Monday’s edition of the Chicago Tribune contained an editorial titled “Springfield’s lost boys” which criticized the politicians who infest our state capitol for failing “to deliver more government efficiency” and for not “reforming how Illinois spends.”  

Move the site 200 miles north to 505 Butler Place and the Tribune could have been talking about our own City government, which has made deficit spending an annual event because it, too, seems to have no idea how to deliver more government efficiency or how to reform the way it spends our money. 

But this year our City government finally woke up to the fact that we’ve got big economic problems that just can’t continue to be kicked down the road.  It hurriedly raised taxes, cut services and personnel (and their related expenses), and did many other things it neglected to do in a more gradual fashion over the past decade.  But whether it did enough is a matter of substantial dispute, which is why Mayor Dave Schmidt vetoed the budget sent to him by the City Council – a veto the City Council then over-rode.

The printed word just doesn’t do justice to what transpired at City Hall on Monday night, so we strongly encourage you to watch the video of the proceedings taped, as usual, by volunteer George Kirkland and now posted on the City’s website.  But a few select comments are worth mentioning: 

Ald. Jim Allegretti (4th), who made the motion to over-ride the mayor veto: “Like all of government, this [budget] is a compromise.”  That kind of statement evokes the James Russell Lowell quote: “Compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.”  The only question is whether the City budget is supposed to be an umbrella or a roof? 

Ald. Robert Ryan (5th): “I really think we’re micromanaging.” This comes from the same guy who, in dealing with a $50 million+ budget, wanted to up the O’Hare Commission’s funding from $165,000 to $200,000, and also advocated for 12% cuts to the public funding of private community organizations, some of which amounted to only a couple thousand dollars. 

Ryan, twice: “The veto is really disrespectful of the work done by the aldermen.” How so, Robert, given that state law allows the mayor no vote on the budget but only the authority to veto spending of which he disapproves? Are you saying that state law is “disrespectful” of the Council’s budget effort?

And Ryan, thrice: ““We need to accept [the Council’s budget vote] and move on.” How cute that he can channel his mentor, former mayor Howard Frimark’s, favorite directive when Frimark didn’t like how things were going. 

Notable not for what they said but for their silence on their over-ride votes were Alds. Don “Air Marshall” Bach (3rd) and Frank Wsol (7th) – the former who voted against passage of the budget he called “fiscally and socially irresponsible,” the latter who voted for budget passage while inviting the mayor to make some then-and-still unspecified (both as to type and amount) line-item vetoes.  

Perhaps Bach was uncomfortable revealing whether it was 30 of his constituents or just one Linda Ski who gave him his marching orders.  Wsol, on the other hand, likely just came up empty on ideas of his own.  After all, if Frankie the Politician had had his way in April 2009, City Mgr. Jim Hock would have had to figure out how to come up with a million dollars-plus of additional phantom revenues to cover the debt service on the big new police station Frankie wanted.

(Thank you again, Joe Egan, for giving us a referendum on the new cop shop in April ‘09.  And thank you again, 83.39% of the April 2009 voters, who said a resounding “no” to spending approx. $28 million – $16.5 million of principal and another $12 million or so of bond interest and issuance costs.) 

Not surprisingly, apologists for the Council and/or critics of Schmidt are already lambasting the mayor for not going with line-item vetoes – as if the guys surrounding him at The Horseshoe might actually have been inclined to sustain any line-item veto the mayor might offer. 

How do we know? 

How about the fact that none of them publicly identified even one line-item veto they would have unequivocally supported had the mayor made it?  

Whether this budget tussle was just a political football or the honest disagreement among people with very different views of government’s role and its funding remains to be seen.  But come this time next year we should all know who was right and who was wrong. 

And we also should know whether Park Ridge’s “Lost Boys” are any closer to being “found” than their counterparts in Springfield.

The main event at tonight’s Park Ridge City Council meeting is likely to be what is explained on the agenda [pdf] somewhat ambiguously under the Finance and Budget Committee section of the proceedings as: “Statutory reconsideration of veto of budget ordinance (this may or may not include a motion to override the veto).”

Whether the Council will muster the five votes needed to over-ride Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto or not remains uncertain.  Alds. Joe Sweeney (1st) and Rich DiPietro (2nd) previously indicated that they will vote to sustain the veto, but nothing is assured until votes are cast.   

