It's a looooong one today, people -- we hope you see it through.
Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, we understand you're in a difficult spot. You inherited enough bullshit from your predecessor to last you and our grandchildren a lifetime. But pity party time is over, pal. You wanted the big chair and your hand on the gavel, and now you've got it. It's time to man up. It's time to be the fiscally responsible leader you promised the voters you would be. It's time to choose your response to this mess.
We also understand you probably aren't in want of tons of advice on the subject of the City budget either -- and we're told you're leaning toward a veto of the entire thing. We think that's a mistake and so we thought we'd add our advice to your slush pile for consideration -- our reasons and opinions follow below.
If the PRU Crew were in a position to choose how to respond to the current City of Park Ridge budget mess, we would choose to do the following --
Cutting Expenses:
We took a look at the allocations posted in the City Manager's budget document for Community & Civic Services(.pdf) on the City's website. The PRU Crew considers expenditures of these tax payer dollars to be of the most discretionary nature, and we've assumed the numbers posted on the City website are current and accurate.
We would line item veto the following items --
Fine Arts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 13,200
Civic Orchestra - - - - - - - - - - -$ 13,200
Teen Center - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 22,000
Senior Center - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 35,200
Rainbow Hospice - - - - - - - - - $ 4,400
Meals On Wheels - - - - - - - - - $ 7,040
Historical Society - - - - - - - - - $ 8,800
Cultural Arts Council - - - - - - $ 4,840
Kalo Foundation - - - - - - - - - $ 4,400
Brickton Arts Center - - - - - - -$ 11,000
O'Hare Commission - - - - - - - $165,000
Total Cuts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $289,080
No matter how we try to approach the subjects of each of the above, we are forced to conclude each and every one of them are non-essential expenditures of taxpayer dollars.
By the by, does the above total cuts number look familiar? It should. It's relatively close to the number the Park Ridge Police Dept. has been asked to cut from it's budget for the coming year -- $283,768 -- again, if the sources we've checked are reliable.
The difference leaves a very modest surplus of $5,312, which is more than enough to fund the City run Youth Commission, slated for an allocation of $4,400 in the coming fiscal year's budget. We feel the 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost has made an admirable effort in ramping up the efforts of the City run Youth Commission, and since the Commission is a City run effort, we're willing to take the surplus from cuts made to donations to private organizations and leave the Youth Commission funding in place. But we wouldn't lose any sleep over cutting the Youth Commission's funding either.
And we pause for a moment to thank the City run Health Commission for not taking an allocation in the next fiscal year, once again if the documents we've consulted are correct.
What the above mentioned cuts do not leave room for is funding the two privately run charitable efforts we previously mentioned in our post here -- the Maine Center for Mental Health and the Center of Concern. Each of those privately run organizations are slated to receive allocations of taxpayer dollars in the amounts of $6,600 and $55,000, respectively.
Here is what the PRU Crew would choose to do -- we would work with the City Manager and the union representative for the police department rank and file and insist they find some way to cut the Park Ridge Police Department budget by $61,600 to cover the funding allocated for those two charities.
Not only do we believe they could do it inside of two hours time, we also believe it's in their best interest to do so -- and not just because it could save the department from having to lay off 4 police officers in which the department AND THE CITY taxpayers have invested training time and effort, but also because the two previously mentioned charitable organizations work in concert with many of the goals and efforts of the police department. The two previously mentioned charitable organizations may well alleviate some of the burden and responsibilities which may otherwise fall to the police department.
We'll explain -- but first we will offer that we're pissed off about having to attempt this without any hard numbers --
Let's begin with the Center of Concern, which has several programs they tout as being wonderful for the Park Ridge community and beyond. Some of those programs fall under the heading of Senior Supportive Services. Two of those programs run by the Center of Concern are the "Friendly Visitors" and "Telephone Reassurance Program."
It just so happens the Park Ridge Police Department also offers "The Are You O.K.? Program" described as, "This program offers daily contact with seniors, and peace of mind for friends and family. The City of Park Ridge offers a telephone service to its senior citizens and the disabled. Each day the participant is called at a specified time to check on their well-being. If the call goes unanswered, help will be dispatched. For more information call the police department at (847) 318-5252or e-mail at info@parkridgepolice.org"
Maybe it's just us, but we would rather our police officers be out on regular patrol than have the added burden and responsibility of what is currently being handled by the Center of Concern. And again, we wish we had the goddamn f*&#ing numbers for these specific stats from the Center of Concern.
