Mayor Dave Schmidt said he would veto the “hopelessly flawed” 2010-11 City budget. Monday night, he did just that – and gave a seven-page address [pdf] that explained why.
With that veto Schmidt made a number of people unhappy.
He made City Mgr. Jim Hock unhappy, because Hock is going to be the guy who will have to do the heavy lifting if the Council votes to sustain Schmidt’s veto at the next regular City Council meeting on May 17. After not even being able to come up with a balanced budget initially, and then watching the City Council fold, spindle and mutilate what he did come up with before cutting and pasting most of it back together, Hock can’t be looking forward to doing any part of that task again.
Schmidt sure made the O’Hare Commission folks and their supporters unhappy when he recalled the millions of dollars Park Ridge wasted over the years on unsuccessful anti-O’Hare efforts, then stated that he would not “stand idly by while it wastes another dime” on such folly – much less the $165,000 that the City Council added to the budget, and that Alds. Ryan and Allegretti wanted to jack up to $200,000 and $250,000, respectively.
And Schmidt made all those private community groups – the ones who can’t be bothered to raise enough private funds to finance their 501(c)(3) quasi-hobbies because they have become addicted to easy handouts from feckless public officials – very unhappy when he said they don’t deserve money that should be “devoted to funding essential city services, such as police, fire and public works, to the fullest extent possible.”
But we’re guessing the unhappiest people are the seven men who sit around The Horseshoe, the ones who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, come up with a budget the mayor would sign and now have been publicly called out for their shortcomings. Had Schmidt just gone along and rubber-stamped this latest budget charade – the way previous mayors rubber-stamped previous budget charades – everybody could have claimed plausible deniability if/when, this time next year, the City is looking at another gaping mulit-million dollar deficit.
But Schmidt didn’t play along. And he didn’t merely try to tinker with something that is screwed up well beyond a tinkering solution, perhaps because he learned one lesson from recent City government history: When city managers can’t cut expenses enough, they simply fabricate revenues; and clueless aldermen usually just rubber-stamp those, too, just like the Council and then-Ald. Schmidt did last year at this time, and the year before that.
At least Schmidt learned his lesson. And he also correctly pointed out in his veto address that the line-item veto doesn’t work with revenues.
Already there is whining about Schmidt’s veto. Some of it is no doubt coming from the aforementioned folks whose unhappiness is directly related to their own personal interests. Others claim to be disappointed the mayor didn’t have any magic bullet solutions that, presumably, would have given everybody everything they wanted – without raising taxes, of course.
What the whiners ignore is that, the way City government is set up, it is the City Manager’s job (with the assistance of City staff) to formulate and propose a budget; it is the City Council’s job to debate, amend and approve that budget, without the mayor even having a vote in the process; it is the mayor’s job to sign the budget as adopted by the Council or to veto it; and, if the mayor vetoes it, it is the Council’s job to decide whether to make changes to the budget or over-ride the mayor’s veto.
Hock did his job, however well or poorly; the Council did its job, however well or poorly; and the mayor just did his job, however well or poorly. Now, according to our form of City government, the ball is back in the Council’s court.
If at least five aldermen think the Council did its job well and that Schmidt’s veto is wrong, then we encourage them to over-ride that veto – and to accept accountability for the results.
33 comments so far
“What the whiners ignore is that, the way City government is set up, it is the City Manager’s job (with the assistance of City staff) to formulate and propose a budget; it is the City Council’s job to debate, amend and approve that budget, without the mayor even having a vote in the process; it is the mayor’s job to sign the budget as adopted by the Council or to veto it; and, if the mayor vetoes it, it is the Council’s job to decide whether to make changes to the budget or over-ride the mayor’s veto”.
What you write is technically correct. However, I do not judge just on the letter of the law. There are many things Frimark did that were within the boundries of “our form of government” that I feel were crap. In this case I give the Mayor an F (to borrow the grading theme from PRU) on courage. He states that we are a million or more off on the budget and yet his only on the record cust equal about 300K. Is he just waiting for the council to make the cuts so his name does not have to be attached??
1:13
Schmidt didn’t just talk about cuts, he talked about over-estimated revenues.
anonymous on 05.05.10 2:01 pm
I agree with you, the mayor did discuss over-estimated revenues.
