The Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:02 PM on Tuesday, December 15. During Public Participation Superintendent of Recreation Kathleen Esposito introduced Recreation Supervisor Sarah Sandquist who explained the situation with Metra and the District sponsored Polar Express event on Saturday, December 12. Commissioner Melissa Creech appeared delighted that the train she and her kids were booked on went off without a hitch and in a surprise move, did not blame or fault the Park District for the Metra scheduling error.
The Consent Agenda passed unanimously with a Pay Request of $853,732.45 in spite of Commissioners Creech, Julia Nephew and Jay Kinzler’s constant criticism and implications of overpayments, and oversights on the part of the rest of the Board and Park District Staff.
A larger than usual crowd was present which grew to over 40, including the Daily Herald, Glen Ellyn News, The Glen Ellyn Park Bench (Glen Ellyn Life did not attend to video), Eleanor Salimonias and other Commissioner Creech devotees from Citizens for Glen Ellyn Preservation. Mr. Rulah Moradi from the Glen Ellyn Platform Tennis organization gave a presentation to the Board. He was joined by Glen Ellyn resident and Nationally Ranked Platform Tennis player Nancy O’Sulllivan and Pat Walker.
Mr. Moradi’s presentation requested a Warming Hut for Platform Tennis at Maryknoll Park. The presentation outlined the Platform Tennis players partnering with the Glen Ellyn Park District to privately fund 1/3 of the project. Mr. Moradi’s bottom line is that: “We want to work with you, (the Glen Ellyn Park District); we want to make Platform Tennis succeed in our community”. Commissioner Ed Hess noted that the addition of Platform Tennis at Maryknoll was a key feature in obtaining an OSLAD (Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Grant) from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for Maryknoll Park.
Commissioner Ron Aubrey commended Commissioner Bill Dallman for having the vision and foresight to recognize the value of Platform Tennis. Aubrey further remarked that they are always seeking ways to add value to their resources and to offer programs for adults in the community. Commissioner Jay Kinzler, who campaigned against Platform Tennis as a “Pet Project” was forced to admit at the meeting by one of his patients, a Glen Ellyn resident and Platform Tennis player, the value of the program.
Commissioner Creech stated that she wished the Park District could fund the Warming Hut but it was a difficult time for them. This was odd since she was a vocal opponent of Platform Tennis since her campaign & it may have been highly unlikely they would or will ever get her support.
In a simple yes or no question Board President Sandra Minogue polled the Board if they would like Staff to further explore the possibility of partnering with Platform Tennis for a Warming hut. Commissioners Dallman, Hess, Aubrey and Minogue agreed to look into it – with no promises being made for funding. Creech, who campaigned against Platform Tennis said it is not a priority, Commissioner Julia Nephew said they could not go to referendum, which was odd since no one else was speaking of referendums and Commissioner Kinzler proselytized at great length and in great detail with the end result stating that if the Park District hadn’t overspent at ASC than they would probably have had the money for the Hut. After all of that the proselytizing, Kinzler never could form a yes or no answer.
Following the Board’s decision to further investigate a Warming Hut at Maryknoll Park, Commissioner Creech, in yet another seemingly carefully rehearsed and flawlessly performed Shock & Awe moment belittled her fellow Board Members and condemned Staff.
Creech & Kinzler quibbled about the Ackerman Budget. In spite of having received report after report on the Ackerman numbers, Creech continued to complain about the reports, and playing perfectly to the newspapers and audience: remarked that the funding of Ackerman has been consistently underreported and that she has lost confidence in Staff. What she seemed to forget is that since being sworn in she has done nothing but condescend and belittle Staff and her fellow Commissioners and that she has never indicated that she had any confidence, not to mention respect for either. She demanded a complete accountability be made and accused Staff of ignoring rules or bypassing directives as it suits them. This is spite of admitting that she is voting for Change Orders (and EVERY Pay Request at Ackerman since becoming a Commissioner) without having a clue of what she is being asked to vote for.
Creech said they need to know if they are paying for the same work twice, which is remarkable since at the December 1 Workshop Meeting Park District Legal Counsel Steve Adams made a futile attempt to explain to her that she had fair questions but the Court will ask what the damages are. In theory you did not receive what you asked for but these were several inches thick of documents, bids, surveys, permits and contracts. Yes, you have errors, but these are errors without real injury. You did not overpay, it is the difference between paying now and paying before. Paying now is known as betterment of the facility and the Courts will not award you for that. You cannot prove damages for the error.
This latest drama playing out at this meeting by Creech, Kinzler and Nephew made those present wonder if in fact they may have no intention to ever act as a Board. These 3 seem to publicly humiliate the 4 incumbent Board Members and to perhaps try to bully them into resigning, and to even build a campaign for their chosen candidates in the April 2011 Consolidated Election. Furthermore, it also seems that they are working to get Staff fired, or to bully them into resigning as well. More than one audience member wondered if Creech & Company have friends and family that they are making plans to hire to bring this drama into its final Act. In all of Creech’s comments against Staff and her fellow Board members she has never bothered to fully explain where she obtained her expertise as a Project Manager on a multi-million dollar facility. This is not the usual expertise of most housewives’ and ex teachers.
In any event Creech continued to complain that she hasn’t seen a Sworn Affidavit from the Contractor since May. She should review the Board Packet from the September 1 Workshop Meeting: http://www.gepark.org/assets/PDFs/Board%20Packets/BrdPkt090109.pdf, page 14. After demonstrating that she doesn’t even read her own Board’s Packets she continued to accuse Staff of hiding things from the Board, and refer to a scale of mismanagement and that there was no option other than to use an independent agent to conduct a Forensic Audit. She then made a motion for a Forensic Audit which was hastily seconded by Nephew.
