Maybe Fifth Ward Ald. Robert Ryan didn’t realize the full implication of what he was saying near the end of Monday night’s Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting, when he took the opportunity to once again trumpet his idea for a citizens finance task force/committee to do the work City Staff and the City Council seem to be so incapable of doing…or doing right.
Ryan, mustering all of his stiff upper lip resolve, stated that “there is one taxing entity in this town that doesn’t have financial problems” because “they have a tremendously strong financial committee.” The object of his ardor: Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64.
That’s right, folks. Ryan wants the City to create a citizens finance task force/committee because the one over at District 64 has done, according to Ryan, “a super job advising the District 64 School Board.”
We don’t know whether to laugh or cry over a statement like that, because we can’t tell whether Ryan actually believes that ridiculous beeswax, or whether he knows it’s beeswax but is just trying to sell it to naive, uninformed Park Ridge residents – like the ones who bailed out District 64 with a massive tax increase 3 years ago in response to that administration’s and Board’s mismanagement of its finances even with the advice of a citizens finance committee!
Ryan didn’t mention that referendum, which he supported. And he didn’t mention the $5 million in working cash bonds the District issued without a referendum back in 2005, effectively replenishing the District’s depleted reserves and preventing the Illinois State Board of Education from taking over the District’s finances after several years of it being on the ISBE’s “early warning” or “watch list” for poor financial performance – tied in no small measure to the District’s drawing down its reserves to fund its regular operations, just like Ryan and his buddies have enabled the City to do in the wake of recent budget deficits.
But we suspect that what Ryan really doesn’t want taxpayers remembering is how the deterioration of District 64’s finances can be traced back to the construction of the new Emerson Middle School – for which then-District 64 Board Member Ryan was one of the main cheerleaders – that replaced what was then the newest school in the District. As best as we can tell, the debt service on that new building and the costs of its operations were underestimated and/or misrepresented in the course of the successful “Yes/Yes” referendum campaign.
So when Ryan praises the District 64 finance committee, what he’s really saying is: “The City needs the same kind of committee that let District 64’s finances go down the drain before recommending a sneaky $5 million bond issue without a referendum, followed by a referendum for a multi-million property tax increase.”
Why didn’t you just say so, Robert?
A multi-million dollar tax increase would solve many of the City’s financial problems. And, unlike District 64, which has to go to referendum to raise taxes above a modest amount, the City – as a home-rule body – can raise our taxes by mere resolution. If that’s what Ryan and his fellow big-spenders on the Council are trying to achieve by continuing to jackpot the City treasury, they should have the decency to just say so.
Meanwhile, since neither Ryan nor Finance Committee Chairman Ald. Rich DiPietro (2nd Ward) seems capable of figuring out how to cut the budget in lieu of raising taxes, here’s one free bit of advice for moving forward on the budget while awaiting Hock’s draft document: Tell each department head to cut 10% of the current year’s expenses for the upcoming budget year 2010-11. Such an exercise might not provide a final answer, but at least it’s more of a start than we’ve seen from the Council so far.
And it didn’t even require a citizens finance committee.
15 comments so far
Thank you…THANK YOU for summarizing the case against Ald. Ryan. This is very succinct and as a 5th ward resident paying higher property taxes, I support what you say.
No doubt some will argue that his many local involvements add up to a record of civic participation and boosterism that few can boast. True enough.
We can appreciate the time he put in, but not without considering the financial damage done, and you’ve explained that beautifully. Thanks again.
Ryan is a tool.
We need to vote him OUT.
Ryan is one of those “volunteers” who just keeps on giving and giving bad service to the community. A citizens finance committee is about as bad an idea as bringing back the treasurer position.
What is it about these guys? Everybody but the politicians know that if you won’t cut spending then you’ve got to raise revenues. Why is that so #@$&-ing hard to figure out?
Fred,
I believe the politicians do know that deficit spending is wrong, and that spending cuts should be made or taxes and fees should be raised.
I also believe far too many politicians are not willing to do the right thing when it might be the unpopular thing to do. Instead they choose to eat up whatever reserves are available, and/or incur debt through borrowing to appear to be delivering the same or more level of services without demanding actual and current payment for the costs of those services.
I forget which one, but I believe there was a Wyoming Senator(?) who once said, “This is the only generation who isn’t leaving things better for their grandchildren. It might be they’re living longer and have met their grandchildren!”
Hello City Council and City Manager, another set of eyes does NOTHING to the serious problem they face this year and next. The City is spending millions more that what it collects. Based on the preliminary numbers Mr. Hock produced about a month ago at the Saturday session that I attended, the City could have a deficit next fiscal year of approximately $8.5 million. Time to look at the facts in front of them, make some tough decisions and figure out quickly how they can cut spending NOW. From what I have seen, not a single member of the City Council nor the City Manager has been acting with any sense of urgency. Stop passing the buck and start cutting the expenses.
Until someone can prove that we have trimmed all fat from the budget and that each resident and entity in PR (e.g. Lutheran General) pays for the services they use (e.g. Water), I and my neighbors are not supporting yet another tax hike. We got punked with the referendum for the schools in ’07. But thanks to the Teacher’s union we now have the average teacher making more money than the average resident and guaranteed with rate increases by a contract that has no basis in reality.
Tax hikes are a LAST resort – after fiscal responsibility and prudence.
I don’t really care about Ryan or your rants against him but it does gall me that you really don’t understand how school finances work. The bonds for Emerson were separate from and approved as an addition to our taxes for District 64. They were only used for construction of the building, which came in under budget. Building Emerson had nothing to do with the operating budget of District 64.
A2:43,
Oh me, oh my.
In anticipation of what’s likely to come from the Chief Editor of Public Watchdog, I’m feeling so very sorry for you.
I’m looking forward to that as well. I saw said editor starting to turn red even as Ryan was spewing his crap on Monday night.
Anonymous on 02.25.10 2:43 pm:
You correctly state that the Emerson bonds were independently approved as an additional tax, which theoretically was supposed to cover the debt service for the bonds used to finance the construction.
However, because the new Emerson is used by District 64 while the old Emerson was being used by the Futabakai school, ALL of the maintenance and operational costs for the new Emerson had to be assumed by District 64 rather than paid by Futabakai directly, or charged to Futabakai as part of its rent.
The bottom line is that despite the 1997 “Yes/Yes” referendum that raised taxes not only for the multi-millions in new Emerson construction bonds but also to provide multimillions in additional funding for the District, shortly after Emerson opened in 1998 the District’s finances began to spiral downward – even though the District claims to have cut almost $12 million in expenses between 2000 and 2005.
If the District was telling the truth, it would appear that the new Emerson is the ONLY change in the District that could account for that kind of negative effect on District finances.
I still don’t understand to this day why Dist. 64 decided to rebuild Emerson that use the existing building?
Gee why not tear down the other schools which are also older?
In Winnetka they wanted to rebuild New Trier HS.
Fortunatly the voters said no.
Balanced budget NOW.
If the City Council and Mayor won’t make the tough decisions, then they should step down because they’re not doing the job we elected them to do.
The mayor has set the standard: a balanced budget. It is the aldermen who must decide to heed his call.
ML1:11,
The Mayor has not set the standard for a balanced budget. The Mayor has merely recognized that a balanced budget should be the standard; a standard that had already been previously set and which, by the way, is a standard the Mayor failed to hold himself to when he served as an Alderman.
However, as I’ve previously mentioned, kudos should be offered to repentant sinners. Kudos to the Mayor for now recognizing that a balanced budget *should be the standard*, and staying within the parameters of a balanced budget would be extra peachy too. Go and sin no more.
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>