A couple of years ago, the City Council amended the City’s Ethics Ordinance to address some gaping holes, like self-dealing and “insider” (e.g., friend, friend-of-a-friend, campaign contributor) dealing. 

One of the results of that effort was the current Section 2-5-3, which “absolutely” prohibits our mayor, aldermen and certain other City officials – both while they are in office and for two years afterward – from acting as an agent for others in their dealings with the City. 

Despite being the mayor when this Section was extensively debated and enacted, it appears that Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark may have earned the dubious distinction of being its first violator – by selling insurance to the folks in charge of the Uptown development: Developer PRC Partners and the Uptown Condominium Homeowners Association (“UCHA”).  Oh, yes, and to the City.  

According to his “mouthpiece” – not surprisingly, Frimark “lawyered up” with prominent local attorney and consummate “insider” Jack Owens – the former mayor did exactly what the ordinance prohibits. 

After proclaiming to the Council that Frimark “was actually solicited” by the UCHA, Owens admitted that Frimark sold insurance to PRC and UCHA that covered the underground parking garage, of which the City owns three floors.  According to Owens, Frimark initially bound the coverage for only PRC and UCHA without knowing the City was supposed to be an additional named insured, and obligated to pay part of the premium, based on its contract with PRC – even though Frimark was an alderman when that contract was negotiated and executed.

But Owens’ attempt at mounting the “ignorance-is-bliss” defense crashed and burned seconds later when he admitted that Frimark, after being informed of the City’s status and interest, went ahead and “bound the coverage for the City…the next day.” (If you want to hear it for yourself, the video – courtesy of intrepid videographer George Kirkland and up-link expert Charles Melidosian – can be found at yesterday’s post on Park Ridge Underground http://parkridgeunderground.blogspot.com/2009/10/city-council-meeting-video-oct-19-2009.html )

Sounds like game, set and match, right?  Time for Owens to start trying to negotiate Frimark’s fine down from the maximum $5,000, right?

Not so fast, Bunky.

Even though City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill had prepared an “interim” report which presumably found the same ordinance violation by Frimark to which Owens admitted from the Council floor, the enforcement of the ordinance requires that a formal “complaint” about the violation be filed. 

In this case, Hill’s analysis and report arose not out of a formal complaint but, instead, from a simple inquiry by Mayor Dave Schmidt, who had heard of Frimark’s involvement in the insurance deal and asked Hill for an opinion of whether or not that was an ordinance violation.

The upshot is that, unless somebody actually files a formal complaint, it looks like Frimark is off the hook, ethics be damned.

Of course, Schmidt or one of his supporters could file the formal complaint, which would almost certainly be followed by howling accusations of “vendetta politics” and “witch hunt” by Frimark and his allies. Whether the mayor or an ally will run that risk remains to be seen. 

But an excellent way to stifle such accusations would be for one of Frimark’s five former(?) “alderpuppets” and campaign contributors – Allegretti, Bach, Carey, DiPietro and Ryan – to lodge the complaint, which could serve as a meaningful endorsement by them of ethics in City government.  We’re not going to hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen, however, especially in light of the palpable expressions of relief they (other than Carey, who was absent) displayed upon hearing about the complaint requirement.

According to Owens, the City’s share of Frimark’s commission on the insurance sale would be $365 – a figure he spoke with an almost dismissive, “so what?” tone.

But this isn’t about $365, or about the much larger commission Frimark will earn from the rest of the insurance he placed for PRC and UCHA. It’s not even about the $1,000 to $5,000 fine that could be assessed against Frimark for this violation, even though the financially-challenged City can use every stray dollar it can grab.

This is about the City’s ethics ordinance and about those acts which that ordinance describes as being “not mere conflicts of interest, but…absolutely prohibited” – seemingly irrespective of the ignorance or intent of the person committing them.  And this is about whether an absolute prohibition is worth the paper it’s printed on.

We live in what is commonly referred to as “Crook County,” in what the Chicago Tribune described as the “State of Corruption” because of the ethically bankrupt way government operates in Illinois. The reason ordinances such as this one were enacted is because too many elected and appointed public officials in this state seem to need bright-line standards of ethical and unethical conduct.

