>> It's going to take some serious thought and consideration on how the pieces fit together. >> So, get to get used to the easy one is what you're telling us. >> The rest will not be easy. >> This is the easiest conversation we're going to have in regards to this. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Let's go forward with it. seems to make sense. >> Yep. >> Right. Thank you. Now on to your next easy discussion. >> Yeah. It's not mine. It's it's Mark's. >> Thanks for sticking around, Mark. >> Wake up. >> It can be All right. As Holly's working on finding >> that already open. Yeah, we if you remember last month I think it was a committee update from RACK that we started talking about this and some of the feedback was is you know some more information and so tonight I'm going to give you more information is um part of really the bigger picture um and we started this so we have talked a lot at RACK about HLS bonds and funding mechanisms and you know warm safe dry and so basically in This is really to give you an overview and yes I come in the fall and give an overview of capital projects but more of projects that really have gone in front of rack um specifically hls health life safety projects um and really organizing them by safety and then more longer term and we talked about this I mean you guys were just talking about this about one three year five year 10 here.
Well, you're going to see some of this in um this. So, right here is this is just kind of how the framework and how I put it together. So, you have HLS1, that's health life, safety bonds, that's eligible. So, basically, it's eligible to get money if the state um approves it. HLS2 is there's going to be some additional cost to that that the state might not approve. And then warm, safe, dry. You've heard a lot about that. And then kind of breaking it down a little bit more, you have CPP1 and CPP2. So you just calling this near-term, so 5 to 10 years, and then kind of some midterm, so 10 to 15 years. So, if you look at HLS1, we're looking at about 11.3 million that we think, when I say we, myself and the architects think that um it is eligible. So, some of these examples are fire alarm at the high school and middle school, a lot of unit ventilators in this district, but specifically at the high school C-wing, which was 95 that was done.
And then Routolo has all still original UN units. Um, and that was from 1992 that building opened. And then also at JB Nelson and Gustoson, and those are the oldest. That was 1989. Also in those buildings, they have tunnel piping. So they're fed by under the tunnel. Okay? So most of them and buildings now are usually in the ceiling. This is all underneath. Um, and then the HLS2 is about 6.3. This number could change depending on exactly what gets approved and really what we feel that are we just doing a onetoone replacement with unit ventilators or are we using a different type warm safe dry kind of what's left um some roof replacements seawwing exterior shell uh domestic water at JB Nelson and um the when I say original building at the high school meaning the original building that was built in 1966 and then some parking lot replacements.
This the three to five years you've seen this this was part of the original warm safe dry that was approved two three years ago now and then here's some kind of bigger picture items that need to be done. Okay, this is not the entire list is attached and wasn't it's very hard to see if I put it up here too. So just some basic so that 5 to 10 year so some science labs at the high school seawwing more roof replacements boilers chillers air handlers um some security vestibule specifically um the McQueain Hooverwood and at the high school and then the longer term ones a lot is into that but just some examples you can see there Now these costs are basically square foot costs. Okay? So basically taking a square foot of a place and using per you know a dollar amount. These have not gone to the architect.
It has not gone to the CM. It's just kind of basic costs. This is just a rundown and a total of what that is. Now in parenthesis there you see something that's not adjusted at all for inflation. These are today's costs now potential for health life safety bonds. Okay. And some next steps. So that 11.3 million um again we look at medium median household numbers. It's about $155 per year for um a tax increase. So really the next steps, you know, I know we talk a lot like, okay, why am I telling you all of this? Well, there's nothing requested tonight. This is just a discussion. Um, if we get a feeling of like, hey, health, life, safety, bonds is the next step to go. Board needs to approve that. So I'm suggesting April. Only reason I'm suggesting April is because timelines. Again, this summer's done planned.
Next summer really should already start being planned. It really should be planned at this point. Um, so again, we're talking about timelines and, you know, I know at the very beginning we're talking about the student um board members. Same type of thing. You know, we need to kind of get moving on this. What needs to happen is the recommendation to revise the health life safety survey. So the DLR architects did 10-year health life safety that's already been approved by ISBY basically would have to take that back because when it was approved that box of HLS funds was not checked. So we would have to do not whole healthy safety but basically amend just the part that we're looking at to get the money for. Then it goes to ROE which that's usually very quick. The longer process is with ISB that could take up to six months.
