Tag Archives: Peoria County

City of Peoria, Peoria County, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Smoking prohibited

6 Comments

This week’s Word on the Street column reports that the City and County have been doing smoking ban stings lately: “The county performed 203 compliance checks and wrote 45 tickets. The city performed 123 checks and wrote eight tickets.” And, “The effort was funded by a [$15,000] grant the Peoria City/County Health Department received from the state Department of Public Health.”

Meanwhile, there’s a new documentary miniseries premiering in October on PBS about Prohibition. Promotional material for the new film by Ken Burns describes the Prohibition era: “The culmination of nearly a century of activism, Prohibition was intended to improve, even to ennoble, the lives of all Americans, to protect individuals, families, and society at large from the devastating effects of alcohol abuse…. Prohibition turned law-abiding citizens into criminals, made a mockery of the justice system … permitted government officials to bend and sometimes even break the law, and fostered cynicism and hypocrisy that corroded the social contract all across the country…. The film raises vital questions that are as relevant today as they were 100 years ago – about means and ends, individual rights and responsibilities, the proper role of government and finally, who is — and who is not — a real American.”

File the modern, popular smoking bans under the heading, “History Repeating Itself.”

Peoria County, Taxes

What do you think of your property assessment?

39 Comments

According to Peoria County, the value of my house has gone up. But I have friends, relatives, and neighbors whose home values have gone down. According to Supervisor of Assessments Dave Ryan, the County is expecting the equalized assessed value of all property in the County to go down by 1.5%. He doesn’t have a firm figure because there will be many people who will contest their valuations in the next few months, and that will affect the final percentage.

Some people I’ve talked to — even those who have seen their home values rise — feel that the process has been fair and reasonable. Others think it’s ridiculous to think anyone’s home value has gone up given the weak economy and the decline of the housing market starting in late 2006 nationally.

What do you think?

Museum Block, Peoria County

Moving grant funds will require new application

1 Comment

The Journal Star reported on February 25 that, due to lower construction bids on the Peoria Riverfront Museum, taxpayers will save “the additional $4 million that otherwise would have gone to interest payments on bonds, county officials said. In addition, the county is now able to slide $3 million in grant funding from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity [DCEO] to the museum group to help build exhibits inside the museum, County Administrator Patrick Urich said.”

The county’s application for the DCEO grant specifically stated that it was to be used for the parking garage portion of the project. If the county wishes to “slide $3 million in grant funding” to build exhibits inside the museum, they are going to have to reapply for the grant with a new scope of work. According to County Administrator Patrick Urich, the county sent in their new application last week. Nevertheless, the county’s Finance Committee approved a resolution moving $3 million of the DCEO funds to the “non-building” portion of the project. The county has not received any funds from the DCEO grant as yet.

Certain “durable movable equipment” is considered a “bondable expenditure” under the grant guidelines. According to Mr. Urich, “exhibit construction” would fall under this category. The grant application specifically lists the following as examples of expenditures that could be approved: “Art-in-architectural art, heavy duty fire protection apparatus, office and household equipment and furniture, machinery and implements, scientific instruments and apparatus with the exception of those with short useful life.” Specific examples of expenditures that would not be approved are: “commodities; library books, maps and paintings other than those purchased with the Art-in-Architecture Program; livestock; rolling-stock including cars, trucks, boats and related items; spare and replacement parts; items such as glassware, crockery, etc.; computers, related equipment and software.”

City Council, City of Peoria

Urich to start making $175k on April 18

96 Comments

Patrick UrichThe City Council will hire Patrick Urich as Peoria City Manager next Tuesday night. Urich recently gave 90 days notice of his resignation as Peoria County Administrator. You can read the proposed contract on the City’s website. Here are the highlights:

  • Base Salary: $175,000 for the first year
  • Starting Date: April 18, 2011
  • Incentive Pay: To be negotiated during first three months of employment
  • Car Allowance: $500/month
  • Vacation Days: 15
  • Sick Days: 10
  • Personal Days: 5
  • Health Benefits: Same as all other City employees
  • Term Life Insurance: Paid for by City, not to exceed three times base salary; premiums not to exceed $800/yr.
  • Deferred Compensation (457 Plan): Lesser of 9% of base salary or maximum deferred contribution allowed (currently $16,500)
  • Retirement System: Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)
  • Fringe Benefits: Laptop; cell phone; dues for local civic organization memberships; dues for membership in two national, one regional, and one state professional association; travel and other expenses to attend one national and one state conference per year; reimbursement of job-affiliated expenses.
  • Involuntary termination: Lump sum of 9 months salary if terminated within first two years; 8 months if terminated in year three; 7 months if terminated in year four; 6 months salary if terminated in year five or later. All accrued but unused vacation leave up to 200 hours will be reimbursed. All life, health, dental, and disability insurance continues for 12 months (or until he’s hired somewhere else, whichever comes first) if he’s terminated within the first three years.

How does this compare to previous City Manager Scott Moore’s compensation package? Moore’s base salary was set at $165,000 for the first two years; Urich’s is $175,000 for the first year only. Moore’s contract also capped his salary increase at 8%; no cap exists in Urich’s. The city paid for life insurance equal to Moore’s base salary; will pay for life insurance equal to three times Urich’s base salary. The city contributed 8% of Moore’s base salary toward a deferred compensation (457) plan; Urich is getting 9%. Moore got six months’ salary upon involuntary termination; that would have dropped to four months if Moore had been terminated after serving two years; Urich gets nine months salary if he’s terminated within the first two years. Moore’s contract included no provision for incentive pay, but did include moving expenses since he was coming from out of state.

One last interesting tidbit. This will make the third City Manager who doesn’t go by his first name. Randy Oliver was really Charles R. Oliver. Scott Moore was really L. Scott Moore. And Patrick Urich is really F. Patrick Urich. What is it about City Managers that makes them go by their middle names?

City of Peoria, Peoria County, Peoria County Sheriff, Peoria Mayor, Peoria Police

Chief, Sheriff say two departments are not comparable

58 Comments

At Tuesday’s State of the City address, Mayor Ardis announced a new initiative to see what it would take to combine the City and County police departments. This prompted the Journal Star to gather a few basic facts about the two forces:

The city’s Police Department has 214 employees and operates on a $21 million budget; the Sheriff’s Department has roughly 200 employees and operates on a $13 million budget.

A difference of 14 employees and $8 million seemed surprisingly large to me. So I asked Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard and Peoria County Sheriff Mike McCoy why there is such a disparity.

The first thing Settingsgaard wanted to clear up was that he actually has 248 total employees — the 214 number was the total of “sworn officers.” Even with that said, though, he still felt that a comparison of the two forces is “more apples to oranges than it is apples to apples.”

“[W]ithout a close comparison of both of our agencies, to include operations, budgets, staff, contracts, etc., it is impossible to tell you all the reasons there is a legitimate difference in budget numbers beyond just salaries,” Settingsgaard explained.

I would argue that the Sheriff’s Office and the Peoria Police Department are more dissimilar then they are similar. Yes we both have traditional patrol and traditional law enforcement functions but there are many more facets of what we do that is very different from one another. I don’t speak for the Sheriff and I would be interested to hear his take on it, but I believe the jail and the Court house account for the majority of his staff and his Office’s workload. I would guess that the “policing” part of law enforcement is a smaller part of his overall operation. In my Department, traditional “policing” is the vast majority of what we do and 217 of my 248 people are sworn officers as a result. I would not be surprised if a much higher percentage of my people are sworn versus civilian than what you would find on the County side and sworn staff are more costly.

There are other vast differences in areas of responsibility from crime rates, to total population, to calls for service, to poverty/income levels, etc.

It is critical to understand that I don’t point out these differences to say that one entity is better than the other. For everything I could tell you that I have to do more of, the Sheriff could probably list just as many that his staff is responsible for that I am not. I can’t tell you how many thousands of prisoners I didn’t have to house or feed that the Sheriff did. My point is that the two organizations are very different and a simple comparison of cost per employee borders on meaningless without an understanding of how different an urban municipal police department is from a sheriff’s office, and without drilling down into the level of great detail needed to understand those differences, drawing meaningful conclusions is risky at best.