But if ordinances like this are not going to be scrupulously and aggressively enforced, they are worthless.  Or, even worse, they are a sick joke…primarily on the taxpayers who keep footing the bill for the graft and corruption that seem virtually institutionalized in, ironically, the Land of (Honest Abe) Lincoln.  

For those of you who are curious about local government secrecy and intrigue, however small-potatoes it might be, tonight’s City Council agenda [pdf] (7:30 p.m., 505 Butler Place) has a two-fer for you.

The first item comes fairly early on the agenda, under the “City Attorney” portion of the festivities and bearing the innocuous title “Target Area 2 Insurance.”  This should be City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill’s opining on whether former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark is violating the City’s ethics ordinance by his involvement in the sale of insurance for the parking garage portion of the Uptown development.

Because the City owns three levels of the underground parking garage, it must be listed as an “insured” on the insurance policy.  According to City Mgr. Jim Hock (per an Oct. 7 Park Ridge Journal story), the City is obligated to pay only 21% of the garage premium because condo residents and customers of the businesses there are using most of the City’s spaces. The rest of the premium is being paid by PRC Partners and the Uptown Condominium Homeowners Association (“UCHA”).

PRC and/or UCHA reportedly chose Frimark as the broker for this insurance coverage. 

Under Article 2, Section 2-5-3 E(1) [pdf] of the ethics ordinance – which was enacted while Frimark was mayor – certain City officials (including the mayor) are prohibited from acting “as agent…for any party in that other party’s request for consideration from the City or in that other party’s claim against the City” while serving as an official “or within two (2) years after his or her office…has ceased.”

Frimark clearly served as mayor less than 2 years ago, so the key question to be answered by Attorney Hill is whether Frimark’s involvement in placing the insurance coverage makes him an “agent” regarding a “party’s request for consideration from the City” – with the “party” in question being PRC, UCHA, and/or the insurance company issuing the coverage?

Under the “Definitions” in Section 2-5-1 [pdf], “Consideration from the City” shall include “use of or interest in City property…and contracting with or product or service vending to the City.”  

We’re not municipal law experts, but it sure looks to us like being the insurance broker for coverage of the City’s ownership interest in the garage that provides spaces for use by PRC and UCHA, is both an “interest in City property” and “product [in this case, insurance coverage] or service [in this case, insurance brokerage] vending to the City.”  

If Hill believes a violation has occurred and recommends prosecution, the City would have to file a lawsuit against Frimark in the Circuit Court of Cook County.  Under Section 2-5-13 [pdf], if the court finds a violation, the violator “shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000 for each offense.” 

But irrespective of what Atty. Hill finds or recommends, under Section 2-5-8 [pdf] the City Council still has the final say on whether or not to file the lawsuit against Frimark.  And, frankly, we don’t see that happening, given that five of the current aldermen not only endorsed the former mayor for re-election but also contributed a total of $3,829.51 to his campaign fund: Allegretti – $1,500; Bach – $400; Carey – $500; DiPietro/CrossTech Communications – $565; and Ryan – $864.51.

Plus, they’ve got a built-in excuse for giving this violation – assuming Hill finds Frimark’s conduct to be one – the proverbial wink and nod: a court case, especially if Frimark contests it, could well cost the City more in attorneys’ fees and filing costs than the it could recover in fines.  And since those five Frimark aldermen are the same fiscal conservatives who keep on running up multi-million dollar deficit budgets, they have to start economizing somewhere.

The “other” bit of secrecy on tonight’s agenda is the continuing refusal by City Staff to identify the owner of 31-33 S. Prospect who wants the City to pay it $24,000 a year to keep the current portion of “Pickwick Plaza” behind that property intact, or remove it at a cost of $62,369 – as can be seen from the newest Carrie Davis “Agenda Cover Memorandum” [pdf] on the subject, which this time makes only one discrete reference to “the property owner.”  That discussion is scheduled under the report of the Public Works Committee, near the end of the meeting. 

