Daily Archives: February 6, 2008

City Council, City of Peoria, State Legislation

Council to take up smoking ban ordinance … again

6 Comments

In December 2007, the city council considered passing its own local smoke-free ordinance to mirror state legislation banning smoking in public places. The motion failed because it needed the approval of a majority of the council (not merely the majority of a quorum), and a couple of council members weren’t in attendance that night. Next Tuesday, the council will try to pass it again.

The arguments are these:

  • No Smoking by lawIt should be defeated because (a) the state law is poorly written and could lead to downtown businesses getting tickets for non-patrons who happen to be smoking within fifteen feet of their entrance, and (b) the city’s police department is too busy working on more important issues to be called away to give citations for smoking violations; since the state issued this unfunded mandate, the state should enforce it. If the city passes this ordinance, they will have to pay for adjudicating the tickets, whereas if they don’t pass the ordinance, the tickets would be adjudicated by the state’s attorney.

  • It should be passed because the city would get 100% of the fine if it prosecutes under a local ordinance, and only 50% if under a state ordinance violation. Violations are complaint-driven and not high-priority, thus they wouldn’t pull any officers off their beat or cause any hardship.

The appearance of this ordinance on the agenda explains why the police department is gearing up to do raids on local bars looking for smoking scofflaws. Once this ordinance passes, it will be an opportunity for the city to start raking in some money in fines.

City Council, City of Peoria, Parking

Downtown parking rates going up

37 Comments

During downtown events (such as Bradley basketball games or Peoria Symphony concerts), the city-owned parking decks allow patrons to park for a flat rate of $5. That price may be going up on April 1 if the City Council passes a resolution at next Tuesday’s meeting. The resolution under consideration would raise rates one dollar to a $6 flat fee. The increase is estimated to bring in an additional $61,600 per year.

City of Peoria

City salt supplies running low (UPDATED)

8 Comments

I hope we don’t get very much more wintery weather this, um, winter:

Update as of 8:00 a.m.: City crews are salting primary streets, and secondary intersections. Once plowing operations begin, salting will be limited to major intersections, bridges, and hills. [emphasis mine] Salt supplies in our area are running low, therefore, we need to limit our use of salt at this time. Crews will maintain driving lanes on primary streets by plowing until the snow ends. Snow fall will become heavy during the morning, and afternoon. We can expect traffic delays during evening rush. Please use caution while driving, and reduce speeds.

At-large city councilman Gary Sandberg recently left a comment on another post explaining why this situation has occurred. Since readers may have missed it, I’m reprinting it here (with spelling corrections):

1. The City of Peoria and the County purchases it’s road salt through a state purchase contract. The salt purchase is bulk “salt” delivered to a location. As such, each unit of government must state how much salt will be committed to purchasing by that unit of government. The amount is hopefully based on past usage as well as any forecasts for salt based on expected weather conditions (and we know how accurate weather forecaster can be), amount of money budgeted for purchase, and to a lesser degree anticipated salt availability (no anticipated problems were anticipated because of production, delivery, labor situations, etc.)

2. The unit of government is then REQUIRED to purchase 80% of the total quantity of salt the unit said they would purchase. The supplier also guarantees delivery and price for up to 150% of the quantities the unit of government said they were committed to.

As can be seen, these two limits 80% has to be purchased regardless of need and the 150% maximum guarantee of price and availability balances the unit from stating artificially high amounts and then NOT PURCHASING because of lack of need and leaving the overstocking of salt in the hands of the supplier and perhaps then useless overtime or until the next salt season. The 150% provides the guarantee that if the units don’t want to eat excess salt purchased because of the 80% rule OR because of unanticipated weather conditions or need for salt usage that units will have access to more than the unit committed to purchase.

As of around the 27th of January, the averages usage of road salt purchased through the State of Illinois in this area was at 138% OVERALL. As such, two dynamics start taking place, first whether the supplier can keep up with demand physically, and then the dynamics of the price changing. (How many out there realize that Peoria is the northern most point where salt comes “UP” the river for delivery? The Salt for Chicago as was mentioned is delivered through the Great Lakes. Duh, think about dynamics of delivery costs between those two choices.)

I used the average usage at 138% to recognize that it encompasses all the units of government locally that uses the state supplier and some may be higher in usage and other lower, but clearly the ceiling for guaranteed delivery and pricing was much closer than the minimum purchase.

As such in the City of Peoria the Administration made an informed decision based on anticipated warming weather conditions to use less salt as the City, as well as all local units of government approaches the upper limits of their respective purchase contracts. Will they be correct can only be determined in the coming 6-8 weeks when snow/ice conditions may be present? If the City does not need one more tablespoon of salt during this season, all the naysayers and conspiracists can blame the City for this past week’s decision. If on the other hand, the City has 2 or 3 weather incidents or perhaps just 1 “big one” in the intervening 6-8, the Administration made the correct decision. I suppose for some, the Administration should have known about the 7 previous needs for salt usage this season plus the remaining incidents and just committed to ordering more.

