All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
Uncategorized

Electronic Billboards: What’s your opinion?

27 Comments

Billboard GIFHere’s a picture of an electronic billboard that you can see at the intersection of west-bound War Memorial Drive and University Street. It looks pretty much like an old-fashioned billboard, except that the image changes instantly approximately every five seconds (I didn’t time it).

Obviously, these are going to become more and more prevalent, and there will be pressure from advertisers to continually push the envelope with how quickly they can change their images. Right now, it’s a series of static images. But it’s essentially a really big computer monitor, so you could have it do anything, technically. If the city allowed it (which they don’t), advertisers could run full-motion ads just like you’d see on TV or on a stadium scoreboard, albeit without sound.

So, my question is, what’s your opinion of these kinds of signs? What should the limits be? Are they too limited now? Are they not limited enough? Do you think they’re too bright or not bright enough?

City Council, City of Peoria

City mechanics offer alternative plan to outsourcing manager position

4 Comments

The city’s mechanics are not happy with efforts to outsource their department. Who would be? No one wants to lose their job, especially when they’ve put down roots in a community and have been working for the city for a long time. But on the other side of the equation, you have a city that simply can’t afford to maintain such a large staff overall and needs to look for places to cut costs. It’s a no-win situation no matter how you look at it.

But now the mechanics are upset about something else. The current Fleet Services Manager is retiring, and the city doesn’t have a succession plan for that position. So, until they can hire a replacement, they need to have a manager for the interim. The city put the position out to bid instead of hiring from within. That prompted the mechanics to write this letter to Mayor Ardis:

Dear Mayor Ardis,

It has come to our attention that a bid has been sent out to take over the position of Fleet Services Manager. This is the position that Mr. Mike Caruso currently holds. We believe we have a more than qualified person to take his position on an interim basis until a permanent replacement is found. We believe Tom Satterfield is deserving of this position. Tom Satterfield has thirty years experience as a mechanic in the city garage. He has more than adequate experience to assume the position for three months until the subcontracting issue is resolved or a permanent person is hired.

It is our understanding that the city manager is in favor of paying an outside contractor approximately $27,000 to take over this position. An alternative plan was discussed in which Tom Satterfield would be made a super crew chief in which there would be a percentage added to his base pay. This increase to his pay in the same three month span would significantly save the taxpayers money. It is difficult for us to accept the idea of working for a manager fiom First Vehicle Service who is not here to benefit the garage or its dedicated employees. It appears as the old saying goes you are placing a “fox in the hen house”.

Since the issue of outsourcing was introduced to us in March, the employees and their families have been on a constant emotional roller coaster and much undeserved stress. We pride ourselves on being dedicated employees and taxpayers of Peoria. For example, the mechanics have had the opportunity to move out of the City of Peoria, instead we have chosen to raise our families in the City of Peoria. In fact, most of the mechanics live within five miles of the shop.

Issues such as the one we are discussing on Tuesday August 14,2007 beg us to ask ourselves this question. WHY? Why replace dedicated, long term, community-oriented taxpayers with “TOTAL STRANGERS”?

In closing we would especially like to thank Mr. Spain for taking the time to come to our garage and get a first hand look at what we are all about and to talk face to face with the employees who will be greatly affected by your decision. We would also like to thank the council members who have supported us through this very difficult issue and look forward to your continued support.

Sincerely,
City of Peoria Mechanics

Several of the city mechanics were at the meeting Tuesday night, ready to speak to this issue, but it was — surprise! — deferred for two weeks. During discussion, however, the city manager did address the mechanics’ letter. He stated that he was concerned that if you had one union position supervising other union positions, such a scenario would lack oversight controls. That statement elicited groans from the mechanics in attendance.

Other council members felt that it would be easier and cheaper to simply ask the current manager to stay on a few more months until a permanent replacement could be found.

Crime

State’s attorney says Campbell didn’t intend to kill anyone

22 Comments

Here’s an interesting story from the Journal Star. State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons talks about Rakiem Campbell, the 15-year-old who threw the brick off the overpass, and the reason he was charged with a more serious crime than the Bradley students who started the house fire on Laura that killed Danny Dahlquist (emphasis mine):

[The college prank] differs, [Lyons] said, from an incident last month where a 15-year-old boy threw a patio block off an interstate overpass, killing a passing motorist. In that case, the prosecutor noted, the boy probably didn’t mean to kill anyone but the fact that he threw a block and meant to hit a car made a big difference.

