The Reporter-Progress’ Nov. 12 issue published letters to the editor by John Carlin and Irma Pittroff. Carlin falsely accuses me of a “flip-flop,” claiming I pledged as a 2003 Park Board candidate “to oppose a pool” and that “now (I favor) it.” Carlin either confuses me with a more recent candidate or suffers from serious memory problems. A key component of my 2003 campaign platform was supporting a new approach to a public pool that featured:

• No taxpayer money to construct or operate (thereby addressing past taxpayer opposition).
•  A neighbor-friendly location (to address/mitigate serious impacts on park neighbors, which plagued previously proposed sites).
• A referendum requirement.

My 2003 campaign pool platform remains on the Web at www.jaros.itgo.com/whats_new.html. Carlin should refresh his recollection and publicly correct his false accusations against me. My 2003 pool position appeared in various newspapers and in a February 2003 election questionnaire response submitted to the Reporter/Progress.

For my new approach to breaking the pool impasse, I earned the public endorsement during the 2003 campaign of our resident retired Olympic swim team member Dave Sims. His endorsement letter was circulated to Metra commuters before the April 2003 election.

“Shame on you,” — not me — John Carlin, for your publishing falsehoods.

Carlin says to check out your latest property tax bill, claiming: “The Park District increased their (share) by 7.9 percent.”

Here are the facts readily confirmable by the DuPage County Clerk and from reviewing the district’s audited financials at www.dgparks.org/supportdata/FinalDGPDCAFRFY2007-08.pdf. Property values within the Park District measured by equalized assessed valuation increased on average from 2006 to 2007 by 7.3183 percent. The Park District’s own tax rate fell for 2006 taxes payable in 2007 from 0.2913 per 100 of EAV to 0.2783 (2007 taxes). SEASPAR’s tax rate remained constant at 0.0149. (So the combined Park District/SEASPAR rate for 2006 taxes was 0.3062 and for 2007 was 0.2932). For the property owner experiencing the average rate of appreciation (7.3183 percent), the Park District’s own tax bill increased by the consumer price index increase of 2.5 percent (not Carlin’s 7.9 percent) — that is, in inflation-adjusted terms, the Park District’s own tax bill to such average property owner remained exactly constant — no increase, at all, disproving Carlin’s insinuation.

The SEASPAR tax — determined by SEASPAR, not the Park Board (but which the Park District is required to pass through and lumped into the district’s tax bill line items) — increased by 7.3154 percent (well over the 2.5 percent CPI increase). Because the SEASPAR portion of the combined Park District/SEASPAR tax bill amount is relatively small, the weighted average increase in the combined park district/SEASPAR tax for the property owner experiencing the average rate of appreciation in the district was 2.7335 percent (instead of the 2.5 percent CPI increase). Carlin’s combined park district/SEASPAR tax bill could have increased by 7.9 percent, as he alleges, only if his own property value increased by 12.7 percent instead of the 7.3154 percent districtwide average.

Accordingly, his property would have appreciated about 75 percent more than the average property owner’s. And he’s complaining?

Alternatively, if he feels his property didn’t actually appreciate that much, he should have complained to the township assessor, not the Park Board.

For many years through and including 2001 taxes, the Park District had been ranked fifth highest measured by combined park district/special recreation area tax rate among DuPage County’s 32 major park districts. Thanks to fiscally conservative post-2001 park boards, the district’s relative tax rate rank has dramatically fallen year after year to its present rank at 23.

Moreover, since 2003, the board has had the lawful power to issue, without referendum, $13,600,000 of tax-increase G.O. bonds and to impose $1,488,000 per year in new taxes to repay them.

Fully using that power would immediately increase district taxes by 21 percent. How many of such nonreferendum, tax-increase bonds have been issued by your park board? Zero.

The District also recently finished repaying the last of its tax-increase G.O. bonds. Carlin also claims that a Park District pool has been “turned down numerous times for so many years.” Also untrue. There have been only three pool-related agenda over almost four decades. Each referendum involved the use of taxpayer money and serious effects on park neighbors. Carlin and Pittroff just don’t “get it” — namely, that the current taxpayer-friendly and neighbor-friendly approach being carefully studied by the current board has never been voted down.

Carlin’s allegation against administrator Dan Cermak is wrong-headed. Mr. Cermak has acted on pool efforts only as directed by a board majority and doesn’t have “an empire” any more than the village manager has an empire. Cermak serves at the pleasure of five elected board members.
Any parks “empire” belongs to the people and is in board custody. Derogatory attacks, such as “empire-building,” leveled against civil servants carrying out directives of the people’s elected representatives, contribute to incivility.

Pittroff charges the board with “taking deep dives into its pool of resident taxes to pay for the conjectures of two companies with differing cost projections for a village pool.” The new, greatly reduced figures come from an expert Aurora-based team working on a volunteer, unpaid basis. So, Pittroff’s accusation that the Aurora team’s cost projections come at great cost to taxpayers is untrue. Her penning that the “Park Board must address” pool maintenance, employee salaries and user fees to “sustain the pool,” reveals her ignorance that these factors have been and continue to be addressed.

Carlin and Pittroff would do well to start paying attention at Park Board meetings instead of misusing their First Amendment liberties by spreading misinformation.

Art Jaros is a commissioner on the Downers Grove Park District.