Category Archives: City of Peoria

Let’s talk taxes

November 20, 2007 C. J. Summers 7 Comments

Since tonight is the Truth in Taxation public hearing (the Journal Star has a good article on this by John Sharp), let’s talk about taxes.

Here’s an interesting chart that I got from City Manager Randy Oliver. It shows a comparison of property tax rates from 1986-2006. The dark blue line is the City of Peoria’s tax rate (you can click on the graph to look at a larger image of it):

Now the question is, what conclusions should we draw from this raw data?

Well, the thing that jumps out at you first is the precipitous drop in the city’s property tax rate around 1991-1992. I’d like to know what caused that. Did the city cut its budget that much that year? Or did they just shift the revenue source to something else, like motor fuel taxes or utility taxes? I’ve written a couple of people at the city with these questions, but they haven’t found an answer yet (any of my long-time-Peoria-resident readers happen to recall?).

Here are some other numbers to consider while comparing the tax rate over the past 20 years:

	1986	2006	Difference
Population	117,766	112,936	-4,830
Total Area	41.02 mi.²	48.13 mi.²	+7.11 mi.²
EAV	$733,041,040	$1,623,388,425	+$890,347,385
Tax Rate per $100 EAV	2.6596	1.2879	1.3717
Tax Receipts excl. TIFs	$13,036,924	$21,336,394	+$8,299,470

Interesting stuff, isn’t it? Even though the tax rate dropped by more than half between 1986 and 2006, revenue increased by more than 63% (or an average of roughly 3% per year). For most of the past 20 years, the city has locked down the tax rate and lived off the increase in Equalized Assessed Value (EAV). But can that go on forever?

The people I’ve talked to, including the city’s finance director, say no. In fact, adjusted for inflation, the tax receipts have actually gone down over the last 20 years. That $13 million in 1986 equals $23.98 million in 2006 dollars (according to this calculator).

A recent article in the National Cities Newspaper titled, “City Finances Okay for Now; Storm Clouds Ahead” (10/22/2007) warns about the near future:

“The picture for 2008 is less optimistic with city officials predicting a slowdown in revenues and increased spending pressures. Concerns about the health of real estate markets and their potential impacts on property taxes, combined with increased calls for property tax relief from homeowners and residents, will cloud the picture in 2008. Health care and pension costs, in particular, are increasing at a faster rate than city revenues.”

So what’s a city to do? People don’t want their property taxes to go up, but the city has obligations that it can’t just cut (e.g., basic services, health care/benefits for city employees, the combined sewer overflow project, etc.). And the rise in EAV obviously isn’t cutting it. That’s why we have the garbage tax. And the HRA tax. And sales tax. And the fuel tax. And a plethora of other taxes. These are new revenue streams that were created so the council could get the money the city needs and claim they “held the line on taxes.”

But that’s not really true, is it? Taxes are going up. Property tax revenues are going up because of increasing EAV, even if the tax rate remains the same. And in addition, other taxes are being raised and/or created to fill the gap that remains. So, we’re only fooling ourselves by insisting that property taxes remain low. We’re not saving any money or paying any less in taxes. The city’s still getting their money through other means.

So I think the real question we have to ask ourselves is, what’s the fairest way to raise revenue for the city? For example, is it fairer to put a $6 surcharge on water bills (a regressive tax), or to raise property taxes (a progressive tax)? Are these new revenue streams a bigger burden on the poor?

City of Peoria, Crime, State of Illinois

Peoria’s crime ranking: N/A

November 19, 2007 C. J. Summers 4 Comments

This morning on the news, one of the big stories was that the new City Crime Rankings report was released by CQ Press, and that Detroit had regained the title of Most Dangerous City (St. Louis had the top spot last year). Of course, I wanted to know where Peoria ranked.

It doesn’t. Nor does Chicago or a host of other Illinois cities. The report explains:

The data collection method used by the states of Illinois and Minnesota for the offense of forcible rape did not meet the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) guidelines in 2006 (Rockford, IL, is an exception). As those rape numbers are not available, the following cities are not included in our Safest City rankings: Aurora, IL; Chicago, IL; Joliet, IL; Naperville, IL; Peoria, IL; Springfield, IL; Bloomington, MN; Duluth, MN; Minneapolis, MN; Rochester, MN; and St Paul, MN.

In other words, they couldn’t make an apples-to-apples comparison with the other cities; hence, no ranking. Too bad. It would have been interesting to see how we stack up against other cities our size.

