Welcome to

Fighting to Cut Taxes and Government Excesses

MORE PARK EH, PORK BLUNDERS

The Bourbonnais Township Park District is certainly consistent if nothing else. The latest caper is to buy farm land in the farthest outreaches of the township- two and four tenths miles from the southeast corner of Bradley. What is the inconsistency? This another in a string of irrational, financially questionable decisions which pervade Park District actions.

Why was this purchase of 61 acres of land completed?Ostensibly to enhance a 71 acre land donation made by a sister of one of the Board Members. The seventy one acres is to be a nature preserve. WOW! Just what the area needs, another nature preserve. Obviously the state park and its hundreds of acres is insufficient to serve the area. The KKK forest preserve is not enough to serve the area. Finally, the gigantic Grand Marsh preserve is not enough to meet the needs of area residents. Alas the Park District has rescued us from preserve starvation with the satiating seventy-one! What a relief!

In the mean time, taxpayers will once again foot the bill for District empire building and fiscal blood letting. By accepting the land donation, the District has taken one more piece of tax bearing property off the tax rolls. The donors are relieved of any further tax consequences and liability for the property and us taxpayers will be saddled with both burdens.

Adding insult to financial injury, the district purchased 61 more acres adjacent the donated nature conservancy. This was necessary because the conservancy is land locked. In the process the Park District was guilty of making several false statements. First, the district declared that the purchased farmland is zoned residential. This is untrue. A check with the county zoning office revealed that the land is zoned agricultural. Further, part of the land is farm wetland. This misrepresentation was apparently made to lead the public to believe that the property is in the path of dynamic development. Wrong! It's an area that will be very slow to develop. Most of the property surrounding it is in the Kankakee School District.

Second, the district claimed that the only other land available in the township would have cost $20,000 per acre. Wrong again! Land very near the Bradley village limits is available for between $4,000 and $6000 per acre.

Third, the district compared this purchase to a Park in Plainfield, which is two miles from the town. This is hardly comparable. Anyone who is familiar with that Will/Dupage corridor is aware that there are more new homes built in that area in month there than are built in Bourbonnais Township in a year.

The net result of all this is that the Park District has accepted a donation which is costing the taxpayers an up front price of $244,000. How many donations can we afford? The benefits inure to the donors who get a sizeable tax deduction, relief from future taxation, maintenance and liability. The taxpayers make up the tax losses, are paying $4000 an acre for land which could have been purchased for $3000 or less per acre. In addition, the land has no utilities running to it therefore, development costs will be astronomical and because of its remote location the property will be subject to severe vandalism. Finally, the new park is separated from two thirds of the population. If utilized, it means users will have to drive to it causing a negative environmental impact on the community.

The Districts final remarks about their new purchase are "we don't know what we are going to do with the land as yet". Does this sound like a prudent and wise purchase based upon wisdom and sound planning?

OUTRAGE
Organization United To Reverse All Governments' Excesses

Park District Actions

OUTRAGE has closely observed the actions of the Bourbonnais Township Park District during the past three years. We have concluded that the District is self -centered and not community driven. The District's strategic plan clearly indicates its self -centered philosophy when it repeatedly calls for identifying "opportunities for the agency."

A community centered District would identify broad community recreational desires and wants and work with other governments, private enterprise and other community organizations to find the most cost effective and sensible answers. A community -centered District would heed the wishes of its constituents who are the owners of the Park District. A community-centered District serves the taxpayers. In the case of the Bourbonnais Township Park District, a small special interest group of elected and hired District personnel has forced the taxpayers to serve the District.

A brief overview of the actions of this District will demonstrate the level of District self indulgence. This overview of District actions coupled with the accompanying five year financial analysis of District operations demonstrates how self centered this District is. We believe the term empire building is appropriate.

1) Realizing tax caps were coming, the district raised its levy 52% in a single year. This was done in total defiance of the wishes of the constituents who voted to limit taxes and spending. Was this action community centered and consistent with taxpayer desires?

2) The District led the community to believe that the Exploration Station would go to referendum. The District then changed course and decided to build without the consent of voters. It then stated that donations covering $700,000 of the costs of the Museum would be collected before preceding. Instead the district rushed the project and financed it with pre tax cap bonding and expensive installment loans. Was this a community centered action? Because of the district's self serving actions, the Station is now a big tax drain on us taxpayers.

3) The district has told by public survey after survey and through referenda not to buy more land. The District has ignored the community's wishes and purchased an poorly located highly overpriced piece of land. Is this community centered action or is it self -serving empire building?

4) The District has been told by the public not to build anymore on the Farm. The District still wants a Potty Pavilion, outdoor amphitheater a sttorage building for farm machinery, an asphalt parking lot, and a motorcross track. Is this being community centered and responsive to community wishes.? The district used semantic games to side step this issue telling the voters that these projects are not development, only building. Is this semantic gamesmanship being responsive to community wishes or is this another example of District self-serving empire building.

5) Instead of promoting existing pavilions which are available for use in the Township, the District wants to build its own pavilion. Is this community centered action, or is it empire building?

6) The district thwarted the wishes of 1000 voters who signed petitions to place District taxing practices on the ballot. The voters wanted the opportunity to express their desires for taxing and spending levels at their park district through the electoral process. The District thwarted the taxpayers democratic rights with legal maneuvers, hatched at a quasi secret meeting of Oct 22 , 98, which kept the voters initiatives off the ballot. Is prohibiting voters from exercising their rights, a community centered act, or is it self serving empire building?

7) Another agency working with private enterprise offered to make ball diamonds available for the citizens of the community and offered the Park District the opportunity to manage these facilities. Instead of graciously accepting the offer, The District did an end around in order to get more power for "the agency". The District's power play killed the entire project. Was this act a service to the community or was it a self serving act of District greed gone awry?

