All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 7-12-2011 (Live Blog)

Leave a comment

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Here I am at Peoria City Hall, Room 400, waiting for the city council meeting to start at 6:15 p.m. As always, I will be providing live reaction to the city council meeting, so if you’re following along live, be sure to refresh your browser periodically. There will be some preliminaries that I won’t cover; my coverage will start once the business portion of the meeting begins. You can see a hyperlinked version of the meeting agenda on the City’s website here.

And now, without further ado, here’s tonight’s agenda:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 7-12-2011 (Live Blog) →

City Council, City of Peoria

Growth Cell Report makes questionable assumptions

1 Comment

The City of Peoria has released a new report on the supposed success of the City’s “growth cell” strategy.

2011 Growth Cell Report

The report states, “based on the calculations and assumptions used in this report, the following expenditures and revenues are reported for the Growth Cells from 1996 to 2010:”

Revenue $102,276,553
Capital Expenditure -$25,367,090
Operating Expenditure -$35,908,175
Difference Between Revenue and Expenditures $41,001,288

The key word in that statement is “assumptions.” In reading the report, it’s clear that the City does not have adequate actual data to use, so it must rely heavily on estimates of revenue and expenses. Their methodology for calculating those estimates is questionable.

For example, the report takes the total sales taxes and HRA taxes collected in the City and divides it by the number of acres zoned commercial in Peoria to get a per-acre value of sales/HRA taxes. It then takes that number and multiplies it by the number of commercially-zoned acres in the growth cells to estimate the revenue generated by the growth cells.

There are a couple problems with this methodology. First, it doesn’t account for the difference in density between older parts of the city and the growth cells. Let’s try a little thought experiment. Suppose you had Building A that takes up an acre in an older part of town. It relies on street parking and an adjacent parking deck from which they rent spaces, and it generates $10,000 in sales/HRA taxes per year. Building B also takes up an acre, but it sits on a four-acre lot in the growth cell. The other three acres include a large surface lot, driveway, setbacks, and screening. It also generates $10,000 in sales/HRA taxes per year.

Now let’s add their tax revenues together ($10,000 + $10,000 = $20,000) and divide by the total number of acres (1 + 4 = 5). What’s the average revenue per acre? It’s $20,000 divided by 5, or $4,000. Do you see where this is going? Using the City’s methodology, we take that $4,000 per acre and multiply it by the number of acres in the growth cell (4, in our example), and look, our “estimate” shows that the growth cell generates $16,000! Revenue from denser areas of town get artificially shifted to the growth cell through creative mathematics.

The revenue estimates also don’t take into account business and residents that move within the city, providing a gain to the growth cells but little or no net gain to the city. For instance, Menards closed their store on Pioneer Parkway (outside the growth cells) and moved to Allen Road (inside the growth cells). Is it really fair to credit Menards’ tax revenue to the growth cells?

So the revenue figures are suspect, but what about the expenses? There are three categories of expenses: capital costs, operating costs, and debt service. For capital costs, we’re given an “actual” figure of $18,819,227 — this is supposed to be the cumulative capital investment from 1996 through 2010. That means roughly $1.25 million per year has been spent in the growth cells. If you think that sounds really low, you’re not alone. It might help if we knew what capital projects were specifically included in that figure, but alas, the report does not give us that information. Does it include the building of three firehouses in the growth cell areas, for instance?

For debt service, the report states, “Calculations in this report account for the cost of debt service for sewers only,” but gives no explanation as to why. Is there really no other debt service in the growth cells? If there is other debt service, why wasn’t it included in the calculations?

Finally, the operating costs are figured on a per-acre basis just like the sales/HRA tax revenue: “The total operating budget for the City is divided by the total number of acres in the City, returning an average per acre cost. This cost is multiplied out over the total acreage in the Growth Cells to establish a base total cost. The result is discounted by 40% based on current data that indicates 60% of the total Growth Cell area within the City of Peoria is developed. [emphasis added] As operating costs are de minimis in non-developed areas, the costs associated with these areas was backed out of the final equation.

I have to question the 40% discount. Do the roads in undeveloped areas of the growth cell not have to be maintained? Do the firefighters and police officers not have to travel through undeveloped areas? Do the snow plows not have to plow the snow in these areas? And why is a discount for undeveloped property only on the expense side and not on the revenue side of the ledger?

