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.

City Council 12-6-2010 Video!

For the viewing displeasure of our faithful PRU readers!

We suggest viewers pay special attention to the discussion of the vote to override the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program, which begins @ the 0:23:13 mark of the video. It would seem Mayor Schmidtzkrieg may have made a new frenemy!

Residents Mr. Declan Stapleton and Mr. Ed Berry, of O'Reilly's Public House fame, address the Council beginning @ 0:24:00 mark of the video. And the PRU Crew feels it's very sad how little understanding Mr. Stapleton has not only for general municipal accounting practices, but also that Mr. Stapleton has less than zero understanding of TIF district financing in general, or the Uptown Redevelopment TIF district, specifically.

And despite the PRU Crew's strong suspicions that the Council doesn't understand either municipal accounting or TIF district financing much better than Mr. Stapleton, they somehow managed to vote to sustain the Mayor's veto of the amended and suspended Facade Improvement Program -- which they plan to discuss and amend again at the December 20th Council meeting.

Under Citizens Wishing to Address the Council on Non-agenda items, we hope people will give consideration to the remarks offered by resident and local builder, Mr. Rob Lohens, begining @ 1:14:02 mark of the video. Unfortunately, while Mr. Lohens' comments on public employee salaries and pensions have much merit, his grasp of the Crook County property assessments and the property tax system is lacking.

For others who may not quite get how the whole mess currently works -- as simply as we can state the matter -- property value assessments are created for the purpose of apportioning shares of the property tax burden, within any given taxing district. You can have your property tax assessment reduced and you still may end up paying as much or more in actual property tax dollars. Why? Because until the local taxing bodies actually reduce the tax levies -- the actual total dollars they ask for from the taxpayer pool -- taxes will generally continue to remain the same or rise. Place your bets, people!

Thus concludes our PRU civics lesson for today.

The discussion of the proposed Hoffman Homes project, as recommended to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission, begins @ 1:20:51 mark of the video. And we found the discussion of affordable...er...no...make that, attainable housing very entertaining.

The Aldermen voted 3-yes (Sweeney, Bach and Allegretti) to 3-no (DiPietro, Ryan and Wsol) on the matter. Mayor Schmidtzkrieg attempted to break the tie by voting "no," but the City Attorney advised him his vote was not necessary as a tie vote means the request for approval of the special use dies for lack of receiving a majority.

The project developer, Mr. Hassinger, then took the opportunity to let the Council know he would not be back with a new application. So there!

Enjoy the rest of the show!

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.!!!

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.

C.O.W. PS/PW/PR 4-12-2010 -- Video!

Begins with the usual opening ceremonies.

@ :39 mark -- Citizens who wish to address the Council on non-agenda items -- Resident Andrew Schwartz comments on the city budget.

@ 2:18 mark -- Mayor Schmidt comments on Polish plane crash and the lowering of the City flag to half mast.

@ 3:54 mark -- Public Works begins with discussion and action on forestry appeal for a tree removal.

@20:07 mark -- Discussion and action on custodial cleaning contract for City Hall begins.

@21:19 mark -- Discussion and action on IDOT resolution begins.

@21:52 mark -- Public Works discussion items begin with discussion of parking issues on Busse Hwy.

@45:04 mark -- Discussion of referendum question regarding funding of sewer relief work begins.

@59:36 mark -- Director of Public Works Spring Season Update begins.

@ 1 hour mark -- Public Safety begins with various reports from Chiefski.

@ 1:17:33 mark -- Fire Chief has no report and Public Safety discussions end.

@ 1:17:50 mark -- Procedures and Regulations begins with discussion and action on modification to the liquor ordinance -- several residents address the Council and the Crew hears a lot of the same statements being made in favor of the Irish Pub as were made in favor of Uncle Dan's, may that business R.I.P. But the Crew admits to looking forward to throwing back a few black and tans when the Irish Pub opens.

@ 1:51:24 mark -- And we quote the 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost, "There needs to be a synergy and if this is the fulcrum of the genesis of the type of establishments we will be supportive of in the future, I believe that there needs to be a synergistic center in which these establishments can feed off of one another." And the PRU Crew is very pleased to hear the 6th ward's Unfriendly Ghost offer this type of quotational specificity. We got a big kick out of it! We thought about offering an equally syllabically laiden push back, but we're still too busy laughing!

@ 2:15:35 mark -- Discussion and action begins on TIF/Intergovernmental agreement, as Mayor Schmidt exits the Chamber, we assume in part, to congratulate the Irish Pub owners and perhaps plan another social rendezvous with the Irish Pub owners before the next Council meeting on this issue?

@ 2:23:37 mark -- Discussion and action begins on Zoning Text Amendment to supermajority voting.

@ 2:27:31 mark -- Residents begin addressing the Council.

@ 2:31:10 mark -- We sincerely offer PRUdos to Alderman Don Bach. Thank you Alderman Bach for your clarity, honesty, and candor on this issue. This moment may rank as your finest in your public service effort to date.

