Changes are being made to the first in a series of agreements that will lead to the abandonment of the middle portion of the Kellar Branch rail line. The city council on Tuesday voted to defer the item until their July 28 meeting.
Category Archives: City of Peoria
More public budget meetings this week
There are a couple more opportunities to talk to city officials about your take on the budget deficit. Your voice can be heard at these upcoming meetings:
- July 15, 2009
4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Pleasant Valley Middle School
3314 W. Richwoods Boulevard
Bill Spears (Fourth District) and Gary Sandberg (At-Large) - July 16, 2009
4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Peoria Central High School
1615 N. North Street
Barbara Van Auken (Second District) and Ryan Spain (At-Large)
City and County have golden opportunity to save $80 million+
Both the city and county of Peoria are facing hard times. They’re in a budget shortfall and are looking at increasing revenue and cutting costs (which means services will be cut in some way). Each entity has unwisely committed themselves to large, approximately $40 million capital outlays for non-essential projects: the city for a private Marriott hotel downtown, and the county for a private museum that has received tepid support for multiple years.
Here’s the good news: Both of these projects have missed their contractual deadlines, meaning that the municipalities could easily cancel these agreements and save taxpayers a boatload of money, both in up-front capital costs and on-going operational expenses.
Here’s the bad news: They ain’t gonna do it. Despite a history of just these types of white elephants that have contributed to the current budget mess, you can bet your heavily-taxed bottom dollar that they’re still going to go through with them, even as they cry poverty when it comes to essential city services such as police protection and road maintenance.
It seems no one in the city is able to make the connection between large, non-essential projects, and high taxes. They all hate high taxes, and they all hate service cuts, yet they continue to support large, money-losing, unnecessary projects that swallow their tax money and give them little to nothing in return.
Residents are content to believe the tortured logic of their local politicians. Here are a few of my favorites:
- “Canceling this capital project won’t do any good because the money to pay the debt can’t be reallocated to operational expenses; it can only be spent on this project.” — That’s true, but irrelevant. From the taxpayer’s perspective, canceling the project will save us money because we won’t have to support it with our tax money. It doesn’t matter that it can’t be reallocated; the municipalities are still going to have to plug their budgets with increased revenue from either taxes or fees. By canceling the agreements, that saves us from an even higher tax increase.
- “This project will pay for itself.” — Let’s look at the hotel project. The developer can’t find financing for the rest of the project (apparently banks are a little more cautious with their money than the City of Peoria — which is saying something), and the Embassy Suites expansion in East Peoria was recently scrapped because, “The hospitality business as a whole in the country is experiencing extremely hard times.” Yeah, sounds like that will pay for itself, doesn’t it? Obviously the museum will never pay for itself; even ardent supporters don’t claim that.
- “But the people voted for it.” This applies only to the museum, since the public didn’t know anything about the hotel until two days before the council voted on it, and basically had no voice in the matter. It’s not as if there isn’t precedent for the city council to ignore a vote by the people. They cut funding to the library expansion even after it was approved by a large majority of voters. This project was only narrowly approved, and mostly on the backs of Dunlap and North Peoria voters. It lost handily outside the city. I’ll bet if we had an referendum on increasing garbage fees, that would lose. Should the municipalities thus take that off the table? The fact is that any cuts in service or increases in revenue are going to be unpopular. Leadership requires that unpopular, but fiscally-responsible decisions be made in tough times.
The city and county need to cut the fat. They’re in debt. They can’t afford to provide basic services to their residents. If these developments are really the sure-fire money-makers they claim to be, let private interests finance them, not the taxpayers who are stretched already in this poor economy. Show some leadership.
Water rates could skyrocket
Future water bills will be significantly higher if Illinois American Water Company and the City of Peoria get their way.
Illinois American Water Company (IAWC) wants to raise rates about 5% for infrastructure improvement, plus another 30.18% for a general revenue increase to cover higher operating expenses. The City, also in need of more revenue, is considering the possibility of imposing a 5% water utility tax to take effect next spring.
Let’s see, 5 plus 30.18 plus another 5 . . . that’s a 40.18% increase! That means a family that currently pays $30 a month for their water bill will be paying $42.05 (and this doesn’t include the $6 “garbage fee” that will remain on the water bill as well). That’s an increase of $144.60 per year. Wow!
Speaking of the garbage fee, they’re simultaneously looking at cutting the very services that fee supports. They’re suggesting the elimination of free landscape waste pickup — transferring the cost of that service to the users.
Meanwhile, downtown parking will continue to be subsidized. Priorities, you know….
Look for the exodus from Peoria to continue.