Sheriff McCoy agreed. “Trying to compare agencies, on a wide level, does not work out. Comparing period …does not work out. We each have some similar functions and we have some unique functions.”

In addition to basic patrol services for 648 square miles and having contracts with nine different communities for police and dispatch services, the Peoria County Sheriff’s Office operates the ONLY Jail in Peoria County, booking in 17,000 people each year. We also serve all the civil papers for the courts as well as provide security for the Peoria Airport.

Nevertheless, McCoy did allow this observation: “In my opinion, cost differences primarily relate to individual pay and benefit packages. Peoria City Officers are paid at a higher rate than Peoria County Deputies, all thru the pay grades. Compounded, these costs become staggering for both agencies.”

And this is why the Peoria police union is not too excited about the prospect of combining forces. The given reason for combining forces is to save money, and clearly no money is going to be saved by bringing both forces up to the same salary level as city officers.

According to another Journal Star report, “A starting police officer who completes a probationary period earns $51,994 annually; a sheriff’s deputy’s starting salary is $43,227.” And there are also different pension programs: “the city’s police pension program is governed through contribution limits set by the General Assembly; sheriff’s deputies are part of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF).”

Undoubtedly, there can be some savings by eliminating redundancies and finding new efficiencies by working together, but that’s not going to save enough money to get the City out of its structural deficit. When talks turn to salaries, the police union has already made it clear that they will fight to keep the salaries and benefits they’ve won. I don’t envy the Chief or the Sheriff as they take on this consolidation initiative.

Bradley University, City of Peoria, Peoria County

IPL tries unconventional approach to collaboration

10 Comments

Word on the Street reveals that Bradley University’s “Institute for Principled Leadership [IPL] in Public Service” helped launched a rather unconventional City-County collaboration effort. In a surprising break from traditional negotiation, they didn’t tell the County Board anything about the endeavor. This simplified discussions considerably and was, by all accounts, non-confrontational. But the plan backfired when County Board members found out about it through the media. Rumor is that IPL will now have to resort to Plan B: communicating with all parties.

In a further effort to send mixed signals, they’ve dubbed the effort “PASS.” Yes. It’s an acronym that stands for “Peoria Area Shared Services.” (Here’s hoping Galesburg doesn’t attempt a similar acronym in their efforts to share services with Knox County.) IPL is now hoping that the County won’t pass on PASS after the PASS faux pas.

Peoria County

Urich bids a sudden and unexpected farewell

67 Comments

The big news from Peoria County:

Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich announced today that he has decided to seek another challenge in the public sector, yet to be determined. Urich has been the Peoria County administrator for 10 years and has held the reins as the longest serving CEO in recent memory. […] Urich’s career in Peoria County began in January 2001 when he arrived from Lake County, IL at the age of 32, after serving as Assistant County Administrator. […] Peoria County board members will meet in Executive Session this week to discuss plans to begin a search for Urich’s replacement. The Board may decide to use an in-house approach or contract with a third party to assist in the identification of potential replacement candidates.

Reportedly, Urich has no other job lined up. He’s just quitting with no particular place to go. The Journal Star is already speculating that he could land at Peoria City Hall. I’m not sure the City could afford him if his salary continues to increase at the same rate it has over the past decade. Here’s a brief recap:

That’s about a 4-5% raise the first few years, followed by a 35% raise in 2006, then a 19% raise in 2008, and then back down to just 6% in 2009. He declined another $10,000 raise in 2010. Wow. The County Board really takes care of their administrator. Don’t expect increases like that from the City Council.

Well, unless you want to build a hotel attached to the Civic Center, of course….икони

Museum Block, Peoria County

Museum bids come in lower than estimated

34 Comments

From a Peoria County press release:

Peoria County conducted the Peoria Riverfront Museum (PRM) bid opening this afternoon at the Peoria County Courthouse. Five companies submitted bids for construction of the PRM: Core Construction of Morton, IL; PJ Hoerr of Peoria, IL; River City Construction of East Peoria, IL; Walsh Construction of Chicago, IL; and Williams Brothers Construction of Peoria Heights, IL. The following table shows respective bid amounts:

Company
Core Constr.
PJ Hoerr
River City
Walsh Constr.
Williams Bros.
Base Bid
28,155,000
26,697,000
28,357,000
27,927,000
25,780,000
Alternate Total*
2,113,000
1,455,832
1,736,500
1,461,300
1,646,900
Bid Total
$ 30,268,000
$ 28,152,832
$ 30,093,500
$ 29,388,300
$ 27,426,900

*Alternate totals reflect the cumulative amount submitted for 31 items not included in the base bid.

