Dist. 203 faces renovation questions

Deciding the best course of action to make improvements to Naperville Central High School is only one piece -- albeit a large one -- in Naperville Unit District 203's plans to improve its facilities.

The district is still working out the logistics of a potential major renovation for the high school while looking at redrawing boundaries at Mill Street Elementary and renovating that facility as well as making improvements at Naperville North, among other sites.

If it decides to pursue a referendum proposal in February, it will have only a short time to make sure all the details are in order and the community is on board.

Superintendent Alan Leis is expected to make his recommendations to the school board tonight as to how to proceed. The board then will vote on the plan at a special meeting Dec. 3.

Leis recently sat down with the Daily Herald to discuss facility issues that are still being explored.

Here's an edited version of that conversation:

Q. Over the past two years, the district has gone back and forth between the rebuild and renovation plans for Naperville Central. Why does it keep changing and do you feel confident you've found the right solution?

A. I think it's because we really tried hard to be open-ended about it. We didn't say here's the solution and let's figure out how to sell it to you.

It really has been a very long process but I feel good about the fact it has been a process and I feel good about the outcomes we seem to be getting to. I think they're reasonable for everyone concerned.

What's happened is we've looked at all these options and we've ended up pretty much coming back to what the (district's facilities) task force recommended.

But I think it would have been wrong and I think we would have been rightly criticized if it hadn't been clear to people we continue to explore the other options.

I can look anyone in the eye and say we've worked with everyone, we've talked to everyone, we've involved the community, we've gone through a process and feel good about what the end result is.

Q. The next chance to put a referendum question on the ballot is Feb. 5. Can you pull that together in such a short time? Why not wait until next November?

A. I think you can. I think that's one of the issues the school board is going to have to wrestle with. For many people it feels like we've been a long time working at this. I think you have to balance the extra costs.

Quite honestly, the one area we haven't tackled that probably we should have tackled a couple years ago is the science labs (at Central). I didn't want to put a lot of money into the labs because the rooms are fundamentally too small and until we worked out what a bigger game plan was, it didn't seem like a good use of money. So I just hate for the science labs to continue to sit there. Is it a trade-off? Of course it's a trade-off as it relates to that.

If I'm convinced and the board's convinced we have solid numbers, then there's no reason not to go and get started on this whole thing.

Q. Are you concerned some voters won't feel they can trust the district after it collected millions more than it told voters to expect in its last referendum?

A. I think that's still an issue for people. They write you letters to the editor and we hear from them. I think the survey results indicate that's not the majority's sentiment.

If we decide to go for a renovation, because that's ultimately the board's decision, will there be people who oppose it? Of course there will be. And will there be people who will oppose it because they really think the only solution is a new school? That's possible, too.

But hopefully there will be quite a few people who support it. And that's what a referendum is all about and that's why people get to make a decision.

I do think the survey indicates strong support for people wanting their investment in their schools to be maintained.

Q. Are you using the money that was over-collected in the last referendum for facilities?

A. All the surpluses have gone into site construction. You can argue we haven't put enough money away, I presume, but basically the money that was over and above operating for the past couple years has gone into the site and construction fund. So that's why in the task force recommendation we're basically doing $100 million and only asking the voters for $40 million, because of the Cantera TIF (tax increment financing district revenue) and the money we put aside.

Q. At the last meeting the option of a parking deck at Central was brought up. Is it something you're giving serious consideration to?

A. What we're trying to figure out right now is exactly how many parking spaces are there, how many there are in the new design, and the differences in the two plans that are being talked about.

Parking obviously can't be a driving force but you can't be done with a major renovation on this very small site and then have everyone saying, "Oh, my heavens, who in their right mind had this few parking spaces." So those are the things we're trying to balance out.

A parking deck is $5 million to $6 million more from what I'm told and that seems to me an expense that simply must be avoided at all costs. Unless someone else will help us pay for it.

Q. Is it possible to partner with the city since it has parking needs as well?

A. The feedback we've gotten is that (their proposed parking garages are) really too far away. And particularly because the city is working on the Water Street TIF they're going to see if that takes care of the parking needs they have in that part of the downtown area.

