Just to make sure that anyone else reading this sees the response - see this article for the information!

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/d113-school-board-releases-video-explanation-of-april-referendum#comments

Walter:

The issue here is not do taxes or our basis increase over time as you have pointed out, they indeed do. The issue is where does the community want to invest today and into the future. Do we want to invest in our children and the infrastructure that supports their education and athletic development?

This referendum addresses several issues raised last year. It is well thought out with community input, does not include wants but rather focuses on specific needs and as pointed out in the article does not in any way put us on the same level as several of our neighboring suburbs but rather allows us to improve our infrastructure to an acceptable level.

This is not about reckless spending or keeping up with the "Joneses" but rather about giving our children the basics and basis needed to provide a reasonable environment for learning.

While we could fill up several forums regarding taxes, basis and where those tax dollars go, I would suggest that the financial impact of this referendum is extremely small in comparison to the value today and into the future for our children and the community and I am 100% in favor of it.

The issue here is whatever the taxpayers decide it is. There is now ample information out there regarding the physical improvements. I don't think people really understood what it meant to them in terms of cost. I hope as many people as possible educate themselves. You can spin it however you like, but we all have to weigh our own options. I'm not one to vote yes on something because a lobbying group told me to.

You look at the $25 million coming from the "district budget" and that's taxpayer money also, of course. Much of these increasing taxes over the last five years funded that surplus. So really, we've already begun paying for the improvements.

Yes and no...of course, all costs for public schools is "taxpayer money" - nobody is disputing that. The $25 million will come from reserves, but is already in the budget (as part of the capital reserves budget line, it's not really a "surplus") to be used for existing capital needs that will become part of the new project. If the referendum doesn't pass, those capital needs still exist and that money will have to be spent. Having those funds in reserve also helps keep our bond rate lower, so it saves us money. Think of it this way, if I was saving up to spend $10k to replace my roof (because I knew it needed to be replaced), but now I decide to do a $50K addition to my home because I have different needs, I still have the $10K for my roof to put toward the addition (which includes replacing the roof),and I only need to borrow $40K additionally. My costs will be the payments toward the loan, and saving the same amount each year to replenish the $10K I saved up (because even with the addition, my home will still have general repair/replacement needs in the future).
Also, as you agreed on the other thread, the rate may go up, but it is against a lower assessment. Because of lowered asessments, my 2012 taxes were slightly lower than they were in 2007, even though the rate was higher. I know that isn't everyone's case, but it shows that it is a 2-sided issue, not just about rates.

Agreed. Assessments are a moving target. Also, you're right about reserves but it's important that people realize that this is a $114 million project, not an $89 million one. $89M is simply the amount financed.

You're correct - nobody is hiding the cost. It's in plain black and white for all to see on the District 113 website. Obviously, the vote is only on the $89 million needed in bond issue, which is over 30% less than was proposed in 2011.

RB - I get your frustration - in HP, we had the opposite issue where the city refused to put an upgrade to the library out for referendum, stating that the community had "no appetite" for that. In Deerfield, you were given the opportunity to vote and passed a referendum to remodel your library. Unfortunately, all of the taxing bodies do not coordinate, and they don't even overlap. Some parts of DF pay into and benefit from the HP Park District. If tax dollars are spent unwisely, then we have elections to take care of that (see HP Park District a couple of years ago).
The District 113 project has been thoroughly vetted, with participation over 18 months by many of our neighbors, including opponents of the 2011 referendum (like Richard Becker or Ed Jacobs, both on the steering committee that recommended the final proposal). Every candidate for the BOE this year has already endorsed this plan (including David Greenberg, who ran in opposition to the referendum in 2011 - http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/113-board-puts-89-million-referendum-on-ballot#comment_6063827). It's a good, thorough plan that addresses the needs of the communities for the long-term, and as taxpayers, we had a great opportunity to lead, participate and vet everything along the way.

David, The thinking that the project will use $25 million from district "reserves" is an issue. It is a question of timing and cash flow. This is a 5 year project. At the beginning of the process we will sell the $89 million in bonds to lock in current low interest rates. Each of the next 5 years $5 million will be provided from operating funds. The $5 Million is from our recent past annual capital budget ($3.5 million) and an increase coming from other operations ($1.5 million). Expenses associated with the project will take place over the 5 years, with the bulk in the last 4. This is expected to be no more than $114 million, after value engineering reductions are applied. No part of the plan calls for using the reserves that serve as working capital and help us maintain our AAA credit rating.
Thank you for the good work that you did as a part of the study process and your support for the referendum.

