or “waterpark lite” - a pool replacement that’s more than a pool but not a waterpark like the big boys have in Des Plaines.
“Mini-Waterpark” Meeting Tonight!
![The-Trial-of-the-Knave-of-Hearts,-illustration-from-Alice-in-Wonderland-by-Lewis-Carroll-1832-9-large[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxpIZdc6QCN5iD_eRM7DiD1Xxtm1m0p6LSaVEqkwyyzUI5vMewPxYYGSwaRbXJOiWrACVrfQJeDGtjvOo3yha1-XUnqfnbmVtDjKKywREZ2jtsbdGITMUt4cZfNx3u3lu0lQVHIHFQ2Dpa/s1600-h/The-Trial-of-the-Knave-of-Hearts%25252C-illustration-from-Alice-in-Wonderland-by-Lewis-Carroll-1832-9-large%25255B1%25255D%25255B5%25255D.jpg "The-Trial-of-the-Knave-of-Hearts,-illustration-from-Alice-in-Wonderland-by-Lewis-Carroll-1832-9-large[1]")
I recently received a copy of an email sent from Park Ridge Park Board President Rick Biagi to various friends and supporters.
Note: Yes, some of Rick’s friends are also my friends.
Rick, knows how important the next two meetings are for his “mini-waterpark” or “waterpark lite” plan to succeed; and success (public support) is what he and his Board are lacking at this moment.
You see, Rick’s 2012 Presidency has so far been a bust; and he knows it. The senior problem hasn’t been resolved and has cost the Park District thousands of dollars in litigation fees, court costs and lost employee productivity; and the youth campus property bond referendum still has more than a 50% chance of bombing out!
Further, Rick Biagi is running for reelection to the PRPD Board and needs something “positive” to run on; and hopes the creation of the “mini-waterpark” will bring out enough of his supporters for the win.
Here is what Rick wrote:
| “Subject: Centennial Pools
Friends: As you may have heard, the Park District is in the midst of a discussion to replace the 58 year old pools at Centennial Park. It has been my honor to serve the citizens of Park Ridge on the Park District Board of Commissioners since 2009. In my role this year as Board President, I am extremely excited to help direct the future of the Park District with a proposed plan to modernize the aquatics facility at Centennial…but I need your help at this critical juncture. Over the past year, the Park District staff, in conjunction with the Board and independent aquatics engineers, has been developing a plan to replace the two aging pools at Centennial with two new, modern pools that have such common amenities as zero depth entry, slides, modest recreational water features and competitive lap areas. Detailed information on the plan can be found on the Park District’s web site at the following link: http://www.prparks.org/sites/default/files/images/centennial_pool_renovation-12-faq.pdf I want to stress that, while we are planning to modernize the facility at Centennial with amenities that are comparable to many other nearby communities, this project is not on the scale of a “water park” such as the Mystic Waters facility in Des Plaines. The overall cost of the proposed modernization project is $7.1 Million. This includes not only the cost to replace the pools, but also to properly address potential flooding issues in the area and to increase the size of the current parking lot. This project will be funded by the Board’s non-referendum bonding authority. In other words, the Board has the statutory authority to issue bonds for this amount, without increasing the tax burden on the taxpayers of Park Ridge (i.e., no new taxes for this project). Over the past few weeks, a relatively small but vocal group of citizens have voiced their strong objection to this project, on a number of grounds. Some who live in the area don’t want a new facility which, in their opinion, could bring more noise and more people to the park. Others want the Board to simply replace the current pools with exact replicas of the existing pools (at an approximate cost of $4 Million). Still others question whether we should even have outdoor pools in Park Ridge given the limited window of time (typically 90-100 days) to operate them during the summer months and thereby accusing the Board of fiscal mismanagement by ever considering an expenditure on outdoor aquatics. In my mind, the sole question for the taxpayers of Park Ridge is quite simple…do we or don’t we want outdoor pools in our City. If we don’t want them then the Board should be planning for the demolition of the Centennial pools within the next year, given the significant mechanical and physical problems the current 58 year old pools face. However, if the citizens feel that outdoor pools are an important fixture in our City, then we need to move forward on plans to bring a modern aquatics facility to Centennial Park. Simply put, the Board is at a crossroads and I need you to let your voice be heard on this very important issue…one that will impact the citizens of Park Ridge for generations to come. At my direction, the Board will be holding two public hearings on the future of the Centennial Pools...on Thursday December 6th and again on Thursday the 13th at 7:30pm in the Park Ridge Park District Senior Center at 100 S. Western. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have as many people as possible at these hearings…the future of pools in Park Ridge is in your hands. So, please plan on attending one or both of the public hearings and please, pass this message on to as many people as you can. Sincerely,
Rick Biagi” |
Todays post is primarily intended to inform my readers who are not on Mr. Biagi’s email list, of his attempt to stack the meeting audience with his supporters.
