Dec. 15 Board Meeting: ASC and Budgets

The agenda and packet for the Glen Ellyn Park District December 15, 2009 meeting are online. This is a regular meeting where the Board will discuss the Ackerman Sports Complex Cost Analysis, approve the 2010 budget and amend the 2009 budget.

A few things to note in the packet:

• I have finally received a list of expenditures for ASC. Page 27 of our packet shows the total for these expenditures. If we just look at expenditures and don't factor in outside revenue sources, the expected final cost of ASC is at least $11.19 million.
• At the last meeting Commissioner Kinzler and I requested that staff recommend budget areas where we could reduce spending without cutting services. Page 36 of the packet shows that staff makes no recommendations for budget cuts and instead requests a 2% raise for full-time staff.
• The Board will discuss the 2009 amended budget Tuesday night. It is necessary to submit a new budget ordinance to the county because our 2009 spending has exceed the 2009 budget by $2,266,991. The packet shows the new 2009 budget on page 93, the original 2009 budget is not in the packet, but it is available online here.
  

Glen Ellyn Park District board meetings are always open to the public and are held in the board room at the Spring Avenue Recreation Center at 7:00 p.m. Please join us!

Ackerman Change Orders Violate Board Resolution

At our Dec. 1 board meeting we received a request for board approval of two change orders for ASC. Both of these change orders were already approved by Director Atwell and the work was finished. These change orders were made in direct violation of a board resolution requiring board oversight. The change order documents also show that staff has not yet disclosed the full extent of the change orders, despite my request in prior meetings for a full accounting.

So why does the change order process matter? Before we enter into a contract, we use an open bidding process to set the cost of the work. Bidding gives us cost protection through competition. If a contractor knows there will be change orders before they bid, they can lower their initial bid to win the work, knowing they will make up the difference in overcharges on change orders. The board is responsible for ensuring that any change orders are necessary, putting them to bid if appropriate and holding emergency meetings in the event that change order approval might hold up work.

When I brought up these issues in our last meeting, board counsel described this as a communications issue. The incumbent board members expressed no concern and praised staff for their good work.

As I have stated in earlier blog posts here and here, the Board does not know how many change orders have been made at ASC, and at what cost. The monthly sworn contractor statements from our construction management company show all change order amounts, but the Board has not seen these statements since May. I have repeatedly asked for these documents and have not yet received them.

According to a specific board directive from October 28, 2008, the Board must approve all change orders over $20,000 and change orders under that amount are to be reported to the Board on a monthly basis.

After I started asking about the ASC change orders a few weeks ago, two change orders appeared on the agenda for our last meeting. These change orders were for $10,515 from August and $37,388 from November. Though staff was requesting Board approval and the memo, pg. 4, was written in future tense, the work for both change orders had already been completed.

The $37,388 Earthwerks change order in our last packet, page 6, shows the original bid amount, the previously authorized change orders and the new change order. The previously approved Earthwerks change orders total $105,094.28 on this Nov. 16 2009 document. On the last sworn contractor statement I have, dated May 26,2009, Earthwerk change orders total $71,612,32. This shows that sometime between May and November, staff approved an additional $33,481.96 and never informed the Board.


For a project that is at least $3 million over the amount approved by taxpayers in the referendum, I believe it is critical to get a full accounting of the spending on ASC. I have still not received the ASC expenditure list that I have repeatedly requested. We need to learn what has occurred and protect ourselves from additional risk on this project.

Setting the Record Straight on Ackerman Sports Complex

In a previous post, I stated that I have received contradictory reports on the costs for Ackerman Sports Complex, ranging from $10.5M to $12M.

At Tuesday's meeting, a resident asked about this discrepancy. In response, as reported in the Glen Ellyn News, President Minogue said “Well, I can say that some of the information that Commissioner Creech puts out is not correct, so that would be a beginning.”

I would like to address this comment.

In November 2006, voters approved a $11.4M referendum which included $7.4M for ASC. When I was elected to the Board I was surprised to learn that the total had grown to $10.4M. I asked Director Atwell to explain this change, and received this July 2009 memo breaking down the history of the project.

The memo shows that ASC was always going to cost a minimum of $8.4M, with $1M of site work costs intended to be paid out of additional non-referendum bonds. From there, the scope of the project changed considerably, adding space for batting cages, a climbing wall, a fitness room, and increasing the size of the turf field.

At the June 17, 2008 board meeting, Director Atwell expressed concerns about financing the growing project. This was not an agenda item and took place after executive session, when all members of the public, myself included, had left the meeting. The Board discussed eliminating features, but ultimately chose to borrow more money instead.

When the project was bid in Fall 2008, minutes show that it was then a $9.2M project without contingency funds. Director Atwell's memo describes other changes made during the Village permitting process, which brought the total to $10.5M, which includes a $500,000 contingency fund.

To pay for these increases, the Board was required to take out $4M in non-referendum bonds on May 5, 2009, 15 minutes before myself, Jay and Julia were sworn in. Though it was not publicly stated at the time, the board intended for $3M of these funds to be used for ASC. Because of limits on municipal borrowing, the GEPD cannot take out additional non-ref bonds until 2013. Property taxes will increase in 2010 by $180,000 to start paying for the new bonds.