@ 2:38:53 mark -- Procedures and Regulations ends.

@ 2:39:15 mark -- Mayor Schmidt resumes the COW chair.

@ 2:39:22 mark and 2:39:53 mark -- City Manager Hock requests closed sessions.

@ 2:40:31 mark -- New Business begins and includes discussion of Thursday night's budget hearing, supporting budget documents available on the City's website, and other budget related matters.

@ 2:46:50 mark -- Move to adjourn to closed session.

We Recommend --

Lifted from salon.com/story

For those of you paying attention to City Council antics, you'll want to stock-up on some good old fashioned lubrication in preparation for the screwing you're likely to get this week from your representatives -- we use the term really really really loosely.

Tonight's City Council COW agenda (.pdf) is set to cover topics under Public Safety, Public Works and Procedures and Regulations.

Topics to be covered under Procedures and Regulations look to be particularly entertaining.

Once again it appears the 4th ward's Alderman James Allspaghetti has taken some liberty in clarifying the cover memorandum submitted for public review by the City Attorney -- Here's a link to the original cover memorandum and here's a link to the revised cover memorandum regarding Supermajority voting to override denials by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The revised language reads --

Alderman Allegretti states that this change is only directed at the ordinance adopted November 16, 2009, which he believes misstated the intent of the Council by requiring 6 votes instead of 5 votes as intended.

Our faithful PRU readers can review the videos of the November 16, 2009 meeting here -- the subject of supermajority voting is covered in videos #3, #4, and #5. So how about it PRU readers, do you think after talking the issue of supermajority voting to death, to borrow a phrase Ald. Allspaghetti so often likes to use, can any of the Aldermorons claim to not have been clear on what they were voting for or against?

And as everyone should understand by now, the only reason this issue has come up again is because Ald. Allspaghetti is doing his incompetent best to see to it Park Ridge has the privilege of billboards being erected within our borders. And in light of the legal cites and legal history surrounding the issues of billboards, zoning and fees -- the only question remaining is what exactly is in this for Aldermoron Allspaghetti, personally, because this guy has never worked this hard for any other single piece of City legislation in his entire term in office.

Also under Procedures and Regulations is a cover memorandum (.pdf) from City Manager Jim Hock discussing the District 207 Board of Education's proposal to add nominal interest to the deferred TIF payment from the City of Park Ridge -- and as we bantered back and forth in the comments on this post, it does indeed appear the discussion between the City Manager and the Board was, in fact, interesting.

Hopefully, the videos from tonight's meeting will be available for review at some point in the future!

Reminders!

Reminder #1 -- If you're up for bearing witness to another municipal mad COW meeting, you can do so tonight, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall! The revised agenda (.pdf) promises something for everyone -- if the something you're into is Public Works, Finance and Budget, or Procedures and Regulations.

The PRU Crew enjoyed reading the two, count 'em!, TWO cover memos concerning supermajority voting! We've downloaded copies of both should something funny happen to either one of them. And we can't wait to hear the twisted explanations about why a change to a zoning ordinance isn't a change, it's just correction of a "drafting error," despite the lengthy discussions and vote which took place on the original supermajority zoning ordinance.


Reminder #2 -- Public policy is never about a politician, public policy is about the public. So the Crew got a big kick out of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's personal email to personally appeal to his supporters for their personal support of him, personally.

From: Dave Schmidt dave@parkridgemayor.com
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM
Subject: Attempt to diminish mayoral powers
To: supporters(at)electdaveschmidt

Amidst the very real problems associated with the budget, another danger is lurking beneath the surface that you should be aware of.

You may recall Alderman Allegretti was pushing a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow billboards in Park Ridge. It first went to the Planning and Zoning Commission which voted unanimously against the billboard amendment. Meanwhile, Alderman Bach pushed through a change in the zoning ordinance allowing the City Council to override the Commission by a supermajority vote. However, to the chagrin of Aldermen Bach and Allegretti, when the billboard issue made it the Council, the City Attorney correctly interpreted the term"supermajority" to be two-thirds of the aldermen AND the mayor, meaning 3 "no" votes for an override would be enough to sustain the Commission's rejection of billboards.

Knowing that two aldermen and I had expressed opposition to the billboard ordinance, Alderman Allegretti saw the writing on the wall and withdrew his billboard amendment. But he has found a new angle. Alderman Allegretti is the Chairman of the Procedures and Regulations. He went behind the scenes and asked the City Attorney to draft an amended city ordinance which would strip the mayor of his vote when a supermajority vote is required. Alderman Allegretti claims he is only"clarifying" the ordinance. The timing belies that claim.

