Monthly Archives: January 2011

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Joint Review Board decision invalid; revote scheduled

4 Comments

On December 27, 2010, the Joint Review Board approved the East Village Growth Cell TIF unanimously. However, the legality of that decision is now in question because the makeup of the Board is not compliant with state statute.

The Joint Review Board is composed of one representative from each taxing body and includes at least one member of the general public. State law requires (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-5[b]) that “If, as determined by the housing impact study [or] … based on other reasonable data, the majority of residential units [in the proposed TIF area] are occupied by very low, low, or moderate income households […] the public member shall be a person who resides in very low, low, or moderate income housing within the redevelopment project area.”

The public member of the Joint Review Board is Debbie Ritschel, who resides at 401 Water, which is not “very low, low, or moderate income housing” nor “within the redevelopment project area.” Therefore, City attorney Randy Ray says the Joint Review Board will have another meeting scheduled for January 31, and “the agenda will call for them to declare a vacancy based on current public member being ineligible. An eligible person will then be nominated and elected. They will then consider ratifying their earlier action re TIF eligibility.”

I wonder how they will go about finding an eligible person. If you live in “very low, low, or moderate income housing” within the proposed East Village TIF, I would encourage you to submit your name for nomination. The public member is selected by a majority of the board members present at the meeting. The members of the Joint Review Board (not including Ritschel) are:

  • Dave Wheeler (Peoria Park District)
  • Dave Kinney (Peoria Public School District 150)
  • Joe Merkle (Sanitary District)
  • Stan Browning (Sanitary District)
  • Jim Scroggins (City of Peoria, Finance Director)
  • Patrick Nichting (City of Peoria, Treasurer)
  • Scott Sorrel (County of Peoria)
  • John Stokowski (Greater Peoria Mass Transit)
  • Glen Olson (Airport Authority)
  • Edward Szynaka (Peoria Public Library)
City of Peoria, Heartland Partnership

Temporary is a long time in Peoria

1 Comment

Since April 9, 2008, the Heartland Partnership has been conducting business in the former Damon’s restaurant at Riverfront Village with only a “temporary” Certificate of Occupancy. Councilman Gary Sandberg was tipped off that the building may be occupied without a Certificate, so he sent a FOIA inquiry to the Inspections department and discovered there was no Certificate on file.

Heartland Partnership is the employer of Councilman Ryan Spain, so I contacted him about it. He did some research and informed me via e-mail that “[t]he City has located a temporary certificate of occupancy dated April 9, 2008. Evidently, the employee that conducted the inspection has retired and there is incomplete information in the file.” Later, he added that “the final certificate of occupancy was awaiting signature from the fire department. The contractor and tenant requested a final inspection, which lead to the temporary certificate of occupancy on April 9, 2008. The inspections department coordinates this final step with the fire inspector.”

Inspections Director John Kunski said he couldn’t piece together exactly what happened because it was too long ago. It could be that the building inspector (now retired) didn’t notify the fire department, or that the fire department was notified but an inspection was never conducted for some reason. No one really knows (or will admit) who dropped the ball. Kunski says his department is the “gatekeeper” of the certificate-issuing process, but each department (e.g., fire department, planning/zoning department) is responsible for conducting its own inspection. If a department doesn’t follow through, Inspections “[doesn’t] have a system to flag it.”

The practice of issuing temporary Certificates of Occupancy was instituted under former City Manager Michael McKnight as a way to make the City more “business-friendly,” according to Kunski. But he said that it’s difficult to get compliance once a building is occupied. He would like to see the City require a deposit — $500, for example — that would be put in escrow and refunded once the permanent Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

According to the City of Peoria’s website, “a temporary or partial Certificate of Occupancy good for period up to eight (8) months for any building or structure” may be issued under certain conditions. However, the City Code, section 5-77, doesn’t specify a time-frame; it only says, “Upon written request, the code official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the use of any building or structure prior to the completion and occupancy of the entire building or structure, provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely prior to full completion of the structure without endangering life or public welfare.” Kunski was also unaware of there being any time limit set for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy.