Bet you never knew buying salt was so complicated, did you? I certainly didn’t. I wonder how much extra it’s going to cost the city if they have to buy more salt at a premium price in order to keep our roads safe. And, when will they decide to order more salt instead of conserving by only salting selected intersections, bridges, and hills.

UPDATE: The Journal Star answered my question. “To combat the problem, the Peoria City Council will be asked to approve a contract for about $212,000 to purchase more salt.”

UPDATE 2: I’ve just been forwarded a copy of an e-mail written by Public Works Director Dave Barber explaining the salt situation:

As I mentioned this morning we need to take action to secure a new supply of road salt for the remainder of this winter. We contracted through the Illinois Department of Management Services for Road Salt with a contract amount of 8,000 tons. The price for the contract this year was $36.57 per ton (delivered to our site). Under the terms of this arrangement with the State we are obligated to buy 70% of this amount ($5,600 tons) and can purchase up to 130% (10,400 tons) at the same price. So far this winter season we have purchased 11,822 tons through this contract but they will not honor any more requests for salt. We purchased 7,470 tons ($273,177.90) in December so it was paid from the 2007 budget. We have purchase 4,352 tons ($159,152.64) this year in January and also 8,800 gallons of calcium chloride ($5,236.00) in January for total costs from our account for materials of $164,388.64 leaving $89,361.36 in our budgeted line item for chemicals (paid through Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funds). We have secured a source of road salt from Cargill here in Peoria and they are offering to sell up to 5,000 tons at $42.42 ($212,100) for the remainder of this winter season. To accomplish this we will need City Council approval for the contract with Cargill and will need a resolution to approve spending and additional $125,000 in MFT funds. We plan on taking this matter to City Council on February 12, 2008.

We estimate that we started this season with about 7,500 tons of salt in the Salt dome at our operations center. We have purchased 11,822 tons and have used about 15,468 tons which leaves us with about 3,854 tons on hand at the present time.

So the additional salt will cost $42.42 per ton, compared to the earlier guaranteed price of $36.57. That’s an increase in cost of about 16%. I understand from another e-mail I received that the city could get a cheaper price elsewhere, but they wouldn’t be able to get the salt as quickly. Evidently, Cargill can get it as fast as they want it, but it’s going to cost the city a little more.

City of Normal, Peoria Public Schools

Who says school referendums never pass?

6 Comments

Last year, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation that allowed District 150 to request funds from the Public Building Commission (PBC) for the purposes of constructing new school buildings. The money for that construction will be collected from the property taxes of residents within District 150 without their consent. If the legislation had not been passed, the school district would have had to ask the voters through a referendum for the money to build the schools.

The standard argument is that it’s impossible to pass a referendum because no one votes to raise their own taxes. If we had to wait for a referendum to pass, we would never get new school buildings, supporters of the legislation claim. When asked on the State Senate floor why the school board hasn’t tried a referendum, then-Senator Shadid could only muster this argument:

I can only tell you that when I tried to build a county jail, we had three referendums that failed and we finally had to go to the public building commission in 1985 to get a jail built that was to replace the jail that was a hundred and twenty-five years old.

Translation: Since it was so difficult twenty-two years ago to pass a referendum to build a jail, obviously it will be impossible now to get a referendum passed to build new schools.

But more and more evidence to the contrary is piling up. Just last year, the Peoria Public Library put a referendum on the ballot asking for residents to raise their own taxes so the library could modernize and build a new branch in the north part of town. And now, there’s news out of Normal, Illinois that (gasp!) voters passed a referendum allowing the school district there to build new schools:

The referendum to issue $96.7 million in building bonds passed 12,049 to 8,543, or about 59 percent to 41 percent. The proposal to raise property taxes by 10 cents per $100 equalized assessed valuation passed 10,625 to 10,118, or about 51 percent to about 49 percent. … Voters OK’d building two new elementary schools and a middle school, expanding Sugar Creek Elementary School, renovating existing eight schools and installing security and technology improvements to 15 schools.

Note that in Normal, their taxes will actually be going up, not simply staying the same as older bonds are paid off as is reportedly the case in Peoria. My question is, if Normal can do it, why can’t Peoria? Why is the Peoria school district afraid to ask voters for their okay? Why do they insist on doing an end run around the democratic process by going to the PBC?

I think the difference is this: the entity asking for money has to make their case to their constituents. They have to make their case, and they have to make it convincingly. The school board has shown an inability to do either of those things, especially the latter. People are concerned about student performance and safety, and this spending spree for new buildings will address neither of those concerns. In fact, it diverts effort and attention away from the main problems.

Without the support of the electorate, the school board has to find a way to get the money from their constituents without their consent, and state legislators (helped along by some false statements by Aaron Schock) were more than happy to oblige.

