At 6:30 tonight the Park Ridge City Council is holding a “workshop” on the Higgins Road Corridor Plan (the “Plan”).  For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Higgins Road Corridor Plan, it’s supposed to be the City’s “vision” for how the southern border of Park Ridge – primarily between Dee Road and Cumberland, although the “Corridor” technically runs all the way from Dee to Canfield – will be redeveloped.

The Plan proposed by the City’s consultants, Camiros, Ltd. and Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc. is, in our opinion, far too pedestrian – and by that we don’t mean favorable to walkers.  If adopted and implemented, it will do virtually nothing to make the Park Ridge portion of the Higgins Corridor a “destination” or a significant revenue generator. 

Fortunately, back in March the City Council asked Staff to look for more opportunities for commercial development that will generate greater revenues for the City while still remaining consistent with the general character of the community.  One idea which we hope is fully-explored is the possibility of including a small, quality hotel that could attract other compatible businesses, like restaurants.

In her June 15, 2009, Agenda Cover Memorandum, the City’s Director of Community Preservation & Development, Carrie Davis raises five questions for the Council, which we have taken the liberty of suggesting some answers (in bold):

1. Does the Council want a larger commercial use, such as a hotel, even though it may take acquiring land, such as single family residential properties to the north of the corridor?  This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for significant redevelopment of a border area of Park Ridge that enjoys unique accessibility to both the CTA and the Kennedy Expressway, as well as proximity to Rosemont and Des Plaines.  Every option needs to be fully explored so that this opportunity is not wasted.

2. What measures does the Council want to take to increase the size of assembled sites to encourage redevelopment?  The City needs to express its willingness to work with developers to maximize the value of the Corridor to our community which, in turn, should increase the value of the Corridor to the developers.  The City should invite developer proposals while expressing its commitment to assist developers in assembling additional land if needed to increase the size and scope of the project in ways that are mutually beneficial.

3. Does the Council want to acquire additional right-of-way along Peterson Avenue?  If acquisition would substantially enhance the project, why not?  The City not only sold off its old reservoir property for Uptown Redevelopment, but it also acquired private land (e.g., the Bredemann Toyota and Buick dealership property).  Why should it do less for the Higgins Corridor project?   

4. How tall does the Council want to encourage new buildings to be?  The Council should let it be known that it would favor proposals that do not exceed five stories, with the City being willing to facilitate plans that conform to that restriction by assisting in enlarging the footprint of the project.

5. How does the Council want to address traffic and parking issues?  Those issues should be addressed, in the first instance, by the developer(s).  Until the City knows what developers want to do with the area, there’s no reason to guess at what the traffic and parking needs will be.

In summary, we strongly encourage the City Council to resist the urge to accept small-minded tweaks to the current Higgins Corridor structures and uses.  The Corridor has enormous potential for becoming a major economic engine for Park Ridge while minimally disrupting life throughout the rest of the community.  That potential should not be squandered.

Yesterday’s edition of the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate contained an article announcing the hiring of Rebecca Allard as the new business manager for Park Ridge Niles Elementary School District 64 (“School board approves new business manager,” June 11).  She will replace Bruce Martin, who has served in that capacity for the past several years.

Ms. Allard comes to District 64 from Palatine District 15, where she served only a year after moving over from Geneva Unit District 304 in Kane County.  Prior to that, she served as director of business and personnel for the Gurnee School District.

Call us “old school,” but we would have expected that a new school district business manager’s first public statements would be about things like school finance and fiscal responsibility. As quoted in the H-A story, however, Ms. Allard seems far more into “successful relationships”: “I believe successful relationships are based upon successful relationships and that’s knowing one another and feeling comfortable and having those conversations.”

As we see it, the emphasis on “relationships” over objectively measurable credentials and performance has been one of the prime contributors toward creating the mess of incompetence and corruption that has become the hallmark of government at all levels in Illinois.  That’s because it is “relationships” that are the lifeblood of sweetheart insider deals, of putting the idiot siblings (or cousins, or in-laws) of the well-connected on government payrolls, of giving the somebodies-who-know-somebody the no-bid contracts.  And while those relationships surely are “successful” for the beneficiaries of those deals, they tend to be disastrous for the taxpayers who have to fund them.

