Depending on your favorite brand of politicians and their political pundit accomplices, the current recession is either the best or the worst time for a governmental unit to undertake major infrastructure projects and the long-term bonded debt that goes with them.
One “school” of politico-economic thought proclaims the current historically-low interest rates as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to load up on all the bonded debt a governmental unit might need or want for the foreseeable future. The other “school” laments the existing historically-high debt levels and long-term liabilities as a reason for austerity and caution.
But when infrastructure has been neglected for too long – as it has been in Park Ridge – choice and patience can themselves become an unaffordable luxury.
Monday night (June 11), the Park Ridge City Council commenced serious study and discussion of a new water and sewer fee structure that is intended, in part, to help finance a $15 million sewer improvement-flood relief project and a $3.5 million automated water meter reading system, the latter which promises to increase accuracy in water billing and reduce/eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars of “losses” in water billings.
These rate increases are also needed to keep up with the escalating costs of the water we buy from Chicago, which appears intent on remediating, at least in part, decades of gross mismanagement and outright corruption by its twisted dwarf former mayor, Richie Daley, through the regular jacking up of water rates to gouge communities like Park Ridge for the foreseeable future.
Although the new fee structure ordinance is scheduled for a first-reading this coming Monday, June 18, and a final-reading at the July 16 Council meeting, we don’t think this is a “done deal.”
That’s because, while an “average” residential consumer might see his/her water bill increase by $10/month, major water users like Lutheran General Hospital, the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, and local schools will take a major expense hit. And major expense hits bring out the complaints, the special interests, and their advocates.
In a report published back in 2010, Lutheran General was reported as using 87.5 million gallons of water a year, twice the amount of second place user, the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District, and third place user High School District 2007 (Maine South and Maine East). Don’t expect any of those organizations to quietly accept these increases.
Which is okay by us.
Open debate on important issues, the more informed and vigorous the better, usually leads to better overall decisions than the silent, go-along-to-get-along approach that was the rule rather than the exception for City decision-making during most of the two post-Marty Butler decades. Most of the problems the City faces today are the product of the kick-the-can-down-the-road approaches of previous Councils – populated by faux-Republican “Homeowners” and faux-“Independent” Democrats – to just about every difficult or unpleasant situation.
The last time the City’s water service was seriously discussed was in January 2010, which spurred us to write “Whose Water Are You Carrying, Ald. Wsol?” But back then, the principal focus of the discourse was just the Chicago increase, not catching up with neglected infrastructure or modernizing/improving any aspect of the service.
While most of what we’ve heard of this water/sewer initiative sounds promising, we’re always concerned about giving government a lot of “extra” money – the effect of which is often tantamount to posting a flashing neon sign that says “Government With Money: Please Fleece Us.” And, as we’ve seen repeatedly, there are plenty of wolves willing to do just that – including some dressed in sheep’s clothing and bleating plaintively.
Unlike a fine Bordeaux, neglected sewers and water mains don’t get better with age – unless you enjoy the dusky, vegetal “nose” that accompanies chronic flooding. So we applaud this City Council for setting out to grapple with problems its predecessors consistently ignored.
Let this debate begin.
To read or post comments, click on title.
16 comments so far
Your sentence does not make sense, ‘In a report published back in 2010, Lutheran General was reported as using $87.5 million gallons of water a year, twice the amount of second place user, the Park Ridge Recreation & Park District and High School District 2007 (Maine South and Maine East).’
Are they paying $87.5 million or using 87.5 million?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry for the typo: it’s 87.5 million gallons, not dollars. Thanks for the catch.
Questions
How did they come up with $15 million?
Will this plan solve the once every hundred year flooding that we get twice a year, or something more significant?
My sources tell me that the sewer replacement plan is for the City owned property only. Home owners are going to have to pay for their portion of sewer connections / improvements between their residence and the streets. Is that true?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We believe that $15 million is the estimate for some “straight” sewer work and one of several phases of the “flood control” sewer work. Whether it will “solve” the flooding problem remains to be seen, but nobody is issuing any guarantees, if that’s what you are asking.
We haven’t looked at the replacement plan, but traditionally the residents have been responsible for the “connection” portion of the sewer to the home.
