ABDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU
1
TimestampPlease provide your feedback regarding the proposal by District 97 and the Park District of Oak Park to share administrative facilities.What is your first name?What is your last name?What city do you live in?
2
9/12/2012 8:37:40Concerns about sharing staff, parking.
3
9/20/2012 14:35:30What can residents do to stop this process from moving forward before schools are taken care of? I fail to see why we need to push through with building a fancy new administrative building BEFORE our children's schools are improved. Only after the many necessary improvements are made do I think it is appropriate to have this conversation. I would be in full support at that time. Not now, however.
4
9/21/2012 10:00:39We live on Lombard Ave., across the street from the Village Hall parking lot. Currently there is a high volume of traffic on our street because of Village Hall along with the resulting noise, pollution, and danger to pedestrians and cyclists. The addition of the planned shared facility site will only make our quality of life that much worse. We see many school children streaming past our house on their way to OPRF HS and Longfellow and fear the impact of this additional traffic on their safety.

Therefore, we are strongly apposed to this plan to build another administration building in the Village Hall parking lot.

Frances Sampson and Ted Sowinski
525 S. Lombard Ave.
5
9/21/2012 19:10:08Worst idea ever. Please use existing structures on Madison (not new construction - thar's not green!) and don't eliminate parking that you then have to replace. Sharing and efficiencies are good but this concept should be a non starter.
6
9/23/2012 8:56:36I think it is an absolutely ridiculous idea for so many reasons. First of all the residents of Lombard street have already expressed how miserable we are with traffic that is too heavy and too fast. We've requested speed bumps and the red tape that we have had to go through to get one is maddening. The fact that we still haven't got a temporary speed bump, but the city, district and park district is willing to make less parking and more traffic is downright offensive. What about the children's conditions in the school's? The weather problem is not going away, so long term heating and cooling problems need to be solved in the schools before the superintendent and company have new luxury offices. This idea is unbelievable.
7
9/23/2012 9:38:21I do not agree with D97 & the OP Park District's idea to build a new structure. There are many unoccupied buildings found throughout the village that should be considered before spending funds on a new structure.
8
9/23/2012 9:48:49
9
9/23/2012 10:53:27I don't doubt that the administration offices are in bad shape, but they can't be in any worse shape than the school buildings. Unless you believe that the work done in the administration building is more important to our children than the word done in school, you should fix the school buildings before building a new office.
10
9/23/2012 11:52:29Folks....we are in the business of educating the children. If you truly think that the heat does not impact learning, you are entirely mistaken. Trade spots with 1 classroom during a heat wave and see how admin. work output is affected. Fix the schools first. The children deserve to be educated in an environment that doesn't affect learning.

As for overcrowding in the admin building, share offices or get a portable classroom to put on the existing property. That is exactly how you would expect a school to handle overcrowding.

Please invest in the children before you think about the admin. Do not spend millions of dollars on admin. Instead, spend it on the children. This shouldn't even be an issue.
Thanks,
Jill Baron
(educator, parent of 3, and a homeowner)
11
9/21/2012 19:51:12I am a 40 year resident of the 500 Block of South Harvey. I have sent 2 children through the Oak Park Schools and enjoyed a number of Park District Programs even to this day. My children are Oak Park residents and we will soon have 2 grand children attending Longfellow in a few short years.

After attending Wednesday's Meeting, I sincerely understand the advantages and potential bendfits of your prosposal to share administrative facilities. However, I really feel that the cost and future congestion of a building behind the Village Hall is marked with problems. The Village Hall has enough problems with; police traffic, court traffic, resident visits, and not to forget the the number of contractor vehicles going in and out with permits and zoning issues. Why add to the congestion and force families with children to fight the traffic and difficult parking when other options might serve the entire community in a better way. Also, why subject the neighbors on Lombard and Taylor another Building to look at. If you feel that the parking lot is under used why not add to the green space needs that Oak Parker's deserve.

Has there been any consideration of purchasing Office Space in the proposed Madison/Highland Building? I understand there is a real need to find quality tenants and certainly your presence would be a flagship occupant creating value and professionalism to the project. Other advantages;
1) close to Village Hall
2) tenant parking was built into the design
3) you would have a blank lay-out to created a design to fit your individual needs
4) all facility systems would be new and customized for your needs
5) Madison Street would have a needed win
6) you still can sell or rent current properties benefiting Tax Roles
7) buying in a Building designed for business and office use should be a significant cost saving

Thanks for listening and you got my vote to combine locations but NOT behind the Village Hall.

Howie Visteen
525 S. Harvey
383-2068
12
9/23/2012 12:28:06First of all, this wording is disingenuous. At issue is not a plan "to share administrative facilities." The real issue is a plan to spend millions building a new facility.

