The Journal Star has an excellent report (it was written by Jennifer Davis, so I expected nothing less) on the special council meeting last night. Last year, new council members Bob Manning and Barbara Van Auken were just learning the ropes of city budget planning. This year, they’re ready to make good on their campaign promises of increased fire protection and elimination of the regressive garbage tax.
Mayor Ardis is helping that cause by starting early to establish budget priorities and communicate them proactively to city staff (in the past, the city manager would write up a proposed budget and the council would react to it). But the big question is, how do you pay for more fire protection and eliminate a $2.4 million revenue source (garbage tax)?
In 2007, Mayor Jim Ardis wants the city to fully restore Fire Station 11 and find a “dedicated total public safety revenue stream.” Exactly what that is, Ardis admits he doesn’t know yet….
One idea is to take public safety funding off the property tax bills and replace it with a separate public safety tax. The difference is that the public safety tax could be applied to everyone who benefits from public safety services. Right now, non-profit organizations like hospitals, churches, and charities don’t pay property taxes, yet they benefit from police and fire protection.
If the protection we all share were paid for through a public safety tax instead of property taxes, the cost of that protection would be shared by all as well. Spreading out the cost would be more equitable, and may actually lower the amount homeowners pay for public safety services while increasing overall revenue at the same time.
Council members Van Auken and Manning also are throwing around ways to help strengthen Peoria’s older neighborhoods:
Van Auken also supports helping stabilize the older neighborhoods by freezing their property taxes so any additional increase in property tax revenue can be reinvested in those areas, somewhat of a pseudo TIF district. […] Third District Councilman Bob Manning suggested a similar “urban renewal” plan to Van Auken’s – freezing property taxes in certain areas to entice people to move back into the city’s core and reinvest.
It should be mentioned that these are just ideas and nobody has run the numbers yet to see how much such a plan would cost. This meeting was more of a brainstorming session. If the cost estimates come back too large, then the whole idea may be scrapped. But I’m glad to see them (forgive me for using this cliche) “thinking outside the box.”
That said, I doubt this plan is going to get off the ground. Whenever you freeze property taxes, you’re taking money out of district 150’s pocket, and they can’t afford any more revenue loss. And the state of the schools is one of the prime reasons people aren’t moving to the older neighborhoods (crime being the other reason) in the first place — not high property taxes. So this plan would seem to be self-defeating.
John Morris had several ideas, including one to make Peoria “a walkable city”:
He suggests $2 million each year from capital for sidewalks connecting Peoria’s neighborhoods to its assets, like the library and parks. “I can’t walk my two children from my home in the heart of the city to the library without feeling I’m taking our lives in my hands,” he said.
Well, there’s a difference between making the “heart of the city” more walkable and making the whole city more walkable.
In the heart of the city, sidewalks will help, but only if it’s coupled with slower traffic and a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. For instance, not long ago I walked from my house in the Uplands to the Blockbuster video store in Campustown. Walking on my street with its on-street parking and 25 mph speed limit was very pleasant. Walking on Main Street was a nightmare. Main Street is five lanes, which means traffic moves much faster than the posted 30 mph speed limit, and the narrow sidewalks abut the street, making you feel very unsafe as cars go whipping past you.
In the newer parts of the city, as you go north, these areas were not created to be “walkable,” but to be accessible only by automobile. Adding sidewalks (other than for recreational walking around the neighborhood) is not going to allow you to walk to the park or the library, unless you’re willing to walk several miles along an arterial road. My dad and I have walked down the shoulder of Route 150 from Charter Oak Road to Glen Hollow and let me tell you, it’s not a pleasant walk on which you’d want to take your family. And when you get to the end, you still haven’t seen a park or library. It would take some radical changes to make these newer neighborhoods “walkable” in the way Morris describes.
There were more ideas that I may discuss in future posts, but this one is long enough!
Public Safety Tax is an ‘out of the box’ idea to capture dollars from non-profit organizations as well as fund ‘basic city services’.
It’s “out of the box” here, but not so much elsewhere. There’s only some question abotu the legality of placing the tax in regular property tax bills.
Why shouldn’t a hospital that pays its bosses huge salaries be expected to pay for the fire and rescue services it NEEDS to stay in business. Why should the owner of a $50,000 home pay to support OSF or Methodist or Proctor., expecially when everyone with any decision making authority there makes a more than comfortable living?
