The 10 candidates for the District 113 school system introduced themselves and took questions from a small audience at a forum at last Sunday.
Though it was far from the only topic discussed during the hour-long event, the contentious came up repeatedly.
"The plan is not well thought out; it's too expensive," said David Greenberg during his opening remarks.
Greenberg, the owner of business and technology consultancy, said he was against the renovation project that would see huge improvements to both Deerfield and high schools.
Other candidates joined Greenberg in voicing their opposition to the plan, often in the same breath as their names.
Carl Lambrecht, for example, said he was not in favor of the referendum, adding the interest would boost the cost to $201 million. Lambrecht owns Laurel Industries, an optics company located in Highland Park.
Mark Mulert introduced himself by voicing his support for the referendum and then said he wasn't running "to oppose or support any one issue." The structural engineer and software developer was a member of the District 113 leadership team last fall.
Candidates running for re-election to the school board, among them Marjie Sandlow and Michael Smith, said they favored the referendum.
"All of us know that the quality of our high schools is the key… that attracts many people to our community," Smith said.
Consolidating the school districts was another subject that prompted candidates to voice very different opinions. Currently, the elementary and high schools are separated into two districts--112 and 113.
"It's going to basically mean ending the district as you know it at the end of a school year, and starting a brand new one the next," explained Steven Narrod, a candidate who has served on the District 112 board. "So go cautiously."
Sandlow argued that keeping the districts separate allowed administrators to focus "on the education for the students at the ages that they are." She also said consolidation wouldn't be financially worth the effort.
"We already do a lot of cost savings among the district; we'd still need the same buildings," she said. "The cost savings would be extremely minimal."
Nutritionist Corinne Bronson-Adatto said the subject needed to be studied further before any decision could be made.
"We can't just do something like this and make a change without thoroughly evaluating it," she said.
The forum was moderated by Solel's rabbi Evan Moffic, who asked questions submitted by the audience. Those questions touched on topics from diversity to substance abuse, and resulted in more agreement down the line.
"The use of marijuana and other drugs hasn't gone away despite our best efforts," said David Small, an investment fund manager. He said the best way to tackle this problem is to "engage every single student from the first day that they come to high school."
North Shore real estate agent Debra Hymen served on the District 112 board for 12 years. She said she would like to focus on getting the community more involved with what the high schools are doing.
"The community isn't aware of all the wonderful things that are going on in the schools," she said.
Matilda Manfredini, a retired educator, said she was concerned with making sure students in the middle of learning curve didn't get lost as educators focused more of their attention on students at the ends of the spectrum.
"I seem to know through experience that many children in the middle get lost in the cracks," she said.
Of the crowd of about 40, some were hearing the candidates for the first time.
"I have made my selection," said Fred Putz, a retired Deerfield High School art teacher. "I'm against the referendum and that will consolidate my feelings about who I will vote for."
Other attendees were wary of the candidates who seemed overly focused on a specific subject.
"Some of these people came on just to put down the bond issue," said Faye Grossman, a former teacher. "I feel like that shouldn't be part of the election. If you're really interested in the board, you're really interested in the schools both fiscally and educationally."
All this controversy tires me. We should be focusing on how to support the very fine efforts made by our elected School Board, who looked at needs expressed by students and faculty, and selected a firm to make a plan. It is time to stop complaining about actions not taken in the past, stop delaying what needs to be done, and start the work. VOTE YES!
No one ever said athletics weren't an important part of education, or that teamwork wasn't an important part of learning. However spending nearly 50% of the referendum funds on expensive competitive athletics is excessive. The School Board's current plan is incomplete. The data used in the conclusions was highly biased, and many other potentially cost-saving plans were glossed over or not addressed. They focused on their expansive WISH LIST not on the necessities. VOTE NO, so we can come up with a better plan that makes fiscal sense.
You are correct that both sides should be heard, which is exactly what is happening. The district has provided a wealth of information on the home page of their site. For months, articles have been written pointing to the information so that we, as taxpayers, can judge for ourselves as well as ask questions. Those with objections should also face the same scrutiny for their arguments...
