Sixth Ward Ald. Marc Mazzuca very well may have the best analytical skills on the Park Ridge City Council…and better than those of any member of City staff.

As we noted in our 02.17.14 post, Mazzuca is the guy who “did some necessary nitpicking about City staff’s cavalier treatment of the competitive bidding process.”  But in our 05.08.13 post, we called Mazzuca “the kind of guy who, armed with an MBA from the University of Chicago, can spend an hour drilling down into a potato chip.”

It was the latter trait that he demonstrated once again this past Monday night during one of the more tedious segments of any City Council meeting.  Ever.

As chair of the Council’s Procedures and Regulations Committee, Mazzuca apparently crafted a purchasing process that he would like the City to adopt.  While that process probably could be a model for General Motors, had he presented it to GM’s management in the manner he presented it Monday night, it probably wouldn’t have received any better a reception than it did from his fellow aldermen and City staff.

It’s not that there was anything inherently wrong with Mazzuca’s process.  Frankly, we’re pretty sure we don’t entirely understand it, and we’d hazard a guess that neither do those members of City staff who would have to implement it, or the aldermen who will decide whether or not to approve it.

One flaw in Mazzuca’s process, however, is that he seems to have constructed it without enough input from the staff – and at times Monday evening he seemed impervious to questions and criticisms from those people, even the ones that sounded like something other than simply obstructionist beefs from folks bristling at any kind of competitive bidding.

While most aldermen did not look or sound prepared for Mazzuca’s onslaught, staff seemed too defensive to seriously consider the points he was making about the current City process and procedures.

When it comes to matters that require painstaking analysis, Mazzuca may be the smartest person in the room.  But he doesn’t advance his own agenda or the taxpayers’ business when he makes it obvious that he knows it.

The aldermen also didn’t look or sound prepared for, or interested in, sparring with Fire Chief Mike Zywanski over his department’s recommendation that the City buy five Zoll defibrillators to replace the City’s five current Zoll defibrillators.

You might remember that purchase, which we wrote about in several posts, including “Is It Fraud Or Is It Negligence” and “Chief Z’s Still A Zoll Man”.   Despite a year of trying to create the semblance of a legitimate competitive bidding process after Chief Z tried to push this purchase through on a no-bid basis, what he and his staff came up seems contrary to the principles of competitive bidding as we understand it.

As can be seen from the Deputy Fire Chief’s Agenda Cover Memorandu, despite the bids having been opened on January 23, as of February 24 the “Total Cost” of this competitively-bid purchase is “TBD”: To Be Determined.

Say what?  After conducting a competitive bidding process over a month ago they still don’t know what the price is?

From the Minutes of the January 28 Bid Evaluation Committee meeting and the related e-mails, it sounds like NONE of the bids complied with the bid specifications.  But instead of throwing out all the noncompliant bids, as is customarily the case, the Committee decided to use them as a starting point for manufacturing bids based on questions the Committee would submit.

Seriously.

Not surprisingly, the Minutes of the Committee’s February 3 meeting note that “the bid numbers…were preliminary numbers” because the Committee still didn’t have all the answers from the clarifying questions.  But, lo and behold, when all the questions were answered and all the smoke cleared, the Minutes from the February 12 Committee meeting confirmed that…wait for it…ZOLL! turned out to be the low “bidder.”

How convenient!

Betting on Zoll in this game of “competitive” (allegedly) bidding roulette was about as sure a thing as betting on 22 at Rick’s cafe in “Casablanca” was for that Bulgarian couple.

So long as Rick, or Chief Z, was calling the shots.

To read or post comments, click on title.

The editor of this blog was a member of the citizens committee that recommended Marc Mazzuca to Mayor Dave Schmidt from among four candidates who sought appointment to fill the seat of  Tom Bernick, who resigned after one year on the job as 6th Ward alderman.

Mazzuca has earned mixed reviews from us since he took his seat at The Horseshoe in June 2012.

We sung his praises in posts such as those dated 06.23.12, 08.23.12, 12.16.13 and 09.26.13, but we criticized his performance in posts dated 07.18.12, 10.26.12, 05.08.13 and 08.28.13.  And when Mazzuca ran for that 6th Ward seat in 2013, we made no endorsement in his race for reasons explained in our 04.08.13 post.

While Mazzuca has the ability to exasperate, even when he is exasperating he does something that the City Council needs: he provides hard-data analysis.

Recently he did some necessary nitpicking about City staff’s cavalier treatment of the competitive bidding process.  Although that earned him some sneers and grimaces from City staffers it should earn him applause and gratitude from the City’s taxpayers.

The City Code provides for competitive bidding for any contract or transaction in excess of $20,000, unless it involves professional services where competence and quality are more difficult to ascertain and distinguish among service providers.  The main purpose of competitive bidding is to obtain the lowest possible prices for the taxpayers.

But competitive bidding has another purpose: to eliminate, or at least minimize, the potential for graft and corruption to which public contracts funded by the taxpayers – a/k/a, Other People’s Money (“OPM”) – are particularly susceptible.  Over the years, public officials here in Illinois have become so adept at fleecing the taxpayers that even competitive bidding has been rigged and manipulated to provide sweetheart contracts for insiders.

Nevertheless, competitive bidding remains the best weapon against both waste and profiteering.

So it’s a comfort to us any time the mayor or any alderman insists on compliance with such bidding requirements.  And it’s a concern to us any time competitive bidding is criticized, evaded or ignored by City staff – which is one reason why we have written often in favor of competitive bidding and critically of public officials when competitive bidding is scorned – as in our posts of 05.13.09, 06.10.09, 12.20.10, 02.18.13, 03.04.13, 06.06.13, 09.23.13, 10.14.13 and 10.16.13.