Thanks to the comment to last Friday’s post (“Another Side To The Culture Of Secrecy”) by one of our readers, we were able to confirm that the current owner of that property is Winchester Investment Services, L.L.C. [pdf], whose managers are Timothy and Jennifer Perry.  Mr. Perry is a prominent, long-time mortgage broker in town, and Mrs. Perry chairs the newly-formed Park Ridge O’Hare Airport Commission. 

That’s not to suggest that the Perry’s or their LLC are doing anything wrong here.  As best as we can tell, they acquired that commercial property with an existing contract with the City that gives them the legal right to restoration of the parking spaces and dumpster pad now that the City’s $1-a-year lease has expired; and they are lawfully exercising their rights under that contract.

Which is why we just don’t understand what Ms. Davis or the rest of the gang over at City Hall is trying to cover up, or why, by so tenaciously keeping the property owner’s identity a “secret.”  Haven’t they figured out that one really effective way to create suspicion about City business is to keep some relevant element of it a secret…especially when that “business,” one way or the other, is going to cost the taxpayers some dough?

But, then again, maybe the Culture of Secrecy is so entrenched over at 505 Butler Place that the bureaucrats don’t even “get” the concept of “transparent” government…or simply don’t don’t think it applies to them.

This week’s Park Ridge Journal carried a story about the October 12 City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, at which was discussed the owner of the building at 31-33 S. Prospect re-claiming 8 parking spots that had been leased to the City since 1986 for $1 per year (“Businesses Want Parking Lot Back,” Oct. 14).

The City acquired the right to those spaces in the rear of that building and other adjoining buildings to create “Pickwick Plaza” by installing lights and landscaping.  According to Director of Community Development Carrie Davis, all of the leases for the Pickwick Plaza have come due, and none of the seven property owners have expressed interest in renewing the leases.

Apparently the lease for 31-33 S. Prospect was “the only one…that required a restoration” of the property to its pre-Pickwick Plaza condition, according to City Attorney Everette “Buzz” Hill.

Actually, the owner of that property is willing to re-up the lease with the City, but at market rates rather than the token $1 per year.  That would have put the rent at approximately $2,000 a month.  If the City chooses not to re-up, however, it is required under the lease to restore the area to its 1986 condition of 8 parking spaces and a dumpster pad, for which the City has received a bid of $62,369.

Whether maintaining that portion of Pickwick Plaza is worth $24,000 a year is an open question, especially in view of the cost of restoration.  But we find two aspects of this situation particularly interesting – one troubling, the other surprising to the point of humor.

The troubling aspect of this situation is the fact that neither the Journal account of it, nor the City’s “Agenda Cover Memorandum” [pdf] by Director of Community Development Carrie Davis, identifies the owner of that property.  And, even more amazingly, a review of the video of that meeting reveals that even during the almost one-half hour Council/Staff discussion, the owner’s name was not mentioned once!

What’s so secret about the identity of this particular property owner that he can only be referred to as “the owner”?  And why does he appear to be playing games with the City, as suggested by the conflicting assertions of his need for the 8 parking spaces but yet being willing to forego those needed 8 spaces for a rental payment of $24,000 a year?   

Hmmmmm.

As for the surprising/humorous aspect, try Ald. Don Bach’s (3rd Ward) having “broached the idea” of the City just grabbing the land by condemnation under eminent domain.  Although eminent domain condemnation is a perfectly legitimate and constitutionally-approved power of government to acquire property for an identifiable public purpose, our local politicians and bureaucrats historically have treated this “ED” as if it were the medical problem with the same abbreviation: they didn’t want to even talk about it.

Over the past couple of years, Bach and the rest of the aldermen dared not even whisper the words “eminent domain” while their mentor, former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark, negotiated behind the scenes with various property owners around town, ostensibly to cut a deal on a site for the big new cop shop Frimark – and Bach – desired. The party line then was that a negotiated deal was better than condemnation, even though eminent domain provides for the owner to receive Fair Market Value for his property.

Yet here’s Bach, speaking those words publicly about what seems to us to be a pretty insignificant piece of ground. 

We have to wonder whether Bach’s apparent change of heart has anything to do with the identity of the owner, he whose name must not be spoken?    

