We are publishing them below (along with all the useful links) so that anyone interested can quickly access board meeting documents. What is fascinating to us is how this chronology shows that in a short span of 2 years, a Facilities Committee was formed and tasked with creating a Masters Facility Plan for all 10 schools, only one school -- HMS -- was ultimately selected for any large projects and despite the focus on only one school, virtually every deadline set was missed by the administration. Compounding that is the reality that the winning design concept, originally priced at $46.8 million was completely off the mark and the true cost (as estimated by Pepper Construction) was $73 million. It is no wonder the BOE balked at this number and pushed for a cheaper version, but a mere four days later 5 of 7 board members settled on $65 million as an appropriate amount to ask taxpayers to fund.
We ask, is it really appropriate to have a design that is nearly $20 million higher than what the board selected in October? After months of delay in selecting an architect and many missed deadlines, why would anyone trust the "urgency" and rapid fire decisions and changes made in late December 2015?
Comments of the Day:
It still showed October 19 as the target date for presentation of the Masters Facility Plan, Selection of Architect and Board decision on going to Referendum in March. The date for selection of the Architect had been pushed back yet again from the originally proposed date...
A draft 10 years Masters Facilities plan was also presented to the BOE:
Facilities Committee minutes were also presented:
The three firms were "reranked" following the concerns raised at the prior board meeting and the results were presented at:
Rather than being asked to approve going to referendum (per the updated timeline), the BOE was now only tasked with providing guidance to the administration on whether to proceed to referendum in March 2016:
The board took action by selecting Cordogan as the architect, did not decide whether or not to place a referendum question on the March 2016 and authorized 2 board members to enter into contract negotiations with Cordogan, See Minutes of meeting at: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A3Y7ZS78AD9D/$file/Reg.%20Bus.%20Mtg.%20Min._10_19_15.pdf
Unfortunately, a Special Meeting needed to be called for October 26, to rescind the motion approving board member negotiators and bring that motion again. Apparently, there must have been some type of "error" (or perhaps OMA violation?) requiring this special meeting. (Interestingly, if one looks at the NOTICE of this special meeting, it doesn't list the reason for the special meeting, which is also required by law....another mistake?)
See Minutes: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A3YJUU4CA869/$file/Sp.%20Brd.%20Mtg.%20Min_10_26_15.pdf
See Notice: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=A2ULLX52134C
The BOE failed to vote on whether to go to referendum and scheduled a special Saturday board meeting on December 19, 2015.
A mere four days after the $73 cost estimate, two new cheaper proposals were floated to the BOE: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=A58JZ54F2C08
One was for $66.4 million (http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A5BHMK492B8B/$file/SD%20181%20Hinsdale%20MS%20Budget%20Summary%20Option%20A%20Revised%20121715.pdf)
The other one was for $63.7 million (http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A5BHMQ492E2B/$file/SD%20181%20Hinsdale%20MS%20Budget%20Summary%20Option%20B%20Revised%20121715.pdf)
The BOE majority approved putting a $65 million question on the March 2016 ballot, barely meeting the ballot language submission deadline.
The BOE tasked the facilities committee to explore cheaper options but based upon last week's facilities committee meeting "due diligence" (as Don White refers to it during the meeting), the committee will be recommending a $65 million design to the BOE.
How can anyone trust this number? Perhaps Pepper should be asked to take a look at the latest Option G design and cost it out....