I. President DiCiolla called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with the following ROLL CALL:
PRESENT ABSENT
Mrs. Nancy DiCiolla
Mrs. Leslie Dyra
Mrs. Valerie Hogan
Ms. Debbi Pawinski
Mr. James McCann
Mr. Fred Maier
Mrs. Kathryn Miller
Also in attendance:
Dr. Kenneth Cull, Superintendent of Schools
Members of the staff and community
II. Pledge of Allegiance – President DiCiolla led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. Welcome to Visitors – Mrs. DiCiolla welcomed visitors and said that the first order of business was to explain to the audience the process of the bond sale.
Mr. McCann called for a point of order to bring before the Board. After reviewing the minutes of the regularly scheduled May 9th Board of Education meeting, the purpose of the meeting as stated by the Board president (page 3 of minutes) was to call a special meeting to discuss the monetary contribution of $100,000 to Itasca Park District for the "Play For All Park" adjacent to Elmer H. Franzen Intermediate School. Mr. McCann said that the agenda for this evening's meeting had additional items listed for discussion.
A motion was made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Maier to limit the discussion of the reaffirmation in the contribution of $100,000 for the Play For All Park as Specified in the May 9th, 2007 Regular Board of Education Meeting Minutes. Mr. Maier seconded the motion.
Mrs. DiCiolla asked for the opportunity for Board input.
Mrs. DiCiolla said that when she and Dr. Cull discussed the purpose for the special meeting, she said that the Play For All Park would be discussed; she did not say it was the purpose. She also wanted to discuss the bond sale proceeds and the use for them. She said that the minutes of the May 9th meeting had not yet been approved and that the agenda for the special meeting had been posted in a timely manner.
Mr. McCann responded that meetings should be called for what the Board says a meeting is being called for.
Mrs. DiCiolla said that it was a Board members right to call special meetings and that it does not have to done at an open meeting. She said that a special meeting may be called for so long as notification is given in a timely manner.
At this point, portions of the recorded minutes were inaudible.
Mrs. Hogan asked if the other items on the capital improvement list were being discussed or debated. Mrs. DiCiolla said the monetary contribution for Franzen Park was being discussed. Mrs. DiCiolla said the asbestos removal project was added as a discussion topic because she is aware of community members who have voiced their concern with the asbestos removal. At Dr. Cull's recommendation, the bonds project list was added and should any of the Board members wish to further discuss any other projects listed.
Mr. Maier asked Mrs. DiCiolla under whose recommendation asbestos removal had been added for discussion on the agenda. Mrs. DiCiolla replied she had wanted to discuss asbestos removal and the bond proceeds. Mr. Maier asked if Mrs. DiCiolla thought this was a more effective venue for the discussion rather than at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. Mrs. DiCiolla said that this was another issue. She had spoken to an attorney and found that the Board had not approved the $100,000 donation for Franzen Park. Based on that information, she felt it was better to discuss it now. Mr. Maier agreed it was best to move forward with the decision on the Play For All Park but questioned the adding of the additional items on the agenda. He was under the impression that the meeting was being called for the express purpose for the discussion of the $100,000 contribution for the Play For All Park. Mrs. DiCiolla asked if it really mattered. Mr. McCann and Ms. Pawinski said that it did matter. Mr. Maier again asked under whose recommendation the asbestos removal topic was added. Mrs. DiCiolla's response was that it did not matter. Mrs. DiCiolla said that she wanted to discuss use of the bond proceeds. Mr. McCann said that she should have said that to the public. Mrs. Miller commented that that the posted agenda stated the purpose of the special meeting as "the discussion of the general obligation limited tax bond proceeds." Mrs. Miller asked for clarification of the main focus of the meeting and was told the Board would be discussing other topics. Mrs. Miller did not feel there was any misleading information given to the public regarding the purpose of the meeting. She stated that had the agenda stated, "...to discuss the $100,000 for the Play For All Park" but another agenda with additional items had been presented at this meeting that would have been misleading.
Mrs. DiCiolla said that the Board would not be voting on the approval of the asbestos issue. Mrs. DiCiolla asked Mr. McCann if he preferred the topic to be discussed at another meeting. Mr. McCann said he did not wish to discuss it any further.
Mrs. DiCiolla asked for a vote.
Dr. Cull said the Board would be voting on the motion to limit the discussion to reaffirm the contribution of $100,000 for the Play For All Park as specified. The motion carried on the following ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN
Mr. McCain Mrs. DiCiolla
Mr. Maier Mrs. Miller
Ms. Pawinski
Mrs. Hogan
Mrs. Dyra
Mrs. DiCiolla asked for public comments. Speakers were asked to state their name, address and/or affiliation and that comments be limited to three minutes:
Mr. Jack Mensching, 626 East North Street. Mr. Mensching spoke on behalf of his family and unofficially representing the 77 donors who had pledged or contributed $85,385 to the Play For All Park. He provided the list of the donors for the Board and the audience. Mr. Mensching said that The Itasca Bank and Trust guaranteed to raise the total of $104,700; however their work is not yet complete. The bank agreed to participate in donating funds to the park for the benefit of the entire community and the bank was confident that the residents and businesses would support this cause. The park was originally designed around the issue of handicapped access for the disabled students of the school. The school district had representation and input from the day the park was first built. Mr. Mensching said that he did not know what he will say if he has to return the donations back to the residents, businesses, and service organizations because the donations cannot be accepted under false information. The school district agreed to be a supporter of the park for $100,000. Mr. Mensching said that if he misspoke to the community, he would admit his error and offer to refund the money. He said that if the taxing districts in the town cannot work together everyone loses.