8) The District has been introduced to the opportunity to develop ball fields on thirty acres of property in the township. The District apparently has chosen not follow through because the "agency" wouldn't own the property. Conversely, a committee of the District has just recommended purchasing four 25 acre parcels of land for ball fields. Is this District acting in the best interests of the community or is it simply continuing its empire building.

9) The District bought 61 acres of land in the farthest reaches of the township for about $1500 per acre above the estimated value of the land. The District can't prevent vandalism within eye sight of the Perry Farm and yet it expects to prevent vandalism on this newly acquired, overly priced, remotely located property which has no utilities running to it? Is this being community centered, considering the Distrit could have had access to free land in the above mentioned situations. Is this District community centered or is it Park District centered-driven to build an empire at the expense of the taxpayers?

10) A five year financial analysis of this District's operations is pretty telling. It reveals the rapid growth of personnel, office and advertising expenses with little or no growth of revenue from operations. This smacks of mismanaged growth at all cost. Is this responsive to taxpayers who have asked the District to cut taxes and spending?

11) The District attempted to obligate the taxpayers to $4.3 million of development costs for Lake Bradley in order to get a $127,000 grant. Is this being community centered or is it empire building with callous disregard for the taxpayers?

12) The District petulantly fired an assistant director of the Exploration Station which resulted in the resignation of the entire Museum Foundation Board and scores of volunteer workers. Was this a community centered action-or was it done in defiance of the community's wishes?

13) The District refuses to work with communities to impose impact fees to acquire recreation land and to prevent the cost of residential growth from being pushed backward on present taxpayers. The District would prefer to make taxpayers pay full and inflated prices for the cost of recreation land. Is this community -centered action or is it District empire building?

14) The District could have used their capital bond money to pay down the expensive installment loans on the tax draining Museum, instead of paying $91,000 more than necessary for a land purchase. Is this conscientious community centered use of taxpayer moneys or is it empire building?

15) The voters sent the District three unmistakable messages about what they expect form the District through their overwhelming rejection of District's own tax initiatives. The District has again chosen to ignore taxpayers. Is this being responsive to the community's wishes or is this just more public be damned empire building action?

16) The District resisted to grant a free day of admission to the Museum for nearly a year after they were informed that State law requires a free day if a Museum Tax is assessed. This action is certainly not community centered it is in direct violation of State Law.

17) The District secretly applied for an OSLAD grant in violation of DNR regulations and made a property purchase offer for more money than the asking price. The District has steadfastly refused to explain why this was done. Is this conscientious use of tax dollars or is this empire building regardless of tax consequences.

It is unfortunate that this District's actions have turned what should have been a community asset into a serious tax draining liability. The taxpayers have become the servants of the District. The following five year summary of this District's financial mismanagement, reflects the tax at all cost, self centered, empire building attitude of the District.

Board Of Directors
OUTRAGE

PORK, eh PARK DISTRICT 5 YEAR FINANCIAL SUMMARY

The attached summary data sheets point to some rather obvious conclusions. First there is little relationship between Park District Budgeted and actual receipts and expenditures. It appears that annual budgets are set arbitrarily high to make it appear that the Park District is coming in under budget each year.

2) Program fees. The accounting method has been changed for fees in the 98-99 budget year. It would appear this has been done to obscure the financial performance of each program. In 98-99 all program fees are lumped together. It appears however that the total fees have fallen from 97-98 to 98-99 from $111, 981 in 97-98 to $105, 953 in 98-99.

3) There are sharp declines in membership dues from 97-98 to 98-99. There is about a 60% decline.

4) Donations have fallen substantially from $117,325 to only $24,095. The recent land donation will alter this profile however it remains to be determined if the asset value of this donation will offset its liability factor.

5) Net receipts from operations have fallen dramatically from $743, 024 in 97-98 to $268,442 in 98-99.

(6) As program receipts and operations derived revenues have fallen, salary expenses have risen dramatically to $655, 531. In fact, it now costs $2.44 to gain each new revenue dollar from operations.

(7) There has been a dramatic increase in office expenses during the same period of nascent or declining program fees and revenues from operations. Expenses are up 327% since 94-95.

8) There has been little reduction in program refunds, suggesting that the district is still mismanaging program offerings.

9) There has been a dramatic increase in advertising and pr expenses at a time of declining or nascent operations and program revenues. The spending has risen form $34,081 to $72,085.

10) The ratio of operating revenues to tax receipts has remained level despite stated district goal to reduce the reliance on tax revenues.

Blue is taxes
Burgandy is Operating Revenue

11) The results of Museum operations are just as disappointing. Total income including taxes and donations is $247, 808. Removing to taxes and donations from the income stream the museum is running a loss of at least $174, 224. The actual loss is probably much greater than this because not all expenses incurred from museum operations are being charged to it. For instance the charged vehicle expense is $39 dollars for the year.

12) During the past 5 years, the district has spent a cumulative total of $6,401,832 in excess of operating revenues.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS: There are far more indications of mismanagement than those highlighted in the conclusions. It is important to note that the two primary functions of the Park District are to run programs and to manage the Museum. Neither activity is being done cost-effectively. Despite the above documented financial mismanagement, and despite the publics' desire not to have the district acquire land or build facilities, the district has chosen once again to ignore the public and acquire land. It appears that the district wants to distribute mismanagement to a larger empire.

Check out these data sheets:

Park District Budget History Income and Expense Statement Children's Museum Financial Analysis

Donations can be mailed to:
OUTRAGE
P.O. Box 222
Bradley, IL 60915
or CALL us at 815-933-9696

There are no paid employees or officers in OUTRAGE. All donations are used to pay incurred expenses of the organization.

E-mail us at:

HOME