Belated Council COW Recap!

At Monday night's Council COW the longest part of the public portion of the meeting was devoted to discussion among the Finance and Budget committee action items.

This will be long and somewhat painful, PRU readers.

The first item on the Finance action list was approval of contributions to Community Groups. After the motion for approval was made and seconded, Benedict Alderman Robert Ryan (5th ward) moved to amend the motion by asking that it be changed to restore full funding to each of the community groups. Alderman Jim Allspaghetti (4th ward) asked what the new number for the budget would be? City Manager Jim Hock responded that the amount would be somewhere around $15,000. Alderman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward) asked if the amendment meant only the groups listed on the sheet in front of them or all the previously funded community groups? Benedict Ald. Ryan said they were the same. Ald. Wsooooolman said they were not. Benedict Ald. Ryan then said his intention was to restore funding to the groups that serve the most people.

Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd ward) then asked if Lutheran General Hospital had agreed to take over funding the meals on wheels program through the Senior Center and if the City funds the program and LGH then agrees to fund the program can the City get the money back? City Manager Jim Hock responded by asking, after the check is written and given how do you propose to get the money back? Ald. Bach didn't appear to have an answer. Alderman Bach then asked why the funding was in the budget? City Manager Hock replied that this is what the Council indicated they wanted at one of their previous meetings. The Lord of the Manor, Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd ward) said the final approval would be given at next Monday's meeting and then the check would be cut. City Manager Jim Hock added that the amendment before them indicated full funding. Benedict Ald. Ryan indicated that he wished to leave $6,800 in the budget for budgeting purposes, at which time the Unfriendly Ghost of the 6th ward, Ald. Tom Carey indicated $6,800 was not the full amount of funding and that there were entities missing from the list of community groups before them, repeating the question about what the "full dollar amount is for Ryan's amendment?" City Manager Jim Hock indicated the Community Health Commission was not on the list of community groups before the Council. Ald. Carey then indicated he could not vote on something without knowing the number. This prompted the City Cluck, Betty Henneman, to say that she hoped the City would not withhold funding from these community groups for "too long."

After this in-depth and clarifying discussion of Benedict Ald. Ryan's amendment, the council voted 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Wsol) to 2 (DiPietro and Carey) to add full funding, whatever that means, to the motion approving funding for community groups. Then the Unfriendly Ghost of the 6th ward asked to change his vote to a "yes", in favor of the amendment.

The final motion to approve funding for community groups passed unanimously.

The next three items on the Finance action list, approval of payments for database administration, payroll services, and employee medical, dental, and life insurance passed unanimously with little discussion.

The Finance committee then moved to the issue of water rates and sewer fees. Benedict Ald. Ryan asked, if the City of Chicago raised the water rate 15% but the increase in the budget is only 5%, where will the money come from? Filling in for the absent Director of Finance was Finance Dept. Purchasing Agent Bob Kaderabek, who answered Benedict Ald. Ryan's question by saying the money would come "from reserves." Benedict Ryan then asked what "would happen by 2013 or 2014?" The Lord of the Manor offered that money from residents is what is being used because "residents have already been taxed."

The 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost then seemingly attempted to answer Benedict Ryans' question by saying that there would be "incremental increases over time that will mitigate depletion of the water fund." Benedict Ryan then asked if the 15% rate increase is guaranteed at which time City Manager Hock answered that there would be another 14% increase next January. Benedict Ryan then asked if it would be better to include these increases in the property tax, based on the recommendation of former City Treasurer Carl Brauweiler who spoke at the last meeting. This question was seemingly ignored. The PRU Crew sees the wisdom in not pushing every expense through the property tax bill, despite Mr. Brauweiler's suggestion that property taxes can be "deducted" from federal tax bills. Anyone care to take a stab at why not pushing every expense through the property tax bills is a good thing for property tax payers? One of our friendly correspondents hit on this and the PRU Crew agrees wholeheartedly!

Alderman Wsooooolman then asked how much revenue is used for non-water expenses, to which Mr. Kaderabek answered, "None." City Manager Jim Hock then tried to explain the difference between fund accounting and actual money in the bank. Ald. Wsooooolman then asked when the water fund would be repaid? Mr. Kaderabek said the accounting would always be on paper.

Alderman Allspaghetti then went on to explain that the City's cash is "all in one account." After some further confused discussion, Benedict Ryan asked if the information on the public documents could be re-labeled for clarification. The PRU Crew feels that must be a punch line!

Alderman Bachtard offered that he would be voting "no" because this motion "lacks conscience" is a "tax hike" without "additional cuts" and "no additional service."