Maybe we’d be a little more tolerant of such comments if the recent history of District 64’s finances were not so checkered.  As we have pointed out many times before, the first half of this decade saw the District on the Illinois State Board of Education’s “Early Warning” or “Financial Watch” lists – the two lowest financial rankings the ISBE gives to school districts – four times, the latest during the Spring of 2005. 

By the Fall of 2005, things were so bad that the ISBE appeared poised to take over the District’s finances.  So the District employed a sneaky “back door” working cash bond issue – ostensibly, to cover the Cook County Assessor’s and Cook County Treasurer’s delay in getting the District its second installment of property tax revenues, but in reality a subterfuge for funneling $5 million in what amounted to borrowed funds into its depleted reserves, thereby keeping the ISBE at bay until the District could pass its big tax increase referendum in 2007.

As best as we can remember, the departing Bruce Martin was the District’s business manager during those bleak years; and, as best as we can tell, he was getting paid rather handsomely for his efforts [pdf].  We don’t know what Ms. Allard will be making – the H-A story doesn’t mention it – but she wasn’t doing too shabbily herself [pdf] even before her most recent stint at Palatine District 15.

As the biggest “local” property tax consumer, District 64 owes the taxpayers a commensurately substantial duty to spend those tax dollars wisely – a task that will fall in no small part to Ms. Allard.  We sincerely hope, therefore, that she left behind in Palatine the viewpoint she expressed when responding to questions about retiring superintendant Robert McKanna’s $327,596 of total compensation, noting that such amount “was in line with what other superintendants get on the way out in a district this size.”

That’s the kind of herd-mentality bureaucratic thinking that spawns, not solves, budgetary problems – and that fuels, not quells, public cynicism about our elected officials and our various governmental bodies.

In case you have forgotten, the City is looking at a $2 million-plus 2009-10 budget deficit, after running deficits totaling $3 million over the past two years.  That’s big-time financial mismanagement, folks, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any better anytime soon – as evidenced by the City Council’s recent addition to the deficit by increasing the hand-outs of taxpayer money to private community organizations.

And if you need another example, look no farther than Monday night’s City Council Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting, at which the COW  – or the 2/3 of it that was present (Alds. Carey and Ryan were absent) – voted to advance to final Council vote the spending of approximately $80,000 in non-budgeted funds to replace a leaking City Hall air conditioning chiller.  According to Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim, the air conditioning system is on the brink of failure.  And if it fails, the lack of air conditioning could cause the failure of the City’s entire computer system, including the Police Department’s network.

Zingsheim reported that replacement of the unit was the only option because the air conditioning system is so old that nobody wanted to even bid on repairing it.  In view of that, we have a hard time understanding how the need for its replacement seems to have sprung up as such a surprise, especially to anybody who is paid to pay attention to this stuff – like, for example, our Public Works Director. 

In a similar vein, we’re also troubled by how this was sprung on the Council as a full-blown “emergency” at the May 11, 2009, COW meeting, to the point where Zingsheim wanted to waive competitive bidding so that he could get what he reported to be the only replacement unit available anywhere in the country, for which he was quoted a price of $84,000.  But when the Council insisted that the project be sent out for bid, lo and behold, the City received seven bids – the lowest of which was for $80,600 (from Kroeschell, Inc., in Arlington Heights), or $3,400 less than Zingsheim’s “deal.” 

At this point, however, we have to note that the highest bid was $148,000, which makes us wonder whether the high bidder was really trying to gouge the City, or whether these were not truly apples-to-apples bids.  We sure hope somebody at City Hall is checking to make sure that such a large disparity in price does not mean that the City is spending $80,000 for an undersized little-engine-that-barely-can system that will have to be replaced again in a few years.