Mrs. Linda Aiani, 501 West Bloomingdale Road. Mrs. Aiani is president of the Itasca Park Board. Mrs. Aiani said there was more to education than math, science, geography and history. She said that the park would provide the children the opportunity to work, respect, and play together in our Character Counts! Community. She added that the park had been designed with educational features in mind. Mrs. Aiani said that as a twenty-four year resident, her tax dollars have gone primarily to the schools. She has never questioned how the school Board spends its funds; however she does question the Boards' considering rescinding their contribution of $100,000 which was agreed to by unanimous consensus from the previous Board. She continued to say that there has been support from the community in the effort to build the Play For All Park. In a residential survey asking about priority use of referendum funds, residents first chose the Itasca public pool and secondly, the replacement of the Play For All Park. In order for the park district to be eligible for the Oslad grant, the property at Franzen had to be transferred to the park district's name. The state only allows the funds to be used for open land access and development. The park district was fortunate to receive $329,000 of the $74,000,000 grant. If the park district loses the contribution of the school district and the bank, there will be less than half of what is needed The current equipment is outdated and a danger to children; a child has already been injured. Due to the age and the nature of the materials, the park equipment must be replaced.
Mrs. Dyra commented on Mrs. Aiani's statement. Mrs. Dyra said that she felt the discussion did not need to be contentious. She said that no one from the School Board had said that they want to rescind the $100,000 contribution. Mrs. DiCiolla expanded on the statement saying that the contribution had not been rescinded because the Board could not rescind on something that had not been approved.
Mrs. Hogan clarified that this was an informational meeting in order to understand that the $100,000 contribution made for good judgment in the budget. She was unaware of any action to rescind the contribution.
Mr. McCann asked if the Board would be available to ask questions from the speakers who make comments. Mrs. DiCiolla said that all comments would be heard first and then the Board would be allowed to make comments and ask questions.
Danielle Rodriguez, 205 South Oak Street. Danielle said that she is a 5th grade student at Franzen School and that she thought her fellow students would love to have a new park. She added that other children and visitors from neighboring schools would also love a new park.
Al Rogers, 349 South Princeton. Mr. Rogers is 36-year resident and former Itasca School Board member. Mr. Rogers said in his 17 years experience, the Board worked in cooperation with the different taxing bodies to contribute to the betterment of the students. Difficult decisions were made and dollars were always scarce, however the Board always looked at the perspective of what was best for the community as a whole, including all of the taxing bodies. It began with the Nature Center; then building space was leased from the library. Mr. Rogers referenced Mr. Mensching's earlier statement that there were 77 businesses and individuals who had contributed money. The community supports the project, and given that support, rescinding the contribution would send the wrong message to the community.
Mr. Raymond Benson, 500 W. Bloomingdale Road. Mr. Benson is a 66-year Itasca resident. Mr. Benson was on the School Board when the property was bought for the school district. The Board always cooperated with the park district so that when land was purchased, both the school district and park district could share the facilities successfully. Mr. Benson said that St. Matthews Church owns the property across the street from Franzen School. Sometime in the 1970's, the park district came to the School Board and asked if they could use the school's parking lot for a tennis court. School funds had been used to purchase the land and to pave the parking lot. The park district, school, and church collaborated on a solution. The outcome was that the school allowed the park district to use the parking lot for tennis courts. The church allowed the school free access to their parking lot. As compensation, the park district agreed to seasonal maintenance at both the schools and the church. In the sprit of cooperation, no funds were exchanged. Mr. Benson is concerned about giving school district funds to another charity or another part of the community. Contributions from one entity to another might not have the same boundaries, which could create a problem with the taxpayers. Mr. Benson suggested that for the school district's contribution, the park district continue to perform seasonal maintenance. Under a verbal agreement, St. Matthews is allowing use of their parking lot by the school district. They are also in favor of a new park and have made a $5,000 contribution. Mr. Benson asked that the Board try to work out an agreement so that the entire community benefits.
