Nearly three hours into the latest hearing on the parking meter lease agreement, 42nd Ward alderman Brendan Reilly got right to the point: “Certainly I think everyone would have liked to have had this dialogue, this open discussion, prior to the execution of this deal.”

No one disagreed. In fact, judging from the mood of the aldermen present, it seems likely that the deal would have been constructed far differently—if not scotched altogether—if the City Council had actually vetted it first.

Seven months after the council approved it, four months after it went into effect, Chicago's meter privatization has gone so badly and outraged so many residents that aldermen are now promising to do better next time. They're even threatening to act like a real legislative branch as Mayor Daley pushes his latest plans to balance the city budget and fund the Olympics.

The hearing was called at the behest of 49th Ward alderman Joe Moore and several allies, most of whom had voted for the deal in December but now, as an act of "repentance," wanted a public airing of details about how it was forged, why the hand-off had gone so poorly, and what the city and its private operators could do about it. But they weren't the only unhappy campers today: Daley loyalists like 44th Ward alderman Tom Tunney wondered whether the city got a fair price for the meter system and groused about how it’s ended up hurting local businesses.

“So how do we get out of this?” Tunney asked the city lawyers and budget officials there to testify.

Their answer: we don’t.

As city attorney Jim McDonald explained, the agreement doesn’t specify any process for “unilateral termination.” “We’d have to negotiate it,” he said. Which means that the tab for tearing the deal up would would almost certainly exceed the $1.157 billion the city got to outsource the meters.

Right off the bat finance committee chairman Ed Burke signaled that the aldermen probably wouldn’t get all of their questions answered. Paul Volpe, Mayor Daley's chief of staff, formerly the city’s chief financial officer, and leading broker on the deal, wasn't there to take them, though Moore had specifically asked that he attend. "Mr. Volpe had a conflict today," Burke said. He said he didn't know what Volpe's "conflict" was.

But Burke himself was ready to participate, jumping in repeatedly to help administration officials and financial advisers answer questions. Many of the answers prompted still more questions.

“Whose idea was this in the first place?” Moore asked at one point.

“The idea to do the parking meter transaction was something the city had discussed extensively,” said Gene Saffold, the city’s chief financial officer. “And as we looked at other opportunities to look at, from a policy perspective, other types of assets, and discussions, there have been a wide variety of assets we’ve considered—” 

“And if I could butt in, I would say the idea germinated as far back as Walter Knorr,” Burke said. “It was really Walter Knorr who had the idea to sell the Skyway and then look at other assets.”

Moore nodded and asked Saffold again who had come up with the ideas to lease the meters.

“The city Department of Finance,” Saffold said.

“Who in the city Department of Finance?”

“A wide variety of individuals there. As the chairman has indicated, going back—”

“But ultimately there’s one person who had the ‘germination,’” Moore said.

Burke chimed in again. “Perhaps Mr. Lanctot can comment on that,” he said, referring to Tom Lanctot, a top official with William Blair and Company, which got a no-bid contract to help the city put the deal together. “He was involved in the process from the very beginning.”

Lanctot, sitting next to Burke, leaned toward his mike. “Alderman, maybe I can provide a little historical perspective,” he said to Moore. “We certainly brought this idea to the city’s attention.” He said the conversations had begun “in 2006 or 2007.”

“Mr. Lanctot, is it also safe to say that this is a type of transaction that has been examined by municipalities all over the United States?” Burke asked.

“There are a number of cities in the United States that want to copy the success of Chicago,” Lanctot said.

Lanctot concurred. While Hoffman and his staff had performed an analysis that used information “from the Internet,” Lanctot said, William Blair had relied on “widely accepted valuation methods” that more accurately assessed the long-term worth of the meter system. He added, just in case everyone had missed the point before: “There is a big difference between academic theory and the marketplace.”

Alderman Scott Waguespack asked if William Blair had examined the specific terms of similar lease deals overseas.

No, said Lanctot. “We had limited access to them.”

