.
Feedback

History Repeats Itself in District 113

We have lessons to learn from the past when we consider the referendum in 113.

On April 9, 2013, voters in District 113 will be asked to vote Yes or No to an $89 million referendum to improve our high schools. The choice is clear, vote yes.

The proposed measure which includes basic improvements to both schools should be a simple decision for our community which has long supported education. But community improvements always spark some controversy, as citizens struggle to balance the needs of the community with individual views on taxes, and this proposal is no different.

Sometimes it helps to look back before moving forward.

Highland Park, founded in 1869 had become a “delightful little suburb,” by 1872, notes historian Michael Ebner, author of the 1988 book, “Creating Chicago’s North Shore.” Yet even in its earliest days, Ebner describes how Highland Park struggled to attract new families from the city to the fledgling North Shore. A reputation for tolerance and early investments in public education and infrastructure became important factors distinguishing our town from others, and a source of pride and citizens of the era.

Yet these investments didn’t come easily. Ebner notes that our forbearers had an “admirable streak of public mindedness,” he also points out that from our founding, Highland Park seemed “obsessed by fear of fiscal imprudence to the point of carefully calculating whether each further appropriation for public improvement, large or small, was warranted.”

The need to balance public improvement with taxation grew as the turn of the 20th century brought a period of remarkable growth. The City of Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world between 1860 and 1900 and Highland Park, fueled by the new railroad, grew alongside its parent city.

By 1899, the Highland Park high school located above a paint store on Central Avenue in 1887, had become cramped and crowded and lacked basic facilities for physical education. The school served children from the rapidly growing Deerfield Township, which at the time included Deerfield, Highland Park, and Lake Forest. The school board and local citizens identified a new school location at St. Johns and Vine Avenues, but the path to its construction was anything but certain.

The farmers on the west side the Township made a vocal case that they didn’t need to spend their tax dollars educating the children from the east side of town. Noisy protests ensued as farmers decreed that investing in education had little relevance to their lives.

The High School controversy at the turn of the century split the township. Literally. The uproar over the development spawned the creation of the Township of West Deerfield, separate from Deerfield Township.

Yet, the citizens of our community who understood the value of investing in public education prevailed. In March 1901, the first building of the Deerfield Township High School was dedicated as the Shields building.

As the town expanded in the early 1900s, so did the High School. The “B and C” buildings still in use on the Highland Park campus date to this early period. This 1914 infrastructure was built when Woodrow Wilson presided over a nervous nation on the verge of World War I, and women had not yet been granted the right to vote.

Additional improvements have been made in the decades that followed. The original Shields building came down. Lake Forest, long dependent on private education, came to terms with the need for secondary public education and built its own high school in 1936. The baby boom of the 1950s brought an expansion of the Highland Park campus and the creation of the Deerfield school.

Our school board at the beginning of the 20th century had to convince the residents and farmers of our community that while kids could learn in the cramped space above a paint store – investing in a better option and preparing for the future made sense. At the beginning of the 21st century, we find a school board with similar issues working to create a balance in our community. The lines aren’t as clear – we don’t have angry farmers waving pitchforks threatening to divest from our township, but we do have citizens concerned about taxes who fail to see how investments in education will bring them any personal benefit.

Detractors will complain about the cost, scope, and necessity of the high school improvements. Every change we make to our public façade is bound to create controversy. But we have had an unprecedented opportunity for community involvement in this process, and our community has identified real needs that must be corrected. The investments made in 1914 were good ones, maintained for 100 years. But the time has come to ask, can we do better for our kids? And the answer is a resounding yes. Our pools have exceeded their expected life by three decades. Some mechanical systems in our buildings date back to Roosevelt’s presidency. It’s time.

In 1900 good public education attracted young families, and that attraction was critical to the development of the area as we know it. Nothing has changed. Good education attracts young families and ensures the growth and stability of our town.