Lawsuit: Peoria doesn’t comply with ADA, Illinois Accessibility Code
If you watch or attend Peoria City Council meetings, you’ve probably seen Roger Sparks. He’s on the Mayor’s Advisory Committee for the Disabled. He is a person with a disability. And now he’s suing the City for non-compliance with the Illinois Accessibility Code, the Environmental Barrier Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court, Central District of Illinois. Sparks has been agitating for ADA compliance in the City for years, but to no avail from what I can tell reading the complaint. The first part of the complaint states violations regarding Peoria City Hall: no directional signage indicating the nearest accessible entrance, no accessible public men’s room after hours, public service counters are too high (above 34 inches), and several violations in council chambers (Room 400).
But that’s not all. Sparks has additional complaints (incidentally, he filed in forma pauperis, which essentially means he’s acting as his own lawyer, so much of the complaint is in first person):
The City of Peoria does not comply with ramp transitions to walks, gutters, or streets, as most curb cuts within the City of Peoria are not flush and free of abrupt changes. Sections of sidewalks within the City of have height differences of 1/2 inch or more. Others sidewalks are left to deteriorate and cannot be use by a person in a wheelchair. I have had to exit a bus on a sidewalk only to enter the street in front of the bus using a traffic lane to get to the intersection and cross the street as some curb cuts are blocked by
obstacles. I have had to drive my wheelchair down lanes of traffic, as there are no sidewalks in some areas of Peoria. Several intersections within the City of Peoria have raised islands with no cut through level with the street or have curb ramps at both sides.During winter months the City of Peoria plows in bus stops and curb cuts making them inaccessible to myself. The City of Peoria does not require sidewalks to be cleared.
The City of Peoria has revised Chapter 17 of its code, Article II Fair Employment and Housing with ordinance No. 15,889[…]. This ordinance has denied me the right to file a housing complaint against my landlord with the City of Peoria. The City of Peoria will not investigate discrimination of state, or United States laws.
The City of Peoria refuses to comply with Section 35.105 self-evaluation of the American with Disabilities Act. As I have requested a copy several times.
Ordinance 15,889 denies me the right to file discrimination complaints with the City of Peoria against businesses having violations from City of Peoria codes, ordinances, the Environment Barrier Act, the Illinois Accessibility Code when altering their parking lots, in their Zoning Certificates, and allowing these businesses to obtain special use permits not only once but twice while having these violations. The City of Peoria even moves or extends Enterprise Zones to give these businesses sales tax exemptions while having these violations.
When businesses are required to install sidewalks according to city code. The City of Peoria issues sidewalk and other variances not in the best interest of the public.
So, what does he hope to get out of this lawsuit?
I am seeking relief from the City of Peoria to change their policies and procedures to inspect an properties with new construction, alterations or additions at the time of construction. To have all properties comply with they’re Zoning Certificates, the Illinois Accessibility Code, and the American with Disabilities Act.
I am seeking a monetary settlement of $500,000.00
I don’t know how the suit will turn out, but I can tell you this — it’s difficult for a person without a disability to get around Peoria as a pedestrian. Sidewalks are intermittent, often crumbling and/or obstructed, and completely useless in the winter. If you’re in a wheelchair, it’s another order of magnitude more difficult. WHOI News even did an investigative report on it, back when they were an independent news organization.
If Mr. Sparks can win the non-monetary relief for which he’s asking, it will be a benefit to all Peorians.
Sparks v. Peoria Complaint (PDF)Want to help set Peoria’s budget priorities?
There are several opportunities for you to meet with Peoria City Council members and staff to discuss your ideas for the 2010 budget. Two of those opportunities are this week:
- Monday, July 6, 2009
4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Woodruff High School, Common Area
1800 NE Perry Avenue
Timothy Riggenbach (Third District) and Jim Montelongo (At-Large) - Thursday, July 9, 2009
4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Neighborhood House
1020 S. Matthew Street
Clyde Gulley (First District) and George Jacob (At-Large)
There will be five opportunities altogether.
Enterprise Zone answers raise more questions
Back in May, Peoria’s Economic Development director Craig Hullinger asked District 150 to be a part of the Enterprise Zone for the Main Street Commons project, and I wrote this post in response. Craig, who is a really nice guy and very communicative, wrote me and we had an interesting e-mail exchange. He asked me if he could post it on his blog (did I mention he’s very communicative?), and I said that was fine with me, so here it is. I’m not sure why his post is dated September of 2008 because we didn’t have our discussion until just the last couple of months. Perhaps he just updated an old post.