Mr. Larry Riener, Director of NEDSRA, (North DuPage Special Recreation Association) representing 11 communities. Mr. Riener said that professionals in rehabilitation education and community services have come to recognize the impact of informal relationships that new experiences and recreation affords children with disabilities. The impact of physical activity and group play experiences on school readiness of children with disabilities has been documented in the literature of professional educators for many years. Mr. Riener referenced renowned educators Dr. Fritz Redl and Mr. Luther Burbank and Mr. Hollis F. Fait who recognized the need for recreational facilities for children with disabilities. Mr. Riener added that educational agencies, special districts, and local governments in most cases are now required to provide equal types of quality education and experiential learning opportunities for special needs children as provided for the other children. He asked that the Board consider the obligation under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act); if mandatory compliance is necessary, all parks will be required to comply, leading to additional expenditures of this kind.
Mrs. Kathy Kennedy, 506 Mill Street. Mrs. Kennedy asked that the school Board protect the school. Mrs. Kennedy shared concerns of wanting and needing computers and qualified teachers for the district. She asked why there was an issue with Dr. Cull's raise if there is so much money. She feels the park district should take care of their business and the school district should take care of the children.
Mrs. Melody Craven, 215 W. North Street. Mrs. Craven is a 52-year resident of Itasca. She said she believed the funds being discussed couldn't be used for items such as computers or teacher's salaries. Mrs. Cravin feels the social and recreational aspect of a playground is just as important as the classroom. Mrs. Craven knew some of the pioneers of the Franzen Park, and was pleased to see interaction of disabled and non-disabled children. Mrs. Craven hopes that Board will support the Play For All Park.
Mr. Jeff Craven, 215 W. North Street. Mr. Craven is a commissioner of the Itasca Park District and a resident of Itasca for over 52 years. He was saddened that this meeting was called due to a technicality; He reiterated that the School Board made a verbal commitment for the Play For All Park. Furthermore, the park district acted on that commitment and pursued the grant. He would be disappointed if the project failed due to lack of funding. Loss of the school's commitment and the donations sacrifices the whole grant. Mr. Craven requested that the Board honor their verbal commitment and approve their contribution of $100,000 towards the park.
Mrs. Beth Rodriguez, 205 South Oak Street. Mrs. Rodriguez is a parent and an employee of the park district. She said it was a huge disappointment to be at this meeting. She said that the park district and school have worked together for over 30 years. It is her hope that the school district will honor its agreement.
Dave Kompanowski, 543 Birch Street. Mr. Kompanowski is the secretary for the Park District Board. Mr. Kompanowski said that in his opinion, a playground is part of a school and that the students at Franzen School would probably use the park more than anyone else. Mr. Kompanowski feels the school does have an obligation.
Mrs. Maryfran Leno, Executive Director of Parks and Recreation for the Itasca Park District. Mrs. Leno said for the past 1½ years, plans have been underway for this project. The original playground that is there now was put in during the late 1980's. It was done through community effort and community funds. The park district never owned the property but has maintained it since the late 1970's. Playgrounds typically last about 10 to 15 years. The playground equipment and the tennis courts needed to be restored because they were well past their life expectancies. Dr. Cull, Dr. Medwick, and Mrs. Leno met several times during the year to construct a design. Over a year ago, the school Board unanimously agreed to give the property to the park district. The property was put in the park district's name for liability reasons and to be able to proceed with the grant application. Mrs. Leno also mentioned that in November of 2006, the taxing bodies moved forward to work on an intergovernmental maintenance agreement, which was about three years in the making. Both the Park District Board and the School Board passed the maintenance agreement. She said that the Play For All Park has been under construction for the past three weeks. We are at the point where a decision needs to be made. Mrs. Leno said that she was under the assumption that when she was given notification in February, that the Board had given its consensus to proceed with the $100,000 contribution. At that time, Mrs. Leno spoke with Mr. Jack Mensching and plans were made to proceed with the fundraiser. Mrs. Leno said it was her hope that the School Board would vote to continue with their contribution of $100,000. Mrs. Leno provided a question and answer sheet to the audience and Board with regards to the Play For All Park.
Mrs. Kim Leider, 5N319 Eagle Terrace. Mrs. Leider said that she is an 11-year school district resident. One of the reasons that her family built their home in Itasca was because of the school district. She is not opposed to the park and thinks it is a fabulous idea. She said that she was concerned that the Park District Board was unaware of the budget concerns of the school district. Mrs. Leider said that over the past few years, the school district had made budget cuts affecting teachers, supplies, programs, and computers for the schools. Mrs. Leider asked that if the school district gives the $100,000 contribution to the park district, what would the students would be losing in their education and what the school district would lose by granting such a large contribution to the park?
Mrs. Diane Blackburn, 321 N. Willow Street. Mrs. Blackburn's children attend St. Peters School. Mrs. Blackburn said she wanted to clarify that St. Peters is thriving and has no intention to close its school in the next three years. There have been no formal statements made regarding closing. Mrs. Blackburn said that as a tax paying resident that she and her husband were in favor of the Play For All Park.
Mrs. DiCiolla asked for comments and questions from the Board.