Mazzuca provided his share of comfort at last Monday night’s committee of the whole (“COW”) meeting, challenging several contracts and purchases that deserved to be challenged, including the contract for the Red Speed Illinois automated enforcement camera at Northwest Hwy. and Oakton.  When that contract was signed in 2010, it reportedly was for an initial four-year term, with two additional three-year options that could extend the service through 2020.

Police Chief Frank Kaminski’s endorsement of Red Speed notwithstanding, the mere fact that a contract contains options doesn’t mean those options have to be exercised, or that they represent the best deal for the taxpayers.

Public Works Committee chair Ald. Marty Maloney (7th) argued that vendors often build better terms into multi-year option-based contracts, and that re-bidding contracts involve increased City staff costs.  We don’t disagree with either of those points.

But Mazzuca correctly noted that excusing re-bidding based on contract options can very well deprive the taxpayers of potentially less-costly alternatives that may not have been available when the existing contracts were signed.  Consequently, such options should be nothing more than a safety net for the City in case a better deal ISN’T available through re-bidding – not a substitute for re-bidding.

If members of City staff want to shirk their duty to the taxpayers and ignore the City Code competitive bidding requirements, they should come right out and say so – and do it well enough in advance of any existing contract expiration dates so that the Council has a reasonable opportunity to order Staff to competitively bid the contract rather than end up having to exercise the option by default due to lack of time.

And if the mayor or Council members are willing to let Staff get away with such nonsense, then they owe every taxpayer an explanation of why they are letting the inmates run the asylum.

To read or post comments, click on title.

During his first five years in office, Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt acquired the nom de veto “Mayor No” because of his numerous vetoes of profligate budgeting and overspending by the City Council – most of which were ultimately sustained, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Each of those vetoes was usually accompanied by a veto message in which Schmidt explained in detail why he was exercising his veto power.

But at last Monday’s (February 3) Council meeting, Schmidt provided a “dog bites man” twist to the proceedings when he read his first-ever non-veto message.

The Council action that provoked such an oddity was the two week-earlier Council approval – by a slim 4 (Alds. Sweeney, Shubert, Knight and Maloney) to 3 (Alds. Milissis, Smith and Mazzuca) vote – of the 116-unit planned development apartment building by Trammell Crow to be constructed at 205 West Touhy, which also got Planning & Zoning Commission approval by a similarly slim 5 to 4 margin.

The project’s biggest sticking point was that it exceeded the Zoning Code-prescribed residential density ceiling for that area by 31% because of its primarily 1-and-2-bedroom units, even though it could have complied with the Code’s density requirement if the same-sized structure consisted totally of 3-bedroom units.

Frankly, that sounds just plain goofy to us.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the P&Z Commission, the Council and the Mayor, the way this process played out demonstrates the need for some serious revisions to Section 5 of the City’s Zoning Code for “planned developments,” a kind of hybrid neither-fish-nor-fowl concept that effectively allows City officials to ignore our conventional zoning standards and regulations in exchange for certain other considerations.

Unfortunately, almost all of those other considerations are subjective and, therefore, subject to the vagaries and even arbitrariness of the folks applying them.  That makes for a highly unpredictable process when what we should have is just the opposite: a set of clear, understandable standards regulated by a predictable process, so that a developer knows right out of the blocks what standards will be applied to its project.

The current process for planned developments like Trammel Crows seemed dominated by a number of fingers held to the wind.  Some members of P&Z wanted “green” roofs; others wanted LEED gold certification; still others, more underground parking, or tree preservation and a “pocket park,” or additional storm water detention.

It was that last factor – with Trammel Crow offering to double the size of the City’s water detention basin adjacent to the development site – that seemed to seal the deal not only at the P&Z and Council levels, but also for the mayor’s non-veto.  It also seemed to carry the day with flood-beleaguered neighbors who normally can be counted on to oppose any development of any kind in that area, including Whole Foods.  That lack of vigorous opposition was another factor which Schmidt cited for his non-veto, and from the sound of things that also may have influenced the P&Z and Council votes.

We’ve regularly ripped on folks who charge that Park Ridge is “unfriendly to business” – which tends to be code for “the City won’t give us what we want,” or “the City won’t look the other way,” or “the City won’t give us money.”  Since Schmidt became mayor, however, several of City staff’s biggest obstacles to business and development either have been terminated or have resigned after reading the handwriting on the wall.

Zoning Code provisions that reek of uncertainty and arbitrariness, however, truly are “unfriendly to business.”  That’s why we commend Schmidt for pointing that out, and for asking Procedures & Regulation Committee chair Marc Mazzuca and Staff to get cracking on some Code revisions to dispel the uncertainty of the planned development process and standards.

Trammel Crow played the game by the City’s current rules, scaling down the project twice and substantially enhancing those project features that counted to City officials at every level of the decision-making.  Under these circumstances, therefore, we agree with P&Z’s, the Council’s and Schmidt’s decisions.

But now the City must move expeditiously on the needed revisions to Section 5 of the Zoning Code.  And developers need to take to heart Schmidt’s warning that this vote, and his non-veto, should not be viewed as a precedent for future 30% density variances or other significant departures from the Zoning Code’s basic requirements.

Because the next “squeaker” decision may well go the other way.

To read or post comments, click on title.

We have previously mentioned Park Ridge 6th Ward resident and anti-O’Hare gadfly, Gene Spanos, in our 08.17.09, 11.16.09, 12.11.09,  12.18.09, 03.08.10, 06.30.10, 04.06.11, 02.10.12 and 06.25.12 posts.  In each of those posts the subject was O’Hare, except for that June 2012 one in which we identified him as one of several residents who were reportedly recruiting Larry Ryles to challenge Mayor Dave Schmidt in the April 2013 election.

