How is this for irony. Mel tweeted out a link late last week to reboot Illinois….”a little inspiration” he said.

If you click on the link one of the main posters on that feed is “Truth in Accounting” and the TIA project. It says “government accounting does not qualify as accounting”. Apparently either does Park District Accounting.

I heard a conversation about Mel being so close and maybe he will run again. I am sorry but it is too late. That was his chance. There is too much out there. Too many examples of actions or projects not matching who or what he said he is and would do.

Compare the information you just provided with all that Mel said in the campaign about lack of accountability in Springfield and the budget. “Value a dollar” he said. What about 1.6 – 2 million dollars??

Bueller?? Bueller??

EDITOR’S NOTE: The $1.6-2 million is a drop in the bucket compared to his $8 million, NON-REFERENDUM water park boondoggle that we predict will start posting red ink the moment the shine and the novelty wear off in a couple of years.

Many/most voters have the memory of a fruit fly when it comes to anything governmental/political, so it’s always possible Mel could re-invent himself in the next two years. But it’s not likely because he’s NOT really a fiscal conservative: he desperately needs to have his head patted and his tummy scratched by people who love government spending so long as it’s on stuff for them – especially non-essential stuff like the amenities the Park District provides. Frankly, he’d make a better Democrat, just like his Peoria buddy, LaHood Lite.

You are in error if you think the Park Board has not been on staff’s back demanding rigorous accounting/explanations about any overruns and making vendors’ lives miserable on behalf of the taxpayer. Watch the videos. But you probably know that already. The Park Board is united in this goal, just as the City Council is.Just because staff doesn’t hate and fear the Park Board doesn’t mean they aren’t holding staff feet to the fire, bigtime.

On your other topic, your assumption that the only way the Park District could do right with the “windfall” grants and gifts it has been promised recently would be to give taxpayers cash rebates is also in error. The Park District, unlike private sector clubs, is funded with taxes because the community has long since determined that the community as a whole benefits from Park District facilities. Based on that perspective, the Park District can benefit the public by taking care of the many deferred projects on its capital improvements list, or even holding the line on fees to enable more of those taxpayers who pay to construct and maintain facilities to
use them. Your assumption that any “found” money will be frittered away was probably true when you were on the Park Board, but it has not been true for at least six years.

And stop taking shots at Mel. You’ve done enough to him already.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So are you saying that whatever “rigorous accounting” the Park Board has demanded for these cost overruns must be a closely guarded secret – which the H-A’s reporter must be covering up when she reports that Terry Wolf is still trying to “identify and clarify” what happened?

Over the years the only Park Board members who have made anything close to a serious effort “holding staff feet to the fire” on fiscal matters are Biagi and O’Brien (and, once in a blue moon, Brandt) – although we will concede that those three have probably have been able to cajole “no” votes out of the others a bit more frequently than past Boards, but only because Mountcastle very well may be the most spendthrift director since Steve Meyer 15 years ago. But the majority of this Board still gets discredit for enabling Mountcastle to mismanage the Senior Center/Kemnitz Trust fiasco, and rubber-stamping Mountcastle’s mortgaging the District’s and its taxpayers’ future by borrowing multi-millions for facilities that have little-to-no chance of covering their operating costs, much less their debt service, including the NON-REFERENDUM Centennial water park.

And if the Park Board truly was concerned about “deferred” capital improvement projects, it should have used its NON-REFERENDUM BONDING POWER to do THOSE projects first, then gone to referendum on the $8 million water park AND the $13 million YCP. But when you want a water park but don’t trust the majority of voters to support it, you blow your non-referendum bonding on the water park and then use all your referendum bonding for the YCP. And you effectively throw all those other “deferred” capital projects under the bus.

Finally, every wound Mr. Thillens has suffered has been self-inflicted and deserved beyond any reasonable doubt by such a fiscally-irresponsible record on the Park Board that even the historically Republican-pandering Chicago Tribune couldn’t come up with a decent reason to endorse him over Marty Madigan/Mike Moylan, that Dem puppet from Des Plaines.

Voters (not me, but others in the community) approved the issuance of $13.2 million in bonds. Where is the extra money coming from? The state grant and the naming rights might cover it.

Which leads to the next question: Are the cost overruns driven by poor budgeting, poor project management – or by new accoutrements that Mountcastle added ex post facto?

