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.

If Oakton Pool were a private business, it would have been shuttered by the Summer of 2005 when its signature feature, the diving well, became inoperable – and two different engineering firms concluded that the entire pool complex is so outdated that it is past the point even of being renovated.

That’s because competent business managers would have realized that running an old, money-losing outdoor community pool for three months a year in a dicey climate like ours is foolish; especially when we already have much more outdoor-pool water than we have people who want to use it.  Savvy managers also would have noted that Oakton has been the worst-attended of our three full-size outdoor pools, which is one reason why it is on target to book another $75,000 operating loss this year. 

That’s $75,000 down the drain, literally and figuratively, to keep a crumbling relic on life support with a “Do Not Resuscitate” order, rather than demolish it and turn that site into green space while a viable plan for a more worthwhile alternative use is developed.

But we don’t have competent business managers at the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District.  We have bureaucrats and politicians for whom a “break-even” program is beyond their grasp, and who regard the term “profits” as so vulgar that they prefer to pander to a small but vocal minority of residents by keeping open a facility that neither the Park District staff nor its Board has any idea how to manage – other than with benign neglect.

So it comes as no surprise that the Park Board, at its October 4^th meeting, beat a hasty retreat from its year-old decision to demolish Oakton this December.  What little common sense and resolve the Park Board had demonstrated in this matter was easily routed by approximately 25 residents who shamelessly demanded that Oakton Pool be kept open no matter what it costs the taxpayers.  A final decision is expected at the November 15 Board meeting.

Because the Park District is not a home rule body, it needs to go to referendum to issue the bonds it would need to replace the current Oakton pool complex with another aquatic facility.  In April 2005, however, the voters overwhelmingly rejected (70% to 30%) a new $13 million Oakton aquatic center.  Less than two years later, they handily rejected (57% to 43%) a $9.98 million aquatic center. 

Most of the arguments for keeping Oakton Pool open or rebuilding it, as reported in last week’s local newspapers, came from lap swimmers and Oakton neighbors who see nothing wrong with the taxpayers subsidizing their enjoyment of a conveniently located money-losing 50 meter pool.  The goofiest argument came from Park District Commissioner Terry Majewski, who runs his swimming programs out of Oakton and who – with a remarkably straight face – branded Oakton “a landmark, comparable to the Pickwick Theater.” 

But putting aside such hyperbole, the Park Board and District Staff have totally failed this community in how they have dealt with Oakton Pool.  On one hand, they have failed to display the brains necessary to come up with any ideas for increasing attendance and operating that pool more profitably while they keep it open.  Conversely, they have failed to display the guts needed to make the sound business decision to close the pool and find another use for that site. 

Instead, the Board and Staff appear content to simply sit and watch the red ink flow until the lap pool and wading pool crater like the diving well did in 2005, thereby taking this decision out of their hands.  Kind of makes us wonder whether “Management by Inertia” is a required course at park district school.

A few weeks before moving to Park Ridge from Chicago in 1988, I drove around after a storm and found extension cords running across streets between houses, carrying electric power from the side of the street that had it to the side that didn’t.  I also saw piles of sodden carpeting and furniture, along with other soaked belongings, heaped on the curbs.

Nineteen years later, the circle remains unbroken: We in Park Ridge still lack dependable power and a sewer system that can be counted on to keep our basements dry. And nobody seems to be doing what it takes to make it better.

Over the years Park Ridge residents have made thousands of calls and complaints to ComEd, to no effect.  Many of us have simply accepted the problem, even as our electric bills have skyrocketed.  Others have purchased their own generators, as if they lived in some third-world country.  But maybe this most recent outage – which in some parts of town lasted as much as four days – will finally get us up off our duffs and shouting: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Isn’t it time our city government demanded a meaningful sit down with ComEd executives to determine exactly what are the specific problems with our portion of the power grid, and what must be done to fix them?  The same goes for the flooding, which may be improvable by the installation of more relief sewers but which still needs a solid commitment from the City.  Either way, a responsible and competent city government must take the lead in getting us some definitive answers – and then acting on them.  

We also need to start thinking about the substantially greater demands all the new “development” is placing on our already strained and fragile power grid and sewer systems.  Every old house wired according to code that is replaced with a larger one drawing two or three times more power adds to that strain.  And what kind of potential for future havoc is being created by all the electricity and sewer demands of those new condo and townhouse units that we’re adding like there’s no tomorrow?  

The “perfect storm” explanation that I’ve been hearing from the City and ComEd for why we lost power and flooded a couple of weekends ago might be fine if this was a once-a-decade event.  But in the week leading up to that “perfect storm,” my house (and many others in our neighborhood) lost power on a least three other separate occasions: August 17, 19 and 21. That might be considered okay for a banana republic, but it’s unacceptable for a city such as ours.

Solving problems like these may not be as easy and fun as a groundbreaking for a new building or a ribbon-cutting for a new business, but it’s every bit as much of what government is supposed to do for us.  Is there anybody in City Hall that’s willing to step up to the challenge and get ‘er done?

When it comes to anything claimed or viewed as being “for the kids,” our society today can’t seem to do enough – even when “enough” is outright goofy.  So it should come as no surprise that somebody will use “for the kids” to justify fixing something even if it isn’t really broken.

