In the 1993 movie, “Dave,” the title character – Kevin Kline as a presidential look-alike who fills in for a disabled president – seeks advice on balancing the national budget from his store-front accountant buddy, played by Charles Grodin. The Grodin and Kline characters spend an all-nighter poring over the budget, with Grodin at one point commenting: “If I ran my business this way, I’d be out of business.”
That pretty much describes the way the Park Ridge City Council has been running the city since the voters cut the Council in half, beginning in 2007. After booking $3 million in deficits over the past two years, the Council outdid itself this year by passing a budget with a built-in $2 million deficit.
At the prodding of new Mayor Dave Schmidt to come up with some amendments to balance the budget, City staff and the aldermen appear to merely be going through the motions. Worse yet, however, is that when they actually do something more than that, they go in the wrong direction!
Monday night, the Council, as expected, approved an amendment adding $39,000 more in “welfare” payments to several local community groups who either can’t or won’t do what it takes to pay their own way. And, as expected, the Council approved a 5% water rate increase that is patently insufficient – by $400,000 – to cover the price increase on water we purchase from the City of Chicago.
Illinois has a well-deserved reputation for its state-wide “Culture of Corruption,” a symptom of which is budget deficits which end up turning into massive and chronic debt. And it would be foolish to think that Park Ridge is immune from that Culture of Corruption: although we’re pretty small potatoes, the opportunity for kinkiness is always there when land deals, developers and consultants converge.
But what it looks like we’re dealing with here isn’t so much corruption as plain unvarnished stupidity.
How many more deficit budgets can this City endure before it reaches the point where it can’t pay its bills, and its infrastructure collapses – or where we need a substantial tax increase because the Council (and our former mayor) didn’t have the courage to tell us the truth about the City’s finances and do what was necessary to fix them? How much longer will City government keep whistling past the financial graveyard?
Right now, we’ve got a leader-less Council. It’s “dean,” Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward), is the consummate follower whose next original budget idea will be his first. And the next most-senior alderman, Frank Wsol (7th Ward), voted against the meager 5% water rate increase not because it was too low but because it was too high!
Wsol wanted no increase at all, preferring to dip into reserves even though the City already appears to be cash-poor. What Wsol really endorsed here, however, is a kind of financial socialism: by the City eating the increased water cost, that cost gets spread over the entire community rather than landing more heavily on the biggest users, thereby providing a subsidy to those biggest water users. As we have said before, that’s bad government, bad economics, and political pandering.
As for the other (besides Wsol’s) “no” vote on the water rate increase, Don Bach (3rd Ward), he’s a one-trick pony – that “trick” being to respond to any and all calls for a balanced budget by braying for staff cuts. So far, staff isn’t budging; and Bach has offered not even one concrete suggestion of what staff cuts should be made and how much those would save. In other words, he’s been a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The taxpaying residents of Park Ridge deserve better than this. Unfortunately, this cast of characters appears incapable of providing it.
38 comments so far
A balanced budget is fundamental to proper governmental operations. How this has been allowed to happen for three straight years now is totally mystifying as it is completely unacceptable.
Thanks to the cut-down council we have saved $25,200 (7 aldermen x $1,200/ea per year x 3 years) in aldermanic compensation over three years, or $13,800 LESS than these lunkheads gave away just this year alone in “welfare” (PW’s term) to the community groups. I sure hope all the voters who made a 7-member city council a reality are happy with the economics of that deal.
I am sorry to hear you report that staff is not budging on staff cuts. Our City Manager has been on board long enough to know where cuts should be made if needed. Matter of fact he should have a contingency plan for that. (It should be a plan that provides no parachutes just like the rest of the world faces).
I never want to be on the side of Alderman Bach on anything, but it is not up to him to determine who is let go. If our City Manager is not willing to provide a staff cut plan to some guidelines, then we should find a new City Manager.
Even if Mr. Hock doesn’t know for sure, he should demand that his department heads do that part of the job for him. And if they can’t deliver, they should become the first to go.
As for Bach, he has “earned” the obligation to come up with the proposed cuts himself by treating them like some budget-balancing “magic bullet” while at the same time casting the votes (to go over-budget on the community groups, and to have the city subsidize water usage by dipping into reserves) that have driven us further into the budget hole.
Perhaps the department heads could pass it down the line to the actual front line employees. They could simply volunteer to be terminated.
If anybody wants to volunteer for termination, so much the better.
Just when did lifetime public employment – along with annual cost of living raises, defined benefit pensions, and great healthcare – become an entitlement?
Anonymous 2:42PM
I wish I could have said it like that!!
:::Just when did lifetime public employment – along with annual cost of living raises, defined benefit pensions, and great healthcare – become an entitlement?::: By Anonymous on 05.20.09 2:42 pm
When those elements became part of the mutually agreed upon compensation contract between the employer and employee (and/or collective bargaining unit). That’s when. And guess what? Sometimes parties to a contract actually believe they have the right to seek fulfillment of the mutually agreed upon compensation contract! Who knew!
Or do you really think that Capitalism is an economic system strictly practiced from the top-down?
However, lifetime public employement is not guaranteed and never has been, despite your having thrown it into the mix.
