Back in the bad old days of Park Ridge City government – under mayor Ron “All SOC all the time” Wietecha, acting-mayor Mike “All PRC all the time” Marous and mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark – most “big” decisions (e.g., long-term, multi-million dollar projects like the Uptown TIF and Uptown Redevelopment) were made by city council fiat, without public/taxpayer opinion via advisory referendum.
That was when all the chairs around The Horseshoe were occupied by people who arrogantly insisted that THEY were elected to make those decisions, without even consulting the taxpayers.
Not surprisingly, that’s primarily why we’re stuck with the TIF that never should have been, and the Uptown project that is projected to cost the City in the $17-$20 million range instead of producing the $20+ million of “profit” Wietecha, Marous, Frimark and their sycophants were promising back in 2000-2006. Worse yet, that boodoggle handcuffed the late mayor Dave Schmidt and the “adult” Councils stuck with cleaning up their predecessors’ messes.
Perhaps the worst of those messes is a long-neglected infrastructure that has contributed to the flooding – exacerbated by the McMansions and multi-family housing enabled by our flawed Zoning Code that effectively encourages the covering of green space with gray space, thereby jacking up the density beyond what the neglected infrastructure was originally designed to accommodate.
Unlike prior councils who were content to kick the can down the road, the Schmidt councils and the current Council have responsibly studied, analyzed and vetted the options for trying to solve the City’s flooding problems on a City-wide basis.
To that end, they have come up with what appears to be a reasonable solution: the creation of a stormwater utility to generate the mega-revenues needed to fight flooding by imposing progressive fees on those properties that contribute most to the flooding problem.
All property owners would be charged a stormwater utility fee, but it would be based on several factors, including the amount of the property’s water-impervious surface area (e.g., gray space): the larger the gray space that can’t absorb water, the higher the fee. The fee will also likely depend on how much money the City needs to raise for a comprehensive flood remediation plan, with estimates already exceeding $100 million and climbing, albeit speculatively toward the $200 million mark.
Not surprisingly, the idea of a gray space-based fee has caused howls from some of those folks to whom we refer, in shorthand fashion, as “freeloaders” because we don’t want to have to repeatedly describe them as “those residents who are always looking to leverage maximum benefits for themselves, their families and their friends by shifting the costs of those benefits onto the backs of their fellow taxpayers”
A number of them are afraid that they will be charged extra because of all the water-impermeable gray area created by their oversized homes, driveways, patios, gazebos, etc. which creates the run-off that contributes to overland flooding.
If the science behind the gray versus green distinction is sound, and it seems to be, those extra charges appear to be acceptable collateral damage in the war on flooding.
Unlike the hubristic mayors and councils of old who claimed to “know better” than their constituents what was best for the City, however, Acting Mayor Marty Maloney and this current Council sound ready, willing and able to ask the taxpayers/voters to weigh in on any stormwater utility plan via an advisory referendum. And that’s exactly the way any major decision like this should be made.
That referendum, however, probably won’t be held until next November’s (2016) election.
Why?
Because the Council is still waiting for final plans and numbers for such a massive undertaking from the City’s flood consultant, Christopher B. Burke Engineering. Those plans and data probably will not be forthcoming until January – well after the legal deadline for the Council’s putting a referendum on the March 2016 primary ballot.
That’s also the right way to do something this significant. Better to measure twice – or three and even four times – and cut once, than to keep cutting without measuring. And better to hold such a referendum during a November general election, when voter turnout is always highest, in order to get the broadest possible response.
But that has many of the chronic flooding whiners – yes, Barb Gaffke, we mean you – whining even more than usual about how this is just further delay and just another way in which they’re being screwed over by this Council.
Many of them beef about water in the streets. But even Burke has indicated that water in the streets can be a preferred alternative to water in the basements. And that makes sense, despite the inconvenience that the former can cause.
Also joining the whiner chorus are many folks up in the Second Ward who bought cheap properties at a discount befitting a chronic flood zone, then built their McMansions with the expectation that they could browbeat a spineless Council into borrowing and spending multi-millions of dollars of other people’s tax dollars to provide the flooding remediation that will magically jack the value of their properties.
One local realtor we talked to confidentially opined that solving the flooding problem in Mayfair Estates could raise the value of those properties by from $50K to $100K overnight – at a cost of only several hundred dollars, at most, of extra taxes for each of those property owners. If you’re one of those property owners, that’s what is called a “no-brainer.”
So it’s no wonder they would prefer to browbeat the Council into enacting their flood relief program instead of risking a referendum vote on it, even if that vote were to be merely “advisory.”
That’s the beauty of freeloaders: they’re very predictable.
Hopefully the Council will see them for what they are, see through their predictable tactics, and move forward with a sane and fiscally-responsible, long-term flood control program for the entire City.
That sounds to us a lot like a well-conceived stormwater utility endorsed by a majority vote of the taxpayers via a November 2016 referendum.
To read or post comments, click on title.
17 comments so far
We need flood control but the staggering cost demands a referendum. Good job for the council to hold one, and in November with the large turnout.