Even that post was related to O’Hare, however, because Spanos – who had backed Schmidt in 2009 – had soured on him as the result of Schmidt’s opposition to throwing boxcars of our tax dollars at fighting O’Hare expansion and all the problems that it creates for Park Ridge.

Schmidt realized, as did the members of the City Council and almost everyone else who has been paying attention and can do political head counting, that neither our state government representatives (Sen. Dan Kotowski and Rep. Rosemary Mulligan; and, since 2013, Rep. Marty Moylan) nor our federal government representatives (Sens. Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky) were ready, willing and able to go to the mat for Park Ridge…and actually get something accomplished.

That’s because O’Hare is a gold mine not only for Chicago but also for most neighboring communities whose industrial bases are comprised of businesses heavily served by, or that serve, O’Hare.  Park Ridge, on the other hand, has almost no industry and, therefore, no real economic benefits from O’Hare to off-set the detriments from what Spanos regularly described as “Mayor Daley’s Air Force” back when that evil dwarf was pushing his O’Hare Modernization Program (“OMP”) to expand his major economic/tax revenue-generating engine.

We haven’t agreed with Spanos’ spare-no-expense approach to fighting the O’Hare leviathan, and we still don’t.  But we think he has really gone off the tracks with his recent ethics complaints against 6th Ward Ald. Marc Mazzuca and the City’s O’Hare Airport Commission chairman Jim Argionis.

Spanos’ beef against those two fellows is that they have been attending meetings of the Fair Allocation in Runways (“FAiR”) Coalition, a coalition primarily of Chicago northwest side neighborhoods (and the suburbs of Harwood Heights and Norridge) that are substantially impacted by the OMP and are ostensibly looking for the same kind of relief as Park Ridge has been seeking.

Mazzuca admits to having attended two FAiR meetings last year, noting that the members of FAiR have problems similar to Park Ridge’s.  Argionis concurs, rightly pointing out that neighborhoods comprised of Chicago voters have the best chance of influencing policy and behavior of the governmental body that owns and controls O’Hare.

But according to a recent article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate, Spanos is sickened by “an elected official [Mazzuca] and an appointed official [Argionis] assisting the city of Chicago and a group of residents in the 41st Ward in their work in seeking relief.”

Say what, Gene?

What passes for Spanos’ reasoning on this issue gets even cloudier with his admission that he doesn’t have any idea whether or not what Mazzuca and Argionis have done is actually an ethics violation:

“I don’t know.  I don’t know if there’s a violation…I don’t know the city code, but as a retired law enforcement officer, I know you must always tell the truth, and what’s happening here is these FAiR group families are not telling the truth and they are being misguided by Park Ridge officials.”

That’s stone-cold flippin’ brilliant…NOT!…especially because City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill has advised the Council that Spanos’ apparently clueless beef is considered an “ethics” complaint for which the City Code requires the hiring of an independent attorney to investigate.

Spanos’ complaint about the FAiR folks not telling the “truth” appears to be related to his claim that the FAiR folks are “sandbagging”: encouraging and provoking the making of extra noise complaints to the Chicago Dept. of Aviation’s hotline.  Ironically, we recall Spanos himself encouraging Park Ridge residents to do the same.

Spanos’ misguided view of this situation very well could be sincere.  On the other hand, it could also be the product of a rivalry arising from his self-proclaimed “leadership” of an alleged-but-never-proved “500-family” group called “Citizens Against Plane Pollution” (“CAPP”).  As best as we can tell, CAPP has achieved no measurable reduction in O’Hare-related noise or pollution for Park Ridge or its residents since its inception.

It may also be telling that Spanos reportedly cancelled a February CAPP meeting at the Park Ridge Public Library because FAiR had scheduled a January 25 meeting at the Summit of Uptown, which Spanos seemed to suggest was FAiR’s unfair attempt at stealing CAPP’s thunder.  Amazingly enough, Spanos is demanding that FAiR reimburse CAPP for the meeting fee it paid the Library.

GFL with that, Gene.

What he and his fellow anti-O’Hare fanatics don’t seem to grasp is that Park Ridge lost any leverage it had over O’Hare back in 2000, when Sen. John McCain – then chair of the Senate’s influential Commerce Committee – figuratively stared down fellow Republican Rep. Henry Hyde and decreed that local Illinois politics must yield to either an expansion of O’Hare or the construction of a third Chicago airport.  That’s all Richie Daley, desperate for more revenue to conceal the consequences of his financial mismanagement of Chicago, needed to hear.

From that point, even then-mayor Ron Wietecha – the pony for whom opposition to O’Hare had been his one and only trick – realized that the anti-O’Hare ship had sailed.  He shifted his attention to Uptown Redevelopment before jumping ship entirely, resigning on a Friday evening and shortly thereafter moving to Barrington.

His next two successors, Mike Marous and Howard Frimark, ignored O’Hare and focused on satisfying their own edifice complexes by bringing Wietecha’s Uptown vision to fruition.  By the time the first new OMP runway (9L-27R) opened in November 2008 after 3 years of construction, Frimark actually seemed surprised to learn that it was bringing numerous additional flights over areas of Park Ridge that previously had been unaffected by airplane noise.

Since then, things like supplemental environmental impact studies, lobbying the FAA, and full-blown litigation have been considered and found seriously wanting in one way or other.  And only time will tell whether the noise monitor at Maine South yields any worthwhile results.

Instead of condemning Mazzuca or Argionis, anti-O’Hare folks like Spanos – and the taxpayers of Park Ridge – should be applauding their efforts to forge a working alliance with a group that would appear to have the greatest potential for bringing about an outcome far more beneficial for Park Ridge than the heretofore fruitless, if not outright worthless, lip service paid to our predicament by our elected officials at the state and federal levels.  And far more beneficial than the heretofore fruitless, if not outright worthless, activity by Spanos and CAPP.

