Category Archives: City Council

Will council “show leadership” against discrimination?

Generally speaking, small businesses are exempt from employment discrimination statutes. “For example,” says one state publication, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, gender, disability and national origin, only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. These threshold limits are designed to protect small employers from the considerable financial and time costs associated with compliance with the statutes.”

Peoria’s city code reflected that same threshold for filing a discrimination complaint with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. A few weeks ago, the City Council decided to change the code, so now a discrimination complaint can be filed against any employer, even those with 1-14 employees. If you find yourself in situations like this, then make sure to consult a qualified disability attorney to help you build your case.

During the discussion, the official minutes of the meeting state: “Senior Staff Attorney King said neighboring areas such as West Peoria and Peoria Heights did not have such an ordinance to her knowledge…. Council Member Sandberg expressed concern that Peoria was putting itself at a disadvantage when being competitive to bring in new business. He said he felt the resolution that was passed at the State level had the responsibility to govern these issues.” His concerns were roundly pooh-poohed by the mayor and several council members:

Mayor Ardis answers: “We shouldn’t not do the right thing because our neighbors aren’t doing it.” Turner says Peoria should show some leadership in this area. Gulley says he hopes this ordinance will drive every business out of Peoria that wants to discriminate. Privilege of the floor given to Don Jackson, President of [Illinois] NAACP. He speaks in favor of the motion “in the spirit of Everett Dirksen.”

The ordinance passed unanimously.

Then, a couple of days after this council meeting, the Pekin Chamber of Commerce announced (emphasis mine): “The 48th Annual Peoria Branch Freedom Fund Banquet will be held on Saturday, November 14th at the Par-A-Dice Hotel and Conference Center in East Peoria.” Wait a minute…. Why is the NAACP holding their Freedom Fund Banquet in a community that (using the logic displayed at the Peoria City Council meeting on Oct. 13) tolerates discrimination? Why don’t they hold their banquet in Peoria — a city that has the stricter anti-discrimination policy?

Peoria City Council members were all invited to the banquet. Will they attend an event being held in a community that is not doing “the right thing,” according to Peoria’s Mayor? Will all those who spoke out so forcefully on the council floor on October 13 stick to their principles of “showing leadership” against discrimination on November 14? We’ll see.

Take me to your leader

As I mentioned in my correction to the last post, one of the cuts approved by the City Council on Tuesday is this:

Eliminate Economic Development Director
The current compensation for this position in $125,329. $25,000 is retained for restructuring the department. Without a full-time director, there will be a serious reduction in efforts, especially in marketing the City to regional and national developers and companies.

The Economic Development Director position is currently held by Craig Hullinger, who recently announced he will be retiring on November 6.

This raises a whole host of questions. Why would they keep an Economic Development Specialist position, but eliminate the Director position? How will decisions be made in the department without a Director? Majority vote? Or will one person act as the de facto leader without the title or the pay? (I don’t see how that could be avoided, frankly.) If the department doesn’t need a Director in order to function efficiently and effectively, then why have we had one all these years? And are there any other departments where the Director is unnecessary and could be cut to save money?

Police at bottom of council’s priority list

Tuesday night, we got some insight into the Peoria City Council’s priority list. We know that the Fire Department is at the top of the list. All the proposed cuts to the Fire Department were restored. And we know that the Police Department is near the bottom of the list. The council chose to cut 17 additional staff positions there without any discussion whatsoever.

The reason? Well, because the firefighters agreed to give up their wages, but the police officers didn’t. Hence, the firefighters are being rewarded for being team players, but the police officers are being punished by taking the brunt of the budget cuts.

There’s only one problem with this plan: The joke’s on us. It’s the citizens who lose because police protection is reduced. To add insult to injury, the council reaffirmed their commitment to keep the Economic Development department fully staffed. [Upon further review, it appears Craig Hullinger’s position will not be filled upon his retirement; hence, although the council saved an Economic Development Specialist position, the department will not be “fully staffed” next year; at least, at this point — perhaps the director position will also be reinstated at the next council meeting.] And, to my knowledge, they’re continuing to pursue a downtown hotel deal that will cost around $4 million in debt service annually. That could pay for a lot of officers and other basic services.

Liveblogging the City Council 9/22/2009

It’s Tuesday evening, and time for another Peoria City Council meeting. I’m coming to you live from Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh often.

Absent tonight are Mayor Ardis and 5th District councilman Dan Irving. Mayor Pro Tem is At-Large councilman Eric Turner.

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 9/22/2009

City Attorney says nothing more can be done to protect against erroneous sales tax collection

Back in July, I reported on some overtaxing that was taking place in Peoria. I discovered first-hand that when businesses erroneously charge too much sales tax, the citizen who is overcharged pretty much has to fend for himself to get reimbursed.

A communication from the city’s legal department to the city council more or less confirms that state of affairs. Councilman Gary Sandberg had requested that the city draft an ordinance that would impose penalties on businesses that collected more sales tax than they are statutorily authorized to collect. The memo to the council is in response to Sandberg’s request.

