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

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!

17 thoughts on “Peoria City Council 1/11/11 (Live Blog)”

  1. Just a guess. the person fixing cars is trying to make ends meet in a horrible economy. Zoning and other unfriendly business practices make opening a small business a nightmare. If you don’t have the income to rent office space, but have a skill or talent to help feed your family then what do you do? They don’t want you to run anything out of your home, but supposedly support mixed use in other areas. What needs to be answered is this someone who falls into the above category or someone deliberatly wrecking the neighborhood. At least it’s not another drug house in the East Bluff.

  2. Paul, we had one of those on East Nebraska in the Glen Oak Learning Center Zone and, when they were in full swing, they had maybe ten junk cars parallel parked all around in front and on side streets for a block in each direction and another ten on their property. Then you had the wrecker, the rollback flatbed truck and one or two trucks, which were all running straight pipes, with flatbed trailers laden with scrap car chassis. They were unable to turn onto Maryland without running way up into neighboring yards, turning them into a muddy mess. Their undoing was that they were so noisy. They revved up and gearheaded noisy trucks with no mufflers at all hours.

    They were hard working people and I admired that. They were just too obtuse to realize that their banging and clanging all through the night to 3 and 4 and 5 in the morning on weeknights, after repeated warnings, would be what eventually would lead to their demise.

    That said, they made the neighborhood feel safer, like they kept an eye on things. I wish they could have learned to assimilate into the neighborhood better because you’ve got to respect and pull for the good working people trying to keep afloat.

  3. This is a copy of one of the “letters” submitted. To bad they don’t read them into the record.

    Peoria City Hall
    Clerk’s Office
    419 Fulton Street, Suite 401
    Peoria, IL 61602

    January 6, 2011

    Subject: East Village TIF Public Hearing January 11, 2011.

    As a resident smack dab in the middle of the proposed East Village TIF I whish to make these views known to you.

    (1), The proposed TIF will tie and hamstring the city and residents for 23 years with that said there has been no concrete plan as to any developer, programs, intended direction or master plan as to reaching a goal.

    (2), OSF as a major player in this TIF how will grant TIF status on a non profit venture by OSF benefit a “tax increment district”?

    (3), The current 100+ year old combined sewer that runs UNDER the Gerlach building is an issue that the City allowed to happen. Why? Why now must we as a community fix this problem to the tune of an estimated $50 million? The city allowed OSF to build over this line and all parties knew this would be a future problem. How will fixing this problem increase the tax base? Stimulate investment in the neighborhoods?

    (4), The potential moving of monies around to “prop up” a failing TIF.

    Since there is no monies to start this TIF, no developer on board (that I know about) you are asking the residents to approve the TIF before we know the plans. I for one don’t like signing you a blank check for 23 years.

    Peoria City Hall
    Clerk’s Office
    419 Fulton Street, Suite 401
    Peoria, IL 61602

    Page #2 Subject: East Village TIF Public Hearing January 11, 2011.

    The consultant neighborhood meeting was a dog and pony show. Vague, what if, and so on. OSF was there (Wozniak) but not a peep. This has all the makings of a done deal, With OSF leading the charge with $$$ for the study.

    I asked the consultant about the Knoxville ave business part of the TIF he said they wanted to develop it to capture Dollars due to the hi traffic count. I asked how since the Midtown development was to do that and it failed he was at a loss for answers
    The consultant said at the neighborhood meeting East village was different from Midtown TIF since it was not one developer based, so if one development failed the TIF money from all of the TIF would cover the loss (hopefully).I make the analogy “this ship is to big to sink” (Titanic) but we will be on the hook

    What OSF wants OSF will get. They have a plan and will follow it just we as residents have no clue what it is, just bits and pieces, Will they try to get Irving de-listed as historic since that door is open? Will they get TIF funds to tear down White and build there “Energy center”?

    So now we are officially a“blight” for the state and city.

    I think the tail is wagging the dog on this whole TIF project.

    Please put this letter in the record of the public hearing January 11, 2011

    Martin Palmer
    1706 N. California Ave.
    Peoria, Illinois. 61603-3224

  4. Couple of items I find worth of note.

    1) Patrick Urich: Very amazed that he resigned. I can’t see why (other than professional challenge) that he’d want the City Manger position but if he were to get it, the City of of Peoria would be very fortunate. However, the City Council will need to allow him to be the Manager (and not a puppet) if they want to leverage his skills and turn around the organization.