Unfortunately, the only cuts the mayor did discuss in detail are the community group receipts of public monies.
2:01:
I read the e-mail and saw his thoughts about revenues. If he is right, that means we are a million or more off on this current budget. If he is right that means that there will have to be many more cuts. I think it is interesting that he took the time to send an e-mail (to his supporters at least) 7 pages long with this huge explanation and yet the only mentions 2 cuts. He obviously has thought about the issue and has experience as an alderman yet these are the only two cuts he mentions. What do they have in common. First, neither is large enough to solve the problems he believes we have (even combined). Second, they are “red meat” for his supporters.
Rich Miller’s “Capitolfax” blog today, citing the Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability report, states that, through April, “gross personal income tax has fallen $697 million, or $629 million net of refunds. Sales tax receipts are off a disastrous $461 million, while gross corporate income tax is down $382 million, or $315 million net of refunds. Inheritance tax has declined by $51 million and public utility taxes by $84 million. All of the other revenue sources net an additional decline of $47 million.
“All non-federal state revenue sources are down “a staggering $1.213 billion,” according to CoGFA. Take out the one-time transfers, and that decline grows by more than $100 million.
“Also in the report, there were just 853 new single family housing permits issued in March, but that’s up almost 50 percent over a year ago.”
Guess Schmidt is all wet about Hock’s revenue projections being overstated.
I thought Schmidt was talking about the revenue projections for Park Ridge, not the State of Illinois.
The question I have is not about his theory about revenue. For the purposes of discussions I will give you that. Aside from community groups and O’hare, what else does the Mayor want to cut.
Anon@3:07, the revenues that come from the state of illinois make their way to Park Ridge as well… we get a percentage of the general sales tax numbers and the general income numbers (not the home rule sales tax).
Anyone who thinks tax revenues (from the state)will go up has to be a complete moron. As another poster said the Capitolfax said today that revenues are way down. That is what the Mayor is saying, it’s hard to believe that people are arguing with that logic, but if you look at the people making that argument, I guess it isn’t that surprising…
I guess the people who think revenues aren’t ridiculously optimistic will just have to wait until the actual revenue figures come out as we will then know without any doubt whether the mayor was the moron, or the naysayers (Hock and Coucil) were.
Being that Hock overestimated last year’s revenues, my money is on Schmidt being right…
CPA
Your explanation of how the city gets sales tax doesn’t match what the city budget says
I think you meant to say the revenues that GO to the State of Illinois. I could have missed a story on Governor Quinn also proposing to withhold some portion of the city’s sales tax revenues.
Maybe you could answer the question anon on 05.05.10 3:18 pm asked
Anonymous @5:03, what a worthless post… you went through all that trouble to describe a typo? And then ask a completely unrelated question? Obviously you can’t argue with the simple logic so you have to attack syntax. Go get’em tiger!
I have a hunch that the same people who got mad when someone said that Uncle Dan’s was closing are now mad about the revenues being questioned… Guess what, Uncle Dan’s DID close and the revenues WILL be way under projections. Don’t any of you people get tired of being wrong all the time?
CPA’s point is correct, the argument made was since the state is projecting drastically lower sales tax revenues and income tax revenues, it would only be logical for the city to be projecting lower revenues as well. Instead, they are projecting higher revenues. I don’t understand how anyone could argue for higher revenues based on this information. Furthermore, how can the city put itself in danger of another deficit by counting on higher revenues when the state is saying that they will be lower!
OK….what exactly is going on here??? Who has said the Mayor is worng about revenue?? I have red all the posts in this thread. Again I will say (5:26 PM and 4:44PM) I will concede the revenue issue. The Mayor is right….all hail the Mayor!!m Now the issue I have been talking about is…..what else does he…the Mayor want to cut??? If you are concerned about the numbers and you feel the Mayor is right, don’t you want to know what he wants to cut?? The 2 areas he has gone after so far do not make up for what he says we need.
