Please draw your own conclusions, I have and feel we are being deceived.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
News Tribune - News - Local - Peru to invest in upgrades to attract employer
News Tribune - News - Local - Peru to invest in upgrades to attract employer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
From this article I have found out that a $1,550,000 project to improve the treatment plant's collection system and sludge process is being undertaken by the city. (for an unnamed company)
The CDAP grant if given would cover 675,000 leaving $875,000 the responsibility of the city. And where would that money come from? Certainly not extra cash we have on hand but according to the Mayor, it would come from the PROPOSED 1/2% SALES TAX INCREASE.
We were led to believe it was for road and infrastructure repairs. The increase has not even been passed and now there are already other plans for its use.
For 25 jobs?
Something does not smell right. And by the way last night at the council meeting when I asked whether the jobs generated would be for local residents, Mr Chamlin turned around and jeered at me for asking the question. What business is it of his when I am querying the NCIC person who came to the meeting?
And coincidently this is the first meeting at which our volunteer economic directory was present, Mr Vickery that is.
This tax increase, if passed, should be for exactly what was stated! You are correct Lois, something does not smell right. Keep up the good work!
It all makes sense now.
Lois - you are starting to understand. When they get the money, they will spend it on anything they want. The WWT Plant fits the "infrastructure" definition - even though it is not a NEED at this point in time. Snow removal and road salt are also "infrastructure" as is overtime payments to Public Works employees.
I support business expansion and I might even support the WWT upgrades - If I knew the details.
The next question for Harl is, "how much are you expecting from this 1/2% sales tax increase and what happens when and if sales decline?" Parkside is a perfect example....when sales tax monies were not enough, who was tapped for the outstanding balances.....the tax payers of Peru. Home rule is a "license to steal" to cities that are not fiscally sound and to a governing council that just believes you can borrow from Peter to pay Paul.
Anonymous 6:40 you are completely making that up about the school. The school is still being paid for by the sales tax. You have not paid for any of Parkside with your peroperty taxes so get your facts straight.
Oh my god! We haven't even approved the sales tax increase and already we're spending it to benefit a business that wants to expand? I was under the impression that we had roads that were in dire need of repaving and that businesses would not come to our town until we repaired them. Now this grant comes out of no where and we plan to use money we don't have yet to back it? I'm confused!
12:53PM
There was a time last year when we had to make up some Parkside funding because the sales tax portion was not the amount we had agreed on with the school.
12:59 That is their intention...to confuse.
I believe the school bond payment was about timing and not being paid properly per regulations. I vaguely remember but the funding was available; just being paid at the wrong time.
Kristy
Kristy is correct there was never a shortage of funds for Parkside the city jsut had not set aside the funds from the sales tax and needed to catch up. This cost taxpayer nothing.
Everyone knows that Mayor Harl IS NOT TRUTHFUL TO THE CITIZENS OF PERU.
I spoke in the past in this blog that the money from ANY increase of sales tax WOULD NOT GO FOR ROADS BUT FOR WHIMS OF THIS MAYOR.
Do you believe it now ?
In tonights News trib, Mayor Harl said at the recent meeting and was QUOTED; "If you don't like what I am doing (mayor Harl) in two years DON'T VOTE FOR ME"
We need to listen to his statement , save his statement, and fulfill his statement in two years, VOTE MAYOR HARL OUT OUT OUT OUT !!!!!!!
Do we get the message, I do .
The old saying, "Politics creates strange bed-fellows" is playing out in this sales tax increase debate. Strange alliances coming together and speaking out in an effort to ensure that Peru maintain its longstanding tradition of neglecting its infrastructure and failing to implement a viable capital improvement plan.
Many of those who criticize Harl's plan to repair our city are the same people who not long ago criticized this administration for not having a plan at all for progress.
Brian Foster recently suggested we impose some sort of "Curb Tax" on residents of Peru who own vehicles or park on city streets as a way of raising revenue for street improvements. I'm not feeling much of a groud-swell of support for that "progressive" idea Brian.
The fact is Brian, neither you nor any other opponents of a sales tax increase have ever provided a credible plan to fix, fund, and maintain the infrasrtucture needs of the city of Peru. Not Dave Potthoff. Not the cheap imitation Dave. Not Bob Ankiewicz. Not any of them.
