City Council 12-20-2010 Video!

And a jolly good time was had by all, if you're a fan of clusterf#%&$!

The PRU Crew would like to point out that we strongly believe, on the issue of voting to appeal from the decision of the chair regarding his ruling on the motion to reconsider being out of order, the Council is in violation of the law.

In support of our belief, we offer --

Appeals that cannot be entertained

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised states that "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." Demeter's Manual recommends using the mnemonic devices F, T, R, L and J, O, D to remember that no appeals can be taken from the Chair's rulings which arise out of known Facts, evident Truths, established Rules or operative Laws, but can be taken only from rulings which are based on his personal Judgment, Opinion or Discretion.

The City's Zoning law, an established operative law, providing fact, truth and rule is unequivocally clear -

H. Limitations on denials

"No application for a variance which has been denied by the City Council or Zoning Board of Appeals shall be reconsidered for a period of one (1) year from that date of denial."

And we note the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. We also note the City Council's lack of understanding the necessary fine point of the language denying an application versus preventing applicants from coming before the public body more than once in a given year. It is reasonable to deny repetition of specific applications while allowing applicants to submit as many different applications before the public body as he or she can possibly muster.

So gentlemen of the City Council, if you are going to cite and follow the rules provided for by Robert's Rules of Order and the City's laws, then it appears you've once again screwed the legal pooch.

Bah Humbug Grab Bag!

The PRU Crew is in a bad mood. Sorry. Not really.


For our faithful PRU readers who look forward to viewing the City Council meeting videos, it appears you may have to wait longer than usual. The City did manage, after 48 hours, to post a 3 minute video of the Special City Council meeting -- aren't they all? -- from Monday night, but hasn't managed to post the video of the regular City Council meeting as of 10:00 AM this morning. We may have thought somebody would get a clue and realize that 3 video views in 24 hours means people aren't very interested in what's been made available, and are instead waiting for something more substantive than the Council rubber stamping approval of the tax levy. Apparently not.

The PRU Crew is wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the delay.


For our faithful PRU readers who thought there was any hope of city officials getting the message through your majority votes on referendums, guess again. As covered in an online article by one of the local rags, we learn "no" does not mean "no." Just ask the O'Hare Airport Commission people -- they'll explain it!

And remember, way back when, we explained why Police Dept. brass was willing to keep on keepin' on with "the golden fleece boy, who answered the siren's call - hi there, Hoopty Lou, how's it going in traffic? - [who] can be kept safe for future use as a PRPD pitchman; there are not too many coppers with the ability to speak and write impressive sounding bullshit as well as Hoopty Lou can."

A new proposal for renovation and expansion of the Park Ridge Police Dept. was offered for review at the City Council's budget workshop on Tuesday night. And the PRU Crew now understands very well why no supporting documents were included on the City website for review prior to the meeting.

The PRU Crew is again wondering if any of the people posing as our representatives in local government have bothered to inquire about the lack of supporting documents being made available for public review -- and the limited demands of the law should not be an acceptable excuse.


Covered in another online article in one of the local rags is the anatomy of a travesty. While the PRU Crew more than understands the legal questions, as well as the risk of precedence, we cannot get past how thoroughly and completely the City process screwed the Vine Ave. residents.

We don't know what the answer is, but we know we haven't heard it yet. And we strongly encourage the City Council and staff to find a way to make those residents whole. What has happened to them, throughout this saga, is unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen again.


Finally, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board will be meeting tonight (agenda .pdf). They are scheduled to go into closed session, which is expected to last a very very very long time. We hope the discussion includes talking really really really bad about these people!!!

In all seriousness, we wish calm heads and reasoned consideration for the Park Board as they contend with the task ahead -- it's certainly a loss, but not the end of the PRRPD world as we know it.

Good luck.

Mayor Schmidt -- Email -- Budget Hearings

From: Dave Schmidt
To: supporters@electdaveschmidt.com
Subject: Budget hearings

I wanted to let you all know that we will be starting budget discussions much earlier this year. The first session will take place this coming Tuesday, December 14, beginning at 7pm at City Hall. The first session will involve a capital budget review, an overview of goals and priorities and a review of revenue projections. The next scheduled meeting is January 31 when the actual budget booklet will be distributed to the Council. However, it is entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there will be one or more additional meetings between those dates.