Did you see that phrase? “The boy probably didn’t mean to kill anyone.” That’s not first-degree murder. That’s involuntary manslaughter. According to 720 ILCS 5/9?3 (emphasis mine):

A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly….

If the prosecutor is admitting that “the boy probably didn’t mean to kill anyone,” then shouldn’t he have charged the boy with involuntary manslaughter and let it be adjudicated through the juvenile court system?

City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

Nichting wants to work on the railroad

30 Comments

Engineer NichtingPatrick Nichting evidently wants the city to go into the railroad business.

First, some quick background: The council decided Tuesday to sign a temporary agreement with Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) that would officially authorize them to traverse an 1,800-foot connecting track between the western spur and the Kellar Branch. The city is still trying to negotiate a new contract with CIRY, but talks have been fruitless so far.

So, during discussion of this item, Councilman Nichting asked several questions of Corporation Counsel Randy Ray. He asked what would happen after the 120-day temporary agreement expired. Ray answered that we would either have a new operating agreement (contract) or council could decide to go in a different direction. Nichting asked if an option was to make a deal with another rail carrier (someone other than CIRY). Ray said yes. So far, so good.

Then came the zinger. Nichting asked if that rail carrier could be the City of Peoria itself — that is, could the city provide rail service over the line instead of hiring a short line rail operator to handle it. Ray said that would be perfectly legal.

So, let me see if I have this straight: Nichting — a guy who is a strong supporter of outsourcing the fleet management function of the city — wants to start providing rail service in house? Gee, that would only cost somewhere between one and two million dollars just for the engine. Sounds like a brilliant plan. We can fuel it with all that money the city has to burn.

I honestly don’t understand this grudge that council members are holding against Pioneer Railcorp. You may recall that Pioneer has offered to buy the Kellar Branch and western connection for $750,000 or agree to a long-term lease on the line. In other words, they would pay the city money to operate the line, as opposed to Nichting’s plan where the city would have to expend considerable funds to operate the line themselves.

Apparently the council and city staff are willing to forgive CIRY for absolutely any indiscretion no matter how egregious, but will forever spite Pioneer. They won’t accept Pioneer’s apology for filing a SLAPP suit against their critics ten years ago, but they will reward the unapologetic CIRY for endangering the public with a runaway train just two years ago. They hate Pioneer because its founder Guy Brenkman is an unlikable, surly fellow, but they won’t hold it against CIRY that its founder is in prison after he was caught trying to hire someone to murder his wife and girlfriend. They castigate Pioneer for fulfilling its contract with the city and upholding its obligation to the Surface Transportation Board, but they won’t take any action against CIRY for not fulfilling its contact with the city, causing Carver Lumber’s sixty-year-old local business to suffer.

I’ve said it before, and this suggestion from Nichting just confirms it once again. This is no longer about wanting to build a trail. This has become an anti-rail, anti-Pioneer, anti-Carver-Lumber crusade, and the crusaders won’t be satisfied until the rail line is torn out and Pioneer and Carver Lumber are run out of our “business-friendly” town. We’re already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees related solely to the Kellar Branch issue, and we’ve already built a $2 million doomed-to-fail connecting track to the west, and now one council member is implying we should pay millions more to get our own rail equipment and personnel just to do whatever it takes at any expense to keep Pioneer off the line.

Is this really the best use — or even a justifiable use — of the city’s funds? Is this fiscal responsibility?

Sell the line. Stop wasting money. Find a different route for the trail.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup: Deferred

12 Comments

Almost all noteworthy business of the council was deferred tonight. The Coves controversy was sent to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. The Orchard District ornamental lighting issue was split into a policy issue and a specific request, both of which were deferred until a later, unspecified date. The museum square proposal was deferred until August 28. They did, however, extend the enterprise zone to include Prairie Farms on University, just north of Nebraska.

It was a night of many deferrals, yet it still lasted until after 9:30. Lord help us when they actually discuss the issues. Grab your pillow.

City Council, City of Peoria, Renaissance Park

BVA asks for free lighting for Orchard District

15 Comments

On the agenda for tonight’s council meeting is a request from Barbara Van Auken to change the policy regarding ornamental street lighting. Currently, if your neighborhood wants these pretty street lights (and my neighborhood has them — they’re great), you have to get over 50% of the neighbors to agree to a 50/50 split of the cost of installing them. The city pays 50%, and the neighborhood pays 50%, divided among the homeowners. Each homeowner can pay their share of the cost as either a lump-sum payment or spread out over 10 years on their property taxes, with interest. This called a “special assessment.”