Kunski said that there were “no life/safety issues” at the Heartland Partnership building, or else a temporary Certificate would not have been issued.

Bradley University, City of Peoria, Peoria County

IPL tries unconventional approach to collaboration

10 Comments

Word on the Street reveals that Bradley University’s “Institute for Principled Leadership [IPL] in Public Service” helped launched a rather unconventional City-County collaboration effort. In a surprising break from traditional negotiation, they didn’t tell the County Board anything about the endeavor. This simplified discussions considerably and was, by all accounts, non-confrontational. But the plan backfired when County Board members found out about it through the media. Rumor is that IPL will now have to resort to Plan B: communicating with all parties.

In a further effort to send mixed signals, they’ve dubbed the effort “PASS.” Yes. It’s an acronym that stands for “Peoria Area Shared Services.” (Here’s hoping Galesburg doesn’t attempt a similar acronym in their efforts to share services with Knox County.) IPL is now hoping that the County won’t pass on PASS after the PASS faux pas.

City of East Peoria, General News

Thinking about Bass Pro Shops

26 Comments

I’ve been watching the new Bass Pro Shops materialize in East Peoria, and I got to thinking about a statistic I read in the Journal Star when it was announced they were coming to town. The Journal Star reported in May last year that Bass Pro Shops “attract an average of 3 million people a year to each store,” according to East Peoria Mayor Dave Mingus.

I thought it would be interesting to look at these numbers a little closer. For instance, three million visitors annually comes out to roughly 8,219 visitors per day. There are 22,638 residents in East Peoria (2000 census). So if a third of the East Peoria population visited Bass Pro Shops every day, they would get 3,000,000 visits. But this is a regional draw, so I also looked up the Peoria Metropolitan Statistical Area, which has a population of 366,899. If the entire MSA population (which includes all residents of Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford, Marshall, and Stark counties) visited Bass Pro Shops 8 times a year, they’d get 3,000,000 visitors a year.

Six Flags gets about 24 million people a year at their 19 theme parks, which is an average of 1,263,158 people per park — not even half the number of visitors to Bass Pro Shops, although presumably Bass Pro Shops doesn’t charge admission. WalMart, which also doesn’t charge admission, and which people patronize often for their daily needs, brings in about 176 million customers per week to their 8,500 stores; that’s about 1,076,706 people per store annually — just over a third the number that reportedly visit Bass Pro Shops each year.

“In 2008, Illinois welcomed nearly 88 million domestic visitors […] 67.8 million for leisure purposes,” according to the State of Illinois. There are currently two Bass Pro Shops in Illinois, which could account for up to six million — or nearly 10% — of those leisure visitors. The Museum of Science and Industry brings in about two million visitors annually, only two-thirds the draw of Bass Pro Shops. The Field Museum only gets 1.75 million visitors.

My point is that I’m skeptical of this three-million number. First of all, how do we know the reported numbers for existing stores are accurate? Aren’t we just taking the privately-held store’s word for it? Don’t the numbers sound a bit high? Secondly, even if we concede that those numbers are accurate, so what? Just because a store in St. Louis brings in four million customers doesn’t mean that East Peoria, Illinois, is going to have the same success. There are some differences between St. Louis (“Gateway to the West”) and East Peoria (“Gateway to Germantown Hills”) that I believe are self-evident.

Don’t get me wrong. I anticipate that Bass Pro Shops will bring in plenty of customers. I just don’t think it’s going to bring in three million a year. And I’m beginning to see why East Peoria opted to construct the site and building themselves. This puts them ahead of Bakersfield (CA), Decatur (AL), and Augusta (GA). Those cities announced they were getting a new Bass Pro Shops in 2007 and 2008, but are still waiting for private construction to begin. Buffalo (NY) announced they were getting a new Bass Pro Shops in 2004, but the deal fell apart last year after the city got tired of waiting. East Peoria, in contrast, already has a 20-year lease with Bass Pro Shops, which it approved last July.