Rick - thanks for that explanation, you're right...I see that the way I explained it could be confusing by how the term "reserves" is used.

Yes, and I may have used the word reserves earlier but that is incorrect. The 25 million is money set aside for capital projects. Reserves are monies held in an operating account for contingencies and to maintain a high bond rating. But it is all taypayer money. So, assuming value engineering, the cost is 114. However, having been exposed to value engineering "estimates", I'm not optimistic.

Walter:

First, in working with the construction managers through this process, they are fairly confident a 5% savings over their budget can be achieved. This feeling is shared by the entire Steering Committee, who suggested this in the first place.

Second, if it isn't, then the answer is fairly simple; the District simply can't do everything they intended to. Outside of the District coming up with additional money through another means, there is no ability to fund the project with more than what has been asked for in the referendum.

One question that has been asked is what will the District do if this referendum fails. I believe the short term answer is to continue to take patchwork methods to maintain the existing conditions, which are not conducive to health or good learning. The long term answer is more complex, but it will certainly cost more than what is being asked now.

Maybe you have money to throw around, Doctor, but many people are scraping by. Many are locked into their homes because they are still underwater. Schools are the right place to spend our tax dollars? Sure, I want great facilities for my child. But when do we call it quits? When does the board and administration take some of the heat for not managing our money more responsibly? So don't tell me how and when to vent. Public entities have been mismanaging money and screwing the taxpayers for years. This "crucial" referendum is no different than the last 100 "must-have, for the children" referendums.

Walter:

I want to remid the community of two guiding principals of the study group and the steering committee. First, our mission was to "create facilities that facilitate academic excellence while respecting the District's taxpayers." Secondly, we set a goal that any improvements would extend the useful life of the facilities by 25-50 years, greater than life of the financing.

If you look back to 1914 and 1959, when these buildings were originally constructed, I would say they were good investments for taxpayers. We want to do the same thing. We will measure ourselves if future generations look at these buildings and say that we made the right choices.

Certainly I don't want to pay more taxes than necessary. In case you weren't aware, my profession was devestated by the economy. I do, however, want to preserve the investment in my property, and I know the quality of the schools are directly related to that. Anyone who goes into our schools, especially HPHS, should be embarassed by the environment. Students are succeeding in spite of their surroundings, not becasue of them.

If you can guarantee no more referendums for the next 50 years, then I'm on board.

Walter:

Of course I can't guarantee that. I can guaantee that there shouldn't be a referendum to replace or upgrade the facilities that will be improved for 30 years, unless teaching methodologies require it.

I can, with relative certainty predict that if the referendum fails we will need a larger one to address these problems, as time causes inflation and the interest rates are as low as they can go.

As far as Mr. Melcher's point, I do understand your concern about taxes. No one, even opponents, believes that the schools can exist without a major capital expenditure. The question isn't if taxes will go up, because the will no matter what happens here. The question the Steering Committee tried to answer is what is the best investment for the community. Voting no will not solve the problems that exist in the schools, only kick the can down the road.

Walter White: "When does the board/administration take some of the heat for not managing our money more responsibly?". The short answer is "now, and part of the 'responsibility' lies in deferred maintenance that should have been on-going, but wasn't.". The longer answer is that the message sent to the Board/Administration by the Community Groups (and this was virtually unanimous) was "Before we give you a dime, you've got to have a plan for addressing maintenance in an on-going manner. We don't want to be back here in 10 years with you asking for money for maintenance that should have been handled in the first place".

They heard us loud and clear. They've purchased a software package to handle Maintenance Tickets, and to track them (I'd like to see the tickets posted automatically to their website, so we have transparency on the maintenance issues, but that's another discussion...). They've agreed that 4-5% of the budget has to go to maintenance, etc.

We can also debate whether or not they did a good job extending the lifespan of equipment, or whether they simply put off the refurb/replacement too long. But the long and the short of it is that we have about $34M in infrastructure that we've got to fix - it's a true need. If you don't do that, then you've got maybe $5M that we can use out of the current budget to work on things, but it's not going to get done properly, or in a timely manner, and it's going to cost more down the line.

So the board has deferred maintenance for years. Where has the money gone and why should we entrust them with another $120 million? How do we know it will be spent correctly? In my world, when somebody shows they can't manage money correctly you don't give them more money to spend.

And since you're a board candidate, what would you have done differently, specifically?

Walter - I think David has already answered your question about "why". As he points out, this board has made improvements and commitments, plus for the first time there is a long-term look at the needs rather than a patchwork. Part of the issue is that, without a long-term view, there is always a challenge of whether to spend money on something that may be replaced shortly after. This plan helps eliminate a big part of that issue. Also, let's keep in mind that "the board" isn't some nameless, faceless group that has been in charge forever. Four of the seven board members were elected/re-elected during the same vote that doomed the 2011 referendum. The other 3 seats are up this year.

