When the city is raising taxes at a double digit rate because of the TIF problems, no new projects should be passed until that situation is rectified or controlled.

Sorry but not buying your logic. The 100 year storm is NOT the norm and if it were then the millions in projects already spent (and approved by most of the current council members) was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, quoting Burke engineering as an expert on evaluating flood exposures is a bit of a stretch isn’t it? They and for that matter anyone on the city’s staff aren’t qualified to evaluate the flood exposures facing our city. Btw, saying the council saved taxpayers $1.167million is disingenuous when the reality of kicking the can down the road in this case will end up costing taxpayers many more millions as a result of doing nothing. Ignoring serious issues like flooding in this town is not something the council should be proud of. We’re now paying the price on many fronts as a result of previous councils’ neglecting or ignoring critical infrastructure needs. The safety issue on the Touhy avenue bridge being one example.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody’s “[i]gnoring serious issues like flooding.” To the contrary, this current Council and the immediately previous Council (2011-13) have done more about flooding than almost two decades of councils before them.

As we understand it, 7 of 10 projects in the first phase of the City’s flood control plan have been completed with a cost of $5.3 million, paid by sewer taxes rather than bonds. So even if those projects only provided for 10-year flooding protection – and we’re not conceding that point – those projects are not remotely comparable in scope of commitment to the “Country Club” project.

Somebody at the City has to seriously study and figure out whether new development is improving or contributing to the flooding problem. You can’t bail the boat when somebody is punching more holes in it. And fee-in-lieu should end immediately.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Agreed on all counts.

If protection from 10-year overland flooding is so important to these residents, how much are they willing to invest via a Special Service District toward that $48 million? Divide it among 680 homes and that’s $70K per home. Are they willing to go halfsies for 10-year protection?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’d bet every dollar we have and every dollar we could get beg and borrow that the answer to that question would be a resounding “NO!” In fact, we’d be on “NO!” even if it were 100-year protection.

anon:

OK….so what about the point made by 7:11?? He/she says all projects should be stopped until the tax issue is ” rectified or controlled”. What say you??

You see to be celebrating a “savings” of 1.1 mil yet it is OK to spend 5.3 million when they have known for a long time the TIF was a cluster&$%# and these taxes were coming.

You “defend it” by saying it was paid for by TAXES?!?!?! That is your defense??? Not only that but it was 5.3 million without a referendum.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, 7:11 said no new projects should be passed until the UPTOWN TIF “situation is rectified or controlled.” But the Uptown TIF isn’t scheduled to end until 2027, so holding off new projects until then would be stupid. And because we don’t know what 7:11 means by “rectified” (way too late for that, it would seem) or “controlled,” we think he/she may have the tinfoil derby on a tad too tight.

And, yes, we’re okay with doing 7 anti-flooding projects totaling $5.3 million, so long as the results are what wer expected – which we understand they are.

And, yes, we’re big on pay-as-you-go tax-based funding whenever possible – in this case (as we understand it) from the sewer enterprise fund established for such purposes – instead of the one-time, multi-million dollar bonded debt that keeps on soaking the taxpayers years/decades later. Unless, of course, the taxpayers approve such long-term bonded debt via referendum.

It’s not really that hard to understand if you actually try.

It’s interesting that 9:36 PM would attempt to blame the council for “The safety issue on the Touhy avenue bridge”. It’s my understanding that Union Pacific owns the bridge and that the mayor had to threaten to sue them so that they would fix it. It’s not an issue of this council (or any prior council) refusing to spend money on repairing the bridge.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You are correct. The City could actually have been sued by the UP had it tried to do the work on its own.

For those commentators who criticize this post or the Council for not voting to buy the $1 million-plus of engineering for a $48 million project, would they support a City-wide referendum on that $49 million (engineering and construction) project? Would they support an SSA? Or do they just want all the City’s taxpayers to give them a $49 million gift?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The last, of course.