“Was it available on the Internet, maybe?” Waguespack said.

Tunney and 46th Ward alderman Helen Shiller told city officials that the deal had become an economic problem in Chicago’s neighborhoods. “The businesses are crying because now no one’s stopping at the meters,” Shiller said. She asked city lawyers and revenue officials to report back with details on whether aldermen could have more flexibility in changing meter rates and hours. They said they would.

Hours later, little else had been resolved. Alderman Ed Smith, a 26-year council veteran, walked out shaking his head. “This is the worst deal I’ve ever seen,” he said. “But never again—it’s taught us something.”

One can only hope.

Yesterday alderman Ed Burke offered yet another example of how nothing is quite what it seems in Chicago politics, and how groups of smart people have figured out how to make money off taxpayers even when they die.

Burke has served in the City Council for more than 40 years and, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, is its most powerful member. The committee is responsible for oversight of tax levies; bond and borrowing programs; police, fire, and workman’s comp settlements; and other legislation related to city finances. It has a staff of 23 and a budget of about $2.2 million. And when Burke’s not performing his duties as committee chairman or boss of the 14th Ward, he has a lucrative law practice specializing in tax appeals for, among others, connected developers and city contractors.

Among the items on the finance committee’s agenda this week was a resolution endorsing Mayor Daley’s plan to make nonunionized city employees take 15 unpaid days off—essentially a 10 percent pay cut. After Burke introduced the resolution to the full council yesterday, he took a rhetorical detour, as he is wont to do, and demonstrated, with no small outrage, that the city has other places it could cut costs besides worker pay—such as the contract for transporting dead bodies.

As the Trib reported this morning—and as it reported in 2006—Chicago taxpayers have probably been paying too much for this service for years. Burke, though, appeared to shock his colleagues by sharing a few details he and his staff had just uncovered.

Once upon a time, Burke said, the police department hauled dead bodies to the morgue. But during negotiations with the police union awhile back, the city agreed to outsource the work, and in 2004 they hired Dayton, Ohio-based GSSP Enterprises for about $200 a body.

Somehow, Burke informed his colleagues, the rate climbed to $915 a body within two years.

“When we looked into this we were surprised to learn that other municipalities are able to transport deceased persons at considerably less cost,” Burke said. “In St. Louis, they pay $175 a body. In Detroit, it’s $110. Atlanta pays $45, and San Jose pays $105. And the Cook County sheriff—right here in Cook County, right outside the city limits—pays $130 a body!"

Burke looked up from his notes. “For the life of me I don’t understand why we are paying $915 a body.”

He noted that one of GSSP’s higher-ups is also a travel agent, which had him wondering: “I don’t know where these deceased persons are going before they reach their heavenly reward.”

Burke sternly advised the council that he wanted answers about the body transport fees, but he also needed to make a point about something much bigger: Chicago taxpayers are probably footing the bill for other overpriced city contracts.

“If we go through this whole list we can undoubtedly find lots of savings—before the inspector general issues a report!”

Burke had everyone’s attention by this point—he was highlighting such an obvious instance of waste that the usual aldermanic murmurs and chatter and newspaper reading had halted. So now he could deliver the kicker, something about how the council needed to take a knife to the spending side of the city ledger before asking employees to give up pay …

“But we don’t have the luxury,” he said instead.

And so, Burke maintained, the council had to sign off on the pay cuts. “I’m not sanguine about this, but I think we have to do it.”

His argument was persuasive. “We’ve got to save every dime,” said 33rd Ward alderman Richard Mell.

“There can be no sacred cows,” added 42nd Ward alderman Brendan Reilly. “Let’s look at all of these contracts.”

“I think it’s time to start at zero and justify every single expenditure in the budget,” said 20th Ward alderman Willie Cochran.

“I want to join in calling for those contracts to be looked at,” said 12th Ward alderman George Cardenas.

All of them joined Burke in voting for the salary cut plan, which passed 42-6.

Burke says he’s still going to hold hearings on the cost of transporting the dead.

