Asked & Answered

If the referendum is approved, the tax impact of $536 per $10,000 of property taxes would span 25 years.

• The increase would appear on property tax bills beginning with the issuance of referendum bonds, projected for 2027.
• The added tax would remain in place for the full 25-year term of the bonds; it would not increase or decrease annually but remain the same over the 25-year period.
• After that period, the referendum-related portion of the tax would expire.

Please use the tax calculator to determine the estimated impact on your tax bill. Again, the amount calculated would be added to each tax bill over the 25-year period of the bonds, and would not increase or decrease. 

If the District chooses to maintain only basic upkeep and defer major improvements, it exposes our schools to the high risk and high cost of catastrophic system failures—like HVAC, electrical or plumbing systems suddenly breaking down.

When a critical system fails unexpectedly, the costs can be 25% to 50% higher than if the same system were replaced in a planned, scheduled way. This is due to:

• Emergency labor premiums (nights, weekends, holidays)
• Temporary system rentals (like chillers, HVAC units, or generators)
• Rush-order pricing and delivery fees
• Lack of proper design and coordination, which leads to costly inefficiencies or future rework

For example:

• A school district paid $125,000 extra to temporarily replace a chiller while waiting for a permanent installation—a 22% cost premium.
• After a flood damaged electrical equipment, another district spent an additional $847,000 on temporary modular classrooms—a 48% premium just to keep students learning.

Beyond dollars, the cost in learning time and disruption is even greater. Emergency repairs often require building closures, relocations or temporary fixes that interrupt the daily experience of students and staff. These setbacks can't be measured only in budgets—they impact classroom learning, safety and well-being.

By investing in strategic upgrades now, we can avoid these surprises, reduce costs over time, and provide consistent, uninterrupted learning environments.

The plan includes two new elementary schools (Wilmot & Walden) and major renovations at two others (Kipling & South Park), plus targeted upgrades at both middle schools. All updates will create modern, equitable environments across all schools—whether new or renovated. They will focus on:

• Safe, secure entryways and buildings
• Updated plumbing, HVAC, and electrical systems
• More functional classrooms and learning spaces
• Improved accessibility and ADA compliance
• Better support spaces for student services and specialists

Initial renderings will be shared in Fall 2025 via:

• Community information sessions
• This website

These renderings will be general concepts, not final designs. If the referendum is approved, there will be opportunities for community input before architectural plans are finalized.

If the referendum is approved, the project will be implemented in phases, beginning with the construction of brand-new buildings for Wilmot and Walden. These new schools will be built on adjacent areas of their current campuses, allowing students to remain in their existing buildings during construction. Once the new Wilmot and Walden schools are complete:

• Students will move into their new learning environments.
• The former Wilmot and Walden buildings will then be repurposed temporarily as “swing sites” to house students from South Park and Kipling while those schools undergo major renovations.

What This Means for Staff, Students and Families

• No trailers or off-site rentals: All learning will take place in full-sized, fully equipped school buildings—not in modular units or unfamiliar locations.
• Safe, age-appropriate spaces: Students will remain in environments designed for full-time instruction with proper safety protocols, classrooms, restrooms and support spaces.
• Continuity of experience: Students and staff stay together, minimizing emotional and academic disruption.
• Fewer transitions overall: While some students will have a one-year temporary relocation, the overall construction timeline is shortened compared to other options, reducing long-term disruption.

Acknowledging the Challenges—And Planning for Them

There will be some logistical challenges, particularly during the year when two schools operate on a single campus. The district is committed to proactively managing:

• Transportation and traffic flow
• Clear communication to families
• Ongoing staff and student support

This swing-site model was selected because it avoids the larger-scale disruptions that occur when students remain in buildings under renovation. It also allows construction teams to work more efficiently, ultimately saving time and money.

This is a well-planned, student-centered approach that avoids temporary trailers or off-site displacement. It reflects the district’s commitment to providing safe, consistent, and high-quality learning environments throughout the entire process.

When evaluating how to fund planned facility improvements, District 109 considered three primary sources:

• Cash on hand (reserves)
• Bonds paid from operating funds (ongoing local tax revenue)
• Bonds issued through a voter-approved referendum (which impacts taxes)

From the outset, the District prioritized maximizing the use of non-referendum funding to limit the tax impact on homeowners while maintaining continuity in educational programs and services.

The final plan applies a blended funding strategy: 51% of the costs will be covered through cash reserves and bonds paid from operating funds, while the remaining 49% will be supported through a referendum. This method supports financial stability and long-term planning.

