I think I have heard them all voice their support publically (just after the event reported in this article). But you are right - I would love to hear them reiterate their support here or in other public venues.

But the important thing is that the REFERENDUM RECEIVED UNANIMOUS ENDORSEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SCHOOL BOARD and that 7 of 10 candidates also endorse it. Says a lot about why VOTING YES is the smart thing to do.

Two of the 10 are current board members. So now you're down to 5 of 10 that are "new candidates" who support it. One hasn't committed either way - so figure 4 of 10 that support it.

Three don't support it in it's current form (Greenberg, Manfredini, and Lambrecht)- I've been true to my word on that and have never waffled on it. I haven't heard the others do so either.

Vote NO on the referendum, we deserve a better plan, one that's fiscally responsible and focuses on needs instead of wants.

Expansive Wish List: New Fieldhouses. The one at HPHS will take up space from the parking lot, and require that recently redone tennis courts be relocated. New swimming pools. We've been over this many times, review the websites for the details.

The District's pool consultants recommended relatively inexpensive and easy repairs to the pools. The consultants recommended a structural engineer evaluate the cracks. This was never done - why not? On it's face, it doesn't seem too smart to me. Why wouldn't one want to have all the facts about a situation before making a decision that could cost millions of dollars?

I'm not a one-issue candidate, it's not true. I've answered that false claim many times, publicly, on this site, and on other forums.

Sure, it's possible that interest rates won't go up in the bond market, but they may. I've detailed the reasons for my belief that it MAY go up in other comments on this forum. Watch any financial news network, see what the talking heads are saying about where oil prices may go, where interest rates may go. Then take it all in and draw a conclusion.

If they stay flat, we're still at $233 million total with interest. If they go up, well, we're approaching $250 million with interest. If they go down, what's the likelihood of them going down to where they were when the referendum was approved by the Board? Because that was $201 million with interest. No matter how we cut it - it's between $200 and $250 million dollars.

Interest rates and lights at Wolter's Field are two completely different issues. As I've said before, my priorities are most definitely with the students in District 113. I do not want to take funding away from education - quite the contrary, I believe the focus should be on a high quality education, but that doing so needs to take into account the needs of the taxpayer as well.
I have attended some of the games. However, there have been many instances where the PA was not adjusted properly, and it was clearly audible inside my home over 1200' from the Field, with the doors and windows closed. Take a look at the HP City Ordinance regarding noise, the amount of distance that the noise can travel from the source, and the hours it's allowable. Except for the Special Use Permit, such noise wouldn't be allowed between 7pm and 7am/9am. When the District asked for the Permit, the neighborhood was promised the new PA would be an acoustic marvel unlike it's predecessor and we wouldn't hear the PA inside our homes, or outside the confines of the Field. That has not been true at all - 80 - 90dB sound levels have been noted throughout the neighborhood. Small children live nearby the games disturb their sleep. Some people actually have to get up for work in the wee hours of the morning, and need to go to sleep at 7pm.

The swimming program apparently has a CAPACITY issue which may be exacerbated by outside groups, and the priority needs to be on District classes and teams. The current pools need relatively inexpensive repairs, and should be prior to spending millions on new pools. When we've reached the capacity of the pools with 100% District classes and teams, then the way I see it is we have two choices: 1) Limit the number of individuals who can participate on the teams to that which we can accommodate with what we have, or 2) Have a discussion as a community as to why the District would like to spend millions on new pools. Give us all the details and numbers - what's happening with enrollment, what's happening to team participation, what our total costs to remove, rebuild, operate and maintain the facilities for the next 50 years will be.

The schools already have wireless internet, and we spend hundreds of thousands each year on technology. As I've stated previously, more technology isn't a bad thing per se, but what is the plan for using it? How will it improve the education of the students? Where's the curriculum plans? What's our yearly cost to operate and maintain this infrastructure? What's the lifespan? What's it going to cost to replace it when it reaches it's end-of-life? What about securing the network? What's that cost? Restricting access to undesirable sites? What's that cost?

The outside swimming groups (COHO) do not have any say in the matter of expanding the pool. COHO is a park district program and is a guest at the District 113 pools.

As we have pointed out, COHO only uses the pool at times that the pools are not being utilized by the school district. Their have actually been numerous times recently that changes in the District schedule has resulted in COHO Practices being changed and cancelled.

The capacity issues that D113 are having at the pool are not a direct result of COHO pool usage. COHO is partly responsible for providing a very talented swimmer base for the Boys/Girls swim teams for both high schools.

Deerfield High school in fact has won girls conference two years in a row with placements in the top eight and top sixteen. Just a few weeks ago, two DHS Students went to Junior Nationals in Orlando to Compete and represent COHO and Deerfield High school. One of them being a Junior was looked at by college scouts.

So David, COHO really isn't affecting the overloaded pool unless you can criticize it for providing both DHS and HPHS with qualified competitive swimmers and water polo players. The facility as designed would eliminate some safety issues with the diving boards and ensure safe concurrent practices with the divers and swimmers for both schools.

I have no problem with COHO or any other group using District facilities, so long as it's not adversely affecting the District's needs. However, as I have said, I don't believe that the needs of outside groups should be a factor in what improvements we make or don't make in the District.

When the District first mentioned that they wanted to replace the pools - we were told they were leaky and that was the reason. It's not as bad as it was made out to be, the problems can be resolved relatively inexpensively when compared with new pools. As the discussion developed, it became known that there's an apparent capacity issue.

Looking at the plan put forth by the District, they had a schedule which had quite a bit of usage by COHO, so I questioned whether or not we could alleviate those capacity issues by utilizing more of the time allocated to COHO for the District. Other discussions have centered around whether or not COHO has any impact because the District's needs occasionally are prioritized over COHO.

That leaves us with the discussion we're at now - whether or not we want to build more capacity for $17 million or repair what we have now. Let's assume we add more capacity - as I've posed hypothetically before, if the swimming programs continue to grow and we hit the capacity limit - what then? Do we then spend $30 million on new, bigger pools, or do we have tryouts to see who can participate? If we do have tryouts, then why not do that now and save $17 million?

The pool as being propossed now has enough capacity for the current PE classes and most importantly safe training for our student athletes during the swimming and water polo seasons.

The prescribed pool will allow the concurrent practice from the divers and swimmers in a safe and efficient manner that meets current guidelines. It will have more than enough capacity and will allow for future expansion of the team.