PD:
“Whether it will “solve” the flooding problem remains to be seen, but nobody is issuing any guarantees, if that’s what you are asking”.
It is funny how on some issues you are so damn rock solid definitive and on others you go to great lengths to avoid saying anything.
For the 15 million part of the project it reamins to be seen if it wil solve the flooding problem?!?!?!?!
You damn well know the answer to the question the poster aked, as does every alderman. The answer is very simple. No!!! It will not solve the “twice a year flooding problem”. The 15 million was not intended or designed to solve the flooding problem. At best it MAY (or remains to be seen) have a positive affect in those neighborhoods that are included in the flood plan but there are huge areas that are not even included. For these areas there will be no affect one way or the other. They will have to wait for possible future parts to this plan. I believe even you questioned if those would ever happen.
So, again the answer is simple. “Will this plan solve the once every hundred year flooding that we get twice a year, or something more significant?” No.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We understood the question – and answered it – as referring only to THAT PARTICULAR AREA targeted by this particular phase of the flood control plan. We just assumed anybody who’s head isn’t stuck up their derriere would know Park Ridge isn’t getting comprehensive, City-wide flood relief for $15 million.
I was reading about automated water meters that they have installed in specific towns in the state of California.
One function of the automated system (at least the ones installed there) is that it allows the water company to charge different rates based on the hour of usage. So if from 6am-7am you have a high usage (peak time) because of showers, the water company will charge more during the peak time and less during non peak times.
It is probably the wave (pun intended) of the future that all utility companys will be able to charge higher prices for peak usage and lower rates during non peak times.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re not aware of how the time of water usage should affect rates. But, then again, we’re inherently suspicious of all things governmental from California.
I’m fairly new in town so I’m not familiar with the flooding issues, other than tidbits heard in passing. I get that some homes are regularly experiencing flooding…but I’m curious if people have taken measures to solve their individual issues, ie installing flood control systems. If so and they are still getting major flooding then it seems evident it’s probably an infrastructure problem.
I guess what I’m getting at is how much of this is a city issue and how much is an individual homeowner issue?
I was at one city council meeting where the city engineer was being pressed to answer a question about the “100 year storm” scenario by a homeowners group and when she replied that she couldn’t guarantee the fixes would withstand a storm of that magnitude they seemed really irate. It floored me that people seem to feel that anything less than an ironclad guarantee of no flooding, ever, from the city is unacceptable. That just doesn’t seem realistic to me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s not realistic, but that’s just another aspect of paternalistic/maternalistic big-government mentality – even by people who in other respects might be for smaller government.
It sounds like you’re talking about Mayfield Estates in the NW corner of the City by Maine East. Even with overhead sewers or other in-home flood controls, those folks may be screwed by 100 year rains no matter what. But a lot of folks don’t want to spend the $5-10,000 for O.H. sewers, shut-off/check valves, etc. so they beef about the City not doing enough.
I get that people don’t want to spend the money on flood control but if that’s the only to guarantee a dry basement then people need to consider biting the bullet and doing it rather than expecting the city to fix the issue.
I know the angst that comes with terrible flooding (in my pre-Park Ridge home) and I also know the pain of shelling out the considerable cash required to remedy it. I never imagined asking my city to do something about it. In the end, not having to endure another clean up and dry out was well worth it. Along with being able to claim “no flooding” when selling my house (unlike the previous owner who freely and blatantly lied about that fact).
EDITOR’S NOTE: The City’s flood control plan isn’t designed solely to protect individual homes, which should undertake their own protection. But let’s assume every home can completely seal itself off against flooding: would it be okay with you if Park Ridge effectively became Venice several times a year, with flooded yards and impassable streets for a day, two, three?
I don’t have a problem with the city making improvements to the sewers and addressing general flood control via drains, detention ponds or whatever. My beef is with individuals who expect the city”s plan to address/solve their specific problems.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have that same beef.
This is money that will be spent to benefit only a tiny percentage of the city, and therefore should not be spent at this time. What’s next – $15 million for new sound proof windows for the Belle Plaine corridor? How about a giant wall for the folks on the south side of town so they don’t have to listen to the el and the expressway?