Unless, of course, running up the City’s legal bill to investigate boneheaded ethics complaints constitutes an achievement.

To read or post comments, click on title.

As we sit here awaiting the next visit from the Alberta Clipper, the Polar Votex, or whatever new name Mother Nature’s public relations department can dream up for nasty winter weather, we are sharing with you a message from Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt about the current state of the City’s ability to deal with more snow and cold:

Hi everyone-

I have been conferring regularly over the past few weeks with our City Manager and the Public Works Director regarding winter storm response and particularly the issue of salting the streets.  I have already written to you about some of the reasoning behind when salt is used and when it is held back. 

I learned this morning from our PW Director that we are running low on salt, although we should have enough left to handle 6-8 more snow storms if our supply is used wisely.  We have already had 52 inches of snow, well above the 39 inch average. 

By way of background, the City had a stockpile of salt left over from last year, approximately 2000 tons.  The last two winters saw us use 1800 tons and 3100 tons, respectively.  Based on staff’s recommendation, we budgeted for an additional 2400 tons, for a total of 4400 tons.  We are down to about 1000 tons, and it is still only January. Staff has been searching for additional supplies, but it appears there is little or none to be had, because the severe winter weather across the country is causing the demand to spike to historic proportions.

I just finished a quick internet search, and I can tell you that the salt shortage issue is not just area-wide, it is nationwide.  I read stories from Montana, Ohio and Vermont where the situation is far worse than ours. For instance, we have the same amount of salt left as does Dayton, Ohio, a city of 140,000 people.  One more storm and they are out, and since supplies are tight everywhere, they may be out of luck.

The bottom line is that the City will be altering its salting procedures unless and until we are able to locate more salt for purchase.  For now, the Public Works Department will not be salting side streets.  Arterial and collector streets will be salted twice, once at the beginning and again once the storm has passed.

I assure you this is not a budgetary issue. We have more money for salt, but staff cannot find anywhere to buy it, even at inflated prices.  It is purely a result of low supply and excessively high demand.  In many ways, we are fortunate because we started the year with a hefty stockpile and our staff has tried to use our supplies wisely, recognizing that there are still many weeks left in the winter season and that obtaining more salt may be difficult if not impossible.

I ask the residents to be patient and understanding.  Above all, I ask them to be careful driving.  Take your time.  Saving a couple minutes is not worth risking your life or those of your loved ones and neighbors.

And remember, think positive.  Pitchers and catchers report in about three weeks. 

-Dave

Note Schmidt’s assurance that the salt shortage “is not a budgetary issue.”  It also doesn’t mean that streets won’t be plowed, just that salting will likely be limited to main streets.

If the salt runs out, the City will use sand.  The problem with sand, however, is that it ultimately gets washed into the sewers, where it accumulates and reduces sewer capacity.

Now you know the deal, so act accordingly.

To read or post comments, click on title.

We wonder whether 7th Ward Ald. Marty Maloney knew what was in store for him and his fellow aldermen when he arrived at 505 Butler Place last Monday night, with the Public Works Committee he chairs scheduled to take up the flood control projects proposed by the City’s flood consultant for three neighborhoods on the City’s northwest end.

Whether he did or didn’t know, Maloney masterfully handled the often heated marathon session attended by over 70 flood-impacted residents.  And he was able to deftly forge a consensus to move ahead with further consideration of the Mayfield Estates and Northwest Park 100-year flood control projects.

That’s “further consideration,” as in “we’re going to continue to evaluate it.”  Not: “It’s definitely going to happen.”

The Mayfield Estates project has an estimated cost of $2.3 million, while the Northwest Park project carries a tab of $16.6 million – but only if the Park Ridge Park District agrees to let the City use Northwest Park for a temporary floodwater detention area.  And from what we hear, that cooperation is nowhere near the lock some people would like it to be, although that’s an issue for another time.

Left behind Monday night was the “Country Club” flood control project for the area extending west from the Park Ridge Country Club’s Greenwood Avenue boundary.  Although that project could benefit the largest number of households among the three projects under consideration, it also could add as much as $80 million to the bill while only providing that area with protection against 10-year floods.

For those of you who are still wondering what all this 10-year, 100-year stuff means, it’s that in any given year there is a 1 in 10, of 1 in 100, chance of such a flood occurring – not that such floods are expected only every 10 or 100 years.  Another mystery solved.

We empathize with the residents of these affected areas, and especially the residents in Mayfield Estates.  Most of their problems are caused by overland flooding resulting from the lack of storm sewers in the streets – a deficiency that has existed since the installation of such sewers was rejected by Mayfield Estates residents in 1967, when that area was annexed by the City.  We’ve seen that overland flooding up close and personal, and the helpless feelings it generates truly can be devastating.

But the question of whether the substantial costs required to solve flooding problems in those three affected areas should be imposed on all the City’s taxpayers has significant economic and public policy implications.  And those implications need to be addressed with the cold light of reason and logic, not the heat of raw emotion on display Monday night by residents who demanded that the Council approve flood remediation plans NOW – and costs be damned!

Many of Monday night’s speakers stated, in one form or other, that money should be no object in dealing with these problems.  We can understand such sentiments coming from folks who likely have already done the math and realize that if the whole City is on the hook for the multi-millions of dollars it will cost to provide all this flood protection to just these two or three limited areas, the beneficiaries of that largesse are likely to reap several dollars in property value increases for every dollar they pay in increased taxes.  And they don’t seem to give a rat’s derriere that such major financial commitments will leave the City with millions more in annual debt service payments that hogtie future Councils in dealing with future City-wide needs.