And at this point, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, we would also like to remind you of what you said about the Center of Concern in your press release on Homeless Shelters --
"I personally endorse the Center of Concern’s model of helping “cure” homelessness by helping homeless individuals secure shelter 7 nights a week in the same place, so they have some stability and a foundation upon which they can rebuild their lives."We trust you weren't referring to the Center of Concern's model of providing assistance to those in need where only the homeless are concerned.
Another reason the PRU Crew would prefer to have police officers out on regular patrol, at the current staffing level, is because the recent reports in the local rags about gang graffiti, among other reports we've read, have not gone unnoticed by us.
We will admit, the thought crossed our minds that one of the masters of psycho-chicanery, Hoopty Lou of PRPD infamy, has been planting stories with his favorite local rag reporterette -- and if you want to put a scare into a mighty whitey suburban rightie, just holler "GANG ACTIVITY!" We guaranty, it's not visions of hip-hoppers breaking, popping, and locking that are dancing through their heads. It isn't NBA players neither.
However, enough evidence exists of a growing gang problem in the area that we believe concern is merited. We also believe that limited economic opportunities lead to all kinds of problems -- like the sale of drugs and weapons -- which brings us right back to wanting to preserve the current level of police department personnel our community currently enjoys, since we're fairly certain the North of Dempster ne're do wells, among other undesirables, didn't get the memo about not crossing the borders into Park Ridge.
It also brings us to the Maine Center for Mental Health. One of the many human needs services the Maine Center provides is in the area of addiction treatment. The PRU Crew thinks the Maine Center's website sucks as a reference for ordinary taxpayers and how they're spending our money, but at this point in time we are going to choose to believe they are doing what they say they are doing -- which means they are, in part, treating people with substance abuse issues, who may or may not also have mental health issues.
Would any of our faithful PRU readers care to guess where substance abusers often get their money? That's right -- from burgling houses and committing other thefts -- which just so happen to be the two most frequent crimes reported in Park Ridge, according to city-data.com for 2008 -- and, according to a memorandum issued by our Park Ridge Police Chiefski, "98% of the Crime Index relates to Property Crimes with theft representing the largest category, or 74% of the Crime Index."
And we find another reason we believe the Park Ridge Police Department may want to help carry the burden of funding the Maine Center for Mental Health. The fewer abusers of substances out on the streets, the less likely our police officers will have to deal with them if they're receiving treatment -- but just in case, we'd like to maintain our current staffing level of police officer personnel anyway. Thank you very much.
During these economic times, an overworked phrase these days to be sure, we sincerely believe it is in our community's best interest to continue to modestly fund true and real human needs services.
So Mayor Schmidtzkrieg, those are the cuts the PRU Crew would choose to make and those are the reasons and opinions for which we'd make them.
With respect to your claims that you believe the City Manager's revenue projections are way out of line -- the PRU Crew has gone over the revenue analysis document (.pdf) and we just cannot pinpoint where you may believe the projections are off. We concede the threats from Governor Quinn of withholding a large portion of income tax revenue from municipalities should not be taken lightly or ignored, but we do note the City Manager has offered two possible areas which could also be cut should Quinn's threats come to fruition.
Whether you choose to respond to the current budget mess with the swing of a total veto axe or the employment of a discerning red line veto pen is your choice to make.
We feel a total veto would be worthless since the Aldermorons have already proven themselves incapable and unwilling to make fiscally responsible decisions. We're left to wonder if you've got the stones to do what the Aldermorons could not or would not do, or if you'll pass the hot potato budget buck back to the the City Council.
Responsibility: the ability to choose your response. We're looking forward to yours, whatever it may be.
41 comments:
These would be tough choices, but I would stand behind the Mayor at the ballot box for making them, even if I don't fully support cut.
On a local, state and federal level, enough courage does not seem to exist to really start making hard decisions.
Excuse me for not being familiar enough with our city government, but is it true that the Mayor has line-item veto power?
Dead on PRU. Kudos.
Adam --
We understand the Mayor does have line item veto power.
So wait a minute.....you mean all this talk about Quinn and Hock's numbers being off was wrong??? Not important?? Not relevant?? Scare tactic?? The Mayor said the budget was off 1.3 million on the high side!!! Here is what he said about the Quinn issue............."Good morning. I am writing to set the record straight on my position regarding Governor Quinn's plan to slash the amount of state income tax receipts that the state sends to municipalities like ours. An article in this week's Herald-Advocate misstates my position.
