Sewage in basements triggered by heavy rains

My Position: This has been an issue for years due to the combined sewers serving those areas. I believe it is our responsibility to offer remedies/solutions. This issue has the council and staff working hard to come up with a plan of treatment until a permanent solution - replacing the sewers - can happen. Under no circumstances can we, as a city, show up to a home like State Farm Insurance does after a tornado and fill-in blank checks. All citizens must face the fact that the permanent solution will take years even with full funding available. Accepting temporary treatment answers is the way to go until then.

In the past, citizens have been advised of a plan where the city will match 50% of the cost of three solutions. I do not feel that is enough. I favor a plan of relief based on how many homes can show they have received sewage backups and NOT water backups from basement cracks, etc. Going forward, I will endorse a plan where all homes on combination sewers sold in Elgin must be disclosed to the new owner before closing. Also, disclosed will be an explanation of what combination sewers are. There must not be any more "I didn't know" responses when new homeowners close on a house. 

One thing for sure is this council wants to help find temporary solutions until the permanent fix can happen. I believe there will be no permanent solution soon. Fellow council member Dave Kaptain has intervened with his impressive knowledge from working with the Fox River Water Reclamation District. We now have an overhead sewer plan for residents to participate in.    

Improving Lords Park

As many of you know, I campaigned on the premise that the east side has been neglected in favor of Far West expansion over the past few years. That has not changed. We need to catch up on the east side and doing anything to Lords Park that will lessen its value is not in my interest. I also believe it's not in Elgin's best interest, either.

I was proud to be asked by fellow councilman Mike Warren to be on a Task Force dedicated to the long range success of the entire park and not just the zoo. I look forward to working with positive, park-oriented stakeholders in the community in this endeavor.
 
I believe many people have lost interest in Lords Park because of its perceived safety concerns from gangs and loud car stereos to pit bulls being walked by irresponsible owners. That does not mean it should be vacated without addressing these issues first. It is time to discuss what current police patrols are being done in the park and investigate increasing them including bicycle patrols.

My additional goals are to make the playground ADA compliant and address the current water pollution issues. In my opinion, everything is on the table for discussion with no guarantees. How can there be, given the current economy?    

I believe this park needs to be improved. It will need more help than just city tax dollars to do it. It's time to get creative with minds before getting tough with axes. It is also time to remember this is a park with a pool, museum and a zoo inside of it. The sum is greater than the parts.

UPDATE: The Lords Park Task Force completed our meetings mission on November 23rd. Councilman Warren and I will present our findings to our fellow councilmen soon. I will also strongly lobby my colleagues with my opinions on the park and the Task Force meetings. Shortly after that, I will share my thoughts here. 

UPDATE: There is an erroneous published report that says the Task Force voted unanimously to keep the Lords Park zoo. The question called was whether or not to keep a zoo, not the zoo. I made that very clear before the vote was taken.   

 

Animal Control Ordinance

I am proud to be responsible for initiating an update to our new Animal Control ordinance, an ordinance that had not been touched for 25 years. Along with increasing the fines for loose, dangerous and vicious dogs the new ordinance must include citizen participation to be effective. No dogs are allowed to be loose off of private property at anytime. The fines are stiff should your dog be responsible for attacking another pet or a human being. Whether the increase in fines will bring about noticeable change remains to be seen.

UPDATE: In September, 2010, I noticed many of the animal fines were not getting paid. I asked city attorney Bill Cogley to explore a plan whereby fines can be worked off via a community restitution plan at the rate of $10/hour, if the city deems it is necessary. That plan is now in place. Only the city can make this offer after all attempt to collect the fines are made.

UPDATE: As promised when the ordinance was passed, I followed-up on its progress and discovered many of the citations we issued were for not having the proper vaccinations for their pet. Rabies is a serious threat to humans and if not treated when symptoms first appear almost always lead to death. Further suspected was that due to the tough economy many pet owners had to forego inoculation visits to their veterinarians. Through the help of our crime analyst Kristie Hilton and staffer Aaron Cosentino, we partnered with vendor Golf Rose Animal Hospital of Schaumburg to offer rabies and other vaccinations, plus, micro-chipping for the greatly reduced rate of $35 per pet Saturday, November 20th. Normally, this is a $140 cost. 