If COHO, HPAC or any other organization was to outgrow these pools it is there problems and not District 113's issues to solve.

I don't represent any committee Ms. Pattis. The current plan left out less costly options, and is packed with wants such as new pools, and fieldhouses. We don't need to tear down buildings either. To get the best bang for our buck, we need a better plan, one that focuses on necessities, instead of wish-list items, and one which sets aside an appropriate amount of money in reserves year-on-year toward preventative maintenance, regular repair, and eventual replacement at end-of-life rather than coming to the taxpayers for money.

I don't live in Deerfield, I live in Highland Park. I've lived here for about 34 years, and have no desire to move. The students who graduated and went off to college won't be able to afford to live in the District if taxes continue on their uncontrolled upward trajectory.

Speaking of upward pressure on costs: The District has stated that if the referendum passes, and if bids come in higher than expected, they will have to prioritize in order to stay within the $133 million before interest price tag. What will be prioritized? No list of priorities has been put forth thus far.

The District calls their plan a "long-range plan" - but long range would seem to indicate a 10-year set of goals, not a "big bang" approach to doing everything at once.

Voting NO is the best bang for your buck.

If it can be fixed and it makes fiscal sense to do so, why not? But we're not talking about computers, we're talking about swimming pools that can be fixed for thousands instead of being replaced for millions. Renovating HVAC instead of tearing down a building. Fixing a foundation, and repairing some tuckpointing instead of tearing down a building. Replacing the windows that actually need to be replaced instead of just doing all of the windows in a wing. Coming up with an actual curriculum plan that demonstrates how it will improve the education of the students with technology, and gives us a total cost picture before spending millions on technology (we're already spending hundreds of thousands each year, what isn't that infrastructure doing which requires millions?).

Sorry, I don't keep up with entertainment news. My interests lie elsewhere. Perhaps you can enlighten me with regard to the reference.

I love the login name.....Where do I join and donate....!!!

I got married about 3 years ago. My wife and I are starting a family. However, I have two nieces and a god-daughter in D112 at this time.

My younger brother and I both attended and graduated from HPHS.

Thankfully you don't have school age kids because this would be a full time bully lecture. Your kids unfortunately would be getting the liftetime leason of their life.

It would be sad to say but it would be a major wake up call.

Please elaborate.

Howard: As I've said previously, I don't have an anti-referendum group, I speak for myself. Yes, some modernization is needed. The Education First groups says that a better plan is needed. One that makes fiscal sense and focuses on necessities instead of loading up 47% of funds for wants such as new fieldhouses, new stadium seating, new pools, and so on.
We need a plan with more definition. The current plan wants to spend millions more on technology, but we haven't been told how the money will improve the educational outcomes of the students, we haven't seen any curriculum plans. It's up to the District to provide that information.
The total cost of the District's proposed plan includes interest. By way of analogy: If you buy an item for $10,000 with a loan and pay $10,000 in interest over the life of the loan, did the item cost you $10,000 or $20,000? The total cost is $20,000.
In the instant case, we're being asked to borrow $133 million, and the interest is about $100 million at current rates. That makes our total cost $233 million right now before we've even tried to sell a bond. 47% of the $133 million before interest that we're being asked to borrow is for those nice-to-have items I listed above.

I never said that another plan would have a zero interest rate.

I didn't have a car in High School - I rode a 10-speed Schwinn that I bought myself with money I earned at the jobs I had, and the company I started in high school. I didn't buy a car until I was in college. Never owned a Pinto, the gas tank location was unsafe. I would never drive in a 1970 Pinto with anyone, let alone a family member. Now the 1970 Vega, there was a car - at least until it rusted to pieces 3 days after being exposed to a Chicago winter :-)

But I don't really understand the point you're trying to make with the Pinto.

As I've stated previously, I have no anti-referendum organization. I don't know who set up the fake twitter feed.

I have had some emails passed on that came from uofiguy379@aol.com which read as follows:
"*From:* uofiguy379@aol.com [mailto:uofiguy379@aol.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 10:15 PM
*Subject:*

Someone passed this twitter account to my email address. I thought you might be interested."

If you have some verifiable information that you'd like to forward to my attention, visit my website and send me a note.
www.davidgreenberg.org

Thanks.

I do not concur that the schools are the 1970 Pinto or that the schools are unsafe. If they were unsafe, surely the Board would not allow the students to utilize the building. They are not functionally obsolete, they can and should be repaired.

Comparing buildings to cars is analogous to comparing an apple to a bowling ball.

I've never seen anyone define what a 21st century education is, what specifically are your "standards of the 21st century"?

Despite the claims you make about unsafe buildings, and students falling behind - the students continue to get perfect scores on the ACT, win awards, and achieve at high levels. Our schools are in the Top 10, so your claims ring hollow to me.

Their $10 million referendum is an order of magnitude less than our $133 million referendum. They aren't proposing to do some repairs, not tear down buildings. They are also proposing to install Artificial Turf, and do work to their pools. Isn't $10 million the amount the District said would get the so-called "1914" HPHS buildings taken care of?

That they want to install artificial turf only indicates that they're entering the educational arms race to me. Just because one District installs it doesn't mean that all should or must.

No, David. In my profesional opinion, 10M will not fix the issues at HPHS. I agree that tearing down the building may not be the best approach. Frankly, I don't know that. Hoiwver, if the building remained I would completely gut it so that everything was up to date and could handle new ways of teaching and learning. My guess, by the way, is that 10M might handle the issues dealing with water penetration, but that is just a guess.

I do not believe that Mundelein is entering into "an arms race." That is a blue collar community and, as such, has a different expecttation of its schools. I think that what they are doing is investing a minimal amount of money in their facilities based on the use pattern and ability of the community to support them.

Not all the issues to be certain, but $10 M is what the District had in their presentations at the Community Meetings that they talked about needing for the 1914 buildings. I don't believe they ever detailed what that money was for - I'd have to go back through the presentations to be sure.

I only said "arms race" with relation to the turf - much of the rest seems quite reasonable on it's face. But without looking at their plan in detail, I can't say for sure.

No.