But the real issue for us here at PublicWatchdog is: Why did this air conditioning situation become such an “emergency”?  Given the age of the unit, shouldn’t it’s deterioration/failure have been anticipated and put in the 2009-10 budget – or even a prior year’s budget?  Was somebody asleep at the wheel again?  Or was the potential failure and replacement of this air conditioning system well-understood by City staff but intentionally ignored so that other less-worthy items could be budgeted for – like the $200,000-plus in taxpayer funding of private community organizations – with the expectation that the City Council could always be stampeded into approving an over-budget “emergency” air conditioner replacement, just like it’s now doing?

Can you answer those questions, City Manager Hock?  Finance Director Lambesis?  Public Works Director Zingsheim?

The real bottom-line problem is that the City is left with yet another over-budget expenditure, although we are now hearing that the City may be in line for a $158,000 federal grant for energy-saving projects for which a new air chiller might qualify.  Considering that we’re still waiting for the State of Illinois money for the sound wall up by Park Ridge Pointe, however, we’ll believe that the City is getting federal grant money only after the U.S. Treasury check has cleared.

And with a $2 million-plus budget deficit still staring us in the face, even $158,000 of federal grant money doesn’t make the City’s financial mess any more palatable, or the incompetence of our public officials any more tolerable.

Park Ridge – Niles School District 64 recently swore in four new board members: Pat Fioretto, Russ Gentile, Sharon Lawson and Eric Uhlig, all of whom ran uncontested with the endorsement of the General Caucus.  Those last two facts virtually guarantee that none of them have any inviolate principles or other “sharp edges” that might prevent them from going along to get along. 

Given that sad “pedigree,” we don’t hold out much hope that any of them will help construct a “new majority” of the school board which will be inspired to bring some much-needed transparency and accountability to what historically has been the most opaque, cost-ineffective and self-congratulatory arm of Park Ridge local government.  If you don’t believe us, just take a look at the District’s website, http://www.d64.org/, basically a collection of self-serving factoids and quasi-analysis which predictably makes the District look like a much better-run organization than it has ever been.

For example, check out the “District Finances” section.  The “ISBE Profile” section brags about the fact that the District has received the Illinois State Board of Education’s “Financial Recognition” rating – the highest rating offered by the ISBE – since 2007, when the voters approved the whopping multi-million tax increase referendum just a couple of years after the District snuck through $5 million in non-referendum working cash bonds (“WCB”s) by telling the Big Lie: That those bonds were needed to combat delayed real estate tax revenues.  In fact, those WCBs were used to free up those belated tax revenues so that the latter funds could partially replenish the District’s depleted fund balances.

Not surprisingly, there’s no mention of the fact that those fund balances were depleted during the first half of this decade by the financial bungling of Superintendant Sally Prior and her fellow high-ranking administrators, which was rubber-stamped during that time by Caucus-anointed school board members Steve Lieber, Barbara Jones, Jane Meagher, Joe Baldi, Rich Brendza, Sue Runyon, Dean Krone, Steve Latreille, Christina Heyde, Ares Dalianis, Chris Mollett, Ron James and Marty Joyce – or that the District desperately needed those multi-millions of dollars generated by the WCBs and tax increases to prevent the ISBE from stepping in to manage the District’s finances because of several years of the District’s receiving the ISBE’s unfavorable “Financial Early Warning” and “Financial Watch” ratings. 

That’s not to say that those folks are bad people.  They aren’t.  But with the exception of Krone’s one brief shining moment (when he suggested, unsuccessfully, that any leftover “New Emerson” construction funds be rebated to the taxpayers rather than rolled into the general education fund), they also showed in no uncertain terms that they lacked the understanding, the ability and/or the courage to oversee the District’s management by its administrator in ways that maximized educational quality within the constraints imposed by the tax caps that were instituted way back in 1994.  And they also displayed a clear lack of understanding, ability and/or courage to tell the taxpayers the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the practical results of their stewardship of the District.

That’s why, although presiding over the District’s relatively straight-line decline into financial crisis, they regularly patted each other on the back even as they caved in the face of a brief strike by the teacher’s union, and even before they began giving Prior all the salary increases that have pushed her compensation beyond $215,000 (as best as we can tell).  Meanwhile, the District’s budget has grown even larger than the City’s.

