Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

Even the Journal Star gets it

27 Comments

From today’s Journal Star editorial:

You don’t need hindsight to appreciate that the locals are starting to get fed up with the city’s economic development practices, which include doling out substantial subsidies at the same time cops are being fired. In fact budgets say volumes about a community’s priorities. In fact the city’s debt service on its TIF districts has increased at double the rate of inflation during this decade, with potentially more to come through a hotel development Downtown. In fact City Hall’s history is rather checkered in picking subsidized winners and losers. In fact the council had ample forewarning that the MidTown Plaza TIF – which included the now-closed Cub Foods and a $450,000 bill for next year – was a dud; their own consultant told them so.

That’s just a taste — you really should read the whole editorial. Companion article: Main Street merchants struggle while waiting for action on revitalization plans.

It’s all about priorities. The city council didn’t bat an eye at raising taxes downtown to give a $39.5 million grant to a local developer to build a downtown hotel. But there are big cuts to police, road improvements, code enforcement, and snow removal, just to name a few things. In other words, risky economic development schemes that benefit a few people are a higher priority than basic services that benefit all. That’s not right, and it needs to change.

It seems everyone gets that except the Peoria City Council.

City Council, City of Peoria

More taxes tacked onto water bills

32 Comments

I couldn’t attend the council meeting last night, but I see in today’s paper that they’ve tacked on some more taxes to our water bills: “The council also voted to assess a 5 percent water utility tax . . . expected to generate $1.5 million annually.”

Technically, the city is taxing the water company, but Illinois American Water is fully expected to pass that cost on directly to consumers. And the selling point of this tax as opposed to a property tax increase is that it can also be collected from non-profit organizations. “City officials have estimated the typical residential customer of 6,000 gallons of water a month will pay $1.70 more a month,” according to the paper. Add that to the $6 per month we’re already paying through our water bills (the so-called “garbage fee”), and now we’re up to $7.70 — a 28% increase in water taxes/fees for the “typical residential customer.” Pretty soon, we’ll be paying more in taxes/fees than for the water portion of the water bill.

A few other interesting things about this tax:

  • “[T]he council voted on a host of issues that leaves the city with a $1.4 million surplus heading into next year,” the paper explains, and this five percent tax will generate $1.5 million annually. A quick calculation tells me that only $100,000 was needed to actually balance the budget when all was said and done last night. But the council established a tax that will generate $1.5 million. A bit of overkill, wouldn’t you say? If they had established a 1% tax, it would presumably generate $300,000 — more than enough to cover the deficit left after other actions were taken last night.
  • Despite coming up with a new revenue source that puts them in the black by $1.4 million, the council still decided to lay off 16 police officers. Public safety is evidently not real high on the council’s priority list. That’s okay. It’s not like we have a lot of crime in Peoria or anything. I’m sure the officers that are left can learn to work smarter, not harder, or something like that.
  • Speaking about the new water utility tax: “This isn’t money we’ll wildly run out and spend,” Van Auken said. “We’re still facing a deficit next year.” Ha ha ha! No, the council wouldn’t wildly run out and spend it. Of course not. They’re the model of fiscal conservatism and strategic planning. You can trust them not to fritter away taxpayer money on non-essential, risky ventures.

Bah.

City of Peoria

City to AFSCME: We have bargained in good faith

Leave a comment

Here’s the official press release from the City of Peoria:

Subject: NEGOTIATIONS WITH BARGAINING UNITS

The budgetary problems of the City of Peoria projected for 2010 have been well publicized since June, 2009. A number of formal and informal meetings have been held with represented employee groups during the past five (5) months. Many employees and their organizations have recognized the seriousness of the City’s budget deficit. Employees understand that 17% of the metropolitan area is either unemployed or underemployed. To date, seven (7) of the nine (9) labor organizations representing City employees have agreed to reductions in their 2010 compensation package, and in doing so, are to be commended both for their consideration of their fellow members, and for the continued level of necessary services to the citizens of the City of Peoria that such reductions will permit.

The City responded to AFSCME’s request to bargain on September 21, 2009 and suggested five (5) dates during the period of October 1-9, 2009 for such purpose. On October 6, 2009 the City met with AFSCME officials and requested concessions in 2010 to avert most or all potential layoffs that could impact AFSCME-represented employees. The first negotiation meeting for regular contract negotiations was scheduled for October 26, 2009.