My long term vision for the infrastructure is to properly maintain it so the taxpayers aren't on the hook for remediation. We need to sit down, look at what the lifespans of the various items are, determine what they cost to replace and set aside appropriate funds year-on-year so they can be replaced at the end of their life. I've never said "patches here and there" - if we have to replace a roof, we do that. If we have to replace a window, we do that. If we have to tuckpoint a wall, we do that. If we have water leakage in a basement, we determine the cause and remediate it.

I've already discussed wants v. needs - see the other commentary on this and other forums.

The plan isn't a one-person job. It will involve many in the District, outside companies, and the Board. Some of the work done already can be used as a beginning.

What points do you believe I don't understand? I'd like the opportunity to respond to your claims.

The Board should be comprised of persons with different points of view and experiences - that will allow them to operate more effectively as a governing body, and to take into account the varying points of view that are held across the community.

There is no Education Last group.
The current plan was worked on from perhaps August until December and involved many. Despite that, it's still incomplete, but you support it.

But somehow you expect me to present you with a new plan immediately? May I at least have the courtesy of having at least the same amount of time and resources as the original group had before responding to you?

What excuses? I and EDUCATION FIRST have always said "VOTE NO SO WE CAN GET TO WORK ON A BETTER PLAN."

I never claimed to be an expert in all things Howard, just some. Many studies that were needed were not done. A discussion of wants v. needs was not done by the "Community Task Force".

There is no Education Last, stop being juvenile. It's unbecoming and setting a poor example for the students.

If anyone wants to leave a legacy to future generations, I think a wonderful one would be "In the depths of the Great Recession, in early 2011, the voters rose up against the spendthrifts and Voted NO on the $133 Million Referendum. Then we all hunkered down, and came up with a better plan. One that produced the schools you see now..."

The twitter thing is a mockery, it doesn't deserve any serious consideration whatsoever. Regardless of who's actually tweeting, there is likely someone who I've run into in the 34 years I've lived in Highland Park who knows the nickname I used to use, and that I enjoy a good grilled cheese sandwich. But they've apparently forgotten (or maybe not) that I can't stomach McDonalds...

I didn't get the email from Pete. My website is not unsafe, feel free to create a comment on it.

I never said that the Referendum should be voted down and that'd be it. I've consistently maintained that a better plan needs to be created. Yes, it'd be nice if the District actually set aside proper reserves year-on-year so a bond issue wasn't needed, but once we have a true figure, then we can see what can be funded from where. Simple repairs are needed for the swimming pools. The building is 98 years old, it needs tuckpointing - there's lots of masonry buildings at least that old that have been properly maintained and are in great shape. No one's looked into the foundation other than to say "it leaks" - I've seen lots of very old leaking foundations that required a relatively simple solution to correct the problem. In some cases it was simply hydrojetting out the seepage tiles, in others it required replacing those tiles - all significantly less than tearing down a building. I've read the document referred to by Mr. Heineman - there's lots of unknowns in it that require "further evaluation", so the cost guestimates could be incorrect. At any rate, I'd want to do the prudent thing and have more than one estimate. When we're talking about as much money as we're discussing, it behooves us to do that.

In my opinion, "We" would refer to the community. Whether I get elected to the Board or not, I am more than willing to donate my time and effort to create a better plan. To find out what the Education First consider "WE" to be, you may wish to ask them. Visit their website:

http://www.educationfirstin113.org

You can send them a message, or click on the DISCUSS link, and post a question on a topic - they'll respond.

Considering that the current proposal's ballot resolution was passed on January 18th, things were debated during the holiday season, so I have faith that it could be done again if the Board desired it.

What's your motivation in all of this anyway?

Sure lots of work went into it. Too bad it's incomplete: No structural engineering review of the pools, no curriculum plan for using the technology, no energy usage study to determine how much better new windows will be vs. existing energy-efficient windows or what the ROI will be, no cost analysis of what the new gigantic fieldhouses will cost to heat/cool/operate/maintain, no details on how impacts to the neighborhood during construction will be mitigated, no details on what will have to be "prioritized" in the plan when it goes over budget.

Also it was quite unfortunate that there was never a discussion of the wants vs. needs aspect, and that the District chose to rush the plan onto the 2011 ballot because they didn't want to give the opposition time to organize.

One thing's for certain - It's a tax increase, no doubt about it.

All the mudslinging? It's been coming from the pro-referendum camp.

Jim - I'm not lying about taxes. The whole "no tax rate increase" is smoke and mirrors, designed to obfuscate the truth. As the District's own Financial Consultant has said - if we don't vote for the Referendum, our taxes will go down. That's because the portion dedicated to Bonds/Interest will go down to nearly zero (I say "nearly zero" because there are some outstanding bonds that aren't related to the previous referendum).

IF the referendum passes, then the District is going to take on new debt - to the tune of $133 million - over 20 years. New debt = new bonds + interest. Total amount is anywhere between $200M and $250M depending on where the interest rates are when the bonds go to market.

New debt over 20 years means you're paying taxes over 20 years that you wouldn't be paying otherwise, so it's an increase in taxes.

Let's use a car as an example: You get a loan, you buy a car for $10,000 over 3 years - so let's say the car costs you $15,000 with interest. At the end of the 3 years, the dealer says "Hey, you can keep that car, put new rims on it, and extend the loan for another 2 years at the same rate. Just keep paying what you're paying now, but for another 2 years." At the end of that two years, let's say you've paid another $5,000 with interest. You've effectively paid $20,000 for the vehicle. Same interest rate, but MORE money. And you don't need a Harvard MBA to figure that out, just the ability to do math.

To respond:
1) I don't know who "Education Last" is. I'll assume it's a juvenile attempt at besmirching the good name of "Education First". Education First was formed as a "Ballot Initiative Committee", and are restricted by Law from endorsing any candidate. Who has CARE endorsed?
2) Several factors come into play. a) The impact caused by outside groups, the District's needs must take priority; b) What the community is willing to pay for. Until we decide as a community to have more capacity, we use what we have. If more desire to participate than what we can accommodate, then we have tryouts to determine who gets to participate on a team. In the meantime, it's incumbent upon the District to properly maintain what we do have.
3) My schedule varies greatly. The nature of my business dictates that I am essentially on-call 24x7. I often have to work at 2-3AM to meet the needs of my clients.
4) The mudslinging is from the pro-referendum camp. I haven't personally attacked anyone, but people from the Pro-referendum camp have actively done so to me. It's ok though, I have a thick skin.
5) Extracurricular's are important, but what are you referring to? A link please?
6) That's a specious argument at best. I never said we should get rid of the library.
7) Another specious argument. We have to look at the reasons why you believe a better gym is needed, and make the determination as a community.

