Category Archives: Peoria Mayor

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Weaver decides against mayoral run

8 Comments

PEORIA — At-large City Councilman Chuck Weaver announced today via press release that he will not run for Peoria mayor this election cycle.

Weaver told the Peoria Chronicle that when he started exploring a mayoral run, incumbent Mayor Jim Ardis had not yet announced whether he would be seeking reelection. Now that Ardis has announced, Weaver said he thought a mayoral contest would be a distraction from the work the mayor and the council are doing.

Weaver also said that exploring a run for mayor allowed him to “get back out and talk to folks.” In the process, he learned that his base has gotten bigger and more diverse since he was first elected.

Mayor Ardis is currently the only announced candidate for mayor.

Here’s the press release:

Continue reading Weaver decides against mayoral run →

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Mayor

Mayor/Council=pot, Journal Star=kettle

7 Comments

The Mayor held a press conference on Monday and released a letter that he and the rest of the City Council members signed (except for Gary Sandberg, natch) and sent to Journal Star publisher Ken Mauser. You can read it at PeoriaWatchdog.com, the official site of Peoria Unit 86 of the United Media Guild.

Among other things, Mayor Ardis says, “I and other city leaders are concerned about plans we’ve heard to outsource jobs, slash employees and cut wages.” And later in the letter:

I fail to see how additional moves against employees and staffing would allow the newspaper to continue as a valuable public watchdog and community resource. I have never run a newspaper. But less is surely not more, when it comes to reporting the news.

Does it strike anyone else odd that this concern is coming from a mayor and council that recently eliminated 52 positions themselves, including a third of the inspections/code enforcement department? I mean, I’ve never run a City, but less is surely not more when it comes to inspections and code enforcement. I fail to see how all these moves against employees and staffing would allow the City to add value to the taxpayers.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the way GateHouse Media is pillaging the Journal Star. I actually agree with the sentiments in the letter. I just think it’s a little inappropriate for the Mayor and Council to be passing judgment when they have acted similarly. After you slash important services to the taxpayers while simultaneously giving over $30 million to an out-of-town developer, it doesn’t give you much moral standing to scold the Journal Star’s publisher for doing essentially the same thing.

City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department, Peoria Mayor

Ardis pooh-poohs city-run ambulance service, but explanation raises more questions

21 Comments

The City Council candidates are often asked at forums what ideas we have for generating more revenue for the city. Gary Sandberg has suggested that the City should provide its own ambulance service, severing its contract with Advanced Medical Transport (AMT). The way he sees it, we already have a professional fire department that is first on the scene and capable of providing basic life support (BLS); it would not take much to have these guys trained to provide advanced life support (ALS) as well.

Mayor Jim Ardis apparently heard about this and took up his pen to write an editorial in the Journal Star. He says:

During the current campaign for City Council, some candidates have suggested that the city consider starting its own ambulance service. As a 14-year veteran on the council, I have studied this question time and again and the answer is always the same. A city-operated ambulance provider will require a taxpayer subsidy from our general fund and lose millions of dollars each year.

AMT doesn’t receive a taxpayer subsidy. In fact, AMT pays the city a dispatch fee that generates $100,000 per year. We have a good medical emergency response system. It is not broken and meets the highest national standards defined to date. Private studies have provided the same conclusion.

Start-up costs to begin transport would be nearly $3.5 million for equipment and training. AMT writes off more than $2 million per year as uncollectable, bad debt. The company also discounts $5 million for Medicare and Medicaid. The city could not afford to lose a penny of revenue and still wouldn’t run this operation in the black. Simply put, transport is not a core service for our citizens.

…Our ambulance service agreement with our professional fire department is an idea that works. Adding to our already strained payroll is an idea that does not make sense.

I’m not going to dismiss Ardis’s criticism out of hand. But this explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Given the numbers put forth in this editorial, one has to wonder how AMT didn’t go bankrupt years ago. Why is AMT able to operate in the black, but the City of Peoria couldn’t? Since AMT is a not-for-profit organization, I took a look at its Form 990.

According to the 2009 Form 990 (the latest available), AMT’s total revenue was $11,696,795. That revenue went up every year from 2005 ($9,224,551) to 2009. Total expenses were $10,776,223, including the executive director’s salary of $256,549, the assistant executive director’s salary of $113,612, and the controller’s salary of $110,651. Considering they’re a non-profit company, and thus their services are priced accordingly, I’d say they’re doing pretty well, and have been for a number of years.