The City submitted a formal impact bargaining proposal to the Union on October 28, 2009. It requested a wage/step freeze in 2010 in exchange for a no layoff guarantee of twelve (12) of seventeen (17) full-time employees from November 3, 2009 – May 31, 2010. The Union rejected that proposal on November 3, 2009 and counter-proposed a comprehensive 3-year package with a no layoff guarantee through December 31, 2012, a 9.6% pay increase over the last two years, no residency requirement, adding 2 steps (5% increase) for those at the top pay range and eliminating the lowest two steps (5% increase) for new hires, extreme limitations on the right to contract outside services, and the layoff/elimination of fourteen (14) management employees. That proposal was rejected by the City.

On November 5, 2009 the City sent a notice of planned layoff to the AFSCME organization. The notice contained the names of seventeen (17) full-time positions and two (2) part-time positions.

To date, the parties have met four times in regular negotiations with two of those dates partially devoted to impact bargaining. AFSCME has been provided with relevant information necessary for the parties to bargain. The Union presented a comprehensive economic and non-economic proposal for the successor contract on November 10, 2009. The City had provided its comprehensive proposal on non-economic items on November 3, 2009. The City had advised during ground rule discussions on October 26, 2009 that it would seek resolution of most of the non-economic items first, but would provide the Union with an economic first offer in sufficient time prior to the contract deadline of December 31, 2009 to permit meaningful bargaining. That process is common in most contract negotiations, is completely legal, and does not constitute any unfair labor practice as alleged by AFSCME leadership.

The City is committed to bargaining a successor contract with AFSCME and will continue to do so in good faith. It will also consider any reasonable offers from AFSCME relative to mitigating the impact of the pending layoffs. However, it believes that negotiations are best resolved and more productive at the bargaining table. It encourages the AFSCME leadership to spend available time in that pursuit instead of unfounded threats and allegations.

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 11/24/2009

57 Comments

I had some time this evening to take in one more council meeting. Frankly, it wasn’t worth it. Most items were deferred, although there were a couple of interesting nuggets. This will be my last council meeting between now and Christmas. My Tuesdays (and most other days, too) are booked solid after tonight. I couldn’t live-blog the meeting tonight because internet service at City Hall (provided by Comcast) was inoperable. Comcastic, right? Nevertheless, using Windows Notepad, I “liveblogged” the council meeting offline. Here’s what happened:

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 11/24/2009 →

City of Peoria

Peoria: “Better than nothing”

43 Comments

If there’s one phrase I could erase from all discussions about Peoria, it would be this one: “Well, isn’t it better to do something? Something is better than nothing!” I hear this all the time. Here are just a few high-profile examples:

  • Regarding the proposed downtown museum: If we don’t put a museum there, it will just be a big hole forever! Isn’t it better to put something there? Something is better than nothing!
  • Regarding the proposed charter school for District 150: What, should we just do nothing to improve the schools? At least by putting this charter school in place, we’ll be doing something. Something is better than nothing!
  • Regarding plea bargains for murderers: We know he murdered a man in cold blood, but the jury might not believe our witnesses, so we’re going to let him plea down to an illegal weapon possession charge, so at least he’ll do a few years in the clink. Something is better than nothing!
  • Regarding our new token recycling program: Of course they’ve reduced the number of pickups and you have to rent a special container now for no justifiable reason, but at least it’s something! Something is better than nothing!

It’s gotten so pervasive that I think they ought to make it the official tagline for the city of Peoria. I’ve gone ahead and added it to the logo, as you can see. Doesn’t it make you proud to be a Peorian?

My guess is that most people in Peoria would not want that to be our tagline. But why not? Especially when so many things around here are justified on that basis, why be ashamed to shout it from the rooftops?

I think the answer is obvious…. But not obvious enough to keep people from using it as an argument for their pet projects as if it were some sort of fabulous selling point. I would be embarrassed to try and sell some project or defend some decision of which I was ostensibly proud by declaring, “Hey, it’s better than nothing!”