The last big piece of land the City sold was the reservoir block, which went to PRC for the Uptown development in what some consider to have been a “sweetheart” deal – if for no other reason than the City, amazingly enough, never got an MAI appraisal in an attempt to establish its fair market value before selling it.

Which should cause Park Ridge taxpayers at least a bit of concern over the article in yesterday’s Park Ridge Journal that the City is looking to sell the NICOR property at Greenwood and Elm now that NICOR’s lease is ending. (“Nicor Gas Lot Will Soon Be Up For Sale,” Oct. 14)

The Journal reports that the City has obtained “a three-level appraisal” for the former site of the City’s Public Works Dept. garage: $2.1 million if used for multi-family residential, $1.8 million if used for industrial, and from $1.6 to $1.8 million for single-family residential, all of which could be affected by whether or not there are any significant soil contamination issues.

Unfortunately, the Journal article does not identify who did this appraisal, and what his/her/its qualifications are.  We understand, however, that the appraiser was Marous & Company, which has a top-flight reputation and is Park Ridge-based – so we will assume it’s reliable until proven otherwise.

But what we find troubling is the quote from City Mgr. Jim Hock: “You may decide to take less cash from the sale of the property if you get the developer that you know is going to follow through with what you want to see on the property.”

Gee, Jim, do you mean a multi-family residential developer like Andrew Koglin’s PRC?  Or a multi-family residential developer like Bruce Adreani’s Norwood Builders?

We don’t think the City has any business whatsoever “favoring” any particular developer.  That’s a sure way of encouraging sweetheart deals with insiders, which may be the typical way things are done here in Illinois but which also is one of the main reasons our state, county and City governments are in the financial messes they’re in.

The City has codes and ordinances that were enacted to deal with these kinds of issues irrespective of who the developer may be – so long as they are ENFORCED.   As we have seen over the past few years, however, lack of enforcement and the granting of variances seem to be as much the rule as the exception.

We believe that before the City gets any further along on this matter, it should hold a couple of well-publicized public hearings to let the residents speak for the record about what THEY would like to see constructed on that site – if anything – and why.  Concerns about density and the demands on our already-hobbled infrastructure should get a full airing and debate before any decision about this site is made.

Transparent and accountable government demands nothing less.

What if you owned a home and your next-door “neighbor” raised the grade of his property between one and two feet above yours…before covering most of it with a McMansion and assorted paving to create a major rainwater run-off onto your property and into your basement?

Our informal, unscientific poll of about a dozen Park Ridge residents revealed the unanimous view that they’d be pretty darn unhappy.  The poll also indicated those same residents assumed that something in our City Code would prevent that from happening in the first place; or, at the very least, that the Code would require some structural features designed to ensure that the property captured its own water and did not become a nuisance to its neighbors. 

From the report in last week’s Park Ridge Journal (“Residents Claim New Home Causes Flooding,” September 30), that’s what residents Cliff Kowalski and Jeff Getz thought, too.  But, to their chagrin, they apparently were wrong – as they found out when they appeared before the City Council on September 21 to complain about how (according to them) City staff did nothing in response to months of their complaints about the new home at 322 S. Vine.

According to Carrie Davis, the City’s Director of Preservation and Community Development, there are no elevation standards in the City’s building code.  If that’s true, could some creative (and/or twisted) property owner build a mini-mountain for his new dwelling, limited only by the Code’s overall height limits for single-family residences?

Davis also noted that, prior to the new construction, the 322 S. Vine site was lower than its neighbors and accepted the run-off from the adjoining parcels.  So “[t]he new homeowners are taking care of their own drainage.” 

By diverting it onto their neighbors’ property?  That doesn’t sound like the best solution to us, nor does it sound like a shining example of how government is supposed to function.

Make no mistake about it: the new residence is a grand structure, certain to generate more property taxes from that parcel.  And it may enhance the overall attractiveness of that area, as well, depending on whether your taste in architecture runs toward stately stone manors.