Again, I’m not saying that Ardis is necessarily wrong — I’m just saying his article doesn’t explain why AMT is able to make almost a million dollars a year and pay handsome salaries to its top brass, but somehow the City would lose money hand over fist if it provided the same service. I’m also unclear why we would have to “[add] to our already strained payroll.” Why couldn’t the existing personnel who are already BLS-trained also be ALS-trained? There would be training and equipment costs to be sure, but why couldn’t those costs be covered by the revenue the City would receive the same way AMT’s training and equipment costs are covered by the revenue they receive?

We need Paul Harvey to give us the rest of the story.

City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Public Schools

Education Forum to be held this week in Peoria

107 Comments

From my inbox:

Reforming Schools in Peoria

On Friday, February 18, 2011, Mayor Jim Ardis will host a community meeting that includes elected officials, governmental bodies, educators, business leaders and staff members.  The meeting will be held from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., at Peoria City Hall, in Room 400.

The forum will include a presentation by Bob Darling, President of the Peoria Federation of Teachers Union, in conjunction with Dr. Patrick Dolan, a nationally recognized consultant in the field of education change and structure. The presentation is entitled Reforming Schools in Peoria.  The topic relates to efforts by Mr. Darling and Dr. Dolan to move into a new era of education unionism. 

And this:

AFT President Randi Weingarten to Visit Peoria Mayor, School Teachers and Education Leaders

WASHINGTON—American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on Thursday will visit teachers and students at Glenn Oak Primary School, and later meet with Mayor Jim Ardis and representatives from Peoria’s education community to discuss the ways that teachers and school district officials are collaborating to improve public education in the city as many are now opting for Trilogy Education Services.

“In a time when there’s so much finger-pointing around education, it’s exciting to see the union, school district and other stakeholders working together to support teachers’ efforts to improve the lives of children,” said Weingarten.

Peoria is the first stop on the AFT’s “Making a Difference Every Day” tour, which highlights the positive influence educators and public employees have on the people and communities they serve.

WHO: Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis; AFT President Randi Weingarten; Peoria Education Liaison Bob Collier; Peoria Superintendent Grenita Lathan; Illinois Federation of Teachers President Bob Montgomery; Peoria Federation of Teachers President Bob Darling

WHAT: “Making a Difference Every Day” in Peoria

WHEN: Schedule for February 17 (Members of the media are invited to attend)

8 a.m.: School visit to Glenn Oak Primary School for a closer look at the school’s successful teacher mentoring and induction program. Meet at 809 E. Frye Ave., Peoria.

1 p.m.: Luncheon and education discussion with Mayor Jim Ardis and members of Peoria’s education community. Meet at Jim’s Steakhouse, 110 SW Jefferson Ave.

City of Peoria, Peoria County, Peoria County Sheriff, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Police

Chief, Sheriff say two departments are not comparable

58 Comments

At Tuesday’s State of the City address, Mayor Ardis announced a new initiative to see what it would take to combine the City and County police departments. This prompted the Journal Star to gather a few basic facts about the two forces:

The city’s Police Department has 214 employees and operates on a $21 million budget; the Sheriff’s Department has roughly 200 employees and operates on a $13 million budget.

A difference of 14 employees and $8 million seemed surprisingly large to me. So I asked Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard and Peoria County Sheriff Mike McCoy why there is such a disparity.

The first thing Settingsgaard wanted to clear up was that he actually has 248 total employees — the 214 number was the total of “sworn officers.” Even with that said, though, he still felt that a comparison of the two forces is “more apples to oranges than it is apples to apples.”

“[W]ithout a close comparison of both of our agencies, to include operations, budgets, staff, contracts, etc., it is impossible to tell you all the reasons there is a legitimate difference in budget numbers beyond just salaries,” Settingsgaard explained.

I would argue that the Sheriff’s Office and the Peoria Police Department are more dissimilar then they are similar. Yes we both have traditional patrol and traditional law enforcement functions but there are many more facets of what we do that is very different from one another. I don’t speak for the Sheriff and I would be interested to hear his take on it, but I believe the jail and the Court house account for the majority of his staff and his Office’s workload. I would guess that the “policing” part of law enforcement is a smaller part of his overall operation. In my Department, traditional “policing” is the vast majority of what we do and 217 of my 248 people are sworn officers as a result. I would not be surprised if a much higher percentage of my people are sworn versus civilian than what you would find on the County side and sworn staff are more costly.

There are other vast differences in areas of responsibility from crime rates, to total population, to calls for service, to poverty/income levels, etc.