I I mean it could take as short as three months. I usually hear about that three to six month range. >> Isby has one employee that oversees all this with the state all the requests. So that's why it's a very unpredictable timeline for school districts >> and there are other districts talking about >> right. Yeah, we're Believe me, Dave is not the only district talking about >> because this is fairly newish. Yes. Two years. >> I think it was 24. >> Yeah. 23 or 24. >> So, what this allows you to do is What's the term on the 155? Is that what did you guys calculate that as? >> What do we calculate as Josh? >> It was uh it was seven years for that particular one, but we could do it. I'm glad I came up with a question for you to get. >> I know, right?
I was sitting there waiting for you. Thank you. >> Okay, so Rack has considered this extensively over we've been talking about this for quite a while. Just to give a little bit more context going backward when the board approved warm, safe, dry, we gave our best estimates at the time as to what things would cost, not knowing how the economy would work against us and also not knowing how state and federal funding would work against us. And so when it comes to health life safety, this is work that's identified that we must do. We have to do our 10-year health life safety survey. We don't necessarily have to do it next year, but it's not long. I mean, we'll have to do a lot of this work within the next couple of years. And unfortunately, with lower revenues and higher construction costs, we have to figure out how we're going to pay for this work.
>> And some of this work turns into an emergency real quick on a bad day. >> It can. And uh you know I I've shown you Craig and I'd be happy to show anybody who wants to talk about it or see it, but you know Craig uh Mark's team took a pipe that failed in the tunnels at JB Nelson out and we knew that they were in poor condition, but they're in poor condition and there's a chance that we could lose all the heating and cooling in that building at any practically any given moment. And luckily that failure happened in early January when it was relatively warm and his team could drain the pipes and do the repair. But if that happened in the deepest cold that we faced a few weeks later, a couple weeks later, that would be a real serious problem. We could lose the whole building.
So that's some of the work that we face. This is work. Those pipes are 70 years old and they're showing their age. And so this work needs to get done. >> I think the other piece that's important to talk about is, you know, we have Hoover Wood and Grace McG they're 25 years old. Five to 10 years from now is all when all major mechanicals start coming. Boilers, chillers, their univvents, their air handlers, their roof. Okay. It's not really I mean it's on a list, but that list is getting closer and closer and closer. So, it's I almost look at it as the next warm safe dry. You know, we kind of concentrated warm safe dry and certain schools. Well, again, we don't want to forget about that. It's, you know, you say, "Oh, that's a new school." It's 25 years old. So, >> so we knew we were going to have to make some changes to warm, safe, dry to kind of adjust to the various dynamics.
And it's going to take us longer than we anticipated, of course. >> But the very next thing on its heels after that work is done is Hooverwood and Grace McWain. Uh, and we don't want to be in the same situation again. And I've said this many times over the years, but you know, we just paid off all of our debt and that we paid off all the work that we did to our schools. You know, over the last, you know, 20 years ago, you know, 15 to 20 years ago. And from the early 90s on till now, we were always dealing with enrollment expansion, building buildings to accommodate our student enrollments. We didn't have much extra to do a lot of the investments that are necessary to take care of our schools. And you know, as you can the the 70-year-old galvanized pipe that's in a non-conditioned space in a tunnel in the basement of JB Nelson School, it's it's coming for us.
Those are the kinds of things that are waiting to be done and they're not cheap. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to get. >> So, kind of think of it like this. So 11 was what was 11 million HLS, right? >> So we get that from the HLS fund. So that frees up 11 million for warm, safe and dry, the other projects we want to work on, right? >> Yeah. >> And again, warm, safe, dry isn't anything that changes space for students and staff. >> It's quite literally warm, safe, and dry. They're not anything that changes anything else. They're the barest of bare essentials. >> All right. So, walk me through the scenario. So, you're presenting the information to us now. Then next month, you're going to be asked to make a decision on these life safety bonds. And if we say apply for it, our team applies for it.
We hope they process the paperwork in a timely manner but it's three to six months assuming they approve all of it which is not guaranteed. Then how does that it's not going to referendum so it's just going to hit people's tax roles right? Well it wouldn't be automatic and so then the board would have another decision to make once that was approved as to whether or not they wanted to pursue those bonds and you could take action to do so. you have the authorizations to do so under law. You have the the legal authority >> effectively. Right now the authorization is just to start on the process. It is not actually to secure the bonds. >> So we go through this process to approve it and then if we whatever we secure then we vote on if we want to move forward with it. >> Y again.
