Even without the $100+ million combined sewer overflow (CSO) project figured in, Mayor Ardis says the city is looking at a budget deficit of $2.5-3 million. That money is going to have to come from somewhere. “Common sense would dictate there won’t just be a new discussion about a new revenue stream, there is going to have to be one,” Ardis told the Journal Star.
On WCBU news this morning, Mayor Ardis stated, “The last thing the council will consider is a real estate or tax increase.” In other words, they will look for ways to save money or find other revenue streams, and will consider a tax increase a last resort. (Nevertheless, Ardis supports the proposed downtown museum which can only be completed if a tax increase is implemented county-wide.)
So let’s talk taxes. The city’s portion of your property tax bill is actually quite low, only about 9-10¢ of each property tax dollar. It’s been kept that way because the city over the years has relied more and more heavily on sales taxes and additional fees like the so-called garbage fee.
The argument for this trend is that sales taxes are spread among everyone who shops in Peoria, not just property owners. That would include people from the surrounding cities and towns who come into Peoria to shop at the malls or eat dinner or see a movie. Harder to defend is the garbage fee — a flat, regressive tax applied to everyone who gets a water bill. Property tax increases are also considered a last resort because, although the city’s portion is small, property taxes overall are high, and the city wants to attract homeowners.
Perhaps this would be a good time for the council to start looking at root causes. Why are expenses so high and why are revenues not keeping up with expenses?
Could it be our penchant for annexing more and more land and building out more and more infrastructure for those “growth areas” in a city that hasn’t seen population growth in decades? Annexation is consistently presented as the path to financial solvency, but despite nearly a half-century of annexation that has seen the city more than double in size, our taxes are higher, population growth is stagnant, older parts of the city are hollowed out, and revenues are insufficient. Methinks this strategy is not working.
I have suggested the city might use something that has worked in Lancaster, CA to turn that very situation around:
Distance-based Fees
In 1993, the city of Lancaster developed an innovative model for assessing impact fees on new development. Known as the Urban Structure Program, the model includes a surcharge levied on new development beyond the central core (5 mile radius).
The further out from the central core, the higher the surcharge. A typical new house located just outside the core, for example, would incur an impact fee of $5,500. The same house located 5 miles beyond the core would incur a fee of $10,800. The model relies on a computer program, updated annually, that calculates the cost of providing city services for a particular development.
One goal of the model is to ensure that outlying developments pay their true public costs. Many city services are more expensive to provide in low-density developments located far from existing service areas. Often residents of the urban core must shoulder a portion of these added costs. Lancaster’s model requires these outlying developments to pay their full costs. The model has helped revitalize the downtown and has reduced sprawl.
http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/
Or could it be that the city’s union contracts are out of control?
And could it be that we need more city employees to provide public safety for such a large swath of land and too few residents to support them?
Pay attention to home sales in your area. The valuations are falling !!! Be prepared to go to the city and get your place reassessed.
CJ- Excellent post
Conrad- Simply marvelous suggestion, although most likely in Peoria’s case it is too late… unless these fees could be charged after-the-fact Peoria has been led to believe, as CJ points out, annexation will provide self supporting plus revenue streams. City staff does not have a formula for calculating the cost/benefit of proposed new development. I have been told by a reliable source that even the Bradley study that supported annexation would not meet the rigors of peer review.
I don’t expect all of the city council people to figure this out (some of them can barely put two sentences together) – but, don’t we have anyone with some mathematical aptitude? Further, Ardis and the Council obviously are not guided by vision which is more than a shame- it is setting us up for continued failure.
Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)
PS. Diane Vespa,
Before you get on a soap box and defend Ardis (or any other city council person for that matter) – call him up and ask him to describe his vision for Peoria, write it down, and post it. You won’t be able to get him to articulate while on the phone with him; because, when asked where he sees the city in 20 years he gets lost.
Believe me, I have tried to get Ardis to expound on it- he is a nice guy with a good tan, but he has no idea how to inspire people to see a bigger picture. He has no bigger picture in mind so how could he? And spare me the “improved education,more jobs, lower taxes, higher quality of life” dribble.
I want details Diane, details!
George,
I suspect the Lancaster example could well be modified to fit the current situation. Current development could be grandfathered in, with fees only applying to new developments outside the “zone.” I am sure, since at least one city has done this; there is information out there that could be used to construct a “use” formula with which to evaluate fees. The city could also use incentives inside the “zone” to encourage development in the core areas of the city. Sprawl isn’t working; CHANGE is needed
Sorry, George, not my yob…Although the first thing that comes to mind is that maybe you are pissing him off and he doesn’t feel compelled to talk to you 😉
It is notable, however, that this post appears at the same time they are looking at 40+ million for the museum. There is definitely some talking going on out of both sides of someones mouth.
George,
Here’s some off the top of my head that Ardis might give you:
1. Build the Block
2. PeoriaNext
3. PeoriaPromise
4. Litter Czar
I’ll get back to you when I think of some more.
How about properly funding code enforcement with enough staff that they can move beyond a largely ineffectual ‘complaint driven’ model of enforcement to active enforcement.
When does the water company come up for review again?
Only $3 million? Pass the medical marijuana legislation in Illinois that allows for patient clinics, let a few open in Peoria, license and strictly regulate them, charge them fees, have a city/county patient ID card with a fee, tax the heck out of their sales, and watch the revenue stream in. $200 million per year in tax tevenues to local governments in California and likely to double in a few years. And they haven’t gone to hell yet.
Mazr,
What is your point here? I believe George was complaining about the mayor’s lack of…, well, everything.
None of the ideas on your list belong to Ardis, nor has he acted on any of them [unless you count lip-service].
Mahkno – I do not work for the City but have been involved in the past with housing code enforcement issues. It is my impression that the City staff in this area do a good job and really attempt to work with home owners. In my experience, many people with housing code violations simply do not have the income to maintain their property (the exception being the slum landlords). It is difficult when they appear on a violation to get resolution because without funds, there is no resolution.
Well Frustrated… The home maintenance is one part of it. We got problems with lawns not being mowed, multiple cars parking in yards, garbage in the alleyways all days of the week. Sorry but there is some basic stuff that could be patrolled for. Why do we have to call Code Enforcement every time… and have to ID each and every house. You could go through this neighborhood every day of the week and find something that doesn’t have to do with the house itself.
We used to have a code enforcer who took the initiative and did some of that. Maybe its against dept rules, I don’t know but it was a GOOD thing. They rotated them and now we got one who doesn’t do that. Visually you can see the difference…
About the houses themselves. The enforcers working the area should have some discretion. There should be an objective to improve an area over time. Neighbors shouldn’t have to be tattling on their neighbors about chronic problems. Get the code enforcers out there to see the problems and act on them.
Mahkno- I understand your frustration! You should call the City and let them know your code enforcer is not doing the job, maybe you can get him/her transferred because, you know, the person will not be terminated, it’s the City!
Your post illustrates what I encountered in my association with this matter — many people are not meant to be homeowners, be it due to lack of responsibility and initiative in the care of their property or due to lack of finances necessary to maintain a home.
New Voice, that posting was sarcasm.
I was trying to highlight the lack of actual helpful programs.
Don’t look my way for heaping mounds of city praise. Well, heaping mounds of something but it’s not praise.
Frustrated,
She is doing her job. It is how the city has set up Code Enforcement that is the problem. Her job is to not do anything unless a neighbor files a complaint. Therein is the problem.