Most of Monday night’s speakers portrayed themselves and their neighbors as helpless victims of some sort of City misconduct or neglect.  But nobody seemed ready, willing and able to articulate exactly what the City did – or didn’t do but should have done – that has caused any of these flooding problems, or that justifies imposing multi-million dollar burdens on all the City’s taxpayers.  For example, nobody has demonstrated, or even credibly alleged, whether and how the City ignored its own Zoning Code, Building Code, or any other codes so as to cause or exacerbate this flooding.  Similarly, nobody has demonstrated, or even credibly alleged, whether and how the City has neglected the infrastructure in those areas – at least not in ways it has not done with other areas of town.

That would appear to lead to a couple of hard and inconvenient truths: If you built or purchased a home in Mayfield Estates since at least September 2008 without a MAJOR discount because of that area’s well-known flooding problems, you’re either reckless or an outright idiot who doesn’t deserve to get bailed out by the rest of the City’s taxpayers.

And if you DID get a major discount for building or purchasing a home in that area in the hope that City-funded flood relief would provide a windfall increase in your property value, you’re a speculator who doesn’t deserve to turn a profit at the expense of your fellow taxpayers.

Advocates of these flood control projects have advanced all sorts of doomsday scenarios – running the gamut from small children and pets being swept away in the rushing floodwaters, or the elderly dying when ambulances can’t get them to Lutheran General due to impassable streets, to homeowners in these affected areas simply abandoning their homes for whatever price they can get, thereby letting “less desirable” (wink wink, nod nod) residents purchase them and colonize those areas.

Because virtually anything is “possible,” such possibilities – however farfetched – can’t be totally dismissed.  But mere possibilities can’t be allowed to act as guns to the heads of either the Council or the rest of the community, extorting OPM (“Other People’s Money”) for the benefit of the few.

While the Mayfield Estates project is “only” $2.3 million, that comes out to roughly $100,000 per affected home – or, put another way, a $100,000 handout by the City’s other taxpayers to each of those 23 affected homeowners.  If that sounds a little pricey to you, join the club.  And because it very well may sound a little pricey to a majority of the City’s other taxpayers, shouldn’t they have the right to say so, or not  – by means of an advisory referendum in November’s general election, or in the April 2015 local election – before the Council commits to these projects?

We think so, and for one very good reason: the only time in the past three decades that the City or any other local governmental body has committed such major funding or bonded debt to any project or related group of projects without at least an advisory referendum was when the City Council gave us the Uptown TIF development.  And just look at how well THAT has worked out, financially, for the City!

If these projects are such a great deal for the entire community – as their proponents loudly insist at every opportunity – then it shouldn’t be all that hard for those same proponents to make a convincing case to a majority of voters that a “yes” vote for City-funded flood control in those three affected areas is a solid investment, directly or indirectly, for the entire community.  And if they can’t make such a case and the voters say “no” to such a grand funding plan, the City Council can still choose to provide some less-costly relief to those affected areas – such as through the creation of Special Service Areas (“SSA”s) where the affected property owners take on a significant portion of the funding with the help of some reasonable City subsidy.

After all, if “money’s no object” for the City’s taxpayers, why should it be an object for the homeowners who are getting all the benefits?

Make no mistake about it: a referendum and/or the creation of SSAs may not be a perfect solution.  But based on what we know right now about the cost and effectiveness of these three proposed projects, it appears to be the fairest and most reasonable solution for all involved.

Except, perhaps, to those who’ve already developed a “jones” for OPM.

UPDATE (01.20.14)  We ran into one of our readers yesterday morning who suggested what sounds to us like an eminently fair application of the SSA approach: why not tie the City’s contribution to the cost of flood remediation in Mayfield Estates, the Northwest Park area, and elsewhere to the cost of installing relief sewers in those areas?

The precedent for this idea is that the City historically has attempted to upgrade its basic sewer system by adding relief sewers to handle storm water (even though those relief sewers usually were the first casualty whenever expenditures needed to be cut) and has not specially charged the principal beneficiaries for those relief sewers.  That’s a public policy decision that past Councils have made and reaffirmed over the years, as recently as the installation of several million dollars of relief sewers in various areas of town as part of the Burke flood remediation plan, which was done without imposing SSA’s on those residents.

Unless and until the self-styled “victims” of flooding – be it in Mayfield Estates, the Northwest Park area, west of the Country Club, or anywhere else – can present compelling evidence that the City somehow CAUSED the flooding in their area, the City should not pay what amounts to damages or reparations to the residents of those areas.  The cost of installing relief sewers, on the other hand, can legitimately be viewed as nothing more than implementing the sewer improvement/enhancement program that long has been in effect.

While we would hope that the Council will consider this kind of SSA funding for flood remediation projects such as the ones currently on the table and others to come, from what we’ve already heard from the residents of these flood-afflicted areas and their advocates, we aren’t optimistic that they will be satisfied with such a plan.  The more those folks howl about how their being required to pay anything for flood relief is unfair, however, the more they will reveal themselves to be just another group of freeloaders looking to feed at the public trough.

To read or post comments, click on title.

January 1979 was a watershed month in Chicago politics.  Or, more exactly, a snowshed month.

Then-Chicago mayor Michael Bilandic was heavily favored in the Democratic primary over his challenger, Jayne Byrne, whom Bilandic had fired from her City Hall job.  And, Chicago being Chicago, the Democratic nomination made election a foregone conclusion.

But two snowstorms within two weeks buried Chicago in over 35 inches of snow, and the resulting unplowed streets, uncollected garbage and strangled public transit enraged voters who, one month later, booted Bilandic out of City Hall.  Since that time, snow removal has been a touchy subject for most public officials in the Chicagoland area.

Which brings us to the latest snow storm in Park Ridge, which reportedly dumped a little over a foot of snow on the 140 miles of streets in our 8 square mile community and was promptly followed by sub-zero temperatures.