If Alderman Allegretti gets his way, there is every possibility that the billboard issue will resurface, and that when the time comes for the Council to vote on whether to override the Commission, I would be forced to sit idly by while Alderman Allegretti and his Council allies maneuvered through a billboard amendment. And even more importantly, it would set a dangerous precedent where a group of only 4 men would be able to unilaterally make any and all zoning changes they desired, gutting the carefully balanced distribution of authority between the Commission, the Council and the mayor which has served this community well for many years.

The residents should be very concerned about this unwholesome attempt led by Alderman Allegretti and Alderman Bach to concentrate authorityamong a few aldermen. Please contact your aldermen and the newspapers to let them know how you feel about it. And also please pass this along to others. This is about more than just billboards. This is a major power play which is bad for our community. Thanks.

Not to rub anyone's nose in their own short-sighted stupidity, but isn't concentrating power in as few as 4 aldermorons' hands exactly what Mayor Schmidtzkrieg supported when he supported cutting the City Council from 14 to 7 aldermen?

Don't look now Mayor Schmidtzkrieg but we think that loud roaring sound behind you is the Karma Bus coming your way!


Reminder #3 -- Any man is only as good as his word, so when we heard Mayor Schmidtzkrieg promise not to take his $1,000 per month mayoral salary, we took him at his word. As it turned out, the law wouldn't allow the Mayor not to take his salary, but we expected Mayor Schmidtzkrieg would keep his word and find some way to return his salary for the benefit of the community.

As it also turns out a perfect opportunity to return that mayoral salary back to the community for community benefit has arisen in the form of Motionbox demanding payment for hosting meeting videos. It seems Motionbox's virtually unlimited storage has its limits. And Motionbox may be looking for payment as high as $6,000.00

The PRU Crew is wondering what the Mayor has done with his mayoral salary over the last year. We suppose buying ads in various ad books and buying tickets to attend various community events could be very generously characterized as returning his salary to the community for the benefit of the community. But we have to admit, self-promotion, paid for with tax dollars provided in the form of a mayoral salary, doesn't strike us as all that beneficial to the community.

Half Full or Half Empty?

Take a good look at the above picture of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg. Do you think the Mayor would tell you his head is half full of hair, or half empty?

The PRU Crew is guessing the Mayor would tell you his head is half full of hair. Because he's such a positive, optimistic and compromising guy.

The PRU Crew would tell Mayor Schmidtzkrieg he may want to wear a hat anyway. Because the part of his head that isn't half full of hair is going to freeze in the winter or get burned in the summer. The Crew's negative, pessimistic and uncompromising like that.

And because the Mayor is such a positive, optimistic and compromising guy, we suspect he will allow the sun to set today without issuing a veto of the changes to the process in the new Planning and Zoning ordinance. Like we said -- we're negative and pessimistic. We're also disappointed but we saw it coming when we read articles in both the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate ('Mayor mulls veto of zoning process change') and the Journal & Topics ('Council Has Final Word On Billboards') -- Nothing beats a positive, optimistic compromise like having everybodys' thought process disrupted!

Here's the PRU Crew's thought process --

Aldermen should not be promoting changes to the zoning ordinance on behalf of any individual seeker or special interest. Period. Council recommended zoning text and map amendments should be considered with a "global view" -- meaning, as to how any recommended changes would or could affect the entire community. Anything less is spot zoning on behalf of special interests. And that's bad government.

Aldermen who allow themselves to be used as tools -- and we don't mean that in any nice way, how you doin' Allspaghetti? -- by individual special interests are also allowing those special interests to circumvent the disclosure process. And that's really bad government.

Mayor Schmidtzkrieg has reportedly said the requirement for a super-majority vote to override denials by the Planning and Zoning Commission removes the incentive for individual special interests to seek a Council sponsor. And like we said earlier, Mayor Schmidtzkrieg would probably tell you his head is half full of hair too.

The PRU Crew is now wondering if the actual contents of the Mayor's head is half full...or half empty.

Big Bucks and Billboards, Baby!

By now, anyone paying attention to the issue of a proposed zoning change to allow billboards to be put up in Park Ridge has also heard 4th Ward Aldermope James Allspaghetti chant, "I did want the City Council to have the final say on it because it's a substantial amount of revenue."

"...it's a substantial amount of revenue...it's a substantial amount of revenue..." echo echo echo

According to an online article in the Herald-Advocate -- 'Zoning panel's message: Don't place your ad here' -- "Allegretti said the city stands to receive $400,000 if the billboards are installed, with another $200,000 to be paid over 20 years" despite the fact the article also reports, "There is no proposed, written agreement stating how much revenue the city would actually receive, said City Manager Jim Hock."

Ignoring for the moment Ald. Allspaghetti's dangling of dollars before the dolts on the City Council -- with very few exceptions, those amounts aren't chump change, until you take a closer look at those amounts in the context of the City budget and the proposed 20 year permit term.