The Education First home page prominently displays a graph showing the impact ("tax increase") on a $600k home (i.e. doubling the district's example). This I find highly misleading for several reasons. First, it assumes that, if the referendum fails, there will be no additional costs over the next 20 years. I cringe to think what our schools would look like in that scenario. Second, the median RE tax bill in HP is around $9,700. Using a 6.035 tax rate, that's a $160k assessment, or $487k market value. Following the math that both parties use, the referendum tax portion for that home is an annual $412, or 4.2% of the total annual tax bill (15% of the D113 tax . In order for that investment to pay off ($8,240 cost total over 20 years), the median home value in HP would have to increase 1.7% by 2031. And that $600K home, by the way, will pay almost $12k in taxes this year – which makes that $508 look a lot less frightening.
We all agree that the schools have needs. Where we part company is the expansive list of WANTS that are included in the referendum proposal. For instance, we don't need to tear out the pools at a cost of $17 million, when they can be repaired for a fraction of the cost and give us many more decades of faithful service.
The issue with the graphic being misleading stand - it is intended to make the numbers look higher. Why not just use the district's number of $254/$100k EAV? That math is just as easy, and doesn't use an example that is almost 25% higher than the median EAV. Michael Jordan will pay almost $9,000/yr. to the debt service, or almost $180k - now that would be a shocking number (and his kids didn't even go to D113 schools). David - what are "needs" vs "wants" at this point? And who determines them? There were several forums and opportunities for community input early in the process. Is a "want" today a "need" five years from now? How much will it cost then, being addressed in a piecemeal fashion versus part of an integrated project with a long-term vision? One of the top priorities here, as presented by all inputs, is a long-term master plan. This is what the district has presented. What, exactly, are the specific parts of the master plan presented by the district that Ed 1st wants "more info" on? Arguments are made that there needs to be a "detailed scope" before submitting to referendum - which of course would cost the district money that is NOT on a referendum, nor is it standard practice to get detailed architectural drawings prior to a project like this. If you have the drawings supporting the expenditure, do you then change the scope and require additional cost to re-submit new drawings until everyone is happy?
A "want" today, may or may not be a "need" five years from now. It depends on the item being discussed. The Pools need repairs, they do not need to be ripped out and replaced at a cost of $17 million. If the repairs are done properly, then taking into consideration the declining population of HP and Deerfield, and the predictions for declining enrollment, in 5 years, new pools will still likely be a "want". In my humble opinion: * "Need" fix leaking roofs, tuckpointing on walls, water that enters the library (probably due to a clogged drain in the courtyard), air handling units that are at the end-of-life. "Wants": Fieldhouses, new indoor track for HPHS, dangerous artificial turf for DHS, new pools, tearing down B/C buildings and reworking the A-Bldg @ HPHS, new stadium seating, draining fields at DHS, Smart boards. -- A long-term vision is something to achieve over 10 or more years. Short-term is about 3-9.9 years. Immediate term is now-2.9 years. The District proposes to rework two buildings in 2-3 years - this is a short-term plan. That they want to tear down buildings that they just redid the roofs on, or tearing out and moving new tennis courts is evidence of a lack of planning. Before spending millions on technology, I want to know how it will positively affect education. 97% graduate now.
As for the pool - I wholeheartedly disagree with you that it is a "want". My kids have been using that pool for years, and the demand has been high - many programs use the pool (at all age levels), and the high demand leads to potentially unsafe, crowded conditions on the pool deck. It is not sized adequately for today's needs (or tomorrow's), and simply patching leaks will not solve that problem. Your position is that we should continue to take a break/fix approach (as has been done in the past) rather than proactively investing in what will prevent break/fix in the future and increase competitiveness. Why are you bemoaning the "lack of planning" when that is exactly what this referendum is about - planning. At what point will you accept the positive affect of technology (or any of these improvments) on education? When 113 graduates are no longer sought by top universities, or able to get quality employment because they are lacking tech skills in comparison to their peers? Graduation rates mean that we have met the minimum requirements - I didn't move to Highland Park 12 years ago so that I could get "Safe-Auto" insurance. I expect to pay more, and in return get a better product.