General News, History

Kenyon one of the few with passion to preserve Peoria’s history

8 Comments

One thing I learned about Peoria growing up is that we care very little for our own history, other than looking at pictures of it. Once something is thirty, forty, or (God forbid) fifty years old, it’s time to knock it down and build something new. Newer is always, always, always better. Anyone in favor of preservation is seen as hopelessly sentimental, impractical, and an opponent of “progress.” And if there’s one thing we want to be in Peoria, it’s to be perceived as progressive.

So you can imagine what it must have been like to be Les Kenyon, an architect who had a vision and a passion for preserving Peoria’s historically-significant landmarks. Kenyon died Friday morning, just a couple months after pleading with the City Council not to delist the Roanoke Apartments on Hamilton Blvd. (They delisted it anyway.)

My condolences to Mr. Kenyon’s family, friends, and colleagues. It’s up to others now to pick up his torch. May his example live on, teaching more Peorians to appreciate, cherish, and preserve our history.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools, TIF

District 150’s TIF proposal

13 Comments

Tuesday night, Dr. David Kinney from District 150 presented a plan to mitigate the negative impact of a TIF by sharing some of the revenue with the school district. I mentioned in my live blog that he had distributed a PowerPoint handout to the council members; here is a copy of that handout:

TIF Presentation 2 Revised

Will the City approve this proposal? My sources say yes.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Peoria City Council 1/11/11 (Live Blog)

17 Comments

Tonight is the first City Council meeting of 2011. After proclamations and a “business showcase” presentation from Northwoods Mall, the City will hear from anyone who wants to talk about the proposed East Village TIF. Although it isn’t on the agenda, there has been speculation that the Council will also discuss the City’s ordinance covering grand opening displays tonight, probably under New Business.

It’s standing room only tonight in Council chambers. It looks like all the council members are here (except Jacob, of course).

Tonight’s agenda with supporting documentation can be viewed here. I’ve reprinted it below and will be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh your browser regularly if you following along live:

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – CITY OF PEORIA

Mayor Ardis asks for unanimous consent to move the Litter presentation to the beginning of the meeting.

New Business: ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN.

There will be a meeting Saturday, January 22, in City Council chambers, 9-11 a.m., to gather ideas on how to deal with the litter problem in the City. She wants to “talk trash,” she says humorously. There will be coffee and donuts. Very short presentation. No questions.

Back to the regular agenda order:

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the PROPOSED DESIGNATION of the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.

There are four letters from concerned citizens that were distributed to council members before the meeting. Ardis reminds everyone the council will not be voting on the TIF tonight; this is just a public hearing. Sandberg says Item J on the consent agenda will be discussed and voted on, and it does regard the East Village TIF.

Before the public is heard from, the City wants to make a short presentation. Bobby Gray from Economic Development and a representative from Teska and Associates are giving a brief overview of the project to date. The guy from Teska is actually giving the bulk of the presentation. Proposed TIF area includes 653 acres and 2,532 parcels — a very large area. He’s basically giving a summary of their report, which you can read here. They found the East Village area is “blighted,” and thus eligible for TIF designation, because of deterioration, code violations, age of structures, inadequate utilities (this includes streets, sidewalks, curbs/gutters, street lights, etc.), excessive vacancies (16% residential, 25% business), and decline or minimal marginal increase in the EAV over the last five years (only grown about 2%). He lists the goal and objectives of the Growth Cell Plan, reviews the Future Land Use Plan, etc., all of which you can read about in the report (too much to retype here). Current EAV is $49,626,980. Anticipated EAV upon the completion (i.e., in 23 years) of anticipated redevelopment projects is in excess of $96,000,000. He admits that this is “optimistic.” He presents a TIF budget (in the aforementioned report). The total TIF budget (“total Estimated Project Costs”) is $95 million. Also in the budget, “Developer Interest Costs” with the amount “TBD.” Hmmm….

