As I mentioned in the last post, the Board’s December 5th meeting went as well as Rick Biagi could have hoped; and many of his “mini-waterpark” friends attended to express their support of the $10+ million dollar, two-phase project.
There were a few intrepid “naysayers” there of course.
Look folks - their mind is made up!
There will be a new 7.1-to-10.5 million dollar “mini-waterpark” of some design. I don’t think it matters a hoot what the general public has to say on December 13th.
The fix is in, so to speak!
That said; one has to wonder about the a thought process of a Park Board that includes the inability to cope with a $160,000 yearly loss for a Senior Center, while at the same time, sees no problem plunging an entire community into an additional long-term debt of 25+ million dollars (including the Youth Center property)!
Like a bad case of gas!
Well, like a bad case of gas, this story will ultimately come to an end. Some of you will feel better – some of you won’t.
The towns new GenXer, “your taxes are not going up” believing elite; the self-proclaimed future of Park Ridge, will feel better. In 2014, they are going to have their expanded aquatic facility; and by choice, the financial responsibility that goes with it!
Unfortunately, the rest of you “naysayers” are going to be sucking pond water!
Of course, it’s just my opinion!
9 comments:
Talk about stacking the deck: You not only lump stage 1 with stage 2 of the Centennial replacement, you go and baldly conflate the Youth Campus purchase which IS going to referendum with the Centennial Pool replacement that is well within the Park Board's decision-making area. I'd say have you no shame, but we both know the answer. It would have been irresponsible for the Board NOT to have planned for all the use of the Centennial area even though it will only do the first part of the project for sure. But you wouldn't know that. It would also have been irresponsible for the Board to abdicate its responsibility to approve major repair and replacement projects like Centennial Pool. Nothing out of line is happening here: The Board is taking to referendum a project that requires referendum approval and NOT taking a project that doesn't. There is nothing more to it than that. The Board seems to be holding a number of public meetings on Centennial and has already modified the original concept based on requests from the public that can be reasonably made. You were there, I believe; you heard it, you saw it. Yet you persist. Nothing good on TV?
Anon: December 10, 2012 5:00 PM,
Tell me what untruth did I express?
Is it not true that the “Board” has a two-phase project in the works; and that phase one is expected to cost the taxpayer $7,100,000 and a second phase which is expected to cost $3,453,300 based on Ms. Mountcastle’s email to me; and as says: “this includes lazy river, bath house, site work, and support.” Let’s see; $7,100,000 + $3,453,300 = $10,553,300; and requires no referendum.
So is that cost-combination not accurate?
Is it not true the Board is going for a referendum in April for voter authorization to issue bonds sufficient to cover the purchase and partial renovation of the former Youth Campus site? Is it not true, based on PRPD’ own propaganda piece; the “Building renovation and park land development is estimated at $6.6 million. The property purchase for 11.35 acres alone will cost $6.4 million, which is the appraised value of the property”? Let’s see; $6,400,000 + $6,600,000 = $13,000,000 and requires a referendum.
So is that cost-combination not accurate?
Tax burden requiring no referendum…. $10,553,300
Tax burden requiring a referendum…. $13,000,000
Total proposed new tax burden………… $23,553,300
Now, those numbers come from Park Ridge Park District; not from me; and that’s a big total for this small community.
Anon, the majority of your comments were red hearings. No one that I know of is challenging the Boards authority to do what it is doing. The Board is following standard procedure as best as I can see.
So why all the fuss Anon? So why the noisemakers and smoke?
Simple; a $23,553,300 tax burden!
Now, don’t insult me with “no tax increase” required. We know that’s not true. Each year the tax burden increases. There’s the yearly CPI increase. Sometimes old bond issues terminate, thus lowering the burden.
Your plan keeps (rolls-over) the old bond burden $7.1 mm for your “will not raise taxes” “mini-waterpark” phases 1; and then a winning referendum by PRPD adds the long-term $13.0 mm Youth Campus bond debt this year. I believe Phase 2 can be covered one of two ways: there’s still $3+ mm in authorized bond debt that should come to term in the couple years that can be rolled-over or PRPD will pad the budget X-dollars per year (currently have $700,000 surplus based on their own statements), to build-up the Phase 2 kitty. Either way, Phase 2 will happen.