City of Peoria, Public Services - General

HOI spotlights accessibility deficiencies

November 15, 2007 C. J. Summers 11 Comments

HOI News (WHOI, channel 19) has been looking at how well the City of Peoria meets handicap accessibility standards — specifically for those in wheelchairs. Reporter Jessica Wheeler actually tried getting around town in a wheelchair, and she found out it’s not easy.

They’ve aired a couple of reports called “Wheelchair Challenge” — you can see/read them here and here. I found this information compelling:

There are 7,642 corners in the city, of those- just 387 have the new A.D.A. ramps that became standard in 2004.

2,603 have the old A.D.A. style ramps.

1,143 of the corners have no ramps at all.

1,801 have ramps that don’t meet A.D.A. Standards.

While the other 1,708 have no sidewalks at all.

That means just 5% of the city’s corners meet the new A.D.A. standards.

Something the new Peoria Public Works Director says will be addressed.

I have to admit, I never realized the city’s ADA accessibility for sidewalks was as deficient as it is. In all the talk about putting in sidewalks for able-bodied high schoolers so they (presumably) won’t walk in the middle of the street, it’s amazing that this kind of inaccessibility for the disabled among us hasn’t been given a higher profile during the budget process.

Kudos to HOI for raising awareness of this need.

City Council, City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Zoning Commission

ZC, Council votes undercut Land Development Code

November 14, 2007 C. J. Summers 23 Comments

Recent votes by the Zoning Commission and the City Council undercut the very basis of the city’s recently-adopted Land Development Code. The controversy centers around a special use request from St. Ann’s church.

St. Ann’s church wants to build an 8,000-square-foot parish hall adjacent to their church on the south side of Peoria, 1010 S. Louisa St. In order to do that, some land has to be rezoned (to “R4” residential) and a special use permit granted (for church use), which means it had to go before the Zoning Commission. The zoning regulation for this area is the recently-adopted Land Development Code.

Land Development Code

Since this is a special use request, the Land Development Code (LDC) does not have specific guidelines. After all, the writers of the Land Development Code couldn’t possibly foresee and codify regulations for every conceivable special-use request. But what we do have are the intent statements in the document. For example, the intent statement in the LDC for R4 districts reads (4.1.1.D):

The R4 District is intended to preserve established single-family neighborhoods within the Heart of Peoria. The district is also intended to allow for new single-family houses on small lots in development patterns that mimic established portions of surrounding neighborhoods at a density not to exceed 11.62 gross dwelling units per acre.

Add to that the overall intent of the entire LDC (1.5.A and B):

The overriding intent of this development code is to implement the Heart of Peoria Plan…. New development regulations for the Heart of Peoria are necessary because the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances include provisions that work against the realization of a revitalized, pedestrian-friendly commercial areas, and the renovation and preservation of inner city neighborhoods. This development code in contrast with previous codes, focuses on the creation of mixed-use, walkable
neighborhoods.

It goes on to state some specific intentions of implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan, including, “Prohibit blank walls along the sidewalk,” “Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods,” “Promote infill development for vacant parcels that reflects the surrounding scale and character,” “Control the scale and fit of new development patterns,” and “Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping
them apart.”

Furthermore, the specific regulations for R4 districts give some guidance as well. They include such things as, “Roof height and building profile for new buildings shall seek to be compatible with adjacent structures” (4.1.5.B.2), “The scale and mass of new homes or remodeled houses shall be compatible with adjacent houses” (4.1.5.G.1), “Building materials for new houses shall be similar to other houses on the block” (4.1.5.G.3), and “Architectural styles shall be compatible with other architectural styles on the block” (4.1.5.G.4).

Not all regulations that apply to houses can be applied to an 8,000-square-foot parish hall (e.g., porches), but it’s clear from the LDC that scale and mass, architectural styles, and building materials are all important items.

Planning and Growth

So when St. Ann’s came to the city asking for this special use and proposed a building that looks like this (click for larger view):

…naturally, Planning and Growth had some concerns. It looks like a warehouse. It’s architecturally incompatible with other structures on the block. The scale and fit of this structure is wrong for the neighborhood. So, Planning and Growth made a simple recommendation regarding this problem (Wikipedia link added):

The architecture of the parish hall shall be modified through the use of ground level windows, pilasters or other architectural features which break-up the mass of the structure into smaller visual components.

They didn’t ask them to redesign the whole building. They didn’t ask them to make the building smaller. All they asked was that some elements be added that would make the architecture and scale look and feel more compatible with the block, consistent with the LDC’s intent.