Commissioner Kinzler, still perhaps smarting from the ramifications he received by those two after the October 27 Meeting where they walked out and he stated in defense of them: “Leaving a stunned majority, President Minogue lamented about the fractured Board and asked Commissioner Kinzler, their former running mate to speak with Creech and Nephew. Concerning their actions Kinzler responded “Sometimes I cringe, but you have to realize, some people have a different filter than others.” He further remarked “Because I have talked to them about their delivery, and I’ve talked to them about things that you have to find the positives and that you can’t just continually punch and punch and punch. Sometimes you have to step back and try to come to a consensus, so I understand your frustration and I understand what you’ve seen.”
In any event Kinzler went out of his way to condemn Earthwerks as well which is owned by fellow Glen Ellyn resident Dan Davies. This is the second time Kinzler has publicly attacked Earthwerks since becoming a Commissioner. The last time was at the May 19 Regular Board Meeting, please refer to The Glen Ellyn Park Bench article, Flooded Fields Reign Over Park Board Meeting.
Commissioner Ed Hess commented on the frightening allegations made by the 3. He stated that the cost of Ackerman was $125 a square foot, that other Park Districts are getting quotes from $250-300 per square foot. He stated that these were the decisions of previous Boards. He also remarked that this was accomplished without a tax increase. In an alarming display by Kinzler exhibiting that an elected official and a DOCTOR appears to have no knowledge of the taxing body he represents, interrupted and said taxes were increased. Hess wanted to know how you conduct an audit on a facility that is still under construction. No one bothered to answer him. They didn’t answer because like all other Board Meetings, Creech, Kinzler and Nephew do not appear to interact with their fellow Board members or with Staff. They instead appear to preach, condescend, proselytize and play to the audience and to whatever media outlets may be available to them.
Creech stated that Staff violated Board policy and approved Change Orders over $20,000 without Board approval. In yet another futile attempt to explain to Creech what happened, Park District Legal Counsel Nicole Karas explained that Change Orders were lumped together and that is a common occurrence during the construction process. Furthermore Counselor Karas stated that under the law you can only have a Change Order if it is; a) germane, b) necessary, and c) in the best interest of the Park District. Karas stated that the Change Orders met all 3 stipulations. Creech still wanted to have extra Board Meetings, in Executive Director Cory Atwell’s office with her 5 and 3 year old kids preset to approve. This, without any regard to how many different ways her suggested little impromptu meetings could jeopardize the Glen Ellyn Park District by flagrantly violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
Kinzler was especially miffed about the itemized bills for add-ons, especially the Port a Pottys at Ackerman while Nephew stated her extreme disappointment with Staff and the Change Orders. She reminded all though that the three ran on an issue of mistrust with the Director and Staff, while directly appearing to smirk at Board President Sandra Minogue, which would appear that Creech’s previous comments that she lost trust in them wholly untrue. In an incredulous moment which drew gasps of disbelief in the audience, Nephew actually claimed that they have tried to work with the Board but that Staff cannot make appropriate decisions.
Commissioner Ron Aubrey attempted to explain the construction process and the decisions previous Boards have made, but as with any other conversations with the three, it appeared to fall on deaf ears. Aubrey did comment that 11 years from now the Ackerman Sports and Fitness Center will be paid for. Resident Jim Markby commented that he was not asked if he wanted the building. The Referendum did ask all voters and 60% of his fellow residents responded in the affirmative. Resident Jeff Jourdan commented that, like the schools, he appreciates the value Ackerman will bring to the community.
Hess asked Nephew to reiterate the three new Commissioners position. Nephew again responded that they distrust the Board & Staff. Hess asked her why. Nephew vaguely mentioned something about things she heard from people in the community. With that concrete and decisive response Hess asked her if these were the same people in the community who complained about “Pet Projects” to her during the campaign. Nephew failed to respond.
Board President Minogue commented on the amount of reports Creech and Nephew ask for, and that as soon as some are done or almost done, there are numerous other requests. She commented on their disrespect to Staff and that it was appalling how they speak about Staff when Staff has done everything that has been asked of them. Minogue finally asked Nephew to wipe that little smirk off her face. At this point the Creech devotees from Citizens for Glen Ellyn Preservation grumbled and walked out while a woman in the back yelled at Minogue that Minogue has been picking on her all night, which remarkable since Minogue commented very little all evening except to run the meeting. The devotees exited at 9:10 PM.
Minogue commented that the three never took a moment to learn about how their Board works, that they came in with all the answers. Creech changed direction and reassured her that they just have philosophical differences. Creech did not tell us which philosopher recommends saying and doing thing to give the appearance of bullying Staff to quit and your fellow Commissioners to resign. However once Creech hoped on the philosophical differences bandwagon, Nephew and Kinzler echoed her.
The three voted against the 2010 Budget, which passed 4-3. Kinzler was still miffed about the cars while Creech complained about Parks Department cuts and that it was a safety issue. She failed to define any safety issues.
Executive Director Atwell presented information about the boiler at Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) which failed after 50 + years. The emergency bid requires a Super Majority vote of the Board. In a surprise move by Creech, she commented that she did not have a problem with the bid and that staff did a good job of researching all of the options. The last complement after 7 months of meetings recalled how great her daughter’s ballet recitals were. In any event the motion to replace passed unanimously.
Park District Legal Counsel Steve Adams commented that Director Atwell did a great job in negotiating with WDSRA (Western DuPage Special Recreation Association) for a long-term lease at Ackerman. This negotiation involved nine separate taxing bodies. The audience present cheered loudly in a show of support for Director Atwell.
Commissioner Aubrey commended Superintendent of Recreation Kathleen Esposito for signing a three year lease agreement with Anima (formerly the Glen Ellyn Children’s Chorus) which was beneficial to both parties.
