On the agenda [pdf] for tonight’s Park Ridge City Council meeting is the adoption of a resolution [pdf], the substance of which reads as follows: 

The City of Park Ridge believes strongly that continued expansion at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport will not enhance the overall quality of life for its citizens. Roughly 6,000 Park Ridge households, which is 42% of all Park Ridge homes, are affected by changes in flight paths resulting from the O’Hare Modernization Plan. The City of Park Ridge seeks mitigation solutions for noise and pollution resulting from continued expansion at O’Hare and vehemently opposes and seeks course correction on continuing expansion at the airport. 

This resolution was just adopted by the City’s O’Hare Airport Commission (“OAC”) at its May 28, 2010, meeting [pdf], so we wonder how it got on the City Council’s regular agenda so quickly, and without first being considered by the Council’s Procedures and Regulations Committee.  We also wonder why Ald. Robert Ryan (5th), who seems to have taken over from Ald. Don “Air Marshall” Bach (3rd) as the “Council Liaison” to the OAC and was in attendance at the OAC’s May 26 meeting, didn’t raise the procedural question at that time? 

Presumably the procedural issue will be sorted out tonight, but we still need to question the purpose and wisdom of such a Council resolution…and at this time. 

In the first place, we note that the OAC appears to be made up entirely of people who live in that part of town most affected by the newest O’Hare runway (9L/27R).  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as they make sure they understand and represent the interests of the entire City – which may not be the case with their proposed resolution, especially if a good number of those “6,000 Park Ridge households…affected by changes in flight paths resulting from the O’Hare Modernization Plan” have been “affected” positively, such as the residents of the 1st and 2nd wards who now have fewer flights over their households because of the new runway. 

That being the case, we would like to hear the OAC folks explain exactly why those 1st and 2nd ward residents – and residents in parts of the 3rd and 4th wards, as well – should support a resolution that would appear to endorse one of the OAC’s other goals (as also adopted at the OAC’s May 26 meeting) of “ensuring the two northwest runways [22R and 22L] are not decommissioned” – something that would ensure that flights over those wards would continue even after O’Hare modernization is completed, contrary to current OMP plans. 

Beyond the point of whether such a resolution speaks for a majority of Park Ridge residents, what practical purpose does such a resolution serve at this time? What specific benefits will this community derive if this resolution is passed now?  Or, conversely, what specific harm will the community suffer if it isn’t passed now? 

Even if it seems as if the members of the OAC don’t remember all of the resolutions (and even referendum questions) regularly generated by O’Hare obsessed former mayor Ron Wietecha, we do.  And we also remember that by 2001, when the federal government (at the behest of Sen. John McCain and several Democratic congressmen) pressured then-governor George Ryan to cut a deal with Mayor Daley on O’Hare expansion, those resolutions no longer meant a thing.  

We suspect that was one of the reasons (along with the voters’ election in April 2003 of new aldermen Don Crampton, Howard Frimark, Mark Anderson, Rex Parker and Jeff Cox – all of whom had campaigned against continued membership in Wietecha’s beloved Suburban O’Hare Commission) why Wietecha abruptly resigned his mayoral office and subsequently exiled himself to Barrington. 

So before the Council approves this kind of resolution, we think the OAC owes the whole Park Ridge community much better explanations of why this resolution is needed…and why it is needed now.

A “guest essay” by state Sen. Dan Kotowski in yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate touted a new form of government budgeting as a possible solution to the “waste, fraud and mismanagement…[that] allows for unchecked spending and little accountability” in state government (“State finance woes underscores [sic] need for budget reform,” June 3).

No offense, senator, but it looks like the only thing that will reform state government is a complete housecleaning in Springfield, starting with House Speaker Mike “Machiavelli” Madigan, Sen. President John Cullerton, and continuing all the way down the line.  When 8-year old kids run card-table sidewalk lemonade stands better than you elected and appointed officials run our state, it’s time to back up the truck and look for a fresh start because the folks currently down there already have proved themselves to be more problem than solution.

But Sen. Kotowski’s endorsement of Budgeting for Outcomes (“BFO”) piqued our curiosity in the wake of a just-completed City budget process that was better than past efforts but still pretty unsatisfactory.

