Once again people, your City Council will be meeting as a Committee of the Whole at 7pm tonight to discuss how to throw your money around.
The COW agenda (.pdf) includes, among other interesting items, the following discussion gems --
1 -- Public Works Service Adjustments (.pdf) -- we hope nobody thought they could lay off city workers and not experience service adjustments.
2 -- Special Events Expenses Report (.pdf) -- gobble gobble!
3 -- May-Apr 2009 Financial Report (.pdf) and May-July 2009 Financial Report (.pdf) -- a million here, a million there!
4 -- Flood Relief Rebate (.pdf) -- it's just money!
The Crew is looking forward to more video highlights tomorrow!
August 24, 2009
COW Meeting Tonight!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Well that was fun. The meetinglast night left me just a tad confused (nothing new).
Diane Lembesis gave a report which basically said we are in deep shit again this year because our projected revenues are down. Then Hock for some explicable reason announced that the budget is balanced (horseshit), making Wsol practically leap to his feet, exclaiming "what did you say? Did I hear you right? We have a balanced budget?"
So in other words, in order to sell his rebate program, Wsol is ready to accept the same kind of city manager bullshit (or is that horseshit--told you I'm confused)that Schuenke fed us for all those years.
How do we know it is bullshit? Well, Schuenke kept talking about balanced budgets just as Hock did last night. Yet last night, Lembesis said we have been running annual budget deficits SINCE 2002, except for the one year we sold the reservoir land.
So which is it?
Meanwhile, Wsol's new bitch, Alderman Bach, talks out of one side of his mouth, proclaiming the need to cut city staff because of our budget deficit and overall financial condition, then proceeds to extoll the virtues of increasing the debt by giving away taxpayer money for the rebate program.
Insanity. Sheer insanity.
Oops, make that "inexplicable reason."
The best suggestion I heard last night regarding "flood control" was the option of a low interest loan from the city. This option would emabrace ALL the concerns addressed. some of which include...
allowing EVERYONE who suffers from flooding issues to remedy their problems and not only those who can already afford it, but also those who wouldn't be able to afford the balance after a 2,000 dollar kickback.
making the "homeowners" responsible for the improvement of their property and not the entire community, as the entire community will not profit from the sale of said property.
with a loan comes a lein, so non-repayment of a loan is not an option, the city is guarenteed the money back, and even with a low intrest rate....wait for it.... comes generated revenue!
with a loan the city could pre screen and approve the contractors doing the work (no scam companies)
with a loan, we don't have to rob Peter to pay Paul. We don't have to "find" money or "re- allocate money" our sell our community to the devil to help out our neighbor.
The list of pros v. con goes on and it does in evey way imply that the city wants to help without giving it away for nothing.
I just felt that this was a fair suggestion that's really worth looking into.
Anon@2:03 --
Can you explain the benefit to the community as a whole of having the City act as a bank instead of homeowners seeking home improvement loans from regular banks or taking out lines of credit or a home equity loan? There would be some rather steep costs involved to the City as well.
I can explain it only as this.... although I agree that sending someone directly to the bank to fix and solve their own problems and the city staying out of it is the obvious solution....this "proposal" is out there and I believe there will be no turning back. With that said, is it better to give it away for nothing or lend it for a small profit?
The benefit would be the ability to offer a lower interest rate. I would be very nervous about the city getting in the banking business when, in some cases, one could question their abilities in the city management business.
I sure hope the flood committe is considering what would happen if there was a dramatic increase in the number of flood control systems in PR. During the September storm I saw many homes who had overland water creeping up from the streets that was extremely close to their structures. All of that water that is stopped from going in the basements has to go somewhere.
Anon@2:43 --
If all it takes for consideration is putting a proposal out there, the Crew would like to suggest the current Council immediately tender their resignations from office so that Mayor Schmidt may appoint fiscally conservative and financially responsible Aldermen.
Now that the above proposal is out there, how does that grab everybody? There's no going back now.
To your last point, we feel that neither giving the taxpayer's money to individuals for the purpose of private home improvements, nor mandating that the taxpayer's, via City govt., become bankers, is sound fiscal management policy.
Anon@2:50 --
The ability to offer a lower interest rate does not sound like a benefit for the community. It sounds like a benefit for a borrower.
My comments were based on what's on the table. If our City Council decides to do NOTHING for the flooded homeowners so be it.
But as of late, proposals that have been in the forefront for discussion at nearly every city meeting stands very little chance of just going away. As we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease so agree or disagree with any comment or opinion, but don't think for a minute that this proposal is simply just for considerstion, they are already commited to finding a solution. That's where my comments begin and end.
PRU:
There is no evidence at this point that it would benefit the city as as whole. There seems to be this idea (who knows how many feel this way) as evidenced by the 2500 proposal and some neighborhood conversations that I have had that because the city abdicated its responsibility to protect the population from flooding, it somehow now should be obligated to bail (pun intended) out those who do not have flood control systems.
Offering low interest loans would be along that same theme. I agree that it does not appear to be sound fiscal management, but I already have a flood control system and my basement is dry as a bone.
Anonymous 3:14,
You already have a flood control system that YOU paid for, and I thank you for not charging part of the cost of that system back to me.