Last year's budget hearings we by far the best-attended in any one's memory. Although I obviously was not satisfied with the final product, I was pleased that there was so much resident involvement. I strongly believe that it has an impact, and I encourage residents to participate again this year. I hope to see you Tuesday.
(sic)

Comments In the Spotlight

Under our post yesterday, one Ken Hubbs remarked --

"Did anyone see the Spokesman? Is the Mayoral opinion piece a message to the community or a campaign 2011 mail piece? He goes way beyond discussing the issues at hand and lays direct blame at the feet of the Council. He cites three separate issues and then goes on to heap blame directly on “The Council”. I’ve seen previous Mayors use the Spokesman before as a tool to disseminate information on issues. I’ve even seen the prior Mayor use it as a tool to pursue his political spin on various issues. However not even he ever used this publically funded mail piece to directly attack other elected officials."(sic)

For those who may have missed the latest issue of the Spokesman, and the particular Mayoral message being discussed, here you go --



A further exchange took place later --

Anonymous said...

"Hubbs,

You can call it "blame," but each thing Schmidt said the Council did is what the Council did. That would make it fact. Do you have something against facts?"

December 7, 2010 9:03 AM

Ken Hubbs said...

"No I have something with people using taxpayer funded resources for political purposes. What happened may be fact, but the implied reason is opinion."

December 7, 2010 11:25 AM

The PRU Crew felt our faithful PRU readers may wish to review what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg had to say about the use of taxpayer dollars and resources for the promotion of political agendas, in a discussion regarding Veterans, PBS, and Bill Moyers, back when Mayor Schmidtzkrieg was still just a lowly Alderdunce --

"I do not relish the thought of my tax money going to fund someone like Moyers so that he can despouse his agenda on my dime. And that, my friend, is my fair and balanced view."(sic)

As for the PRU Crew, we're wondering if Mayor Schmidtzkrieg still believes "The Spokesman provides a service which is a cost-effective way of distributing information to the citizens," given his statements about the City of Park Ridge being on the "brink of financial disaster" and his repeated professions of his preference for "fiscal conservatism" and only spending on "essential City services."

Is the Spokesman an essential City service?

Are You Paying Attention?

The PRU Crew and all our faithful PRU readers should, by now, have come out of our Thanksgiving turkey comas.

If you have been paying attention, then you know there's a City Council meeting tonight, at City Hall, beginning at 7:30 pm.

And if you have really really really been paying attention, then you also know the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the residents of Park Ridge be spared the blight of non-conforming signs.

However, P&Z Commissioners Arrigoni, Piche, Wells and Rifkind believe it is in the best interest of the Park Ridge community to allow a 70% increase in density (8 additional units over the zoning code limit of 12 units for this "high density" district) for the proposed Hoffman Homes condominium development at 1963-1975 W. Touhy Ave., and have recommended the City Council grant a special use for the 3-story, 20-unit condominium development. Did we also mention the allowances for additional lot coverage and decreased set-backs? Flooding, schmudding.

The PRU Crew takes particular note of Commissioner Rifkind's observation of the economics involved -- we must have missed the part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's mandate to ensure economic benefit to developers who ask for lots of extras.

Of course, when developers come asking for extras, they offer amenities to the community from which they are asking for those extras. What will Park Ridge be getting? Affordable housing units.

Be still our beating, bleeding hearts!

Nobody saw this one coming, right? Oh. That's right. We did.

The rest of tonight's City Council agenda should be entertaining, as well -- included under the action items for the Finance & Budget Committee is a "First reading for approval of December 2010 Property Tax Levy – For the Budget Beginning May 1, 2010 and Ending April 30, 2011." B.O.H.I.C.A.!!!

They'll Be Discussing Our Mooney Again!

The City Council will be holding another COW (committee of the whole) meeting tonight, after a special 10 minute Council meeting (.pdf) to discuss the appointment of the City's new Director of Finance!

