It's refreshing to see these two commissioners show some fiscal responsibilty. I often have disagreed with their council votes in the past but spending more money in these trying economic times is just wrong! DG continues in my cases to act like our property tax stream is endless. $20k raise for the village manager...really folks?

So much for the "block"voting that everyone spoke about during the election. Looks to me there never was any. The "power 4"have never voted together. Interesting.

Good for Barnett and Neustadt. Shame on the rest for offering up paltry general "accomplishments" as justification for spending DG taxpayer money.
Here's the question: How did Downers Grove specifically benefit from its membership in DMMC?

I congratulate DMMC on hosting a workshop, facilitating a consortium and being part of a broader lobbying effort. But those are just general accomplishments of that organization. The key question is: what are the specific benefits to Downers Grove gains from its membership? And side note...wasn't it a different council (not DMMC) that DG actually signed up with to get the electrical aggregation deal?

I respect a difference of opinion. I don't respect poorly articulated rationale for spending our tax dollars on such a high end "membership" without anyone being able to articulate precisely what benefit we derive from it that we wouldn't if we weren't a member.

So I'd like to ask each of the three "yes" voters what value they believe Downers Grove specifically received by virtue of its membership that it otherwise would not have received without its membership (some things DMMC does will benefit communities even if not members!).

Sean Durkin...care to "break it down" for the rest of us? Sounds like you've already done the analysis. Perhaps you can share it?

Thanks.

http://www.dmmc-cog.org/uploads/descriptions/File/2010/Member%20Services/Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

http://www.downers.us/public/docs/agendas/2012/07-17-12/RES00-04956_DMMC.pdf

Their main benefit is getting Surface Transportation Funds for projects all over DuPage County. $19.1 million in 2010, $16.3 million in 2011, over $44.7 million in commitments over the next 5 years.

- The DMMC provided funding that minimized DG budget impact of the Prairie Avenue reconstruction, a major project in 2005-2006.
- They were an early source (since 2004) for traffic calming design and engineering information, which all Council members at one time or another have embraced.
- They played a key role in stopping the IL GA from stealing Local Government Distributive Funds.
- They coordinated municipalities electrical aggregation workshop.
- They played a lead role in the new County Stormwater regulations that promote sustainable solutions of the type Barnett has cited as desirable.

Those are a couple benefits.

Surface Transportation Funds or grants might have been used for the Grove Avenue reconstruction- a test project to see if a type of permeable street design might be less expensive in the long haul, but that has significant up front costs. Could DG use DMMC to try and get grant funding for the test? Don't know, but getting grant money would be better than having taxpayers foot the bill and seeing later if it works.

Thanks for the answers MT!

I guess for me it’s question of value and priorities. Kind of a micro version of when Dirksen said; “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." I don’t see the same value as my colleagues and I would prioritize this far below other things we’re not doing.

The DMMC has some good traits to be sure – collegial relationships between professionals in the same field are usually helpful, even if they are difficult to quantify.

The problem I have is that here in the VoDG we have taxes which most, I think, believe to be too high and growing. Assuming this is the case, then as elected officials we need to be ever diligent about looking for any cost that can be removed.

As most know, I do believe that there are basic municipal services which must be done – and must be done at a high level if we are to be acting as good stewards of the public resources. The blunt truth is that for many years in the VoDG and to a lesser extent still today, we made (and are still making) conscious trade off decisions about expenditures which actually cause us to have decreasing (not maintaining) quality of roads and facilities. The 2012 budget, does exactly that. To a lesser degree than in years prior but none the less, this budget does knowingly under fund existing maintenance. We’re working hard and will continue to do so in an effort to take care of those things we must do. But while we’ve made progress, we’re not there yet.

continued …

… continued

When the DMMC adds it’s collective voice to already identified issues please don’t misunderstand, I recognize that there is value to that effort. But when here in the VoDG we struggle with whether or not to spend $1.50 per house on senior services why are we so quick to spend $2.00 per house on the DMMC?

Just as I’m perhaps overly critical, supporters like to overstate much of the DMMC’s activities.