Glad to hear Biagi asking the right questions.

Mel? I displayed your yard sign last month. Please don’t leave us in the lurch now.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Park Board just raised your taxes again tonight, Mr. Schildwachter, by a vote of 4 (Ryan, Bende, Philips and Brandt) to 2 (Biagi and O’Brien). Mel was in Disney World, although his vote clearly wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome dictated by the tax and spenders.

YOu are so out to lunch. I have two words for you: Steve. Hunst, CPA, MBA, etc. etc., former Park Board member who took the lead in instituting rigorous financial accountability — in the process taking a lot of low shots from longstanding “let the professionals do it” laissez-faire board members. When Mr. Hunst lost his seat the Park Board enlisted a Financial Advisory Board of actual, private-sector financial experts who are also residents to act as a second set of eyes on budgeting decisions. The Park Board has done more than any other taxing body in keeping an eye on the ball, so to speak, in recent years. As to throwing capital projects under the bus, you will never be persuaded that most people with families love the pool and it was only replaced when it was 18-plus years past its absolute outside useful life and falling apart. That was no longer a deferrable purchase. You also don’t seem to get that the Youth Campus was going to be sold to someone, and quickly; and therefore it was not a deferrable purchase. Moreover, the latter was accomplished with a resoundingly successful referendum; something you say you respect. Other capital projects were not thrown under the bus by any rational measure. My point was apparently also lost under that bus somewhere: Decisions might not please you personally but that doesn’t mean they were undertaken irresponsibly. And any budget discrepancies will involve the woodshed. If you don’t believe me, ask any of the limited number of Park Board members you respect. They’ll tell you the same.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There’s so much tripe here it’s impossible to address it all.

Hunst could spend hours drilling down into a potato chip, then turn around and vote to tax/borrow/spend a bundle – like the $8 million non-referendum water park. As for the YCP, a truly fiscally-conservative Board would have gone to referendum on just the purchase of the land – but they didn’t think they could sell that without adding the amusement park. But we’ll abide by the voters’ decision, although not 15% cost overruns before the permits have even been pulled.

Those who voted for the YC project approved a $13,200,000 park-not a $15,200,000 park. So the only responsible thing for the PD to do is scale back on the amenities like paddle tennis and performing arts area and not spend more than the $13,200,000 the yes votes approved. Put in only those upgrades that will get the most use by the taxpayers of the PD.

But this won’t happen because Gayle Mountcastle is not a resident of PR and she has no stake in this project whatsoever-except to the extent it pads her resume and empire building.

And with people like Mary Wynn Ryan on the board who have no concept of the fact that the 38,000 residents of PR are the main source of funding for the town, the school and the PD, the PRPD board will probably build a $15,200,000 and counting park.

Here we are 19 months since the referendum was approved in a low voter turnout April 2013 election and no RFP’s have gone out, no permits issued etc. All the PRPD has to show for 19 months of work is a fence around the YC property.

So where is all this extra money to fund this overrun going to come from? Where is the money going to come from the fund the loss generated by the $8,000,000 waterpark?

The real estate tax portion of the PD levy on my bill went up 50%. The fees to use the community center have gone up-and I’m sure the increase revenue at the CC is not to be used for the CC operations or improvements.

Another project of the PD is the unnecessary redo of the Maine Leisure center on Sibley. An Oct 7 article in the HA shows Pat Quinn giving the PD-with Thillens conspicuously absent-a check for $1,600,000 toward a $2,100,000 projected cost makeover of the Leisure Center. Where is the additional $500,000 coming from for this project? http://parkridge.chicagotribune.com/2014/10/07/park-ridge-park-district-grant/

Gayle Mountcastle and the PD board continue to show a total lack of respect for the taxpayers with their irresponsible financial management of the PD. Mountcastle should be told by the board that the YC park investment is limited to the $13,200,000 referendum amount-PERIOD. Any overruns and she should be fired.

Maybe the historical society can help with the funding a little bit?
I never understood that sweet deal.

I actually think the Board needs to revisit the whole project. The park district is very short on inside facilities. It should require that whatever is being put in, will be used and raise some fees to pay for future use. I say this as a user and taxpayer who wants an excellent park district and is fine with paying for a premium for a nice park district.

