We don’t “only attack the pools and the senior center.” We “attack” local government waste and mismanagement wherever we find it, which seems to be almost everywhere we look.

And, more accurately, we don’t attack “the pools” but basically just Oakton, the white elephant that sucks about $100,000 out of the taxpayers every year as it sits virtually empty – even during the summer pool season. If the Park District were actually managing Oakton rather than merely tending it, Oakton would have been closed down years ago – and the Park Board would be passing a budget with “only” a $700,000 deficit rather than an $800,000 one.

The Senior Center is little more than a taxpayer-funded clubhouse for about 1,200 seniors, a good number of whom aren’t even Park Ridge residents and taxpayers. And they pay next to nothing in “dues” while the City and Park District taxpayers keep it afloat with over $200,000 a year.

As for Park Ridge Baseball/Softball and the youth football programs, we wrote back on May 19, 2008: “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.”

Those two organizations – along with Park Ridge Soccer and Northern Express Hockey – are private entities known as “affiliates” to whom the Park District has effectively contracted out its baseball/softball, football, soccer and hockey programs. The use of its fields and ice rink is what the Park District “pays” those organizations for operating those sports programs.

We have seen nothing to suggest that this arrangement isn’t financially beneficial to the taxpayers, although we’re not sure just how scrupulously the Park District keeps an eye on the operations of those “affiliates.” And it does appear that, at the very least, the arrangement probably has reduced the Park District’s payroll by a dozen or so employees.

To make matters worse-baseball and football have only recently filed with the IRS to be recognized as tax-exempt as a c3 public charity and after more than 50 years of not filing-baseball finally has filed a return. So some of these privately run clubs are getting large subsidies from the PD (taxpayers) and they are not disclosing how they are spending the money they collect. Sounds like the Taste of Park Ridge. It is not just the pools and the senior center that are subsidized by PD money. PR baseball and football are also the beneficiaries of PD subsidies.

Pubdog-why do you only attack the pools and the senior center? Why don’t you broaden your focus to include other programs that are subsidized by taxpayer money? Why do these two programs piss you off so much?

I don’t know about the “author” but when I go to meetings or read the newspapers (or blogs) about any of these local governments I almost never see, hear or read things that make me feel like I’m getting my money’s worth from thse gov’t officials. The bozos just lurch from crisis to crisis with no definite understandable plan, no responsibility, no accountability, while doing their best to conceal as much information as possible from the people who pay their salaries. If that’s “integrity” then we’re in big trouble.

What comparison was I making? I have no problem with closing Oakton. I can’t wait to hear the folks whining about parking at the rec center when those folks who went to Oakton come to swim there. The poster went further than just Oakton and made a statement that outdoor pools do not make snese in this climate. OK, so let’s not support any outdoor pools!! With that in mind, I am sure there are plenty of people in PR who don’t think ball fields make sense in this economic climate or the play grounds or the driving range. So let’s just not have the PD supported by our tax dollars. Let someone organize a soccer or baseball league and if it cannot support itself then screw it. Same with summer camps. Same with a pool. Let some business person start a “club” and charge membership fees. As far as the seniors, hell, let them fend for themselves, right??

Based on the Park District’s own figures for pool usage, in 2009 attendance at Oakton was 7,740, down from 13,395 in 2008 - probably due in large part to the cooler summer we just had.  Oakton also drew 3,000+ less users than Hinkley in 2009, despite Hinkley’s having a capacity less than one-half Oakton’s. 

And Oakton shows an operating loss of just a shade under $100,000 on revenues of almost $46,000 v. expenses of $145,516.  That means it cost the taxpayers approx. $12 for each of those 7,740 visits to Oakton last summer.  That’s almost a definition of fiscal mismanagement, especially when the other pools were nowhere near their capacities and could have accomodated Oakton’s users.

But even using the 13,395 uses figure from 2008, that comes out to about 150 uses per day for the measly 3 months Oakton’s open.  We’d be willing to bet that the athletic fields get that much, or more, daily use…and for 8-9 months instead of only 3, max.  So even if each of those athletic fields costs the taxpayers the same amount as Oakton, the actual cost per use is only a tiny fraction of Oakton’s – which means that they provide a lot more of what is known as “value,” a difficult concept for most public officials.

So you’re comparisons are more like blueberries to cantaloupes than apples to apples. 

But so what if Oakton loses a hundred grand a year? Maybe the Park District can make it up with one of Allegretti’s billboards next to the driving range.