Frequently Asked Questions

I am reading information online that contradicts what the District is reporting. How do I know which information is accurate?

We understand that residents are encountering different interpretations of the District's finances, enrollment, tax rates, and referendum proposal, particularly on social media.

We encourage everyone to attend Informational forums, ask questions, review the information, and examine the original sources.

The District's financial information is not simply generated internally without outside oversight. District finances are subject to independent annual audits, state financial reporting requirements, and review by outside financial professionals and credit rating agencies.

Likewise, the District's enrollment projections are informed by independent demographic studies conducted in 2017, 2024, and 2026, in collaboration with the Village of Lemont and Lemont High School District 210.

It is important to distinguish between factual data, interpretations of that data, and opinions about the referendum. Residents may reasonably disagree about the proposal, but financial figures and enrollment statistics should be evaluated using consistent, verifiable sources.

We encourage residents to consult the District's audited financial reports, official enrollment data, demographic studies, and published referendum materials rather than relying solely on individual social media posts.

Our commitment is to provide accurate, transparent information so that every resident can make an informed decision.

Why did the School District "allow" so many new housing developments to be built if our schools are already crowded?

The School District does not approve residential developments, issue building permits, establish zoning regulations, or determine how many homes may be constructed within the community. Those decisions are made by the appropriate municipal and governmental authorities, not the Board of Education.

However, SD113A does participate in the Village of Lemont's Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, where the District has an opportunity to review proposed developments, provide information, and communicate potential impacts on school enrollment and facilities.

It is also important to understand that the District's enrollment growth is not simply the result of new subdivisions.

Growth has come from several sources, including:

• Existing homes being purchased by younger families with school-age children.
• Students transferring from private and parochial schools into SD113A. The District has enrolled 166 such students over the past three years.
• New residential construction and families moving into the community.
• Continued changes in the number of school-age children living in existing neighborhoods.

In fact, the District has already experienced record enrollment growth before seeing the full student impact of Glen Eagles, one of the area's larger residential developments. The District's responsibility is to educate the children who live within its boundaries, regardless of how or when those families arrived. 

While SD113A does not control residential development, it is responsible for monitoring enrollment, planning for future needs, and ensuring that students have appropriate learning environments.

What happens if the proposal is approved by voters?

If the proposal is approved by voters, the district would be able to generate $6 million annually, giving the District the ability to create additional classroom spaces at each of our four schools while other funds will be used to staff, maintain, and support these additional classrooms in order to keep class sizes reasonable. The timeline for planning and construction would be developed quickly but could take up to two years to build the additions onto each building. Please refer to the presentation linked at the top of the webpage for more details.

What happens if the proposal is not approved by voters?

The District would need to continue evaluating ways to accommodate enrollment within its existing facilities and resources, including increasing class sizes, further repurposing instructional spaces and other operational or facility alternatives. Class sizes would continue to increase and the District would have to continue to assess next steps. Additionally, larger spaces in the schools like Library Resource Centers or dedicated specials’ classrooms may need to be transformed into general education classrooms with those programs either becoming mobile (on carts) or being eliminated.

What does a limiting rate actually mean?

In Illinois education, the "limiting rate" is the maximum property tax rate a school district can levy for funds subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL). It acts as a revenue control mechanism, capping a district's annual property tax extensions to the lesser of 5% or the rate of inflation (CPI).

Is enrollment really increasing in the school district?

Yes. This is actual enrollment growth—not simply projected growth based on future housing developments. SD113A is currently at the highest enrollment level in the District’s history, exceeding our previous historical peak. Enrollment has grown nearly 26% over the past decade, and actual enrollment has exceeded projections from previous demographic studies.

Importantly, this growth is not coming from one source. We are seeing students enter SD113A as existing homes turn over to younger families, students transfer into the District from private and parochial schools, and new families move into the community. New residential development is certainly another factor, but much of the growth we are experiencing today has occurred before we have seen the full student impact of newer developments such as Glen Eagles.

The District’s enrollment data already show record growth independent of the students those developments may ultimately generate. As a recent example, at last night's Board meeting, I reported that we have had 29 new students enroll into the District since last month's Board meeting.

Why didn’t the District plan better to anticipate this level of growth?

The District has been actively planning for growth. We commissioned independent demographic studies in 2017, 2024, and again in 2026. Each of these studies were conducted in collaboration with Lemont High School and the Village of Lemont. Actual enrollment met or exceeded even the highest projections from 2017 and 2024, and enrollment last year was more than 500 students higher than projected in the 2017 study.

The District has also taken significant, conservative and methodical steps before asking the community for additional resources. Most notably, we reopened Central School in 2022 specifically to create additional capacity and reduce class sizes. Since Central reopened, approximately 300 additional students have enrolled in SD113A. We have continued to maximize existing facilities, including converting spaces such as learning resource center and multipurpose areas into classrooms.