I know having nice things is against some on this board, but, seriously, give me nice facilities that are well managed and I think most taxpayers are happy kicking in a few more bucks.

Mismanagement and overpaying for mediocrity (like our schools) is not something I’m interested in.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Mismanagement and overpaying for mediocrity” tends to be contagious. But at least the City hasn’t caught it yet.

There was an odd situation at the July 25, 2013 PRPD meeting where the board produced two redesigned plans that were both structured around increasing paddle tennis courts from two to four, because Mountcastle was insistent that no courts would be built at all if they couldn’t build all four of them. My thought at the time was that this was a classic bait-and-switch since I had never heard this mentioned as a potential problem at all during the pre-election hype cycle where paddle tennis was being touted as one of the top features of the plan. From a Journal article back on August 20, 2013:

“Gayle Mountcastle, executive director for the park district, noted how the paddle tennis courts will only be built if park officials find an additional revenue source. They have funds to build two paddle tennis courts and will only build the paddle tennis area with four courts. “We will not go over our amount unless we receive additional grants,” she said. The property cost was $6.4 million with $6.8 million set aside for additional costs such as demolition and renovation.”

No specific mention of the cost differences between the plan variations was presented at the July 25th meeting to my knowledge, but here we are today with a miraculous increase of $1.6-2 million in costs. Maybe those “additional grants” never materialized and Mountcastle wasn’t willing to leave off the most desired feature of the YCP, like they did with the water park? Maybe we will never know…

Still, the most concerning thing to me remains the estimated operating budget of the YCP that you linked to in a post here way back, early last year. (Anyone can find the document by Googling “Youth Campus Detailed Operating Budget”). It involves such a narrow margin of error ($9,000 profit on close to $400,000 in expenses) that any variation in the rosy assumptions of usage could affect cash flows in such a way to put it massively in the red for its entire existence.

In fact I’m pretty sure the cooler-than-normal summer we just had is already doing that to the Centennial water park, based on attendance levels I witnessed on several walks passed the facility during peak daytime hours this past summer. If we end up having another one next year (which could be very likely since we already seem to be having a repeat of last winter) that will be two disappointing years during the period where this thing really needs to be hitting on all cylinders to pay back some of its debt before more year-to-year debt starts getting piled on top of the primary debt.

Of course when that plays out then we can expect that “climate change” will be used as the premier sad sack story in the future to shift all the blame from Mountcastle and Thillens, much like when you hear people around town still using the subprime mortgage crisis as a catch-all excuse for why the Uptown TIF is saddled in debt.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The water park will post big numbers for the first few years until the blush leaves the rose between years 3 and 5 – unless a neighboring community puts up its own newer and bigger, which could accelerate the blush’s departure.

I can understand and expect Bende, Philips and Ryan to blow our money, but what happened with Brandt? He used to be a pretty dependable vote for spending restraint (barring your pet peeve, the water park). What happened that he would vote for a tax increase when the Park District is sitting on a couple million dollar surplus?

EDITOR’S NOTE: It is a puzzlement.

Paine in PR:

You are hereby given the “rooting for failure” award…congrats!!

Look, the numbers are going to all come out in the end but let’s not rub our hands with glee and label the fist year “disappointing” as you did in your post. I mean do you really know that??

Well of course you do!! After all, you have done “several walks past the facility”. Give me a break!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence, but data is better than anecdotal – so long as the data is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

“Rooting for failure” is not a productive strategy, but neither is tolerating – or enabling – failure.

OK, you want anecdotal? Well my family continued our tradition of getting a summer pool pass and using the hell out of it. I was personally at the new facility (not walking by but in the water) several times per week last summer. I can report that lines for the high dive, slide and concession stand were the norm and lounge chairs were at a premium.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s swell…at least until the Park District’s year-end pool report comes out. But as we’ve written, we expect some good numbers – assuming cooperative weather – at least while the novelty lasts. And that’s a good thing.

Au contraire. “Mismanagement and overpaying for mediocrity” exactly describes the City’s function.