Want to find out the state of District 64 (apparently its version of the State of the Union, or the State of the State)?  Go to, and click on, the “About Us” heading.  Then click on the “State of the District” [pdf] and you’ll find it…as of Fall, 2006!  That’s not the level of candor, or even the level of attention to detail, that inspires a whole lot of confidence.

But when it comes to student performance, we couldn’t find anything on the District’s website that showed us where the District ranks among the other districts in the Greater Chicagoland area in terms of ISAT scores.  We’re guessing that’s because, as best as we can tell from the ranking information that is available from other sources (such as the Chicago Sun-Times), District 64’s performance on those tests is lackluster at best…although you’ll never get the administration or board to acknowledge it: When they can’t avoid the topic, their mantra is always one of the many variations on the theme “we don’t teach to the test.”

Can’t you just hear Prior or the designated District 64 spokesman sneer (in her/his best “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” bandito voice): “Test scores?  We don’t need no stinking test scores”?

The District’s website also furnishes a variety of information about compensation of teachers and administrators, but it does so by nameless categories, tables and fictional examples (“Teacher A” and “Teacher B”) that really don’t tell the taxpayers much at all. The simpler and better alternative would be to publish the compensation of each individual teacher and administrator by name – so that the taxpayers can tell exactly to whom they are paying how much for whatever quality and quantity of service each such employee is providing.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that level of transparency and accountability.  District 64 hasn’t provided it yet, and we don’t expect to see it anytime soon.  For the people who run the District, and for the Caucus folks who were instrumental in putting them in office, warm and fuzzy propaganda is always preferred over straight-shooting. 

This week the City of Park Ridge announced the appointment of Park Ridge resident Frank J. Kaminski as the City’s new police chief. 

Kaminski currently serves as the Director of Public Safety for Evanston Township H.S. District 202. Before that, he was the police chief for the City of Evanston.

He will be taking over a police department that has been factionalized and politicized in recent years, at least according to the $100,000-plus “Ekl Report” issued in 2008 following an “audit” of the department by Lisle attorney Terry Ekl and his staff.  That audit process pushed then-Chief Jeffrey Caudill into early retirement, even as it left many unanswered questions about police personnel, professionalism, staffing and operations.

We currently have no ability to speak to Kaminski’s police acumen, although we expect that a man who was able to work his way up from beat cop to police chief for a department the size of Evanston’s – with the more substantial and diverse issues such a department addressed on a daily basis – will be up to the task of commanding the Park Ridge force, in a community less than half the size and with far less crime.

We also like the fact that this selection appears to have been the decision of City Mgr. Jim Hock, without (so far) any hint of politics or cronyism.  Given some of the citizen complaints and the infighting that has been both reported and rumored in the PRPD in recent years, an apolitical appointment bodes well for the community as a whole. 

But what makes us most enthusiastic about this selection is his M.B.A. from Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management.  Imagine that: Someone selected to manage a city department who not only has a wealth of previous management experience but who also holds a graduate degree from one of the country’s most prestigious management programs.

The potential savings in consultant fees alone might be worth whatever we will be paying him.

So welcome, Chief Kaminski. You most certainly have your work cut out for you; but it looks like you just might be up to the task.  

Allegretti’s Selective Recollection:  Monday night’s City Council meeting provided yet another glimpse into the parallel universe inhabited by 4th Ward Ald. Jim Allegretti.  The alderman was quick to criticize Mayor Dave Schmidt’s formal announcement of his selection of Joe Sweeney as his 1st Ward aldermanic replacement, contending that the vetting of Sweeney was “markedly different” from the vetting process he went through in 2005 as the handpicked choice of then newly-elected Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark.  But that contention was promptly challenged by 2nd Ward Ald. Rich DiPietro, who questioned Allegretti’s recollection of his own process.

We also question Allegretti’s recollection, although we can point to one significant difference between Frimark’s appointment of Allegretti and Schmidt’s appointment of Sweeney: Schmidt pro-actively disclosed that Sweeney had contributed $150 to Schmidt’s mayoral campaign fund, while Frimark – and Allegretti himself – stayed stone-cold silent about Allegretti’s $300 contribution to Frimark’s campaign, which he then followed up with a $200 contribution just a few weeks after his appointment.  Can you even spell “transparency,” Jimbo?

