Last Friday we posted a piece discussing the proposed new Park Ridge Police Station. We received a few comments about that issue, but the debate was promptly hi-jacked – apparently in response to our suggestion that any new cop shop should go to referendum – by people wanting to discuss the referendum-loving Park Ridge Park District.
“Green Dick” started it by applauding the Park District for taking its major spending plans to referendum, most recently in connection with Oakton Pool. “Sunshine” followed that up by pointing out that the Park District had to go to referendum because its non-home rule status limited its non-referendum bonding power to less than what these major projects cost.
“GreenDick” and “Sunshine” subsequently agreed on that point, as well as that the Park District’s constant subsidizing of the Senior Center (to the tune of over $150,000 a year) was a questionable policy. Then things got interesting, as we got into a debate about taxpayer subsidies, the Park District’s youth sports affiliates, its summer camps, and Oakton Pool with what appears to have been one particular “Anonymous” commentator with some strong views about those issues.
Since we’ve been accused of focusing too much on the City of Park Ridge and not enough on the other local governmental bodies, today we’re using that discussion to give our readers a little Park District to chew on, as well as to give the Park District itself some due. (We’ve edited the discussion down a bit, although it can be read in its entirety at No Time For Fuzzy Thinking On Police Station):
By Anonymous on 05.16.08 6:19 pm: The park board funds many organizations, not just the senior center. The PRPD spends a reported $3,000,000 a year on overall park maintenance. I do not know what that breaks down to by football, soccer or baseball field but I am sure the $5 per kid per season that is paid by the separate organizations of baseball, soccer and football does not come close to recovering the cost of maintaining the fields. (Soccer has contributed in addition to the $5 per participant to maintaining the fields and paying for new lights-don’t know about bb or football). So if we can allocate PRPD money to these youth sports programs then why not to the senior center?
It will be interesting to see if the PRPD board will ask the voters again if we want a new pool at Oakton or an expensive indoor practice field for youth sports? The citizens have been asked 3 times if they want to spend millions for a new outdoor pool that would only be open 10 weeks out of the year and three times they have said no. Has the board given up on this issue or are they going to come back again? Each time they do this they spend taxpayer money to print brochures and market the pros of the bond referedum to the voters. This seems like a waste money when we are asked nearly the same question for a 2nd, 3rd and 4th time and so on.
By PublicWatchdog on 05.17.08 10:48 am: One difference between money for the Senior Center and money for fields is that the fields are used by exponentially more people – from children on up – than use the Senior Center: in fact, the Senior Center is used by only a small fraction of this community’s senior citizens. And when it comes to the Park District wasting money on brochures for various referenda, we believe that democracy – giving the voters chances to vote on different kinds of expensive projects requiring long-term debt – is a better use of relatively small amounts of our tax dollars than the $80,000 or so the Park District loses each year on Oakton Pool.
By Anonymous on 05.17.08 3:10 pm: The figure you use for the loss on the pools may need to be adjusted for the revenue generated by the numerous summer camps that use the pools in the afternoon from 1-3 pm. Since a portion of the day is spent at the pool-2 hours out of a 6 hour camp-then 1/3 of the revenue from camps that use the pool should be added to the revenue stream from the pool if it is not already included and I have been told by someone familiar with it that the camp revenue is not included in the loss you keep quoting. This would reduce the net loss from the pools.
True the PRPD fields are available to all in PR, but for a significant part of the year and during usable daylight hours the fields are used by baseball and soccer and football. They are therefore unavailable to the rest of the population. In addition, not every kid in PR plays in one of the organized sports-is 2000 kids enough to give such a big subsidy to baseball? They should be funding more of the field maintenance than just $5 per child. They-baseball soccer and football-collect hundreds of thousands in participation fees and sponsorship revenue. They should be doing more to offset the PRPD’s cost of maintaing the fields they are the majority user of.
By PublicWatchdog on 05.17.08 4:00 pm: The figure we use is the figure the Park District uses, so if you have a problem with it you should take it up with the Park District. But camp revenue is camp revenue, not pool revenue – unless you want to re-invent cost accounting. The bottom line is that Oakton Pool is a black hole sucking up taxpayer dollars year after year while a gutless Park Board and Park District Staff can’t bring itself to close it.
As for the affiliates paying more toward field use and maintenance, we have no problem with that. Why don’t you raise that with the Park Board and District Staff?
By Anonymous on 05.17.08 8:17 pm: It is not reinventing cost accounting-if you have written a book on the matter or are a CPA then go ahead and comment. But all revenue associated with the pool should be considered before deciding to close a pool or build a new one.
Part of the reason kids go to camp is to use the pools. The total “guests” at the pools should include the campers and the revenue associated with their use of the pool. There are lots of participants in the camps. With Oakton closed, where will all these campers go from 1-3. If all the campers go to Centennial for swimming the pool will be unusable to the rest of us from 1-3 as it will be simply too crowded. Hinkley is too small to accomodate any overflow-it is already crowded on a nice summer day.
I don’t think the PRPD has planned for how to handle the camp situation if the pool closes. Perhaps they think one summer of a too crowded pool and we will all jump on board and vote for a multi million dollar outdoor aquatic and fun center that will still be only used 10 weeks out of the year.
Perhaps the PRPD board will comment on why the Oakton pool got into such disrepair in the first place. To force us to vote yes for a new pool?
About PRBS-the issue has been brought up to the PRPD board at the same time the issue of noncompliane with IRS filing rules and tax returns for public funded non-profit organizations. But PRBS seems to have some control over the PRPD as no changes have been made to the $5 fee in years. In 2007 when the PRPD board approved the creation of a reserve fund, the issue of affiliation fees to the PRPD was discussed. The board voted to keep it at $5 where it has been for years. As was stated earlier-some of the affiliates, including PRBS, collect hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and they should give more to the PRPD than the roughly $11,000 for the summer baseball season.
By PublicWatchdog on 05.18.08 9:35 am: We have consulted with a CPA who confirmed that, even in the arcane world of public fund accounting, because camp use of Oakton Pool is only a fraction of the “camp” program no more than that fraction of camp revenue can properly be attributed to the pool – which amount would also have to be offset by whatever revenues the pool would have earned from general users but didn’t because the campers were there.
And from our perspective, unless the camps provide $80,000 to Oakton – which we have seen no evidence that they do – then Oakton is still a big money loser that should have been closed a year or two ago as scheduled. But if you’ve got a complaint about how the Park District accounts for the campers, we suggest you take that up with the Park District.
As for why Oakton pool got into such disrepair in the first place, the most obvious answer is its age – which is why the Park District was told it could not simply repair the current problems. We consulted with one former and one current Park District Commissioner, both of whom confirmed that they were unaware of any time during the past decade when the Park Board refused, or demanded a reduction in, the recommendation of Park District Staff as to the amount budgeted for maintenance and repairs of Oakton, even during the year of the drought Summer (2005) when the diving well cratered.
Finally, as to the sports affiliates fees, we agree that they should pay their fair share of the costs of field maintenance, repair and/or replacement. And you may be right about some supernatural sway the affiliates have over the Park District. But you seem to be missing the accounting gene again when you suggest that some of the sports affiliates should pay more money for the fields merely because they “collect hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.” Basic accounting dictates that if they spend all of that money on legitimate expenses, there may not be any extra money (i.e., “profit”) to give the Park District.