I’m standing outside the council chambers because it is completely packed — like a can of sardines. But I’m here and will do my best to bring you a play-by-play of the main agenda, which is:
Note: In attendance tonight are Mayor Jim Ardis, At-Large councilmen Gary Sandberg, Jim Montelongo, Ryan Spain, George Jacob, and Eric Turner, and District council persons Clyde Gulley (1), Barbara Van Auken (2), Tim Riggenbach (3), Bill Spears (4), and Dan Irving (5).
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the EAST BLUFF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICE DISTRICT as Scheduled in the Public Notice and Public Hearing Notice Mailing.
Riggenbach/Van Auken moved/seconded to open the public hearing; passes unanimously. There’s a long line of people waiting to speak!
- Tom Stone — Reading a statement about the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services (EBNHS). Apparently is in favor of re-establishing it.
- Pastor Hawley (sp?) of Prince of Peace Missionary Baptist Church — Speaking in favor of EBNHS. Says they do “good work” and help people.
- Dale Hansen — Treasurer of EBNHS. Giving testimony to some of the projects they’ve done and the desire to do more to turn houses around and make them economically viable.
- Pastor Martin Johnson — Speaking in favor; improves quality of life and “overall well-being” and “empowers citizens.”
- Wayne Kenyan (sp?) — Supports the EBNHS; resident of East Bluff. Opportunity for East Bluff to set the vision for their own neighborhood.
- Richard Mitchell — East Bluff resident. Listed several important projects going on now in the East Bluff. There’s no accountability; EBNHS keeps its meetings closed; doesn’t follow its own bylaws; conflicts of interest; and a long list of other problems are recited. Ran out of time.
- Kurt Kimmel (sp?) — Speaking against extending the EBNHS for 10 years. They don’t answer the door, answer the telephone, or return an e-mail. Went to them for help to put roof on his house and couldn’t get any response from them. Suggests perhaps renewing it for two years and then reevaluating based on their performance.
- Karrie Alms — Agrees with Richard Mitchell. Property about which Dale Hansen talked is not consistent with the EBNHS charter because they’re making it a rental property, not an owner-occupied property. Also mentioned other problems.
- Gordon Seibold — Reading his remarks, but not on topic; mayor cuts him off.
- Director Landes / Theo Jean Kenyon — Kenyon wrote a letter that Landes read into the record.
- Bob Manning — Acknowledges that there were problems with EBNHS, but that was two years ago. At that time, then-councilman Manning and Jacob worked to improve it; many board members resigned. However, the leadership is stronger on the board now, and it’s a much better organization. Asks for council’s continued support.
- Willa Lucas — One of the previous board members until the executive board made a decision unilaterally; at that point she resigned. Asks that EBNHS be restructured if it is to continue. There needs to be notification of the meetings, and neighbors should be allowed to attend the meetings. They claim that they legally don’t need to abide by the Open Meetings Act.
Riggenbach/Van Auken move to close public hearing; passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:
A. NOTICE of LAWSUIT Filed on Behalf of DANIEL P. CUSACK Claiming the City Improperly Withheld Information in Answer to an FOIA Dated July 28, 2009.
B. Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Authorization for SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION, WOZNIAK V. CITY OF PEORIA, ET AL., PEORIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO. 07-L-06, for the sum of $15,000.00, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents.
C. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting the Following:
1. ACCEPT the LOW BID of OBERLANDER ELECTRIC and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $49,090.08 with Authorization for $53,999.09 (Additional 10% for Contingencies), for the SHERIDAN ROAD and LAKE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, and;
2. APPROVE an ADDITIONAL $14,000.00 EXTENSION to the PROJECT CONTRACT to REPLACE the EXISTING DETERIORATED HANDRAIL Located on the SOUTHWEST CORNER of SHERIDAN ROAD and LAKE AVENUE.
D. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of SOUTHEASTERN CONSTRUCTION and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $61,681.75 with Authorization of Up to $67,849.93 (Additional 10% for Contingencies) for the GLEN OAK IMPACT ZONE – PHASE 1 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.
E. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of HOROWITZ CONCRETE and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $168,536.05 with Authorization of Up to $185,389.66 (Additional 10% for Contingencies) for the GLEN OAK IMPACT ZONE, PHASE II SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.
F. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of STARK EXCAVATING, INC. and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $85,265.44 with Authorization of Up to $93,791.98 (Additional 10% for Contingencies) for the ORANGE PRAIRIE ROAD and TIMBEREDGE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
G. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of ILLINOIS CIVIL CONTRACTORS, INC. and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $243,680.39 with Authorization of Up to $268,048.43 (Additional 10% for Contingencies), for the S. GRISWOLD STREET CURB AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (W. Grinnell Street to W. Starr Street).
H. Communication from the City Manager, Police Chief, and Emergency Communications Center Manager Requesting Authorization to PURCHASE RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT for the PEORIA POLICE COMMAND ROOM and ADDITIONAL INTEROPERABLE PORTABLE RADIO EQUIPMENT for Peoria Police from SUPREME RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., in the Amount of $29,996.56.
I. Communication from the City Manager, Police Chief, and Emergency Communications Center Manager Requesting Approval of a SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE of INTEROPERABLE RADIOS and ACCESSORIES for FULTON COUNTY ETSB, in the Total Amount of $74,304.03 from RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS ($39,759.03), GALESBURG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ($22,815.00), and MOTOROLA ($11,730.00).
J. Communication from the City Manager, Police Chief, and Emergency Communications Center Manager Requesting Approval of a SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE of INTEROPERABLE RADIOS and ACCESSORIES for OSF ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER, in the Total Amount of $29,735.00 from SUPREME RADIO ($15,241.00) and RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS ($14,494.00).
K. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to REALLOCATE $50,000.00 of CDBG FUNDS from PROJECT 07SPD to the 2009 ADOPT-A-RAMP PROGRAM PROJECT 09AR00.
L. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Request to Award the CONTRACT for REHABILITATION of the LIVING QUARTERS ROOF at FIRE STATION NO. 8 to the LOWEST BIDDER, KREILING ROOFING COMPANY, in the Amount of $65,751.00.
M. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Request to Award the CONTRACT for SECURITY CAMERA INSTALLATION at PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER Located on? DRIES LANE to THOMPSON ELECTRONICS COMPANY, in the Amount of $18,087.00.
N. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Authorization for the EXTENSION of the EXISTING CONTRACT with WM. AUPPERLE & SONS, INC. for the COLUMBIA TERRACE SIDEWALK and ORNAMENTAL LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, in the Amount of $136,224.53 with Authorization for Up to $149,846.98 for 10% Contingencies, to Include the INSTALLATION of a NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM at the INTERSECTION of SHERIDAN ROAD and COLUMBIA TERRACE.
O. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a SEWER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT with the GREATER PEORIA SANITARY DISTRICT for the REPAIR OF SEWERS, as a Part of the City of Peoria’s Sewer Rehabilitation (Design Area 1 Sewers, Manhole Rehabilitation Project 2), and Requesting Concurrence in the Award of the CONTRACT for the Work to WALKER EXCAVATING COMPANY, INC., in the Amount of $114,445.46.
P. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Action on a RESOLUTION Approving an APPLICATION for AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND – HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDING from the STATE OF ILLINOIS for a Down Payment Assistance Grant in the Amount of $310,000.00.
Q. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of AUGUST, 2009, with Request to Receive and File.
R. TOWN OF THE CITY OF PEORIA FINANCIAL REPORT for Period Ending 9/30/2009, with Request to Receive and File.
Items removed from consent agenda: F, I, N, Q removed by Sandberg. Remaining items Spain/Montelongo moved/seconded to approve; passed unanimously.
- Item F — Question about whether sidewalks are new or being repaired. Answer: new. Are we paying 100%? Answer: yes. Moved for approval; seconded by Gulley. Passes 10-1, Spain voting nay.
- Item I — How much is the City of Peoria getting to administer the program? Answer: Nothing, but will get $300,000 for radio equipment. So this is an example where “we are doing work, providing services for three other counties…for nothing, correct?” Answer: yes. So why not have Fulton County be the lead agency? Would we not still get our $300,000? Answer: Yes, if the grant were awarded. This is why we don’t have enough money to do what we need to do for our citizens. Van Auken moves to approve, seconded by Montelongo; passes unanimously.
- Item N — Decided to replace signal light at Columbia Terrace and Sheridan. What is being done at this location, since we’re replacing a signal, to ensure that people are not waiting because lighter vehicles (like motorcycles) do not trip the lights? Answer: David Barber can’t answer the question in regards to sensitivity. Says they’ve tried to address Sandberg’s concerns before at other locations. Sandberg: The other locations are still “broken.” Van Auken moves to approve, but concurs with Sandberg’s remarks; seconded by Montelongo. Gulley concerned about the contract having a 10% contingency; it’s so big we can afford to replace a signal within those parameters. Something large like replacing a signal should go out for bid. Why didn’t we? Barber: Not something we would normally do, but felt confident the price was reasonable/consistent with other traffic signal projects and they were already doing electrical work in that area. Motion passes 10-1; Sandberg voting nay.
- Item Q — Question about a fund transfer from Designated Zone Organization Fund on page 10. Treasurer Nichting: Can’t answer that without checking with Finance. Finance Director Scroggins: I didn’t understand a thing he said to explain it; sorry. Money is being used for debt service and any remaining capital projects for the Riverfront, but it has to pass through the “DZO” (Designated Zone Org.) fund. Includes the Gateway Building, the Landing, etc. That debt was incurred through the DZO. Sandberg moves to receive and file, seconded by Spain; passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Request to DIRECT STAFF to NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT with PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY (PDC) for the PROVISION of REFUSE COLLECTION, LANDSCAPE WASTE COLLECTION and RECYCLABLES COLLECTION SERVICES Commencing in 2010 for ONE to FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, CITY BUILDINGS (No Landscape Service), STACKED CONDOMINIUMS (No Landscape Service), and SCHOOL DISTRICT 150 (Refuse Only) Based on PDC’S Response to the City’s Request for Proposals Submitted on SEPTEMBER 21, 2009. (Refer to Item No. 09-389)
Public Works Director Dave Barber gives an extended explanation of the proposal. They’re recommended the alternate proposal from the Peoria Disposal Company (PDC). I’ve talked about this elsewhere on my blog, so I’m not going to retype it all here. Basically, the service would remain the same, except it adds a “free” (included), once-a-month recycling component. Barber defends monthly collection. The average family only sets out an average of 13 pounds of recyclables. So, once-a-month collection reduces fuel consumption and miles driven, which is a positive for the environment, results in better air quality. It also reduces the cost of recyclables collection. It’s inefficient to collect only 13 pounds per stop on a weekly basis. Hopeful that participation rate will increase to 50% under this proposal.
Motion to approve by Montelongo, seconded by Van Auken. Council by consensus opens the floor to citizens for comment on this contract.
- LaVetta Ricca — Speaks about the wonderful experience she and her neighborhood association have had with Waste Management. Speaks in favor of taking their contract instead of PDC.