Teska also did a housing study to see if, hypothetically, residents needed to be relocated (i.e., if the City wanted to acquire property through eminent domain and neighbors would have to move), are there similar houses elsewhere where they could move. Answer: Yes.

Now, at long last, the floor is open:

  • David Kinney, District 150 Interim Comptroller/Treasurer — He believes this offers the City and school district “an exciting challenge” and says the school district wants to work with the City. However, he does have some concerns. Kinney has distributed a handout beforehand to the council members, and will be referring to it during his presentation. Bottom line, the District wants to share the TIF revenues, and Kinney is making his case for how much of the proceeds should be shared. He assumes an average 2% EAV growth over the next 23 years.
  • Grenita Lathan, District 150 Superintendent — Offers to provide increased vocational training/programs as part of their proposal to share TIF revenues.
  • Debbie Ritschel, Joint Review Board — Encouraging City to work with the School District on “a plan you can all agree on.” She talks about how important streets, sidewalks, and lighting are to homeowners.
  • Frederick Smith, East Bluff resident — Agrees with budgeted items in TIF for streets, sidewalks, and lighting (about $40+ million), but the rest of the $50+ million is too sketchy. He wants to know what specifically they’re going to do with that money so they can be held accountable.
  • Richard Mitchell, East Bluff resident — Likes the idea of the TIF including residences, not only businesses. He’s in favor, but acknowledges that there are still many unanswered questions.
  • Sara Partridge, East Bluff resident — Chronicles the decline and fall of the East Bluff over her lifetime.
  • Mike Chihoski, OSF St. Francis Medical Center — OSF strongly supports the TIF, says they have heavily invested in the area over the years, and hopes the TIF will spur more private development.
  • Carl Reardon, owns properties in proposed TIF district — Speaks in favor of residential TIF. Favors District 150’s proposal to provide vocational education.
  • Jessie McGowan, Jr. — When will we get specifics and how will we be notified?
  • Maleita King, East Bluff resident — Where is the money going? Who is going to benefit? What are you going to spend the money on? We’d rather spend the money on police — where we need it — rather than a TIF at this time.
  • [Didn’t catch his name, but he lives in the East Bluff] — “You’re just going to fix up the sidewalks for crackheads to walk on.” MidTown development tore down nice homes of people who wanted to stay, and now we have nothing to show for it. We’re not going to get state aid because the state’s broke. People aren’t going to come from other neighborhoods to shop on Wisconsin unless they’re drunks. The only thing that will happen is the people who live in this area are going to get taxed. Can’t sell his house for even half its EAV.
  • Don [Holland?], owns several houses on East Bluff — When he first got his houses, he thought taxes were reasonable. His taxes have gone up from $5,000 to $20,000 a year. “Taxes are already way too high” and keep people from reinvesting in their houses because they can’t afford it.
  • David Seghetti (sp?), family owns Red Carpet Car Wash on Jefferson — Fully supports this initiative.
  • Ron Johnson, owns several properties in East Bluff — Been landlord for 15 years. “You guys didn’t perform [with MidTown Plaza], so what makes you think you can perform with [this new TIF]?” Says all the council wants to do is fix up the area so they can tax the residents more. Council needs to work on lowering crime.
  • Mary Clark, East Bluff resident — “The taxes we already pay should be improving the areas we live, so where are our tax dollars going that we’re already paying?” Since tax dollars can be moved from one TIF to another (adjacent TIFs), what assurance do we have that we’ll even get the benefit of these TIF dollars?

Public hearing is now closed, and the council chambers are emptying rapidly. It looks like most of the SRO crowd was here for the public hearing. That’s encouraging to see. Bobby Gray encourages those leaving to fill out an “interested party” form so they can be notified of future meetings regarding this proposed TIF.

ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A. NOTICE OF LAWSUIT Filed on Behalf of OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, an Illinois Not For Profit Corporation, d/b/a SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER Regarding a Complaint Against DAVID P. BROWN, JR., the City of Peoria, and Peoria County Claiming Between December 1, 2009, through December 4, 2009, with Request to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.

B. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Inspections Director Requesting Acceptance of the BID for DEMOLITION of 2204 S.W. ADAMS STREET from the LOWEST BIDDER, RIVER CITY DEMOLITION, in the Amount of $49,850.00.

C. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of an EMERGENCY REPAIR to a 1998 CATERPILLAR 938G END LOADER (Unit #228) by ALTORFER CATERPILLAR, INC., in an Amount Not to Exceed $22,889.84.

D. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the 2011 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT with FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT, LLC for the PEORIA CITY/COUNTY LANDFILL, in the Amount of $369,000.00, as Recommended by the Peoria City/County Landfill Committee.

E. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA, DUNLAP COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 323, and RB INVESTMENTS I, LLC, and Requesting Authorization for the Interim City Manager to Execute the Documents.

F. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Planning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Approving the MULTI-FAMILY PLAN for Property Addressed as 2604, 2605, 2626 and 2629 N. LAVALLE COURT; 3604 and 3630 W. MARENGO DRIVE; and 3620 W. VERONA COURT, with Conditions.

G. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 3 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Site Approval Application Filing Fee, Amending CHAPTER 5 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to a Fee for Filing a Petition for Rehearing, and Amending CHAPTER 13 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Fees for Filing Liens and an Increase in the Costs to Settle Violations for Littering.

H. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS G (Restaurant, Beer & Wine Only) LIQUOR LICENSE at 1219 WEST MAIN STREET, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

I. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of SITE APPLICATIONS for CLASS C-1 (Packaged Liquor) LIQUOR LICENSES at 2515 N. KNOXVILLE and 3524 N. UNIVERSITY, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

J. Communication from the Interim City Manager Requesting to Receive and File a WRITTEN REPORT Passed by the Joint Review Board on December 27, 2010, Agreeing that the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Satisfies the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA for a “BLIGHTED AREA.”

K. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of NOVEMBER 2010, with Request to Receive and File.

The following items were removed from the consent agenda by the indicated councilman: D, G, J (Sandberg), and C (Irving). The rest of the items passed unanimously.

  • Item C — Questions whether it would be cheaper to lease replacement equipment instead of repairing this endloader. Someone from Public Works says they believe it would be better to fix this. Motion passes unanimously.
  • Item D — Asks how long we’ve been with this one firm without going out for bid. Jeff Smith, City Engineer, standing in for Dave Barber, says he doesn’t know how long it’s been, but speaks highly of this consultant. Sandberg says it’s not good public policy to just keep rolling over contracts without going out to bid, so he won’t support it. Spain, speaking on behalf of the City/County Landfill Committee, explains they’re in the process of expanding landfill number 3, and they don’t want to switch horses midstream. He moves to approve, seconded by Irving. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item G — Doesn’t support two of the three increases. Turner/Van Auken move to approve; passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item J — Asks how an 11-member board (Joint Review Board) can legally do business without a quorum present (only 5 members out of 11). City attorney Randy Ray says he doesn’t know. Sandberg goes on to say that this isn’t just a “receive and file”; it also says the council is agreeing that the proposed TIF area is a “blighted area.” Goes back to his original question. How did this come to the Council when the JRB didn’t have a quorum? Ray says that the Council is only receiving and filing, not agreeing that the area is blighted. Sandberg says we shouldn’t receive and file a report that wasn’t really passed by the JRB because they didn’t have a quorum when they “passed” it. “What I’m trying to tell you is, we could get sued down the road” because the process isn’t legal. Van Auken agrees with City attorney. The guy from Teska (I think his name is Hoffman) says JRB doesn’t have to have a quorum under state statute. It’s only those taxing bodies who show up who get to vote.

