The CARE group made it out to be as if the survey was providing a definitive conclusion. Which it did not.

The rates went up just a few days ago. When the interest on the $133 million was calculated, there was about $68 million in interest ($201 million total). When the rates went up, the amount climbed to $233 million total (so $100 million in interest). It may very well be a negligible amount for some, for others it’s not. Regardless, what I’ve heard from people across the District is that they’d be happy to fund the referendum if it didn’t have such a giant wish list of items packed into it. I think it speaks volumes when people that have lived here for generations and voted for every proposed referendum are coming out against this one…

Thanks for the insight into the world of replacement windows. I agree that if face windows are going to be replaced, they should try to be done en masse to preserve the aesthetics (I say “try” because if one window were damaged by something – say a baseball or rock, but the other 50 weren’t, then we might just have to live with a window that doesn’t match perfectly, but gets pretty close until the next replacement cycle).

My idea for grading windows came about because when asked which windows the District wanted to replace, we were never given an answer. The next question that seemed to naturally follow was “Well, what about preventative maintenance, or grading them so you know what needs to be done and when?” There was no answer, so I related a method used for rating mattresses when I worked for Western Illinois University’s housing department. At the end of each semester we’d rate each mattress A-F. The “F’s” got replaced that summer, if any new stock remained, we replaced as many “D’s” as we could. The next year, we knew the remaining D’s would need replacement, and the C’s would likely become the new D’s… Our estimates were usually pretty close, and we had a nice idea of what to budget each year for mattresses.

Extending the concept to windows – when first installed, I believe we should be holding money in reserve each year for the lifespan of the windows in order to replace them at their end-of-life. We’d have to make adjustments for declining warranty allowances, but in general it’d be:

yearly hold back = initial cost/expected life span

Then at the end of the life, we’d have the money we need without having to come to the public for a tax referendum. Holding the money in an interest-bearing instrument would allow us to offset some of the costs of inflation, and maybe give us some money to use in other areas.

There’s likely more that would have to go into it than just that, but I think it’d be a good start to keep us from repeating a referendum for repairs on a regular basis…

I read one of your previous comments about grading the windows for replacement over a period of time. I will say that has some merit. I happen to be in the window replacement industry. For over 20 years, I have been replacing windows in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.

While I never advise a customer to phase-in the replacement on the face of a building for aesthetic reason the sides and rear can definetly be phased in over time.

The one thing I do warn my customers is that the cost of replacing windows over time is more than replacing them at the same time especially when it involves commercial (institutional) type windows.

The windows used in schools are individually bid by different manufacturers and the cost of replacing them over 5 years versus replacing them in one shot would be far more than the interest charges incurred over a five or seven year term.

In regard to costs rising for the rest of the project, the construction industry still is very soft and any increase in costs will be offset by the eagerness by construction companies to stay busy.

I haven’t seen any details on the problem that arose with the HPHS pool as of yet. I am aware of an issue that happened a few months ago at DHS – over a weekend a circuit breaker flipped due to a power surge in the area, and the filter was off for a few days which resulted in some cloudiness that cleared up after the water was allowed to circulate.

Yes, I am aware that the district spent money on the ventilation at HPHS. I have spent time at HPHS and seen the ventilation system. I also know what the booster club and what COHO has spent on the pools.

Even though the pool use schedule may show overlap between the high school and COHO they are never in the pool at the same time. I’ve been involved with COHO for over 7 years and their practices are completely exclusive of each other.

If you check with the facilities director for the district he will let you know that COHO is never in the pool when District 113 needs the pool.

In fact, just this week the pool at HPHS broke and the boys water polo team moved their practice to DHS moving back the COHO practices therefore emphasizing the fact that the district is always the priority when it comes to pool use.

I’m sorry if anything wasn’t clear. For what it’s worth, my wife grew up in Skokie, received a fine education and didn’t see anything wrong with my post.

I believe that you are incorrect that COHO does not utilize the district pools during hours that the school district needs the pools. I’m basing my belief on the Pool Use Schedules that are detailed on page 193 of 195 in the Comprehensive Long-Range Capital Facility and Technology Plan that’s available on the District’s website. If the schedule in that document is incorrect, would you please detail the differences?

At DHS – COHO use overlaps with the DHS swim team at several points during the morning and afternoon. You are however, correct that it does not interfere with the PE classes held from about 7:30AM until 3:20PM.

COHO only appears to use the pool on Wednesday evenings in conjunction with HPAC. HPAC seems to follow the swim team or water polo at various times.

