If taxpayers get the feeling they should start mooing like cows, it's probably because there's never a shortage of people who will try to milk them!
Tonight's Committee of the Whole agenda (.pdf) has a number of items to which taxpayers should be paying attention -- the background memos and cover documents can be viewed on the City website here.
The PRU Crew would sure like to know which genius suggested the City consider robbing Peter to pay Paul by suggesting the City issue bonds to increase cash in the Uptown TIF (.pdf). We're grateful City Finance Director Diane Lembesis has advised against doing so, but the current members of the City Council have a less than impressive record of financial decision-making.
Also on tonight's agenda, for those interested in little things like storm water drainage, you won't want to miss the memo on Land Grades for Residential Properties (.pdf), in case you were wondering how and why new construction can seem to cause flooding problems for neighboring properties.
Two other items of interest on the agenda for tonight are the Historic Preservation Ordinance (.pdf) and modification to the 3P Manual regarding Special Events policy (.pdf) -- two of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's favorite subjects!
We're looking forward to more installments of Melidosian Motionbox magic tomorrow!
October 26, 2009
Another Cash COW meeting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Wasn't the Uptown development supposed to pay for itself?
Anon@10:41 --
Yes, eventually.
The TIF hasn't produced the instant windfall people seemed to have expected and has continued to borrow from the City's General Fund.
When was eventually supposed to happen?
Anon@10:45 --
We don't have the TIF projections at hand and so we can't say for certain.
However, we believe at this point in time the TIF may have been projected to have been supporting itself.
The lawsuits delayed the project and the economy turned sour. I am not surprised the development is struggling financially right now.
I know others don't like it, but I think it's a great improvement for the town.
Anon@10:54 --
It's the opinion of the Crew that the lawsuits did not delay the project.
Piss poor management delayed the project.
PRU, with all due respect, that is crazy. Everyone knows the lawsuits set the project start back.
Anon@10:58 --
With all due respect, you aren't using your noodle.
Think for a moment. You can't begin building on property you don't own. Lack of owning the property caused PRC to delay the beginning of construction.
How is ownership achieved? At a closing? So, what was delayed? Closing on the sale.
The closing dates -- several were missed -- were what caused the delay in the beginning of construction.
The very first closing date that was missed could be attributed to the first lawsuit having been filed.
The 4 or 5 missed closing dates after that were due to piss poor management, not the lawsuits.
Remember, the last City Council passed several guarantees, financially obligating the City, to prevent delays and attempt to continue moooving forward on the project.
The closing dates for transfer of ownership of the property for Phase II of the Uptown Redevelopment were because City management and PRC Partners couldn't get their acts together.
PRU, I'm not sure I agree with you. I do appreciate the different view point you've given me to think about.
Anon@11:32 --
You're welcome -- that's no small part of why this blog exists.
The reason new construction is allowed to flood neighbors property is because the city refuses to enforce the ordinances on the books. They use the same engineer to tell them the plan works and then tell them they made the right decision agreeing the plan works.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Shocking! The city screwed up the TIF management! Shocking!
12:12:
You didn't make the right campaign contributions.
Anonymous @ 12:42,
Ah yes...ordinance enforcement, like public policy pursuit...should all depend on who makes a campaign contribution...and to whom the contribution is made.
...terrific basis for an open, honest, transparent and accountable democracy!
Once again, misinformation - or is it unvarnished propaganda - rears its ugly head, as displayed by the comments of Anonymous at 10:58 AM about what "everyone knows."
For the record, Charles Baldacchino filed his Circuit Court of Cook County lawsuit against the City re the Uptown Development on 6/1/05, Case No. 05 CH 9275. He tried to get an immediate restraining order on the project and failed.
The very next month (in July 2005), the City Council fell all over itself - with only one principled dissenting vote - to give PRC's lenders the City's $5 million guaranty of PRC's loans those lenders requested - which neutralized the lawsuit as a cause of any further delay.
But if you want to be a willing dupe of "Big Lie" theory, just keep telling yourself that it's all Baldacchino's fault that the ill-conceived TIF continues to suck millions out of the City's treasury.
"one principled dissenting vote"...and old habits die hard.
12:42 here:
Bean, I was being sarcastic. I would never say that campaign contributions should have anything to do with how the law works. It was a joke.
PRU and Hoover,
I too appreciate hearing your opinion about the Baldachino lawsuit and the Uptown building delay.
Why didn't anyone bother to correct the record sooner? I have never heard anyone say the lawsuit didn't delay the Uptown building. I remember hearing it said many times that the lawsuit caused the delay.
Should I believe all the people who offered up the lawsuit as the reason for the delay were lying? That is a tough one to believe as if there was some conspiracy going on and I'm not much of a conspiracy theory believer.
Anon@2:04 --
Our blog didn't exist until well after the matter was settled and, or dismissed.
As for why anyone in authority at the time may have avoided correcting the record, there are probably all kinds of reasons.
Why don't you ask someone in authority to explain it?
PRU,
I guess I could do that but it is all water under the bridge now. I don't see the purpose it would serve or what could be done about any of it now anyway.
I was only wondering about it.
Anon 2:31,
I see your point in not wanting to waste time rehashing the past. But here's where I see it relevant to now. The memo on increasing cash in the Tif says some elected officials want to borrow more money to put into the city general fund because the Tif is borrowing from the general fund. Some elected officials are trying to manage the Tif and the general fund with more borrowing after it has been said here that they have already mismanaged the Tif. Not good. Not good at all.
