Meet Your Candidates: Jessica Bullock, Park District of Oak Park Commissioner

Editor's note: OPRF Patch hasn't heard back from candidates Diane Dunn and Julie Grossman MacCarthy. We'll post their completed questionnaires if and when they return them. 

Jessica Bullock, 37, is aiming to retain her spot on the Board of Commissioners, a five-member group which establishes policies for the entire district.

For much more on the role of the Park District commissioner, please see the PDF attachments accompanying this story. 

Commissioners serve four-year terms. This year, three seats are up for election and six candidates — Bullock, , Victor Guarino, , Diane Dunn and Julie Grossman MacCarthy — will appear on the ballot.

It's important to note that MacCarthy attempted to opt out of the race but will remain on the ballot as part of the . 

Bullock, a systems grant writer for Provena Health care, is finishing up her fourth year of service as a park board commissioner. She has also served on the park district's citizen committee. 

Patch: How would you assess the state of the park districtʼs budget?

Jessica Bullock: The Park District of Oak Park is more financially sound then it was prior to 2005.

Prior to the referendum, the cash reserves of the district were extremely low. With the referendum and strong financial oversight over the past several years, the district has brought up its level of cash reserves to about 25 percent. As a result, we have been in a much better position than many other local governments to weather the current financial turmoil.

The strength of the districtʼs financial management has been recognized by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), which has recognized the Park District of Oak Park with a Distinguished Budget Award.

If expenses need to be reduced, exactly what would you cut? Please be specific.

A. Program Expense. Park district programs are a little different than a typical government expense, in the sense that there is a direct correlation between the expense and revenue side. On the recreational program side, for example, there are expenses associated in holding a program such as a summer camp (e.g. the staff, supplies, etc.) On the revenue side, they collect fees for camp. So, if you cut expenses, you would also have to make a direct cut on the revenue side as well.

The Park District does a great job of covering programmatic expenses with associated revenues. In fact, the revenue from these programs is expected to at least cover the direct program costs. If this minimum level is not achieved, the classes are generally cancelled (and thus the expense is not incurred). In addition, the Park District has budgetary controls in place to monitor overall expenses.

The Board monitors expenses on a monthly basis with a bill report and monthly expense/revenue report. In addition, the District maintains a procurement policy for the authorization of all expenditures. As a result, I do not envision a major reduction in program expense.

B. Capital Expense. Approximately half of the Park Districtʼs budget is allocated towards capital improvements. Prior to the referendum that passed in 2005, there were many years of deferred maintenance for the parks and park district facilities.

As a result of the referendum, the Park District has been able to conduct master plans and begin the implementation of park improvements throughout the Village. The next few years are scheduled for improvements to the Gymnastics Center, Ridgeland Common, and the Building and Grounds facility. In addition, there are phases to each of the master plans that are yet to be addressed. I do not believe that a reduction in capital expenses at this time would be wise.

If more revenue needs to be raised, exactly what would you propose? Please be specific.

At this time, I do not envision raising additional revenue outside of the Districtʼs existing tax levy, program fees, and grant sources. We will likely issue some debt in association with the Gymnastics Center, Ridgeland Common, and Building and Grounds improvements. However, the debt would be paid through existing funding streams for the Park District.

Whatʼs on your wish list for new facilities?

We have conducted major existing condition studies on 218 Madison (Gymnastics Center and the Building and Grounds facilities) and Ridgeland Common.

The 218 Madison study and a recent Pro Forma indicate that the demand for Gymnastics necessitates a doubling of the program size. In addition, the 218 Madison study indicated the need to separate the two program functions from each other. It also recommended additional space for Building and Grounds for its vehicles, etc.

As a result, one of the priorities for the next board should be to resolve this issue, likely by separating the Gymnastics Center and Buildings and Grounds in different facilities with adequate space to meet their programmatic needs.

Another priority for the next board, should be to resolve the issues surrounds Ridgeland Common. The Park District has conducted two major studies of the facility.

In 2007, an existing conditions study was conducted on the mechanical systems, architectural/structural systems, etc. Essentially, the consultants determined that the existing facilities are functionally obsolete.