    2) Grand Opening Signs/Balloons/EyeSores: These are very common in the industry and while are not required for a successful business launch, do draw attention to a new business. The solution is simple: The City Council needs to determine policy issues (what is acceptable, what size is permitted, how long they can be present, fines for violation, etc.) and then grant authority to staff to approve administratively. The only reason these go to the Council for approval is because they are banned without a special use and getting special use permits requires a lengthy and time consuming process that includes City Council approval. It was set up this way intentionally by the Council to be a long process in part to discourage their use. If the policy winds are changing and the Council wants to approve, they just need to eliminate their review and direct staff to approve those that meet a set of established criteria. The permits can then be achieved in days rather than weeks / month. Problem solved.

    As a side note, I hate policies that are “complaint driven” since they are not uniformally applied and enable personal issues to enter into the enforcement process. This is also a problem with Code Enforcement / Property Maintenance enforcement. I understand staff doesn’t have time to drive the city looking for these proactively. We need a different approach.

  5. Shay,
    What you described would certainly be an eyesore and all businesses need to be good neighbors, but you also listed some postive by products (increased safety in the neighborhood). Maybe some sort of negiotiation would have been appropriate to meet both needs. I just think that as the economy sours and job growth here seems to be focused on low end of the spectrum that people are going to look for ways to survive. It has been this push that has opened many successful small businesses which have grown…(eg: Apple and Microsoft), but it does need to be done in a way where no one suffers. That is the balance that needs to occur with government regulations.

  6. I’ve said this before. Why can’t they just put regulations for grand openings attached to the business license application? Then one person go out and check them out when the business opens and if it is in violation of the rules fine them? Also, put in length of time that the opening festivities can run. That seems awfully simple to me.

  7. Code Enforcement/Maintenance of Property, IMO is handled pretty well by the City, under the circumstances. Many of the properties that are in disrepair are in that condition because the person(s) that own the property are indigent.

  8. I doubt that indigent people own property. However, I realize that indigent renters often do not take care of property, so the landlords find it difficult to keep the property up. However, when I hear landlords complain, I wonder why they continue to be landlords if they can’t keep up the property and are losing money.

  9. Peoria is saturated with rentals. There is little money to be made except by neglecting the properties in some manner.

  10. Regardless of who lives on the property, the owner (landlord) is responsible for maintenance. And IMO Code Enforecement is not adequate. Their system of review is based on complaints, so basically all you have is the City perpetuating neighborhood feuds. You call on me (and they do tell who called) and I call on you. It can go on for YEARS and the Code Enforcers will go right along with the nonsense.

  11. Sharon. They are no losing money. They just say that they are. a three bedroom home pays what around $1100 a month in Section 8. Landlords are picking up houses for 10-15,000$, putting very little money into them. The house is paid for quickly and the rest is profit hand over fist. People not caring for the property, well then get an estimate to declare a loss on the property for tax purposes, do a half assed job of repairs yourself, if done at all, then put out the “For Rent” sign in the front yard the next morning that the other renters left and they look at the hell hole of a house and don’t care and move in right away with every relative, baby daddy, etc. and the true loss of income is zero. Since you have put in crappy tenant after crappy tenant,crime after crime, then the home owners who have no other recourse, but to hire the moving van and sell your home that you worked to pay for, gets picked up by another/or same slumlord and in comes another huge profit making rat’s nest of people. Landlord ONLY evict for non-payment. Crime, destruction of property no problem. Then they whine about the condition of the houses are left, but they don’t clean them up anyway, but need the sympathy vote. IT’s a joke. They truly present themselves as victims when they themselves chose each and every person occupying the property. Background checks, why do them, these people seem nice. They have a sob story. Guess what, con artists and socio paths that are assholes are not successful. This is how my neighborhood is quickly deteriorating, and the destruction of the East Bluff was enacted. Combine with that the city leaders taking the tax dollars and put them into pet projects, allowing the infrastructure to rot and you have the perfect storm of the inner city. We have learned nothing from other cities. It is expand, expand, expand, unless it is election time then it is “all about the older neighborhoods”.

  12. All praise and worship to the might Lord of the Land.

    (look at who the Landlords are and you will see why code enforcement is a low priority)

    As a West Peoria resident with lots of Bradley rentals near by, I can assure you, the Landlords here do VERY LITTLE to maintain properties.

  13. Paul–that was my guess, especially about Section 8 rentals, but I’m glad you supplied all the details.

  14. http://www.peoriahousing.org/section-8-program
    There are not enough Section 8 vouchers available to be causing all the problems in rental properties. The rent Paul quoted is closer to a 4 or 5 bedroom home. Lay the blame at the feet of the landlords. To place so much blame on Section 8 renters covers a lot of good, hardworking families too.

  15. Actually, I believe Section 8 regulations do require landlords to keep the property up to code.

  16. Sharon. So does the city. Minimal standards no enforcement. Next door was section 8. Abestos covered gravity furnace. Dead rat on the floor when we looked at it. Water heater didn’t work family had to boil water on stove for baths. I could go on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.