The LGDF for instance, is and will be under constant attack – it’s tough to ever know but I maintain that the votes don’t come from persuasion by the DMMC – certainly not the DMMC alone or even as a “lead”. They come from electoral counting by legislators and the personal legislators actual experiences. Additionally, the work of local Chambers of Commerce, the Illinois Municipal League, the Metropolitan Mayors Conference, the Illinois Manufacturers Association and many, many others. This is a typical example … the DMMC simply added their voice to the already known and obvious position of local municipalities which was (and continues) to be advanced by municipalities themselves (Elmhurst and Naperville for instance have their own lobbyists) and other advocacy groups. There’s certainly value to the DMMC’s work – but how much in light of other possible priorities is the question.

continued ...

continued ...

As with traffic calming or stormwater, again, the statements about the role of the DMMC are hyperbole – the DMMC is not in the business of design – they’re seldom in the business of seeking out innovative solutions. The stormwater solutions I and others are pressing for are engineering evolutions of the early 70’s EPA legislation which forced a different and better way of thinking … the “lead role” in the recent DuPage County revision (one in a long string of revisions) was played by the County Storm Water Committee, not the DMMC. The DMMC, like every other community, many engineers and even our own VoDG Storm Water Committee were just one more group who were solicited for their input. To hear other commissioners talk, the traffic calming ideas we’ve been trying to employ came from the National League of Cities (more on that below). Either way, traffic calming, in my opinion is done far better in many places outside of DuPage and again, the DMMC is not the genesis for these ideas.

continued …

... continued

Still others have cited the Belmont Overpass as example DMMC value to the VoDG. That’s revisionist and/or overly generous. Did the DMMC play a role? Sure, they said they thought it was a good idea and agreed that whatever role they could play in pushing for it, they would. But that work was done over decades by lots of groups and in no way did the DMMC lead or coordinate that effort – the cynics could say the real reason it got done was that the timing was, shall we say beneficial, to Chairman Schillerstrom and Governor Blago. Or one could point out that the DMMC was supportive of it for years but it didn’t get done until the Village hired it’s own lobbyist. I don’t subscribe to either of those theories – I think that ideas or projects that big take time to align all the pieces and one has to have a little luck as well – so indeed we were the fortunate benefactors of countless groups and individuals efforts over many years but using that project as an example of the benefit of DMMC to the VoDG is, in my opinion, a real stretch.

continued ...

... continued

The DMMC did not provide funding for the Prairie Avenue Reconstruction. They do not provide any funding. The DMMC is the local distribution/processing authority for (mostly) federal transportation construction dollars which are part of the Surface Transportation Program. However, project funding is determined by a series of reviews and scoring systems including not only the DMMC but also the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and the IDOT. As these are Federal dollars, and involve CMAP and IDOT, membership in the DMMC is not a pre-requisite for receiving funding (more on the STP program here: http://bit.ly/NmX3FZ)

With electric aggregation the DMMC was about a year behind the Village of Downers Grove and yesterday’s report suggests that the Downers Grove/Westmont effort resulted in better pricing for our residents than the Will County group we were initially working with.

continued …

... continued

Please know also that even those of us who disagree with this expenditure are trying to make the most of our participation. Most Council members are assigned to the working subcommittees of the DMMC - I’m a member of the legislative subcommittee … but that groups July meeting was cancelled “due to lack of action items”.

Finally, there are lots of organizations which do related advocacy work – the Municipal Mayors Conference, the Illinois Municipal League, National League of Cities and on and on. Regardless of whether or not the VoDG is a member, their efforts, by the very nature of who they represent will in most cases be aligned with our interests. And as we saw a couple years ago … when those interests are not aligned, the VoDG won’t necessarily able to change their direction.

There’s more to be sure; the role of home rule and non-home rule communities in the DMMC, differing values of the differing communities, the role of lobbyists (DMMC has hired one)

Your basic question, would we have had these benefits without membership is a good one – and I think, in most instances, we would have. Sorry about the length – but often the quips thrown around loosely demand more detail than the posting limits allow.