As usual, the COW agenda (.pdf) includes some items of interest -- the PRU Crew is looking forward to the discussion of the Financial Report (.pdf). Over all, it doesn't look too bad, and the Mayor's concerns for some of the revenue streams appear to not be as nearly doomy and gloomy as he feared. However, we would like to hear an explanation for the increased legal counsel expenses -- we're wondering if the increase has anything to do with the City appearing to have lost the case against the Napleton rezoning, a change initiated by the City Council and supported by the Mayor, which you can get a flavor for here (.pdf - page 2).

The Procedures and Regulations portion of the meeting will cover topics ranging from expanding the "occupancy limit" (.pdf) for the Youth Commission to consideration of restrictions on occupancy limits for residences (.pdf). The PRU Crew is very interested in hearing the discussion about who gets the honor of hiring City Department Heads (.pdf). So far it looks as if the City of Park Ridge will continue to operate under a City Manager form of government. So far.

City Council 11-15-2010 Video!

For our faithful PRU readers who've got a couple hours to kill.

The PRU Crew believes the Mayor's pre-ramble, before his remarks about his veto of the amended and then suspended facade improvement program, was a disclosure of some kind. We get the impression the Mayor found the matter pesky. However, we were pleased to hear the Mayor treat the veto subject as he did, though we are wondering why the Mayor chose not to issue his traditional email blast to supporters explaining his reasons for exercising his veto authority. We hope the City Council will choose to moooooves forward accordingly -- allow for the completion of the last remaining facade reimbursement agreement and reject any further applications, then fully suspend the program. We also hope that should any future Council choose to reinstate the program, they also demand a financial accounting to support the claims on which the program is predicated.

As for the discussion of the PROAC recommendations to retain the Taber Law Group for consulting on fighting O'Hare expansion, the PRU Crew found Commission Chairman Sue Perschke's offerings very entertaining. Where the former chairman had nearly perfected the damsel in distress approach, we find Ms. Perschke's baffle them with bullshit approach rather refreshing!

Two PRUdos are due!

The first goes out to City Manager Jim Hock for his ~~THUD!!!~~HOLY WOW!!!~~ inducing comments opposing a request, by Uptown developer PRC Partners, to grant a zoning text amendment and special use to again allow the developer to lease space to a non-retail, non-sales tax generating business. Mid-America Real Estate Group, the partner in the PRC Partnership which is responsible for retail leasing, may want to read their own rather up-lifting Retail Review – Fall 2010 Newsletter, then study their own 2010 Retailer Demand Study, and get to work.

Our second PRUdo of the day goes to resident Ms. Pat Livensparger for so clearly pointing out that an appeals process of any kind, in this instance the Tree Preservation on Private Property ordinance, must include criteria on which an appeal may be based. Spot on, Ms. Livensparger!

Enjoy the show, people!

Ladies and Gentlemen! Boys and Girls!

c1899. Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress

The circus we've come to know as our Park Ridge City Council will be meeting tonight at City Hall. For our faithful PRU readers, interested in live entertainment, the show is set to begin at 7:30 PM.

Tonight's program (.pdf) features two acts which hold promise for providing special excitement!

First, Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to amaze the audience with another veto! This time Ringmaster Schmidt will attempt to make the City's amended and then suspended facade improvement program disappear! The PRU Crew has serious reservations about how this vanishing act will be conducted. And we are again hoping discerning consideration will win out over ham-fisted treatment of this budgetary issue, but we have our doubts.

The second act we are looking forward to is the discussion of the O’Hare Airport Commission's Recommendations regarding the Taber Law Group (.pdf). A friendly correspondent worded concerns surrounding this issue as --

First we will get, and I quote, "a strongly worded letter with this presentation to the FAA," which it is anticipated will not work.

Then we will get Mr. Taber to, and I quote, "select these experts [for "air quality and noise impacts" studies] based on his substantial experience with EIS law and science and Mr. Taber's firm would also outline the scope of work." And presumably, since Mr. Taber will be researching various avenues for funding these studies, Mr. Taber's fee does not include the costs of these experts and these studies. What is the ballpark/range of such experts and studies and why, exactly, do we need Mr. Taber to select these experts, why shouldn't the members of the OAC be doing this research? After all, they were able to dig up Mr. Taber.