Construction costs for the PRM were estimated at $35,829,249. Andrew Rand, Peoria County Board Member and Chairman of the County’s PRM Construction Committee, remarks on the cost savings realized by the bid amounts: "Peoria County is very pleased with the results of today’s bid opening. Protecting the tax payers’ investment is our top priority and, with bids coming in as much as $8 million below our estimates, we are able to do that. The museum project is moving forward at a time when construction costs are the most favorable we’ve seen in recent years and I believe this downtown development project bodes well for our economy and our workers."

Over the course of the coming days, county staff will conduct its due diligence to verify that all bid requirements were met and subsequently recommend the lowest responsible bid to the Peoria Riverfront Museum Committee at its meeting next week; meeting date and time are yet to be determined. Then, on December 9 at its regular meeting, the County Board will vote to award construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum to the company submitting the lowest responsible bid.

Dave Ransburg, President of the Peoria Riverfront Museum Board of Directors, outlines the project timeline: "Over the past few months, we’ve all watched the progress of the parking deck in anticipation of the next phase: construction of the museum itself. Next week’s bid award is a major milestone in a project that’s been a long time coming. Now we just have a few short winter months to wait until construction begins and what has been known as the museum project will become reality in the fall of 2012!"

County Board Chairman Thomas H. O’Neill III echoes Ransburg’s enthusiastic sentiments: "The museum is happening and it is bringing jobs to our community when jobs are scarce across the country. It is a credit to the local construction trades that four of the five companies submitting a bid for this project are based right here in central Illinois. Using local labor to build the museum will help build our economy and there’s no better time for that than now."

For more information on the Peoria Riverfront Museum construction bids please call County Administration at (309) 672-6056.

“Protecting the tax payers’ investment is our top priority….” Funniest. Line. Ever.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Promises, Promises: 100% Local Union Labor

10 Comments

What did the museum group promise the local labor force before the April 2009 referendum?

Mike Everett, West Central Illinois Building & Construction Trades Council: “The Build the Block project offers our local construction workforce a tremendous opportunity. Over a 25-month construction schedule, this project will create over 250 jobs and put $1.8 million back into our community. Plus, through an unprecedented agreement, this project’s going to be built with 100% local union labor. Building the Block is more than just building a museum. It’s a chance to strengthen our economy and help our local families.”

From today’s Journal Star:

Though there is no guarantee a local firm will be awarded the construction bid for the Peoria Riverfront Museum, county officials say they will do what they can to promote the use of local resources….

County Board member and museum committee member Mike Phelan said though the total museum project likely won’t be built exclusively by local union laborers, they will build a majority of the project….

Turner Construction – the same Chicago firm that worked on the Peoria Civic Center and also is managing construction of the new terminal at Gen. Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport – will serve as the county’s project manager through March 2013. Turner will be paid about $1 million to oversee the estimated $36 to $40 million project.

Another broken promise to add to the list. I’m sure Mike Everett won’t mind. He told the City Council he just doesn’t want to see a big hole when he drives into Peoria from his home in Tazewell County. Well, it looks like he won’t see 100% local union labor filling that hole, either.

What I find amusing is the attempt to make it sound like this hasn’t been a problem from the beginning. The news article states without attribution:

The game changed earlier this year when Peoria County decided to oversee construction of the museum to ensure what is done with public money on a public building on public property is the public’s business.

That responsibility previously fell under the direction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum board of directors, a not-for-profit organization not subject to the Open Meetings Act. As a public entity, Peoria County is bound to accept the lowest responsible bid and that firm may or may not be local, officials acknowledge.

Au contraire: Citizens for Responsible Spending asked about the promise of local union labor before the referendum vote. Here’s the County’s official response back then:

[Q:] If all labor for construction is going to be sourced locally, does this mean no bids?
[A:] If the referendum passes and public dollars are used, the museum portion of the project would have to be bid and construction workers paid at least prevailing wages.