If there’s an insurgency afoot in Chicago, Mayor Daley isn’t aware or worried. His mind is on other things.

“I hope you don’t take pictures of me,” he abruptly told a photographer in the middle of a press conference this afternoon. “You’re trying to make me always look mad. Now I can’t get emotional—I have to calm down. When you’re emotional, you start looking different.”

In fact, throughout his Q & A with reporters the mayor sounded surprisingly chill and jovial, passing up numerous opportunities to knock down his ever-louder critics and repeatedly proclaiming adherence to something like a live-and-let-live philosophy—which happened to be helpful as he discussed and deflected questions about the city’s budget deficit and funding for the Olympics.

Daley had some reason to feel copacetic. Minutes before he started the press conference, the City Council had concluded a fiery debate over whether to endorse his plan to save the city $14 million by making nonunionized city workers take 15 unpaid days off over the next six months. Some aldermen bitched, saying they wouldn’t sign off on the plan because Daley’s budget staff had kept information from them, but others countered that they’d all had plenty of time to get whatever information they needed. Most simply lamented that they didn’t know what else to do but vote yes.

The resolution was nonbinding—meaning Daley could have enacted the plan without any council say so—and even though the debate lasted nearly two hours, the administration wasn’t worried about the outcome: press releases announcing council approval were printed up before the vote was taken. It came in at 42-6.

Afterward Daley praised the aldermen for their support. He praised his budget staff for being honest and hardworking. He praised the furloughed city employees who were doing their share to help the city. He praised himself for being one of those employees. He even reserved some goodwill for organized labor, whose leaders have so far have resisted pay or benefit cuts that might avert city layoffs.

“Unions are good,” Daley said, and then added, “They’re not all evil.”

He was asked about the idea, floated earlier by a frustrated First Ward alderman Manny Flores, that the City Council start conducting its own independent budget analysis since some aldermen don’t think they can trust the administration’s.

“They can analycize anything,” Daley said with a shrug.

Another reporter told the mayor that alderman Sandi Jackson said she’s reconsidering her support for the Olympics because of a “credibility gap” created by Daley’s contradictory statements on funding them.

“First of all, there’s no credibility gap,” Daley said. “There’s no credibility. I don’t know where they get that.”

But if aldermen start opposing the Olympics?

“If they want to be against it, fine—they can be against it,” he said. “This is not Mayor Daley’s idea. Let’s forget that. This is not Mayor Daley’s idea. This is not Mayor Daley’s plan. We went though a whole process several years ago with the U.S. Olympic Committee, and we got strong support, and we were the finalists—they selected Chicago on behalf of the United States of America. We represent the United States of America—not just Chicago. . . . If they oppose it, I have no problem with that.”

Yesterday, the mayor was reminded, inspector general David Hoffman declared that the City Council should start discussing Olympic funding plans right away—not in a month or two, as has been promised by bid committee chairman Patrick Ryan.

Instead of replying, Daley calmly offered a rough outline of his plans to cover potential cost overruns—which is apparently all there is so far. “We are now trying to get an insurance policy. We told them—we have $500 million from the city, $250 million from the state, and an insurance policy—we are trying to get an insurance policy. That’s it!”

But wait, I asked him—what was the agreement you signed on to in Switzerland?

“I signed nothing!” Daley cried out. He ran from behind his podium and stopped directly in front of me, shouting and giggling inches from my face. “I signed nothing! Please! Write that—the Reader! Please! I signed nothing! I signed nothing! I don’t know where you get that—I signed nothing!”

My mistake—he merely promised to sign something: an agreement that the city would cover any cost overruns if it hosts the games.

The mayor was still cracking up as he returned to the podium and promised that more details on the plan would follow—as soon as he and the bid committee had any. “We have not come up with that end plan yet,” he said, but vowed that when they did, “We’ll be briefing you on it.”

The controversy over funding for the Olympics is hardly about funding for the Olympics anymore. It’s about whether Mayor Daley still gets to say and do whatever he wants.