But for those who are enamored with this bit of rhetoric, consider this:

  1. Something is not always better than nothing. It depends on what that “something” is. Two pennies for a tip is not better than no tip at all — it’s a deliberate insult to the waiter or waitress. Projects like MidTown Plaza are not better than nothing; they’re worse. Now instead of the problems of vacant property, an unstable neighborhood, and a high crime rate, we get to have all of those things PLUS millions of dollars in TIF debt that we pay off with money that could have been used for police officers and road improvements. If we don’t seriously evaluate the “something,” we may end up worse off than we started.
  2. We should be aiming higher than “better than nothing.” Why are we content with “better than nothing” in this city, anyway? Why aren’t we shooting for the best, the highest, the top? Who has bewitched us into having expectations so low that the only thing lower is … nothing? Is this what passes for pride in Peoria: “better than nothing”?

Speaking as a life-long Peorian, I think we sell ourselves short in this city. I think we settle for mediocrity. I think we expect too little. And I think if our city is ever going to turn around and grow, we need to change that paradigm.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

No council meeting Tuesday

Leave a comment

From Alma Brown, City of Peoria Communications Manager:

Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Council Rules, the Peoria City Council Meeting scheduled for November 17, 2009 is hereby canceled.

The cancellation is due to the City Council’s inability to make budget decisions necessary to close the deficit and bring forward a balanced budget in the absence of specific concession information from our Police Benevolent and AFSCME bargaining units.

The City Council has directed staff to continue meeting with these units in order to reach agreement on the requested concessions.

My sources say that some sort of concessions might be forthcoming from the Police union, thus accounting for the delay in making final budget decisions. Despite the wording in the e-mail, there doesn’t appear to be the same optimism regarding AFSCME. But we’ll see what happens between now and next Tuesday.

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 11/10/2009

Leave a comment

Welcome to room 400 of Peoria City Hall. Once again, I’ll be providing live news and comment on tonight’s City Council meeting. The agenda is below. I’ll be updating this post with my comments throughout the evening, so refresh often.

The mayor and all council members are present.

Here’s the agenda:

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 11/10/2009 →

City Council, City of Peoria

City Council preview

2 Comments

There’s a city council meeting tonight. Here are some items of interest:

  • There’s a request to use Tazewell County Asphalt Company to seal a parking lot behind the city’s municipal services building. I wonder why the council would even consider patronizing businesses in East Peoria — a city they believe tolerates discrimination, as they made perfectly clear a few weeks ago. Will they reject this bid and any others until these communities adopt the same Fair Employment and Housing Commission statutes as Peoria?
  • Despite all the cost cutting, the city will still have to raise property taxes. A truth in taxation hearing will be held tonight.
  • Comcast’s cable franchise agreement with the city, which expired way back in 2006, is up for yet another temporary extension. Will a permanent agreement ever be reached?
  • Continued discussion on the 2010 budget, including a discussion on the cost of police uniforms.
  • Taxes are also going up in the “Town of Peoria.” You gotta love the “Town of Peoria.” It has the same borders as the City of Peoria, and the City Council members are the Town Trustees. Yet, they get over $2 million in separate tax levies. Illinois: king of superfluous municipal organizations.
City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star

Word on the Street counterpoint

14 Comments

Let’s talk about today’s Word on the Street column:

Critics of publicly financing a Downtown hotel have linked last year’s City Council vote to extend $39.3 million in bonds for the $102 million Marriott with this year’s budget reduction decisions.

Some council members are fighting back, saying the criticism is unfair and inaccurate. They say the bond issue for the hotel project has nothing to do with next year’s budget deficit, or with the budget in general.

This ought to be good. I can’t wait to hear how $39.3 million has nothing to do with the budget.

“There is a misperception being promoted that the city has $39 million in the bank and is giving it away to a private developer when that is just not the case,” at-large City Councilman Ryan Spain said.

Oh, no. I know the city doesn’t have $39 million in the bank. That’s precisely the point. The city is going to have to go $39 million in debt to give $39 million away to a private developer.

At-large City Councilman Eric Turner agreed. “It doesn’t impact anything,” he said.

By “anything” here, I’m assuming he meant it in the context of the 2010 budget. And this may shock you, but I don’t disagree with him in that assessment. It won’t impact anything in 2010. But it will certainly impact the budget in 2012 and beyond. But I suppose that’s irrelevant, eh? Why look past the end of your nose when making decisions, right?

Linking this year’s deficit-related decisions, such as cutting police officers, with last year’s hotel project vote has been done at times during council meetings and on blogs.

He’s talking about me here, in case you didn’t catch it.

At-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg has brought up the issue before, saying the priorities of the council are screwed up. He said he has received calls from constituents concerned with why the city is assisting a developer build a hotel at a time when police officers may be laid off.