This report should not be taken at face value. There are too many questionable assumptions.

Television

WAOE adds new sub-channel

11 Comments

There’s a new TV channel in Peoria. Antenna TV, a new network owned and operated by Tribune Broadcasting in Chicago, is now being broadcast over-the-air on channel 59.2, a sub-channel of WAOE. “The network features classic television programs and favorite movies,” and just debuted the beginning of this year according to the network’s website. I just discovered it over the weekend as it was showing “The Partridge Family,” “The Monkees,” and other classic shows.

WAOE (“my59”) is an affiliate of MyNetworkTV, owned by Four Seasons Broadcasting, and operated by Granite Broadcasting. Granite Broadcasting is reportedly going to impose its “last, best, and final” contract on union employees at its Peoria stations this Saturday, July 16.

See also: Steve Tarter’s blog entry.

Amtrak, City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria’s peculiar priorities

22 Comments

The City has set its “top” and “high” strategic priorities at its latest planning session, reports the Journal Star:

Of 27 possibilities, the council labeled only six policy priorities as “top” priorities for 2011-12. Those included focusing on code enforcement performance and direction, developing a school strategy and action plan, focusing on short-term shared services with Peoria County, prioritizing city services, framing the city’s economic development strategy, and the redevelopment of the Hotel Pere Marquette into the $102 million Marriott Hotel project.

What do you think, Peoria? Are these your top priorities?

I agree with the focus on code enforcement, shared services with Peoria County, and prioritizing city services. I don’t know what “framing” our economic development strategy entails, but if it’s a discussion about what we will and won’t do to attract business, I think it would be a worthy discussion.

I question the value of spending city resources to develop a “school strategy and action plan.” We have separate public bodies that administer the public schools in this area. It seems redundant to me that the City would now be spending its time discussing schools, too. What’s next? Will area school districts start spending their time on a city strategy and action plan?

And then there’s the Wonderful Development. Despite the developer’s inability to meet any deadlines in either of the redevelopment agreements he’s inked with the City, and despite the fact that he’s having trouble paying his bills across the river, the City Council is apparently still just itching to give him $37 million of taxpayer money. Regardless of who is developing it, this is not a top priority in this city right now. The redevelopment of the Pere Marquette should be done by the private sector, just like the former Holiday Inn City Centre was recently transformed into a Four Points by Sheraton without any City assistance. The City has no business getting into the hotel business; they should let it go and focus on improving their core services instead.

The council also prioritized a management agenda for the coming year. Of the 14 items, the council selected “top” priorities for engaging the community on appropriate behavior, developing a neighborhood crime reduction strategy, containing health care costs, a community investment plan for capital and equipment, study fees, and reorganize the city.

That’s all well and good, but the real test of whether it’s a “top” priority will come at budget time. Will these priorities really be reflected in the budget? Or will the increased debt service created by non-essential items like the Wonderful Development crowd out the community’s top needs?

Developing a strategy for a four-year state university leaped to a “high priority” status for the City Council to address…. [City Manager Patrick Urich] said in the next six months, the council will have discussions with state lawmakers and other state officials about whether there is an opportunity for Peoria to land a four-year public school…. Other “high priority” polices included directing an early retirement program for city employees, updating financial policies, providing more assistance for businesses, developing a strategy for landlord and tenant accountability, and advocating for a rail link between Peoria and Normal.

I’m befuddled by this attempt to attract a new four-year public university. Where did this idea come from? How long has the council been talking about it? How did this rise to the top of the list?

I like the idea of working on a strategy for landlord and tenant accountability; hopefully something positive will come from that. Updating financial policies is certainly a good idea, assuming they strengthen fiscally-conservative policies.

I think we currently provide more than enough “assistance for businesses.” We regularly waive our zoning regulations to the detriment of surrounding homeowners. We use the Enterprise Zone to benefit businesses all over the city instead of the depressed areas it was intended to help. We loan taxpayer money to businesses that doesn’t always get repaid, and we give away no small amount of tax money as a direct subsidy/grant (e.g., $37 million for the Wonderful Development). We can’t afford the “assistance for businesses” we’re providing now; how can we afford to do more? Oh, that’s right, we’ll cut police, fire, road maintenance, and other basic services.

