Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsThursday, March 27, 2008 2:26 PM CDT
Bloomington aldermen question playground expense
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- Several Bloomington aldermen say spending $30,000 on electronic playground equipment at a time when they are cutting $3 million from the city budget is not necessarily an extravagance.

Aldermen agreed that they need more information about the NEOS playground before they are willing to spend the money, but there are a few ready to argue that children will benefit and the parks department already has borne its share of cuts.

Ward 8 Alderman John Hanson said the council wanted department budgets reduced by 5 percent.

“Once they have made the cut, if this is how they think the city will benefit (from) the money they have left over, then it’s that department head’s choice to propose the purchase,” Hanson said.

In December, the council approved $1.5 million in cuts and asked for $1 million more. Aldermen will get a chance Monday to discuss the proposed cuts and the latest version of the city’s roughly $75 million general fund budget.

“Spending the $30,000 (for the electronic playground) is not an extravagance when compared to the $50,000 to $60,000 it costs to replace traditional playground equipment,” Ward 9 Alderman Jim Fruin said. “But this is also part of the delicate line we walk between spending the money to improve our parks or putting it toward other expenses such as streets or our reserves.”

John Kennedy, assistant director of the parks and recreation department, said the money to buy the equipment comes from a fund set aside to pay for the replacement of playground equipment. Because of the department’s current maintenance program, there is extra money in the fund, Kennedy said.

The equipment targets 11- to 14-year-olds, Kennedy told the council earlier this week, but it can be used for everyone from small children to senior citizens.

The equipment can be used for such things as running games in which children touch blinking lights in timed contests.

“I want to see the thing first,” said Ward 5 Alderman Jim Finnegan. “It sounds like it could be beneficial, but at $30,000, it could also be a pricey toy.”

Ward 4 Alderman Judy Stearns believes the new equipment is “highly questionable especially in light of the $175,000 we just spent on the skate park,” but said she is willing to reserve judgment until she has had a look at it.

Ward 6 Alderman Karen Schmidt said someone easily could make a case to use the money for something else, but added the equipment could be a big benefit in keeping children active.

Aldermen Allen Gibson, Ward 1; David Sage, Ward 2; Kevin Huette, Ward 3, and Steven Purcell, Ward 7; did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 21 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

DaveII wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Well, Im Normal, if they knew the difference they would have shown the spine to send this topic into the terminated discussion file.

You must be one of those spend thrift educators or local politicans that prefers to ponder and endlessly discuss rather than make decisive decisions and move foward. "

Houser wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:47 AM:

" The city council has spent themselves (us) into a mess, and they need to start making some uncomfortable decisions. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging! Not spending $30,000 on electronic playground equipment sounds like a good place to start. "

BARLOW wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:06 AM:

" How many 11-14 yo are at the park anyway? They are all sitting at home playing their video games. Save the money!! "

puckglory wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:00 AM:

" What Parks and Rec should have done is bring 100 kids to the meeting. Then the city councilors would have approved, just like the skate park. That is, what, over $170K spent on kids that people say parents should entertain., but they approved because of the turn out. This council has no, well you know. And dont say Judy Stearns does, because she also approved this skate park. You put children in front of the council and they will approve with out question. You dont, and you then you get those amazing questions that should of been asked about the Hamilton raise and the skate park. Come on, Council, wake up and get your act together. "

BigBrother wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:56 PM:

" I suggest we simply ask some of the parents to bring a can to the playground. You can entertain a slew of children with a good old game of "kick the can". Maybe a blindfold for "blind mans bluff". I can not understand the obsession with providing expensive unnecessary toys to entertain children at the park. A swingset is sufficient. Although I do enjoy watching parents teach there children to act like gerbals on the new fangled jungle jims. "

paperdoll wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:57 PM:

" How can these aldermen question anything when they give big raises to the top brass. You are pathetic. I don't live in Bloomington, but I sure hope you voters think twice when voting next time.
"

BJ wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:40 PM:

" TO Long_time_gone - I have been saying for weeks that Tommy Hamilton needs to earn his pay raise and put on some work clothes and get to work on the potholes and craters in the streets. Might do him so good to get out from behind the desk and do some manual labor "

long_time_gone wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:45 PM:

" I've had two flat tires in the past two weeks. I can't believe they're considering mechanical playground equipment for $30,000 when the city supposedly can't afford to fix all the potholes and craters in some of the roads in Bloomington. These people all need to be kicked out of office and go fix the roads themselves. "

inmyopinion wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:44 PM:

