Category Archives: City Council

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

New council candidate chooses puzzling platform

9 Comments

Dan Adler (1409 W Kingsway Dr.), a 31-year-old Caterpillar engineer has announced he’s going to run for the 5th District City Council seat next spring, according to the Journal Star. His campaign will focus on “economic growth, regional competitiveness and civic participation,” according to a press release. That’s all well and good. But then the story takes a turn toward the bizarre:

Adler said one development issue he wants to focus on is completion of the Kellar Branch Trail.

He said he thinks it’s important for public officials to raise the required capital needed to complete an underpass beneath Knoxville Avenue to get trail users across the busy street.

“There was a lot of excitement last year when it opened to the public,” Adler said. “But we haven’t locked down the capital funding for the big under and overpass. There is so much energy over that trail for Peoria to be more open and active and walkable, and we’re pushing that off.”

First of all, the Kellar Branch trail is the Peoria Park District’s responsibility to fund, construct, and maintain–not the City’s. Perhaps Mr. Adler should consider running for the park board if his interests lie in increasing funding for our parks system.

Secondly, the Peoria Park District announced five months ago that “the Knoxville underpass has been funded” and design is underway. In fact, they’re close to starting construction on it now. Mr. Adler is apparently unaware of these developments. (Or else he subscribes to Rep. Leitch’s funding-things-that-are-already-funded school of thought.)

If Mr. Adler is concerned about making Peoria more “open and active and walkable,” I would suggest he do some research on “complete streets.” Implementing this kind of design for Peoria’s infrastructure would make Peoria more accessible for all users of the public right-of-way. And it’s something that’s actually in the City’s jurisdiction, not the Park District’s.сондажи

City Council, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan, Heart of Peoria Plan

Lack of sidewalks used as justification for no future sidewalks

3 Comments

Residents of Peoria got an interesting insight into Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken’s thinking (and a majority of the Council, evidently) at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. An item appeared before the council in which both the Zoning Commission and staff agreed that a local land-owner, as part of an expansion project, should install a public sidewalk along Ellis Street, a street that does not currently have a sidewalk.

One of the complaints about accessibility, safety, and walkability in the City of Peoria is that many (most?) of our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair, and many streets have gaps in the sidewalks or don’t have any sidewalks at all. One of the critical success factors in the City’s comprehensive plan, which was put together with an extraordinary amount of public input, is to “Invest in Our Infrastructure & Transportation”:

This Critical Success Factor covers not only the maintenance of the public infrastructure; streets, sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc., but also the planning of such infrastructure in a manner to allow for the greatest ease of transportation and access for pedestrians and vehicles. [emphasis added]

One of the action items under this critical success factor: “Require Sidewalks.”

So the Comprehensive Plan requires it, our ordinances require it, and staff and the Zoning Commission both recommended it. But what did the council do, at Van Auken’s request? Waive the sidewalk requirement. Why? What was the justification? According to Van Auken’s comments on the floor of the Council Tuesday night, “This street has never had sidewalks.”

That’s right. The lack of sidewalks in the past is justification for never requiring them in the future. One wonders why the project was approved at all. I mean, there has never been a building addition on Ellis, so why should we allow one to be built? Shouldn’t the status quo be maintained?

To add insult to injury, Van Auken went on to say that this area should not be regulated by the Land Development Code–a code that puts into legal effect the principles of the Heart of Peoria Plan, which itself was developed with significant input from the residents of Peoria. If this area is not fit for the Land Development Code, what area is? This is nothing less than a complete and brazen repudiation of the LDC, the HOP Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.

As usual, the majority of the Council followed the district council representative’s request without question, voting 8-2 in favor of eviscerating all the plans to which the public contributed their time and energy. Only Gary Sandberg and Beth Akeson opposed it.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

6 Comments

The Peoria City Council approved a new council district map Tuesday evening. Here it is:

Map “B” was approved by the City Council; click on image to enlarge.