Zoning Commission

Well, that went over like a lead balloon at the Zoning Commission meeting. First, the petitioner stated that adding windows couldn’t be done because there’s too much vandalism in the area and the windows would get broken. Think about that logic for a while and how such a view, if accepted, could influence the built environment on the south side. He also stated he didn’t want “some arbitrary opinion” of what would be acceptable architecture for the building. Of course, neither does city staff — they can’t legally require something that’s “arbitrary.” Thus, they based their recommendation on the LDC, as explained above.

Several of the Zoning Commission members, however, agreed with the petitioner and questioned why the city was making architectural suggestions at all — as if form-based codes were a completely foreign concept to them. (In fact, that’s likely the case, since the most outspoken opponents of P&G’s suggestion didn’t attend any of the consultant-selection meetings, the subsequent charrettes, or the all-committee training sessions.) The Journal Star reported on the meeting, and printed these quotes:

“I’m surprised the city of Peoria is getting involved in the architectural business,” commissioner Richard Unes said. Commissioner Greg Hunziker agreed. “I don’t think we have the authority to tell them how to build their building.”

City beat reporter John Sharp went on to describe how “some were upset that it would be up to the Planning and Growth Management Department to ultimately determine if the architecture was good enough for the project to move forward.” (PJS, 11/02/2007)

These comments are representative of the discussion. Unes’s comment is especially interesting since he shouldn’t have been discussing the item at all — his company, Peoria Metro Construction, is doing the design and construction work for St. Ann’s (he did abstain from voting, at least). But I digress. These comments display a disturbing lack of understanding regarding the purpose of the LDC and the authority of the City to regulate the built environment through the use of form-based codes.

I talked to Heart of Peoria Commissioner Beth Akeson about the Zoning Commission’s deliberation. She said that “the city has a duty to intercede when building proposals, such as the addition to St. Ann’s, are brought forward,” and that “the best cities in the country routinely influence decisions like these.”

Of course, the Zoning Commission doesn’t have any input from the Heart of Peoria Commission because, since the resignation of Chad Bixby, there has been no Heart of Peoria Commissioner assigned to the Zoning Commission. You may recall that the Committee on Commissions recommended that the Heart of Peoria Commissioners be dual-appointed to other key commissions in the city, including the Zoning Commission.

In the end, the Zoning Commission voted to approve the special use request, but specifically excluded staff’s recommendation to modify the architecture. That sent it on to the City Council, which considered the request last night.

City Council

The City Council stood by the Zoning Commission’s recommendation, but for different reasons. At-large councilman Eric Turner and first-district councilman Clyde Gulley expressed concern over the additional costs of making the building compatible with the surrounding architecture. They feared that requiring the building to look better would keep redevelopment from happening. Now think about that logic for a while. The only conclusion I can draw is that they believe any development, no matter how incompatible, is better than no development. And that belief, dear readers, is why Peoria looks the way it does.

Interestingly, no actual cost estimates were provided for consideration, nor was there any indication from the church that they would scrap their plans if the city were to require the building to look better. So these concerns were acted upon in the absence of any real facts. The council voted to approve the Zoning Commission’s recommendation with only council members Sandberg and Van Auken voting “no.”

Conclusion

In fact, it probably would cost more to make the building more compatible. No one is denying that. But no one is considering the cost of incompatible building design. Do you think home values next to this warehouse-looking structure are going to go up or down as a result of this development? Do you think the houses on Cooper are going to go up or down in value once the five-story parking deck is in their back yards? It’s not that these mixed uses can’t exist side-by-side in harmony; it’s that the form of the built structure makes all the difference. This is Form-Based Codes 101.

Commissioner Akeson said it best when she wrote to me recently, “additional cost in the short term will be outweighed by the long-term benefit of infill that contributes to the overall value of homes in the older neighborhoods. Home values are influenced by construction quality and architectural design. Inappropriate infill will reduce the value of neighborhoods. The only way to guarantee improved quality of future infill projects is to set minimum basic standards to improve quality and design.”

During the deliberation of St. Ann’s special use request, the Zoning Commission and City Council have expressed objections that undermine the purpose and goals of the Land Development Code — a code that they voted for, based on a Plan that they adopted “in principle.” Let’s hope this was an exception, and that the exception doesn’t become the rule.

City of Peoria

The Bell doesn’t even say goodbye

November 12, 2007 C. J. Summers 7 Comments

I have a gift certificate to The Bell, a local men’s clothing store. But I can’t use it, because The Bell is no longer a local men’s clothing store. It’s no longer any store at all.