Hess commented on the fractured nature of the Board, that he would like to see them all work together and talk about these newly mentioned “philosophical” differences and that wounds were starting to open & that they should all try to heal them before they get worse. Hess recommended asking Ted Flickinger from the Illinois Association of Park Districts to come in and mediate. Dallman thought it was a great idea, Minogue and Aubrey nodded in agreement while Creech, Kinzler and Nephew appeared indifferent. The meeting adjourned at 10:34 PM
So, while others have what they refer to as “philosophical” differences but others refer to as bullying and trying to get Staff to quit and Commissioners to resign, this will no doubt play out into the new year. So, as others may very well be continuing to plot and plan to carry out these “philosophical” bullying differences there are those of us who will, instead Celebrate the Season with our loved ones; family, friends and community. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
The next Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District is scheduled for Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 7:00 PM. The meetings are held at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) 185 Spring Avenue. As with all meetings, the public is invited and welcome to attend.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
BUT THEY WERE NOT SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET
The Workshop Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:02 PM on Tuesday, December 1.
Park District Naturalist Renae Frigo addressed the Board during Public Participation with an update on the Churchill Park restoration. The Glenbard West Rugby Team, several Scout Troops, St. Petronille students and a Glenbard West Ecology Class all contributed to the removal of over 1 ½ acres of invasive buckthorn this past year. Frigo added that approximately $1,000 in native seeds was donated by the St. Charles Park District to assist in the restoration project. District Naturalist Frigo was thanked by the Board and told by Commissioner Melissa Creech that she wants a program at Danby Park next year.
At 7:10 after Public Participation was over Thomas Waters arrived with Eric Peterson from Glen Ellyn Life. Although they were past Public Participation on the Agenda, Board President Sandra Minogue offered Waters an opportunity to address the Board.
A frequent participant at Board Meetings, this time Waters chose the opportunity to chastise the Board for expenditures and what he referred to as cost overruns at the Ackerman Sports Complex based on information he garnered from the internet.
Superintendent of Finance Laurie Woods asked Waters to define shortfall. She added that this is the result of a report that Creech asked for and is not able to acquire immediately due to Woods having to gather the information by hand going back to 2006, in addition to her other responsibilities. Woods further remarked that this was discussed at the November 17 Board Meeting and that Creech acknowledged at the time that this report would take some time to assemble.
In any event Waters asked if the Accounting Department would be handling this to which Woods replied that she is, and that she IS the accounting Department. Commissioner Ed Hess commented that as a Board the seven of them and the prior seven members before are constantly reviewing the Budget for Ackerman. The debate is over which parts belong to which budget and which fund. At this point, at approximately 7:15 PM Eric Peterson began to tape the meeting.
This led to a discussion of Change Orders for the Ackerman project. Superintendent of Parks Dave Scarmardo gave a report on the Ackerman Pay Request #13, which was in the Agenda. Commissioner Julia Nephew asked if all items on the Pay Request were for the amount bid on.
Scarmardo explained that the Pay Requests are for portions of the work completed, not for an entire bid amount. He further responded that PBS, Professional Building Services monitors the construction process and notifies the District with Change Orders when there is a change in a bid amount. Some items are omitted from the process. He explained that in the past the Board had approves additional expenditures up to $20,000 with the guidance of PBS given the fact that the Board meets twice a month and that without approving Change Orders can stop the construction process.
Commissioner Jay Kinzler, in more than one move during the meeting, showing that he was still fully on board with Team Creech, despite several past votes against Creech and Nephew, checked up on staff and called PBS to find out if staff was being truthful. In an extraordinarily thorough recap, Kinzler reported that in his conversation with PBS what he learned:
Kinzler asked PBS how Change Orders were handled. PBS stated that the Change Order is discussed with Staff and the Contractor. Then an estimate is given to Staff. The work continues or otherwise the project is at a standstill. Kinzler stated that PBS advised him that the screening were on the plans but not in the specifications which is not true. The screenings were omitted from both documents. The screening was done and Kinzler was miffed that it was done without his approval. The screenings were necessary as the athletic field could not be installed without these materials. Kinzler’s next complaint was that the EPDM vendor for the flashing cap. This too was omitted from the bid specifications but necessary. Part of this Change Order will be back charged to another contractor.
Board President Minogue asked Kinzler why he didn’t contact Director Atwell with his questions. Kinzler said he wasn’t whining or complaining, he just wanted more information right away. Creech commented that she was surprised that the Change Order was on the Agenda, and that her perception was that there were no other Change Orders.
Park District Legal Counsel Steve Adams offered that there seems to have been a disconnect with the reporting process, that these are valid concerns that need to be addressed. He further commented that in a construction project of this magnitude it is not uncommon to have anywhere from 3-6% of the total budget amount increased to due Change Orders. At this point an audience member in the vicinity of Thomas Waters was heard to mutter loudly: “Shut Up”. Coincidently, Thomas Waters stood up right after that utterance at 8:52 PM and exited the meeting.
Creech demanded to know who is culpable and what are the legal options for the loss to the Park District and the residents. Adams replied those are fair questions but the Court will ask what are the damages. In theory you did not receive what you asked for but these were several inches thick of documents, bids, surveys, permits and contracts. Yes, you have errors, but these are errors without real injury. You did not overpay, it is the difference between paying now and paying before. Paying now is known as betterment of the facility and the Courts will not award you for that. You cannot prove damages for the error.
Commissioner Julia Nephew asked what PBS’s role in the Ackerman project was. Counselor Adams explained that they monitor and oversee the construction process. Nephew proceeded to ask if PBS was on schedule with the construction at Ackerman. Adams again informed her that PBS is not the construction company; they oversee the many contractors working on this project.
Commissioner Bill Dallman thanked Kinzler and Creech for their diligence in questioning and learning the process. He also applauded Staff for their hard work and remarked that the Ackerman facility will withstand the test of time and make the community proud.
Moving along to the 2009 Tax Levy, Creech argued that she did not want to vote on this as she wanted more time to review the Budget. Superintendent Woods stated the deadline for filing the Levy with the County. Furthermore, Woods was directed by the Board to prepare the Tax Levy at the October 27 Regular Board Meeting for the December 1 Workshop Meeting. Counselor Adams reminded the Board that the Budget is not related to the Tax Levy. Commissioner Nephew asked if someone could please define the word consensus for her. The Board finally voted 7-0 to approve the Tax Levy.
