Public Watchdog.org

The Watchdog’s Kibbles & Bits – Box 14

07.31.09

Park District Budgeting – Guessing Game Or Scam?  This week’s Herald-Advocate reports (“Cameras approved for Hinkley Skate Park,” July 28) on something that might be termed “good news gone bad” – the Park Board approved a contract for security cameras at the Hinkley Skate Park at a cost of $8,297.  That’s the good news.  The bad news?  That cost was $15,000 less than the Park District budgeted for them!

Trust us on this, folks: we’re glad it was $15,000 less rather than $15,000 more.  But what kind of “budgeting” process can be off on something like this by almost 300%?  C’mon!  Did anybody make even a few phone calls to check on the true cost of these surveillance systems before throwing caution to the wind, making their WAG (“Wild A** Guess”), and calling it a budget item?

But we have to wonder whether this isn’t a variation on the old “bait and switch” scam, albeit a  governmental “backwards” version, where things are intentionally over-budgeted so that – once the much lower price is obtained and revealed – the over-budgeted differential can be treated as “found money” which can then readily be diverted to other uses?  That way, the bureaucrats and elected officials alike can bask in the artificial, feel-good perception that they’re actually managing well.  And the public ends up none the wiser.  

Farcical Facade Improvements  In the past two weeks both local papers reported on the proposed new store fronts for the building at 25-29 S. Prospect that houses Country Financial, Camp Willow and Raffia Gifts.  And this week’s H-A also reports (“New looks proposed for three Uptown buildings,” July 28) that as much as $75,000 of our tax money could be paid to the owner(s) of that property under the City’s “Façade Improvement Program,” which the City Council devised a few years ago to funnel tax dollars to private property owners – on the questionable theory that the City will prosper if property owners are given incentives to spruce up their commercial buildings.

We still haven’t seen or heard how much extra tax revenue has been generated by the façade improvement to the building housing Pines Men’s Wear, but we have to assume the numbers aren’t all that good – otherwise Kim Uhlig, the City’s retail maven, would have already issued press releases, and the Chamber of Commerce would be thumping the tub for more such “investments.”

But one suspicious thing about this latest private drain on uber-scarce public funds is the fact that neither “news” story identified the owner of the property, although The Journal’s story (“Old School Look In Uptown Gains Attention,” July 22) did identify the architect for the new façade, Jonathon Hague of Hague Architecture.  And the H-A story advised that Robert Solari will be looking for a City handout when he adds a new façade to his building at the southeast corner of Main Street and Fairview.

You’d think that with a $2.5 million deficit budget the City would have put a halt to these giveaways of public money.  But not only does the façade program appear to remain on track, but the City looks like it will up the ante of such giveaways with its flood control rebate program. 

And then taxpayers wonder where all their money is going?

8 comments so far

Just silly.

Maybe it’s not silly to have cameras there to prevent any kind of trouble but then again, how far can one take such things?

Especially since they may run the risk of nobody comming?

As for the facelifting, the owners can pay for their own facelifting.

Why to they need it anyhow?

I’m wondering how white stucco fits in the historic nature of those buildings and will it clash with the surrounding buildings. Is there anything in the immidiate area that is also white (or other) stucco?

Curious, stop diddling yourself with whether white stucco fits in or clashes with the surrounding buildings. That’s why we have an Appearance Commission. The point of the post is that, whether its pretty or ugly, WHY THE HELL ARE WE PAYING FOR IT!

Easy Anon 11:28, Who pissed on your corn flakes this morning?

I’m sure asking the “why” question here in cyber land isn’t going to provide you with any meaningful results. Go to the city and ask, or is your purpose just to bitch.

Well, if I’m paying for it, it better look pretty! 🙂

I don’t see how the Park District administrators can be off by that much on their budgeting unless, as you suggest, they were intentionally trying to over-budget.

The estimate for a new net at the driving range is 485K!! Wonder what that will end up costing.

Dear PubDog:

I too was surprised that the cameras for the skate park came in as low under budget as they did. However, I think you may be reading more into this than meets the eye.

The staff at the park district presented the Board with upwards of 8 or so different bids for the camera system (I believe the detail on each of the bids is downloadable at the PRRPD web site – check the agenda and packet of materials for last month’s full meeting of the Board). Surprising to the commissioners, the bids were all over the board, ranging from $8,000 to nearly $30,000 (to my best recollection). The question was asked in open session at the last meeting as to why the bids were all over the place and the response we received was that each of the bidders proposed a different system from a technology perspective, some of which were much more costly than others. The commissioners were assured by staff that the winning bidder provided a system which would satisfy our needs in the most cost efficient way possible.

As you know, the meeting (including this dialogue I referenced) should be up on the PRRPD web site.

I hope this helps to clarify things a bit.

Rick Biagi

Editor’s Note: Mr. Biagi is a Park District Commissioner



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(optional and not displayed)