I should have said also we have to remember the city budget is already in an operating deficit. We already have debt to pay off. More borrowing would add to the problems in the city budget we already have.
What a mess. The only sure thing is the City finances are in a mess. I see higher taxes in our near future. Not that we can afford much more between the mess with Maine 207 and the City.
Anonymous October 26, 2009 2:04 PM:
1 liar and 12 gullible listeners who can't distinguish fact from opinion become a baker's dozen of liars.
What I provided was fact, not opinion, based on the on-line court docket in Baldacchino v. Park Ridge and an article in the 9/29/05 issue of the Herald-Advocate.
The developer and the public officials who wanted the TIF and the Uptown Development would say whatever they thought an ignorant and gullible public would believe. And you did.
Hoover,
You obviously have anger management issues.
There isn't any reason for your hostility to me.
Have a good day.
In July of 2003, anyone interested in the T.I.F. district issue was made aware of the potential pitfalls with pie-in-the-sky TIF projections.
The following excerpt appeared in a "Guest Essay" in the Herald-Advocate.
>>There is the potential risk the projected revenues from a T.I.F. district will fall short due to any or all of the following factors:
A. Development and/or construction delays or changes can increase costs and may cause revenue generation to stall, thereby not meeting projected revenue targets.
B. Property owners are under no obligation to NOT file for property tax abatement (and for most commercial property and large property, owners do so is a matter of course), and therefore can reduce the Assessed Valuation on their properties, which leads directly to reduced property tax revenue generation, thereby creating another risk of default and higher expenses to the municipality.
C. There exists the possibility of any T.I.F. district property being sold, by an owner, to a tax-exempt entity, removing the property from the tax-generating base within the T.I.F district.
D. Should any one or more properties within a T.I.F. district suffer a property casualty such as fire, insurance covers the property owner(s). However, the municipality is left without the projected revenue creation, and again risks default and higher expenses.
E. The size of the T.I.F. does not spread the risk of default out over enough tax generating properties -- the smaller the T.I.F. district, the more impact any one property’s failure to generate the expected revenue becomes.
F. Governmental policy changes can affect T.I.F. district revenue. For example: When the state of Minnesota took over education financing, the education portion of the local property tax increments that went to T.I.F. projects, was redirected to the state – a loss to T.I.F. districts of 37% of their projected and expected revenues.<<
Note item A above.
Item C might be applicable to the 720 Garden St. property; a (formerly?) commercial tax-generating property.
Item F might be said to (somewhat) apply to the Napleton Cadillac lot, also a "formerly" commercial tax-generating property, now re-zoned for residential; a "change" to be sure.
...and so it goes.
oh what a hoot to watch Carrie Davis squirm at the COW. her usual "we'll look into it" answers were not acceptable tonight.
Why are the ugly vacant properties on NW Hwy, East of Greenwood owned by Heinz allowed to have construction equipment on the property? Why are the properties still sitting empty? What is the status on it since their permit expired? "Those are special circumstances," she said. Why is this acceptable? it's not.
She should really be a professional dancer. That's what she does best. You can see it all at the end of the meeting's tape.
Schmidt needs to hold her feet to the fire and start making her answer questions, not avoiding. Or she needs to go. There are many others who can do her job.
I have always wondered why Carrie Davis was given that job. In my opinion, she just isn't up to it. It's too important of a position for someone not to be very on their game, and she's not-- at least not when I have seen here in action. There has to be someone more qualified out there.
and Hock should be next.
Off with their heads!
you probably wouldn't be making jokes if your neighbors built a house a foot over what was approved in the building plans and now your property floods every time it rains.
The incompetency with Ms. Davis and her cohorts is inexcuseable.
Carrie Davis enforces city code? Please. Carrie Davis is all about making builders and developers feel “welcome” and make them not feel like “Park Ridge is difficult to deal with”. She could care less whether some twenty year resident has a basement flooding or parking issues or anything else as long as all is well in builder world.
And as far as code violations; she will never go any farther than she absolutely has to.
Mr. Mayor, are you listening?!
It has always struck me how people raise an issue, elected officials react, ordinances dealing with issues get passed and then staff undermines anything they don’t like by their passive aggressive behavior and refusal to enforce. It’s not that I’m saying elected officials always do the right thing, but they are the elected to represent the people.
It’s so sad when people walk out of City Hall congratulating each other after getting an ordinance passed that they think will solve a problem. If staff doesn’t like it or they just don’t want to be bothered it is never enforced. Ms. Davis is a classic example of the attitude that permeates City Staff and it starts from the head down. If a building or traffic ordinance is written into law then it should be enforced. If any person or staff doesn’t like the ordinance then they should address it with the City Council and get it changed. Staff has no right to ignore it. It really does make our city government a farce.
Can anyone on this blog explain to me why Park Ridge Baseball, which enjoys "Affiliate" status of the Park Ridge Park District pays no federal taxes and perhaps more interestingly does not file Tax Form 990 (which is typically filed for non-profit organizations). They utilize our parks and facilities at no cost (from what I can tell from the Park Ridge Park District budget). Shouldnt one of the requirements of being an "Affiliate" of the Park District be that we understand their economics? PRU can you help get to the bottom of this?
Post a Comment