Finance Superintendent Woods went on to define the Budget and Appropriations Ordinance. Commissioner Kinzler asked if this was the Budget. Woods explained that there is a Public Hearing on January 19, 2010 regarding the Budget. At this point Commissioner Creech demanded that the Board discuss the Budget. Commissioner Ron Aubrey explained that the Budget Ordinance was to be in compliance with the law and that that if they delay, they set back the public process. The Board voted 7-0 to approve the Budget and Appropriation Ordinance.
Commissioner Creech again demanded discussion of the Budget. As there were already (13) items on the Agenda for the Meeting Board President Minogue stated that the Budget was not on the Agenda, and that they had not planned on discussing the Budget at this Meeting, because well, it was not on the Agenda. The Board received the Board Packet with the Agenda on Wednesday, November 25. Commissioner Creech did not mention why she did not ask for a change in the Agenda to discuss the Budget prior this portion of the Meeting.
On Monday, November 30 Commissioner Kinzler sent an email with questions, comments and concerns about the Budget. When Creech was asked what she would like to discuss about the Budget Creech commented about Kinzler’s email. Board President Minogue remarked to Creech that Commissioner Kinzler was fully capable of asking the Board and Staff about his email on his own. Kinzler was asked if he wanted to discuss his email at that time, during Matters from Commissioners (one of the final Meeting Agenda items), or if he would like to meet with Director Atwell in the next day or two.
Kinzler replied that he knew his email from the day before was short notice but said he would like to discuss during Matters from Commissioners. During this point in the meeting, Kinzler proselytized in great detail ways the District could cut costs. Referencing cell phone company commercials offering unlimited minute plans and the like he asked if changing cell companies would provide greater savings. Superintendent Woods replied that the District, as a Government Agency utilizes a State Contract with Verizon. This contract allows changes to be made throughout the year, without penalty, unlike an individual plan which in many instances provides for steep penalties for changes made outside of a 2 years contract. This, Woods stated is a great benefit as their cell phone needs change throughout the season. More District employees require phones during the summer months and this plan better meets the District’s needs.
Nephew derisively asked why some employees carry Blackberry devices. Woods responded that this was to meet the needs of the Committees and was at their request. Soccer and baseball specifically asked for a higher level of communication with staff given their intense needs for fields and to communicate changes or conditions of the many fields they require.
Superintendent Scarmardo commented that the Parks Department previously used radios with an antenna on MSRC. The reception was poor and communication improved greatly with the use of cell phones. Now with the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) Sunset Clause on analog radios changing to digital as of February 18, 2008, the cost to comply with the FCC and the new technology would be cost prohibitive.
Commissioner Kinzler proceeded to demand to know why the District provides vehicles for Senior Staff Members. Kinzler contacted the Wheaton, Lombard and Hinsdale Park Districts and responded that these three Park Districts do not provide vehicles for staff & therefore the Glen Ellyn Park District should not either. Please read the article provided in The Glen Ellyn Park Bench: SENIOR STAFF VEHICLES NOT AS UNCOMMON AS YOU’D THINK THEY ARE. This provides a list of over 40 Park Districts and their Vehicle Staff Policies. Kinzler responded that there needs to be more cost cutting or well, he’s just not going to vote for the budget.
Board President Minogue suggested that the Board use caution with regard to micromanaging. She reminded some of the Board that some of these policies were in place before the Senior Staff members were even employed with the Glen Ellyn Park District.
Commissioner Ed Hess commented that the Board’s role is to set policy and approve expenditures. He reminded the Board that to micromanage at that level is not what the Board is here for. He further remarked that when Commissioners request copious amounts of reports and data, and when these numerous requests interfere with the day to day operations of the Park District Staff than, at some point the Board may have to decide what is worthwhile. Especially given the cost in man hours and staffing these requests may take.
Commissioner Creech responded that she was concerned about cuts in the parks budget. Her concerns were that garbage would not be being picked up, grass would not be mowed, and fields would not be striped for sports. Creech offered that under no circumstances should services be cut from the Budget, yet she did not provide any clear alternatives despite Superintendent Scarmardo’s earlier comments that these services would be reduced, monitored carefully and brought to the Board if any changes were required.
Commissioner Hess reminded the Board that Board Elections were forthcoming in January. The Meeting adjourned at 9:43 PM.
The next Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District is scheduled for Tuesday, December 15 at 7:00 PM. The meetings are held at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) 185 Spring Avenue. As with all meetings, the public is invited and welcome to attend.
Park District Naturalist Renae Frigo addressed the Board during Public Participation with an update on the Churchill Park restoration. The Glenbard West Rugby Team, several Scout Troops, St. Petronille students and a Glenbard West Ecology Class all contributed to the removal of over 1 ½ acres of invasive buckthorn this past year. Frigo added that approximately $1,000 in native seeds was donated by the St. Charles Park District to assist in the restoration project. District Naturalist Frigo was thanked by the Board and told by Commissioner Melissa Creech that she wants a program at Danby Park next year.
At 7:10 after Public Participation was over Thomas Waters arrived with Eric Peterson from Glen Ellyn Life. Although they were past Public Participation on the Agenda, Board President Sandra Minogue offered Waters an opportunity to address the Board.
A frequent participant at Board Meetings, this time Waters chose the opportunity to chastise the Board for expenditures and what he referred to as cost overruns at the Ackerman Sports Complex based on information he garnered from the internet.
Superintendent of Finance Laurie Woods asked Waters to define shortfall. She added that this is the result of a report that Creech asked for and is not able to acquire immediately due to Woods having to gather the information by hand going back to 2006, in addition to her other responsibilities. Woods further remarked that this was discussed at the November 17 Board Meeting and that Creech acknowledged at the time that this report would take some time to assemble.
In any event Waters asked if the Accounting Department would be handling this to which Woods replied that she is, and that she IS the accounting Department. Commissioner Ed Hess commented that as a Board the seven of them and the prior seven members before are constantly reviewing the Budget for Ackerman. The debate is over which parts belong to which budget and which fund. At this point, at approximately 7:15 PM Eric Peterson began to tape the meeting.
