Mr. Shimer,

My choice of words was not well thought out and I shouldn't have minimized the value of money, however the reporter chose to print a small portion of what I had to say.

Unless you were at the meeting on Monday you missed the rest of my remarks which included the fact that the district had previously agreed to fund the turf if the Booster Club met its end of the agreement. You also missed my remarks and the remarks of many who discussed the fact that all DHS students will use the field for PE and those students involved in a myriad of athletics will use the field and students participating in marching band, cheerleading, dance groups and other groups will also beneift from use of the field. So Mr. Shimer, althought the approximately 100 young men who play football will benefit from the field so will every other student - many in multiple ways.

Also - contrary to your beliefs, involvement in athletics and fitness have proven to be very valuable in helping students lead succesful lives during their high school years and beyond. Participating in this part of high school education is part of "learning".

Mr Greenberg:

As usual, your analysis is flawed. It is full of language that misleads and fails to understand the issue. First, the district has a choice to make at Adams Field. They either:

1) Have to spend money to install synthetic turf, or
2) Have to spend money to fix the drainage and poor field conditions of a natural grass surface.

Doing nothing is NOT an option. With the Booster Clubs donation, installing synthetic turf will SAVE the district money over the next 10 years. I was at the meeting also, and you were the only person who spoke out against this, just as you were the only person who spoke out against it at Wolters. You are "Mr No".

Further, the money you mention is prioritized by each SCHOOL, not the District. The School Board approves it. If the School believes that this is the best use of its funds, given the extraordinary gift by the boosters, why do YOU know better? Of course, it's because YOU are an expert at everything from HVAC to Wetlands to Finance.

Stating that HPHS and the Admin Building have "squandered funds" is slanderous.

Finally, artificial turf is NOT dangerous, given our climate and weather conditions, it's the best, safest and desired surface for schools. The company installing the turf has 20 fields in Illinois scheduled for this summer alone. It's proven to be a huge benefit. Its significantly safer to play on a synthetic surface field than a soft, wet or muddy grass field. Take the money, install the field.

Sorry Jim, I don't concur that my analysis is flawed or that it's misleading. The District doesn't have to spend money to install artificial turf, nor do they have to spend money to deal with drainage. As was detailed in the Board meeting, neither of these expenditures do anything to improve any issues in the school building itself (i.e., they don't rectify any water issues at that building, such as have been reported in the Library).
* Maintaining the status quo at Adams Field and the backfields is certainly an option, why wouldn't it be given that the school building itself has other actual NEEDS to be met.
* Artificial Turf is a WANT, and the Booster Club isn't funding 100% of the cost of that want. There's apparently some agreement to fund it over time, and the Booster Club claims that they'll be able to make the payments, and have about $200K on hand to write a check now, but the District is on the hook for the lion's share of $637K, with the remainder to be paid over time by the Booster Club.

* Audris, the DHS Principal stated that if some capital need arose during the year, and they didn't have the money for it (because it had all been spent on WANTS such as artificial turf), that they'd have to rely on insurance and prayer.Insurance is nice - but I doubt that items such as a furnace are covered for replacement cost-which means the District would have to come up with additional funds, and if they didn't have the money on-hand, then they'd have to get it from another source - back-door referendum bond issuance perhaps?Given the claim that we'd rely on insurance and a prayer, that leads me to believe that the School leadership hasn't given enough thought to funding sources, and needs that they'll have over the years and that they should be told NO on artificial turf, and other wants until they have 100% of the money in the bank. Mr. Cohen was correct in questioning the funding of the wants...
* Artificial turf is dangerous - it gets dangerously hot in relatively mild temperatures and we haven't seen ANY proposals for mitigating that danger, been told what such mitigation will cost, or how it will affect the usage of the field.
* That some company is installing fields at other locales does not mean that we need artificial turf.
* I've always said that if a soft, wet or muddy grass field isn't safe to play on due to the conditions, that we merely have to wait until the conditions improve to play-or play elsewhere. We don't need to spend over $1M for a WANT.