For example, Ald. Don Bach (3rd) cast one of two votes (with Sweeney’s) against adopting the new budget that he called “both fiscally and socially irresponsible,” but he since has said he is polling his constituents to decide whether he should vote to sustain the veto – something he didn’t do before he cast his original “no” vote.  And Ald. Frank Wsol (7th) voted for the budget but claimed to “hate a lot of pieces” of it while inviting Schmidt to veto “certain areas” of it, whatever that’s supposed to mean. 

We hope the Council votes to sustain Schmidt’s veto, but only if the aldermen are willing to work seriously and responsibly with City Mgr. Jim Hock – who himself needs to raise his game – to come up with the realistic revenues and whatever additional expense cuts are needed to provide an honest, legitimate “balanced budget.”  

Otherwise, they should vote to over-ride – because sustaining the mayor’s veto without correcting the budget problems means that, as we understand it, the City’s current budget remains in effect.  And that’s the budget that has produced a $3 million-plus deficit, on the heels of millions of dollars of previous deficits. 

Before he voted to approve the current budget, Ald. Jim Allegretti (4th) defended it as “the best we can do.”  We don’t doubt that’s the case for Allegretti, but if that’s true for the entire Council then there’s no need to prolong the agony by sustaining the mayor’s veto.

Update: As we somewhat expected, the City Council last night voted 5-2 to over-ride Mayor Schmidt’s veto.  Over-ride votes, on motion made by Ald. Jim Allegretti (4th), were cast by Alds. Bach (3rd), Allegretti, Ryan (5th), Carey (6th) and Wsol (7th); “no” votes were cast by Alds. Sweeney (1st) and DiPietro (2nd).  

The final grant of approval at last Monday’s (May 3) City Council meeting of the City’s first Class B-2 liquor license – permitting alcohol to be served until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, at the urging of the new O’Reilly’s Irish Pub owners Ed Berry and Declan Stapleton – may be a harbinger of more changes to come for our bedroom community.  Or at least some people think so.

Back in April when the B-2 license passed a first reading, Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) questioned the path such a license might be sending the community down when he cast the lone vote against the measure because fellow opponent Ald. Don Bach (3rd Ward) was absent.

“The changes in this B-2 far exceed the 2 a.m. liquor issue,” he said at that time. “The quality of life here in Park Ridge is what draws people here. I would urge the mayor and the council to look carefully.”

DiPietro makes a good point, even if it’s hard to tell from his comments whether it was just an ad hoc argument directed against one particular business establishment or is actually part of a more comprehensive view he has of the community.

Just what are the defining elements of Park Ridge’s “quality of life”? 

It seems to be different things to different people.  Some say it’s the level of public safety, which could be jeopardized by the budget cuts.  Others say it’s the convenient bedroom-community location.  Still others point to its single-family residential character.

How will O’Reilly’s affect that “quality of life”?

Just like Park Ridge never had high-density, five-story mixed-use buildings in the center of town before the Uptown Redevelopment residences, Park Ridge has never had a dining/drinking establishment quite like O’Reilly’s – if only because of the expanded hours and other features it alone will enjoy, like doubling the number of permitted televisions and allowing the purchase of alcohol without food after 9:00 p.m. 

Some folks are concerned about what that will do to the “neighborhood” on that side of the tracks.  That’s a legitimate concern, although it is impossible to predict those effects because there are no comparables in Park Ridge.  Edison Park, for example, has much greater restaurant/tavern density than Park Ridge has, or will have when O’Reilly’s opens, so that’s not a reasonable comparable.

Unfortunately for those who like predictability, development in Park Ridge is going to be a process of trial and error – with good, bad and in-between results.  But so long as this community demands (or at least acquiesces in) increased development, that can’t be helped.

Several years ago we were being told by the Park Ridge business community that we needed to turn Uptown into a retail destination if the City was to have any chance of generating the extra sales and property taxes needed to provide tax relief to residents.  And we were told by those same folks that the only way to get big-time retail into Uptown was to build new, modern retail space.  So we did.

Although we haven’t seen much in the way of data from the City, that doesn’t appear to have happened.  Nobody at City Hall is claiming Uptown is throwing off bushels of tax dollars – despite the City having already borrowed and spent multi-millions on it.  So at least an establishment like O’Reilly’s isn’t costing the City millions, or locking it into years of indebtedness.

According to O’Reilly’s owners, the liquor license changes they just got are necessary for them to compete with establishments in Edison Park and Rosemont.   