This led to a discussion of Change Orders for the Ackerman project. Superintendent of Parks Dave Scarmardo gave a report on the Ackerman Pay Request #13, which was in the Agenda. Commissioner Julia Nephew asked if all items on the Pay Request were for the amount bid on.
Scarmardo explained that the Pay Requests are for portions of the work completed, not for an entire bid amount. He further responded that PBS, Professional Building Services monitors the construction process and notifies the District with Change Orders when there is a change in a bid amount. Some items are omitted from the process. He explained that in the past the Board had approves additional expenditures up to $20,000 with the guidance of PBS given the fact that the Board meets twice a month and that without approving Change Orders can stop the construction process.
Commissioner Jay Kinzler, in more than one move during the meeting, showing that he was still fully on board with Team Creech, despite several past votes against Creech and Nephew, checked up on staff and called PBS to find out if staff was being truthful. In an extraordinarily thorough recap, Kinzler reported that in his conversation with PBS what he learned:
Kinzler asked PBS how Change Orders were handled. PBS stated that the Change Order is discussed with Staff and the Contractor. Then an estimate is given to Staff. The work continues or otherwise the project is at a standstill. Kinzler stated that PBS advised him that the screening were on the plans but not in the specifications which is not true. The screenings were omitted from both documents. The screening was done and Kinzler was miffed that it was done without his approval. The screenings were necessary as the athletic field could not be installed without these materials. Kinzler’s next complaint was that the EPDM vendor for the flashing cap. This too was omitted from the bid specifications but necessary. Part of this Change Order will be back charged to another contractor.
Board President Minogue asked Kinzler why he didn’t contact Director Atwell with his questions. Kinzler said he wasn’t whining or complaining, he just wanted more information right away. Creech commented that she was surprised that the Change Order was on the Agenda, and that her perception was that there were no other Change Orders.
Park District Legal Counsel Steve Adams offered that there seems to have been a disconnect with the reporting process, that these are valid concerns that need to be addressed. He further commented that in a construction project of this magnitude it is not uncommon to have anywhere from 3-6% of the total budget amount increased to due Change Orders. At this point an audience member in the vicinity of Thomas Waters was heard to mutter loudly: “Shut Up”. Coincidently, Thomas Waters stood up right after that utterance at 8:52 PM and exited the meeting.
Creech demanded to know who is culpable and what are the legal options for the loss to the Park District and the residents. Adams replied those are fair questions but the Court will ask what are the damages. In theory you did not receive what you asked for but these were several inches thick of documents, bids, surveys, permits and contracts. Yes, you have errors, but these are errors without real injury. You did not overpay, it is the difference between paying now and paying before. Paying now is known as betterment of the facility and the Courts will not award you for that. You cannot prove damages for the error.
Commissioner Julia Nephew asked what PBS’s role in the Ackerman project was. Counselor Adams explained that they monitor and oversee the construction process. Nephew proceeded to ask if PBS was on schedule with the construction at Ackerman. Adams again informed her that PBS is not the construction company; they oversee the many contractors working on this project.
Commissioner Bill Dallman thanked Kinzler and Creech for their diligence in questioning and learning the process. He also applauded Staff for their hard work and remarked that the Ackerman facility will withstand the test of time and make the community proud.
Moving along to the 2009 Tax Levy, Creech argued that she did not want to vote on this as she wanted more time to review the Budget. Superintendent Woods stated the deadline for filing the Levy with the County. Furthermore, Woods was directed by the Board to prepare the Tax Levy at the October 27 Regular Board Meeting for the December 1 Workshop Meeting. Counselor Adams reminded the Board that the Budget is not related to the Tax Levy. Commissioner Nephew asked if someone could please define the word consensus for her. The Board finally voted 7-0 to approve the Tax Levy.
Finance Superintendent Woods went on to define the Budget and Appropriations Ordinance. Commissioner Kinzler asked if this was the Budget. Woods explained that there is a Public Hearing on January 19, 2010 regarding the Budget. At this point Commissioner Creech demanded that the Board discuss the Budget. Commissioner Ron Aubrey explained that the Budget Ordinance was to be in compliance with the law and that that if they delay, they set back the public process. The Board voted 7-0 to approve the Budget and Appropriation Ordinance.
Commissioner Creech again demanded discussion of the Budget. As there were already (13) items on the Agenda for the Meeting Board President Minogue stated that the Budget was not on the Agenda, and that they had not planned on discussing the Budget at this Meeting, because well, it was not on the Agenda. The Board received the Board Packet with the Agenda on Wednesday, November 25. Commissioner Creech did not mention why she did not ask for a change in the Agenda to discuss the Budget prior this portion of the Meeting.
On Monday, November 30 Commissioner Kinzler sent an email with questions, comments and concerns about the Budget. When Creech was asked what she would like to discuss about the Budget Creech commented about Kinzler’s email. Board President Minogue remarked to Creech that Commissioner Kinzler was fully capable of asking the Board and Staff about his email on his own. Kinzler was asked if he wanted to discuss his email at that time, during Matters from Commissioners (one of the final Meeting Agenda items), or if he would like to meet with Director Atwell in the next day or two.
Kinzler replied that he knew his email from the day before was short notice but said he would like to discuss during Matters from Commissioners. During this point in the meeting, Kinzler proselytized in great detail ways the District could cut costs. Referencing cell phone company commercials offering unlimited minute plans and the like he asked if changing cell companies would provide greater savings. Superintendent Woods replied that the District, as a Government Agency utilizes a State Contract with Verizon. This contract allows changes to be made throughout the year, without penalty, unlike an individual plan which in many instances provides for steep penalties for changes made outside of a 2 years contract. This, Woods stated is a great benefit as their cell phone needs change throughout the season. More District employees require phones during the summer months and this plan better meets the District’s needs.