Mrs. Miller said we do need a nice park but that one of her concerns was how the contribution came about in terms of the park district and the school board. Mrs. Miller was not a board member in 2006 but was in attendance at the June 14th meeting. Mrs. Miller read from the minutes of that meeting. She said that Dr. Cull had reminded the board that they did not need to make decisions on the issue of the park. The park district was already considering a plan and with the school district's support and that the park district would be proceeding with obtaining the grant. It was Mrs. Miller's understanding that the school district's support would be the donation of the property to the park. She was unaware that the Board had been approached about the $100,000 contribution until well after the land had been deeded to the park district. She does not understand why it was a two-step process. At that time, the park district should have said they needed both the deeded property and a contribution. In researching similar projects, she said that it had always been a 50/50 split. She was told that the park district is giving more, $125,000, and the school district is contributing $100,000 so it is not a 50/50 split. Mrs. Miller said there is value to the land. She understands why the property was deeded due to liability concerns, but feels that the deeded property should be included in the school board's contribution. If the park proceeded with building a $650,000 park with a $100,000 cash commitment in June, why wasn't it presented to the Board until October?
Mrs. Leno began to respond to Mrs. Miller's comments, but Mrs. DiCiolla said there would be no interacting and that the public had been given the opportunity to speak. She said that the Board is going to have a discussion and will go on to a vote. Mrs. DiCiolla said that is how we informed the public to make Mr. McCann happy. She asked for the next person to speak.
Mr. McCann asked if Mrs. Miller would like an answer. Mrs. Miller responded yes. Mrs. DiCiolla and Mr. McCann discussed the appropriateness of an answer for Mrs. Miller. Mrs. DiCiolla responded that the meeting would proceed with the agenda. Mr. Maier addressed Mrs. DiCiolla, and said as a point of order, as discussed earlier regarding individual's comments and three minute limits, the question had been raised if the Board would be able to ask questions on comments made. Mr. Maier stated that during the Board discussion in getting the groundwork allowed for public comment, the question had been raised if the Board would be able to ask questions of the public and that Mrs. DiCiolla had answered yes, it would be allowed. Mrs. DiCiolla said comments would be limited to three minutes. Ms. Pawinski said that they could not conduct discussions without an answer. Mr. McCann said the purpose of a previous motion was to limit the debate to this topic, and not the asbestos or bond proceeds issues. Mr. McCann stated to let the public speak and not allow responses/questions from the Board would be insane. Mr. McCann asked Mrs. Miller if she wanted an answer to her question. Mrs. Miller replied that she did but not if it were going to be a screaming match. Mrs. DiCiolla asked that Mrs. Miller direct her question to Dr. Cull.
Dr. Cull responded to Mrs. Miller's question regarding the "two-step process." He said that he could at least give part of an answer. All of the land issues started 2 ½ years before the park discussion began. The park district, the village, and the school district had discovered some unique boundary arrangements. The board directed Dr. Cull to resolve the property issues, which he accomplished and resulted in clarification of boundaries. The maintenance agreement called for the village to mow our property. In discussions with Mrs. Leno related to the agreement, Dr. Cull asked regarding mowing the lawn, what percentage of the property belonged to the school district, and what percentage the park district owned. The question had been raised in order to come to a figure that would be appropriate. In researching those questions, Mrs. Leno discovered that park district did not own the part of the land that the park was on. Those discussions were started well before anything officially had been done regarding the park. There was discussion at the Board table from a prior Board member about the park. In the context of the Johnson controls project, there was a move from one board member to replace the park. There were concerns about the aging wood play equipment and the possibility of injuries. The move to deed the property was started one to two years before the Play For All Park discussions. Regarding the discussion of the $100,000, Dr. Cull knew the park district wanted the School Board to participate, but he did not feel comfortable at that time to bring it to the School Board without knowing how much of a contribution the board would be able to make. In continued discussions with Mrs. Leno, Dr. Cull became attuned to what the scope of the project was and that is where the dollar amount came from. We took things in the order that they came. Mrs. Miller asked if the school district said early on that they if they would not be able to make a cash contribution, where would the park district get the money. Mrs. Miller said she was unaware that the school was making a cash contribution until Mr. Mensching's letter went out. Mrs. DiCiolla asked for quick answer for the question. Dr. Cull said it would have to be on the record.
Mrs. Leno said that that the Oslad grant is a state grant offered through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and that it had to be turned in by July 1st, 2006. Prior to sending in an application, we had to put together a park layout/park project, come up with a budget, hire an architect, etc. Of the community's priorities for use of referendum funds, one was the Franzen Play for All Park. Mrs. Leno stated that even though it was school district property, the park district was maintaining it. The referendum passed and in talking with the Park District Board they were going to allocate approximately $125,000 towards this project. When the grant was issued it would match up to $400,000. Mrs. Leno began talking with Dr. Cull and discussion concluded that the park needed to be replaced. The tennis courts were to be ripped out, but the park district would not be able to afford the cost solely and also being that it was on school district property it is used 95 percent by the school. Dr. Cull stated that he knew that at some point the park would need to be replaced and it should be done cooperatively. We started looking at the drawings and came up with a dollar amount. It was not until November that we found out we would be able to receive the grant. The property was never a discussion item as being of a certain valued dollar amount as the contribution towards the project. The discussion was, if we applied for the grant and were able to have half of it paid for then the property needed to be deeded to the Park District. Dr. Cull, the former Board president and I discussed moving forward with deeding the property. Dr. Cull never committed to a specific dollar amount, but it was discussed that the contribution was approximately $100,000. Dr. Cull was always clear to say that he did not have a firm vote on it. The park district proceeded with applying for the grant and it was awarded in November. That is when discussion began on how to raise the additional funds between what the park district was contributing, and if the school district was able to contribute $100,000 in addition for the grant for $329,700.