But as Kowalski told the Council, he had no water problems before the new residence was built on its man-made mound.  That’s a comment we’ve heard with increasing frequency over the past several years, as newer, bigger homes and multi-family structures cover even more green space, creating additional demands on our infrastructure.

First Ward Ald. Joe Sweeney suggested withdrawing the temporary occupancy permit for the new structure while the problem is being analyzed and resolved.  That might put some pressure on the owner to become a little more invested in the semi-lost art of neighborliness.

And we have to give a Watchdog bark-out to Ald. Robert Ryan (5th Ward), one of our regular whipping boys, for pointing out that the City’s building code “appears to lack proper standards regarding elevations of new homes close to existing homes.”  As most 12-step programs make clear, admitting the existence of a problem is a crucial step in remedying it.  Now let’s see what Ald. Ryan does to help the City get to the next step on this problem.

In that regard, the Journal article reports that the City hired an “independent” engineering consultant who determined that there was nothing illegal or improper about the new structure.  Although the Journal does not identify that consultant, we understand that it was Bernie Bono of Bono Consulting. 

Ironically, that firm’s website has the following Q & A on its “Single Family Residential” page:

I have the lowest lot in the block, why do I have to accept my neighbor’s storm water runoff? Why can’t I just block it and let him deal with his own water?

Illinois drainage law states “Landowners, including highway authorities, have a right to drain water away as it would in a state of nature. Lower landowners, including highway authorities, have a responsibility to accept water flowing naturally onto or through their lands and have no right to interfere with such natural drainage.”

Hmmmm.

And we also understand that Bono was the consultant to the property’s owner and/or contractor.

Double Hmmmmm. 

Last week’s Herald-Advocate carried a story on City Finance Director Diane Lembesis’ report to the City Council Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting last Monday night (“Finance director says $5.4M deficit not as bad as it seems,” Sept. 29). 

In addition to the 2009-10 budget year deficit having grown to $5.4 million, Lembesis also reported that the City’s General Fund – its principal operating fund – had to borrow money from other funds last week in order to make payroll!  But fear not, Park Ridgians: she expects the deficit to shrink approximately $3.2 million, down to around $2.2 million, by year end. 

Why?  Well, the H-A story doesn’t say. 

But if you check out the video of that COW meeting on Park Ridge Underground from Sept. 29th, you’ll hear Lembesis say that such a reduction is based on her “experience” – although her rambling response to Ald. Don Bach’s question is far from confidence-inspiring, and sounds a lot more like guess-timation than information.

For example, when talking about her hopes for a big increase in sales tax revenues this year, she states: “I know Trader Joe’s, I think that…every time I’m in Trader Joe’s it’s doing great business. I know Jason’s, every time I go in there I have to wait in a long long line.” 

Those kinds of stories may be gratifying to those of us who would like to see a lot more sales tax revenue being generated by local businesses, but we expect the City’s director of finances to rely on hard, cold numbers, not on warm and fuzzy personal anecdotes.  And we expect our elected representative on the City Council to demand them.

Another thing not reported in the H-A story is the identity of those other City fund(s) from which the money to meet payroll was borrowed.  But, once again, the COW video on PRU captures Lembesis saying that payroll was met by the City borrowing from the Water Fund – which, as best as we can tell, is currently the only City fund with enough of a balance to make such rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul loans.

Ironically, the Water Fund is the favorite whipping-fund of  Ald. Frank Wsol (7th Ward), who continually refers to it as over-funded because of its $2 million-plus balance.  Wsol continually cites that balance in chiding anyone (e.g., Mayor Schmidt and City Mgr. Hock) who advocates for passing on to water users the full cost of the increase in water prices charged to Park Ridge by the City of Chicago.

But maybe with Lembesis’ identification of the Water Fund as the City’s de facto “lender,” Wsol – the self-proclaimed “fiscal conservative” who can’t seem to understand that pay-as-you-go is one of the benchmarks of fiscal conservatism – might finally appreciate the wisdom of stopping the subsidization of water use, especially when that subsidization disproportionately benefits big water users at the expense of those who use less, or who actually conserve water.  That’s because not only is charging users for the full cost of the water they use the fairest thing to do, but the increased water revenues will help replenish the “bank” from which the City borrows.