Over the last few days, the mayor has struggled to articulate—even by his standards—what exactly he agreed to during his meetings with the International Olympic Committee a few days back.

It appeared to reporters, the IOC, and most of the rest of the world that Daley guaranteed that the city—i.e., we the people—would cover any cost overruns the 2016 games might incur.

But when he came back to town the mayor vowed to look out for taxpayers and make sure any final Olympic agreement would ensure they’re not left with the tab.

Today Daley sought to clarify those comments, insisting he wasn’t still trying to work a new deal with the IOC (since he can’t). Instead, he was out to make sure various insurance packages and private financing arrangements will cover the full cost of the games.

Who’s going to provide billions of dollars worth of insurance and funding, and how will the mayor and his bid committee get them to do it at no cost to the public?

Daley and his team aren’t ready to tell us just yet.

That irks city Inspector General David Hoffman. Not so long ago Hoffman was busy discovering the shocking news that city garbage collectors sometimes loaf on the job. Today he told the Chicago City Club that the way the administration was putting together its secret funding plan was starting to remind him of how the parking meter lease deal went down. That’s the same lease deal he described as “hasty” and “dubious” in a report earlier this month.

Under city ordinance, Hoffman’s office has wide power to “promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness and integrity in the administration of the programs and operations of the city government by reviewing programs, identifying any inefficiencies, waste and potential for misconduct therein, and recommending to the mayor and the city council policies and methods for the elimination of inefficiencies and waste, and the prevention of misconduct.”

But never before has the IG—not Hoffman and certainly not his ineffective predecessors—taken to giving speeches, weighing in on the controversies of the day, and issuing on-the-spot challenges to the officials elected to run the government.

The rumor around City Hall—advanced aggressively by some of the mayor’s allies—is that Hoffman is gearing up to launch his own campaign for mayor. Today he acknowledged that he’s thinking about running for something.

Don’t expect the attack dogs to wait for an official campaign announcement. They’ll be tearing into him at tomorrow morning’s City Council meeting, if not sooner. “Our great inspector general knows all and sees all,” alderman Berny Stone sneered during the council meeting after Hoffman’s parking meter report. “Next the inspector general is going to tell Ozzie Guillen and Lou Piniella how to manage the Sox and the Cubs. What is his job? Is his job to run the city?”

Someone probably should while Mayor Daley's trying to lock up the Olympics. But Stone has been a Hoffman hater since an earlier investigation targeted one of his political workers, and there are many other less vocal critics in the City Council. After today their numbers are sure to grow. Nobody likes a do-gooder who starts thinking he’s got power—unless he’s willing to give them a little piece of the action.

All this is happening when most aldermen hadn’t even finished shaking off the blows they received for signing off on the parking meter mess. Some are already pissed the mayor’s trying to push them around again; they’re not going to enjoy being squeezed additionally by somebody who calls himself the inspector general.

Others, of course, are donning hairshirts for their rubber-stamp ways, scurrying to protect themselves from an angry public, or picking up the reform mantle they were forced to set aside after Daley rebounded from the Hired Truck and patronage scandals of 2005 and 2006.

Tomorrow alderman Manny Flores and some allies will formally propose an ordinance that attempts to limit the city’s Olympic obligations to the $500 million approved by the council two years ago—and to close a possible loophole that the mayor could try to use to broaden the commitment: “This ordinance supersedes any language ... that may be construed as limiting the authority of the City Council to affirm the $500,000,000 cap on the City’s financial obligation to the Games.”

Then the council will get to vote to approve the city’s latest plan to cut pay and services, which already has even the most cautious aldermen contemplating such radical things as legislative oversight.

The fun will continue on Thursday, when the council’s finance committee will hold another hearing on the parking meter lease deal, this time focusing on how it came about. Any aldermen who plan to attend are welcome to ask questions the city hasn’t been willing to answer so far, starting with: exactly whose idea was this, and when and why did it move forward?