Paul Gordon reported Sunday that The Bell closed on August 31 — without telling anyone they were going to close.

I used to get postcards from The Bell telling me of their sales, and I’ve been meaning to get over there to buy some new shirts and use up my gift certificate. It would have been nice if I had gotten a postcard saying they were going out of business.

According to the article, the closing was due to changing clothing styles (no one dresses up anymore). That’s certainly plausible. But I can’t help but wonder if changing locations (they went from a highly visible location across the street from Sheridan Village to a more or less invisible corner near Godfather’s pizza) and a decline in good customer service didn’t take its toll as well. As for the latter issue, I’ll give you a personal example.

I went in a few month ago to buy a hat. The size I needed was a special order, which was fine. I asked if I needed to make partial or full payment for the special order, and was told no, I could pay for it when it came in. One month went by… two months…. Finally, I called to ask the status of the special order. I was told that it couldn’t be ordered unless it was prepaid. This was the same guy who had previously told me I didn’t have to pay for it in advance. I guess he really, really didn’t want to sell me that hat. I’ve never quite figured out that one.

So it didn’t surprise me when I saw that they had closed. I just thought they might have told their customers it was coming. It would have been nice to visit the store one more time, maybe get some good sale prices on shirts, and indulge in a little nostalgia of this store that had been in Peoria over 100 years. My grandfather even shopped there.

Instead, I’m left with a worthless gift certificate and a bad memory of poor service. What a shame.

UPDATE: Perhaps this is the reason they didn’t have a going-out-of-business sale:

The Bell Clothing & Shoe House Inc., 5329 N. Sherwood Ave., Peoria; liabilities $261,700; assets $23,608.

David B. Frankel, 5329 N. Sherwood Ave., Peoria; assistant manager, Walgreen’s; liabilities $386,468; assets $216,925.

Gordon’s article didn’t mention the bankruptcy. A sad end to a long-standing Peoria business.

City Council, City of Peoria

On the Agenda: Peoria Urban Living Initiative

November 9, 2007 C. J. Summers 12 Comments

On the City Council’s consent agenda next Tuesday is a proposal to focus the City’s Six Sigma program on attracting homeowners back to the Heart of Peoria. “The City proposes creating a joint study group that will uncover existing programs and examine other possible methods of increasing middle class home ownership in the Heart of Peoria.” Included in the “study group” would be representatives from major employers and a couple city council members appointed by the mayor. It doesn’t appear from the agenda item that the Heart of Peoria Commission will be included in this effort, despite its focus on the Heart of Peoria area.

Here’s the full text of the agenda item:

AGENDA DATE REQUESTED: November 13,2007

ACTION REQUESTED: RECEIVE AND FILE A PLAN TO ENGAGE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY AND MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN AND NEAR DOWNTOWN TO EXAMINE WAYS TO INCREASE MIDDLE CLASS INVESTMENT AND HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE HEART OF PEORIA.

BACKGROUND: The City has been working to revitalize and rebuild the Heart of Peoria. The City has created the Heart of Peoria plan, the Renaissance Park program, an Enterprise Zone and nine Tax increment Financing Districts to lead this effort. Currently, the City also sponsors a program to provide lower interest rates for home buyers, and provides down payment assistance for first home buyers.

However, stabilizing the Heart of Peoria is also in the interest of Peoria employers within this area. These employers are seeking to improve the areas around their operations and are looking to be more competitive in attracting “creative class” employees. The City proposes creating a joint study group that will uncover existing programs and examine other possible methods of increasing middle class home ownership in the Heart of Peoria. Preliminarily, we have identified four major employers for this effort: Caterpillar, Bradley University, Methodist Medical Center and OSF. Other groups, such as District 150 and the Chamber of Commerce, could also be considered.

This study group would be comprised of two parts:

A policy group, comprised of a senior leader from each employer, as selected by that employer. The Mayor would select one or more Councilpersons to chair this policy group. The policy group would examine the high-level issues involved and give direction to the staff to pursue options.

A technical group, tasked with investigating the issues identified by the policy group. This group will be led by Christopher Setti, City of Peoria 6 Sigma Black Belt. Each participating employer would be asked to name an employee (preferably a Black Belt if available) to work with Mr. Setti. Broadly, this group will be determining who the customer of the end product might be; what motivates their home-buying decisions; and what programs could be established [to] increase homeownership in the target area.

