Special City Council Meeting 4-15-2010
For interested PRU readers -- who may not prefer the audio tapes.
April 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Email
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Irreverent and Unrepentant Satire and Irony
parkridgeunderground
@gmail.com
@gmail.com
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(178)
-
▼
April
(20)
- With The Wind At Your Back!
- FOIA Fun!
- City Council COW Mtg (PRFB) 4-26-10 - video!
- Good Morning, Schmidtzkrieg!
- More Cow Pies Tonight!
- Somewhere --
- A Thursday Twofer!
- City Council Meeting 4-19-2010 -- video!
- Special City Council Meeting 4-17-2010 -- video!
- Monday PRU Briefs!
- Budget Hearing 4-15-2010 -- video!
- When There Are No Words
- C.O.W. PS/PW/PR 4-12-2010 -- Video!
- We'll Loan You A Pair!
- We Recommend --
- Guest Essay! Sit Down At the Table!
- School District 64 Invites You To Play --
- Finally! Budget Workshop and Council Meeting Videos!
- For That Freshly Risen Feeling!
- Cluster F#@%K! -- Addendum! and ***
-
▼
April
(20)
Links
Answers to FAQs and Searches
- Mayor's salary = $12,000 per yr
- City Clerk's salary = $9,000 per yr
- Alderman's salary = $1,200 per yr
- 2010/11 annual budget = $52.7mm
- 2010/11 City Employees = 259
- School Board salaries = $0
- Park Board salaries = $0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
29 comments:
PRU, I managed to find the budget memos on the cities website but I can't read them. I get an error message when I try to open them. What gives?
Anon@1:48 --
It looks like whoever posted them may have screwed up the document web address code.
Correctly coded web addresses should start with and look like:
https://www.parkridge.us/etc. etc. etc.pdf
The code for the web address for the budget memo starts with:
U:\Budget\memo Changes to budget.pdf
There isn't anything we can do about it. Sorry.
Thanks for checking.
Am I getting this correct?
Council approved cutting fire and police and we are still funding the O'Hare fight. I missed the meeting this morning, I'm hearing rumors. Can anybody clarify?
The meeting this morning was a goat rodeo... I don't have time for much but essentially they passed the budget as-is on a 5 -2 vote, Bach and Sweeney were the nays. THEN... they are hoping they can "fix" (Wsol's words I think) it before May 1. what does "fix" mean? Who knows... one way will be their looking to the Mayor to exercise his veto power. Wsol actually said he was voting for the budget and then would be supporting the Mayor is his expected use of his veto power.
But they voted to cut $120k from the Admin budget and then turned around and voted to put it back in.
They voted to keep the ORD funds in the budget.
They voted to eliminate their own and the Mayor's pay.
There was hardly a word said about the (inflated??) budgeted revenues.
It was 3 hours of stupidity. Seriously, maybe the stupidest they have ever behaved.
At the end, the Mayor said he would be planning to use his veto power but to what extent was the question. That is, will he veto the whole budget or just lines...
We have seen the enemy... and it is not us... it is our City Council.
We need to increase the council to 14 or get rid of most all of these seven and start over.
Oh... and the City Manager was a disgrace. Hard to believe he could have run such a shitty process.
The videos will be a must watch.
It's late... time for a drink... ta ta.
Does the Mayor have line item veto power?
Cymru --
Yes, entire line items -- as we understand it -- not individual expenditures in any packaged set of expenditures.
Thanks PR Underground. So would I be right in saying the Mayor could veto all the contributions to the local charities, but just not to certain charities? Also, could he veto all the money to the O'Hare campaigners, just not to the amount for the lobbyist?
Cymru --
In answer to the first part of your question, we aren't sure if each community group contribution is it's own, individual line item or whether the individual donations are considered a single line item -- contributions to community groups.
Yes, the Mayor would have to veto the entire line item for the PROAC.