- Kiersten Sheets — Here on behalf of Global Warming Solutions Group. Speaks in favor of PDC proposal. The proposal isn’t the best, but is the best that can be expected given the financial constraints. Concerned about inflexibility on size of Toters, $50 initiation fee, infrequency of pickup, and lack of educational component.
- Loraine B. Carter — Host of Neighborhood Views and on Mayor’s Litter Committee; also on Neighborhood Alliance. Speaking on behalf of Neighborhood Alliance, says they want Waste Management’s contract to be accepted.
- Bernadine Nowland (sp?) — In support of Waste Management being retained by the city.
- Savino Sierra — Satisfied with Waste Management and hopes council will keep them.
- June Moore — Happy with Waste Management, but give PDC a chance also. How do we not know that PDC will do better? Also, not all the Alliance group is for Waste Management.
- Joyce Blumenshine — Current recycling pickup is reasonable and convenient. Wants vote to be deferred to consider other options.
Councilman Turner says that the “writing is on the wall” that PDC will get the contract because the city needs the dollars, but he would like to impress on PDC that they provide value-added services and don’t forget the people in the neighborhoods. Van Auken says wonderful things about Dave Shaab of Waste Management and echoes Turner’s comments. Asks what the plan is for current trash collectors (I guess she means the garbage men). Matt Coulter of PDC says they’re meeting with the Teamsters and it’s their plan to retain the current WM drivers. Van Auken asks if alley pickup is restored for everything, including recycling. Answer: Yes.
Gulley asks some questions about public garbage cans/free Toters and their collection. Barber says they’re working on some transition issues and will look into it. Riggenbach asks Barber about the April 1, 2010, commencement of recycling program; will there be no collection between December and April? Barber: Essentially, yes. Riggenbach: Is 95-gallon the only size Toter available? Will those who have less recycling be able to get a smaller Toter? Will those who have more recycling have to pay two $50 deposits for two carts? Barber: Defends the one-size-fits-all Toter, and adds this interesting line: “The program for recyclers is only for those who really want to participate.” Also states that PDC will sell Toters.
Irving says he has a constituent who cannot fit a Toter in their garage. Will there be another option? Answer: no. Jacob asked about the $50 deposit. Is the deposit refundable? Answer: Yes.
Sandberg says he is going to move to defer after the discussion is finished. Raises concerns about the PDC contract. Specifically, concerned about how increases in costs are figured, how service levels will be maintained, and why we’re rewarding lawn waste while disincentivizing recycling. Sandberg moves for two-week deferral to work out some of these issues.
Mayor Ardis concerned about the impact of a two-week deferral. Barber mentions that PDC needs a certain amount of lead time to purchase trucks, carts, etc.
Further discussion. Sandberg says he doesn’t think PDC wants to encourage recycling, and that’s why they have the disincentives. Spain says there are differences between lawn waste, refuse, and recycling. Concerned that incentivizing recycling will lead to more illegal dumping of refuse. Asks for PDC to speak to the concerns residents have; Matt Coulter speaks again that his company is ready to go with an educational component through an interactive website, monthly e-mail list, as well as print pieces. PDC is a local family and “we’re excited to show the citizens of Peoria what we’re all about.” Would like the council’s support tonight so they can be ready to go in January. Councilman Irving confirms that recycling drop-off locations will still remain. Barber also says that the carts being provided by PDC for recycling will have a bright orange lid with instructions embedded in the lid explaining what should and should not be put in the bin. Irving says that recycling component isn’t perfect, but he feels that it’s a step in the right direction, so he supports recommendation of staff.
Councilman Jacob reminds everyone that part of the concern has to be cost because we have such a large deficit. To have bi-monthly recycling would cost another $712,000. If we want the service, we can have it, but we have to pay for it. Also concerned about the window in the first quarter when we won’t have recycling — that gap needs to be closed.
Turner asks for the privilege of the floor for Dave Shaab, Waste Management. Granted. Concedes that they’re going to lose because PDC’s bid was lower. However, he wants to talk about how good their service was, blah blah blah. (On a personal note, in the interests of full disclosure, I was soured on Waste Management when they unilaterally moved recycling pickup from the alley to the curb and wouldn’t back down on it.) Shaab says they will continue to offer the same great service the rest of the year even though they don’t get the contract. Everyone applauded. Coulter was given a chance to talk, too, out of fairness. He had nice things to say about WM. Also, he said they plan to reevaluate the recycling program after 12 months to see how it can be improved. Once again defends the recycling component proposed.
Motion to defer seconded by Councilman Jacob. Mayor tries to dissuade council from voting for the deferral. Sandberg says this contract is $5 million a year for ten years; it’s important enough to wait two weeks to get the wrinkles worked out before voting on it. Gulley speaks against deferral. Motion to defer fails 1-10; Sandberg voting aye.
Back to the original motion. Sandberg makes some statements of frustration with the council, implying that they aren’t doing due diligence; Jacob and Van Auken speak against him. Original motion passes 10-1; Sandberg voting nay. About 1/3 of the audience left after this vote.
ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Acting Director of Human Resources Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 17 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to HUMAN RELATIONS, HOUSING, and EMPLOYMENT and Relating to Investigation of Discrimination Complaints Against Employers with Fourteen (14) or Less Employees and Reinstating the Authority of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) to Conduct Public Hearings on Eligible Claims of Discrimination.
