Doing Less with More!

Many of you may remember when Mayor Howard was pushing his referendum to cut the city council from 2 aldermen per ward to 1 alderman per ward.

One of the robo-calls Mayor Howard sent out to voters included the promise that, should voters approve his referendum, it would save money. The PRU Crew knew the sum would be paltry in relation to the city budget, but the argument wasn't a lie or all that unreasonable.

When the Crew was doing our reading of the city budget documents for our library post yesterday, one of the Crew noticed another interesting tidbit at the top of pg. 10 --

Summary of Expenses 08/09

That interesting tidbit is the Legislative line item. The Legislative budget does include expenses beyond the $1,000 per month paid to the Mayor, the $750 per month paid to the Clerk, and the $100 per month paid to the aldermen. As we expected, the Legislative line item in the city budget was projected to drop after the council was cut, but it looks as if the actual budget expenditure was $5,200 more than the actual expense for the previous 14 member council.

What we didn't expect was, after the initially projected drop in the legislative budget, that line item would immediately rise to a level above that of the previous council. And what we're baffled by is the near doubling of that legislative budget line item for 2008/09.

We believe the police department audit cost probably accounts for the drastic increase, but we are left wondering why the budget for 2009/10 doesn't again reflect the savings Mayor Howard said would be ours if we cut the council.

It looks to us as if Mayor Howard isn't doing more with less, as he promised. But rather, he and his lapdogs are doing less and costing us just as much and more!

Hog Heaven!

We found last week's library discussion amazing. Despite the fact that our post was for the purpose of discussing the machinations being employed to attempt to expand the current library or build a new library altogether -- something that is expressly planned for in the Park Ridge Library's Action Plans for 2007 - 2009 -- there were those who, in the myopic fashion of the self-absorbed few, think everything they choose to do merits public support. We had one commenter insist on declaring demands for subsidies to be a right -- that genius, who can resubmit that stupid comment here today, tried to cover his or her shameless tracks by characterizing such demands as "freedom of speech." We're not sure, but we don't think shameless whining for government subsidies is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they included that bit in the First Amendment; though we have to admit such idiocy does qualify in the broadest sense. There's no law against being stupid, nor against the frivolous exercise of one's Constitutional rights.

We can understand those who hold "The Audacity of Hope" -- but we think having the audacity to ask other community members to further fund the expansion of subsidized programs and shoulder the extra costs for personal entertainment choices is beyond shameless, especially given the current economic climate and outlook, and especially in a particularly privileged and well-to-do community like Park Ridge. We would go so far as to say those who claim to have an understanding of community, and then proclaim their right to ask for more based on that erroneous understanding, do not in fact understand anything about community -- certainly not their own responsibility to their fellow community members.

But instead of talking about the philosophical aspects of community, community subsidies, the shameless grabbing for more benefits than one may contribute to, irrespective of any measure for legitimate need, let's take a look at some real numbers.

On the Park Ridge Library web site, you can find the following --

PR Library Annual Revenue Page

The dollar bill illustration shows that of the $.13 total cents collected by the city from each property tax dollar, "only" $.04 goes to the library.

What you won't find is the bottom half of that dollar illustration page, which was copied from the city budget. We've included the full page (pg. 4 of the summary) from the city budget below for your review.

City Budget Summary



We're also wondering why the full library budget, or at least an annual expense page, isn't included on the library web site -- maybe we missed it?

We figure it is likely the Park Ridge Library authorities chose not to include the bottom half of the city budget dollar illustration page because they didn't want to have to explain it.

But we'll go ahead and try to do so, as simply as possible.

The fact is, of the total $.13 collected by the city, $.04 is dedicated exclusively to funding the library. But as you can see the second dollar illustration shows that of the total funds collected per dollar by the city, 28% -- more than a quarter or almost one third (it used to be a full one third) -- goes to the library alone.

We're also pretty sure the Park Ridge Library authorities do not want to have to explain why the 7 programs operated by the library require 28% of the distribution of funding, while the 44 programs operated out of the city's general fund "only" require 29% of the city's distribution of the revenue collected.

Even more simply -- the city funds 44 programs by collecting $.09 cents from every property tax dollar, while the library funds only 7 programs by collecting $.04 cents (almost half of what the city collects) from every property tax dollar.

How can this be? We think it may have something to do with the Park Ridge Library payroll. There are roughly a total of 100 people -- including full time and part time -- on the library payroll, 65+/- who qualify for benefits.

Compare that to the Public Works Administration and Public Works Service Center employees combined -- there are roughly 73 full and part time employees, all receiving benefits, who are responsible for all the physical and mechanical needs of the entire 7 square miles of the City of Park Ridge vs. the library staff which is responsible for the 36,000 square foot library building and the collection inside it.

O.K., some may say that the library has to deal with boatloads of visitors every day. Well that may explain why, of the $4,792,700 Library Operating Budget, they spend $3,573,000, or 75% of their total operating budget, on personal services, which is municipal speak for "salaries, wages, and benefits for employees."

