The Peoria City Council is meeting tonight, but it’s not a regularly-scheduled meeting. It’s a special policy session during which they will be discussing cuts to next year’s budget. Comcast cable channel 22 is carrying it live. WCBU (89.9 FM), which carries regularly-scheduled meetings live, is not carrying the policy session live tonight.
Category Archives: City Council
Big non-profits doth protest too much
The Journal Star is reporting that some area non-profit businesses are concerned about the possibility of the City Council imposing a 5% utility tax on water:
With the City Council weighing a possible 5 percent utility tax on water, not-for-profit organizations such as hospitals, colleges and local governments like the Peoria Park District are examining how they can absorb a cost that could impact their operations….
Chief financial officers at the city’s cash-strapped hospitals — OSF Saint Francis Medical Care Center, Methodist Medical Center and Proctor Hospital — say the proposed increase could lead to operational changes within their organizations….
St. Francis spends about $600,000 each year on water. A 5 percent utility tax would increase the expense by $30,000, Harbaugh said.
At Methodist, the hospital’s water bill ran about $300,000 last year, and the proposed increase would mean an extra $15,000 to $20,000 a year in expenses, said Cal MacKay, the hospital’s senior vice president and CFO….
Peoria Park District Director Bonnie Noble said her district is estimating a 24 percent increase in water rates for next year, or an additional $60,000 tacked onto a typical annual water bill of $250,000. She said costs for park services could go up if the water utility costs spike.
“We’d have to spread the costs,” Noble said. “You just can’t keep absorbing these kind of things and run the same kind of operation you’ve run before.”
Three entities are looked at in detail here: OSF, Methodist, and the Park District. And we have an estimated annual increase in water bills for each entity: $30,000 for OSF, $15-20,000 for Methodist, and $12,500 for the Park District. Note on the Park District’s quote that the $60,000 figure listed in the article included Illinois American Water’s rate increase, which is outside the city’s control and was not figured into the OSF or Methodist figures. So, to compare apples with apples, I took the city’s proposed 5% fee times the Park District’s annual water bill of $250,000.
Now let’s take a look at some other recent news stories about these organizations (emphasis added):
The new OSF Center for Health at Glen Park will be open to the public Sunday. The 53,000-square-foot facility is set to open its doors after 19 months of construction on the $18 million project, which includes three buildings on the campus featuring 24 primary care physicians.
–June 12, 2009
On an average day, 200 tradesmen work on the hospital’s [OSF’s] $280 million Milestone Project, designed to modernize and expand the center and Children’s Hospital….
–January 17, 2009
What’s the monthly debt service on $298 million? I think it’s safe to say that one monthly payment alone dwarfs the $30,000 annual increase in costs that could result from the city’s imposition of a water utility fee. $30,000 is a rounding error for OSF.
Methodist Medical Center will delay the final two stages of its $400 million hospital renovation project until tight conditions in the credit market begin to loosen, CEO Michael Bryant said Thursday…. Methodist will continue with the first two phases of its massive renovation plan, which carry a combined price tag of nearly $30 million and include building a parking deck and constructing a new entrance to the hospital off Hamilton Boulevard.
–November 7, 2008
The same goes for Methodist. Even a more modest principal amount of $30 million will result in monthly debt service payments that go way beyond the predicted annual increase of $15,000 to $20,000. To put this increase in perspective, a single birth can cost a patient that much money.
But here’s my favorite:
In anticipation of shrinking revenues, the Peoria Park District will cut its budget for the rest of the year by $390,000, but the public will not be overly affected. “On a $40 million budget, this is less than 1 percent,” said Jan Budzynski, the park districts’s superintendent of finance and administrative services.
March 3, 2009
So, let me get this straight: Cutting $390,000 out of the park district budget is no big deal — it’s less than one percent of the budget and “the public will not be overly affected” — but an increase of $12,500 in water fees is going to be difficult to absorb — so much so that they’ll have to raise the cost of park services? [Insert “Dueling Banjos” music here.] It probably goes without saying, but the Park District can’t have it both ways.
It sounds to me like all these protests are pretty weak. If an attempt is being made to garner opposition to the water utility fee, this isn’t the way to do it. These large organizations with their conspicuous building projects aren’t going to get a lot of sympathy from the public. In fact, hearing how little this fee would impact them monetarily, it actually makes me more favorable toward it.