While I do not agree with David's view of the world, I believe he has always been respectful towards others on this forum. He is passionate about his position and will fight to the death for it, but that doesn't make him a mudslinger.

That being said, after reading David's responses to my questions I find him to be "a one trick pony." I think it is telling when he only talks about financial issues of the district and never the educational end of things beyone "we're in the top 10, so everything must be good." WE're most likely high achievers because, for the most part, we have a higher socio-economic standing and can provide our children with the best resources.

My biggest fear is not that a group will support him, rather that there are so many good candidates running that those who do not support the referendum will support him and the two candidates he has "supported" because of their view on the referendum and they'll somehow get elected.

I hope those against this referendum understand their is more to the district than this single issue and vote for the candidates who look at a bigger picture.

Trip, there certainly is more to the District besides the financial aspect of it. I've maintained that the current issue is the referendum, but that there are others. With regard to the educational end of things, it's the job of the Board to hire and manage a Superintendent who oversees the day-to-day operations and educational mission of the District. The Superintendent makes recommendations to the Board, which they either accept or reject. If they reject them, it's incumbent upon the Board to explain the reason for the rejection so the recommendation can be modified if that's appropriate.

I've also maintained that I believe in a quality education, but want to balance it with the needs of the taxpayer. Does it mean I'm going to take a critical look at what we want to do? Yes. Does it mean I'm going to be "Mr. No!" about everything? Absolutely not. I've been in the position where I've had to vote yes on something unpopular because it made the best sense, but I've been convinced otherwise with regard to this referendum, and have made my views known.

That doesn't mean that we get to 'slide by' or 'coast' on easy street because we're in the Top 10. Quite the contrary, because we are in the Top 10, we have to continuously strive to remain there and ever improve. I've stated that as one of the issues - "I want to develop processes to continuously improve EVERYTHING the District does..."

8) I've answered this numerous times on this forum and others. Yes, the teachers and students count in the community.
9) I'm a swimmer and enjoy SCUBA diving, I don't see why not. But being willing to do so doesn't mean that I believe we need a new pool (we don't).
10) I haven't kept count. I've talked to students who are on both sides of the issue, I had nice discussions with all of them. Yes, I've spoken with teachers as well - again, we agree there are needs to be met in the District, but that there are too many wants - sometimes we disagree about the definition.
11) I proposed a method of enhancing safety under an overall plan, if elected, I will be one voice on the Board, I can't make policy on my own. However, I have discussed my thoughts on the issue of concealed carry in other forums, and I'm not going to lie about what I said. Laurie Weil asked me for my opinion, I gave it to her honestly and truthfully. There's nothing to be feared from OPINIONS and discussions - it's all part of what makes our Country great. We all get to have our own opinions, and discuss them. We may agree or disagree, but often meet in the middle.
12) Thank you, I appreciate your views as well.

I'm still voting no because I really do want a better plan.

I understand completely what you are saying and I did not graduate from HPHS or go to Harvard Business School.

What completely puzzles me is why Mr. Greenberg is so adamantly against this proposal. Viewing public records this plan will cost him approximately $247 per year in real estate taxes that will not be reduced 3 years from now.

Even he admits the schools need additional dollars to address what he calls "Needs". Assume that we wait a year and get a new downsized proposal for $66.5 million it will only make approximately $125/year difference in his taxes.

With all the time and effort he is putting in to this it just doesn't make sense. I just do not understand his motivation to defeat this plan.

Richard: There's only so much that can be explained in 1000 characters eh? The District's Financial Person (Tammy) said the taxes would go down at one of the Community Engagement Meetings - after the question was raised by someone in the audience. However, on the District's mail pieces this is not detailed.

No matter how it's spun, paying taxes that one wouldn't have paid is a de facto tax increase.

Jim, I'm against the plan because it's too expensive, and not well-thought out. My motivation is to:
1) Provide the District with what they need, and still leave money on the table for the elementary Districts.
2) To ensure that the Students receive a high quality education, but that taxpayers aren't forced to leave the District because of the tax burden.
3) Work with the major taxing bodies that make up our property tax bill to find synergies in their operations, with an eye toward allowing them to accomplish their individual missions and goals, while reducing or holding the line on our property tax bills.
4) To increase our property values by making the District an attractive place to live because our education is great.
5) To see that the District's processes are continuously improving on both sides of the fence - business and educational.

May I know your motivations to support the plan?

My motivation is to provide more than just "what is needed" facilities for YOUR children (when you have them) and my neighbors children when they attend HPHS. My children will not benefit from this plan. For communities such as Highland Park and Deerfield to just want the minimum acceptable when we can have much better under this plan with minimal financial pain in my humble opinion is unacceptable.

The cost and plans of each taxing body must stand on their own merit and must be judged independently whether they are acceptable or not. If we wait for consensus among Dist 113, 112, 109, 106 and argue for years over what are "Wants vs. Needs" I will ether be retired living in Florida or dead and buried before it is done (and I am only 54).

With a median home cost of approx 500,000 to think that $450/yr would make a difference in whether or not someone can afford to live here is ludicrous. Assuming 150K down payment, $350K loan 30 year fixed at 4.8% taxes of $11.5k and insurance of $1.5k the monthly payment would be $2,919 do yo really think $38/mo would make a difference.

I truly believe that providing better than the "minimum needed" facilities will make HP and DFLD a more attractive place to live and will help whenever we decide to sell our house.

Thank you for your reply and thoughts.

Richard,

I'm referring to the glossy 4-page mailpiece that the District has sent out about 3-4 times thus far.

You must be referring to the ones I put directly into the recycling bin along with every other political mailer. What a waste of money.

I agree it's a waste of money, the taxpayers. How much did the District spend on creating, printing, and mailing those pieces?

Howard, did you cut and paste that "genesis resulting from a rigorous qualification-based selection process for a professional firm..." sentence from the documents provided by the District's hired-gun PR and Architecture firm? No matter how you spin it, or try to make it look good - the plan is incomplete. See the other comments for what's missing.

re: Item 4: They recommended a structural engineering analysis of the cracks be done. The District didn't do it. Why?

Many other respected community leaders, former and current educators, architects and engineers are against the plan. Two of the candidates running for the Board are incumbents who approved the current plan to begin with.

