Link to Article from "The Record"
This idea is still being pushed in Springfield. The Star Bond amendment is now attached to a facility closure bill thanks to a Senate Amendment by Sen. James F. Clayborne, Jr.
SB2093 which also carries the Star Bond amendment has its Sponsor and two alternate chief co-sponsors in the State Senate. Its no surprise that the Chief Sponsor in the Senate for this bill is now Sen. James F. Clayborne, Jr.
If the idea here is to find a must pass bill to attach this amendment to for it to pass maybe pass it with the budget, that should be the only the only legislation anyone in Springfield should be working on, while its the least likely to be completed anytime soon.
Article from "The Bellevile News Democrat". Our Mayor in Columbia is on top of it, but from what I can tell Columbia really has no developments that we should be scared of losing to this development, its the state funding we should have an issue with. Talking with the developer about third party studies is pointless, the fiscal note from the Department of Revenue should have cleared up the negative aspects of the Star Bonds.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Star Bond Update
A fiscal note was posted by the Illinois Department of Revenue on February 5th for House Floor Amendment No. 2 I went ahead and copied the text of the fiscal note below. I am still trying to figure out how this is good for the region.
Fiscal Note, House Floor Amendment No. 2 (Dept. of Revenue)
This fiscal note for SB 2093 (H-AM 2) reflects only the proposed University Town Center (UTC) project in Glen Carbon and does not reflect the fiscal impact of other potential STAR bond developments enabled by this legislation.
(1) Based on data received from the developers, the Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that between $450 million and $525 million in annual sales will be displaced from the surrounding communities to stores in the STAR bond district once the development is completed.
(2) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates State sales tax generated in UTC's first fully operational year and pledged for the purpose of repaying STAR bonds at between $19 million and $30 million.
(3) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates aggregate local sales tax generated in UTC's first fully operational year and pledged for the purpose of repaying STAR bonds at $24 million.
(4) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that the combined State and local sales tax available to repay STAR bonds will be between $43 million and $54 million in UTC's first fully operational year.
(5) Over the first 20 years of UTC's operation, the State sales tax available to repay STAR bonds will be between $456 million and $729 million, while the aggregate local sales tax available to repay STAR bonds reaches almost $600 million over the same period.
(6) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that the combined State and local sales tax available for debt repayment over a 20-year period at between $1.0 billion and $1.3 billion. This range represents the potential tax subsidy for the UTC development.
(7) UTC will have both positive and negative State revenue effects during the duration of the STAR bond district.
(8) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates a State revenue gain of $40 million during UTC's construction phase and then annual revenue losses thereafter caused by the displacement of taxable sales from outside of UTC to inside UTC.
(9) After a few years of UTC operation, the losses from displaced taxable sales erode the early gain from the construction phase. If the full increment is used to pay debt service for 15 years, then the aggregate net State revenue loss over this period is between -$42 million and -$178 million. If 20 years, then the aggregate net State revenue loss over this period is between -$75 million and -$267 million.
Fiscal Note, House Floor Amendment No. 2 (Dept. of Revenue)
This fiscal note for SB 2093 (H-AM 2) reflects only the proposed University Town Center (UTC) project in Glen Carbon and does not reflect the fiscal impact of other potential STAR bond developments enabled by this legislation.
(1) Based on data received from the developers, the Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that between $450 million and $525 million in annual sales will be displaced from the surrounding communities to stores in the STAR bond district once the development is completed.
(2) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates State sales tax generated in UTC's first fully operational year and pledged for the purpose of repaying STAR bonds at between $19 million and $30 million.
(3) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates aggregate local sales tax generated in UTC's first fully operational year and pledged for the purpose of repaying STAR bonds at $24 million.
(4) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that the combined State and local sales tax available to repay STAR bonds will be between $43 million and $54 million in UTC's first fully operational year.
(5) Over the first 20 years of UTC's operation, the State sales tax available to repay STAR bonds will be between $456 million and $729 million, while the aggregate local sales tax available to repay STAR bonds reaches almost $600 million over the same period.
(6) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that the combined State and local sales tax available for debt repayment over a 20-year period at between $1.0 billion and $1.3 billion. This range represents the potential tax subsidy for the UTC development.