“It Ain't No Mystery,If It's Politics Or History,The Thing You Gotta Know Is,Everything Is Showbiz!” from: The Producers.
Look friends, we’re dealing with smart people here – not necessarily wise people, however.
I believe these seven Commissioners, this “relatively small but vocal group”, are conspiring to ramrod the issue past an unsuspecting electorate. It is obvious they will do so because they can; and because they think you are too dumb and lazy to launch any effort to stop them!
Board members have told us more than once that they’re elected and represent 37,500+/- residents.
You are one of them!
More importantly, you are taxpayers and voters! Biagi and other Board Members are looking to have their ego’s stroked and are running for the Board again.
If you want to stop this foolishness, you need to stop them!
Run for the Board!
In the mean time, the Biagi/Wynn-Ryan Board purports to represent you; and if you think they need to hear your voice NOW so they can REPRESENT YOU, you’d better make it a priority to attend the next two meetings and tell them what you think!
Background Information
First, read the PRPD Brochure: Centennial Pool Reconstruction 2013-14 which explains their version of the story.
Centennial Park Site – Now
Picture of proposed “mini-waterpark” facility.
Note: the rendering does not take the viewer to the western edge (bottom) of the park.
Lets take another look!
This time, lets take a look at a site rendition plus the addition of Google earths photo that includes the neighbors.
Look how close their property lines are to the proposed “mini-waterpark”.
Now, look at the rendering one more time.
This time, put yourself in the place of those property owners.
You can see that the bottom of the picture (west side of park) ends at the pathway intersection, just a few feet from the property line.
As you can see, neighbors on Seminary will have a front row seat to the entire waterpark; the overflow parking and noise and their friends to the south (to the right), will also be exposed to the same unwanted disturbances all summer long!
Update: 12/06/2012
Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.
|
All that entertainment for the initial $7+ million debt. Such a deal! And we haven’t even discussed phase two’s “lazy river” addition. Maybe there’s even a phase three for all we know.
Update: 12/06/2012
Emailed Information from Ms. Mountcastle.
|
Only Park District Officials know their hidden agenda and the full financial implication along with increased neighborhood degradation due to usage growth!
This is a stealth enterprise, I believe, and an attempt to circumvent the will of the people as displayed in two prior referendum attempts to install a waterpark one step at a time.
In short, it’s an attempt to put the camels head under the tent flap!
Finally, lets take one last look at the complete Google earth site picture, including the boundaries.
Close you eyes and visualize the possibilities.
Warm weather, screaming children, pina coladas, reggae music and palm trees?
The neighbors are going to love it!
What do you think?
More on this issue next time!
Of course, it’s just my opinion.
9 comments:
I have disagreed with the Park District on their choices as it relates to the Senior Center, but on this one I happen to agree.
I recall taking my kids to the pools many years ago and I believe there is value in having outdoor pools for the Summer months.
All the history aside (Senior Center), I like this plan. I hope the District moves forward with the plan as presented.
Do you think the Park system has more than the estimated $7.1 million socked away? Because they sued the Senior group isn’t the $3000,000 contested in that suit regarding the rental contract frozen and untouchable? No? More pubic money stashed somewhere to cover the money owed in the lawsuit?
The question must be asked as to why the Northwest side of Park Ridge does not get at least half of the $7.1 million investment for a rebuild of their Oakton Pool? Do none of the board live anywhere other than near the Centennial Park Area and pad their own leisure opportunities?
The referendum should include the vote as to whether both Oakton Park and Centennial should both get a swimming pool? Hinckley should be improved also. Obvious the District has not maintained existing pools, parks and buildings we have. Forhet the Youth Campus idea and concentrate on our pools. If the Park people want to collect more taxes and buy and develop more property, a new pool to replace Hinckley could be built on the old car property. We are a small town and should not fund such an enormous pool plan dedicated in just one space in town.
Spread our little wealth across the town better.
Anon: December 4, 2012 5:30 PM,
I get that you think an outdoor pool is a good thing. I just wanted to be sure I understood your position better.
You are in favor of PRPD's "mini-waterpark" plan worth a minimum of $7,000,000+ for phase one, plus a "lazy river" upgrade worth probably another estimated $2,000,000+ in phase two vs a replacement pool system, the kind of pool you took your kids to, worth $4,000,000?
And you think PRPD should take on this debt without a referendum?