According to a January 2, 2014 story in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate, many of the streets where plowing was incomplete or unsatisfactory could be attributed to parked cars that impeded the plows, especially in cul de sacs.  Consequently, even though the City’s Public Works Dept. runs two 12-hour shifts of approximately 16 employees, areas went unplowed not for want of trying.  And after the snow tapered off on January 2nd, Public Works director Wayne Zingsheim reports that his crews began “salting like crazy.”

Our previous post drew a number of comments critical of the plowing and salting.  In driving around we found areas in town that seemed to justify the criticism.  But a little over a week later, most of the streets are clear, compliments of warmer temperatures and plenty of rain.

How much snow removal from this last storm actually cost the City has yet to be reported, but we suspect it will put a good-sized dent in the Public Works budget.  But when a situation can virtually remediate itself in a week or so, that raises a couple of important questions: Just how clean should the City make our streets; and how much should the City spend to do it?

We would think everybody would want the streets to be passable ASAP, and it sounds like some even expect snow and ice cleared down to the pavement.  Presumably most residents are looking for something in between.  Whatever the desired condition, however, we still need the political/economic will to pay the cost of achieving that condition.

So those are discussions we think our elected and salaried public officials should be having, starting tonight (Monday, January 13)  at City Hall, 505 Butler Place, starting at 7:00 p.m., when the City Council’s Public Works Commitee is one of the featured events of the COW (Committee Of the Whole),   If you’ve got any complaints about the recent snow removal or, better yet, some ideas on how services could be better and/or more economically provided going forward, show up and let your views be known.

Yeah, all you “anonymous” commentators to our January 8 post – especially 01.09.14 @ 9:08 am, 01.09.14 @ 4:31 pm, 01.09.14 @ 5:39 pm, 01.10.14 @ 8:56 am, 01.10.14 @ 3:33 pm, 01.10.14 @ 4:21 pm, 01.10.14 @ 4:52 pm, 01.10.14 @ 4:59 pm, 01.10.14 @ 5:39 pm, 01.11.14 @ 10:57 am, and the likes of “More money less services” on 01.09.14 @ 3:47 pm – we mean YOU!

Meanwhile, the newly-cleared streets reveal another problem – one that won’t vanish with warmer temperatures or be washed away by rain.

Pot holes.

A few drives around town yesterday and today would suggest that potholes seem to have sprung up overnight, like mushrooms.  And while most of them don’t appear to have grown to tire-blowing or wheel-bending size, that problem is just a matter of time.

Remember: The more the City spends on snow removal, the less it has to spend on pot hole repairs – unless, of course, residents want to pay more taxes.  And if you do, there’s a mayor and seven aldermen who want to hear from you.

How about at tonight’s Council meeting?

To read or post comment, click on title.

We’re already several days into 2014 and nothing all that significant has happened in local government.

Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is purely in the eye of the beholder, as we saw from several comments to our January 1 post which ripped Mayor Schmidt and the City Council for not moving fast enough to turn Park Ridge into a retail mecca, replace its antiquated sewer system, completely solve the flooding problem, and find Waldo, generally without raising taxes.  All those failings notwithstanding, however, let’s look ahead at some of the things that arguably are teed up for 2014 and consider whether they should remain that way, or whether they should be teed down.

Let’s start with EMB signs.  Frankly, we don’t care whether they’re legalized or not.  But we think the “distracted driver” argument raised by some opponents of EMBs is bogus.  Any driver who hasn’t already bounced off the median on 294 while passing that Barnum & Bailey community commonly known as Rosemont likely is immune to the more modest distractions that might be presented if The Sandlot gets an EMB and advertises “buy-one-beef-get-one-free,” or Joseph A. Banks rocks its own EMB with a “We’ll PAY YOU to buy our clothes!” invitation.

A tougher task is predicting the effect on the City’s sales tax revenues – direct and indirect – from Whole Foods and the new Mariano’s.  Will the new stores cannibalize Jewel and Trader Joe’s?  Or will they draw in enough customers from outside Park Ridge to simply grow the total retail grocery pie?  Whatever the outcome, that’s the competition that “capitalism” is supposed to provide.  And, best of all, this City Council hasn’t given subsidies to any of them.

In a sick and twisted way, we can’t wait to see the results of the community health survey created and administered under the auspices of Lutheran General Hospital.  Judging by the few results that have leaked out – and by how long LGH is delaying the release of the results, a reliable signal that a seamless propaganda message is still being woven – we expect “results” that will be used to argue (or should we say “Advocate”) for the creation of a City mental health department.  Or, at the very least, a push for City-funding for mental health care provided by LGH personnel.

Over at School District 64, the most important task will be choosing the new superintendent from two announced finalists – Laurie Heinz from Skokie Dist. 68 and Robert Machak from Evergreen Park Dist. 124 – which is scheduled to occur within the next couple of weeks.  Machak will be at Emerson Middle School to meet with the public tomorrow, Jan. 9, from 10:30 to 11:00 a.m.; and at Lincoln Middle School from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m.  Heinz will do the same drill at the same places and times on Friday, Jan. 10.  Don’t blink, or you might miss them.

While this process is somewhat more transparent than was the selection of current supt. Phil Bender four years ago, it remains far less than what taxpayers deserve – especially considering that, according to Board President Anthony Borrelli (as reported in a Jan. 6 Park Ridge Herald-Advocate story), the D-64 Board will have its “serious heart-to-heart [interview] with these candidates and find out what makes them tick, so to speak” in a closed session, hidden from public view.