Nephew derisively asked why some employees carry Blackberry devices. Woods responded that this was to meet the needs of the Committees and was at their request. Soccer and baseball specifically asked for a higher level of communication with staff given their intense needs for fields and to communicate changes or conditions of the many fields they require.
Superintendent Scarmardo commented that the Parks Department previously used radios with an antenna on MSRC. The reception was poor and communication improved greatly with the use of cell phones. Now with the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) Sunset Clause on analog radios changing to digital as of February 18, 2008, the cost to comply with the FCC and the new technology would be cost prohibitive.
Commissioner Kinzler proceeded to demand to know why the District provides vehicles for Senior Staff Members. Kinzler contacted the Wheaton, Lombard and Hinsdale Park Districts and responded that these three Park Districts do not provide vehicles for staff & therefore the Glen Ellyn Park District should not either. Please read the article provided in The Glen Ellyn Park Bench: SENIOR STAFF VEHICLES NOT AS UNCOMMON AS YOU’D THINK THEY ARE. This provides a list of over 40 Park Districts and their Vehicle Staff Policies. Kinzler responded that there needs to be more cost cutting or well, he’s just not going to vote for the budget.
Board President Minogue suggested that the Board use caution with regard to micromanaging. She reminded some of the Board that some of these policies were in place before the Senior Staff members were even employed with the Glen Ellyn Park District.
Commissioner Ed Hess commented that the Board’s role is to set policy and approve expenditures. He reminded the Board that to micromanage at that level is not what the Board is here for. He further remarked that when Commissioners request copious amounts of reports and data, and when these numerous requests interfere with the day to day operations of the Park District Staff than, at some point the Board may have to decide what is worthwhile. Especially given the cost in man hours and staffing these requests may take.
Commissioner Creech responded that she was concerned about cuts in the parks budget. Her concerns were that garbage would not be being picked up, grass would not be mowed, and fields would not be striped for sports. Creech offered that under no circumstances should services be cut from the Budget, yet she did not provide any clear alternatives despite Superintendent Scarmardo’s earlier comments that these services would be reduced, monitored carefully and brought to the Board if any changes were required.
Commissioner Hess reminded the Board that Board Elections were forthcoming in January. The Meeting adjourned at 9:43 PM.
The next Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District is scheduled for Tuesday, December 15 at 7:00 PM. The meetings are held at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) 185 Spring Avenue. As with all meetings, the public is invited and welcome to attend.
SENIOR STAFF VEHICLES NOT AS UNCOMMON AS YOU’D THINK THEY ARE
At the December 1 Workshop Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District Board of Commissioners, Commissioner Jay Kinzler offered suggestions for cutting costs. Kinzler contacted the Hinsdale, Lombard and Wheaton Park Districts and reported back that they do not offer vehicles for their Senior Executives.
Glen Ellyn Park District Executive Director Cory Atwell and Superintendent of Parks Dave Scarmardo remarked that the policy was in place when they were hired: 16 years and 11 years ago respectively.
Superintendent of Finance Laurie Woods offered information from a survey she conducted from 41 other Park Districts in Illinois, and the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. Woods offered that it is not unique that the Glen Ellyn Park District offer vehicles for Senior Staff. A FOI (Freedom of Information Act) request was filed by the Glen Ellyn Park Bench with the Glen Ellyn Park District for the Superintendent Woods Vehicle Survey. The Vehicle Survey is as follows:
Questions that were asked in the 11-07-2009 survey:
1. What positions in your organization gets cars?
2. Are they taxed for it as a benefit for personal use?
3. If they do not get a company car, do they get a car allowance?
• Woodridge Park District
1. Parks Superintendent, Landscape Architect, Facilities Manager, and in the summer Aquatics Maintenance Supervisor
2. Yes everyone is taxed
3. Everyone else is encouraged to take a company vehicle for around town driving but reimbursed for their personal vehicle is necessary
• Vernon Hills Park District
1. Executive Director and Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes
3. No allowances, only mileage reimbursement for travel/training etc.
• Streamwood Park District
1. No one, we do not have a “company car.” All we have is vehicles for our maintenance crew
2. N/A
3. Currently there is a freeze on mileage reimbursement. In addition, there are only two people who currently receive a car allowance: Director (In his contract) and the Superintendent of Recreation
• WDSRA
1. Superintendent of Recreation
2. Yes
3. Executive Director has a salary adjustment to compensate for not having a company vehicle
• Medinah Park District
1. The Director receives a car
2. He is taxed for it at the end of the year
3. Superintendent receives an allowance each month; he is also taxed at the end of the year. The person who does the banking gets reimbursed but it is not that much
• Skokie Park District
1. Director, Superintendent of Recreation, Superintendent of Facilities/Parks
2. Taxed for personal use
3. No Response
• Darien Park District
1. The Executive Director
2. Is claimed on taxes
3. The rest receive mileage if they use there own cars for company business, there is a fleet of trucks and a van that can be used during the day for business purposes
• Glenview Park District
1. Executive Director and 4 Division Superintendents
2. Yes
3. No Response
• Urbana Park District
1. Superintendent of Operations
2. Yes, for personal miles used…. Goes on paycheck
3. Yes, Executive Director and Superintendent of Recreation receive a car allowance. Is a taxable benefit, also IMRF wages
• Mundelein Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks, Superintendent of Golf Course
2. Everyone is taxed
3. The Director is given $7,000 annual car allowance
• Tinley Park – Park District
1. Director
2. Pays 40% of the annual miles driven multiplied by the IRS mileage rate
3. No Response
• Northbrook Park District
1. Three Directors (Division Heads) and the Executive Director
2. Yes
3. No allowances, actual mileage reimbursement for all staff that use their personal car for business
• Deerfield Park District
1. Executive Director, Director of Park Services, Director of Leisure Services
2. Yes, using IRS lease value method
3. No car allowances, other staff can submit reimbursement on a per mile basis
• Naperville Park District
1. None
2. No Response
3. Yes (applies to Executive Director only)
• Morton Grove Park District
1. Director only
2. Tax on personal usage
3. No Response
• Wheeling Park District
1. No
2. No
3. No
• St. Charles Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks and Superintendent of Recreation
2. It is added to their income and they pay tax on it
3. The Director got an increase in pay for not taking a car, the two that get cars get no reimbursement, and they can fill up with gas at the district. Anyone else that uses their own car for business can get reimbursed per the federal rate