That’s their vision.  Whether it’s the rest of the community’s is unclear.

And whether that vision ever becomes reality remains to be seen.

Way back in October 2007 we wrote our first post – “The Old Oakton Bucket (10/16/07) – criticizing the waste of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars by the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District in keeping the grossly under-used and over-expensive Oakton Pool operating.

As we wrote back then, the Park District has “failed to display the brains necessary to come up with any ideas for increasing attendance and operating that pool more profitably…or the guts needed to make the sound business decision to close the pool and find another use for that site.”  That missing combination generally is deadly in private business, but it seems to be standard operating procedure with local government.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers who have been watching the District pour their hard-earned money down that same hole in the ground for years, nothing seems to have changed since we wrote that post: As the Herald-Advocate reports: “Oakton Pool will live on for another summer” (“Oakton Pool gets one-year reprieve,” May 4).

After sounding like he was going to take the bull by the horns and deal with a facility that annually hemorrhages red ink, new Park District Director Ray Ochromowicz seems to have fallen under the spell that mesmerizes Park Board members and staff alike into letting Oakton manage the District instead of vice-versa. 

Back in March and April, Ochromowicz was talking positively about how “[t]here is enough water in Park Ridge to make up for the loss [of Oakton Pool].  But as the H-A reports, Ochromowicz’s initial “bang” has turned into a whimper.

“There has not been any discussion about altering that course of action for 2010,” he is quoted as saying – “that course of action” being keeping Oakton alive and losing approx. $100,000 a year.  Why not, Ray?  Isn’t promoting these kinds of discussions and making these kinds of decisions what your job is all about, especially in tough economic times?  Or are you so captivated by the enrollments in the District’s tax-subsidized summer baby-sitting service (a/k/a, its “summer camps”) that the $100,000 loss is acceptable collateral damage?

Ochromowicz also offered lukewarm pablum about wanting the Park Board to make a firm decision this Fall about whether Oakton should operate in 2011.  That sounds suspiciously like the “firm decision” the Park Board made in December 2006 before rescinding it when overcome by the warm-and-fuzzies of an approaching new swimming season, as the H-A article points out.

Oakton Pool has been an under-performing and expensive asset for far too long.  And it clearly does not have anything close to the customer base necessary to justify its continued operation: last Summer its attendance was only 17% higher than the South Park “baby” pool’s, despite Oakton’s capacity being almost 700% larger.  

And if a lack of customers isn’t bad enough for the “as is” Oakton, the voters said “no” to a new $13 million Oakton aquatic center by a 70%-30% margin in an April 2005 referendum, and they said “no” to a new $9.98 million aquatic center by a 57%-43% margin in a November 2006 referendum.  We doubt even a less-expensive plan for replacing Oakton pool would do that “well” today.  So why not stop the bleeding sooner rather than later – keeping Oakton open already has cost the taxpayers net losses of almost $500,000 since 2005.  Is it remotely close to fiscally-responsible to eat another $100,000 loss this year, too?

But what the heck…it’s only the taxpayers’ money.  If every other governmental body in this state can waste it, apparently so can the Park District.

Cut The Fireworks?  Some residents are wondering why, in these tough economic times with all sorts of budget cuts still being debated, the City would spend any money at all on its 4th of July fireworks show, traditionally held on July 3. 

Although local business (and holder of the City’s website design contract) Americaneagle.com is paying the cost of the fireworks themselves (approx. $18,000) for the second straight year, the show will still cost public funds for police, fire and related City services – despite this year’s event being shifted to Friday, July 2, to avoid overtime costs for weekend duty. 

Should the City cut the fireworks entirely, even with the fireworks donation, in order to avoid those personnel and related City costs?  That’s something the mayor and the City Council surely can talk about in connection with the mayor’s budget veto. 

Or maybe the folks at Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”) can offer to cut some of its $23,000 subsidy from the City to help out with the cost of the fireworks show?  Or is the $3,000 Taste Inc. reportedly is paying Rainbow Hospice for the gorilla “in the park” (is it really going to be “dressed” in one of those orange “Tastee” t-shirts?) all the “charity” Taste Inc. can afford this year? 

The Early Line On Veto Over-ride.  According to this week’s Herald-Advocate article (“Mayor keeps promise to veto ‘unrealistic’ budget,” May 4), 1st Ward Ald. Joe Sweeney and 2nd Ward Ald. Rich DiPietro have said they will vote to uphold Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the recently-passed City budget.  Sweeney voted against passage, but DiPietro apparently has reconsidered his “yes” vote. That leaves Schmidt’s veto one vote short of being upheld. 