Mrs. Dyra asked what the value of the land that was that deeded to the park district and what is the reduction in liability. Dr. Cull said they did not have the property appraised, but the village figure was $200,000 and acre – so about $400,000. Dr. Cull reiterated
that Mrs. Leno said the reason for deeding the property was for the liability issue. Mrs. DiCiolla said the property has liability insurance. The liability issue was presented to us. Just like Benson was on village land they weren't considered because it was covered by insurance. You state that not everyone was in agreement with that because liability was not a concern. For the record, Dr. Cull said that it was discussed at that meeting; liability was an issue. Mrs. DiCiolla said it was discussed. Mrs. Hogan asked had there been a determination by our underwriters as to a reduction in liability. Dr. Cull responded that no, the renewal rate did go down but did not know if it was directly related to the land transfer. Mr. McCann said that he recalled that the street was the bigger issue. Dr. Cull the district owned the land and up to the middle of the street at Bryn Mawr/Clover Ridge. The district ended up deeding that half of the street to the village and the other portion to the park district. Mrs. Dyra said that to clarify, the district was not sure of their reduction of liability really is.
Mrs. Hogan asked if this did not happen, what would be the cost to maintain the park, or replace equipment. Furthermore, what absolutely has to happen for ADA compliance? What would the cost be otherwise? Dr. Cull said the playground equipment alone was $157,000 if you count everything south of the building it would probably be closer to $350,000. The issue with the school is the old tennis courts (in their present state) provide the children with a nice hard surface for recess when it was wet out. We need a hard surface on the south end of the school and the parking area was on the north end. Therefore, two grade levels can be outside simultaneously. Putting in a basketball court was to assist the Franzen School in putting down a hard surface on the south end. If we purchased the equipment at cost of $157,000 with delivery and installation charge on top of that, it would be well over $100,000.
Ms. Pawinski said that the contribution had already been proposed at the Shape of Itasca Meeting. We will be losing all inter-government relationships and she did not think it was worth the risk.
Mr. McCann asked had we done this on our own, would we have legally had any justification for doing so. He asked if any of the grant money was dependant on inter-governmental cooperation or would it have had to go through the park district. Mrs. Leno responded that when the park district applied for the grant, they did have to pass a resolution stating that they had the funds to pay for the park in the full dollar amount. The park district will be paying the full dollar out and then asking for a reimbursement. Grant allocation is dependant upon intergovernmental cooperation. We had stated that our park district had intergovernmental cooperation as well as community cooperation. Dr. Cull asked if those grants were specific to park districts or if schools could apply as well. Mrs. Leno responded that they were only for park districts.
Mr. Maier asked if the school district choose not to participate and withdraws their $100,000 of support, what happens. Monetarily – it would be the $100,000 loss from the school district, $100,000 matching grant, along with returning the $80,000 plus which has been donated and additionally the matched amount. That would be $400,000. In the event of withdrawal, Mrs. Leno would discuss the grant with the grant administrators. Once committed, withdrawal forfeits the grant. We would receive a "black mark" against our name and then we would be ineligible to apply for the Oslad grant for a several years. All our parks have received Oslad grant money since the 1980's. If we do not receive the school's contribution, the Park District Board has talked about meeting with the contractor, stopping work in progress, and possibly completing the north end of the park. We would move forward with the existing playground, remove the tennis courts. The courts are on our property and are a liability right now, and it would be left empty. Mr. Maier asked if it would be covered with grass. Mrs. Leno replied that if funds allowed, tennis courts might be reinstalled, but that would be the extent of the work.
