Residents in Jacksonville may see an increase in their property tax bills next year. Last night, the Jacksonville City Council voted 8-2 to raise the city’s levy by 3.5 percent. This was the first reading for the increase, and it will be voted on again at the remaining meetings this year.
Unsurprisingly, growing pension costs were cited as the main driver of the increase. Pensions were up $364,000 this year. 2.4 percent of the 3.5 percent increase was necessary just to cover the police and fire pensions. New actuarial data has driven up the projected costs of the pensions; and this trend is expected to continue for the next several years.
The council also pointed to the compounding effect of levy increases as a reason for the increase. Jacksonville, like other home rule units, has a five percent cap on the annual increases for their levy. Every year the levy is less than the cap, the next year’s levy will be smaller that it could be. “We’ll never get that money back,” was a common refrain among the supporters for a higher levy.
Not everyone agreed with this logic. Alders Steve Warmowski and Mike Wankel voted against the increase. Warmowski said later that any money the city “loses” stays in the hands of residents.
Just one slice of the property tax pie
But the council stressed that this was not a 3.5 percent increase to property tax bills. Many different taxing bodies contribute to the property tax bill. In Jacksonville, the school district accounts for almost two thirds of the bill. The city is only 22 percent. The remaining portion is spread among many other bodies, including the county, airport, and community college.
Property taxes are also a set dollar amount in total, not per unit. Once the levy is set, every property pays its proportional share of the bill. That means growth in the community can mean a lower property tax bill for everyone, even if the total levy has gone up. Jacksonville grew by .4 percent last year, so even the 3.5 percent increase for the city’s portion will be slightly lower than 3.5 percent.
Residents who want to weigh in on the proposed levy increase can attend the remaining meetings this year, which occur on the second and fourth Monday’s of the month.
The council was also briefed on a potential archeological survey needed for a water improvement project. Much of the city’s water comes in on an aging pipeline. To increase the lifespan of this vital piece of infrastructure, the water department wants to install a surge suppression unit, that will keep the pressure more even in the pipeline. However, the only place the unit can be installed is in an active archeological area.
To protect the area, a survey will be necessary. Archeologists from the University of Illinois will be brought in to sweep the area. Their project will be expensive, and may cost over $59,000. To further complicate issues, if a major discovery, such as a burial site, happens on the last day of the survey, not only will the city have spent all of the initial money, the whole project would be delayed. While this is unlikely given the current assessment of the area, it did make the council more cautious about the survey.
But the cost of not adding the surge suppression unit was seen as a worse option. Replacing or overhauling the decades-old 30 inch pipeline will be a serious undertaking. Paying a small amount now to extend its lifespan was seen as the best option.
You can watch the workshop session and the chamber session in the players above and below.
LIVE | Springfield City Council Meeting September 17th
This is the live feed for the Springfield City Council meeting for September 17th, 2019. The zoning for a new homeless shelter in Ward 2 is up for discussion. Regulations for recreational cannabis are also up for passage after discussion last week.
The proposed location homeless shelter has drawn significant public discussion, and the council chamber is standing-room only. The discussion of the shelter begins at ~22 minute mark of the video.
Update: The city council voted 8-2 to approve the zoning for the Helping Hands facility. Aldermen Gregory (Ward 2) and Turner (Ward 3) opposed.
Jacksonville hears proposals for municipal solar arrays and park grants
Several new projects may be coming to Jacksonville. The Parks and Lakes committee discussed two state grants to improve local recreation. A 50-50 matching grant could provide up to $400,000 to help restore the Nichols Park pool.
A second grant would provide funds to be used on the lakes. The committee decided that fixing the boat ramp area for Lake Mauvaisterre was the best use of the grant. Although lots of work has been into the lake, many boaters are reluctant to put their boats out due to the poor conditions of the launch ramps. Other projects were considered, but fixing the main point of entry for the lake was considered a prerequisite for any other recreation project.
Both projects depend on a successful grant application, which will be submitted in the coming weeks.
Next, Joe Christian from Simpleray came to discuss potentially adding solar arrays to the city’s water plants. These plants require large amounts of power and solar is one possible way of cutting down on these costs. They also have considerable amounts of open space, making them plausible candidates for solar arrays.
The proposal calls for a 25 year deal with Simpleray, where they would install and operate the arrays, and sell power to the city. They want a locked-in rate that is currently below the market price. Based on Simpleray’s cost projections for electricity, the city could save over $2 million over the duration of the deal. At the end of the deal, the city would buy the arrays, which are projected to last for at least another ten or fifteen years.