    Sandberg questions how the JRB came up with their findings. He cites the brevity of the meetings and lack of supporting documentation as reasons he’s skeptical of their conclusions. “This whole process is on a fast track to a conclusion […] there is no independent assessment.” “If this is a blighted area, then let’s just call everything a blighted area except for the growth area out north.” Ardis says this is only a motion to receive an file minutes and the JRB’s action. Says the issues Sandberg is bringing up are not germane to the issue. Riggenbach moves to approve, seconded by Van Auken. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Council to Take Action Pertaining to a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS C (Packaged Liquor Store) LIQUOR LICENSE at 9915 N. KNOXVILLE, SUITES I & J, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to DENY.

Irving moves to withdraw application at request of the petitioner.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-299) Communication from the Acting City Manager and Assistant Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class R2 (Single Family Residential) District for a SCHOOL for the ARTS for Property Located at 5211 N. BIG HOLLOW ROAD, and with No Recommendation from the Zoning Commission Due to a Tie Vote.

Spears says the neighbors are generally in favor, but want the building set back as far as possible and allow parking in the front yard. The special use is only for this school of the arts, and if it changes at any time, it would have to come back to the council. Spears/Van Auken move to approve. Sandberg says parking along the side will not work as proposed. Also says the west elevation is 110-foot blank wall that faces the nearest single-family home. That home happens to be the home of the petitioner at this time. But no one but the petitioner, Sandberg says, would want to live next to such a structure. “Don’t allow him to aim low,” because we’re setting precedent for future special uses. It’s too much building for the lot, he says. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

NEW BUSINESS

  • Irving asks for a report back from staff on what the process is for businesses to promote grand openings.
  • Turner has concerns about quality of life ordinance violations in older neighborhoods; specifically a resident using his garage as an auto-repair facility, and a resident not removing an abandoned vehicle, both of which have gone unaddressed by the City.

PRESENTATION

ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN. (Moved to start of meeting)

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – TOWN OF THE CITY OF PEORIA

ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the Town Attorney Requesting Adoption of a RESOLUTION that Creates the Right of Any Person to ADDRESS the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES at any MEETING of the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES of the Town of the City of Peoria Consistent with the State Statute and Adopting RULES Consistent with Those Previously Adopted by the City Council.

Irving moves to approve as outlined, seconded by Spain. No discussion. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZENS’ OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL

Savino Sierra, LaVetta Ricca, and Jessie McGowan addressed the council.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

And the council will go into executive session to talk about possibly hiring Patrick Urich… or at least, that’s the rumor. What we know for sure is that they’re going into executive session. Goodnight everyone!

Peoria County

Urich bids a sudden and unexpected farewell

67 Comments

The big news from Peoria County:

Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich announced today that he has decided to seek another challenge in the public sector, yet to be determined. Urich has been the Peoria County administrator for 10 years and has held the reins as the longest serving CEO in recent memory. […] Urich’s career in Peoria County began in January 2001 when he arrived from Lake County, IL at the age of 32, after serving as Assistant County Administrator. […] Peoria County board members will meet in Executive Session this week to discuss plans to begin a search for Urich’s replacement. The Board may decide to use an in-house approach or contract with a third party to assist in the identification of potential replacement candidates.

Reportedly, Urich has no other job lined up. He’s just quitting with no particular place to go. The Journal Star is already speculating that he could land at Peoria City Hall. I’m not sure the City could afford him if his salary continues to increase at the same rate it has over the past decade. Here’s a brief recap:

That’s about a 4-5% raise the first few years, followed by a 35% raise in 2006, then a 19% raise in 2008, and then back down to just 6% in 2009. He declined another $10,000 raise in 2010. Wow. The County Board really takes care of their administrator. Don’t expect increases like that from the City Council.