The majority of folks “debating” the issue of public employment and employees are, for the most part, engaging in rank fuckwittery…and act as if there aren’t two parties involved in the deal; the employER and the employee(s).
Even more astounding is the absolute willful ignorance of exactly WHO the employER is in the specific scenario of PUBLIC employee and PUBLIC employER! Hellooooooooo!
Hi Jeannie
What did you say?
Sounds like you said that when you were on the Council as employER you screwed the tax payers who were poorly represented and that you are proud of it.
Is that correct?
If so you are the problem that we complain about….you called it fwittery.
annonymous on 05.21.09 9:06 am,
While I served on the Council, my exact words were, “I will not vote for a budget that includes cuts to police, fire, and public works personnel.”
I wouldn’t support a budget now that would include those cuts, even in the current economic climate. The tax dollars I pay to the city are exactly for the purpose of providing to me and my family police, fire, and public works when I need it.
The City of Park Ridge is not overly-heavy with public employees. The percentage of our budget consumed by “personal services” is 52%. That’s a better rate than just about any other government entity or business you can find.
If you truly believe you are being screwed by the weight of public employees for a given budget, I look forward to your taking on your County government and Board of Commissioners…who have delivered to you the highest sales tax in the nation and whose budget is consumed by the weight of 70% personnel costs.
The employER(s) are not your representatives. The employER is you, and all the other voting taxpayers. The fuckwittery is shared among those, such as yourself, who fail to recognize exactly that. The fuckwittery among those, such as yourself, extends to your failure to understand how and why your local government works…and your preference for ignoring your local governments that don’t.
I never heard from a single constituent that they preferred to have city employees laid off…for any reason.
If the employER(s) truly believe they can make do without police, fire, and public works personnel, or some greatly reduced level of same, then I strongly encourage you to let your current representatives know that. They’ve proven time and time again just how carefully and meticulously they listen to the opinions and preferences of constituents, right? Should be a breeze for you.
annonymous on 05.21.09 9:06 am,
Below is a 3yo list of city employee positions and commensurate salaries. Commence cutting these employee positions at your leisure to arrive at an amount which will fill the $2million and counting budget deficit.
After you’re done, make sure you then come up with a plan to continue to deliver services to taxpayers and residents, after you’ve eliminated the employees who were supposed to deliver those services to taxpayers and residents…and don’t forget labor laws, you know, the laws that govern things like over-time.
I can hardly wait for you to demonstrate your plaintive brilliance…
Oh, by the way, we don’t have an HR Director any longer. He left, and the position hasn’t been filled, formally anyway; eta…ditto that for the position of Asst. Dir. of CP&D, as far as I know.
Department Title No. Pos. Status Benefits Pension Salary Avg Sal
Admin Asst City Manager 1 FT Y IMRF $116,599.00 116,599.00
Admin Asst. to City Manager 1 FT Y IMRF $56,817.00 56,817.00
Admin City Manager 1 FT Y IMRF $174,046.00 $174,046.00
Admin Economic Development Director 1 FT Y IMRF $95,505.00 95,505.00
Admin Public Info Coordinator 1 FT Y IMRF $50,164.00 $50,164.00
Admin Sr. Admin Asst 2 FT Y IMRF $41,137.00 41,068.50
Admin Sr. Admin Asst FT Y IMRF $41,000.00
Total Full-Time 7
Total Part-Time no Benes 0
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
CP&D Admin Assistant 1 FT Y IMRF $35,820.00 35,820.00
CP&D Asst Director CP&D 1 FT Y IMRF $89,834.00 89,834.00
CP&D Building Admin 1 FT Y IMRF $74,658.00 74,658.00
CP&D Director CP&D 1 FT Y IMRF $114,656.00 114,656.00
CP&D Engineering Tech 1 FT Y IMRF $63,844.00 63,844.00
CP&D Admin Spec PT N $8.00
CP&D Environ Health 2 FT Y IMRF $60,253.00 65,505.50
CP&D Planner 1 FT Y IMRF $70,758.00 70,758.00
CP&D Plans Exam/Inspector 3 FT Y IMRF $60,803.00 57,157.00
CP&D Sr. Admin Assistant 2 FT Y IMRF $41,658.00 55,334.00
CP&D Zoning Enforcement Coordinator 1 FT Y IMRF $69,010.00 69,010.00
CP&D Environ Health FT Y IMRF $45,847.00
CP&D Zoning Enforcement Officer 1 FT Y IMRF $64,438.00 64,438.00
CP&D Admin Assistant 1 PT N $18.32 18.32
CP&D Plans Exam/Inspector FT Y IMRF $51,750.00
CP&D Plans Exam/Inspector FT Y IMRF $60,803.00
CP&D Admin Spec 2 PT N $16.62 21,157.81
CP&D Sr. Admin Assistant FT Y IMRF $42,299.00
Total Full-Time 15
Total Part-Time no Benes 3
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
Finance Accountant 1 FT Y IMRF $70,024.00 70,024.00
Finance Asst Finance Director 1 FT Y IMRF $89,834.00 89,834.00
Finance Finance Director 1 FT Y IMRF $126,407.00 126,407.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II 5 FT Y IMRF $46,011.00 49,988.40
Finance Fiscal Tech III 1 FT Y IMRF $59,912.00 59,912.00
Finance Purch Agent 1 FT Y IMRF $58,180.00 58,180.00
Finance Purch Asst 1 FT Y IMRF $39,264.00 39,264.00
Finance Sr. Admin Asst 1 FT Y IMRF $46,563.00 46,563.00