I paid for mine too without grabbing for other people's money. This is a ridiculous idea no matter what view anyone is coming at it. If they are talking about tax money for either give outs or for bank type loans, either way it is just plain stupid.
The only thing the city can do is what is already the city responsibility of the sewers or the streets.
I know this is heresy to PRU, whose only sentimental bone is located in the area of public-sector employees, but why the immediate assumption of service cuts? Four people out of how many? What about doing - gasp! -- what every other operation in America is doing, especially in the private sector --everybody not laid off works a little more efficiently to -- gasp! -- do the same with less?
anon 6:04:
PRU did not assume anything. Please go back to the sentence that got your dander up and click on the link to the pdf file.
It very clearly states the purpose of the agenda item as discussing "necessary service cuts that will be required in order for the department to function".
Seems crystal clear to me!!!
Anon@6:04 --
Howard, is that you? Talking again about doing more with less? We certainly have seen your 1/2 pint council spend more and return less to the taxpayers of Park Ridge. But we don't think that's what you meant when you advertized doing more with less.
Layoffs from an already tight labor force demand service adjustments. However, not wanting to steal anyone's thunder, we declined to tell you where the cuts in services were going to be made.
We've been told that at last night's meeting, Public Works Dir. Wayne Zingsheim let everyone know that Public Works is stopping brush pick up on Sept. 11, 2009. Forever.
Dir. Zingsheim also mentioned the difficulty he sees will be faced in keeping up with snow plowing in the winter ahead.
Your mileage may vary, but we see those things as service cuts. We see those service cuts as a direct result of laying off 4 people from Public Works.
In the private sector lay offs are usually the result of less orders, sales or other trade based transactions, which means there are fewer customers to be served.
In the public sector their aren't usually fewer customers, taxpayers, to be served. Nor are there fewer services wanted or demanded.
Unfortunately, the union and City could not come to complete agreement on concessions, so now there are fewer Public Works employees to provide the same level of expected services. It's not going to happen.
And the budget is still deeply in deficit.
4 men out of work. Less services to residents. Still a bloody red ink budget.
What a waste.
Well, Naomi, THAT is confusing. How can the budget suddenly be balanced? Didn't the Mayor state last night that the City's budget is $1.5m in the hole and the city will be in "serious" trouble financially if we don't get things back on track?
i've met the mayor, he's not an alarmist but more like a straight talker. So what has changed? I am confused.
The aldermen need to pay attention and GET SERIOUS. Set aside your personal soapbox b.s. and do what's best for the City.
gypsy --
This is not rocket science.
Right now, the city is taking in as much revenue as it has been spending -- that current condition could be said to be in balance. At this moment in time.
The city has just come off some seasonally generous revenue producing months.
However, the city budget is projected to be in deficit by nearly $1.5 million dollars. This means the city government's own projections say the city has planned to spend more money than it takes in during this fiscal year. That is definitely not a budget that is in balance.
The city is looking at some seasonally expensive months to come, seasonally lean revenue producing month to come, with alderdopes who can't get enough of offering up new and idiotic ways to spend money while refusing to raise revenues to match or cut non-essential programs.
The Crew agrees, the grandstanding has got to stop. This city has serious issues that require serious attention. We just don't think this bunch is up to the task.
I tend to agree with PRU on most things, but I do think there is a difference between sewage back-up and ground water(??? not sure if that's the correct term); flooding.
I'm not a civil engineer or a plumber, but I would think if someone's sewer is backing up because the city has not properly maintained the sewers, the city is responsible for that flooding. I know that has not been determined to be the case at this time, but it is a possibility, correct?
In any case, I do see sewage backup differently. It's a health hazard and does cost the city money in terms of garbage pick-up. These are difficult economic times, and there are residents who cannot afford to install back flow valves or whatever is needed to keep the crap out, literally! I believe an argument can be made to offer low interest loans in certain circumstances. If those residents cannot fix the problem, combine that with declining real estate value, those residents could just walk away from their homes if they find themselves with negative equity. That hurts all of us.
I understand PRU's point of not wanting the city to be a bank and in general I agree with it, I just believe that some of these circumstances are unique, and therefore we need to think outside the box a bit.
The "city caused the problem so the city should pay for my backcheck valve" argument is ass backwards.
If in fact a resident is experiencing sewage backup because the city failed to maintain a nearby sewer, then the remedy is for the city to fix and maintain the nearby sewer, not to give the individual his own remedy. That would still leave a broken sewer to cause problems for others.
If in fact the sewage backup was not caused by the city's failure to maintain the sewer, then there is also no rerason for the city to pay for the individual's remedy.
Either way, the city should not be funding individual remedies. It should be fixing the system.
Dagny my thought was not that the sewers were broken, but that their capacity has decreased has decreased over the years due to lack of maintanence. As I said, I don't 'know' that; I only know it's been discussed as being part of the problem. Further, I have heard that 'fixing' the sewer is not doable at this time due to the expense. Doesn't it then make sense that the city look to solving the problem on the other end?
As I said, I'm not a civil engineer or a plumber; so I could be wrong. Just wondering if the homeowners have any case when they blame the city.