Our approach has been to use the space and resources we already have before making a larger investment in additional facilities. The challenge now is that continued enrollment growth has brought us to a point where those strategies alone are no longer sufficient. We have explored building a new building (the most costly option), adding modular classrooms (costly, safety/security concerns, and a temporary solution), doing nothing, or adding additions to each campus, and ultimately decided that building additions was the most reasonable and cost-effective solution.

Why is the District seeking a limiting rate increase?

The primary driver is continued enrollment growth and the need for additional classroom space while maintaining reasonable class sizes, academic programs, transportation, student support services, and safe and appropriate learning environments.

Why is the District asking for a permanent operating tax increase instead of a building bond referendum?

This is an important distinction because the District's needs extend beyond constructing additional classrooms.

A building bond referendum would provide funding for construction, but it would not provide the ongoing operating revenue necessary to staff, maintain, and support those additional classrooms.

The District's proposal addresses two connected needs: additional physical space for students and the ongoing costs of operating those spaces.

If approved, the proposed 36-cent limiting rate increase is estimated to generate approximately $6 million annually. The District's financial plan allocates that revenue to construction-related financing, additional teachers and support staff, utilities, and other operating expenses.
The District anticipates approximately $40–45 million in capital costs for additions across all four schools. Those construction costs are only one component of the plan. Simply constructing classrooms without providing the resources to staff and operate them would not address the District's long-term enrollment challenges.

The Board selected a limiting rate referendum to address both facility and operating needs through one coordinated financial plan.

Why is the proposed tax increase permanent if SD113A already spends significantly less per student than other Illinois school districts?

We understand that residents have concerns about a permanent tax increase. It is important to consider this question in the context of how efficiently SD113A operates, the alternatives explored, and the district's history of fiscal responsibility.

If approved, this would be only the third permanent operating tax rate increase in SD113A in the last 50 years. This is not a request the district makes frequently or takes lightly. The Board and administration explored alternatives before determining that a permanent operating increase would address both the construction and ongoing operational costs associated with continued enrollment growth.

SD113A spends approximately $6,500 less per student annually than the Illinois average. With approximately 2,730 students, that represents nearly $18 million less in annual spending than a hypothetical district serving the same number of students at the statewide average expenditure.

Even when factoring in the approximately $6 million in additional annual revenue proposed through the referendum, SD113A would still be operating at approximately $12 million less annually than that statewide comparison, assuming other spending remains unchanged.

Additionally, SD113A's annual school property tax commitment remains among the lowest in the surrounding area, based on the district's comparison of local school tax rates. This is an important consideration when examining both the proposed increase and the district's overall financial picture.

The proposed increase is permanent because the needs it addresses are ongoing. While constructing additional classrooms is a one-time expense, staffing, maintaining, and operating those classrooms requires sustainable funding year after year. Alternatives such as using reserves, repurposing existing spaces, and other facility and financing options were considered, but they do not fully address both the immediate space needs and ongoing operating costs. SD113A operates with per-pupil expenditures among the lowest in Illinois while all four schools perform exceptionally well.

What is the history of voter-approved operating tax rate increases in SD113A?

The District has a limited history of voter approval for additional operating tax authority. Prior to the 2021 operating rate increase approved by voters, the last approved operating rate increase was in 1977. Voters approved a construction bond referendum in 1994 for the construction of OQMS, but that was not an operating limiting rate increase. In 2021, voters approved additional operating tax authority at no cost to the tax payers. The District's audited financial report documents a new limiting rate of $2.124 beginning with the 2021 levy year. The measure supported Central School's reopening, full-day kindergarten, and class-size needs.

In 2026, there is now a proposed 36-cent increase for voters to consider a new limiting rate estimated to generate $6 million in additional annual revenue.

I don't want my property taxes to increase. Why should I have to pay more?

We understand this question. No one wants to pay more in property taxes, especially when families, seniors, and residents on fixed incomes are already facing rising costs. These concerns are real, reasonable, and deserve to be acknowledged.

The reality is that Illinois relies heavily on local property taxes to fund public education. Unlike states that provide a larger share of school funding at the state level, Illinois places significant responsibility on local communities to support their public schools. Our community also does not have significant commercial or industry property, so much of the local tax burden falls on home owners. 

SD113A has worked to keep costs low while maintaining strong educational outcomes. The district spends approximately $13,500 per student in operational expenditures, placing it among the lowest 20% of districts statewide, while all four SD113A schools have continuously performed exceptionally well academically.

In other words, SD113A has consistently demonstrated that it can do more with less.
The district has also maintained one of the lower school district tax rates in the surrounding area, earned the state's highest financial recognition for 14 consecutive years, and operates under a balanced budget policy.
However, enrollment has increased by approximately 26% over the past decade, and the district is now serving more students than ever before. While the district has continued to maximize existing resources, enrollment growth has created additional demands for classroom space, staffing, and operations.