Smile, Mr. Carey…You’re on Council Camera: Mayor Dave Schmidt has stated that he is willing to forego his first year’s mayoral salary ($12,000) because of the City’s financial woes.  To date, however, the City has been unable to figure out the legalities of how not to pay him, so he just received his first $1,000 payment – some of which he announced he was using to purchase a video camera with which to tape Council meetings for uploading to the Internet and (hopefully) linkage to the City’s website, at no cost to the City.

But leave it to the City Council spendthrifts to find fault with the City getting something for free.  Ald. Tom Carey (6th Ward) complained about it being a unilateral decision by Schmidt, although City Atty. Everette “Buzz” Hill noted that under state law anybody can videotape or record Council meetings.  And Alds. Don “Air Marshall” Bach (3rd Ward) and Allegretti raised concerns about the cost for the person running the camera, web site maintenance, etc.  Schmidt responded that he already has volunteers lined up to run the camera and put the video on a web site to which the City’s website could link for free.

No wonder the Alderdunces don’t get Schmidt: The only “volunteers” they understand are the ones who keep demanding tens of thousands of our tax dollars.

Veto! Mayor Schmidt also announced at Monday night’s meeting what may be the first-ever mayoral veto of a City Council decision: The Council’s recent vote to increase the already $2 million 2009-10 budget deficit by an additional $39,000, thereby giving a variety of private local organizations a total of $271,000 instead of the budgeted $232,000.  Schmidt’s veto will come before the Council for a vote at the June 15th meeting, at which time the Council will need four votes to over-ride it.

PublicWatchdog applauds Mayor Schmidt for being the “adult” trying to stop the “children” from further raiding the “cookie jar.”  And we also give a wag of the tail to Ald. DiPietro for his suggestion that, instead of going over-budget, the Council reallocate the budgeted amount so as to increase funding to those “social service” organizations (e.g., The Center of Concern) while reducing funding to those other, non-social service organizations (e.g., The Kalo Foundation, Brickton Art Center, the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra).

We still think using tax dollars to fund private organizations is bad public policy, but DiPietro’s idea appears to make the best out of a bad situation.

Since runway 9L27R opened on November 20, 2008, we have heard a steady stream of complaints from those Park Ridge residents in the path of that runway.  All of a sudden, residents whose interest in airplane noise had been virtually non-existent were now up in arms, and looking for something – anything – to be done about the planes using that new runway.

As can be seen from the FAA’s 2/5/09 letter to Mayor Howard Frimark [pdf] detailing its reponses to specific questions and comments by Park Ridge residents at the December 18, 2008, “Town Hall meeting,” the FAA does not appear inclined to volunteer anything to change the current status quo.  As it points out at page 13 of that letter: “The FAA conducted the [Environmental Impact Statement process] in full compliance with [the National Environmental Policy Act] and in coordination with all relevant Federal, state, and local agencies.”  That doesn’t leave much room for negotiation.

We here at PublicWatchdog think it’s way past time for a reality check in connection with this new runway situation, and also a rational plan of action based on that reality check – two things which have been sorely lacking since Richie Daley’s rolling thunder review began cutting a noisy swath through the Belle Plaine corridor six months ago.

Let’s start with the reality check. 

Reality 1.  O’Hare is one of the world’s busiest airports and it sits less than two miles from the western border of Park Ridge.  It just completed a $500 million-plus expansion featuring a new runway and control tower.  Who in their right mind honestly believes that O’Hare won’t run as many planes in and out on that runway as the FAA allows – and pocket as many passenger fees as Richie Daley can spend on sweetheart deals for his cronies?