Why isn’t the council nixing the hotel deal?
I listened to “Outside the Horseshoe” on WCBU last night before the city council meeting. One of the guests was Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken. During the course of the show, she mentioned several times that the city needs to do what any citizen would do when faced with lower income — start cutting expenses, and start with things that are wants, not needs. I completely agree with that kind of thinking.
Unfortunately, this thinking does not translate into action for Van Auken and most of the other council members when it comes to the City’s plan to give $39.5 million to Gary Matthews to build a huge addition to the Pere Marquette and affiliate with Marriott hotels. As much as I opposed the sales tax increase for the proposed downtown museum, at least taxpayers had the consolation of knowing that museums have some civic value. Not so with the hotel.
The city has an opportunity to get out of the deal at this point. The developer is unable to get private financing, and has missed contractual deadlines. The city is in a position to walk away from this deal and save the taxpayers $39.5 million on a “want” that could be repurposed for a “need” elsewhere.
Why is it that the city has no trouble raising taxes to help private developers (which benefits only a few), but wrings its hands at the prospect of raising taxes for basic services (which benefits all)? Why does the city have no problem levying a 2% tax on restaurants to benefit the civic center, but won’t raise taxes 2% on packaged liquor to help plug a $10 million budget gap that affects police, fire, and public works? And they won’t even consider a property tax increase, of course.
The hotel deal needs to be canceled immediately, if not sooner. There’s a reason banks aren’t loaning Gary Matthews the money. The city would do well to heed the banks’ decisions as a warning that this is not a good investment for the city — and by “the city,” I mean the taxpayers, who are ultimately providing the money.
“Everyone has to share the pain.” “We must cut ‘wants’ so we can provide for our ‘needs.'” All these platitudes are meaningless as long as the city council continues to pursue the hotel plan.
Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 8/11/2009
I’m here at City Hall again, council chambers. It’s time for another night of liveblogging. I’ll be updating this post throughout the night, so refresh often.
Here’s the agenda for tonight. As the night goes on, I’ll add discussion summaries and vote counts under each individual item:
Continue reading Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 8/11/2009
State law prohibits council from taking cut in pay
Last November, the City Council approved raising their salaries from $12,000 to $14,000 per year. This year, they wanted to see if they could lower their salary to help show solidarity with the city staff members who may be asked to forgo raises (or some other kind of salary concession) in order to help plug the city’s projected $10 million deficit.
But wouldn’t you know? State law prohibits it. “There is absolutely no action which the Council can take to achieve any change in the salaries of elected officials,” says the communication from Interim City Manager Henry Holling. At least, not until after the next election.
It’s funny how state law works. Sometimes, as in this case, it’s presented as immutable. Other times, it’s not so big of a hurdle — like when the City wants to change the rules as to who can serve on the council, or when the school district wants access to Public Building Commission bonding power so they can circumvent the voters. It’s mesmerizing how fast state law can be changed in certain circumstances, but not in others.
Riggenbach takes neighbors to task for opposing OSF
At the last City Council meeting, the council approved a new institutional (N-1 zoning) plan for OSF St. Francis Medical Center. Part of the plan called for the future construction of an “energy center,” which is a euphemistic way of saying “industrial power plant.” Power plants are ugly, loud, smelly, and require no small amount of semi-truck traffic to supply. OSF took a look at this power plant and decided the best place for its future construction would be right next to a single-family neighborhood, on the edge of the N-1 zone.
Neighbors were alarmed. They contacted their councilman, rookie Tim Riggenbach, and signed a petition objecting to OSF’s plans to build a power plant next door to their homes. The council, however, approved OSF’s plans anyway and simply received and filed the residents’ petition without comment.
In the Journal Star’s Word on the Street column today, we get a little insight into Riggenbach’s thinking on the matter. It’s not pretty.
Third District City Councilman Timothy Riggenbach hopes opposition to OSF Saint Francis Medical Center’s wishes to someday build an “energy center” in the East Bluff won’t scare off other developers from being transparent in their future plans.