And in case Ald. Wsol doesn’t understand why the City needs to borrow to make payroll, it’s because Wsol and his Council buddies can’t seem to stop aiding and abetting City bureaucrats in spending more than the City takes in.  Go figure.

“This is not gloom and doom,” said Lembesis. Maybe not, but it sure sounds a lot closer to “doom and gloom” than it does to a sunny day at the beach.   

Special “Spokesman” Edition: Today’s K&B focuses on the new issue of “The Spokesman,” our City’s bi-monthly, publicly-funded public relations effort. 

“We’re Fine, Just Ask Us.”  The featured cover story is about City government winning the 2009 “Voice of the People Award for Excellence in Code Enforcement” from the International City/County Management Association (“ICMA”).  Having spent a good amount of time checking out these types of fluff-and-stroke “professional” organizations (isn’t ICMA the one whose meeting City Mgr. Hock recently attended and was told by other city managers that our target fund balances were too high and should be lowered to meet actual performance?) and these kinds of feel-good awards, we’ve graduated from snickering up our sleeves to laughing out loud at how the folks running these mutual-admiration societies for government bureaucrats actually believe the public will fall for this kind of tripe…and how a certain gullible segment of the public actually does. 

But just reading The Spokesman’s bureaucratically-earnest account of the award and why the City won it brought a wry smile to our faces, as we hope it does to yours.  And it should, because we’re all paying for it.

“PRC’s Fine, Just Ask Us.”  For the first time in memory, The Spokesman sports a “special” four-page insert “[that] features our outstanding Uptown redevelopment project as it nears completion.”  For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, that’s the big condo and townhouse project in the center of town that was supposed to be (according to the propaganda floated by developer PRC and our City officials during the planning stage) a “partnership” between PRC and the City. 

Well, we haven’t seen any evidence of any “partnership” – or any good-faith, fiduciary-style behavior from PRC.  What we have seen, however, is the roughly $40 million of bonded debt that’s been hung around the taxpayers’ necks, along with a TIF district that in recent years has sucked millions of additional dollars out of City coffers while almost single-handedly pushing our annual budgets into their chronic multi-million dollar deficits. 

But, hey, it’s a really snazzy – and colorful – puff piece.  Did PRC at least pay for it, or is that yet another instance of PRC picking the taxpayers’ pocket?

New Nonprofit Center.  Last Friday we wrote about the Park Ridge Nonprofit Center, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation that is somehow involved in the ownership and/or management of the building at 720 Garden that formerly housed the American Insurance Agency.  The Spokesman appears to gild the lily a bit by reporting that resident John Sasser purchased the site “to save the building and to offer a site for local nonprofits to protect them from a difficult market situation.”

720 Garden is the property that, back in early 2008, then-mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark wanted the City to buy for a big new cop shop.  He wanted it so much that when the City’s own appraisal came in at several hundred thousand dollars under what the owner was asking, Frimark demanded a new, higher appraisal!  But when he caught some well-deserved flak for that, Frimark and his Alderpuppets retreated into closed session and agreed to offer the owner $1.1 million – more than $200,000 above the City’s appraisal.  The owner rejected the offer, and Sasser appears to have picked it up a year and a half later for $950,000.   

Cynics that we are, we wonder whether Mr. Sasser’s devotion to “saving” the building is a long-term commitment, or just a long-enough one…until the real estate market improves and he can turn a nifty profit on his investment.  Only time will tell.  Meanwhile, however, we wonder whether all those nonprofits he’s inviting into his building will be charged rent or other fees to help him with his carry costs…and whether those nonprofits will, in turn, add those costs into the amount of the handouts they regularly seek – and receive – from a heretofore compliant City Council.

Once again, only time will tell.

Tonight’s City Council Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting (7:00 p.m. at City Hall) features the Finance & Budget Committee (“F&B”) and the Procedures & Regulations Committee (“P&R”).  And two of the agenda items under F&B happen to be: “Special Events” and “Review of City’s Financial Condition.” 