It is critical to understand that I don’t point out these differences to say that one entity is better than the other. For everything I could tell you that I have to do more of, the Sheriff could probably list just as many that his staff is responsible for that I am not. I can’t tell you how many thousands of prisoners I didn’t have to house or feed that the Sheriff did. My point is that the two organizations are very different and a simple comparison of cost per employee borders on meaningless without an understanding of how different an urban municipal police department is from a sheriff’s office, and without drilling down into the level of great detail needed to understand those differences, drawing meaningful conclusions is risky at best.

Sheriff McCoy agreed. “Trying to compare agencies, on a wide level, does not work out. Comparing period …does not work out. We each have some similar functions and we have some unique functions.”

In addition to basic patrol services for 648 square miles and having contracts with nine different communities for police and dispatch services, the Peoria County Sheriff’s Office operates the ONLY Jail in Peoria County, booking in 17,000 people each year. We also serve all the civil papers for the courts as well as provide security for the Peoria Airport.

Nevertheless, McCoy did allow this observation: “In my opinion, cost differences primarily relate to individual pay and benefit packages. Peoria City Officers are paid at a higher rate than Peoria County Deputies, all thru the pay grades. Compounded, these costs become staggering for both agencies.”

And this is why the Peoria police union is not too excited about the prospect of combining forces. The given reason for combining forces is to save money, and clearly no money is going to be saved by bringing both forces up to the same salary level as city officers.

According to another Journal Star report, “A starting police officer who completes a probationary period earns $51,994 annually; a sheriff’s deputy’s starting salary is $43,227.” And there are also different pension programs: “the city’s police pension program is governed through contribution limits set by the General Assembly; sheriff’s deputies are part of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF).”

Undoubtedly, there can be some savings by eliminating redundancies and finding new efficiencies by working together, but that’s not going to save enough money to get the City out of its structural deficit. When talks turn to salaries, the police union has already made it clear that they will fight to keep the salaries and benefits they’ve won. I don’t envy the Chief or the Sheriff as they take on this consolidation initiative.

Peoria Mayor

Just because it’s not illegal doesn’t mean you should do it

9 Comments

In an earlier post I explained why I thought the Mayor was not breaking any laws by using City stationery to write letters of support for another candidate. However, just because something is not illegal, that doesn’t make it a wise or appropriate thing to do. Another letter has surfaced written by Ardis on City stationery — this time a plea to a judge to go easy on a guy facing felony drug charges.

Ardis’ argument (given after he was confronted about the first letter) goes like this:

When first asked by the Journal Star why he sent the fundraising request on city letterhead, Ardis responded, “Because I support (Vespa). I’m the mayor. Why not?”

I’ll buy this logic if Ardis agrees that he could have written the same letter on ELM (his employer’s) stationery and could have made the same argument — i.e., “I support [the candidate]. I’m VP of Regional Operations for ELM. Why not?” Of course, he can’t, as most people recognize that you don’t write personal letters on your employer’s stationery. Most people recognize that when you write something on company letterhead, it communicates that you’re speaking on behalf of the company. The same thing happens when you write on City letterhead — it communicates that you’re speaking in your official capacity on behalf of the City, if you need legal advisory, we invite you to read more about a trustworthy firm over here.
It’s as simple as this: personal letters should be written on one’s personal stationery. City stationery should be used for City business.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Mayor

Journal Star judges Ardis by his own measure

42 Comments

On Sunday’s editorial page, the Peoria Journal Star looks back at Mayor Jim Ardis’s first election campaign — the one in which he blamed then-mayor Ransburg for increased crime in Peoria — and judges Ardis’s performance by the same measure. They couch it in language of “getting beyond politics,” but make no mistake, this is a new smackdown of Ardis’s campaign tactics, of which the paper was harshly critical at the time.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, Economic Development, OSF St. Francis, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Public Schools, TIF

The East Village Growth Cell is born

18 Comments

The City of Peoria is taking steps toward establishing another growth cell and tax increment financing (TIF) district. There’s even a website devoted to it. The website is very informative; it includes a map, a frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) page, and a timeline.

Here’s a brief overview of what’s happening: The City has been using a “growth cell strategy” to expand and develop the north and west fringes of the City. They now want to “apply the City’s Growth Cell Strategy to the heart of the City; taking advantage of existing infrastructure and building upon existing public and private investment.” So, they’ve carved out the following area to redevelop:

As you can see, they’re calling this the “East Village Growth Cell.” Already, there is “increase[d] interest in redevelopment,” they say, as a result of the new Glen Oak School and Neighborhood Impact Zone, but “additional public guidance and intervention are needed to further spur growth within the area,” according to the website. So, they want to get this area designated as a “Redevelopment Project Area” and classified as a “blighted area” or “conservation area” so they can create a new TIF. The growth cell and TIF would be coterminous.

