Question of the Day: What would you do?

March 19, 2008 C. J. Summers 27 Comments

I’m doing an unscientific survey, and I hope you’ll help by leaving a comment with your answer, even if you don’t normally comment (perhaps especially if you don’t normally comment):

Do you drive down Main Street on a regular or semi-regular basis? In other words, is it a normal route for you to take someplace like work, church, friend’s or family’s home, downtown or socializing, etc.? If so, what would you do if the city were to narrow Main Street from five to three lanes, slowing traffic down to 25 or 30 miles per hour?

Answer any way you want, but here are some options to get you thinking: Would you keep your same route and just drive the slower speed (maybe leave home a little earlier to compensate for it)? Would you look for an alternate, faster route? Would you cut through the surrounding neighborhoods to try to somehow gain time? Would you take Martin Luther King Drive as an alternate route (either now, or if it were improved)? Would you just not go out at all if it involved driving in that area? There are other options; these are just a few to prime the pump.

Heart of Peoria Plan, West Bluff

Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff

March 18, 2008 C. J. Summers 1 Comment

Sometimes, like when the City Council is trying to shut down the Heart of Peoria Commission, you start to wonder if residents are still interested in the Heart of Peoria Plan, walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and other facets of New Urbanism.

That’s why I was so excited to hear about this grassroots effort by West Bluff residents to create a Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff. They will be meeting tonight (March 18) at 6:30 p.m. in Bradley Hall, Room 142, if you’re interested in getting involved.

Here’s an article that was published in my neighborhood newsletter, written by those organizing this new campaign. It explains a little bit more about what they hope to achieve:

A group of neighbors and business owners in the West Bluff community are initiating a Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff, which we see as an effort to embrace “New Urbanism” as it pertains to quality of life in our neighborhoods. New Urbanism promotes walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl. It is highlighted in DPZ’s Heart of Peoria (HOP) plan.

We believe that by creating a vibrant Main Street Corridor, we can also spur new mixed-use development, encourage the refurbishment of existing properties and even slow the speed of cars traveling through our neighborhoods. Improving our commercial district will potentially increase our property values, increase owner occupancy of our homes and help combat the perception that the West Bluff is unsafe.

We have met with Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken and she is enthusiastic about the possibilities such a partnership among neighbors presents. As our campaign takes shape, our intent is to collaborate with existing initiatives (West Bluff Council, Renaissance Park and Heart of Peoria Commissions) and events (Grand Tour of Homes, Moss Avenue Sale) to build community-wide support and make change happen. We may even organize a few walking, bus riding and biking events ourselves!

We are taking our cue in part from an excellent book we have discovered titled “The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it Yourself Guide to Placemaking” by Jay Walljasper, Senior Fellow at Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org). This book is full of ideas for improving neighborhoods from communities across the country and the world. The recurring theme in this book is that ordinary people getting together and having fun is the best way to generate ideas and find solutions to common problems.

Our next meeting is set for March 18, 2008 at 6:30 pm in Bradley Hall, Room 142. We invite you to join us. We are interested in meeting with neighbors to answer questions and gather input.

“Long experience has shown us that bottom-up strategies work better than top-down approaches. The bottom-up strategy recognizes citizens as the experts, is guided by the wisdom of the community, and builds a strong partnership between the public and private sectors.” –Jay Walljasper, “The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it Yourself Guide to Placemaking.”

This campaign has also been profiled in the Journal Star and the Bradley Scout.

Amtrak, City of Peoria

Improved train access in works for Peoria

March 18, 2008 C. J. Summers 34 Comments

Amtrak Logo The first steps are being taken to restore passenger train service to Peoria — a city that at one time was a hub for train passengers from all over the country.

IDOT has informed the City that a preliminary meeting with Amtrak will take place this Friday to determine which train routes they will study. Within the next two weeks, they will begin the feasibility study in earnest, and hope to have the results by late summer. Last year, IDOT and Amtrak did a feasibility study on providing train service to the Quad Cities, and the report was very favorable.

In the meantime, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association is working with legislators in Springfield to improve Peoria’s access to existing train service in Bloomington and Galesburg:

This week, an Illinois Senate Committee debated a proposal to establish better intercity bus service directly connected to Amtrak service…. Senator Michael Frerichs (D-Champaign) introduced SB 2178 to authorize the State to contract with private bus companies to provide feeder bus service that complement existing Amtrak routes….

