Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

Updated budget information now online

Leave a comment

Want to know what’s happening with the City’s budget? You’re in luck (the following is from a press release):

The City’s budget website – www.peoriabudget.com – has been updated to include the entire preliminary budget documents. The Mayor and City Council charged staff with creating a budget process that was more transparent, more open to public involvement and built more alignment with Council goals and priorities. For the first time in the City’s history, the preliminary is available for download by citizens, businesses and other interested parties.

The updated website includes the following information:

  • Budget message (the transmittal the accompanies the presentation of the preliminary budget)
  • Overview Presentation to Council (given 10/7 by Henry Holling)
  • Revenue Presentation to Council (given 10/7 by Jim Scroggins)
  • Budget tables for the operating, debt service and Community Investment Plan portions of the budget
  • Budget calendar

In addition, the entire preliminary budget packet for each department has been placed on-line. This is normally a document of over 400 pages, but has been broken into individual files by department.

The Peoria City Council is committed to gathering citizen input on the upcoming budget. In addition to the recently released “Report on Citizen Budget Input” (also available on the website), citizens are invited to address Council at any budget meeting. Upcoming meetings include:

  • October14—Regular Council Meeting (City Hall, 6:15 pm): Community Investment Plan (CIP) budget
  • October 21—Special Council Meeting (City Hall, 5 6:15 pm): CIP budget, operating budget
  • October 28—Regular Council Meeting (City Hall, 6:15 pm): Operating budget
City Council, City of Peoria

1 out of 4 City employees don’t live in the City

28 Comments

Tucked away in the agenda for next week’s City Council meeting is a report on city employee residency. Overall, 73% (580 out of 795) of the city’s permanent, full-time staff lives inside the city, which means that over a quarter of the staff chooses not to live in the city.

The report breaks the data down by department. Several departments have all their employees living in the city: Council, City Clerk, City Manager, EEO, Legal, HR, Treasurer, Economic Development, and Workforce, and there are many employees in here or independent contractors so the use of an online 1099-misc maker can be helpful to manage the payments of these workers.

The lowest percentage of City residents comes from the police department. Statistics from Labor Law Compliance websites say only 58% (168 out of 288) of police officers live within the City limits. Second lowest is “ECC,” which I assume is the Emergency Communications Center: 65% (24 out of 37). And third lowest is the fire department: 77% (163 out of 213).

By now, you’re probably thinking, “so what?” I don’t know. Councilman Jacob requested the report, but I’m not sure why. Perhaps we’ll find out Tuesday night.

At first blush, it’s easy to think that, if our own employees don’t want to live in the city, why would anyone else want to move here? But take a look at those numbers again. Most of those employees who live outside of the city are public safety employees, and there are reasonable arguments for why police and other public safety officers would want to live outside of the city they protect (e.g., for their family’s and their own protection and privacy while off-duty). It doesn’t appear from this report that any residency requirements are being violated. Learn about labor poster requirements here to check your Labor law compliance.

The important thing is that all our elected officials, of course, live within the city and have a personal stake in the outcome of any policy directives (e.g., new taxes, fees, land use issues).

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Pundit, Radio

Council coverage falls off without Ahl; blogs pick up slack

10 Comments

It used to be that you could count on WCBU to cover any city council meeting held on a Tuesday night, including important budget discussions like the one happening tonight. But since former news director Jonathan Ahl left the station, coverage has fallen off. It appears now that only regular city council meetings (twice a month) are carried.

That’s unfortunate, because the council meeting tonight covers important budget issues facing the City of Peoria. What’s being discussed tonight is at least as important, if not more important, than the business taking place at the regular council meetings. Why have they stopped being covered?

Fortunately, there’s still one media outlet that’s covering the event live — Billy Dennis’ Peoria Pundit blog. All Billy needs to do is figure out a way to provide a live audio stream through his blog in addition to his running summary.

City Council, City of Peoria

Next council meeting will focus on budget

19 Comments

The agenda for Tuesday night’s Peoria City Council meeting is short — just two items. But don’t let that fool you into thinking it will be a short meeting.

It’s that time of year when the council starts discussing the dreaded budget. In keeping with the council’s desire to include more meaningful input from citizens, Tuesday’s meeting will offer residents a chance to comment on the budget after some pertinent information is presented:

A. REVIEW of CURRENT OUTSTANDING CAPITAL PROJECTS;
B. PRESENTATION OF OVERALL VISION/MISSION/CORE FUNCTIONS;
C. REVENUE REVIEW;
D. PUBLIC COMMENT Relating to the 2009 CITY BUDGET.