Consider the performance of Larry Bianchi as reported in the N-T on Wednesday. That was major league hypocracy at its finest. That was a political play and nothing more. Janko and it's associates, just like Brian Foster and half the city council were, are now, and always will be supporters of the past and will never openly support anything Harl initiates. That's hardcore politics and just the way it is. I understand that.
Complaining about where the money will be spent makes for good sound bites but the fact is the entire city council, every individual member, is responsible for determining where to allocate that money. Not solely the Mayor, or the finance committee, or the public works committee. Of course we should hold every one of them accountable to spend the money raised from a sales tax increase on "infrastructure". Yes, that covers a wide variety of projects.
Lets take a look into the future at how this sales tax "political football" game might play out a couple years from now. This may help the haters like 9:29 p.m. sleep a little easier at night. The increase will pass and the city will undergo major renovations and improvements throughout commercial and residential areas. Any and all challengers for the office of mayor will run almost exclusively on a platform of "I fought to keep your taxes low". And, "I opposed any sales tax increase". Because politics is what it is, that political strategy might very well work. By election day 2013, Peru will have the revenue resources it needs and the city-wide improvements will be well under way and any and all mayoral challengers, and their supporters, will still be harping about the sales tax increase of 2012. And it just might work for one of them. So goes politics.
And make no mistake about this. Harl will leave this city in much better financial shape than he inherited and nobody will be more grateful for that little sales tax increase then a brand new mayor. You can bank on that!
Steve, always looking for the conspiracy theory. And as always pointing out those who have much different ideas on how to move the city forward. The last few years the City has placed millions of dollars in streets, sewers, curbs. Much of it was on the docket while Baker was still in office, like the 6 million dollar sewer project. Yes politics has strange bed fellows. Like the City employee unions and our Mayor or the Organized labor unions and our Mayor. You can land on any city in our country and play the same game, the game of tax and spend. Lois is right on...something about this political football game doesn't smell right.
The City of Peru strong financial shape is the result of the past decisions made to insure profitable electric services and strong sales tax base. The only way to mess this up is to raise taxes and continue to spend like a unexperienced administrator of public funds.
To 9:46 a.m. - Who is suggesting a conspiracy? Me or You? Your "union-phobic" inspired comments are what really smells. You are predictable. The previous administration would have been praised by you and others like you for working with a local industry to expand operations and create new jobs. Instead, you turn a blind eye to the initiative of the current administration because you don't like their politics. The details and particulars of the local industry and the CDAP grant will all become public knowledge before long, as it should.
Be advised that your city council voted unanimously to pursue this grant. Do you think your aldermen are unaware of what you are describing as a "conspiracy".
To 10:06 - Thank you for reminding us of the past "Operating Philosophy" of the Electric Light Fund and the Electric department in general under the previous administration. I am looking forward with great anticipation to the city council's release of the professional consultant's report and review of the financial condition and viability of the Electric Department as a whole.
I'm especially looking forward to learning about some of those "past decisions" you are referring to. I suggest you contact your alderman and encourage him or her to make the report available to the public. What do you say?
Steve, I believe you LOST THE ELECTION.
Your comments are void and irresponsible. We do not need any additional funds to work on our streets and roads . What we have today and yesterday will more then enough to fix tommorrow.
Get off of it. I would suggest the city should start supportting a NEW CANDIDATE FOR OUR NEW MAYOR REPLACING HARL.
Maybe before the next election Steve will see the light and grow up to take full accountability and be responsible for being the election manager for Mayor Harl and realize the grave mistake he has made. I hope he confesses in church.
Lets see now . The city has 4500 meters that cards went out with the billing. There were about 968 yes votes and about 864 no votes or about only 22% yes.
This hardly seems to me to be a mandate to RAISE THE SALES TAX . (968 vs 4500) What kind of math does the Mayor use to determine his warped frame of mind?
Lets vote , where is the rush? We have city employees running around town with a black top cart in tow using the gas we provide the money to purchase and doing nothing but RIDING .
Now that is excellent management of our resources!
Steve, you sound like the 1960 group of naysayers that wanted to sell the electric department. Or maybe the group that thought expanding North of Shooting Park Road was not in the best interest of Peru. News, CDAP grants have been used to expand Peru for a long time to expand employment. It sounds like the entire city council supports the use of the CDAP grant and the benefit from it. Higher taxes is also a idea from the 1960's. Join us now in the year of 2011, we lack employment, we lack income to support the increases, we lack confidence in the economy. Private business is under siege and we want to tax. Call us names or tell us that the unions play no part in our city. It just lacks judgement to raise taxes and tell us its only a little bit.
