By Igor Studenkov | Bugle Staff
nweditor@buglenewspapers.com
@NilesILNews
The Park Ridge City Council voted unanimously to approve the $2.75 per 2,800-square-foot stormwater fee – but only after narrowly passing an amendment that delayed implementation until Jan. 1, 2017.
First Ward Ald. John Moran, Fifth Ward Ald. Daniel Knight and Sixth Ward Ald. Marc Mazzuca argued that the city shouldn’t charge the fee until it has a better idea how much the flood mitigation projects would cost. They also pushed for the city to pay for a long-term stormwater management plan using the sewer fund surplus, rather than stormwater fee revenue.
Second Ward Ald. Nicholas Milissis and other aldermen argued that, after two years of discussions and studies, the fee should be implemented as soon as possible, and that the sewer surplus should be saved for sewer maintenance. In the end, acting mayor Marty Maloney became a swing vote, saying that he saw no harm in delaying the implementation.
During the April 18 meeting, the city council held the second and final reading of a resolution to implement a stormwater fee. The fee would be used to cover the costs needed for stormwater mitigation, including the costs of levying bonds in order to raise money for major capital projects. The fee would be set based on Equivalent Runoff Units, with each unit equal to 2,800 square feet of impervious surface.
Originally, aldermen considered setting a fee at $11 per ERU. During the March 16 committee of the whole meeting, the rate was dropped to $1, with an understanding that the fee would go up once the city understands how much the flood mitigation projects will cost.
During the April 11 city council meeting, aldermen raised the fee to $2.75 – enough to raise $500,000 per year in order to pay for the development of stormwater management plan.
Park Ridge Director of Public Works Wayne Zingsheim estimated that the study would cost about $300,000, but he wanted to raise more money to give the city some wiggle room.
As the second reading got underway, Moran made a motion to amend the ordinance to delay the implementation date. By that point, he said, the stormwater plan would be completed, and the city would have a better idea of how much it would charge the residents. Moran also argued that paying for the study with the sewer fund surplus would be more fair to taxpayers.
“The money is there, we already collected it from the tax pay, we should use it for that,” he said. “And then, we can implement the stormwater fee at a later date once we have the numbers.”
Mazzuca, who urged the aldermen to pay for the plan with the sewer fee during the previous week’s Committee of the Whole meeting, supported the motion.
“It’s a little confusing to be collecting money for the stormwater [fee] for this project and having a huge balance in the sewer fund,” he said.
Mazzuca said he would want to set the start date on the first day of next year.
Milissis asked Zingsheim what he would prefer to do with the surplus. He replied that it would go to a stormwater plan, save about half for the rainy day and spend the rest to replace the sewer lining.
Maloney asked how long the study would take. Zingheim estimated that it would take about eight months – two to get the request for proposal out and approve the winning bidder, six to do the actual study.
Third Ward Ald. Richard Van Roeyen asked how much of the surplus the department of public works would need for sewer lining.
“We can use all of it, easily,” replied Zingsheim, who said that some pipes date back to the beginning of the 20th century and require continuous maintenance.
Milissis and Van Roeyen both argued that, since the stormwater fee was specifically created to finance stormwater mitigation projects, it made sense to use it to pay for the plan.
“It’s appropriate to use money from the stormwater utility [fee],” said Milissis. “I think it’s a mistake to raid the sewer fund.”
During the April 11 public works committee of the whole meeting, aldermen agreed not to give any rebates and exemptions for the stormwater fee. Officials from Maine Township High School District 207 and Park Ridge Park District urged the council to rethink that decision.
David Ulm, the district’s Director of Facilities, argued that the fee should take the schools’ efforts to reduce flooding into account.
“We’re retaining 90-95 percent of the water [at Maine South High School retention pond], and we feel like we’re being burdened as if we’re not retaining anything on the site,” he said.
Gayle Mountcastle, the park district’s executive director, felt that her organization didn’t have a chance to give input on the fee. She also framed reducing the fee for schools and parks as a matter of basic fairness.
“[Other communities] either removed the fees or discounted them for school and park districts, because they’re taxing bodies,” said Mountcastle. “It’s all the same taxpayers.”
To cover the fee, she argued, taxing bodies would have to raise taxes – which meant that, in essence, residents would have to pay the fee several times over.
Millisis argued that it wasn’t necessarily the case, saying that the taxing bodies could cut costs internally to avoid raising taxes.
Fourth Ward Ald. Roger Shubert said that, while there has been outreach, the fact that the park district felt it was left out of the loop concerned him.
“I’d like to increase the level of partnership and communication between all taxing bodies,” he said.
Knight said that the concerns Mountcastle and Ulm raised were all the more reason to delay implementation.
“I think the delay gives us the [time] to do several things that make sense, including the time to look at the issues that were brought up by the school and the park district,” he said. “The delays give us more time to do education and community outreach, which is critical.”
After some back and forth, Millissis said that he’s been frustrated by how long it has taken to get the stormwater fee in place.
“Always, at every turn, it seems that there’s a new, innovative, even ingenious way to obstruct any progress,” he said.
Milissis said that, while he didn’t want to assume the worst about his colleagues, he was starting to wonder if aldermen were interested in delaying the fee until after the 2017 municipal election, when the council make-up could shift in favor of the opponents of the stormwater fee.
Knight said he’d be willing to introduce a friendly amendment to require the fee to be implemented between Jan. 1 and March 1, 2017. But the alderman withdrew it after Julie Tappendorf advised against it, saying that while the previous amendment would mean that the fee would kick in automatically on Jan. 1, it won’t be clear when the fee would kick in under Knight’s amendment.
As the council prepared to vote on Moran’s amendment, Maloney said he gave the issue a great deal of thought, and he ultimately felt that, if it’s approved, the city would still be able to do the study and work on stormwater mitigation.
“I don’t think waiting until we know what the costs are is going to cost us anything,” he said.
The city council voted 4-3 to delay implementation, with Milissis, Van Roeyen and Shubert voting against. It subsequently approved the stormwater fee itself and spending $300,000 from the sewer fund surplus on the stormwater plan.