The November 3 referendum asks voters to consider additional funding to address those needs. If approved, the district plans to add 40 classrooms across its four schools and provide the staffing and operational resources associated with those additions. If it does not pass, the district will continue operating within its existing facilities and available resources, with larger class sizes and fewer dedicated instructional spaces anticipated as enrollment grows.

We recognize that any tax increase matters to our residents. Our responsibility is to provide accurate information about the district's finances, the needs created by enrollment growth, and the potential impact of either outcome so every voter can make an informed decision.

If the District is requesting $6 million annually, where exactly would that money go?

The proposed $6 million is not an arbitrary figure. It was developed from projected financing, staffing, and operational costs associated with the expansion plan.

The District is proposing approximately 40 additional classrooms across its four schools, with 7 at Oakwood, 7 at River Valley, 14 at Central, and 12 at Old Quarry. These estimates account for the ongoing personnel and operational resources necessary to serve a growing student population.

If the 36-cent referendum passes, could my taxes increase more than the estimated amount shown in the tax calculator on the district’s website?

The SD113A Board of Education has committed to adjusting the tax levy to ensure that the referendum generates only the additional $6 million needed to support the district’s facility and operational needs.

When the Board voted to place the referendum question on the ballot, the financial information required for the ballot language was nearly two years old. More current property assessment information was not yet available, as Cook County's second-installment tax bills had not been finalized.

When the Board adopts its tax levy in December, more current financial information will be available. This will allow the Board to make the necessary adjustments to minimize the impact on taxpayers while generating the additional $6 million.

Importantly, this adjustment would be incorporated into the district's ongoing levy calculations rather than requiring an annual correction. As a result, the actual tax rate increase is expected to be less than the 36 cents identified in the referendum question.

The district's goal remains clear: to generate the funding necessary to address enrollment growth while minimizing the financial impact on taxpayers.

If the referendum does not pass, won't the district still receive additional revenue from property reassessments?

No. Taxing bodies in tax-capped counties such as Cook and DuPage only receive additional tax dollars from new development, not from increases in existing property valuations.  

Think of it this way: The school district can only collect so much property tax money each year. That limit doesn't automatically increase just because home values go up.

For example, if your home's assessed value goes up 30%, the school district doesn't get 30% more money.
Instead, the reassessment helps determine how the total tax bill is divided among homeowners. Some homeowners may pay more, while others may pay less, depending on how their property values changed compared to everyone else's.

So even if your property taxes increase, the school district doesn't necessarily get a corresponding increase in funding.
Imagine the district can collect $100 from ten homeowners. The County reassesses their homes, and some are now worth more than others.

The district is still limited to collecting that same $100, plus whatever small annual increase the law allows based on the rate of inflation. What changes is how much each homeowner contributes toward that total.

The key takeaway for a resident to remember is:

“Your home's value can go up significantly without the school district receiving more money.”

If the District has healthy financial reserves and runs an annual surplus, why does it need additional tax revenue?

SD113A's strong financial position is the result of years of disciplined budgeting and careful financial management. The District maintains a balanced budget policy and has earned the Illinois State Board of Education's highest financial recognition category for 14 consecutive years.

The District currently maintains approximately 232 days of operating reserves. Under the proposed financial plan, the Board anticipates committing approximately $5–10 million of those reserves toward the construction project, reducing reserves to approximately 180 days, the base minimum required to maintain financial recognition status.

Reserves are important for financial stability, cash flow, unexpected expenditures, and long-term planning. However, reserves are a finite resource. The District does not have enough in reserves to build the classrooms that they currently need, nor does reserves sustainably support ongoing annual expenses such as salaries, benefits, utilities, and building operations indefinitely.

Having strong financial reserves does not eliminate the need to plan for the recurring costs associated with a growing student population. The referendum is not intended to resolve a financial crisis. It is intended to provide the additional facilities and ongoing resources necessary to serve increasing enrollment.

Doesn't SD113A already receive additional property tax revenue when new homes are built?

Yes. New residential construction adds property to the District's tax base and can generate additional revenue. However, new homes can also bring additional students, and the cost of educating those students can exceed the additional revenue generated by the homes.

For perspective, SD113A's operational expenditure is approximately $13,537 per student annually.

Using an illustrative $3,500 annual SD113A tax contribution from a home, it would take approximately four such homes to equal the annual operating cost of educating one student.

That comparison does not account for the cost of building additional classrooms or expanding facilities. Additionally, under Illinois' Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), annual increases in existing-property tax extensions are restricted, while new property is treated separately. The District receives a one time impact fee from each home, and that doesn’t begin to cover the cost of educating a student.