This is the district map known as Map “B.” It was a close vote, with the council as well as the redistricting committee divided. Ayes were Gulley (1st Dist.), Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), Irving (5th Dist.), Akeson (At-Large), Turner (At-Large), and Weaver (At-Large). Nays were Mayor Ardis, Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Spears (4th Dist.), Sandberg (At-Large), and Spain (At-Large).

City Council, City of Peoria, Energy Issues

Aggregation opt-out letter a day late and candor short

5 Comments

On March 20, 2012, in the primary election a majority of citizens voted yes on a referendum question allowing corporate authorities to form a Municipal Opt-Out Electricity Aggregation. City Officials are happy to offer eligible residents and small businesses SAVINGS over Ameren Illinois (“Ameren”) rates by banding together all eligible electric service classes.

So begins the official notice I received Monday about the City’s electric aggregation opt-out program. I have been expecting this notice. But there are a couple of things that I didn’t expect:

  1. Less than 15 days to opt out. To opt out, you are required to return a form “before the deadline date of June 1, 2012.” In the Plan of Operation and Governance document received and filed by the City Council on April 10, it was stated that “there will be an Opt-Out Period of at least 15 days from the postmark date on the notice to postmark the return Opt-Out notice if they do not wish to participate in the Program.” At least 15 days, they said. So, what was the postmark on the letter? May 18. May 18 to June 1 is 14 days. Am I being nit-picky? Try paying your parking fine a day late and see how nit-picky the City is with you.
  2. No fee disclosure. The letter also avers that “you will not be charged a fee for partaking in this program.” However, the April 10 council communication states, “The program will also create a modest income source for the City of Peoria ($0.001/kWh).” Elsewhere, this is called “additional margin available to Peoria.” What is this if not a fee? I’m not necessarily saying this fee can’t be justified, but it is a fee, and should be disclosed as such.
City Council, City of Peoria

Ante up!

35 Comments

The Journal Star reports that the City is all in now. They’ve mortgaged the house to make their bet, and they believe they’re going to win big!

Just consider all the success they’ve had with gambles like this before. We have the beautiful Cub Foods on Knoxville that has revitalized the East Bluff and drawn patrons from Morton and East Peoria, as promised. We have One Technology Plaza, filled to capacity with high-tech companies employing hundreds and making Peoria the tech capital of the Midwest. And there’s Riverfront Village, just raking in the property taxes to pay for itself. And let’s not forget that sure-fire investment in Firefly Energy, the battery maker that is paying us dividends today.

And where would we be without the Peoria Civic Center? Just look at how it operates in the black every year and has spawned private investment all the way around the block, revitalizing downtown Peoria for generations.

Yes, I have full confidence that the downtown hotel project will be just as successful as the other wonderful developments the City of Peoria has gambled our tax money on in hopes that they would “pay for themselves.” What with the 360,000 people who will be coming to the museum starting this fall, and with all the people who are drawn to our own little Wrigleyville around the downtown ballpark, this should be a cinch to make us an even wealthier City.

We’re going to be rich, I tell you! Rich! Rich! Rich!

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Mayor

Mayor/Council=pot, Journal Star=kettle

7 Comments

The Mayor held a press conference on Monday and released a letter that he and the rest of the City Council members signed (except for Gary Sandberg, natch) and sent to Journal Star publisher Ken Mauser. You can read it at PeoriaWatchdog.com, the official site of Peoria Unit 86 of the United Media Guild.

Among other things, Mayor Ardis says, “I and other city leaders are concerned about plans we’ve heard to outsource jobs, slash employees and cut wages.” And later in the letter:

I fail to see how additional moves against employees and staffing would allow the newspaper to continue as a valuable public watchdog and community resource. I have never run a newspaper. But less is surely not more, when it comes to reporting the news.

