Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District operations outline door‑security retrofit plan and rough cost estimates
Summary
District operations and an architectural presenter outlined a multi‑layered door and access‑control security retrofit across District 130 facilities, citing material and labor estimates just under $12,000 per opening, access‑control costs of $1,800–$2,600, and an all‑in estimate of about $13,500–$14,000 per opening; priority‑1 work was estimated at roughly $3.8–$4.0 million.
District operations staff and an architectural presenter gave the board a detailed briefing on a planned door and access‑control security retrofit for Cook County SD 130.
The team framed security as a layered effort—district policy and procedures, perimeter improvements, controlled vestibules, access controls and camera integration, and interior compartmentalization for lockdown scenarios. They stressed balancing improved security with accessibility and an inviting school environment.
Using counts of openings at priority facilities (the presenter listed Revere Primary, George Washington, Lincoln Elementary, the Nathan Hale campus and Anchor Academy), the construction manager’s high‑level estimates were summarized in several figures: material and labor per opening was cited as 'just under $12,000'; access controls were estimated at $1,800–$2,600 per opening; and 'all‑in' costs were described as roughly $13,500–$14,000 per opening. Using the district’s door counts the presenter gave a priority‑one aggregate estimate he characterized as 'probably somewhere around $4,000,000' and later repeated an ambiguous figure of 'about 3.8' (the presenter’s language was not precise in the transcript).
Presenters urged the board to set priorities and noted this is an early stage of a multi‑year master planning process. They said deteriorating doors should be prioritized for replacement whether or not they are part of the security retrofit. No formal procurement, contract award or vote on funding for the project was recorded in the provided segments; later in the meeting a motion was made to appoint an investigator on an unrelated item.