If you’re looking for information on the city’s budget, look no further than peoriabudget.com. City staff has assembled a number of helpful charts and graphs to give you a picture (literally) of the city’s revenue and expenditures, broken down a number of different ways. Here are a couple that will be germane to Tuesday’s meeting (click on the thumbnail to see the full graph):

These two graphs show the revenue sources for the city. They’ll come in handy when it comes time figure out how we’re going to raise more revenue for the city’s needs.

2008 Campaign, Aaron Schock, City Council, City of Peoria

Schock fundraising cost keeps rising

92 Comments

The original city council agenda reported that President Bush’s visit to Peoria to raise funds for congressional candidate Aaron Schock cost taxpayers $13,195.63. That included police overtime and some miscellaneous expenses.

At last night’s council meeting, we learned that the tab is now $38,252. Adding to the cost are public works costs ($11,538 for 30 public works trucks used “for security purposes”) and fire department manpower ($3,218). I’ll try to get a copy of all the costs and post it.

But we may not be done tabulating the costs. Even the $38,000 figure doesn’t include the hours that police, public works, and other departments spent planning for the event. All this money comes out of Peoria taxpayers’ pockets.

One more thing — it violates city code:

Sec. 2-335(c). Employees shall not use city stationery, office equipment or other city resources for personal or political purposes.

Sec. 2-336. Prohibited political activities.

(a) City employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). City employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.

(b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties, (ii) as a condition of city employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the city (such as vacation, personal, or compensatory time off).

Sec. 2-337. Prohibited political activity defined.

Prohibited political activity means:
(1) Preparing for, organizing, or participating in any political meeting, political rally, political demonstration or other political event.

I don’t know how the codes could be any clearer. A July 24, 2008, Journal Star article states that Schock’s fundraising event was “purely political,” which is the reason why Schock’s campaign had to pay back “costs associated with flying into Peoria on Air Force One and all costs for food, flowers and rentals at the Weaver Farm event.”

So let’s recap — the fundraising event was undeniably political in nature. The preparation, organization, and execution of city services for such a political event is prohibited according to city codes. However, the city has provided those services anyway (in violation of its own code) at a cost of $38,000+ without even asking the Schock campaign to reimburse the taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the Schock campaign isn’t offering to reimburse the taxpayers either. Is this an example of the kind of “service” a Congressman Schock will be providing to his district? Sticking local taxpayers with the bill for an event that personally benefits him, even as he reimburses the federal government for the same event?

A motion to bill Schock’s campaign for these costs was deferred until the next council meeting. Voting against the deferral: Councilmen Eric Turner, Patrick Nichting and Jim Montelongo.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Traffic

“In the News” for 9/23/08

47 Comments

In the news today:

  • An allegedly inebriated council member confronts Bradley fraternity students over being too noisy in the middle of the night. Bradley police, then Peoria police are called to break things up. Van Auken says that neighbors have complained about this fraternity, Sigma Nu, 1300 W. Fredonia Ave., multiple times, but that things haven’t improved. Bradley police wouldn’t give the fraternity a citation for being too loud, but Peoria police did. The fraternity thinks they’re being treated unfairly, since the police didn’t cite Van Auken for disorderly conduct and trespassing after she and her companions refused to leave the premises. Van Auken says she acted appropriately. She also admitted to having a few drinks before the confrontation, and fraternity members and Bradley police said she showed signs of inebriation. My take: It’s laudable that Van Auken is willing to stand up to the university on this issue, but her apparent lack of sobriety calls her judgment — about the loudness of the party, for one thing — into question. It would have been better if she had confronted them while sober.

  • Public Works is going to recommend lane reductions for Main Street. The purpose of the meeting last night was to present their proposal and convince everyone in attendance that it was the best solution. They keep saying they want to hear from residents and are willing to do what the residents want, but when the residents asked for things, they were told that those ideas won’t work and we have to go with Public Works’ plans, based on their computer models. Perhaps the most telling statement was when I talked to Public Works Director Dave Barber after the meeting and expressed my concern over the traffic on Main Street consistently going 10-15 mph over the speed limit between University and Farmington Road, his response was, “The street was that way when you moved there, right?” So, apparently, if people are breaking the law, they’ve got a right to keep breaking the law. Good to know. Nevertheless, narrowing Main east of University will be a good thing.