That’s it in a nutshell; there’s more information at www.EastVillagePeoria.com.

Of particular interest in this whole process, though, is OSF’s involvement. They’re putting up the money for the study, the website explains: “As one of the larger investors within the East Village, OSF has agreed to advance the cost for the Consultant that will be reimbursed to OSF out of first proceeds if, and only if, Council approves a redevelopment project.” And the Catholic Diocese (specifically Patricia Gibson, Chancellor/Diocesan Attorney) issued the following press release today:

On behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria, I would like to express my overwhelming support for the proposed East Village Growth Cell. This creative and progressive initiative will advance the quality of life of individuals living in the study area and make essential improvements to our most historic and traditional neighborhoods.

Our most precious resources are the families who live throughout the City of Peoria. It’s particularly important that we engage these families throughout the process and demonstrate the City’s commitment to provide resources to reinvest and revitalize the heart of our community. This study area can be the stepping stones to a new beginning for the neighborhoods located within the East Village Growth Cell.

“The proposed study area will be a tremendous blessing to the Peoria community,” says Patricia Gibson, Chancellor/Diocesan Attorney. “The Catholic Diocese has made major investments within the proposed study area including the ongoing restoration of Spalding Institute and a new Pastoral Center. Additionally, St. Mary’s Cathedral and St. Bernard’s Parish are uniquely located within the proposed boundaries. We believe that this neighborhood will continue to grow and flourish, and we are confident that an investment of this magnitude will open the door to future development.”

OSF Saint Francis Medical Center has lead the way in providing the highest quality of health care for our city. They continue to show their commitment to the community with the expansion of their campus. We trust that the continued involvement of OSF will greatly enhance future development.

And the City of Peoria also issued a press release that quotes several community leaders; here’s part of it:

A new strategy will ensure that these projects are completed in a consistent manner, thereby becoming a catalyst for future investment.

On July 13, 2010, Members of the Peoria City Council will be asked to approve a request for proposals to conduct a study in the East Village Growth Cell. The study will determine if the area is eligible for redevelopment. A residential TIF has the potential to create opportunities for major improvements in the study area. This initiative marks the first time that the City of Peoria has done a study that includes housing.

“This could be a unique project in that it incorporates opportunities for residential re-development in the heart of one of our older neighborhoods. I believe the council will be anxious to see the study move forward and have an opportunity to discuss the findings.  Perhaps it will generate a model we can use in other more mature areas of our city,” says Mayor Jim Ardis.

Development in the proposed East Village Growth Cell will compliment the ventures currently undertaken in the area, including investments by OSF Saint Francis Medical Center and District 150 in the surrounding neighborhood. The study will also provide the opportunity to develop businesses within the Growth Cell.

The East Village Growth Cell presents an opportunity for a major collaboration between Peoria School District 150, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, and the City of Peoria.

Dr. Grenita Lathan, Superintendent of Peoria Public Schools said, “We look forward to partnering with the City and OSF on this potential growth opportunity for Glen Oak School and the surrounding neighborhoods.”

“OSF Saint Francis Medical Center is pleased to support the East Village redevelopment project. We believe the stabilization of the neighborhood and the increase in home ownership will have a positive impact on the area,” says Sue Wozniak, Chief Operating Officer, OSF Saint Francis Medical Center.

The study area has the potential to provide for future growth, improvements to the surrounding neighborhoods, and redevelopment of affordable housing.

So, let’s see, the Mayor, the D150 Superintendent, the OSF COO . . . . I do believe this is a highly coordinated effort. All these press releases, the website, a surprise public meeting with residents, and the City Council agenda came out on the same day at the same time. Sounds like yet another deal that has been brokered behind closed doors and rolled out to the public with great fanfare, ala the Wonderful Development.

I hate to be cynical, but this just looks like a typical “done deal” with public input solicited after the fact for window dressing. It bothers me that there’s been so much apparent coordination by public officials out of the public’s eye. The public doesn’t have much time to look into this project before the City votes on pursuing it. That’s generally how the Council likes it.

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Museum Block, Peoria County, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Park District, Taxes

PJS Editorial pretends City asset giveaways have nothing to do with budget crisis

12 Comments

A couple of responses to today’s Journal Star editorial. First, there’s this:

Even Mayor Jim Ardis, who never saw a tax increase he didn’t greet with contempt, seems to have come to the realization that City Hall probably can’t cut its way out of this.

That’s not exactly accurate. Mayor Ardis happily voted to increase sales taxes by 1% within the Hospitality Improvement Zone downtown.