The result? 119 pets were fully inoculated for rabies and micro-chipped. My intention is to continue this success and offer this plan twice a year beginning in 2011.

  

The Larkin Center and Crime in Their Neighborhoods

The Larkin Center has a long history of serving children and young adults who come from horrible homes and experiences. They provide a needed service to these children and young adults. The eight Larkin Center group homes and school within the city limits generate over 1000 calls to our police department for service every year for the past few years.

While most calls are for non-violent events like running away, there are many violent crimes committed on their group home properties and in the neighborhoods they are located in. Larkin Center employees have been beaten, neighbors have been stabbed, had their homes and cars broken into and recently one of their residents robbed a neighborhood gas station with a gun. I have spoken to neighbors and business owners who live near three of these homes. They wonder aloud if I would enjoy living near a home that has squad cars visiting there nearly every day or if I would like to read about a neighbor who has committed a violent crime on a regular basis in the newspapers.

Their concerns led me to ask myself, "What if our fire department had to handle 1000 calls for service at the same eight locations every year? What would the reaction be?" 

The fact is, Larkin Center calls drain resources from our police department. Eight locations account for 2% of all of our police calls. 

What is the solution? I don't believe the Larkin Center has one. I have met with them. Our senior staff at the police department has been meeting with their staff for years. That's right, years. 

I have pledged my support to the Larkin Center to do whatever I can to attain a long-term goal of combining all of their group homes into one facility out of the neighborhoods. This scenario of a neighborhood environment does not work. In the meantime, the short-term goal of making significant progress to stop the violence and the repeated calls to our police department must be realized. It should be noted that the Larkin Center group homes crime rates came up in a candidates forum during my campaign last year. In fact, that entire forum is available on YouTube. Click on the following link and forward the video to the 6:05 mark to hear the specific question asked. Then forward the video to the 8:04 mark to hear my response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxl0Id0YpWY 

Most candidates agreed then that something needs to be done. I was elected after that forum. I am backing up my words with action.

Until the time comes when people in other neighborhoods ask for a group home to be relocated to their neighborhood, I believe action is needed. However, I am not naive. Is there a percentage of crime that Elgin citizens will tolerate and absorb as a cost of living in Elgin? Maybe.

I have yet to hear from any citizen who says 1000 calls to the police from eight locations and the crimes committed by those living in those homes every year is acceptable. I have heard from people who feel it's unfair to ask Larkin Center to do anything about their problem. They are also the same people who would not accept a group home to be located in their neighborhood. 

UPDATE: An updated crime report was presented in January, 2011 and it indicated a decrease in calls for service in 2010, due to some changes made at the Larkin Center. I asked Police Chief Jeff Swoboda for quarterly updates in 2011 so that we can continue to chart their successes. 

Advisory Referendum For a Blended Ward System of Government

I voted "NO" for putting this question on an advisory referendum at the council meeting on November 17, 2010. I will continue to vote "NO" every time this issue comes up.

The issue was not whether I believe a ward system in any form is best for Elgin. The issue was whether to put the question to a non-binding vote in the future. I voted against it because I have not received one e-mail or phone call inquiring about it. In fact, more people have contacted me about speed limit signs on their street than about this major change in government. Also, I question the timing of this entire question. If this issue is serious, I expect a binding referendum, not an advisory referendum, via petitions to be brought forth.   

I do not believe any type of ward system is in the best interest of Elgin citizens for the following reasons:

1. I prefer to be held accountable to all citizens of Elgin.

2. I want my ALL of my colleagues to have the same responsibility.

3. I want the best candidates in Elgin to serve on the council - not just the best
    or ONLY candidates in a ward. Based on voter turnout in some areas it may be
    difficult to find any candidate willing to put in a four-year effort to serve. 

