Category Archives: State Legislation

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 1

1 Comment

Do you think District 150 should be allowed to raise your taxes without a referendum?

If not, you’ll want to pay attention to this story. It’s not online, unfortunately, so here’s a lengthy quote from Clare Jellick’s story in the 10/3/2006 Journal Star titled, “Senator fighting Governor’s veto,” subhead, “Shadid supports bill for school construction”:

PEORIA — State Sen. George Shadid wants to override the Governor’s amendatory veto of a bill that benefits District 150, the senator said Monday.

The bill, originally sponsored by Shadid, allows the district to ask the Peoria Public Building Commission to issue bonds for school construction. The district plans to repay the bonds by restructuring its property tax levy, but the governor doesn’t want this method used without voter approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich considers this funding structure as raising taxes; District 150 does not, and Shadid is prepared to fight against the veto.

“(The School Board) is elected by the people in this community, so I’m going to take their word for it that they’re not going to raise taxes,” said Shadid, who initially supported the governor’s proposed changes.

The debate is over what’s considered raising taxes. The district intends to replace old bonds with new bonds, meaning that the tax rate will stay the same, but people will be paying the rate longer. If the district issued no new bonds, the tax rate would drop gradually starting next year.

The old bonds would be paid off completely by 2012. The district is proposing that the rate continue until 2015 at the earliest and 2020 at the latest.

“Could (taxpayers) enjoy a tax reduction without this (legislation)? The answer is clearly yes, but the school district clearly needs to build, and it needs to borrow to do it,” district treasurer Guy Cahill said Monday.

The School Board passed a resolution Monday to cap the tax rate, which is enough assurance for Shadid. He intends to use this during the fall veto session to make his case for the override.

“I feel comfortable with them giving me this resolution that they’re not going to raise the rate,” Shadid said.

[The Governor still stands by his amendatory veto.]

The soonest the amendment could be considered is November. A majority vote in both houses is needed to accept the change. A super-majority (three-fifths vote) in both houses would override Blagojevich’s veto and make the original version of the bill law.

A couple of comments are in order here. First, the school board passed a resolution saying they would cap the tax rate, and that’s enough assurance for Shadid that they won’t raise taxes. There are two obvious problems with this:

  1. The school board changes over time; just because this school board promises to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be overridden by a later board. And, of course, there’s nothing preventing this school board from reneging, either.
  2. Whether or not they promised a rate cap completely misses the point. The tax rate is supposed to go down starting next year. If it doesn’t, then the school board is clearly raising our taxes; Cahill even admitted it. The point is that tax increases such as this should be approved by the voters — you know, the ones who have to pay the taxes.

Secondly, Cahill claims “the school district clearly needs to build.” Oh? Kind of like they “clearly” needed to close Blaine-Sumner Middle School (built in 1927) because the building was so decrepit, yet once it was closed they were somehow miraculously able to immediately rehabilitate it for use as district offices, even adding air conditioning? If this was one of the worst (and since it was one of the first schools to be closed, we can only assume it was), then I’d say their schools aren’t in as bad of shape as we’ve been led to believe.

No, it’s not at all clear that the district needs to build. It’s crystal clear that they want to build. The fact that the district is trying to find a way around the voters only shows they are so certain the public won’t buy it, they’re not even going to attempt a referendum. Rather than go through the difficult work of proving their “need” for new buildings and the funding for them, then pursuading the public to pass a referendum, they’d rather pick taxpayers’ pockets.

And that’s what Senate Bill 2477, without the Governor’s amendatory veto, will allow them to do: pick our pockets. But why has the Illinois General Assembly been in favor of this bill in the first place? And what are the odds they’ll be able to override the Governor’s veto? I’ll explore some possible answers in my next post.

Aaron Schock, AmerenCILCO, Energy Issues, State Legislation

Maybe this is why Schock and other Republicans aren’t signing on to HB 5766

44 Comments

A bill in the Illinois General Assembly, HB5766, would extend the current electricity rate freeze three more years (providing relief for Illinois families) and is supported by the Citizens Utility Board. However, our representative in the 92nd district, Aaron Schock, isn’t signed on as a co-sponsor, nor is any other Republican.

I’d like to say I remembered to follow the money immediately, but to be honest, it wasn’t until challenged by a commenter on Billy’s blog that I actually checked Schock’s campaign contribution record.

According to his Jul-Dec 2005 and Jan-Jun 2006 D-2 Semi-annual campaign contribution reports, Schock received:

  • $1,300 from AMEREN Illinois PAC ($1,000 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $1,250 from MidAmerican Engergy Holdings, which provides power to the Quad Cities ($1,000 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)
  • $800 from Exelon PAC; Exelon owns Commonwealth Edison, which provides power to Chicago ($500 in 2006 and $300 in 2005)
  • $500 from the Illinois Energy Association ($250 in 2006 and $250 in 2005)

That’s a pretty good chunk of change. I imagine he’s probably going to vote against HB 5766.