I've grown so tired of Wsol. This guy has no idea what he wants. To vote yes and then state he would support the Veto is just his way of not truly committing to a decision. As far as going back to 14, these 7 can't get on the same page, 7 more would just be the same circus with twice as many clowns. These guys are not listening to the majority of the public. Wasting more money for O'Hare is just disgusting. Choosing to donate to special groups over our own public safety is just criminal.
Anon@10:14 --
Not to nit pick, but think about what you said for a minute.
Do you really want all your elected representatives on the same page, as you put it? Do you think these guys don't chat each other up on issues outside of Council meetings -- hub and spoke style, naturally.
Clang, clang, clang goes the trolley of democracy and it's good for you -- much better than red light cameras.
Right now, only 4 people in the entire community need to be on the same page.
You and your pocketbook may be just a bit better off if you double the minimum number needing to be on the same page when making decisions on your behalf.
Park Ridge sucks.
I called Allstate last week and asked them if my home owners insurance would go up due to the cuts to the fire department. I was told that if our rating goes from an ISO 3 to an ISO 5 my premium will go from $1164 to $1280. WTF!!!!
What savings are we getting from this. It's going to cost me more next year and we get less service. Do these guys do any research before they decide these things.
My agent couldn't tell me if it would change or not, but after doing some research it appears this may happen.
I'm not sure how many homes we have in town, I've heard estimates near 10,000. If that's the case and each home gets hit with a 10% increase, the tax payers are looking at losing about a million dollars, for what?? To cut this years budget by $200k. I encourage all of you to contact your insurance carriers and find out for yourselves. VETO MAYOR
Anon@10:27 --
Sure it does, in a lot of ways -- but you only know that because you're paying attention to what your local government is doing.
In our experience everybody who pays attention to what's taking place in their community at their level of local government, and who doesn't have their head planted comfortably inside their colon, thinks their community sucks to some degree.
Park Ridge sucks less than some places and more than others, but it depends on the issue.
Anon@10:28 --
Regrettably, we haven't done any research on that issue either. We'll take your word for what you've heard from your agent.
We would caution you though, if you receive an increase, we urge you to fight it and challenge your agent to support a higher premium with more evidence than an ISO rating. We would start with the part 1 and 2 crime stats.
As for laying off police officers -- we feel that completely sucks, but we're told Park Ridge sucks, so pink slipping public safety personnel fits right in with that.
PRU, I see your point, but if 7 people can't sort through these issues, how can 14. I remember when we had 14 and it was worse. I'm sure you remember the voting clicks. I guess when I mean the same page, I really mean the same zipcode. I've never seen so many residents speak up before and it really seems like its falling on deaf ears. Sad day in Park Ridge
My agent pretty much stated that the ISO rating is a fair depiction of the fire safety rating in a given area and is a component of our premiums. Its like auto insurance, if you live next to a bad intersection, you may see a slight spike in your premium. I didn't ask about the police portion. I should have though, I'm afraid to ask now. Rather then me fighting with my insurance carrier, perhaps our highly paid city manager would like to pay my increase and the 5 morons that voted yes.
Anon@10:39 --
We remember a lot of Council history very well.
We still think you have better representation with more than fewer people to make your case to.
If you don't mind, would you answer a question? It will be understood if you decline --
Is the current budget process the first, the second, the third or ?#? issue you've paid attention to and been concerned about? And is your concern specifically about the public safety aspect of the budget?
We ask because, frankly, we have little patience for tunnel-vision, single-issue concerns -- though we are willing to leave room for the most basic functions of government, such as public safety.
Now, please excuse the PRU night shift for the evening -- there's a movie cued up in the VCR and the spouse is making noise about waiting.
Mark down State Farm as another insurance carrier that will adjust its premium. I called the day I got the flier stuck to my door. My agent couldn't give me exact numbers, but did say there would be an increase. I didn't think it would be that much, but it may. It does raise a solid point though. If the city is trying to balance a budget by making these cuts and in the end run, it will cost us more individually. What is the sense in all of it?