Another key corridor is I-74 that connects Peoria, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign-Urbana. There should be intercity bus service between two of our largest university towns for lots of good economic development reasons. And Peoria currently doesn’t have any Amtrak service, so a connection to two Amtrak lines makes a lot of sense. That’s a 90 mile trip, so it’s $180 for each one-way trip. 9 passengers who each pay $10 for a bus ticket and $10 for a train ticket make that a break-even proposition. If that route is extended northwest to Galesburg to connect to that Amtrak service (another 50 miles) we might find another 5 passengers to justify that additional $100 cost.

Note that there is currently Thruway service on the I-74 route offered by Burlington Trailways, but those two daily round-trips between Davenport, Iowa and Indianapolis, IN are not particularly designed around the Amtrak schedules.

Amtrak ridership in Illinois has been hitting record levels the past few years. According to Amtrak and IDOT officials, 3.6 million passengers used Amtrak stations in Illinois in FY2007, including all trains at Amtrak Chicago Union Station.

Ray LaHood

Tribune: Earmarks are great, or are they?

March 17, 2008 C. J. Summers 5 Comments

The Chicago Tribune published an opinion column by John McCarron on March 7 (“Pork has gotten bad rap”) praising and defending the federal earmark system, complete with a paeon to Rep. Ray LaHood — a staunch defender of earmarks himself.

His argument is that earmarks don’t cost that much (“less than 2 percent of federal spending”) and generally go to worthy projects (like the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program). He argues that people just don’t like seeing how the sausage is made, but they still like the sausage. “The ability to bring home the bacon is the oil (not to say ‘grease’) that slides together the disparate coalitions needed to pass legislation…. It may not be pretty, but it’s how stuff gets done.”

Yet, toward the end of the article, he proposes reform, which begs the question, why would we need reform to a system that has “been around as long as the republic,” isn’t wasteful, and is generally for the public good?

I don’t know of anyone who is against federal spending on worthy projects in an open and transparent manner. What is objectionable is the secretive, unaccountable way these projects are slipped into unrelated appropriations bills. This leads to two problems. One is waste, which doesn’t seem to bother Mr. McCarron too much; he dismisses $18 billion as a pittance by comparing it to overall federal spending. This is a similar argument to those who say U. S. war spending is low because it’s only 4% of GDP and less than 1% of the total economy; it all depends on one’s perspective, I guess. The other problem, however, is priorities. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense:

Some [government] agencies reported that “implementation of these [earmarked] directives can displace agencies’ program priorities as the agencies redirect resources to comply with these directives.” A recent report by the Department of Transportation Inspector General echoed these sentiments: “earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds on programs…. Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects.” The same study found that nearly 99 percent of all earmarked projects “were not subject to the agencies’ review and selection processes,” bypassing the agency’s normal review process.

So McCarron writes this article ostensibly in defense of earmarks, but toward the end of the article he nevertheless admits that there is a lack of accountability and that some projects deserve a bad reputation — like the iconic “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska — and ends up proposing essentially the same reform that Taxpayers for Common Sense advocates:

No, what’s needed isn’t a ban on earmarks but a more sensible way to evaluate and prioritize projects.

Stephen Schlickman, executive director of our Regional Transportation Authority, recommends a vetting system like the Federal Transit Administration’s New Start program. Local agencies like Metra and CTA make their best case for a new rail line or station. Federal technicians evaluate and grade the applications. Congress appropriates accordingly.

Not much of a defense of earmarks, despite the rhetoric earlier in the column. All the public wants is to be able to hold their elected officials accountable and not have their tax dollars wasted. That notion has been around as long as the republic, too.

City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department

Guest Editorial: Is the PFD prepared for this?

March 17, 2008 Marty Palmer 6 Comments

Are we prepared for this in Peoria? With our current Fire manpower? Machines? Equipment? Budget? Imagine a crane like that falling into the Gerlach building at OSF. I understand the use of mutual aid (MABAS), but will surrounding departments be used even though there is no ongoing training together for an event? When was the last time PFD called for help from, say,a volunteer department? Likewise, when was the last time a volunteer department called the PFD?

An event like this would overwhelm the PFD even with calling in all off duty people. Stations would be empty and who would provide service? East Peoria? Pekin? They would most likely be called to the scene. We would be lucky to get other paid departments here in a short time. Canton, Bloomington, Normal, etc. There are excellent departments that surround Peoria, but the mentality is “they are just volunteers.” Look at most of the PFD and you will see a strong volunteer background. Why does the PFD shun outside agencies?

Think about this.

Yes, I am a Volunteer fireman. I have great respect for the men and officers of the PFD! I just have a problem as to the “Us and Them” issue. We both train, provide service and have pride; just some get paid more than others.

Peoria Journal Star

Is that like Gilligan’s Isle?