Third Ward Ald. Don “Air Marshall” Bach could have been expected to be that third vote, given that he voted against the budget the first time.  But according to the H-A article, Bach is “speaking with more residents before deciding how he will vote in response to the mayor’s veto.” 

Hey, Don, are those the same residents who you said told you to support the $2.4 million giveaway to a going-out-of-business Napleton Cadillac after you indignantly told Bill Napleton you would never buy another Cadillac from him?  Or has your newest BFF (and former Frimark, current Mulligan) political consultant, Linda “Linda Ski” Sczepanski moved into Park Ridge? 

You Go, Girl!  Maine Twp. H.S. Dist. 207 has not been covering itself in fiscal glory lately, having somehow “missed” a $17 million shortfall that caused it to lay off 75 teachers.  So we need to give a Watchdog bark-out to Dist. 207 board member Margaret McGrath for giving us hope that at least somebody over at District headquarters “gets it.” 

As reported in this week’s H-A (“Delay in money from state prompts review of finances,” May 4), Dist. 207 is still facing a deficit of between $4 million and $9 million, depending on how much state revenue the District actually receives.  Rather than wish and hope, Ms. McGrath wisely is arguing for more restraints on spending: 

“There’s a negative impact to borrowing a lot of money to spend short-term,” she warned, while advocating for controls on expenditures so that fund balances can be maintained to prevent annual borrowing 5-10 years down the road.    

Exactly, Ms. McGrath.  That’s the kind of common sense viewpoint we were hoping for when we wondered, immediately following your election in April 2009, how long it would take for you to become “a real force” on the Dist. 207 board.

Mayor Dave Schmidt said he would veto the “hopelessly flawed” 2010-11 City budget.  Monday night, he did just that – and gave a seven-page address [pdf] that explained why.

With that veto Schmidt made a number of people unhappy.

He made City Mgr. Jim Hock unhappy, because Hock is going to be the guy who will have to do the heavy lifting if the Council votes to sustain Schmidt’s veto at the next regular City Council meeting on May 17.  After not even being able to come up with a balanced budget initially, and then watching the City Council fold, spindle and mutilate what he did come up with before cutting and pasting most of it back together, Hock can’t be looking forward to doing any part of that task again.

Schmidt sure made the O’Hare Commission folks and their supporters unhappy when he recalled the millions of dollars Park Ridge wasted over the years on unsuccessful anti-O’Hare efforts, then stated that he would not “stand idly by while it wastes another dime” on such folly – much less the $165,000 that the City Council added to the budget, and that Alds. Ryan and Allegretti wanted to jack up to $200,000 and $250,000, respectively.

And Schmidt made all those private community groups – the ones who can’t be bothered to raise enough private funds to finance their 501(c)(3) quasi-hobbies because they have become addicted to easy handouts from feckless public officials – very unhappy when he said they don’t deserve money that should be “devoted to funding essential city services, such as police, fire and public works, to the fullest extent possible.” 

But we’re guessing the unhappiest people are the seven men who sit around The Horseshoe, the ones who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, come up with a budget the mayor would sign and now have been publicly called out for their shortcomings.  Had Schmidt just gone along and rubber-stamped this latest budget charade – the way previous mayors rubber-stamped previous budget charades – everybody could have claimed plausible deniability if/when, this time next year, the City is looking at another gaping mulit-million dollar deficit.

But Schmidt didn’t play along.  And he didn’t merely try to tinker with something that is screwed up well beyond a tinkering solution, perhaps because he learned one lesson from recent City government history: When city managers can’t cut expenses enough, they simply fabricate revenues; and clueless aldermen usually just rubber-stamp those, too, just like the Council and then-Ald. Schmidt did last year at this time, and the year before that.  

At least Schmidt learned his lesson.  And he also correctly pointed out in his veto address that the line-item veto doesn’t work with revenues.

Already there is whining about Schmidt’s veto.  Some of it is no doubt coming from the aforementioned folks whose unhappiness is directly related to their own personal interests.  Others claim to be disappointed the mayor didn’t have any magic bullet solutions that, presumably, would have given everybody everything they wanted – without raising taxes, of course. 

