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.
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.
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.
According to a breaking news story in the Wichita Eagle newspaper, a finalist for the Peoria City Manager position is Wichita’s Assistant City Manager, Scott Moore.
[Wichita] Vice Mayor Jim Skelton said today that Moore has indicated he will likely leave Wichita for the job.
. . . Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis and Councilman Gary V. Sandberg would not confirm they are negotiating with Moore. But they confirmed that he is a finalist.
They said the Peoria City Council will negotiate with the finalist and vote on a contract, most likely at their next council meeting Aug. 25.
Moore got strong endorsements from Ardis and Sandberg.
“Scott, in particular, has a very strong background and experience working in a big city like Wichita, which is helpful,” Ardis said.
Moore’s experience with tight budgets, such as the one he and other officials faced this year, is attractive, Ardis said.
. . . “We feel that Scott’s experience in that realm will be very good for us,” Ardis said.
Sandberg visited Wichita several weeks ago and was impressed with the city.
He said his questions are about why Moore and other Wichita officials didn’t more closely vet a Renaissance Square developer who had several lawsuits for nonpayment of bills and bounced checks.
Moore was interim city manager at the time, though Director of Urban Development Allen Bell accepted the blame for not relaying background information to council members.
Moore was also the Interim City Manager of Wichita while the city searched for a new City Manager. According to an October 2008 Kansas television news story, “[Wichita] city policy doesn’t allow the interim city manager to also apply for the [city manager] job.” According to the story, Mayor Carl Brewer said Moore “was given the option of taking the interim job or applying like everyone else.” Since then, Moore was a finalist for the city manager position in Corpus Christi, Texas, but (ironically) lost to Corpus Christi’s Interim City Manager Angel Escobar. Before the job went to Escobar, and Moore was still a finalist, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times published a glowing profile of him:
Former Wichita Mayor Carlos Mayans said Moore faced some political turmoil in the city.
“Scott always handled that with a quiet demeanor,” he said. “He’s not a confrontational person; he’s about getting the job done. The world of the big-city managers is a world of egos many times. I don’t believe you will see that in Scott.”
He worked to entice businesses to Wichita and redevelop its downtown, planned repairs to the city’s failing infastructure and oversaw expansion at the city’s airport and rail system.
Hmmm… Expansion of the rail system…. Sounds promising! The Caller-Times also added a little more info on why Moore took the Interim City Manager position with Wichita: “Wichita city officials already told him he wasn’t qualified to hold the post full-time, the standard rejection he had heard before.”
Here’s a quick bio on Scott Moore from a City of Wichita press release when Moore was appointed Interim City Manager:
Moore was the top administrator for the City of Ellsworth [Kansas] from June 1997 to June 2005 when he became Wichita’s Assistant City Manager of Operations….
Moore is a native of Bastrop, Texas. He attended college at Southwest Texas State (known now as Texas State), where he earned a business administration degree in 1994. He played wide receiver for the Division I Bobcats. In May 1999, Moore earned a masters degree in public administration from Wichita State University while serving as the top administrator for Ellsworth. Moore’s achievements in Ellsworth include uncovering a high-profile embezzlement case, negotiating an $800,000 legal agreement with the Kansas Department of Transportation and securing future financial commitments to assist the city-owned visitor center.
His honors include being named Ellsworth’s Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year in 2003. In 1999, Gov. Bill Graves presented him with a certificate of recognition for becoming Kansas’ first African-American city administrator. He also coached middle school basketball in Ellsworth. In 2007, the Wichita Business Journal selected him as member of its coveted “40 Under 40” honorees. Moore currently sits on the board of the Boy’s & Girl’s Club of South Central, Kansas….
Before Ellsworth, Moore worked four years as a budget analyst for the City of Austin, Texas, which is near his hometown. He is married to Tammy, a native Lyons; they have two daughters.
And here’s his resume from the same site (copied to the Peoria Chronicle’s archives).
If hired, Moore would replace Peoria’s Interim City Manager Henry Holling, who was appointed in January 2008 within a couple of weeks after former City Manager Randy Oliver’s departure. Oliver is now the City Manager of Surprise, Arizona. The City Council started a search for a new City Manager last year, but then suspended the search until after the latest municipal election.
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.
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
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.
I think everyone would agree that there exists a need for pedestrian (and, by extension, bicycle) mobility in the city. Not everyone owns or has access to a motor vehicle (which they can buy from dealers like Bill Eads RV – rv dealer if they have a budget); for example: children under 16, elderly residents who can no longer drive, disabled residents, poor residents, and those who simply choose not to drive for health or other reasons. All these people have the same mobility needs as their fellow residents who have motor vehicles. They all need to get groceries, visit the doctor, enjoy entertainment offerings in town, visit friends and relatives, etc. I think everyone would also agree that one of the basic functions of government is to provide the infrastructure for said mobility.
So the question then becomes, what is the best, most efficient way for the city to meet this need?
