The Peoria City Council is meeting tonight, but it’s not a regularly-scheduled meeting. It’s a special policy session during which they will be discussing cuts to next year’s budget. Comcast cable channel 22 is carrying it live. WCBU (89.9 FM), which carries regularly-scheduled meetings live, is not carrying the policy session live tonight.
Tag Archives: Peoria City Council
Big non-profits doth protest too much
The Journal Star is reporting that some area non-profit businesses are concerned about the possibility of the City Council imposing a 5% utility tax on water:
With the City Council weighing a possible 5 percent utility tax on water, not-for-profit organizations such as hospitals, colleges and local governments like the Peoria Park District are examining how they can absorb a cost that could impact their operations….
Chief financial officers at the city’s cash-strapped hospitals — OSF Saint Francis Medical Care Center, Methodist Medical Center and Proctor Hospital — say the proposed increase could lead to operational changes within their organizations….
St. Francis spends about $600,000 each year on water. A 5 percent utility tax would increase the expense by $30,000, Harbaugh said.
At Methodist, the hospital’s water bill ran about $300,000 last year, and the proposed increase would mean an extra $15,000 to $20,000 a year in expenses, said Cal MacKay, the hospital’s senior vice president and CFO….
Peoria Park District Director Bonnie Noble said her district is estimating a 24 percent increase in water rates for next year, or an additional $60,000 tacked onto a typical annual water bill of $250,000. She said costs for park services could go up if the water utility costs spike.
“We’d have to spread the costs,” Noble said. “You just can’t keep absorbing these kind of things and run the same kind of operation you’ve run before.”
Three entities are looked at in detail here: OSF, Methodist, and the Park District. And we have an estimated annual increase in water bills for each entity: $30,000 for OSF, $15-20,000 for Methodist, and $12,500 for the Park District. Note on the Park District’s quote that the $60,000 figure listed in the article included Illinois American Water’s rate increase, which is outside the city’s control and was not figured into the OSF or Methodist figures. So, to compare apples with apples, I took the city’s proposed 5% fee times the Park District’s annual water bill of $250,000.
Now let’s take a look at some other recent news stories about these organizations (emphasis added):
The new OSF Center for Health at Glen Park will be open to the public Sunday. The 53,000-square-foot facility is set to open its doors after 19 months of construction on the $18 million project, which includes three buildings on the campus featuring 24 primary care physicians.
–June 12, 2009
On an average day, 200 tradesmen work on the hospital’s [OSF’s] $280 million Milestone Project, designed to modernize and expand the center and Children’s Hospital….
–January 17, 2009
What’s the monthly debt service on $298 million? I think it’s safe to say that one monthly payment alone dwarfs the $30,000 annual increase in costs that could result from the city’s imposition of a water utility fee. $30,000 is a rounding error for OSF.
Methodist Medical Center will delay the final two stages of its $400 million hospital renovation project until tight conditions in the credit market begin to loosen, CEO Michael Bryant said Thursday…. Methodist will continue with the first two phases of its massive renovation plan, which carry a combined price tag of nearly $30 million and include building a parking deck and constructing a new entrance to the hospital off Hamilton Boulevard.
–November 7, 2008
The same goes for Methodist. Even a more modest principal amount of $30 million will result in monthly debt service payments that go way beyond the predicted annual increase of $15,000 to $20,000. To put this increase in perspective, a single birth can cost a patient that much money.
But here’s my favorite:
In anticipation of shrinking revenues, the Peoria Park District will cut its budget for the rest of the year by $390,000, but the public will not be overly affected. “On a $40 million budget, this is less than 1 percent,” said Jan Budzynski, the park districts’s superintendent of finance and administrative services.
March 3, 2009
So, let me get this straight: Cutting $390,000 out of the park district budget is no big deal — it’s less than one percent of the budget and “the public will not be overly affected” — but an increase of $12,500 in water fees is going to be difficult to absorb — so much so that they’ll have to raise the cost of park services? [Insert “Dueling Banjos” music here.] It probably goes without saying, but the Park District can’t have it both ways.
It sounds to me like all these protests are pretty weak. If an attempt is being made to garner opposition to the water utility fee, this isn’t the way to do it. These large organizations with their conspicuous building projects aren’t going to get a lot of sympathy from the public. In fact, hearing how little this fee would impact them monetarily, it actually makes me more favorable toward it.
Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 8/11/2009
I’m here at City Hall again, council chambers. It’s time for another night of liveblogging. I’ll be updating this post throughout the night, so refresh often.
Here’s the agenda for tonight. As the night goes on, I’ll add discussion summaries and vote counts under each individual item:
Continue reading Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 8/11/2009
Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 7/28/2009
Hi everyone. I’m here at Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers, typing on my new laptop on the city’s wifi connection. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so check back.
Fair warning: This is a really, really long post because it’s a really, really, really long meeting.
Continue reading Liveblogging the Peoria City Council Meeting, 7/28/2009
Recycling should be incentivized
Right now in Peoria, there is an incentive to throw everything into the landfill and recycle nothing. You all know why. We pay for garbage collection through our property taxes. Then we pay again through the $6 monthly “garbage fee” (actually a regressive tax) on our water bills. Then, if you want to recycle, you pay yet another bill directly to Waste Management of a little over three dollars a month. When confronted with a choice between throwing away paper and plastic in the regular garbage for which they’ve already paid twice, or paying a third fee to recycle, most people (reportedly 91% of Peoria households) not surprisingly choose the former.
That needs to change.
Recycling is the ecologically responsible thing to do. Plastic, copper and metal recycling are some of the activities that can be done by everybody that can help not only our community but the world as a whole. And with single-stream recycling (where you can throw all your recyclables into the same bin), it couldn’t be any easier. The experts say that 80% of what Americans throw away is recyclable, and I believe it. Since we’ve started recycling, my family of five only has one can of regular garbage a week. Everything else gets recycled.
In light of that, some sort of modified “pay to throw” system would be reasonable and relatively easy to implement. The idea I’ve heard that has the most promise is this: Unlimited recycling pickup every other week; one can of regular garbage pickup every week; and a fee (per bag or per can, perhaps) for any additional regular garbage. This would incentivize recycling without being punitive. After all, we’ll always have regular garbage; not everything is recyclable. It’s only fair to provide some level of regular garbage hauling without an additional fee.
There are some who are worried about illegal dumping. I think there’s a way around that, too. Instead of requiring residents to buy stickers for additional bags of refuse and refusing to pick up non-stickered bags (the system used in some other communities, like Morton), waste haulers would still pick up any/all garbage left at the curb or alley side. Any applicable additional fees owed by the household would be included on that household’s next water bill. This makes it convenient for everyone. If the current $6 garbage fee hasn’t led to illegal dumping, using the water bill to collect additional fees won’t either — especially if the council decides to adopt Councilman Turner’s suggestion of rolling the current $6 garbage fee into the property tax bill.
The council will be discussing the garbage contract at its regular meeting tonight (July 28) at 6:15.
More bald-faced lies about the Kellar Branch (Updated)
At the last City Council meeting (not including executive sessions), the council deferred an agreement that will bring them closer to converting strategic infrastructure into a hiking/biking trail. Last week, the agreement was posted on the city’s website so we could all read it. But they haven’t posted the revisions. I guess they don’t want the little people to see the agreement before they vote on it next Tuesday.
What is posted includes this whopper of a statement (emphasis mine):
There have been numerous hearings concerning discontinuance of part of the Kellar Branch to a trail. No objections have been raised.
That last sentence is a bald-faced lie. I personally have objected to the discontinuance at those hearings, and so have several other rail supporters. It’s all on record, too. Look it up in the official minutes, Mr. Holling. You’re supposed to be presenting facts, not fantasy, to the council.
Also, if you haven’t seen it already, check out David Jordan’s excellent post comparing Davenport and Peoria.
UPDATE: The agreement is now on the City’s website here. It was added Friday afternoon. Also, according to a report on WMBD-TV, channel 31, the city says they were misunderstood when they said no objections had been made to abandoning a portion of the Kellar Branch. They say they meant only that no neighbors abutting the branch line had objected.
I guess they forgot about this one from the minutes of February 20, 2007:
Mr. Joe Marmon, President of Carver Lumber Company, said although the western connection was constructed to supplement the advent of the closure of Keller Branch, the western connection had caused Carver Lumber to compromise service and competitive pricing. He said Carver was forced to use alternative methods for distribution. He said he had not used the western branch for several months, due to the pricing problems. He spoke in support of services provided by Pioneer Rail, and he urged the Council to keep Keller Branch open for future economic development.