Case in point: The new City ordinance which reduces the speed limit on the streets adjacent to four of the Park District’s parks – Centennial, Jaycee, Northwest and Woodland – to 20 mph “when children are present and within fifty (50) feet of motorized traffic.”  The fine for first-time offenders: a whopping $250!

Like most wrong-headed laws, this one has superficial appeal.  Who hasn’t experienced, while driving past one of our parks, the occasional soccer ball or baseball expelled from the field of play and into the street, sometimes with a child in hot pursuit?  Nobody wants to see any of these kids going one-on-one with an SUV, mini-van, or even a Cooper Mini.

But guess what?  That rarely happens, probably because most rational people know that driving near a park or anywhere that young children are playing requires extra caution – and they exercise it.  And most rational parents also train their kids, even the young ones, to stay away from the street when playing.  As a result, kids being struck by moving vehicles near our parks are, happily, few and far between. 

But apparently that’s not good enough for the Chicken Littles who see danger lurking around every corner; or for our weak-kneed public officials who govern by knee-jerk capitulation to the lowest common denominators – if enough of them show up at a meeting and make enough noise.

How many serious auto/pedestrian accidents have occurred around Park Ridge parks during the past decade?  Who knows?  Although this new ordinance got approval from both the Park Board and the City Council, it did so with virtually no evidence of how numerous and how serious those accidents have been.  But since the ordinance is “for the kids,” fear is an acceptable substitute for evidence.

From past experience with these Chicken Littles, we can already hear them howling: “Does a child have to die before we do something?”  Of course not!  But if a child’s death by vehicle impact is the standard for action, then the tragic death of young Sam Coberly a few months ago already should have caused the City to ban trucks from Aldine Avenue and ban kids from riding their bikes along Touhy Avenue.

And looking at the bigger picture, how is this ordinance going to be enforced in anything but an uneven and outright arbitrary manner?  How can we reasonably expect the average motorist – or even our police officers – to accurately calculate whether a moving kid is within 50 feet of a moving motor vehicle?

Goofier still, the ordinance as written would apply to kids within that 50-foot “buffer zone” no matter what they are doing.  So a kid sitting on the grass 48 feet from the street waiting for his ride home (and perhaps blocked from the view of the passing motorist by cars parked along the curb) can create a violation just as readily as a kid sprinting after a loose ball 5 feet from the street.  Where’s the common sense to that?

This ordinance will also apply to any person who shall “fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign or red light…before turning right onto a park zone street.”  Isn’t there already a law dealing with these situations?  Maybe the City is looking for an excuse to bring back those little red signs that say “Stop Means Stop” – perhaps with the added legend “We Really Mean It This Time, Buster!” 

But if the Chicken Littles are really serious about making the streets around parks safer for kids who run out into the street without looking, then reduce the speed limit to 5 mph instead of 20 mph.  Not only will that give motorists a better chance of avoiding darting kids, but it will also reduce the force of any impact that might occur.  And best of all, most motorists who don’t want to drive 5 mph will simply avoid those streets entirely, substantially reducing the possibility of any accident occurring.

Safety – for ALL our residents – is an important issue.  But Chicken Little laws like this new City ordinance not only don’t make us appreciably safer, they make the job of our police officers unnecessarily more difficult.  And they reduce respect for the rule of law and the people who govern us, however goofy and misguided some of those folks might be.

The Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board’s recent selection of Oakton over Hinkley as the location of the baseball/softball batting cages brought predictable howls of chagrin and derision from one of the Park District’s own affiliates, the Park Ridge Baseball & Softball association, as well as from the Park Ridge Juniors who donated $45,000 toward the estimated $180,000 cost of those cages.

Their argument that Hinkley is “the baseball park” was rejected by a 4 to 3 vote of Commissioners Grant, Maloney, Streff and Trizna over Commissioners Angelini, Schaeffer and Wilkening. And that was the correct decision.

While Hinkley is the Park District’s principal baseball facility, it also houses the District’s largest (6 courts) and lighted tennis complex; a swimming pool; a skate park; the District’s principal football field; and an outdoor basketball court. With limited convenient parking, it is the proverbial five pound bag into which the Park District has already crammed ten pounds of facilities and activities.

Sure, there will be large numbers of baseball players ready, willing and able to pour their dollar coins into the eight cages both before and after their or their siblings’ scheduled games. And sure, coaches can conveniently rent a cage or two for some team B.P.

But those cages are not being built just for PRBS. The Park District intends to make them part of a rejuvenated Oakton recreation “campus” that will also include an improved driving range and miniature golf. And the District’s revenue projections for the cages at Oakton match those for Hinkley.

The synergies of such an arrangement can be observed just by driving east on Oakton to the Skokie Park District’s new driving range/mini-golf/batting cage complex, where whole families can find something for everybody by one-stop shopping. And the new Oakton should have plenty of convenient parking to make a visit less of a logistical challenge.

What should have been the deciding factor, however, was raised almost as an afterthought by Commissioner Trizna in response to communication from the State of Illinois confirming that building the batting cages in place of Hinkley’s current lighted basketball court would require the construction of a replacement lighted basketball court elsewhere in the District due to restrictions related to an OSLAD grant from the State of Illinois.

The cost of replacing the basketball court: $72,000, or $27,000 more than the Juniors’ donation. Not only would that have been a waste of money, but it would have more than negated the value of the Juniors’ generosity and required the expenditure of more taxpayer dollars. Simply put, it would have caused more harm than good.

Fortunately, the Park Board kept its eye on the ball.