Nevertheless, our school board members and legislators enjoy high approval ratings, if yesterday’s election was any indication. First district school board member Martha Ross ran unopposed for another term. Rep. Schock collected over 70% of the vote for the 18th Congressional race, despite his de facto raising of District 150 residents’ taxes.

Incidentally, they also passed a referendum in Rochester, Illinois (just outside of Springfield) for $26 million in school construction money. All these cities are defying the odds, apparently.

Elections

Primary election results and comment

2 Comments

18th Congressional District (Republican)

Aaron Schock 55,576 71%
Jim McConoughey 13,307 17%
John Morris 9,108 12%

The only thing surprising about the outcome of this race is the margin of victory. Schock was expected to win with at least a plurality, but most likely a small majority of votes. Instead, he won in a landslide, getting over 70% of the vote in a three-way race. I don’t think this can be characterized as anything less than a mandate. This primary gives Schock tremendous momentum going into the general election in a traditionally conservative district.

Republican voters evidently were not concerned about Schock’s early foreign policy gaffe when he suggested that the U.S. sell “Pershing nuclear missiles” to Taiwan in an attempt to pressure China to stop aiding Iran. Rather, they looked to Schock’s constituent services, his conservative record, and his youthfulness and energy. Schock’s name recognition and campaign experience certainly helped him as well.

92nd Legislative District (Democrat)

Jehan Gordon 5,694 52%
Allen Mayer 5,332 48%

County Board member Allen Mayer did very well in the county, collecting roughly two-thirds of the votes there. However, in the city, Jehan Gordon won well over half the votes, and since the city has more voters than the county, she rode those city votes to a slim victory. Only 362 votes separated the two candidates when all was said and done. There was a large number of undervotes in this race (voters who skipped this contest, not voting for either candidate), as much as 10% in the county and 11% in the city.

Gordon did better in early voting results than in the election, likely due to controversy that came to light late in her campaign. A radio ad indicated she had graduated from the University of Illinois, when in fact she was still three hours short of a degree. Then, just a couple weeks before the election, she admitted to select news outlets (WEEK-TV and the Journal Star only) that she had been convicted of shoplifting in Champaign County nearly eight years ago when she was 18. Her missteps evidently turned off a few voters, but enough were unconcerned or forgiving, making her the primary winner.

Not reported in the mainstream media was the fact that she left her shoplifting fines unpaid until January this year, almost eight years after the incident, after she entered the race, and just days before she admitted her indiscretion to select media. Why this information went unreported is mystifying to me, but journalists I’ve talked to frankly didn’t find it all that newsworthy.

Ms. Gordon goes into the general election without a mandate, and the issues that came out in the primary are likely to follow her through this year’s campaign. She’ll face Joan Krupa, CEO of Heartland Community Health Clinic. Cindy Ardis-Jenkins is the candidate that appeared on ballots for the Republican nomination, but she dropped out of the race before the primary, and Republican party officials appointed Krupa to run in the general election.

U. S. Senate (Republican)

Steve Sauerberg 370,204 56%
Andy Martin 225,069 34%
Mike Psak 69,812 10%

Willowbrook medical doctor Steve Sauerberg won the nomination handily, beating out perennial candidate Andy Martin and truck driver Mike Psak. The Senate race hasn’t gotten much coverage because it would take a miracle for anyone to unseat Democrat Dick Durbin. He’s the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate and has a huge campaign war chest. It’s not unprecedented for such a strong incumbent to lose in a general election, but it is rare, and highly unlikely this year especially.

Peoria County Auditor (Democrat)

Carol Van Winkle 13,090 70%
Kent Rotherham 5,499 30%

When Rotherham got on the phone to talk about conceding to Van Winkle in this race, he sounded incredulous. Van Winkle was appointed to the position after Steve Sonnemaker took the Peoria County Clerk position, and she’s not a certified public accountant. Rotherham, a CPA himself, says that not having a CPA as county auditor is like not having a lawyer as state’s attorney. He’s considering running against Van Winkle again in the general election as an independent candidate.

Peoria County Coroner (Republican)

Johnna Ingersoll 12,362 72%
George Blackburn 4,746 28%

Ingersoll handily dispatched challenger George Blackburn in the coroner’s race. There had been some controversy in the past over how quickly she got the county morgue established and operational, and how long it took to hire a forensic pathologist. But since those issues have been resolved now (and resolved well, I should add; the forensic pathologist is shared with McLean County and is paid on a per-incident basis rather than being on salary with benefits, which saves the county money), Blackburn was unable to get any traction on them in his bid to unseat the incumbent Ingersoll. Blackburn also tried to make hay of Ingersoll’s lack of a college degree, but that didn’t give him much of a boost either.

This race is deja vu all over again for all the candidates — the same candidates ran in the primary four years ago, with the same outcome. Ingersoll will face Democrat Steve Schmidt in the general election; that’s also a repeat of the last election. It’s hard to unseat an incumbent in races that are not high-profile, and in the absence of any scandal to compel voters to look to another candidate.