In the past Mayor Daley has always survived his tough spots by letting his critics lose their nerve, get distracted, or simply self-destruct. The difference this time is that there are a whole lot more of them, and each day thousands are reminded of why they’re pissed off when they pull into a public parking space.

In December, 49th Ward alderman Joe Moore joined with 44 of his colleagues to sign off on the parking meter lease deal after just two days of "review," but since then he’s characterized the vote as one of the worst of his career and attempted to “repent” for it. In April he led a call for hearings on the financial analysis and bidding process that led up to the deal, and this morning he sent an e-mail to constituents announcing that the hearings are finally scheduled for this Thursday, July 2.

That’s eight months after the deal was cut and approved--and some of the money received in it already spent--but Moore gives his best Thomas Paine impression in arguing that democracy itself is at stake in the push to find out more. The lease agreement “should serve as a wake-up call for the City Council to begin to assert its role as a true independent legislative body rather than a branch of the Mayor's office,” he writes.

Moore wants to believe that the revolution has already started. He notes that the council recently passed an ordinance requiring a 15-day waiting period before the approval of any other long-term asset lease. “The City Council, of course, does not need a law requiring a review period; it simply could exercise the power it already has to delay and review any measure proposed by the Mayor's office,” he writes.

So why did they pass such an ordinance anyway? “Like the mass murderer who scrawls on the wall, ‘Stop me before I kill again,’ my colleagues in adopting this ordinance are essentially saying, ‘Stop me before I rubber stamp again!’”

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The city is facing a $300 million budget gap, more layoffs, pay reductions, and service cuts are on the way, and aldermen are acting funny.

Among the items on today’s meeting of the City Council finance committee was a measure that would require about 3,700 nonunionized city workers to take a total of 15 unpaid days off by the end of the year. City budget officials said that would save up to $14 million. They also said that if they can’t come to an agreement with labor leaders they’ll slash 1,500 unionized jobs in the next few weeks to save millions more.

The aldermen had been briefed about all this before, but they were exasperated all over again when they heard it anew.

Longtime administration loyalists Ray Suarez and Richard Mell suggested it might be time for a cutback in public safety staffing—something that's usually considered a political no-no. “I thought the pain was going to be shared by all city workers,” Suarez griped.

“If you want, you can introduce a resolution urging layoffs of police and fire,” snapped committee chairman Ed Burke.

“I know police and fire are sacrosanct, but these are dire times,” Mell said. “When I see cement mixers gone, when I see those people who are out in our communities daily and they’re going to be gone—the ramifications of what we’re doing are a lot more than what we’re seeing right now.”

The recently indicted Ike Carothers has long overseen a west-side patronage army, but no one’s feeling too safe these days. He wondered what the exact process was for determining which employees would be laid off. “How were they picked?”

“It’s all based on seniority,” said chief financial officer Gene Saffold.

Carothers appeared skeptical. “I’ve been hearing from people saying, ‘Why did I get laid off before he did when I’ve worked here longer?’” He asked for paperwork detailing the layoff process. 

"We've already told you some of that in briefings," Saffold reminded him. 

"I'd like copies, please."

Perhaps no one sounded as out-of-form as 47th Ward alderman Eugene Schulter, who’s generally adroit at keeping himself from being caught in anything resembling a public debate. This time he asked Saffold and the other budget officials for documents he’d requested showing how pension plans might be affected by the cuts. They didn’t have them but promised they’d get them to him soon.

Schulter’s face flushed with anger. “How do you expect us to vote on this today if we haven’t seen the stuff ahead of time?”

No one had a good answer, but the meeting went on. A little while later the committee voted unanimously to approve the furlough plan.

Mayor Daley’s chief financial officer, Gene Saffold, called a press conference this afternoon to talk about layoffs to help plug the city’s latest gaping budget hole. This follows two days of meetings Daley aides held with aldermen to try to assuage their concerns—without actually providing details—about the mayor appearing to hand the International Olympic Committee a blank check to pay for the 2016 games.