Finance Office Asst 2 PT N $12.00 11.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II FT Y IMRF $47,642.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II FT Y IMRF $40,819.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II FT Y IMRF $39,663.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II FT Y IMRF $47,642.00
Finance Fiscal Tech I 1 PT Y IMRF $28,811.00 28,811.00
Finance Fiscal Tech II 1 PT Y IMRF $35,594.00 35,594.00
Total Full-Time 12
Total Part-Time no Benes 1
Total Part-Time with Benes 2
Fire Battalion Chief 3 FT Y Fire $99,044.00 99,044.00
Fire Deputy Fire Chief 1 FT Y Fire $109,196.00 109,196.00
Fire Battalion Chief FT Y Fire $99,044.00
Fire Battalion Chief FT Y Fire $99,044.00
Fire FF 4 FT Y Fire $63,248.00 62,801.50
Fire FF/PM 34 FT Y Fire $61,862.00 66,693.85
Fire FF FT Y Fire $62,848.00
Fire FF FT Y Fire $63,248.00
Fire FF FT Y Fire $49,195.00
Fire Fire Captain 1 FT Y Fire $90,370.00 90,370.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $61,892.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $64,774.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $69,249.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $55,473.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $61,892.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $68,849.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $69,249.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $53,032.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $72,978.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $69,249.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $64,774.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire FF/PM FT Y Fire $67,799.00
Fire Fire Chief 1 FT Y Fire $126,407.00 126,407.00
Fire Lieutenant 7 FT Y Fire $85,907.00 64,809.86
Fire Sr. Admin Asst 1 FT Y IMRF $43,921.00 43,921.00
Fire Inspector 1 PT N $15.00 15.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $82,855.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $85,158.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $83,101.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $72,712.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $83,081.00
Fire Lieutenant FT Y Fire $74,646.00
Total Full-Time 52
Total Part-Time no Benes 1
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
HR HR Administrator 1 FT Y IMRF $63,643.00 63,643.00
HR HR Director 1 FT Y IMRF $106,310.00 106,310.00
IT IT Coordinator 2 FT Y IMRF $63,600.00 59,300.00
IT IT Coordinator FT Y IMRF $55,000.00
IT IT Director 1 FT Y IMRF $106,311.00 106,311.00
Total Full-Time 5
Total Part-Time no Benes 0
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
Library Access Services Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $76,318.00 76,318.00
Library Admin Asst 2 FT Y IMRF $38,733.00 38,013.50
Library Asst Library Director 1 FT Y IMRF $87,856.00 87,856.00
Library Admin Asst FT Y IMRF $37,294.00
Library Building Maint Supervisor 1 FT Y IMRF $63,844.00 63,844.00
Library Children Services Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $53,597.00 53,597.00
Library Circulation Manager 1 FT Y IMRF $50,699.00 50,699.00
Library Custodial Worker 1 FT Y IMRF $26,878.00 26,878.00
Library Librarian I 6 FT Y IMRF $39,686.00 46,711.00
Library Librarian II 5 FT Y IMRF $53,884.00 48,116.00
Library Librarian I FT Y IMRF $42,666.00
Library Librarian I FT Y IMRF $50,387.00
Library Librarian I FT Y IMRF $46,433.00
Library Librarian I FT Y IMRF $47,210.00
Library Librarian I FT Y IMRF $41,800.00
Library Library Asst II 4 FT Y IMRF $37,862.00 48,341.20
Library Librarian I PT N $20.04
Library Librarian I PT N $22.17
Library Library Asst III 6 FT Y IMRF $47,449.00 42,464.76
Library Librarian I PT Y IMRF $22.55
Library Library Asst IV 1 FT Y IMRF $52,460.00 52,460.00
Library Librarian II FT Y IMRF $48,537.00
Library Librarian II FT Y IMRF $57,909.00
Library Librarian II FT Y IMRF $48,411.00
Library Librarian II FT Y IMRF $48,987.00
Library Library Business Office Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $63,844.00 63,844.00
Library Library Asst I PT N $10.95
Library Library Asst I PT N $11.62
Library Library Asst I PT N $10.88
Library Library Asst I PT N $11.24
Library Library Asst I PT N $9.11
Library Library Asst I PT N $11.24
Library Library Asst I PT N $11.24
Library Library Asst I PT N $14.34
Library Library Director 1 FT Y IMRF $107,360.00 107,360.00
Library Library Asst I PT Y IMRF $9.58
Library Library Asst I PT Y IMRF $16.69
Library Library Asst I PT Y IMRF $11.06
Library Library Asst I PT Y IMRF $12.70
Library Reader Services Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $70,305.00 70,305.00
Library Library Asst II FT Y IMRF $33,467.20
Library Library Asst II FT Y IMRF $32,513.00
Library Library Asst II FT Y IMRF $37,150.00
Library Reference Services Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $70,387.00 70,387.00
Library Library Asst II PT N $22.90
Library Library Asst II PT N $17.67
Library Library Asst II PT N $17.71
Library Library Asst II PT N $11.06
Library Librarian I 3 PT N $22.84 18.15
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $15.13
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $16.49
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $17.62
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $19.79
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $15.58
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $17.33
Library Library Asst II PT Y IMRF $15.50
Library Library Asst I 9 PT N $10.88 23,113.35
Library Library Asst III FT Y IMRF $36,036.00 41,590.60
Library Library Asst III FT Y IMRF $48,146.00
Library Library Asst III FT Y IMRF $45,217.00