4. Establishing a ward system means each ward could get their own
    budget. That opens the door to unfairness.

5. There is no proof that neighborhoods or wards will get any better city
    service/representation or results.  

6. Councilmembers elected by wards have the same voting authority on all city issues
    yet only have to answer to their ward's voters on election day. That means ward reps 
    can make decisions for all of Elgin, yet they are insulated from voters who are not in
    their ward. 

7. I believe an overwhelming majority of citizens are happy with the current system. 

 

I believe a ward system in Elgin is not only not on the minds of the majority, it's dangerous.

  

 

Approving Incentives for Givaudan Coming To Elgin

I voted "NO" on giving incentives to Givaudan, a Swiss company opening a location in Elgin at the December 1, 2010 council meeting. They were offered $1000.00 per employee hired over the next five years making a minimum of $40,000 per year. The average salary of the new hires is reported to be $77,000 per year, but the minimum salary to qualify for the incentive is $40,000. The maximum city payout is $50,000. Givaudan was also offered abatements on all city permit fees relating to expansions, forever.

I preliminarily agreed to these at the Committee of the Whole meeting several weeks ago but in the succeeding weeks I discovered the following while using the "Trust, But Verify" approach:

1. Givaudan, a multi-national company with locations in 42 countries including the U.S.,
    does not and WILL not e-Verify their new employees, including those they intend to
    hire from Elgin.

2. Our agreement with them gives them unlimited permit fee waivers forever at their new
    location. 

3. I am not satisfied with, nor, is it addressed in the agreement, that Givaudan knows
    the difference between a resident in unincorporated Elgin and one who actually lives
    in and pays city taxes to the city of Elgin. This makes it very real that not only could an
    illegal alien get hired and Givaudan receive $1000,00 for hiring that illegal but
    anyone could live outside of our corporate border but with an Elgin address and still
    generate the incentive for Givaudan.

4. Our agreement has no "failure to perform" provision in it, a standard in most 
    contracts involving money. We sign a contract when we finance a car purchase that
    states if we don't make our payments, the car is repossessed. In this case, its to
    protect the service/incentive provider a recourse if the other party fails to
    perform what they have contracted to do. Meaning, should they not live up to the
    agreement needed to get the incentives, they can still keep the taxpayer's incentive
    money. Specifically, if they hire an Elgin-addressed person who turns out to be an
    illegal alien, they are under no obligation to pay back the incentive money given to
    them. To get our money back, the city would have to file a lawsuit. I say contracts
    should be made to AVOID lawsuits and NOT make them logical conclusions.      

A motion was made to add a provision whereby no payments would be made for hired employees until after they passed a verification by the city. That motion failed 4-3. The next vote was taken for the original item to be passed for the incentives. That passed, 6-1 with myself voting against it.

I have stated at previous council meetings that I have given city manager Sean Stegall a proposal called, "Hire Elgin" specifically designed for companies who are asking us for incentives based on their declared need to hire workers. My plan closes these loopholes and keeps others that are sure to open up once this Givaudan deal is effective. Right now, there are no guidelines and no rules for business incentives plans. None.

Now, Givaudan can receive taxpayer-funded incentive dollars for hiring illegal aliens with an Elgin address and NOT have to give the money back to us without the city of Elgin filing a lawsuit to get it. We need jobs in Elgin. Good paying jobs like what Givaudan states they will offer. But if this billion-dollar corporation wants incentives, they have to assure us they will do everything to make sure they do not hire illegal aliens and my plan is a solid plan to hold them to that.

I want to make sure they are rewarded for hiring legitimate Elgin citizens or legal residents of Elgin. If they don't, I do not want to have to go to court to get our tax dollars back for what would be an obvious breach of contract. A breach of contract issue that could have been addressed before a contract was signed and before any Elgin illegal aliens were hired.

Remember, not every illegal alien in this city comes from a bordering country and is willing to work a manual labor job 16 hours a day for $5/hour. There are illegal aliens with professional, high-value skills from all over the world who overstay their work visas and keep jobs away from U.S. citizens or even their own fellow countrymen who are here on valid work visas.