Additionally, in Illinois, school districts are permitted to issue bonds with terms of up to 30 years. Similar to a mortgage, extending the bond term reduces the District’s annual payments but increases the total interest paid over time. After evaluating several financing options, the Referendum Task Force recommended issuing 25-year bonds. This approach was selected because it strikes a prudent balance—keeping annual payments lower for taxpayers while limiting long-term interest costs compared to the maximum (30-year) term.

The full period will be from June 2026 to August 2029, with an additional year for demolition of the old buildings and regreening of the fields and other green space. If the Board decides to place the referendum on the ballot for the March 17, 2026 election, the proposed timeline would be: 

• Summers, 2026 and 2027: Middle school work
• June 2027 - August 2028: Construction of new school buildings for Walden and Wilmot
• August 2028: New Walden and Wilmot buildings open; existing Walden and Wilmot schools remain open as swing sites
• June 2028 - August 2029: Super renovations of Kipling and South Park 
• August 2029: Fully renovated Kipling and South Park schools open
• August 2029 through 2030: Demolition of old Walden and Wilmot buildings, conversion of green spaces

This question is one the District administration and the Referendum Task Force spent considerable time exploring.

The short answer: Waiting comes at a high cost.

Each year we delay action, the projected cost of construction increases by more than $11 million annually due to inflation, supply chain pressures, and ongoing emergency repairs. That means even if interest rates go down slightly, the savings would likely be offset, or even outweighed, by rising construction and labor costs. This concept is reinforced by the District’s estimate that the cost of doing nothing over 20 years could reach $177 million, with many facility needs worsening in the meantime.

In addition, the longer we wait, the more we risk:

• Catastrophic infrastructure failure, like plumbing or sewer line collapses that could shut down a school;
• Higher emergency repair costs, which are unplanned and disruptive;
• Continued deterioration of learning environments and student spaces, directly impacting instruction, support services, and safety;
• Loss of public trust, if issues escalate visibly without a long-term plan in place.

The Task Force's recommendation to the Superintendent to share this plan now is based on balancing these escalating risks and costs with the opportunity to engage the community meaningfully. While national economic variables like steel tariffs and interest rates are real considerations, the greater and more predictable risk lies in doing nothing. Acting now with a strategic, phased plan allows the District to avoid further inflation, costly repairs and missed opportunities to modernize learning spaces for all students. Moving forward with a well-informed public process gives the Board the information it needs to make the right decision at the right time.

The District annually contracts with a demographer to develop student enrollment projections. Over the last 15 years, our PK–8 enrollment declined through the early 2020s and has since stabilized.The demographer projects enrollment will remain essentially flat over the next decade, a change of only a few dozen students districtwide. In any demographic study, looking any further into the future would not yield reliable data. Their projections have been highly accurate; last year’s forecast was off by just one student:

Staff numbers also have changed. Our general education staff numbers have decreased with enrollment, while the number of special education staff has increased significantly to meet the needs of our students. 

The challenge in our elementary schools is functional capacity, not headcount. The way schools use space today, the way teaching and learning happens, is very different than when our buildings were designed. Our schools were built between 1949 and 1957, before modern special education laws existed, so they were not designed with the purpose-built rooms and flexible areas that current programs require. 

Specifically, we need more and better-suited space to support:

• Increased intervention and individualized student support 
• Decreased outplacement: District 109 serves more students who receive special education services in-district than many peers.
• Modern learning environments that use movement, play, collaboration, and flexible groupings, all of which require more space than when teachers stood at the front of the class and students sat in rows.  

Even with stable enrollment, the latest analysis shows elementary schools, especially in certain buildings, will exceed available capacity under current layouts. That is why we’re exploring targeted, right-sized facility solutions: to fit today’s student needs and programs safely and effectively, not to make room for a surge in enrollment.

While the District is sharing concepts of construction and design, detailed construction plans will be developed after the Board is able to gauge the level of community support for a potential ballot measure. 

The District has engaged Paul Timm, a national security expert, who will be involved in the development of those plans to ensure they address all appropriate safety considerations, including second-floor access that meets all fire safety codes as well as high-security access control throughout buildings.

It is not part of the current proposal to add kitchens to our schools. The construction cost, as well as the staff or vendor costs associated with that addition would be prohibitive. 

During construction, Walden and Wilmot will maintain one of their two playgrounds throughout construction. After construction, new playgrounds will be built to replace those taken down during construction. 

Under Illinois’ Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), often called the “tax cap,” the district’s total property tax revenue from existing properties can only increase each year by the lesser of 5% or the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). So, even if property values rise significantly, the total amount the district receives doesn’t automatically increase — instead, the tax rate adjusts downward to stay within the CPI limit. In other words, higher property assessments don’t translate into more dollars for the District overall; they simply shift how the total tax burden is distributed among taxpayers.