If the city wanted to assist the developer by improving public infrastructure around the site, that would be one thing. It’s quite another thing to just hand over cold hard cash to a developer to help him construct his project.

At issue is the city’s public financing portion of the project.

The city’s bond will be paid back through revenues generated by the project, including tax-increment financing and additional hotel, restaurant and sales taxes it generates.

“Revenues generated by the project.” That assumes revenues will be generated, which is a point of contention. Private banks, whose loans would have to be repaid through revenues generated by the project, have not been willing to loan the developer the money he needs to start the project, despite all this backing from the city. What do they know that the city doesn’t? Or is it just that the city is content to take higher risks with taxpayer money than banks are willing to take with their private funds?

Also, not explicitly mentioned in this statement is the fact that the council raised sales taxes 1% within the Hospitality Improvement Zone. Why was this necessary if “revenues generated by the project” are sufficient to pay back the bonds?

Projections show the city is to owe $2.5 million in 2012, the year the hotel is anticipated to open. The opening date likely will be pushed back because of delays in moving the project forward.

Not mentioned is the reason for the delays: inability to get private financing.

If the revenue from the project doesn’t materialize as anticipated, it is possible the city can make its bond payments from revenues from adjoining tax-increment financing districts (the hotel project is located within a TIF district, a key economic incentive device allowing the project to potentially happen).

City officials have estimated that about half of the $39.3 million can be raised from three adjoining TIF districts and directed to a fund that is separate from the city’s general operations fund, which pays for police, firefighters and other services.

If other TIFs are so flush with cash, why don’t they use that money to retire those TIF bonds early so the tax revenue go into the city’s general operations fund where they could pay for “police, firefighters and other services”? Wouldn’t that be a better use for those funds than on a hotel?

Recently retired Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger said the project “shouldn’t have a negative impact on the budget. It creates jobs and a tax base. That’s the logic for doing this.”

That’s what they said about MidTown Plaza.

Spain said the timing is right for the project. The hotel, when completed, would connect to the Civic Center via a skywalk.

And that’s relevant because…? I’m unclear whether these are just two disjointed statements the reporter decided to put in this paragraph, or if he’s implying that the skywalk was Spain’s justification for “the timing [being] right for the project.” If the latter, I have to believe there was more to his reasoning than what was reported. No one would say that a skywalk is justification for giving a developer $39.3 million in tax money. No one would be that foolish.

Project naysayers may have another chance to publicly sway the project. If developer Gary Matthews gets the financing needed to proceed, then the council will have to vote on the sale of bonds in order to officially participate in the financing of the project.

Matthews is still attempting to secure the private financing to begin a project that was originally supposed to start last spring. A national economic recession, though, has slowed the progress. (J.S.)

Yes, the recession is slowed progress, because the economic climate makes this project too risky for credit markets. But not too risky for our tax dollars, according to Mr. Spain and Mr. Turner. After all, we won’t have to pay the piper for several years, so it’s all good.

City Council, City of Peoria

Moore’s list of critical city positions

7 Comments

It was mentioned during the city council meeting that City Manager Scott Moore asked the council to restore 22 critical positions with the city. The list was projected on the wall briefly, but wasn’t included in the packet on the city’s website (at least, I couldn’t find it). I was able to get a copy after the meeting — here are the positions:

Manager Recommendations for Operations
Positions Restored
In Priority Order

6 Police officers (PPBA)
2 ECC Communicators (AFSCME)
Network Specialist (AFSCME)
Computer Operator (AFSCME)
Legal Administration Coordinator (AFSCME)
1 Animal Control Officer (AFSCME)
Police Records Manager (Exempt)
1 Animal Control Officer (AFSCME)
2 Part-Time Kennel Technicians (AFSCME)
1 ECC Supervisor (Exempt)
Public Safety Coordinator (Exempt)
1 Accountant (Exempt)
1 Code Enforcement Inspector (AFSCME)
2 Police Info Tech for 3rd Shift (AFSCME)

Subtotal (22 Positions)

Note: “ECC” stands for Emergency Communications Center. According to the city’s website, “The ECC provides dispatching services to Peoria Police, Peoria Fire, Peoria County Sheriff, Emergency Medical Services, Peoria County Fire & EMS agencies and other City departments as part of the Peoria City/County Enhanced 9-1-1 system.”