 

One important note: During our debate after I said I had my final word, the mayor asked why I did not raise the same objections to the larger incentive deals I supported to Rosen Kia and Wal Mart. The answer? They did not dangle jobs to Elgin citizens in their proposals. They never asked for incentives tied into hiring. Councilman Dave Kaptain asked Wal Mart to consider it informally but it was an aside to an already-approved deal.

This is more than an illegal alien issue. It's an employment issue because, right now, unemployment is bigger than illegal aliens in Elgin. I believe everyone can name at least two people who are unemployed and do not want to be.

I want the employment playing field tipped towards Elgin citizens IF an new employer asks us for cash or other incentives to come to Elgin and say they need to hire new people. 

When it comes to Elgin's illegal aliens and your tax dollars, I also want a large safety net underneath me. With this deal, we are flying without one. No recourse other than the Kane County court system to retrieve our incentives.

I say again, this is a bad deal for Elgin citizens. 

Traffic roundabout at Dundee Ave. and Summit St. 

• 14 intersections in Elgin in 2010 had more accidents than this location.
  See below:
  
  
  

  Intersection	Count
  Bowes Rd & Randall Rd	49
  Big Timber Rd & Randall Rd	46
  Randall Rd & Rt. 20 Eastbound	41
  Randall Rd & Weld Rd	35
  Lillian St & McLean Blvd	32
  Big Timber Rd & McLean Blvd	30
  I-90 Eastbound & Randall Rd	25
  Higgins Rd & Randall Rd	24
  Larkin Ave & McLean Blvd	23
  Chicago St & State St	22
  Hopps Rd & Randall Rd	22
  Kimball St & State St	22
  Randall Rd & South St	22
  Rt. 20 & Shales Pkwy	21
  Dundee Ave & Summit St	20
  Foothill Rd & Randall Rd	20
  Liberty St & Villa St	20
  McLean Blvd Ent & Rt. 20 eastbound	20
  Randall Rd & Royal Blvd	20

  
   
• 13 of the 14 most dangerous intersections are on the west side of Elgin. (The lone east side location with more accidents than Summit St. and Dundee Ave. is Shales Parkway and U.S. Rt. 20)
   
• Of those 13 west side locations, eight are on Randall Rd., three are on McLean Blvd.

 

Once in a roundabout, you are to never, ever stop. Not for a flat tire, a breakdown, etc. Doing so will cause rear-end collisions that will bring the entire intersection to a grinding halt with possibly no maneurvering possibility.

I also believe that the densely populated nearby side streets will become choked with local traffic as Elginites will jump off Summit St. and Dundee Ave. many blocks before the roundabout to get to their destination - a destination that may NOT include the above-mentioned businesses. That's not fair to east side Elginites especially when this intersection is not a busy intersection and data shows its safety record is better than 14 other intersections.

What is the answer? Leave the intersection alone and ask the state to implement their original plan that was brought to us with apologies. Businesses affected by a state plan can negotiate changes with state leaders. If the state will not buy into that plan, let the state of Illinois continue with their original plan for widening the intersection- at the state's cost - and leave the blood on the state's hands for the fallout. I know the original plan will be a blow to one long-standing business, but I cannot dump this unneeded roundabout into an established neighborhood at the cost of safety, decreased business traffic and increased neighborhood traffic on streets not designed for bouvelard-type pounding.

I also realize the city will lose about $400,000 if we stop this now, but once the cement starts to flow the cost for removal or alteration, if possible, will be outrageous. 

 

Consideration of a $97,000 traffic study of U.S. Route 20 

This item appeared on our January 26, 2011 Committee of the Whole agenda and was tabled until after the April 5th election. 