And finally, they’re now advocating for a rail link with Normal. I applaud the priority to reestablish rail service to Peoria, but the rail link needs to be with Chicago, not Normal. Nobody wants to take a train to Normal. Such a link would not attract enough ridership to be feasible. I’ve written on this topic at length before; you can read more here and here.

Uncategorized

Quiz: What did the desk clerk know of Peoria? (UPDATED)

21 Comments

I was recently on vacation with my family when we stopped at a hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The front desk clerk asked me where I was from, and I told him Peoria. What question do you think the desk clerk asked me next?

A. “Peoria? Isn’t that Richard’s home town?”
B. “Peoria? Isn’t that the place people like to make fun of?”
C. “Peoria? Do you work for Caterpillar?”
D. “Peoria? Home of Big Al’s?”
E. “Peoria? Is that where they’re building that new Global Immersion Theater?”

UPDATE: The answer is A. The conversation went like this:

“Where are y’all from?”

“Peoria, Illinois.”

“Peoria? Isn’t that Richard’s home town?”

“Yes, yes it is. He wasn’t too proud of his home town, though.”

“Yeah, born in a whorehouse he said, but was that true or just part of his act?” he asked rhetorically. “He was a very multi-talented man.”

Education, State of Illinois

Public education ain’t what it used to be

26 Comments

Readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic. Two out of three ain’t bad for us Illinoisans:

Illinois high school juniors no longer will be tested on writing skills during the state’s standardized tests every spring, eliminating the last Illinois writing exam and shaving about $2.4 million amid budgetary shortfalls…. “Good teachers, good schools, good principals don’t need a test,” said Barbara Kato, director of the Chicago Area Writing Project. “But the problem is, without the test, the focus on writing as a whole ends up taking a back seat.” [Source: Chicago Tribune]

R U thinking wht Im thinking?

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Redistricting committee forwards Map #12 to full Council

7 Comments

The City Council’s redistricting committee voted to recommend Map #12 to the full Council for discussion:

(Click on map for larger image)

I was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. But the Journal Star reports the map was approved by a 3-1 vote. Voting in favor were Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Tim Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), and Bill Spears (4th Dist.). Dan Irving (5th Dist.) voted against the map, and Clyde Gulley (1st Dist.) “was absent from the vote.”

As mentioned in a previous post, this map would move the West Bluff into the first district (from the second), and move downtown Peoria — including the Warehouse District — to the third district (from the first). The second district boundary has moved to the north. And north Peoria is more evenly divided between the fourth and fifth districts.

Spears, the chairman of the redistricting committee, reportedly said that the map, “if it’s approved by the council or not, will return to the committee for further public discussion,” after it’s discussed by the full Council.

What are your thoughts on the proposed new boundaries?

Peoria Public Schools

Butler new D150 Board president

12 Comments

From the Journal Star:

District 150 School Board Vice President Linda Butler was elected Friday as president of the board, which again passed over longtime member Martha Ross.

Ross has been on the School Board for nine years, longer than any other member. After Friday’s 4-2 vote, she said the practice of selecting a board president was “unfair” and “biased.”

“We as a board are supposed to model how we want our children to perform. We want our children to treat each other fairly … but yet I really feel that is not what is happening with this board and it is a personal feeling that I have not been treated fairly for whatever reason,” Ross said during the meeting, adding that “it has the appearance in this community as being discriminatory and biased.” […]

“I’m not upset because I know who I am as a person and I know what I’ve contributed to this community in the last 30 years,” she said, later adding “but If there was a spirit of fairness, I would’ve had my turn.”

I think it’s painfully clear that the other board members simply do not have confidence in Martha Ross as a leader. There may have been some question over whether this was race-based in the past, but given that the last two superintendents the board has hired have been black, and now the new school board president is black, I really don’t see how that argument holds water.

I don’t see anything in the school code that says the board is obligated to elect as president the member with the most seniority. I don’t see anything in the school code that says every board member is guaranteed a turn as president. All the school code says is, “The president of the board of education shall be elected by the members thereof from among their number and serve for 2 years…” (105 ILCS 5/10-13).