Kimberly King from the legal department gave a short explanation of the recommendation. Gulley moves to approve; seconded by Van Auken. Van Auken speaks in favor, as does Turner. Sandberg asks if West Peoria or Peoria Heights have the same protections being contemplated here. Answer: no. Sandberg voices concerns that this regulation will provide incentive for small businesses to open outside of Peoria. Suggests that Peoria petition the state to make it a statewide law instead of putting our businesses at a competitive disadvantage. If the council thinks a 2% liquor tax is going to chase businesses away, they should realize this will do the same thing. Mayor Ardis answers: “We shouldn’t not do the right thing because our neighbors aren’t doing it.” Turner says Peoria should show some leadership in this area. Gulley says he hopes this ordinance will drive every business out of Peoria that wants to discriminate. Privilege of the floor given to Don Jackson, President of NAACP. He speaks in favor of the motion “in the spirit of Everett Dirksen.”
Motion passes unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, IF ANY, ITEMS FROM THE PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING)(09-448) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Approval to PURCHASE FURNITURE for VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, from LINCOLN OFFICE, in the Amount of $2,151.48.
Irving is abstaining from voting since he works for Lincoln Office. Van Auken moves to approve; seconded by Jacob. Sandberg will not vote for the motion because of the budget deficit. Motion passes 8-2; Ardis and Sandberg voting nay.
(09-458) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS C-5 (Convenient Store/Gas Station) LIQUOR LICENSE at 9109 N. ALLEN ROAD, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.
Jacob is abstaining due to having a liquor license. Irving moves for approval; seconded by Turner. Irving speaks in favor of the motion. The owner is a local businessman. In response to objection that one of his businesses sold liquor to an underage person, he said the owner now has software that will allow for scanning the driver’s license which should help curb that problem. Sandberg questions whether that will really help; the software is only as good as the people using it. And he says the “local businessman” could sell the business tomorrow. We shouldn’t make decisions based on who’s doing it and the fact that they have software. Motion passes 9-1; Montelongo voting nay.
(09-459) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a Class G (Restaurant, Beer and Wine Only) LIQUOR LICENSE at 1212 W. GLEN, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.
Jacob abstains. Riggenbach/Van Auken moves/seconds to approve. Turner says they’ve done their due diligence and they’ve just given a liquor license to the business next door. Motion passes unanimously.
(09-471) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to DENY a REQUEST to REZONE Property Located at 1120 N. E. JEFFERSON STREET from a Class R6 (Multi-Family Residential) District to a Class CN (Neighborhood Commercial) District, with Request from the Petitioner to Withdraw this Item.
Jacob motions to withdraw this item, seconded by Montelongo. Gulley abstaining from voting. Motion passes unanimously.
(09-277) Communication Requesting INITIAL DIRECTION ON STEPS TO REDUCE THE ANTICIPATED FY 2010 BUDGET DEFICIT:
Time is now 9:10 p.m., just for reference. This meeting may go all night. My battery is running down, so I’m going to have to find a power outlet pretty soon. “These cuts are drastic,” the Mayor says about the proposed cuts from the City Manager. Mayor plans to go through items the City Manager presented, then when finished, they will go into the proposal on whether to de-fund PAWS.
City Manager Scott Moore speaks on the situation facing the city and gives a quick overview of his report. He’s a very soft-spoken fellow. The microphone barely picks him up.
- Van Auken moves to reconsider the elimination of street/sewer maintenance folks and a mechanic (Public Works Department, attachment 3, page 4) and consider removing management positions instead; seconded by Gulley. Sandberg restates that what Van Auken wants to do is have the City Manager reconsider these two line items that total about $227,000 and find that savings elsewhere. Spain says the total is more like $400,000, and he doesn’t support the motion. Sandberg says Spain may be misunderstanding the motion; Van Auken concurs that she’s not suggesting that these items are out and can’t be touched. She’s just asking for the Manager to look at them again. (Ugh. Minutiae overload!!! Let’s just get to the vote, people.) Ardis will not support motion because it will make the council’s will too ambiguous. Van Auken: blah blah blah (pleading). Motion fails 2-9; Van Auken and Gulley voting aye.
- Van Auken says the public safety coordinator position in the information systems department (Attachment 3, page 6, Information Systems) was removed by the council a few meetings ago, and now it’s back. Discussion ensues. Lots of discussion. (This meeting will seriously test my commitment to liveblogging.) Van Auken moves to put this position back into the budget; seconded by Irving. More discussion ensues. Motion fails 5-6; Ardis, Snadberg, Irving, Van Auken, Gulley voting aye.
(Incidentally, I found a power outlet. Also, there a lot of AFSCME members here, many wearing their green AFSCME t-shirts. According to the gentleman sitting next to me, they’re here as a show of solidarity.)
- Van Auken moves that Economic Development Specialist position be eliminated; seconded by Sandberg. Spain is still opposed, as he was a couple weeks ago; restates reasons. Sandberg characterizes our Economic Development department as “playing Santa Claus” and giving lots of money to developers. “If economic development were really working, then we wouldn’t be facing a $14.5 million deficit, ladies and gentlemen.” Van Auken points out that we have regional organizations that do Economic Development; it’s not just the city that shoulders the burden. Spain defends Economic Development, saying it’s not just about giveaways and is a specialized discipline. He says incentives have to be offered because we’re competing with surrounding communities that offer incentives. Motion fails 5-6; Ardis, Sandberg, Irving, Van Auken, and Gulley voting aye.
- Van Auken moves to remove from consideration the proposal to cut the fire department; seconded by Spain. Sandberg moves to separate the question; seconded by Turner. Motion to separate passes unanimously. Van Auken moves to remove from consideration removal of fire machine and closing firehouse; seconded by Turner. Spears asks where these dollars are going to come from if we don’t cut them here. Much handwringing over the fact that the fire department was the first to come forward with wage concessions; Van Auken and Spain (at least, probably others) feel that this is a slap in the face to their earlier, voluntary sacrifice. (Time is now 10:14 p.m.) Motion passes unanimously. Van Auken moves that fire inspection positions not be eliminated; seconded by Montelongo. Lots of discussion on this including questions asked of Fire Chief Kent Tomblin on what the ramifications would be of eliminating these positions. Motion passes 6-5; Sandberg, Spain, Jacob, Gulley, Turner voting nay. Van Auken moves, Irving seconds, to not eliminate fire training supervisor position. Motion passes; Sandberg, Montelongo, Jacob, Riggenbach, Gulley voting nay.
