Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library

Library building program gets off on wrong foot

11 Comments

Peoria Public LibraryThe Peoria City Council has a library liaison. It used to be John Morris, but since he’s left the council, there’s a new liaison: Gary Sandberg. An inspired choice, if you ask me, considering they’re planning to spend a whole bunch of taxpayer money on capital improvements.

Today’s Word on the Street gives a good example of why you want someone like Gary in there — to keep them honest, to expose back-room deals, and to make sure the public’s business is being handled properly:

…At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg, the library’s new council liaison, discovered that the library board’s building committee voted May 15 to recommend that the full board hire PSA Dewberry to program what will go in the new and expanded facilities. That vote was a full two weeks before local architects were asked to submit their programming proposals. Further, they were only given a one-day turnaround.

This is what you call “going through the motions” or complying with the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. The library board president (Mike McKenzie) defends the board’s actions because he “truly [doesn’t] believe [they] would have come to a different result.” So they sent it out to bid just as a formality. In reality, PSA Dewberry was preselected. The firms who wasted their time submitting bids were LZT Associates, APACE, and Farnsworth Group.

This is an inauspicious start to the library building program.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission given another month to live

The City Council tonight deferred action on the fate of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) until July 24. There was a meeting tonight at 4:30 that included Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.), HOPC Chairman Bill Washkuhn, Councilman Patrick Nichting (5th Dist.), and Mayor Jim Ardis. Although an effort was made to resolve the issue in time for tonight’s meeting, they did not reach a consensus, hence the item was deferred.

Van Auken said that several ideas were discussed, but didn’t elaborate on them. I imagine the HOPC will hear about them at our next meeting which is currently scheduled for this Friday, June 22, at 8 a.m., City Hall, fourth floor.

Councilman Gary Sandberg was the lone vote against the deferral. He wants to see the Heart of Peoria Commissioners appointed to other commissions — especially the Planning Commission, which is working on the Comprehensive Plan right now — regardless of whether HOPC is retained. This deferral delays that possible action another month.

In other Heart of Peoria Plan news, I had the opportunity to talk to Nichting briefly after the council meeting tonight. I asked him what he thought of the HOP Plan. He mentioned that he had voted for it and thought it had some good ideas. But he feels that ultimately the market decides which ideas will and won’t work — that there are certain market realities we have to acknowledge. He didn’t elaborate on that idea much further.

Of course one has to take the market into consideration. Just because a city comes up with good ideas does not guarantee that entrepreneurs will flock to fulfill them. However, on the flip side, it should be pointed out that Euclidean zoning did not come about by free market forces. It was imposed by cities upon developers to give us the kind of cities we see today. So, if anyone were to argue that segregated land use and automobile-dependent city planning were the result of popular demand by developers, they’re sorely mistaken. Zoning is all about cities deciding what they want their cities to look like rather than developers having free rein. New Urbanism is, among other things, a new and improved zoning plan that’s rooted in the tried and true principles of strong city planning.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department

Fire Station 11 compromise in the works

21 Comments

Fire Truck GraphicMy sources tell me that a compromise is in the works for Fire Station 11. You may remember that a previous council cut an engine company from the station as a cost-savings move three years ago. Ever since then, every election has included the question of how/when the council will fully staff Fire Station 11.

Well, the fire department has recently been utilizing the city’s GIS system to plot response times from each of the fire stations. Basically, they map out where each fire station is and then draw a circle around it representing a four-minute response time for water coverage. When they analyzed the results of that exercise and looked at where the circles overlapped and intersected, they determined that Fire Station 11’s area of service was adequately covered by the other fire stations.

Although water coverage is good, there is another issue, and that’s Basic Life Support (BLS) calls. In that area, Fire Station 11’s coverage is not so good. Since they don’t have an engine, they have to run a ladder truck for BLS calls. Well, there are many problems with that, not the least of which is speed. People in need of basic life support need help fast, and ladder trucks are not the speediest vehicles.