Mr. McCann made a short statement. He cited over 10 years of public service and aspires to set the record straight with a prepared statement. He apologized for any redundancy within the context of his statement. Mr. McCann stated that on the surface, the issue at hand nothing more than a reaffirmation of a previous commitment made by the preceding board to contribute specified funds to the Play For All Park. Mr. McCann stated, "ÉNothing could be farther from the truth." Several matters are at stake; the goodwill and integrity of [the School Board], justifiable reliance on [the board's] previous commitment, intergovernmental cooperation, and that a single individual does not represent the board as a whole. Mr. McCann reaffirmed (on several occasions) the unanimous, clear, and unmistakable commitment the previous board made to Dr. Cull. The previous board raised no objections. Mr. McCann continued that to renege on the commitment would damage years of goodwill. Anything less than full commitment behind our previous promise to the park district would result in irreparable damage to reputation of this board. The park district proceeded under the auspices of the school board's contribution to the project. Altering the support of the contribution at this point is not warranted and subjects this district to unnecessary legal exposure. This results in the park district being put in the untenable position of seeking alternate funding sources. It is important in these times of fiscal scarcity, that small municipalities band together to fend for themselves. The state has agreed to fund a substantial portion of this project. It is critical that cooperation between the agencies be achieved to successfully implement this project. If the park district reassesses its funding priorities, this board may reconsider those actions at that time. Mr. McCann reiterated that his view is that the rescinding of the funding for the Play For All Park is outrageous and shares the concerns of the community. McCann reaffirmed his commitment to the Play For All Park.
Mrs. Hogan said that all of the board members had weighed the pros and cons. The schools are for the kids; she shared the concerns of the cash contribution in light of our budget. Understand that these funds are only to be used as a capital improvement project. Mrs. Hogan is glad to have a list of other projects, and the capital bond of $2.5M and the contribution is allocated from that bond. Mrs. Hogan indicated that it is critical to know what the other projects are that our schools needs. I am concerned with the legal ramifications of what could happen if this contribution is not approved.
George Marcetti – The prior board did make a verbal commitment with regards to these funds. Before a board can commit itself legally, it must be passed by an ordinance or a resolution, which either approves it via your budget and appropriations process, which he understood was not done, or through an intergovernmental agreement, which he understood was not done. Whether it is a technicality or just the way that the law requires that Boards operate that is the status.
Mrs. Hogan asked what was conveyed and reliance on that. Mr. Marcetti replied that as far as the expenditure of funds in law it is called a "stopple." Generally that is not going to lie against a municipal body. Because the municipal bodies are intended to operate within certain requirements that they act officially and formally before they expend funds.
Mrs. Dyra asked Dr. Cull if he felt confident that if the board gives the $100,000 to the park district, that we would not fall short in the future on capital expenditures based on this action. Dr. Cull responded yes.
Mrs. Dyra also said that she felt that this meeting was a request for clarification on a large amount of money and to put things in writing. It is a large amount of money and has been whole process has been poorly documented and thus poorly understood by the new board members. It is her recommendation that the board not make this mistake for the future and that they are much more careful about their documentation.
Mr. Maier said he has always appreciated the wonderful cooperation that has been part in partial to the community of Itasca. The park district, school district, village, library, and fire district have worked cooperatively to provide services and resources that any individual component could not provide on the own or in or of themselves. He has always been fully aware that the park district parks located immediately next to each of the Itasca Schools. He was surprised when he left Itasca for a time, and discovered it is not the norm anywhere else. There has always been a close association between the park district and the school district in terms of providing recreations opportunities for the schools and the community as a whole. This also allows the school district to be able to provide additional resources to the community organizations that provide additional benefits as well. When we first discussed the idea of the Play For All Park, and the liability and the park at Franzen, he was surprised to learn that it was not on park district property. He was very happy to consider to give the land over to them they had been maintaining the equipment and the grounds. It seems reasonable for them to take ownership of the property so that they would have the opportunity to apply for the Oslad grant and allow the school district to get $660,000+ worth of recreational facilities and resources for Franzen School for $100,000. He thinks that is a sound fiscal move. The fear is that if we do not participate the children will have nothing. The park district cannot afford to move ahead without support of the community and the school district. This means that Franzen School will not have any type of park at all. In terms of relationships with the park district, this will most certainly sour those and there may be some reconsideration on part of both boards in terms the ability of the other agency to utilize other facilities. I am not saying that the park district is threatening to cut us off from the other playgrounds, but unfortunately, that is the potential reality. Mr. Maier thinks that this is a good thing. He said he honestly felt that the prior Board made a commitment. Yes, we did not vote on it. It was going to become part of the budget. It was included in the budget and included in budget discussions. It was listed as a line item within the budget. Mrs. DiCiolla said that it was not listed as a line item, and did not want anyone being misled. Mr. Maier apologized for any confusion regarding the documentation of the funds.
Dr. Cull interjected that it was not included by name. The expense however, was included.
Mr. Maier said that there was a $100,000 line item included in the budget for capital improvements at Franzen. Mr. Maier was under his personal opinion that it was in there for that purpose. The prior board had given its consensus that we would support this. He would hate that we would lose the trust of the community and park district if we do not honor this commitment. He thinks in all fairness, we need to honor it, and it is our responsibility. He honestly thinks it is in the best interest of the community and school district; he supports in and is planning to vote in favor of the contribution.