AmerenCILCO, Energy Issues, State Legislation

Price freeze hasn’t hurt Ameren’s profits

21 Comments

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) has compiled some interesting data on Ameren. Starting in 1997, the year electricity rates were frozen by the state, they graph Ameren’s profits every other proceeding year, right up to 2005. One would expect profits to be modest at best, given the handicap of a rate freeze. But check this out:

Ameren Profits from CUB

Doesn’t look like the price freeze negatively affected their ability to nearly double their profits over the past ten years. So, it appears Ameren doesn’t really need that 55% increase, does it? It would be fair for someone to retort, “Why shouldn’t they be allowed to raise their rates 55%? Let the free market decide!”

Ah, but therein lies the problem. Ameren is still a monopoly in residential services. If you don’t like the Ameren rate hike and decide to go with their competition… you can’t, because there is no competition. Thus, consumers do deserve protection from price gouging — and a good case can be made that this is, in fact, price gouging.

There are those who are trying to help. CUB has “filed a brief with the appellate court, arguing the [rate hike] plan is illegal and hits consumers with unfair market prices at a time when the power companies still hold a monopoly on residential services,” according to today’s Journal Star. And Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is trying to get the results of the recent reverse auction thrown out on the same basis.

CUB also reports, “Under the Electric Consumer Protection Act, HB 5766, rates would be frozen for another three years or until at least 33 percent of residential customers have switched electric suppliers.” So, it looks like there’s a possibility that 55% rate hike may not take effect in January after all.

Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

Governor to protect Peoria taxpayers before signing PBC bill

I’m not a fan of Gov. Blagojevich, but I was thrilled to read this in today’s paper:

“We just want to make sure that if there’s going to be any talk about an increase in anybody’s property tax, that it can’t just happen by the School Board (or the Public Building Commission). It’s got to be by referendum,” Blagojevich said Friday.

Thus, he’s going to amend the PBC bill (SB2477) that Sen. Shadid asked him to sign to ensure just that. This is a victory for Peoria County taxpayers. The possibility of the school board being able to get around a referendum to increase taxes was the biggest complaint about the PBC bill. The governor’s amendment will make sure taxpayers are protected.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Legal loopholes make a mockery of the Open Meetings Act

6 Comments

I have had further correspondance with an attorney who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. Here’s a transcript of what we talked about regarding the school district’s actions and whether or not it violates the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

Real Lawyer:

C.J., I regret that there has been some misinterpretation by others about the OMA as it applies to the actions of Dist. 150. Just to clarify, the OMA and caselaw interpreting it do not (unfortunately in my view) prohibit ratification by the board after an action has been taken. What the OMA prohibits is the board taking official action on anything in closed session. Whether the board decides to approve something in advance or ratify it afterwards, it must take that action in open session.

Me:

Thanks for the follow-up. I am confused, however. If they can take final action in closed session, then approve it post facto in open session, doesn’t that make the prohibition against closed-session final action in the OMA meaningless?

Lawyer:

The board cannot take final action for the property purchases in closed session. I think Matheson may have made a remark at their last meeting stating they could do so; if he did say that, he was wrong. And “final action” doesn’t necessarily mean a formal vote; anything constituting approval can be a final action.

I don’t know what if any action the board took prior to the Prospect property purchases. But the fact that they ratified the purchases at their last meeting, in the open, was likely sufficient under current case law. This is what I think is unfortunate, but until the case law is overturned that’s what we have.

This is all sort of splitting hairs, but I wanted to try to clarify it.

Me:

Sorry I’m not grasping this. It sounds like you’re saying this (not you personally, but case law): If the school board approves in closed session the acquisition of property, it constitutes “final action” per the OMA, and is therefore illegal. But, that illegality is nullified if the board subsequently approves the purchase in open session. Am I understanding that right? They can perform an illegal act and then magically turn it into a legal act by approving it publically after the fact?

Lawyer:

In essence you are right; that’s the clear implication. And the way you phrased it helps, I think, to demonstrate why post-action ratification should not be permitted, at least in situations like the one we have with the property purchases. By allowing a board to “cure” a mistake via ratification afterwards, the courts have made it too easy to evade the intent of the OMA’s requirement for openness.

Is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard? What we have here is a legal loophole for the school board or any other public body to skirt around the Open Meetings Act and take secret action, away from public scrutiny, even though it involves spending (in this case) $877,500 of taxpayers’ money! All they have to do to make it “legal” is approve it after the fact in open session. Big deal. The money’s already gone! How could they not approve it? The contracts are already signed. Talk about violating the spirit of the law….

If the case law does indeed allow for this loophole, it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Shadid, who has expressed concern about the secrecy under which this action was taken, should work with his colleagues in Springfield to immediately propose an amendment to the Open Meetings Act that specifically prohibits such “post-action ratification” by a public body.