It's ok to let him answer. I'm particularly interested in how a guy who was dead set against a 133 million referendum is now totally behind a 120 million one.

LOL - I have no illusions about controlling whether or not David answers or how he presents his case! I was just stating my own thoughts on the maintenance issue - it's an issue that was brought up in 2011, and some want to pretend it's still being ignored. Whether you decide to vote yes or no, I'm happy that you seem to want to make an educated decision.

Walter, I don't know the precise reasons WHY maintenance was deferred. We could theorize all day long, and it's not going to get us anywhere. As a result of whatever happened, we have problems that need to be resolved, or we'll have more expensive problems to deal with in the future (whether they're handled as 'emergencies' or on-going).

I've chosen to be a candidate for the Board in this election because I want to ensure that our money is spent wisely, and because I want to continue to help shaping policies so we don't end up in the same spot in the future.

I've long advocated for setting aside money year-on-year to fund future needs. Everything has a life expectancy, and I believe it behooves us to set aside money to cover those needs from the initial installation (just like many of us do with our own homes). That will require discipline on the part of the Board (current and future) to only spend that money for the purposes it was set aside for, and it'll require us as a community to understand that we can't simply borrow from that money to fund other items we'd like to have - we have ample evidence in the history of Pensions in this State to understand what happens when we do that.

Also, why I was dead-set against the previous referendum, but supporting this one? It's because the previous referendum was poorly though out and was top-heavy with wants v. needs. We needed a better plan, and I along with a lot of other people stood up and called for that.

I, and many other community members have spent the past 18 months working on a Better Plan. Is it a perfect plan? No. But it's better, and we can continue to refine it as we travel on through time for the next 50 years. I was a member of the Study Group that hashed out and ranked the various Tiers of items we were presented with. Was it Tier I (Need - Gotta have it for the school to function), or Tier IV (something that's nice to have in a perfect world), or somewhere in-between?

We had unanimity on some items, but on most we merely achieved consensus because we thoroughly discussed and debated each others view points, and came to an understanding.

A lack of space in this comment form prevents me from an in-depth review of my thoughts on the various portions of the current referendum, but as my schedule permits, I plan to blog about it here on The Patch and on my own personal blog site.

Cool. Make sure you share your thoughts on why teachers should be armed and also why teachers are terrorists. The voting public wants to know.

Walter - These items have been discussed and reviewed numerous times on these forums. Anyone who wants to read what I have to say is more than welcome to do so.

Yes, and I urge them to before voting.

As would I.

Dan - very well said. The schools have been repaired with duct tape too long. There should also be operational cost savings when the buildings are modernized, which should help satisfy those people who are worried about spending. No one likes to replace their furnace or air conditioner, but look at the electric and gas bills after replacement - some things are made better than in the past.

James:

You are correct in your assessment. However, two years have gone by and prices and the program has changed, The following "big ticket" items have been eliminated:
Fieldhouses at both schools (replaced by smaller gyms), No new "B" building at HPHS (repurposed instead), smaller spectator areas in pools, no new commons area at HPHS, no field repair at DHS (already done.)

I don’t think the timing of the referendum was done to game the outcome.

If an April election was such a favorable time to pass a school referendum, then the 2011 referendum would have easily passed – it didn’t. In fact, half of the total voters in the April 2011 election were 60 or over. For better or for worse, younger voters (including parents) historically don’t vote in local elections or off-year congressional elections.

As noted above, it was an 18 month process identifying needs and coming up with a plan. I think it would have been rushed, incomplete and not as well thought through if a referendum had been on the ballot in November 2012 – that’s 5 months less time than April 2013.

And, with our schools pressing needs and with an excellent plan at hand, I don’t see any reason to “kick the can down the road” another year until 2014. Let the voters decide.

To get it passed the most favorable time to have the referendum on the ballot would have been November. The average age of a November voter is 10 years younger than in spring elections.

Waiting a year until the next general primary election could have likely added millions of dollars to the project in construction and interest costs, which are currently almost 0.

Many of us wanted to get it on the Nov 2012 ballot, but was was not ready. It was felt, and I agree, that it was better to have a complete proposal rather than a work in progress.

Ah. The fault in your logic is that you thought I was talking about myself. I'm not.

So you are just looking out for the well being of others.

Very nice of you.

Yes I actually care about others besides myself. A foreign concept to some, I admit.