Q. Does the renovation plan include sharing or swapping land with the park district?

A. It probably can be done without them but we're going to continue to actively explore some partnerships. Small ones. Nothing like what was being talked about when you're talking about building a new high school.

Q. Do you know what will happen with the Caroline Martin Mitchell land project if the district renovates instead of rebuilds?

A. There's still some possibilities for some synergies and the park district will lose a chunk of their land to the cemetery soon. So in a sense, the usable land is shrinking. We'll stay involved and we still have to deal with festivals and all those other kinds of things which are going to be more difficult when the cemetery land isn't available.

I think there's still plenty of things to talk about.

Q. Are you concerned that if you do a major renovation to Central, North parents will come to you and say their school needs fixing?

A. We've had a little bit of that, but I think the survey was helpful. They told us the responses from Naperville North were really not different from Naperville Central.

I feel very positive in the conversations I've had with Naperville North people understanding Naperville Central really is in a different situation than their school is.

Sometime down the road there obviously could be some needs there, but we're addressing the biggest ones at North, which were the parking, the traffic and the swimming pool issues, so they haven't been left out of the equation in terms of architectural review.

Q. At Mill Street Elementary School, redrawing boundaries has come up as an option to lessen renovation costs. Is this a likely solution?

A. I think we have to pursue it. We heard that loud and clear at community engagement. It's something we knew was on the table for a very long time … and it certainly was reinforced by the survey that if there was a way to reduce our facilities costs by redrawing some attendance areas, the strong preponderance of people wanted us to do that.

We've still got to go … and sit down with the community and talk about phasing in and the way we don't make fifth-graders switch schools in their last year of elementary school and that kind of thing. We've got to go talk to those folks about what their issues and concerns are.

What we simply wanted to explain to the board is that it's possible to do and that would reduce by at least $4 million the cost of renovation at Mill Street. So, personally, I think that's something we absolutely have to pursue.

Q. One option -- Option B -- called for redrawing boundaries and then spending only $1 million on Mill Street. Why redraw and spend $7 million?

A. Remember Option B is the cheapest option possible. But when you really look at Mill Street, if you move those students out you don't have to do anything with the classrooms, but that LRC and that office area and that sort of gym, if you can call it a gym, were really not done well.

There are several other schools with LRC problems, but Mill Street still has the biggest problem. I just don't think we say just fix the outside and not touch the inside even though there's going to be a smaller number of students there.

It just isn't a good set-up, so in my mind the $7 million is being responsive to doing it as reasonably as possible but also doing the right thing for Mill Street.

Q. Neighboring Indian Prairie Unit District 204 already got a referendum approved for facilities but now is struggling to find a piece of land it can afford to buy for its third high school. Have you taken any lessons away from what they're going through?

A. I think we simply have to be clear you can't count on working significant issues out after you get a referendum passed. I think the learning for us is to make sure we can make it work with or without an agreement from the park district. Or with or without Naper Settlement.

It's not the same as their issue by any stretch of the imagination but it's basically … when you go to the voters you've got to have as much nailed down as you possibly can so that's what we're working hard to do.

Whatever road we're on, I've always determined if we aren't sure about several significant issues then I think you need to think about delaying. But I felt (at the Nov. 5 board meeting) it was a good discussion and things were beginning to come together. We'll see if that continues.

This entire trip has had a lot of hills and valleys and things can turn on a dime so I'm not ready to say we're there yet.

Q. Are there any misconceptions you'd like to clear up?

A. I think we all think new is going to give us everything we ever wanted. In reality, everything is constrained by money. So new doesn't necessarily give you everything you wanted but it's an attractive option particularly because until of late we didn't have the site worked out or all those ramifications, so there were no drawbacks to new. Everything would be newer and nicer, so I think that was part of it.

I think I am bothered by some people saying the problems we have at Central are because of neglected maintenance, for example. I really don't think that's true. The architects did the review of all schools. They didn't find that Naperville Central was deficient maintenance-wise. The only area I would see is that we have held off the past couple years putting a lot of money into the science area.

(Another is) that we would renovate and the roof would leak and we'd be putting all this money into it and things wouldn't be adequately fixed. But the good news is we have lots of meetings and try to address those issues.