Library Library Asst III FT Y IMRF $42,819.00
Library Library Asst III FT Y IMRF $35,735.00
Library Library Asst II 5 PT N $17.88 18.20
Library Library Asst III PT N $16.36
Library Library Asst III PT N $22.02
Library Library Asst III PT N $17.67
Library Library Asst III PT N $17.06
Library Library Asst III PT N $17.00
Library Library Asst III 6 PT N $18.45 18.23
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $16.63
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $18.22
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $18.80
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $17.98
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $19.28
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $22.90
Library Library Asst III PT Y IMRF $22.90
Library Monitor 2 PT N $13.46 10.76
Library Page 16 PT N $8.05 9.95
Library Librarian I 2 PT Y IMRF $22.55 16.75
Library Library Asst I 5 PT Y IMRF $10.95 11.20
Library Monitor PT N $12.71
Library Library Asst II 8 PT Y IMRF $15.44 9.01
Library Page PT N $8.30
Library Page PT N $8.60
Library Page PT N $8.05
Library Page PT N $7.55
Library Page PT N $8.30
Library Page PT N $7.80
Library Page PT N $8.05
Library Page PT N $8.30
Library Page PT N $8.95
Library Page PT N $7.55
Library Page PT N $8.05
Library Page PT N $7.55
Library Page PT N $8.05
Library Page PT N $8.60
Library Page PT N $8.05
Library Library Asst III 8 PT Y IMRF $18.78 9.97
Library Page PT Y IMRF $11.08
Library Page PT Y IMRF $9.76
Library Page PT Y IMRF $10.49
Library Page PT Y IMRF $11.43
Library Page PT Y IMRF $9.09
Library Page 6 PT Y IMRF $9.09 55,199.02
Total Full-Time 34
Total Part-Time no Benes 41
Total Part-Time with Benes 29
Police Admin Asst 1 FT Y IMRF $46,773.00 46,773.00
Police Community Services Mgr 1 FT Y IMRF $89,834.00 89,834.00
Police Commander 4 FT Y Police $98,118.00 96,835.75
Police Commander FT Y Police $96,460.00
Police Commander FT Y Police $94,646.00
Police Commander FT Y Police $98,119.00
Police Community Services Spvsr 1 FT Y IMRF $70,544.00 70,544.00
Police Deputy Chief 1 FT Y Police $109,196.00 109,196.00
Police Crossing Guard 28 PT N $13.21 12.76
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $12.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $12.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $11.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $12.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $12.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $12.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $11.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $11.00
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police Crossing Guard PT N $13.21
Police CSO 9 FT Y IMRF $39,804.00 45,294.56
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $37,800.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $39,224.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $41,912.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $52,524.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $52,524.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $38,926.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $52,413.00
Police CSO FT Y IMRF $52,524.00
Police Police Chief 1 FT Y Police $124,920.00 124,920.00
Police Info Tech 3 PT N $13.74 13.80
Police Info Tech PT N $13.84
Police Info Tech PT N $13.81
Police Records Supervisor 1 FT Y IMRF $59,134.00 59,134.00
Police Patrol Officer 46 FT Y Police $70,420.00 66,662.72
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,420.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $72,629.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,220.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,220.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $49,120.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $49,120.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,620.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $62,741.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $49,120.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $55,916.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $55,916.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,420.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $62,741.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,220.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,220.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $65,875.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,620.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $62,741.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $62,741.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,420.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $70,420.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Patrol Officer FT Y Police $69,170.00
Police Sr. Admin Asst 1 FT Y IMRF $51,758.00 51,758.00
Police Police Lieutenant 3 FT Y Police $87,424.00 86,405.67
Police Police Lieutenant 5 FT Y Police $83,919.00 53,831.56
Police Police Lieutenant FT Y Police $87,874.00
Police Police Sergeant FT Y Police $76,087.00 83,735.40
Police Police Sergeant FT Y Police $87,874.00
Police Police Sergeant FT Y Police $84,149.00
Police Police Sergeant FT Y Police $82,885.00
Police Police Sergeant FT Y Police $87,682.00
Police Parking Enforcement Officer 2 PT Y IMRF $15.58 18.34
Police Parking Enforcement Officer PT Y IMRF $21.10
Police Records Tech 3 PT Y IMRF $14.08 16.00
Police Records Tech PT Y IMRF $16.90
Police Records Tech PT Y IMRF $17.03
Police Social Worker 1 PT Y IMRF $43,602.00 43,602.00