“I would hate to think developers will take the wrong lesson from this,” he said. “We want to encourage as much openness and transparency as we can.[…] If I lived there, I’d rather want to know about it now than have it sprung on me down the road,” Riggenbach said. “We can prepare for (the energy center) and make sure we have the right noise ordinances in place.”
Oh, I see, the neighbors shouldn’t have complained because now it might scare other developers into being less forthcoming in their future plans, is that it? That’s got to make the neighbors feel good. Not only did Riggenbach not support them on the council floor, now he’s publicly taking them to task for giving OSF such a hard time. One wonders what value there is in “openness and transparency” from developers if it doesn’t allow neighbors the opportunity to object to certain plans or negotiate changes.
It sounds like Riggenbach is saying, “Look, neighbors, developers are going to punch you in the stomach and you’re powerless to stop them. Now, do you want to know in advance that they’re going to punch you so you can brace yourself for it, or do you want them to punch you when you’re not looking? Those are your options.” Not an option, apparently, is negotiating a way that the neighbors won’t get punched at all.
If I were Riggenbach, I wouldn’t worry too much about what “lesson” developers take from this episode. I think the lesson was quite clear: The council is going to approve your project no matter how egregious it may be to the surrounding neighborhood. The council has been sending that message to developers for years, so why would they start fretting about it now? Just because of a little petition drive? Pshaw.
Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 7/28/2009
Hi everyone. I’m here at Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers, typing on my new laptop on the city’s wifi connection. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so check back.
Fair warning: This is a really, really long post because it’s a really, really, really long meeting.
Continue reading Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 7/28/2009
Recycling should be incentivized
Right now in Peoria, there is an incentive to throw everything into the landfill and recycle nothing. You all know why. We pay for garbage collection through our property taxes. Then we pay again through the $6 monthly “garbage fee” (actually a regressive tax) on our water bills. Then, if you want to recycle, you pay yet another bill directly to Waste Management of a little over three dollars a month. When confronted with a choice between throwing away paper and plastic in the regular garbage for which they’ve already paid twice, or paying a third fee to recycle, most people (reportedly 91% of Peoria households) not surprisingly choose the former.
That needs to change.
Recycling is the ecologically responsible thing to do. Plastic, copper and metal recycling are some of the activities that can be done by everybody that can help not only our community but the world as a whole. And with single-stream recycling (where you can throw all your recyclables into the same bin), it couldn’t be any easier. The experts say that 80% of what Americans throw away is recyclable, and I believe it. Since we’ve started recycling, my family of five only has one can of regular garbage a week. Everything else gets recycled.
In light of that, some sort of modified “pay to throw” system would be reasonable and relatively easy to implement. The idea I’ve heard that has the most promise is this: Unlimited recycling pickup every other week; one can of regular garbage pickup every week; and a fee (per bag or per can, perhaps) for any additional regular garbage. This would incentivize recycling without being punitive. After all, we’ll always have regular garbage; not everything is recyclable. It’s only fair to provide some level of regular garbage hauling without an additional fee.
There are some who are worried about illegal dumping. I think there’s a way around that, too. Instead of requiring residents to buy stickers for additional bags of refuse and refusing to pick up non-stickered bags (the system used in some other communities, like Morton), waste haulers would still pick up any/all garbage left at the curb or alley side. Any applicable additional fees owed by the household would be included on that household’s next water bill. This makes it convenient for everyone. If the current $6 garbage fee hasn’t led to illegal dumping, using the water bill to collect additional fees won’t either — especially if the council decides to adopt Councilman Turner’s suggestion of rolling the current $6 garbage fee into the property tax bill.
The council will be discussing the garbage contract at its regular meeting tonight (July 28) at 6:15.
More bald-faced lies about the Kellar Branch (Updated)
At the last City Council meeting (not including executive sessions), the council deferred an agreement that will bring them closer to converting strategic infrastructure into a hiking/biking trail. Last week, the agreement was posted on the city’s website so we could all read it. But they haven’t posted the revisions. I guess they don’t want the little people to see the agreement before they vote on it next Tuesday.
What is posted includes this whopper of a statement (emphasis mine):
There have been numerous hearings concerning discontinuance of part of the Kellar Branch to a trail. No objections have been raised.