Some people believe the best way is by providing a network of exclusively pedestrian corridors — “trails.” These trails are to be completely separate from city streets, which are assumed to be the exclusive domain of motor vehicles. Given that assumption, it follows that motor vehicles and pedestrians simply don’t mix, thus making separate corridors essential for safety reasons.
I would argue that a better solution is something called “complete streets.” The idea is to use a city’s existing corridors, which after all go all the places a person wants to go already, to accommodate not only motor vehicles, but also pedestrians and bicyclists.
The trouble with the “trails” system is that they are almost exclusively for recreational use. They don’t go to all the places one needs to go (work, home, shopping, etc.). Thus they don’t really help meet the need of pedestrian mobility. They’re also a tremendous public expense. Acquiring and maintaining duplicate corridors (one for motorists, one for pedestrians) doubles the burden on the taxpayer.
It’s easy to see why there is a desire for trails, however, when you consider how little consideration pedestrian access has been given in the city. Look around town and you’ll find places where sidewalks are non-existent, intermittent, crumbling, obstructed, narrow, or unconnected.
In October 2007, the State of Illinois adopted “complete streets” legislation as Public Act 095-0665, which states, “Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into State plans and programs.” However, if you take a look at some big road projects — the Route 150 resurfacing, for instance — you don’t see any improvements for pedestrian mobility. That’s because projects like that are exempted from the statute:
(b) In or within one mile of an urban area, bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any State transportation facility except:
(1) in pavement resurfacing projects that do not widen the existing traveled way or do not provide stabilized shoulders; or
(2) where approved by the Secretary of Transportation based upon documented safety issues, excessive cost or absence of need.
These exceptions eliminate about 95% of road projects. No doubt Route 150 would fall under both exceptions. And yet, I see people walking or biking along this route all the time, especially between the Glen Hollow shopping center and the nearby neighborhoods to the north, such as Sherwood Forrest, Rolling Acres, and Timberlane apartments.
Where Route 150 travels through older neighborhoods, pedestrians can use side streets because they’re through-streets on a grid pattern, and many of them run roughly parallel to Route 150. But in the northern parts of the city, residential streets are curvilinear and the only access between neighborhoods are large arterial roadways. Between the neighborhoods mentioned earlier and the nearest shopping, the shortest route is Route 150. Some sort of pedestrian access is sorely needed along this corridor.
Meanwhile, projects that do fall under the statute — Main Street improvements, Washington Street (Route 24) improvements, Sheridan Triangle reconstruction — are stalled for various reasons, but fundamentally due to lack of political will. It’s easy to blame money as the culprit, but our local taxing bodies have never let a lack of money get in the way of constructing things they really wanted (need I even give examples?).
Clearly, we’ve got a long way to go. And the longer we put off fixing the streets, the more pressure there is going to be for alternative corridors/trails. While those trails may be constructed and maintained by a different municipal body (the Park District, for example), the money all comes from the same source: the taxpayer. We shouldn’t settle for an inferior system of pedestrian accessibility under the false conception that it’s somehow saving us money. It’s not. It’s costing us, and it’s not filling the real need. It’s as inefficient as it is ineffective.
We need to put more pressure on our elected officials to provide complete streets. We need to develop creative ways to accommodate all users with our present corridors. And we need to do it sooner than later.
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.
The local media started looking into (and publicizing) the story I posted a couple days ago about Peoria businesses charging too much tax. The Journal Star has two articles here and here, and WMBD Channel 31 did a piece on the 6:00 news tonight (the web version is here).
I just want to reiterate that you should really check your receipts. My mother-in-law took our family out to eat tonight at Chili’s (Glen and University) and they charged her 11% sales tax (it should be 10%). We told the manager, but there was nothing he could do because it has to go through the corporate office.
After reading the article in the paper, my dad checked his receipt from Best Buy — he bought a new HDTV earlier this month — and sure enough, they charged him 9% sales tax. Best Buy has since corrected the issue, and they refunded him the overcharge with no fuss.
Chili’s doesn’t appear on the official list (Exhibit B) that was released by the city today. Neither is CJ Banks (Northwoods Mall), which is charging 9% on clothing. I hear tell that someone’s keeping a list of businesses about whom residents are complaining overcharged them for tax — and it’s getting pretty long. Plus the Journal Star says the city’s Finance Department has received “hundreds” of calls.
It’s easy to see how these big corporations got confused. Take a look at Exhibit A on this memo. That’s the notice that the state sent to all businesses in Peoria letting them know that a small strip of land downtown was going to have a higher tax rate beginning July 1. To those of us who know what the Hospitality Improvement Zone (HIZ) is, this is easy as pie to follow. But suppose your company’s headquarters are in Minnesota. They would have no idea where the HIZ area was, and they would probably figure that if it didn’t affect them, the state wouldn’t be dumb enough to pay the postage to send them a notice that it’s changing.
That appears to be what is happening all over Peoria. So, double-check those receipts!