I've told you my plan already. See the other comments.

What's your motivation in this? I've told you mine. What's yours? Or is it ok for you to demand others answer while you ignore the same questions?

David:

I can't say where the wording of Howard's comment came from, but I can tell you that the law requires that professional service firms, in this case Wight, are selected ona Qualification Based process. Here is how it works. The entity advertises for interested parties to submit qualifications. This is usually done in some kind of standard format similar to what the General Services Administration uses, and outlines similar projects that the respondent has done over the past 5 years. The responses are screened and rated. I don't know how many respondents there were here, but on other public projects that my firm has responded to recently there have been between 25-40 responses per project. A short list of 3 -5 firms are selected for an interview process. Those firms are then ranked in order of preference and negotiations begin with the number 1 firm. if an agreement is reached, it stops there. If no agreement is reached, then they move on to firm number 2 and so on. The goal is to get the most qualified firm for the budget in hand.

I do know that in this case the selection group, who I assume were Board members and Administrators, took a tour of some of Wight's projects, including in Naperville.

Thanks for the insight Tripp. Regarding that project in Naperville: I'm not blaming Wight or anyone for some of the issues, but it has had a fair share of problems. Construction strike (not their issue), and they had to agree to pay whatever the negotiated wage was retroactively just to get the workers back on the job. I believe someone committed suicide - again, not really their fault. New digital HVAC system has a lot of bugs in it (contractor's issue). They've also detailed the use of temporary classrooms, 501 ton cranes for moving steel, parking lot lotteries, and the like.

Except for the suicide and the strike, I'd say they're all fairly normal. Which begs the question as to why it wasn't at least mentioned in any of the literature or meetings? I'd bet that few if any people have thought about temporary classrooms, etc, etc... What I'm getting at is the lack of transparency from the District. If the referendum passes, there's a lot of issues that should be hashed out before the project really gets going - once we're in the thick of things, then it becomes one of those "Oh well, gee, why didn't you bring this up earlier? It's pretty much too late to deal with now..." sort of things. Again, if the referendum passes, I'd hope this is one of the things that the Citizen Oversight Committee would address.

Richard,

That flyer isn't the one that was sent out 3-4 times via US Postal Service. What it says on the back page is:

"To fund the needed capital investments, the District will refinance and extend expiring debt at a lower interest rate. Thus, if the referendum is approved, you will continue to pay the same tax rate for bond and interest."

Note that the District doesn't talk about the bonds going out over a 20 year time frame or what the total will cost. On the inside 2nd page, they refer to it as "$0.70 a day...for an invaluable investment in our community." - the implication being that it doesn't matter what it costs, it's just that valuable. They don't talk about the total cost of the program with interest ($200 - $250 million).

I'm not accusing the voters of anything or insulting anyone. I agree they are able to understand the concepts of a loan. But the way the District is presenting the information makes it appear as if taxes won't increase. I've had several people discuss the issue with me believing that their taxes won't go up - once the details are revealed, they believe otherwise.

I agree, repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true, and the Ballot Initiative Committee that you're listed on the D1 as a co-chairman of ("CARE") should stop espousing them. I'd also gently suggest presenting both sides of the argument to the Public on your website, or at least allowing comments that are anti-referendum there. From what I've seen the site and facebook pages are totally one-sided. But I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the refusal of CARE or the District to publicly debate the Education First leaders.
At least the Education First group hasn't resorted to juvenile name-calling, mudslinging, and allows comments from both sides of the aisle to appear on their Discussion board and facebook pages...

I have to ask myself, how is it a desperate need to replace the swimming pools, when they could be repaired for millions of dollars less? How is it a desperate need to replace stadium seating? One would think from your claim of a 'desperate need' that the pools or seating are in imminent danger of collapse. It would seem that the only thing desperate are your arguments and claims.

I and others have been upfront in our agreement that there are needs to be taken care of at the Schools. But we disagree over what's needed and what's wanted. In my opinion (and that of many others), the proposal is top-heavy with wants. Vote no, demand a better plan. One that makes fiscal sense.

David - I know we differ on our views of this plan, and that's fine. Neither of us are going to change our minds - I accept that. However, there is plenty of mudslinging coming from the Education First group. Between inaccurate robo-calls threatening a major tax increase, to being harassed both outside and inside of the Highland Park Country Club by people representing Education First - that is MUCH worse than any of this "mudslinging" you say that comes out of CARE. I have yet to see one good example of that which you refer to. There seems to be a great, uncensored debate going on here without any incident from CARE.

Everyone has their own version of wants and needs - and no government entity can please everyone. However, we live in a society with a thing called democracy, and this is it in action. The people have the right to vote - without any intimidation - and make their own, educated decisions. There is plenty of public debate going on here - and I have yet to see any member of Education First come on Patch to back anything they say up with verifiable fact. It is all just opinions, rhetorical questions, and name-calling of District leaders.

I didn't get one of the robo-calls so I can't comment on what was said or not. How were you harassed outside and inside at the HPCC? At the meetings I've attended, the leaders of Education First ask everyone involved to remain civil regardless of what someone else may say.

Rick Heineman, Harry Seidler are the leaders of CARE - sometimes it's gotten vigorous, but nothing too out of the ordinary for a political campaign. Take a look at Howard Pattis' comments, and other posters that are probably his aliases. Those are mudslingers right there...

Sam Shapiro posted a story earlier here on the Patch, I'm confident he'd respond to comments posted there, or if you visit the educationfirstin113.org website and click the Discuss link, you can post a question. You could also leave your contact information in the Comment's form (doesn't get posted) and ask for a call...

You must have missed the call - everyone else in HP received it. It was the talk of the school the next day, mostly from the students who were now questioning what they had originally been told due to the misinformation given from said call. I spent quite a bit of time giving a quick 101 on how our property taxes work after that.

I am having a discussion with Sam right now on his article. In response to your question about harassment, as I was walking to enter the building, a lady ran up to my and shoved a flyer in my hand and yelled to everyone around, "VOTE NO!". Then, as I walked in, I was screamed at by some man standing behind a table about how the district was filled with crooks and was trying to take more of our money, and we shouldn't let them. I'd never seen either before, but they claimed to be affiliated with Education First. I have talked to several people who were incredibly turned off by Education First's tactics that they don't even care about their position anymore because they were so disgusted. That's what happened.