I've swam in those pools - they're just fine. We even had someone go to the Olympics from Deerfield HS who swam in the Deerfield pool. The mechanical issues are minor. What you claim we have is a CAPACITY issue, and that's a totally different conversation that the community should have. I've long held that BEFORE offering a class or program, that it's incumbent upon the District to know the total cost of the course/program offering first. Then if we don't have enough storage space, or pool time, we can discuss what it will take to offer the requested program and determine the funding sources. But to offer a program, and them complain that there's not enough storage space or capacity is putting the cart before the horse.
Our students and teachers are extremely high achievers, win awards, get perfect scores on the ACT, etc. And they're doing it all with what we have now. I've lived here for 34 years, I have paid more, and we have gotten a top-notch product. However, eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns. Realtors and builders alike will tell you that higher taxes lead to LOWER property values because potential buyers say "D113 is in the Top 10, so is D###. D113 has higher taxes than D###, so why should I live in D113?" then to sell a home, one has to lower one's asking price... HP has lost 5.1% of it's population in the past 10 years, others have INCREASED. Why is that? We need to get the best bang for our buck, and I'm not convinced that the current plan does so. That's why I'm opposed to it and want a better plan crafted.
I made it available at the link below back in January: http://www.davidgreenberg.org/2011/01/21/referendum-planning-calendar/
So if Wight was able to preserve historic buildings elsewhere, does that not lend some credibility to the inability to do the same here? I would love to save the old buildings, but they have not been well-incorporated into the school for a long time, and continuing to try and retro-fit them into improvements is going to be a bigger waste. I don't see how pushing a tax referendum now, when the national mood is all about cutting taxes, gets the district some sort of extra benefit. They have made a good case for the timing (interest rates, lower labor costs), and worked to fit the budget into existing tax burdens.
1) What was the district's response to your showing that Wight had apparently mapped out a timeline for proposing a referendum? If I am in Wight's shoes as a consultant, that is exactly the type of feasability document I provide in an engagement. Don't you provide project plans to your clients that show the "go-live" date, even if they haven't signed your contract? 2) We don't see eye to eye on the pool issues; that's fine. I'm not advocating a pool to increase the number of Olympians any more than I'm advocating these investments to increase the number of perfect scores on the ACT or SAT. My high school (in Ohio) produced Kevin Youkilis of the Boston Red Sox; does that mean that they don't need to ever invest in improving PE facilities (actually, you should check out the improvements made there since I graduated)? Gary Sinise went to HPHS - should the theater only maintain the lighting that existed when he attended? 3) Ongoing technology upgrades and ongoing maintenance will be operating costs, budgeted as they have been. A more comprehensive foundation enables for a more manageable upgrade path - you should know that. FYI - I work in technology also. 4) Population - answer your own question - why has HP's population declined? Do you definitely know the answer? Schools are one component of home value; a house near the lake will command a significant premium over a similar one west of 41, even though both are in HP.
Here's details and progress updates of the Naperville Central HS Major Renovation and Additions: http://www.naperville203.org/departments/buildings/BuildingNCHS.asp There are also construction sequencing and phasing plans available there. It's quite telling about the phased approach they used, and which they want to use for us. September 2010: No easy fix for Naperville Central Cooling system http://triblocal.com/naperville/2010/09/21/no-easy-fix-for-naperville-central-cooling-system/ July 2010: Construction workers on strike... http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/naperville-district-203-mulls-forcing-workers-back-on-job.html May 2010: Demolition contractor is working two shifts... Ummm, can you IMAGINE that at HPHS? What would *that* do to the surrounding HPHS neighborhoods? March 2010: 500 ton crane moved HVAC units to the roofs... can you imagine that parked in the middle of St. Johns, blocking traffic in all directions?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-16/news/0912150257_1_teachers-union-sinus-infections-construction-site November 2009: Police identify body of woman found at Naperville Central HS. Member of the custodial staff found in the construction zone. http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-chicago/police-identify-body-of-woman-found-at-naperville-central-high-school July 2009: Foundation pile installation around the three story wing has been completed. I can only imagine what the shaking and sound will be like if a pile driver is needed for HPHS or DHS. HPHS especially will be torture on the neighborhood. April 2009: A new transformer was brought online, and another was relocated...