Not only was Mr. Marmon a neighbor directly abutting the tracks, but a user of rail service as well. It should be pointed out that the city promised Carver Lumber in writing that there would be “no interruption in rail service” while the western spur was being built, and that the city would intercede on their behalf if service lagged or costs rose. In fact, service was interrupted, and the city did nothing. Then when service was restored via the western connection, the city did nothing to help. The city continues to show its contempt for this business; it doesn’t even acknowledge their objections which are clearly on the record.
Oh, I know what they’ll say — Carver Lumber doesn’t directly abut the portion of the branch to be abandoned. That’s true. I guess if you define “neighborhood concerns” narrowly enough, you can make it exclude any objectors and make it easier to push through unwise agreements.
Council brainstorms money-saving ideas
The August 11 Peoria City Council meeting promises to be a long, long meeting. The council spent an hour and a half Tuesday night brainstorming ideas for plugging the projected $10 million budget deficit. City staff will take those ideas and run the numbers on them (and in some cases, check the legality of them), then bring them back on August 11 for a policy session where council members will discuss them in detail.
Here is the list of ideas as compiled by the Journal Star:
New tax and fee ideas
- 2 percent tax on package liquor
- “Carry out” tax on restaurants, retail establishments, distributors or other businesses that generate wrappers, bottles and other products that turn into litter
- “Bed tax” on not-for-profit entities such as Bradley University and local hospitals
- Business license fee
- Additional tax to use city parking decks
- Arrest fee
- Fire service protection districts
- 5 percent water utility tax
- Storm water utility tax
- Fee assessed on pet owners
- 2 cent per gallon motor fuel tax
- Eliminating $6 a month garbage tax and rolling it into the property tax
These were in addition to the suggestions made by staff in this report, which includes wage freezes, voluntary separation, revenue adjustments (cutting funding to ArtsPartners, the public library, and other organizations), and revenue increases (e.g., eliminating free land waste pickup).
Councilman Gary Sandberg also suggested that, if the council is going to consider cutting funding to the library, they should also consider cutting funding to the Peoria Civic Center by the same percentage. He also asked staff to bring back a report on how much downtown parking decks would need to charge to break even (i.e., eliminate parking subsidies).
He also hinted at a more radical suggestion: eliminate the city’s police department and turn that function over to the Peoria County Sheriff’s Office. Sandberg points out that county law enforcement officers’ salaries are one-third less than Peoria police officers’. After the meeting, he added that we could put half the savings in salaries toward plugging the budget deficit, and use the other half of the savings to hire more police officers. In effect, we could help plug the deficit and increase police protection at the same time.
I asked Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard what he thought about Sandberg’s proposal. He said that it wasn’t an apples-to-apples comparison to compare city officers to county officers. Instead, when comparing salaries, the council should compare city officers in Peoria to city officers in other similar-sized cities. He said that there are differences between city and county law enforcement, but didn’t elaborate on what those differences are.
Repeat after me: “Consensus is bad”
During the last election, one of the big buzz-words was “consensus.” For instance, then-councilman Bob Manning wrote an endorsement of his eventual successor in which he said, “He is known as a consensus builder. He is not a divisive or polarizing figure. Rather, he brings people together to achieve results.” Conventional wisdom at the time was that the council was working better now than it ever had, and the reason was because of this new ethos of consensus-building.
At first, I tried to differentiate between good and bad “consensus.” (Good consensus involved timely and effective public input into projects; bad consensus was just another word for “groupthink.”) But since then, I’ve determined that what I was calling “good consensus” would be better described as simply “good leadership.” And “consensus” is always bad.
Certainly the last thing the council needs is more consensus. “Consensus” is defined as “general agreement or concord; harmony.” The city council couldn’t be any more in agreement if they held hands and sang Kumbaya . . . unless they found a way to get Sandberg off the council so every vote could be unanimous. The council (then or now) doesn’t need more consensus; it needs more critical thinking. It needs more deliberation — public deliberation.