As the administration and City Council look for "creative" solutions to our money problems, they might want to take a close look at one of the city’s rising outflows of cash: lawsuit payouts and legal fees.

Last fall I reported that Chicago has been paying more in legal settlements and judgments than LA, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, and Dallas combined. From the beginning of 2005 through the middle of last year, Chicago paid out nearly $230 million. Los Angeles, which has a million more residents, paid out about $77 million in that time. The vast majority of Chicago’s payments were for lawsuits involving the police department.

The city has since released data for the second half of 2008, and a little number crunching shows that while the pace of payouts may be slowing, taxpayers are still spending piles of money on these legal expenses:

• From July through December of last year, the city spent nearly $27 million to close lawsuits. That’s down from the breathtaking $103 million paid out the first half of 2008, but it’s hard to call it great news, since as recently as 2005 the total was about $34 million for the entire year.
• Of the $130 million tab for 2008, $78 million, or about 61 percent, went toward police-related suits.
• The next-highest sums covered lawsuits against the fire ($23 million) and transportation ($13 million) departments. Another $12 million was spent to settle claims related to the Shakman consent decrees, court-ordered bans on political hiring and firing.
• All told, the city paid out more than $256 million in settlements and judgments from 2005 through 2008, including $172 million for police-related suits. The annual totals rose each year.
• On top of those figures, the city spent $52 million during that time to pay fees to private-sector attorneys who worked on some of the cases. Almost $37 million of that money was used on suits involving the police.
• Preliminary data released by the city suggest 2009 should be less costly than 2008 but significantly more expensive than previous years. Through the end of April, the city had spent about $18 million on lawsuits. If that rate holds steady through the rest of the year, the 2009 total would hit $54 million—the second-highest ever, behind last year.

More than two years after he voted to give the mayor broad powers to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016, alderman Richard Mell sent an e-mail to constituents this morning asking what they think of hosting the games.

Dear 33rd Ward Residents,

I would like to ask your opinion. Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics could be the economic engine that jump-starts this city out of the global economic crisis ... or it could put future generations of taxpayers on the hook for far more than  $500 million?

I am sure that most of you have been following the details regarding the 2016 bid through the media and I am sure that each one of you has your personal opinion.

Should we move ahead or should we discontinue our fight for the 2016 bid? Send your thoughts and comments to OlympicQuestion@33rdward.org.

Sincerely yours, Alderman Richard F. Mell.

The context, of course, is that Mayor Daley "blindsided" aldermen, in the words of one City Hall operative, when he told Olympic officials in Switzerland that the city would guarantee any cost overruns should Chicago be chosen to host the games. It's not that they were shocked by the commitment itself; it's more that they didn't expect that he would make it overseas while they were left to explain and defend it by themselves back at home--especially when they haven't recovered from being beaten up over rubber-stamping the parking meter lease deal.

Mell is feeling unusually sensitive at the moment. Most political organizations aren't what they used to be since the feds put the clamps on patronage hiring and firing, and his decision to get his son-in-law elected governor didn't turn out so well, but Mell still has plenty of clout. You could even say he's the kind of guy who can force a sitting state legislator to vacate his seat so his own daughter can take over.

In other words, it's notable that Mell is one of the many aldermen now bristling at the mayor and wondering aloud if he was wise to go along with so many of the boss's recent initiatives. In December Mell voted for the meter agreement after openly admitting he hadn't read it--or most of the other stuff that he's asked to sign off on. Earlier this month he argued that he hadn't had much choice because anyone who'd moved to slow it down would have been "heaped with scorn."

Now, as Daley aides brief aldermen on Olympics issues behind closed doors, Mell is canvassing residents of his ward to see if the Olympics--and the idea of taxpayers potentially funding them--is as unpopular with constituents as the meter agreement.

I'm hearing that his office received dozens of responses within a couple hours, and that they were pretty evenly split. Among those who wrote in was 33rd Ward resident Irving Birkner, who articulated the frustration and  fatigue that seems to be widespread among Chicago taxpayers right now.