- Irving moves to accept all other adjustments as outlined by staff; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
- Sandberg asks about legal administrator coordinator position that was just voted to be eliminated, but an administrative hearing officer was not eliminated. Sandberg moves that administrative hearing officer be eliminated; Turner seconds. Motion passes 8-3; Jacob, Irving, Van Auken voting nay.
- Van Auken speaks in favor of keeping the Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter (PAWS) funded, arguing that it’s a public safety issue. Van Auken moves to keep PAWS funded at its current level (with the 12% reduction already accepted); seconded by Turner. Sandberg protests that we’re providing free services to unincorporated portions of Peoria County; why are we doing that when we’re looking at a $14.5 million deficit? Also, it should pay its own way; fees should cover the cost of the services we provide when they’re not basic services, and PAWS is not a basic service. Riggenbach says that District 3 is number one in calls to animal control, so he supports keeping them funded. He also says that one of the people doing surveys in the Glen Oak School Impact Zone was attacked by a pit bull. Ardis pointed out that the pit bull attack happened while PAWS was still fully funded and fully staffed (implying that this was somewhat of an indictment on the effectiveness of the department). Spain makes a substitute motion to proceed with Option 2 to reduce funding by $250,000 (and charge the county for any services performed in unincorporated areas — I think this was added as a friendly amendment by Sandberg); seconded by Spears. Motion passes 8-3; Riggebach, Van Auken, Turner voting nay.
B. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works with REPORT BACK and Request to PROVIDE DIRECTION to STAFF Regarding CHANGING the CITY’S SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION PROGRAM and SIDEWALK IN NEED OF REPAIR (SINR) PROGRAM from an 80/20 CITY/CITIZEN SPLIT to a 50/50 SPLIT, with a NEW COMMUNICATION with Request to PROVIDE DIRECTION to STAFF Regarding CHANGING THE CITY’S COST SHARE for the SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION PROGRAM AND SIDEWALK IN NEED OF REPAIR (SINR) PROGRAM for 2010.
MOTION ON THE FLOOR: Adjust the Sidewalk Assistance Program and the SINR Program to a 50%/50% split, which should be reviewed on a year-to-year basis.
Time is now 11:00 p.m. as discussion begins on motion on the floor. Sandberg speaks against the motion. Motion fails 5-5; Sandberg, Montelongo, Spears, Jacob, Gulley voting nay; Van Auken absent, accounting for the tie vote.
C. Communication from Council Member Ryan Spain with Request to RECEIVE FUNDING from the PEORIA CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY, in the Amount of $211,632.00, for the 2010 BUDGET of the CITY OF PEORIA.
Spain explains his communication to the council. Spain once again claims that the Civic Center “generates revenue” for the city. Spain moves to accept $211,632 from the Civic Center; seconded by (Irving, I think? Maybe Turner). Motion passes unanimously.
D. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller with Request to PROVIDE DIRECTION Regarding TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ITEMS from the COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN BUDGET to the OPERATING BUDGET.
Director Scroggins explains this is a revenue-neutral action. Irving/Montelongo moved/seconded to approve; passed unanimously.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS Regarding the FY 2010 BUDGET.
- General Parker — Opposes anyone losing their job with the city. Acknowledges that his wife works for the city. Argues in favor of a city income tax.
- Jeff Dexter, on behalf of AFSCME — Complains there was no formal communication with the union until a week and a half ago that layoffs were going to happen. (How could they not see this coming?) They’re in the middle of negotiating a contract, and that’s why they can’t talk about give-backs; it’s putting the cart before the horse. Doesn’t think the budget should be balanced on the backs of city employees. You’re not going to cut your way out of this deficit. You need revenue. “Not interested in taking it on the chin for this.”
- C. J. Summers (me!) — Don’t remember exactly what I said, but here’s what I meant to say: Asked the council to drop the downtown hotel deal, which would save the city approx. $4 million in debt service per year. Why take on more debt when we’re facing draconian cuts in police and other city departments? The Marriott hotel plan is too risky any time, but especially now.
NEW BUSINESS
- Sandberg asked for a report back on whether all the timelines met on the hotel agreement? What’s the status?
- Spain asked for additional feedback on something.
- Montelongo wants to help businesses fix their parking lots.
CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
At some point, Van Auken reappeared. Perhaps she just went out for a smoke break?
- General Parker (again) — Spoke in favor of keeping PAWS. Asked why garbage contract couldn’t be split up and have PDC do half and WM do half. Talks again about his proposal for a city income tax. Income tax is progressive, and city income taxes have been successful in other cities. It would capture revenue from people who work in Peoria but live outside the city. Offers to help lobby our state reps to get us the statutory authority to institute a city income tax. (My thoughts: If you thought Peoria was business-unfriendly before, try instituting a city income tax. Bye-bye economic development!) Parker says he respects council members, hopes they have respect for him.
- Bethany Willeford (sp?) — Information technician at the police department. Moved here from Springfield. “By eliminating my job, you’re eliminating my reason to stay here…. With no job, I won’t be able to keep my home.” She wants to “live here and support my city; I thought my city would support me.”
EXECUTIVE SESSION
No executive session.