• Forest Preserve District of DuPage County
1. Law enforcement personnel take their squads home
2. Law Enforcement are exempt from taxation
3. The Executive Director gets a car allowance and is taxed for it
• Des Plaines Park District
1. Executive Director, Superintendent of Finance, Superintendent of Recreation
2. It is taxed as a non-cash benefit
• Huntley Park District
1. The Executive Director has a company car
2. His W-2 is adjusted for it
3. The golf course has a company car, the Superintendent takes it home and also has his W-2 adjusted for this use.
• Batavia Park District
1. None.
2. No Response
3. The Director gets a car allowance, which goes through payroll
• Downers Grove Park District
1. Administrator, Director of Parks, Director of Recreation
2. Yes
3. Parks Foreman has a vehicle to take home but no personal use. Others use pool vehicles or receive the IRS mileage reimbursement for work use
• Park District of Highland Park
1. No company Cars
2. Director and Department Heads receive allowance and is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement at IRS rate
• Arlington Heights Park District
1. Executive Director, Directors
2. Yes
3. Business use of personal vehicle qualifies for mileage reimbursement (must have proof of insurance on file)
• Buffalo Grove Park District
1. Executive Director, Deputy Director, Superintendent of Parks, and the Risk Manager
2. They are taxed each paycheck on their personal use of the car
3. They do provide a car allowance to about 8 others they provide details of there usage to the district
• Prospect Heights Park District
1. Such a small Park District no one has a company car
2. No Response
3. There are park district vehicles that can be used for park district purposes during the work day
• River Forest Park District
1. No Response
2. Yes it is taxed
3. The Executive Director gets a car allowance it’s $4,200 year
• Rolling Meadows Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes
3. 2 employees get a car allowance, Superintendent of Recreation and the Executive Director
• Northfield Park District
1. The Executive Director
2. None of the benefits are taxed
3. The Executive Director and the Superintendent of Recreation get a car allowance
• Crystal Lake Park District
1. No Response
2. No Response
3. The Director is the only employee with a car allowance and it is $7,200 a year
• River Trails Park District
1. No one gets a company car
2. No Response
3. No Response
• New Lenox Park District
1. None
2. N/A
3. Just the Director, he is paid through payroll and yes taxes are taken out
• Carol Stream Park District
1. The Executive Director, Director of Parks and Facilities, Director of Recreation
2. Yes, they will be starting this year. They are currently working on how to handle this
3. The Director of Marketing Services receives a $590 annual car allowance. In previous years this was processed through A/P. Starting in 2010, it will be handled through payroll so that it will be taxed
• Bensenville Park District
1. None
2. N/A
3. Only the Director receives a car allowance
• Addison Park District
1. Executive Director and Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes, added to W-2 each year
3. Other Superintendents and Department Heads and most Supervisors receive a monthly stipend of $80 (reviewed each time the IRS updates the allowable mileage reimbursement rate)
• Winfield Park District
1. None
2. No Response
3. Provide mileage at the current rate
• Wheaton Park District
1. Executive Director receives a car
2. The Director is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Bloomingdale Park District
1. The Director and Superintendent of Parks receives a car
2. They are not taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Lombard Park District
1. Director receives a car allowance of $500 a month
2. The Director is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Elk Grove Park District
1. Director of Parks, Superintendent of Golf
2. No Tax
3. Executive Director receives a $500 car allowance, the Superintendent of Recreation and the Superintendent receive $100 month for car expenses
• Elmhurst Park District
1. No cars are going home, but 3 employees are allowed to go to the Park District gas pump and fill their cars up
2. They are taxed
3. All other employees receive mileage reimbursement
• Hoffman Estates
1. 6 Division Heads receive cars and they take them home
2. They are taxed for it
3. All other employees receive mileage reimbursement
The next Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District is scheduled for Tuesday, December 15 at 7:00 P.M. The meetings are held at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) 185 Spring Avenue. As with all meetings, the public is invited and welcome to attend.
Glen Ellyn Park District Executive Director Cory Atwell and Superintendent of Parks Dave Scarmardo remarked that the policy was in place when they were hired: 16 years and 11 years ago respectively.
Superintendent of Finance Laurie Woods offered information from a survey she conducted from 41 other Park Districts in Illinois, and the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. Woods offered that it is not unique that the Glen Ellyn Park District offer vehicles for Senior Staff. A FOI (Freedom of Information Act) request was filed by the Glen Ellyn Park Bench with the Glen Ellyn Park District for the Superintendent Woods Vehicle Survey. The Vehicle Survey is as follows:
Questions that were asked in the 11-07-2009 survey:
1. What positions in your organization gets cars?
2. Are they taxed for it as a benefit for personal use?
3. If they do not get a company car, do they get a car allowance?
• Woodridge Park District
1. Parks Superintendent, Landscape Architect, Facilities Manager, and in the summer Aquatics Maintenance Supervisor
2. Yes everyone is taxed
3. Everyone else is encouraged to take a company vehicle for around town driving but reimbursed for their personal vehicle is necessary
