Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Health Life Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects propose health life‑safety study; board weighs boilers, locker rooms and summer 2027 work
Summary
District staff and White (architects) presented a health life‑safety study proposal (roughly $86,000) and recommended on‑site surveys and coding reviews to identify A/B/C priorities; the committee discussed boilers, accessibility, and whether to fund work via health life‑safety amendments or operational dollars for summer 2027.
Hinsdale Township High School District 86’s finance and facilities committee on March 9 heard an overview of a proposed health life‑safety study and related facility assessment from White, the district’s newly engaged architecture firm.
CFO Josh Stevenson introduced Brad, George and Gabrielle from White, who outlined a typical process: on‑site building surveys, visual analysis with architects and engineers, classification of findings into A (urgent), B (required) and C (recommended) categories, preparation of a safety reference plan and submission through ISBE’s IWAS portal. White said local Regional Office of Education (ROE) review is usually a pass‑through and that ISBE review time varies by queue.
“The first thing we do is an on‑site building survey,” Brad said, describing how the firm ties identified elements to reference plans and a formal report for board review. White’s fee proposal discussed in the meeting was cited at about $86,000.
The committee pressed staff and White on how items would be classified and on timing and costs. Members raised boilers and mechanical systems, decades‑old piping, accessibility gaps and locker rooms (noting particularly poor basement locker rooms at Central) as likely candidates to surface as B or A items once the buildings were reviewed against current codes. White advised that some items can be filed as an amendment to the 10‑year tenure to accelerate priority work.
Stevenson told the committee the firm’s work would inform the broader master facility planning process and that much of the physical surveying and documentation could take place over the summer, with district staff deciding whether to pursue an amendment or wait for the 10‑year submission window. The district also discussed phasing across fiscal years and the potential to tap remaining fund balances for urgency items.
Next steps identified by the committee included authorizing White to proceed to a board meeting for approval, scheduling walkthroughs and clarifying which projects — boilers/heat plant conversion or athletic locker room renovations — the district wants to prioritize for summer 2027 if the health life‑safety route is pursued.