Does it strike anyone else odd that this concern is coming from a mayor and council that recently eliminated 52 positions themselves, including a third of the inspections/code enforcement department? I mean, I’ve never run a City, but less is surely not more when it comes to inspections and code enforcement. I fail to see how all these moves against employees and staffing would allow the City to add value to the taxpayers.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the way GateHouse Media is pillaging the Journal Star. I actually agree with the sentiments in the letter. I just think it’s a little inappropriate for the Mayor and Council to be passing judgment when they have acted similarly. After you slash important services to the taxpayers while simultaneously giving over $30 million to an out-of-town developer, it doesn’t give you much moral standing to scold the Journal Star’s publisher for doing essentially the same thing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star

“Save the Journal Star” news conference Monday

18 Comments

From a press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PEORIA MAYOR JIM ARDIS AND OTHERS TO CALL FOR FAIR NEGOTIATIONS AT THE JOURNAL STAR DURING 9 A.M. NEWS CONFERENCE MONDAY, APRIL 9, AT PEORIA CITY HALL

It’s time to save the Journal Star.

As downstate Illinois’ largest newspaper, the Journal Star continues to be highly profitable. However, New York-based owner GateHouse Media continues to push for the slashings of jobs and salaries of the people who write, create and deliver the paper.

Why? GateHouse recently lavished a $800,000 bonus on CEO Michael Reed, who makes a salary of $500,000 a year. Further plump bonuses to other executives pushed the total to far over $1 million.

While GateHouse continues to try to slash the Journal Star, readers might ask questions. How does a smaller local staff make for a better local paper? How do continued cuts at the newspaper make for a better value for readers?

We ask the same questions. We are Peoria Unit 86 of the United Media Guild, which represents those targeted employees. We want only reasonable contract negotiations and a fair settlement. We just want to do our jobs as Peoria’s public watchdog.

Please join us at 9 a.m. Monday, April 9, in front of Peoria City Hall, 419 Fulton Street. Mayor Jim Ardis will present a letter signed by the City Council urging GateHouse to reach a fair settlement with the Guild.

We also will present a similar letter from the head pastors of two of the largest churches in Peoria – who requested to meet with Journal Star publisher Ken Mauser, but were denied – urging justice and moral fairness in ongoing contract negotiations.

In other Journal Star news, Managing Editor John Plevka is leaving the paper to head up the student newspaper at ISU.

City Council, City of Peoria

Congratulations to the City Council

17 Comments

I just want to congratulate the Peoria City Council on accomplishing something I really thought was impossible. According to the Journal Star, the Council has managed to find a deadline that Gary Matthews was able to meet. This is no small feat. It only took three and a half years, three redevelopment agreements, and five or six deadline extensions, but through persistence, perseverance, and a political will unrivaled by any other effort the council has made, they have succeeded in foisting this folly on the taxpayers.

I sincerely wish they would put this much effort, determination, and tax money toward the things they should be doing: enforcing law and order, maintaining existing infrastructure, and making Peoria a safe and beautiful place to live for those who actually, you know, live here, and pay taxes that increasingly go toward baubles that hang on our deteriorating civic structure.

No doubt, I ask too much.

City Council, City of Peoria

The latest line drawn by the City

5 Comments

The Journal Star recently published the following quote regarding the Wonderful Development:

“The developer doesn’t need a reminder from the council of the hard deadline in place,” Mayor Jim Ardis said. “He knows he has to deal with any obstacles and put us in a position to close by the end of the month. That won’t change.”

Did you see that? This latest deadline is different than all the previous deadlines. This one is a hard deadline. We really mean business this time! No more of those phony deadlines of the past three and a half years! This is a hard deadline. Do you hear me, Mr. Matthews? HARD!

It is to laugh. Does anyone really believe this? It’s like that old Bugs Bunny cartoon:

City Council, City of Peoria

Chronicle prediction comes true

56 Comments

Back in January, when the Peoria City Council agreed to extend the Wonderful Development deadline until the end of February, I predicted that “Long about February 21, you can reasonably expect the council agenda to include another deadline extension.” Well, it’s February 22, and guess what? The council agenda for next Tuesday includes a request to extend the deadline until the end of March now.

I feel confident in predicting that, if this is approved, the new deadline won’t be met either. At the end of March will be another deadline extension request. This may happen every month in perpetuity, or at least as long as the majority of this council is allowed to remain in office, and Gary Matthews is never held to a real deadline.

Just for those council people who are unaware of the definition of “deadline,” here it is: “The time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something.” That’s not how the Council has been defining it, obviously.