The Orchard District (which is bounded by Columbia Terrace, Sheridan, Main, and North) wants ornamental lighting, but has not been able to gather the requisite number of signatures to get a special assessment for them. So Barbara Van Auken has a plan: have the city pay for the ornamental lighting not at 50%, or 80% (like they do for sidewalks), but 100%, subject to some restrictions, of course:

Council Member Van Auken has suggested a new policy that would allow for 100% City participation in a lighting project if the following criteria are met: 1. The area served is eligible to receive CDBG funds for a street lighting project; 2. The area served has an established and active neighborhood association that supports the project; 3. There are sufficient CDBG funds available to fund the project.

“CDBG” is short for Community Development Block Grant, a program started by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1974. Basically, the federal government gives money (grants) annually “on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.” The city receives approximately $1.9 million annually through this program. The Orchard District is eligible to receive CDBG funds because of the average income level of the residents.

Van Auken’s request, the communication goes on to state, “would allocate the entire cost of the street lighting system to the CDBG budget, and qualify the project as an area benefit,” using unallocated CDBG money from past years. How much will it cost to install ornamental lighting on the four interior streets of the Orchard District? We don’t know for sure, but it’s estimated to cost $230,000.

So, the question is, is this good public policy? On the one hand, I can see the benefits of this system. You want to fix up a neighborhood to make it attractive for reinvestment, to try to improve owner occupancy, and slumlords are going to balk at paying higher taxes on their rental properties for niceties such as ornamental lighting. In some older neighborhoods, you may never be able to get any infrastructure improvements that require a special assessment if there aren’t enough owner-occupied properties. In that sense, this is an investment.

But others would contend that this is unfair for a couple of reasons. One has to do with the past: there are other older neighborhoods — also CDBG-eligible — that went through the special assessment process and are still paying for their lighting. The other has to do with the future: since this benefit will only be available as long as CDBG funds are available, and since the cost of lighting is pretty expensive and there are other demands on CDBG funds, very few neighborhoods will get free lighting.

For myself, I have mixed feelings about it. I lean toward relaxing the rules rather than throwing the rules away. For instance, they could change it to be an 80/20 split like the city does for sidewalks (city pays 80% and the neighborhood pays 20%). Maybe the lower cost will tip the scales enough to get buy-in from over 50% of the neighbors. If there’s something that the city should be paying for 100%, it’s sidewalks, not ornamental lighting.

Crime

State’s attorney seemingly inconsistent

45 Comments

What do Danny Dahlquist and Katrina Kelley have in common? They were both the victims of a prank gone wrong.

Four friends of Dahlquist’s (Daniel Cox, David Crady, Ryan Johnson and Nicholas Mentgen) are accused of setting off between one and three roman candles under the door of Dahlquist’s room while he was sleeping. The result, obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense but completely escaping the minds of this group of college students, was that the roman candles set the room — and, ultimately, the house — on fire. Dahlquist apparently tried to get out (he was found near a window), but was overcome and died of smoke inhalation.

Rakiem Campbell “was headed home from a party early July 14 when he and a 12-year-old boy allegedly decided to pick up two concrete patio blocks, walk 150 feet to the Broadway Street bridge over Interstate 74 and wait for a car to pass by,” according to the July 21 Journal Star. Predictably to anyone with an ounce of common sense but completely escaping the mind of this 15-year-old, the patio block crashed through the passenger side of a car’s windshield, hitting Kelley in the chest, causing massive injuries from which she died.

Campbell is being charged by the state’s attorney’s office with first-degree murder. Dahlquist’s friends are being charged with aggravated arson. what can happen if you are contacted by state or federal regulators or investigators or become involved in litigation that involves a cryptocurrency or digital coin? click here https://secdefenseattorney.com/cryptocurrency-defense/.

“The charges state Campbell’s actions caused a ‘strong probability of death or great bodily harm to motorists on Interstate 74’ before specifically mentioning Kelley,” the Journal Star explained back on July 21. Why not the same charge for Dahlquist’s friends, whose actions also caused a “strong probability of death or great bodily harm” to Dahlquist?

[State’s Attorney Kevin] Lyons said he considered first-degree murder charges but opted for the lesser counts, saying he didn’t believe the four men had the intent to cause a catastrophic act.

