the reality of how d303  works

a submission from an concerned architecht

With a major school facilities referendum headed to the November 3 ballot, questions remain about construction costs, professional fees, existing debt, project oversight and safeguards for taxpayers.

St. Charles Community Unit School District 303 is asking voters to authorize $282.5 million in new bonds to fund a proposed $312.5 million facilities package. The district says $30 million will come from existing district resources, with the remaining amount financed through the referendum. 

The package includes roof replacements, mechanical and electrical upgrades, safety improvements, accessibility projects, classroom additions, career and technical education space, and a new physical education and athletic facility. The district’s Communitywide Education Facilities Committee previously identified approximately $187 million in deferred maintenance across district facilities.

Those are substantial numbers, and the public deserves more than a list of proposed projects and an estimate of the resulting property tax increase. Taxpayers also deserve a detailed explanation of how these costs were developed, how the work will be managed, what debt remains from previous projects and what protections will prevent this spending from creating another cycle of deferred maintenance.

A construction professional with decades of experience working on large-scale new construction and remodeling projects has raised several questions that merit public answers before voters commit to a major borrowing program and submitted the  folloiwng information to Kane County Speaks:

How Much Is Actually Being Spent on Construction?

One of the first questions is whether the proposed costs are reasonable compared with similar projects elsewhere in Northern Illinois.

The construction professional who shared these concerns with Kane County Speaks says architectural fees on projects of this type can commonly range from 8% to 12%, depending on the size, scope and complexity of the work. D303’s actual contractual fee structure and percentages would need to be confirmed through its agreements with the architects.

CONSERVATIVELY SPEAKING ONLY 8% OF $312,000,000 IS ABOUT $25,000,000, but on the high end, 12% would be $37,500,000. DAMN.....enjoy the spend D303 taxpayers and if we add another $14,000,000-20,000,000 in interest, how great it is to live in D303.

At a program costing hundreds of millions of dollars, professional fees warrant careful examination.  That's a RIDICULOUS amount of money given to any architectural entity, corporation or business.  In fact, it's gold that rains down from heaven to them.  But the costs are hell as the firm gets paid according to the contract, but homeowners pay like hell for at  least 25 years. 

Taxpayers need to see the architect’s contract, the fee calculation, the services included and any amendments NOW....NOT DOWN THE ROAD.  Do fees change when the final construction bids come in below the original estimates or the scope of work is reduced?   Who wants to roll the dice and gamble on that answer. 

The construction professional argues that the scale of the proposed spending warrants a serious comparison between renovating existing facilities and constructing new ones. A claim that the overall funding could support as many as 11 new school buildings has not been independently established by KCS and should not be treated as a verified cost estimate without supporting calculations. Still, the underlying question is reasonable:

Where is the documented comparison showing taxpayers why the proposed combination of repairs, additions and new facilities is the most economical approach?

That analysis should include the cost of maintaining older buildings over the next 20 to 30 years, not simply the immediate price of repairing them.  The taxpayers have NOTHING!  Nada.

What Is the Cost Per Square Foot?

Another important omission taxpayers should look for is a meaningful cost-per-square-foot comparison.

For each proposed classroom addition, the district should publish the anticipated building cost per square foot, excluding land and equipment, with a clear breakdown of what is included in the estimate. The same analysis should be provided for the proposed St. Charles North High School field house, which has been reported at approximately $62 million.

Those figures should be compared with recently completed, similarly sized school projects in Northern Illinois. Differences in building type, labor, materials, site conditions and design should be disclosed so taxpayers can make an apples-to-apples comparison.

Who Is Independently Protecting the Owner’s Interests?

Another question concerns construction management.  Has D303 retained an experienced construction management firm with recent school-building experience, separate from the architectural team?  Want to place another bet?  If they have, why isn't this disclosed.  Hmmmm.

A qualified construction manager can review specifications, identify alternative materials or construction methods, evaluate schedules, scrutinize bids, monitor change orders and provide independent oversight of the work. A construction manager can also serve as the district’s representative, helping coordinate the architect, contractors and district staff while monitoring quality, deadlines and costs.

The professional who raised these concerns argues that effective construction management can identify savings and reduce costly mistakes that might otherwise go undetected. Those savings are not guaranteed, and the value of the service depends on the firm, its scope and its performance. Nevertheless, its potential benefits deserve a clear evaluation before a multiyear construction program begins.

Taxpayers should know whether D303 has engaged such a firm, what services it will provide, what it will cost and what school projects the firm has managed recently.   If the district has not retained a dedicated construction manager, it should explain how it intends to provide comparable independent oversight.  But this should have been done prior to this even being on the referendum. 

What Happens if the Projects Cost Less Than Expected? 

Construction estimates are not final costs. Competitive bidding, changes in market conditions, revised scopes and financing terms can all affect a project’s final price.  That raises another question: If construction bids come in below budget or bond financing is less expensive than anticipated, how will the savings benefit taxpayers? Given D303's upward adjustments and the fact that things rarely go under budget, this should scare, frighten and terrify every D303 homeowner.

However, in the unlikely event that it comes under, the district should explain whether savings would reduce the amount of bonds issued, reduce the total project budget, pay down debt or be handled in another manner consistent with the bond authorization and applicable law.

The same transparency should apply to contingency funds and unused project allocations. Residents should know who has authority to approve transfers between projects, what limits apply and whether significant budget changes require further Board action.

It is not enough to report that a project finished under budget. The public should be able to see the original estimate, the final contract amount, approved change orders, total expenditures and the disposition of any remaining funds.

D303’s official referendum website says the district intends to provide updates on project schedules, expenditures, committed costs, available funds and overall budget status at public Board meetings. Those reports should give residents the detail needed to follow the money throughout the entire program.

Taxpayers Deserve a Complete Accounting now...

The D303 referendum is scheduled for next week, on November 3, 2026. But we're already voting.    People are voting without answers and the facts.  That again, should scare everyone going into Halloween.  Frightfest.

The district has outlined a broad facilities program and identified substantial maintenance needs, but the size of the proposed borrowing makes independent cost comparisons, debt disclosure and long-term oversight especially important.

These questions are not simply about whether a particular roof needs replacement or a classroom addition is desirable. They concern how public money will be spent, whether construction costs are competitive, how existing financial obligations affect taxpayers and what systems will prevent the same maintenance problems from accumulating again.

The district should publish the supporting construction estimates, professional-service contracts, cost-per-square-foot comparisons, construction management arrangements, complete debt schedules and applicable bond-law documentation in a format ordinary residents can understand.

It should also explain how potential savings will be handled and establish a transparent process for tracking every project from initial estimate through final payment.



A major public borrowing program should be accompanied by a major commitment to transparency. Before taxpayers are asked to assume $282.5 million in new bond obligations, they deserve clear, documented answers about what the money will buy, how the work will be managed and how the district will protect them over the full life of the debt.