Is it wrong to prefer a Council meeting without Wogen and Simpson? I’ve decided there’s no immediate need to get rid of Wogen unless he starts showing up again, or if the 3rd Ward wants the mayor to appoint somebody to the spot. And Simpson can take as much time off as he likes unless the 1st puts up a fuss.
Four hundred ninety-six days and counting…
In other news, I’ve decided it’s A-OK with me for Council to raise my taxes — as soon as the following conditions are met:
We no longer pay for city employees’ magazines, in-town lunches, uniforms for people in positions that are not public safety related, and other unnecessary extras (especially for work-related tax-deductibles)
Somebody explains the high costs for janitorial services and cleaning supplies
Ditto ditto service calls for locks and keys
The rent on Eduardo’s outdoor cafe space is equal to, or greater than, what it would pay in property taxes if it owned the property
I&T is cut by approximately 3 people and an IS position is created and overseen by the Office of the City Clerk
Legal services are outsourced
The city manager and public works director are replaced
The city manager regularly reports on disposal of city property
Community Development gets its vehicles downsized
Car allowances for administrators are abolished
Health care for aldermen is discontinued (more for big-picture ethical reasons than for cost savings)
The city has a reasonable debt policy in place
The post-employment healthcare plan is fixed
A moratorium is placed on airport land acquisition
A moratorium is placed on installment of pavers, concrete decorations, etc., downtown: Save and port TIF money for needed police station expansion instead
The city sells assets: Put equipment and commercial property on the market, at market prices
TIF expenditures are reviewed at least quarterly by a committee of non-ReNew, non-Chamber, non-CCEC “civilians.”
Bet you have a few too, eh?
11 comments
Comment by Ivan Krpan on November 24, 2009 at 11:42 am
If Cul de Sacs are so expensive to clean in the winter, why do we continue to allow them in new subdivisions?
Remember when I along with several other members of the DCBDA came forward and said that curved roads and cul de sacs may look great and more appealing but they are more expensive to maintain. I do. Nothing more efficient then the old standard grid design but you can even improve the grid pattern to look more appealing and open.
This same conversation we were seeing last evening during the council meeting is the same exact conversation you will see in a council meeting after we go thru two or three winters here with respects to the pavers and poorly placed and positioned seating areas and planters downtown. Why cannot we not remember we live in the midwest and it snows here. We have to stop designing things to look like California.
Not just the city, DeKalb School District has implemented planting areas and curves in their new high school parking lot which is going to had significant costs to the snow cleaning and lawn/landscaping maintenance for years and years to come. What are we thinking?
Comment by markcharvat on November 24, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I am requesting an complete investigation by the City Of DeKalb into the Council voting practices over the past years! I am the Citizen who made this inquiry to City Clerk Kapitan and Ald Gallagher. Here is the letter I have sent to City Staff:
———————————————————————–
To Mayor, City Council and City Staff
I am the Citizen who brought this matter to the attention of Ald Gallagher and City Clerk Kapitan
I am requesting that the City Legal department examine the entire voting record of the City council for the past 20 years. There are many potential ramifications here. Votes that the sitting Mayor participated in that he/she should NOT have participated in. I think there may be many potential Legal problems here for the city. Ordinances that should have been approved or denied may be have to be reversed or be made NULL and VOID.
I am requesting a complete investigation in this matter and would appreciate a timely response.
Mark Charvat
Comment by yinn on November 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm
People like cul de sacs because they slow down the traffic. I lived on one as a kid. We played in it a lot, bikes and wagons, because nobody parked on it as an everyday thing, just when somebody was having a lot of company coming.
We lived on Maplewood when we first moved to DeKalb, and sometimes I miss a good old-fashioned alley.
Mark, you’ve opened a can of worms here. What do you think the outcome will be?
Comment by Kerry Mellott on November 24, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Well, I think the various wards should ALWAYS have representation. Its long past time to straighten out the lack of representation in the 3rd ward. On yinn’s list of what resources city employees have or not in their jobs, I agree with some, and disagree with others.
Generally, the main problem is city government trying to act like private enterprise. Government is NOT the private sector! Government should not be much into the business of investing or profitable ventures. Creating an advisory group like ReNew cannot create a slice of owned government pie that is run as if it were private enterprise.
Government needs to be flexible, to spend only tax revenue that is reasonably there to be spent, to increase or decrease services according to NOT ONLY the wishes of the people, but the ABILITY of the people to pay for those services. Therefore, when times are flush, more can be done. When times are tough, like now, reduce the spending.
This certainly includes perks/benefits to municipal and county employees like cars, health club memberships, magazines, etc. In a protracted economic downturn, it might even mean reductions in staff or salaries. Government needs to learn to live within its means like everyone outside government. In fact, it must do even better, because by its nature it is not chartered to overcompensate in the good times. Government cannot or should not take large risks as the private sector might do.
Therefore, government must be more conservative in its moves. And additionally, THE PEOPLE must learn to live with less government service during down times. If we want lower taxes, we must accept fewer services. But it should be proportionate. Government job holders should not live like kings while private sector jobs are being lost by the millions.