Under Governor Quinn's plan, Park Ridge stands to lose approximately $930,000 which is presently included in our budgeted revenues for next year. A couple weeks ago, I was asked whether we should be factoring the proposed cut into our budget. I unwisely said that I did not believe so, because I viewed it as a political ploy on Governor Quinn's part to push through an income tax hike. However, given the horrendous state of Illinois' own budget situation, I should have taken Governor Quinn at his word.
At the budget workshop last Saturday, I asked our State Representative, Rosemary Mulligan, if she believed we could count on that money. She expressed her view that Park Ridge should plan on the reduction. I then cautioned the aldermen that they should heed Rep. Mulligan's warning. I reiterated that warning on Monday night at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting during my mayor's report. However, the Herald-Advocate article incorrectly implies that I still do not believe we need to worry about the reduction in state income tax revenue.
Unfortunately, taking the reduction into account is going to necessitate further budget cuts in addition to those already proposed by City Manager Jim Hock. This is not going to be pretty folks, but our long-term financial survival depends a great deal on what we do over the next few weeks. I encourage you all to attend the meetings and stay informed about this process. Have a great weekend".............Our survival depends on it!!!!!............AHHHHHH!!!!!!!
If Schmidt goes with your suggestions this will be the biggest flip flop in history (ok, maybe not but big none the less). He will be basically saying "remember all that stuff I said and my supporters said about the the budget?? Well, I was wrong and all we really need to do is wack O'hare and the community groups!!"
By the way, if the police do not agree to the 61K does the Mayor get to wack COC and blame the police??? Nice touch!!
I agree with Adam. I would support the mayor making the tough choices though I wouldn't like some of them. I understand we need courage from our officials not more of the same old same old.
Anon: 9:55; AKA “I read it so it must be true.”
“you mean all this talk about Quinn and Hock's numbers being off was wrong???”
First off when was the last time a sitting Governor submitted a budget that was passed in its entirety? Answer-Never. Yes take the threat seriously, but until it actually happens it’s a worthless speculation. Second Hock’s numbers being off? How? I’ve never seen anything the all knowing Mayor has ever produced to justify that statement.
So…
Not important?? No it’s not
Not relevant?? No it’s not
Scare tactic?? Yes it is.
11:14:
I did not "read it and think it was true". I did think it was worth pointing out the games being played here. Sorry if you missed that part. At least we do agree on the "all knowing" part of your comment.
11:25
You're hard to follow in your thinking, if thinking is the right word for describing your comments here.
Like the Pru, I am looking forward to see how our mayor handles all of it. He's got a tough job to do.
I don't think the aldermen did a good job on the budget and now it is left up to our mayor.
For those who can't believe City Mgr. Hock would over-state revenues (either intentionally or because he's inept), Page 27 of his proposed budget dated 2/26/10 shows budgeted revenues for 2009/10 (the current year) of $49,306,800 and est. actual revenues for this year of $47,166,600. That's $2.1 million to the bad, Mr. Hock.
On that same page it shows that the City is estimating this year's deficit of $3,357,400, even with expenses expected to come in a half-million UNDER budget.
But just keep telling yourself Hock's got it all figured out. The next step after that is to convince yourself Allegretti is tall.
anon 12:23:
I don't think anybody has it all figured out.
I see your point about the over-stating of revenue for last year.
Forgive me if I am not understanding you but I thought I saw in the proposed budget increases and decreases of revenue estimations.
I read in the papers about how my water bills and sewer bills and property tax bills are going to be going up.
I guess I'm not following where you are taking issue with Hocks estimations.
1:29 PM
Start with $930,000 we might not get from the State. Consider inflated sales tax revenues that won't be achieved (off $300K this year from what Hock budgeted). Deduct $700,000 of water because people didn't use as much as Hock budgeted this past year.
Are you getting the idea yet?
But Hock is probably already working on his exit strategy, because his job security won't be worth a plug nickel if/when this new budget proves to be as big a flop as the current year's.
I agree with the cuts listed here.
What about the CSO's should we still cut them from the department?
5:36: The CSO's are part of all the cuts for the police department and if the total can be reversed then the CSO's would stay too. If I am reading right.
The HA online version reported today that the cops voted no to some very reasonable concessions just like the teachers at 207. They are just as selfish. I am unwilling to cut these budget items while they play the “we are cops, we are special” game. It’s not our fault that they cannot bring themselves to live in the real world.
How many people were at the council meeting Monday Night.