That last sentence is a bald-faced lie. I personally have objected to the discontinuance at those hearings, and so have several other rail supporters. It’s all on record, too. Look it up in the official minutes, Mr. Holling. You’re supposed to be presenting facts, not fantasy, to the council.
Also, if you haven’t seen it already, check out David Jordan’s excellent post comparing Davenport and Peoria.
UPDATE: The agreement is now on the City’s website here. It was added Friday afternoon. Also, according to a report on WMBD-TV, channel 31, the city says they were misunderstood when they said no objections had been made to abandoning a portion of the Kellar Branch. They say they meant only that no neighbors abutting the branch line had objected.
I guess they forgot about this one from the minutes of February 20, 2007:
Mr. Joe Marmon, President of Carver Lumber Company, said although the western connection was constructed to supplement the advent of the closure of Keller Branch, the western connection had caused Carver Lumber to compromise service and competitive pricing. He said Carver was forced to use alternative methods for distribution. He said he had not used the western branch for several months, due to the pricing problems. He spoke in support of services provided by Pioneer Rail, and he urged the Council to keep Keller Branch open for future economic development.
Not only was Mr. Marmon a neighbor directly abutting the tracks, but a user of rail service as well. It should be pointed out that the city promised Carver Lumber in writing that there would be “no interruption in rail service” while the western spur was being built, and that the city would intercede on their behalf if service lagged or costs rose. In fact, service was interrupted, and the city did nothing. Then when service was restored via the western connection, the city did nothing to help. The city continues to show its contempt for this business; it doesn’t even acknowledge their objections which are clearly on the record.
Oh, I know what they’ll say — Carver Lumber doesn’t directly abut the portion of the branch to be abandoned. That’s true. I guess if you define “neighborhood concerns” narrowly enough, you can make it exclude any objectors and make it easier to push through unwise agreements.
Eliminate alley garbage pickup? What about blind alleys?
On the City Council agenda for Tuesday, July 28, is a request from Public Works to send out bids for a new garbage collection contract. They want to get separate pricing on five different scenarios. These are all well and good, except for alternative #5:
The Proposer will be requested to provide the price for the collection of all garbage at curbside only in all sections of the City. This will be a monthly fee based on 39,000 homes served. Pricing will be requested for collection as included in the Base Bid and as proposed in Alternatives #2, #3 and #4.
To try to quell an uproar from residents in the older parts of town, the council communication emphasizes that “Staff is not recommending any one service over another, but is only seeking City Council approval to develop the Request for Proposals based on the attached outline of services and alternates.”
But look, folks, there’s only one reason why that alternative is included in the quote: Staff thinks money can be saved there, and they want to quantify it so they can sell it to the council as a cost-saving measure. If that wasn’t the reason, they wouldn’t ask for it.
The council needs to tell the staff that elimination of alley pickup is not an option, and demand that they remove that alternative from the bid package.
“Why?” you ask. “Shouldn’t we look at all the ways we can save money on the contract?”
Sure! Let’s look at all the options. I’ll bet you that we could save a bunch of money if people who lived on cul-de-sacs brought their garbage out to the nearest through street. That would eliminate a significant amount of time and effort on the part of the garbage haulers, and I’m sure would lead to a lot of savings.
I’m not joking!
I see little difference between alleys and cul-de-sacs. In fact, do you know what another name for “cul-de-sac” is? “Blind alley.” Alleys and cul-de-sacs function almost identically. Whereas neighborhood streets on a grid provide a thoroughfare useful to all residents, alleys only benefit the immediately-adjacent residents. Cul-de-sacs are the same — they benefit only adjacent residents, while collector streets benefit all residents of a subdivision. Alleys provide access for service vehicles (like garbage trucks) and to private garages away from busy thoroughfares. So do cul-de-sacs. It’s harder for larger trucks to navigate alleys; it’s also harder for larger trucks to navigate cul-de-sacs, especially at the end when they have to turn around or back out.
So if we’re going to look at eliminating alley garbage pickup for some of the city’s residents, why don’t we look at eliminating “blind alley” (cul-de-sac) garbage pickup for the rest of the city’s residents? Of course, they’ll never consider that. They’ll tell me that’s crazy talk. It’s not even considered an option.
And that’s my point. Elimination of alley garbage pickup in the older parts of town shouldn’t be an option either. It’s just as crazy.