Last Spring, the City Council reviewed and passed a City budget of nearly $50 million with a planned-for deficit of roughly $2 million. After the City Council planned to spend more money than it took in, the Aldermopes promptly got down to the task of further subsidizing water usage by refusing to pass along the full amount of water rate increases from the City of Chicago to Park Ridge water users. Then the Aldermopes really got serious about the budget, after voting for more water usage subsidies, by immediately voting to exceed the budgeted amounts of taxpayer dollars annually gifted to various community groups -- an amount that totals almost $250,000.00.

One thing we can say, nobody is ever going to accuse the members of the City Council of being "conservative to a fault," at least not where fiscal management comes in.

So now Ald. Allspaghetti is very very very concerned about opportunities to bring in revenue for the City of Park Ridge, and he believes a one-time payment of $400,000.00 is so important that the entire Planning and Zoning process for independent review of land use matters should be altered.

Here we suggest the English majors skip ahead --

Let's do the math: ($2,000,000.00) + $400,000.00 = ($1,600,000.00)

Looky there. After receiving a one-time payment of $400,000.00 to allow billboards in Park Ridge, the City budget -- assuming nothing else changes -- would still have a budget hole of $1.6 million. And we get these billboards for 20 years.

And brush pick-up will still have been eliminated. And Public Works employees will still have been laid off. And Park Ridge will still experience flooding. And the Park Ridge sewer system will still need major upgrades. And Park Ridge streets, curbs, and gutters will still be in disrepair. And the Aldermopes will still spend our tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Okay, we know what some of our faithful PRU readers may be thinking, "But PRU, what about the $200,000.00 over the next 20 years?" Okay, what about it? For an annual fee of $10,000.00 for billboards, fees that are supposed to cover annual inspection costs to the City, we're supposed to believe this billboard deal is some kind of good deal for Park Ridge, for the next 20 years?

We don't.

We don't feel Park Ridge's zoning ordinance should be for sale. We don't feel Park Ridge should be for sale. We used to feel it was bad enough when we thought City Hall was for sale. We would never have guessed we would be saying, "We miss those bad old days."

Try to enjoy the weekend.

The First Amendment and Billboards, Baby!

The PRU Crew has decided to cover the issue of billboards in Park Ridge with a slow and easy beginning. We will be attempting to address the many related issues over our next few posts.

Today we will be narrowly addressing the issues of billboard content and the First Amendment -- somebody may want to notify Park Ridge's Constitutional UNscholar, Ald. Don Bachtard.

For this week's edition of the Herald-Advocate, we're going to give PRUdos to our favorite local reporterette for coverage of the topics of billboards and the first amendment.

In Ms. Jennifer Johnson's article -- 'Officials mull how to keep control of billboards' content' -- we read, "If the Park Ridge City Council overturns the city's law prohibiting billboards it may have very little say about the type of advertisements that appear on them should the signs be erected along Interstate 294 as proposed.

City Attorney Everette "Buzz" Hill said that if the city changes its Zoning Ordinance to allow billboards, it cannot prohibit certain types of advertisements on the signs."

And there in lies the rub with the first amendment and free speech -- in short, if the speech is legal, then government must abide by "content neutral" standards in any attempt to regulate speech.

Ms. Johnson's article includes, "You're opening it up for a big gentlemen's-club sign at the entrance to Park Ridge," Planning and Zoning Commissioner Joe Baldi said last week."

Oh, Joe! Say it ain't so!

Oh, wait. Local zoning czar, Jack Owens, says it ain't so -- "Attorney Jack Owens, representing Joseph Loss and his company, Generation Group Inc., said his client's proposed billboards for Park Ridge would not contain any "salacious ads" or ads for adult entertainment.

"Generation Group includes in its legal arrangements with property owners that it will not advertise adult entertainment or any visual advertising of a salacious nature," Owens wrote in a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition the company "refuses to allow advertising for gentlemen's clubs, massage services, adult book store, sexual toys or DVDS," Owens wrote."

Phew! What a relief! No "gentlemen's clubs, massage services, adult book store, sexual toys or DVDS"

And in case anybody isn't familiar with "gentlemen's club" billboard advertising, here's what some of those billboards look like --

This photo accompanied another recent article in the Herald-Advocate


Hey! That's not nearly as steamy as we expected "gentlemen's club" billboards to be. We're not sure, but we just can't muster any real sense of offense at this billboard. "Gentlemen's clubs" are legal and this billboard is advertising a legal...uh...service?

Well, let's see what else is out there in the way of "gentlemen's club" billboard advertising.









Okay! That's more like it! Er, sorry -- what we meant to say is, yes, those are just terrible. Who wants to look at that while they're stuck in traffic.

Seriously, people -- while zoning czar Jack Owens and Commissioner Joe Baldi prattle on about billboard advertising for "gentlemen's clubs" and other advertising of an "adult nature," the PRU Crew is wondering if any of the following would be acceptable?

Better than an auto parts and tools calendar!


Your social conscience will be "lovin' it!"


It looks like liquor is quicker!





It's the real estate market that's gone cold!


Doctors, doing the work God forgot!


The ultimate in good hygiene!