You appear to be up on the Park District’s antics, so you no doubt heard that the PD’s pool attendance figures were WAY up in a cold summer when other fancy-schmancy suburbs’ pool attendance was down. Ditto the revenue increase. But by all means, forecast your hope that it’s a temporary thing. Not like you live here and have a stake in the wellbeing of the community. And BTW, find fault with Mountcastle’s management but don’t ascribe it to her not living in town. The board changed its residency requirement to get Ray Ochromowicz, easily the best PD manager on the planet, over prior resident managers who, perhaps because they DID live here, were afraid to make the hard calls and annoy anyone they’d meet in the Jewel checkout line.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know who you are talking about not living here and having a stake in the community, but it ain’t anybody associated with this blog.

As for your Park District prattle, when this Park Board has to dig itself out of a $2 million/year debt hole not of its own making (a/k/a, the moronic Uptown TIF), your comparisons of the Park District to the City might start to have some merit. Until then you’re blowing smoke up your own kilt.

As best as we can tell, NO other North/Northwest Chicago suburbs opened up new outdoor pools this past summer to compete with our brand new $8 million water park, so our water park SHOULD have had big numbers. And it will probably have them again next year and up through year 5. So we’ll take your cheerleading more seriously at that point, assuming you’re still around and blowing smoke up your own kilt.

Shockingly, after scouring the local news websites, I find no mention at all of a tax increase from the park board this week (as mentioned above by this blog’s editor). Does anyone have any more details? If any local newspaper reporters are reading this comment, can you please publish something?

I am glad that many in the community enjoyed the new pool this summer. It seems like demand was SO high that the park district can get away with increasing the cost of pool passes & make more money. I would be glad to pay higher fees as long as there is a corresponding decrease in other spending.

Some will comment (anonymously) that “the park district is the smallest taxing entity”, as if it’s not worth discussing. My view is that $2 million in cost overruns IS a big deal, and possibly evidence of a continuing problem with governance.

Again I ask: Are the cost overruns driven by poor budgeting, poor project management – or by new accoutrements (like extra paddle tennis, as someone suggests above)?

Mel? Rick? Mary?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The H-A’s Ms. Johnson was present at last night’s meeting, so presumably it’s just a matter of time until the account of this – or at least some account – is published.

Given that the project isn’t even up and running yet, the culprit appears to be “poor budgeting” instead of “poor project management”; but additional “new accourtrements” cannot be excluded.

As the Editor of this blog correctly pointed out, the Park District Board approved a tax levy increase of 1.5% at last night’s meeting. The vote was 4 – 2 in favor of the increase (Yays: Bende, Brandt, Philips, Wynn-Ryan; Nays: Biagi, O’Brien). This vote came on the heels of recent Board consensus on November 6th of 4 – 3 in favor of keeping the tax levy flat (i.e., no increase) – (Biagi, Brandt, O’Brien, Thillens – in favor of no increase; Bende, Philips, Wynn-Ryan – in favor of an increase).

Four commissioners emphatically (and, in my opinion, recklessly) voted to raise taxes last evening despite the Park District enjoying a $1 M budget surplus for 2014 and approximately $1.25 M in additional, unanticipated revenue from grants and donations. Simply put, the Park District has done an excellent job of keeping costs down and increasing participation in programs, thereby dramatically increasing revenue from user fees. In point of fact, the Park District has now finally reached a level in which revenue from user fees outpaces revenue from taxes by approximately 53% to 47%. Despite all of this “good” news, four of the elected commissioners voted last evening to raise taxes to the tune of over $300,000 for 2015.

If you believe, as I do, that this overreach by the Board is both unwarranted and irresponsible, I humbly ask that you let your feelings be known to your elected officials either in writing or in person at our next Board meeting on December 4. We still have a very small window of opportunity to reverse this tax increase, but it can’t and won’t happen without the public voicing their displeasure to the four commissioners who voted for that levy increase.

As to the point regarding the projected cost overruns for the Youth Campus, I made it abundantly clear at last night’s meeting that I will not support one dollar of expenditures over the $13.2 M approved by the voters. If costs come in over what was originally anticipated, then we should plan to scale back the overall project. We have many other parks and facilities in the District that need attention and it would be reckless for the Board to spend money beyond what was approved by the voters on the Youth Campus while neglecting the other issues that we face.

Perhaps with some persuasion from our taxpayers my fellow commissioners will join me in holding the line on the Youth Campus project and in limiting spending to the voter-approved maximum of $13.2 M.