While the farmers of West Deerfield Township struggled to see how investing tax dollars in education would impact their lives – we have the benefit of hindsight. We know and can testify to the results of those investments. Education has transformed our community, created a productive work force, and remains a source of pride for residents.

We must learn from the past. Investments we make today in education will continue to drive our community’s growth and success. The forward thinking residents at the turn of the last century understood the value of education and stood up to the small minded thinkers who couldn’t see beyond the impact to their own personal tax bill. It’s time for this generation to do the same.

Vote Yes to the District 113 referendum on April 9.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Highland Park Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Walter (Tripp) Hainsfurther February 9, 2013 at 08:30 pm
Walter:
I appreciate the kind words. The study group and the Steering Committee have pressed very hard about having a maintenance strategy for the facilities, regardless of what happens with a referendum. I am convinced that the administration and the BOE is committed to doing this and have taken steps to insure they have the proper systems and procedures in place, starting with implementing a computer tracking of maintenance efforts. As far as deferred maintenance, most public entities , especially school districts that I deal with, have been forced to make hard choices about how resources (i.e. money) are allocated. The staff deserves great credit for keeping systems, some of which dates back to FDR's time, functional. However, there are other things that just weren't paid attention to in the same way. As far as long term, I can't guarantee that the District won't come back with additional referenda. That, in large part, depends on the community's needs and desires. However, it is our goal (and my belief) that the improvements will last the length of time we have set as a goal, as long as they are maintained properly (which I believe they will be) and infrastructure replaced at the end of its life cycle.
David Greenberg February 9, 2013 at 09:02 pm
Walter, as we hashed out the various Tiers of items in the Study Group I was a member of, we told the administration that before we would give them any money that they had to have a committed plan for maintenance because what had happened thus far was not acceptable. They've heard that, and after Gilbane and others reviewed the proposed Master Plan, we've heard percentages of about 4-5% to be set aside each year for maintenance.
One question that we did not review, nor have I heard really discussed in any of the Groups was that of set-asides for future maintenance/replacements. As I've said before, 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. However, it's not going to be an easy conversation, nor simple to implement because of the State restrictions on funding for education (along with the various funds and their individual limitations that come into play).
David Greenberg February 9, 2013 at 09:11 pm
As an aside Walter, Tripp and I both served on the Study Group that determined the Tiers of items. One of the things we were consistent on was that we'd rehab what we could - but only if it made fiscal sense. To that end, we wanted to be able to get 25-50 years out of something we rehabbed.
Our Study Group clearly laid this out to Perkins-Will and Gilbane before they started looking at all the different options, and it's the reason why so much analysis was needed. We ended up with a mixed-use proposed for the B buildings because it made sense. But for the C buildings, the costs were such that it made better fiscal sense to replace them with something new and set up for future needs. The C buildings have an internal infrastructure that's 100 years old, along with other issues that needed to be resolved (e.g.: doors that open INTO hallways), and when the costs were analyzed, it was clear what needed to be done. Not popular to be certain, but necessary. As a result of replacing that building (with a shorter structure), we'd have a shortage of PE space (not athletics, PE) that currently exists and is well-utilized. So we have to add a building which replaces that space. The new proposed building has 3 courts, and is positioned such that IF WE NEED TO in the future, we can inexpensively remove a wall and expand the building w/o encroaching on existing facilities (and wasting funds).
Walter White February 9, 2013 at 09:11 pm
Most physical systems have lifespans that are pretty much known. It's actually not that hard to predict maintenance and replacement costs over the life of a system. So to say the board has put systems in place for maintenance is fine but not very specific. And I haven't seen anybody say there's a defined replacement plan. These things are not nebulous. World class organizations predict these costs and plan accordingly.
