Monthly Archives: April 2006

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

Will Peoria’s new cable franchise agreement be moot?

1 Comment

Peoria is in the process of renewing a franchise agreement with Insight Communications. The city has been through this twice before (for a history of cable franchise agreements in Peoria, see my previous post on the topic), so you’d think this is pretty mundane stuff.

Not so. You may surprised to learn that franchise agreements are a hot topic across the nation because of a newcomer to the video-distribution market: phone companies. Yes, telecommunications giants like AT&T and Verizon are spending lots of money upgrading their infrastructure to offer not just better broadband internet access, but cable television. Many believe this new competition will help stabilize cable prices, which are increasing at twice the rate of inflation according to the Consumers Union.

The problem is, these phone companies don’t like negotiating unique cable franchise agreements with each municipality across the fruited plain (like the cable companies have to do). So they’ve been working very hard to do an end run around local municipalities by pushing for statewide franchise agreements. They’ve already succeeded in getting franchise agreements with Texas, Virginia, and our Hoosier neighbors to the east.

So successful they’ve been, phone companies are ready to trump both municipalities and states by pushing for a national franchise agreement. That’s right, legislation was introduced last year in the nation’s capital that would radically change the Telecommunications Act: S.1349/H.R.3146 (“Video Choice Act”), and S.1504 (“Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act”). And this year, a bill will be introduced in the House called the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.” These bills are all designed to take franchising authority out of the hands of cities and states.

There are a couple of groups against — in fact, incensed by — this action: cities and cable companies.

Cities don’t like the idea of losing local control. Franchise agreements offer numerous benefits to communities, such as: compensation for the use of public rights of way (e.g., utility poles, easements); mandates on customer service responsiveness; accessibility for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) purposes (e.g., channels 17 and 22 in Peoria); and requirements to serve the whole city (non-discrimination of service). That’s not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. These agreements are beneficial to cities.

Cable companies don’t like the idea of these phone behemoths being treated as start-ups and given preferential treatment. They’re not buying the sob story from phone giants that it’s just so hard to negotiate all these individual franchise agreements when cable companies have managed to do it for 40 years. Plus, Verizon already has cable franchise agreements covering over two million households, so they don’t seem to be hampered too badly.

What does all this mean for Peoria? At this point, I can’t find any pending Illinois state legislation that would change the franchising process for municipalities, so there’s no threat on that front (correct me if I’m wrong). But if phone companies are successful in their lobbying efforts for national franchise agreements, it would render all Peoria’s current cable negotiations moot, and it could mean more expense to broadcast the city council meetings or the loss of PEG access altogether.

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

It’s very clear… the garbage tax is here to stay…

I got all hopeful this week when I saw the city council agenda included an item on the garbage tax fee. Could it finally be that the council is going to do away with this not-so-hidden tax on Peoria residents?

Don’t be ridiculous. They’re just going to change the collection of it from $24 three times a year to $6 a month. Illinois American Water charges the city 80 cents per bill to collect this fee on behalf of the city, which is why the city was “only” collecting it three times a year. Now the water company has agreed to charge 20 cents per bill, allowing the city to collect the fee monthly at no additional cost.

There are a couple ways of looking at this. On the one hand, it will be nice having the fee spread out, I guess. On the other hand, it’s a little too nice — a little too hidden. This fee is outrageous in a city that collects as much in property taxes, HRA taxes, gas taxes, and miscellaneous fees as Peoria does. Not to mention the fact that even with all that income, they can’t fully staff all their fire stations.

It’s good for us all to have that three-time-per-year reminder of how outrageous it is so that we’ll keep the pressure on the council to get rid of it. The garbage tax fee was one of the reasons we ousted the old mayor and two council representatives last election. It’s a regressive tax, and it’s a double tax since garbage collection is supposed to be covered under our property taxes already. The “new” council should be looking for ways to get rid of the fee, not ways to make it more palatable for residents.

City Council, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

City considering responses to school district plans

3 Comments

The city is none too pleased by the collusion of the school board, park board, and public housing authority regarding land swaps on the East Bluff that would leave some residents stripped of their property and others living next to a low-income housing project — all without any public input. It’s only fair for the city council to look out for the best interests of its constituents, but what recourse does it have?