Rick Biagi
Commissioner

EDITOR’S NOTE: Big-time kudos to the Park District – INCLUDING Ms. Mountcastle, Staff and Board – for running the numbers and kinds of programs that users value enough to pay for, thereby theoretically reducing the burden on the taxpayers. But big-time jeers for blowing that effort by overspending on capital projects – especially when the facility operating pro forma seems like one big WAG.

And thank you, Comm. Biagi, for walking the walk while self-proclaimed guardians of the public purse merely talk the talk.

Holding the line on spending would seem to be what the Park District owes the voters who approved the $13.2 million. And

Steve:

I too would be happy to pay more for pool passes. I have told board members I think the summer pass is the best deal in town. Of course the have to find the point where rev is maximized without driving away business. If they price it too high they might make less money.

I wonder if anyone is even considering a price increase.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Better not let the “we pay taxes so why should we double-pay” user crowd hear you say that, or they’ll come after you with torches and ropes.

Thank you, Rick. What time on 12/4, and at what point in the meeting will it be appropriate to comment? Is there a specific agenda item that will lead to a reversal? Will all 7 commissioners be present?

Good god! Vampires sucking the life out of the residents one dollar at a time!!!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Vampires” seems a tad harsh. But a million bucks also isn’t “one dollar at a time.”

Before we line up with the ole label-maker at the ready, let’s look at all the votes taken by this Park Board. For example, of those who now vote against the levy, who “irresponsibly” supported the Youth Campus purchase? Hint: At least two of those voting against the levy increase were actively FOR the Youth Campus purchase and two of those voting for the levy increase were against the Youth Campus purchase — a decision with far more financial impact on residents than the 1.5% CPI increase to the levy. The voters agreed with the majority via Youth Campus referendum, but the fact remains it did and does constitute a tax increase. So there are no heroes or villains here. Sorry.
It would be lovely if we could stop with the ropes, torches, and name-calling and try to grasp the concept that, while elected officials don’t always agree on priority spending, they do think before voting on spending. Could you do that?
You will say that every decision should be put to referendum, but even just getting the basic info out and paying the lawyers for a referendum costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars, not including private contributions. A referendum isn’t free, so it’s not always the easy answer you’re looking for. I guess every reader has to make his or her own decision: Assume people we don’t agree with on a particular vote are fiends and fools — or that they’re thinking things through and coming to a different conclusion than you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have never said that “every decision should be put to referendum” – that’s the lame claim made by folks who clearly dislike referendums and want to try to marginalize them because they are the best way of measuring what the taxpayers want to pay for. Which is exactly why the Park Board wouldn’t let the Centennial water park go to referendum, which also meant that Youth Campus Park HAD to go to referendum because the Board blew its non-referendum bonding power on the water park that could have been used to purchase the YCP.

Finally, a non-binding referendum IS free. Lawyers aren’t needed to frame non-binding advisory questions. And just because some public officials choose to spend tax dollars on “information” campaigns doesn’t make it required that they do so.

And when it comes to spending other people’s money, any fool can do it – which is why so many elected officials are “fools,” even if they aren’t “fiends.”

Anon 7:46, what you are calling “rooting for failure” I call weighing data points and being a realist. Expectations of a particularly cool summer or two should honestly be worked into the 5- or 10-year plan for a water park’s profitability, so I really do hope that when I look at the numbers for this past summer I am pleasantly surprised. And if not this summer, then certainly over the next 5, 10, 20 years. Here’s to hoping they pull it off!

I simply don’t like to pretend that building multiple multi-million dollar facilities with cost over-runs before they even open combined with razor thin operating margins that leave no room for error is a great way to operate a park district.

Wasn’t buying the land, which was the “legacy” the Our Parks Legacy was supposed to be trying to preserve, only about $5 million? Just doing that would have been the wiser and less expensive move, assuming anybody at the Park District was actually concerned about that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, but the Park Board, spurred on by its executive director, feared it could not get enough votes merely to buy land. So they decided to create an amusement park to pander to as many special interests as possible, going so far as to promise a building to the Park Ridge Historical Society – because when people think “recreation” they think “Park Ridge history.”

Steve – the next Board meeting is on December 4 at 7:30pm. The agenda has not been drafted yet for the meeting, but as soon as it is released, I will be sure to get the word out.

