'Premature' For District 112 to Consider Budget Cuts: Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Adam Kornblatt.

What a failed referendum should look like:

There have been countless articles and letters written in the last couple months opining why you should or shouldn’t vote for the referendum. What has become abundantly clear is that both pro- and anti-referendum groups want mostly the same things, including building improvements for security, air conditioning, fire safety and modernization. They agree, considering the district’s finances and enrollment, we don’t need 12 buildings, and tax increases for facility improvements and programming are necessary.

The district has outlined building and programming cuts to save $4 million annually should the referendum fail. They believe $4M will provide financial stability for 20 years. Any vote now for cuts in 2017 is premature and illogical – this year alone, the district projects a surplus, and waiting beyond 2017 for significant cuts will not put the district in a materially different financial position.

Rather than solely looking at cuts and building closures, the board should be pursuing alternative referendums that meet community goals in November and April. I have faith, hopefully not misplaced, that the board, consisting of our neighbors and friends, will pursue alternative measures to protect our programs and schools. Only after subsequent referendum failures, should significant budget cuts be implemented. Many have asked, what’s an alternative?

First, the board, as planned, should close Lincoln and Elm Place, which only have 225 and 375 students respectively. All boundaries should be redrawn keeping fifth graders in the elementary schools. With more balanced boundaries, remaining elementary schools should have sufficient capacity to house the approximate 2700-2800 students. Edgewood and Northwood have capacity for 1250-1350 students, which is close to the estimated 1300-1450 students that will be in 6th-8th grade. Additions should be considered at some buildings for new classrooms, as required, including space for all-day kindergarten.

Second, fully renovate all existing buildings to better use space and include AC, sprinklers, ADA, and security, which based on Gilbane’s estimates, will cost approximately $190/sqft. Based on this estimate, it would cost approximately $100M to complete all renovations at all remaining schools. Additionally each 10,000 sqft addition would cost approximately $3.5-$4M based on Gilbane’s cost/sqft estimates for new construction. A reasonable estimate would require a building referendum of approximately $125M.

Lastly, ensure long term financial sustainability. With no referendum, all building improvements are paid out of the Operating Levy. Any building referendum saves the district $3M-$4M annually in the operating budget by paying for capital improvements through bonds. The closure of buildings will save the district approximately $2M annually, generating total savings of $5M-$6M annually. Being mindful that all-day kindergarten adds costs, and the potential for state funding cuts, we should be prepared to either seek future savings or increase our Operating Levy. Every $1M increase to the Operating Levy would only result in approximately a 0.5% tax increase.

Critics argue against this tactic because it is a permanent tax increase, but for all practical purposes, so is a 30 year bond. Referendums for a $125M building and $2M operating levy provide the benefits of reconfiguration, long term financial sustainability, and cost taxpayers less money than the referendum proposed by the district.

We have options to harsh cuts, which are not in the community’s best interest. Cuts should be a last resort after several failed referendums. A failed referendum shouldn’t be about making drastic cuts, but rather, should be the start of dialogue about other reasonable viable options. A failed referendum is an opportunity for the community to come together and move forward.