I'm not Dagny. I'm her love interest. I'll make this simple. If the problem is lack of capacity, then increase the capacity. If the problem is a broken or collapsed sewer pipes, then fix them and maintain them.
Dagney:
This brings us back to a point that I hope the flood committee is seriously looking at. Our sewer system flows into something. It is my understanding that during "flood situations" the water from our system and other cities runs into the deep tunnel where it is treated before it can be released. We could build the Cadillac of all sewer systems, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it!!! But it flows into something and what if that something is full as it apparently was in September.
And now that the budget is balanced (according to Hock), we should have all the money in the world to do this!!!
It is balanced only if you ignore the fact that expenses exceeded revenues by approx. $150,000 and the fact that seasonal revenues such as building permits and water fees will go down at the same time other seasonal expenses such as snow plowing will increase.
In other words, it ain't balanced.
but...Hock SAID, and Bach agreed, yes?!
then it must be so!!!!
Ok Dagney love interest...assuming we have the money to add more sewers, (which we don't), how long will it take to add enough of them to stop the sewage? What are these residents supposed to do in the meantime? Live with it??? Sorry, I disagree. If the problem was/is caused by the city, they have to give people some kind of band aid until it can be fixed.
None of these flooding problems were "caused by the City."
WE, the voters of Park Ridge, have "caused" these flooding problems, at least in part, by electing boneheads who neglected the implementation of a sound program of sewer repair and maintenance, and boneheads who weren't willing to either increase taxes and/or cut the budget expenditures for less important things.
And as we've seen over the past few months, the current crop of boneheads keeps spending into the jaws of a major budget deficit. And that goofball from the 3rd Ward keeps yelling for staff cuts but won't actually propose any himself because he doesn't want to be responsible for the results. He'd rather let the city mgr. catch that flak.
303, you are missing the point. If the problem was/is caused by the City, how exactly did that occur? Was it because the sewers in the area were not maintained properly? If so, the solution is to fix the sewers in the area and maintain them. Whatever amount of money it takes, THAT and nothing else is the solution, because it addresses the CAUSE.
Funding personal flood control devices does NOT address the CAUSE of the problem, unless you are saying the CAUSE of the problem in the first place was the lack of a personal flood control device, in which case why should the taxpayers foot the bill? In fact, it makes it worse, because it takes money away from the City's ability to address the overall problem.
Sorry 303. It sucks when logic blows your argument out of the water. Pun intended.
JG I understand exactly what you're saying and agree with it. The point is...to fix the problem at it's source, (sewers); will take time, (that the residents don't have), and money (that we don't have)....sooooo in the meantime, this is a possible solution.
Perhaps you should actually read my response before you jerk off an answer. (pun intended) :)
You are still missing the point. It is up to the city to fix that which is broken, not to begin subsidizing home improvement projects for individual residents.
JG you're missing the point, I agree the sewers should be fixed, but do you expect the residents to sit in crap until that can be done? I guess it's ok with you since it's not your basement.
No, I expect them to go out and get a backcheck valve WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!!!!!!! Anyone who sits around in sewage waiting for the city to pick up 25% of the tab is nuts. And apparently so are you.
No, I'm not nuts...the rebate is also paid to people who have already purchased said system, so they didn't all sit around and wait for the city. They spent money they couldn't afford to spend to fix something the city didn't fix in a timely manner. That's their whole argument. But thanks for remaining calm.
I'm always calm. Who says they couldn't afford it? They could or else they would not have bought the systems. And they are reaping the benefit of higher property values because of what they did. So nobody loses. But if the taxpayers have to fund something that raises someone else's property values, then the taxpayers are the losers.
Now, back to my mediatation. Ohmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Perhaps they can afford, or perhaps they put it on a visa with 18% interest and they are struggling to pay it off. In any case, if they had to spend the money to begin with because the city did not maintain the infrastructure and now it's going to take a couple of years to catch up, the homeowners are still out the money. I HATE this idea BTW, but I really hate the idea that the city may have neglected the infrastructure all the while continuing to give the Teen Center, the Sr. Center etc, money.
Until we get the final report, we don't know what the problem or problems are. But I will not be surprised if it turns out a contributing factor was lack of infastructure maintanence. We need new alderman, desperately.
We are going in circles, but it appears that we may agree more than we disagree. My point is that it is the City's responsibility to fix that which it may have broken, ie. the sewer system. If it instead diverts a half million or more per year to individual remedies, that will make it harder to solve the overarching problem.
I cannot wait to see what dollar figures are attached to "fixing". the problem. I also can't wait to hear what confidence level (guarantee ir you will) they are willing to attach to their suggested solutions ability to stop the flooding. Lastly, I can't wait to see how long the suggested solution will take to implement.
My predicted answers are:
1. The 500,ooo per year you reference is not even going to scratch the surface.
2. There will be no guarantee so anyone with a brain will want a flood control system anyway.
3. Depending on what areas they start with, we are talking about years. For those areas at the end of the project we are 5 years away at least.
JG my God I think we do agree....I just feel very bad for homeowners with crap in the crawl....EEEWWW!
Post a Comment