That is 100% inaccurate, actually. There have already been improvements made in maintenance management (i.e. implementing a ticketing system), as well as a commitment from the current BOE to ensure ongoing prioritization.

But let's stop pretending that this project is due to "lack of maintenance". It's like making the argument that your 50-year old car should still run like new because you changed the oil! You still don't have seat belts, only get AM radio, the additive you need to run with unleaded gas is expensive, and replacement parts (and mechanical expertise) require costly specialists.

Now, why hasn't the BOE spent 20 years "saving up" for these projects? Can you imagine if the BOE came to you today and said "we need to add tax dollars to our savings account for the next 20 years to fix problems we might have in 20 years, and we don't have a plan, so we might end up fixing the same problem twice"? My guess is you would not be here on Patch calling them "responsible and prudent". In fact, one of the complaints in 2011 (as I'm sure it will be again) is that the BOE "misspent" by "maintaining" systems and buildings that would be replaced. It's a nice little catch-22 argument you want to use - see, the board didn't maintain item A so they shouldn't be trusted, but they maintained item B so they shouldn't be trusted.

Absolutely correct. I don't expect them to come to me and ask for a referendum to build up reserves for future projects. I expect them to build up these reserves as a matter of course! Manage your budget! Make do with the money you have! Cut some spending if you don't have the money. That's why we pay our administrators their HUGE salaries! They are the financial managers of this district and they have failed. And please don't tell me that we have cut spending to the bone. We all know that is not true. Get creative and figure it out. 99% of America has had to figure it out. You can too.

A pithy and eloquent post as usual, Forest. The short answer is that I do upgrades to my house when I have the cash. I also do regular maintenance on a consistent basis so that things don't get so bad that I have to panic and borrow money to fix things that are urgently in need of repair. I also make sure I am building up sufficient reserves so that I will have the money when upgrades are required. It's called, what's the word?...ah yes, planning. Most smart homeowners do a pretty good job of it. Maybe our past and present board members don't own homes and have never been in this situation, I don't know. Given your expertise in so many different areas, maybe you can shed some light.

Walter - see above response to "Daniel". Are you also suggesting that you would be supportive of paying higher taxes now to make major investments in 20 years? If, in 1992 (when enrollment at 113 was much lower, by the way) the BOE had asked for that, would you have applauded them for fiscal responsibility? You would have been happy seeing your tax dollars sitting in a "rainy day" account that was providing no tangible value? My guess is you would be mighty upset and demanding a refund of money not being used (much like Apple shareholders finally insisted that Apple pay a dividend from their hoard of cash).

Again, I expect them to build reserves with the money they have. It's called managing your budget.

I'm not saying it would need a referendum. But you're missing the other side of the equation - they would be saving up the money, small amounts at a time, and doing piecemeal projects that would cost much more in the long run. My AC condenser coil failed last year, but the main unit still had maybe 2 years on it. It would have cost more to do that in 2 projects than all at once.

Oh, come on Ken. Now you're being ridiculous. I'm advocating smart financial management and smart repair/replacement decisions and you're finding ways to claim that's the wrong thing to do. If we don't have the people that can make those decisions then find new people. We spend tons of money on consultants and you're telling me none of them know how to make repair/replacement decisions?

Actually, I'm arguing the same thing. I believe this plan is the smart repair/replacement decision; it's been thoroughly vetted for over 18 months by volunteer community members, many who are experts in this sort of thing. Bear this is mind - the district is actually constrained by law (since 1991) on taxing for large capital projects, as well as how much they can raise the levy, so the only realistic other option would be to do smaller referendums every few years. Operational costs will go up year-to-year, so they have to be managed within those constraints. In the end, it is not fiscally prudent, or really viable, to deplete reserves for this.

Last point, we are talking here about systems and facilities that are 50 to 70 to almost 100 years old. They have been maintained way beyond their useful life, and do not reflect or support today's needs. We have a plan in front of us to fix this, developed by today's community and board, and looking far into the future. We can use $25 million from existing budgets to put toward the cost, but the needs are much more than $25 million, so there must be a referendum, by law.

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).

Where did I say we didn't need to do replacements? How can other school districts do replacements without huge referendums? Are they possibly better managed?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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(?)

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Also of note, Wilmette District #39 passed a referendum for curriculum recently. Maybe that's why the Wilmette census didn't fall.

Mike - D113 spends less than Lake Forest, Glenbrook, New Trier, and Evanston per pupil.

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 (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...

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.