Peotone’s Park District Board and School District held a joint meeting on June 3. The discussion topic again was ball fields.
The meeting produced no definitive decisions but shared some poignant insight concerning the thoughts of each board, but only after public comments, when residents expressed disdain at both boards.
The third entity of the equation is Peotone Baseball Softball Association, who not only pays to utilize the fields but pitches in labor to maintain them. A current agreement between the Park District and PBSA has PBSA paying $15 per player to the district, $60 for unscheduled games or changing of fields, and $30 per game for electric, along with reimbursement of agreed upon materials and supplies to maintain the fields.
Nick Chapman spoke again about the level of efforts made to redo the fields. He said it’s been two years since any meaningful effort has been made to maintain those fields. Chapman added PBSA was there to help but felt they’ve been shut out by the park district, noting the park has refused financial investment and labor assistance.
“I say this ’cause we want to help. We have money to help, we have time and folks to help. But frankly, from board perspective, we’re not sure we can trust giving you guys our money, because we don’t know it helps solve our problems. We know what it takes to maintain these fields; it’s not being done,” Chapman remarked. “When we’re discussing what to do and politicking over who’s responsible, what we’re going to pay and who’s going to pay – we need some actual solutions for these kids. Whatever the future of these fields are does not matter much to an eighth grader who’s playing his third season on a dilapidated field.”
PD Board President Barb Sim said they want what’s best for the community, but their primary concern is to protect the parks. The park district questioned if there’s a written plan for the school district’s interest in the ball fields and there was not.
Entertainment of a land swap was tossed around, but land would have to be within village limits and of equal or greater value, along with three appraisals to value the property.
School board member Tim Stoub asked how much 207-U financially contributes. While no specific number was available, agreement was that the cost of materials is split into thirds, with each entity – school district, park district, and PBSA – paying a third.
Sim said it’s a little less than $1,000 from the school, although 207-U Building and Grounds Director Mike Singleton said at the district committee of the whole meeting, the school district purchased $3,300 worth of material last fall for the ball fields and gave it to the park district. A PBSA board member in the audience added they never saw that material added to the fields.
Stoub also asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the fields. Sim noted PBSA gives direction to the PD for maintenance of the fields. PD board member Shaun Ziems said the park doesn’t have the third to contribute any meaningful upgrades to anything. PD manager Kelly LaMore added the third only includes the cost of supplies, not maintenance.
Stoub further inquired how the level of standard maintenance hit so low. Sim countered they don’t have the revenue. Stoub inquired if the school district has an agreement to pay to use the fields, and the PD agreed they receive no revenue from the school district. The park district board didn’t mention there’s a mutual agreement with the school district for the park district to utilize school buildings for programs at no cost, which was mentioned at 207U’s committee of the whole meeting.
Another audience PBSA representative added they provide revenue per their agreement with the PD. There’s 263 children enrolled this season totaling $3,945 in revenue, not including the third PBSA provides for turface, t-ball field dugouts, and bleachers along with electricity reimbursement for game nights.
SB member Ashley Stachniak inquired why the park district didn’t allocate a certain amount of PBSA revenue and other expense reimbursements to ball field improvements, and why PBSA money isn’t being put back into the fields. Sim replied, “Because we don’t have to put it back into the fields; it’s income to the park district, and it’s for us to decide where it needs to be spent.”
SB member Mark Jones asked if the park district would be willing to sell. Sim said the park district would entertain any proposal.
SB member Jennifer Moe added, “Personally, as a school district, it’s our responsibility. We should own fields for our kids to play on; we should maintain our fields and not be relying on the park district to do the best they can do, with very little responsibility shown by us. PBSA is a great partner, and I have no problem partnering with them. That said, I’m not interested in buying that field or that field. Realistically, to get these fields to where they need to be for play, we’re still talking millions of dollars.”
PD board member Lindsay Schwiesow asked if the school district would entertain investing in park district property with an intergovernmental agreement. SD business manager Adrian Fulgencio said since the school district encompasses more than just Peotone, he didn’t think it was feasible. Schwiesow also asked if new fields were still an option. SB President Rick Uthe said that new fields were.
Moe added if the school district invested in the park district, she’d want the park building open, bathrooms available, a concession stand, and more seating – the whole picture.
The park district seemed to entertain the thought of selling their land to the school district, but reiterated repeatedly they had no money. A sale would require three appraisals according to Sim, making it very clear the park district would not be paying, although she encouraged the school district to come to the park with a proposal.
Stoub emphatically replied he thought it odd for the school district to pay for appraisals to see how much the land is worth for the school district to buy it, then pointedly asked the park board if they want to sell. Sim answered the park board doesn’t know. Stoub noted they can’t seek interest without knowing the value of the land.
Ziems asked what it would look like if the fields needed to be redone, because it changes the value. Schwiesow also asked if the park district would need to be rented from the school district or would the park district building get rebuilt by the school district. She added they need a plan from the school district on what they want before they entertain selling.
Moe again added she wasn’t interested in buying if they couldn’t have concessions and bathrooms, but she also wasn’t interested in depleting the park district.
Some future ideas of facility space and shared community spaces continually reverted to the park district not having any money for shared expenses.
Chapman said the fields need $4,000 to get them ready for play in August. Moe stated that’s not a question; that needs to be done. It’s the district’s responsibility. Stoub disagreed and said it’s not the district’s responsibility to maintain park district fields. He said it’s the school’s responsibility to find safe places for kids to play; the school district answers to more than just ball players.
More commentary from the audience added play can’t be moved out of town due to safety issues. Moe agreed responsibility might not be the right term, but they need ball fields ready in six weeks. PBSA reps added they have money and are willing to help.
The meeting adjourned, with the park district continuing their meeting, while school district board members adjourned and continued with a committee of the whole meeting at the junior high.
School district board members continued the discussion, reviewing ball field plans, both original and modified.
Moe asked what the next step would be if they wanted to build the fields. Fulgencio said the plan would go back to engineering, IDNR, and the Army Corps of Engineers, depending on the plan.
Stoub asked what it’s going to cost to build the original plan. With the detention pond on the west side, it would be just over $6 million, with restrooms, parking lot, and concession stand.
Singleton said the design is Cadillac, but it could be scaled back. When entertained, they got the price tag down to $5.2 million. The amount of money left from the original budgeted amount is $4.8 million, not including bond interest. Singleton said a lot can be scaled back with the new architect.
Stoub asked if the district can get two top-tier fields for the money left. Singleton said stuff gets more expensive every day, but he listed options to cut and add a concession stand. Stachniak remarked concessions bring revenue, and she would like all sports encompassed at the high school.
Singleton said the PD fields need a lot of repairs and are in dangerous conditions. He could spend $4,000 or $40,000 without question. PBSA also volunteered labor to get the fields ready.
Timeframe for new fields, if construction started soon, would be two years, with 207-U investing in the park district fields for the next three seasons, while fields were constructed.
Jones polled the board on their thoughts with the park district. Stoub still said the cart’s before the horse and would put a lot on the school district. The bigger benefit would be to the park. Uthe seemed to agree, noting it seemed like a good idea at first, but the park fields didn’t make sense. The cost of buying the fields and rebuilding them might be more than their budget. Stachniak maintained she wanted all sports at the high school, while Moe and Love agreed they wanted ball fields first at the high school.
The next step is to establish an expense budget for readying the park district fields for play for the next few seasons, then present it to the board at the next meeting.