Making our portion of Route 20 from Shales Parkway to Randall Road a boulevard-type of roadway where the speed limit will be dropped to 45 mph, side street access from our neighborhoods will be cut in for automobile, pedestrian and bicycle traffic from neighborhoods is a bad idea. This portion of Route 20 is very busy and is relied on as a highway thoroughfare alternative to I-90 to the north. Therefore, spending this amount of money in a Recession for a study on a bad idea makes no sense

To get a feel for what this plan would look and feel like, you can drive east on Route 20 from Elgin into Hanover Park. Take note of the speed limit, traffic islands and traffic lights present. Also note the strip malls that dot the area. This portion of Route 20 is a regrettable westerly path to the Elgin-O'Hare expressway.

I will vote "NO" to this study when it comes up for a vote.

(UPDATE 5-11-11) This issue returned to the agenda last night and was unanimously voted down by myself and my colleagues. I commented that Rt. 20 is not broken, the McLean Blvd. ramp is.

 

 

Senior Services Association Expansion

After a February announcement from councilman Mike Warren and mayor Ed Schock that a tentative deal had been made for the city to pay 2/3 of the rent for an adjoining space for the Senior Services Associates, this issue first came before us March 23. Amid controversy of its timing and lack of staff input and a pre-deal made, I motioned to table the issue until the first meeting in May to allow for the following:

1. Engage staff to get involved in the negotiating of the terms and look for options.
2. To remove the political tinge from this.
3. To allow Elgin Township leaders to take a vote on whether they will assist  SSA so 
    we will know exactly how much this will cost city taxpayers. 
  

My motion was defeated 4-3 being supported by councilmen Kaptain and Dunne. The original vote was also defeated 4-3 with the same support.

I voted against this subsidy on April 13 at the final vote while all other councilmen voted to support it only for one year. The city will pay $2000.00 per month while Elgin Township will pay approximately $900 for the one-year lease. SSA will not pay anything additional to get double the space they currently have.

 

Why did I vote against it?

1. I have been approached by SSA patrons who asked for city intervention for more space. I have never received a request from the staff of SSA for help - only from those attending their programs. My response then and will always be that I will always sit down with non-profits to discuss money issues, BUT, agencies must bring their checkbook to the meeting. I campaigned in 2009 that the city should partner in with agencies at a level based on their budgets and bank account. SSA's 2010 budget was 1.9 million dollars, up from their 2009 budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars. The key point is that no one from SSA's staff ever made an official request for additional space. It was volunteered to them with a no-money-needed plan.

2. This is a want, not a need from SSA. SSA would not have ceased operations if they did not get this additional space. Things would remain tight but still functional, just like the city's day-to-day operation and many households in Elgin during this Recession. Other non-profits we support are struggling just to stay open with what they have and have been told to "hang in there" by us. Needs come before wants especially when they involve an organization with a 1.9 million dollar budget. On the days SSA events that crowded their current home, the use of alternative locations could have explored, i.e. The Centre. 
 

3. I believe all of Elgin's taxpayers want us to spend their money responsibly and with great care. In this Recession they expect us to make investments wisely and error on the side of being cautious. Part of that includes us looking for equal partners when possible. I also believe they want government to help those in need. 

4. It's unfair to all taxpayers that SSA has no financial contribution to this 100% space increase. Very unfair. It also destroys our credibility with other non-profits with whom we have said, "Sorry, we're out of money" to. As a reminder, many of these agencies have had to shelve any dreams of expanding. They just want the lights to go on when they hit the switch. I would have considered a plan where the rent would be split into thirds, but that was never approached. I believe SSA was told there were four votes already so need to get in the pool of contributors. 

5. Taxpayers who are besieged with regular sewage backups after heavy rains in neighborhoods like SWAN have been told to get temporary relief, the city will be a 50% partner with them on overhead valve systems. I supported that plan in 2010. We told citizens that their paying 50% of the cost was necessary because they had to “have some skin in the game.” This idea did not apply here. That is not fair.

6. The one year lease agreement that was approved puts us in a bad spot at the end of that years. How? Find a councilmember in one year who will lead the charge to not renew this lease. Who wants to pull the plug after just a year? That's why I wanted more time to work out a solid, well-thought plan so that we would not be in a trick bag.