Thanks for the report - I'll bring it up at the next meeting.

Howard, in my opinion the community use should not dictate whether or not the District builds a larger pool. The District needs to give it's needs priority, and if there's any capacity left over, then the community can use that. We have Park Districts in the communities that provide shared resources for the communities-at-large. I see absolutely no reason why the District ought to build larger facilities simply so outside, special interests can make use of them.

If you're interested in reviewing the thoughts by Education First on a better plan, click on the link below:
http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/district-113-needs-a-better-cheaper-plan

Where do you come up with your rant that all Education First wants to do is to kill the plan, gut the budget, and destroy what's been accomplished? Nothing could be further from the truth. How many times and ways does it have to be said that everyone agrees the District has needs and they should be met? With interest, we're talking about potentially saving $100 million.

The vision is simple: A better plan. One that makes fiscal sense and leaves some money available for the elementary feeder districts when they come to the Public with their plans (currently under development).

Do you speak for CARE now? Is that your group Howard? I thought it was Richard and Harry's group.

I'm not confrontational at all Howard, you are extremely so. You say I have no plan, no vision - I point to one, you do your best to deny it and spin it as a bad thing. I have no insecurities, perhaps you're self-diagnosing? The D113 Caucus and the Pioneer Press are entitled to their opinions, the only thing that really matters is what the voters think.

Neither I, nor Education First are attempting to deceive anyone, I wish I could say the same about the other players in this debate. What's being held together by duct tape? I saw nothing held together by duct tape on any of the tours, and it was never mentioned.

I am quite a compassionate person - if you take note of the prior posting where I detailed the charities I contribute to you'd realize that. But alas, that was the thread where you followed up my post with one of your jabs at me.

Regardless of what the Pioneer Press and the supposed "experts in education" and "respected members of the community" are claiming - the referendum is not well-thought out, is too-expensive and we should vote no. Those "experts in education" haven't given us a curriculum plan for using the technology to improve the educational outcomes, isn't that what educational experts are supposed to do? Develop a curriculum plan? And many other respected members of the community have come out AGAINST the plan. If the experts and respected elders can't agree, then that only lends credence to the thought that we need a new plan. Vote No.

New Trier is in the process of doing just that right now. Their referendum was soundly defeated, they're working on a new and better plan. It might be worth noting that the New Trier referendum was endorsed by the Pioneer Press...

There are needs to be taken care of in D113, certainly the Board would want to see those needs taken care of when this referendum doesn't pass. So a new plan will be needed, one that overcomes the shortcomings of the current one that's been proposed and roundly criticized.

hahahaha... I thought that was the 80's? I remember when one of those commercials was being filmed in downtown Winnetka. Clara Peller, et. al were in that old car getting dragged by a tow truck and a chain at 6am...

Swim lessons are offered at several locations in the area other than through the District, so I don't find that to be a consideration when deciding whether or not we should spend millions on new pools, or thousands to repair that which we have now (I believe in spending the thousands to repair it). Swim lessons are certainly nice, my wife has taught swimming, I'm a swimmer, so I'm not opposed to swimming at all. I'm simply saying that the needs of outside groups should have no bearing on what we build to suit the needs of the District. An important lesson is learned through tryouts, the lesson that there are limits, and not everyone can participate in everything they desire. That's also a very important life lesson.

I'd be less worried about students getting MRSA from the weight room than from Wolter's Field. The artificial turf surface is one which given the proper conditions can allow MRSA to grow and spread - most often during dusk/night periods when it's cool out (MRSA doesn't do too well in bright sunlight). There's been outbreaks of MRSA in Texas involving players on artificial turf who had abrasion injuries. Ask the Athletic Director at the UofI about artificial turf - reportedly they "hate it".

The current indoor track surface is very nice. The overall room could use some sprucing up, but we don't have to tear down the whole building to do that.

47% of the money is allocated toward athletics. We need repairs, not new fieldhouses, new stadium seating, new swimming pools.

I'm not knocking the Nat'l Jr. Disability games by any stretch of the imagination, but as an outside group - they should not dictate what the District builds. If we have available capacity, it's nice to allow them, and other outside groups to make use of it.

I agree, we should leave the past and get to the present - we need to leave the excesses and wanton borrowing/spending of the past that brought us the financial meltdowns which dragged us into the Great Recession, and move forward to a more fiscally responsible present.

Vote No.

Out of curiosity, when an outside group uses a district facility, don't they pay a fee to rent it? Wouldn't that be a good thing, since funds are not comming from our taxpayers?

One would hope so, and yes that would be a good thing. In my opinion, that rental should cover 100% of the costs + a small amount of margin (perhaps 10%). As I mentioned, I don't have a problem with an outside group using the facilities if they're paying and we have the capacity. But the needs of any outside group shouldn't dictate what we build, or capacity we add.

Is it also true that DYBA would like to use the proposed new fields at DHS?

You can't make a generalization such as "Are you not for charity and community involvement because YOU disagree with a cause?" Someone could form a charity that purports to kill small animals, the community could support it, and I wouldn't support it. I'm not trying to say that the group we're talking about does that - just trying to say that I choose what charities to support or not support based upon my own conscience - as do we all.

Organizations that may desire to use such enhanced facilities should not be promoting or donating to projects which will support or lead to such enhanced facilities. It's a conflict of interest.

I've explained my issues with the artificial turf already.

Wolter's Field is within an ancient floodplain, to my memory it has always had issues with water. The other parks aren't in a floodplain, or are at higher elevations so they don't have such problems.

I agree, sharing space isn't a bad thing. So long as the needs of the outside groups don't conflict with the needs of the District, and the District is paid for the usage - it's not a problem. In the case of the Park District and D113, if the costs are the same, or substantially so, then a "time/facilities swap" without payment works too.

I don't have a problem with promoting healthy activities for any age group. As I've said before, if the capacity is available, sharing/renting isn't a bad thing. But we shouldn't be adding capacity just because an outside group desires to make use of it. It shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

Sharing space is a good thing if the capacity is already available. We shouldn't be adding capacity just so outside groups, or community organizations can use it - regardless of the time.

(Vote No on April 5th)...