ADJOURNMENT
Time: 11:34 p.m. Montelongo/Irving moves/seconds to adjourn; passes unanimously.
G’night!
“Sandberg asked for a report back on whether all the timelines met on the hotel agreement? What’s the status?”
translation:
“thanks for the reminder, CJ.
“HEY, RANDY, are we still on track with putting this hotel in, or not?”
Thanks for posting this, C.J. Very informative and I appreciate all of your hard work.
After watching a large part of this train wreck, it is clear to me why Peoria is in the condition it is in.
A motion should be made for this group of people to be forced to go home and watch a video tape of their council meetings.
Hell, there is no way they could stand watching five minutes of themselves even if their eyes were propped open like Malcom McDowell’s in A Clockwork Orange.
Disgusting.
Ed.
I asked Corporation Counsel Ray at 3:45 what the status was of both projects and agreements and I alrerady know the answer based on his response. I want the rest of the Council as well as the general public to know whether the “deadlines” have been met or if they haven’t and yes I used CJ’s comments to get the information to the Council as well as the public when the information is provided. I very seldon ask a question I don’t already know the answer to. If I did ask a question I didn’t know the answer should be, it may not verify the point I am trying to make.
“Montelongo wants to help businesses fix their parking lots.”
WTF?
NO!
CJ
The state has a corporate tax already for businesses and tries to divy that up on a percentage basis to the municipalities. What I would propose would work around that. To keep public safety workers and retain vital city services, don’t you think it’s worth a try. They don’t seem to want to give up the hotel deal so shouldn’t we be trying to find new ways to raise revenues or cut unnecessary services? You’ll notice that alot of my comments went toward people who work and earn money here and take tax dollars away from the city by not living here but using city services such as police, fire, library, parks, streets etc.
If we raise the property tax only property owners carry the burden. A lot are on fixed incomes, some have been laid off. Is it fair for them to carry the burden? An income tax gets everyone in on fixing this budget problem.
One thing is clear, we have to do something. At a time when I felt that more police and fire personnel are needed, I don’t what we will do with less. I’m open for suggestions.
City Council = Train Wreck
IL Schoold District 150 = Airplane Crash
Peoria Park District = Japanese Beetle Invasion
Peoria Library Board = Return of the Body Snatchers or The Telltale Heart
Governor Quinn = When Will I Be Loved
IL 18th Congressional District = The Young and The Restless formerly Lost In The Wilderness
Peoria County Board = Mule Train
I think Montelongo might want to take a cue from Gary Sandberg and actually have a valid reason – or, at least an expressed one- for opposing something. His reasoning for wanting to nix the Mc Donald’s Shell liquor license, when he voiced it a few weeks ago, lacked any kind of valid premise. Last night, he didn’t even bother to speak out at all. Disappointing.
Thanks for speaking out on the “not-so-wonderful” hotel development, CJ. I feel the same way and have expressed my views to the Council.
I don’t always agree with General Parker, but I do appreciate his speaking out on things and offering idea. If we do what we’ve always done then we get what we’ve always gotten.
Thanks for blogging this meeting.
How does eliminating a Administrative Hearing Officer save money? Isn’t that a contract position that is only paid when there is a hearing? Hearings must be held for housing code violations, noise violations, etc. according to the code. The elimination of position reduces the number of individuals performing that job, not the dollars spent on this activity, correct??
How does eliminating a Administrative Hearing Officer save money?
The taxes you pay currently pays for a Judicial system that includes the Courthouse and clerck, Judges, etc that housing code violations, demolitions, environmental violations, loud music violations van and were heard weekly. Up until approximately 12 years ago Peoria used that system as do most communities/counties in Illinois. For the last 12 years or so, The City has hired 1 or 2 individuals by contract to hold weekly hearings on those items that could and had been heard by Judges paid thru your taxes/ The additional costs associated with the Contract employment can be saved by returning to using the Judges in the Courthouse/ Your County taes did NOT go down 12 years ago when the City stopped using Judges, only your taxes were raised becaused bow you were paying for the contract Administrative Hearing Officers. There are advantages, but facing $14,500,000 shortfall, often difficult decisionsss have to be made. Last night without discussion the Council unaimously voted to eliminate the employee position that coordinates the hearings before the contract Hearing Officer (as well as coordinating all the hearing that still take place at the Courthouse) andd for this Council person, if we are willing to eliminate that position of how much efficiency can we expect by continuing the contract for hearing officer when we are already paying for the Judges in the Courthouse.
Isn’t that a contract position that is only paid when there is a hearing?
Yes but hearings are held weekly and absorb the same time that they did beforee when they were heard before a Judge
Hearings must be held for housing code violations, noise violations, etc. according to the code.
Yes but most jurisdictions use Judges that are already paid thru your taxes to the County. The City only uses the contract Hearing Officer for certain ordinancee violations, many. if not most ordinance violations over the 12 years were still heard by Judges in the Courthouse.
The elimination of position reduces the number of individuals performing that job, not the dollars spent on this activity, correct??
Yes CORRECT, it eliminates a position……………..which eliminates the cost to pay that position……………. whicch means you are not paying twice for the capacity of having a hearing
Gary,
I understand the hearing officer part, but why eliminate the coordinator? Even if heard by a County judge, won’t someone have to coordinate the cases on the city’s side?
Sud O. Nym.
Couldn’t agree with your observation more. The only reason is 14,500,000 dollars. The staff reductions presented for approval and or discussion by the staff to the Council were based on solving the $14,500,000 budget deficit. After the Council voted to accept the proposal on the items that did not receive an majority vote to reconsider or those that were not accepted and therefore put back into the budget, I raised the issue based on your observation. In the final assessment to meet the budget maybe both will have to be eliminated, but perhaps with the savings from the elimination of the contract expense, the coordinater position can be re-stored (if Legal can find an alternative item to lose or there is an additional revenue source developed that reduces the $14,500,000 deficit).
