Clik here to view.
Staff and board members from both public school districts in Evanston shared concerns Wednesday about financial feasibility, clarity and potential administrative burden of the Healthy Buildings Ordinance at a City-School Liaison Committee meeting held at ETHS.
Representatives from the city and Districts 202 and 65 spent nearly an hour discussing the matter, closing with District 202 Superintendent Marcus Campbell saying there is “more work that needs to be done in our teams with each other to see the path forward.”
Although both districts support the goal of decarbonization, participants communicated a desire for more specific outlines of ways to comply and the expected benchmarks.
“While we all support this being the finish line, the path is so vague,” said Kendra Williams, ETHS chief financial officer. “The different scenarios that are being presented are all hypothetical, and it is hard to support something because we’re dealing with real dollars.”
Concerns with costs
Fourth Ward Council Member Jonathan Nieuwsma kicked off the meeting with an explanation of the proposed ordinance, which the council pushed back at least to its next meeting, after a long debate at Monday night’s meeting.
Monday’s debate was sparked in part by concerns listed in a letter to the city signed by both district superintendents.
Signatories cited concerns with costs and the undefined nature of aspects of the ordinance, especially alternative compliance options.
Nieuwsma told the group that the Healthy Buildings Ordinance is an “enabling ordinance,” and meant to be less defined. Passing it will allow the city to establish a technical working group and community engagement working group. These groups, he explained, will then work with stakeholders like the school districts to achieve both financial and climate sustainability.
“It’s not the intent of this ordinance to prioritize climate sustainability over financial sustainability,” Nieuwsma said. “It’s not our intent to drive businesses out of business. It’s not our intent to drive school districts into the red.”
He also explained that the ordinance is not prescriptive — meaning it does not tell the schools how to achieve their goals — but that staff will be available to help them find funding sources and set a path of alternative compliance.
Catch-22
In a bit of a catch-22, Nieuwsma and city sustainability staff explained passage of the ordinance is needed before committees can be formed so that rules can be made, but both school districts asked for more rules and guidelines prior to the ordinance passing.
“We 100% support the intent,” said District 65 Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Stacy Beardsely. “We are just trying to make sure that this doesn’t feel aspirational beyond attainment.”
Beardsley shared a trio of thoughts on the ordinance, first citing an interest in more defined rules, which District 202’s Campbell shared.
“We probably don’t need to do the kitchen sink here, but I think it is a very aggressive finish line,” she said. “It sounds like it’s a long way away, but it’s not.”
Second on the list was the cost of the project — according to Beardsley, the district has already looked at electric alternatives to boilers to heat schools. The implementation cost seemed to be not terribly higher than a gas boiler, but the impact on operating costs would be immense.
ETHS’ Director of Operations and Sustainability John Crawford also mentioned the school looked into converting the school’s high-pressure steam boilers into a geothermal system, but the cost would have been $100 million.
Williams chimed in that the school typically has only $2 million to $3 million to invest in capital improvements each year, and it goes toward advancements that support the current educational environment.
Finally, Beardsley reminded the gathered body of the dwindling number of District 65 admins. She worried that the reporting and maintenance required by the ordinance would overburden an already stretched-thin staff.
On the topic of funding
When it comes to money, a number of things are up in the air — including the $10.4 million grant Evanston was awarded for building electrification.
“I can’t personally guarantee that money’s gonna come,” Nieuwsma said. “If it doesn’t, we’ll have to rethink.” The city has only a conditional letter of approval for the funds, not a signed grant agreement.
City Sustainability and Resilience Coordinator Cara Pratt explained that part of the reason this grant was funded was its focus on equity — the very concept that the current federal administration is seeking to eliminate in funding.
“The only communication that we’ve received explicitly from the federal government is that the aspects of the grant related to equity,” Pratt said, “are at risk of not being awarded.”
Nieuwsma said other state funding sources are available if the city cannot rely on the federal government for the next several years. According to Fifth Ward Council Member Bobby Burns, these need to be made much clearer to involved parties.
“This probably feels to District 65 or District 202 like the unfunded mandate, because we don’t know where the funding is going to come from,” Burns said. “If they knew they could achieve it, and if they knew where the money was coming from, it wouldn’t feel so much like an unfunded mandate.”
School districts seek clarity ahead of Healthy Buildings Ordinance is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.