By Lauren McSherry

The Los Altos Hills committee charged with building the new $4.2 million town hall may have reined in escalating construction costs, but unbudgeted extras, such as interior design, landscaping and an audiovisual and broadcasting system, have increased the building’s price tag by nearly $1 million.

The town hall committee is scheduled to revisit unbudgeted costs 6 p.m., today.

Many of the unbudgeted items are necessary for town hall operation but are not part of the $4.2 million quoted as the cost of constructing the building. A city report released last week presents scaling back or postponing some of the extras as options to deal with the increase.

The project’s swelling expenses are reminiscent of the estimated cost and design of the $5 million, three-story, mission-style town hall that was initially proposed in 2002 and caused uproar among residents.

At the time, the town hall proposal was rejected because it would wipe out nearly all of the city’s undesignated funds and require massive fund raising. The committee scaled back the project to the one-story building now being constructed.

To quell controversy raised by the first proposal, Councilmembers Breene Kerr and Dean Warshawsky, who now hold seats on the town hall committee, made campaign promises during the 2002 election not to deplete the city’s financial reserves unnecessarily because of the project.

Meanwhile, expenses not included in the $4.2 million construction budget have reached $825,000. The costs include about $176,000 for an audiovisual and broadcasting system, $200,000 for landscaping and irrigation and $86,000 for legal fees, donor wall costs and interior design.

The $271,727 town hall solar power system, also unbudgeted, has been offset by a $75,000 grant from the Packard Foundation and a loan and rebates from the California Energy Commission.

The city report states that the council can use part of the $2 million loan or funds raised through the donor wall to pay for the expenses.

The old town hall was more than 45 years old and failed to meet building codes, seismic requirements and handicapped accessibility standards when it was torn down last summer.

About half of the construction budget will be paid for by city reserves accumulated and set aside for the project.