Then finally we will again have Mr. Taber, and I quote, "submit another letter to the FAA, again requesting a supplemental EIS based on "significant" new information." I presume this letter too will be "strongly worded."

So, for the nice tidy sum of $8,987.50 the actual work product Mr. Taber, himself, will be producing for the city of Park Ridge is two letters to the FAA requesting a supplemental EIS study; $4,493.75 per "strongly worded" letter, the first of which it is presumed will fail in its' goal.

Though there is cold comfort in knowing that, for $8,987.50, the city will get two "strongly worded" letters to the FAA, which is a better return on investment than we got from "investing" $650K for a Peotone study.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls -- enjoy the circus!

City Council 11-3-10 video!

Some hair of the dog for your viewing displeasure!

Hump Day Post-election Hangover?

We hope our faithful PRU readers are recovering from any post-election hangovers. However, for those who believe in the hair of the dog cure, we suggest giving the City Council some of your time and attention this evening.

What passes for our local representative government will be meeting tonight at City Hall, beginning at 7:30 PM.

The revised agenda (.pdf) isn't as jammed with entertaining possibilities as usual, but there are some important topics under consideration. Supporting documents for tonight's meeting are available on the City website, here.

COW 10-25-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers! It was one helluva long meeting, but we strongly encourage people to make the time to view the video.

Mr. Mayor, you come off like a jackass on a handful of issues. The 6th ward's Ald. Tom Carey kicked your backside on the topic of the City Manager's contract -- for a figuratively blind, squirrely guy, on rare occasions Carey's flush with nuts! And the PRU Crew thought Procedures and Regulations' Chairman Allegretti acted fairly in his recall of events surrounding severance payments.

The PRU Crew was pretty pleased with the general discussion and vote on the issue of the Facade Improvement Program and we look forward to the Council's future action -- we hope we aren't speaking too soon.

As far as the Taste of Park Ridge discussion is concerned, we were again almost taken in by the warm and fuzzy effervescent spewing. But we've now gotten a look at TOPR's 990 tax return. We've taken a good long look at their expenses, we've listened to their statements about the need to maintain a "rainy day fund," and we are more than certain it's now time for the Taste of Park Ridge, Inc. to reimburse the City for costs, gentlemen! We'll have more to say on this subject in a future posting.

PRUdos go to City Manager Jim Hock for what 7th ward Ald. Wsol described as "thinking out of the box." Despite Ald. Wsol's negative approach, we hope the Council will seriously entertain City Manager Hock's funding idea for Community Groups.

Mayor Schmidt's attempt to appeal to the ids, egos, and superegos of the Aldermen, on the subject of appointment authority for department heads, was laughable in its' transparency. Suuure, Mr. Mayor --the PRU Crew is suuure your intention is to secure the voice of the City Council by suggesting they should consider whether or not they "have a say" in the appointment process of City staff below the level of City Manager. The PRU Crew is also pretty sure it would be pretty convenient for the Mayor if that "voice" were filtered through his involvement in the process of appointing individual department heads -- an authority goal long dreamed of by his predecessor. Given the performance of the Mayor on the contract issue of the already appointed City Manager, we're going with the 2nd ward's Ald. DiPietro in agreeing, "the City Manager should manage," and any conflict in the language of article 3 should be "cleaned up" and clarified to allow the City manager to manage. Or we may be inclined to begin referring to Mayor Schmidtzkrieg as Mayor Schmidtstain -- we briefly considered using "Mayor Small Fri--," but we liked the sound of "Schmidtstain" better. Elected officials with the ability of bestowing employment on department heads is a recipe for patronage disaster -- and that's not just your average Schmidstain mess, that's 7 square miles full of manure!

Finally, PRUdos to the 5th ward's Alderman Ryan -- your suggesting the City review the process by which residential improvements are approved, especially as they pertain to land grades and drainage, is timely. We've heard about a number of problems with the City's inability to address residential engineering and construction issues, and it's about damn time the problems were addressed.

Tuesday Quick Hits!

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.

Another Happy COWlumbus Day!