I find it not surprising that in the End, This youth Campus has been closed down. The seeds of Change that Beckon “Yes indeed” , and the Powers that be are driven to the point of greed especially in It’s very vulnerable moments of another Establishments survival(youth Campus). Which only see opportunity for there own Gain and throw the Burden on the Backs of Taxpayers and in return enjoy the rewards off of them.
To be a Kid brought here(Park Ridge youth Campus) at a young age. It was a time of need for me. Where I was In trouble and The Campus was my Shelter from other Harmful elements of life. Inside this community, were People that cared for less fortunate youth. People with Big Hearts, Now as I seen what has happened and researched all the things that led up to the sale, and Used as a new town Project. Which has Clearly over shot It’s proposed Budget.
Something That Once was a good Cause is now a Past Charity In today’s new Complacent Town Governance. This kind of leadership is Ramp-id these days all over. One thing is for sure Greed kills In this Fragile world Most Take for Granted. This was a sad thing to see happen.
But it Today’s Political Machine It’s Just seems Today’s Divided are a world apart from Making anything Happen for the Purpose of good and for the better for all walks of Life.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t tell whether you are channeling the Book of Revelation or James Joyce. Irrespective of which, neither the City nor the Park District forced the sale of the Park Ridge Youth Campus. So if you’ve got a beef about its closing, it should be directed to the folks who owned and operated it before they decided to sell it.

EDITORS NOTE:So If you Got Beef about Its Closing, It Should be Directed to The Folks who Owned and Operated it before they decided to sell it.
Answer to That: It takes Two to Tango Or Two Beefs to throw in a Meat Grinder. Either Way The Towns Park District Bought It. As well as Purchasing a Property that Ended up Costing the Tax Payers More than what they Originally (bit off) Bargained for, or for that matter Being sold the Original Price To the Public(In Board Meetings)hence That In the End It was a mis-leading Assessment Of Total Price By Surpassing the Original Purchasing amount By Not Just a little by all Means.
Try Looking at the Whole Pitcher and Look In from the Outside Of the Door. Basically Look at all the ways It Unfolded and you should see the Truth. Poor Management At all Levels Of Business Period. And Yes Greed Kills.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.” Finnegan’s Wake.

And looking at the “Whole Pitcher” confirms that a buyer cannot buy from a seller who will not sell.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.” Finnegan’s Wake.

And looking at the “Whole Pitcher” confirms that a buyer cannot buy from a seller who will not sell.

I will Give credit due to the Literature That you have Illustrated and Named By some of the best Writers. Mark Twain Is a Favorite of mine In that subject.
However it has nothing to do with How this whole thing went down.
With that said With you response of Quote “And looking at the “Whole Pitcher” confirms that a buyer cannot buy from a seller who will not sell”.
Who are you kidding? They sold it and The Park District, They Bought It for a Price Period. Which In return Later Ended up Costing More then what was sold to the Public. Meaning the Project Cos ted way more Then what was Originally stated. So whether If the Tax Payer Payers liked that or not at this point, they were gonna be forced to Eat the Cost off the Poor assessments of the 13.2 mil or “so” selling Price.
“Accountability” “Narcissistic” “Incompetent”
These Nouns and Adjective words By Definition Exist Better in the very Days that you Quote In response to my Facts and Opinions on this subject and somehow Believe this correlates back to the days of well written Poetry and literature, AND or Is a Bad Joke Besides Itself. REALLY?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’ve got a great act going here, pal. Not quite lucid, but entertaining.

I am Glad I was able to Assist you on giving “some” Entertainment.
Probably was not “Some” for the Tax Payers of Park Ridge However.
But Frankly I think I was Clear Enough, as well as Being Explanatory of the Situation at Hand.
I am Going Back to Listening To Frank Zappa.
Which is a Person of Satire or a Pure example of a Satirist.
Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.
ENJOY!
The Truth Shall set you Free,
Good Day And God Bless!

EDITOR’S NOTE: And a “Peaches en Regalia” day to you.

Speaking of money/over budget check out the recent Park District Board Meeting video. It appears yet again the Park District has the SAME problem at the Youth Campus lot in regards to soil as they did at the non-referendum pool at Centennial. How is that possible again???? Same firm as before…. Maybe time for some answers from whomever is overseeing?? Or not overseeing…..