For those interested in a quick hit update on the doings at last night's City Council meeting, this one's for you!
Last night the City Council, in a vote of 4 (Sweeney, DiPietro, Carey and Wsol) to 3 (Bach, Allegretti and Ryan), upheld the Mayor's veto of City Manager Hock's contract. We can't account for the apparent change of heart in Alderman Carey, but the PRU Crew approves. As we previously stated, the original contract offer was more than generous. We also believe it is in the City's best interest to make sure all payments to employees are contracted for properly. What we do not approve of is the foot-dragging irresponsibility of having let this issue languish for so long. Like it or not, that kind of irresponsibility creates instability throughout the internal workings of the City. And if controversy is added to the matter, undertaken in public discussions, multiply that instability by 100.
Also last night, despite the issue being, in our opinion, improperly listed under the Mayor's report -- because it is the City Manager's responsibility -- the issue of the vacant Finance and Budget Director position report and discussion was handled by the City Manager. We understand information about potential candidates to fill the vacancy will be given to the Mayor and City Council in the coming days. The PRU Crew is wondering if the City Manager, in hopes of cajoling our elected officials, is bringing them into the process to obtain their approval prior to his hiring a new Director of Finance -- perhaps particularly in relation to an employment contract. Otherwise, the PRU Crew is at a loss to explain what role the Mayor and Aldermen have in this process -- other than micromanagement of personnel issues by elected officials.
The O'Hare airport Resolution – Request for Supplemental Environmental Impact Study passed the Council with...we can't resist...flying colors. We're pleased this action didn't cost anything.
Also at last night's Council meeting, it was reported that there are a number of 1st ward residents concerned with a proposal by the Park Ridge Park District for the installation of cell towers at Northeast Park -- which we first discussed here. As we told one of our recent correspondents -- We fully understand the concerns expressed and strongly encourage people to make those concerns known to the PRRPD Board of Commissioners. We also understand that, while the Park District's budget is in reasonable financial shape, there are always spending pressures and unavoidable cost increases on units of local government, and we are open to ideas for ways in which those units of local government can generate revenue for the benefit of residents without attempting to increase property taxes. We hope people will keep an open mind on the subject of alternative revenue generation.
After last night's open meeting, the Council adjourned to closed session to to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employee(s), pursuant to 5 ILCS 120/2 ( c ) ( 1 ) -- but as we understand it, Park Ridge now has a new Chiefski! This time for the Park Ridge Fire Department. Our sources tell us congratulations go to Mr. Michael Zywanski, who will be leaving his current position as Deputy Fire Chief in Naperville, IL.
For our faithful PRU readers who take an interest in local school issues, and for any of you School Board hopefuls, the PRU Crew thinks you may find a recent report by the Chicago Tribune very interesting -- New ISAT lets kids pass with more wrong answers.
The above report comes on the heels of another Chicago Tribune article -- School days shrinking in Illinois.
The PRU Crew would be mighty pleased to hear the current School Board and candidate hopefuls discuss these issues and share their opinions.
Of course, the PRU Crew has opinions on both of these matters but we want to hear what the school district whizzes have to say about them first.
October 19, 2010
Tuesday Quick Hits!
Posted by ParkRidgeUnderground
Labels: Chicago Tribune, City Budget, City Hall, City Manager, O'Hare Airport Commission, Park Ridge - Niles District 64, Park Ridge Fire Dept., Park Ridge Park District
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
What happened with the community group funding?
Anon@1:31 --
It's a mystery. The City Manager's laptop computer refused to cooperate with his planned presentation, so the presentation apparently didn't take place.
We have no answer to what should be your next question.
Thanks.
I'm not sure what my next question should be. What should my next question be?
Anon@1:36 --
Why weren't supporting documents for the presentation provided in hard copy form to the Council and why weren't those documents also listed among the online supporting documents for last night's meeting?
See previous comment for answer.
lol... That's two questions!
Thanks again.
Any time.
PRU:
I missed those articles in the Trib. Your pointing them out is appreciated. I think dumbing down the tests is ridiculous but if they are cutting the number of days of instruction it makes perfect sense. Youre going to have to do something to make it easier for students to pass tests if you aren't going to teach them all they need to know.
I half expected you to talk aobout the coffee clutch d64 is planning for next week. Is the caucus out of business?
Cell Towers? What a joke. The Park District is selling off every park in town for a paltry sum. What a joke. Aren't they supposed to protect our parks and the wildlife in them?
Anon@3:43 --
You seem to have two concerns -- the paltry sum and environmental protection.
At what point does your opinion tip one way or another?