* The danger refers to:
- Heat-the turf has been proven to get dangerously hot, and it tends to run 30 degrees (F) hotter than the surrounding air temperature during daylight hours. Studies have been done (see my website at www.davidgreenberg.org) which detail the situation. We haven't heard anything about how that situation will be mitigated.
- MRSA - it doesn't survive well in daylight or hot temperatures, but given that the turf will likely need to be used at night due to the heat, MRSA is a real concern.It requires mitigation and policies to address. We've heard nothing. More information concerning MRSA is on my website.
- Compaction of the surface:As use increases, so does compaction. It's been reported that after several years, the rubber-crumb infill must be replaced, at approximately 50% of the initial install cost.The rate of compaction increases greatly with multiple-sport usage.
- Toxic runoff: Studies have been done which detail dangers to aquatic life. Given that the entire school property is within a floodplain and wetlands area, we need to know how toxic runoff from the field will be dealt with.We've heard nothing.

* I really question whether the field will get 60-80 hours of use each week given the issues involving heat.
* There's studies referenced on my website from the NFL and surgeons associations which detail increased injury rates, etc.

The best investment for the District would be for it to meet it's needs first, then worry about wants.

* I have no disdain for athletics at any level.There are no mandated courses for PE here in Illinois, that all students must take PE doesn't automatically translate into a need for artificial turf.
* I've previously questioned the 55% statistic you cite, but IF we assume it's true, that means that the field would be subject to greater use, and the compaction of the surface would occur more rapidly.
* PE is mandated by the State-so it's necessary to education.Athletics are not mandated by the State. I do agree that one learns certain lessons about teamwork and humility via athletics-but they can certainly be learned without being on an athletic team - to believe otherwise would belittle the accomplishments of those unable to engage in athletics for various reasons.
* Work to be done at the football field and "backfields" is certainly nice, but our primary focus should be academics. Academics is the foundation for everything - even athletics. In the face of limited and finite funding, we need to focus on that first. The students at DHS have been performing quite well for the past 50 years, dare I say that they'll continue to do so sans athletic turf.
* I don't know if Ms. Griffith spoke off-the-cuff or not, all I know is what she said. She's a very nice person, but that statement didn't instill a great deal of confidence in me with regard to school finances, planning for the capital needs of the school, or setting aside funds for potential emergency situations.

Harry - there's lots of outstanding students who don't engage in athletics - to claim otherwise would be an insult to those unable to participate in athletics for various reasons. Extra-curricular activities are nice too - but by their very nature, they are outside the regular school day. There's nothing saying that the schools have to fund those activities. If they have the funding available, it's certainly nice, but there's no reason why the taxpayers should be required to fund extra-curricular activities.

I'm not trying to debate the merits of athletics or extra-curricular activities - both have merit, I'm merely trying to discuss the concept of wants vs. needs. Artificial turf is a want. Extra-curriculars are wants as well. In the face of finite funding, we must focus on the needs first.

If I have a choice between fixing the HVAC and the roofs or having artificial turf - I'm going to fix the HVAC and roofs.

Things such as furnaces and HVAC have limited lifespans. It's prudent to set aside money in reserves year-on-year to fund their regular preventative maintenance, and eventual replacement. It's not prudent to dip into that pot to fund wants such as artificial turf simply because we happen to have some money in the pot, and figuring that we'll just repay the IOU later. Illinois has been doing that for years - it's why we're in the pension funding mess we're in now. It's shortsighted, and wrong.

Jim, Extra-curriculars are a WANT - there's nothing fringe about that, it's a fact. That we fund them to the level we do is certainly a wonderful thing, and when I was in school, I did avail myself of extra-curriculars.
* The fact that other schools have installed artificial turf doesn't automatically mean that we need it or must have it. The fact is that the District is being asked to fund $637K - a portion coming out of this year's capital improvements fund, and a portion from next year's. Funding it that way means that there is no money available for capital needs in the event of an emergency - that's fiscally irresponsible for something that is clearly a want.
* Whether it saves money or not is debatable. Increased usage is also debatable given that the turf can get dangerously hot during the daylight hours, thereby requiring mitigation techniques such as spraying down the turf with water so play can continue for another 10 minutes or so.
* A primary reason for natural turf damage is playing on it when it's wet, or soggy. Just wait until the field conditions are favorable, and it won't be damaged - that will keep costs down as well.
* If I recall correctly, the $250K spent on the drainage at Wolter's Field for the natural turf didn't work. That was the impetuous for installing the artificial turf - the total cost was about $1.2M.