I believe that there have been previous posts from various people (students, parents, etc) currently involved in District 113 Physical Education classes and District 113 Athletic teams that said there are current capacity issues related to their District 113 activities that are not affected by outside groups. The added space in the referendum is not "JUST so outside groups, or community organizations can use it".
Please don't ask me to find them among the hundreds of posts here. : )

Yes, that's true, no need to go hunting for the posts :-)

However, given that the population of Deerfield and HP have dropped, and enrollment is dropping, I think it's prudent to ask ourselves if we really want to add more capacity that will increase our costs to operate and maintain, or if we just want to use the capacity we have now. As we discussed hypothetically, perhaps tryouts are the way to manage that capacity?

What warped logic? There's instances where some people support a charity and other's don't. That's life.

Visit this link and please review item #14:

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/document/0014/6473/DYBA_Minutes_-_10_4_2010.pdf

From that paragraph, baseball is apparently tied in with Phase I.

If any one individual wants to donate money - that's fine with me, it's up to them. But when organizations get involved, one has to ask why they do so, what's the benefit to them?. In the case of one sporting organization supporting a sporting enhancement funded by the taxpayers, it appears to be a conflict of interest.

I have been in the high schools countless times since I attended HPHS. I understand the nature of community based athletic organizations. And I am not a "hater" - I'm being truthful, honest, and fiscally responsible. I'm willing to ask the hard questions, ask "WHY?" when something is proposed, and examine the aspects of it in order to balance the needs of the District and the taxpayers. If something doesn't seem right, I'm going to investigate.

I am and have been involved with many organizations. In all my dealings, I work hard to avoid actual conflicts of interest, as well as the appearance of same. If they can't be avoided, then full disclosure beforehand is the best policy.

I'm not attacking anything or anyone, least of all baseball in any form. I've played and enjoyed the game many times myself as a child and an adult.

You claimed there was no vested interest, so I asked for a comment on a paragraph in some published minutes from a community organization because it appears there may be such an interest.

My comments on conflict of interest were related to ETHICS and reducing actual or appearances of conflicts of interest.

I'm not attacking anything, it's unfortunate that you believe that.

Being interested isn't a problem - we already agree that making use of excess capacity isn't a bad thing when it's compensated. The last sentence is what I'm curious about: "Pattis discussed possible fundraising options for DYBA." Doesn't this imply that DYBA is raising funds for the items detailed there? Couldn't that be considered a conflict of interest?

Howard, I never claimed I was present at anything. I never claimed a conspiracy theory, I asked a pertinent question in relation to a discussion thread above regarding conflict of interest and outside organizations - whether real or perceived.

I never took anything out of context. The statement was "Pattis discussed possible fundraising options for DYBA." - I asked what that meant in light of the paragraph that the sentence was contained in. Things such as artificial turf were discussed in that paragraph, persons said DYBA had nothing to do with artificial turf, I asked if DYBA was going to be raising funds for artificial turf, and if so - why.

I have NO problem with you and your wife donating to anything you want - that's your business.

Thank you Harry.

The Pioneer Press can endorse whatever they want, that doesn't mean that it's right. That it's endorsed by former district administrators is nice - but what was their involvement in why we're at the point where we are now? There's multiple educators, former administrators, community leaders, politicians, architects, engineers, and concerned citizens who are OPPOSED to the current plan.

The better plan that I'm speaking of has been detailed on this site. See the comments thread here:
http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/district-113-needs-a-better-cheaper-plan

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner Howard, I wasn't in front of a computer until this afternoon. You'll note a number of anti-referendum PEOPLE of all age groups, and demographics who support the right of our children to a quality education, but who also demand that there be balance with the needs of the taxpayer.

We all love our schools, and value a high quality education, but the current plan is not well-thought out, and is too expensive. That is WHY people are turning out in droves against it - people who have never voted against a referendum in their lives before are turning out against this one because the plan is incomplete, too-expensive, and less costly options were glossed over.

Vote NO, we deserve a better plan, one that's fiscally responsible. We must be united in our goal that spending on wants instead of needs is ridiculous in this economy. Remember - that $133 million the District wants to borrow works out to between $233 and $250 million with interest over the 20 years and 47% of it is dedicated to expensive competitive athletics.

New swimming pools, New field houses. New stadium seating. New artificial turf....

Just because other school districts have something, doesn't mean that we must have it too. I've explained my thoughts on that previously.

We have needs such as HVAC, repairing the pools, and some plumbing issues. I agree they should be met, but as I and others have said - the wants are the sticking point... We need a better plan, one that focuses on the needs instead of the wants, that's why I and others advocate voting NO.

If I had a nickle for every time Mr. Greenberg has posted and mentioned we need to focus on needs vs wants I think I could come close to funding the entire cost of the referendum. He reminds me of the spam posters on other message boards that post the same content over and over.

Nope, I don't spam. I'm not advertising anything. I'm answering questions posed of me, or providing relevant information related to discourse in progress. You post an opposing view point as well, I'm not making you out to be a spammer.

Ellen - I already answered your same question here:

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/district-113-needs-a-better-cheaper-plan

But just in case you missed it:
Needs vs. wants can be subjective - sure. But let's take one example: Repairing a pool for thousands vs. replacing a pool for millions.

The concealed weapons discussion has been hashed out previously on this site. I have NEVER claimed that it would or should be a part of the needs with respect to the referendum. Regardless, I have NO PLAN on concealed weapons - I commented on questions people posed of me. Please review the other message threads regarding those thoughts.

I'm not a pessimist - I take a realistic view. I'm actually quite a positive person, and I have no vendetta against anyone.

Why would you think that I do?

Yes, the facilities. I did suggest we place mirrors in the HP track to help safety - as someone who ran track (albeit briefly) as an HPHS Freshman, I'm not suggesting those for the runners, but rather for the spectators or other "pedestrians" who want to cross the track in certain locations. Mirrors can be used for those pedestrians to know if it's safe to cross or not.

Regarding modern diving needs - my father was a fancy diver in high school in Chicago - won many awards. That pool was 8' deep. The old Twin Pools run by the HP Park District had a "low dive" and a "high dive" (low was about a meter, I'm not exactly sure about the high dive) - that pool was 10'. I enjoy swimming and SCUBA diving myself as well. The basics of the crawl, backstroke, breaststroke, scissors kick, dolphin kick, and butterfly don't seem to have changed to me.

Supposedly the ventilation problem at the HP Pool was fixed for $40K, but we hear it's not. So I ask "why not"? What'd we get for our $40K? Did it ever work properly? If it did, then what changed?