Wow; if the folks will hate the rehabbed pool for a couple of summer months, how much more must they hate the nonstop screaming children they have endured from the long-operating toddler playground at Centennial for, say, 8 months a year and from Washington School and, depending on the wind, Lincoln School, for 10months a year?
And love the pina coladas (no booze allowed in the Park, but facts never bothered you) and as for reggae music, Norwegians don't much like it, I don't think. Another basket of faux horrors, faux worries, faux problems conjured up by you, yourself and you.
Meanwhile, Mr. Biagi continues to earn the respect and regard of all who appreciate reasonable, professional and caring stewardship of the park district's resources on behalf of all the residents, despite continual, contemptible personal attacks on him and his family by the likes of you. Keep it up, Kenny-Boy. Please.
Ken,
I do favor Phase I of the plan as presented. I believe Phase II will not progress because of the dollars and other factors, but yes I favor Phase I and I favor the Park District moving forward without a referendum.
Anon: December 5, 2012 7:05 AM,
Duly noted!
You said you do not believe “Phase II will not progress because of the dollars and other factors…”
What do you mean by “dollars and other factors”?
Anon: December 4, 2012 8:59 PM,
You wrote: “...despite continual, contemptible personal attacks on him and his family by the likes of you.
My response: Would you be so kind as to illustrate one or more examples of “contemptible personal attacks on him and his family by the likes of” me?
Mr. Biagi has stated that the Park District has the authority to issue bonds to build the water park and this will not create any additional tax burden for the citizens of Park Ridge. Does he seriously think that the people of Park Ridge are complete fools. Until such time as the Park District pays back the money that it receives from the issuance of the bonds, they are obligated to pay interest to the purchasers of the bonds. Therefore, the taxpayers will be paying interest on 7.1 million dollars and are also obligated to pay back the 7.1 million dollars, albeit down the road sometime. How can he possibly say that this isn't going to cost the citizens of Park Ridge anything?
At the Park District's last meeting on this subject, the Park District refused to take questions from the entire group assembled for comment, although several citizens tried. They insisted that the meeting be broken down into small groups for discussion. In this way, if there were many negative comments, the entire group wouldn't be able to hear how many people felt about the project. Those in attendance were very disgusted at this maneuvering.
A water park referendum has failed twice. Haven't you gotten the message. The people of Park Ridge are sick to death of high taxes. Did you think you could slip this under the door and everyone would believe that this isn't going to cost us anything. Is it any wonder the seniors are screaming about how the Park District transacts business. Strategically setting up meetings to get only the result that they want and you can't believe a word out of their mouth about the financial cost of this project.
By the way Mr. Butterly. It's nice to hear from you on other subjects besides the senior center.
Park neighbor, Dec. 4, 6:43 p.m.
You have misplaced the comma in the number referred to in your comment. The number is about $330,000. The Park District board chose to sue the not for profit with whom they had an Agreement for 30 years. These are not seniors, per se, but residents who serve as board members of an independent charitable organization, SSI. They collect funds on behalf of the Senior Center and disperse dollars at their determination and pleasure on behalf of the Senior Center. The Park District is asking the court to determine if they need to reimburse approximately $330,000.00 which was invested by SSI in the Centennial Park Fieldhouse on 2 occasions. The investment has amortized over the years as was agreed and specified in addendums signed by the District and by SSI. The District filed suit, I guess, because they were afraid they were responsible for paying back the money SSI invested in the public building from its donations, campaign drives, etc. AND, I would agree $330,000 should be frozen and readuly available for payment until that case is resolved. That money may be hidden somewhere, but we know not where.
I do like your thoughts of spreading PRRPD pool expense dollars equitably across the city. I have heard of no plans either for the District’s renovation of Oakton Park and/or a replacement pool or athletic fields there where we own open space. The Centennial design as presented herein is lovely with its trees and paths, but too expensive for dedication to just one park when other parks also are crying for repair and cosmetic improvement. That section of the city should get more involved and demand services in their quadrant.
Several months ago, I had suggested to Mel Thillens, the acquisition rep on the board, that it would look lovely to have a park setting opposite Trader Joe’s. I had not thought of it as a new pool replacing the really old Hinckley. I do like that idea also. He said he had suggested that. Ms. Mountcastle felt the suggested space was too small. That is open space and could be an “unprogramed” space for trees, flower gardens, picnic tables…easy maintenance and no need to hire a wrecking ball to proceed or staff to schedule activities or collect money for walking on the property. People from other communities wo shop at Trader Jaoes might be impressed at the good usage of land. But a pool to replace Hinckley is an interesting idea. Hinckley is a much smaller pool, so may work.
Post a Comment