Everybody hates lawyers, until they need one!


Don't forget what your mother said about underwear and accidents!




And borrowing a cue from Hustler Magazine, some for the ladies!





But rest assured people, zoning czar Jack Owens, attorney for Mr. Joseph Loss and Generation Group, Inc. promises "Generation Group includes in its legal arrangements with property owners that it will not advertise adult entertainment or any visual advertising of a salacious nature," Owens wrote in a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition the company "refuses to allow advertising for gentlemen's clubs, massage services, adult book store, sexual toys or DVDS."

Has anyone reviewed any of those "legal arrangements with property owners?"

What happens if and when Generation Group Inc. is sold to another company?

Addendum, for the searchers -- site map for proposed billboard locations (.pdf), last page of the Jack Owen's letter; note, Haeger Engineering's banner is conveniently placed over the homes along Manor Ln., and the site map does not include the residences to the north.

For those interested, you can view the Renaissance NW Highway LLC‎ property and the surrounding area through Google Maps.

PRCC Videos 11-16-09!

As always, we thank our faithful PRU readers for your patience. The Motionbox magic was extra sluggish yesterday, but all 4 videos from Monday night's Council meeting finally uploaded.

So! Without further ado --

video #00002.MTS PRCC 11-16-09


Begins with the usual Council festivities

@01:29 mark -- Consent agenda

@03:15 mark -- Mayor's report

@22:35 mark -- Park Ridge O'Hare Airport Commission update


video #00003.MTS PRCC 11-16-09


Begins with Ald. Rich DiPietro explaining how the City budget and expenditure process works to his fellow Aldermen. Don't be alarmed, good citizens of Park Ridge, these are well-intended volunteers -- you should not expect well-intended volunteers to understand what they've been doing for more than two years.

@03:09 mark -- Director of Finance Diane Lembesis also attempts to explain the City budget and expenditure process to the Aldermen.

@10:15 mark -- PROAC Chairman Jennifer Perry informs the Council that a budget for PROAC activities will be submitted to the Council for next year -- B.O.H.I.C.A!

@11:15 mark -- City Council report begins with Ald. Don Bach making nice with Mayor Schmidt. Ald. Bach then reports on the 3rd Ward meeting he conducted with Rosie Mulligan to help residents with property tax complaints. We learn 15 people were in attendance -- the majority of whom were not 3rd Ward residents.

@13:15 mark -- City Clerk's report -- the Dec. 28th Council meeting is cancelled

@14:17 -- Residents address the Council on Non-agenda items -- begins with the owner of 32 Main St., Mr. Michael Athens, asking for relief from the Special Use permit process for properties already in existence as office uses.

@19:45 mark -- Ald. DiPietro suggests an application be made directly to the Planning & Zoning Commission

@23:29 mark -- Resident Ms. Missy Langan asks the Council about the progress of the Executive Office Plaza/Norwood Builders development. Here the PRU Crew shed tears over all the people who were said to desperately be in need of Senior Housing but for whom the development has not yet been built.

@24:35 mark -- Director of Community Preservation and Development Carrie Davis informs the Council that the City Attorney and the EOP developer have been communicating.

@25:30 mark -- Resident Jorge Zavala inquires about preventive measures for sewers and leaf pick-up

@26:00 mark -- Director of Public Works Wayne Zingsheim almost loses his religion, but manages to smile about it; Assistant City Manager Julianna Maller (seated behind Zingsheim) does not. Jeez!

@28:15 mark -- Mayor Schmidt manages to regain control of the meeting

@29:08 mark -- We learn Ald. Bach was looking out the window during the 3rd Ward meeting

@30:18 mark -- Mayor Schmidt reads his response to a letter from the Planning and Zoning Commission

@31:27 mark -- Ald. Joe Sweeney begins his Planning and Zoning Commission report on the text amendment, TA-09-02 and reads the aforementioned letter from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

@36:51 mark -- The Ald. James Allegretti show begins and includes Ald. Allegretti's blatant cherry picking of the City Attorney's opinion and advice.

@47:10 mark -- Ald. Allegretti calls the Planning and Zoning Commission a "black hole"

@47:55 mark -- Ald. Robert Ryan remarks that he continues to "get an education from Ald. Allegretti." Aha! That explains everything! Ald. Ryan motions to amend the text amendment to require a super majority vote by the Council to overturn denials from Planning and Zoning.


video #00004.MTS PRCC 11-16-09


Begins with continuing discussion of Ald. Ryan's amendment, which is withdrawn. Then, Ald. Bach moves to amend the main motion to make super majority votes of the Council required across the board to over turn denials from Planning and Zoning.

