Its been two years since I posted my thoughts here on the 2011 District 113 referendum.
I opposed the $133 million referendum, yet I support this year's $89 million version -- a better planned, more modestly priced and most importantly, broader-based community effort than the referendum that failed two years ago.
This pleases some, angers others. But I have my reasons, which I elaborate on below.
Read more about the District 113 referendum here.
The 2011 referendum was based on a plan that had been designed by Wight Architects and approved by the 113 School Board. I had no involvement in the community process leading up to the referendum. After the plan was unveiled, I objected, along with others, since I believed it flawed due to both process and design.
After the referendum failed, the Board and 113 administration rebooted the process creating a number of "study" groups which focused on different aspects of the District's challenges. The groups included : building systems, financing, market research, teaching and learning, the 1914 buildings/PE, infrastructure and, finally, a leadership group to oversee the process. Each group in turn comprised various interested and impacted stakeholders: community lay people and professionals, administration, 113 board members, faculty and students.
Many people have been involved in this process, from various vantage points. My own background: I'm a licensed architect and have been in practice since 1979, principal of Becker Architects. My wife Nancy and I have been Highland Park residents since 1989. Our five children have gone through the public schools and all have graduated HPHS. My public service includes four years on the Highland Park Preservation Commission and eight years on the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Has this recent process been perfect? No. Did all the decisions reflect my own personal values and preferences? No. There has been compromise, but this should come as no surprise given the numbers of people involved and the complexity and permutations of choices considered.
However, this process was more open, transparent and ultimately more productive than the first. And the differences didn't stop at the process. There were also substantive changes in work product, including steps that weren't taken in 2011:
- An RFQ (Request for Qualifications) and hiring of a building engineer to conduct an assessment of the "envelopes" of the B and C Buildings, both buildings having been plagued with moisture issues for decades. View the study here.
- An RFQ and hiring of Gilbane Co as CM (construction manager) to provide "third party" costing and reality-testing of competing design scenarios, a form of checks and balances. Their estimates, including contingencies, have been used to set the amount for the bond issue. For the first referendum, no independent estimating was done.
- A Leadership Committee that established with open voting the levels of "tiers" to prioritize the improvements recommended by the study groups
- A subgroup of the Steering Committee, comprising architects, developers and finance people that deliberated, apart from administration and professional staff, to arrive at a proposed scope and budget which can be viewed here.
- A recommendation for a plan that came from the Steering Committee that was ultimately adopted by School Board after dialogue with Steering Committee members and administration.
I have been directly involved in this process in a number of ways. Initially, I joined the 1914 buildings group since this subject was of particular interest to me. I invited a group of building engineers (at no cost to the District) to present their preliminary thoughts on the viability of the B and C Buildings. This led to an RFQ, then a commissioned study. The results of this study helped clarify the choices that we face on these two buildings. There was no such exercise the first time around.
In addition to the 1914 buildings, I was also involved in the RFQ selection process that led to Perkins & Will's engagement as the new District architect. They were one of a number of qualified firms that presented to our group. Their major work product to date has been the new Long Term Master Plan, which will hopefully serve as a roadmap for future improvements.
Long term planning is necessary in order to avoid missteps that compromise long term goals. In other words, don't build things that work short term, but not long term -- easier said than done.
Some in the community think of this plan as an indulgent exercise, but it's actually practical and necessary in order to assure resources are being efficiently expended.
I also served on the Leadership, then Steering teams, which acted to integrate the conclusions of the various groups.
I and many others have spent hundreds of hours meeting, touring, examining, discussing, reading, debating, conjecturing and, ultimately, compromising. Having seen this case built from the ground up, I have a comfort level with the decisions we're building on, something I didn't have in 2011.
There have been difficult decisions in this process. Each solution has pros and cons, different cost implications and related effects. The infrastructure projects (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Life Safety, Fire Protection, ADA, etc.) were relatively easy choices for me. A breakdown of these costs can be seen here. What was more challenging were choices like, Do the C and C Annex stay and we spend "x" to make it current and code-compliant, or do we spend "y" to remove and construct new ? Or do we rehab the pools for "x" only addressing safety and other code issues, but maintaining current layout or do we spend "y" to remove and reconstruct and build something more aligned with current needs? The Master Plan identified other long term goals, such as a track for Deerfield and cafeteria and library renovations for Highland Park, but they didn't make the cut. These projects can be revisited of course at some future date. For a refresher on all the choices we considered, click here.
A guiding principal for me on this project: Systems as well as features must be kept relatively current or a property depreciates. I see this reality on our firm projects as well as in my public service in Highland Park. In order to realize taxpayer value, it is often necessary to spend more upfront to get more at the back end. Put another way, there is a balancing act between "first cost" against "life cycle cost." When possible, I oppose band-aid approaches in favor of long-term solutions.
This is not a gilded design though it has been characterized by some that way. This is a reasonable plan with realistic goals, such as improving air quality and thermal comfort, reducing energy costs with updated systems and controls and improving accessibility, just four of the many goals we hope to achieve.
Do I wish it was costing millions less? Of course. I would have preferred the referendum come in under $50 million. Our economy is still weak, our home values still depressed. Real estate taxes are still high as is unemployment. But our 113 challenges will only grow if they are ignored.
To my fellow conservatives, I agree that the State of Illinois and the Federal Government continue to spend our tax dollars irresponsibly, but I reject efforts to link that with a referendum to improve our schools, extending their useful life. This debt is sustainable and can be repaid.
As of last June, our kids are now out of the public schools so we won't directly benefit from these improvements. But the community benefits by keeping its schools current and competitive with other schools in our region. And taxpayers will realize long term value by doing the right thing.
District 113 has serious needs facing its two high schools. This referendum -- the result not of a quick brainstorming by a few but of years of planning by many from the community -- meets those needs.
For news about Deerfield and Highland Park in your mailbox every day, subscribe to the Patch newsletter. For more news and updates, like Highland Park and Deerfield Patch on Facebook.