From fun to collect.com

Well faithful PRU readers, it looks as if the City is staying with the posted agendas for tonight's City Council meetings, and not adding more supporting documents for your reading displeasure!

First up is a Special City Council meeting -- aren't they all? -- beginning at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. The agenda (.pdf) includes the following --

O’HARE COMMISSION REFERENDUM INFORMATION
a. Should the City of Park Ridge disseminate information to the Park Ridge residents?
b. If so, what information should be provided to the residents?
c. How should the information be disseminated?
d. How much should the City spend to disseminate the information?

The PRU Crew cannot wait to hear more about how the residents of Park Ridge need to be edumacated on the issue of O'Hare Airport and the referendum question which will appear on the November election ballot. Because, according to the current PROAC chairman, people in Park Ridge are confused, very confused, by the referendum question.

"Shall the City of Park Ridge allocate funding in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to seek expanded and accelerated noise abatement solutions intended to address the negative impacts of O'Hare airport's expansion on residential property values, local schools and the overall quality of life in our community"

Clearly, the question is quite a referendum riddle!

Should the City Council vote to approve funds for a direct mail piece, to edumacate residents, we can all just think of it as a tuition payment. And should the City find itself incurring attorney's fees as a result of any legal challenge, we can all just think of it as another tuition payment for earning our collective post secondary education -- the education we seem to collectively continue to need, post Peotone fiasco.

Also scheduled for this evening is another COWlumbus Day City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, set to begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. The revised agenda (.pdf) is filled with fodder for all manner of municipal fun!

The PRU Crew is looking forward to a number of expected discussions. But we are gratified to see the Council will finally have an opportunity to address the City's Facade Improvement program (.pdf), which we first mentioned more than a year ago and have continued to mention as being something of which we disapprove -- not only because we find the basis for the program highly questionable, but also because the current expenditure will be coming out of the City's TIF fund, which has relied heavily upon loans from the City's General fund to stay afloat. What this means for residents outside the TIF district is, not only are taxpayers subsidizing the Uptown development directly, but also providing subsidies to other commercial properties in the TIF district, beyond merely the redevelopment project alone, while incurring higher property taxes outside the TIF district and reduced City services, in general. We guess the facade improvement program didn't make Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's radar when he was blipping about non-essential expenditures.

However, the PRU Crew will be tempted the next time somebody says, "Park Ridge isn't friendly to business," to firmly plant a pair of Doc Martens up their ass.

All in, there's a wealth of issues scheduled for consideration this evening and we strongly encourage residents to pay close attention to what their elected representatives will be doing in their name.

What the PRU Crew finds most unfortunate is, under the best of circumstances, this Council can't seem to figure their way out of the proverbial paper bag -- with an agenda flush with consequential issues, the odds are pretty good these guys will screw something up.

Freewheeling -- Looking Down The Road!

For our faithful PRU readers who take an interest in local political doings, the PRU Crew is wondering if anyone has given any thought to what should happen in the event a certain 6th Ward Alderman locates his conscience and resigns his position.

The PRU Crew hasn't researched the issue and so we remain unaware of how or if it may be possible to remove an Alderman from office in the event of an ethics violation. We also remain uncertain about the outcome of any current ethics investigation. Though, it sure is odd that no disclosure evidence has been quickly produced in support of the claim by 6th Ward Alderman Tom Carey that, approximately 4 years ago, he specifically disclosed the $5million economic relationship between his employer, Patrick Engineering, and the City of Chicago's O'Hare Modernization Program.

However, we have seen evidence that not only should Mr. Carey have been aware of the specific OMP economic relationship, but also that Mr. Carey was Patrick Engineering's registered attendee at a City of Chicago's Department of Procurement Service's pre-bid conference -- we are unclear about when the conference took place or for what pre-bid procurement purpose Mr. Carey participated.


Click on image for larger view

In any case, Mr. Carey was more than well aware of at least Patrick Engineering's general economic relationship interest with the City of Chicago.

The PRU Crew will admit to being profoundly stunned to find out in the end that Ald. Carey may have so blatantly lied to the public, on video tape, at a City Council meeting. If so, the only remaining question for us will be whether the man is a complete fool or an unmitigated idiot.

