I’m really confused. The city needs revenue. There are fees on the books to bring in revenue. The council voted to increase those fees last year. Yet, inexplicably, the council reversed that decision and is now eliminating those fees. What happened?
You may recall that last August a large property management company bought the old Commercial National Bank building (now used by National City), and they wanted the city to eliminate their annual fees for encroachments of their underground vaults on the public way. It came to light that the city had not been collecting the fee for something like 30 years, but no accounting was ever given for this gross oversight.
Well, last October, the council decided by a vote of 8-2 (Nichting and Ardis were the only nays) “to keep the existing ordinance and modify and update the fee structure regarding underground vaults.” Case closed, right?
Nope. City staff sent letters to the affected property owners and, lo and behold, they complained about the fee. They said it wasn’t fair. They said it would increase the cost of doing business downtown. City staff complained (again) that they’d have to go out to the businesses and inspect them in order to verify the proper fee. So the issue came up to the council again on May 22, 2007. This time, the council voted 9-1 (Manning was the only nay) “to eliminate the current annual fee as provided in the existing Ordinance.”
So, the multi-million-dollar company that owns the Commercial Bank building downtown won’t have to pay that extra $500 annual fee that was apparently of grave concern to them. City staff will get to save a couple of days of looking at building vaults. And the rest of Peoria’s citizens will continue to pay the regressive garbage fee.
Hey, as long as we’re eliminating fees and work, why not get rid of parking fees? After all, since the city is so spread out and there isn’t adequate public transportation, citizens are forced to drive to do business downtown, and thus forced to find someplace to park their car. Hence, using the city’s logic, it’s unfair to charge them for something that’s out of their control. All parking violations have to be verified and ticketed by city employees (meter maids). It raises the cost of doing business downtown. And it’s unpopular with citizens and businesses alike. So who will argue for the elimination of this fee? Anyone? Anyone?
*chirp* *chirp*
Let me guess: the $60,000 the underground-vault fees would bring in to city coffers isn’t worth the trouble, right? I’ll keep that in mind as the city works on the budget again this year.
There are two words I hate. Garbage Fee. It almost makes me want to blog again. Why oh why does this city council not address this fee? They can give guarantees on $3.3 million dollar loan, do away with this fee and that fee but the Garbage Fee goes on forever despite the fact that most of the council members said during their elections that they would eliminate this fee. (re; the Mayor and Van Auken to name a few) What ever happened to the water fee that was to be applied to all residents and businesses to replace the GF? On another note….
I am drafting a proposal to have the city co-sign a loan for me to replace my driveway, install sidewalk and curb, and some kind or neat or ornamental lamp post in front of my home. I should think $25 grand would be enough and I promise to pay, unless I leave town first. Wonder if this council will give me the same consideration they gave FireFly. I mean my project will employ 4 or 5 people but only for the short term but they will have my property tax revenue for years to come. FEH
I was wrong. I decided to blog.
The Chase building (not owned by Chase) has an underground walking/jogging track and exercise facilities as well as restrooms and locker rooms, etc. I suppose the building owner would simply block the areas off to avoid paying the fees?
CJ – No, I’m confused. The May 07 agenda item you point to makes it sound like staff took a pretty balanced approach to the issue. They say that all areas would need to be inspected and that BUSINESSES would be inconvenienced (those that turned out not to have anything in the right-of-way). Where in the communication did the staff complain, or was there something said on the floor? However, your post seems to slam staff rather than Council. It is their decision. And everyone, save Manning, voted to eliminate the fees (even your gal, Barbara). Staff does not set policy, staff implements the policy that Council sets. A better question might be WHY these fees haven’t been collected in 30 years, but there likely isn’t anyone left around to blame.
Why don’t you direct your ire at the people responsible.
MDD — They couldn’t just block off the area; they’d actually have to fill it in, and I bet that would cost more than just paying the fee.
Public Servant — The council clearly communicated their direction to staff last October: “keep the existing ordinance and modify and update the fee structure regarding underground vaults.” The only thing that needed to come back to council was the new fee structure for approval.