That’s fitting, because the City’s overall financial condition should be THE reference point to anything it does, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers’ money.  And a look at the Finance Review [pdf] that will be discussed tonight gives some indications of why.

As best we can tell, it looks like both the “fund balance” and the City’s “cash” positions are under even the low end of the desired target levels, although the “Review” doesn’t seem to be the most readily understandable document when it comes to the average citizen actually being able to fully understand what’s what.

Of the many things that appear troubling, we note that the Uptown TIF continues to be millions of dollars under water, owing $4,300,000 to the General Operating Fund while having sucked up $42.4 million in bonded debt.  Good thing it’s “projected to be fully paid in 2021.”

Surprisingly, however, it appears that the Dempster TIF (a/k/a, the “Bredemann TIF”) – which purportedly was an unqualified success – is currently struggling, with expenses ($249,088) that exceed revenues ($245,606).  The recession has probably paid a big role in that situation, but we sure can’t tell how from this Review.

Maybe that information will be revealed at tonight’s meeting.

Which brings us to the Special Event expenses, as more fully described in the “Agenda Cover Memorandum” [pdf], which raises some good discussion points, a few of which we would like to specifically address.

“Should all events be required to be financially self-sufficient?”  Why not?  What’s wrong with the concept of pay-as-you-go?  With the City’s finances in distress and essential City services and projects either being cut back or deferred, why should these “events” – which are amenities rather than necessities, and many of which are being run by and for the benefit of private entities rather than the City itself – get a free pass to run up expenses on the taxpayers’ dime? 

“Should the City seek reimbursement from the schools”…for City expenses, such as for additional police officers to direct traffic for Friday night football games?  Again, why not – especially when we’re talking about two separate taxing bodies, one of which (Dist. 207) appears to be far better off financially than the City?  Having one taxing body effectively subsidize the other is a good way of reducing, if only by a little, the accountability of both bodies at a time when we should be demanding more accountability from them, not less.

“Should the City require…community groups we donate funds to, to provide expenditure reports?”  Once again, why not?  In a more accountable, less political world, community groups would live entirely off donations and the revenues they can generate for themselves because “not for profit” shouldn’t be synonymous with “dependent on tax dollars.” So if these groups are going to ask for tax dollars, and if the taxpayers are going to be forced – by the largesse of their elected and appointed representatives, who seem to find Other People’s Money (“OPM”) so easy to spend – to pay “donate” to these groups, why shouldn’t the City require some accountability from those groups in the form of detailed expenditure reports?

And, finally: “How do we define ‘Return On Investment’ to our community?”  We can start by defining “investment,” making sure we distinguish it from mere “expenditure.”  And if the “investment” we’re talking about is of tax dollars, then at least one required measure of the “return” should be in the form of dollars as well – because those warm-and-fuzzy “quality of life” measurements some folks prefer always seem to be more anecdote than measurement.

The old business adage that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure” should be every bit as applicable to government as it is to business. And government’s traditional resistance to accurate, objective measurement of its activities is one of the things that has made it so unmanageable…and so unaccountable.

Hopefully tonight’s discussion will start to change all that, at least for the City of Park Ridge.

This week’s Park Ridge Journal reports on the new Park Ridge Nonprofit Center at 720 Garden Street, which has landed the Park Ridge Chamber of Commerce as its “anchor” tenant. (“Park Ridge Chamber Keen On New Building,” Sept. 23)

For those keeping score, this is the former home of American Insurance Agency and one of the buildings that former mayor Howard Frimark was secretly negotiating for the City to acquire as the site for the big new police station he and several aldermen were trying to shove down the taxpayers’ throats – until a citizen-led petition drive put a cop shop referendum question on last April’s ballot after the City Council refused the citizens’ (and then-Ald. Dave Schmidt’s) requests that the Council put the question on the ballot.  

Even though it was just an advisory referendum, its overwhelming rejection by the voters, combined with Frimark’s loss to Schmidt in the mayoral election, has put at least a temporary halt on that misguided project.  And that turned out to be a very good thing indeed, because the new cop shop would have added another $1 million-plus a year to the multi-million dollar budget deficits the City was already running under Frimark. 