Dear Alderman Mell,

The mayor seems unwilling to change his mind or fully respond to concerns on this, so why ask the question? It seems far too late--the city is not going to withdraw its bid now, and if we're awarded the games in October, I hardly think we're going to turn the IOC down.

As near as I can tell, the City Council seems utterly incapable of due diligence or serving as any sort of check on the executive office. The Olympics, the parking meters, Midway, etc. all seem to be presented to citizens as faits accomplis and then after the fact your colleagues all claim they didn't know or fully understand.

Personally, I think the idea [for the Olympics] is nice but the execution is appalling--I'm not really surprised that I'm on the hook for this. Either way, the time for outrage seems long past, so like many citizens of Chicago, I guess I'll accept it along with the negligence and corruption that got us here.

Irving Birkner

That's my reaction to the announcement by Cook County commissioner Tony Peraica that he's gearing up to take legal action against Mayor Daley over funding for the Olympics.

Specifically, he's asking Cook County state's attorney Anita Alvarez and Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan to force the mayor to explain what gives him the right to commit the taxpayers of Chicago to guaranteeing the cost of the 2016 Olympic games if we end up being the host city.

Good question. The answer, I suspect, is that it never even occurred to the mayor that he might not have that right. 

Peraica appears to see it differently. He says if Alvarez and Madigan don't act he'll take the matter to court himself.

I don't for one minute believe that either one of them will move against Mayor Daley. So I guess it's up to the commissioner. 

As if there weren’t enough unanswered questions about the implications of the parking meter deal, a new report raises still more, such as: How can the city manage parking and traffic policy if it’s handed off control of the meter system for the next 75 years?

The report [PDF] by the Active Transportation Alliance (formerly known as the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation) notes that the parking meter system isn’t just a source of revenue—it’s a tool for regulating the flow of traffic. While no one wants to pay more for anything, including parking, the truth is that parking pricing can be used effectively to encourage visitors or fight congestion. At one point aldermen and city officials even talked about adopting London’s “congestion charge” policy to cut traffic and boost public transit in the Loop.

The meter deal made the possibility of doing anything like that all but impossible, alliance policy director Arline Welty writes in a column for Progress Illinois. “In order to maximize profits, the city not only gave up control of future meter revenues but just as importantly, gave up all control of the public right-of-way on any streets with parking meters.

“As a result, every potential project on a street featuring meters—including expanded bicycle lanes, sidewalk expansion, streetscaping, pedestrian bulb-outs, loading zones, rush hour parking control, mid-block crossing, and temporary open spaces—are dictated, controlled, and limited by the lease agreement. These restrictions severely limit innovative planning for bicyclists, pedestrian, and transit users.”

In convincing the City Council to sign off on the deal, Daley administration officials stressed that aldermen and the city retained the rights to determine where meters go and what hours they can operate. But they glossed over what the costs would be.

As we reported a few weeks back, 32nd Ward alderman Scott Waguespack was blown away when city officials told him that the city would have to pay Chicago Parking Meters, the private company that’s leasing the meters, more than $600,000 to scale back the hours on just 250 meters in his ward for the next three years.

Budget department spokesman Pete Scales told us that the figure was based on how much each of those spaces had been used in 2007 and how much cash they were expected to generate under a new fee schedule. “Using these revenue values, the city performed an estimated revenue impact analysis of how the Alderman’s proposed 3-year changes would impact those meter values,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The analysis indicated the changes proposed by the Alderman would decrease the meter values and result in a payment to the concessionaire. This is the type of analysis the city will use each time an Alderman proposes a change to the system.”

Waguespack was forced to drop his plans to change the meter hours because he couldn’t come up with a ready way to replace the money. But Scales denied that the city ceded control of the meter system.

“The agreement preserves Aldermanic rights to change meter locations, rates, and hours of operation,” he added. “However, any changes to the schedule may have an impact on revenues, and the city retains responsibility for that impact.”