Last July, my family and I moved to Brookfield from Chicago. We looked at homes in other towns like Oak Park and Forest Park, but chose Brookfield for its convenient location, value of home for the dollar, history, diverse housing stock and the reputation of its public schools, which we found through our research consistently score better on the state exams compared to the Oak Park and Forest Park schools. Having lower property taxes was an added bonus for us.

As one who recently bought a home in the section of Brookfield that will see proposed tax increase referendums from not one but two school districts.

Being a former facilities consultant for the Chicago Public Schools, I am well aware of the problems which public schools, particularly those with aging and sometimes obsolete facilities, face when it comes to renovation or replacement.

I’m also well aware of the burden taxing bodies typically place on the taxpayer to help fund improvement initiatives. It is a certainty that in order for a school system?”whether public or private?”to prosper, the community in which it serves must give it constant support.

This support must come from parents with children who attend the schools as well as the older generation who may not have school-aged children anymore. If the schools begin to suffer so, too, does the community as the value of our community will be judged on the quality of our schools.

In this ever dynamic global society we live in, we need to ensure that our schools stay on the cutting edge of education so that our children receive the best education possible.

Of course, the conundrum is higher taxes may force residents with fixed incomes to vote against the referendums or force them to move out because they can’t afford to pay the higher taxes. To counter, Brookfield has enjoyed property tax rates much lower than some of its surrounding communities for many years, but that has come with a cost.

History in this town tells us that we have deferred for too long what has been necessary to keep our schools competitive. I would suspect that most of us have no problem with paying higher taxes as long as it benefits the community and continues to promote a high quality education for our children.

It is my understanding that District 95 has not sought a tax increase in more than 20 years, and that D95 has done everything possible to prevent going before the voters to ask for a tax increase. To allow some of the educational and after school programs to be cut would be reprehensible. For those reasons alone, we all should vote “yes” for the referendum.

District 208’s referendum is a little trickier due to the scope of plans for the athletic facilities. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for an improved educational facility as long as the curriculum matches it, and as a former college athlete I certainly can appreciate state-of-the-art athletic facilities.

But it seems very likely that even if the referendum does pass the board may turn around and ask for yet another tax increase to pay for operation of the new facilities.

Many questions abound, and I haven’t heard or read any solid answers for any of them. For instance, will the new space have energy-efficient building systems to help minimize energy consumption during non-use?

And if residents will be allowed to use the new athletic facilities during off hours, what is the board’s plan for managing that service? Will there be separate locker/shower facilities? Will there be security measures and, if so, how much will it cost the district? Are general liability insurance costs going to skyrocket due to expanding operating hours and allowing more people to use the facility?

Moreover, how will the board manage the construction process to ensure that project timelines and budgets are achieved? Did the board include in its cost estimate a reserve in case of slow construction and/or cost overruns? Or next year will the board again have to ask taxpayers for another tax increase to enable it to finish the job?

If the job is completed under budget (I can hear contractors laughing right now as I write this question), will the board refund the monies left over or put it in a different fund (perhaps the education fund)?

Lastly and most importantly, what exactly will the additional tax burden be for residents?

These are all questions the D208 board must answer to the general public before March 21 if it expects to pass the referendum.

Matthew Tennicott
Brookfield