Well, the land that the school board wants to take over by Glen Oak Park includes a couple of city streets (Republic and East). The school board can’t force the city to vacate those streets via eminent domain, and leaving the streets in place would be problematic for the board’s planned siting of the school. So the city’s control over those streets gives them some leverage.

Furthermore, the park district can’t sell land to the school district (it’s illegal), but they can lease it to them. However, if they do, any of that leased land is subject to city zoning ordinances. That means the city would have to approve the use of that land. Right now, as I understand it, the park district would want to use the leased land for parking.

It sounds as though there may be some other tricks up the council’s sleeve, too, so the siting of the new school isn’t “final” yet. It’s too bad things are shaping up for a fight. Last year, it really looked like the school board and the city were starting to get along — the city pitched in some resources to help the school district fight truancy, for instance. Now District 150 has made a lot of enemies and sown a lot of distrust because of their secret plans. Like Polly says, they’ve chosen the path of most resistance.

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Traffic

Council roundup: Good news for older neighborhoods

There were a few items passed by the council Tuesday that are good news for the older part of the city.

First was the Alley Lighting Program. This program will offer property owners, free of charge, high intensity security lights that illuminate the alley serving their property. The city had a similar program from 1995 to 2000, during which time they installed 658 lights. The council voted to spend up to $50,000 to install 150 alley lights in 2006, and tonight they chose to buy the lights from Grainger Electric and have Downard Electric install them.

Secondly, the council approved a contract with Ferrell Madden Associations (FMA) to provide “professional urban design and planning services.” Mayor Ardis praised this as the second phase in implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan (the first phase was the Renaissance Park proposals). Part of the contract is to develop form-based codes for the Heart of Peoria Plan area.

What is a form-based code? Put simply, it is a type of zoning that takes into consideration the context of an improvement or development. For instance, right now if a business in the older part of the city wants to expand, it is held to suburban standards for parking (x number parking spaces for every y number of square feet added). In dense urban areas, this is often impossible because the business is land-locked, so the business either continues without improvement or moves to an area that has more room for expansion, usually on the edge of town where such land is available. A form-based code will take into consideration the urban location and character of an area and apply urban standards for improvement/development of the property.

This goes hand-in-glove with the Heart of Peoria Plan, since it will also allow for mixed-use of properties. (For instance, a store owner could live in an apartment over his store, which would help small-business owners who may not be able to afford a separate store and residence.) This also provides incentive for neighborhood anchor stores to improve and expand, further strengthening the core of the city.

The public gets to provide input on developing the form-based codes (explanatory note to District 150 board members: “public input” means that the public gets to give input before a final decision is made). A charrette will take place May 19-25 at a time and location to be announced.

Finally, the city continues to pursue the purchase of property along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive so that it can one day be widened and improved.

All of these actions were approved unanimously.

Illinois American Water

Wir wünschen unser Wasserwerk

1 Comment

Some communities who want to buy their water works are pressuring RWE shareholders to sell some of its water utilities to the communities they serve.  The mayor of Urbana, Illinois, Laurel Prussing, decided to go a step further — she’s there in person.  You have to admire the tenacity of communities like Urbana, Lexington (Ky.), and Monterey (Cal.), but so far RWE has continued to give them all the same answer:

An RWE spokesman said the company didn’t want to sell American Water piecemeal.

“We see American Water as one entity and that all of these qualities that it has makes it unique and makes it a good partner for the communities,” Bill McAndrews told The Associated Press.

I found it interesting that this company appears to have resistance efforts down to a science.  Just as they did in Illiniois when Peoria was trying to buy the water works, they did a survey of their customers and found that a good majority of them were happy with their water service:

[McAndrews] added the company, which was founded in 1886 and acquired by RWE in September 2001, had consistently drawn praise from its customers.

“They recently put out a questionnaire nationwide and the response was that 93 percent of their customers were satisfied,” McAndrews said. “Eighty-nine percent said they delivered what they promise and 83 percent said they can trust American Water.”

Of course, the mayors claim their water service is terrible.  In any event, it’s looking more and more like the only choice for Illinois communities (other than Peoria, which has a buy-back option in their contract), if they want to buy their water works, is to get legislation passed that will allow them to force a sale without going through the ICC.

Hope Mayor Prussing enjoys her trip to the old country.

Church

Slow news day

7 Comments

The article on the front page of the Journal Star today is about the traffic jams around Northwoods Community Church.  Riveting.

