Riverside hears updated designs, costs and community feedback for proposed public-safety facility

Williams Architects presented updated conceptual designs, sustainability strategies and cost estimates for a proposed combined public‑safety facility during the June 18 Village Board meeting.

Architect Joe Juel reviewed four visualization concepts (options 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B) that balance modern design elements with contextual references to the adjacent historic village hall. The design team emphasized trade‑offs between roof area for solar panels and interior daylighting: schemes with larger roofs (Option 1 variants) offer more solar capacity but produce darker interior areas beneath extended roof overhangs, while the more contextual schemes (Option 2 variants) provide brighter daylight exposure but less roof area for photovoltaics.

Juel also presented sustainability strategies based on International Living Future Institute categories (the ‘‘seven petals’’), noting tools are available to evaluate embodied carbon, daylighting and solar energy potential. He provided a visual breakdown of capital and soft costs and benchmarked estimated construction costs (the team referenced an estimate in the presentation around $645 per square foot as a planning figure), acknowledging community concerns about total cost and tax impacts.

Community feedback from a recent open house and online survey was summarized: live mentometer responses favored Option 1B (a more monochromatic front façade with warmer river side materials), while the online survey showed mixed preferences and widespread concern about cost. Rough participation counts shown during the presentation indicated 19 online respondents in one view; the architect and staff emphasized that further engagement is planned at events (July 3 concert, farmers market) and via tours of existing facilities.

Trustees pressed the team on cost‑escalation risks, the ‘‘shelf life’’ of the design if the referendum is delayed, and ways to present estimated homeowner tax impacts. The architect said the design would remain viable over multiple years but that escalation and inflation affect costs over time. Board members encouraged further development of cost‑confidence ranges, escalation assumptions and clearer resident‑level tax impact scenarios before placing a referendum on the ballot (staff said a March–April target for the referendum is intended, following final design in the fall and a vote on whether to proceed).

What happens next: staff will refine concepts, continue community engagement and provide more detailed cost confidence intervals and financing scenarios leading to a final board presentation in October and potential referendum language for spring 2027.