Deciphering a new pool

There are many questions that should be asked about this referendum and exactly how the Park District gets to spend the $15 million if it passed. The wording on the ballot seems pretty general to me as to what they can do with it or associate it with.

Shall the DeKalb Park District, DeKalb County, Illinois, build
and equip an Aquatics Center at Hopkins Park to replace the
existing Aquatic Center, provide other site improvements to
Hopkins Park and issue its bonds to the amount of
$15,000,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?

It's the part at the end to provide other site improvements to Hopkins Park….. that really has me nervous especially after seeing what the School District has been able to do with the referendum dollars it has available to them.

I also brought up some other questions that should be asked on the DC blog about the pool referendum meeting. Namely, why does local government have this all or nothing attitude when they get involved in a project? How about replace the pool that we have today in another location and plan now for LATER expansion when the economy get better and the community can support an expansion. I would prefer expansions be handled with money generated by users fees which would definitely make it a nicer asset for the community and much less expensive in the end run.

I hope that they don't use the same sickening excuse that the new high school architects used with regards to doing this for the high school plans. It can be done and should be.

The pool would only be about $5 million and would be nice to see this built but only with revenue bonds paid back by user fees. I really don't see the Park District doing this because frankly, I don't believe there is enough attendance during three months of operation to pay for even the $5 million option (if there was to be one). This past summer season saw the Park District lose $30,000.00. This really means if you break it down that the Park District needed $30,000.00 just to break even with a pool that is paid for. How many more people will they need in order to pay a $500,000.00 per year for 25 years bond if the $5 million option was considered of if the plan on the table for the Aquatic center were to pass, $1.5 million annually for 25 years?

They couldn't at all, that's why they wish to place the burden of this referendum and project on the property owners and taxpayers of this community.

Those are good questions for the info session next week. But, good luck getting them to answer it. I e-mailed a budget question two weeks ago and never heard back.

Ed… good questions. I received a full color postcard in the snail mail. There is a website up at http://www.hopkinspool.org too. Signs. There are election laws. There are disclosure laws. But its probably going to be another case of having to sue ourselves to get adherence to law.

Hate to be the one to ask this question but it needs to be asked. Have either the Financial Consultants or the Architects contributed financially to the "pass the referendum campaign" that is underway. I see support signs showing up and have to wonder if either of these have helped finace the campaign.

Mac, doesn't matter what you put down really. The fact that they want money that they cannot pay back without the taxpayers jumping in and paying for it is enough to vote no. If I have to spend $188.00 per year (based on value of my home)then I would rather choose that it went to the police and fire departments not a swimming pool mini wanna be Magic Waters. How confused are those who support this pool referendum that they are not concerned about fire and police protection?

Let's have someone, anyone from the park district explain why they chose to go to referendum to sell municipal bonds and not revenue bonds. Let someone, anyone from the park district explain why they want taxpayers to foot the $1.5 million annual payback for the bonds over 20 years instead of going the revenue bonds route and allowing user fees to pay for this aquatic center. That's because it IS NOT A MONEY MAKER folks. How? How can it be only open 3 months out of each year when the recently closed down CocoKeys which is $25 million dollars and all closed in just shut down and went bankrupt?

How the park district expect to pay back the bonds while only open 3 months and CoCoKeys was open year round, 12 months, every day friends and couldn't make it. Their neighborhood by the way was Palatine, Schaumburg, Arlington Heights DesPlaines etc. etc and they COULDN'T make it.

That's because with the park district looking to pass this referendum and if they do, you, I, and all of the taxpayers in DeKalb will guarantee the annual payment. What will they do with the user fees? Probably put it in their general fund for operations, maintenance, and payroll.

They can't and won't go the revenue bond route because they know they cannot possible in any way make the kind of money needed to pay the bonds so they are looking to put the taxpayer on the hook. If you don't watch out, they will get you from every angle won't they.

Yard signs are now going up. It really is interesting to see who is supporting this referendum. Kind of a help me I'll help you going on.

Those who speak out, will make mistakes from time to time. That's why we need many leaders with different points of view, all watching and accountable to each other. Mac, thanks for owning your mistakes and straightening them out. I just wish other leaders around town were so forthcoming with acknowledgment and corrections. Please keep on doing what you do.

Is the DeKalb Park District telling us anything about how THEY are basing their repayment schedule for their referendum?

<img src="http://www.dekalbcounty-il.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/corrections.jpg&quot; />

H/T Lynn for doing the fact checking for me and letting me know about the lack thereof.

The strike-through language will be removed in a few days but the dunce cap shall remain. Those who wish to edit or delete their comments, let me know.

The numbers are outrageous for this point in time. Nice way to try to bypass PTELL, btw.

Even if we could afford it, have you read the condition report? It looks like DPD has been unable to keep up with ongoing maintenance and repair as it is.

The poll at citybarbs has been running near 90% against this referendum. If the naysayer-doomsayer class of DeKalb resident turns out to vote, we can defeat it.

Ok correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a story on the DC that home prices have decreased by 20%, so (3. Based upon an average annual percentage increase in the market value of such property of 6.586%), I had my house appraised and it came in $37,000 less then I paid for it and that was a year ago, so I am scared to see what it is worth. I am voting NO on any tax increases till the City and Park District learn to save for what they need. I guess me harping about this in my loosing bid didn't help. I am voting NO!!!!!!!!

How in the world can they possibly think this has a chance, I can't afford to live here now!It's down right stupid to even think people are this gullible!

NO,NO,NO!

It's all a shell game folks. Anyone can make a set of numbers do what they want it to.

Thanks Mac for showing us these numbers laid out on the table. Here we go again. An overly optimistic park district thinking that property values will increase at a tremendously high rate when right now they are doing nothing but going down, down, and down.

Let's use some realistic numbers, like todays home values in these equations park district.

$1.5 million to be paid back per year for 20 years. The "aquatic center" will be open about 3 months during the summer making it necessary to profit $500,000.00 per month to meet its obligations. These type of pools are very costly to operate meaning a bigger staff will have to be hired. Where and how will the user fees be used?

What will the new fees be? To just make a profit of $500,000.00 a month how many users will they need to draw? Well at $15.00 entry fee, they would need about 33,300 users per month. Not sure what the maintenance costs are and how much the payroll will be but we do know that more 33,400 will be necessary for that.

Fees at $20.00 would require only 25,000 users per month. What are fees today and will the average and faithful users of todays Hopkin's Park pool be able to pay these new higher fees. Not as many, no.

This past summer saw the current pool, which by the way has been paid in full for sometime now, end up in the RED by $30,000.00. Cocoa Keys Resort by the Arlington Race track was built to be an indoor water theme park and cost $25 million to build. They are (or I should now say WERE) a park that was open year round not three months and they couldn't make it, what makes our park district administration and board feel like they can make it? The fact that the taxpayers would be underwriting it?

We can not afford to underwrite it. We are still on the hook to underwrite the new high school and do not know what our final total will be with regards to property tax payments to pay of it.

Why is the park district using municipal bonds to build it? The simple answer is that the taxpayers guarantee the payment each year. Why not revenue bonds which would be the way the rec. building was constructed. This is paid for by users fees not property tax dollars. The park district wouldn't even think about revenue bonds because they already know that they cannot depend on user fees to pay of the bonds. The rec center is being paid off by user fees but this should prove to all that this $15 million aquatic park just doesn't add up, really very similiar to the last referendum that DeKalb voters had to vote on.

People need to realize that if homes DON'T increase in value that much each of the next few years (and they won't) that the 'additional tax extendable against such property' will be more… perhaps much more…