opponents pointed to the high upfront cost presented in staff materials (the geothermal add‑on was estimated in briefing materials at roughly $450,000) and uncertainty that rooftop solar sized to the available roof area would fully offset a geothermal system’s electricity demand. Trustees also cited near‑term operating cost uncertainty because electricity rates can rise and fall.
A roll‑call vote declined the full geothermal bundle; trustees then asked staff and the architect to pursue higher‑efficiency HVAC equipment and improved building insulation as lower‑cost, higher‑certainty energy measures that could be incorporated into construction documents. Staff said the firm would provide a revised scope and cost breakout so the board can evaluate tradeoffs when bids arrive.
Why it matters: the fee decision keeps the architecture work moving toward construction documents; energy choices affect capital cost, lifecycle operating cost, and possible grant or tax credit eligibility. The board asked staff to return detailed budget tradeoffs — efficiency upgrades versus geothermal — before authorizing procurement contracts or borrowing.
Next steps: staff will seek written confirmation from Wold regarding the fee request’s finality, obtain a revised package of efficiency options and costs, and return with a clear budget and alternative scenarios before construction bids are released.
