August 19, 2009

Mayor Schmidtzkrieg Speaks!


WHITE PAPER ON
FLOOD REBATE PROGRAM




The City of Park Ridge is at a financial crossroads, faced with the decision of whether to continue down the current path of irresponsible budget deficits and asset depletion, or to chart a new course of sane, fiscally-responsible budgeting and spending.

In his 2009-10 budget message, City Manager James Hock warned that the City’s cash solvency and its ability to maintain the present level of services was “a concern,” in large part because of a damaging string of four consecutive budget deficits totaling in excess of $10 million, with another $1.9 million deficit already being projected for 2010-11.

What has that done to the City’s overall financial health? It has drained the City’s financial reserves - our “savings account” - which protects us from significant losses of revenue and unexpected major expenses. In April 2006, the City had a $15 million reserve balance. That reserve fund has dwindled to $8.4 million in just three short years! This is roughly 16%, or less than one-half, of the minimum 33% of annual operating expenses that sound municipal government principles and our City’s stated policy proscribes for its reserves. Worse yet, more than 75% of that amount, $6.4 million, is not even from regular periodic revenue sources, but is due to a one-time sale of City-owned land.

In a nutshell, if the City continues to run budget deficits at close to the same rate it has over the past few years, the City will exhaust its reserves in a very short time. Or put a different way, the City of Park Ridge is headed toward economic disaster unless we drastically change our budgeting and spending habits.

Against that backdrop of disturbing economic reality, Alderman Frank Wsol of the Seventh Ward and Alderman Don Bach of the Third Ward are promoting their plan for offering cash rebates up to $2,500 to residents who have already installed or plan to install certain types of flood control devices. Alderman Wsol’s own estimate is that the cost of such a program will be over $400,000 during the first year alone, although City Staff calculates that figure to be much higher even without including the cost of Staff time and money to administer such a plan.

Based on information already available to us, there appears to be little doubt that installing “private” flood control devices in individual homes improves the flooding situation for the individuals who install such devices. They do not, however, improve the flooding situation of our community as a whole, or of any other individual residents. To the contrary, they actually may contribute to an incremental increase in the flooding experienced by other residents. The bitter irony of such a plan, therefore, is that a resident who cannot afford the first 75% of the cost of the private flood control device he would be required to pay in order to receive a rebate under the Wsol/Bach proposal would end up seeing his taxes used to subsidize a neighbor’s device that might actually make the resident’s flooding worse!

The Wsol/Bach plan, as currently structured, would also be unfair to many individuals who installed private flood control devices in their homes prior to the completely arbitrary January 1, 2008 retroactive start date for when rebates would be available. Similar unfairness would occur even if the rebates were only prospective, beginning from the time the rebate program is adopted.

I believe that the City Council has absolutely no business even entertaining such a drain on the City’s precarious finances for a program which provides what amounts to public welfare, a principally “private” benefit to only a small group of property owners. This program is no less ill-conceived than Alderman Wsol’s plan (endorsed by Alderman Bach) to spend $16.5 million on a new police station which was soundly, and rightfully, rejected by over 80% of the votes cast in the April 2009 referendum. And it deserves the same fate.

Alderman Wsol and Alderman Bach have already vigorously opposed passing on the full cost of water usage to the people who actually use the most water. That decision took another $400,000 slice out of the City’s reserves at a time when we continue to bleed red ink. Now they want to cut deeper into the bleeding wound by slicing an even bigger piece out what is left.

If this were not bad enough for the majority of residents, the cost of the Wsol/Bach plan will also be borne on the backs of the non-union City staff members whose wages have been frozen, and the firemen who have agreed to help this City overcome its financial crisis by effectively sacrificing pay raises to which they were contractually entitled, and the policeman who will soon vote on whether to do the same. And it is grossly unfair to the four public works employees who just lost their jobs due to the City’s budget woes.

The proponents of this plan claim that the public is clamoring for its implementation. Claims like that are easy to make because they are so hard to disprove. Nevertheless, I call upon those residents who oppose reckless spending and who care about returning this City to sound economic health to contact their aldermen and let them know how you feel about the Wsol/Bach rebate plan, and about the City’s deficit spending and overall financial condition.

And I encourage those same residents to attend the upcoming meetings when this proposal will be debated and voted upon.

I am fully committed to doing whatever it takes to return this City to sound financial health. Anything less would be a dereliction of my duty to safeguard the well-being of the City and all of its residents.


And the PRU Crew could not agree more.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

directness...complete information...facts!
who IS this guy?

Anonymous said...

