Oak Park ESD 97 reviews $85M master facilities plan; board urged to fast‑track Brooks elevator contract

District construction staff and consultants presented a master facilities plan and a set of options for phasing capital work across the district over the next 10 years. Peter Q (identified in the transcript as the district construction manager) told trustees the initial bid tab for summer 2026 work at nine campuses came in at about $5.6 million; after scope reductions the FACT committee had reached an agreement near $4.5 million pending final review.

Staff emphasized a time‑sensitive request for the Brooks elevator modernization because parts have long lead times. The elevator contract value cited in the presentation was $158,834 and staff asked the board to consider awarding that package separately or at a special meeting so long procurement lead times would not delay the work.

Consultants and staff walked the board through the plan’s prioritization framework: Priority 1 (0–5 years) was estimated at roughly $35 million (mostly roof and mechanical replacements), Priority 2 (5–10 years) about $9 million, and Priority 3 roughly $40 million. Combining the first three buckets yields an approximate $85 million program, with roughly 80% of the near‑term costs tied to mechanical, electrical and plumbing work.

Staff outlined three options for phasing: (A) focus on priority 1 in the first five years and later address priorities 2/3; (B) do priority 1 plus the highest‑priority pieces of priority 2 now (an estimated incremental ~$4 million); or (C) address priorities 1 and 2 in the first five years and move priority 3 into the second five. They recommended continued review through FAC/FACT in January with a board direction sought in February–March (staff noted April as an alternative if timing requires).

The presentation also identified additional scope considerations to study further in January: district‑wide LED lighting retrofits (33% of elementary buildings have already transitioned), classroom air‑conditioning options, elevator needs at some sites, and electrification for mechanical systems (one phased scenario was described as representing about 8% of a $93 million electrification cost placeholder). Staff said they are collecting incentive and lifecycle cost information to present next month.

Board members asked how to pay for the plan and whether a future referendum is required; presenters said projections and funding options will be further developed in January. No final approvals for the master plan were requested at this meeting, though staff asked the board to consider a special meeting if the elevator award needs immediate board action.

The board did not vote on the master plan this evening and will receive additional cost, funding and sequencing information in January.