And then, there’s this:

As a result [of the need to make more cuts to city services or raise taxes to balance the budget], a fair number of locals are venting, understandably, though some of them paint either-or scenarios that do not exist. Indeed, the choice is not a recreational trail vs. police officers, or a museum vs. firefighters. The vast majority of the funding for those quality-of-life projects comes out of dedicated revenue streams controlled by other local governments – the park district and county, respectively, with the help of grants. Those dollars couldn’t be used to put more badges on the streets even if the council wanted to. Like them or hate them, those projects — one of them initiated by a successful citizen referendum — are not what created this operating deficit.

First of all, this framing of the argument is obviously a “straw man.” I know of no “locals” who have made the assertions they are countering. Clearly “either-or scenarios” as painted here do not exist. But to imply that these projects have absolutely no relation to the City’s fiscal crisis is also false.

Yes, construction of the rail-to-trail project is funded by the Park District, but it’s only made possible by the City of Peoria giving away a $3 million asset to the Park District for one dollar. The City just threw away $3 million (or at least $750,000, the last bona fide offer to purchase the rail line) while at the same time they need to cut $800,000 from this year’s budget. Why didn’t they put the land up for sale to the highest bidder? Putting this land into the hands of a rail carrier and working with them to woo new manufacturing business to Pioneer Industrial Park would have resulted in raising the tax base in Peoria through new business and new jobs.

Then there’s the Sears block, which has lain dormant for over a decade now because the City won’t enforce deadlines on redevelopment agreements. This is prime real estate that could be parceled off and sold, which would provide a couple of things: income from the initial sale, and on-going revenue from sales and property taxes by the businesses who locate there. Instead, the City is sitting on the land indefinitely, until they can finally give it away for nothing to be used by a non-profit organization that will be a perpetual drain on the county taxpayers.

In addition to the lost opportunity to generate revenue with these assets, taxpayers now have to pay for their development and maintenance in perpetuity. That means we have to pay higher taxes to support these drains on the economy. And that exacerbates the City’s budget woes. Since taxes are high because of increases by other local governments (to which the City directly contributed, as shown above), it puts pressure on the City not to add to the tax burden. And that means the City continues to try to balance its budget by cutting — police, fire, public works, etc.

The Journal Star is simply trying to rationalize its support for non-essential pet projects by using straw-man arguments to dismiss valid criticism.

See also Billy Dennis’s post in response to today’s PJS editorial.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Mayor’s directive elevates district reps’ power

17 Comments

It’s no secret that district council representatives are given a lot of deference on “district specific business” already. Most of the council votes in lock step with the district councilman and are happy to defer items for no other reason than the district council person requested it.

Now Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis wants to take it a step further. He sent this e-mail to council members on Thursday, May 6:

In an effort to insure that agenda items are ready for council debate I have asked the Manager to put a sign-off line on council communications for district council-members to approve district specific agenda items before they are placed on the agenda. This will not only insure that the district member is ready for the item to come forward it should also minimize deferrals because they are, in fact, ready for council consideration.

Thanks in advance to District Members for assuring your district specific business is approved by you for placement on the agenda.

That means that an item will not even be put on the agenda unless the district representative approves it. To state it another way, under this system, items can be kept off the agenda by the will of a single city council representative. For instance, if Clyde Gulley didn’t want the Washington Street/Route 24 changes to come before the council, he could decline to sign off on this district-specific item, which would keep it off the agenda in perpetuity — even if all the other council members wanted to move forward on it.

The Mayor’s directive gives a special privilege to district council representatives, allowing them to dictate the will of the council on items impacting their districts. But where does the Mayor get the power to make such a directive? The City’s Municipal Code and Council Rules don’t confer this authority on the Mayor, nor does any ordinance preclude any council member from submitting an item for the agenda.

Section 2-31 of the municipal code states, “All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, contract documents or other matters to be submitted to the council shall, not later than 10:00 a.m. on Friday preceding each council meeting, be delivered to the city clerk, whereupon the city clerk shall immediately arrange a list of such matters according to the order of business and furnish each member of the council, the mayor, the city manager and the corporation counsel with a copy of the same prior to the council meeting and as far in advance of the meeting as time for preparation will permit.” Nothing in there requires the proposed agenda item go through the Mayor or the district council representative. It merely has to be delivered to the city clerk.

It would appear that the Mayor cannot make such changes without a majority vote of the council… unless, of course, the council voluntarily consents to the Mayor’s missive, abdicating their responsibility to represent all of Peoria, not just their own fiefdoms.