I have attended many athletics events in recent years.

Mark, Sorry you feel the comments are stupid, I do not concur. We're not talking about the construction or safety of vehicles, we're talking about swimming pools. The point I'm trying to make is that just because some standards body decided to update their regulations, doesn't automatically mean that we have to rip out something and replace it. Or that what we have has suddenly become dangerous (it hasn't). What is the context of those regulations? What circumstances caused them to be formed, and how does that apply or not apply to ours? We meet the IDPH standard for depth already.
My dad did front flips, back flips, twists, somersaults, spins, multiple bounces, and he even walked on his hands onto the board, bounced on it, and did the fancy dives - among others. I've watched quite a bit of swimming in person as well as the Olympics on TV and it looked the same as what my dad did...What are the new dives that divers are performing now?
Vote NO for a better plan, one that's fiscally responsible and which focuses on needs, not wants.

The IDPH standard is 10', IHSA is 14', others are 11' 5", 12' 6". Which is correct? I'd argue that it's dependent upon the context. It's unfortunate that someone became a quadriplegic after diving - what were the circumstances of the dive? Did the individual hit the board, the wall, the deck, another swimmer, an appurtenance such as a ladder, something item floating in the pool, or the bottom of the pool?

As I've said before, we need to look at the context of those regulations and see how they apply to us. Hypothetically speaking - if we were to build a new pool to whichever regulation is deemed correct, and that regulation then changes - are we to then build a new pool? We don't have any high dives at our pools, the current boards are one meter (about 3').

I did some additional research. The District's pools meet the IDPH standard for depth. FINA has a depth of 11.48 ft, but the preamble to their regulations is: "...for the competitive use and training, not intended to govern issues related to the general public.", the FINA regulations then go on to detail that the regulations are for pools constructed AFTER 3/1991, and it detailed regulations for World Championships & Olympic games - neither of which are being held in the District, so I fail to see how FINA could apply.

I was unable to find the regulations for IHSA. Do you have a link to the IHSA rules related to your claimed depth of 14'? In particular, I'm interested in the discussion of the rationale for the depth, so if you have a link to the minutes of the policy committee as well, that'd be helpful as well - thank you.

Not at all. You said "my wife once treated a quadriplegic that dove into an 11 ft pool" - people diving into pools of various depths can hit all manner of obstructions that cause injury. You didn't specify what the person hit, so I asked.

I'd dispute the idea that IHSA controls our schools - it's my understanding that they're a voluntary organization that schools can belong to. This would seem to be borne out by the information on the IHSA website:
"The Illinois High School Association, founded in 1900, is a not-for-profit organization of over 750 public and private high schools. The IHSA is governed by a eleven-member Board of Directors, who are principals of member schools. One member, the treasurer, is appointed by the Board and does not vote.
Through its administrative staff of one executive director and eight assistant executive directors, the IHSA regulates interscholastic competition in 13 sports for boys and 13 sports for girls, as well as 7 non-athletic activities. The IHSA stages state final events in all of these sports and activities except music."

They can have all the policies and requirements they desire, they do not carry the force of Law. The Illinois Dept. of Public Health (IDPH) has a law and administrative codes which require our pools to be a minimum of 10' deep - we meet that requirement.

So does that mean as a school board member you will advocate that Dist 113 drop out of the IHSA and no longer compete in any state tournaments for any sports?

I never said that. That the IHSA has promulgated a rule that could cost us millions of dollars, does not mean that we automatically have to spend millions of dollars. It's incumbent upon them to provide the rationale for the rule as well so our schools can decide whether or not the cost of the rule is justifiable for us or not.

The pools are deep enough. See this link:

http://www.reocities.com/woras.geo/Deep.html

"All pools with diving areas do not have to match the depths of Olympic venues simply because all divers are not World Class Olympic Divers." - Wayne Oras, Diving Coach for 40+ years, Diver, Diving Chairman for IL Swimming Assoc for 28 yrs.

Al, I don't recall ever meeting you - if we had, you'd know I have a great sense of humor. What views of mine do you consider "extreme"? I am not a member of the Tea Party, I'm not a radical, I'm not a hater, and I'm not certain what you consider "right wing".

Yes, Title IX did exist when I attended HPHS - I take no issue with women's sports, and I'm not certain why you believe I would.

And what do we make about a Mayoral Candidate who campaigns with the "no" supporters, David Greenberg and Elaine Sobel, but tells others she supports the refreendum? I wish candidate Roetering would come out and tell us what he really thinks.

The filtration system is fine. The recent problem at DHS was caused by a power outage - nothing to do with the pool. Moreover, the filter can be replaced without demolishing the pool. We are in compliance with the Illinois Dept. of Public Health regarding depth. The other "rules" have been created by voluntary organizations with no legal authority, and we've never seen the rationale for the rule's creation.

We also teach students that "haste makes waste" - in this case, hastening to cram this ill-conceived and overly expensive referendum on the April 2011 ballot, rather than taking the time to do it right and put it on the March 2012 ballot is an extremely poor example.

So, I choose to focus on things that matter. I'm not interested in the Tea Party, I'm not going to waste my time on them. Similarly, I'm not interested in pseudo-news (aka entertainment news) so I'm not going to waste my time on that either.
* I do know what Title IX is. We've been over that.
* Our property values are already decreasing - partially because of an onerous tax burden, and partly because millions of persons borrowed more than they could afford in order to satisfy their wants instead of their needs.
* We should focus on the needs, not the wants.
* I don't know why you keep bringing up "large class sizes" - no one's said we should have that.
* We already spend hundreds of thousands each year on technology, so we're not in danger of "falling behind". The District has proposed spending MILLIONS of dollars on technology, so I'm asking what they propose to use it for. Thus far, I haven't seen a curriculum plan. We haven't been told how it's going to improve the educational outcomes of the 96% of students that graduate and go to college, the additional 1% that graduate and go on to a vocation, or the remaining 3% (about 120 students) who don't graduate. How is that equipment going to be upgraded in 3-5 years? What's that going to cost? Who's going to pay for that?

* Vote NO, we deserve a better plan, one that makes fiscal sense.

David:

I am almost going to miss your comments after tomorrow. I only hope that people who vote tomorrow do not give you, Carl and Matilda a platform to continue your nonsense.

And I will definitely miss your commentary as well Tripp.