I'm incredibly disappointed that the park district did not pursue legal action against the parents of the vandals for restitution. The park district should not have made a claim through their insurance to pay for the repairs--the parents are responsible for the actions of their children. Now, as usual, the taxpayers foot the bill and the vandals (and their parents) learn nothing from their mistake.

Not a good decision on the part of the park district. Maybe it's time for new blood in that organization.

Abigail,

Please don’t be disappointed, this was actually a good decision by the Park District. Filing an insurance claim is the normal procedure for these kinds of things. If the Park District didn’t do that, and instead waited for restitution through the court system, it would be years before the playground got replaced. This way, the community is able to enjoy the playground as quickly as possible.

I do not know what the specifics are involving the juveniles charged with the crime, but do not assume that there will be no restitution of any kind. That has not played out in the court system yet. Also, you are incorrect in you inference that the taxpayers are footing the bill. The only money that the Park District paid out to replace the $82,000 playground is the deductible ($1,000), and my guess is that the $1,000 will indeed be recouped. Because it is the insurance company that paid for the damage, it would be the insurance company that will or will not try to recover that $81,000 they paid, not the Park District.

I know that there are other people in the community that share your frustration, which is why I chose to respond to your comment in an attempt to clear up some misinterpretations that I know are out there. But, please know that the Park District always tries to do what is in the best interest of the community. I sincerely hope that after knowing some of these facts, you don’t feel that it’s time for new blood in that organization.

The reopening of Alcott Park is great news for the community. However, without the full implementation of the Illinois capital bill, Buffalo Grove and many municipalities across the state may not have the opportunity to invest in other important capital projects. The Video Gaming Act is the largest single source revenue component of the Illinois capital plan, supplying 30 percent of the $31 billion bill over five years. Not only would tax revenue from video gaming machines supply funding for capital projects, but five percent of tax revenue collected from the machines will stay under local control for a municipality’s general fund. In Buffalo Grove, this could mean up to $438,750 annually. For more information about the capital plan and its impact, please visit www.BacktoWorkIllinois.com.

Now, Mike, most of us are know that when we have an insurance claim our insurance rates go up. Yes, I understand that the park district may be part of a pool of villages on their insurance policy, but that does not negate the fact that when you have an insurance claim--your rates go up. The fact that it's the taxpayers money is the key issue here, and the park district's willingness to spend the taxpayers money in this manner is very troubling .

As for restitution, a Juvenile Court judge will obviously order restitution, but in all likelihood the park district may only see pennies on the dollar. The parents can state they do not have the funds to pay and will not be held liable. No one will question them or ask for proof they cannot pay. Plus sometimes the first juvenile to successfully complete probation never pays a cent. However, if the park district were to take legal action against the parents and win, the park district could impose a lien on property owned by the parents, or garnish the parent's wages.

I'd rather see the park district spend my money on legal fees to set an example then for the park district to look the other way and let the taxpayers or donors foot the bill.

Abigail,

Not exactly. The Park District is not part of a pool of villages (the Park District is a separate governmental agency than the Village), but it is part of a group of park districts that are members of a self insurance pool called PDRMA (Park District Risk Management Agency). I assure you that the Park District’s rates did not and will not go up.

You seem concerned about your tax money, so you should be happy to learn that the Park District is the one taxing body on your tax bill whose budget isn’t entirely dependant on tax dollars. The Buffalo Grove Park District is only one third tax driven, meaning that two thirds of the District’s revenue comes from fees charged to program participants.

I do not have a crystal ball, so I cannot comment on restitution that may or may not happen. But, like I said in my previous post, the Park District has made the right decision by getting the community its playground back as fast as possible, and at as low of a cost as possible. I have personally spoken to dozens of residents that are thrilled that the playground is back, and as good as new. I have not heard one complaint and I have not heard anyone express displeasure (until now) in the District’s decision to spend the $1,000 deductible to get the playground back this way. I am sorry you feel that way.

continued ...

To your comment of, “I'd rather see the park district spend my money on legal fees to set an example then for the park district to look the other way and let the taxpayers or donors foot the bill,” I completely disagree. It is one thing for a private citizen to decide what to do with their money and if they want to spend it on legal fees; but, it would be completely irresponsible for the Park District to needlessly invest the community’s resources on legal fees because of one’s personal feelings on setting an example. It is the Park District’s responsibility to serve the community and get the community their playground back for as little cost as possible, not to throw away money on a lawsuit that you yourself said, “in all likelihood the park district may only see pennies on the dollar.”