I wasn't able to attend but I was at the P&Z meeting last night and I was the only one in the audience.
Anon@7:22 --
The D207 teachers voted against taking less of a pay raise in order to save their fellow teacher's jobs. And the D207 Board wasn't funding private arts, history and hobbyist groups while asking the teachers for salary concessions.
We don't view the two situations as being the same whatsoever.
7:22:
What we have hear is a difference of opinion of what exactly is "very reasonable". If your company came to you and said that you had to take 21 unpaid days would you consider that very reasonable??? I would not. Now I will grant you that there are people out there who have no choice as they are in no position to bargin but either way you are getting what you want. If you value what they do so little then you should have no problem with having 6 or more less of them. Problem solved!!!
Anon 7:22 here....
Yes I know first hand of people in the private world being asked to take a two week unpaid leave plus a 10% pay cut plus a cut in benefits. So yes it is very reasonable.
Anon@10:42 --
And are those people in your real world being asked to do that while at the same time discretionary funds are being given to community groups and earmarked for efforts the bosses in your real world admit aren't likely to produce results?
10:42:
Again I would say you are getting what you want in that you will not be financially on the hook for it. They are letting people go. You are getting what you want yet you choose to whine about the way in which you are receiving it. Police have a union. They have a right to vote and make this decision. While I have never been in a union, these economic times give me a keen understand about why they exist. The fact is that you and others place so little value on what they do that when the economy went pad you would immediately slash and burn.
Anon 7:22:
"...the cops voted no to some very reasonable concessions...."
You're wrong. The cops cut all kinds of things like no overtime money, no uniform allowance, etc to save the city the exact amount of money the city told them they needed to save. The cops went to the table and said, "Here. Here's all the things we'll give up to save that money so the citizens of Park Ridge don't have to lose four police patrol officers."
Do you know what the city did?
They said, "Okay, thanks, but now we're going to thrown in a last minute demand like we always do and we will only agree to this if you also sign a one year contract for a 0% raise on top of everything you're giving up. Oh, and by the way, you know how we did this to you last year and you gave up your 4% raise for the whole year? Well, same deal as last time, this will only save those four police officers' jobs until May 1st. Then we'll hold their jobs over your heads again."
The city continues to try to make it the employees' fault and they try to cut the budget on the backs of the police, fire, and public works departments.
And you want to make the current economy the fault of the taxpayers.
Excuse me but the only person I can see in this thread who was making anything someones fault was....."The HA online version reported today that the cops voted no to some very reasonable concessions just like the teachers at 207. They are just as selfish".
I certainly am not blaming the city for managing it's expenses. It has a right and an obligation to do so! The union in turn has a right to make it's decisions, just as an individual employee would do.
12:11 PM
The cops did make a number of reasonable reasonable concessions. But let's not kid ourselves: They didn't do it "so the citizens of Park Ridge don't have to lose four police patrol officers," they did it to save their own jobs. And that's perfectly okay.
But if anybody's got a beef about how this happened, maybe they should take it up with Jennifer Perry and all her anti-O'Hare pals, who wanted and got $165,000 to waste on a losing battle against O'Hare. Or with Ald. Ryan, who wanted to give them $200,000. Or Ald. Allegretti, who wanted to give them $300,000.
Or maybe they should take it up with the heads of all those local organizations who showed up once again for their hand outs and were given $186,000 by a city council that would rather say "no" to cops than to concerts, or card parties for seniors, or an art gallery, or social service providers who can't even show how many Park Ridge dollars actually pay for services to Park Ridge residents.
As for an employer cutting its budget on the backs of its employees, welcome to the real world, junior.
Anon@1:13 --
Salient points.
One question -- would your hypothetical real world employer cut his budget on the backs of his employees, and piss that savings away on frivilous indulgences, if a significant number of his customers expressly asked him not to?
The problem for Park Ridge taxpayers is, they can't immediately take their business elsewhere.
PRU:
I am not sure I understand you last post. Are there not many examples of companies reducing budget or keeping budget down while spending sums on what some might consider indulgences. The recent issues with Massey Energy come to mind. The cut costs and risk saftey while the CEO makes 12 mil and the company pays for a private jet. I guess "frivilous indulgences" are in the eye of the beholder.
Anon@2:19 --
Your lack of understanding our last comment is not surprising.
You continually assert eye of the beholder arguments at every turn and on almost every issue.
Your inability and-or unwillingness to identify priorities, and make value judgements about those priorities, makes you suitable for public service.