Anyway, I was rereading it today, and now I have some more questions. For example, Craig says:
Any development is risky. The safest developments are on undeveloped land (green grass sites). It is easier to buy a large tract of land. Less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground. Urban redevelopment is always more difficult. It is harder to assemble the land – usually multiple owners. Older areas have more poverty and crime.
I think you can see that this is true by comparing the level of development in the suburban areas of Peoria versus the older areas. More development takes place in new areas. It is always a struggle to get investment in older areas. We try to equalize the difference between new and old with incentives.
Now look at this map of the current Enterprise Zone:
Notice the big red area up in the far north part of town? Up there where there are green grass sites? Where it is easier to buy a large tract of land? Where it is less likely to have costly environmental problems hidden underground? Up where they, in short, need no incentives?
Why is the Enterprise Zone up there?
And furthermore, doesn’t that just step all over the theory of “equaliz[ing] the difference between new and old with incentives”? If a developer can get the same incentives up where there’s a green field, doesn’t that kind of “equalization” work against redeveloping the older parts of town?
One more question, for the record. Craig said:
There is a good market. We hired the premier market research firm, Tracy Cross, to assess the market for new close into downtown housing. They said the market was strong, for creative class young professionals, but that renters lead the urban renaissance, and that the rents had to be about $1.00 a square foot. It is hard to build a quality brick building that will rent for that rate without incentives.
So, we can expect this development to be a “quality brick building” now that these incentives are in place? And that rents will be competitive? So noted. I’ll be referring back to this post when the construction materials are made public. When I asked at the public meeting what materials would be used, I was told they hadn’t decided yet.
Main Street Commons to go before Zoning Commission (UPDATED)
I attended a quasi-public meeting Tuesday night regarding the proposed Main Street Commons project that is slated to go in where the old Walgreen’s is at the corner of Main and Bourland.
The meeting was held at the PeoriaNEXT building (which incidentally has doors that face Main Street, but they’re all locked; all pedestrians have to walk around the back of the building — by the parking lot — to enter the building, which is symbolic of the lip-service Peoria gives to pedestrians). Pat Landes and Kimberly Smith from the Planning and Growth Department were there, along with Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse representing the developers, and second district council person Barbara Van Auken theoretically representing the district, although she appeared to be only representing the University East neighborhood Tuesday night.
The proposed project is due to go before the Zoning Commission on Thursday at 3:00. Here’s the information that has been submitted.
There’s a lot to like about the project. It hides most of the parking in a ground-floor garage under the building. It includes retail shops on Main and Bourland. They’ve pledged to adhere to the approved building materials outlined in the code, although they apparently haven’t decided which materials they will be using.
But there are ten variances they are requesting from the Zoning Commission, and ultimately, the City Council. Many of them are minor. A few of them are troublesome:
- Fulfilling open space requirement by demolishing a home on the corner of Bourland and Russell and leaving it as a vacant lot (albeit landscaped). (This actually involves a couple variance requests.) Instead, they should simply reduce the size of the building. This would also remove the need for another variance to approve a longer building than allowed by code. It would preserve a single-family home on the corner, thus providing a better transition to the neighborhood and removing the need for a street wall.
- Speaking of street walls, another variance requests approval for a street fence instead of a street wall. While this seems relatively innocuous, it continues a precedent trending toward removal of the street wall requirement completely. That’s not a good thing. Street walls serve several functions, one of which is to help prevent exactly what’s going on here — leaving an entire corner vacant.
- The code requires that “no window may face or direct views toward a common lot line.” The developers want this waived “to allow living room windows on the west elevation of the south building, for proposed units on the second through fifth floor, (overlooking the Jimmy John’s parking lot) to be located 7′-4″ behind the common lot line.” The concern here is that, eventually, we hope that the Jimmy Johns property will be redeveloped. It currently has a one-story building with a parking lot in front (suburban siting), so overlooking the parking lot is not a problem. But what happens when that lot is redeveloped? Will the Main Street Commons development negatively impact efforts to redevelop the Jimmy Johns property? Keep in mind that the code will require that any redevelopment of Jimmy Johns’ property be a multi-story building sited next to the street and abut the Main Street Commons property. Will this cause problems from a fire-fighting standpoint? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to the question of its impact on future development because it was disallowed by Councilperson Van Auken at the meeting; the question was “theoretical” and besides, I’m not an immediate neighbor to the project. This kind of myopic thinking (ignoring both the regional impact of projects as well as the future implications of developments) is most unfortunate from a sitting council person, but not particularly surprising.
