Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Budget workshop exposes split over fund transfers; ordinance to move funds fails

Oak Brook Park District Board of Commissioners · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a March 3 budget workshop, staff warned that failing to approve previously budgeted transfers would leave the Capital Improvement Project fund negative and risk audit findings; an ordinance to transfer funds failed for lack of the four-vote threshold, and staff rebutted a commissioner’s "slush fund" claim.

Oak Brook Park District staff presented the district’s requested FY2026/2027 budget and ten-year Capital Improvement Plan at a March 3 budget workshop, but the board split over whether to proceed with previously budgeted internal fund transfers.

Marco Salinas, the district’s chief financial officer, told the board that combined contingency balances across the General, Recreation and Tennis funds are below $1 million and pushed back on a prior assertion by Commissioner Chan that the district was maintaining a "slush fund" of $1 million. Salinas said the district uses contingency funds for emergencies such as elevator repair and warned that "If a lie is repeated often, then the public might believe those lies as true." Commissioner Chan later acknowledged she had been incorrect about the contingency figure and said she had been referring to a previous email about Breakaway Basketball profit.

The board considered Ordinance 26‑0217 to transfer funds among district accounts. Executive Director Laure Kosey and Salinas explained that without the transfers the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) fund would show a negative balance and could prompt negative auditor commentary or harm bond metrics. Attorney Patrick Miner said transfers that are already budgeted are properly addressed in the budget process, but agreed the board faces an "opportunity risk" if it delays projects.

Because the district's policy requires four of five commissioners to approve certain transfers, the motion to adopt Ordinance 26‑0217 did not carry; the recorded tally was 3–2 (Commissioners Ivkovic Kelley, Gondek and President Knitter aye; Commissioners Vescovi and Chan nay) and the motion failed for lack of the required four votes.

Staff also outlined capital priorities including a Central Park West parking lot expansion (which will remove existing pickleball courts and affect 13 parking spaces), a Tennis Center rebuild and other projects. Kosey noted a $200,000 grant from Senator Glowiak‑Hilton to improve restrooms and resurface trails and roadways. Bob Johnson said a planned fitness-center floor replacement is budgeted for this fiscal year and estimated the cost at about $80,000; a final "not to exceed" cost will be presented at a subsequent meeting.

Salinas said he will provide a detailed breakout of the "Other/Miscellaneous" line (which currently groups items such as IMRF and Social Security) so commissioners can see the specific accounts included. The board set its next regular meeting for March 16, 2026, where budget follow-up items, potential recalculations of transfers and further discussion of capital projects are likely to appear.