(7) UTC will have both positive and negative State revenue effects during the duration of the STAR bond district.
(8) The Illinois Department of Revenue estimates a State revenue gain of $40 million during UTC's construction phase and then annual revenue losses thereafter caused by the displacement of taxable sales from outside of UTC to inside UTC.
(9) After a few years of UTC operation, the losses from displaced taxable sales erode the early gain from the construction phase. If the full increment is used to pay debt service for 15 years, then the aggregate net State revenue loss over this period is between -$42 million and -$178 million. If 20 years, then the aggregate net State revenue loss over this period is between -$75 million and -$267 million.
Illinois Budget
I will be the first to admit my limited understanding of the state budget, but I cannot understand how a group of elected officials cannot understand the basic facts of fiscal responsibility. Spend only what you have. If you need to borrow money then plan to pay that money back as required. Do not over extend yourself. Do not spend money on one thing when it was intended for use in another way. These should be simple accounting policies that every adult should understand.
I read an article last week regarding what the state officials are thinking of doing or not doing since the primary is over. It can be found here. I have copied over the excerpt that really stuck out to me as troubling.
I fully support paying the bills, but shouldn’t our officials have realized and cared about this problem long before it affected them personally? If the state were a private company Verschoore would not be looking for his medical bills to get paid he would be looking for a new job because the state would be out of business. Verschoore from the looks of his website seems adamantly opposed to tax and fee increases of any kind. If Verschoore is against spending cuts and against tax increases to raise revenue I think something is going to need to change in his stance in order to “pay the bills”.
Elected officials are meant to work for their electorate and not worry and plan on how they will get elected again. The frustration level among “common people” is rising. Hope that things can be fixed is turning into frustration and doubt. As I said before I have limited knowledge of the state budget but if revenue needs to be increased by the state to make things work then get it done, but I also have to believe that some spending can be reduced or cut. Families across the state have reformulated their budgets to reduce debt and make ends meet, why our elected officials can’t do the same with our tax money is unbelievable.
On a more local level the state currently owes Columbia over $190,000. I think our local officials should strive to limit unneeded spending and live within our means. The council will begin discussing the budget next week Monday, February 22.
I read an article last week regarding what the state officials are thinking of doing or not doing since the primary is over. It can be found here. I have copied over the excerpt that really stuck out to me as troubling.
State Rep. Pat Verschoore, D-Milan, said the state needs to pay its bills before it looks at spending cuts.
“As far [back] as six months they have not paid my medical bills. I’m starting to get threatening bill collector notices…So something has to be done there.”
Verschoore said he’s willing to wait to see what Gov. Quinn is proposing before starting to work on the budget. But he’s all but ruling out a tax increase. Verschoore said he doesn’t see how the governor can get a tax hike through the General Assembly.
I fully support paying the bills, but shouldn’t our officials have realized and cared about this problem long before it affected them personally? If the state were a private company Verschoore would not be looking for his medical bills to get paid he would be looking for a new job because the state would be out of business. Verschoore from the looks of his website seems adamantly opposed to tax and fee increases of any kind. If Verschoore is against spending cuts and against tax increases to raise revenue I think something is going to need to change in his stance in order to “pay the bills”.
Elected officials are meant to work for their electorate and not worry and plan on how they will get elected again. The frustration level among “common people” is rising. Hope that things can be fixed is turning into frustration and doubt. As I said before I have limited knowledge of the state budget but if revenue needs to be increased by the state to make things work then get it done, but I also have to believe that some spending can be reduced or cut. Families across the state have reformulated their budgets to reduce debt and make ends meet, why our elected officials can’t do the same with our tax money is unbelievable.
On a more local level the state currently owes Columbia over $190,000. I think our local officials should strive to limit unneeded spending and live within our means. The council will begin discussing the budget next week Monday, February 22.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Commitee Meetings 2/8/10
License, Insurance, Claims, CEMA, and Contracts
• Kleen Sweep Cleaning Service Contract
I got there a little late for this meeting as it started at 6:30. It sounded like the city will be entering into a contract renewal with this company for one year at an increase around 6.7% more than last year’s rate. The city also agreed to require less insurance but wanted the city to be named as an additional insured on Clean Sweeps policy. The city may bid this out next year to be sure the pricing is competitive.
