Facilities Advisory Committee Preliminary Feasibility and Cost Study April 2012

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Executive Summary Provided in this summary are Committee evaluated preliminary Feasibility and Costs for combined Oak Park School District 97 and Park District Administration Offices into one either renovated or newly constructed facility. Four proposed sites are provided based on previous studies by the committee and as directed by the OP97 Board. The committee estimated preliminary costs for construction of new combined administration offices at each of the four proposed locations with consideration each of the dependant conditions, such as site limitations for available parking, new building massing to meet program and existing building shell square footage for renovation, as applicable. The combined program square footage includes consideration for some shared programming areas, such as meeting rooms, restrooms, etc. Preliminary costs do not consider land, environmental, engineering and legal costs / fees or other soft / hard costs other than basic construction costs as outlined in the printed summary. Preliminary construction cost estimates are an estimate as provided from REED Construction Data Although parking estimates do not include off-street visitor spaces, the Board should expect additional spaces for some visitor parking may be necessary. The preliminary SF costs are based on assumptions for construction type to be the same at each location for equally balance comparison and interior finishes using an average commercial office building standard of finishes. These assumptions are outlined in the printed summary.

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Option A Current Administration Building Site 970 Madison Ave. Pros1. Frees up one non-taxing property for new revenue production on Madison Ave. 2.Improve natural light deficiencies (A-2) 3.Improve inefficiencies of existing build out 4.Potential for expansion space -outside of current program (A-2) 5.Site has 2 nd best potential for off-street parking (A-2) 6.Many underground parking access points limiting impact on adjacent residential neighborhood Cons 1.More space than needed for current program (A-2) Estimated Construction Cost Alternates A – 1R enovate existing bldg $3.2 M $130 / sf A – 2 Construct new 2 story bldg$6.2 M $245 / sf A – 2.a w/underground parking $1.3 M $93 / sf A – 2.b w/off-street surface parking$0.1 M $17 / sf(44 spaces)

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Option B Current Park District Building Site 218 Madison Ave. Pros 1.Frees up one non-taxing property for new revenue production on Madison Ave. 2.Improve natural light deficiencies (B-2) 3.Improve inefficiencies of existing build out (B-2) Cons 1.No off-street parking 2.Minimal space available to meet needs of the program (B-1) 3.No expansion space 4.Existing natural light deficiency (B-1) 5.Site not suited well for underground parking garage Estimated Construction Cost Alternates B – 1Renovate existing bldg $2.8 M $130 / sf B – 2Construct new 2 story bldg$6.2 M $245 / sf B – 2.bw/ off-street surface parking$0.15 M $17 / sf (26 spaces, additional 18 req.)

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Option C Vacant Volvo Building Site 260 Madison Ave. Pros1.Frees up one non-taxing property for new revenue production on Madison Ave. 2.Good site access, minimal impact on neighborhood 3.Potential shared parking with neighboring Julian Middle School 4.Potential for expansion space -outside of current program Cons 1.Site not suited well for underground parking 2.Existing bldg undersized, renovation will not accommodate current program Estimated Construction Cost Alternates C – 1Existing building SF inadequate for renovation to meet program C – 2Construct new 2 story bldg$6.2 M $245 / sf C – 2.bw/off-street surface parking$0.2 M $17 / sf (36 spaces, additional 8 req.)

FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Option D Current Village Hall Parking Site 123 Madison Ave. Pros 1.Frees up two non-taxing properties for new revenue production on Madison Ave. 2.New building SF and footprint could be smaller due to some shared services with VOP facility 3.Existing green space could be increased with parking underneath 4.Centralization of public services and facilities 5.Site provides most options for Green Building Technology which could be shared with existing Village Hall to improve its Sustainability, such as Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc. 6.Opportunity to improve surface parking footprint with more passive green space Cons 1.Displaced surface parking must be replaced with either additional surface or an underground parking structure Estimated Construction Cost Alternates D – 1New 2(+) story bldg$ M $ / sf (With architectural compliments to Village Hall Bldg) D – 1.a w/underground parking$3.5 M (Total 124 spaces req.)