Reality 2.  The more flights that use the new runway, the less flights use 22R and 22L.  Which means we’re caught in a zero-sum game: every time the 5th and 6th wards get noisier from flights using 9L27R, the 1st and 2nd wards get quieter.  This has cast Park Ridge in the role that Lincoln warned about in 1858, albeit in connection with slavery: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Unless and until all of Park Ridge gets behind a single plan for dealing with airplane noise, we cannot expect anybody in authority to take sides in an intramural battle between various areas of the same community.   

Reality 3.  Nobody – not Richie Daley, not Springfield, not Washington D.C., not the FAA, not even our neighboring O’Hare suburbs – seems to care one bit that the new runway has brought airplane noise to new areas of Park Ridge.  Which is why not one of our U.S. Senators or one of our U.S. Representatives (including our very own congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky) has stepped up to the plate in any big way for us in the O’Hare battle.

Reality 4.  Litigation has proved to be totally ineffective in combating O’Hare expansion, as the last remaining members of the Suburban O’Hare Commission (“SOC”) – Bensenville and Elk Grove Village – demonstrated so expensively over the past five years since Park Ridge withdrew from SOC.  And we hear that the ORD-REST group got precious little encouragement from the attorneys with whom they have talked about the prospect of suing O’Hare, Chicago, the airlines, the FAA, or the EPA.

Reality 5.  In the absence of any clear and convincing legal or political weapon in our arsenal, installing more noise monitors and collecting more sound and pollution data is an exercise in futility – nothing more than a hollow don’t-just-stand-there-do-something reaction that is likely to result in nothing more than wasted time, money and effort.  Instead, we need to focus, not on more data gathering, but on changing the noise measurement standard from the average decibels over a 24-hour period (the Day/Night Sound Level, or “DNL”) to something that more accurately reflects the heightened decibel levels only during those periods of time when planes are actually flying over Park Ridge.   

In view of these unfortunate realities, we need a plan that’s decidedly different from the same old, same old that has gotten us (and our neighbors) exactly nowhere.  So here it is:    

The City (through Mayor Schmidt and/or City Mgr. Hock) should meet in person A.S.A.P. with both of our U.S. Senators and the nine Congressmen/women who represent the suburbs surrounding O’Hare: Jan Schakowsky (D. 9th), Melissa Bean (D. 8th – former Park Ridge resident), Peter Roskam (R. 6th), Judy Biggert (R.13th), Mark Kirk (R. 10th), Michael Quigley (D. 5th), Daniel Lipinski (D. 3rd), Danny Davis (D. 7th) and Luis Guitterez (D. 4th).  And the questions posed to them should be simple and direct: “What, if anything, are you willing to do to help reduce the noise and pollution from the planes flying over Park Ridge?” And: “What, if anything, do you need from Park Ridge to help you do it?”    

The answers to those two questions will tell us, more than anything else, whether we have any real chance of improving our situation vis-a-vis the new runway, and airplane noise and pollution from O’Hare generally; or whether we are just spitting into the wind.    

With the City Council already having dug us even deeper into its 2009-10 budget hole by throwing extra public money at private organizations which invoke their 501(c)(3) not-for-profit status to justify their perennial money-losing performances, we thought it worthwhile to bring some attention to what could become another financial black hole for Park Ridge taxpayers. 

As reported by both local newspapers during the first week of this month, a board member of the 501(c)(3) Kalo Foundation of Park Ridge [pdf] is looking to buy 720 Garden Street – most recently, the home of American Insurance but unofficially re-named the “Clute House” by the Kalo-ers – for a “Park Ridge Non-Profit Center” to house our community’s non-profit organizations. 

Ironically, the Kalo board member driving this plan is none other than John Sasser, who in the waning days of last month’s mayoral campaign tossed a cool $1,000 into the political war chest of former Mayor Howard “Let’s Make A Deal” Frimark [pdf], whose semi-secret attempt to negotiate the City’s purchase of that very same property for a new police station was “outed” by then-alderman, now Mayor Dave Schmidt.

At the time, Frimark and his Alderpuppets howled like banshees about Schmidt’s disclosure, falsely accusing Schmidt of violating the non-existent confidentiality/secrecy of “closed session” City Council meetings.  But when the city attorney opined that nothing in the Illinois Open Meetings Act prohibited such disclosures, or provided any sanctions against it, Frimark cooked up a silly, kangaroo-style “condemnation” of Schmidt – which infuriated many citizens and may well have helped propel Schmidt into the mayor’s office.