You are spot on in saying that a decision like this that impacts the entire City should be a ballot question, and placing it on Nov 2016 (Presidential) when turnout should be the highest is also a great idea. It will also be a great “tee up” when 3 four year Alderman seats, 1 two year Alderman seat, the Mayor’s seat (and City Clerk) are all open for the Dec 2016 petition filing. Maybe the alt water project with its millions of dollars of guarantees can come back and that question can be raised too.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s hope so.
The rest of the City got flood relief without a referendum so why are the projects already in the queue being singled out? Who has an “in” at City Hall?
EDITOR’S NOTE: The taxpayers?
I agree the concept sounds reasonable way for people to pay their fair share to solve the problem. My concerns would be around how would it be administered to make it upon implementation fair.
Will the grey space be calculated from satellite images? It seems Trugreen can give you a quote based on your lawn size over the phone so the software must be available but what is the cost? Trugreen might get a better deal than the City of Park Ridge because of volume.
What’s the appeal process if people start to rip up grey space and return it to green space? Do they have to wait a few years for the satellite data to update?
These are the sort of questions that will arise in a referendum process and I hope the Council will have good answers to allow me to support this as a fair and administratively cost effective option.
EDITOR’S NOTE: These are all good points, and we hope YOU will show up at City Hall when the referendum is debated to raise them.
What happened to the idea of assessing a special assessment to those areas getting the expensive flood relief projects? This would seem to be the fairest way to handle these extreme budget breaking projects that are neighborhood based.
Those getting the completed flood control projects will be the ones whose house values will presumably be positively affected-not so for those paying a stormwater utility fee who will probably never see/or don’t need a flood control project in their area.
It would also seem irresponsible for the city to assess any fee to all homeowners/properties in Park Ridge for multi-million dollar flood projects without also rewriting the building codes to stop the building of giant homes that have deep basements with multiple sump pumps running nearly 24/7 sending water runoff into their neighbors yards and basements.
Is rewriting the building codes to address building practices that have contributed/caused the flooding problems part of the discussion?
What happens if the referendum fails?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Burke has referred to flood control as being a holistic, interdependent process where areas that don’t themselves flood can still contribute to flooding elsewhere. If one subscribes to that theory, a referendum that reflects the need for a holistic, interdependent solution with the costs borne City-wide makes sense.
And yes, we believe that the relevant codes need to be reviewed to prevent future development from limiting and/or frustrating whatever flood remediation projects are pursued.
If the referendum fails, the choices presumably would be (in no special order): possible Special Service Areas where the direct, immediate beneficiaries pay all or a significant part of their local remediation costs; the “old” way where the City Council does whatever it wants, even if it means ignoring the referendum results; or let the status quo continue.
Concerned taxpayer:
Along with your issues, I believe some of these newer houses have been built in a way that allows for rain water to more efficiently go into the ground. Meanwhile, there are homes that may have more green space but due to erosion or rock hard soil or grading, the water runs right off the lawn and into the street or alley and on into the sewer system. I realize they have to have some metric on which to base the tax in come cases they could be taxing the more efficient that contributes less to flooding and letting some guilty parties get off free of charge.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “I believe some of these newer houses have been built in a way that allows for rain water to more efficiently go into the ground.”
And that belief is based on what, exactly?
“Holistic interdependent process”? So somehow a Mayfield Estates multi-million dollar flood project needed because over time Mayfield Estate homeowners have filled in the gulleys by the streets and/or built McMansions with deep basements is somehow going to positively affect a property on the south side of Park Ridge near Higgins? It must be magic.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No. But it might positively affect property just south or east of Mayfield Estates.
If that concept doesn’t work for you, however, feel free to take it up with the folks from Burke when they next appear at a City Council meeting.
Many newer homes have what I would call catch basins similar to the relief sewers in alleys allowing rain water to go into the basing and soak into the ground rather than running off into the street or alley and into our sewer city system. Again, some older homes, even though they may have more green space may have grading that allows water to run off with out any chance to soak into the ground.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If those catch basins do what you say they will, they likely will earn their owners a credit against the fee – just like folks with permeable driveways, etc.
Stormwater utility fee—IT’S A TAX. And it’s BS, because it is one that punishes past work and construction that was done under code.
2. Mayfield Estates doesn’t deserve anything without their own fee. They annexed in without sewers and they should pay at least half themselves.
3. This article shocks me. You bring up no other ideas, or revenue besides a GIANT increase in taxes on public, private and even school properties.
** This tax will hit homeowners more than once, and is an excuse by a council that has done nothing.
Nice try defending your boys though.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No more so than water fees, sewer fees, etc. But feel free to deduct it on your tax return and see if the IRS agrees.
We’ve repeatedly argued for a Special Service Area for Mayfield Estates. But if a majority of voting taxpayers want Mayfield Estates to benefit from the Stormwater Utility, we’re fine with that.
Your comment shocks us. You bring up no other ideas or revenues – besides the Mayfield Estates SSA which we originally proposed and for which we have advocated repeatedly.