The District considers new development revenue in its financial planning, but that revenue alone is not projected to fund the additional construction, staffing, and operating costs associated with continued enrollment growth.

Is this request the result of financial problems or overspending?

No. The referendum is being presented to address enrollment, facility capacity, and the operational needs associated with serving a larger student population—not to address a financial crisis.

How do SD113A school taxes compare to neighboring districts?

The financial challenges District 113A faces today are not the result of overspending. Compared with peer districts, District 113A operates with a lower tax rate, lower per-pupil spending, and lower State funding, clear evidence of long-standing fiscal discipline and careful resource management. Many peer districts have tax rates significantly higher than District 113A’s, receive substantially more State Evidence-Based Funding per student, and spend significantly more per pupil each year, underscoring the District’s sustained commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Many peer districts have tax rates up to 45% higher than District 113A’s, receive substantially more State Evidence-Based Funding per student, and spend at  least 30% more per pupil each year,  underscoring the District’s sustained  commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Tax Rate Comparison 

How does SD113A's spending compare to neighboring districts?

The financial challenges District 113A faces today are not the result of overspending. Compared with peer districts, District 113A operates with a lower tax rate, lower per-pupil spending, and lower State funding, clear evidence of longstanding fiscal discipline and careful resource management. Many peer districts have tax rates significantly higher than District 113A’s, receive substantially more State Evidence-Based Funding per student, and spend significantly more per pupil each year, underscoring the District’s sustained commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Instructional Per Pupil Spending Comparison 

Operational Per Pupil Spending Comparison 

What will this cost me?

District 113A is placing a limiting rate referendum on the November 2026 ballot. If approved, the limiting rate increase would generate an estimated $6,000,000 annually. Use the online tax calculator to calculate your home’s tax impact.

What would the additional revenue support?

If approved by voters, the 36-cent limiting rate increase is estimated to generate approximately $6 million annually. It would allow the District to create additional classroom space at all four schools and provide the staffing, maintenance, and operational resources necessary to support those classrooms.

Why are there so many administrators in District 113A? Couldn’t the District cut administrative costs instead?

District 113A actually operates with one of the leanest administrative structures in the area. The District has one of the highest number of students per administrator among comparable local districts, meaning fewer administrators are supporting more students.

District 113A is a nearly $40 million organization serving more than 2,700 students across four schools, yet many major district functions—including finance, human resources, teaching and learning, technology, transportation, and buildings and grounds—are each led by just one administrator. 

The District also does not employ several administrative positions commonly found in comparable districts, such as dedicated directors for communications, multilingual education, early childhood, or assessment.

Reducing this already-lean administrative structure would not address the underlying issue driving the referendum: continued enrollment growth and the need for additional classroom space and staffing to serve more students.

Why didn’t the District do more to plan for this growth?

The District has taken several steps over many years to accommodate enrollment growth before asking voters to consider additional resources.

Most notably, Central School reopened in 2022 to create additional classroom capacity and reduce class sizes. Since that time, approximately 300 additional students have enrolled.

The District has also conducted three independent demographic studies, repurposed existing instructional spaces, adjusted staffing, explored alternative facilities, and evaluated options ranging from modular classrooms to construction of an entirely new school.

Despite these efforts, enrollment has continued to increase beyond earlier projections. The District is now experiencing record enrollment, and all four schools are using space that was not originally intended for regular classroom instruction. The proposed additions are intended to address current space limitations while preparing for projected enrollment growth.

Why doesn't the District just hire more teachers to keep class sizes smaller?

Hiring additional teachers requires available classrooms in which those teachers can work. Currently, SD113A does not have sufficient unused classroom space across its four schools to accommodate continued enrollment growth.

The District has already converted or repurposed areas such as learning resource centers, multipurpose rooms, and other shared instructional spaces. Adding staff without additional classrooms would not solve the underlying capacity issue. The proposed referendum is designed to address both needs: physical classroom space and the personnel required to serve students in those spaces.

What happens if the referendum is not approved?

If the referendum is not approved, SD113A will continue educating the students who reside within its boundaries using its existing facilities and available resources. However, continued enrollment growth would require the District to evaluate additional adjustments.

Those could include larger class sizes over time, further repurposing of existing instructional areas, fewer dedicated spaces for specialized programs, and additional operational or facility alternatives.

Without additional classrooms, the District would also have less flexibility to add teaching staff as enrollment increases. The District has projected that, without additional space, average class sizes could eventually reach approximately 32 students at the elementary level and 37 at the middle school level under its planning assumptions.

These are projections, not current District-wide averages.

The Board and administration would continue to evaluate available options based on enrollment, educational needs, financial resources, and facility capacity.

What has the district done to prepare for growth?