 

As I stated at the April 13 council meeting, I am interested in helping SSA at our 2012 budget meetings as they are not in our top five non-profits we help - but only as an equitable partner. This was bad in form, process and result.

 

Approving Incentives for Sears Holdings Management Corp. Coming To Elgin

Do you know a fellow Elgin citizen who has lost their job in the past few years?

If you are like me, you know many and some situations where both heads of households are unemployed. Many unemployed Elgin citizens are fighting to keep their homes and still pay taxes to the city of Elgin. So, why would I vote to take their tax dollars and pay a company to specifically hire non-Elgin citizens to work here? Especially when the company has already moved in to Elgin? Although this firm will be offered $1500 per Elgin "resident" they hire, they will be paid $1000 for every one they do not hire. This firm does not and will not use e-Verify on their new hires, also.

I did not vote to do this with another company in December, 2010, I did not with this company on 5-11-11 and I will not when this comes to a final vote on 5-25-11.

Part of the incentive package Sears was offered also included a refund on the $23,000 in permit fees they already paid the city for building improvements since signing a long-term lease last April. That's right, they already signed a lease and decided on Elgin as their new home.

So why are we offering incentives to a company that has already decided to come here? 

I want good companies and good paying jobs coming to Elgin. If we have to compete with other cities, I want us to compete hard. The past councils worked very hard to make the Randall Rd./ I-90 corridor, where Sears is located, attractive to firms to come to Elgin. But, once we win over the hearts of that company, we should not oversell the city and offer more incentives.

I also want these companies to know we have an unemployment issue in Elgin. We also have an illegal alien issue, too. I expect every company coming here looking for employment-based incentives to follow the Federal government's urging and use the free e-Verify system on new hires. Wal-Mart does it and so do smaller companies we have given incentives to in the past.

I appreciate councilman Rich Dunne joining me in voting against this. He correctly recalled a statement we made in 2009 to a drinking establishment in downtown that we do not offer incentives to businesses after they decide to move in. 

The preliminary vote was 5-2 in favor of giving the incentives. The final vote takes place on 5-25-11 where I will vote "NO" again. I want our citizens to get an uncontested edge when I'm dangling their tax dollars in front of a company to get them to locate here.

This issue will be discussed at a council retreat on June 3rd with the hopes of introducing my "Hire Elgin" plan and establishing a policy on incentives. We need to stop shooting from the hip and start considering our own unemployed citizens first.

UPDATE 6-8-11: After being tabled for two weeks on 5-25-11 and after a non-productive discussion of incentives at our 6-3-11 retreat, the final vote took place last night. Staying true to form, I vote "NO" on this issue. It was disclosed at the retreat that asking a company to use E-Verify is illegal per state law. That does not mean they cannot be asked if they currently use it.

The bottom line is that we will now be rewarding a firm that has chosen to locate in our most desirable location for business - I-90 and Randall Rd. - with a refund of nearly $24,000 in permit fees they already paid for services rendered, plus pay them to staff their office with non-Elgin people. (Their per employee incentive is increased if they do hire an Elgin resident) There is potential for an additional $66,000 in hiring incentives. All of this incentive money comes after they signed a long-term lease to come to Elgin.

Free permits, plus cash to staff your office? How does that help the unemployed in this city? It doesn't. How does it benefit the homeowner in Elgin? It doesn't. Is it fair to have a taxpayer drive by businesses to see their parking lots occupied by a majority of non-Elgin citizen's cars in them and know that their tax dollars helped put them there?  

By the way, we still have no play book on future incentive deals and there are three more coming down the pike. 

I am commited to helping the citizens of Elgin by being careful with their tax dollars and to help them reap the benefits of being an Elgin citizen. That includes helping Elgin citizens get jobs over others IF a company comes to Elgin asking for employee incentives.  

 

 

 

Carnivals in downtown

Carnivals can be great family events and produce solid results for organizations looking to make tens of thousands of dollars on a weekend. With proper personnel and in a suitable location they can create great memories. 