The working title of this project is the Peoria Urban Living Initiative. The intent of the program would be to conserve and revitalize our neighborhoods in the Heart of Peoria, while helping our employers recruit and retain valuable employees. While the effort will be guided by the policy group, some of the areas of exploration might be:

The size and scope of down-payment assistance (and other homeownership initiatives) in the target area by both the City and employers.

How taxes can be reduced or mitigated in order to stimulate investment.

The best use of the City’s “bond volume cap” in encouraging homeownership.

Other initiatives, such as Neighborhood LEEDs, that might raise the profile of older neighborhoods.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Improved homeownership in the Heart of Peoria will help to increase revenues to all taxing authorities through higher assessed property values.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: Neighborhood leaders have consistently been in favor of greater homeownership rates. The technical group will seek their input in this initiative.

IMPACT IF APPROVED: The study group will be formed and the issue will be thoroughly examined. The result will be a set of recommendations to the City Council and partner employers about steps that can be taken to improve homeownership.

IMPACT IF DENIED: The City will continue to offer its incentive programs and employers will likely not address the issue.

ALTERNATIVES: None.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VISION: WE HAVE A HEALTHY, THRIVING ECONOMY. GOAL: A. Provide an economic environment that supports existing and new businesses.

City of Peoria, Museum Block

Peoria’s commitment to the museum so far: $16-26 million

November 9, 2007 C. J. Summers 9 Comments

Lakeview Museum Board President Jim Vergon said at last night’s museum presentation to the Peoria County Board, “Over the past four years, our project has received $6 million towards the $30 million goal for public funding, leaving a $24 million gap.” He said this included federal, state, and local support. Later, Caterpillar Vice President Sid Banwart drove home the point: “We’ve looked at a lot of museum complexes around the country and around the Midwest, and we have not been able to find any that were built without substantial public funding,” he said.

What you need to know about these statements is that these museum officials are talking about cash funds. They’re not talking about other benefits such as land use, TIF benefits, etc. In fact, the City of Peoria has provided what I would consider “substantial” public investment in the museum. How much public investment? The city provided these numbers:

The following provides the City’s commitment, as approved by the Mayor and Council, to this project. Please note this analysis assumes a 2009 completion date and does not include federal grant funding.

Land value (65% of $10 million)¹ $ 6,500,000

TIF through 2021² $ 7,525,892

Change in grade of Water Street $ 2,600,000

Sub-Total $16,625,892

Potential Extension of TIF³ $ 9,408,615

Total $ 26,034,507

¹Based on appraised value.
²Assumes completion of the Caterpillar Center and Regional Museum by 2009.
³The original agreement proposes an expansion of the length of the TIF. This assumes the TIF is extended 15 years from the current expiration date.

Land value (65% of $10 million)¹	$ 6,500,000
TIF through 2021²	$ 7,525,892
Change in grade of Water Street	$ 2,600,000
Sub-Total	$16,625,892
Potential Extension of TIF³	$ 9,408,615
Total	$ 26,034,507

To his credit, Jim Richerson did mention these items during his presentation, although he didn’t give any total dollar amounts. The $6 million in “public funding” to which Vergon referred is in addition to the $16-26 million from the city outlined above. That fact should be kept in mind while considering the museum-backers’ request for $24 million more from largely the same taxpayers.

City of Peoria, Traffic

Update on Coves, West Bluff issues

November 9, 2007 C. J. Summers 2 Comments

A couple of updates on recent neighborhood traffic concerns:

The Coves — A public hearing was held Tuesday evening regarding a proposal to put a gate across Sedley street, cutting off vehicular access between the Coves of Charter Oak (a newly-built subdivision with no residents yet) and Vinton Highlands. I talked to a Traffic Commission member and learned that about 16-17 people attended the hearing. The only two who spoke in favor of the gate were the Coves developer, and one resident of Vinton Highlands that lives adjacent to the formerly-dead-end Sedley street. Everyone else spoke against it. The Traffic Commission will make a decision at their next scheduled meeting, but they will likely recommend against putting in a gate.
The Uplands — The Uplands Residential Association (URA) met Thursday night to discuss a proposal to limit access to and from Main street. Specifically, the proposal was to allow only right turns from Main into the Uplands (i.e., onto Elmwood, Institute, Glenwood, Maplewood, and Parkside) and left turns onto Main from the Uplands (except for Parkside). The purpose was to mitigate cut-through traffic. The proposal was defeated 43-12. However, association members all agreed that speeding in the neighborhood is a problem, so the URA officers will now be putting together a proposal for traffic calming in the neighborhood.