So there's a couple of gates to get through. It's nothing definite but we can't start on this work without your permission. >> Katie and I have to sign paperwork. >> Yep. >> At a minimum. So what would the I guess to Eron your question I think you maybe get to this when when would they when would a resident see that tax increase? Let's say we went through all this. Would it be 2027 tax bill or? >> Yeah, it would be in the next tax year. Not this year. So you're going to get a tax bill in June and September. You wouldn't see it then, but you would start seeing it next June and September. So, I'm trying to play these timelines out in my head because when I see this, I see $142 million of in today's dollars. A year from now, it' be a higher number that we have to figure out a way to fund.
And this is like just like keeping the water running, keeping the lights on, that kind of stuff, right? >> Yeah. And to be clear, we've spent um I don't remember the number off hand. We've spent about 30 to $35 million already on work safe drive. >> Oh, I know. >> We've got another 15 million to go and we've spent fund balance and we're spending money each year in our operating budget, our operating rate that we tax we collect toward this work. And in 2027, correct me if I'm wrong here, Josh, but in 27 or 28, we'll be spending about $6 million a year on this work. We can't keep up. And what it's going to do, it's going to ultimately impact our ability to deliver programs and instruction to students. >> Oh, this is going to get real serious real quick. Real quick. So, my question for the rack committee, I don't want to put I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but when you were having your deliberations, I'm sure it was very serious.
All points of view were considered. Um, I mean, was the decision to recommend just that this is available to us? we don't have another way to get this kind of revenue. It's just not there right now with the current means that we have available to us. So, we should take advantage of it. Is that how we came to that conclusion? >> Yeah, I think it was that there are some immediate needs and there's an option to have at least a portion of that paid for. Um, but you know, then there were also discussions about, hey, this is seven years What does that limit a referendum? So that's where I'm getting at with all of this because what I'm again train but we go let's say we assume we go through this process gets approved the board approves it we get $11 million and then I could envision a scenario where right when it's hitting people's pocketbook we might be asking them for a referendum and uh we didn't ask you U people want to say in this right and so that timing can be things challenge make it a challenging environment is that was that ever discussed >> yeah I think again that it was like a referendum a referendum can happen in time for the things that need to be done >> right >> and we don't have discretion on what needs to be done >> no I get it this is like if that pipe breaks at JB Nelson like they're It's so when because I thought about this a lot, right?
Because the there is there could be a sentiment of a certain set of people that feel like you snuck this in on them. Right. >> Right. Because it's a new thing, they wouldn't know it. They don't, >> right? >> There's a high likelihood that that certain subset of people just aren't going to like it no matter what you do. >> That's true. >> Okay. The reality is whatever we do here reduces the number we may ask for later in some capacity. Whether it's straight off the top or it's fighting our inflationary trend a bit because we're doing this because I kind of have a feeling if you took the numbers we looked at when we had the referendum before that looks like the deal of a century right now. >> I agree. >> Right. But the community spoke and it is what it is. You know, so this is the world we're in.
So we're battling an operating rate that we are locked in on and operating rates were not meant to fund buildings and to build addition. That's why we have to go ask for money for it to make sure the community would support that. Right. So, but one of the things I think did hurt us a bit in the previous referendum is that we were there was no dream really attached to it was like fixing these things all over the place and it was hard to quantify and it was hard to rattle and it felt a lot like why aren't you take care of your buildings, right? So, in a lot of ways, this is a way to take care of at least some of the things in the buildings. Yeah, I think some people had issues with the and I understood the idea of like it's sometimes it's cheaper to tear down a building and build new, but I think there are people that had issues with that idea.
And so we're not tearing down buildings. We are working with what we have, but there's there's a huge cost. >> And to be clear, the the opportunity to tear down buildings has sailed, >> right? We've spent, you know, tens of millions of dollars at this point on those buildings. You know, it wouldn't make sense anymore to now turn around and tear them down. >> So really the question before us is do they start on the process of doing this? There's time to think about it. There's time to try to, you know, work through the process of rack and bic and others of having community input input if it is so desired, you know, but right now it is Do you take the bird that's in the hand and move forward or you kind of hope you catch one eventually? >> All right. Are you two going to point at each other all night?
>> No, I use that say something. >> I use that turn of a phrase with Mr. Kim earlier and he was like, I've never heard that before, but now you've heard it twice. I don't um I think it's important to kind of also keep in mind I think in the last two years we have tried to pursue other options to fund our capital projects. Um with the previous board, there was some discussions about a possibility that when uh I was working with the Illinois Association for Superintendent, uh we were they had connected us, me and some of you were on that meeting to see if there was a way that an in uh an investment group from the east coast was willing to consider uh pursuing funding all of our capital projects needs. Unfortunately, some of the levers with uh and and um Tony, you can explain this better, but basically this the way that we needed money to make to make that project happen anyway still, right?