Carry on.
PRU:
Salient question.
My real world employer is not "hypothetical," which should be evident from the 10% unemployment and people in their 40s, 50s and 60s out of work for the first time in their lives, with little hope for getting a job like they held before.
Also, what do you consider a "significant number" (of Park Ridge residents?). I assume you are referring to people who have written letters or spoken at meetings opposing cop cuts, and without double counting.
I'm not sure this is supported by any of the recognized formulae for calculating a statistically signficant sample size, but with over 37,000 residents and around 24,000 registered voters citywide, I wouldn't consider anything less than 5% of the registered voters (i.e., 1,200) "signficant" enough to deserve even minimal consideration.
Anon@2:38 --
Your real world employer is hypothetical in so far as your using the private sector example to apply to a public sector world.
We do consider the number of residents who've spoken at meetings, written letters to the press, emailed us, and emailed their elected officials to urge them not to cut public safety personnel and not spend money on things such as the PROAC to be significant -- especially in light of how infrequently residents, taxpayers and voters take the time to overtly express their views on issues.
When an issue catches enough attention by ordinary citizens to inspire what appears to us to be significantly more participation and expressed opinion on an issue than the usual 2 to 5 voices heard from, we take notice and consider the participation significant.
You're entitled to a different and more statistically satisfying approach.
April 28, 2010 2:38 PM- I wouldn't consider anything less than 5% of the registered voters (i.e., 1,200) "signficant" enough to deserve even minimal consideration.
wow. i guess you are saying those people who showed up to push for the new tavern should have been ignored or not given even minimal consideration. i didn't count them but i think alot less than 1200 showed up.
on the post topic- any regulars here know what the mayor will do?
3:18 PM
Ald. Bach thought 30 Third Ward residents telling him they wanted something was enough to persuade him to vote for it, so "significance" clearly is in the eye of the beholder.
If any alderman made his decision about the new tavern based on how many people showed up to say "yay" or "nay," then said alderman is not a "representative" at all but a windsock, and a poor one at that.
April 28, 2010 4:27 PM- that was my point. they shouldnn't count how many people but they should listen to the people and then figure it out. or we should just vote on everything and get rid of the council and the mayor.
April 28, 2010 5:02 PM:
Madison, in Federalist 10, expressed the virtues of the republican form of government, because it operated to:
"refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves...."
Madison had it right in concept, even if we here in Park Ridge can't seem to get it right in the execution.
Anon 12:11-
"But let's not kid ourselves: They didn't do it "so the citizens of Park Ridge don't have to lose four police patrol officers," they did it to save their own jobs."
So if there are, let's say, 43 cops in the union and 4 of the newest have their jobs on the line; then why else would they even offer up to take major cuts to the personal family incomes of 39 others whose jobs are not "on the line" just to save the 4 newest?
If they "did it to save their own jobs" then wouldn't the vote have been 39 to 4 to go to the city and offer up any concessions?
The same went for the firemen. The police officers and firefighters know how many it takes to protect PR. They also know they have been operating far below the recommended national standard for decades.
To say they "did it to save their own jobs" makes absolutely no sense.
Anon@9:42 --
We think you meant to respond to 4/28 Anon@1:13.
9:42:
I assume you are a police person in town.
If you think the mayor is going to do anything to save police jobs you are kidding youreself.
PRU, I could not agree more with what you have said. Excellent post. Thank you.
I just hope that there is a connection made in the voters minds. I am all for elected officials being financial responsible. The challenge that many face today is they are trying to fix decades of irresponsibility which means difficult choices. But if there are tangible negative results based on their decisions the voters should hold them responsible. The Mayor and our elected officials are sending a clear message about the level of importance they place on police.
Anonymous @ 6:54,
I agree with you..."The challenge that many [elected officials] face today is they are trying to fix decades of irresponsibility..."
...but the challenge faced by THIS clowncil is trying to fix THEIR own irresponsibility.
This clowncil was handed a balanced budget with a previous year's surplus, which included the fully-banked amount of the sale of the city-owned Uptown property, PLUS UNDER-budget expenses...or OVER-budget revenues, if you prefer...
...and they promptly proceeded to spend us into a hole...and then did it again the next year...and the next...officially VOTING to approve UNBALANCED budgets...
It looks to me as if the "challenge" this clowncil faces is if they can pull their heads out of their asses and not repeat their past bad practices...
Same circus just different clowns...
Post a Comment