Instead, staff came back to council with notice of all the complaints they had received about the fee and included (again) an option to eliminate the fee completely. This would make the third time they had come to council with an option to eliminate the fee — this time after the council had clearly voted not to eliminate it. The whole communication is negative in tone towards reinstating the fee.
Now, are you telling me that’s standard operating procedure? Are you saying that doesn’t indicate a desire on the part of staff to eliminate the fee? It’s pretty transparent to me, unless you can show me other examples of the staff continuing to revisit an issue that’s already been decided in this way. I think the staff wanted this fee eliminated, and they finally convinced a majority of the council to agree. Third time’s a charm.
That said, yes, the council is responsible for the decision. They’ve decided to take a pass on $60,000+ per year in revenue at a time when they need revenue. $60K here, $60K there, pretty soon you’re talking real money. I think it was an irresponsible decision. They don’t have any problem standing firm on all the nickel-and-dime fees that average Joes have to pay, but when multi-million-dollar property management companies complain, they’ll gladly give up the revenue.
I thought the city was looking for new revenue sources, not looking at ways to eliminate revenue. That’s why I’m confused.
I think they prefer new revenue sources from the suckers, oops, I mean citizens of Peoria not the businesses. We wouldn’t want to collect revenues from businesses because they might go somewhere else. Heaven forbid that happen.
Well, they did one helluva job, didn’t they. They went from an 8-2 vote to keep the fees to 9-1 to eliminate them. That isn’t staff working over Council until they get a 6-5 vote (by the way, it rarely works that way). Without looking at the roll call, I would guess Van Auken, Spears, Gulley and Turner all flipped. I think Sandberg was gone for the 5/22 meeting. I know, why don’t you ask one of them why they flipped?
Staff has a right to an opinion, and staff has the right to add an option to a communication, even if it would seem not to be consistent with prior Council action. In fact, eliminating a fee is technically always an option (I guess). Is the communication negatively biased? Probably. But might also be factual. That is why the section is called “Background.” Council is a bunch of big boys; I doubt they are swayed by staff rhetoric.
Yep, they have a right to an opinion, as do I. I’m looking forward to seeing what kind of new revenue sources they come up with this year to deal with GASB45, storm sewer upgrades, and other big-ticket items.
C.J.,
They won’t be able to deal with those in a comprehensive fashion because they never get to the real details. The storm sewer upgrades (a very expensive undertaking) will probably be covered by a new stormwater fee – pretty standard in most communities now and it can get expensive.
But despite the fact that the communication to council might have been written with a particular slant, the vote clearly shows that the Council supported it. I agree with Public Servant – the Council needs to account for this decision – they accepted the recommendation of staff – they could just as easily have rejected it if they liked.
Every week (maybe now every other week) I continue to be amazed at how much this council is exactly like every previous council. They like to think that they act differently but they don’t.
I don’t disagree with you, Peo Proud. The council should indeed be held accountable. I thought I made that clear. I’m just not willing to give the staff a pass for their participation in essentially advocating for elimination of this fee. I mean, while it wasn’t this particular staff, it was city staff in general that unilaterally stopped collecting the fee in the first place, leading to May 22nd’s action to codify their de facto policy — kinda undermining Public Servant’s statement that “staff does not set policy.” In this case, they in fact did.
Yes, except that the fee stopped being collected some 30 years ago, didn’t it? So it seems to be some other staff, not this one. I wonder what their reasons were, and if the Council at the time was aware of it.
And perhaps we can have a job shadowing week for citizens to better understanding the processes and workload that the city staffers must bear.
Citizens are told there is not enough time or staff for this or that project, for example, new sidewalks in older neighborhoods. If you want new sidewalks, you can gather the signatures to reach the magic 51% to then get on a waiting list for sidewalks in a few years. That is the reality of the situation —- it would be interesting for both sides to try to better understand each other’s issues. Different ordinances are enforced differently depending who you are and how you are connected to whom, if you have a lawyer or are a squeaky wheel ….
Until the council puts the taxpayer’s money to work on projects that will make a true difference, Peoria will be the same old Peoria who is fraying at the seams at an ever increasing rate of deterioration.