One of many complicating factors with the area west of the country club is that they receive runoff from a large upstream contributing area. The actions of others (how much impervious area there is on a particular lot, including residential, institutional, and commercial) in combination with other factors (how much rain, the size of the pipes, and more) has a direct effect on how much water the area west of the country club receives. The people that live in this area have no power over what happens upstream from them. The city does. This is one reason why this is a city problem, not a residents wrest of the country club problem.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re going to have to work a bit more on that part of your stump speech, Candidate Cline, because blaming the City for what benefitted the eastern two-thirds of your ward to the possible detriment of the western one third of your ward is a little tricky.

Those folks west of Greenwood “receive runoff from a large upstream contributing area” because they are in what has been described as a “bowl” and has always been a “bowl.” People who lived there a decade or more ago talk about how they would flood for that reason, so nobody should be able to claim they moved into that area in the last 10-20 years not knowing about the propensity for flooding.

Has their flooding gotten worse because of bigger houses on the land upstream of the “bowl”? Probably, just as flooding has gotten worse in most areas of Park Ridge because of larger homes, patios and driveways covering more green areas. But if so, by how much? And what, if anything, did those folks in the “bowl” do to object to – or have their various aldermen object to – those bigger houses being built upstream that they now seem to be claiming the City screwed them over by allowing in the eastern two-thirds of the First Ward?

Combined sewers surcharging and manhole covers being blown is not an acceptable service level of infrastructure.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No it’s not, but in that September 2008 deluge blown manhole covers were reported in almost every community in the north and northwest suburbs. And the 10-year protection for $48 million to the west-of-Greenwood bowl wouldn’t come remotely close to preventing that.

Our home hasn’t ever flooded, and we’re grateful for that, but I pay attention to these discussions because of the big dollar figures thrown around.

What frustrates me is that a lot of generalizations and assertions get thrown around, too, making it hard to know if we have truly diagnosed the problem.

Does anyone know if there is one coherent explanation of Park Ridge’s own flooding problems, and what might be done to stop them?

In other words, before spending money, we need a clear and agreed upon diagnosis that leads to a clear and agreed upon solution. Then we can go shopping.

Anyone?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Even 100-year flood protection City-wide wouldn’t guarantee no flooding ever, because there are such things as 500-year storms (although their chance of occurring in any given year is 1 in 500, or 0.2%.) and everything in between 100 and 500. That is why no engineer or contractor will guaranty that what they design or build will prevent future flooding. All that can be done is reduce the likelihood and severity in area by area over time.

And avoid doing more things that exacerbate the problem while at the same time not unfairly and/or punitively limiting land use.

I thought no more than 40 percent of a piece of property could be hardscape. Or was that no more than 40 percent could be an actual building? If the latter, it should be changed to the former. I think the McMansions are beautiful for the most part and I appreciate how their mega property taxes keep mine only semi-ridiculous, but they can build up, not out. Alternatively, builders should be required to use only permeable hardscape materials.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Call your alderman or, better yet, show up at the next Council meeting and voice your ideas.

If the someone is doing a study they had better take a hard look at yard drainage systems and include them in any calculation of how properties affect flooding in PR. It is not as simple as calculating green space.

Many newer houses have yard drainage systems allowing water to more efficiently drain into the ground rather than runoff into the sewer system.

Combine that with our mostly clay soil (ask anyone who has tried to dig a hole in PR) and a newer house with less green space may very well be contributing a great deal less to the flooding issue in PR than an older house with a larger yard.

Also, if a house is not graded properly, even though it has a big yard much of the water from a down pour may be running off the yard and into the alley and on into the sewer system.

Again, the issue is not as simple as blaming a lack of green space.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly.

Dear Editor: Your Editor’s Note, in response to my comment above, is well-taken in that we should admit we will never guarantee 100% flood protection. I agree. But I was asking a slightly different question: What’s been causing the flooding we have experienced in the past? Which of those causes could or should be mitigated in the future? I’m looking for clear analysis beyond “we get too much rain” or “there’s not enough green space”. Is there a single, guiding document that summarizes the great thoughts of myriad consultants and experts?

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, some people have sewer backup which can be reduced and even eliminated by “private” fixes such as overhead sewers or check valves. Overland flooding, however, requires either some form of “public” stormwater management or, at the very least, waterproofing one’s home by things like sealing up window wells and below-grade doors/garage doors, etc. To our knowledge, however, there is no one “guiding document” that fully addresses EVERY flooding issue.

