This story popped up on the PJStar.com website tonight:
Peoria County faces $4 million deficit by year’s end
A sharp decline in revenue streams has Peoria County officials looking down the barrel of a $4 million deficit by year’s end that likely will affect budgets for years to come….
The picture has officials balancing needs with wants: What essential services are required by law, and what can be postponed?
“We’re kidding ourselves if we say we’re going to cut (our budget) and not cut staff,” board member Bob Baietto said. “We’re not going to get out of this without cutting.”
Hmmm… what can we cut? What large, completely unnecessary public expenditure could we eliminate to help plug this deficit? If only there were some new, fungible source of revenue coming on line next year that, while currently slated to go toward a non-essential project, could instead be redirected so that basic county services can continue to be provided. Can you guys think of anything? I’m drawing a blank here…..
“Hmmm… what can we cut? What large, completely unnecessary public expenditure could we eliminate to help plug this deficit?”
Ummm … the Peoria Public Library expansion …?
1. I wouldn’t mind the library expansion being delayed; however,
2. That’s a city project, and we’re talking about the county here.
There is no one within Peoria area government who has the kind of courage or the character to even suggest some sort of implementation of what you are implying (except Merle). All the rest are boot lickers.
Cut duplicate services that the city and county provide. Police, public works, fleet management,ESDA,election commission,ED,code, inspections, HR, and other duplicate services. Start Uni-Gov.
Museum project! The agreement, amendment no. 3 between the City of Peoria and Lakeview expires tomorrow, 31 May 2009. The COP portion with CAT expires 30 June 2009. You say potato I say po-ta— ….. let’s just call the whole thing off!
Additionally, at last Thursday’s Peoria County Facility Meeting …. there was the interesting discussion about the Bel-Wood Expansion. This is what I heard — should there be any ‘errors’ in my report, perhaps Merle Widmer and/or Erik Bush will be so kind as to correct any ‘errors’ in my report.
If Bel-Wood were to be renovated, all the nursing home patients would be able to be relocated to existing ‘private’ facilities in Peoria County. So the question was asked, why taxpayers should continue in the nursing home business? Answers seemed to be based on emotion (imo) rather than fact. Personal experiences related that it was the only option for relatives who would have had no place to go. This was curious in view of the fact that all the current nursing home patients would be able to be relocated if Bellwood was rehabbed.
Merle asked many probing questions and it seemed that no one wanted him to be asking them let alone expecting to get accurate answers.
How will taxpayers fund this project?
An estimated $3M balance by the time construction starts.
Coupled with the current $.06 levy to provide funding to maintain Bel-Wood.
Coupled with an estimated 3% increase in your EAV each year to pay off bonds at 20 years or 30 years. Let’s remember that the life of a public building is about 30 years — the time that it takes to retire the bond so taxpayers can start all over with either a rehab or a new building.
So, not saving for a rainy day with the EAV — just helping taxpayers to stay in perpetual bondage and debt.
Merle pointed out that the county administrator has expressed that taxpayers voted to rehab or build a new Bel-Wood via voter approved referendum in 2003. The actual voter approved question?
[QUESTION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED ANNUAL TAX RATE FOR BEL-WOOD, A PEORIA COUNTY NURSING HOME.]
“Shall the maximum rate of the tax levied by Peoria County for the purposes of maintaining a County nursing home, Bel-Wood, be increased from .025% to .06%? Yes or No.
So if Peoria County uses the money to fund a rehab or new construction — where will the money come from to actually maintain the facility?
Where and how are we becoming provident providers?
“To provide providently, we must practice the principles of provident living: joyfully living within our means, being content with what we have, avoiding excessive debt, and diligently saving and preparing for rainy-day emergencies. ” — Robert D. Hales, 4 April 2009
Elected officials and government administrators seem ‘addicted’ to debt and unable and unwilling to delay immediate gratification for ‘stuff and pet projects’ to help us to live providently.
We simply cannot afford nor do we truly need the museum project. We also cannot afford the Bellwood project. Sounds harsh — just the truth and reality of inappropriate financial choices made by previous administrations and boards. Wants vs. needs and the cupboard is bare and taxpayer’s pockets are empty.
$4 million? That’s nothing… just issue some bonds, or raise assessments on property. There is lots of money out there. The people are trying to hide it from their government.
kcdad: When government and elected officials constantly rely on increased EAV for funding — that puts our society at further jeopardy of continued debt. But then I think that I am preaching to the choir when talking with you about that concept.
It might also put pressure on not realistically assessing property when ‘stuff’ and debt addiction requires additional funding. There are already problems with assessments, no need to add further fuel to the fire.
Oh and Bel-wood is going to use a bidding process which I had not previously heard about even though it might have been previously used.
Usually the low bid is the winner for government contracts (except in special circumstances).