I am stunned that Superintendent Roberts has the nerve to propose this. I voted for District 97 referendum last year in good faith that money was desperately needed to save things like art, music, and Spanish. Now it feels like we wrote you a blank check to run amok.

These are tough economic times, and our community already has property taxes at a level that is challenging for many families and retirees. Why don't you make do with what you have, as so many Oak Park residents must do?

Laura Lallos
730 S. Harvey Ave
13
9/23/2012 18:51:29Here's a suggestion....before you all move ahead with the proposal, spend time in the schools to find out what their daily conditions are like. Pick a hot day and sit there for six hours. Maybe even take a test during that time. I guarantee the blinking light in Mr. Roberts' office will only seem like a nuisance compared to sitting in a hot classroom all day. Hopefully there is someone on these boards who is genuinely concerned about the kids. It's clear that Dr. Roberts is not. No money should be spent on a new building until after the schools are taken care of. Moving the kids around to "cooling centers" in the school building is not a long-term solution. It's a band aid that was only applied when parents began pressuring the principal.

Fix the schools first and then we can talk about shared administrative facilities.


14
9/24/2012 7:20:00When I voted for the referendum to pass, the goal was to prevent elimination of support and services that directly impacted the children (i.e. art and music classes). Thus I voted for it knowing my taxes would go up and I would not be able to spend that money on my own needs. Kids come first.

While I appreciate that administrative facilities may not be world class, in these economic times we are all making do. I have a full time consulting job and I work at my dining room table. Would love home office. Can't afford it. Making do. This is the time for making do and putting the kids needs first. This is just not the time for a multi-million dollar new building.

If the lights over your desk are flashing, get them fixed. Don't raze the building.
15
9/24/2012 10:39:21My understanding is this "sharing" will cost us millions of dollars. You cut crossing guards to the parochial schools and ran a campaign that inferred our schools were on their last pennies. I voted for this tax increase because I didn't want teacher aides to be cut.

I understand if the current facility is old; however have you seen our houses? You need to make a showing that you are respecting our tax dollars and find a way less unseemly to get working offices.
16
9/24/2012 10:59:50I feel like throwing up. Our village government is raping this community and only thinking about themselves.

Our schools are in desperate need of capital improvements. Some of our park facilities such as Rehm pool and Ridgeland Commons are a joke and we are using tax dollars to build village employess (90 percent or more of whom don't even live in Oak Park or pay taxes here) a new office building???

How can these even be proposed? Our village government is raping this community and they don't seem to care. Perhaps if they actually sent their children to our schools, if their own children swam at Rehm pool or couldn't take skating lessons they would care.

Why don't we build a new ice rink and pool facilities and house our D97 and park district employees at Ridgeland Commons. They can set up their cubicles in the ice arena where our children play in the summer and the winter, the one without air conditioning or heat.
17
9/24/2012 11:33:21At more than $100,000 per employee, building a cush new building in an already-congested area is simply madness. I expect the next thing you'll want for it is a new parking garage? There are vacant buildings all over Oak Park. Now, instead of using one of those and making it less vacant, your idea is to vacate two more buildings which will never be sold and add to the problem????? And how does this idea help ANYONE other than a village employee? How does it help me? It doesn't. How does it lower my taxes? Again, it doesn't -- inevitably, it will raise them again, right after the previous gigantic tax hike. Can my kid play soccer on it? Can he skate in it? No and No. Can he go to school there without being accosted by a gigantic drug problem? No again. Will it fix the problems in the building office and let me get a reasonable building permit in a reasonable time? Nope again.

It is time that the school district and the village start working for their bosses -- us, the residents, the taxpayers -- and not running Oak Park like a Stalinist dictatorship for the benefit of solely of the village, park district, and school district employees themselves.