Some of the “near suburban” parts of Peoria that aren’t the north end of the city but aren’t the heart of downtown could be helped with less-drastic walkability plans. From, say, Forest Hill north to Glen or so; it’s an easy walk or bike ride to Lakeview, for example, but University and Sheridan are both unpleasant for walkers and bikers. There are lots of stores and restaurants in that area that are easily reachable on food from many homes, but the sidewalks are in poor repair and are, as you commented about main street, a little scary.
Bill, just to play “devil’s advocate” here, if we didn’t have private hospitals, the city would have to provide hospital care. So, aren’t they providing a service in return for their tax-exemption that would otherwise fall to the city? Wouldn’t it cost considerably more for the city to provide hospital services than it costs to give tax-exemption to a private hospital? Isn’t the service provided by non-profit organizations the very reason why they are not taxed in the first place?
Eyebrows, I agree there are some places that could be improved without radical changes. But I think the city needs to have a broader view of how city design affects the walkability of the city. Things like the way they design intersections, the way they zone property, the housing density that’s allowed, etc. This all affects walkability, but Morris is focusing on sidewalks, as if just putting sidewalks down will make people want to use them. Go to the Shoppes at Grand Prairie and see how many people are using the sidewalks out along Route 150. They don’t use them because (a) they feel inherently unsafe — you’re a pedestrian in an automobile’s world, especially at the intersections, and (b) they don’t go anywhere — what’s your destination on those sidewalks? Kickapoo? Route 6? Willow Knolls? These are not pedestrian destinations.
Just an FYI, I live in Peoria, but in the county out by Mossville. I pay the Chillicothe Fire Dept. $55 annually for my fire services. I assume that if I don’t pay them, they won’t come put out the fire in my burning house, but I’m not sure. The little postcard doesn’t say anything about that.
Anyone else care to share if they pay such a fee?
I cannot opine on this issue, it’s so complicated, having worked for many non-profits and believing in taxes as a social responsibility, serving the greater good.
Yes, Cara. Most departments that have a annual fee, if you don’t pay, they don’t come. Or if they do come, they bill your insurance company. Just think what your fire insurance would be if you don’t pay for fire department protection?
Repeal all the selective tax breaks the city has granted to select businesses.
We’re going to charge charities to fund the fire-department?
The charities benefit from fire protection, don’t they? Some of those ‘charities’ are very large institutions.
Perhaps some of these charities would cut down on their “administrative” costs (SALARIES OF HIGH PLACED EMPLOYEES) if they were made to pay for essential police and fire services-why should they receive them for free? Special tax seems like a good idea.
I work for a nonprofit. Know how often we get a raise? Know how often we have to be creative in meeting a client’s needs without funding? Increased gas costs, out of control health costs etc errode our budgets too. and yes I chose to work for one. How about just knocking over a few church collection plates? There has got to be other means available. I also guareentee you the “high paid folks” as mentioned above aren’t going to suffer anymore than a CEO of a major cooperation, it’s going to be passed to underfunded employees or cuts in client services. Just like for a private company, consumers will pay higher costs and employee benefits will diminish.
PDW… I think people are thinking more about OSF, Methodist and Bradley, all ‘non-profits’, rather than some small neighborhood church.
I go back and forth on the tax freeze thing, While I am sure it would benefit older areas if implemented correctly I am also sure that just as with the original utopian TIFF ( a great idea on paper) there will be twisted greadheads that will turn this type of thing into a complete disaster, and there is no shortage of twisted greadheads in the areas that are being targeted for this type of program.
The whole issue of fire insurance costs increasing without a fire department is a red herring. I’ll wager a nice steak dinner that the difference in fire insurance premiums for a $200,000 house in Peoria is not much different (for sake of arguement, let’s define not much different as less than 20%) than the premiums for a $200,000 house in Trivoli where there is a volunteer fire department.
First person to prove me wrong, we’ll chat about your steak dinner.
Do you know what the President and the Provost of Bradley University are paid? Do you know how much silly money is spent on their “minor sports” programs? Do you know how much the salaries of the CEO’s of OSF, Proctorand Methodist are paid,along with their assistants, both professional and non-professional? Come on, that is what Board of Directors are for, to be reasonable people- tax them like you do me and the rest of the common folk, let them pay for their police and fire protection.
If they had to pay a fire protection tax, it wouldn’t come out of the presidents’ salaries at these large institutions.
I’m withholding judgement on this idea until I hear more details on how it would be implemented and how much it will cost non-profits.