• Reopened Central School for the 2022-23 school year
• Repurposed internal spaces (LRCs, shared rooms)
• Adjusted staffing to meet increasing enrollment
• Explored reclaiming district-owned property
• Conducted multiple demographic studies
• Participated in Village Technical Review Committee processes
• Acquired adjacent property to expand parking at Central

What steps did the District previously take to address enrollment growth and why are additional solutions needed now?

In 2022-2023, the District reopened Central School as part of its plan to address increasing enrollment and reduce class sizes. That plan accomplished its intended goal and provided additional classroom space across the District.

Since that time, however, enrollment has continued to grow. Approximately 300 additional students have enrolled in the District since Central reopened, creating new space needs that were not present in 2022-2023. The District has continued to monitor this growth through multiple independent enrollment studies, including the most recent study in 2026. 

As enrollment has increased, the District has taken a measured approach—using existing space efficiently, making adjustments within its schools, and continuing to monitor enrollment before considering larger facility investments.

Based on current enrollment and projections, additional classroom space is now needed to maintain reasonable class sizes and provide appropriate learning environments for students. Rather than constructing a new school, which is estimated to cost approximately $65–70 million or more, the District is proposing additions to its existing school campuses. This approach is intended to address current and projected enrollment needs while making use of the District’s existing facilities and infrastructure.

What other options have been explored?

To address current and future capacity needs, SD113A has evaluated short and long term facility expansion solutions including:

• Classroom additions at all existing schools
• Use of modular (temporary) classrooms
• Reclaiming district-owned facilities
• Building a new school

How much space is left in the four schools currently used by SD113A to handle expansion within our community?

We currently do not have available classroom space at our four schools to be able to handle current and projected enrollment increases.

Why not build a new building?

SD113A is a good steward of taxpayer dollars, and when facing challenges with space, opted for the most cost-effective solution for facilities, which is adding onto current buildings. We considered building a new building; however, the cost was the highest of the options. Additionally, other districts have utilized a similar option and found that enrollment numbers didn’t increase to those levels, resulting in school closures, which we want to avoid for our taxpayers.

Our facilities were built to last and are well-maintained, but the challenges of simply not having enough space to serve our growing student population require the district to look into other options. Additionally, this proposal ensures that not only will we create extra spaces, but we will have the funds to staff those spaces and keep class sizes reasonable while maintaining our commitment to excellence in programming. 

Is there space to add onto all of the buildings?

Yes. SD113A is partnering with architects to determine the priorities for this proposal which will include renderings of planned additions and renovations. There is not a need to purchase additional land at this time, but the district is closely watching properties around schools with future growth in mind. 

Draft Building Addition Renderings

Why not build a new school or use modular classrooms instead of adding onto our existing schools?

The District evaluated all of those options. A new school is estimated to cost approximately $65–70 million or more and would require significantly greater operating costs once opened. Modular classrooms are temporary, still costly, and create additional safety, security, supervision, and logistical concerns. Additions allow the District to use the infrastructure and campuses we already own while adding permanent classroom space where students are already being served. The District determined additions were the most reasonable long-term approach among the options considered.

Aren’t we overbuilding by adding classrooms at all four schools? What if this enrollment growth is just a temporary blip and enrollment declines again in a few years?

That is exactly why the District is proposing additions rather than constructing an entirely new school. The District has taken a measured approach because enrollment can change over time. However, the growth we are addressing is already occurring, not simply projected: enrollment is currently at the highest level in District history and has grown nearly 26% over the past decade. Independent demographic studies were conducted in 2017, 2024, and 2026 in collaboration with the Village of Lemont and LHS, and actual enrollment exceeded previous projections. The District also reopened Central School in 2022 to create additional capacity, and approximately 300 more students have enrolled since then.

The additions are intended to address current space pressures and projected needs without taking on the much larger cost and capacity of an entirely new school. The District has already converted or repurposed existing instructional spaces, and there is currently no available classroom space across the four schools to absorb continued growth. 

Our goal is to solve a real capacity problem that exists today while being careful not to build more than we reasonably believe we will need tomorrow.

What is the capacity of Lemont High School District 210 and the background regarding their facility planning?

Lemont High School District 210 first established its Facilities Plan in 2018 to ensure long-term facility readiness. Building on the 2006 referendum, which established student capacity for up to 2,000 students, the district passed a Debt Service Extension Based Referendum in 2022 to help fund capital improvements. Long-term planning ensures the high school modernizes space allocation and adapts to shifting academic, athletic, and co-curricular program needs as the community grows. 

Why isn't the district considering redrawing its boundaries?

We understand why residents may ask whether District 113A could simply redraw its boundaries so certain neighborhoods attend another school district. That process is called detachment and annexation, and it is much different than redistricting within 113A. It requires a formal legal process and approval outside of the District.

