Ashwaubenon consultants: major deferred maintenance, options to renovate or reconfigure municipal campus

Consultants from Wold Architects and Kraus Anderson told the Ashwaubenon Village Board on Dec. 17 that the village’s municipal buildings face substantial near-term repairs and program mismatches, and offered options for renovating or reconfiguring the village hall, public works facility and fire station No. 2.

The consultants said the condition assessment and functional review together show about $27.5 million in projected infrastructure upgrades over the next 20 years and that all three buildings reviewed scored in the “poor” range on the facility condition index. “When you get to that critical standpoint where it’s over 50%, that’s when you really have to start considering is this worth investing in?” said JR, a condition-assessment lead for Kraus Anderson. Jonathan Lozae of Wold Architects said the study’s purpose is to combine condition and space assessments “into a more comprehensive plan.”

The report matters because the village will need to decide whether to invest in major renovations, reorganize existing facilities, or pursue replacement/relocation for some functions. The consultants stressed that much of the dollar value is front‑loaded—large items such as roofing and HVAC reach the end of useful life first—and that some systems can be extended by targeted work, while other changes would require larger capital projects.

Key findings and operational issues identified in the presentation include: original windows and rooftop HVAC at the village hall with failing seals and aging equipment; limited privacy and security at service counters (for HR, municipal court and finance); insufficient lock‑up and storage locations for finance and IT; and program crowding for public safety, including lack of decontamination and insufficient locker/gear space for firefighters and EMS. “There is no real decontamination. . . . If you don’t have a method to be able to clean your turnout gear, clean yourself, then you’re potentially spreading that to your families,” Melissa Stein of Wold said when describing firefighter health and wellness concerns.

Station No. 2 was noted as both old (approximately 55 years) and configured for a different original use; the consultants said classrooms and a childcare program currently occupy portions of that building and that the apparatus bay, site circulation and building envelope show signs of significant aging. Consultants said the station is not ADA‑compliant in parts and lacks modern ventilation or shower/decontamination facilities.

For public works, the report flagged roofing, asphalt and equipment‑storage constraints (including inefficient round salt domes), and noted the operations‑support spaces (training/lunchroom and locker rooms) are undersized. The team proposed that cold storage and parks maintenance could be consolidated in a different configuration if the board wants a single public‑works campus; they also said the site currently used for composting and outdoor amenities could be repurposed but would require tree removal and public policy discussion.

The consultants presented a draft set of guiding principles—20‑year planning horizon, operational flexibility, staff workflow efficiency, safety and sustainability—and recommended developing options that align with those principles and the budgetary realities identified in the condition assessment. They estimated current village facility footprint and potential future space needs: the village hall existing gross square footage was reported as 50,655 square feet, while a combined future program across buildings could approach a larger footprint depending on which options the board favors.

Board members and staff discussed tradeoffs between on‑site expansion and relocating specific functions. Several trustees urged the consultants to prioritize staff input and departmental needs before the board makes policy‑level decisions such as relocating the community garden or the childcare program currently housed in Station No. 2. Trustee comments also flagged environmental testing and asbestos risk for older buildings as a potential cost driver if the village pursues heavy renovations.

Next steps from the consultants: develop a small set of options that meet the guiding principles; provide cost‑estimates (including phased scenarios); and return in a few months (consultants indicated February–March) with options and evaluations for board feedback. Joel, the village project coordinator, said consultants will work with the village core planning group to refine options and cost models before the board is asked to make policy decisions.

The presentation generated detailed discussion but no binding action. Board members asked staff to continue gathering internal department feedback and to bring refined options and cost estimates back to the board in spring 2025.