Comment by markcharvat on November 25, 2009 at 6:36 pm
RE: Mayor’s Voting on waiving second reading. Here is the E-mail response I received from City Manager Mark Biernacki
—————————————————————-
Prior to May, 2006, the ordinance in effect at that time was properly
written – meaning the Mayor was required to vote on waiving second
reading. A comprehensive revision to Ch 2 in May 2006 inadvertently
altered this language. The City Clerk will be reviewing ordinances
passed since then to see what ramifications, if any, were created as a
result of the Mayor’s vote on waiving second reading.
——————————————————————————————-
Questions: Who altered the city code language? Was the alteration approved by council? What actions were approved by council that should or should NOT have been. Who was asleep at the wheel here? (Legal dept, City manager, City Clerk) When will we hear from City staff as to the ramifications of this oversight>
Comment by yinn on November 26, 2009 at 10:10 am
Goodness, where’s the “tongue in cheek” icon when you need one?
Comment by Anson MacDonald on November 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Typical of Mr. Charvat to claim credit where it’s not due. If he actually took the time to read the code and had a little bit more historic perspective he would realize that the problems don’t go back 20 years but relate to faulty efforts under the Norma Guess regime within the last several years.
Back in 2006, former mayor Van Buer and then-Alderman Barr were cooking up this whole efficiency scheme and had a series of private meetings to work out the details (so no minutes were kept). From there, it was the crack legal staff which jumped into action to make sure these changes were memorialized in city law.
And to answer Mr. Charvat’s question, yes, the whole rubber-stamping, the dog-ate-my-homework-so-I-didn’t-get-a-chance-to-read-the-back-up-material council approved these changes.
Unfortunately, as she’s done with virtually everything else she’s put her hands on, Ms. Guess and crew messed it up. For example here are two conflicting passages from Chapter 2:
2.02 MAYOR, VOTING POWER.
a) The Mayor shall not vote on any ordinance, resolution or motion except as provided under Section 3-11-14 of the Illinois Municipal Code.
but then later in the same Chapter:
2.12 RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE.
d) … the Mayor shall have a vote only where the State Statutes or the municipal ordinances require more than a majority vote of the
corporate authorities or in the event of a tie, or where one-half of the aldermen elected have voted in favor of an ordinance, resolution or motion, even though there is no tie vote.
Not quite the same thing, is it?
Wouldn’t you like to have laws which are both INTERNALLY CONSISTENT and promote the desired actions? Transparency of government begins with clear protocols.
Another section, 2.13 details MATTERS REQUIRING VOTE GREATER THAN MAJORITY. Unfortunately, due to faulty maintenance, this only includes cases where a 3/4′s vote is required and fails to include numerous instances where 2/3′s vote is lawfully mandated.
I am not sure that I agree with Lynn’s assessment that outsourcing of legal counsel is the answer, but one thing is sure: the citizens of DeKalb deserve more competent legal counsel than they are getting.
A little birdie did share with me that legal staff is scurrying to clarify these discrepancies in time for the next meeting in three weeks.
So kudos to Mr. Charvat for promoting good government from his pulpit, but don’t be so quick to claim all the credit. It will take many more citizens to join the fray if the necessary changes are going to occur at city hall.
Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone — instead of turkey and pumpkin pie, legal staff are eating crow and humble pie over this one.
Comment by Anson MacDonald on November 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Lynn, for the most part, I love your list. One point regarding the outdoor cafes: the three golden recipients are required to pay the property taxes for the spaces in question. This is above and beyond the rent (when they do eventually have to start paying it).
Comment by yinn on November 27, 2009 at 7:28 am
One down, 16 to go.
Anson, how is it that they pay property taxes directly when it is public property? It’s a feature of the rental agreements, then?
Comment by Anson MacDonald on November 27, 2009 at 10:22 am
Lynn, this is from the June 22, 2009 Council Meeting background material:
The site plans for the three outdoor café spaces were first presented to City Council as part of the Downtown Improvement Project Update on May 11, 2009… All three cafés are proposed to be located on the public sidewalk bordering each restaurant… In addition, the City has agreed to pay the costs associated with modifications to the Second/Third Street reconstruction bids to accommodate the café spaces totaling $17,490.79, while the business owners have agreed to pay the costs associated with building the permanently affixed café enclosures and applicable property taxes.
How this was accomplished technically, well, I guess you’d have to ask the Legal Department.
It is quite curious that at least one of these businesses was delinquent in their own underlying property taxes at the time the city executed the lease. I question whether the best interests of the city were being preserved by this process.
If you are receiving the benefit of TF funding, shouldn’t you be current on the same property tax obligation which is supporting the amenities of your business?
A check with the county’s receipt log shows that one of the three properties remained delinquent on their 2008 tax bill for four and a half months, only paying up on the very last day before it would have gone to the tax sale in late October (of 2009).
DeKalb sure knows how to pick its partners!
Comment by Kay Shelton on November 28, 2009 at 1:31 am
“Only the little people pay taxes. . .” Leona ‘Queen of Mean’ Helmsley
You must be logged in to post a comment.