If the Booster Club believes it's a need, let them fund 100% of it up-front.

David, First, I find it appalling that you consider extra curricular activities a "WANT!" Name one school on the North Shore that doesn't have them? Second, I can't believe you think it is fiscally irresponsible to pay some money now to save more money in the long term. Not having a plan to save money in the long term is irresponsible, not the other way around as you suggest! Third, numbers don't lie. They aren't "debatable." Fourth, the heat you speak of doesn't happen in Chicago until well into the summer after school is out. This is not an issue for Chicago during the school year! Fourth, I can't believe you are suggesting that we wait for a grass field to dry out before playing on it. It is clear you've never been to Chicago area high school sporting events in the spring time. We'd be waiting until well after school is out. But I guess waiting would keep costs down because those sports would be canceled. David, you speak as if you know about such things but is abundantly clear that you never played sports, never had kids who played sports and have never attended sporting events on a regular basis. I really wish you'd stick to talking about things you know about....which is what?

Beth - I appreciate your opinion, but if I had my choice between say "Chess Club" and a roof that didn't leak, I'd choose the roof. We don't have to have extra-curriculars if we don't have funding for something that's critical - such as a roof or HVAC. To follow the example - would you rather have students sitting in the middle of winter in a cold classroom with a leaky roof, but still funding that extra curricular activity, or would you rather they be dry and warm?
* It is fiscally irresponsible to spend all of our capital improvement dollars on WANTS, thereby leaving nothing to cover us in the event of an emergency.
* No one's proved to me that we're saving anything in the long term.
* The "heat" that I speak of is happening now. If you read the studies done on the issue, the temperature of the turf is about 30 degrees hotter than the surrounding air. So on a 60 degree (F) day, it's like playing in 90 degree heat. The surface has been measured at 120 degrees on a 70 degree day. Chances are, playing during the daytime will be out of the question - which forces one to ask "just how much extra time will we get out of this artificial surface?"
* I have been to many sporting events in Chicago, and other locales - throughout the year.
* I have played sports - I was even on the HPHS track team for a time.

David, Please be realistic! We don't live in the inner city - our schools can have both a chess club and a roof that doesn't leak. That is why people choose to move here and send their children to school here. Maybe you missed your calling. I think you should move to inner city schools and set them on target to cut their extras. I have to laugh about your running on the track team "for a time" and your claim to attend many sporting events - how about at the high school? I haven't seen you at one and I attend fall and spring events, multiple sports and have been doing so regularly for 6 years. I really wish you'd stop talking about things that you clearly have had no experience with and no knowledge of. I am sure you will come back with some other response that will get me angry, but I am done responding to your nonsense - so blog away!

Beth, I believe that you're missing the point that I'm trying to make which is simply that financial resources are finite, and we have to prioritize accordingly.
* I was only talking about the turf, until a previous poster brought up extra-curriculars in the discussion. I totally understand why people choose to live in the District - it's precisely WHY my family moved here 34 years ago, and I'm not claiming we need to be funding our schools at an inner-city level. However, a very important lesson to learn is one of saving for a rainy day - I'd rather NOT pay more in taxes to fund a new furnace because the school chose to squander it's money for the next two years on a WANT. I'd much rather see them budget accordingly, set aside the funds until they have the money available, and then buy what they want.
* I was on the track team for a period of time - when I attended HPHS. I have been to many sporting events in Chicago and other locales - not all at HPHS. That I choose to attend some at HPHS and some at other locales does not mean that I don't understand or appreciate the games.
* I don't understand how you can presume to know what I have experience with or know.

