Middleton aldermen direct staff to refine mid-range community campus plans after consultant recap

Middleton’s Committee of the Whole heard a final report from consultants on a proposed downtown community campus and signaled general support for refining a mid-range project rather than pursuing the most expensive, all-new options.

Consultants from SEH, EUA and Findorff told aldermen they had developed seven options for City Hall, the senior center and the library — ranging from a do-nothing baseline and a renovation-only path to combinations of renovation, additions and new construction. The team said the larger options (Options 3–7) are on the order of roughly 150,000 square feet (not including possible below-grade parking) and that parking scenarios ranged from about 135 to 215 spaces depending on grade and underground choices. “We did create 7 different options,” one consultant said during the presentation.

Finance staff provided illustrative tax‑impact scenarios based on updated cost estimates modeled with Ehlers and included a $5 million sustainability allowance in the assumptions. The report showed example peak-year impacts (project-only debt service) for each scenario: a renovation-only scenario modeled to roughly $30 million of borrowing would produce about $0.37 per $1,000 of assessed value (about $193 per year for a median city home at peak); the renovation-plus-addition scenario was shown near $1.00 per $1,000 (about $521/year); a hybrid renovation-plus-new option ran roughly $1.25 per $1,000 (about $652/year); and the highest-cost new-construction scenarios approached $1.48 per $1,000 (about $774/year). Finance staff emphasized the numbers were estimates that “will change” as options are refined, interest rates evolve and potential revenue offsets (grants, fees, fundraising) are applied.

Alder members asked for clarification on sustainability and life-cycle analysis: consultants said baseline high-efficiency plumbing and HVAC upgrades were included in the conceptual costs, that solar and geothermal allowances were modeled, and that detailed life-cycle payback studies would occur during a later design phase. The consultant team also noted that rebate and tax-credit programs can change over time and can materially affect payback calculations.

A central policy question for aldermen was whether “doing nothing” should remain actively on the table during public outreach. Staff framed the question as whether the council was committed to exploring a project and suggested leaving the status-quo option off the table while explaining the consequences of inaction to residents. “Doing nothing is not on the table for consideration,” staff said as the preferred working posture for developing outreach materials. A number of alder members, however, urged that the cost and consequences of inaction be presented to the public so voters have a clear comparison during community meetings and surveys. “I do want that option to be presented to our constituents in the listening sessions,” Alder Myers said, arguing that transparency would help build trust during a potential referendum discussion.

Several aldermen indicated a preference for mid-range plans they described as more likely to be acceptable to voters. Multiple members said they favored options that preserve portions of existing buildings and use a mix of renovation and new construction (characterized by consultants as Options 4–5) rather than an all-new, highest-cost solution. Alders also raised preservation concerns about the library; consultants noted that at least one option (Option 5) retains the existing library building.

Alders and staff discussed phasing (sometimes described as “staggering”) as a way to spread costs across time. Finance staff cautioned that staggered borrowings can push the total repayment window longer (the model showed sequential borrowings could extend the practical repayment period toward 30 years) and that staging work can increase costs through inflation and temporary relocation expenses. Consultants said they have phasing diagrams for certain options and will include relocation and temporary‑space costs in further analyses.

Council members asked for additional analyses before the next decisions: clearer life‑cycle and maintenance comparisons for underground versus surface parking (including plowing and operations costs), a concise estimate of the “cost of doing nothing” (emergency repairs and deferred maintenance), and refined cost ranges tied to specific tax-impact targets (multiple alder members named ~$100 million or a tax-rate target in the $1.00–$1.25 per $1,000 range as an upper comfort level). Finance staff also clarified that state law does not require a referendum to issue general obligation debt for up to 20 years, but that a referendum remains an available tool to seek public approval for a major facility project and that the city’s $2.10 per $1,000 debt-service policy is a council guideline rather than a legal cap.

Next procedural steps: staff and consultants were asked to refine options in the mid-range cost band, produce comparative lifecycle and parking analyses, quantify the ongoing cost of inaction, and develop public engagement materials (listening/information sessions plus a community-wide survey). An outreach discussion on city project communication is scheduled for Aug. 25 at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room B. The Committee adjourned after thanking the consultant team and asking staff to return with the requested follow-up analyses.

What’s next: no formal vote was taken in the workshop; staff will continue option development and outreach planning and will return with more detailed cost, phasing and sustainability analyses for alder review.