" There's a great little playground that needs to be paid for at Glenn School that many Bloomington kids use everday they are at school that they can put some of that money to. "

lindini wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:19 PM:

" I'd also argue what is the life span of this equipment? I could see spending a bit on a set of monkey bars which might last 20 or 30 years (not that we need them right now mind you) but the average use for most electronic games is 3-4 years max. It just seems a very poor choice in spending. "

Bloomington Resident wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:47 PM:

" The only thing that will keep kids more active is parents who monitor their play and see that they do something other than sit in front of electronics. I don't recall needing electronics to go out and ride my bike or play kickball when I was a kid. Spend our money on the infrastructure that has been sadly neglected while providing luxuries. Like responsible individuals, city government needs to pay for necessities first and wait for everything else until it can afford it. "

wanderwls wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I just want to add my agreement to everybody else. Cut the budget but spend $30K? How dumb does that sound. Somebody said let kids use their imaginations and play. Maybe play in the back yard? Play catch. That's not expensive. Ride their bikes? Play tag together? These children with electronic playgrounds and everything a child could even dream of already, will grow up to be adults who haven't got a clue how to be self-sufficient and how to do things with others. And you want to consider assisting these children in being lumps of unthinking flesh? What an idiotic thing to consider. Oh but maybe WE as taxpayers are supposed to pay for that, while the budget is being cut? "

gelfing wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:20 PM:

" To: Growingup 70's, are you blind, or just looking for something to complain about? The money for this project (weither or not I agree with it) is not comming from a spend spend spend fund. the money is available as a surplus that would be derived from sound and frugal budgeting and spending practices. I applaud the parks and rec folks for creating such a surplus that they would consider nicer equipment.
As well, to sugest that a parent is doing something wrong by letting their kids go to a playground is laughable. Would you sugest the parent make the kids watch tv or surf the internet? Playgrounds are a GREAT place for kids to be active, have fun, use their imaginations, and run out some of their spare energy. This is, IN NO WAY a bad ting.
My suggestion to you is to think before you type, and don't complain for the sake of complaining. "

Im Normal wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:12 PM:

" I must of lost something in DaveII post......Alderman Hanson said “Once they have made the 5% cut they can do with the money left over what they want,Alderman Finnegan it could also be a pricey toy,Alderman Fruin delicate line we walk between spending the money to improve our parks or putting it toward other expenses such as streets or our reserves.”, Alderman Stearns “highly questionable"and Alderman Schmidt someone easily could make a case to use the money for something else.
Aldermen Allen Gibson, Ward 1; David Sage, Ward 2; Kevin Huette, Ward 3, and Steven Purcell, Ward 7; did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment.
5 wanted more information because of the cost and cutting of city cost and the rest never got back to the Pantagraph
SO How is it """They don't know the difference between want and need""""" "

BJ wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Let's forgo spending for the playground equipment right now - it is not something that the city needs to be spending money on when there are other things they they need to consider. City Council - Get your priorities straight! "

roobyroofan wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Cut this expenditure. I agree wholeheartedly w/'lindini'. Kids can use their imaginations and play. Whatever happened to kick the can and flashlight tag anyhow? "

lindini wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:22 AM:

" I'm all for spending when needed but this is just not a priority right now. When times are tough you play tag and hide and seek not $30,000 outdoor playstation. "

mixdown wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:05 AM:

" To growingup 70's: Your argument is incomplete. Please explain your belief that a parent who sends their kids to a playground (which I believe is necessary for their health, and social and creative development) is not undertaking the responsibility of being a parent. What other ways should they be finding to occupy their kids? I'm making the assumption that a balance is being recognized and that some personal time is also shared between parent and child. But your statement is too vague. "

mixdown wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Last time I checked, children can be (and usually are) very active at any standard playground (they go there because they were already too wild to be in the house). And, they are completely capable of making games out of their own imaginations - rather than needing yet another piece of electronics telling them what to do. If anything it's unhealthy for their creativity. "

DaveII wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Our Aldermen are much like those with high debt and adjustable mortgages....not very smart. They don't know the difference between want and need. "

growingup 70's wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:41 AM:

" what a joke!!!! do these people know english? we. need. to. cut. spending. Electronic playgrounds are not a necessity, it is a luxury. as for the argument that it is cheaper than replacing current playground equipment.....how about delaying that until essential services are paid for and DEBTS ARE PAID OFF!!! Until then, parents can undertake the responsibility of being a parent and find some other way to occupy their kid(s) instead of shoving them off to a playground "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?