Is there any amount of money which you would accept as sufficiently beneficial to overlook any risk to wildlife? We're considering the issue of wildlife, for the moment, with a straight face.
Is your desire to protect wildlife sacrosanct beyond all consideration of cell tower construction and rental income, no matter the amount of revenue?
We've certainly taken a look at cell towers and do understand they are very big and unattractive. However, we're assuming the Park District isn't planning to sell the land upon which they'll sit, only lease it. Nor do we believe the Park District would accept construction of any towers in any parks smack dab in the middle of one of their playing fields.
So, the open spaces of the parks should be protected in that respect.
If the towers could be camouflaged, as our previous post on this topic suggests, would doing so ease the affront to your aesthetic sensibilities?
Anon@3:29 --
We don't have any issues with District 64 choosing to hold an informational coffee klatch for prospective Board candidates.
Our concern would be with the nature of the information they are providing, which we've reviewed and find somewhat unimpressive.
We have no idea if the General Caucus has called it quits, or not.
3:43 said - "The Park District is selling off every park in town."
Ummmm, no it isn't. It has not sold any park land but in fact has acquired land in the recent past. I am not sure yet which way I lean on the cell tower issue. My opinion depends on how unsightly the towers are, where exactly they are to be put in the park, and how much the district will get to rent the space for them. Plain untruths like the one above don't help the debate.
You say there is no wildlife in Northeast Park? Owls, fox, coyote, deer, rabits, hawks, squirrels and birds of all kind love that park!
The plan right now is to contruct 4towers in Northeast Park and 2 additional towers at South Park. The park district has put money above all else! What are they drinking over there. THAT IS NOT WHAT I WANT TO LOOK AT WHEN I DRINK MY MORNING COFFEE!!!!
Anon@5:08 --
No, what we offered was that we were treating the issue of wildlife with a straight face, for the moment.
We expect your next comment to address the questions we asked of you.
We are unaware of plans for more than one cell tower at any park. The site plans for both parks only indicate one tower per park. You can review those site plans on the City website under the calendar item for the next Planning and Zoning meeting.
With all these towers has anyone considered where they will fit the flood retention areas??
Anon@5:40 --
We again suggest for those who are interested, you can review the proposed site plans for all these towers on the City website under the calendar item for the next Planning and Zoning meeting.
The animals will survive. Whew!
But if you are so worried about them how about proposing a way the PRPD can make similar money without offending your sensibilities?
Here are a couple of small ideas: increase users fees elsewhere or hit those seniors up for an increase in dues at the Senior Center. (OK, cue that whining.)
The PRPD can't run on good looks alone!
Great question by 5:40. Ochromowicz was quoted in the PRH-A (10/7/10) referencing the detention proposal, saying "once the open space is gone or changed, it's done forever. It doesn't come back." Does that not hold true for cell towers too?
FireITQuarry --
We're now hoping third time's a charm --
The site plans for both parks can be reviewed on the City website under the calendar item for the next Planning and Zoning meeting.
Both plans contain the proposed location for all of these towers.
Additionally, neither Northeast nor South park have been part of the water retention discussions taking place between the City and the Park District.
The PRPD needs those cell towers so they can continue to award bonus payments to people for doing the job they were hired to do, or to pad a salary so pension benefits will be increased.
Anon@3:29 --
In answer to your earlier question -- the General Caucus of School Districts 64 & 207 filed a D-2 Pre-election Report on Oct. 18, 2010 at 11:28:20 AM, for the 2010 general election. It's a required filing that does not mean the Caucus will be active in the general election.
What that means is, they are still an active committee, in so far as filing with the Illinois State Board of Elections goes.
We do not know if they are, in fact, actively conducting their purpose: To support cndidates (sic) for the boards of education of school districts 64 & 207 endorsed by the general caucus of school districts 64 & 207.
This is not about A cell tower, but up to FOUR cell towers at Northeast....this is just the door opener. But if the PRPD wants to put towers at Northeast Park, it should be of concern to everyone around town who lives near a park, cuz if they are allowed to do it there, rest assured they will pop up at Northwest, Brickton, Jaycee, Southwest etc....even that cute little park on Ashland between Elm and Sibley. Maybe now we can get a lil' peek into the Park Ridge Baseball books and see the dire ( yawn ) financial straits the Park District is in.
OMG WTF --
If your information is correct, and four towers are planned for Northeast, or any other park, we would be opposed to such a plan.
However, we are skeptical of that information and hope it is not true.
As for Park Ridge Baseball -- they are an NFP affiliate of the PRRPD. We addressed that issue here
Apparently those who were supposed to be the taxpayer's watchdogs, while serving on the Park Board, failed to properly and thoroughly perform that task until Mr. Hunst came along.