Mrs. DiCiolla said she wanted to make it clear that yes, she is agreement in if you have land and can share it cooperatively and you can share the playground equipment. That is not so much the issue. We have contributed to the park district. She wants to make it perfectly clear that the school district has been very generous. The community is important to us. We always take their input; it is very important to us. We agree and are very generous and we have made a lot of contributions. Moreover, she does not think it is fair to say we have not contributed. We did contribute the land for the park and it does have value. We have also contributed the land that is adjacent to the park district building. The park district did not incur any expense. We gave them that land. In December we were approached by the park district to contribute to the Depot museum. The Board of Education made a contribution, so we have been very generous on that. There could be a time when we may need the land, and we could use a parking lot and that is of concern. I was informed yesterday that there was a vote to eliminate parking on one side of Bryn Mawr. Mrs. DiCiolla said she would have liked to see the $100,000 be considered for parking. There is no written agreement for the school district to expect to continue to use the parking lot at St. Matthews.
Mrs. DiCiolla said that the Board had been approached in November of 2006 for a contribution. The deadline for the application for the Oslad grant was July 1st, 2006. She said with regards to timing, there is a huge difference there. At the November meeting, it had been a consideration, and she was open to consider it. She also knew at that time, the budget had not been worked on. We did not have the bond money and that is where this money was coming from, that is an important distinction. To have agreed on something where you don't have the money, it is not approved for the bond, and we didn't have the money in our budget is something that is not fiscally responsible. The park district is a taxing body and they receive the funds. It is okay to approach someone for a contribution, but the School Board must be fiscally responsible. The School Board and the Park District Board are elected by the pubic. The School Board does not ask the Park District Board for contributions.
When it came to the bond proceeds that were approved in February Ô07 after this consideration of the $100,000, it was stated "it is the intention and expectation of the board that all said proceeds of the bonds will be used to improve the sites of building and equipment editions, and repair equipment of the existing school buildings of the district." This was stated to the public. It is misleading to use it for something else other than the intended purpose. Mrs. DiCiolla said that she does have an issue with these funds. She added that a Life Safety Inspection would be conducted within the next four years. We do not know what the ramifications of that inspection or the costs that we may incur. She said that the second draft of the budget (not including interest on the bond funds) has a negative balance of approximately $20,000. We do not have those funds in our operating budget. We have to be fiscally responsible. Over the next few years, there are retirement issues that will be forthcoming and will require more than $100,000. Our tax dollars are capped. Dr. Cull's salary has 6% going out and just 4% coming in. We just signed our transportation contract that has an escalation cap should gas prices rise. This may result in a bill for additional costs. Recently, the School Board was presented with a report from Graph Tech that said that our instructional technology budget is "bare bones" at best. Through research conducted last year, we anticipated that we needed $300,000 for instructional technology. We had to decrease that amount to $90,000. All of these concerns are related to what can we do with that $100,000. These are just a few items. It is going to be very difficult for us and we do not want to have a shortfall. Estimates for improvements recommended by Dr. Cull increased from $1,999,000 to $2,357,000 over a three-month period. Costs do come along and the truth is that it has been a struggle. We have to look at prioritizing. It is not that we do not want to contribute, but our responsibilities are to the school district. Mrs. DiCiolla said that the park district uses our schools free of charge and suggested that the seasonal maintenance should be done at no cost to the school district. She stated that we just heard someone attest to the fact that that was the original agreement. It was not documented in writing, however according to the contract it can be changed. The park district says they want to be cooperative. Mrs. DiCiolla asked if the park district was willing to do that.
Mrs. Leno said that as Executive Director of the Park District she could not make a commitment for the Park District Board. She said she was not employed by the park district in 1974. Beginning in the year 1998 there has been an annual contribution that has been given for maintenance services. The park district spends over $22,000 dollars a year in direct maintenance for the school district. Mrs. Leno said all of this information was provided to the Board. In exchange, the park district currently uses the school gymnasiums for 700 hours for WIBA and also for the summer day camp for 315 hours. The park district has never stated that the school Board has not given anything to the park district; it has been a two way street. As the executive director of the park district Mrs. Leno said she would not be able to say that the maintenance agreement that has been worked on for 3 years could be removed. The school district's cost is $6,000. The park district actually does over $22,000 of work in fuel, and direct maintenance costs for the school district.
Mr. McCann said that of all of these concerns that were just heard, he had never heard one of them publicly expressed since we voted to make the contribution in November. Mrs. DiCiolla said that there was only a consideration and that she had expressed her concerns. A discussion on the contribution did not come up again until November. It never came up again.
Mr. McCann asked why Mrs. DiCiolla had not suggested adding it as a board requested report or a special meeting. Mrs. DiCiolla said that it was only a consideration and that it never came up again. Mr. McCann asked if she was suggesting that she had these concerns all along but never voiced them and that she wanted the park district to justifiably rely on that commitment without raising them. Mrs. DiCiolla responded that there was never a commitment. Mr. McCann said the Board's word was good enough for him. Mrs. DiCiolla said that it was never on the agenda to vote on it as a consent item, so she did not raise her concerns. Mr. McCann asked if they were never publicly raised. Mrs. DiCiolla said that Dr. Cull never placed it on the agenda and that was telling her that it was not up for go, it would never happen. Mr. Maier said that in discussions regarding the bond issue, the first item on the list of proposed capital expenditures was always the Play For All Park. Mrs. DiCiolla said we are not talking about that. Mr. Maier said it was always listed as one of the one of the expenditures that we would be talking about. Mrs. DiCiolla said that was not correct. Mrs. DiCiolla said that in the November minutes when the bond issue items were discussed the first item mentioned was not the Play For All Park; it was the asbestos and carpet removal. Mr. Maier apologized.