This is a waste of money. The cash sucking TIF will be a problem that will need money and will affect all the residents, not just the ones too dumb or cheap to install overhead sewers.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Flooding is a City-wide problem. We’ve had flooding that has made roads impassable, including for emergency vehicles. That affects more than just dumb and cheap homeowners.
But, hopefully, these issues will be subject to informed, vigorous debate by the current Council – for the first time in memory.
Re the $15 million, I think we have to keep in mind that that figure is, for lack of a better word, a placeholder set into the rate study until the flood prevention feasibility studies come back and any project(s) are approved. If the project(s) aren’t feasible and/or the Council decides they won’t approve something brought forward the $15 million becomes something more or less. And it could be considerable either way.
I think as or more importantly is that the study and proposed rate increase provide a dedicated source of funding for ongoing and regular upkeep, repair and maintenance. Check it out, the recommended life of water and sewer assets are 75 years, we spend on those assets so their lives are something like 160 and 250 years respectively.
Finally, the idea of some type of automated meter read system is probably not a bad one, the City’s antiquated “honor” system is ridiculous.
Here is hoping there is a good debate about all of this but addressing a lot of this is taking care of some long long overdue issues with the systems and that’s probably a right thing to do.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. Leaving these kinds of decisions to make themselves rarely works.
PW:
I don’t follow this stuff as closely as you do, or as I should, but I’m glad our elected officials are finally looking at this stuff. I can see both arguments, and I’m not sure where I am on the issues. But it looks to me like past councils were delinquent or negligent in not addressing these things years ago. Good job, men.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The more people pay attention, the better the quality of government is likely to be. Those previous do-nothing councils got away with being MIA, or simply being specatators to mayor Ron Wietecha’s O’Hare crusade, because their constituents were asleep; and meetings were poorly covered by the media.
Is there any information out there on how much of the more recent flooding problems are caused by the McMansions that have been built over the last 20 years with their 10 foot deep basements. Though these basements have sump pumps, they also displace alot of cubic feet that formerly retained rain/ground water. These homes also have multiple laundry rooms, kitchens and 6 bathrooms etc that put a strain on the city’s infrastructure.
From what we have seen lately, the city has also been lax in enforcing the building codes. The foot print of the new homes built on teardown lots has increased eliminating green space. How does this contribute to the flooding problem? Will the city be looking to change the building codes to eliminate these deep basements and McMansions on relatively small lots? If this type of building continues the cost to the city and the neighbors to fix the flooding problems these houses cost will be prohibitive.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve made many of those same arguments against the recent – last 10-15 years – proliferation of multi-family residential (e.g., condos and townhouses), but we are unaware of any studies on which the City relied in its zoning code rewrite several years ago. That rewrite seems to have been a half-baked but expensive effort by what we believe to have been an overpaid consultant (Camiros Ltd.) and a citizens committee/task force, several of whose members were either way over their skis or captives of special interests.
As for the City’s building code enforcement, see 322 Vine. Or the latest Building Dept. boondoggle at 2072 De Cook. “Lax” is being generous.
“These homes also have multiple laundry rooms, kitchens and 6 bathrooms etc that put a strain on the city’s infrastructure”.
Ok ya gotta explain this to me. How exactly does the number of bathrooms (or laundry rooms) I have in my house put a strain on the PR infrastructure??? I currently have 3 full baths and a powder room. Let’s say for the hell of it I decide to add a full bath in the basement. How is this going to increase my “water footprint”???
Man… these are the dog days for the ‘Dog. I keep checking and nothing new… writers block??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ask and ye shall receive.
This on a side note. Residents Feel free to call the police when you see landscapers connect to the fire hydrants. I wittnessed a particular Morton Grove landscaper fill a 550 gallon water truck. The police did not get there in time and they took off.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And you didn’t take a cellphone camera or regular camera photograph of the illegal act and/or the truck’s license plate why, exactly?
I did not have a way to take a photo as it was not near my house. A officer stopped by and was given the Landscapers name, number, and vehicle make, model. Also a description of the 2 employees. Dont know if he filed a report, but he wrote the info down.
Fyi.
KGI Landscaping
Skokie 847-675-4221
Happened on 6/9. 1141 Delphia hydrant
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>