Alderman Wsooooolman remarked that "someone talked about getting elected based on transparency" and that telling the public that they're getting charged for water service but using the fund balance for non-water expenses is "not transparent." This elicited a response from Ald. Allspaghetti who said, "We have to buy water and we have to pay for it." City Manager Jim Hock added that the Council has indicated they want to adhere to a 33% to 50% fund balance policy, but that next year the General Fund would be at roughly 26% and the water fund would be at 20%, and that lower fund balances will effect future bond ratings if the Council continues to keep "eating increases." Ald. Bachtard said he was "in favor" of keeping fund balances but that he felt there were "other ways to do it" indicating that the Council has discussed "4 people being laid off." Some of our sources report that City Manager Jim Hock's constantly present smile seemed to "freeze in place on his face!" We're wondering if Bachtard understands the idiocy, or is it hypocrisy, of "revealing" confidential personnel discussions? City Manger Hock simply said that the water fund can only pay for "water employees."

Have our PRU readers made it this far? Staying awake? Everyone still have all their hair? There's more!

At this point in the evening Benedict Ryan asked that the City's financial advisor, John Peterson of William Blaire & Company step forward and answer questions about how other towns manage their fund balances. Mr. Peterson indicated that other towns use balances to absorb costs over years. Benedict Ryan then asked, if there has been a 15% increase in the cost of water to the City, is then asking for a 5% water rate increase from residents right?" Mr. Peterson indicated that the 15% increase in the cost of water could be covered by a 5% rate increase, to which City Manager Hock added that the water fund will still show a $404,000 loss next year.

Alderman Wsooooolman then asked Mr. Peterson, "How many organizations have a positive fund balance 4 or 5 times their debt limit?" Mr. Peterson said he didn't know that answer but he added that water funds "have exposure to heavy capital expenses" such as water main breaks and various repairs.

Alderman Bachtard then asked if Mr. Peterson is the financial advisor for other towns, and Mr. Peterson indicated he was. Alderman Bachtard then asked how "we compare to other towns -- is this hard to understand here?" Mr. Peterson responded that the accounting may be harder for some to understand but that Park Ridge's accounting isn't harder to understand than any other towns'. Bachtard then pushed further by asking, "Do we just not understand this? This seems like voodoo economics." The PRU Crew was sorry to learn Mr. Peterson did not take that big juicy bait and instead simply answered, "The cash balances are all in one place."

A vote on the water rate increase was then taken and passed by 4 (Allegretti, DiPietro, Ryan, and Carey) to 2 (Bach and Wsol).

The evening's fun continued next with discussion of the sewer fund. Ald. Allspaghetti said he didn't remember voting to create a sewer enterprise fund, which prompted City Manager Hock to say that they are "jumping around the agenda" and that "[this] is setting up the sewer enterprise fund."

Benedict Ald. Ryan then asked if, in the past, sewer improvement funds came from "some place else?" By now we would expect each and every Alderdunce understands where funds come from and that, if there is not a separate enterprise fund or another restricted fund specifically attached to projects, chances are pretty good money from the City's largest account is being used -- that would be, the big kahuna, the beefy football burrito, the venti latte, the...all together now...General Fund! Which is not exactly the answer given by City Manager Hock -- he simply said that money for sewer improvements has come from the City's General Fund and that the sewer enterprise fund and new sewer rate now being created would "only cover 60% of sewer expenses." The 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost then clarified that the initial funding would be approximately $300,000 dollars from the General Fund, to which City Manager Hock added that was correct and another $896,000 will be raised next year.

The City Council then voted 6 to 1 (Wsol) to increase the sewer fees and create the sewer enterprise fund.

The City Council then moved on to discussion and passage of the prevailing wage ordinance, various parking space leases, and parking permit fees -- all motions passed unanimously.

The Council then discussed the idea of instituting a policy that would suggest the Council limit the City's debt to a certain percentage of [total] Equalized Assessed Valuation for property in Park Ridge.

City Manager Hock explained that even without such a policy in place the Council would still have to discuss and vote to incur debt.

Alderman Wsooooolman said he supports a policy that would limit debt and that would require all future Councils to do what they are supposed to do -- "seek voter input and support" from voters before incurring large amounts of debt.

O.k., everybody, pick your jaws up off the floor. Yes, this is the same Wsooooolman who wouldn't even second Mayor-elect Dave Schmidtzkrieg's motion to place a referendum on the ballot about spending $16 million for a new police station, but then at the last possible hour constructed his own confusing and poorly worded referendum on the same subject.

Alderman Wsooooolman must have seen the error of his ways. Or he's getting ready to run for Mayor in 4 years.