Unless you were at the open forum you might have formed the wrong impression of what Mr. Bianchi had to say regarding the sales tax increase. Not once did he attack or criticize the mayor or his idea. He just expressed his view point which appeared to be that he didn't think this was the best time to impose a tax increase.
As a matter of fact, if you were present, you would have heard him praise the mayor and his efforts quite often. I believe his main concerns were 1. not the best time to tax and 2. if necessary at least put it to a referendum. If I've missed the mark Mr. Bianchi I apologize and please correct me on this blog.
The 1960's were the times of entitlement and times of expanding taxes to pay for those entitlement programs. The Peru leadership is duplicating the era of taxing those who can afford the least. Lets be honest, those on limited income will be hurt the most by a tax increase. That includes the seniors on a fixed income and those who do not have jobs. Team Harl, wake up its not the 1960's. That operating philosophy is another management blunder.
How many registered voters? How many of those cards were for 2 or 3 member households? The cards only represent HOUSEHOLDS which is not a sound poll if trying to gauge actual RESIDENTS.
Kristy
5:28 PM
I made that point at the meeting that you may have a household of 2,3 or more registered voters and yet they were only allowed one vote.
Thank you Steve - I'm happy to hear that you hold me in such high regard. :)
I may not have articulated it well here, in my own blog, or at the first town hall meeting on this subject, but I am NOT against infrastructure improvement. I am also not against taxing to make it happen. What I am against is:
1.Imposing a tax without a written plan.
2.Placing the collected money in a fund which can be accessed for anything.
3.Borrowing.
If Mayor Harl where to publish document containing the improvements he wants to make, I would probably accept that. It doesn’t even have to be that detailed. This document could be called “A Plan.” The “Plan” could be used as a roadmap to fix what is broken now, and eventually maintain what is fixed and built new. He has been in office for over two years. He knows what streets need to be resurfaced and what sewers and water mains need to be upgraded better than anybody in town. Putting this on paper should not be a problem. The old system of collecting “lists” from Aldermen needs to be scrapped. This would be “proactive.”
I also would insist that the money collected to implement “The Plan” be restricted in use. It only makes sense to ensure continued funding that cannot be hijacked to pay for employee wage increases, retirement plans, or swimming pools.
I understand that large infrastructure projects may require some borrowing. I’d prefer bonding, but there seems to be some merit in limited use of lines of credit. But… I don’t think it is wise to trend out years of expected revenue from a tax increase and borrow it all now in order to accomplish everything at once.
Concerning the “curb tax” idea… I don’t think I called it that. I’m almost certain I called it a “wheel tax.” Anyway… I acknowledge it would not generate as much money. One thing it would accomplish is clearing our streets. Many neighborhoods are clogged with “extra” cars that never move. It would also put the burden of street maintenance on the people that use the streets. There is another idea gaining popularity on the west coast. New cars with increased gas mileage have impacted motor fuel tax collections in a negative way. Some cities are considering a “hybrid” tax. The idea I like is similar to the open road tolling. The city gets a report of every mile you drive within the city and you get a monthly bill. So Steve, you can see that I am not against taxing. I just want to tax the correct people at the correct rate.
In conclusion – the push to generate a revenue stream is premature without a plan. Until a plan is published, and restrictions placed on the funds, we should reject any tax increase.
Well put Brian. I feel exactly as you do. A plan has to be implemented and adhered to before a tax is increased. My biggest concern is will we have enough skilled and responsible employees to maintain the new roads. Also, will we keep semis and other heavy equipment off the roads that are not surfaced for their weight? And, no more giving each ward a band-aid for their streets.
Why doesn't Mr Bianchi and his group give back the TIF money? We will use that money to improve roads. Then there will be no one in the way of progress, and no new taxes. (I do know that they do not get those funds all at once.)
9:57 perhaps you would like to tell the audience how much money the City receives from motel/hotel tax because of the Janko project? I am by no means a fan of TIFs, but I believe the City said they were going to use the $400,000 that has accumulated towards roads. Do you recall?
Kristy
Post a Comment