To the Editor,
As Barrington 220 considers additional tax levies and future capital commitments, the community deserves a clear, accessible understanding of how recent voter-approved funds have actually been spent. Over the past several months, I have reviewed hundreds of pages of publicly available contracts, FOIA disclosures, construction work orders, and financial ledgers related to the Build 220 program. Several findings stand out and merit broader public awareness.
First, district records show that construction management overhead for Build 220 projects significantly exceeds common industry benchmarks. For K–12 CM-at-Risk projects, management overhead and fees typically fall in the 10–15% range. However, Barrington 220’s own Project Work Orders (PWOs) show overhead levels ranging from approximately 23% to as high as 28%, with some smaller project segments exceeding 30% (See: Build 220 — Construction vs. Overhead).
Key takeaway: On approximately $33 million of PWOs, overhead and soft costs account for an estimated $7–9 million. These percentages are nearly double typical industry norms and warrant closer public review
On just four major PWOs totaling roughly $33 million, this translates to an estimated $7–9 million spent on management reimbursables, contingency stacking, insurance loadings, fees, and pre-loaded allowances rather than direct construction labor or materials. A visual summary of this comparison is attached for readers.
Second, architectural and engineering fees have exceeded the district’s own contractual cap. The master agreement with the district’s architect set a limit of 7.4% of the construction budget, which equates to approximately $9.5 million based on the district’s budget reconciliation. Yet the district’s accounts receivable ledger shows approximately $11.7 million paid to date — an overage of more than $2.2 million (See: Build 220 — Architectural & Engineering Fees).
Drivers of the overage include: duplicated planning across firms, over-scoped civil engineering bundles later credited back, optional enhancements not included in referendum language, and avoidable redesigns
This increase appears tied to duplicated planning work across multiple firms, over-scoped civil engineering packages later reduced through credits, optional enhancements not included in referendum messaging, and avoidable redesign costs. At no point has the community been presented with a cumulative report showing how or why the 7.4% cap was exceeded.
Third, many costs that function like change orders were embedded directly into base contracts as lump-sum allowances — including webcams, temporary occupancy setups, traffic control, and other vaguely described “reimbursables.” Without a publicly released change-order ledger, taxpayers cannot easily determine which allowances were actually used, which were not, or how final project costs compare to what voters approved.
These findings do not allege wrongdoing. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about financial discipline, cost control, and transparency — especially when the district is asking the community to support additional levies.
Before requesting more taxpayer dollars, Barrington 220 should provide the public with:
- A complete Build 220 change-order ledger for each Project Work Order;
- A clear breakdown of construction dollars versus management and overhead costs;
- A reconciliation of architectural and engineering fees against the 7.4% contractual limit; and
- Plain-language summaries that allow residents to understand where their money actually went.
Barrington residents have consistently shown they are willing to invest in their schools. That willingness depends on trust, and trust depends on transparency. Clear financial reporting is not an obstacle to progress — it is the foundation of it.
Sincerely,
Sam Mehic
South Barrington
Related: “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture”