For our part, we see issues that go well beyond the narrow concerns some 6th Ward residents and the rest of the community may have regarding O'Hare expansion. The job of Alderman demands a more expansive view of public policy considerations and a deeper understanding of democratic processes than we've recently witnessed from our current crop of Alderdopes and the Mayor.

Beyond the issue of O'Hare, fast approaching is the time when the City Council will again take up budget planning for the next fiscal year. God help us all! The Mayor and City Council just recently completed finalizing some details from the last round of the fiscal budget fun!

The City Council can ill afford another unprepared, know-nothing representative voting on public policy. And keep in mind who will have the authority to appoint a replacement, with the advice and consent of the City Council, should an aldermanic vacancy occur.

We're also wondering if anyone in the 3rd, 5th, and 6th Wards will be picking up an election packet from the City Clerk's office for the upcoming aldermanic elections in the Spring. Election packets, only one each, have been taken for the upcoming races in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th Wards.

Things to think about, if you're looking down the road.

City Council Meeting 9-20-2010 Video!

More theater of the absurd for your viewing pleasure!

Another Two-fer Tuesday!

#1 -- For our faithful PRU readers interested in a mini recap of last night's City Council meeting, we provided the following in response to a comment request --

Alright -- per our sources --

The various proclamations were well received.

Anne Lunde's history presentation was the answer for those seeking non-pharmaceutical sleep aids.

The City Attorney recommended the Council take action to approve the severance contracts or the City could be open to litigation. The Council seemed pissed off.

The City Manager's contract was approved by a vote of 4 (Bach, Allegretti, Ryan, Carey) to 3 (Wsol, Sweeney, DiPietro).

More than ever, there is no love being lost between Mayor Schmidtzkrieg and Benedict Alderman Ryan.

The Pickwick theater received a unanimous vote for landmark designation, becoming the first historic building to receive the designation under the new historic preservation ordinance.

Discussion of the Taber report about the airport was deferred.

The Mayor's veto of community group contributions received sustaining votes on all but three line items -- Center of Concern, Maine Center for Mental Health, and Meals on Wheels.

We told ya so, Schmidtzkrieg!

We're also told, under new business a certain Unfriendly Ghost attempted to make ethics ordinance amends by finally disclosing a $5million economic relationship his engineering firm has with the O'Hare Modernization Program.

The fun never ends at 505 Butler Place!



#2 -- Speaking of airport noise mitigation efforts, the Tree Preservation Task Force will be meeting again tonight at 6:00 PM to go over a revised version (.pdf) of the private property tree preservation ordinance they intend to forward to the City Council for consideration.

The PRU Crew noticed in the minutes from the last meeting (.pdf) a curious little blurb --

III. NEW BUSINESS

A. Director Zingsheim handed out a memo he received from City Forester Gliot regarding parkway trees, stating that he was distributing it solely as a courtesy for the Committee to have the information. Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland, said that it shouldn’t be given out, as it was not the agenda. Director Zingsheim replied that although he disagreed with her about it being required on the agenda, he would collect the memo back from the Committee members. (Note: City Attorney Hill has verified that the distribution of the memo was not required to be on the agenda.)

As we understand it, the Task Force chairman invited the Public Works Director to pass out and discuss the memo before the Task Force Committee members.

In any event, we see the City Attorney has assured everyone that the courtesy offered to the Committee members was perfectly legit, despite the memo not having been listed among the supporting documents for the last meeting, nor placed on the agenda for distribution and possible discussion, and the Task Force chairman's apparent knowledge of the intended courtesy.

So the PRU Crew is wondering why the courtesy isn't being offered to the Task Force Committee at tonight's meeting?

City Council Meeting 9-7-2010 Video!

More detailed indexing to come --

Press Release from Mayor Schmidtzkrieg!

For your reading enjoyment --

Good afternoon-

Attached is the text of the message I delivered to the Council last night vetoing appropriations for community groups. Pursuant to state statute, the City Council will automatically debate overriding the vetoes at the next City Council meeting on September 20.