C’mon, Tony, that’s a fake punt right out of former pres. John Heyde’s playbook!  Sad to say, but when it comes to transparency, this looks like one step forward, two steps back

Over at D-207, the most important goal should be halting the academic ranking slide that has seen Maine South drop from its historical top-ten spot to a slot in the 20s, even as costs have continued to rise and D-207 has some of the highest-paid teachers and administrators in the state.   But we’re not holding our collective breath waiting for that discussion to take place.

The Park Ridge Park District’s main event for 2014 should be the grand opening of the new Centennial water park this summer.  Despite our vigorous opposition to that almost $8 million project’s being approved without a referendum, we hope it will be successful and not another drain on the taxpayers, especially since those taxpayers were denied a vote on such a major Park District expenditure and debt for the first time since 1992.

2014 will likely bring a first for the Park Ridge Library – or, at least, a “first” in quite a while – as the recently-passed 2014-15 budget calls for the Library’s closure every Sunday from Memorial Day through Labor Day.  Closing on those Sundays will enable the Library to give employees a 1% pay increase, and to continue to provide patrons with free use of the Library’s computers, CDs, DVDs, and free attendance at its many programs.  DISCLOSURE:  The editor of this blog is a Library trustee; and he voted against the Sunday closure as an individual budget item, and against the budget that contained that closure.

The City will also continue to grapple with that economic black hole called the Uptown TIF, which is expected to swallow another million of our tax dollars on its way to what the City’s TIF consultants are projecting could be a $27 million hole by the TIF’s expiration in 2026. Discussion will again likely focus on advance refunding, which could save the City some signficant money but which is a one-time deal and timing-sensitive.

But the toughest question any local governmental body is likely to face this coming year is flood control.  We hope there will be an insightful and vigorous debate over whether or not to bond and spend tens of millions of dollars on flood control projects that carry the promise of protecting most affected areas from only those so-called “10-year” floods.

Having already committed hundreds (thousands?) of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultant fees to come up with the Burke recommendations, and having already undertaken 7 relief sewer projects costing $5.3 million primarily for flood control purposes, we can see how the path of least resistance might be for the Council to issue a boatload of long-term, low-interest bonds to provide a little flood control for everybody – because most of the carping about flood control to date has been in the nature of what the late, great Mike Royko called the unofficial City of Chicago motto: “Ubi est mea?” (“Where’s mine?”).

That would be the worst kind of pandering, especially since 10-year floods seem to be virtually insignificant to the vast majority of residents and not worth the $100 million or so investment that would be required to implement all those remediation projects.

But if the Council decides it wants to go in that direction, we suggest it seriously consider creating a number of special service areas (“SSA”s) where the costs could be better targeted to those most directly benefitting from such low ROI remedies.  And if it decides on proceeding with any flood control plan that requires more than $10 million of cumulative expenditures or long-term debt, the final decision should be submitted to the taxpayers via referendum in November.

The forgoing are not intended to form a comprehensive list.  We expect other issues to pop up, and one  or more of them could take on major significance.  We invite our readers to submit any that we may have left off.

But whether good, bad or downright ugly, 2014 has the makings of an “interesting” year.

To read or post comments click on title.

Happy 2014!

As one year ends and another begins, it’s time to try to learn some lessons from the past and also look with hope and expectation to the future.  This post will provide the retrospective, with the next post providing the prospective.

The single most significant local event in 2013 was the April election, and that election was dominated by two referendums – the first a referendum on Mayor Dave Schmidt’s first term, the second the Park District’s Youth Campus Park (“YCP”) referendum.

Both won, with Schmidt getting 62.06% (5,614 votes) and the YCP 55.89% (5,118) “yes” votes.  But credit must be given where credit is due: the proponents of the YCP referendum passed the first multi-million dollar parks project in at least the past 30 years.

The more important of those two Election 2013 stories, however, is Schmidt’s – because of its potential long-term significance on City government.

Schmidt’s victory bested both his percentage and his vote total (56.3% and 4,897) achieved in his 2009 victory over then-incumbent Howard Frimark, ironically a strong backer of Schmidt’s 2013 opponent, Larry Ryles.  That suggests Schmidt’s candid “Mayor No” approach touched a responsive chord in the average taxpaying voter.

Schmidt’s win was all the more noteworthy because Ryles was openly backed by the City’s three living former mayors (Ron Wietecha, Mike Marous and Howard Frimark) and by twenty-five former aldermen, purportedly representing 100 years of Council experience.  Interestingly enough, one of those mayors and several of those aldermen actually supported Schmidt 4 years ago, although that support may have been primarily anti-Frimark.

Their support of Ryles appeared to be a mix of anti-Schmidt sentiment and “old way” nostalgia, with Ryles seemingly a poster boy for the social network-style “old way” – when he wasn’t a mere afterthought, as he was in those officials’ full-page ad in the March 27, 2013 issue of the Park Ridge Journal, where Ryles’ name wasn’t even mentioned until the very last of the ad’s 10 paragraphs.

Not surprisingly, those former City officials happened to be the perpetrators of the very messes – from infrastructure neglect to million dollar deficits and that financial white elephant (for the City’s taxpayers), the Uptown TIF – that Schmidt inherited.  They clearly disliked Schmidt’s pointing out to the taxpayers all the shortcomings of their stewardship as he attempted to galvanize the public will into support for the reality checks and belt tightening needed to address all the problems those previous administrations had so effectively swept under the carpet.

Additional opposition came from something called the “Citizens for Non-Partisan Local Elections” (the “CNPLE”), the red-headed stepchild of the once-proud Homeowners Party founded by Marty Butler in the 1960s that cratered several years after Butler’s death.  CNPLE dumped $10,000 of the $15,000 it inherited from the Homeowners’ war chest into the Ryles Campaign, to no effect.

Other significant opponents of Schmidt’s re-election were the City’s employee unions, one of which – the Operating Engineers representing the City’s Public Works employees – made what we understand to be the first-ever union political contribution to a City candidate: $1,000 to the Ryles Campaign.