More importantly, our responsibility is to plan for and educate the students who live within District 113A—not to solve enrollment growth by asking another community or school district to take our students. Detaching neighborhoods would also remove the property tax base associated with those areas and impact families who purchased homes within 113A. For those reasons, we do not believe shifting our enrollment challenges to neighboring districts is a responsible long-term solution.

Why doesn’t the District just redistrict students among its four schools instead of adding classrooms?

Redistricting - or changing which 113A school students attend - would not solve the District’s overall space issue. All four schools are currently being utilized, and enrollment is projected to continue increasing. Moving students from one SD113A school to another changes where students are located; it does not create additional classroom capacity across the District.

Have you considered a year-round or alternative academic calendar as a way to accommodate the student population growth?

A four-track, year-round school calendar is a model some districts have used to address enrollment growth without constructing additional classrooms. While this can theoretically increase building capacity, there are also significant educational, operational, financial, and logistical challenges to implementing this model in SD113A.

1. Our four schools serve different grade levels. With Oakwood serving PreK–1, River Valley serving grades 2–3, Central serving grades 4–5, and Old Quarry serving grades 6–8, coordinating four separate calendars would be extremely complicated. Families with children in multiple buildings could have children attending school on entirely different schedules.
2. Staffing needs would not disappear. Every student would still require the same number of instructional days, qualified teachers, and support services. The district would need to coordinate staggered teacher schedules, year-round administrative coverage, and potentially additional staff to support overlapping schedules.
3. Special education and student services would be significantly more complicated. Students receiving special education, speech therapy, occupational therapy, counseling, multilingual services, and academic interventions would still require those services. Coordinating specialized staff across four different calendars could increase staffing needs and costs while complicating service delivery.
4. Transportation would present major logistical challenges. SD113A transports more than 2,200 students daily. Four separate calendars would require year-round transportation operations, ongoing route adjustments, and coordination for families whose children attend different schools or tracks. Transportation costs would increase substantially and staffing would remain a major concern.
5. Operating costs could increase. Buildings would be occupied nearly year-round, increasing expenses for air conditioning, utilities, custodial services, food service, security, and general operations. 
6. Summer maintenance and construction would become more difficult. The district relies heavily on summer months for major maintenance, renovations, flooring replacements, technology upgrades, and other improvements. Year-round occupancy would limit access to buildings and could increase project costs.
7. The impact on families and the community would be substantial. Childcare, summer camps, vacations, park district programs, athletics, and other activities are structured around traditional school calendars. Families would need to arrange childcare during multiple breaks throughout the year, and coordinating schedules with Lemont High School would present additional challenges because families with students in both districts would be reliant on common calendars.
8. The 33% capacity increase is theoretical, not guaranteed. Actual capacity depends on grade-level enrollment, classroom configurations, class sizes, specialized spaces, and staffing. Students cannot always be divided evenly among four tracks, and certain classrooms and programs could remain overcrowded.
9. Year-round schooling does not automatically improve academic achievement. A multitrack calendar is primarily a building-capacity strategy, not an instructional improvement strategy. SD113A has solid academic performance, and we spend a great deal of time making sure our students are appropriately placed with the right teachers and staff. Students would not receive additional instructional days, and the district would need to consider impacts on academic interventions, instructional continuity, assessments, and staff collaboration.
10. Employee agreements and recruitment would be affected. Teacher and support staff contracts, work calendars, professional development, and vacation schedules would require negotiations. Recruiting and retaining educators could also become more challenging when neighboring districts operate traditional calendars.
11. Enrollment growth would still need to be addressed. A four-track calendar would redistribute when students attend school, but it would not reduce the number of students requiring teachers, services, and educational opportunities.

A four-track calendar could increase the number of students assigned to our existing buildings, but it would fundamentally change how our schools operate and how families, staff, and students experience public education in our schools. It would also introduce additional costs and complexities without necessarily addressing class sizes, staffing needs, or instructional quality. I appreciate you reaching out about this.

How do I vote?

Election Day is Tuesday,  Nov. 3 with early voting beginning on Monday, Oct. 19. and ending on Monday, Nov. 2.

You must be registered to vote and reside in SD113A to participate in the Limiting Rate Referendum Election. 

Get more information about the voting process from the links below:

• Illinois State Board of Elections
• Village of Lemont Elections Information 
• Cook County Clerk’s Office
• DuPage County Clerk’s Office

Is Bromberek School part of the November 2026 referendum plan?

No, the District cannot assume that Bromberek will be available because the matter remains in litigation and both the timing and outcome are uncertain.

For that reason, District 113A must plan for enrollment and facility needs based on the capacity it can reasonably rely upon today.

If Bromberek later becomes available for District use, the Board would evaluate how the approximately 450-student facility could be incorporated into the District's facility plan based on enrollment, building condition, renovation costs, grade configurations and other circumstances at that time.