There are some concerns with the deal. Technical questions remain about facility planning. New structures are planned at the treatment plants, and any new solar arrays would need to be built around both current and future structures. There were also finical concerns. 25 years is a long commitment for a utility price. Even though it is below projections, no one knows what the price of power will be in the future.
The arrays themselves also had unknown costs. Since the city would take ownership of the arrays after 25 years, the city would be responsible for disposing of the panels once they reached the end of their usefulness. The Simpleray consultant was unsure how expensive it would be to dispose of the panels even under current regulations. Like many forms of electronic trash, it is not known what new rules may apply to solar panels in 25 or 30 years.
Simpelray was interested in moving forward quickly, because there are Federal incentives that will expire at the end of the year. Despite some interest from the council, Alderman Wankel pointed out that the city’s engineers will need to examine the plan, and it may need to go out for a bid. Special Studies is planning a dedicated meeting to discuss solar options in the near future.
Ward 2 retirement
Monday’s meeting was also the last for longtime Alderman Tony Williams. Williams was recently reelected in April, but is moving out of the ward. Mayor Ezard will appoint his replacement, but there is no word on who will be selected to fill the term.
You can watch the full workshop session in the player above.
City Council hears final arguments, recommendations in Ward 2 recount
The Ward 2 aldermanic race might set a new record for closest election that wasn’t a tie. The first full count showed Gail Simpson leading Shawn Gregory by a single vote. Gregory challenged the result and asked for a recount. Then the race got closer. After the recount, the recommendation of the hearing officer was to declare Simpson the winner by not one vote, but 0.361 votes.
During the recount, all of the ballots were inspected again. That further inspection revealed that some of the ballots had problems. A ballot that is not filled out correctly can be disqualified. One had two colors of ink, one was damaged and had to be reconstructed, and another had two candidates marked. These ballots were resolved on an individual basis.
But there were two sets of ballots that needed further discussion. The first were ballots where the election judge marked them in the wrong place. There is a line where the judge should put their initials so the tabulators know it is a valid ballot. Three ballots, all from the same judge, had marks near, but not on, the provided line. Two of them were for Gregory. They were not counted in the hearing officer’s recommendation.
Another group of ballots came from the Mary Bryant Home. The Mary Bryant Home is a community for the blind and visually impaired. Due to their conditions, many of these voters required assistance in filling out their ballots. To protect the integrity of the vote, especially with vulnerable populations, there are affidavits that must be filled out by the voter and the assistant to make the votes valid. For thirteen ballots, this did not happen.
However, the affidavits do not match specific ballots. To ensure voter privacy, the ballot cannot be directly tied to a specific voter. When the thirteen ballots were thrown out, each candidate had a proportional reduction in their count based on how well they did in each precinct. In the end, Simpson lost 4.278 votes, but Gregory lost just 2.639 votes. That closed the margin, but did not eliminate Simpson’s lead.
The real debate hinges on how comparable council members think these two types of errors are. John Mehlick, the hearing officer for the recount, considered both errors equally disqualifying. Although he stressed that he did not want to throw out any votes, he pointed out instructions were not followed on both. During his remarks to the council, Mehlick stressed that the council should demand “excellence” from its election judges and administrators.
Not everyone agreed with that logic. Questions from several aldermen suggested that they found the initials to be a far less serious breach of protocol than those on the affidavits. Others argued that disqualifying votes due to errors from election officials was not something they wanted to do, and argued both sets of ballots should be included.
The council’s decision
There are three likely outcomes the council could decide on. If both sets of ballots are eliminated, then Simpson wins. If both sets of ballots are kept, Simpson would still win. And if the affidavits are thrown out, but the initialed ballots are kept, then Gregory wins.
The choice is unenviable. Most of the time, standards are set without knowing how it will impact an election. Today, the council knows it is not just setting a standard to follow, it is also picking winners and losers in a democratic election. The Simpson team asked Alderwoman Turner to recuse herself due to her party’s endorsement of Gregory during the campaign. Turner agreed to this request, saying that if her stepping back would help the post-decision healing process in the community, then she would do so.
The rest of the council did not come to an agreement Tuesday night. Aldermen Redpath, Fulgenzi, Proctor, DiCenso, and Hanauer moved to accept the hearing officer’s recommendation, and declare Simpson the winner. Aldermen McMenamin, Conley, and Donelan, as well as Mayor Langfelder voted against, which prevented the motion from passing. Any motion will take 6 affirmative votes to pass.
The council will reconvene Thursday night to continue their discussion of the issue and come to an acceptable agreement. You can watch their full discussion in the player above, and read all of the documents from the recount here.