The Real State of the Park District

Recently, Pleasant Dale Park district residents got a flyer in the mail titled "State of the Park District."

It was rather interesting.

In the flyer, Brad Martin stated that he believes, "It is important to make residents aware of their park district's expenditures and debt. It is the only way to hold the park and its commissioners accountable."

This is almost laughable.

The park board was questioned again and again on the expenses for the Chalet, finally, the residents were told by board member Colleen Pettrone to file a Freedom of Information request at the park district. When the residents did just that, they were not given the entirety of the documents that were requested. For some reason, many of the requested documents were conveniently left out including copies of contracts between the park district and 1st Alliance and Lyons Juniors volleyball clubs which are owned by board president Martin's sister-in-law, Sue Keck.

In addition, when Brad Martin's 45 minute speech delivered at the July 14, 2009 board meeting was requested by several residents, it was never provided. So a formal FOI request was submitted to the park district for a copy only to receive an answer that, "no such document exists."

In his "State of the Park District" report, Martin says that membership revenue is up 154% over January 2009. What he fails to tell you is how many members they actually have now compared to then and what dollar amount in fees is generated from these members. In a special deal worked with the volleyball clubs, their members (most of whom are non-residents) pay $100 annually for a Chalet membership while taxpaying residents pay $299 annually. Martin also tells you that food service and bar revenues are up 173% but he doesn't tell you what their expenses were.

The park district wants you to think that the Chalet is making money now. Maybe they are, but if you look at their budget report below (click on photo to enlarge it), you will see that the Chalet lost $79,493 in December of 2009 and $637,037 from May to December, 2009.*

The State of the Park District report talks about securing $389,000 in grant funding. That money is not available from the state and won't be for at least a year and a half. It's like counting your chickens before they hatch. With the funding problems the state is currently experiencing, it is likely that this money may never be available.

At March board meeting, Countryside resident Steve Kuehn asked acting board president Colleen Pettrone what the Chalet's break even number was and she did not know. Break even is a business term that means the point at which revenue equals expense. According to Kuehn's calculations based on financial statements received from the park, it is somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 per day. Mr. Kuehn also asked if the board had a business plan for the Chalet to which they did not answer.

The Chalet was set up as an enterprise fund, meaning it was supposed to pay for itself and not cost the taxpayers any money. The Chalet has never paid for itself in any year. In fact, the Chalet has borrowed all the available cash from all the other funds, effectively there is nothing left to borrow. At the March meeting the park board approved an equipment purchase for approx. $20,000 and according to park attorney Cainkar at the February meeting, they would have to borrow money from a bank to pay for it.According to Mr. Kuehn, the board has stated that the total cost of the recent Chalet rehab was the capital cost of $320,000. He stated that in reviewing the financial statements, there appears to be numerous non capital expenses associated with the project. These amount to some $75,000 not including lost revenue for the time the Chalet was closed and lost memberships that probably cost the Chalet another $50,000. All said and done, this Chalet renovation cost almost $500,000.

The park has bonds out till the year 2025 and unless the red ink goes away at the Chalet, there will be little or no other improvements at any of the park facilities. This was evident at the January board meeting when park director, Katherine Parker stated that two developers wanted to convey properties to the park district, but the park district does not have any money to maintain them. If the land associations would agree to do the mowing and upkeep, it would make sense to take the properties.

So next time Mr. Martin wants to make the residents aware of the State of the Park District, why doesn't he show them the entire picture rather than half of it.

*Data charts and information based on information gathered from FOIA records that were submitted by the Pleasant Park District and compiled by Steve Kuehn.