Well done, Howard!  

But back to Sasser’s plan.  According to the Park Ridge Journal article (“Kalo May Buy Historic Clute House,” May 6), Sasser is “trying to set up financing to purchase the building directly as a non-profit.”  Sasser calls his plan “a leap of faith.”

Sounds to us more like a white elephant in the making.

Right now, we understand that 720 Garden is generating a nice chunk of property taxes each year which benefits the City, the Park District and, to an even greater degree, School District 64.  But if that property is purchased by a non-profit, in all likelihood that tax revenue will disappear because non-profits in Illinois are eligible for tax-exempt status. 

And judging by past and current City Council practices, the non-profits who would own and/or occupy 720 Garden would soon be asking – and getting – tax dollars from the City to keep that building open and operating.  So, once again, Park Ridge taxpayers would be providing welfare to a bunch of private organizations, many of which are run like hobbies instead of businesses.

What’s Sasser’s angle (because there’s always an “angle” with deals like this)?

We’re not sure, because we don’t know all the tricks of the real estate trade, or the various ways that property can be leased, optioned or otherwise managed so that it can be purchased at its currently-depressed market price using the currently-low financing rates, carried on a non-profit basis while the real estate market recovers, and then sold off for a tidy profit when the market recovers, and/or when the Uptown Redevelopment plan eventually moves down there to Target Area IV.

We here at PublicWatchdog believe that taking any private property off the tax rolls is bad public policy unless it is absolutely necessary for an over-riding public purpose.  And that policy becomes even worse in practice when the taxpayers also end up paying for the operation and upkeep of the tax-exempt property, via City welfare payments to those organizations.

We’re already being fleeced by a TIF District that has sucked millions out of City coffers while providing only promises of profits to come.  We don’t need to add to that problem by taking a revenue-producing property off the tax rolls in that District.

We here at PublicWatchdog don’t make the approx. $200,000 (all in) City Manager Jim Hock is paid each year to be the City’s chief operational officer.  Or the approx. $120,000 Assistant City Mgr. Juliana Maller receives.  Or the approx. $115,000 paid to Community Preservation & Development Director Carrie Davis.  Or the approx. $130,000 paid to each of Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim, Acting Police Chief Tom Swoboda, Fire Chief Craig Gjelsten and Finance Director Diane Lambesis. 

(Frankly, we don’t make anything running this blog.  The only good thing about that sad fact is that it’s harder to accuse us of having a conflict of economic interest.) 

Throw in the $12,000 paid to Mayor Dave Schmidt, and the $1,200 paid to each of the Alder-dunces, and we’re talking about almost $1 million a year in payroll for the people who, in one way or another, are responsible for balancing the City budget – which means they are being paid pretty big bucks, collectively (and even individually), to saddle us with the $2 million deficit budget the City Council recently passed. 

And despite the demand from Mayor Schmidt that they come up with amendments to get the budget in balance, the occupants of this financial clown car recently added to that deficit by giving away even more handouts to a bunch of private organizations which – as a matter of public policy – have no business sucking public tax dollars out of the City’s coffers while legitimate City infrastructure needs are neglected for lack of funding. 

Because the folks paid to balance the budget have yet to display the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude needed to get the job done, we’re going to give it a try – secure in the knowledge that we can’t do worse, and that we’re costing the taxpayers nothing.  So here we go:

· Implement a pay-as-you-go policy for every fee-based service, starting with water.  Just passing through the entire 2009 water rate increase [pdf] charged Park Ridge by the City of Chicago will not only take a big bite out of the deficit, but it just might encourage more water conservation, making it a win/win. 
  Reduction: $400,000. Deficit remaining: $1,600,000.

· Freeze wages at 2008-09 rates. And when the employees (and the union) beef, remind them of the 570,000+ private-sector workers in Illinois who are currently jobless and the fact that a “flat” paycheck is better than no paycheck at all, especially when it comes with a great pension and all the other benefits that most of the people paying the bill for them don’t themselves enjoy. 
  Reduction: $800,000. Deficit remaining: $800,000.