Outstanding letter Mr. Mayor! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

As the flood task force studies this issue, I would urge them to get some answers as to how flood control systems may or may not adversly affect those on a block that do not have flood control systems. I notice the use of the word might. It is the task forces job to change all the "mights" floating around out there to more definitive answers.

Anonymous said...

I have to ask, if the city isn't doing what it is supposed to do with our tax money to fix our infrastructure, isn't it right that the people effected most by the city's failure should get back some portion of their taxes to fix the problem on their own and protect their homes?

gypsy said...

the city doesnt HAVE any money...

Anonymous said...

gypsy,

The city does have money. Mayor Schmidt says right above in his white paper the city has $8.4 million in reserves. If the city would make cuts in other areas and manage cost increases better then there would be money for rebates. There is money. Limit the program to $400,000 a year as alderman Wsol has said to do. I just think people have a right to the rebate if they have to take matters into their own hands because the city has failed to fix the problems.

Anonymous said...

What "problem" has the city failed to fix? The problem that with any one individual's home, be it old or new(er), that the home was built without a backflow valve or other flood protection system? The problem that soooooooooooo many years ago that those who built those older homes failed to look into their crystal balls to determine those flood control systems might be needed?

Where do you draw the line??

You may be right... the city "has" money. But the city is woefully deficient as it pertains to its balance of money as a percent of monthly operating expenses. If I am not mistaken at last measure it may have had half the recommened amount in terms of percentages (appx. 16% vs. 33%).
And the city has been running terrific deficits for the last few years and this year could top them all at well over $2 million.
The economy, particularly Park Ridge's economy (read income/outflow), does not appear poised for a great comeback with ANY degree of certainty.

Bach, Wsol and the rest of you... stop spending money we do not have OR putting us in such a perilous position... that is not what you were ELECTED to do.

Bean said...

If the City did have the money...or much more money than it does...would this rebate program be the right thing to do?

In my mind...the answer in an unequivocal "no"...because when government begins spending money on private property improvements (see City facade improvement program, sorry Kim...but I always hated that program) there's usually no end in sight...how many years has the facade rebate program been in place?...how much has it "returned on investment" of taxpayer's money?

How much of a stretch would it be for the folks now under the new runway glide path to claim "the City failed" to protect their property values, and so they too want to be compensated for their "loss"...?

Whether this is done in other communities or not isn't the question...the question is, is this the right thing to do, whether or not the City has the money? I say no, it is not.

Anonymous said...

12:33PM,

This "rebate" is not free. You and your neighbors will be paying for it. I will be paying for it. So tell me, why should I have to pay for your flood control system? Why is that not your responsibility as a homeowner?

Anonymous said...

What's next? Aldermen Wsol will personally pay (out of the city's checkbook) for my house to get painted and my roof fixed? Maybe some new landscaping too for "free".

We had our plumbing re-done in 2003 and haven't had a problem since. Where's our "rebate" for doing the right thing then?

Anonymous said...

This program is so backward and ill conceived! I spent thousands of dollars flood proofing my home in the last 5 months, and I wouldn't even qualify under it! Not that I think I should, but it just shows how stupid this is. This is Wsol and Bach 'buying' the next election in my mind....and we're paying for it.

gypsy said...

exactly!

Anonymous said...

I continue to ask this question~~~WHY has the flooding just started after so many years of no flooding? WHAT IS IT? Nobody can answer it.
There's where your money comes from. Is it the Uptown Development? Then go after them! Is it the O'Hare thing (building new runways, removing places to retain water)? Go after them!

Yes, we need to fix the issue. But who is responsible? WHO?!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The "problem" the city has failed to fix is the problem of inadequate sewers that cause peoples homes to flood! I am right the city has money. Mayor Schmidt said as much in his letter posted here today! The flooding problem is a health and safety issue which the city must fix! Funny noone was too worried about the city's money problems until now, when residents need help now! All of a sudden there's no money to help residents!

I feel this program is the right thing to do. The Mayor and Aldermen were elected to help us when we need them. We pay taxes so our government can help us when we need them to with problems.

Of course the rebate isn't free. That is why it is being called a rebate and not a grant or gift or what have you. I feel that I pay thousands of dollars in taxes to the city every year and the city has failed to provide the necessary infrastructure and maintenance so my property is protected from flooding. I now feel it is the right thing to do to rebate some of my tax dollars back to me so I can fix the problem the city has failed to fix.

I don't care who is responsible for why the flooding has become worse. I am not interested in playing any blame games. I need a solution and I feel Alderman Wsol has brought one to the table.

I hope the other Aldermen see how this is the right thing to do for residents.

John Galt said...

430, you are wrong.