Beth: with David's vision DHS will soon look worse than any high school in the Chicago, It already has the same issues with its pool as Gary West Side High School! Great Plan we are competitive with Gary IN

Anne, the snide remarks are really uncalled for. The pool at DHS has some relatively minor issues to address, all of which can be addressed for mere thousands instead of the millions that were proposed to have been spent. There are several issues that were detailed which are solely due to a lack of proper maintenance (e.g.: corroded drainage pipe elbows). Some such as a lack of depth markings and lifeguard chairs are EASY and inexpensive to correct. None of these things require demolishing the pool.

Not at all. Yes, there's a need for PE - but there's nothing saying that PE has to be comprised of any one particular course, and I'm not devaluing the experience of students who participate in extra-curriculars. I merely stated that if we have limited fiscal resources, and there was a need to prioritize - that extra-curriculars could certainly be considered a want instead of a need. I didn't propose killing any activity or sport.

I'm not trying to define the needs of the students - I'm simply stating an opinion that fiscal resources are finite, and that we need to focus on our needs, not our wants. If the School or District has a want, they need to figure out how to fund it from their existing budget w/o jeopardizing the academic infrastructure. Putting upwards of a million dollars into athletic fields is certainly nice, but I find it irresponsible to do so when we have other needs in the buildings - such as HVAC, roofs, drainage by the library, etc. and when we should be holding money in reserve to cover emergency situations and building maintenance needs.

Sure, things break and wear out and need to be replaced - but that's why the District should be setting aside reserves year-on-year to meet those needs when they eventually come up. Then the taxpayers wouldn't have to be asked for over $100M to fund a bunch of items all at once.

Mara, I didn't take anything out of context - the conversation was initiated by Mr. Cohen - given that the District was proposing to spend ALL of their annual $400K capital projects budget on the Turf and other nice-to-have projects, he was curious as to where the school would get money should an emergency situation arise (such as a boiler failure). Ms. Griffith's answer was along the lines of "I suppose that we'd have to look to our insurance, and pray....".

Several other conversations related to prayer and how it was nice, but likely wouldn't fulfill the needs of the School in such a situation then followed at various points throughout the meeting.

Ms. Griffith did not discuss ensuring that the insurance premiums were up to date.

In the cost of the turf @ Wolter's, I included the cost of the drainage and previous natural turf work - it was only installed for 2 years before being redone - because it didn't work properly... (which begs the question - just what did we get for $250K?)

I don't understand what you mean by "District Trailing 10 yr natural grass upkeep cost." are you saying that the 10 yr estimate is between $350K and $600K?

As for the Utah study - it was the University of Utah that conducted the initial one, it's been cited and utilized in many locales around the country, and in a variety of climates.

What's "incredible use"? Can you equate that to a number of hours per month? I'd also want to see climatic data for the periods of the use so we can do a proper comparison.

This is bad news. It only proves that the District hasn't heard the message that the voters sent during the last referendum -FOCUS ON NEEDS NOT WANTS. And it's more evidence of poor budgeting by the District.

I truly hope that there are no emergency situations at DHS which require capital funding to resolve in the next two years - otherwise we could be looking at an issuance of backdoor referendum bonds to pay for it. Perhaps the Booster's Club will step up in such a situation and pay to resolve the situation out of their own pockets...

Mr. Shimer, you make me laugh. You say to Mr. Heineman that you "support sports." But your earlier comment was that sports "is proven to be be of little use in the students lives later on." Your first statement absolutely does not support sports. I applaud the D113 Board for making a fiscally responsible action because it saves the District funds in long term (not the short term as you say). I applaud the Deerfield community for raising the private funds to make this a reality. Those individuals who donated their personal funds should be applauded. We should be thanking those people for helping to provide a safer environment for our students.

Should issues at DHS athletic fields be fixed? Yes. But the way to do it needs to be fiscally responsible. Taking $250K from this year's $400K budget, and $150K from next year's budget is not the way to do it. Add in the other WANTS projects from this year's budget, and there's no money left to handle emergency or other needs. Insurance isn't going to cover the whole cost so Ms. Griffith's prayers notwithstanding, that leaves the taxpayers on the hook for the rest, and in my humble opinion - that's a lousy way to budget.

I'd rather see hold backs in reserve until they have the money readily at hand to complete the project without relying on IOUs from the Booster Club, and borrowing from next year's budget...