I think the most interesting paragraph in the story was this one:

Though it claims only 750 parishioners, attendance at Northwoods has soared to an average of 4,300 members over the last six weeks – 550 more than the count at the beginning of the year.

Isn’t it odd that they have such high attendance, but low commitment?  So many people willing to attend, despite major traffic inconvenience, but so few willing to commit themselves through formal church membership.

Northwoods models their church after Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.  It’s a “seeker-sensitive” church model, which means that on weekends (Saturday night and Sunday morning) the services are geared toward reaching the unchurched.  The preaching doesn’t focus so much on doctrine and theology, but rather on the felt needs of the people they’re trying to reach.  They set aside Wednesday nights as the time to build up believers and have more “meaty” sermons and extended times of worship; in other words, their Wednesday nights are more like most churches’ Sunday mornings.

I wonder how one measures the success of such a model.  Is success measured in the number of weekend visitors, or the number of committed members?  Or should the measurement be something else entirely?  I’ve been reading a book called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, and she claims that, historically, churches didn’t measure “success,” per se, and they certainly didn’t measure it in terms of numbers.  Rather, they were more concerned about doctrinal purity and personal piety.  They spent more time teaching their children the catechisms and their congregations the creeds, and evangelism was more of a personal endeavor than a corporate one.

I wonder how Northwoods defines success, and if they’re pleased or troubled by the disparity between visitors and members.  Maybe Michael Miller can do a column on that in the religion section sometime.  In the meantime, they’re trying to get that traffic situation under control.

City Council, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star selectively hears Sandberg

1 Comment

The Journal Star Editorial Board had some bitter words for Councilman Sandberg in today’s paper, saying he “found a basketful of nits to pick” regarding the museum’s request for more money from the city.  They focused in on Sandberg’s contention that TIFs are siphoning money from basic services, and defended TIFs in a paragraph that looked like a transcript of Councilwoman Van Auken’s statements from Tuesday night’s meeting.

But they also say in their editorial, “The subsurface parking was recommended by the Heart of Peoria Commission.”  Now anyone who actually watched the council meeting Tuesday night would know that Sandberg spent a considerable amount of time debunking that  misconception.  He interrogated the museum and Caterpillar representatives, and they both admitted in plain language that the Heart of Peoria Commission never recommended subsurface parking — in fact, they recommended having no parking at all, except for street parking, because the block is surrounded by public parking.

So how did the Journal Star hear Gary’s comments about TIFs (which were brief) and miss his comments on parking (which were extensive)?  I guess they’re just more interested in using Sandberg as a punching bag than getting their facts straight.

Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company

Peoria County poised to deny PDC expansion

1 Comment

The Peoria County Board took an “initial vote” on the PDC landfill expansion request tonight, and unless some board members change their mind between now and May 3 when they take the final vote, it looks like the application will go down to defeat.

I wasn’t able to attend, but WEEK-TV was there and offered this report on this evening’s news.

The county board can only evaluate the site application based on nine criteria (listed here verbatim from the county’s website):

  1. The facility meets the needs of the area it is intended to serve;
  2. Public health, safety and welfare are protected in the facility design and location;
  3. Care has been taken to minimize the incompatibility of the facility with the character of the surrounding area and property values;
  4. The facility is outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain;
  5. The facility operating plans minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents;
  6. The traffic patterns to and from the facility minimize the impact on existing traffic flow;
  7. An emergency response plan for the facility has been developed to include notification, containment and evacuation procedures in case of an accidental release.
  8. Groundwater protection provisions have been met; and
  9. The facility is consistent with the County’s solid waste management plan.

In their “initial vote” tonight — WEEK called it a “dress rehearsal” — the board approved only seven of the nine. The two they didn’t approve? Numbers 2 & 3 above — the same reasons I was against the application.

Expect to see some heavy lobbying by the Journal Star, Peoria Pundit, and of course PDC over the next few weeks as they try to persuade the board that having a hazardous waste dump next door really won’t affect property values or endanger our health. Maybe they can also try convincing us that pigs can fly.

I’ll be hoping the vote on May 3 is the same as the vote tonight. The board made the right decision.

UPDATE (4/7/06): WMBD-AM Radio and the Journal Star this morning report that the county board voted down three of the criteria — the two WEEK mentioned as well as number 1 above (in other words, they voted the expansion is not needed to accommodate area waste). The vote was 10-7.