Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Capital Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present $500 million master facilities plan; Studio GC highlights $19 million of urgent life-safety work
Summary
Studio GC delivered a draft combined master facility plan and 10-year health/life safety survey to the Evanston CCSD 65 board, outlining A/B/C prioritized repairs, sustainability options (including geothermal), and a $500 million 50-year projection. Consultants and trustees agreed to parse the 10-year mandatory A/B items (about $19 million) and present prioritized, bite-sized alternatives to the board.
Consultants from Studio GC presented a draft combined master facilities plan and a companion 10-year health and life safety (denial) survey at the Evanston CCSD 65 Board meeting on March 16, 2026, laying out a multi-decade projection of district capital needs and immediate code-driven priorities.
Pat Callahan and project manager Marissa Arbano told the board their team completed roughly 4,000 staff-hours over 24 weeks to assemble component-level assessments across roofing, mechanical systems, plumbing, accessibility, security, asbestos, and site work. The report categorizes deficiencies into three priorities under state guidance: A (urgent), B (required) and C (recommended). Callahan said the district should treat the denial survey as a state-submitted record that enumerates required corrections and a recommended implementation timeline.
"The life-safety survey identifies deficiencies and authorizes an electronic submission through the IWAS system and the ROE; the board's action will approve submission," Callahan said. He explained that the consultants used a lifecycle approach and included escalation to reflect future construction-cost increases; Studio GC used geothermal as a baseline in its cost modeling to show a sustainability option with higher upfront cost but lower operating expense and available federal tax credits.
Studio GC summarized findings that included underperforming mechanical systems, aging galvanized water piping, outdated fire-alarm panels that cannot readily expand, and accessibility upgrades required to meet current ADA expectations. The consultants emphasized that while the full, 50-year projection is large (presented in the draft at roughly a half-billion dollars), the 10-year A/B items the state expects to be addressed are much smaller and a logical place to start: the consultants cited roughly $19 million in A/B items over the coming decade.
Board members used the presentation to probe differences between the new Studio GC estimates and earlier Cordogan Clark figures; consultants said differences arise from scope and escalation assumptions and from subsequent partial work already completed at some sites. Trustees and staff discussed possible strategies: phasing projects by priority, bundling work for summer bids to reduce costs, and using SDRP (school division/restructuring) data to decide whether to invest in specific buildings or consider longer-term footprint changes.
Next steps: Studio GC intends to finish roof and site surveys, reconcile scopes with prior reports, and return to the board with prioritized alternatives that group required life-safety items into implementable packages. The board requested administration and Studio GC develop bite-sized options and a timetable for approaching the $19 million of high-priority work over the near term, while also aligning facilities decisions to broader enrollment and footprint planning.
The presentation did not produce immediate board action to adopt the full plan; board members asked administration to bring follow-up materials that clarify which A/B items are time-sensitive and which capital investments might be deferred or combined with potential closure/consolidation scenarios.