March 17, 2008 C. J. Summers 9 Comments

Note to Word on the Street’s Karen McDonald and her editor: The word is spelled aisle (a passage between rows of seats), not isle (short for “island”). The wrong word was used not once, but twice in the short article about candidate Colleen Callahan’s appeal to those on the other side of the aisle.

City Council, City of Peoria

Search firm for city manager to be replaced Tuesday

March 14, 2008 C. J. Summers 13 Comments

A special meeting of the Peoria City Council has been called for Tuesday, March 18. Other than a proclamation, there is only one item of business on the agenda: choosing a new search firm to assist the city in selecting a permanent city manager.

Consideration of a MOTION to RESCIND Prior Action Authorizing the HIRING of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATES LLC and EXECUTIVE SEARCH, INC. AND Consideration of CITY MANAGER SEARCH FIRMS’ PROPOSALS from FRONTIER PARTNERS, INC. and THE MERCER GROUP, with the Possibility of Taking Action to HIRE ONE OF THESE FIRMS, and Authorize the Interim City Manager or Mayor to Execute a CONTRACT with that Firm.

Ironically, on March 3, Councilman Nichting (5th Dist.) moved to hire City Manager Search Firms, The Mercer Group, Inc., and the motion was seconded by Councilman Spears (4th Dist.), but everyone else on the council wanted to hire the other firm, so Council Member Van Auken (2nd Dist.) made a substitute motion, which was approved 7-2 (Councilman Turner was absent).

Reportedly, upon the first meeting with the search firm, a majority of the council and the search firm felt that the relationship wasn’t going to work out, and so the search firm withdrew their offer. Here’s their letter of withdrawal:

Dear Mayor Ardis:

As you know, we submitted a proposal to assist the City of Peoria in the recruitment of a new City Manager on February 21, 2008.

We were honored and pleased when the City Council selected our firm for this task on March 2, 2008.

We quickly started preparations to fulfill our commitments to the duties as outlined in our proposal.

Yesterday it was a great pleasure to meet personally with you to discuss the fundamental aspects of our recruitment process before entering into binding commitments to fulfill the tasks. Thank you for your hospitality.

During the six-hour drive back to Oshkosh last evening, Denise and I discussed the advisability of proceeding. As you know, we have no employees and the three partners perform all of our work. With the Peoria project, we were hopeful that a local associate could perform much of the on-site tasks.

However, our local associate, while experienced in the private sector is unfamiliar with municipal government. It became clear that as such we would need to commit significantly more time and travel than we had anticipated fulfilling the duties associated with the Peoria project.

Given the commitments we have already made to other Wisconsin municipalities and counties, doing the Peoria project would be a very burdensome task. We therefore respectfully request that our proposal to assist the City of Peoria for the recruitment of a City Manager be withdrawn from further consideration.

We are letting you know of this request as soon as possible to minimize the delay in your proceeding on this vital, local task in the City of Peoria. We Wish you all the best, both in recruiting a new City Manager and all future endeavors in your city.

Sincerely,
William D. Frueh
Partner, Public Administration Associates

It’s interesting that one of the reasons Van Auken stated she liked Public Administration Associates better was because “the representative from Executive Search, Inc. was local,” according to the March 3 minutes. But it turns out, according to this withdrawal letter, that their local representative/associate was “unfamiliar with municipal government.” Anyone else find it odd that someone with the firm of Public Administration Associates is only familiar with the private sector? Sounds like that came as a surprise to the council; I can see why they might have been disappointed.

A special meeting was called instead of waiting until the next regular meeting so that the council won’t lose any more time finding a new city manager.

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Don’t we employ people to ensure this doesn’t happen?

March 14, 2008 C. J. Summers 22 Comments

As you’ve no doubt seen in the Journal Star, the new parking deck at Bradley University is being built a little too close to Main Street:

The parking deck’s concrete base – which already is in place – is anywhere from 2 to 9 feet closer to the city’s right-of-way property than allowed. “They [the local contractor] found the error and immediately informed us,” Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, whose district includes Bradley University, said.

My question is, shouldn’t this have been caught sooner? Say, by Peoria’s building inspections department? Aren’t they supposed to make sure that a building is being constructed in compliance with city codes and the approved site plan?

Here’s another example. Take a look at 819 E. Fairoaks (corner of Fairoaks and Illinois). This is a new house being built in an older neighborhood — in fact, it’s within the Heart of Peoria Plan area and falls under the regulations of the Land Development Code. The site plan that was submitted to and approved by the city was in compliance. But the house that’s constructed there — and almost completed — is different than the site plan, and decidedly not in compliance (The attached garage was supposed to be “set back 6′ from longest plane of street side facade,” but instead it was built 12′ in front of the facade, a difference of 18′). Once it came to the attention of the Planning & Growth Department, a stop work order was issued, and now the contractor will either have to comply with the approved site plan or seek a variance.