During our budgeting process, I requested a financial statement that showed revenues and expenses by account number (we usually receive statements broken down by funds, which can have many accounts charging to them). This statement (dated 10-23-2009 and referred to by staff as the Commissioner Creech Report) included a line item for Ackerman Park. After subtracting $36,929 for other known 2008 expenses at the park, this showed that the estimated ASC cost was now $12,040,162.

Surprised by this number, I questioned staff about this and was told that the number was accurate, and that I would need to ask Director Atwell about the reason for the increase. Director Atwell said the project still cost $10.5M and that staff had estimated too high. After asking these questions, our 2009 and projected 2010 fund balances in several accounts changed by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I have since learned that $130,000 is being spent on furniture and equipment for ASC that was never budgeted, bid or approved by the board. Additionally, staff told me that hundreds of thousands of dollars in change orders have been made. After asking about this, two change orders have now been presented to the board for approval. However, the work has already been completed.

I still do not have a complete accounting of the extent of spending and change orders on ASC. It is now clear that it is significantly more than the $10.5M total reported to the Board.

Budget Vote Pushed Through to Curtail Discussion

The budget discussion that was planned for the Glen Ellyn Park District workshop meeting last night was again stalled. Prior to the meeting Commissioner Kinzler emailed Director Atwell and the Board about ways to cut expenses, with specific concerns about cell phone costs, private cars for staff, business meeting expenses, salary ranges, etc.

Rather than discuss these issues, President Minogue announced that the Board would instead vote to send the levy to the county and post the budget ordinance for the required 30-day public review. To my knowledge, the Board has never taken a vote during a workshop meeting before.

Even though President Minogue had assured the Board that we would have three meetings to discuss the budget, the Board was not allowed to discuss the budget last night for a third time. Commissioner Kinzler's concerns were not addressed before the vote on the budget. Later, in "Matters from Commissioners," Kinzler brought up his budget concerns. Please see my next post for specifics on these concerns.

Budget Waste Addressed at Dec. 1 Meeting

Commissioner Kinzler and I brought up concerns about unnecessary spending in the budget during the Matters from Commissioners portion of Tuesday's meeting. Some of the items that we addressed include:

• Four Glen Ellyn Park District employees have PD-owned cars that they are allowed to take home and use off-hours. Kinzler talked to 3 other local PDs to see how other PD handle private staff cars. The GEPD is the only PD of those that has more than one private car. It is customary for the Executive Director to have a car, but not other employees. Staff pointed to several north side suburbs who have multiple cars for employees.
  
• The 2010 budget has over $26,500 in conference expenses for staff and commissioners.
• The 2010 budget has over $19,500 in meeting dues and subscriptions for staff members.
• There is a $56,000 increase in employee health insurance costs for 2010.
  
• Business meeting expenses (lunches) are not identified as a line item in the budget but show up on our monthly voucher reports. In October we had $877 in business meeting expenses
• The 2010 budget has over $10,000 for staff uniforms. Voucher lists show bills paid to LL Bean Corporate.
  
• We spent $48,000 in telephone costs in 2009, and this will rise to $63,000 for 2010. Many employees have PD cell phones or Blackberries.

These are areas where the PD can eliminate waste and cut back on spending, especially important given the cost overruns on the Ackerman Sports Complex, the extent of which are still unknown.

In our earlier budget meetings, staff explained that significant cuts had been made in the Parks Department budget in order to save money. Staff explained that maintenance hours would be reduced. According to staff, this would result in the garbage being picked up less frequently in the parks, the grass mowed less often, fewer fields striped for sports and more reliance on parent volunteers for athletic field preparation.

I said at the meeting last night that I want the Parks budget restored so that there will not be cuts in services. This includes additional money for these line items to move back to 2009 levels:

• $10,375 in Part Time Maintenance
  
• $2,000 for Playground Maintenance
  
• $1,100 for Seed, Fertilizer & Sod
  
• $4,000 for Trees, Shrubs and Flowers
  

I also want to add several items that are not included in the current draft of the budget. Most of these items are on the Glen Ellyn Park District Comprehensive Plan and address safety, accessibility and park maintenance issues.

• Restore the 9-acre oak savanna at Maryknoll Park. The PD agreed to do this as part of an intergovernmental agreement with the Forest Preserve, but it was never done.
  
• $5,000 for a path from the Spalding Park playground to the parking lot for ADA accessibility
• For Stacy Park, a fence along busy Geneva Road.
  
• $20,000 for Village Green backstops and fencing for seating areas. Staff identified this as a safety issue.
• Replacement park benches at the Danby Park playground
• All natural areas need garbage and invasive species removal. This includes Manor Park, Ackerman Woods, Perry Nature Preserve, Gault Sanctuary, Ellynwood Preserve, Danby Park, and Panfish Playground. I've previously suggested a volunteer program for work days at neighborhood parks as a low-cost approach to this problem.