Total Full-Time 77
Total Part-Time no Benes 28
Total Part-Time with Benes 6
PW Admin Admin Asst 3 FT Y IMRF $50,024.00 49,539.00
PW Admin Asst to the PW Director 1 FT Y IMRF $56,180.00 56,180.00
PW Admin Admin Asst FT Y IMRF $42,413.00
PW Admin Admin Asst FT Y IMRF $43,247.00
PW Admin City Engineer 1 FT Y IMRF $92,753.00 92,753.00
PW Admin City Forester 1 FT Y IMRF $56,813.00 56,813.00
PW Admin Civil Engineer 1 FT Y IMRF $64,910.00 64,910.00
PW Admin Engineering Design Tech 1 FT Y IMRF $70,387.00 70,387.00
PW Admin Plans Examiner/Inspector 1 FT Y IMRF $49,474.00 49,474.00
PW Admin PW Director 1 FT Y IMRF $126,407.00 126,407.00
PW Admin Admin Asst 1 PT N $10.00
PW Admin CAD Intern 1 PT N $15.50
PW Admin Engineering Intern 1 PT N $10.50
PW Admin Forestry Intern 1 PT N $11.00
Total Full-Time 10
Total Part-Time no Benes 4
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
PWSC Asst. PW Director 1 FT Y IMRF $104,536.00 104,536.00
PWSC Building Maintenance Worker 2 FT Y IMRF $60,165.00 60,065.00
PWSC Building Maintenance Worker FT Y IMRF $59,965.00
PWSC Mechanic II 3 FT Y IMRF $63,853.00 64,569.67
PWSC Mechanic II FT Y IMRF $63,853.00
PWSC Mechanic II FT Y IMRF $66,003.00
PWSC Laborer 13 PT N $8.00 7.81
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $8.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $8.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $8.00
PWSC Laborer PT N $7.50
PWSC Laborer PT N $8.00
PWSC Laborer PT N $8.00
PWSC MW I 8 FT Y IMRF $39,743.00 41,659.63
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $48,308.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $37,851.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $48,308.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $39,743.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $37,851.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $39,743.00
PWSC MW I FT Y IMRF $41,730.00
PWSC MW II 14 FT Y IMRF $53,258.00 53,549.29
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $53,258.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,308.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,708.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $53,258.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,708.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,508.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $53,258.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $50,722.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $53,258.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $50,722.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,508.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,508.00
PWSC MW II FT Y IMRF $54,708.00
PWSC Pump Station Operator 1 FT Y IMRF $46,620.00 $46,620.00
PWSC MW III 8 FT Y IMRF $61,593.00 61,418.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,393.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,193.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,593.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,193.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,393.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,393.00
PWSC MW III FT Y IMRF $61,593.00
PWSC PW Supervisor 6 FT Y IMRF $68,032.00 72,158.50
PWSC PW Supervisor FT Y IMRF $72,106.00
PWSC PW Supervisor FT Y IMRF $77,602.00
PWSC PW Supervisor FT Y IMRF $68,562.00
PWSC PW Supervisor FT Y IMRF $77,069.00
PWSC PW Supervisor FT Y IMRF $69,580.00
PWSC Snow Plower 4 PT N $20.00/hour 20.00
PWSC Snow Plower PT N $20.00/hour
PWSC Snow Plower PT N $20.00/hour
PWSC Snow Plower PT N $20.00/hour
Total Full-Time 43
Total Part-Time no Benes 17
Total Part-Time with Benes 0
Grand Totals FTE’s
Full-Time 255 255
Part-time no Benes 94 23.5
Part-time with benes 35 17.5
Bodies on payroll as of 6/1/06 384
I am just guessing the people who look at city employees in this negative way are the same ones who throw a total hissy fit when there is the slightest bit of snow on the side streets after a storm.
would somebody please direct ald. bach to ms. markech’s extensive list of city employees so that he can start telling us which ones he wants to ash-can? i am tired of hearing him run his mouth about r.i.fs without any suggestion of what should be cut.
E.E.,
Bach can get his own list…one that includes the names of the individual employees; which I chose to eliminate from the list I posted here.
Bach wants to eliminate at least one position that, my guess is, he views as “redundant.” Bach’s problem (one of many) is that he rarely if ever considers an issue below the depth of his own nose. The position he’d like to eliminate is held by one of the few employees with any long-standing “institutional knowledge.” Losing that, especially after losing so many over the past two years, would matter greatly to the city’s internal functions. It’s stupid and ill-advised which, of course, makes it something right up Bach’s public policy alley.
I could name two employee positions right now that could be eliminated with hardly any drastic or immediate pain being felt by the vast majority of taxpayers or residents but, the fact of the matter is, the pain would be felt in a “ripple-out” fashioin…and the budget would still be almost $1.8million in the hole, and still almost $1million in the hole if the rank and file were to agree to a salary freeze.
There is such a thing as being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The Watchdogs don’t have the highest opinion of the district 64 school board.