In a nutshell, the memo states that sales tax collection is handled at the state level — the city has no power to enforce collection or impose penalties for collecting the wrong amount (whether too little or too much). A plain reading of state statutes confirms this, unfortunately. However, City Legal then goes on to state:

A review of the State sales tax statutes, however, reveals that, in fact. there is a specific provision, 35 ILCS 120/2-40, which provides that purchasers are entitled to refunds from retailers who erroneously collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and further provides that any erroneously collected tax not refunded must be forwarded to the Illinois Department of Revenue. 35 ILCS 120/2-13 provides for civil and criminal penalties for those who file fraudulent returns, who collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and do not forward it to the Illinois Department of Revenue and who do not properly collect the tax. In short, the State sales tax statutes cover the field for civil and criminal penalties for sales tax violations.

The thrust of this and subsequent paragraphs, as I see it, is to assure the council that citizens are adequately protected by state law, and thus a local statute would not be needed even if it were permitted (which it’s not). But I would argue that it’s not adequate. Yes, 35 ILCS 120/2-40 does provide that, if the seller collects too much sales tax, “the purchaser shall have a legal right to claim a refund of that amount from the seller.” But this puts the onus on the purchaser to prove to the seller that they collected the wrong amount in the first place.

That might be easy if dealing with a local merchant (of course, a local merchant probably wouldn’t make that mistake in the first place), but when dealing with an out-of-town company, the local manager will generally give you a blank look and say, “the sales taxes are put in the computer by our corporate office.” So then you have to try to contact the corporate office, and the red tape only gets worse from there. Bottom line: it’s not worth your time to fight it unless you’ve purchased a big-ticket item and the difference in tax is significant.

Furthermore, the civil and criminal penalties listed under 35 ILCS 120/13 (not 35 ILCS 120/2-13, which doesn’t exist) only covers deliberately fraudulent acts and the failure to remit to the state all sales tax money collected. It doesn’t cover a situation like the one that happened in Peoria in July. We already knew that because I called the state and was basically told that as long as the business is remitting the money, the state isn’t going to do anything to correct the problem. It falls on the citizen to call the business and somehow convince them that they’re charging the wrong tax rate.

And that’s where this system falls apart. When you, Joe Citizen, complains that a business is charging the wrong tax rate, you are the one who has to prove it. From personal experience this year, I can tell you that the seller is going to defend the tax rate the store is charging. They get official documents from the home office in Chicago or Minnesota or wherever that says the tax rate is X, and by golly, the tax rate is X. Why should they listen to you? You’re probably just uninformed or a general complainer about how high taxes are.

There has to be a way for official notification to be sent to places that are charging the wrong tax rate. The city did do that this past month in order to clear up confusion with a number of businesses. But there is no policy in place that would require the city to do that. I would argue that they only did it because of the media spotlight that was put on the issue, because they certainly didn’t offer to do that for me when I complained, before the story got picked up by the local mainstream media.

If nothing else can be done (and that appears to be the case), the city should at least establish a procedure wherein citizens can notify the city of erroneous tax charges, and the city will notify the company of the correct rate. Someone needs to go to bat for the citizens of Peoria. Why shouldn’t it be the City?

Where’s the outrage?

We’re all enjoying the calm before the storm. We’ve heard the warnings — the city council is going to have to make some deep cuts in order to close the $10-12 million budget gap. They’re trying to plug the gap without raising taxes. That means the cuts will have to be made “with a chainsaw, not a scalpel,” and will be “bloody,” to quote the mayor and another council member.

Yet, at the same time, the council had absolutely no trouble raising taxes to collect $40 million for a private developer. Think about that — they raised the sales tax (granted, for an area restricted to downtown — the so-called “Hospitality Improvement Zone”). They will collect money from that sales tax, and they will hand it over to Gary Matthews, a private citizen and developer, so he can build a huge hotel addition to the Pere Marquette. Matthews will, in turn, give the lion’s share of that money to Al Zuccarini for the properties he owns on the block shared by the Pere.

So, at the same time that the council is talking about cutting police officers, eliminating raises for employees, cutting back on code enforcement and road maintenance, and other draconian cuts in public services, they’re giving $40 million to Gary Matthews for a private development. At the same time the council is unwilling to even consider raising taxes for public services, they had no problem raising taxes to benefit a private development. In fact, they approved that deal with nary any discussion and absolutely no public input!

The council wants concessions from everyone — except in the area of developer welfare. The one area that primarily benefits only a handful of people gets a free pass, while those areas that affect everyone in the city get the axe.

And my question is: Where’s the outrage? Do Peorians really not care? Do they think this is good public policy? Do they really think that we’re spending too much on public services and not enough on developer favors? Or are they uninformed? Do they not know this is happening? Or have they given up? Have they become jaded and numb to fiscal irresponsibility coming out of City Hall?

If this hotel deal were a good business decision, the developer would have already gotten his private financing lined up and started construction. But he hasn’t. He can’t get private financing. And you know what that means? I guarantee you it means this: He’ll be back to the city asking for more money in one form or another. Count on it.

Maybe that will be enough to wake up Peorians and cajole them into expressing outrage to their city council members. Then again, maybe not.

Liveblogging the City Council 8/18/2009

I watched part of the council meeting at home on channel 22 (meeting started at 6:15 p.m.), then came downtown to see it in person. So, here I am! I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so check back. So far, you haven’t missed much. Department heads are simply getting up and reiterating the cuts they’re recommending in this document:

(09-343) CONTINUATION of a POLICY SESSION Regarding DISCUSSION and REVIEW of the CITY’S SERVICES.

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 8/18/2009