-------------- End of Naperville stuff ------------ I don't think that Wight being able to preserve a 90 yr old bldg elsewhere, and claiming not to be able to do so with our 98 yr old bldgs lends credibility to the supposed inability to do the same here. It was so readily dismissed - even before the consultants were brought on-board, that I find it highly suspect. My other reasons for disbelief, are based upon my own observations when walking the building on tours, and the statements of Architects that I've spoken with. Pushing a tax referendum now gets the District the additional benefit of being able to back-into the tax rate and fill the gap the retiring debt will leave with new money. Doing it now also beats D112 to the punch - and it's well-known that D112 has lots of capital needs, but has put them off due to the economic conditions, and because they want to take the time to refine their plan.
If Wight were simply an architecture firm, I'd have no problem with a timeline for drawing up plans, coming up with concepts, etc. However, in this plan - they have PR tasks detailed for how to win Public support for the referendum. Promoting a for or against agenda for a referenda question is against IL State Law (IL State Employee Ethics Act, and IL Election Code). I do provide project plans that show the 'go live' date, but that's based upon discussions with the client prior to signing the contract. In this case, the plans hadn't been discussed with the Public yet, the so-called "Community Engagement Meetings" hadn't taken place, and yet they had a 'go live' date for passing the referendum.
The only thing is that it doesn't appear as if that's happened. We're being asked to fund things like replacement windows, roofs, etc. -- all items with known life spans that should have had reserves set aside year-on-year. Improvements are items that aren't replacements, but upgrades. For capacity, or new program offerings, and so on. In those cases, we need to know how much money the improvement/upgrade will cost initially, and over it's lifespan so we know how much to set aside in reserves. Then we can see if we a) have the money to handle the initial cost, and b) to fund the reserves. If not, then we need to have a discussion as a community. I'm not inherently opposed to improvements, but I want to know what it costs first.
Seeing all those excess costs means less money available for something else, and makes me ask "How's this going to improve the educational outcomes for the students? Does the District have a plan?" No answer has been forthcoming.
As to the death of the employee, I believe it was found that the area was properly barricaded and protected and that the death had nothing to do with the construction, however unfortunate. Note that the foundations were installed during the summer and piles would have been required due to poor soil conditions. Going purely off of the foundations installed for the earlier additions, then we can make a reasonable assumption that normal footings may be all we need. Transformers are moved or upgraded regularly. As I said previously, demands on buildings are much greater today than even 10 years ago. I also find it interesting that you are encouraging the school diostrict to use their reserves for these kinds of expenses, yet, you have a different standard for the City, where you have decried the use of a small part of a very large reserve to do street improvements.
There are definitely concerns about any construction project, but the Naperville issues can (and should) be used as examples of issues to address as the project moves forward. Certain items just don't apply here, other than to point to things that COULD happen (i.e. the strike, and I don't know what you are intending by pointing out that someone died during the construction -are you implying that a project like this will kill someone?). Loud noise? Sure. Traffic issues on St. Johns? Of course, and like always, traffic will be rerouted via Vine, Maple, Moraine, Orchard as needed. I'm close to there and have dealt with those inconveniences in the past. If there are residents nearer HPHS are concerned about having to deal with this, then they can vote NO, but they don't have the only say. There are benefits to living in that location, and this would be one of the drawbacks. I dealt with the contruction at Fort Sheridan for a couple if years, but I knew I would be pleased with the results. I get it - you want a piecemeal, band-aid approach, I say let's take the leap we need to and do it to the best of our abilities . The planning process and the 195-page document that the district has provided has the answers I want, and I'm unconvinced by the objections.
Can you please provide a link to what you're referring to about street improvements so I can comment effectively?
I never said I wanted a piecemeal, band-aid approach. I want a better plan, one that focuses on necessities instead of wants. But I'm not willing to take a leap with over $200 million on the line (and by the way - the interest rates went up again, PMA predicts about $233 million in total costs now). Although we differ in opinions, I appreciated the engaging discussion.