I do remember though watching the board go through cutting the school budget a few years ago and they each had come to the table with their own recommendations for cuts and then voted on each one.
I didn’t agree with the way they voted on everything. I do think though they did what they were supposed to do the way they were supposed to do it.
Too bad our city council is full of dullards.
Just curious if I’m reading this correctly, does the City Manager have 2 admins?
Anonymous on 05.21.09 2:44 pm,
No.
One is dedicated to doing the paperwork for the City Clerk, which is rather extensive. Another is dedicated to doing the paperwork for Sr. Mgmt.
Both switch “hats” regularly and fill-in when and where they are needed, such as attending board, commission, and council committee meetings, taking and keeping notes, preparing the minutes, assembling documents before and after meetings, and “looking into” subjects as directed by the City Mgr. and/or elected officials, often outside the “day-time/regular work schedule” most people enjoy, as many meetings are scheduled for evening hours when elected officials and residents are more likely to attend.
Next question?
Ms. Markech,
Does the list detailing salaries include the cost of the benefits the taxpayers fund-you know pension and healthcare? In addition, does it include the cost of the mortgage loan forgiveness to the city manager and a car he may have been given or other benefits? Maybe employees don’t need to be laid off (maybe), but a salary freeze or reduction or elimination of some benefits should be considered. This is what companies all over the country are doing to try to stay viable.
The taxpayers are the majority supplier of revenue to the city and D64 and the PRPD. Our wallets are pretty empty and an increase in our taxes is unacceptable. Our property values have gone down and the planes zoom over my house every minute or 2 now. The value of living in this town has decreased siginificantly in my neighborhood. No more of my tax money for a diminished standard of living. Period.
Trim the budget. No more new signs in town like the one on Main St. (what the heck is that for anyway), no more flowers (have the shop owners fill them if they think they enhance the shopping areas), salary and benefit freeze or reduction, scale back on tree trimming on the parkways, etc etc. The department heads are being paid to perform their duties, so let them help figure the budget mess out. What about the city manager and the finance department? They should be working together to figure this out and come up with a balance budget for the council to vote on.
Anonymous on 05.21.09 3:41 pm,
No.
However, the city budget does. Here’s the link… http://www.parkridge.us/government/city-budget.asp
Knock yourself out.
Don’t people who work in government also pay taxes?
Anonynony on 05.21.09 3:57 pm,
Sure…unless they’re Obama Administration appointees…or a local candidate for judge who has “philosophical differences” with the IRS…but I digress.
I love it when Jeannie gets mad!
The force…..Ald. Don….its
the force that you need to come
over to. The darkside of the budget.
Thanks to all…the budget will never
see any light so…what is our choices ?
Get rid of those followers that are not needed.
Hey – did you hear….North Riverside Police
are thinking of cutting their midnight shift
and farming out to Cook County Sheriff’s Police.
Talk about budget cutting…..
5/21 @4:02
What does that mean? Obama appointee or local judge?
Thank you, Ms. Markech, for your list of Park Ridge City employees.
Paging Mr. Bach, paging Mr. Bach. Please tell us how many of these you want to get rid of to fill up that budget hole you just voted to make bigger.
Ms.Markesh,
You come off as a very witchy person. Why not direct your energies for running for office again. Then the whole town can be subject to your incredibly judgemental and opinionated and apparently close minded self.
Anonymous on 05.22.09 9:06 am,
Now that you’ve gotten your personal rocks off about me, what do you have to say about the subject at hand? Have any thoughts about the budget? The list of employees? Expenses? Revenues?
eta…Of course not; you’re only concerns are the planes flying over your home. Now. Too bad you weren’t paying attention BEFORE the planes started flying over your home. I guess all that jet noise finally roused you from your blissfully ignorant slumber.
Pat – I’ll take the “Admin Economic Development Director” for about $100K, and cut the IT Director salary from $100K to $75K. Do you know how many out-of-work IT Directors would love a nice cushy stable government job?
And as much as I love the library and all our librarians, (I really do!) I’ll take a slightly longer checkout time and longer waits for reference support with about a 10-20% cut there.
Will that at least pay for the “things money can’t buy” the extra $39,000 in community group payments is supposed to be buying us?
Anonymous on 05.22.09 10:11 am,
You cannot require specific cuts for the library. The library’s budget is controlled by the director and the library board.
The city can reduce funding to the library, but then the director and board determine where cuts are made.
I would settle for the library not “meeting” their projected fund deficit…
City of Park Ridge 2009-2010 Budget
Fund Deficits
Expenses will exceed revenues in four funds next year.
General Operating Fund
Amount – $117,600
Library Fund
Amount – $52,300
This amount is the sum of three amounts: 30% of the training budget ($9,000), tuition reimbursement ($12,000), and the amount budgeted for carpeting ($40,000) less a $8,700 reduction in the contribution to the technology replacement fund.
Water Fund
Amount – $404,400
The projected loss of $404,400 assumes the City of Park Ridge will raise water rates 5% effective May 1, 2009. The City of Chicago increased water rates to the city of Park Ridge and other communities by 15% January 1, 2008 and 2009. Chicago will increase water rates by another 14% on January 1, 2010. The city of Park Ridge raised water rates 6.7% May 1, 2008. This rate increase was not enough to cover increased operating and capital costs. This long-term trend as illustrated on page 70 is worrisome.