Mike, I think if the park district would ask the residents of Buffalo Grove you would find that most would want the parents of those vandals to pay for the repairs--not for the park district's insurance to cover it. I sincerely doubt that most residents would go the route the PD has.

For my own home and vandalism in the past, you bet I've gotten reimbursed by the parents of the vandals. It should be no different with the PD.

The reason you haven't heard other residents ask why the vandals haven't paid for the damages is that you only asked a select group of people their opinion. For the PD to make a decision like this is irresponsible and, as I said before, maybe there's a need for new blood and a new perspective on the PD board.

Abigail,

I have found over the years that many people do not understand that they are separate units of government, which is why I specified that. I don’t work for PDRMA and I am not the Park District’s risk manager, so I cannot intelligently explain why the rates do not go up. All I can tell you, based on what I do know, is that they won’t go up and it probably has more to do with the fact that the park districts that are members of PDRMA are part of a self insurance pool, and not customers of a private insurance company. Also, I speculate that a park district is treated as a different type of risk than a private citizen or a private corporation. But, for whatever reason, it is different.

I agree with you that most people would want the vandals to pay for the damage. I myself feel that way. Where I disagree with you is when you go on to say you, “sincerely doubt that most residents would go the route the PD has.” I have tried to explain the facts to you as best I can, and I sincerely think that most residents are pleased with how the Park District has handled the situation, and that is based on actual reactions I have gotten from people.

continued...

I don’t understand your last comment of, “The reason you haven't heard other residents ask why the vandals haven't paid for the damages is that you only asked a select group of people their opinion. For the PD to make a decision like this is irresponsible and, as I said before, maybe there's a need for new blood and a new perspective on the PD board.”

I guess we can agree to disagree, and I’m sorry you feel that way. I think to do the opposite would have been irresponsible, and as someone who has worked tirelessly to make our community as best it can be, it saddens and frustrates me when people feel that way. I cannot speak for the Park Board, or for the agency, but I can tell you that I believe in the integrity of our Park Board and I think they serve their fellow residents as well as any Park Board out there…anywhere.

There’s an old saying… Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. I sincerely feel that letting the charred remains of that playground stay for years until litigation and restitution played out would have made a bad situation worse. Like in any situation, you have to ask what is most important, and in this situation I feel that getting that playground back was the most important thing, rather than setting an example or fighting on principle.

continued...

The children in our community don’t care about principle, or litigation, or insurance. They just want their playground back. My son is 7, and we live 3 blocks from that playground. I will never forget the tears in his eyes when he saw the burned down playground, and I am thrilled that I get to take him there to play again.

I think we need to agree to disagree, because I'm not convinced the PD did the right thing here.

First of all, there is no such thing as getting free money from an insurance company for a claim without having to pay the piper (the insurance company) down the road. It just doesn't happen.

As for years of litigation--this is true, it would take some time and expense going through court. HOWEVER, the expenses can be passed back to the parents by including attorney's fees and court costs. Their homeowners insurance should cover their liability. You cannot just allow these parents to walk away from this--this is pure stupidity at its finest.

In regards to getting the park back up and running as quickly as possible, filing the claim alleviated that problem. So, now maybe go after the parents for the costs and either pay back the insurance company, or put the settlement money in a reserve fund--then everyone (except the parents) will be happy, including me.

Mike,

I agree with the course that the park district took. My kids were devastated when that park was burnt down, but my mom took my son over there yesterday and had a blast.

Abigail,

Mike is correct that the rates will not increase on the insurance. I have worked in the insurance industry for over 15 years as an underwriter and the myth that every time you file a claim your rates will go up is simply not true. In this case the claim was filed with the company and since those who were responsible were caught the insurance company will subrogate their money that was paid out. They will file a claim with the insurance carrier of the those responsible and try to recoup the money. The park district was not at fault or negligent in this loss. This action SAVED the taxpayers money by putting the responsibility of getting restitution into the hands of the insurance company rather than the PD paying lawyer fees, court costs and other expenses to fight this in court, not to mention the priceless expense of not allowing kids to use the park.

Mike, I also agree with the direction that the park district took. I also have worked in the insurance industry in claims. The insurance co will subrogate the claim which the process may last for years. Having the park in place is important. My understanding of commercial policies, the loss ratio, is involved when rate increases are condsidered - not the fact that a claim was filed.

Thank you both for your comments and for explaining that so well. It is so nice to see everyone enjoying that playground again.