There was a portion of the tape that was inaudible. The conversation resumed:
Regarding the consensus given at the November 8th, 2007 meeting, Mr. Maier said that concerns about the $100,000 contribution could have been discussed at that point. Mrs. DiCiolla responded that she had discussed it. Mr. Maier asked Mrs. DiCiolla if she had discussed it at a Board meeting. Mrs. DiCiolla said no, that it was just proposed; that there had not been a budget meeting yet and she thought it wasn't going to happen because the contribution had never been discussed. Mr. Maier wanted clarification with Mrs. DiCiolla that her concerns were not discussed with the Board members at any School Board meeting until the May 9th meeting. Mrs. DiCiolla said that it was not on the agenda. She said it was made clear as stated as "Éconsideration for a contribution of $100,000."
Ms. Pawinski said that the Board had made a commitment, a verbal one, but it was still a commitment. She said that the Board was not only elected by the public to be financially responsible, but also elected for the children's sake.
A motion was made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Ms. Pawinski to close the discussion of the contribution of $100,000 for the Play For All Park.
The Motion carried on the following ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN
Mrs. Hogan
Mr. Maier
Mrs. Dyra
Ms. Pawinski
Mrs. Miller
Mr. McCann
Mrs. DiCiolla
Mrs. DiCiolla asked if anyone wanted to make a motion for the Action Item for the vote to support the $100,000 contribution to the Park District for the Franzen Community Play For All Park.
A motion was made by Mr. Maier and seconded by Mr. McCann to approve action item memorandum FY07 # 64; the contribution of $100,000 to the Itasca Park District for Franzen Community Play For All Park.
Mrs. Miller said that she agreed with Mrs. Dyra. Mrs. Miller said she had researched the situation and was surprised that the contribution was done in such a way. Documents were not signed, and not documented. She said that as a Board, when faced with important decisions, specific procedures should be followed.
Mrs. DiCiolla commented that if the contribution were approved, there were some issues that would require follow up and it that it was critically important that all information is shared. She said that there is nothing wrong with discussion and asking questions and being kept informed. She said the Board should be accountable to the public not just for this issue but for future items as well.
Mr. Benson agreed that the park should be completed. He suggested that the contribution might be considered a gift loan. In return he suggested the park district consider charging the school district reduced maintenance fees. Mr. Benson said it would give the public the feeling that everyone had benefited.
Mrs. Leno said that when she began 13 years ago, and for the 25 years prior, there were a lot of intergovernmental agreements that had not been done in writing. Over the past three years, everyone has been working together to correct that. In the past, there were a lot of handshakes and that was what Itasca was built on. Mrs. Leno said it is not a donation but a contribution to a $650,000 park that will be utilized by the public and by the children of Franzen School. Mrs. Leno said that she wanted to clarify, with regards to parking for the Recreation Center that the land was given to the park district. The village originally owned the property. The park district had their administration building on the property and that was in the middle of the parking lot. When the Recreation Center was built, the park district moved out of the building. The School Board approached the park district and asked if they could use the building for their administrative offices. The Park District Board said yes, they could use the park district building that sat on village owned property. For liability purposes, the village deeded the property to the school district. The school district never paid for the property. When the school district moved out of the building, the park district removed the building and paved the property for additional parking. Mrs. Leno also wanted to clarify the museum agreement. She said that that the park district does not own the museum; the village owns the museum. The park district operates the facility. The park district tax levies on the museum. Two to three years ago, an intergovernmental agreement was formed with five different agencies to maintain and operate the museum. She added that the school district uses the museum a great deal. When the agreement was being formed, no one asked for a certain dollar amount. The library is donating some computers, the historical society is donating $5,000, the park district is levying $10,000, and the village is looking into giving about $15,000.
Mrs. DiCiolla made for a motion to amend the current motion by removing the $100,000 and inserting $40,000 as the contribution for the Franzen Community Play For All Park. She arrived at the suggestion of $40,000 by considering life of the equipment and the additional payment that we would be making.
There was no second to Mrs. DiCiolla's amended motion.
The Motion to approve action item memorandum FY07 # 64; the contribution of $100,000 to the Itasca Park District for Franzen Community Play For All Park carried on the following ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN
Mrs. Miller Mrs. DiCiolla
Mrs. Hogan
Mr. McCann
Ms. Pawinski
Mrs. Dyra
Mr. Maier
IV. Adjournment – There being no further business, President DiCiolla adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