The only ways the District’s revenue can grow beyond that CPI cap are:

• Through new construction or annexed property (new taxable value added to the district), or
• With voter approval via a referendum.

Because of this, increases in property values alone wouldn’t generate the kind of new funding needed for large capital projects like new or renovated school buildings. Those projects require separate voter-approved funding, such as a building bond referendum.

While the District’s levy can increase annually by the CPI limit, construction costs have been rising much faster than CPI, meaning those modest increases do not keep pace with the true cost of building improvements or renovations.

Referendum bonds and alternate bonds are two different methods a school district can use to borrow money for major projects.

Referendum bonds require voter approval and represent a new tax increase beyond the district’s usual annual tax levy. State law limits the district’s annual tax increase to the lesser of 5% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI). When voters approve referendum bonds, the district is authorized to collect taxes above that limit to repay the bonds.

Alternate bonds, by contrast, do not increase taxes beyond the district’s existing levy. Instead, the district pledges to make payments on these bonds from funds already available within its annual budget. Because the 2+2 plan would reduce the ongoing maintenance investments needed to keep facilities operational, the district can redirect those saved funds to pay the principal and interest on the alternate bonds.

Both types of bonds function similarly to a homeowner’s mortgage—the district repays the borrowed funds with interest over time. In this proposal, the district anticipates issuing 25-year referendum and alternate bonds. Below are the estimated amounts, costs, and interest rates for each:

In Illinois, each local government entity — school districts, village, park district, fire prevention district, library, etc. — is a separate, legally independent taxing body created under state law. Each has its own:

• Governing board (elected by voters)
• Budget and tax levy authority
• Statutory responsibilities and revenue limits

Because of that legal independence, there’s no mechanism under state law for one coordinated “master tax plan” that controls or prioritizes all local levies or capital projects across multiple entities. Each body is accountable to voters for its own finances and facilities, and bond referenda or tax increases can only be proposed and approved by that specific entity.

Coordination Does Happen

While there’s no single tax master plan, voluntary coordination between agencies is common — especially in well-connected communities. Examples in Deerfield include:

• Sharing information about upcoming projects or referenda to minimize overlap or “tax fatigue.”
• Joint facility use or partnerships (e.g., shared fields, parking or programming between park districts and schools).
• Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) that allow collaboration on specific initiatives, cost-sharing or service delivery.
• Regular meetings among local leaders (sometimes informal, sometimes organized) to discuss timing, facility needs and community impact.

These efforts help agencies stay aligned on timing and community priorities — but they don’t consolidate budgets or taxing authority, and in the end, the governing bodies of each entity need to look at their current needs and make decisions that are best for the community based on the information (including community input) and resources available. 

Yes. After a successful referendum, there would be multiple opportunities for community input as the plans move into design and implementation. The formal village plan commission process would include public review and comment, and the District would also continue to invite feedback through surveys, community meetings and “good neighbor” sessions with residents who live near schools. In addition, public comment is always welcome during Board of Education meetings throughout the process.

During the 2022–2023 school year, the steering committee explored a wide range of facility consolidation options, including the possibility of combining the four elementary schools into two or three larger schools. After thorough evaluation, this approach was determined to be impractical for several key reasons:

• Site Limitations: None of the existing district sites could accommodate a school large enough to serve that many students and staff. Additionally, there is no available new site within the community that could support a school of that size. A larger consolidated school would require significantly more land, a larger building footprint, expanded parking, and increased bus traffic capacity—needs that exceed our current site availability.
• Community Priorities: Our community has consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining neighborhood schools. These smaller, community-based schools foster stronger family engagement and closer connections between students, staff, and families.

All registered voters within the District 109 boundaries would see the referendum on their ballot. 

If the referendum does not pass, the Board of Education would determine next steps. The Board may choose to gather additional community feedback, revise the proposal, and place a different question on the ballot in November 2026 or during a future election cycle. As shared during information sessions, construction costs continue to rise over time.

Another option would be for the Board to forego a future referendum and continue maintaining the district’s existing buildings. This approach has been outlined in presentations and is estimated to cost approximately $177 million over the next 20 years. 

District 109's tax rate falls in the middle of all Lake Country elementary districts (now and after the referendum). This shows the pre-referendum rate comparison.

When compared to all municipalities in Lake and Cook Counties, Deerfield falls in the middle (before and after the referendum). Here's the comparison before the referendum: