I’ve got the date saved on my calendar: Saturday, January 26. That’s the day the city will be bringing in Lee Einsweiler from Code Studio in Austin, Texas, to do a refresher course on the city’s new Land Development Code that he helped create. John Sharp has an article about it in the paper today:
A meeting is scheduled for Jan. 26 to bring a variety of city officials together and train them on specifics of the LDC. Members of the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Commission, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, the Heart of Peoria Commission and Renaissance Park Commission will gather with city officials for a one-day training seminar focusing on hypothetical scenarios and decisions, using the LDC, that could emerge from them.
There’s only one crucial group missing here: the city council. I think all council members should also attend this session — especially the district council members from the first, second, and third districts. I’m hearing rumblings of more possible “exceptions” from not only the Land Development Code, but the form-based codes that were created for the Warehouse District, Sheridan-Loucks Triangle, Prospect Road Corridor, and Main Street Corridor. Not only are developers asking for exceptions, some council members are considering them.
If we make exceptions every time a developer comes and asks for it, then we’ve wasted a tremendous amount of time and money on these codes. Even if we get all the groups mentioned in Sharp’s article on board with the new codes, if the council compromises, it will be all for naught. That’s why I think it’s critical that they attend this training session.
Yes, I know they’re busy and already attend a lot of meetings. But this code affects 8,000 acres of Peoria. I think it’s important enough to warrant attendance by city decision-makers.
I agree that Council members should attend. I also believe that exceptions to the LDC need to be occasional and well-justified and not rubber-stamped. The CC has had a bad habit in the past of bending over backward to appease developers and our community has suffered for it. Time to change.
Not many council people can attend a meeting due to the Open Meetings Act. If too manny attend then it needs to be a meeting of the city council and must be published. I tried to get the council to come to a East Bluff Housing meeting, as to our future and that was the excuse they gave.
It’s a crap excuse Martin. They all get together in large numbers at bars, houses, etc. all the time. It’s just when it’s convenient they use the Open Meetings Act excuse.
Even if they have to notice the meeting, it’s no big deal. They post a flyer at City Hall and then they can attend the meeting.
Martin — All of the commissions are also subject to the Open Meetings Act, so the city already has to publish that there will be a quorum of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Commission, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Heart of Peoria Commission and Renaissance Park Commission — how hard can it be to add the City Council to the list?
CJ:
Heck of I know if it can be added , all I know is that when I asked all of the city council for help as to the future of the East Bluff NHS. I got the answer unable to attend due to the OMA. It might have been an excuse not to attend or that they did not care about this organazation. Anyway more power to you as to getting the Council to attend your training. At least your organazation has a hope for a future. I guess I should have call for a meeting at a local bar!
If it is a purely social event then there is no need to publish. If there is any possibility of business being discused then if it is a majority of the quorum present then it must be published per the Act’s requirements. I am not sure how much notice is required off the top of my head. Marty, the purpose of the meeting you mentioned was regarding the future of the east bluff, that would be construed as business by a reasonable assumption and would need to be published.
Peo Proud: It’s NOT a crap excuse. City Clerk Mary Hayes and her staff go to great lengths to keep the public and the media informed about any meetings of the Peoria City Council. If there’s a possibility that the majority of a quorum (with an 11 member CC, that number is FOUR) might be at a location, a notice is posted and the media is informed. I am on that list. It is something that they taker seriously, as it has the potential to end up in court.
As to why they don’t want to meet as a group at any particular neighborhood association meeting, I would imagine it for efficiencies sake. I don’t have the exact number of neighborhood associations handy, but it’s quite a long list. If they meet as a group with one, they will eventually be expected to meet with all of them. But it’s not necessary Folks, every single neighborhood in Peoria has a district council representative. THESE council members should be in touch with the neighborhood associations, and perhaps attending one or two meetings a year. I know there are are at-large members who also put in a lot of face time at neighborhood meetings, clean-ups, etc.
Billy,
I stand by my assessment. It takes two minutes to post a notice that they will be attending to cover their backsides on the legal issue. Not a lot of work for Mary and her staff (and they do a wonderful job by the way).
But I don’t think the type of meeting Martin was discussing requires notice – since the purpose of their attendance was not to take formal council action but to observe, discuss and have input on the future of a non-city council association. The fact is – hiding behind the OMA – as an excuse not to attend is wrong. If they don’t want to attend, just say so.
Peo Proud
East Bluff NHS is a specical service district it is not an neighborhood assocation and I agree that they could have come if notice was posted. It could be construed that they approve the tax district every year so it is a quasi arm of city goverment even if they don’t control us. Anyway, what was done is done and I rember what was done to me and our organazation. 2 concil members came at diffrent times and sat in on meetings and never contacted us after. The last contact was by Me to one councilman was “you can expect no help from the city”. We did NOT WANT ANY MONEY, just advice , direction, and guidance as to what we could do to partner with the city or anyone. Heck fire we wanted to be ad least part of the total solution for the East bluff but we wern’t even in any plans for anything. Left out in the cold as to our roll. We have and will pay back ALL of the money we have due to the city, I think that is all they care about, at least we have paid back our money, other organzations have not.
Martin –
Thanks for the clarification on East Bluff NHS – didn’t realize it was a ssd. You may be best getting advice elsewhere anyways…the current state of reliability of info that is coming from around the horseshoe is on a steady decline.
As the passing of the City’s budget shows, it’s all about the money. Interesting that there has been no discussion on the blogs on the budget that was cobbled together this year.
I missed the final budget meeting. But I and CJ have been providing coverage throughout the process.
Everyone seemed to be more concerned about the rail/trail issue than the budget. Small recap: Spears suggested setting aside $2 million to investigate the possibility for youth facilities at Expo gardens. He believed that this needed to be in the budget, even if the idea did not pan out, meaning nothing spent–otherwise. It passed. there were four no’s for a variety of reasons. Some wanted to see a feasiblity study before the allocation. Sandberg brought up that it was interesting that other ideas were put into the budget w/o any need for feasibility study. (basically things which would benefit a developer vs. a neighborhood–my take)George Jacob mentioned the Sheridan Triangle. No one else stood up for that project. (the smallest, the most easily accomplished in a construction season, the cheapest, and yep would have a positive effect on a neighborhood….went nowhere–my take), But we appreciated George’s support. George also asked the question that no hadn’t….are there areas outside of the 4 minutes response time for fire protection. Answer was “yes” because the response was based on a “five” minutes response time. George suggested a 5 or 10 year priority plan be developed to re-organize city resources if need be and to account for growth. Manning and Nichting did quite a bit of work to ferret out ineffeciencies in the budget to essentially pay for the roughly $800,000 in new personelle expenses. Turner was concerned given the projected $3.1 million shortfall next year that they might have to lay people off after hiring them. Mr. Oliver explained, twice, what the reserve funds and decidated funding accounts were and approximations as to what they held. Spain was concerned about the process in collecting delinquent HRA taxes from businesses…$12,400. Didn’t want to either offend or create additional work for businesses. Supported concerns addressed by Chamber of Commerce.
My main concern was the very little discussion about the budget overall in all the sessions. Little to no discussions regarding “pet” projects or preferred areas that are in the budget. Which is most interesting given the number of passionate pleas for neighborhood issues during campaigns. For my area, it meant pretty much no funding for anything that we needed (note: needs not wants). I am not quite sure why we are asked to develop proposals for HUD funding or have public hearings on the budget. Fairly certain I won’t bother to do any of that work next year. Two days later there was a meeting among council mebers and the school board members trying to figure out how to make improvements in the neighborhoods around the proposed new school areas. Too bad the money needed to make impacts on these areas is already going to other parts of town….or parts of town not yet in existance.