County hears energy-audit findings for Barron County campus; consultants outline solar, LED and boiler options

Consultants from Upper 90 presented an investment-grade energy audit to the Barron County Board of Supervisors on July 21, laying out efficiency and renewable measures for the UW–Eau Claire—Barron County campus and options for the campus heating plant.

The audit, delivered by Patrick, a consultant with Upper 90, and Mario Milanzi, owner of Upper 90, summarized four categories of recommended measures, estimated costs and projected savings. "We applied for $75,000 to conduct this study," Patrick said, adding the county paid $26,000 of that award and the remaining $49,000 remained available for follow-up work.

The audit team recommended water-conservation retrofits, destratification fans for tall spaces, solar photovoltaic arrays at several roofs (including Ritzinger, Meggers, the library and the gym/physical plant), LED lighting replacement across campus and retro-commissioning of mechanical systems. "Destratification fans…eliminate that layer of stratified air," the team said, noting that more-even air distribution reduces heating demand.

Why it matters: The county's campus spends roughly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on energy, and the audit provides prioritized projects the county can pursue with a mix of county funds and grants. Several measures are amenable to grant funding and to phased implementation, officials said.

Key technical findings and options Upper 90 presented an energy-use snapshot for 2021–2024 and calculated an Energy Use Intensity benchmark for the facilities. The team estimated that rooftop solar could cover large portions of summer electric use at selected buildings (one proposed array would meet nearly 100% of a building's usage), while the library array would offset about 40% of its usage and the gym/physical plant about 45%.

The auditors ran two scenarios for the campus central plant: (1) retain the central heating/cooling plant and replace aging boilers, or (2) abandon the central plant and provide individual heating and cooling at each building. The firm noted the campus has underground heating and chilled-water piping that will eventually require replacement if retained. "If you were to retain that central plant, you'd look to replace one of your two boilers," Upper 90 said, adding the two larger boilers date to 1998.

Costs and funding Upper 90 provided ranges and payback estimates for measures and identified potential rebates and incentives. County staff said $49,000 remains from the original grant and that the county applied for an additional $125,000 grant that could cover almost all of a prioritized LED lighting replacement item estimated in the range of about $150,700. The county also identified destratification at the commons with a high-side cost estimate of about $29,000; if both grants are secured, those measures could be completed with grant money, the board was told.

Questions from supervisors Supervisor Gooslick asked about lease implications with the Rice Lake School District: if the county abandoned the central plant, which party would be responsible to provide heating and cooling for buildings under lease. Upper 90 and county staff described flexibility in arrangements—either the county could install packaged boilers for individual buildings or the school district could install and pay for systems for leased space. "There is flexibility; we're open to anything and they are too," a county representative said.

Board reaction and next steps Supervisor Heller praised Upper 90 for organizing priorities and assisting with grant strategy. Upper 90 said the audit is intended as the preliminary step toward contracting work: next steps include ownership input, prioritization, and, for selected projects, moving from audit to bidding and construction.

The board was told the Rice Lake School District has received the same materials and may pursue some gym-related measures independently. County staff said additional grant applications are pending and that further property-committee review and follow-up at future meetings will be necessary before major capital decisions.

Ending Upper 90 closed the presentation by offering to work with county staff on project prioritization and grant use. The board did not take formal action on the audit at the July 21 meeting; staff signaled continued work with property committee and possible grant-funded early projects.