The City Council passed a budget that didn’t raise property taxes.

There’s been another murder in Peoria, bringing the total for 2006 to 18… so far:

This is the city’s 18th homicide of 2006, besting a 13-year-old record 17 in 1993. Of this year’s slayings, 11 remain unsolved.

But the City Council passed a budget that didn’t raise property taxes.

We still have an understaffed fire department. Although they’ve moved personnel and equipment from Fire Station 13 over the Fire Station 11 temporarily, there’s no overall increase in personnel or equipment, and some have argued that the city is actually less protected as a result.

But the City Council passed a budget that didn’t raise property taxes.

We can’t seem to get our snow plowed adequately or in a timely manner. As a result, we’ve had to deal with washboard streets and the schools had to close for three days even though there was an intervening weekend.

But the City Council passed a budget that didn’t raise property taxes.

We still have a regressive tax known as the $6 garbage “fee.” This so-called garbage fee actually goes to fund police and is collected on our water bills. We pay handsomely for Illinois American to collect this fee for the city. And it’s one of the two main reasons there was a big turnover on the council last election. And now we’ve also raised the building fees which may cause some to wonder if we’re trying to discourage economic growth in Peoria.

But the City Council passed a budget that didn’t raise property taxes.

Gary Sandberg said it best last night: “Our [the Council’s] job is not to balance the budget without a tax increase.” The Council’s job is to provide essential services like public safety and street/infrastructure maintenance. That’s what we thought we were getting with the “new” council. Instead, we got a council that, it could be argued, considers “holding the line on property taxes” to be the highest public good.

I’m not arguing for higher taxes, per se. What I’m arguing for is the city to fully fund basic public services before they fund anything else — like the Gateway building, for instance. The Gateway building is not an essential service. It’s nice. I like the Gateway building. If the city has a plethora of funds and the citizens want that service, I have no problem with it. But to have this service (and others) funded while at the same time we can’t fully staff our fire stations is about as ridiculous — and irresponsible — as it gets.

I’m sorry to be so harsh, but this budget was a cop out. The tough decisions were dodged. The apple cart was not upset. It’s more of the same. I thought the voters last election made it clear we wanted something different.

There’s another election coming up when we’ll have the opportunity to elect five at-large members of the council. Remember this budget. And remember these three words: essential services first.

Another year of the regressive $6/month garbage fee.

Another year of understaffing at Fire Station 11.

Another missed opportunity by the council as they voted 8-3 essentially to finalize a budget that once again does not address two of the biggest issues of the past several years.

I thought this “new” council was supposed to be different. But it turns out the only ones to vote against this budget plan were the vererans: Sandberg, Grayeb, and Gulley.

Evidently, from the discussion last night, it’s a virtue not to raise property taxes, even if “holding the line on taxes” means compromising fire safety in one of the most densely-populated areas of town and hitting the poor and elderly with regressive fees. Yeah, they really took the moral high ground last night. It will look good in political ads anyway.

I was willing to give the council the benefit of the doubt last year. The rookie members needed time to get their bearings, understand the budget process, etc. I bought it. I was willing to wait until the next year for the revolution. But “next year” has come, and things haven’t changed. What’s their excuse this time?

What does it take to get representatives who will do what we elected them to do?

It’s been all over the news today, so I realize this isn’t a breaking headline anymore, but John Morris isn’t going to seek reelection to the Peoria City Council.

The reason? He wants to spend more time with his wife and two children. Having a wife and three little ones of my own, I completely understand, and I wish him well.

And now, let the fun begin. Who will the contenders be for all the at-large council seats?

Dang. I tell ya, it would be a lot easier to write these things if I didn’t have to get my facts straight all the time. “The Rest of the Story” is back and had this comment on my last post:

The utility tax/franchise fee would only be placed on water only – no other utility. Currently, Illinois American pays nothing for use of the public right-of-way, however, damages it the most (ie. water leaks, etc.).

Since no one is suggesting a fee to be added to AmerenCILCO bills, I’m afraid I’ll have to retract Van Auken’s award for “most ill-timed revenue proposal” and give it back to the reigning champion, School District 150 (PBC funding). My apologies to Ms. Van Auken.

However, I stand by my previous statement regarding the likelihood of not-for-profits paying this utility tax/franchise fee. “The Rest of the Story” makes a good case:

Approximately 65% of the the properties pay 100% of the real estate tax. This approach would make the non profits particpate in the cost of providing needed services.

I wholeheartedly agree that it makes perfectly logical sense. I just don’t believe it’s going to happen. The three hospitals alone are going to have the council in a pressure cooker on this issue, not to mention all the other charities, churches, foundations, etc.

The Journal Star reported Thursday that Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken has an alternative plan to a property tax increase:

Another option for raising revenue comes from Van Auken, who wants to replace the $6-a-month garbage fee with both a 5 percent utility tax and 5 percent franchise fee on water bills.

“My goal in this budget is to get adequate police and fire protection for the 2nd District and to replace the garbage tax with a source that is more fair and equitable,” Van Auken said. “I want to see where my colleagues are on it. The mayor and I have discussed it, and he has spoken favorably of the idea because it spreads the cost throughout the community – not just the residents who pay the garbage tax and not just the residential and commercial, as it is with the property tax.”

I appreciate “outside-the-box” thinking as much as the next guy, but honestly, I can’t think of a worse time to suggest this revenue-raising idea. Surely Van Auken is aware that electricity rates are going up 55% in January. Is proposing the city tack on another 5% a good idea right now?

I’m going to guess that the logic behind this is that, since it would apply to not-for-profits, businesses, and residents, the cost would be spread out more and thus, coupled with the 5% franchise fee on water bills, this whole plan would be cheaper for residents than the current $6 per month garbage fee. Maybe, but I’m not buying it until I see the numbers — with and without not-for-profits included.

Why without not-for-profits? Because we all know the chances of a tax on not-for-profits passing are about 10,000 to 1. Every health-care provider, every church, every fine arts organization, every college and university, and every charity — to name just a few of the institutions affected — will be out in force to put the kibosh on that idea. Of course, there will be exceptions, but I predict if this idea starts being pushed, the push-back will be enormous and the city will back down.

I’ve e-mailed Ms. Van Auken asking for clarification on her plan; when she writes back, I’ll post her response as a follow-up to this post.

Remember the “Target Peoria” TV special that aired not too long ago that featured a panel of city staff and neighborhood activists (hosted by WCBU’s Jonathan Ahl) discussing crime issues in Peoria? Well, Mayor Ardis promised there would be more forums in the coming months to continue that discussion, and the next one is scheduled to take place on Monday, October 23, 6:00-7:30 p.m., at Riverside Community Church downtown (the old Shrine Mosque building). The public is welcome to attend and join in the discussion.