OMG WTF...you're an idiot.
There is no plan for four towers at North East. Just one stealth pole, similar to what is already in place at South Park.
As for the other parks -- you are not very smart and not informed at all.
There is no need for coverage in those areas of town, so there is no one willing to pay to put a tower there. Your chicken little scenario is just not going to happen.
Also, how does this tie back to baseball, exactly?
So 9:19 does that mean there will now be two cell towers in South Park?
By the way how many cell antennas are on top of the Pickwick?
PRU- Thank you for the clarification regarding PR Baseball, I appreciate that info.
Anonymous@9:18....eff you too. The plan is for one tower with up to three more to follow, this is straight from the Park Board, albeit off the record, but from the Board none the less. Show up at the meeting on the 21st or the 26th to hear it for yourself, as it will be one of the first questions raised.
Apparently you have the inside track on the cell coverage areas of Park Ridge, and can assure the folks around the parks where towers will and won't be placed, hmmmmmmm you must be very smart and informed to speak with such certainty.......Jerk !
OMG WTF....
Straight from the Park Board? How? Where did this information come to you? Who told you exactly that the plan is for four more cell towers at Northeast Park?
Let us know which Park Board member is planning for that and at what meeting this was discussed.
I've been at the meetings and I can tell you the plan for more towers at northeast has never been discussed. In fact, if there was a need for another carrier at northeast, they would be able to co-locate on the ONE tower that is being built. There can be at least up to two more carriers that can co-locate on the ONE tower.
The reason I know there is no need for coverage in the other parks, is because the Park Board approached the cell phone carriers and asked where coverage was needed. South Park and Northeast were the answers. It was in the paper and on one of the blogs.
Yes, I'm the jerk, and you are the one spreading blatant lies in hopes that you can rally people to your cause.
10:09..this will be the second stealth tower at South Park. The first was put in place about 9-10 years ago.
Another Anon@10:33 unpublished --
We aren't going to allow the current discussion to be derailed.
Additionally, we aren't interested in bringing another blog's conversation on the subject here. If you aren't comfortable posting your comments there, that is your choice.
We previously stated our position on this subject and we have not changed our minds.
I'm reserving my thoughts on the towers until after the Planning and Zoning meeting and here the facts.
My knee jerk reaction is one of concern about our City or Park District or even School Board, seeking alternatives for collecting revenue in times of "economic challenges" seeming desperate, and not looking at the long term effects. I would just hate, 5 years from know hearing, "geeze maybe we shouldn't have done that".
Just a thought.
7:56 AM
I'm with you. I think reserving judgement is what we should do until everyone understands the full plan.
PRU,
Forgive me for being a little off the subject but I just read the link about Park Ridge baseball.
Do I have this right? There is a Watchdog screaming about charities not posting 990 tax returns on their websites, but when said Watchdog was in charge of overseeing the Park Ridge baseball nonprofit he didn't bother to even make sure the tax returns were getting filed? He didn't even ask for a copy of the 990?!!!!!!!!
Anon@1:19 --
That appears to be the case.
Unbelievable!!!!!!! What a hypocrite.
Anon@1:55 --
That appears to be the case.
Please clarify!! By Watchdog are you saying the owner of the other blog??
Anon@2:09 --
That appears to be the case.
We would prefer people keep the post subjects in mind, and not veer too far off topic.
Sorry about being off topic. It is just that this is the first I have heard of this! Perhaps you could make this a topic sometime in the future.
Cheers!
PRU, after the third suggestion, I actually did look at the specs for the new tower. I also called one of the PRRPD Commissioners and found out what the revenue will be.
Here is the truth: the 2 new towers, one in NE Park and one in South Park will look like big grey telephone poles. All the cell equipment is on the inside of the poles or in a box on the ground, not hanging off the top of the pole. Each pole will generate $24,000 per year in lease fees. Together with the current pole in South Park all three poles will bring in about $75,000 to offset PRRPD program costs.
If you want to see how it looks go check out the one that has been standing in South Park by the baseball diamond for years. You may say "There's been a cell tower in South Park for years?". . . . . exactly.
The really interesting bit is that all those who go to the Park District meeting tomorrow will be barking at the moon. This was all discussed, debated, and voted upon back in March, and contracts have been signed. There may be some recourse, for those interested, at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting where a varience can still be denied. But expecting debate at the Park District Board meeting is foolish. That ship has sailed.
Another reason the citizenry should pay attention to the local political happenings as they happen.
Post a Comment