So there never really was a guarantee that it would be 100% local union labor unless all the bids just happened to be won by local contractors.

Museum Block, Peoria County

County Clerk throws out petitions without challenge

17 Comments

There’s an article in the print edition of the Journal Star today that I can’t find online. The headline is “Peoria County tosses ‘Block the Bonds’ petition,” with a subhead, “County Clerk rules Citizens for Responsible Spending failed to comply with Election Code.” Here’s what it says:

There will be no referendum on the issue of the bonds to pay for construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

On Friday, Peoria County Clerk Steve Sonnemaker ruled the petitions filed to place the question on the ballot to be in “nonconformity of the Election Code.”

About 1,700 signatures were filed with the Peoria county Clerk’s Office on Monday requesting a referendum, far short of the 9,849 signatures the Citizens for Responsible Spending needed to withstand challenges to getting a question on the February or April ballots in Peoria County.

In a news release, Sonnemaker said the petitions “on their face, lack the required number of signatures and, therefore, do not comply with the Election Code.”

“The change in policy at this time is due to recent court cases that appear to require that the clerk has a duty to examine petitions to determine whether upon their face they are in apparent conformity with the Election Code. The State’s Attorney has this week addressed these court cases in a letter to the county clerk and advised that the clerk should examine for apparent conformity of the petitions based on the requirements of the Election Code and therefore, no referendum issue should be placed on the ballot,” the release states.

“Previously the clerk did not examine petitions for apparent conformity but relied on petition challenges that would be resolved by a three member Electoral Board as in keeping with policy set by the State Board of Elections.”

But Sonnemaker also said, “any action taken by the county clerk regarding petition conformity may be subject to challenge.”

Citizens for Responsible Spending mounted a monthlong petition drive aimed at halting the issuance of $41.6 [sic] million in bonds to help pay for the construction of the $140 million museum project shortly after the City Council and County Board approved redevelopment agreements allowing for construction to commence.

The group also was concerned that the project’s scope has changed since voters endorsed an April 2009 referendum, pumping $40 million of local sales taxes into the project. Some examples of the changes included the possibility an IMAX-brand theater might not be part of the project, the use of general obligation bonds to finance the project instead of revenue bonds and that state grants to move forward with construction have not yet been received.

The relevant statute is 10 ILCS 5/10-8, which states in part, “petitions to submit public questions to a referendum, being filed as required by this Code, and being in apparent conformity with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the … petition for a public question.”

In court cases People ex rel. Giese v. Dillon (1914), North v. Hinkle (1998), and Haymore v. Orr (2008), Illinois courts have consistently found that the County Clerk has the authority to make certain judgments about whether petitions are “in apparent conformity with the provisions of [the] Act.” One of those judgments has to do with whether enough signatures have been gathered. The Haymore decision states:

[T]he Illinois Supreme Court explained that the responsibility for determining whether an election petition apparently conforms to the law rests with the town clerk. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 275-76. Specifically, the clerk’s duty is “to determine whether, upon the face of the petition, it is in compliance with the law.” Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If the petition on its face appears to comply with the statutory requisites, the clerk may not look outside the petition to determine whether in fact it does comply; he must submit the question to the voters.

For example, the Clerk cannot determine on the face of a petition whether the signatures are valid, or whether the person circulating the petitions met the legal requirements to do so.

However, the court continued, had the petition not appeared on its face to have complied with the statutory requisites, the clerk would have had no duty to submit the question to the voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. For example, by examining the face of the petition, a clerk can determine whether it contains the requisite number of signatures. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If it does not, the petition is not in apparent conformity with the election statutes and the clerk has no duty to certify the question for the ballot. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.

So, based on that case law, the State’s Attorney has apparently instructed the County Clerk to throw out the petitions. It’s really a moot point because the petitions couldn’t withstand a challenge anyway. Still, it’s interesting that this is apparently the first time the Peoria County Clerk has made this kind of decision, since the State’s Attorney had to tell him to do it, and the Clerk felt it necessary to publish a press release about it.