PRU..This is my third budget that I have really paid attention to. In the past I simply rolled my eyes and figured it was just politics and everything should work itself out. The past three however, I've been more concerned. I've been more active, I go to the meetings and have spoken at a few. I'm not impressed at all with what I see. I think the first time I really even opened my eyes to it all was when the money for O'Hare sorta vanished several years ago, around $650K I believe.
The public safety cuts have concerned me the most. I can't understand how these cuts are even an option.
I'm baffled at the Uptown Tiff, I wish I knew more in this area.
I don't like the money being spent on many of these community organizations, these should only be funded if we have a surplus.
The water tax I feel was handled terribly. When Chicago raised its rates, it should have been simply passed on. By not doing so our largest water users drained our water fund surplus.
These are my big issues, I have more. Did I meet your expectations of worthy posting? VCR? You run the Underground, you should be running Blue Ray.
I find one of the largest issues with this entire situation to be the following:
These aldermen discussed numerous PROBLEMS with this budget. However, they did NOT vote on and make amendments to this budget in ANY meaningful way!!
ORD money: still included ($165K)
Charitable groups: Still included ($185K)
Discussion of the probable (not possible) -$900K state income cash: NOT included and hardly discussed.
Public Safety/city layoffs: Included
In each meeting, all the alderman did a lot of talking but little action. If they have issues with the budget, they have the power to amend the budget. DO IT! Don't just talk about it.
And as for passing the buck...that is all that is done here in this city. Let's 1) pass a budget that we don't agree with 2) Without changing 99% of the issues in it that we disagree with and 3) tell the mayor we will support you when you veto it... Stop complaining about the budget when YOU all are not agreeing to amend items and make decisions.
Anon@11:08 --
Blue Ray is very nice and new toys are always fun, but not always needed.
And thank you for answering the questions.
Feel free to ask any questions you have about the Uptown TIF -- we'll do our best to if we have answers.
Anon@12:01 --
Your assessment of the process is spot on.
There has been some discussion about the Mayor "vetoing" the budget. I went online and looked at the City Code and noticed his only power to veto is for the appt. of the City Attorney...do you know where said veto power is memorialized?
Anon@8:48 --
We don't have the documents handy at the moment, but we think this is covered in the City's 3P manual, which is supposed to be available on the City's web site.
April 18, 2010 12:01 AM
Totally agree with what you said. It's amazing how each of them point out problems in the budget, but do nothing to fix it, and then just pass it. I feel the 5 that voted yes just wanted to meet some deadline obligation and are actually hoping the Mayor vetos it. Chicken shit if you ask me.
From the 1201 post author
Thanks for the agreements. Now if some alderman would just get on board with agreements in some meaningful way, we might be in business.
As for veto power, if memory serves me correctly, the mayor may:
1) Sign/pass the budget
2) Veto a line item veto
3) Veto the budget in it's entirety
I for one would like to see it vetoed completely...however..I wonder if round 2 in the city council would really accomplish anything.. I guess I can always dream.
The buck stops...????
I remember a few years back when a local attorney named Michael Marous(sp?) was interim mayor for awhile. He was asked or, maybe, commented on the decision to go from 14 to 7 council members and I clearly remember him saying that it can't be a good thing to have LESS votes on a council. At that is coming from am attorney with an inside view of what goes on behind the scenes. Point taken.
Re: mayor's veto power, I expect he will veto the O'Hare money if he knows what's good for him. NO ONE thinks that is a good idea, especially when simultaneously cutting police and fire(except for a certain chief whose time has come early by his own actions).
JT,
Former Mayor MaRous is a local appraiser, not an attorney...and his efforts to oppose Frimark's cut-the-council campaign went well beyond merely "commenting" on the matter...
As for what Mayor DipSchmidt might or might not veto...who knows...he's not exactly been a monument to consistency...
I wish our departed, former Fire Chief well...I always thought he was a good guy...and I cannot shake the feeling that something about that whole sordid story is very "off"...
Bean,
Thanks for clarifying MaRous' position. And I have to agree with you that the Mayor has been a bit "wavy" lately in his position.
Post a Comment