In addition, in late 2007, a facility and site master plan was conducted for the site. At that point, the cost estimates for building a new Ridgeland Common came in extremely high (with a minimum of approximately $35 million).

As a result, we went back to the community with a question related to the next phase of the Ridgeland Common project in the recent community survey. Based on the sum of the top two choices, the options for Ridgeland Common that households indicated the most support for were: repair and maintain the Ridgeland Common and donʼt build a new facility (60%) and build a new Ridgeland Common with an outdoor swimming pool and an indoor ice arena (40%).

The new board will weigh these options this year. There is funding in the FY2011 budget to begin the design/development of the project.

The $1.14 million renovation of Lindberg Park was approved late last year. The district is hoping to secure some grant money to help pay for the project, but what would you do to help prevent cost overruns? 

The master plan for Lindberg Park included a number of different  improvements to the athletic fields, pathway/park entrance improvements, playground, baseball fields, tennis courts, and natural areas.  In addition, it proposed a new shelter. The total cost projected for all of these improvements is roughly $1.14 million.  

The master plan is a starting point for the Park District to schedule improvements.  The plan will likely be implemented in phases, starting in 2013 when the Park District has $450,000 scheduled for park improvements at Lindberg Park.

In addition, the Park District will also explore additional grant funding for the project.  The Park District will utilize the standard bidding process for different components of the plan for the first phase, and manage the project to prevent cost overruns.

Does the district get adequate feedback from Oak Parkers on how well it is serving, or not serving, them? If not, how specifically would you increase the flow of communication?

I believe the Park District does an excellent job of this, as evidenced by surveys and questionnaires that are conducted. In addition, we have an extensive public participation process for each of our master plan processes.

What is your favorite Park District facility? Why?

Favorite? I guess I believe that all of the facilities provide a unique service to the community. I think, personally, my two young daughters have tested out every playground in the community. We enjoy strolling through Austin Gardens and listening to the concerts in Scoville Park during the summer. We swim in both of the pools, and have even tried out ice-skating at Ridgeland Common. They each have participated at the Gymnastics Center.

In addition, they have participated in a variety of the recreational programs, from summer camp, the soccer league, and dance. So, with that in mind ... I think it is difficult to pick one favorite!

How has the district addressed any need to reduce its use of lawn chemicals, adopt water-saving methods (for lawns, indoor facilities, etc.), or otherwise reduce its footprint on the environment? Please be specific.

Yes, the Park District has a Greening Advisory Board. They have completed a lot of great projects, from the Carry In Carry Out program (encouraging sports teams to carry out their own refuse), instituting an Integrated Pest Management Program, and a variety of other programs. Please see: http://www.oakparkparks.com/AboutUs/GoGreen.htm for additional info.

What else would you like voters to know about your positions on issues, point of view or qualifications?

Jessica Bullock has served as a Park District Commissioner of Oak Park since 2007. Prior to her term on the board, Jessica served on the Park District Citizen Committee from 2003 to 2007. Jessica is a System Grant Writer for Provena Health.

She is also an active member of the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) and currently serves as the GPA Illinois State Representative. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Wheaton College and a Masters of Public Affairs degree from Indiana University. As residents of Oak Park, Jessica and her family are active users of Park District facilities and recreational activities.

I support:

• Stewardship of Park District of Oak Park Facilities and Parks. The Park Board of Commissioners has approved a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which outlines future park renewal and facility improvements of the Park District of Oak Park. As part of this process, master plans are being developed for each of the parks and facilities. These plans include schedules and detailed improvements at each site. I support continued community input and feedback through this process.

• Balanced Financial Position. I strongly support the development and review of a fiscally responsible budget for the Park District of Oak Park. It is critical that the efficiency and effectiveness of Park District expenditures are continually evaluated. On the revenue side, I support a balance of funding methods, including user fees, grants, and taxes, to support the sustainability of Park District programs.

• Promoting Programs to Keep Children Active. Obesity rates are on the rise in America. Over one third of children born after 2000 will suffer from some type of chronic obesity-related health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, or asthma. Promoting programs that encourage physical activity is a critical component in combating this epidemic. The Park District of Oak Park can assist with this process by promoting sports, dance, and fitness programs that keep our youth engaged.