As I understand it, Bel-wood would have a bidding process where bids would be gathered and not necessarily the lowest bid would be accepted but the best bid for what they are trying to accomplish. Somehow River City Construction would help to select the ‘appropriate bidder’ and not sure if Peoria County would have to then approve it. Then once the appropriate bidder and then contractor are selected, River City would administrator the contracts. It was not clear what criteria would be used although that information may be available.
Just more debt being piled on high amounts of debt and a deficit at COP, Peoria County, D150, possibly Peoria Park District too — where does it all end?
Karrie,
I have in the past asked for a county wide referendum of the voters to indicate the support of a Bellwood in the future. Why rehab or replace something that a majority of voters do not want to fund.
As the information has come out if the residents can be distributed to area facilities then why couldn’t this arraingement continue an eliminate the building altogether?
If a minority of voters want to fund a home then they should. The county can still provide interim assistance for the residents until they go off to the big party.
I don’t understand why Peoria County has a reason for any deficit. To solve any problem, just have Keystone Steel & Wire pay some of the $10 million dollars of the tax money given them back in 2002 which they were suppose to repay to Peoria County. I know it was suppose to be repaid in five years, then it was extended another five years. I have made several inquiries as to how much of the $10 million remain unpaid and no one seems to answer me………
1. CJ. You know the voters approved the sales tax for the museum. You also know those dollars have no relationship to our current state. The sales tax referendum dollars do nothing to “help” plug any deficit. I will note for the record we did publicly discuss the ability of the approved sales tax to support the debt for the museum, even with in down years. I’m willing to revisit that with anyone with questions.
2. Karrie, you know this deficit is in the General Fund. You also know that Bel-Wood has no direct relationship to the General Fund. Any questions about Bel-Wood should really be directed toward your county board members. I write that because you are correct, Bel-Wood is a policy issue. The policy making body is the county board.
3. Harry, Keystone has made all payments as promised and are current on their obligation.
4. I think Karen did a fair job of laying out what we’ve been talking about since last November; namely, there is a problem coming, and we need to work together and deal with it. We will live within our means. Just like a household absorbing a pay cut (which is what happened), we too will make the adjustments necessary to work with less. That’s our approach and that’s the trajectory of the plans we’re making. If anyone wants to have a discussion about the difference between absorbing less income versus spending more than one makes, please call me.
While I appreciate the forum, given the tone of CJ’s original post this is the last I’ll write on this thread. If anyone has any questions for me I may be reached at ebush at peoriacounty dot org or 495-4859.
Have a great weekend.
Peoria County Court House Bldg built 1964
1964 plus 30 years equals 1994
Plus 40 years equals 2004
Plus 45 years equals 2009
Are we going to be asked for an upgrade soon?
“You know the voters approved the sales tax for the museum.” Ha ha! The voters… You make it sound like “the people”. It was less than the average crowd at Big Als on a weekday.
Repeal TIF districts?
CJ……post like this are why you are a MUST READ, even from 425 miles away.
Well, no Erik, I didn’t know that the money is in the General Fund. Thanks for the update. There was a ‘squishy’ (imo) answer given about the exact amount in the fund at present and what the amount will be when the construction starts.
And by the way, ‘we will live within our means’, in my household, that would mean not taking on any additional debt. Living within our means for Peoria County means taking on more debt.
So that would mean, we really want it — we can’t afford it — we are not going to get it. If we really need it — well we still cannot go into debt to get it — we will have to do without.
Bonding out for a $29M hard cost plus $8M soft costs plus whatever ongoing maintenance Bel-Wood will need over the next 20-30 years based on a projected 3%annual increase in the EAV — is well not very intelligent. Just one taxpayer’s opinion.
Oh and as for no direct relationship to the General Fund for Bel-Wood — I have heard that there is about a $1M deduction annual deduction from the General Fund for Bel-Wood expenses. Since Erik has taken his ball and gone home, perhaps Merle would give us more details about this $1M annual Bel-Wood expense from the General Fund.
Unfortunately, it is unclear if County Board members fully understood the gravity of the impeding financial crisis at the County level. There was a lot of energy and focus on another want, namely the museum project because the people so deserved to have a museum — just another in a long string of wants vs. needs of maintaining shelter and food in your cupboards.
PC: Went did you ask that question? Who did you ask? What was the answer(s)?
Erik Bush,
“You know the voters approved the sales tax for the museum. You also know those dollars have no relationship to our current state. The sales tax referendum dollars do nothing to “help” plug any deficit. I will note for the record we did publicly discuss the ability of the approved sales tax to support the debt for the museum, even with in down years. I’m willing to revisit that with anyone with questions.”
Erik you are a CLASSIC politician. Blame the voters for YOUR mistakes. You might want to ‘stick’ your political double-talk somewhere else for now.
Supply does not ‘create’ its own demand. You and yours supported this museum project with gusto. Why? Because of the economic benefits? The educational benefits? Quality of life? Please.
Peoria County has a $4 million deficit, yet you continue to promote tax-payer supported projects knowing full well the museum will NEVER come close to paying for itself, let alone ‘stimulate’ the local economy. YOU ARE DIGGING [OUR] HOLE DEEPER.