David Greenberg February 9, 2013 at 09:21 pm
Agreed, there is a maintenance plan being defined, and as part of that, we need to tie in expected replacements.
I've laid out methodologies for setting-aside such monies in previous discussions we've had here. At a high-level it boils down to taking the current cost and dividing by the expected lifespan, then adding in anticipated inflation costs to know what one should set aside each year. As the inflation numbers are adjusted, so do our set-asides. At lower levels of the plan there's data available that relates to lifespans for various pieces of equipment (HVAC, Plumbing, Technological, etc.) and we'll have to review those and tie them into the planning and set-aside processes - just as our new Master Plan is, it'll be a living document that we'll have to adjust. One thing I do believe is that we should do this in as transparent a manner as possible - the District should post it on their website, so anyone who wants to review the information can do so w/o having to file a FOIA request with the District for the data.
Daniel February 10, 2013 at 12:13 am
The point is buildings have to be replaced and money should be reserved for it in advance so we don't have these battles about raising huge sums fo money all at once. Were actually lucky that rates are so low.
Stephanie Brent February 11, 2013 at 12:27 am
This is all very interesting but I'm old. Lots of residents of this district are also old. Fewer children are coming into the schools and that trend is expected to increase. A lot of us already can't afford real estate taxes to go up so much and so fast and we will have trouble selling these homes and fleeing if the taxes are too high. For many of the voters, that is it in a nutshell.
MM February 11, 2013 at 12:34 am
I understand your concerns. And I am glad that you raised the issue of resale. Frankly, if we don't invest in our schools you'll have trouble selling your house because the schools are inferior to those of surrounding areas. It won't be the tax rates that concern them but the reputation and quality of the schools in District 113.
forest barbieri February 11, 2013 at 02:14 am
Schools and the quality of education is a major component of home valuation as they drive demand. I have met several people that moved here recently from the city specifically because of the schools and were so focused on the rankings that they choose to buy within Braeside's boundaries.
Desirability has a positive effect on the community and your home value no matter if you have children in the schools or not. Frankly, if our schools were not valued by potential buyer’s it is likely that there would be a lot of homes sitting empty considering our current tax rates!
Jon Hall February 11, 2013 at 11:57 am
The library at DHS has suffered from a roof leak for 20 years. This referendum is not going to pass as long as board and admin aren't able to discern and solve serious problems in timely fashion. .
Walter (Tripp) Hainsfurther February 11, 2013 at 01:44 pm
Jon:
The roof at DHS is not the issue. Roofs are replaced on a regular schedule. The issue here is storm water. The sewer pipe lading to the creek is small and causes water to back up in a way that effects the library. Second, the courtyard collects water and it has no way to escape. Enclosing the courtyard will help solve those problems.
Pedro B February 11, 2013 at 02:12 pm
I'm not sure I follow your argument, Stephanie. So your assertion is that since you read some vague statistic somewhere on the internet regarding the district enrollment hitting a slightly lower plateau at some point in the near future is a valid reason to not justify increasing property taxes? Don't you see anything positive for future residents of HP/DF out of the improvements to facilities that have been proposed in great detail? An extra $300 in property taxes for every $300K of home value doesn't seem exorbitant by any means if there is a clear benefit to the community involved.
FWIW, I've had this conversation with my own parents, who are now in their early-mid 70s. They were able to absorb property tax increases on their single family home for about 5-6 years after they finally retired. Ultimately though, they opted for moving from one of the areas in their state with highest property taxes/schools w/ great reputations, to a place with probably one third the same taxes per year and schools that hardly rate. Even if their original community doubled the property taxes, they would have had little or no trouble selling their old house since the quality of the school district was paramount. It's arguably no different here, and I'd wager the schools are held in even higher regard per se.