@03:25 mark -- The Ald. Allegretti show begins again and includes Allegretti lamenting the "emasculation" of the City Council

@07:50 mark -- Ald. Bach responds to Allegretti's lamentations that the Council votes should be consistent and his amendments "sends a message" to Planning and Zoning of their value

@08:59 mark -- Ald. Sweeney remarks that he supports the amendment

@10:08 mark -- Resident, and PRC Uptown redevelopment architect, Mr. Andy Koglin addresses the Council and opposes the changes being made to the Planning and Zoning Commission process

@11:53 mark -- Mr. Koglin repeats the big lie about the lawsuit holding-up construction of the Uptown redevelopment and the City Clerk amen corner can be heard in the background

@15:00 mark -- Resident Ms. Pat Livensparger addresses the Council

@16:10 mark -- Resident, and CURRB spokesperson, Judy Barclay addresses the Council

@17:18 mark -- Planning and Zoning Commissioner Joe Baldi addresses the Council and explains the "character" of the Planning and Zoning Commission and explains the difference between policy considerations and political considerations

@24:31 mark -- Ald. Thomas Carey asks Commissioner Baldi his opinion on whether the requirement for a super majority vote by the Council would mitigate the potential for political influence.

@30:07 mark -- The Ald. Allegretti show resumes with Allegretti again lamenting that what the Planning and Zoning Commission recently considered as a text amendment for billboards was not what the City Council sent down to the commission for review -- translation; "you people didn't carry our water and give us something to hide behind!"

@32:07 mark -- Ald. Allegretti says, "Developers say no to Park Ridge" because their plans "will die" in the Planning and Zoning process. The PRU Crew feels Allegretti is assuming facts not in evidence...or...does Allegretti know something we don't?

@32:30 mark -- Ald. Allegretti accuses the Planning and Zoning Commission of being "conservative to a fault"

@34:33 mark -- Lady Allegretti doth protest too much, we thinks

@34:57 mark -- Ald. DiPietro recalls his Roberts Rules of Order and requests a "point of order"

~~ the Allegretti show continues for what seems another eternity ~~

@36:52 mark -- Mayor Schmidt remembers he's the chairman of City Council meetings and interjects remarks into the discussion

@37:24 mark -- Ald. Ryan asks Commissioner Baldi whether denials from Planning and Zoning could previously be over turned by a simple majority vote when a text or map amendment is sent to Planning and Zoning by the Council -- Baldi answers "yes"

@38:15 mark -- Local attorney and Zoning Czar Jack Owens addresses the Council -- nuff said.

@41:45 mark -- Resident Ms. Carla Owen (no relation to Jackie boy) points out the obvious

@43:14 mark -- Resident Mr. George Kirkland talks about traffic because old dogs like old tricks -- we mean that in the nicest way

@44:29 mark -- Ald. Sweeney points out more of the obvious

@45:35 mark -- Zoning Czar Owens gets special dispensation to speak before the Council again...and runs off at the mouth

@47:09 mark -- Resident and PRC architect Koglin again addresses the Council

Video ends just as the Council readies to vote on the super majority amendment, remember that? The amendment was supposed to be what all the yak yak yakking was about.


video #00005.MTS PRCC 11-16-09




Begins with the Council vote on the amendment to require a super majority vote to over turn denials by Planning and Zoning. The Council votes 4 (Sweeney, DiPietro, Bach and Wsol) to 3 (Allegretti, Ryan and Carey) to adopt the amendment.


@00:43 mark -- Ald. Frank Wsol questions City Attorney Buzz Hill on language in the text amendment


@06:00 mark -- Ald. Wsol motions to amend the text amendment to clarify language, and the Council unanimously votes to adopt the clarifying language


@06:15 mark -- Ald. Wsol asks Allegretti about the billboard developer and opines that the developer is getting "2 swings at the plate"


@07:50 mark -- Allegretti -- yak yak yakkety yak yak yak -- and when Allegretti offers that he does not expect applicants to come to the City Council first, instead of going directly to Planning and Zoning, the PRU Crew had to pause the video and wipe away our tears of laughter.

@11:37 mark -- Ald. Wsol attempts to reword and explain his previous question to Allegretti


@12:49 mark -- Allegretti -- yak yak yakkety yak yak yak -- which includes more crabbing and complaining about Planning and Zoning and City staff


@14:30 mark -- Ald. Bach actually begins making some sense, but it doesn't "take"


@16:40 mark -- Ald. DiPietro reads a prepared statement to the City Council, and in the PRU Crews' opinion, he does a fine job of addressing the fundamental problems with the proposed change to the Planning and Zoning process


@24:41 mark -- Ald. Bach claims the current Planning and Zoning process is broken


@26:40 mark -- Ald. Bach reveas that he does not quite understand what takes place at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings


@28:39 mark -- Ald. Bach provides still more proof that he is Park Ridge's own Constitutional UNscholar -- and Mrs. Bach is a real shopper!


@30:15 mark -- Ald. Bach poo poos speculation about ethics violations and wrong doing and the PRU Crew discovers Bach can be as belligerent when sober as he can be with a few under his belt

@31:56 mark -- Council votes on the main motion to adopt TA-09-02. The vote is 4 (Bach, Allegretti,Ryan and Sweeney) to 3 (DiPietro, Carey and Wsol).