Committee of the Whole
•Tourism Bureau of Southwestern Illinois Presentation
Two representatives from this organization basically explained what they do and how they promote tourism for the ten counties they cover. They are celebrating their 25th year promoting tourism in Southern Illinois.
Tourism Bureau Website
Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation
• Columbia CUSD No. 4 Presentation
Superintendent Settles and Assistant Superintendent Horner presented their plan to provide more green space for use by the school district. As it stands now the district does not have practice fields for the football team, the band, or a dedicated field for the baseball team. Bolm-Schuhkraft Memorial City Park sits directly between two of the districts schools and would be a favorable parcel for the district to buy. The will that presented that land to the city will prevent the district from happening.
The proposal by the district is that they will buy some of the land in the large parcel that the city owns for future park development in the Admiral Trost development near Illinois Route 3. The district does not want to use this for their complex as it is across Route 3 and transportation will be an issue for them. They propose to buy and develop this land with a baseball field, a football field, parking and restroom facilities. The district will then let the city use these new facilities at their leisure.
The school district would in turn for providing these new facilities for the city would like to have use of the baseball field and football field in Bolm-Schuhkraft Park. It was unclear whether this would be sole use of the facilities and or if the community would have the right to continue to use them. It sounded like the district would prefer the community not have access to these parts of the park as they would be providing new alternatives at the new location for the community to use freely.
Not many details were discussed as the district would like to know if the idea is even a possibility with the city council before too many details are planned out and the district puts too much effort into a plan that may never have support from the city. Numerous concerns were voiced by the council and I will list them below. I would encourage you to contact your alderman or Al Hudzik if you have any concerns or questions regarding the topic. The council will compile a list of concerns and questions to talk over before moving forward with any action with the district.
Aldermen Roessler – Is there enough room in the Admiral Trost land for the facilities the district is proposing?
Aldermen Hejna – Would this displace the Blue Jays to the new facility? How much will the new facilities cost to develop?
Aldermen Stumpf – Size of the Trost area? Would this be a permanent agreement? What would happen if the district builds a new high school on the outskirts of town?
Aldermen Agne – Could the city lease the land to the district? Use the money from that to develop all of the city’s parks?
Overall I understand the need for more space for outside activities in the school district. I am sure this will be a sticky legal situation so a lot will hinge on that but I think the main concern should be the costs. I think the city should not put the entire burden on the district. At the same time the city should not pretend this is a way to get new free facilities for the town on someone else’s dime. The citizens of the community fund both the city and the school district so it’s our money regardless of who is spending it. I do think the plan makes sense since the optimal solution is not possible and that would be to sell the land to the district between Parkview and the High School.
•Discussion to consider the purchase of specific parcels of real estate.
This was discussed in executive session so I left at this time. It is always an unknown how long executive session will take. I do not know where the land in the discussion is located but I would like to see the city develop more of the existing land it has already purchased and set aside for park use before it buys more land for future use.
Streets, Sidewalks, Drainage and Public Utilities
• Sitzes Subdivision issues discussion
• Other items to be considered or discussed
Personnel
• Appointment of additional volunteer police chaplain discussion
• Executive Session
Update/discussion on collective bargaining negotiations and employee salaries.
• Kleen Sweep Cleaning Service Contract
I got there a little late for this meeting as it started at 6:30. It sounded like the city will be entering into a contract renewal with this company for one year at an increase around 6.7% more than last year’s rate. The city also agreed to require less insurance but wanted the city to be named as an additional insured on Clean Sweeps policy. The city may bid this out next year to be sure the pricing is competitive.
Committee of the Whole
•Tourism Bureau of Southwestern Illinois Presentation
Two representatives from this organization basically explained what they do and how they promote tourism for the ten counties they cover. They are celebrating their 25th year promoting tourism in Southern Illinois.
Tourism Bureau Website
Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation
• Columbia CUSD No. 4 Presentation
Superintendent Settles and Assistant Superintendent Horner presented their plan to provide more green space for use by the school district. As it stands now the district does not have practice fields for the football team, the band, or a dedicated field for the baseball team. Bolm-Schuhkraft Memorial City Park sits directly between two of the districts schools and would be a favorable parcel for the district to buy. The will that presented that land to the city will prevent the district from happening.
The proposal by the district is that they will buy some of the land in the large parcel that the city owns for future park development in the Admiral Trost development near Illinois Route 3. The district does not want to use this for their complex as it is across Route 3 and transportation will be an issue for them. They propose to buy and develop this land with a baseball field, a football field, parking and restroom facilities. The district will then let the city use these new facilities at their leisure.
The school district would in turn for providing these new facilities for the city would like to have use of the baseball field and football field in Bolm-Schuhkraft Park. It was unclear whether this would be sole use of the facilities and or if the community would have the right to continue to use them. It sounded like the district would prefer the community not have access to these parts of the park as they would be providing new alternatives at the new location for the community to use freely.
Not many details were discussed as the district would like to know if the idea is even a possibility with the city council before too many details are planned out and the district puts too much effort into a plan that may never have support from the city. Numerous concerns were voiced by the council and I will list them below. I would encourage you to contact your alderman or Al Hudzik if you have any concerns or questions regarding the topic. The council will compile a list of concerns and questions to talk over before moving forward with any action with the district.
Aldermen Roessler – Is there enough room in the Admiral Trost land for the facilities the district is proposing?
Aldermen Hejna – Would this displace the Blue Jays to the new facility? How much will the new facilities cost to develop?
Aldermen Stumpf – Size of the Trost area? Would this be a permanent agreement? What would happen if the district builds a new high school on the outskirts of town?
Aldermen Agne – Could the city lease the land to the district? Use the money from that to develop all of the city’s parks?
Overall I understand the need for more space for outside activities in the school district. I am sure this will be a sticky legal situation so a lot will hinge on that but I think the main concern should be the costs. I think the city should not put the entire burden on the district. At the same time the city should not pretend this is a way to get new free facilities for the town on someone else’s dime. The citizens of the community fund both the city and the school district so it’s our money regardless of who is spending it. I do think the plan makes sense since the optimal solution is not possible and that would be to sell the land to the district between Parkview and the High School.
•Discussion to consider the purchase of specific parcels of real estate.
This was discussed in executive session so I left at this time. It is always an unknown how long executive session will take. I do not know where the land in the discussion is located but I would like to see the city develop more of the existing land it has already purchased and set aside for park use before it buys more land for future use.
Streets, Sidewalks, Drainage and Public Utilities
• Sitzes Subdivision issues discussion
• Other items to be considered or discussed
Personnel
• Appointment of additional volunteer police chaplain discussion
• Executive Session
Update/discussion on collective bargaining negotiations and employee salaries.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Ideas on the MDD
I sent out an email to a few people in late January to ask them a few questions regarding the MDD and the absence of any language in it spelling out incentives the developer might have in mind. I sent this email to my two aldermen, Gene Ebersohl and Brad Oberkfell., and Jay Unnerstall as I figured he might have some info on the topic.
I received a reply from Gene stating that incentive language should be separate from the MDD much like Jim Agne stated the last time this issue was discussed. Gene went on to state that he feels the city should let developers know what incentives are available without specific amounts but this information regarding incentives should be discussed in the negotiations of a development as each development is different. I have not had a chance to discuss this with Gene any further, I plan to next Monday.
I chatted with Brad after this past Monday’s council meeting as he sent me an email back that he would rather discuss it in person. Brad wants to have some type of incentive language related in some way to the MDD. We discussed that most developers who approach the city should either have financing in place or know the amount of incentives it may take to get their development built. We seemed to agree that incentive language should not be part of the MDD document but asking for developers to let the city know up front what incentives would be asked for seemed reasonable.
Jay sent me an email back as well letting me know that talking to him would be better than an emailed response as it would take a great deal of time to write out. I understand that and I hope to find a chance to give him a call this weekend, as I feel he would be able to give a great perspective on the issue.
I understand why the incentive language should not be part of the “zoning” language in the MDD. But making it city policy to have developers let the city know up front what incentives they specifically will be seeking should not be an issue for a serious developer and defiantly not for the city. If a developer has taken the time and spent the money to meet all of the criteria spelled out in the MDD then they should have an idea if they will be seeking incentives of any kind from the city.
I think it would be a waste of everyone’s time if the city has a developer go through the MDD process only to start an incentive negotiation to find out the city will not give them what they need. The city may not have an issue with a developer on the basis of the MDD application but letting them know that the requested incentive(s) are possible or not possible upfront would be beneficial to everyone involved.
It already seems the council has wasted enough of their time on the issue of just formulating MDD criteria. It should be noted that while the council cannot agree on whether incentive language should be included there has never been anything in writing as incentive language that has been reviewed or discussed by the council. I would encourage one of the aldermen who feel it should be included in the process to formulate a document that could be reviewed and possibly included into the MDD process. It could be as simple as a form that asks the developer to state what type of incentive they would be seeking and how much that incentive would need to cover. Include it as a form to be filled out whenever a MDD “application” is submitted. If a developer is not asking for incentives then I think much of the council and community would feel better about the development as a whole and if they are asking to have the city fund their development everyone would know upfront. The city should not promote any type of incentive as any smart developer would take whatever the city offers.
My last point would be that the process as a whole should be ironed out. I know that an MDD “application” would go through a number of approval processes but the process of negotiations and who will be and who will not be included in any negotiation talks with developers should be spelled out before a developer approaches the city. Transparency should be the goal of the council. Letting the community know who is responsible for negotiating with developers and what type of incentives developers may be asking for may make everyone feel better when the next development comes along to Columbia.
Call or discuss the topic with your aldermen.
I have added the links to all available MDD documentation below.
MDD
MDD Appendix A - Use Matrix
MDD Appendix C - Landscape Requirements
MDD Appendix D - Signage Requirements
MDD Appendix E- Schedule of Parking Space Requirements
I received a reply from Gene stating that incentive language should be separate from the MDD much like Jim Agne stated the last time this issue was discussed. Gene went on to state that he feels the city should let developers know what incentives are available without specific amounts but this information regarding incentives should be discussed in the negotiations of a development as each development is different. I have not had a chance to discuss this with Gene any further, I plan to next Monday.
I chatted with Brad after this past Monday’s council meeting as he sent me an email back that he would rather discuss it in person. Brad wants to have some type of incentive language related in some way to the MDD. We discussed that most developers who approach the city should either have financing in place or know the amount of incentives it may take to get their development built. We seemed to agree that incentive language should not be part of the MDD document but asking for developers to let the city know up front what incentives would be asked for seemed reasonable.
Jay sent me an email back as well letting me know that talking to him would be better than an emailed response as it would take a great deal of time to write out. I understand that and I hope to find a chance to give him a call this weekend, as I feel he would be able to give a great perspective on the issue.
I understand why the incentive language should not be part of the “zoning” language in the MDD. But making it city policy to have developers let the city know up front what incentives they specifically will be seeking should not be an issue for a serious developer and defiantly not for the city. If a developer has taken the time and spent the money to meet all of the criteria spelled out in the MDD then they should have an idea if they will be seeking incentives of any kind from the city.
I think it would be a waste of everyone’s time if the city has a developer go through the MDD process only to start an incentive negotiation to find out the city will not give them what they need. The city may not have an issue with a developer on the basis of the MDD application but letting them know that the requested incentive(s) are possible or not possible upfront would be beneficial to everyone involved.
It already seems the council has wasted enough of their time on the issue of just formulating MDD criteria. It should be noted that while the council cannot agree on whether incentive language should be included there has never been anything in writing as incentive language that has been reviewed or discussed by the council. I would encourage one of the aldermen who feel it should be included in the process to formulate a document that could be reviewed and possibly included into the MDD process. It could be as simple as a form that asks the developer to state what type of incentive they would be seeking and how much that incentive would need to cover. Include it as a form to be filled out whenever a MDD “application” is submitted. If a developer is not asking for incentives then I think much of the council and community would feel better about the development as a whole and if they are asking to have the city fund their development everyone would know upfront. The city should not promote any type of incentive as any smart developer would take whatever the city offers.