City Council, City of Peoria, Taxes

What’s the fairest way to raise revenue?

November 7, 2007 C. J. Summers 2 Comments

Scales The city council is going to have a chance again to make some decisions about how they raise revenue. Specifically, they’ll have to decide whether they will be raising property taxes.

First, let’s talk about the council’s action last night. Here’s how the Journal Star reported the vote:

With an 8-2 vote Tuesday, the council endorsed a plan to have a public hearing to discuss the merits of hiking the tax rate 16 percent, from $1.29 per $100 of assessed value to $1.50.

Accurate, of course, but I think it’s worth parsing a little bit. There are two parts to this action: (1) a public hearing, and (2) a maximum tax rate to be considered.

Public Hearing

First of all, the public hearing was going to have to take place regardless of whether the council decided to do anything with the rate. That’s because tax revenue is projected to increase by more than 5% next year. City Manager Randy Oliver explains:

The increase in property tax revenue cannot exceed 5% of last year’s amount without a Truth in Taxation Hearing. The City is projecting a 3.5% increase from assessment growth and 3% from new construction. Consequently, a Truth in Taxation Hearing is required. The question is the amount to advertise.

The only way the city could get out of a Truth in Taxation hearing is to agree to lower the tax rate so the proposed revenue growth would be less than 5%. Well, no one’s calling for the tax rate to be decreased, so the hearing is a foregone conclusion.

Maximum Rate

Now the question is, as Mr. Oliver points out, “the amount to advertise.” When the city holds a Truth in Taxation hearing, they have to set a maximum rate. They could decide to set the maximum rate at its current level ($1.29 per $100 assessed value). Or they could decide to set the rate at any amount above that to leave open the option of a property tax increase. However, the maximum rate they set for the hearing does not obligate them to raise the rate to that level. Again, Mr. Oliver explains:

If you will recall last year, the Mayor and Council directed staff to advertise a rate approximately 20 cents higher than the current rate to provide the flexibility to consider elimination of the garbage fee and provide additional police and fire protection. While the Mayor and Council elected to advertise the increased rate they subsequently decided to leave the tax rate unchanged. The end result is that the adopted tax rate cannot exceed the advertised rate.

The council voted 8-2 to set the maximum rate at $1.50 per $100 assessed value — 16 cents higher than the current level. It doesn’t obligate them to raise the rate to that amount, but it does give them the option of raising the rate to that amount, if they so choose.

What’s the fairest way?

And that brings me to the real subject of this post. What is the fairest way to raise revenue for things like police and fire, garbage pickup, public works, etc.? Is it to raise that revenue through property taxes or service fees?

If you talk to at-large councilman George Jacob, he’ll tell you that he doesn’t think raising taxes is the fair way. There are lots of properties that don’t pay property taxes in the city — hospitals, churches, credit unions, and other non-profit groups. Why shouldn’t all the people/institutions who benefit from police and fire services pay to support those services?

Those who hold this view look for ways to collect revenue from these not-for-profit entities through things like utility taxes. If the city were to impose a 5% water usage fee, for instance, the elderly widow that uses hardly any water would pay next to nothing in utility taxes, but the hospitals and churches and other tax-exempt institutions that use lots of water would pay a hefty sum.

Talk to at-large councilman Gary Sandberg, though, and he has a different idea. If the belief is that the people who benefit from a service should pay for that service, then we don’t need to institute new fees, he says. Let’s start by simply eliminating subsidies that only benefit a few people and make them pay their own way. For example, instead of subsidizing downtown parking decks for over $1 million a year, let’s double our parking rates and use that money on something that would benefit the most citizens — such as eliminating the garbage fee, adding police resources, and/or improving our infrastructure.

Sandberg also points out that to replace the $6 garbage fee with a property tax increase would mean that people with homes valued under $250,000 or so would actually be paying less.

If you ask me, it seems the underlying argument here is really about whether non-profit institutions should be exempt from property taxes or not. In one sense, it wouldn’t do the city any good to debate that topic because there’s nothing they can do to change it. But it would appear that those who favor service fees over property tax increases philosophically believe that all property owners should be paying for the services from which they benefit, and service fees are a way to get that money. Thus, even though the city can’t do anything about it, I think the topic should be discussed, since it’s the underpinning of the service fee argument.

*Full-disclosure: I work for a non-profit organization that doesn’t pay property taxes.