No one wants to do what we have been forced into doing, but never the less, we have to have a balanced budget. As such, we have to make decisions based on what reductions in expenses will produce the least negative effect on service levels and citizen expectation
Gary, thanks for response. I did not realize these hearings were being transferred back to the Judges. I assumed the City was just eliminating 1 of the ALJ and was retaining 1 to perform all hearings, which would not reduce costs.
It was my understanding that the City took on more of these matters at the Judges urging to free up their dockets to handle other pending matters on a more timely basis due to the backlog of cases.
But, these are tight times and so things must change. Again, thank you for your complete response.
I appreciate the pickle you guys are in, Gary, and thank you for your response, too. I won’t ask you to speak on behalf of the other 10, but are you ready to find some revenue to restore some of the more drastic cuts?
Frustated,
I understand your original point based on reducing from two to one, but for the past several years the City only used one AHO as it was difficult to find a second AHO and one was handling the weekly caseload sufficiently
Sud O.Nym
Speaking for myself, I have always been willing to consider some additional revenue, especially in the form of fees for non basic services. We should have higher parking fees for our parking decks, animal control fees shold be higher for the enhanced portion of that program. I supported a 2% tax on package alcohol sales to bring those taxes in line with alcohol sold in bars and restaurants; also wanted some sort of a carry out tax on food and beverage containers to deal with litter/trash and lastly I am one who is not adverse to raising real estate taxes.
Having said that, before I would vote for any of those I would want to make sure we just don’t then give more money for some pie in the sky this is the silver bullet, pot of gold at end of rainbow pipe dream development, be it hotel, grocery store, shopping center, restaurant…………. and the list goes on that will save Peoria from itself.
The people I hear from routinely (not just at budget time) are NOT opposed to paying more in taxes if the taxes are going for basic services that they value and expect from their local government.
Those same people don’t want their taxes raised to be spent on some pie in the sky this is the silver bullet, pot of gold at end of rainbow development, be it hotel, groceery store, shopping center, restaurants …..(youve heard this before because I continueally hear it)………thats going to save Peoria……….from itself.
Gary: And just for the record, the redundant question ….. property taxes are raised even though electeds say they are not raising the taxes – correct?
The tax rate rouse!
Even when the tax rate remains the same, any increase in the EAV results in higher taxes! Correct?
Gary: I recall it being a “Landes” position that the Admin Hearing Officer ordinance would pay for itself via the fees and fines that were collected via rental registration and health and safety inspections. If the City filed the case in County Court, then the County retained at least half of the fine collected. But if the City had their own hearing court, they collect all of the fines.
From my perspective, the City used its hearing court to…harass people they did not like….and cut slack for inside investors and people whom they considered too poor to pay. With that much discretion out there, no wonder the fees and fines never generated the revenue calculated by Landes.
Chase: Did North Atlantic Realty change its’ name to Principle Property Management? Same people?
Karrie,
Yes you are 100% correct the amount of the check a person pays for their real estate taxes is based on two variables………. the assessed value of their property multiplied by the tax rate. if either one changes to a higher number but the other remains constant, the amount of the check for taxes will increase. An individual’s EAV can increase due to the inflationary value of property or because of construction or investment on that property and therefore the amount of money required in the check increases based on that inflationary increase. During the 80″s “recession” there were several years where individual EAV of properties decreased and in those years with some of the tax rates fixed or in the case of SD 150 at the maximum allowed, the check written decreased.
The other way EAV increases for the City other than the individual inflationary increases is the result of new construction. Of course along with that new construction come the added expense of providing services for those properties in “growth” areas. While agruments can be made for both positions, it appears that the large expansion of area to the north and west with consumate need for providing services to those areas is not producing enough taxes to offset the cost of those services considering the continuing deflauation or deflationary value of properties in the central city. Of course when the City gives Developers incentives in TIF areas and locks down the tax for 20 years to provide those services, those that pay real estate taxes outside the TIF areas have to make up the difference.
Karrie — If you get a raise, do you think of it as your taxes going up? Same difference, except your house doesn’t pay you bi-weekly revenue. But it is still an appreciating asset. You live on the Northside and might have seen property de-valuation. Do you consider that a tax cut?
The property tax formula is flawed. The theory from the county is that “some properties are undervalued and under-taxed while some are overvalued and over-taxed but it all evens out.” Even the this statement is flawed. All properties should be “fairly” taxed.
Message I and other like Del Bertschy and a slew of realtors have been trying to say for over a year!!!
The message seems to be falling on deaf ears.
Snide remarks like “it only a few handling large numbers of clients that are complaining.” Those in charge do not understand that a “few” are acting as agents for many is because the “many” cannot or do want want to handle the complicated appeal procedure. So they hired skilled people to do it for them. For this the “few” get criticized. Those who would like to appeal figure it would be time and money wasted.
Peoria County has very little interest in collecting LESS taxes. Government operates on OPM and most don’t care where it comes from.
Sorry, I’m quite blunt about it but the “truth will out”.
“some properties are undervalued and under-taxed while some are overvalued and over-taxed but it all evens out.”
The ‘word on the street’ that I have heard for years was that residences in the older parts of town were generally over assessed while those big homes up north were under assessed. After I did some looking around on the tax site the County has, taking some streets ‘below the hill’ versus some of the newer stuff out north, there seemed to be some traction to the statement.
Another way to put it. Those who regularly vote got a break and those most likely not to vote got squeezed.