As I said - hopefully the Booster Club will step up if a situation requiring funding for emergency needs such as a roof, or furnace occurs.

Wrong, that's not what I said. It's incumbent upon the District to set aside funds from the money we already give them to fund their future needs. This has apparently not been done and is one of the reasons why I voted against the recent referendum - if we gave the District the $133 M - what evidence do we have that funds would be held back in reserve for future needs? Or would we end up being asked for another $100M in 10 yrs?

By way of example: HVAC airhandlers have a known lifespan. Throughout that lifespan, regular preventative maintenance is performed - that has known costs that should be set aside in the budget. However, eventually the airhandler requires replacement, and that's a predictable cost - take what was paid at installation, adjust for inflation, do the math and set aside an appropriate amount each year to fund the eventual replacement. Then we'd have the money when we need it rather than coming to the taxpayers.

The details could be made publicly available, so everyone would know what the money in the reserves fund was allocated to.

To further extend the example - if there were say $2 million in a fund for athletic purposes at DHS, and an upgrade to something costing $3 million was desired, then the voters could decide whether to provide another $1 million for the upgrade, or if they felt that the $2 million for the original purpose was acceptable.

David:

I understand your point. Owners should have a sinking fund that pays for major systems replacement over time. Unfortunately, most owners, especially public entities, don't do that. One reason is that taxpayers do not look kindly on bodies that build up reserves. They believe that money should be returned to the taxpayers, which is how we went from budget surpluses to huge deficits in this country.

Also, it is difficult to account for the additional needs that are placed on systems. For instance, when DHS was constructed, computers weren't common place and the electrical demands were no where near where they are today. So we need more electrical service to drive these tools. And they generate more heat, so we need larger HVAC systems.

We need to start addressing these issues in a positive way.

I agree that most don't because many public bodies do a poor job of detailing what the money is allocated to and when it will be needed. As a taxpayer, I'd be much more comfortable with knowing that a public body had say $25 million in reserve, but that it was there to pay for upcoming expenses such as replacing roofs, tuckpointing, etc...

I also agree that it's difficult to account for additional needs such as computers. In such a case we could still "do the math" and say to the taxpayers "Hey, the current system was built to handle X megawatts, and the computers everyone wants will require bringing the system up to Y megawatts of capacity. We have a certain amount of money in the reserve fund to pay for future replacements of the electrical system panels, outlets, etc. and we'll need to hold back an additional amount of $A each year to fund the needs of the upgrade. On top of that, we'll need $B to fund the upgrade..."

Fortunately, regarding computers, they tend to get smaller and more efficient, so they're using less power than models in past years, and the old CRT monitors (heaters!) have been surpassed by much more energy efficient flat screens that don't generate nearly as much heat. But I'm not quibbling, I totally understand where you're coming from...

I agree, we do need to start addressing the issues in a positive way. Suggestions? Thoughts on that?

Mr. Shimer, I wholeheartedly apologize to you if you feel that I am picking on you for your attitude towards sports. I didn't ignore the environmental impact as I don't feel qualified to counter your assertion - which I assume you are qualified to comment on? I don't know your professional background or your personal activities to know that you have had experience in the environmental arena. I have read that the environmental impact of mowing a grass field and watering a grass field is eliminated with the turf field, but I didn't bother to add that, again, because I don't feel qualified. Only qualified in reading your two comments and pointing out that you contradict yourself.

Anne, I'm sorry you find my concern for finances in the District to be negative. I'm not "fighting improvements", I'm expressing sincere concern for the spendthrift manner in which our limited tax dollars are being utilized.

This has absolutely nothing to do with that inane, age-old HPHS v. DHS rivalry. I have a great deal of pride in all parts of the District, but that pride is not going to override my sense of fiscal responsibility.