This Council and its immediate predecessors (since 2011) have done multiples more to address flooding than what the previous 20 years of councils did, combined – without resorting to the “ready, fire, aim” approach of those past councils – which is why we gladly defend them.
I applaud the Council for doing what previous ones failed or refused to do on projects of this magnitude.
I’m not yet sold on the utility, but I expect that just the debate on referendum language will be more informative than what we heard about the Uptown TIF and project 10 years ago.
Flooding? Thanks, Mel Thillens.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What?
So there should be a special referendum for Mayfield Estates that states, “When they were annexed in, they did not want sewers should Park Ridge taxpayers, pay for them now to be installed at a bill of $$$$$$”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Show up at City Hall and ask the Council for this.
Funny that you mention Barbara Gaffke and she turns around and posts on Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners FB page about citizens putting a recall advisory referendum on the ballot. Guess she wants to get rid of some aldermen.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And maybe some Library Board members.
If you want to address sewer back-up, install overhead sewers and a check valve that allows you to seal off your sewer. That works, but it may cost $15-20,000. Money well spent.
Overland flooding, however, is a different animal altogether and has been increased by McMansions, patios, double-wide driveways, etc. If you have those, you are part of the overland flooding problem, which is why you will have to pay under a stormwater utility.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s how we understand it.
This referendum will fail. The zoning board should have prevented the McMansions from being built in the first place. There should have been an upfront fee of $20,000 to build a McMansion for the purposes of solving the flooding issue. However, no one was smart enough to envision this as a solution at the time. Now the City is changing the rules to punish the builders of McMansions. Sorry, but trying to solve this with a fee structure as you described, by putting it to referendum is going to fail.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You sound like a McMansion owner.
The Zoning Board’s job is to enforce the Zoning Code. So if the Zoning Code permits McMansions, that’s what the Zoning Board should approve.
And if the referendum fails, that’s always a possibility when you ask the voting taxpayers. C’est la vie.
“Overland flooding, however, is a different animal altogether and has been increased by McMansions, patios, double-wide driveways, etc. If you have those, you are part of the overland flooding problem, which is why you will have to pay under a stormwater utility.”
What??? There are McMansions all over town that are in neighborhoods that have absolutely zero overland flooding issues….none…zippo. Please tell me how on earth they contribute to a problem that does not even exist in the neighborhood where they are built.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Since we can’t tell by your comment whether your problem is ignorance or stupidity, you should show up at the next Council meeting when the Burke folks are there and they should be able to explain it to you at whatever level you require.
A referendum is not the right tool for this situation. The majority of residents don’t have a flooding issue, so asking them vote for something they can’t use is destined to be a landslide against flooded residents. This is not how public works should operate. I don’t get a vote on whether a street gets repaved or which sewers get lined. The work that needs to be done to provide civilized living conditions gets funded and prioritized by elected officials and city staff.
Also to the point above about property value increases that flood victims would receive, they would have taken on the equivalent in flood related losses over the last 7 years. We’re also paying sewer taxes for no benefit.
Nine flood projects were completed over the previous 5 years without any heartburn expressed by council members or editor of this blog over the value increases that the benefitting homeowners might have received.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe a referendum should be MANDATORY any time the City intends to saddle its taxpayers with major long-term bonded debt that will tie its hands financially for a decade or two. And such a decision shouldn’t be dependent on whether the referendum is likely to win or lose.
Public works projects like street re-paving and sewer lining are not even remotely comparable to flood relief for Mayfield Estates and the Northwest Park neighborhood – currently estimated at approx. $60 million ($40 million principal plus interest) – because the former projects are maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure, not the construction of new infrastructure.
As to your complaint that you are “paying sewer taxes for no benefit,” unless you have a septic system (or an outhouse), you most certainly ARE getting a benefit from your sewer taxes. And you accepted the lack of storm sewers when you bought your property – just like the residents of Bristol Court, Park Ridge Pointe, etc. accepted the lack of certain City services when they bought their units.
As for those “[n]ine flood projects…completed over the previous 5 years without any heartburn expressed by council members or editor of this blog over the value increases that the benefitting homeowners might have received,” to the best of our knowledge and recollection NONE of them involved anything close to the cost-per-home expense of the flood control projects for the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park neighborhoods – which is one of the reasons Burke recommended them as priorities and the Council treated them as such.
As we reminded Ald. Nick Milissis (and our readers) in our 03.07.14 post: “NEVER…has such a limited area of the City demanded the kind of expenditures and long-term bonded indebtedness [Ald.] Milissis is demanding for his constituents [without a referendum] – other than the Uptown TIF” which, so far, has been a financial disaster for the City and its taxpayers. And we also reminded him and our readers that: “NEVER…has the City committed the kind of expenditures and long-term bonded indebtedness {Ald.] Milissis is demanding for his constituents – other than the aforementioned Uptown TIF.”
Finally, we have consistely opposed the taxpayers subsidizing other private-benefit flood control systems like overhead sewers and check valves – going back at least as far as our 07.22.09 post and, more recently, our 05.10.13 post.
So we’re not just picking on you and your neighbors.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>