Amtrak, State Legislation, State of Illinois

New state budget includes money for more Amtrak routes

7 Comments

The Chicago Tribune reports that funding for Amtrak routes in Illinois was doubled in the 2007 budget — from $12 million to $24 million — so they’re planning to use that money for “[t]wo additional daily Amtrak roundtrips between Chicago and St. Louis and an extra run each on the Quincy and Carbondale lines….”

I hope the extra trains make it possible for me to take Amtrak down to St. Louis for a Cardinals game and come back the same day.

Even before gas prices started soaring, I would always take the train to Chicago for business meetings and stuff because it was so much cheaper than driving. Parking alone can cost you $20 up there, plus gas and tolls. The train? $30 round trip. And, frankly, it’s the civilized way to travel. I bet adding more routes will increase ridership.

Now, when are we going to get a passenger train to come through Peoria again? We can always re-convert the old Rock Island Depot (aka “The River Station”) back into a train station.

Peoria Public Schools, State Legislation

Senator speaks with forked tongue

3 Comments

I was thinking about Sen. Shadid’s recent actions regarding the Public School situation, and it sounds to me like he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

He’s asking the governor to delay signing SB 2477 — legislation that would allow the Peoria School District to request the Peoria Public Building Commission (PBC) build schools for Peoria — until the school board gets public input on where a new school should be built. A recent Journal Star article reported that Shadid was “dissatisfied with the way District 150 went about identifying the school site. He said the process was secretive and didn’t include public input.”

However, SB 2477 removes public input from the process of financing new schools. Right now, the school board would have to get authority to issue bonds for school construction via referendum. This would be a binding referendum — one where voters decide whether or not the school may take on more debt. Under SB 2477, the school board doesn’t have to ask the public for permission; they can just go to the PBC and have them issue bonds for school construction.

Sen. Shadid sponsored SB 2477 and says he still supports the legislation. Why? He told the Journal Star:

“It’s very difficult in Peoria to get a referendum passed for District 150. I think nobody will argue that,” Shadid said. “The need is there desperately, but let’s do this the right way.”

So it appears “the right way,” according to Sen. Shadid, is to let the school board make all the binding decisions (siting, financing), but only let the public have advisory input. If he were really concerned about public input, why would he sponsor legislation in the first place that takes away the public’s right to make funding decisions, the ultimate power over the district’s long-term plans?

State Legislation

Tempest in a teapot: HB 4130

Peoria’s Neighborhood Development Manager Leslie McKnight has sent an e-mail to all the neighborhood associations urging them to tell their Illinois legislators to vote “no” on House Bill 4130.  Here’s what City Manager Randy Oliver had to say about it:

HB 4130 Bill would require cities to pay for consolidated primary elections. Counties currently are required to pay. City tax payers pay the same taxes as County taxpayers. Consequently this bill is blatantly unfair and just another way to get into the City’s pocket. Please contact members of the House and encourage to just say “NO” to this unfair legislation. The language from the bill and background is as follows:
[…]
HB 4130 amends the Election Code requiring home rule municipalities within counties with a population less than 120,000 to reimburse the county for all of the costs and expenses of a consolidated primary election (now, counties required to pay). It also provides that if the county contains more than one home rule municipality, then those municipalities shall share the reimbursement proportionately based on population of the municipalities. In all, thirty-seven home rule municipalities are affected but all communities should be concerned with this type of legislation mandating that municipalities pay for what historically has been a county expense. IML [Illinois Municipal League] OPPOSES.

So, where did this “blatantly unfair” legislation come from?  Answer:  Macon County, home of the cities of Decatur and Forsyth.  According to the Decatur Herald & Review, Decatur held a primary election last February to “reduce the number of city council candidate[s] for the April election from seven to six.”  The cost to hold that primary was estimated to be between $80,000 and $100,000.  Who paid for it?  Macon County taxpayers. 

Rep. Bill Mitchell thought it was rather unfair for residents of the entire county, including his home town of Forsyth, to pony up the money for a primary election that only benefitted Decatur, so he introduced HB 4130, which would require a city like Decatur to reimburse the county for consolidated election expenses.

The bill was carefully crafted to try to exclude as many cities as possible, while still applying to Decatur.  For instance, it only applies to “home rule” municipalities (there are 167 of those, including Peoria).  But it doesn’t apply to counties that have a population over 120,000 — that means the law applies to Macon county (pop. 110,980 in 2004), but not Peoria county (pop. 182,418 in 2004).

Since it wouldn’t apply to Peoria, I wonder why neighborhood organizations here are being urged to take a stand on it.  Maybe they’re afraid once a bill like this gets through, all they need to do is fiddle with the numers a little and Peoria will be in the mix, too.

I have to agree that it sounds like a bad bill to me all the way around.  County residents don’t seem to mind taking tax money from city residents, but when it comes time to spend that money on a city election, they balk.  You can’t have it both ways, in my opinion.

It doesn’t look like it will matter to anyone now, since Rep. Bill Mitchell tabled his own bill in committee today.  It didn’t have much chance of passing with the Illinois Municipal League against it anyway.