According to the Journal story, the Chamber is gushing about the Center’s huge event rooms, smaller meeting rooms, and space for several other organizations for offices or storage. And the Chamber’s executive director, Gail Haller, is already talking about hosting “events and…traveling art exhibits.”

That’s just swell, really it is.  But given Park Ridge’s historically underwhelming performance in drawing and supporting tax-generating businesses to our community, doesn’t the Chamber have better things to do than serving as an entertainment booking agent – or than, as the Journal reports, managing and maintaining the 720 Garden building for Park Ridge Nonprofit Center [pdf] (“PRNC”), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation organized in March, 2008, and whose registered agent is the consummate Park Ridge insider, attorney John E. “Jack” Owens? 

Which causes us to wonder why the usually solid Journal reporter, Craig Adams, didn’t include some important information about 720 Garden’s new status, like: “Who actually owns the property?” And: “Will the new ownership and use affect the property taxes paid on the property?” And even: “How does the Chamber’s leaving 32 Main Street affect that property’s economics?”

We raised such concerns about 720 Garden in our post “Another Real Estate Sham…Wow! (05.29.09) and we still think they are significant ones, given that the Cook County Assessor’s office currently lists that property [pdf] as two parcels having a combined assessed value of $277,902, although the parcel valued at $72,262 carries a class code of 4-90, for “Not for profit other minor improvements,” while the larger parcel’s 5-92 code is for “Two or three story building containing part or all retail and/or commercial space.”

As a community, Park Ridge needs to be very concerned and circumspect about anything that could reduce rather than increase property tax revenues to a financially-troubled City government, and to the schools which rely almost entirely on property tax revenues for their operations.  Ostensibly, that was the principal driving force behind the Uptown TIF and PRC’s mixed-use development in Uptown.

We believe that while Park Ridge has historically been a haven for a number of non-profits who have contributed to the character of our community, it sure wouldn’t hurt for the City to focus more on attracting and retaining for profit entities and activities.  And we would expect our local Chamber of Commerce to be a leader in that effort.

Which is why we wonder, if only a little bit, about the Chamber and 720 Garden.

The City of Park Ridge is one step closer to voting on an ordinance intended to encourage the preservation of old and historically significant buildings following Monday night’s City Council Procedures & Regulation (“P&R”) Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting to discuss the draft ordinance crafted by the Historic Preservation Task Force.

We like old buildings that add character to the neighborhoods they grace, and we prefer them to some of those F.A.R.-fudging, cookie-cutter structures that have popped up around town in recent years.  But we also favor the rights of individual property owners to decide what to build on their land, unless those rights are in conflict with an over-riding public purpose.

We also are naturally suspicious of grandiose and factually suspect government pronouncements, like some of those we found in Section 23-1-1 D [pdf] of the proposed ordinance, such as that preservation will  “[s]tablilize and improve the economic vitality and value of the City in general” and “[e]nhance the City’s appeal to visitors so as to support and stimulate commerce.”  

We’re surprised somebody couldn’t find a way to stick “vibrant” in there somewhere.

But unless and until we can identify and ensure the preservation of a lot more “historically significant” buildings in Park Ridge than we here at PublicWatchdog currently are aware of, we don’t see our community becoming a national attraction akin to “Colonial Williamsburg” anytime soon.  That means our City Council and Staff better figure out how to close the multi-million dollar budget holes without counting on an avalanche of tourist dollars.    
 
The concept is a good one in principle, however, and we hope the proposed ordinance gets a thorough hearing on issues such as whether, and at what cost, the City will be able to effectively preserve historically significant buildings from being torn down or dramatically altered by their owners or developers – unless the City uses already-scarce public funds to acquire them.

We would also like to see somebody (the to-be-created Historic Preservation Commission?) begin pro-actively identifying, at least on a threshold basis, all the structures that are likely to qualify for historic preservation status and why, so as to give both their owners and the City some idea of the scope of the preservation task at hand.

We understand that the ordinance will be on the City Council’s agenda this coming Monday (September 28, 7:30 p.m.).  For those who believe in the preserving the character of our community, that might be a meeting worth attending.