5:45, the mayor cannot cut anything, the city manager needs to figure out what to cut based on REALISTIC revenue figures. Now that he will hopefully be working with REASONABLE revenue projections (assuming the veto is sustained), he will have to figure out what else to cut (since less revenues means a bigger deficit). After implementing the cuts the mayor has already recommended in his veto (like O’Hare and community groups) a simple 10-15-20-whateverpercentagetomakeitwork cut across the board (including salaries) would seem to make the most sense. Living within our means, what a concept!
Anonymouse on 05.05.10 5:22 pm
CPA said “the revenues that come from the State of Illinois make their way to Park Ridge”. It sounded as if CPA misunderstands sales tax collection. I pointed out there could have been something else CPA meant to say. I didn’t point out a typo or a mistake in syntax.
Even if CPA did use the wrong words to explain the collection of sales tax, it sounds as if CPA still could be misunderstanding the collection of sales tax, and thinks local sales taxes will go down even further than last year or that the sales tax collected by the state will be held back.
A full consideration of the city budget has to include both revenues and expenses. You sound as if you don’t want to look at the expense side of the topic or ask the mayor what other cuts he wants to make.
The mayor’s recommended cuts pointed out by others won’t balance the budget according to the deficit the mayor said he thinks the budget has in it because of over estimated revenues. If the mayor was willing to recommend some cuts then the mayor should be willing to recommend other cuts to get to the balanced budget he thinks we need.
The question asked by anon on 05.05.10 3:18 pm is a fair question to ask and expect to hear answered by the mayor in much the same way this blog assumes the right to ask questions, make suggestions and demand answers.
Anonymous on 05.05.10 5:26 pm
Are you saying the “revenues WILL be way under projections” because Uncle Dan’s closed? I would think they had to close because they weren’t making enough sales to stay in business which would be a sure sign they weren’t contributing much in the way of sales tax to the city’s coffers.
Anonymous on 05.05.10 5:53 pm
There haven’t been any comments here indicating the mayor alone has the power to make cuts. What has been asked repeatedly is what other cuts the mayor wants to make or could recommend making to get the budget to where he thinks it is balanced.
Of course the Mayor cannot cut anything!!! I understand the way the process works. He seems perfectly willing to go on the record about community groups. He seems perfectly wiling to go on the record about O’hare. He somehow managed to be positive about these things even without perfect revenue figures. He also seems to have an idea or a theory at least on how far off he thinks the budget is. Yet he makes no mention of 10-15-20% salary cuts. He leaves that to you, or actually he leaves that to the aldermen. My god, you have an opinion on it and it took you a few seconds to write it. The Mayor wrote (with all kinds of input I would guess) a 7 page document and there is not a reference of it.
Today’s Capitolfax blog is fine for you to reference for today.
What reference did Schmidt use when he readied his veto message days ago?
I agree with the cuts mentioned by anon @ 5:53:
After implementing the cuts the mayor has already recommended in his veto (like O’Hare and community groups) a simple 10-15-20-whateverpercentagetomakeitwork cut across the board (including salaries) would seem to make the most sense
The mayor did also suggest the Council consider furlough days or additional layoffs and also said it should consider further trimming the library budget. And he explained that was something he could not do by way of a line item veto.
How much actual savings is needed from those potential cuts depends on where the Council comes down on revised revenue projections. Schmidt has said what he thinks those numbers are, but the final revenue numbers in any second budget would not be up to him.
Anonymous on 05.05.10 10:08 pm
“The mayor did also suggest the Council consider furlough days or additional layoffs and also said it should consider further trimming the library budget.”
The mayor did suggest those actions be considered. Unfortunately, the mayor was not specific about which employees or departments he believes should be targeted for furlough days and additional layoffs.
I think many people believe the mayor could be out of his mind if he wants more public safety and public works layoffs.
The mayor was as vague about library cuts as his other suggestions.
“How much actual savings is needed from those potential cuts depends on where the Council comes down on revised revenue projections. Schmidt has said what he thinks those numbers are, but the final revenue numbers in any second budget would not be up to him.”
That is an odd statement. The mayor did say what he thinks the range of over estimates could be, so your saying the “actual savings depends on where the Council comes down” sounds as if the council could be left to over estimate and the mayor will blame the council and wash his hands of the budget.
