Riverside trustees direct staff to advance public-safety and community facility plan; project estimate about $22.8M

RIVERSIDE, Ill. — The Village of Riverside Board of Trustees on May 15 directed staff to move forward with further design and budgeting for a proposed standalone public-safety and community facility adjacent to Township Hall, with initial cost estimates presented by Williams Architects putting the project at roughly $22.8 million.

The board’s consensus—no formal vote was recorded—authorizes staff to request a formal quote from Williams Architects for the next design phase, at an estimated professional-services budget of $250,000. Village Manager Jessica Francis said staff will return with a formal contract for board approval before any funds are spent.

The recommendation matters because the plan consolidates police, fire and community space into a single building and would likely require voter approval if the village moves to bond financing. Williams Architects managing principal Andy Dogen said the team worked with construction managers and contractors to refine costs and constructability and cautioned that the figures are still planning-level estimates. “This is still a planning process,” Dogen said. “A planning process is intended solely to test fit various solutions, evaluate them on their own merits without getting into specifics of design, and talk about pros and cons and provide very preliminary budgeting.”

Dogen summarized the preferred option—referred to as Concept D—as a standalone three-level building with a lower level for parking, mechanical and portions of the police program; a main level that houses an entrance lobby, administration, police communications and a fire apparatus bay; and an upper level with additional police and fire spaces plus shared community amenities such as a fitness room, community room, space for Riverside TV, a catering kitchen and a roof terrace overlooking the river. He said demolition of existing rear-site buildings and related sitework are included in the construction estimates.

Budgeting details presented to trustees included hard construction, general conditions, escalation (two years at 4% per year in the estimate), a 10% contingency for unknowns, and soft costs (architectural/engineering fees, surveys, soil borings and FF&E). Dogen said refined contractor input reduced the earlier planning-range estimate (previously shown around $26M–$28.6M) to the updated whole-project estimate just under $22.8 million.

Manager Francis told trustees staff also asked the village’s financial advisor to model the property-tax impact of bond packages at several sizes and noted the board could combine the public-safety project with other park or recreation needs in a single referendum—if the board favored that approach—to provide flexibility if the project comes in under budget. She recommended allowing additional time for community education and engagement if trustees choose to put a question before voters; staff discussed timelines for an August 2026 ballot submittal if the village wanted a November 2026 referendum, and noted an April 2027 ballot would provide more time for public outreach and design refinements.

Trustees asked questions about building access from the river side, the open upper-level area above the fire apparatus bay (to accommodate taller truck clearance), demolition inclusion in the budget, and phasing/constructability on a riverfront site. Dogen said the team can explore a meaningful secondary entrance toward the river-facing side but that any such addition would change program trade-offs or increase building size.

Manager Francis emphasized operational need. “Our current facilities for public safety are woefully inadequate,” she said, adding trustees and staff view the project as critical to long-term service delivery.

Next steps: staff will ask Williams Architects for a formal scope and fee proposal for the next design phase (estimated $250,000), continue refining the site and floor plans, obtain survey and soil borings if directed, and return to the board with a contract and a community-engagement schedule. If the board chooses to pursue a bond referendum, staff and consultants plan additional public outreach and renderings before any ballot decision.

The project remains in preliminary planning; no bond measure or construction contract has been authorized.