Certain areas of town have a higher incidence of burglary, Does this mean the city should subsidize the cost of burglar alarms for those residents? No. The ground near my house has been shifting, causing my foundation to crack. I suspect it might be because of flooding caused by frequent sewer inlet backup in front of my house. Should the city subsidize the cost of my foundation repair? No. Hell, my fence is crumbling because the city allowed my neighbor to build his new house and backyard patio three feet higher than my yard, and his rain run-off has slowly but surely ruined my fence. Should the city subsidize the cost of a new fence? No. The city did a crappy job of trimming parkway trees in front of my house. A limb came down and smashed hundreds of dollars worth of flowers I had planted. Shoudld the city pick up part of the tab for replacing my flowers? No.

For christ's sake. If the city starts subsidizing private home improvement, for whatever reason, there will be no end to the cruies of "where's mine?"

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Who is John Galt?



-- couldn't resist.

John Galt said...

Ask Dagny. She knows.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Yes, she does. But would she, had she not been born to the position? Ayn never quite seemed to address that part of the equation in her philosophy.

Still a great read though.

Anonymous said...

Anon August 19, 2009 3:07 PM:

You got it right. This program is as backward and ill conceived as Wsol's ridiculous police station referendum question.

All this guy wants to do is spend big time money.

Some fiscal conservative Republican he turned out to be.

The jokes on us.

MIKE said...

Anon 3:17

There has been flooding in PR and other nearby communities for years and even decades though it ssems to be getting worse.

Someone at one of the councill meeting told me it's the changing weather patterns and maybe there's some truth to it and if it is then maybe the city just isn't keeping up with these things as they have done it the past.

Just a wild guess.

Hoover said...

Mayor Schmidt should be commended for bringing his case against rebates, and some refreshing straight talk about the city's finances, directly to the taxpayers via his "white paper.

We need straight talk and hard answers about flooding and all the other problems we face, not just as individuals but as a community. Fortunately, we finally have a mayor who is willing to provide them.

Rebates aren't "the" answer, or even "an" answer. They are just handouts to make a few people happy while actually ignoring the real problem. That's why they were proposed by who proposed them, and are praised by who is praising them.

There's no such thing as a "free lunch" - because for every person who eats one there's another person paying the check.

Anonymous said...

Nice job Mayor Schmidt.
Hold the line of spending and of increasing our taxes.

We feel for the people and the flooding issues.

As previously stated - maybe there's federal monies out there ?

We can pass the plate at Rep. Jan's meeting on Aug 31st? Let's get some of those federal tax dollars - back.

But watch out for the section 8 housing request then!

Hey maybe the 1st ward area where to youth homes are....I'm sure that there enough ammo/police reports to show aggravation.

Fire up the bulldozers Ald. Bach...

Anonymous said...

3:17:

I am at somewhat of a disadvantage as I am not a ong time PR resident, but I must say your statement confuses me. In talking with most of the people in my neighborhood (folks across the street bought their home in 1969) they all say basement and street flooding has been a problem in our area for a long time. Many of the flood control systems on my block were installed in the mid-80's and a few even earlier.

Perhaps the September storm was unique - that was a hell of a lot of rain. However all my "over the fence" research indicates that this is nothing new.

I am all for finding who or what might be adding to this issue as a part of a comprehensive plan. I am going to need someone to provide an explaination how Uptown development is responsible for the flooding in my neighborhood (near the community center). These are the types of things I hope flood committee includes in their report reather than all of these WAGs.

Anonymous said...

residences that have never flooded in 40 years all of a sudden started to flood last year. SOMETHING happened. It is unfortunate that in your neighborhood the basements "always" have flooded. That is not the case in mine.

gypsy said...

what's a WAG? and who is John Galt? I am confused...

Bean said...

gypsy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt

>>John Galt is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's often repeated question, "Who is John Galt?", and the quest to discover the answer.<<

gypsy said...

we have the money...
we DONT have the money...
it rains, it floods...
now there is some guy named John Galt in the mix...I see there is a John Galt demolition company in NYC. hmmm.
I'm going to stare at the TV for a while and ponder all of this.

Anonymous said...

Gypsy:

Forgive me if your intent was sarcasm, but WAG is Wild Ass Guess.

"Flooding is caused by the Uptown development. No, it is the new homes. No, it is zoning violations. No, it is lack of green space. No, it is the airport. No, it is not opening a magical valve so the water can run off. No, it is that our lines need to be cleaned out. No, it is the deep tunnel is not big. No, it is the new house on Vine St. No, it is........{fill in your guess}..........

gypsy said...

I love it! I didnt know what WAG was. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

August 20, 2009 9:03 AM:

Eveybody knows that the increased flooding is caused by global warming. And that's a fact, Jack.

Anonymous said...

I still maintain health care has something to do with it.