On a positive note, it’s great to see mixed-use development being proposed for Main Street. Having residents will provide more natural surveillance of the surrounding streets, and will provide a larger market for the retail shops that will go in on the ground floor. Overall, this is the kind of development we want to see. My only caution would be to consider the unintended consequences of variances to the code; as Councilman Sandberg pointed out at the meeting, the developers already know they will get 100% occupancy, so they’re just trying to maximize profits at this point. There’s no reason they can’t meet the requirements of the code, especially on the points above. The Zoning Commission and City Council should seriously consider enforcing the code at these points for the long-term good of the city.
UPDATE: It passed the Zoning Commission with next to no deliberation. Marj Klise was the only “no” vote. One of the commissioners said that provisions in the Land Development Code were “open to interpretation” — which is to say, meaningless. That was enlightening. Another commissioner said he was all for it because of all the revenue it’s going to bring to the city at a time when the city is facing a $10 million deficit. Too bad he evidently wasn’t aware that this project has been added to the Enterprise Zone and is getting its sales and property taxes abated… and that the City is asking the state to extend the Enterprise Zone past the 2013 expiration date. This project isn’t actually going to bring any revenue into the City, but it’s going to make a whole lot of money for the developers!
Talking trash
The city’s solid waste removal contract with waste removal solutions for households expires at the end of this year. This contract has been in place since about 1992. Now, if you’re just an average person, you might think that the city had plenty of time to start the process of rebidding this contract. After all, they knew when it was due to expire, and they know how long it takes to negotiate contracts such as these, so logically they should have been able to work backwards from the deadline to determine a time line for the rebidding process.
But they didn’t do that. No, here it is June 2009, six months before the end of the contract, and they’re just starting the year-long process. Naturally, they are requesting an extension to the existing contract that has been in place for 17 years already to allow them extra time to negotiate a new contract. That request was on last week’s (June 23) agenda, but was deferred for a month.
Meanwhile, they managed to engage a consultant to get some advice on rebidding the contract. I don’t know exactly how city departments are allowed to spend their budget, but it seems to me that every other consultant that has been hired by the city had to be approved by the council; this consultant contract never came before the council. However, it must be no big deal because the council didn’t seem to care.
The consultant made a bunch of recommendations on how the city can lower the cost of waste removal. Of course, all those suggestions mean worse service for residents. For instance, they’re recommending that everyone be provided a 90-gallon tote, and that all other garbage containers be outlawed. You wouldn’t be able to buy your own tote, of course — you’d have to essentially rent it from the disposal company. And they want to do away with alley collection of garbage, even though that’s one of the reasons alleys exist, and many older neighborhoods were designed for garbage collection from the alleys, not from the curb.
To their credit, the city council has so far been pretty adamant about keeping the alley collection of garbage, but city staff is trying to convince them to change their minds. They want to big the contract with all-curbside pickup as an option so the council can see how must more expensive it is to include alley collection. There’s only one reason for splitting out these costs: to try to persuade change. One wonders why it’s more expensive to run a truck down an alley rather than a parallel street 130 feet away. Waste Management says their trucks are too big for our alleys (solution: use smaller trucks). City staff says the heavy trucks damage the alley surfaces (question: wouldn’t moving the trucks to the streets just move the damage to the streets as well? Or is this an admission that alleys are poorly maintained in the city?).
The consultant is also suggesting that the city limit or do away with picking up anything that doesn’t fit inside one of the recommended 90-gallon totes. So, whereas now you can throw away that old couch or cabinet (what they call “bulky waste”) — the consultant says that should stop, be reduced to just once or twice a year, or charged an extra fee, such as $10 or $15 per item.
The biggest issue, however, is going to be how to include universal recycling. There is a lot of popular support for alleyside/curbside recycling as part of the base contract. Currently, anyone who wants to recycle has to pay extra and are billed directly by the hauler. That means that a household like mine that recycles pays three times for garbage service: once on our property taxes, once on our water bill, and once directly to Waste Management. Most households are not willing to pay three times for garbage hauling, so they just throw all their recyclables away in the regular trash. In other words, our current system incentivizes people not to recycle. That needs to be changed.
However, that will cost more money. So the question becomes how to pay for such service. One idea is to do the opposite of what we’re doing now: make recycling pickup free, but charge a fee for regular garbage. The way they do this in Morton is by selling trash stickers. However, in a more urban area, there is concern that this might lead to more illegal dumping or other unsanitary conditions as some people attempt to avoid the fee. So another idea is to make all collections every-other week. Regular garbage would be picked up on odd weeks, and recycling would be picked up on even weeks, for instance.
One other change that has been recommended in order to save money is switching to a sticker system for yard waste. Right now, unlimited yard waste disposal is included in the base contract. The cost of that service could be offset or possibly covered completely by charging residents a fee per bag of yard waste. On the other hand, this would be yet another reduction in services city residents already enjoy and for which they already pay twice.