The point of all of the above is to get the people asking for more to realize that the library already eats up a ton of public revenue for what they provide to patrons. We are not suggesting, nor have we read any blog comments suggesting, that any library staff should be laid off. But we strongly feel that the library programs, building and staff should not be expanded.

While there are those who will continue to profess the intangible benefits of expanding library programs to serve what is, by the library's own reported statistics, a lower number of visitors than in years past, as well as a higher circulation despite a decreasing collection, there are other city-wide budget problems to be considered.

For those who want to expand either the library programming or the library building, itself, we want to know how you intend to pay for those things. We would like to know if you would choose to cut other public services in exchange for expansion of services you want at the library, or if you would seek to raise property taxes collected by the city? And, by how much? Or, do you feel the city should simply borrow money to pay for the things you want? And, do you realize that incurring debt comes with, dare we say it, intangible as well as measurable costs?

Remember people, last year the city had a deficit of $1.7 million, and is already looking at another deficit this year of approximately $1.6 million.

The PRU Crew has never been quick to defend the city council, and we think they were asleep at the wheel during the last city budget process. But we'll be damned if we're willing to put them on the hook for all this mess and let the whiny grabbers walk away as if they aren't responsible in some fashion.

So! Here's a link to the city budget page on the city web site. If you want a hard copy of the city budget, you can request one from City Hall. Take a look. Get out your pencil. Start slicing, dicing, and rearranging -- or adding in the costs of desired programs and the requisite tax increases to pay for them. Since there are those who seem to feel the sky's the limit, we can keep in mind we are a home rule unit of local government -- our city officials can tax us as high as they want to for anything and everything that anybody asks for. Go ahead. Tell your representatives what you think they should do. After all, as our genius commenter said, it's your right to ask them for what you want.

Or, tell your city council that you prefer to cut road paving and salting because it's not that you fail to recognize that, beyond anybody's "subsidized two-car driving habit", police, fire and ambulance services also use those very same roads, but rather you would prefer to spend money having librarians pay authors to read to toddlers.

Or better yet, tell your neighbors to quit complaining about flooding every year. Relief sewers? Feh! Go ahead. Tell your neighbors and your city council that flooding is something we all have to accept because there is no difference between the value of relief sewers and stocking the library with current bestsellers.

For the PRU Crew's part, we think people who claim the right to ask their government for anything and everything they want, should also take responsibility for telling their elected officials how they want them to provide the things they want. Think of it as being fully a part of your community.

Let It Snow!

from -- SnowCrystals.com

... musings on that eternal, infernal question ...

Is it really true that no two snowflakes are alike?

Think warm thoughts and have a wonder-filled weekend!

Comment in the Spotlight!

Joe said...

Police station petition.

If anyone is interested in gathering signatures to place an advisory referendum on the next ballot, I have one drafted based on Alderman Schmidt's attempt to allow the taxpayers of Park Ridge decide whether or not we should spent over $24 million (includes interest but not operational and maintenance costs) in front of the City Council. I will need at least 25 volunteers that would be willing to gather at least 100 signatures each. I am researching exactly how many we would need. Time is of the essence since our City Council is afraid to ask this question. They are committed to going forward without our input. If you are interested, please email me at jjegan1@aol.com. I would also need someone to co-lead this effort.

December 3, 2008 8:54 PM

Of Fishbowls and Librarians!

We're sure you've heard the old adage: a fish will grow to fit the size of it's bowl. The PRU Crew feels this adage holds true for librarians and their libraries too!

Last week we read a story in one of the local fish wraps headlined, "Library feels pinch of limited event space." According to Janet Van De Carr, executive director of the library, the "pinch" being felt by library staff is a product of "requests from parents to provide more programs for children", though Ms. Van De Carr always fails to mention that these programs are free to users, courtesy of the taxpayers. The PRU Crew feels that these users should at least write thank you notes to all the taxpayers before asking for more freebies.

So now Ms. Van De Carr will "meet with an architectural firm the library has used in the past to obtain a cost estimate and learn if an office trailer can be located anywhere on the library's property."

If the office trailer becomes a reality for library staff, who will be moved out of their current work space so that space can be dedicated exclusively to more children's programs, it won't be long before we will begin to hear about the over-crowded conditions in the office trailer and how a first-class town like Park Ridge shouldn't have a third-rate facility that forces staff into low-class trailers to provide minimal event space for the children. And we're willing to bet there will be great amounts of discussion about not taking up precious parking spaces, so the office trailer will have to be placed somewhere else -- no doubt in a very visible location that, by design, will detract from "the character of the library and town." The solution? We need to build a new library!

And no matter how big a new library is, the goldfish librarians will grow their collections and programs to fit the space available. The largest library in the world is the U.S. Library of Congress which was begun some 200 years ago with fewer than 1000 books in its collection, but now holds 30,011,748 volumes and "115 million items in a number of formats", with a commensurately large staff and budget of $300,000,000.00 -- because the larger the library building, the bigger the collection, the more programs conducted, the more staff will have to be added, and the more taxes will have to be collected to fund it, beyond what will have to be borrowed to pay for a new facility or even just an addition to the current one.

B.O.H.I.C.A.!

Council Recap -- SSSHHHHH!

Our sources report that last night's City Council meeting was business as usual for the forces of darkness.

