D86 Board Approves Borrowing $18 Million for Air Conditioning, Other Projects
Board members Barrett and Skoda opposed the plan, which would also upgrade electrical infrastructure at both district high schools and address entry circulation problems.
Monday evening was unseasonably warm for mid-December, but the temperature inside Hinsdale South High School for the District 86 School Board meeting was cool. That was probably a good thing, since a discussion about air conditioning generated quite a bit of heat, not only among board members, but also in the audience.
The meeting began with audience member George Logan delivering a lengthy analysis of district finances to argue against borrowing $17.96 million to complete the air conditioning of all classroom space at Hinsdale Central and Hinsdale South. Logan said district expenditures are trending up while revenues are trending down.
“We’d be taking a risk to borrow anything,” he said. “It just seems like it’s flying against all the trends.”
Board members Dianne Barrett and Richard Skoda took advantage of every opportunity during the meeting to express their opposition to the plan, which also calls for upgrades to the electrical infrastructure at both schools and various improvements designed to alleviate circulation problems at school entry points. The cost for the air conditioning portion of the project is estimated at roughly $13 million.
During a presentation of the district’s annual financial report by CPA Jason Coyle of the accounting firm of Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, Barrett pointed to language in the report that she said called for the district to investigate alternate funding sources.
“The board hasn’t discussed how we’re going to fund the extra expenses related to increased electricity needs on the building,” Barrett said. “The auditor … in this report, identifies that is going to be an issue.”
“I don’t recall saying that ma’am, I’m sorry,” Coyle said.
“You didn’t call it an issue,” Barrett said. “I’m calling it an issue.”
Skoda pointed out that the district has $7 million available in its working cash fund and Barrett said that the district has sizeable cash reserves across all funds.
“We could do the project without going out and selling bonds,” she said. “I would recommend to the board to reconsider going out and increasing people’s taxes unnecessarily, especially in this economy.”
Tax increase for three years
Bill Hofherr, senior vice president with the Kansas City investment banking firm of George K. Baum & Company, told board members that the first-year payments for the project would increase the tax burden for the owner of a $900,000 home by about $30 and by about $10 for the owner of a $300,000 home. That figure would decline during the next two years. By the fourth year of the 19-year payment schedule, the tax burden would return to its present level.
With interest, the project would cost the district $26.37 million, according to Hofherr.
“That’s ridiculous,” Barrett said. “That’s a lot of money for this board to consider for air conditioning.”
In arguing against using cash on hand to pay for the project, Board President Dennis Brennan brought up the district’s triple-A credit rating, noting that decreasing cash reserves could lower that rating.
“You will weaken your financial position,” Hofherr said, agreeing with Brennan.
The board approved the bond resolution on a 5-2 vote, with Barrett and Skoda voting against it.
Hiring of construction manager questioned
Barrett and Skoda also objected to the hiring of Gilbane Building Company to serve as construction manager for the projects the bonds will finance, suggesting that according to state statutes, the contract should have gone out for bids.
James Petrungaro, of the law firm of Scariano, Himes and Petrarca, indicated Barrett and Skoda’s interpretation of the applicable statute was incorrect.
“It does not need to be bid out,” Petrungaro said. “There’s case law addressing the specific issue of construction managers for school construction projects.”
Skoda said the process “almost sounds like the kind of stuff that goes on in Springfield.”
Superintendent Dr. Nicholas Wahl said such a comment was "offensive."
“Has there been any favoritism to any board member or anybody in administration?” Barrett asked Doug Lim, district manager for Gilbane.
“Absolutely not,” Lim responded.
The motion to approve the hiring of Gilbane to provide construction management services for the project passed on a 5-2 vote, with Barrett and Skoda again casting the dissenting votes.
Mike Sandrolini
8:11 am on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Do you think it's necessary for District 86 to borrow $18 million for air conditioning and other projects? Why or why not?
Steve Woodward
2:48 pm on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
That this project was not bid out should be a source if outrage in our community. This is taxpayer money. How do you not seek bids on an $18m project? This is scandalous but the board knows it will fly under the radar two weeks before Christmas. This Board always takes key votes right before holidays or over the summer break. Wake up folks! It's your money!
chet everett
4:11 pm on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
While I cannot say I am supporter of either Board Members Skoda or Barrett and do not approve of the above poster's characterization of the Board's actions as "scandalous" the fact that such a major investment in what many would characterize as a non-core expenditure strikes me as less than good governance.
Perhaps the near constant screechings of a stay-at-home is what drive the BOE to behave is this manner.
Ideally the BOE and District 86 administration would seek out bids even when not legally required, but simply because it shows adherence to transparency and community stewardship.
Further, if the BOE and administration would make more of effort to clearly communicate the long term strategy for living within the limits of what taxes can support perhaps there would be less outrage when its timing seems to curiously coincide with periods of low community turn out...
Sue Pircon
4:55 pm on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Steve, I wish you had been at the meeting, if so perhaps you would have your facts correct. This project is absolutely going out for bid! It was the appointment of a construction manager that did not need to go out for bid, not any of the construction. Gilbane Building Company will act as the construction manager for the project, all other aspects of the project will go out for bid
Don Damon
5:43 pm on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Sue, you're right ...
However, the construction manager for a $17 Million dollar project is a sizable purchase on its' own and should have gone out to bid, too.
Is there some advantage to using Gilbane? Probably much less than folks are led to believe. Without going out for bid on the construction management part we (the citizen taxpayers) won't ever know what might have been. Through their offer of "free" pricing expertise Gilbane has, seemingly, gained an exclusive contract.
But, you are right ... they only got a no-bid contract for construction management. And we will never know what the other bids for that part of the project might have been.
Sue Pircon
8:35 pm on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thanks Don. I feel it is important that taxpayers have the real facts that allow them to make their own conclusions. It always bothers me that so much incorrect information is posted on the many "blog" sites. At the meeting it was discussed that Gilbane was familiar with the project, previously worked with the district architect and has an excellent reputation. I agree, a no-bid contract is lucrative in this economic environment. If anyone wants more information on Gilbane's credentials I would suggest they attend board meetings, approach the administration or even they can view the board meetings on the district website at http://hinsdale86.org/sb/Pages/default.aspx I always encourage folks to get informed and stay involved, not just make conclusions based on "blogs".
Steve Woodward
2:50 pm on Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Don nails it on the head. "We will never know". In this and so many other cases these elected representatives demonstrate a total lack of regard for transparency, accountable governance and the will of taxpayers. But this is why we have elections. The next one can't come soon enough.