One of the Chicago area's most debt-saddled suburbs is borrowing even more money as it tries to put off the worst of its financial pain over the struggling Toyota Park stadium.

The latest borrowing binge — $27 million — will put Bridgeview taxpayers at greater risk of funding an even bigger bailout of the village-owned stadium if it continues to flounder. Municipal finance experts say it is another worrisome sign for a small suburb that took a huge gamble to build the 20,000-seat professional soccer stadium.

The move comes as Bridgeview officials try to reassure residents in newsletters that do not detail how the downward spiral will be reversed.

Bridgeview officials built the stadium in 2006 to lure the Chicago Fire soccer team. Mayor Steven Landek told local taxpayers then that they wouldn't have to foot the bill — insisting that concerts and games would pay off the entire debt taken out to construct the expansive facility.

But the Tribune revealed in June that the stadium was falling millions of dollars short as residents saw the average municipal property tax bill nearly triple in less than a decade. Even so, the higher taxes haven't covered the losses. The latest borrowing is at least the second time village officials have taken out more debt to help make stadium loan payments.

The end result is a fiscal "house of cards" that could come tumbling down on taxpayers, said H. Woods Bowman, a DePaul University professor emeritus and former county financial officer.

Bridgeview taxpayers face about $227 million in general obligation debt that will cost about $420 million to pay off over the next three decades. That total doesn't count millions of dollars more from other types of loans and pension debt.

Losing cash

Landek declined an interview with the Tribune and also declined to answer a list of questions about the stadium's finances.

"The stadium is the best thing to happen to the southwest suburbs in years and in a strong economy will be very productive," spokesman Ray Hanania said in responding to the Tribune's questions.

Exactly how the stadium will do better remains unclear.

Government agencies are required to provide most records to the public. But when the Tribune asked to see reports on how Bridgeview expected the stadium to make money, village officials said they can't find any such feasibility study done by anyone.

Still, other financial reports — required by state law — show village officials have been way off about what little they have said about stadium projections.

As the stadium was being built, the village told the rating agency Standard & Poor's that profits would cover the roughly $8 million annual debt payments.

Then earlier this year, village officials told S&P; that they hoped the stadium would net $4 million, or about half of what was needed toward those annual debt payments.

In November, S&P; reported that village officials lowered their expectations again, to $3 million.

The village's audits show the stadium has never made that amount on its own. The closest it came was $2.5 million in 2007.

The village's audit for 2011 shows the stadium made just $663,000.

Audited figures are not yet complete for 2012 — but it was a year in which top act Jimmy Buffett pulled out to play in Tinley Park and the biggest shows included the B96 Summerbash and the Country Throwdown headlined by Gary Allan.

Hiking taxes

Without enough money coming from the stadium, village officials are forced to make up the difference by using existing tax money, cutting services, raising property taxes or borrowing more.

The $27 million borrowed this month — costing roughly twice that over 30 years with interest — could stave off steeper tax hikes, for now.

The new pot of borrowed money will be spent cutting the village's overall debt payments by roughly two-thirds over 2012 and 2013.

But the breathing room quickly runs out. And, by 2014, the yearly payments for the stadium's original loan will return to roughly $8 million, with $6 million more a year owed for other borrowing.

That creates pressure to boost taxes to help make payments.

According to S&P;, village officials said they had a plan to increase debt-tied property taxes up to $1 million in each of the next 12 years. If that happens, it would mean the village's overall property tax levy would have risen fivefold since the stadium first opened — from less than $4 million a year to more than $20 million.

That assumes the village doesn't raise or lower other lines on the property tax bill for other reasons.

That plan also counts on the stadium bringing in at least $3 million.

If the stadium falls short of that mark, according to S&P;, village officials said they could borrow even more money.

Sound investment?

Before the latest borrowing, Landek wrote about the stadium's finances in the village's newsletters, reassuring residents the facility was a sound investment while equating the debt to a "home mortgage."

But the newsletters didn't explain how the stadium would make more money in the future or how the debt payments will be covered. The vacuum of information only underscores how difficult it can be for local taxpayers to figure out what is going on.

The village even keeps two sets of audits.

One is more limited and paints a rosier picture of the stadium, counting fewer expenses and more revenue. But auditors wrote that the document's figures are "not intended to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of … the Bridgeview Stadium."

Another, broader audit — one often cited by S&P; — shows much higher expenses and lower revenue for Toyota Park.

Landek apparently was referencing figures from the rosier audit when he told residents in a newsletter that the stadium has generated most of the cash needed to make stadium debt payments.

The mayor also said that about a quarter of the stadium's debt has already been paid off. Yet, he doesn't mention that some of the debt was paid off with other borrowed money — leaving the town deeper in debt.

Experts also question Landek's "home mortgage" analogy. The stadium deal is more like someone buying a second home and trying to rent it out, said Robert Bland, a government finance professor from the University of North Texas. The rent isn't covering the mortgage, forcing the landlord to take out a second or third mortgage.

Beyond the analogies lies a hard truth, the experts agreed. Bridgeview is deep in debt, and more borrowing doesn't solve the underlying problems, any more than a homeowner making house payments on a credit card.