What the whiners ignore is that, the way City government is set up, it is the City Manager’s job (with the assistance of City staff) to formulate and propose a budget; it is the City Council’s job to debate, amend and approve that budget, without the mayor even having a vote in the process; it is the mayor’s job to sign the budget as adopted by the Council or to veto it; and, if the mayor vetoes it, it is the Council’s job to decide whether to make changes to the budget or over-ride the mayor’s veto.

Hock did his job, however well or poorly; the Council did its job, however well or poorly; and the mayor just did his job, however well or poorly.  Now, according to our form of City government, the ball is back in the Council’s court.

If at least five aldermen think the Council did its job well and that Schmidt’s veto is wrong, then we encourage them to over-ride that veto – and to accept accountability for the results.  

Tonight’s meeting of the Park Ridge City Council (City Hall, 7:30 p.m.) appears to be the deadline for Mayor Dave Schmidt to veto all, or specific line items, of the 2010-11 budge – or to let it become law “as is.”

Schmidt already has stated that he intends to veto this “hopelessly flawed” budget, so the only two questions are: Will Schmidt veto the entire budget or veto only certain line items; and will the City Council over-ride his veto?

Schmidt has expressed his concerns about the budget allocations to the O’Hare Commission ($165,000) and the private community groups ($186,000), so those are two line items that could be vetoed.  But as we understand it, Schmidt’s veto cannot be limited only to portions of a line item.  It that’s true, it means that Schmidt can’t just veto, say, the $105,000 for the O’Hare lobbyist, or chop all the community groups except, say, the Center of Concern’s $55,000.  He either has to veto the entire line item (e.g., the O’Hare Commission item, or the community groups item) or leave it alone.

Schmidt also has questioned the validity of City Mgr. Jim Hock’s revenue projections, including Hock’s foolish insistence on keeping $930,000+ of state income tax revenue sharing in the budget, even though Gov. Patrick Quinn has proposed cutting it and State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan warned the City Council back in March that Quinn was serious about those cuts.  Hock’s only reaction has been a tepid suggestion that, if/when that tax revenue cut becomes reality, the City can cut $400,000+ in tree trimming and another $500,000+ by deferring the replacement of city vehicles.

That’s the tree-trimming program that has been scaled back over the years to the point where most of the power outages in Park Ridge are attributed (albeit by Com Ed, so a little skepticism is in order) to power line damage caused by un-trimmed trees.  And if vehicle replacement is “deferred,” that just adds to the replacement costs next year – the kind of kick-the-can-down-the-road fiscal irresponsibility that put the State of Illinois in its current mess and is steering Park Ridge down that same path.

Plus, both of Hock’s ideas are just that, ideas, with nothing actually proposal and no Council approval.  Which makes them totally meaningless.

If Schmidt is serious in his criticism of inflated revenue projections, then a line-item veto won’t work because he can’t line-item revenues.  So unless he applies the veto pen to enough line items of expenses to make up for all the revenue shortfalls he perceives – including that $930,00+ shortfall from the State of Illinois – his only option is to veto the entire budget.

Which makes the most sense, since a mayoral veto should be a last-ditch “safety switch” which the mayor can trip to avert a problem rather than a device for mayoral tinkering with matters (like the budget) that are intended to fall exclusively within the legislative role of the City Council.

But assuming Schmidt vetoes all or part of the budget, will the Council over-ride that veto – like it did a year ago when Schmidt vetoed the Council’s over-budgeted giveaway of funds to the private community groups?

The Council needs five votes to over-ride.  Two (Don Bach and Joe Sweeney) of the seven aldermen voted “no” on the budget’s passage; and Ald. Frank Wsol suggested he was hoping for a mayoral veto even as he disingenuously voted to approve that budget.

So it’s possible a veto could be sustained.  But, then again, anything’s “possible” with the crowd that currently fills the chairs around The Horseshoe.

As reported in both local newspapers (“Park Ridge Police: Union votes down concessions, six employees out of work,” Herald-Advocate, Apr. 27 and “Firefighters Safe But Officers Face Layoffs,” Journal, April 28), the police union voted not to make certain concessions that the City  was requiring in order to not terminate four police officers and two community service officers.

The dollars we’re talking about: according to the newspaper stories, approximately $284,000, although that seems a bit low to us. Those cuts will eliminate the Police Department’s traffic division, the duties of which reportedly will be distributed among other officers.