Ken Robertson February 11, 2013 at 03:53 pm
Pedro - good points, just a quick clarification: the total bond & interest cost for 2013, if this referendum passes, at $300k market value is $173. That includes an existing $15 for non-referendum bonds held by the district. The extra cost is, therefore, only $158.
Also, your personal experience is exactly what refutes the "declining enrollment" argument. The "declining" argument assumes that someone like your parents would move and leave their house empty (rather than being purchased by a young family). That is counter to what I, and everyone I know, is experiencing in their neighborhood. It's also refuted by D113's enrollment increase this year, above their own projections.
Pedro B February 11, 2013 at 08:36 pm
Thanks, Ken for clarifying the amount of property tax increase.
In that case, the upgrades make even more sense to me at this time. Stop applying band-aids and get it all right. I have an additional question that hopefully you or someone else reading this thread can answer. If there's a 'cap' on how much taxes may be increased, how will it ever be possible to tuck away adequate monies for future improvements/expensive maintenance(?) cheers p.s. why doesn't Patch let you reply to replies in any given thread(?)
Richard Heineman February 11, 2013 at 09:20 pm
There is good news about the district's ability to maintain and further improve it's infrastructure. We are going to spend $25 million out of operating funds to fund this 5 year project. We expect that the district will be able to do this on-going. This $3.5 to 5 million per year will be available to fill in some of the other needs identified in the master plan as well as keep up with a maintenance and replacement program.
RonnieTheLimoDriver February 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm
The schools may be inferior on a physical basis, but academically they blow all the neighboring schools out of the water. Please do NOT sell D113 short. DHS in particular is one of the top schools in the state.
D'skidoc February 12, 2013 at 01:24 am
Exactly the point Ronnie. A district that supports its high achieving staff and students by investing in the future is a desirable one going forward. If we don't invest for the future we send the wrong message to those who would choose to live "here" or over "there".
Ruth Spiro February 15, 2013 at 04:14 am
Just to clarify, the "courtyard" Tripp mentions is NOT the main courtyard the students use - it is another smaller courtyard that the students do not use. I wouldn't want anyone thinking they're losing the main courtyard at DHS.
ML February 15, 2013 at 07:13 am
Some of these argument don't hold up in all cases. Wilmette hasn't seen a decease in housing activity in fact it has seen an increase, along with price appreciation even in the face of voters turning down the D203 $174 Million referendum. I moved to HP 3 years ago and my biggest concerns going forward was the yearly 500-800 dollar increases in property taxes I saw on local tax bills. I enjoy the the area but I will move again if I need to if taxes begin to take off higher than I can afford them. I've been in both schools and I don't see inferior schools, rather compared to the ones my older kids went to they are in very good condition. I still would like to see a scaled back approach to address only the most pressing issues and not burden homeowners to this extent. I would also prefer to see another source of income generated to support the schools.
D'skidoc February 15, 2013 at 01:54 pm
ML the Burden you refer to amounts to no more than 2.5% of the total property tax bill. The Bond and Interest payments will remain flat for the life of the bond (20-25 years) so this portion of the tax bill is NOT subject to the inflation that the operations budgets and all the other municipal budgets are. You may not like how all of your tax dollars are spent, but this portion is a very good investment in the future, and absolutely necessary, as determined by the community.
btw...New Trier can roll with it's reputation and the cachet.
D'skidoc February 15, 2013 at 02:06 pm
Also of note, Wilmette District #39 passed a referendum for curriculum recently. Maybe that's why the Wilmette census didn't fall.
Mike Levinsohn March 2, 2013 at 12:30 am
D'skidoc, it's not the 2.5% increase. Its the fact that Dist.113 real estate taxes are almost twice the real estate taxes in Lake Forest, Northbrook, and Glenview. If the bond issue is necessary for needed improvements then the District needs to find a way to decrease yearly spending. Maybe we cannot spend more than any other district per pupil.
Brad March 2, 2013 at 01:32 am
Mike, How about some proof of more spending per pupil?
