Below the flyer, our "Eight Key Points" to copy, paste and share with links and references included below.
(Download and save the image to print it.)
Copy and paste these key points and share them via e-mail.
Eight Key Points You Should Know About
the November District 200 Pool Referendum
1. OPRF's existing pools need to be replaced; they are beyond their service life
At issue is how much to spend on pools, parking garages, taxation
and the core academic mission of the high school.
2. The referendum's language hides the true project cost
This is a $44.5M project, funded by a $25M bond issue (raising our taxes for 20 years), and $20M of our overtaxed dollars in the school's cash reserve.
3. Calling this a FACILITIES referendum is misleading
$2.7M
would be spent on the performing arts, a band room and an orchestra room; $1.6M would
be spent on six model classrooms while $37M are
costs related just to building the new pool
facility.
This should NOT
be called a SCHOOL plan – it’s mostly just a POOL plan.
4. New pools for OPRF do not require a new building and a wasteful
new parking garage
The school board's plan would house a
new pool in a newly constructed building. To make room for this new building, the plan wastes $12.6M to purchase, demolish and rebuild the
existing structurally sound parking garage with 25 years of service
life remaining according to the school
board's engineers. The smaller new garage would hold 20% fewer cars. The
existing garage was built with capacity to accommodate another level of parking. It could be utilized for classrooms or other
future needs.
5. Other greener, less costly solutions are possible that
reuse the existing building and parking garage.
One such pragmatic plan was identified
by the school board's architects and presented during the community meetings in
April (Option 2) and July (LTFP A).
This plan provides a new 25-yard,
8-lane competition pool that brings diving back on campus, seating for 300,
and a new 25-yard, 4-lane water safety pool, all within the existing
building. These new pools meet the school's aquatic needs and increase
community pool usage. This plan also includes upgrades for performing arts,
learning spaces, AND costs about $15 million less.
6. The $12.6M question
Is it better to spend $12.6M on a new
parking garage, or reuse that money saved (by going with a pragmatic pool plan)
on the school's core academic mission? Once a top school, OPRF is 36th in US
News and World Report's recent Illinois high school rankings. A
school’s academic ranking, and
not a new pool, increases property values in its community. For example, District 87 recently
completed a $15M science building at Glenbard West High School.
An investment in academics is an investment in one’s school and community.
An investment in academics is an investment in one’s school and community.
7. More tax increases are coming
8. Voting No in
NOvember says NO to THIS PLAN.
It does not mean no new pools,
nor does it mean lack of support for performing arts.
It sends a message that we want a cost-effective, pragmatic pool plan for our high school.
Restore perspective at OPRF and refocus on the core mission: academic success for all students.
It sends a message that we want a cost-effective, pragmatic pool plan for our high school.
Restore perspective at OPRF and refocus on the core mission: academic success for all students.
The $15 Million question
The only way to make a true cost comparison between original Plan A (the pragmatic pool plan) and revised Plan B (the school board’s plan on the ballot) is to focus on the pool component of the plans, since this is, in fact, a pool project. 84% of the price tag of the school board’s pool plan will go to the building of a brand new building, in order to house an oversized pool. The school board made cuts to its plan without making similar cuts to the pragmatic pool plan. So the remaining 16% of the costs of the Board’s plan can't be compared to original Plan A without similar cuts to its programs. The school board’s pool plan on the ballot = $37.3M*
The pragmatic pool construction = $22.3M** - $15M difference.
References and LINKS for the above Key Points
References:
i. Link of line items for cuts from Plan B presented in July
and the new costs in the revised Plan B, the final plan approved by the school
board on Aug. 16
ii. In the Aug. 16 meeting minutes linked above, the chart
shows that the expenditure for the 40-meter pool and associated building totals
$37.3M.
iii. In the Aug. 16 meeting minutes linked above, the garage
costs include purchase, construction and contingency fees. The demolition cost
of the garage is not included as a line item and was included in the pool
construction cost. A cost to demolish the parking garage was listed in the
6/30/2015 contract with Henry Bros. to build an Olympic-sized, 50-meter pool.
This demolition cost is listed at $642,000. The total garage cost, then, would
be $12.6M.
cited 27 Sep 2016. A May 2016 engineering report found that
the garage needs an estimated $271,000 in repairs and that the garage can be
expected to last another 25 years.
cited 27 Sep 2016. The existing parking garage was designed
to accommodate one more level of parking (or other uses)
vi. Comparing Plan A
(an example of a “pragmatic” plan) with Plan B (the board-approved plan). Making a direct comparison is difficult due to
cuts the board made to the original Plan B. The best comparison is to focus on
the pool component of the plans, since this is, in fact, a pool project, and
84% of the price tag of the school board's pool plan will go to constructing the
new pool facility.
The school board's pool plan on the ballot = $37.3M*
The pragmatic pool construction = $22.3M** for a $15M
difference.
vii. #6 - http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/illinois/rankings,
cited 27 Sep 2016.