Some people will say the problem is greedy cops.  And an argument can be made that police officers in an upscale community like Park Ridge have relatively safe and well-paid jobs for which they should be grateful, especially in this kind of economy.  That was basically the same argument made about the District 207 teachers, and it’s one we agreed with in that context.

But we find it less applicable to police officers than to teachers for several reasons, the four most significant ones being:

(a) public safety is a more important governmental function than public education;

(b) police work is far more dangerous than teaching;

(c) police officers work pretty much 12 months a year while teachers work between 8 and 9; and

(d) a mistake by a police officer can cost the officer his/her life, and possibly the lives of others.

So while we agree that Park Ridge is a lot closer to Mayberry than it is to Fort Apache, The Bronx, stopping a speeding, weaving car filled with “non-resident” young men at 2 a.m. is a quantum leap from demanding missed homework from a callow Park Ridge youth in the hallway of Maine South at 2 p.m.

Could those cop jobs have been saved?  Sure, in a variety of ways.  And they still can.   

Taxes can be raised even higher.  Fees can be jacked up a few more bucks.  Cut a little bit of City service here, cut a little bit of City service there.  Give a few more City employees a few more furlough days.

In a $50 million-plus budget, finding a way to dig up $300,000 is not impossible.

But why not do what Mayor Schmidt proposed: Instead of cutting more City personnel and City services, why not cut the $165,000 for the latest marathon O’Hare battle and the $186,000 for those private community groups?

Even our friends over at ParkRidgeUnderground support 82.44% of those cuts – the PRU Crew’s two big exceptions being the preservation of the no-strings-attached giveaways to the Center of Concern (“CoC”) in the amount of $55,000, and the Maine Center for Mental Health (“MCMH”) in the amount of $6,600.

As we’ve said many times before, private organizations – no matter how noble their purpose – shouldn’t get government handouts, much less get them with such regularity that they expect them.  If those private organizations are providing essential government services to Park Ridge residents, they should be doing so by means of lawful contracts with the appropriate governmental body that specify what is being done for our residents and what each unit of service is costing.

The current process of tossing indiscriminate amounts of money at these organizations (including the overlooked Taste of Park Ridge NFP (“Taste Inc.”), which mysteriously avoids inclusion on the “charities” list even though it takes down $23,000 of “free” City services each summer) is bad public policy.  It is irresponsible-bordering-on-reckless, especially given how non-transparent and un-accountable to the taxpayers CoC, MCMH, Taste Inc., and most of these other organizations are – despite their nifty websites loaded with propaganda but little of the financial nuts-and-bolts that well-run, cost-effective essential service providers should be touting.

Which brings us back to the cops v. “charities” and the O’Hare-A-Thon. 

Like it or not, that’s one of several plausible equations of budget balancing our City Council is employing.  But at least the O’Hare funding is public, so we already know exactly how all those dollars would be spent.  Or, if you prefer, wasted.  

That’s a lot more than can be said about the handouts to those non-transparent, un-accountable private community groups. 

Two agenda items for tonight’s City Council COW meeting caught our attention: Fourth Ward Ald. Jim Allegretti’s attempt to scale-back the “supermajority” requirement for over-riding decisions of the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”); and the renewal of the City’s lease for parking spaces on the Scharringhausen family’s 20-22 S. Fairview lot.

*                                   *                                   *

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Allegretti has been trying to finagle a way for the City Council to get around P&Z’s refusal to approve a zoning code amendment to permit Generation Group, Inc. to erect 4 billboards along the Tri-State Tollway.  On November 16, 2009, the Council rejected Allegretti’s proposal to let the Council trump P&Z decisions by simple majority vote and, instead, approved Third Ward Ald. Don Bach’s proposal to give the Council P&Z trumping power by a “supermajority” vote.

From the video of that 11/16 meeting (in contrast to City Clerk Betty Henneman’s sanitized meeting minutes), however, it is clear that Bach understood “supermajority” to be measured by only the aldermen, not by the aldermen and the mayor – the latter of which is how the term “city council” is defined in the State of Illinois municipal code and not otherwise defined in the Park Ridge municipal code.  That would explain why Bach, on at least two occasions during that November meeting, referred to “four versus five” when comparing majority to supermajority voting.   

So when Bach pointedly proclaimed, at the 2:31:55 mark of the April 12, 2010, COW meeting video, that “[he] knew [he] was asking for six votes” when he made his “supermajority” proposal back on November 16th, he may have been engaging in a bit of creative truth-telling, as well as some character re-building.  Which is understandable, considering how mindful he needs to be of having his competence doubted as he begins gearing up for a re-election bid next April that could serve as a springboard to a possible run for mayor in 2013.