This is a terrible idea that should be killed in is cradle immediately. We don't have the money for this, and there are much more pressing things we the residents -- and our kids -- need first.
18
9/25/2012 11:32:15Another great way to encourage more people to move to another town...very forward thinking Again, this is not needed at this time and the school's and school facility issues need to be addressed first (is this about the kids or the adults making the decisions?). Make do with what you have (e.g. use an existing facility) and tough it out.
19
11/12/2012 15:10:01The actual cost of the prposed Village Hall expansion project will exceed current estimates. Oak Park Township's recent renovation cost $1.2 million exceeding their $500,000 estimate -- a small project in comparison to the proposed Village Hall expansion. There will be a tax increase in 2013 as Illinois' Governor, House Speaker and Senate President reduce education funding for the suburbs and downstate by 9%. Oak Park will either turnback the proposed addition to Oak Park Village Hall or force more Senior Citizens from the community.RichardWillisOak Park
20
11/12/2012 15:10:02The actual cost of the prposed Village Hall expansion project will exceed current estimates. Oak Park Township's recent renovation cost $1.2 million exceeding their $500,000 estimate -- a small project in comparison to the proposed Village Hall expansion. There will be a tax increase in 2013 as Illinois' Governor, House Speaker and Senate President reduce education funding for the suburbs and downstate by 9%. Oak Park will either turnback the proposed addition to Oak Park Village Hall or force more Senior Citizens from the community.RichardWillisOak Park
21
11/12/2012 18:08:30TAXES, TAXES, TAXES!!! Who can dispute that they are too high. We can put these so-called "out-dated" district offices back on the market and increase our tax IF we could sell them. The buyers are not there as we can see from an increasingly empty business district on Madison St. Why would businesses want to open on Madison St. or anywhere else in Oak Park with the taxes being so high. Prudent business owners are buying/leasing spaces in collar communities to Oak Park to avoid our outrageously high taxes. I realize what a challenge this is to our administrative educators, village board, and yes, my fellow taxpayers not to spend millions on a bright, shiny, spanking new building to increase our village/citizen collaboration. Personally, I think picking up the phone is all that is needed or using e-mail/newspaper work just fine. How about a novel idea. Why not use the money to reduce taxes on Madison St. for a period of time to stimulate business and get those empty properties profitable again. Let's put both Parks and D97 in one property (already owned), and sell the other. Let's save money. Let's lower taxes. Let's be smart for a change.MaryRodrigoOak Park
22
11/13/2012 20:26:56I do not believe this is in the best interest of the village. The MSCMP does not support warehouses on Madison Street. There is already a parking problem around village hall. The cost to build a new building is too much to ask from taxpayers. I am willing to support a shared space, but not this site. Please rethink this proposal and come up with a plan that does not put a non-business use on Madison. I believe there has to be a better option.

Linda HillOak Park
23
11/14/2012 13:27:05I DO NOT support this idea!! We cannot continue to raise taxes in Oak Park without eventually suffering the consequences...people moving, empty housing...and why do we want more empty buildings? Just because they would be put on the market is not a guarantee that they will be bought or that whatever business might be in those buildings will be sustainable. Oak Park property owners are currently paying for some costly buildings that, in many other communities around the country, would never have been replaced so quickly; e.g., I grew up in a community that still uses a much older library building than the one we tore down and used school buildings for much longer periods of time than we did with our Junior High Schools. We need some self-control!!BettySchlatterOak Park
24
11/14/2012 13:31:09Seems rediculous to build a new building on the parking lot of the village hall. Instead, maybe you could use one of the already village owned spaces and use that or better yet, consolodate maintenace and administration at one of the existing schools. That is how they did it where I grew up. Additionally the JR High fields look awful, D97 should put a little effort into that instead of wasting our tax dollars and the Madison TIF on this...SteveBarryOak Park
25
11/14/2012 14:39:16I am against the proposed new building for D97 and the park district. I think village funds can be put to much better use elsewhere — invest in our schools and parks. There must be plenty of existing, lower-cost alternatives to this costly proposal. I think the residents near village hall already have enough traffic and parking issues to endure without piling more on. There also seems to be very little open green space in that area, why remove what little they have?Brad FarrarOak Park
26
11/14/2012 14:52:03Where would anyone park if the parking lot behind Village Hall is used for the new building? I think the idea has merit, as the current District 97 building is woefully inadequate. But I sympathize with the residents of Lombard Avenue -- can't something be done to make their quality of life better?
JanetHaismanOak Park
27
11/16/2012 10:26:18As a resident of the 600 S. Lombard block, we are directly affected by this project and emphatically believe this would be a detriment to our neighborhood in terms of traffic, congestion, lack of parking, and more. Our neighborhood has formed a petition that can be accessed below for anyone to add their names:

"No D97/OPPD Building on Village Hall Parking Lot"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nod97oppdbldg/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend
AmyWilliamsOak Park
28
11/30/2012 7:36:11I am very disappointed that D-97 has not echoed the Park District's statement, withdrawing all energy and time devoted to this new admin facility project. The referendum passed at least in part because parents and citizens are concerned about the upper floors of the K-5 schools. Without air conditioning, these are poor learning environments at least 8 weeks out of the school year. Students have to dress in summer clothes year round and remember ice in their water bottles. Please refocus on the students. There is no mention of this important project on your website, as well as no mention of the amount of time and energy being spent by the board and administration pursuing new facilities for themselves! Students and their needs should come first! All capital funding concerns should focus on student needs, and an adequate learning environment is expected by all taxpayers. An excellent learning environment is what citizens expect their Board and Administration to strive for. Please don't let us down.MargaretSwansonOak Park
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100