Allocation of Motor Fuel Tax Draws Debate

When the Elmhurst City Council gave final approval to a 1.5-cent motor fuel tax increase Sept. 7, its passage wasn't as simple as calling the roll.

And now, residents are calling foul.

Alderman Jim Kennedy made a motion to amend the fuel tax ordinance Sept. 7 to dedicate the anticipated $225,000 in revenue to stormwater improvements. The motion passed 8-4.

Darlene Heslop accused the council Monday night of not following its own municipal code. She said according to code, if a proposed ordinance is amended, it shall be brought to a vote no sooner than the next meeting of the City Council.

"I would have like to have weighed in on where those funds went," she said.

Alderman Diane Gutenkauf did question the allocation Sept. 7.

"Maybe I just need to warm up to this idea, but we spent an awful lot of time discussing how we needed to secure general revenue for a wide variety of things," she said. "The point of raising this tax was for the general fund, not for a targeted project. I'm going to have to hear a lot more justification for why we would want to earmark this money for this particular program. We're almost tying our hands with this money."

She added that solving the city's flooding issues will cost upwards of $30 million and it is the city's policy to bond for something that large.

Alderman Michael Bram, who doesn't support the 1.5-cent increase, itself, agreed.

"I really don't see a benefit of (allocating the money)," said Bram, who has argued the tax should be implemented in ½-cent intervals with evaluation every six months.

City Manager Tom Borchert said there would be no effect on the city budget if the money is allocated to stormwater mitigation, because there was higher than expected revenue from other sources.

"There's clearly a desire to spend money on stormwater and should this pass, there's going to be a fund source," he said Sept. 7. "Having the motor fuel tax going someplace is a serious, positive advantage for the community in my opinion."

Aldermen Kennedy, Stephen Hipskind, Kevin York, Chris Nybo, Chris Healy, Pat Wagner, Paula Pezza and Norm Leader voted for the amendment; aldermen Steve Morley, Gutenkauf, Pat Shea and Bram voted no. Aldermen Susan Rose and Mark Mulliner were absent.

At Monday's meeting, Gutenkauf asked the attorney for his opinion on the process used to amend the ordinance.

"I haven't had a chance to analyze it," City Attorney Don Storino said. "I'm not prepared to render an opinion. If there was a requirement to suspend the rules (to pass the amendment), we would just ratify it at the next meeting. I will make that decision in the next couple of weeks."

Elmhurst resident Tamara Brenner said Monday that the process used Sept. 7 was "troubling."

The process "was completely against the notion of open government and does not allow for proper consideration, research and debate," she said. "I'm surprised anyone can vote in favor of that and no one questioned going to a vote immediately. City code addresses this very issue." 

If the city isn't following its own code, "which code is the city actually following?" she asked.

More flood-related news

Borchert told the City Council Monday that the city expects by the end of the week to send out a "request for qualifications" to various engineering firms as the first step in finding someone to fix Elmhurst's flooding problem. 

Six or seven pre-qualified candidates will be invited to respond, but the city will consider other consultants.

"We will consider anybody if they are reasonably qualified," Borchert said. "We encourage them to respond."

The city also will begin its series of educational workshops for officials and the community at 7 p.m. Oct. 11 at the Committee of the Whole meeting, prior to the city's individual committee meetings. The topic will be the wastewater treatment plant, Borchert said.