Steve, it would be impossible to come up with one “coherent explanation” for why we have flooding issues, because different areas, even individual houses, flood for different reasons. We set out five years ago to fix as many of the different areas as we could. Different areas required different projects, and we are fairly happy with the results. We are now down to the most perplexing and costly fixes. And sure enough, the flooding issues in the three remaining areas which had been on the drawing board each have different issues and different potential solutions…with widely different price tags.

Why doesn’t each flood project individually go to referendum and simply state:
* Area
* Total cost
* Total cost of project for homes it’s aiding
* Level of predicted flood protection (10, 100 year…)

I think when people see the amount per home, then as a community we can understand how ridiculous the country club project is or Mayfield.

If these fail, then the residents can understand that it’s time for SSA’s.

We keep hearing about the TIF not paying its way, but isn’t the property owner obliged to pay the City the equivalent of whatever sales tax its tenantry SHOULD have paid if it was leased as planned? So where’s the shortfall?

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, only the commercial/retail space has that requirement – and sales tax was never going to be a main revenue source for the project, despite what the cuckoo-for-retail crowd was suggesting back during the Uptown Advisory Task Force days.

Based on those discussions from 1999-2006, the big revenue generator was always going to be property taxes from both the retail and the residential – which is how the Uptown TIF proponents fabricated the pie-in-the-sky numbers to justify the City’s bonding/borrowing the tens of millions of dollars as its “investment” in the project.

Mr. Mayor:

Fairly happy with the results? What exactly does that mean??? First off, some of the areas that have been “fixed” have yet to be tested by a very big storm. Second, some of the areas have still flooded even in the limited storms we have had.

Honestly mr mayor I hope you are right but I have no idea how you can reasonably make that statement.

Thank you for the explanation on the sales tax issue, but I’m a bit perplexed about the property tax issue. The property exists; it is in private hands, not the City’s, and every parcel or the entity as a whole — retail/commercial or residential — is all owned by somebody, right? So how can it be off the property tax rolls? How can it NOT be paying taxes, whether or not it’s profitable to the owner(s)?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Where did you get the idea Uptown TIF property is “off the property tax rolls”? The real estate taxes ARE being paid, just not at the pie-in-the-sky inflated values the flim-flam salesmen of the Uptown TIF were touting.

It has long been rumored that O’Hare gets drained first. Once O’Hare gets drained the plug gets pulled and then the water flows out of Park Ridge. Is it true,an urban legend or just hear sat. I don’t know. I can tell you on three occasions I have helped my neighbors clean out their waist deep flooded basements. On all three occasions while taking items to the curb from waist deep water, we returned only to find the water level rapidly decreased. What ‘s the explanation ?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The various authorities involved – including the MWRD – insist there is no manipulation of Deep Tunnel or any other system to advantage one area over another.

216…you are correct we have not been tested like the September 2008 storm. However, many of these projects were completed in the 2011-13 timeframe, and we have been tested by some fairly severe storms during and since then, including two nasty ones last year. The Public Works Director reports that those project areas fared significantly better than before when measured against similar rainfalls.

Ok mr mayor. PD loves to go on about the cost compared to the amount of homes that would be “saved” so this should be easy. How many homes have been saved so far and at what cost? How about you start with the project along belle plaine/western and down past Washington school??

What did it cost and how many were helped?? I hear the streets still flooded along with a few basements last summer. I wonder what will happen when the big one hits.

If these projects have really worked you should invite citizens to a COW to share their success stories and let them say thanks in public.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You (an anonymous commentator) “hear” (from an equally anonymous source) that some unspecified blocks of some unspecified “streets still flooded along with a few basements last summer.” Yeah, that sure sounds like the kind of solid evidence that proves those already-completed flood relief projects were miserable failures.

Do you have any tea leaf readings to go with it?

By the way, what does significantly better mean?? That is a very vague term.

I would think that if we have spent this amount of money already and are considering spending more you and the council would want a bit more data as to how these projects have faired than a verbal report from PW. How about a written report we can all see?? How about knocking on some doors in the neighborhoods where these projects were done to get citizen feedback??

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Significantly: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect.”