Gary: Is the solution to switch to “land value taxation?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
“Land value taxation (LVT) (or site value taxation) is an ad valorem tax on the value of land. This ignores buildings, improvements, and personal property. Because of this, LVT is different from other property taxes on real estate — the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to land. Every jurisdiction that has a real estate property tax has an element of land value tax, because land value contributes to overall property value.”
Sud: I disagree — apples to oranges.
When I get a raise — I have the cash in hand AND I also pay more taxes. There is a net gain — NOW! A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
An appreciating asset is only appreciating on paper or ink on a piece of paper. Until I sell my asset — I really have no idea how much money I will receive.
Appreciation does not result in additional cash in hand or the two birds in the bush. If and when I sell my appreciated asset — I will get some birds —- maybe 1 or 2 or less than 1 or more than 2 — I just don’t know until I sell my appreciated asset if I can even find a buyer.
Near Northside —- still seeing an annual EAV increase — still paying more taxes — still wanting to have basic services to maintain the cupcake instead of icing and sprinkles on a deteriorating cupcake.
As for the tax cut idea ….. that is difficult for me to imagine given the past 16 years that I have lived in Peoria. If there was a property de-valuation — taking a leap of faith that you are referring to a decreased EAV — the electeds would likely pass a tax rate increase to continue spending at the same level for more icing and sprinkles. I think that I would continue to pay the same amount or even more in taxes because spending priorities are incorrect.
Electeds do not live within our means — pay as you go — think of the millions, probably billions of taxpayer dollars committed to debt service or interest because electeds bond out for trinkets. I think that it is a sad day that alleys are not repaired on a regular basis. Who cares you might ask? Ask anyone using an alley on a regular basis. Fifteen years is a long time to wait for one’s alley to be fixed. The holes have to get pretty big! 🙁
Additionally, the CSO looms ever larger and more expensive and more and more debt and so the electeds ride around on the taxpayer merry-go-round!
Mahkno, you could not be more wrong.
I agree with Diane – Manhkno you could not be more wrong.
To put a real life example to Karrie’s scenario – I lived out North for 4 years and during that time my taxes went up over $2000 to $6000 plus. I sold in January of 2008 after a year on the marekt for barely more than I paid for the house after $35,000 of renovations. To add insult to injury, the week of the closing I got a notice my taxes were going up — I guess because my house was so valuable – Ha!
The taxes were incongruent with the size, age, and condition of the house. I did not live in swank digs but rather a 1970s Brady Bunch fixer upper. My monthly tax obligation was only a couple of hundred dollars less than my monthly mortgage payment. I lived in a lovely family friendly neighborhood, however, the taxes, not the price of the homes, make the area almost unaffordable for families.
Frustrated, no offense, but the amount that your taxes changed or the length of time on the market or even the amount of renovations is irrelevant since the property did in fact sell. The question is, was your last assessment close to the sales price? (to be specific, multiply the assessment by 3).
Sticking with your real life example, when you went to paying $6k in taxes (and assuming a $5k exemption) your assessment was likely around $78k, meaning your house was estimated to be worth around $235k. How close was that to the sales price? When you were paying $4k in taxes when you first bought the home, that would indicate a sales price of about $165k.
Billy — I’ve also written about Land Value Taxation.
General — Your presentation of the city income tax idea was intriguing. I especially liked the idea that it would capture revenue from those who live outside the city but work inside the city. That’s appealing. However, for those who work AND live inside the city, it would be an incentive to move out. I think it would also be an incentive not to open a new business in Peoria. I’m surprised Chase didn’t mention that they’re considering a city income tax in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jon – it is relevant to me because it makes me fearful to reinvest in property witihin Peoria again. All my friends that moved from Dunlap, Metamora, and Washington around the same time as me with similarly priced homes had their properties sell within a few months at the most, at close to their asking price, and that was in a down market.
Perhaps you are correct that my argument is off base. My house sold for about what you estimated, however, as I previously posted, I paid close to that 4 years before, which was the going rate for properties at the time in that neigborhood. Housing prices plummeted in my Peoria neighborhood at the time I listed (not so in the surrounding burbs) so the sale price I realized was much less than expected. I guess my argument is that even if the calculation is correct — it is too high. I believe the taxes in my old neigborhood deter families from buying in the neighborhood and that is a problem for Peoria!
Sorry to go on. Enough about me. But, I know many families that move in and out of the community so resale is very important to them and almost all believe it is a big gamble purchasing in Peoria
Frustrated, my argument was that it was irrelevant to Mahkno’s point. Rather, your example supports his observation, at least in part. The reality is that you bought a home for around $235k that was assessed at around $165k at the time – in other words, it was a north side home that was under assessed. If such a situation was rampant, it would mean that houses that are properly assessed are likely paying too much in taxes overall. So, if that were truly a problem and truly fixed, the taxes on your $235k house would be less than $6k, which would address part of your concern that taxes in Peoria can be a deterrent.
Frustrated: There are many factors which contribute to the sales price …. one important component is the condition of our school district …. another the combinations of silo management by the individual taxing bodies …. wants vs. needs in spending priorities …. and so on …. these factors all contribute and sometimes citizens are just not aware of the ramifications from silo managment decisions.
You are right Karrie, it is a complicated web and the City needs to consider all factors in it decisionmaking to determine whether it is making Peoria a more or less attractive place to live.
Jon – I purchased the house from the original owner who had been there since 1970. I have moved in an out of Peoria a number of times and so have done a lot of house shopping in many different neighborhoods and price ranges. My experience is that the taxes don’t seem to be adjusted to market on those properties that have been held by a single owner for a significant amount of time.
I know you have C.J.: I want to hear LVT discussed again. It just makes sense to be.