Well, unless you want to build a hotel attached to the Civic Center, of course….икони

2011 Election, Chamber of Commerce, City Council, City of Peoria

Answers to Biz PAC’s questions

16 Comments

As I mentioned in a previous post, I received a questionnaire from the new “Biz PAC” (formerly Peoria Area Chamber PAC). Here are the questions they asked, along with my answers:

What are your top three priorities if elected?
I believe city government exists for the purpose of providing basic, essential public services to residents and businesses in the fairest and most efficient manner possible. Based on those principles, my top priorities include developing a sustainable budget, improving the city’s infrastructure, and restoring faith in local government through greater transparency.

For Incumbents only: What are your top three accomplishments in your most recent term on the Council?
N/A

Please explain your position on the provision of economic development services by the City of Peoria. Discuss the options of contracting out vs. providing the services in house.
I oppose outsourcing economic development services to private organizations because it could compromise accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the use of taxpayer dollars. However, sharing these services with Peoria County or contracting them out to the County would be worth exploring. Economic Development tools should be used strategically and as intended. (For instance, Enterprise Zone status should be given to blighted areas that need it, not to greenfield sites that do not.)

Please explain your position on shared services between the City and other units of government. Be specific regarding the services you believe should be shared, with whom should they be shared and why.
I do believe in exploring and acting on opportunities to share or combine services with other governmental bodies when it’s to our mutual advantage. One possibility mentioned already is to share Economic Development activities. Additionally, the City and County should combine their election commissions to eliminate needless duplication. Peoria Township should be dissolved and its duties discharged by the City and/or the County; there is no good reason to have this superfluous layer of government. Other areas should be explored for possible consolidation such as planning/zoning, information technology, and human resources.

The City Council recently engaged an outside firm to assist in the reorganization process. Please provide your perspective reorganization of city government and be as specific as possible.
Since no specifics have been made public, I can only speak in generalities. It is a good idea to investigate whether greater efficiency can be gained through the reorganization of city departments. However, this should be a public debate, deliberated in open session.

The City Council has had two back to back challenging budget years. Please explain your perspective on the recently passed 2011 budget. Do you believe the structural deficit problem has been addressed? Do you support or oppose the fee/fine/tax increases passed by the Council?
Before instituting a natural gas tax, the City should have exhausted other, less regressive methods of raising revenue and lowering costs, such as instituting a packaged liquor tax and reducing/eliminating downtown parking subsidies. Acknowledging the recession’s role in our budget crisis, much of the crisis is of the Council’s own making. The predictable failure of MidTown Plaza is costing taxpayers a half million dollars a year. The City had to pay out over one million dollars to cover a very unwise loan guarantee to Firefly Energy. The City also gave away two very valuable assets for practically nothing (the $10 million Sears block sold to the County for $1 and the $2+ million Kellar Branch rail line sold to the Park District for $1). The 2011 budget crisis could have been significantly mitigated had the Council sold these assets for market value and stayed out of the venture capital business. To address the structural deficit successfully, we need to learn from (and not repeat) past mistakes.

While control of the pension systems for City of Peoria employees is outside the direct purview of the City Council, what will you do personally to work for change in this system?
I will support pension reform that provides fair and reasonable pension benefits that are affordable and sustainable for municipalities.

What do you believe is the role of the City Council members (both collectively and individually) in promoting regionalism?
I’m not sure what is meant by “regionalism” in this context. Regional cooperation among municipal organizations should be pursued as a matter of policy. However, cities should retain their own elected representatives and decision-making authority, not be subsumed into a large regional government. City Council members can promote regional cooperation by building relationships with other elected officials (collectively) and working with them on areas of mutual concern, resulting in more efficient delivery of public services.

Please tell us in 400 words or less why the business community should support your candidacy.
A basic-services platform is very business-friendly. Safe streets and improved infrastructure benefit everyone in the City. When public services and incentives are provided in a fair and equitable manner, they give businesses an even playing field and set the table for economic development. Furthermore, by limiting government to its core function, taxes can be kept low.