But if Bach really meant it when he said at that April 12, 2010, COW meeting – that, back in November, he wanted “to make it as difficult for [the Council] to overturn [P&Z’s] expert recommendations as [the Council] could without leaving too much …wiggle room” – then we’ve got what we will call, immodestly, the best solution to this issue: forget about all this “supermajority” foolishness and simply require nothing less than a unanimous Council vote to trump any P&Z decision.

If a P&Z decision is so wrong the Council needs to trump it, then the Council should be able to muster a unanimous vote to do so.

We doubt that Bach has the stones to propose such a thing but it would be worth the price of admission, if only to see how quickly Allegretti could turn purple and start spinning dervishly in his chair.

*                                   *                                   *

In June 2008, we questioned the City’s leasing of 50 spaces from the SCH Real Estate, LLC, a venture operated by the Scharringhausen family and represented by Patrick Owens of Park Ridge’s first family of law, Owens Owens & Rinn (“The Politics Of Park Ridge Parking,” 06/04/08). Back then we questioned the deal in view of the fact that the City was going to pay the Scharringhausens $500/space/year while it was leasing spaces from the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists for only $140/space/year. 

Last year’s lease [pdf] changed that from 50 spaces to 57 spaces, and from $500/space/year to $360/space/year.

This year’s lease [pdf] has the City paying the same rental for the same number of spaces.  But for some strange reason the proposed lease term is only for 6 months with an automatic six month renewal, instead of for one year.  And for some other strange reason the lease can be terminated on one-month’s notice rather than on six-month’s notice.

We’re not necessarily saying there’s anything kinky about this latest lease, but we do wonder why those two points weren’t flagged as notable changes from last year’s deal in Cathy Doczekalski’s “Agenda Cover Memorandum” to the COW [pdf].

Could it be that the Scharringhausens have some plans in the works for that lot that may come due before the end of the upcoming lease year?  Or is this 6-month lease with a 1-month out simply designed to give the Scharringhausens some special mid-term bargaining power?

One thing is certain: if either Cathy D or her boss, City Mgr. Jim Hock, know the answers, they sure aren’t sharing them with the members of the City Council.

Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits is at it again.

This week’s Park Ridge Journal carries another letter from Kenny B (“Council Must Stay At Seven,” April 21) arguing against restoring the City Council to the 14 alderman size it had for close to 100 years – before it was cut in half through a referendum initiated by former mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark.

Although he would never admit it, we’re pretty certain that cutting the Council in half was Frimark’s strategy for making it easier to control City government: it’s easier to elect a 4-alderman majority than an 8-alderman one.  And Frimark was instrumental in recruiting and helping elect the current Council majority Alds. Jim Allegretti, Don Bach, Robert Ryan and Tom Carey in 2007 – another one of Frimark’s “gifts” to the City that keeps on giving – who, 2 years later, returned the favor by contributing over $3,200 to Frimark’s unsuccessful re-election campaign.

The central thrust of Balaskovits’ letter is his more-aldermen-mean-more-uncontested-elections spiel, which ignores the fact that the 14-member City Council produced more contested races in the past decade than the other three 7-member local governmental bodies (School District 207, School District 64, and the Park Ridge Park District) combined!  From 2001 through 2005 (the last election year for the 14-member City Council), the Council had 35 candidates for 21 seats, compared to 16 candidates for 12 seats on the Park Board, 13 candidates for 12 seats on the District 64 board, and 14 candidates for 11 seats on the District 207 board – and that’s including 2001, the last year of Homeowners Party domination, where 6 of the seven HOs ran uncontested.   

But Kenny B was never one to let facts get in the way of a totally bogus argument, especially one of his own.

Balaskovits warns readers of his letter: “Do not sign this petition and, if you have, make an effort to have your name removed.”  In other words, don’t let the matter even get on the ballot.

Frankly, we think a referendum on restoring the size of the City Council is worthy of voter consideration…certainly a lot more worthy than at least one of the 3 referenda proposed by Ald. Bach: Whether to reinstate the position of City Treasurer, which was a worthless one before it was eliminated in 2005 and has no realistic prospects for providing any greater value if reinstated.

So we applaud the restore-the-Council petition circulators for their efforts; and we encourage the voters to help them put this important issue on the November 2010 ballot.