The referendum and the Bromberek litigation are separate matters. The referendum addresses the District's current enrollment and facility needs, while the District continues to pursue its legal rights concerning a District-owned property.

Why did District 113A originally lease Bromberek School to the Archdiocese of Chicago for St Alphonsus St Patrick  School (SASP)?

District 113A supports families having educational choices and recognizes that a strong private and parochial school presence can be an important part of the community.

In the early 2000s, the 113A community was experiencing significant population growth. District 113A had recently opened River Valley School, which created additional capacity for the District and left Bromberek School available for another use.

At the same time, Catholic school enrollment in Lemont was substantially higher than it is today with 934 students enrolled in their combined campuses in the 2001-2002 school year (617 SSCM and 317 SASP).

District 113A and the Archdiocese viewed the availability of educational space as a broader community issue and worked together on a solution. The result was a lease with option to purchase that allowed SASP to operate in the District-owned Bromberek School for annual rent of $51,489, or approximately $4,290 per month.

The arrangement provided SASP with additional space while putting an otherwise vacant District facility to use.

Why did District 113A approach St Alphonsus St Patrick  School (SASP) and the Archdiocese about reclaiming Bromberek School for District use?

In recent years, the community has again experienced a significant change in school enrollment and available classroom capacity—but this time in the opposite direction.

District 113A enrollment has grown substantially and is now at an all-time high, creating increasing pressure on the District's available classroom space. At the same time, enrollment in Lemont's Catholic schools has declined significantly from the levels that existed when the Bromberek lease was established.

Much as the District and Archdiocese did more than two decades ago, District 113A approached SASP and the Archdiocese to discuss whether the community's existing educational facilities could be used differently in light of current enrollment and capacity needs.

The District hoped the parties could reach a mutually agreeable solution that would allow District 113A to regain use of Bromberek while providing sufficient space for the community's parochial school students.

The parties were ultimately unable to reach an agreement. District 113A provided notice that it intended to reclaim Bromberek for District use, and the parties' differing interpretations of their rights under the lease are now being addressed through litigation.

Why is the District pursuing Bromberek School when the  Archdiocese of Chicago believes its lease with option to purchase gives it the right to remain in the building?

The District and the Archdiocese have different interpretations of their rights under the lease, and that disagreement is currently being addressed through the legal process.|

The District 113A Board of Education has an obligation to evaluate cost-effective ways to provide adequate educational space for a growing student population.

When enrollment began increasing, the District commissioned demographic studies, evaluated its existing facilities, and ultimately reopened Central School in 2022.

The Board has approached Bromberek School in a similar manner. Like Central School, Bromberek is a District-owned building originally constructed with public funds for public education. As enrollment and space needs have increased, the Board determined that it was appropriate to evaluate whether Bromberek could again be used to educate District 113A students.

The courts will ultimately determine the parties' respective legal rights under the lease.

What would the District do with Bromberek School if it ultimately regains use of the building?

In May 2024, District 113A notified the Archdiocese of Chicago that it wished to reclaim Bromberek School for District use. At that time, the District's goal was to reopen the building as a District 113A school for the 2026–27 school year.

With an estimated capacity of approximately 450 students, the Board believed Bromberek could provide meaningful additional classroom capacity while making use of an existing District-owned facility.

Because the matter remains in litigation, the original 2026–27 timeline was not achievable and the timing and ultimate availability of Bromberek remain uncertain.

If the District ultimately regains use of the building, the Board would evaluate the building's condition, renovation requirements, enrollment at that time, grade-level configurations, transportation, staffing, and the District's overall facility plan before determining exactly how Bromberek would be used.

The District's use of Bromberek would therefore be based on the educational and facility needs that exist at the time the building becomes available.

What would happen to St Alphonsus St Patrick  School (SASP) if District 113A ultimately regains Bromberek School?

The future location and operation of SASP would be a decision for the Archdiocese of Chicago, not District 113A.

The Archdiocese owns other school facilities in Lemont in addition to leasing Bromberek from District 113A. These include St. Cyril & Methodius Parish School (SSCM), with an estimated capacity of approximately 650 students, as well as the school facilities associated with St. Alphonsus and St. Patrick parishes (SASP). The SASP facilities housed over 300 students immediately before SASP began operating at Bromberek.

Including Bromberek's approximately 450-student capacity, these facilities represent approximately 1,400 classroom seats, compared with current combined enrollment of approximately 400 students at SASP and SSCM.

If District 113A ultimately regains Bromberek, decisions regarding how the Archdiocese accommodates its students among the facilities it owns or otherwise operates would be made by the Archdiocese.

St Alphonsus St Patrick School (SASP) has invested money in Bromberek School. Wouldn't District 113A receive the benefit of those improvements if it regains the building?