You will hear some claim that the vetoes were unnecessary and should be overridden because the total amount involved is a small percentage of our overall budget. That is nonsense. Every single dime we have available to us must be spent wisely and solely for the benefit of the taxpayers, not private organizations, nor anyone or anything else for that matter.

As I mentioned last night, the perceived nobility of the purpose does not change the fact that it is still an expenditure of public funds to private entities without any determination that an essential public need is being met through the expenditure. Wrongfully spending taxpayer funds because politicians determine the cause is "just" or the amount involved is "slight" does nothing to make it right.

More importantly, this issue is just part of the bigger picture which involves defining the role of the city government and ensuring that we finally get our fiscal house in order lest we end up in the same financial condition as the State.

This is a public debate. I encourage everyone, regardless of their opinion, to let the aldermen know and me how you feel and to attend the September 20 meeting if you can.

-Dave

Mayoral Veto 09072010

For our part, the PRU Crew is getting the idea that Mayor Schmidtzkrieg has developed a political tin ear.

Hump Day PRU Briefs!

#1 -- Calling All Grubbers!

For those of you who like to treat yourselves to some good grub, you can do so and help out a good cause!

Despite notions to the contrary, one of our local service agencies has begun another fundraising effort --

Restaurant Rewards Center of Concern

Eat hearty!



#2 -- Thank You, Sir! May We Have Another!

In case our faithful PRU readers missed it at the August 23rd COW meeting, our Aldermopes discussed the possibility of what government officials amusingly like to call Modifications to the ordinance governing business license fees. For those of you new to government-speak, modifications to fees usually translates to mean increases in fees.

In keeping with what has become a tradition with the current crop of Aldermopes, action on the item was deferred in deference to getting feedback from the business community.

According to a press release on the City's spanky new website, "The Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole will discuss the proposed increase again at their September 27, 2010 meeting."

The PRU Crew is gong to go out on a limb and speculate that the feedback from the business community will be something along the lines of, "The economy stinks! We're generating less sales! We're generating less in sales tax! So now you want to hit us with higher fees!?!? Thank you, sir! May we have another!?!?"

The PRU Crew could go either way on this issue -- except -- we find some of the spending decisions, voted on by a majority of our Aldermopes so far, negates their ability to reasonably persuade anyone of the absolute necessity for these increases.

And while the last page of the memo provides a nice comparison of Park Ridge fees to those in some fo the surrounding communities, we feel our Aldermopes should keep in mind the size of the Park Ridge market in which these businesses operate.



#3 -- Wanna Buy A House?

According to information contained on the Crook County Treasurer's website, today is the last day to pay delinquent 2008 tax bills or the property will be included in the Treasurer's upcoming 2008 Annual Tax Sale.

The purpose of the tax sale is to garner the unpaid taxes and return the properties to the participating tax roles.

The PRU Crew hasn't done anything close to a comprehensive review of properties in Park Ridge at risk of having their taxes sold due to non-payment. But we know of one in particular. Wanna buy a house? It looks like a nice house --

And according to other information on the Crook County Treasurer's website, the 1st installment taxes for 2009 haven't been paid either.

We sense a trend occurring for Property Index Number (PIN): 09-27-414-018-0000.

When IS It Time To Panic?

Toward the end of the comments section of our Thursday post, we suggested the first quarter revenue reports for this fiscal year should not be a cause for financial management panic.

Which begs the question -- when do we think we may be inclined to panic?

Short answer -- by the end of the third week in December.

Eight months of the City's fiscal year will have elapsed by that point in time. The shopping season will have been well underway and coming to a close. Some new businesses will be open and operating, possibly providing that hoped-for uptick in local sales taxes. The second installment property tax bills should have been sent out by the shitsqueaks working in Crook County by then. And we will have eight months worth of expenses and revenues to look at, and the ability to gauge the City's financial picture much better.

If expenses have risen sharply and revenues have taken a corresponding dive, then we are going to panic.

We will also be frantically paging through the City budget to see what if any expenses can be eliminated in the fourth and final quarter of the fiscal year so as to avoid another abysmal year of big budget deficits.

You may recognize our panic because we will be the people who've pulled Christmas stockings down over our faces while mainlining some liquid holiday cheer.