In both cases, the construction progressed to an advanced stage before non-compliance was discovered. And in both cases, the non-compliance was not discovered by the city, but by someone else (contractor, citizen) who reported it to the city. So my question again is, why isn’t the building inspections department catching this sooner in the construction process? According to the City of Peoria’s website:

The City of Peoria has six full time building inspectors who inspect all construction requiring a permit. These inspectors verify that the construction or alterations specified in the permit are carried out at the construction site.

So, how did they miss these two properties? And how many other properties are out of compliance that haven’t gotten caught?

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library

Peoria Library History and Organization

March 14, 2008 C. J. Summers Leave a comment

This week’s Issues Update from the City Manager’s office had this interesting review of the Peoria Public Library’s history. Fifth District Councilman Patrick Nichting had asked staff for this review at the last council meeting because “several citizens had requested information regarding the history regarding how the City Council became the authority over the Library versus other Libraries being under a Library District,” according to the council minutes. Nichting went on to say that “other Libraries under Library Districts had a mill rate and increases were voted under public referendum and voters decided increases in budgets.” Here is the report back:

The Peoria Public Library is organized and governed by the Illinois Library Act, 75 ILCS 5/1-01, et seq. As a Local Library, it is part of the City, in the sense that as the City annexes more property, that property is automatically served by the Peoria Public Library and is de-annexed from any library district it may have been a part of. As a Local Library, the Peoria Public Library is managed by a Board of Trustees, consisting of nine (9) Trustees appointed by the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council. A review of the City’s ordinances reflects that even as early as the 1940 Code Book, the ordinance establishing the Library was in place.

Under the Local Library Act, it is for the City to levy taxes for Library purposes. 75 ILCS 5/3-1 provides that in a city of 500,000 or fewer inhabitants, the corporate authorities (the City Council) shall levy a tax for library purposes of not to exceed .15% of the value of all taxable property in the City. There is also a provision in that section for an increase in that amount by referendum.

Historically, the City of Peoria, as a home rule municipality, has far exceeded the .15% limitation provided for in the statute. Currently, we are at .34%. Occasionally, there has been some discussion between the Library Board and the City over the question of whether the City has a duty to levy amounts requested by the Library Board. Section 75 ILCS 5/3-5 provides that the library taxes provided for “in this Act” shall be levied by the City Council in the amounts determined by the Board. This Section requires the City Council to levy the not-to-exceed .15% amount in an amount determined by the Library Board. The City Council is not required to levy whatever the Library Board wishes, based on the City’s home rule authority, because there has never been a referendum increasing this amount,. The City’s home rule authority is not a tax provided for “in this Act” within the meaning of Section 3-5.

A review of the history of the library levy reveals that in 1968 the library levy was .12%, which continued until 1971 when the rate became .1505%, then raised to .1708% in 1978. In 1986 the library levy went up to .2256% and in 1989 it went up to .4094%. In 2006, the amount was .3398%.

The referendum conducted last April was an advisory referendum. It could have been mandatory had the question been:

“Shall the annual library tax for maintenance and operation in the City of Peoria be increased from .15% to .50%?”

If such a referendum passed, then the City Council would have to levy any amount requested by the Library Board up to the .50% figure.

There is another type of library district which is organized under the Public Library District Act of 1991, 75 ILCS 16/1-1, et seq. In this second type of library district, the district itself levies taxes and the members of Board of Trustees are elected.

The statutes provide three separate ways for a Local Library such as ours to become a Public Library District under the Illinois Public Library District Act. The first, found in 75 ILCS 16/10-10, provides that the Board of Trustees of the Library adopt a resolution calling for the conversion and certifying the question of the conversion to the Election Commission who shall submit the question to the voters at the next regular election.

The second method of conversion, under 75 ILCS 16/10-15, which provides for the conversion upon the resolution of the Library Board and requesting the approval of the conversion of the City Council. If the City Council approves the conversion within 60 days after the resolution is adopted, the Board of Trustees shall convert the Local Library to a Public Library District. That statute goes on to provide that library in a home rule unit converted under this section shall have a maximum tax rate not to exceed the greater of 0.15% or the last rate levied by the municipality for library purposes for the most recent year before the conversion and that rate shall not be subject to any rate limitations or referendum requirements imposed by the Act. An increase, however, would require a referendum.

Finally, if the Library Board of Trustees does not initiate the change by adopting a resolution, the change can occur through a petition signed by 10% of those voting in the previous election and a referendum.

City of Peoria

Race Relations Commission created