And since (per your last comment of 01.23.15 @ 3:09 pm) you don’t have any evidence or data to suggest that the areas served by these completed flood relief projects have not “fared significantly better than before when measured against similar rainfalls” – as Public Works has reported – you’re just spit-balling.

But if you really think some written report is essential, show up tomorrow night at the Council meeting (7:00 p.m. at City Hall) and ask for it.

Yet when you hear comments that are just as unverifiable from anon posters that you happen to agree with you practically give a standing ovation

EDITOR’S NOTE: We doubt that, but if you want to provide any examples we’ll be glad to address them.

Good ole’ PD. He screams for data when he is against it but needs none when he is for it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You already kind of said that in your 2:58 pm comment, and we already disagreed with it.

When you don’t have the facts, argue the equities.
Back to the lack of flooding prevention dollars being caused by that uber-scapegoat, the Uptown redevelopment TIF, if the absent sales tax revenues are being compensated for by fees to the owners, and if the property taxes are being paid by those owners, how in hell is it the TIF’s fault that property values went down 40% all over town to all types of properties due to the Recession? And please don’t say it ended in 2009 or some crap like that. It only ended then for Wall Street. When the TIF project was begun and then when it was in work, nobody — even Alan Greenspan — didn’t know the bottom was going to fall out of everything. So stop blaming lack of flood control monies on an attempt to get some retail here, OK?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry to burst your class warfare bubble, but the investment value represented by Wall Street’s resurgence has helped compensate for the damage caused by our General Assembly’s intentional and chronic underfunding of all those public pension funds; and it also has helped those non-consitutionally guaranteed private sector 401(k)s rebound in value.

As for your beloved Upton TIF and its promise of retail Nirvana, the reason the TIF debt deserves every ounce of blame that can be heaped on it is that the mouth-breathing cats-in-heat aldermen on the council back then foolishly accepted, without even any serious questions, the pie-in-the-sky revenue numbers (property tax and sales tax) that PRC floated as justification for those alderment foolishly committing the City to tens of millions of dollars of long-term bonded debt in order to sweeten the deal even more for PRC.

So come out of the anonymous closet, former alderdunce, and defend your foolishness in your own name. Show your former constituents how great a job you actually did for them with the Uptown TIF and how your red-headed stepchild is being unfairly maligned.

Not a chance. A cat may look at a king, but it’s stupit if the king has a blunderbuss in hand. You still won’t buy the idea that elected officials are usually attorneys and businesspeople, not accountants, and that Park Ridge paid — and is still paying via pensions — hefty sums to a bunch of “professionals” on staff to at least help with the due diligence in such projects. Many elected officials who are responsible people have found to their dismay that you can’t trust staff to give you a range of reasonable, vetted choices from which to choose. You have to go back to the drawing board while still paying these “professionals.” You can bet your bottom dollar, and mine, that I have not trusted “professional” staff since. And I’ve made common cause with others like you who more naturally distrust government employees. And I still believe my red-headed stepchild will turn out to be Nicole Kidman. Give it a few more years.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Anybody who purports to be an “adult” and also is not a blithering idiot could have done far better than the then-mayor(s) and alderdopes when it came to asking tough questions and demanding reasonable and legitimate answers from the likes of then-city manager Tim Schuenke, the various “experts” like Trkla Pettigrew Allen & Payne and S.B. Friedman, and the various developers vying for the project. But because almost all of our then-elected officials were like cats in heat over an Uptown TIF and a big-time development to create a “vibrant” Uptown and “unite both sides of Touhy,” they fell all over each other getting to “yes.”

By the time the Uptown TIF becomes Nicole Kidman, neither it nor Nicole will be worth the $20 million the taxpayers are getting hit for.

You might prefer Red Buttons? Little Orphan Annie? Eric the Red? What if Nicole turns out to be Dame Judy Densch? Or Katharine Hepburn? In other words, somebody whose value goes beyond the surface looks of things?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’d prefer the $20 million in the taxpayers’ pockets. Or going toward infrastructure rather than going for debt service on bonds that should never have been issued to give sweetheart deals to landowners, land purchasers and developers for a TIF that really wasn’t needed or legal.