Uptown TIF Fund
Amount – $1,343,800
Expenses will exceed revenues in the Uptown Tax Increment Fund until the property is fully assessed. Even though the Uptown TIF fund is projected to have a surplus at its conclusion, the practice of spending in advance of revenues is problematic in that there is a strain on the general operating fund cash to lend the Uptown TIF fund money. See pages 300 and 301 for more information.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why the alderman think they should not pass on the cost of water to us. Water charges are pretty straighforward and not really subject to complaining about inefficient city staff/waste/etc. We need water, it costs x dollars and the users should pay for it. The aldermen are doing us a huge disservice by not passing on the costs and instead having the shortfall borne by taxpayers in general. By spreading the cost over the rest of the budget, they are imposing the costs on real estate taxpayers or those who pay sales or income tax. Guess what? One of the biggest users of water in Park Ridge pays no real estate taxes, sales taxes or income taxes. That would be Lutheran General Hospital. I love having Lutheran General in town but I don’t love them enough to give them a pass on their share of the $400,000 shortfall that the alderman have decided we taxpayers should bear. And they are not the only ones. We also have many associations which are exempt from tax, such as the Big Ten, the Anesthesiologists and the Nurse Anethetists. They build nice buildings and are generally good citizens, but again, I don’t agree they should be given a pass on their share of the water bill. Somehow we have to get the alderman to wake up before the next 15% increase and realize that not many people will object to their passing along the costs of water increases to the people who use the water. If someone does not like the amount of their water bill, they can always use less. Instead, the alderman think we should all pay more so they look like they are being good guys and not “hitting us” with the full water increase.
J. Markesh-not getting my rocks off at all on you. Just calling like I read it with your know it all rude posts. Weren’t you on the council when the OMP got started? Don’t remember you saying anything to our neighborhood about the landing pattern for the new runway. Thanks for keeping us informed.
As for the associations, anon at 1:37, these are 501(c)(6) organizations and not exempt from sales or real estate taxes. They are paying real estate taxes on their land. In addition, they do not use that much water. Not the organizations to attack.
Anonymous on 05.22.09 1:57 pm,
“J. Markesh-not getting my rocks off at all on you. Just calling like I read it with your know it all rude posts.”
You should try to concentrate on the subject at hand instead of your personal obsession with me.
Up-thread, you posted:
“Ms. Markech,
Does the list detailing salaries include the cost of the benefits the taxpayers fund-you know pension and healthcare? In addition, does it include the cost of the mortgage loan forgiveness to the city manager and a car he may have been given or other benefits? Maybe employees don’t need to be laid off (maybe), but a salary freeze or reduction or elimination of some benefits should be considered. This is what companies all over the country are doing to try to stay viable.
…blah blah blah, whine whine whine, moan, grouse, complain, etc.”
My response to you was:
“Anonymous on 05.21.09 3:41 pm,
No.
However, the city budget does. Here’s the link… http://www.parkridge.us/government/city-budget.asp
Knock yourself out.”
Did you bother to read through the budget for the information you wanted?
No.
Either you’re too lazy to make the effort on your own behalf, or you’re too stupid to figure it out.
Instead of even trying to engage on the topic of the post, you responded with:
“Ms.Markesh,
You come off as a very witchy person. Why not direct your energies for running for office again. Then the whole town can be subject to your incredibly judgemental and opinionated and apparently close minded self.”
In response you were again invited by me to comment on the subject at hand. You’ve declined again and instead have made me your focus.
You’re a fuckwit.
How so? I shall explain it to you:
You asked, “Weren’t you on the council when the OMP got started?”
No. I wasn’t. By the time I was elected to the Council, the OMP was well underway, Park Ridge had already withdrawn from SOC, Ron Weitecha packed up his earring and headed for Barrington, and Park Ridge had already spent two years as members of the ONCC, the first liaison being Ald. Dawn Disher, the next liaison being Ald. Jeff Cox, and then me.
See? You’re a provably know-nothing fuckwit. Your level of ignorance on a subject you actually give a flying jet about is stunning!
You also said, “Don’t remember you saying anything to our neighborhood about the landing pattern for the new runway.”
Your lack of remembering doesn’t mean I didn’t say anything nor that you and [your] “neighborhood” weren’t provided information either by the first, second, or third liaison to the ONCC, regarding the OMP.
Your failure to heed the warnings or stay awake long enough for the information to settle in some fold of your gray matter doesn’t mean the information hasn’t been made available to you, repeatedly.
Have you bothered to ask your own Alderman why he didn’t relay the information to [your] “neighborhood?” You know, the “neighborhood” actually represented by YOUR Alderman?
If you peruse this blog…type O’hare into the search box on the front page; I refuse to make the effort of posting the links for you…you will find a boat-load of documentation that refutes your contention that I, specifically, never said anything to [your] “neighborhood.” Unless of course, you think I had some obligation to go knock on all your doors, essentially usurping the responsibility of your Alderman.