Whether Schmidt’s lopsided re-election in the face of that kind of “political” opposition represents a paradigm shift away from the “old way” of Park Ridge government (Ryles referred to it, variously, as “hearts and hugs” and “hugs and handshakes”) driven by business and social relationships rather than any shared principles and policies of local governance, still remains to be seen.

But the fact that Schmidt won every single precinct but one in the face of such pointed opposition from those particular factions suggests that Schmidt’s “what does it cost, what is it worth, and do we really need it” approach to City government might be becoming institutionalized.  And the prospect of the new Whole Foods and Mariano’s further rejuvenating the City’s moribund retail base doesn’t hurt, either.

The next three years should prove more than a little interesting.

To read or post comments click on title.

At Monday night’s meeting the Park Ridge City Council approved the MAP Amendment and the variances needed for the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District to commence work on its Youth Campus Park project (the “YCP”).

As best as we can tell, that was the correct result – if for no other reason than pinch-hitting City Attorney Kathy Henn’s improvised opinion that linking the City’s approval of the YCP zoning matters to the Park District’s granting of rights to the City to use Northwest Park for storm water detention might violate the City’s Zoning Code.  Not any state statute or court decision, mind you, but our own Zoning Code.

Once that opinion was given, the Council defeated the “linkage” amendment proposed by Ald. Nick Milissis (2nd) by a vote of 5-2, Ald. Jim Smith (3rd) and Milissis dissenting; and then it approved the zoning relief by a vote of 6-1, Smith again dissenting.

Whether Henn’s opinion on this issue will cause the Council to revise the Zoning Code to eliminate the arguable ban on linkage in the future remains to be seen.  But it probably deserves at least some cursory review to determine whether linkage is an arrow that belongs in the City’s zoning quiver.

The linkage issue inspired some interesting discussion/debate by the aldermen, one aspect of which deserves special mention because it was as unnecessary as it was disappointing.

Regular readers of this blog may recall that we endorsed Marty Maloney for 7th Ward alderman in 2011, and he prevailed in a 3-way race.  While we have disagreed with him significantly on several occasions since his election, he has served honorably and creditably overall – just as he served honorably and creditably on the Park Board from 2003-2011.

But in arguing against Milissis’ linkage amendment by suggesting that the Park District could be expected to cooperate with the City’s storm water detention program, Maloney disingenuously cited the cooperation of Park Boards past in accommodating the City’s installation of its two reservoirs on Park District land (Kalina Field and Hinkley Park), and the construction of the City’s salt dome at Oakton Park.

Why was that disingenous?

Because Maloney knows that no governmental bodies act consistently and predictably: he’s now been a member of two different ones.  Their actions are always the product of the personalities, policies and politics of the elected officials who oversee them, and of the bureaucrats to whom the elected officials too often delegate/abdicate too much responsibility and discretion.

The people who sat on the Park Boards that gave the City the use of Kalina, Hinkley and Oakton for City facilities are not the same people who sit on the Park Board now.  And the attitude displayed by a majority of the current Park Board members, and by its director, is not the same one that prevailed back when those three projects were done.

Maloney knows that, too, because he was on the Park Board when the new City reservoir was constructed under Hinkley Park.  He knows that the City didn’t even have to ask the Park District for the use of Hinkley Park because it was the then-Park Board that came up with the idea – and offered that site to the City – as a way to save City taxpayers the millions of extra dollars it would have cost to put the new reservoir on the old Public Works site at Greenwood and Elm, which was the City’s original plan.

Putting the reservoir at Hinkley also kept that old Public Works property available for sale by the City for what some brokers had previously guestimated to be another million dollars or more.  And it prevented the delays in the reservoir project, and the Uptown Redevelopment project that depended on relocating the reservoir, by the additional time left on NICOR’s lease of the old Public Works property that NICOR didn’t vacate until 2009.

Maloney also knows that this Park Board is different from previous ones – including the ones he served on – because his boards (with the support of then executive director Jim Lange) went to referendum four times during 2005-2006, at least twice on multi-million dollar aquatic facilities.  Those boards and that director respected the taxpaying voters of this community enough to ask for their endorsement and their tax dollars for such expensive projects with such substantial long-term impact on this community.  And they had the courage to risk being told “no,” as they were.

That’s a far cry from this current Park Board, a majority of which just a year ago arrogantly told the taxpaying voters to go scratch themselves – and the horses they rode in on – when that Board voted to build the $8 million Centennial water park without the courtesy of even an advisory referendum.  Those cowards insisted they knew that the community wanted the water park, they just didn’t have the courage to find out for sure.

At Monday night’s Council meeting, Maloney talked about obtaining the cooperation of those Park Board members voluntarily, calling on the “you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” aphorism.  But “flies” who seemingly care so little for what is fair and just for the entire community that they don’t have the decency to hold a vote on an $8 million water park, may not be “catch”-able when it comes to making Northwest Park available for storm water detention, especially now that they’ve got their YCP zoning.

After all, those are some of the same folks who turned tail and ran away from the North Park detention area project after some neighbors beefed about it.  Can they be trusted not to cut and run again if Northwest Park neighbors beef?  Can they be trusted to stand tall when the Park District’s sports affiliates show up en masse to oppose anything that might jeopardize their Northwest Park playing fields?

We hope Maloney is right with about catching flies, because the City just gave the Park District plenty of honey.

But he was dead wrong Monday night by suggesting what past Park Boards had done was a predictor of what the current Park Board might do.  That’s the kind of cheap political trickery we have come to expect from our state senators and state representatives, and from all those other two-bit professional politicians that have run our state into the ground.

You’re much better than that, Ald. Maloney.

You know it.  And we know it.

To read or post comments, click on title.