The unofficial slogan for BFO appears to be: “Delivering results citizens value at a price they are willing to pay,” and its purported virtues are that it starts with a determination of how much money the taxpayers of a particular governmental body are willing to spend on government services during the budget year – and then works backwards to get to that point by ascertaining essential community needs, ranking/prioritizing services and outcomes to meet those needs, setting specific measurable goals linked to funding dollars, and then devising strategies to achieve those goals in the most cost-effective ways.

But that’s just one nut-shell explanation: there are many others, and we encourage you to Google them and read about the BFO experiences to date in places like Fort Collins, CO, Dallas, TX, Savannah, GA and other cities that are trying it.

Whether BFO truly is an innovative way for governmental bodies to operate or just the latest fad remains to be seen.  But just as we previously encouraged the City to seriously consider Zero-Based Budgeting (“ZBB”) as an alternative to the current “incremental” budgeting that simply reinforces and rewards institutionalized expenditures, bad practices and inefficiency, we think BFO deserves similar consideration.

But consideration of such a significant change in how the City budgets and operates should start NOW…not next January when the budget deadline is only four months away.

It’s been said that there’s no amount of money government bureaucrats can’t find a way to spend.  Anybody who has paid close attention to government – especially government here in the not-so-great State of Illinois – sees proof of that almost daily (and often from Daley). 

So it was no surprise to read about how the North Suburban Library System (“NSLS”) might be shutting down because it hasn’t received the state grant that constitutes 80% of its annual funding.  With Illinois state government trailing only California’s as the nation’s most fiscally endangered (a/k/a inept), anybody expecting cash from Springfield should have a back-up plan in place, even if it involves the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, or Powerball. 

NSLS is now anticipating its next influx of state cash no earlier than November, with future payments expected to be chronically delayed.  (City of Park Ridge, School Districts 207 and 64, and the Park District, take note).  

One casualty of that cash crisis is NSLS’s “van service” – which provides interlibrary delivery service of materials throughout its 49-library system.  This service allows patrons of the Park Ridge Library, for example, to check out books and materials from other NSLS members and have those books and materials delivered to our Library without cost to the patron.  

Without state funding of NSLS, member libraries (with the exception of Des Plaines and Evanston) will individually contribute to fund that service for the next three months.  The Park Ridge Library will spend $3,400 a month on that delivery service, which reportedly will come out of the Library’s book budget.  Meanwhile, library administrations throughout the system are scrambling to find some way to maintain the service, including the possibility of “privatizing” it.  

Did any of these well-paid bureaucrats consider actually charging a fee for the convenience of this delivery service? 

We can imagine Park Ridge Librarian Janet Van De Carr and her fellow librarians wailing and gnashing their teeth at such a suggestion, after having built their current fiefdoms through a variety of free programs and free (or nominally-priced) services, many of which straddle and even cross the line between information and entertainment – with a little bit of babysitting thrown in for good measure.  

A review of the Library’s May/June Library guide reveals 18 “adult” programs, 10 “computer classes,” 21 “young adult” programs, 8 “children’s” programs, 5 programs for “all ages,” 8 programs for “school age” children, and one program “just for parents & teachers.”  All free.  That’s a great way to draw people into the building and inflate the “user” numbers that are touted at budget time to justify more funding and personnel.

So we can imagine the librarians already drawing up their lists of all the problems and inequities, real and imagined, of imposing any kind of service charge for interlibrary deliveries. 

Don’t get us wrong.  We’re big fans of the Library and believe it to be a significant community asset, well-deserving of continued taxpayer support to cover the basic cost of maintenance and operation.  We also like the idea of interlibrary borrowing, which creates synergies that should breed money-saving efficiencies – but only if that savings isn’t frittered away on the costs of the program. 

Which is why there should be a “convenience” charge that covers the actual, fully-loaded cost of the deliveries.  And while the librarians are at it, they should start looking at ways to cover the fully-loaded costs of all those “free” programs, too: if those programs truly have any value, residents should be willing to pay for it.

But we also are mindful that the age-old truism “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” has never been truer – especially in a society where, when government provides one, it seems like it’s always the shameless gluttons who eat the most.