Who would have thought garbage could be so complicated?
How would you plug the city’s deficit?
The Journal Star is reporting that taxes and/or fees will have to be raised to plug the deficit, according to Mayor Ardis:
Ardis didn’t say which revenue will be increased, other than to say it could be a combination of things, such as a possible sales tax increase or a water utility fee…. The mayor did say it was unlikely the city’s portion of the property tax will be increased, citing other government bodies such as District 150 that have already increased their tax rate. “It would be the absolute last thing we’ll look at,” Ardis said. “(The property tax) is tapped.”
Wait a minute. The reason we can’t raise the property tax is because other taxing bodies have “already increased their tax rate”? That makes absolutely no sense, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument. Why then should we consider raising the sales tax, considering the county just raised their tax rate? Why doesn’t the same “logic” apply?
And if the city’s revenue-producing abilities are limited because other taxing bodies are raising their rates, then the first thing we need to do is stop giving any of our revenue to those other taxing bodies. For instance, the city should immediately stop giving any tax money to the park district or the school district. Does that mean that there will be no programming on the riverfront? Tough! Does that mean that district 150 won’t get city-provided crossing guards? Sorry! The city needs to use all its available revenue to provide its own core services, not services for other taxing bodies.
Frankly, the mayor’s comments should come as no surprise. A couple council meetings ago, council members were given a packet of information available for download from the city’s website about the budget. Included was this document outlining possible cuts and revenue increases. In fact, since we have that info, here’s what I’d like to do:
I’d like you to pretend you’re a city council member. (You should be feeling a power trip right about now; if you don’t, you’re not pretending right.) Okay, council person? Now, you have to plug a $10 million structural budget deficit by either cutting costs, increasing revenues, or a combination of both.
How would you do it?
You can use the options provided in the aforementioned report, or add your own. It has to be realistic (so, for example, “print money out of thin air like the Federal Reserve” is not acceptable). Also, it has to be a long-term solution because this is a structural deficit. Short-term stop-gap measures don’t count.
Just to make things easier, here’s a summary of options outlined in the report:
INCOME OPTIONS
- Property Tax — Each $.01 added to the levy raises $200,000. The owner of a $200,000 house would pay $6.60 more in property taxes annually per penny.
- Water Utility Tax or Franchise Fee — A 5% utility tax or franchise fee placed on the use of water would yield approximately $1,200,000 each year.
- Sales Tax — An additional .25% increase in the home rule sales tax would bring in an estimated $3,850,000 each year.
- Package Liquor Tax — 2% tax on package liquor would raise about $700,000 annually.
- Parking Tickets — If the $10 fine was raised to $15, an additional $90,000 in revenue annually.
- Garbage Fee — Peoria residential properties pay $6 each month in garbage fees. For every dollar the monthly rate is raised, the City would gain an additional $336,000 annually.
- Motor Fuel Tax — The City currently collects $.02 per gallon of fuel sold. For every penny added, approximately an additional $400,000 in revenue.
- Stormwater Utility Fee — Rough estimates indicate charging $2.00 per month per “residential unit” would generate about $1.2 million.
COST-CUTTING OPTIONS
- Wage Adjustment — Cutting the salary increases of staff from 4.75% (union) and 3.5% (management) to 2.5% across the board would save $1,839,113.64. Cutting them to 1% would save $3,088,880.53.
- Voluntary Separation Initiative — No amount given, but the idea would be to offer early retirement to long-time employees who make high salaries, thus reducing the total payroll.
- Service Cuts/Layoffs — Again, no amount given, since it would depend on which services the city decided to cut. What services do you think should be eliminated? We may be able to find out how much such a cut would save.
- Medical Premium Increase — If the rate at which employees participated in the base premium cost were raised by 5% for all types of coverage, the City would save an estimated $811,000 in FY2010, based on 2009 premium costs. A family membership in the PPO would cost the employee $408.92 each month vs. the current rate of $272.61.
- Reduce Capital Budget — For FY2009, Council approved a Community Investment Plan that funded $21,434,873 worth of projects. Of that amount, only $8,908,895 was in discretionary spending (funding sources not strictly limited to capital projects). This amount represented only 55% of the project funding ($17M) identified by staff and Council.
- Use of HRA Taxes — The primary and obligated use of the proceeds of the Hotel-Restaurant-Amusement Tax is to pay down the Civic Center bonds. Annually, any revenue remaining after bond payments is apportioned by agreement to the Civic Center Authority, Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, ArtsPartners and other community organizations. Many communities use their HRA taxes to support operating or capital projects.
Okay, you have the raw data. Now find $10 million. On your marks. Get set. Go!