Ken Robertson March 2, 2013 at 06:44 pm
Mike - D113 spends less than Lake Forest, Glenbrook, New Trier, and Evanston per pupil.
Mike Levinsohn March 3, 2013 at 01:39 am
If you go to http://www.isbe.net/finance/verification.htm
for 2010-2011 the average per pupil H.S. spending in the state was $13,266 and District 113 was at $20,392 (you have to open up one of the Excel pages on the website)
Ken Robertson March 3, 2013 at 03:23 am
And that same report shows that D113 spends less than Lake Forest, Glenbrook, New Trier and Evanston. Comparing to the state average for spending isn't really appropriate - The state average for PSAE performance is 51%, and D113 is 85%, and I don't think we should shoot for average there, do you?
Mike Levinsohn March 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I guess what concerns me is the tax rate. If you look and Cook and Lake County tax bills you find that the New Trier 203 rate is 1.67%, the Lake Forest H.S. rate is 1.18%, Glenbrook North & South is 1.82% and Dist.113 is 2.16%. On top of that it appears Dist. 112 is preparing us for an increase or bond issue to address aging facilities. I think this all translates into property taxes which are higher than our neighbors. Or increasing at a higher rate than our neighbors.
Ken Robertson March 3, 2013 at 02:16 pm
Mike (by the way, I appreciate that you post under your real name) - you're hitting on one of the most misunderstood parts of taxing. The "tax rate" is only part of the picture (I think you actually know this) - your rate times your assessment gets you what you pay in taxes. From 2004-2011, the total EAV in 113 rose almost 20% (that includes drops in the last 3 years) . The tax rate (outside of bond/interest payments, which we will address shortly) only rose 16%. Overall, 113 has consistently accounted for about 24-25% of your total property tax bill for that period (excluding bind/interest).
What many people see as taxes going up in the last few years was due to the end of bond/interest payments. For 2011 (taxes paid in 2012), that amounted to $317/$100k assessment. Over the last 8 years, it has averaged $198. With this referendum, that number will still drop to $155-173 (depending upon 25 or 20-year bonds). In 2013, with no referendum, it's $126, then $15 in 2014. So - either way, your taxes for B&I will be lower than the last 8 years average. Your choice is to lower taxes and get the improvements needed in the schools, or lower your taxes and kick the can down the road (which, of course, will cost more to fix later). For the flip side of the "tax rate" equation - check Redfin for listings under $500k in 113, NT or LF districts...it's 172 vs 60 vs 24. For $1MM+, it's 115, 261, 132. Chances are, you'd be sacrificing a bunch of house for that lower rate...
Mike Levinsohn March 3, 2013 at 02:41 pm
You're right, I like most residents don't have a full understanding of the taxing and spending at the district level. I just see the tax bill. I can live with my current bill. ( I wouldn't mind if it were a little lower) I think my fear (or the collective fear) is unrestrained or uncontrollable increases. Thank you for pulling apart the details and allaying those fears. I'm sure this was explained in previous newspaper articles which I missed. I think this is a message that needs to get out. There should be a little less focus on how the schools need these repairs and maybe more focus on they need these repairs and your overall tax bill won't go up because previously issued bonds are being retired. Hard to fit in a sound bite.
Ken Robertson March 3, 2013 at 02:57 pm
It is difficult. The key issue for people to understand is the counter-factual to voting "no". The needs will still exist (just as they still exist now after the 2011 referendum failed), and capital money will be needed (beyond what is budgeted annually). That money, though, will cost more in the future after continuing to through good money after bad on maintaining old outdated systems and facilities.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Joe June 14, 2013 at 10:19 pm
What's an assault weapon Janna ?
Stu Pidasso June 15, 2013 at 02:10 am
Joe, your funny!! Assault Weapon... at a bar or on a date? I know some guys that have a dead weaponRead More when they try to assault :)
Ernest Makkai June 17, 2013 at 07:12 am
How do you conceal a four feet long assault weapon?
sibuna June 11, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Really? The community is going to be "shocked?" You assume an entire community not only isRead More interested in cosmetics, but that they are so interested in cosmestics that they are going to be "shocked" by an incredible team of experts. Dramatic much? Recommend
Sheryl Dineen June 12, 2013 at 11:48 am
How can I email this article to someone?