· Chop two-thirds of the $900,000 budgeted “to complete construction of the streetscape on Summit, Touhy to Prospect.” [pdf]  Once again, folks, it’s a question of priorities. During a recession/depression, things like appearance need to take a back-seat to necessities. Frankly, given the sad state of the City’s finances, we have to question the sanity of the City even commencing this project in 2008.
  Reduction: $600,000. Deficit remaining: $200,000.

· Rescind the $39,000 over-budget “welfare” payments to local community groups [pdf].  It’s just plain bad public policy for City government to funnel tax dollars to private organizations, at least unless and until there is an official determination by the City that: (a) each such organization receiving City tax dollars provides services that the City itself must/should provide; (b) each organization provides those services at a lower cost than that at which the City could provide them, or provides better services at the same cost; and (c) each organization provides the same degree of financial and operational transparency that is required of the City.   
  Reduction: $39,000.  Deficit remaining: $161,000.

· Eliminate the “original” (pre-increase) $34,000 contribution to the Park Ridge Senior Center.  The Senior Center is already gorging at the public trough to the tune of the $159,740 in tax dollars the Park District has budgeted for it in 2009 [pdf].  And last we heard, the Center has less than 1,200 members, many of whom aren’t even Park Ridge residents/taxpayers. That means we are paying $130+ a year for each member to belong to this little club – if not more, depending on whether any public money makes up that “miscellaneous” revenue source that is supposed to provide an additional $97,445 of revenue in 2009.
  Reduction: $34,000. Deficit remaining: $127,000.

· Eliminate the “noise abatement” funds [pdf], which are supposed to go for the rental of noise monitors to tell us what we already know; and about what nobody in a position of authority seems to give a rat’s derriere about: That we’ve got high levels of air plane noise over Park Ridge.  Unless and until somebody with any clout – the FAA, either of our two U.S. senators, or any members of our state’s congressional delegation – assures us in no uncertain terms, and in writing, that they will actually do something about the situation if, and just as soon as, they are provided with specific noise readings, we’re just chasing our tails with noise monitors and decibel levels.
  Reduction: $25,000. Deficit remaining: $102,000.

· Eliminate the funds that have been earmarked for training ($9,000), tuition reimbursement ($12,000) and new carpeting ($40,000) in the Library [pdf].  If police training is being cut back, there’s no reason to spare the training of library staffers.  And why are we giving anybody “tuition reimbursement”?  As for new carpeting: not this year.
  Reduction: $52,300. Deficit remaining: $49,700.

And for that last $49,700, we’re going to let Ald. Don Bach – who has been whining about too many City employees for months – put his money where his mouth is: we invite him to recommend which single City employee should lose his/her job; and we promise to publish his selection should he finally demonstrate that he has the cojones to actually make one.

Tick tock, Bach.

On Monday the traditional Park Ridge Memorial Day Parade will step off from South Park (Cumberland and Talcott) and end after passing the reviewing stand at City Hall.

The Parade is always a festive occasion, with the typical blend of elected officials, political organizations, community groups and various and assorted other participants mixing in for an entertaining event that brings the community together in a Norman Rockwell-esque sort of way.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But Memorial Day is really not meant to be a celebration.  It is a national holiday intended to commemorate and honor our fallen heroes, the men and women who have died in service to our country.  Unfortunately, that purpose seems to be increasingly lost among both the parade marchers and the parade watchers.

So we have two suggestions for those of you marching in this year’s Memorial Day Parade:

First, every group marching in the parade should invite one or more veterans, or current servicemen/women, to lead the group.    

Second, every individual marcher, adult and child alike, should buy a poppy from the folks selling them on the street corners and shopping areas all over town, and wear that poppy proudly as you march on Monday.  The same goes for those of you watching the parade.  And when you do, think of the poppies that inspired Canadian Army Lt. Col. John McCrae to write the words to “In Flanders Fields”:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below. 

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.