Yes. Sweeney. Sweeney voted for the amendment which will essentially change Planning and Zoning, from an independent review commission for land use issues, to a recommending body for the City Council. And now the PRU Crew will be calling Ald. Sweeney, Ald. Sweiner.

@32:55 mark -- New Business begins with Ald. Wsol asking about the upcoming budget process and requesting staff to provide information to the Council on the current zoning ordinances for billboards

@33:53 mark -- City Attorney Buzz Hill attempts to cover his ass and explain his remarks at the last Planning and Zoning Commission

@34:52 mark -- Motion to adjourn.

Thank God that's over!

The Bi-weekly Goat Rodeo!

1. -- 6:30 pm Special City Council Meeting

Tonight the City Council will be meeting to discuss and review the performance of the City Manager, Mr. Jim Hock. The extensive agenda (.pdf) includes a single motion to go into closed session for the discussion of the City Manager's performance. So anyone hoping to hear the Mayor and Council discussions on the subjects contained in the City Manager's memo (.pdf) -- especially the Mayor's and Council's discussion and opinions on the "prioritized goals" -- will probably be s.o.l.

The PRU Crew is pretty sure discussion of nearly all the subjects contained within the City Manager's memo don't fall under the exceptions to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, but what do we know.

2. -- 7:30 pm Regular City Council Meeting

After reviewing the performance of the City Manager, the Mayor and Council are set to begin their regular meeting festivities. The agenda (.pdf) for the meeting is light but, once again, we encourage PRU readers to pay particular attention to the Planning and Zoning topics on the agenda.

Our sources tell us some of the Aldermopes are wavering on their previous votes concerning whether or not to neuter the independent review authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We feel interested parties -- and by that we mean, people interested in a healthy system of governmental checks and balances -- should make the time to show up to tonight's meeting and help the Aldermopes understand that altering the current process is not in the community's best interests.

3. -- School District 64 H1N1 Update

For those who may not have received either the District's robocall or email announcement, District 64 has been informed that schools in the Park Ridge 60068 zip code only are tentatively scheduled for the CCDPH vaccination visit on Wednesday, December 2.

An informational packet and permission form (.pdf) are available in English, Polish and Spanish on the District 64 website.

Now, A Word From Planning and Zoning

This past Tuesday night, the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission held one of their bi-weekly meetings.

If you haven't reviewed the videos from the meeting, we very strongly encourage you to do so. You'll find the videos from the meeting here.

On the agenda (.pdf) were two public hearings for two proposed text amendments to the zoning ordinance. The first covered proposed changes to the zoning ordinance governing planned developments and construction schedules. The second covered proposed changes to the zoning ordinance regarding billboards.

Currently the Park Ridge zoning ordinance does not allow billboards, which is just a cryin' shame, isn't it?

Apparently 4th Ward Alderman Jim Allspaghetti thinks so, because he's taken full credit for submitting the matter for consideration to the Planning and Zoning Commission after having been approached by Mr. James Loss, the attorney and controlling interest in a company known as Generation Group, Inc.

What Ald. Allspaghetti seems not to have expected is the Planning and Zoning Commission thought it odd, unusual, and even manipulative for Ald. Allspaghetti to take the lead on the matter instead of having Mr. Loss and his Generation Group, Inc. make a direct application to Planning and Zoning.

What Ald. Allspaghetti should also get credit for is seeking to eviscerate the independent review and decision making process that has long governed land use matters in the City of Park Ridge. It has been Ald. Allspaghetti leading the charge to make sure that any and all denials from Planning and Zoning are to be reviewed by the City Council, which can then over-turn those denials with a simple majority vote -- that's a whole 4 people deciding land use matters for the entire City of Park Ridge.

The reaction on the part of the Planning and Zoning Commission members, to the maneuvering being done by Ald. Allspaghetti and his Council cohorts, can only be described as negative, which the PRU Crew believes is the only appropriate response. And that negative response was placed into a very well-written letter to the Mayor and City Council, which you can view, below --


Planning and Zoning Commission Letter to the Mayor -- 11/10/09

PRCC Videos 11-02-09!

Something the PRU Crew would appreciate our readers keep in mind --

Article 2 of the Municipal Code -- Corporate Seals, Emblems And Policies

Chapter 5 -- Ethics Provisions

Subsection 2 -- Disclosure Statement

Item D. -- Policy

Says...

Disclosure of Economic Relationship

1. Policy Statement

One of the primary duties of a City Official is to Act on Matters where a Petitioner is seeking Consideration from the City. From time to time, a City Official may be required to Act on a Matter in circumstances where the City Official is involved in an Economic Relationship with a Petitioner.

It is the intent of this section that it be construed broadly for the purpose of granting to the citizens of Park Ridge full knowledge of the dealings of City Officials as those dealings may relate to City business.