Billy Dennis is right when he says, “Technically, policy might be set in public, but the process of arriving at the decision is not.” How many times have you seen this happen? An issue comes before the council. A motion is made to approve and is seconded. Councilman Sandberg speaks against it. There is no further discussion. Ballots are cast, and the motion passes 10-1. This happens time and time again. On big votes, like the decision to give $39.5 million to the Wonderful Development (aka Marriott Hotel), a few more council members speak in support of it, but the outcome is the same: no deliberation; 10-1 vote to approve.
How can eleven people get together and not have any major disagreements on nearly every issue — even one involving almost $40 million? Is this not an amazing phenomenon? As I see it, there are only two possible reasons why this would happen consistently over a long period of time (I’ve excluded the implausible option of it all being a huge coincidence that they agree on absolutely everything):
- The council members are skirting the Open Meetings Act and deliberating these issues out of the public eye. (Note I said “skirting,” not “violating.”) This is Billy’s theory. He suggests that decisions are made “during phone calls and emails, and during social events.” Conflicts exist, but they are being resolved in secret.
- The council members are blindly following the recommendations of staff or the district council person without thinking through or deliberating the issue at all. Council members avoid conflict by not thinking.
Both of these options involve “consensus.” Neither of these options is in the best interests of the taxpayers.
Lewis Lapham once said, “In place of honest argument among consenting adults the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children [i.e., “consensus”]: the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which we no longer need politics.” And former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher explained, “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Did you ever read a quote more descriptive of the Peoria City Council’s decisions?
Council members, the Journal Star, and the proverbial “man on the street” all think consensus on the council is fantastic — soooo much better than those old, divisive councils where they argued about stuff (gasp!) in public! And yet, the decisions haven’t gotten any better. They just have fewer, shorter meetings with more unanimous or nearly-unanimous votes. And — did I mention? — more secrecy. Because if you’re going to keep up “the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist,” you can’t have transparency in government.
Bottom line: Consensus is bad. Remember that the next council election.
Vallas returning to Peoria
Education reformer Paul Vallas, who last visited Peoria in late 2007, is returning this Saturday morning to meet with Peoria City Council members at Mayor Ardis’s request. The Council has scheduled a full-day retreat this Saturday at the Peoria Civic Center’s Lexus Room starting at 9 a.m. The agenda for the meeting includes several guest speakers including Vallas, a representative from Mesirow Financial, and Heart of Illinois United Way Vice President of Community Investment Don Johnson.
Ardis says he didn’t ask Vallas to speak on any specific topic, but about reforming schools in general. “His experience in successfully reforming urban school districts should make his comments informative and relevant,” Ardis said Tuesday.
The last time Vallas was in town (also at Ardis’s request), the Journal Star reported (12/22/2007):
Vallas said if District 150 were to engage in reform efforts, he would spend his spring break in Peoria working with the district. He would recruit one or more persons to work on the project locally, and he would come back to Peoria periodically to monitor the progress.
He said Ardis has agreed to pay for his gas expenses driving to and from Peoria, along with occasional overnight hotel stays during his road trips.
But despite the City’s efforts to help improve the City’s schools, District 150 said, “no thanks.” Since then, the District has shortened the school day for several Wednesdays at a number of primary schools for no justifiable reason, fired their Comptroller/Treasurer for undisclosed reasons, decided to close four schools (including a high school yet to be named), and issue bonds for $38 million to dig out of a budget deficit. No need for outside advice from a proven reformer here, huh?
Akeson concedes, decides against recount
Beth Akeson ran against Tim Riggenbach for the third district City Council seat, replacing outgoing councilman Bob Manning. Riggenbach won the election by 12 votes, causing many to wonder if Akeson would ask for a recount. Wonder no more — Akeson sent out this release late Monday:
I would like to congratulate Tim Riggenbach on his victory in the recent City Council election. I have spoken to Tim and have wished him my best as he takes his seat Tuesday evening.
To my supporters who urged me to pursue a recount: I would like you to know I deliberated for weeks and concluded a recount would be a formidable and costly exercise, and most likely to no avail. Please accept my thanks and appreciation for the kind emails, notes and words of encouragement. I have offered Tim a helping hand if ever needed and ask you to do the same.
We live in a city with so much potential; let’s join together and do our best to see great things accomplished.
Sincerely,
Beth Akeson