As for you remark, “Thanks for keeping us informed.”
You’re welcome.
Instead of going back to address and look into all that you’ve left unaddressed and unreviewed, you say “As for the associations, anon at 1:37, these are 501(c)(6) organizations and not exempt from sales or real estate taxes. They are paying real estate taxes on their land. In addition, they do not use that much water. Not the organizations to attack.”
It just so happens that “anon at 1:37” knows exactly what he’s talking about. You do not. But then again, we’ve seen what level of knowledge you possess on things that actually matter to you. Your continued fuckwittery on this issue comes as no surprise.
To Anonymous 1:57
First, you have no clue about Jeannie and how active she was on the O’Hare issue when she was an alderman. She attended meetings, passed out materials and pleaded with Howard to go to the meetings to try to make an impact. If you did not hear her, you just weren’t listening.
As to the associations, you are right about the Anesthesiologist, wrong about the Big Ten and clueless about Lutheran General. If you think a three or four story office or a ten story hospital uses the same amount of water as you do to water your lawn, you are delusional. I am not attacking the organizations. I am criticizing the alderman. I have no doubt that if you told Lutheran General or the Big Ten they would have to pay their share of the water increase, they would not object. So why do the aldermen feel compelled to give them something they do not seek at a cost to the rest of us?
Ms. Markesh-your use of obscene language on this site is offensive. It shows the true nature of your being. You are beyond someone to have a reasonable conversation with.
And just because we backed out of SOC-where are money was going to line the pockets of their lobbyist lawyer-does not mean that we could not still fight the OMP. In addition, your job as an alderperson was to represent all of PR as well as the people in your ward. Why did you step down from the council. And you are right-the alderpeople in this area did not come around to keep us informed. But now that the new runway has opened, it does not mean we cannot try to salvage something from this nightmare. And the city should be helping out on this.
In addition, I did resond to the topic on hand. You listed the salaries of all the city employees. I asked if this included the generous benefits we as taxpayers fund and then suggested that in addition to some cost cutting in the area of flowers and tree trimming etc that maybe staff layoffs or salary and benefit freezes or rollbacks would be appropriate. After all, this is what companies do to stay viable when they are faced with a large budget deficit. They don’t go out and put up signs that are not needed or redo streets and sidewalks and landscaping like the project by the train station on Summit when their are not funds to pay for it and the TIF proved to be not nearly as profitable as projected.
As for my knowledge of (c)(6)’s, your assumptions are incorrect. I know a great deal about the tax issues of these organizations but I won’t bore you with the details. You come off on this blog time and time again as a know it all close minded contemptable person. It is annoying and offensive. Maybe you are not this way, but that is how your posts portray you.
Have a great weekend.
Just to make sure you don’t think I am making things up, you can check the Big Ten taxes using PIN 12-02-114-060-0000; Lutheran General is PIN 09-22-200-029-0000 and PIN’s following; The American Society of Anesthesiologists in PIN 09-26-301-008-0000 thru pin ending in 011. The Anesthesiologists, god love them pay what appears to be a tax bill of $160,000 per year. BT and LGH = $0.
I am in agreement with you about both LGH and the BT. The BT is a c3 then (I recalled they were a c6). Not sure how they can successful use education as their mission for tax exemption. I was not saying anything about LGH. I was commenting on the c6 matter. I am not clueless on matters of c3 or c6.
As far as LGH is concerned, I would be surprised though if LGH had no problem paying a tax or more fees for the water. After all, this is an organization that charges to park to go visit a patient or see a doctor. This is an organization that generates a profit regularly and pays its top management and doctors a hefty compensation package. It has significant cash reserves and fund balance. And they have enough money or access to money to build a major addition. Yet if you look for charity care-not much there. Trying to throw community education and outreach into a charity care or community benefit statement is misleading. Seminars on estate planning as charity care? Smoking cessation or weight loss management as charity care? Charity care is free care for those who are unable to pay. This is part of their obligation for being exempt from fedl and state taxes.
What a chain of commments? Cutting to the chase, I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any reasonable basis for NOT passing the additional water cost to the water users. No pun intended, but Wsol, Bach, etc. must be carrying water for some special interest, or else they are completely out to lunch on this issue.
Why is J. Markesh no longer an alder-person? She is obviously passionate about Park Ridge and the city government and also great use of my new favorite word, Fuckwittery!
She was elected in 2005, but her term was cut short by the cut-the-council referendum.
She did not run for the single post-cut 2nd Ward seat in 2007, which Rich DiPietro won unopposed – albeit with the lowest vote total (723) of any of the 7 aldermen (including the 2 other unopposed candidates) elected that year.
Historically, the 2nd Ward has tended to have the lowest voter turnouts of any ward in Park Ridge: In what we believe to be the only contested race DiPietro ever had, he won by a pathetically low 298-277 margin in 2003.
If voter turnout is any guide, the people of the Second Ward invest little in City government, and they get little (Rich DiPietro) in return – which might prove H.L. Mencken’s quote: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
I have served on a committe with Ms.Jeannie Markech and we were usually on different sides. I always respected her thoughts, and would vote for her for Mayor tomorrow- she could make a difference.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>