After the usual beginning niceties, including congratulations for our Maine South Football Champions, Mayor Howard let everyone know he's a day late and a dollar short on chasing the O'Hare noise problem. While Mayor Howard was doing his Rip Van Winkle impression, when he wasn't voting to pull out of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, the problem of noise and the new runway configuration at O'Hare was creeping up on the citizens of Park Ridge. But now Mayor Howard, and one of his more drooling alderdogs, Don Bachtard (3rd ward), are "challenging the FAA" to provide answers to questions about the jet noise. If either of these idiots had bothered to pay attention to this issue over the last several years, they would find all the answers they're now looking for in the meeting minutes of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. Or they could have spent an afternoon in the park on the North end of Park Ridge for a taste of things that were to come.

"Challenging the FAA" -- that is very funny stuff!

Next on the council agenda was 1st ward Alderman Dave Schmidt's report and resolution request to put the issue of building a new police station to a referendum vote. In stark contrast to the treatment of every other single resolution undertaken by the council, our sources report that Mayor Howard would not allow Ald. Dave to read an opening statement to begin his report and then offer a motion to adopt the resolution. When Ald. Dave began speaking, Mayor Howard cut him off asking for a motion. Ald. Dave then read the shorter text of the referendum question and motioned the item up for discussion and debate. Mayor Howard then asked for a second to the motion, as required by Roberts Rules of Order, so that discussion and debate could begin. Our sources report that for the first time, Mayor Howard proceeded very slowly through the process of asking for a second -- asking three times if there was anyone to second the motion. All the other aldermen on the council remained silent, and the motion died -- along with the possibility of a public discussion and debate -- for lack of a second.

The PRU Crew feels that, no matter where anyone falls on the issue of building a new police station, everyone should have the guts to discuss, debate and defend their position publicly. And if you are an elected representative of the people, you are obligated to grab hold of your fortitude and tell the people of Park Ridge, in an open forum, why you don't feel they should have a direct and explicit say on the issue through a referendum vote.

We're told two members of the audience rose to address the council after bearing witness to the shenanigans, calling the council's action -- or lack of action -- "appalling" and "sorely disappointing."

The City Council then moved on to other business which included debate and discussion, in great detail, of whether or not to allow businesses to advertise that they have televisions in their establishment, and whether or not minors can play arcade games in an establishment "when accompanied by a person twenty-one years of age." We are told the discussion of keeping our local youth safe from the ills of arcade games took about 30 minutes, and the ordinance passed on a final vote of 5 (Schmidt, Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, and Carey) to 2 (DiPietro and Wsol).

We bet our readers may be wondering why the council was willing to spend a half hour on the minutia of the liquor ordinance, while foregoing any discussion on the potential expenditure of an estimated $20million dollars and a referendum vote. The PRU Crew feels anyone wondering about that should contact their alderman and the Mayor, and ask.

The final highlight in the council's actions last night was to tell PRC Partners, the development entity for Target Area 2 (Uptown), they would have to wait another two weeks before the council would again consider their request to lease space to service provider, Coldwell Banker, instead of a sales tax generating business.

We're told the discussion between the council and two of the partners for PRC began very cordially, but as it became clear the council wasn't in a mood to again give a concession to PRC, the partners became somewhat testy and said the city wasn't likely to ever see the originally promised profit sharing, and that the city should take this deal now. The partners also let it be known that every payment made to the city now, in return for the city's concessions to PRC, is included as an expense that is added to the project. What this means, people, is that PRC is adding expenses to the ledger which will almost guaranty that the city never sees a dime of profit from the project, because if the 11% target return for PRC partners isn't met, then the city is left out of the calculation for profit taking. So, is there anybody out there who would be willing to settle for an 8% return on an investment? We're betting the PRC partners will be just fine with that.

Alderman James Allspaghetti (4th ward) asked what would happen with the potential tenant if the council didn't approve the deal in a timely manner? The partners for PRC said they weren't sure what the potential tenant would do, but that it was important to approve the concession. We are told Allspaghetti then launched into one of his long winded and circular ramblings about approving the concession because the empty spaces in the new development are bad!

We are also told that a member of the audience then rose to address the council and, citing "the interest of full disclosure", said that Coldwell Banker is already leasing space in town and that if they were to move into the new development another, larger space would become vacant.

The PRU Crew has long heard that PRC Partners has spent a great deal of time trying to "canibalize" other local businesses in their efforts to fill up their development.

We give big PRUdos to the council for deferring action on this item until the costs to the city can be more fully understood. However, we're not foolish enough to believe the council will see this one through, and we think PRC will eventually get exactly what they're asking for again.

Back in the Saddle!

We hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving with lots of leftovers!

Tonight's City Council agenda (.pdf) is full of fun! The items of particular interest to the Crew are 1st Ward Alderman Dave Schmidt's resolution for a referendum on the question of building a new police station, the agreement to let PRC Partners lease space to another service business that doesn't generate retail sales tax revenue, and an agreement that will allow Red Speed, the red light camera company, to line their pockets at taxpayer expense.

We hope to be able to publish a recap tomorrow!