  • District 150 is considering mandatory uniforms for primary and middle school students. My take: Great idea. Make it so.
City Council, City of Peoria

Hy-Vee approved

24 Comments

The council gave the green light to Hy-Vee, even though they didn’t meet the city staff’s and zoning commission’s conditions/recommendations. Developers did make some improvements to the design, but the function of the west side of the store was not one of them. There will be no access from the west — in fact, Hy-Vee officials stated that even employees are not allowed to enter the rear (west side) of the store.

Officials also stated that an entrance in the rear “would not have worked from an operational standpoint of the supermarket’s business.” But I still think that, with a little creativity, they could have figured out a way to provide access from the west — even if it were just an indoor passageway from the west parking lot to the east entrance.

Construction is slated to begin in the spring, and will include demolishing an entire leg of the original strip mall. This will be the biggest change to come to Sheridan Village since it opened in the ’50s.

City Council, City of Peoria

Hy-Vee back on the agenda

13 Comments

On Tuesday, the City Council will once again consider plans to put a new Hy-Vee grocery store in Sheridan Village. According to the Journal Star, Hy-Vee developers have made a few changes, but have still not met all of the city staff’s and zoning commission’s conditions.

Under the revised plans, Hy-Vee will include a sign on its west side, incorporate brick on portions of the building’s exterior and make the architecture of the back of the building similar to the front. Also, landscaping will block the view of a loading dock, which is also on the building’s west end. […]

Despite the improvements, seven outstanding issues exist. Some of these include questions about who pays for the installation of a sidewalk along Lake Street, restrictions on signage, limitation on community events within the parking lot and seasonal sales.

Senior Urban Planner Gene Lear says the new plans are an improvement, but from reading this article, it sounds like they’ve really only met maybe one or two of the conditions — they’ve included sidewalks around the whole store and “a proposed drive-thru pharmacy will not disrupt a sidewalk around the building.” The other changes they’ve made may be an “improvement,” but have not fulfilled the conditions.

For example, there still is no entrance or windows on the west side (back) of the building, although some of the building materials have been changed to make its appearance a little more like the front of the store. That’s a step in the right direction. But the condition isn’t just a concern about aesthetics; it’s an issue of functionality. Shoppers need access from both sides of the building because a good portion of the parking is to the back of the building. That parking loses its appeal and function if there is no access to Hy-Vee. It will basically become a dedicated parking lot for Bergners’ rear entrance and (presumably) Hy-Vee employees. That’s not a very efficient use of parking space, and one wonders how those parking spaces could even be used to meet the development’s parking requirements.

Hopefully the city council will insist that there be some sort of public access from the west side of the building. It’s in the best interests of the shopping center, the neighborhood, and the city. Perhaps another deferral would be in order if the supermarket and city planners cannot resolve the outstanding issues by next Tuesday night.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup 8/26/08

2 Comments

The most significant decisions from last night’s council meeting are:

  • On the November ballot will be a referendum asking Peorians if they want to override the state’s new primary election rules.

  • The new snow route plan was approved. Public Works Director Dave Barber stated that his philosophy is to plow the streets with the highest ADT (average daily traffic) first for “safety” purposes, rather than plowing the streets with the most population density first. He also stated that the city should be able to be completely plowed within 18 hours of a major snow event under this new system.

  • The electronic billboard was approved for the Knoxville-Pennsylvania-interstate intersection. Planning & Growth Director Pat Landes stated that the City staff reversed itself and recommended approval because Adams Outdoor Advertising had satisfied the City’s conditions subsequent to the council communication being distributed. The City’s conditions were (1) that Adams provide proof that the State (IDOT) approved of an electronic sign next to the expressway, and (2) that Adams provide proof that the light emitted from the electronic sign would be no brighter than a traditional sign. Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken moved to approve the special use. She said the issue before the council was not the placement of the sign (decided in February 2007) or whether the council likes billboards in general; the issue instead was whether Adams satisfied the City’s conditions. She also implied that the zoning commission’s recommendation for denial was based only on the fact the City’s conditions had not been met, but that’s unclear to me from reading their minutes; they may have had additional reasons for denying it.