David your concern over the finances for District 113 would be a lot more valid, if a) you would ever listen to anyone else's concerns other than your own. b) If you weren't the "certified" expert on every topic, and c) if you could be less self-centered.
Do you even know what colleges look for when kids apply to schools TODAY, not 1984 when you graduated?
With your forethought and planning there would be no extra-curricular or PE program. Great Plan David, you need PE to graduate, and you need extra-curriculars to show to colleges that you are well-rounded, and that includes, PE, arts and the academic clubs as well as social volunteering. It is a very competitive college market, when over 50% of the student populations at both schools uses the extra-curricular facilities at the schools, then it no longer is just a "want" it is a "need"

Anne, I do listen to others concerns, I've never claimed to be an expert in all topics, just some, and I'm sorry if you feel that I'm self-centered but I don't agree with that assessment.
* Yes, I do know what colleges look for when kids are applying today.
* I never said we shouldn't have extra-curricular activities - I agree that they are quite important. I merely stated that if we had to make a choice between funding an extra-curricular activity or something critical to the building - say a roof or HVAC, that the choice would be for the 'critical' item - it was NOT a call to cancel extra-curriculars.
* PE is mandated - but the courses comprising it are not. I didn't say to get rid of the PE program. I seriously doubt that whether we offer rock climbing or not is going to affect whether someone graduates with the necessary PE credits.
* Extra-curricular activities, the arts, and clubs don't have to only come from the school district - they can come from many other sources, some of which can be funded by sources other than the District.

* Again, I'm not against extra-curriculars. I was making a point that in the face of finite financial resources, we have to prioritize. As with many things in life, all "needs" do not share the same priority. There has to be a balance between the needs and wants of the District and the needs of the taxpayers.

and your kids are what ages? Oh that's right you have no first hand experience, you don't have kids in either the elementary or the High School District, yet again you are trying to "help" those of who do and had kids in the district. David, it is nice you want to get involved. but I think as evidence by the comments on this board and others, you are only a self-appointed expert.

Anne, over 70% of the taxpayers in the District meet one of the following criteria:

* No kids at all
* Kids attended school in the District, but no longer do
* Kids in one of the elementary feeder districts, but not in D113

So the fact that I don't currently have kids doesn't make my opinions any less valid. I attended and graduated from HPHS, and have lived in the District for 34 years. I have several nieces and a god-daughter in an elementary district too... I recently got married, my wife (a certified teacher) and I are starting a family and plan to stay in the District. I have also worked in education at the University level where we taught teachers how to be teachers, and Superintendents how to do their jobs.

I understand that concept, and have no problem with it at all. I also believe that the Booster Club has a different donation drive that goes to more general athletic purposes, so there's certainly no reason why they couldn't raise money that would go to support other athletically-related purposes as well...

David, if you had a clue you would know that the DHS Booster club raises money for all of the athletic programs, however they specifically chose an additional fundraiser. Since the Booster club is like the PTO or Friends of the Arts; you (David Greenberg) don't get a say in what they choose to raise money for that is for the Booster Club exec board to do. And like the PTO, Friends of the Arts, you have to be a member. So since you aren't part of the DHS Boosters you don't get to tell them how to spend their money.

Anne, I don't know where you came up with the idea that I was trying to tell the Booster Club how to spend their money, if they want to donate it to the athletic program - that's great. So long as that donation isn't being used to justify spending more of the taxpayer's dollars, I don't mind at all. But yes, when it's being used as a method to justify spending more taxpayer dollars to further special interests, then yes, I may have an opinion.

Ellen, I'd hope that you're not essentially saying that if the referendum passed, we'd be able to waste money just throwing things away instead of fixing them...

I've never said that we should "do away with" extracurricular activities - I used them as an example that in the face of limited financial resources that if we had to choose between something like a roof or the chess club, that we should choose the roof.

Somehow I suspect that even if the referendum had passed, that we'd still have to make hard decisions. The amount of money being asked for may not have even covered everything wanted and needed, and even the District said we'd have to prioritize in such a case...

Those are your words Harry, not mine.

If we didn't have the money to spend on both an extra-curricular activity, and an item that needed fixing such as a roof or HVAC, then yes, I'd prioritize and spend the money on the item that needed fixing. If there wasn't alternate funding available for the extra-curricular, then it may have had to be put on hold until funds were available. But I was not per se advocating the eradication of extra-curricular activities.