My last point would be that the process as a whole should be ironed out. I know that an MDD “application” would go through a number of approval processes but the process of negotiations and who will be and who will not be included in any negotiation talks with developers should be spelled out before a developer approaches the city. Transparency should be the goal of the council. Letting the community know who is responsible for negotiating with developers and what type of incentives developers may be asking for may make everyone feel better when the next development comes along to Columbia.
Call or discuss the topic with your aldermen.
I have added the links to all available MDD documentation below.
MDD
MDD Appendix A - Use Matrix
MDD Appendix C - Landscape Requirements
MDD Appendix D - Signage Requirements
MDD Appendix E- Schedule of Parking Space Requirements
Decided to Change the Look
I am wanting to find a blog template that stretches the full width of the page. I would prefer to have one that has three columns. One out of two isn't bad but I am still trying to find an easily readable color set.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Council Meeting 2/1/10 (Corrected 2/23/10)
I am not one for the two-sided politics in Columbia, it really accomplishes nothing.
• Discussion on election rules.
I have been corrected, Alderman Hejna sent me an email today 2/23/10 to explain that Alderman Agne brought this issue up and she merely echoed his sentiments. Formerly I had stated that she brought the issue up. Changes below are in bold italics.
The idea was brought up by Alderman Agne that the city should maybe look into reform similar to what Florissant recently passed. Florissant recently passed “a bill” that prohibits city employees from working on political campaigns.
The mayor asked if there had been an issue with this in the past as he stated those would be some serious allegations to make. He also noted that the rules for this issue are spelled out in the campaign packets. The issue quickly died out as fast as it had been brought up.
Article on Florissant Situation
• Discussion on Minutes at Committee Meetings
The mayor brought up an issue of who should take the minutes at city committee meetings from here on out. The mayor wanted to know whether it would be Ron Colyer the City Clerk, Donna or Sandy. Sandy has recently has been taking the minutes at these meetings. Mayor Hutchinson’s issue was that it had previously been stated by certain members of the council that the clerk’s office should be taking the minutes and Sandy is not really a full time employee of the clerk’s office.
The disagreement went on for some time with a number of the council members voicing their take and wondering why the mayor even brought the subject up. He said he was simply pointing out that the viewpoints of some council members have changed drastically on certain issues. The mayor’s stance on the double standard was supported by at least one other alderman on Monday night.
The issue was a non-issue as it seems when you get down to it now no one on the council really cares who takes the minutes. The subject was only brought up by the mayor to make a point, which could have gone without being made. It was decided that Al Hudzik would work with the clerk’s office to ensure someone was there to take the minutes.
I had begun to have hope the council had left their differences in the past.
Disappointing to say the least.
.
• Discussion on election rules.
I have been corrected, Alderman Hejna sent me an email today 2/23/10 to explain that Alderman Agne brought this issue up and she merely echoed his sentiments. Formerly I had stated that she brought the issue up. Changes below are in bold italics.
The idea was brought up by Alderman Agne that the city should maybe look into reform similar to what Florissant recently passed. Florissant recently passed “a bill” that prohibits city employees from working on political campaigns.
The mayor asked if there had been an issue with this in the past as he stated those would be some serious allegations to make. He also noted that the rules for this issue are spelled out in the campaign packets. The issue quickly died out as fast as it had been brought up.
Article on Florissant Situation
• Discussion on Minutes at Committee Meetings
The mayor brought up an issue of who should take the minutes at city committee meetings from here on out. The mayor wanted to know whether it would be Ron Colyer the City Clerk, Donna or Sandy. Sandy has recently has been taking the minutes at these meetings. Mayor Hutchinson’s issue was that it had previously been stated by certain members of the council that the clerk’s office should be taking the minutes and Sandy is not really a full time employee of the clerk’s office.
The disagreement went on for some time with a number of the council members voicing their take and wondering why the mayor even brought the subject up. He said he was simply pointing out that the viewpoints of some council members have changed drastically on certain issues. The mayor’s stance on the double standard was supported by at least one other alderman on Monday night.
The issue was a non-issue as it seems when you get down to it now no one on the council really cares who takes the minutes. The subject was only brought up by the mayor to make a point, which could have gone without being made. It was decided that Al Hudzik would work with the clerk’s office to ensure someone was there to take the minutes.
I had begun to have hope the council had left their differences in the past.
Disappointing to say the least.
.