SASP and the Archdiocese have made investments in Bromberek during their occupancy of the building. Additionally, District 113A made substantial investments into Bromberek in 1995 when it added a gymnasium, multi-purpose room, library, and two additional classrooms. However, a building's suitability for its current use does not necessarily mean that it meets all current requirements for operation as a District 113A public school.

The District's architects have conducted a preliminary evaluation of Bromberek and estimate that approximately $15 million in work could be required to bring the building up to current standards and prepare it for use as a District 113A public school.  

The exact scope and cost could only be determined through a more detailed evaluation if and when the District regains access to the building.

Any decision to renovate and reopen Bromberek would therefore require the Board to evaluate the cost of the necessary improvements, the approximately 450 students of potential capacity, and the District's facility needs at that time.

How much is the Bromberek litigation costing District 113A, and why does the Board believe it is worth pursuing?

The Board recognizes its responsibility to carefully manage taxpayer dollars, including expenses associated with litigation. The District has capped its legal fees for the Bromberek limiting the District's financial exposure in pursuing the matter.

The Board believes it has a strong legal claim and determined that pursuing the return of Bromberek represents a reasonable and potentially cost-effective option for District students and taxpayers.

Bromberek is a District-owned asset valued at more than $1.8 million with an estimated capacity of approximately 450 students. District enrollment is at an all-time high, and additional classroom capacity is needed to accommodate continued growth.

Although the District's architects estimate that approximately $15 million could be required to renovate Bromberek and prepare it for use as a District 113A public school, the alternatives for creating comparable new capacity could cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars more.|

For that reason, the Board believes the relatively limited litigation expense should be considered in the context of both the value of the District-owned asset and the substantially greater costs taxpayers could face if the District is unable to use Bromberek to help address enrollment growth.

The Board also believes it has an obligation to taxpayers to pursue reasonable opportunities to use District-owned property for the education of District 113A students before asking taxpayers to fund more costly alternatives.

The ultimate interpretation of the lease and the parties' respective legal rights will be determined through the legal process.

Timeline: Enrollment, Facilities and Bromberek School

1990 — Lemont and Bromberek school districts combine
Lemont School District #113 and Bromberek School District #65 combined to form Lemont-Bromberek Combined School District #113A. Bromberek School became one of the schools operated by the newly combined District.

1995 — District 113A expands Bromberek School
District 113A made a significant investment in Bromberek School, constructing an addition that added a gymnasium, multi-purpose room, library, and two additional classrooms.

2002–03 — River Valley opens and Bromberek becomes available
Lemont was experiencing significant population growth. District 113A approved construction of a new elementary school, River Valley School, to provide additional capacity for the growing District.

At the same time, Lemont's Catholic schools had substantially higher enrollment than they do today.  In the 2001-2002 school year, St. Cyril & Methodius Parish School (SSCM) had an enrollment of 617 and St Alphonsus St Patrick School (SASP) had an enrollment of 317.  A total of 934 students within facilities owned by the Archdiocese of Chicago.

In May 2003, District 113A entered into an agreement with the Archdiocese of Chicago for SASP to use the District-owned Bromberek School. River Valley School opened in the fall of 2003, providing the District with the additional capacity needed to accommodate its students.
The resulting Bromberek agreement provided for annual rent of $51,489, or approximately $4,290 per month.

2017–18 — Approximately 2,170 District 113A students
As District enrollment began increasing, District 113A commissioned a demographic study to evaluate future enrollment and facility needs.

2022 — Central School reopens
In response to increasing enrollment, District 113A reopened Central School, a District-owned building that had previously been closed. Reopening Central provided additional classroom capacity using an existing taxpayer-owned facility.

2022–23 — Approximately 2,560 District 113A students
District enrollment had increased by nearly 400 students compared with 2017–18.

2024 — District seeks return of Bromberek
With enrollment continuing to increase, the District commissioned another demographic study and evaluated its available facility options.

In May 2024, District 113A formally notified the Archdiocese that it wished to reclaim Bromberek School for District use, with the goal at that time of reopening it as a District facility for the 2026–27 school year.

In June 2024, the Archdiocese of Chicago notified District 113A that it wished to exercise its purchase option under the lease.

2024–25 — Approximately 2,673 District 113A students
Enrollment continued to grow, further increasing pressure on available classroom space.

2025–26 — Approximately 2,724 District 113A students
District enrollment had increased by more than 550 students since 2017–18.

2026–27 — District enrollment reaches an all-time high
The District completed another demographic study in 2026 to update enrollment projections and assist with long-term facility planning. The planning scenario being used by the District projects continued enrollment growth in the coming years.

Enrollment growth has resulted from a combination of factors, including new residential development, turnover of existing homes to families with school-age children, and movement of students from private/parochial schools into District 113A.