• Vernon Hills Park District
1. Executive Director and Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes
3. No allowances, only mileage reimbursement for travel/training etc.
• Streamwood Park District
1. No one, we do not have a “company car.” All we have is vehicles for our maintenance crew
2. N/A
3. Currently there is a freeze on mileage reimbursement. In addition, there are only two people who currently receive a car allowance: Director (In his contract) and the Superintendent of Recreation
• WDSRA
1. Superintendent of Recreation
2. Yes
3. Executive Director has a salary adjustment to compensate for not having a company vehicle
• Medinah Park District
1. The Director receives a car
2. He is taxed for it at the end of the year
3. Superintendent receives an allowance each month; he is also taxed at the end of the year. The person who does the banking gets reimbursed but it is not that much
• Skokie Park District
1. Director, Superintendent of Recreation, Superintendent of Facilities/Parks
2. Taxed for personal use
3. No Response
• Darien Park District
1. The Executive Director
2. Is claimed on taxes
3. The rest receive mileage if they use there own cars for company business, there is a fleet of trucks and a van that can be used during the day for business purposes
• Glenview Park District
1. Executive Director and 4 Division Superintendents
2. Yes
3. No Response
• Urbana Park District
1. Superintendent of Operations
2. Yes, for personal miles used…. Goes on paycheck
3. Yes, Executive Director and Superintendent of Recreation receive a car allowance. Is a taxable benefit, also IMRF wages
• Mundelein Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks, Superintendent of Golf Course
2. Everyone is taxed
3. The Director is given $7,000 annual car allowance
• Tinley Park – Park District
1. Director
2. Pays 40% of the annual miles driven multiplied by the IRS mileage rate
3. No Response
• Northbrook Park District
1. Three Directors (Division Heads) and the Executive Director
2. Yes
3. No allowances, actual mileage reimbursement for all staff that use their personal car for business
• Deerfield Park District
1. Executive Director, Director of Park Services, Director of Leisure Services
2. Yes, using IRS lease value method
3. No car allowances, other staff can submit reimbursement on a per mile basis
• Naperville Park District
1. None
2. No Response
3. Yes (applies to Executive Director only)
• Morton Grove Park District
1. Director only
2. Tax on personal usage
3. No Response
• Wheeling Park District
1. No
2. No
3. No
• St. Charles Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks and Superintendent of Recreation
2. It is added to their income and they pay tax on it
3. The Director got an increase in pay for not taking a car, the two that get cars get no reimbursement, and they can fill up with gas at the district. Anyone else that uses their own car for business can get reimbursed per the federal rate
• Forest Preserve District of DuPage County
1. Law enforcement personnel take their squads home
2. Law Enforcement are exempt from taxation
3. The Executive Director gets a car allowance and is taxed for it
• Des Plaines Park District
1. Executive Director, Superintendent of Finance, Superintendent of Recreation
2. It is taxed as a non-cash benefit
• Huntley Park District
1. The Executive Director has a company car
2. His W-2 is adjusted for it
3. The golf course has a company car, the Superintendent takes it home and also has his W-2 adjusted for this use.
• Batavia Park District
1. None.
2. No Response
3. The Director gets a car allowance, which goes through payroll
• Downers Grove Park District
1. Administrator, Director of Parks, Director of Recreation
2. Yes
3. Parks Foreman has a vehicle to take home but no personal use. Others use pool vehicles or receive the IRS mileage reimbursement for work use
• Park District of Highland Park
1. No company Cars
2. Director and Department Heads receive allowance and is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement at IRS rate
• Arlington Heights Park District
1. Executive Director, Directors
2. Yes
3. Business use of personal vehicle qualifies for mileage reimbursement (must have proof of insurance on file)
• Buffalo Grove Park District
1. Executive Director, Deputy Director, Superintendent of Parks, and the Risk Manager
2. They are taxed each paycheck on their personal use of the car
3. They do provide a car allowance to about 8 others they provide details of there usage to the district
• Prospect Heights Park District
1. Such a small Park District no one has a company car
2. No Response
3. There are park district vehicles that can be used for park district purposes during the work day
• River Forest Park District
1. No Response
2. Yes it is taxed
3. The Executive Director gets a car allowance it’s $4,200 year
• Rolling Meadows Park District
1. Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes
3. 2 employees get a car allowance, Superintendent of Recreation and the Executive Director
• Northfield Park District
1. The Executive Director
2. None of the benefits are taxed
3. The Executive Director and the Superintendent of Recreation get a car allowance
• Crystal Lake Park District
1. No Response
2. No Response
3. The Director is the only employee with a car allowance and it is $7,200 a year
• River Trails Park District
1. No one gets a company car
2. No Response
3. No Response
• New Lenox Park District
1. None
2. N/A
3. Just the Director, he is paid through payroll and yes taxes are taken out
• Carol Stream Park District
1. The Executive Director, Director of Parks and Facilities, Director of Recreation
2. Yes, they will be starting this year. They are currently working on how to handle this
3. The Director of Marketing Services receives a $590 annual car allowance. In previous years this was processed through A/P. Starting in 2010, it will be handled through payroll so that it will be taxed
• Bensenville Park District
1. None
2. N/A
3. Only the Director receives a car allowance
• Addison Park District
1. Executive Director and Superintendent of Parks
2. Yes, added to W-2 each year
3. Other Superintendents and Department Heads and most Supervisors receive a monthly stipend of $80 (reviewed each time the IRS updates the allowable mileage reimbursement rate)
• Winfield Park District
1. None
2. No Response
3. Provide mileage at the current rate
• Wheaton Park District
1. Executive Director receives a car
2. The Director is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Bloomingdale Park District
1. The Director and Superintendent of Parks receives a car
2. They are not taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Lombard Park District
1. Director receives a car allowance of $500 a month
2. The Director is taxed
3. All other staff receives mileage reimbursement
• Elk Grove Park District
1. Director of Parks, Superintendent of Golf
2. No Tax
3. Executive Director receives a $500 car allowance, the Superintendent of Recreation and the Superintendent receive $100 month for car expenses
• Elmhurst Park District
1. No cars are going home, but 3 employees are allowed to go to the Park District gas pump and fill their cars up
2. They are taxed
3. All other employees receive mileage reimbursement
• Hoffman Estates
1. 6 Division Heads receive cars and they take them home
2. They are taxed for it
3. All other employees receive mileage reimbursement
The next Regular Board Meeting of the Glen Ellyn Park District is scheduled for Tuesday, December 15 at 7:00 P.M. The meetings are held at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center (SARC) 185 Spring Avenue. As with all meetings, the public is invited and welcome to attend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