2. Disclosure Required

When a City Official is called upon to Act on a Matter in the course of his or her official duties, the City Official shall publicly disclose any Economic Relationship the City Official has with a Petitioner prior to Acting on the Matter, where either: (1) the City Official has a current Economic Relationship with a Petitioner; or (2) the City Official has had a previous Economic Relationship with a Petitioner while the City Official knew that the Petitioner was seeking Consideration from the City; or, (3) the City Official is actively pursuing an opportunity to establish an Economic Relationship with the Petitioner. If disclosure pursuant to this policy would violate a confidential relationship between the City Official and the Petitioner, (such as an Attorney/Client privilege or HIPAA), then the City Official shall abstain from Acting on the Matter and when abstaining, need state only that the abstention is done pursuant to this policy.

In the case of Disclosure of campaign contributions, the actual amount of the contributions shall be disclosed. The Disclosure statement shall be filed prior to the time of Acting on the Matter. The City Attorney shall read the Disclosure into the record at the next regular meeting of the City Council. However, should the matter require discussion prior to such meeting, then the City Attorney shall give notice of the Disclosure to the City Manager; the City Clerk and each member of the City Council within twenty-four hours of its filing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the City Official be required or expected to disclose any matter of which the City Official does not have actual knowledge.

And now for your viewing (dis)pleasure are all 5 videos from last night's City Council theater of the absurd! We aren't going to index them today -- watch all of them.

Video #00002.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00003.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00004.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00005.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00006.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09

Your City Council Triple Feature!

Park Ridge City Hall is going to be a busy place this evening!

The festivities will begin with a quickie meeting of the Liquor License Review Board, beginning at 6:15 pm. The City Council will then hold a Workshop on the Flood Study Report, set to start at 6:30 pm.

The most entertaining portion of tonight's gathering promises to be the regular City Council meeting scheduled to start at 7:30 pm. The agenda includes the usual niceties and consent items. However, tonight's City Council agenda also includes two items we hope people will pay close attention to.

The first item is the City Attorney's report on the ethics violation issue concerning former Mayor Howard Frimark. The City Council will first decide whether to hold their discussion in closed or open session -- of course, the PRU Crew thinks it should be held in open session since there is hardly a soul that doesn't know the issue involves the former Mayor, and it is no secret there are Aldermen with whom the former Mayor has personal and economic relationships.

The Aldermen, with whom Frimark has shared personal and economic relationships, will have a choice to make before deciding what to do with the report from the City Attorney. Those Aldermen can choose to disclose their economic relationships with former Mayor Howard Frimark, and then they can freely engage in discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Or...those Aldermen can choose to recuse themselves from discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Recusal allows elected officials to avoid full disclosure, as recently demonstrated by Mayor Schmidtzkrieg here (.pdf), but recusal also demands elected officials not engage in discussion, debate or a vote on an issue. We believe the choice of either disclosure or recusal is required whether or not the City Council holds the discussion in closed or open session.

It should all be terribly interesting to watch!

The second item on tonight's City Council agenda which we hope people will pay close attention to is item b. Approve first reading of Ordinance for proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Case Number TA-09-02, under the Planning & Zoning Commission report.

The PRU Crew has discussed the issue both here and here. And our opinion on the matter still hasn't changed. This is a very important issue moooooving forward.

And we look forward to the videos for tomorrow!

Planning and Zoning!

As our faithful PRU readers know, the Crew has been trying to draw your attention to some proposed changes in the way planning and zoning issues will be handled in the future -- moooooving forward.

We discussed the potential for changing the dynamics of how Park Ridge city government functions in our October 8th post -- Your Attention, Please! We also mentioned the issue again at the end of our October 21st post -- Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrəp-shən\.

At next Monday's City Council meeting, the Council will be discussing, debating and possibly voting on recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Council will construct the process by which zoning text amendments are treated.

Posted on the City's website, for Monday night's meeting, are two background documents related to how planning and zoning issues will be handled in the future -- moving forward.

The PRU Crew feels the following memo titled "First reading of an ordinance for text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Case Number TA-09-02" is a must read.
MemoTA-09-02ZOAmnds11-2-09

The third paragraph of the background memo says --

Section 4.8

The Commissioners agreed that the current review process protects the system from potential political influence. The Commission serves as a proper check and balance to the system. Private parties have appropriate recourse through the Circuit Court if the Commission denies a text amendment. The Commissioners found that proposed changes to section 4.8 would be appropriate. The Commission suggested that the new chart describing the Council’s review authority should be revised to reflect a two thirds super majority vote required by Council in the first and fourth lines, and that the Council vote should be changed to “not applicable” in the second line. The Commissioners also recommended that the second line, under further action, be changed to state: None, Planning and Zoning Commission is final.”

The first two sentences sum up the entire issue beautifully. The matter really is as simple as preserving proper checks and balances, and discouraging the potential for political influence.

Any questions?