Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln Way board weighs issuing bonds to fund life‑safety capital projects
Summary
Board members reviewed life‑safety survey findings and discussed using a new Illinois law to issue bonds to pay for HVAC, roof and other capital repairs; no vote was taken and administrators will return with financing scenarios in February and March.
Board members of the Lincoln Way Community High School District on Jan. 16 reviewed life‑safety inspection findings and discussed whether to issue bonds under a recent Illinois law to fund major HVAC, roof and other capital projects. The board did not take action; administrators said they will return with financing scenarios from advisers in February and seek formal approvals in March if the board chooses to proceed.
The discussion matters because the district’s inspectors and architects recommended a multi‑year program to repair or replace aging heating, ventilation and air‑conditioning systems and some roofs at Lincoln Way East and Lincoln Way Central. The administration described an approach that would complete a first phase in 2026 and a second phase in 2027 if the board pursues a bundled bond sale.
The administration described the district’s current debt position and options for paying for capital work. “We went back, we were able to refinance $135,000,000 at under 2%,” a board presenter said, noting the district has an existing bond payment that the presenter said is currently $27,000,000 and will remain on the levy for about 10 years. Under a recently passed state law cited by the presenter (public act 1030591), tax‑cap school districts that receive state approval of life‑safety projects may issue bonds for those projects and extend debt up to 30 years in some cases.
Administrators described two basic approaches: spread capital spending across multiple years using annual operating and pay‑as‑you‑go resources, or issue bonds and do larger bundled contracts to gain construction and design efficiencies. The presenter said architects and engineers recommended bundling major work for economy of scale, noting that doing projects together could reduce repeated design, bidding and mobilization costs. "If we spread it out, they'll design it differently," the presenter said.
District staff provided several cost‑related details during the discussion: project estimates in the board packet included a 10% contingency and 10% for architecture and engineering; architects recommended doing all of Lincoln Way East in phase 1 and part of Central in phase 1 with the remainder in phase 2; the administration estimated the district spends about $3,000,000 a year on HVAC work in current practice; and some building systems date back decades (one unit identified from 1972). Staff also said maturing investments and higher short‑term yields would offset some interest costs while bond proceeds are held until spent.
Board members asked about timeline and process. Administrators said the district has already completed state life‑safety approvals and, if directed, would return with formal scenarios from its financial adviser (PMA) and Bob Lewis at the next meeting. The planned sequence described in the meeting: present detailed scenarios in February, hold a public hearing in March, approve bond issuance if the board chooses in March, sell bonds in July and go to bid for construction in September to support 2026 work.
Board members and administrators also discussed a proposed debt policy that would cap annual bond payments as a percentage of operating tax revenue; the presenter said one working figure under discussion was 15 percent but emphasized the policy language and scenarios would be returned for board consideration. No formal policy change or motion was adopted at the Jan. 16 meeting.
The presenter emphasized the choice was between spreading projects over many years (and potentially paying higher per‑project costs and risking market volatility on bids) or borrowing to do larger packages now for potential savings and fewer mobilizations. Multiple board members requested detailed numerical scenarios showing the tradeoffs, interest assumptions and effects on tax rates before any vote.
Administration said it will provide finalized scenarios and documentation to board members in the coming weeks to allow two weeks of review before the February meeting, and that no approvals would be requested until March. The board moved into closed session later in the meeting and took no further action on the topic that night.