Thanks for listening,

Bob Barnett

How much would it cost to get my street paved over on Otis ave off of fairwiew? Seen better roads in the backwoods of alabama. Seriously though, have not had any work done to this street in the 14 years I have lived there and my wife has lived there since 88 and can't remember the town doing anything. But yet they spend money on useless stuff. JMHO.

Thank you, Bob Barnett, for clearly, directly and specifically answering a clear, direct and specific question.

When this very Village Council finds it (admirably) necessary to have a "retreat" at which it discusses the propriety of spending several thousand dollars on conference attendance (something I'm not opposed to, but which it seems was identified as a potential "wants v. needs" situation worthy of discussion), it strikes me as eminently reasonable for taxpayers to ask for specifics in justifying a $36,000 membership fee for a single organization that has, at best, a highly questionable direct benefit to DG citizens.

And while it isn't an issue I have championed or been involved with, I agree with the parallel drawn to the Meals on Wheels issue. We won't spend less money when we know that there is a direct benefit to some in our community (and an admirable one at that - feeding hungry seniors). But in this case, we're willing to allow vague generalities of questionable direct benefit to justify $36,000 to an organization with virtually no direct benefit that anyone can actually articulate? Much less an organization that appears unable to even get its annual reports on its own website or hold meetings because of no active business? This isn't armchair quarterbacking here...these are legit questions.

The silence from the "yes" votes is concerning.

PS. Follow up question. Can anyone from the Village please provide a complete list of membership organizations such as DMMC (and the others listed above) to which DG belongs and the related annual cost?

Scott:

First, in this post, let me answer your most recent question. For FY2012, the Village of Downers Grove has budgeted membership in the following organizations that engage in lobbying efforts on behalf of municipalities:

• DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference
• National League of Cities
• Illinois Municipal League
• Downers Grove Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry

This membership information for every year since 2006 is available on the Village website: http://www.downers.us/govt/village-managers-office/transparency

I will be glad to get back to you with a breakdown of the annual cost of membership of the above organizations other than DMMC, which you already know is $36,776.40.

Please note that last year the Village budgeted up to $36,000 to engage the lobbying firm of Nikolay & Dart. Absent some particularized need, that potential expense will not be repeated this year. You may recall that some were as critical of that decision as others have been of resuming membership in the DMMC. The lobbying services of Nicolay & Dart LLC were instrumental in securing approximately $10 million in grant appropriations for past projects in the Village. Would we have been able to secure that funding without incurring that lobbyist expense? Who knows, but I think it was a good move on the part of the Council at the time.

To be continued.

Second, I don’t think it fair to chastise the rest of the Village Council for their so-called “silence” here. Not everyone scans the Patch looking for comments that might contain omnidirectional questions concerning Village matters. Every Village Council member is readily available via multiple communication methods, our email addresses and telephone numbers are publicly available, and there are also multiple opportunities to pose questions in person, either at formal meetings or informal ones, like this morning’s “Coffee with the Council.” Any time you have a specific question that you sincerely want answered, please direct it to myself, any other member of the Council, the Village manager, or all of the above. We’d be glad to provide an answer. I’d be happy to speak with you by phone or in person. 312-927-1562. I am confident that each of my colleagues would be only too glad to do likewise.

I would also add that each of the seven members of the Village Council previously shared their views on renewing membership in DMMC and the reasons for their respective votes at last Tuesday’s Village Council meeting. The meetings are available for reply on the Village website via YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDC8EB05BC3E9F928&feature=plcp Thus, no one has been silent on the reasons for their position on this topic, pro or con.

To be continued.

Third, I agree with you that we should be vigilant in questioning the benefits or the return on investment of every dollar we spend. And we do. Given that the Village is operating today with the same revenue levels we saw in 1998, the Village Council and Staff are very much focused on “needs” instead of “wants.” So, yes, your question about articulating the specific benefits of membership organizations like DMMC is a completely legitimate one.

