One might think that with a newly-discovered $1.7 million 2007-08 budget deficit and another similar deficit lurking in the current 2008-09 budget, City of Park Ridge government would be squeezing its – or should we say “our” – nickels until the buffalo bellows.

So when we hear that the City is going almost $200,000 over budget on road salt due to its scarcity following last winter’s heavy demands, we see that as an expenditure that, however painful, is necessary to road safety.  But we are puzzled and more than a little concerned when we hear that the City Council also just voted to spend almost $440,000 to replace four Public Works Dept. trucks. 

As reported in today’s Park Ridge Journal (“Reserves To Cover Extra Salt Costs,” Oct. 15), one of the trucks being replaced is a 1996 Ford with 221,000 miles on it.  That sounds like a lot of mileage to us, so for the sake of this discussion we will assume that it really may have needed replacement now rather than later, even if we’re not sure.  But the City is also replacing three more trucks that, despite being older (1990 vintage), have only 96,000, 78,000 and 63,000 miles on them, respectively.  If they were being properly maintained, why did they have to be replaced now?

According to The Journal story, only Ald. Dave Schmidt (1st Ward) questioned and objected to the purchase, noting that maintenance costs on these trucks during the past year was “pretty low.”  Public Works Director Wayne Zingsheim responded that the City was just “lucky” in that respect, clearly implying that these trucks were ticking time bombs that – if retained – were likely to have exploded right in the middle of a big snowfall or other similar time of need. 

But “luck” shouldn’t be a significant factor when dealing with matters such as this.  Either those lower mileage trucks have been well-maintained and are in reasonably good shape, or they aren’t.  And if they aren’t, Zingsheim better have a darned good explanation for why not.

Also troubling is the process by which this truck replacement occurred.  The Public Works Committee meeting minutes of September 17, 2008 [pdf] state that the committee deferred action on this item until Staff could provide information about (1) whether the old trucks were a safety hazard; (2) the cost to maintain them for another year; and (3) whether leasing might be a better alternative to buying.  But according to that same committee’s meeting minutes of October 1, 2008 [pdf], truck safety wasn’t even addressed; and the only substantive information on the other two points was that “the trucks are 19 years old, [so] it could be difficult to get replacement parts quickly.”

Frankly, if those minutes truly are representative of the information and analysis provided to the committee by the Public Works Dept., then that information was inadequate at best; and anybody relying on it in making a recommendation or decision on spending $440,000 would appear to have been under-informed…at best.

We’re told that the money for that purchase is sitting in the City’s Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund, which reminds us yet again of the vagaries and perils of “fund accounting” – or, as we like to call it, the government financial shell game.  Worse yet, it creates the impression that this expenditure has no impact on the existing or anticipated budget deficits.  But just because the money’s there doesn’t mean that it needs to be spent…or spent now instead of later.

In tough economic times like these, running a fiscally responsible government requires making tough decisions on almost every expenditure, from trucks to toilet paper.  Unfortunately, we can’t remember the last time City government acted like it understood that concept.