The Council, after listening to outgoing Mayor Howard's innuendo that Senator Kotowski may not be telling the truth about funding for the Park Ridge Point noise wall construction, took a break.

After everyone stretched their legs, visited the public restrooms, or spent time jawing amongst themselves, the Council returned to their seats and began the Procedures and Regulations Committee portion of the meeting.

The first item on the P & R agenda was discussion of whether or not to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not American Taxi should be granted 5 licenses to operate in Park Ridge.

Alderman Tom Carey, the 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost, asked what the purpose of the public hearing would be? Stating that he hadn't heard complaints about there not being enough taxis in town. The Lord of the Manor answered that American Taxi is saying there is a need but that Park Ridge Taxi is saying there isn't a need, and that the purpose of the public hearing would be to determine that.

The Council then voted on the motion of whether or not to hold a public hearing -- the vote against holding a public hearing was unanimous; American Taxi will not get the opportunity to even present their "case" at a public hearing, and Park Ridge Taxi's monopoly will remain in place.

The Council then moved to discussion and passage of an increase in the filing costs for trucks that violate weight restrictions. After some modest discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was whether or not an "Appeals Process for Text Amendments Denied by Planning and Zoning" should be passed.

The Lord of the Manor moved to amend the motion to require an extraordinary vote of the City Council to override denials by Planning and Zoning. Ald. Allspaghetti then moved to substitute for the whole that a simple majority would be required to review and reverse a denial by Planning and Zoning.

We are told former Aldercreature Jeannie Markvetch -- we mean that in the nicest way -- spoke to this issue and asked who would initiate a review, an Alderman or an applicant? Ald. Allspaghetti answered that an Alderman would initiate a review. Ms. Markvetch -- really, in the nicest way -- indicated that she saw "all kinds of problems with this" and that the Council would be leaving these decisions for review in the "hands of those holding political positions."

Assistant City Manager Juliana Maller then asked the Council if they intended to hold full-blown hearings again, including the offering of testimony from applicants? City Attorney Buzz Hill answered that he understood this process would be limited to a review of the Planning and Zoning records only. The Lord of the Manor said that he expected that people would get up and address the issue because the Council has always invited citizen input and he would hope that would continue.

Ms. Markvetch then asked if Planning and Zoning denies an application, could the applicant file an appeal with the Circuit Court? Alderman Allspaghetti indicated that he did not think that was possible, but City Attorney Buzz Hill indicated that the Planning and Zoning denial could be subject to "Administrative Review" -- which the PRU Crew thinks means "yes."

Then CURRB spokesperson Judy Barclay asked how many text amendment applications have been denied by Planning and Zoning? Ms. Carrie Davis, the Director of Community Development answered, "None." Ms. Barclay then asked, "Then why change?" Ms. Davis responded, "Don't ask me!"

Ms. Barclay went on to suggest the Council "leave it out of the hands of elected officials."

The Lord of the Manor then offered that he "agreed -- leave it the way it was" but that he didn't think there were the votes for that so he "prefers a super majority vote be required" to over turn denials from Planning and Zoning. Benedict Ald. Ryan agreed with Ald. DiPietro, and Ald. Tom Carey moved to defer the matter to the next meeting.
The Council then voted to defer the matter for discussion at the next meeting by a vote of 5 to 1 (Bach).

The Council then moved to the discussion items on the Procedures and Regulations agenda.

The first item was whether or not to pursue an ordinance to require businesses to shovel snow from sidewalks. After some discussion, the Council decided to continue the discussion at their June meeting.

The last item for discussion was a riveting report by Fair Housing Chairman Nan Parson. Our sources tell us that by this time in the evening, some of those in attendance looked as if it were requiring every bit of their personal strength to keep their eyes open.

So the PRU Crew would like to offer big PRUdos to Ald. Tom Carey for staying awake and asking Ms. Parson some rather interesting questions about her activities as the Fair Housing Commission Chairman in relation to her now attending Human Needs Task Force meetings. We are told Ms. Parson admitted to attending the meetings in her "official capacity as the Fair Housing Chairman." Alderman Carey indicated that he found that problematic and thought Ms. Parson did not have the explicit authority to represent the City's Fair Housing Commission to the Human Needs Task Force.

Ms. Parson offered that she is always careful not to cross any lines, but welcomes the Council to please expand the Fair Housing Commission mandate and that she has a keen interest in matters relating to attainable housing. The PRU Crew wonders what "attainable housing" means, exactly -- as we frequently meet other people in Park Ridge who have managed to "attain" housing in Park Ridge.

With that the Council adjourned to closed session to discuss matters of collective bargaining.

So there you have it, dear PRU readers, our 2,882 word COW recap! We sure hope y'all made it this far!