I do not dispute the fact that COHO which is a program of both Deerfield and Highland Park Park Districts has had a working relationship with D113 for years. The point I made previously is that the relationship was formed long ago, when both Park Districts only had outdoor pool facilities which obviously precluded usage during the winter months. Now that the Highland Park Park District’s Recreation Center has a relatively new indoor facility, I questioned whether or not utilizing that facility for COHO needs would relieve pressure on the D113 pools scheduling needs. I did not denigrate the merits of the COHO program.

In my opinion, District 113 programs need to have priority access to the pools for D113 classes and athletics. If an outside entity desires to use the D113 pools, it must be subject to the priority needs of D113.

Given that the swim teams share time and pool space with COHO and the swim teams need more time, it would seem to me that they should be given priority over COHO needs. That may mean that COHO remains able to use some time at DHS/HPHS and uses the HP Park District facility for their remaining needs, or they may need to use the HP Park District facility for all of their needs.

To answer your other questions: Yes, I have been in the pools. Yes, I have spoken with several students regarding the air quality in the pools. Having been in both pool facilities, I had no problem with the air quality either as a student many years ago, or as an adult in the present.

Did you know that D113 recently spent $40,000 on ventilation for the pool area at HPHS?

Sorry for the delay in reply to your statement but I grew up in Skokie and didn’t have the vast education you had so I had to get out the dictionary and thesaurus to understand some of your comments.

You missed the point that COHO & HPAC do not utilize the district pools during hours that the school district needs the pools. COHO, a program of the Deerfield park district, has had a working relationship with district 113 for years. Their (COHO & HPAC) use does not affect the schools decision that the pools should be replaced.

COHO & HPAC and many other program could and would benefit from the pool and field house expansion. Just this summer, Deerfield high school was co-host (with Lake Forest) to the National junior disability games which I was fortunate enough to volunteer at. Seeing all the young disabled athletes with disabilities including blind, deaf and amputees competing in all types of athletic games including track and field and swimming was a heartwarming event.

The pools in their present configuration are stretched for capacity during PE classes and during boys and girls swim seasons. Have you been in the pools? Have you talked to the athletes regarding the air quality in the pools? I am pretty sure I know the answer.

Thank you for the insight into COHO. I don’t believe I ‘knocked’ the relationship that the Deerfield and HP Park Districts have with D113. I did look at the pool use schedule that was provided in the D113 document I referred to in the article.

I did not make any remarks about the merits of the COHO program, I merely asked why it was still utilizing D113 facilities, when indoor swimming facilities now existed at the Park District.

At HPHS the filtration was remodeled in 1994, and according to the District’s pool consultants, the filter is performing well and is in fair condition. DHS has two filters (one spare), and filtration was operating properly when reviewed by the consultants.

Relatively minor corrective actions were recommended by the consultants – please see other postings on this message board for more details and a link to the consultant’s report. We do not need to spend $17 million on two new pools, when relatively minor repairs will suffice to correct the outstanding maintenance issues.

As a graduate of District 113, I am not opposed to seeing that the future of the District 113 education and physical education standard is upheld, in fact, the opposite is true – I strongly support a quality well-rounded education, but believe that we must achieve that without overburdening the taxpayers. I agree that some items contained in the referendum promulgated by the District are needed, but do not agree with the WANTS contained in the Referendum (e.g. new pools, field houses). Yes, daily physical education is requred, but pursuant to IL Statute 105 ILCS 5/27‑6 aquatic courses are not specifically required; in fact, while some allowable exceptions are defined in the statute, there are no specific requirements for physical education beyond a daily class. Thus, claiming that we need a new pool to meet a State requirement is false.

As I have previously stated many times, I am not opposed to technology per se, I merely want to know how it will be used to positively affect the educational outcomes of the students in the District. Each Smart Board is approximately $10,000, and has high on-going maintenance and replacement costs. I’m merely asking the prudent question: “What educational outcomes can we expect from that investment?”. Please keep in mind that our students are already very high performers, and regularly achieve awards and recognition (witness a young lady getting a perfect score on the ACT). 97% of the students in the District graduate. 96% graduate and go on to college, the additional 1% goes onto a vocation. The remaining 3% represents approximately 120 students.

Trying to compare an automobile to a high school facility is fallacious at best. They each have vastly different issues and lifespans, and whether one replaces a vehicle or not has no bearing on whether or not we can repair a swimming pool.