If fairness is defined as “conformity with rules or standards,” then this election was fair. If Ross believes that every board member should have a “turn,” then she should take her beef to the state legislature and lobby for a change in the school code. But calling your fellow board members biased, unfair, and discriminatory every time you lose an election is probably not the best way to secure their confidence and votes in the future.

City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department, Peoria Police

More kids being kids (UPDATED 2x)

121 Comments

Remember when we were kids, and how much fun it was to point fireworks at police officers and firefighters and shoot them off?

What, you didn’t do that? Well, that’s just the latest incident of kids being kids here in Peoria:

A “major incident” involving a large group of people shooting fireworks at police and firefighters occurred near the Taft Homes just before 10 p.m. Sunday, about the same time the fireworks show on the riverfront was ending.

Police had to briefly shut down Adams and Eaton streets, near Taft, as they dispersed the large crowds.

No officers or firefighters were injured, dispatchers said on the radio.

At one point, police were ordered to tell those in the crowd to go into their apartments, leave or be arrested for unlawful assembly.

I’m sure it was just a party that was letting out, and this large group was on its way home, having a little fun. There was no property damage or injuries, so there’s no reason for concern. In fact, I wonder if the fireworks were really being shot at police and fire personnel at all, given that there are no interviews with neighbors who corroborate that story.

[/sarcasm]

UPDATE: Another news source in town — 1470 WMBD — is now reporting that there were injuries. “One police officer was treated for minor burns and hearing loss, while police say a fire fighter was treated for hearing loss,” according to their report. They also say that police described the event as a “riot.” I question whether these reports are true, however, since the Journal Star said there weren’t any injuries. After all, the Journal Star has editors that vet these stories before printing them to make sure they’re accurate. They wouldn’t just print something they heard on police radio without verifying it with two other sources. Right?

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star has updated their story. They are now confirming that there were injuries to police officers and firefighters. And they have some video of the incident. I was most interested in the City’s plans to deal with this situation in the future:

The fire engine never made it to the burning trash bin. [Division Chief Gary] Van Voorhis said the fire was not threatening residents or property and was allowed to burn as officers assisted the engine in turning around and exiting Taft. […] Van Voorhis added that firefighters have been targeted by fireworks before, but that the magnitude of the incident Monday was unprecedented. In response, the department will review its policy of how to respond to crowded areas with fires that don’t appear to threaten anyone’s physical well-being or nearby property.

Peoria police, too, will devise enhanced security measures for Taft Homes next year, Burgess said. Revelers there have traditionally held private firework displays on the Fourth and previously made targets of police and passersby, though not to the same extent as Monday.

If I were on the City Council, I would also want to know why this “tradition” of illegal fireworks displays on PHA property and targeting of police and passersby has not been addressed before it escalated to this level. I would also want to know what effect recent cuts to police staffing levels have had in the police department’s ability to respond to this riot.

Peoria Journal Star

I thought real journalists got both sides of the story

20 Comments

I was recently taken to task by none other than Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano for a recent blog post of mine that was picked up by The Drudge Report. My blog posts are “unvetted,” unedited, and of questionable reliability. Furthermore, bloggers are scurvy individuals you’re better off not knowing. He asks, “can you call it journalism when much of it consists of unedited copy shared without any attempt to seek other sides?”

So imagine my surprise when I came across this article about Main Street Commons. In it, the journalist reports all the positives of the new project and what a boon it is to the area without ever interviewing a single resident of University East or other surrounding neighborhoods, despite their expressions of concern over some aspects of the project, including the pool that is mentioned in the article.

On the other hand, there are numerous quotes from the project developer, as well as a representative from Bradley University. But there is no mention of the fact that Bradley is an investor in the project, which would of course bias its opinion just a little. There is no mention of the slow sales of units that the developer has experienced, which was covered by the Bradley Scout over the past several months, or how that likely contributed to Bradley’s decision to turn part of the development into a freshman dorm — the first time Bradley will be allowing underclassmen to live off campus.

Indeed, the whole piece reads like a reworked press release and advertisement for the new development. I guess that’s what an edited, vetted, reliable news article looks like. It’s apparently okay to be one-sided, as long as you’re on the approved side. Or if you’re so short-staffed you can’t spare a reporter to go out and get the other side.