2011 Election Issues: Steven Williams, Orland Park Village Board Candidate

Nine candidates are competing for three seats in this year's race. In Patch's issue-specific questionnaire, candidate questions the propriety of no-bid village contracts and pinpoints area of the budget he believes are prime for trimming.

Does the current board engage in enough debate and discussion before voting?

No. Too many discretionary spending items are passed on the consent agenda. This limits accountability and discussion. I will move to remove discretionary spending items from the consent agenda if I am elected. This will ensure that each representative must individually cast his/her vote so that citizens know where they stand on each item.

You had an opportunity in the last questionnaire to name the biggest problem facing Orland Park. Are there any others? How do you plan to solve them?

Another problem is no bid contracts, especially when they are for companies that have contributed to the campaigns of elected officials.

Let’s examine the timeline of the Waste Management contract. Mayor (Dan) McLaughlin has accepted over $4,800 in contributions from Waste Management over the years. On July 16, 2007 the village board voted to extend the Waste Management contract without going to bid on advice from the village staff. Since the contract negotiation wasn’t complete when the 2008 budget was planned, the board built into the budget an estimated contract cost increase of 3%. On September 2, 2008 the village board voted to increase the budget by $541,000 to accommodate the actual increase in the Waste Management contract, a whopping 20% increase vs. the 3% that was planned when the no bid extension was approved.

Another example is V3 Companies. Over the years, V3 has contributed over $2,000 to Mayor McLaughlin. On February 16, 2009 the village board voted to give V3 a $280,000 no bid contract because they were the engineer of record on the original Main Place development. The original contract was only $24,000. In that same meeting, the village board voted to give V3 another no bid contract worth $835,000 on the same project. That is over $1 million of contracting without accepting bids.

All of these actions were taken on the consent agenda with little to no public discussion and are documented in the village board minutes on the stated dates. Trustee (Edward) Schussler and Trustee (Patricia) Gira were both on the board during these events and voted in favor of the consent agenda in each instance. Trustee Schussler and Trustee Gira are running for re-election on a platform of fiscal conservatism and their ability to make difficult decisions. Where was their fiscal conservatism and ability to make difficult decisions when these events were occurring?

At best, these contracts appear to be bad deals for the taxpayers. At worst, they appear to be improper. In addition to removing these types of discretionary spending items from the consent agenda, I will make sure the staff and board implement and follow appropriate contracting policies to ensure fair bidding and the best deal for the taxpayers.

Trustees and staff plugged a $1.8 million budget gap this fall by increasing certain fees and fines, including vehicle stickers, without cutting staff. Is there anything you would have done differently?

While the budget may have won awards from government finance officers, the presentation for the average citizen is such a mess that it is nearly impossible for the average person to consume and understand if the village is doing a good job at managing expenses other than in generalities like “taxes keep going up so they must not being doing a good job.”  For example, in the expenditures for the MIS department there are 8 separate categories for “Supplies – General,” 7 of which have expenditures in 2011. I’m sure the included account numbers mean something to the employees in the village finance department but they don’t to the taxpayers. So, the village staff isn’t doing themselves any favors by putting out information in this format.

To answer your question, absolutely I would have done things differently. I would have cut discretionary spending even deeper to keep the promise of rebating property taxes to village taxpayers.

There is $1 million dollars in the open lands fund that I would have eliminated. I understand the desire to acquire property when it becomes available but in economic times like these, you have to cut the nice-to-have things, it’s a reality that every homeowner is facing today and the village should be held to the same standard. There is $300,000 spending in the Metra Triangle fund that wouldn’t be necessary if the incumbent board members hadn’t made a bad decision relative to that initiative; there is $16.7 million in the capital improvement fund that I would have prioritized and eliminated any nice-to-have items; and it appears we are now paying nearly $94,000 for public officials' insurance premiums. I’m not sure why we need to pay for the insurance of part-time elected officials. There are many “other” expense items in each of the funds that I believe need to be scrutinized more carefully.

All in, there is lots of fat still left on the hog we call the village budget before we have to look at reducing staff.

The phrases “fiscally conservative” and “efficient use of taxpayer money” comes up regularly on the campaign trail. How do you propose keeping a tighter budget that doesn’t burden taxpayers, while keeping Orland Park accessible, competitive and desirable?

Transparency is the key. Taxpayers need to be able to tell their elected representatives how they do and don’t want their money spent. If the taxpayers can see they are getting a positive return for the taxes they pay, they don’t mind paying them. That engagement starts with transparency in the budget and extends to the decisions that are being made on their behalf by their elected officials. That continuing engagement could be facilitated by a “You Cut” type program that I referenced in my earlier questionnaire.

The Main Street Triangle project—and eminent domain lawsuit—has divided many residents. Is it a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money? How can the village help these businesses get started that?

No. First, eminent domain should never be used to take property from one individual and transfer it to another individual, whether that transfer is through a sale or other type of transaction. I’ll just have to disagree with the Supreme Court on that point. I can agree with using eminent domain for governmental uses, for example building roads, but only when time is of the essence. Otherwise, market forces will find a resolution.

Second, the millions of dollars spent on the triangle project would have been much better used to attract or retain companies that create substantive jobs that enable people to live and work here in Orland Park. If you listen to other candidates for village trustee they will tell you that traffic congestion is the biggest problem here in Orland Park. What they don’t tell you is that they created the problem by focusing so heavily on retail as the primary revenue source for the village. Clearly you need a diversified revenue stream that doesn’t burden the taxpayers too much. However, the village has tilted it too far and it is now driving the inherent infrastructure spending cycle that we see in the capital expenditure budget.

What are your thoughts on the village’s use of TIF districts? Has the village used them effectively? Why or why not? Would you do anything differently with TIF?

I think TIFs are an effective mechanism for driving growth if they are applied correctly. For example, TIFs are designed to be applied to blighted areas for redevelopment. I’m not sure you will find anyone who believes the Metra Triangle was blighted and in need of redevelopment.

The board unanimously approved a resolution this fall that gives the board the power to award village contracts to local vendors, even if they haven’t offered the lowest bid (within limits). Is this a good policy? Why or why not?

I think it is a good policy as long as appropriate contracting processes are followed, there are equivalent outcomes, and the variance in price is within pre-defined tolerances.

The board on March 7 voted to add reasons for which police can impound the car of an alleged offender. These include, but are not limited to: motor vehicle accidents involving damage to the vehicle and public indecency. It costs the alleged offender $500 to retrieve their impounded car. Do you support expanding the reasons for impoundment?

I’m OK with the expanded definitions for offenses that involve a motor vehicle. However, extending consequences to a persons’ property when the offense doesn’t involve that property is an over-reach of authority.

When the village sold “open space” land to the Orland Fire Protection District last summer some residents worried that it would set a precedent that would result in loss of open space land. Do you agree with those residents?

I don’t believe one action sets a precedent. Again, you have to listen to your constituents. If the taxpayers elected you because you said you supported open space, then they may just fire you in the next election if you don’t exhibit that behavior.

Would you support a referendum to bring the Orland Fire Protection District back under the control of the village? Why?

Yes, I would support a referendum. Eliminating overlapping tax bodies, if done correctly, can only help the taxpayer by eliminating the overhead associated with the two bodies. It’s not all that different from merging two companies. However, I would only support the effort if it was approved in a referendum.

Would you support term limits for trustees and village president? Why?

Yes, I think it is always good to get new ideas and new people involved in the governing process.

Do you have any past arrests and/or convictions? 

No, I have never been arrested or convicted.