The Board’s approach is to my knowledge, perfectly legal; although, I still think the pool+campus idea at this time, financially unwise.
If you had left your whole post as just the last sentence of your retort, above, you'd have no argument for me. You are entitled to think anything or everything is "financially unwise." What I addressed was your repetition that the Park Board is arrogant and somehow morally wrong not to put a non-referendum project up for referendum.
We all know why you aren't putting the pool up for referendum. When you did, it was voted down twice. Ken Butterly is absolutely right. You people are morally wrong. You complain about spending $160,000 on your seniors, and toss around millions upon millions like chunk change to spend on the children in this community. I certainly don't object to spending money on children. I simply don't understand your obsession about not spending money on your senior population. You certainly don't make Park Ridge a destination for people in the twilight of their lives. These are the people who pay taxes and don't make use of your schools. These people are a huge tax plus for the community. Yet you complain about spending a fraction of you budget on them.
Anon: December 11, 2012 5:43 PM,
I generally don’t write posts/comments with the intent to make you happy. I am releaved to see that you think I am “entitled to think anything or everything is "financially unwise." I was kind of worried there for a moment. You then went on to write: “What I addressed was your repetition that the Park Board is arrogant and somehow morally wrong not to put a non-referendum project up for referendum.” Are you suggesting I do not have a right or responsibility to call the Board “arrogant and somehow morally wrong” if I so choose?
As to being arrogant, I consider them so. I have not however, described them as “morally wrong”. At least I can’t find my having done do. Since you said I did, maybe you can point out to me where I wrote it and I will reread the post/comment and respond accordingly.
Anonymous Dec. 12, 2012 10:57 AM:
While I share your view on why the Centennial Pool project is not being put to referendum - the Park Board's fear it will be solidly rejected and its knowledge that a majority of them don't have the political courage to over-ride the public vote - I must disagree with your view of Park Ridge seniors.
Why should "seniors," "children," or any other particular group of citizens be entitled to taxpayer subsidies (whether to the tune of $160,000 or any other amount) for their use of Park District recreational facilities or programs? And why should Park Ridge be a "destination for people in the twilight of their lives" rather than a welcoming community for all ages?
I agree that seniors currently are "a huge tax plus for the community," but most of them got their share of subsidies when their kids were young and using the schools, parks, programs, etc. - so you might call their current "tax plus" status a form of deferred "payment on account."
Of course, we also have a number of seniors who, after feeding at the public trough all those years, packed up and left for cheaper pastures. Fie on them - but that's also why keeping all of our local taxes under control is imperative.
$160,000 a year of subsidies to the 800 users of the Senior Center should be no more acceptable than 15 years of bonded debt for a $7.1 million pool complex used by only a small fraction of the community only 3 months a year.
If not, then somebody's ox will always get gored, and all we're left with is a divisive competition over whose ox it will be. That's great for the politicians and the bureaucrats, but bad for the taxpayers and the community as a whole.
Having seen my wheelchair-bound, elderly mother have to give up the fun and health benefits of paddling around in a conventional pool, and then seeing how happy she was when a zero-depth pool was made available, I believe the older board members know that seniors are and will be some of the heaviest users of the new and improved, zero-depth pool; not a baby pool, a "real" pool that just happens to be accessible. See you there!
Bob Trinza:
My point isn't whether or not any group, seniors or children, should be entitled to taxpayer subsidaries. My point is why does the Park Board have no problem spending $$$ on children and complain about spending $$$ on seniors. I repeat, I don't have a problem spending on children. I just can't understand the favoritism shown to the younger members of the community.
I agree with you that Park Ridge should be a destination for all age groups. My point was that the Park District is not making it a favorable destination for seniors.
Because the prior Board did not choose to renew a skewed contract with SSI and the management did not choose to tolerate any further unprofessional and fiscally unsound decision-making by a key senior-area employee does not mean the Park District is not a favorable destination for seniors. Just take a look at the latest Senior Center newsletter, Park District website or Park District catalog and you'll see how many varied and appealing senior activities are being offered.
Post a Comment