District 86 Grapples With Millions in Projected Repairs

The Hinsdale Township High School District 86 Board continues to draft a strategy of what to fix and at what cost at Hinsdale Central and South high schools.

In December 2008, the School Board voted to hire the architectural design firm of Perkins and Will to assist the district in developing a master facilities plan. Last July, the board adopted a master facilities plan. The construction management firm of Gilbane, Inc. was then asked to come up with some preliminary cost estimates for various priorities identified in the master facilities plan. Representatives from both companies were on hand at Monday night’s committee of the whole meeting at Hinsdale South.

Doug Lim and Rick Wise of Gilbane presented the board with cost estimates broken down into two categories: immediate needs (Priority I) to be addressed in the next one to three years and mid-term needs (Priority II) to be addressed in three to five years.

Infrastructure needs top list

The top priority identified in the master facilities planning process was infrastructure, which had the highest cost estimate: $39.4 million. Infrastructure improvements at Hinsdale Central could cost $21.8 million. Infrastructure expenditures at Hinsdale South were estimated at $17.6 million.

While some of the other items in the master facilities plan could be summer construction projects, Lim said the infrastructure improvements would require at least two years to complete, necessitating the use of temporary classrooms.

“There’s no other way around it,” he said.

“I don’t think any parent … would be interested in having their kids in mobile classrooms,” Board Member Dianne M. Barrett said.

Using a total figure of $100 million for projects in both priority categories, Barrett went on to question the wisdom of putting such a burden on taxpayers given the present state of the economy.

“It’s up to you guys to decide if anything’s going to get done,” Lim said.

Frosty air-conditioning discussion

Mark Jolicoeur of Perkins and Will indicated the plan wasn’t developed as a must-do list.

“There’s a number of shades of grey in this,” he said.

For example, the infrastructure cost estimate includes air conditioning throughout both school buildings.

“Right now, we have about half of the instructional space in both campuses air conditioned,” said Dr. Nicholas A. Wahl, superintendent.

Barrett asked about the operating cost of air conditioning and how many days a year it was needed.

“Are you suggesting there isn’t a need for air conditioning?” Board Member DeeDee Gorgol asked Barrett, saying Barrett had previously cited the need for air conditioning in the buildings.

“First, don’t put words in my mouth,” Barrett responded, saying she had only expressed the opinion that the ventilators needed replacement.

“I think it should be up to the taxpayers if we want to spend $40 million,” she added.

Board President Dennis Brennan said he also recalled Barrett mentioning the need for air conditioning and took her to task for suggesting the board was getting ready to approve $100 million in expenditures.

“Nobody is spending $100 million today,” he said.

He said the board was trying to determine the best course to follow and that once it did, Barrett would “make a speech” saying it wasn’t needed, then later would say it was needed.

“That’s inappropriate,” Barrett said.

Next steps

While the board will have to determine whether air conditioning is needed throughout both schools, Jolicoeur said other infrastructure expenditures are unavoidable because some roofs and mechanical equipment are reaching the end of their life spans.

“There’s a portion that will happen whether you want it to or not,” he said.

Barrett said she believed the board should be addressing educational programming first because that could impact the district’s facility needs.

Wahl observed that each school’s CLT (Curriculum Leadership Team) was involved in the process of developing the master facilities plan.

Jolicoeur said the facilities plan wasn’t driving the curriculum process.

“The building is just a tool,” he said. “It’s a tool for education.”

Ultimately, the board developed a consensus to follow the suggestion of Board Member Vinaya Sharma to refer the matter to the finance committee for guidance on how much spending might be needed and a review of possible funding options.