Furthermore, regarding the billboard issue, it’s come to my attention that Peg Murphy, the executive director of Family House which is immediately adjacent to the property the billboard is on, wrote a letter to other council members that stated, in part:

I am writing because I am concerned about the impact of the large lighted billboard just beyond our home. I only had the information from the Journal Star article concerning the zoning meeting. I called and spoke to Barbara Van Auken, our council person and she told me that she would be asking for approval for the billboard. She said that the appropriate documents have now been submitted to indicate that the lighting will have little impact on the surrounding neighbors. I hope this is correct. Because of the height of our home and its primary use -sleep and comfort for our guests, we are naturally concerned.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it doesn’t sound like Family House was properly notified of the zoning commission meeting, since Ms. Murphy states she only heard about it from a Journal Star article. She should have received a notice in the mail since her property is most assuredly within 250 feet of the billboard’s property. It also makes one wonder if the residents of affected homes on Linn Street were properly notified of the hearing.

Second, the e-mail was sent on August 12, and she states that Ms. Van Auken told her that “the appropriate documents have now been submitted to indicate that the lighting will have little impact on the surrounding neighbors.” However, one wonders how that is possible, since that’s one of the conditions that the Zoning Commission and the City said was not met, and was in fact the reason the item was deferred from August 12 until August 26. I suppose it’s all a moot point, since the documentation has been provided now. But I found it curious. Perhaps Ms. Van Auken received the information before the City did. Still, it’s too bad that an adjacent property owner felt that her concerns were not adequately considered before the decision was made.

City Council, City of Peoria

Another electronic billboard on the agenda

26 Comments

Tonight’s council agenda includes a request to allow an electronic billboard at Knoxville and Pennsylvania avenues, right by the Knoxville/I-74 interchange (note that the address for the billboard is given as Linn St.; that’s because access to the billboard is from Linn, one block west of Knoxville):

(08-418) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting the Following:

A. Receive and File the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.

B. Take Action on Request to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,072, an EXISTING SPECIAL USE in a Class CG (General Commercial) District for an OFF-PREMISE SIGN (Billboard) to Add an ELECTRONIC MULTIPLE MESSAGE DISPLAY for the EAST SIDE of the BILLBOARD for Property Located at 1418 N. LINN STREET;

OR

C. Concur with the Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to DENY the Request to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,072, an EXISTING SPECIAL USE in a Class CG (General Commercial) District for an OFF-PREMISE SIGN (Billboard) to Add an ELECTRONIC MULTIPLE MESSAGE DISPLAY for the EAST SIDE of the BILLBOARD for Property Located at 1418 N. LINN STREET.

The staff and the zoning commission have both recommended denial of this request. The zoning commission’s recommendation was unanimous. Yet this item was deferred the first time it appeared on the council agenda, and now it appears with an additional option to approve.

It seems to me that if the council wanted to protect the city from gaudy electronic billboards, especially one that abuts single family homes and is, in fact, located too close to a residential neighborhood, they would have the perfect opportunity to do so here. Staff is opposed. Zoning commission is opposed. Council could vote it down with impunity.

But apparently someone is trying to get this through. I guess we’ll find out tonight who’s advocating for the outdoor advertisers. I have a feeling it’s going to be our second district council member.

Other communities are looking for ways to restrict these kinds of billboards. Four states — Maine, Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska — have banned billboards altogether. The reason is that they clutter public spaces and hide the natural beauty of our cities and transportation corridors. There’s even a non-profit group called Scenic America that is “dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the visual character of America’s communities and countryside.” That means they advocate for billboard restrictions. Here’s a video essay they put together on YouTube:

It does make you wonder, as these LED billboards become more and more prominent in Peoria, how long it will be before driving down University or Knoxville is going to look like driving down Las Vegas boulevard. We need to start thinking about this now, before it’s too late.

And the council needs to vote down this electronic billboard. There’s no compelling reason to allow it.

UPDATE: Before anyone points it out to me, I’m aware that we have a sign ordinance that does regulate electronic billboards, as well as the placement and spacing of signs in general. But as we’ve learned from the Land Development Code, the ordinance is only as good as its enforcement. We have to be careful about where and why and how we make exceptions. We’ve already made an exception with this billboard by allowing it to be significantly closer to a residential neighborhood than is normally allowed. We might also want to consider whether the existing ordinance is strict enough.