Peoria City and County govt is where the problem is. Both the Peo City and Peo County governing bodies have failed their ‘oversight’ responsibilities. They support wasteful projects while the deficit grows bigger and bigger. Now Bush [and others] are going to scramble to defend their positions.
How will [were] they really be able to justify their support of the sales tax for the museum now that the deficit is overtaking us.
Can’t wait to see what services WILL be cut………………………..
Ok, I am going to try this again. Only Erik responded and he did not answer my questions. Why does Belwood have to be rebuilt? Why can’t the County assist low income residents needing nursing home care in some other manner???
Frustrated: There is no fire sprinkling system — not sure if it is a mandate — some talk about if you starting fixing one portion of the facility you have to fix it all. Merle would be able to answer some of these questions for you.
**************************
Merle pointed out that the county administrator has expressed that taxpayers voted to rehab or build a new Bel-Wood via voter approved referendum in 2003. The actual voter approved question?
[QUESTION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED ANNUAL TAX RATE FOR BEL-WOOD, A PEORIA COUNTY NURSING HOME.]
“Shall the maximum rate of the tax levied by Peoria County for the purposes of maintaining a County nursing home, Bel-Wood, be increased from .025% to .06%? Yes or No.
So if Peoria County uses the money to fund a rehab or new construction — where will the money come from to actually maintain the facility?
**** The above listed referendum is now being used to justify that the voters approved that Bel-wood be rehabbed or a new Bel-wood be constructed.
*******************
Bel-wood would have an addition if rehabbed or new construction of an Alzheimer’s unit — although the total number of residents would decrease from 300 to 260.
*******************
And the answer to your question is — I don’t know why this is the only method to assist low income residents….. Merle?
Erik says:
A few things here. First, technically the voters approved a .25% sales tax increase for “public facility purposes,” not specifically for the museum. As long as the county board uses the tax revenue for “public facility purposes,” all is well. Second, the county could even decide to not raise the tax at all. The county had to get voter approval to raise the tax, but is under no legal obligation to raise it just because they have voter authorization to do so. Third, I think it’s reasonable to postpone, cancel, or otherwise redirect funds from non-essentials to essentials when the county finds itself in a serious budget deficit. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible not to do so.
If you mean that they didn’t contribute to the current deficit, that’s true.
Really? Nothing? The sales tax revenue isn’t fungible in any way that would help mitigate the county’s financial crisis? You couldn’t use the public facility tax revenue to pay for projects that currently come out of the Capital Replacement Fund and/or the Bel-Wood Fund and then put the excess money from those funds back in the general fund, for instance?
You don’t like sarcasm, evidently. Sorry. I’m just getting a little tired of our elected representatives giving away millions of our tax dollars for private/non-essential projects, but then crying poverty when it comes to providing basic, essential services. It seems our representatives have forgotten the purpose for which local governments exist. It’s not to build hotels, health clubs, or museums.
The county was able within just a few months to get state law changed, coordinate a public advocacy campaign, and ultimately pass a tax increase for a non-essential museum (without requiring the museum to cut or modify a thing). Surely the county can figure out a creative way to raise the revenue necessary to actually fulfill its core functions without having to cut services.
Thank you Karrie for the background info on Belwood. I think the answer to a question relating to increase in taxes asked in 2003 is now irrelevant in 2009. Financial circumstances for many have been greatly altered in the last 6 months to a year.
Merle – Why does the County need to be in the nursing home business? Aren’t private enterprises that are in the nursing home business better suited to provide the care now offered or planned for at Belwood? Couldn’t County tax dollars be used to subsidize the care of those that cannot afford the entire bill? Couldn’t the County strike a preferred provider agreement with a private entity to gain more favorable rates for those of limited means?
More and more companies are streamlining operations and are outsourcing non-essential services that do not have to do with their core business or competencies. Shouldn’t the County and other government entities consider doing the same?
ebush at peoriacounty dot org
I thought he was just a consultant… he has his own county email address???
kcdad — Erik is the Chief Financial Officer for Peoria County. I think you may be thinking of the advisory role he has for District 150.
then the financial officer at district 150 was schooled in district 150 and that explains the financial problems and failure
Karrie,
It was part of my campaign literature and was asked about it by the Journal Star in candidate interviews. They down played it on the summary of my issue in which I was campaigning.
Thanks C.J. … that’s it exactly… it is difficult for me to keep the two separate.
Well,
We are all blowing in the wind now……
Mr. Bush, given C.J.’s “tone” refuses to comment further. I have tried to tell C.J. for years, drinking and blogging to do not mix………….
PC: Thanks! How would I be able to get a copy of your campaign literature?
Karrie:
I will look to see if I still have the base document on file. I might not have the handouts due to there age ( 2002 election year stuff I got rid of) 2006 might have a better chance of being on file.