One of the reasons the prior Village Council left the DMMC was that the organization took a position on an important issue that was at odds with the position of the Village of Downers Grove. In returning to the DMMC, the Village Council members – including Commissioners Neustadt and Barnett -- and staff have committed to a leadership role in the organization that has not been seen for years. Not that any of us needs more meetings in our lives, but our intention is to help steer the direction of the organization to further the shared goals of Downers Grove and the other member municipalities and also avoid situations where a coalition of governments like DMMC is taking a lobbying position contrary to what we believe to be in the best interests of Downers Grove. Particularly this year, the first full year of our return to DMMC membership, we have all taken seriously that leadership role. It is still early, and we have only begun to see the potential benefits.

To be continued.

For my own part, I now serve on the DMMC Executive Board and chair the Intergovernmental Planning Committee. Not that I am looking to take more time from my family or full-time job, but having a voice (and mine is pretty loud) at the table when important policy decisions are made by an organization speaking for 33 municipalities in DuPage County has value to our community. I chose the Intergovernmental Planning Committee because of our Council’s focus on vigorously pursuing cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation among and between governmental entities to reduce costs and enhance efficiency for the benefit of mutual constituents. One of our committee’s projects is seeking to eliminate barriers that currently prevent Downers and other municipalities from doing this more often and more effectively. Could we achieve cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation goals ourselves? Some, yes, we could and we have, such as the joint 911 call center with Westmont. But other such goals are larger and necessitate cooperation and collaboration on a grander scale, and with many more participating staff members and elected officials than we have in Downers. DMMC appears to provide a useful, existing platform in support of that innovative effort. Space here does not permit detailed discussion of other coming DMMC initiatives, including challenging unfunded mandates that plague all municipalities.

To be continued.

Fourth, as Commissioner Durkin stated on Tuesday, $36,000 could be equated to the annual cost of a full-time employee at the Village. With our annual membership in DMMC, we get much more than that. We get the benefit of not only the entire DMMC staff but also the efforts of the elected officials and staff members from other member communities on matters of mutual interest. As a recent example, we have been able to coordinate with and rely on officials from other communities who are part of the DMMC Regulatory Issues Committee to participate at lengthy meetings with ComEd regarding their proposed protocols being submitted for approval by the ICC. Those protocols greatly affect municipalities, and the alternative would be for each of us to send our own personnel. Thus, on many items where we are aligned, DMMC staff and members can and do serve as an extension of our own staff.

To be continued.

Finally, as Commissioner Schnell noted last Tuesday, there are significant benefits to our Village staff to be able to work with their counterparts at fellow DMMC member communities in ways that allow our staff to do their jobs better and more efficiently, and not reinvent the wheel. Could our staff do this without DMMC? To some degree, yes, of course they could. But, candidly, our experience during the period of time that Downers was not part of DMMC was that the quality of our staff’s interaction and collaboration with their counterparts was noticeably substandard.

All that said, please rest assured that we will continue to gauge the benefits of membership. Nothing is a given as far as I am concerned.

I’ve used up way too many pixels in this space on this topic. Feel free to contact me to discuss further at any time.

First, thank you for responding Martin.

Second, you are right, it is unfair to imply or suggest that all members of the Council should be engaged on the Patch, although I think I've interacted with all but one either here on the Patch or on Facebook when issues hit a fever pitch. Regardless, your point is fair.

Third, you're also right that there are many ways to contact/interact with Council members. And one-on-ones can be great, but I do see benefits to these semi-public forums where others have the benefit of the questions and answers presented.

Fourth, there is a lot above on the DMMC. Has there been a marginal benefit? Maybe. Is there potential for more benefit? Perhaps. But it still strikes me as an expensive yet underperforming organization. And its nice that DG leadership have been offered positions within DMMC to hopefully be a part of the change it seems most acknowledge needs to happen with DMMC, but I'm just not sure I think that $36,000 is worth that opportunity. I guess its a little bit of a chicken/egg situation. Some feel its a worthy pursuit to spend in order to contribute to the desired change while others would prefer we engage when the organization is clearly worth the engagement.

It does concern me that the best justification/PR for DMMC seems to come from members trying to justify use of tax dollars to participate in it.

At the end of the day, 5-2 wins. I just hope that DG residents do too.