.The b
So, evidently the state’s attorney believes that four college students (ages ranging from 19 to 22) were too dumb to realize shooting off roman candles in a sleeping man’s room might cause great bodily harm to that man, but a 15-year-old kid (the age of a high-school freshman or sophomore) was smart enough to realize that his throwing a brick off an overpass would kill someone.Confusing medical terms, complicated legal procedures, and an avalanche of paperwork are routine in personal injury cases, but an experienced personal injury lawyer can simplify the headache and resolve your claim so that you can get on with your life this information from a Car Accident Attorney in Chicago

It’s also worth noting that “Lyons says everyone was drinking,” according to 1470 WMBD. That means two of them were drinking illegally, being only 19 and 20 years old. Presumably 15-year-old Campbell was sober.

Is it just me, or does something seem inequitable here? Either Campbell’s charge is too harsh or Dalquist’s friends’ charges are too easy. It seems like the same charge should apply to both crimes. What’s the difference between them? Criminal defense law consists of the legal protections afforded to people who have been accused of committing a crime, check this https://criminaldefenselawyervirginia.com/if you need some help.
What are Felony Drug Charges?
Generally speaking, felony drug charges are more serious drug crimes. Under state and federal criminal laws, felony charges typically result in a sentence in prison for greater than one year, along with serious criminal fines. In contrast, misdemeanor charges will usually result in a sentence in jail (not prison), and lower criminal fines. Thus, Drug Possession charges typically result in more serious criminal penalties. The bankruptcy Lawyers help you, stop harassment visit
website.

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

Cable franchise agreement on agenda Tuesday

6 Comments

When the Cable and Video Competition Law passed in Illinois, I expressed some concern over what it would mean for Peoria. You may recall that the Act states:

…if the holder [of a state franchise agreement] is an incumbent cable operator or any successor-in-interest company, it shall be obligated to provide access to cable or video services within the jurisdiction of a local unit of government at the same levels required by the local franchising authorities for that local unit of government…

And I said:

The Act defines “incumbent cable operator” as an entity “that provided cable services or video services in a particular area under a franchise agreement with a local unity of government…on January 1, 2007.” Insight has not had a franchise agreement with Peoria since April 2006 when the last agreement expired. The city has been negotiating a new franchise agreement ever since, but the two parties have not come to terms. So it’s very possible that Insight would not be subject to the “incumbent cable operator” provisions of the Act.

But on Tuesday that problem may very well be solved. The council likely will approve a franchise agreement extension until January 1, 2008, retroactive to April 15, 2006. This extension would also approve a transfer of the agreement from Insight to Comcast. The upshot is that Comcast will be considered Peoria’s undisputed incumbent cable operator, and that may work to Peoria’s advantage whenever Comcast decides what kind of franchise agreement (state or local) it wants to pursue.

Basically what this means is that we won’t see any reduction in cable service, if this agreement is approved.

City Council, City of Peoria, Traffic

The Coves keeping out the riff-raff?

19 Comments

On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.

The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.

Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.

So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.

The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.

I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.

So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.

The Cove of Charter Oak
City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library

Snarky Szynaka

1 Comment

Fellow blogger PeoriaIllinoisan recently expressed his dismay that the Peoria Public Library is not open on Saturdays over the summer. Library director Ed Szynaka took the time to respond, explaining that “ALL branches will be open on both Saturday and Sunday when we finish this building alignment.” “This building realignment” refers to the library’s plan to expand some branches, close others, and build a new branch on the north end. But, he added, “we cannot issue the bonds that will let us move forward without the approval of the City Council.”

Then he makes what I consider to be a bit of a snarky comment at the end:

Thank you for supporting the recent vote. 72% of your fellow citizens who voted that also supported that measure. Now getting the City Council to support what the citizens voiced is becoming a very difficult task. Why is no one questioning that issue.

Just for the record, 9,970 votes were cast in favor of the referendum, which was indeed 71.61% of the votes cast (13,923). However, it’s about 14.8% of the total number of registered voters (67,011), and 8.81% of the total Peoria population (113,107). And it’s an advisory referendum, not a binding one. Hence, the need to go through the city council.

I voted for the referendum, but with the understanding that the money to be spent by the library would be subject to city council oversight. It wasn’t a blank check, as Mr. Szynaka seems to imply. I’m willing to pay more for improved library infrastructure and services, but last I looked, the library reps aren’t elected. I don’t want unelected people spending my money with no oversight. I don’t want the city council saying, “oh, the people voted for it, so let’s just let the library do whatever they want with $35 million.”

The best news that came out after that vote was that Gary Sandberg was appointed library liaison. I’m confident that Gary will keep their feet to the fire and make sure that no money is being wasted. And that’s why I’m not “questioning that issue.”