After two consecutive 4-day weekend carnivals in May, I asked that a discussion take place about the viability and safety of having carnivals in our downtown. In the past three years downtown carnivals have been the cause of a stabbing and created stress on nearby businesses and public facilities, namely the Ace Hardware store on N. Spring St., Gail Borden library, The Centre and the Hemmens Cultural Center. While some of those issues were addressed with my suggestions of extra police, metal fencing and requiring attendees to purchase ride tickets at the entry gate before being allowed on the property, the issue remains as to whether this is the best foot forward for downtown Elgin, a downtown that unfairly struggles with a reputation of being unsafe.

I believe carnivals are best suited in large open areas like shopping center parking lots or parks allowing for parking and openness. To be clear, I am not against carnivals in Elgin. I want them to succeed. I just want them in the right spot and NOT in an area (downtown) that may be considered a "last resort" or in an area where nearby businesses and facilities will suffer.

Should this issue of banning downtown carnivals not gather majority support, I would strongly encourage organizations to spread out into other neighborhoods for carnivals as well as the continuance of using the downtown neighborhood. Perhaps limiting the amount of consecutive days but not limiting the amount of total days in a year would be a quality compromise.   

As a reminder: Bringing issues up for discussion with citizens and my council colleagues is part of my responsibility as a councilman. One of the complaints I heard prior to running for office is that council members were not discussing issues in public during the COW meetings. It created the impression that issues were decided long before they came up for votes and little or no citizen engagement was considered After being elected I found some validity in that claim but also learned some issues were and are talked about amongst council members via telephone, e-mails, meetings, etc. I made a promise to bring more issues to the table in public for open discussion and I am doing so. I suspect some longtime Elgin residents may not be used to this promise of openness especially if their opinion is different than mine. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to discuss most issues in this manner. 

 

NSP Homes-Who Gets To Sell Them?

The process for securing bids/proposals from outside vendors to provide needed city services includes posting an ad in the legal ad section of the classified department of a local newspaper and also posting the need on the city’s Web site. As we discovered weeks ago when we solicited a $400,000 restaurant management contract for the Bowes Creek Country Club to a single bidder, it was agreed by the city council that using just those two sources for securing a specialty service bid is not good enough. We tabled the bid and hurriedly sought additional bids via phone calls to the National Restaurant Association, among others. I asked staff to use methods of securing more bids than just the minimum legal requirements. I was assured they would.

 

The process of looking for real estate brokers to sell four city homes purchased in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program took on most of the same characteristics. To sell four, virtually new, homes we received just six bids from brokers. That’s not enough especially when this area’s largest brokers said they knew nothing of our needs. I made a motion to table this process for 30 days so that we can use two key sources to get the word out about our brokerage needs. One source untapped was the 1700 members of the Realtors Association of the Fox Valley. Their president advised me she knew nothing of our bid needs and agreed to do an e-mail blast to her membership. I also asked that we advertise our needs in a daily newspaper. That motion failed to get a second from my colleagues and the motion died. The subsequent vote was 5-1 in favor of awarding the contract to two of the six bidders. It will come up for a final vote on July 13.

 

Why is this important to me? Because it is an issue of being able to do so much better with just one or two e-mails. It’s also an issue of being perceived as unfair. If the foundation of fairness starts to crack we will have dozens of problems and come under scrutiny for every bid we seek. 

 

Real estate professionals are struggling on the very front lines of this Recession. To not use direct e-mail sources and advertise in a daily local newspaper is not wise. It may be legal, but Elgin citizens deserve the best deal from all of our contractors. They did not get it with this deal, so far. It would take just 30 days and an e-mail or two to be tapped into the direct sources for our needs and possibly receive more than a handful of bids to sell four virtually new homes.

 

As a further note, the 5% commission rate being charged is a fair one. However, as in my business, it’s not just the commission you charge it’s what you get for that commission that makes a good deal.

  

 

 I know it is illegal to force a company tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RcTWEBtYM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RcTWEBtYM