D112's Self-Imposed Constraints Limit Reconfiguration Options: Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Dan Littmann, SCFAAC Finance Sub-Committee Co-Chair.

As we approach the March 15 referendum, the district’s case for procuring $200 million in debt remains confounding to many in our community. Given the unprecedented levels of debt and spend for a district of our size and home values, the board and administration have understandably struggled to explain their refusal to consider plans that exhibit greater fiscal discipline.

Now, with less than two weeks remaining before the vote, it seems the most compelling argument for voting “yes” is the lack of an alternative plan and the threats of devastating board edicts if the community rejects a plan it can’t afford. One of my fellow SCFFAC members recently affirmed this sentiment. “The greatest misconception is that there’s a ‘Plan B’ which is going to make people happy. It’s not going to happen.”

Despite this assertion, the facts and financials from my experience as co-chair of the SCFFAC Finance Committee indicate otherwise. In reality, there are numerous more affordable and more attractive options.

So what gives?

The district appears so enraptured with the current plan for a middle school campus that it has imposed constraints that generate the district’s current stance of $200 million or bust.

Examples of such constraints include elementary schools that enroll the same number of students, square footage per student that exceeds local and national norms, renovation of almost all of our facilities in the near term, 100% air conditioned facilities among others.

No other neighboring north shore school district subjects itself to all such constraints or has all the features costed-in by the district. That is no accident… other districts have rightfully considered affordability.

Dogmatically adhering to such constraints artificially drives up the cost of alternative configurations while disqualifying more creative and financially viable options. In turn, relaxing these constraints opens a world of constructive possibilities beyond the ominous alternatives presented by our board. In fact, far less expensive options are readily identifiable by utilizing the fact base of financials from my time in SCFFAC and the district’s own statistics.

Using the district figures for new construction and renovation costs, and adhering to national norms for square footage per student, an 8 school model can be implemented using less than half the current referendum’s proposed spend. For example, reducing the number of elementary schools from eight to six leads to significant savings by increasing the number of classes per grade level while keeping class size small. Closing Elm Place and expanding both Edgewood and Northwood is possible by relaxing the constraint of the middle schools having exactly the same number of students, while still generating sufficient scale to achieve educational benefits such as increased collaboration.

This is just one example of a viable plan. The community has offered several other lower cost alternatives, albeit without the benefits of spending hundreds of thousands on consultants and architects.

At half the cost to our community, the plans proposed by many community members generate more than sufficient cost savings to keep the district operating balance healthy (i.e. more than 25% of annual expenses). District 112’s argument that an additional $1 or $2 million of annual savings warrants more than $100 million of additional spend simply does not stand up to financial scrutiny or simple math. In both nominal and net present value terms, the investment never pays back.

In 2015, Superintendent Bregy challenged the community to bring forth a better plan.

Some in our community have done exactly that. However, the district continues to attack any lower cost alternative by invoking the same set of artificial constraints. Once freed from such constraints, I am confident that others in the community will have even better ideas that meet the educational needs of our children and the financial limitations of our pocketbooks.

I remain a proud advocate of change, consolidation and cost savings for District 112. The original intent of SFFAC and the referendum was to improve our facilities while protecting against financial uncertainty caused by state cut backs.

It is unfortunate that the current referendum forces a choice between a plan we cannot afford and threats for drastic and unwarranted cut backs. As tax payers and citizens of the communities of Highwood and Highland Park, we should press the elected and appointed leaders to relax their self-imposed constraints, refrain from pre-election threats and, most importantly, deliver a plan we deserve.