According to Prubean on 05.05.10 8:07 pm
“a simple 10-15-20-whateverpercentagetomakeitwork cut across the board (including salaries) would seem to make the most sense”
I’m not sure that suggestion makes much sense at all given the range in “10-15-20” worth of salary cuts, the salary freezes for the second year and the increased work load because of layoffs that have already taken place. It sounds as if you don’t have much real world experience managing employees.
Hmmmm. Because Hock didn’t do his job and the council didn’t do its job, now it’s up to the mayor to do finish both of their jobs?
If the council thinks it did its job, or doesn’t want to do anything else, let them reject Schmidt’s veto.
So the Alderman are….lets see….Aldermonkeys, Bach-tards, aldermoroons….etc….etc….yet 9:25 says it is OK for the Mayor to not go on the record with what he wants to cut…..he is our hero….our savior…..only he has the wisdom of the ages to have the answer..he has the answer…..but (na,na,na,na,na) he is not going to tell us!!!! We see it at all levels of politics. People are willing to let “their guy” get away with political crap that they would never tolerate from others.
anon on 05.06.10 9:52 am
“People are willing to let ‘their guy’ get away with political crap that they would never tolerate from others.”
I agree very strongly with that statement and I think the conversations on this blog prove it.
Speaking of political games, look at page 20 in todays HA. TOPR….let’s all scream!! COC…..let’s all scream!! Fireworks anyone????? Hello?? Mr. Mayor. Why have you not come out on the record and call for the cancelation of the fireworks this year?? Based on your own analysis of the budget can we afford the 20K??? You talk about supporting community groups while laying off police and fire. I guess a fireworks show is OK.
Anon @ 231, the fireworks show was donated by Americaneagle.com here in town. The advocate reported that a few weeks ago. Additionally the city is doing it on a Friday to avoid paying double time or overtime rates to police and fire.
That’s two years running Americaneagle has donated fireworks for the City-run event, around $35,000 combined. How much has Center of Concern, or Taste of Park Ridge, donated to the City for its events rather than taking money out of the City?
Hoover on 05.06.10 3:47 pm
“That’s two years running Americaneagle has donated fireworks for the City-run event, around $35,000 combined.”
How much has Americaneagle made from their vendor contract with the city in the last 5 years?
Yes American Eagle donated the fireworks – 18K worth. I applaud him for it. Does that mean that it is Ok for the city to pay the approximately 20k in overtime and other costs for police, fire and paramedics? If I take the mayor at his word, how is it OK to use 20K of taxpayer money when things are so bad??
4:00:
Wait a second there buddy!! You are implying that there is more here than meets the eye?? Are you questioning this persons motives?? Are you suggesting he may be profiting from this?? You are impuning the good name of a PR business man. Don’t you know that is only allowed if that business person is involved with TOPR??
FYI all- the American Eagle vendor contracts have been negotiated and consummated by city staff under Schuenke and now Hock with out any input from Frimark, Schmidt or any of the aldermen.
12:19:
That is great news but you miss the point. I do not believe anyone (certainly not me) seriously questioned the owner of American Eagle’s motives. m I say congratulations to him and I hope he makes a nice and also fair profit off of the works he does for the city. IIf people want to jump off the deep end about motives nd contracts they can go right ahead. The folks who run this blog seem to be very good at it.
My point is very simple. If the Mayor, and apparetnly many here, believe that it is wrong for tax money to go to meals on wheels, for example, when the city is in such dire straits and police and firemen are loosing their jobs, I will take you at your word, but how can you justify 20K for fireworks. Put another way, most here think it is wrong for city services to support TOPR, money exchanges hands through vending etc at the fireworks show. Where does that go?? How much?? All the same questions many ask about TOPR apply to the fireworks show yet there is almost no questions about it. People either defend it or are scilent.
To be clear, I do not think that EITHER should be canceled. I think both events are very important to the community (even though I have never been to the fireworks show) and are a bargin for what they cost the city. Most of you choose to scream about one but the other is fine with you.
Editor’s Note: Meals on wheels is not an “event,” it’s a service. The fireworks are an “event,” not a service. Therefore, they are not really comparable. And as we’ve said repeatedly before, if the City wants to offer a “service” like meals on wheels, it should formally contract for that service with the private provider, not donate some random amount of tax dollars to that private provider.