But another problem is wear and tear on the vehicle. Ladder trucks cost about three quarters of a million dollars and should last 15 to 20 years, according to Fire Prevention Chief Greg Walters (I found this out while researching another story; Walters is not the source for this post). However, by sending the ladder truck out on BLS calls, that’s beating the heck out of the truck and if something doesn’t change they’ll probably have to replace that truck sooner. That kind of blows the cost savings the council was hoping to get by removing the engine company.

So, the compromise that’s being talked about is this: Instead of putting an engine company back in at Fire Station 11 (which is, I believe, 11 firefighters), they would put in, for lack of a better term, a BLS company (which would only be 5 firefighters, if I understand correctly). The BLS company would have their own vehicle, but it wouldn’t be a fire engine or the ladder truck. That would be cheaper than reinstating an engine company (5 more firefighters instead of 11), would save wear and tear on an expensive ladder truck allowing it to stay in service longer, and would adequately serve the Fire Station 11 area.

That’s all the information I have. I couldn’t find anyone willing to talk on the record about it. And I still have some questions, like why couldn’t they just add a vehicle instead of a vehicle and five more guys. If I had to speculate, I’d guess that it has something to do with the firefighters union. But I imagine those details will come out eventually. In fact, I understand it will be coming before the council sometime relatively soon. Said one person I asked for comment, “I don’t want to jinx it.”

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup: June 5, 2007

5 Comments

It was a looong meeting Tuesday. Here are the highlights:

  • The council surprisingly reversed course — again — on the issue of whether to charge fees for vaults and walkways that encroach on the public right-of-way. Last October they voted 8-2 to keep the fees, then last month they voted 9-1 to eliminate the fees. And tonight they voted 6-5 to keep the fees again. Well, I’m not going to complain about their fickleness too much because they made the right decision tonight. There’s no reason for the city to eliminate those fees. As Councilman Manning said, it’s not an unreasonable fee; it’s just a normal cost of doing business. And the city needs the revenue.
  • The Heart of Peoria Commission received a stay of execution for two weeks, but not a pardon. Second-district Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken made the motion to defer to allow time for the members of the various commissions and the council to come to some sort of compromise. The Heart of Peoria Commission may call a special meeting to discuss whatever compromise is brought forward.
  • A minor change was made to Mr. Abud’s liquor license conditions so he can open his grocery store on the south side of Peoria. The original agreement called for Abud to hire off-duty Peoria police officers to patrol the business during all hours of operation. The revised agreement only requires officers to provide security from 2:30 p.m. until the store closes (10:00 p.m.). This is a reasonable request, in my opinion. The goal is to provide a secure environment, and I think this accomplishes that end.
  • The council approved reducing their meetings to twice a month. It wasn’t mentioned last night, but I heard on the news today that the new schedule will start in July. Under the new schedule, the council will meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. I predict that schedule will last one year or less.
  • The council deferred a request from Councilman Gulley to appropriate funds for the improvement of Griswold Street on the south side. This is a budget amendment right before the council is getting ready to negotiate next year’s budget, so some think the timing is wrong. Others want to know what projects are going to be delayed by allocating money to this project instead. There will be a report back next week.
  • It wasn’t mentioned in the meeting, but I heard afterwards that a new website was launched for the Peoria Promise. Check it out.
City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Glen Oak landmark designations to be deferred again

The City’s Historic Preservation Commission voted to recommend landmarking nine items in Glen Oak Park. On April 24, that recommendation came before the City Council and was deferred until June 5 to give the Park District time to develop their own historic preservation policy. The Park Board has asked that the city defer this item two more weeks — until June 19 — because they are scheduled to take action on this issue at their June 13 meeting.

My only suggestion: If the council approves the request to only meeting the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, better defer this item to the 26th instead.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council members may be able to phone in their participation

1 Comment

teleconferencing phoneAnother big change that’s on the council agenda for Tuesday night is an amendment that would allow council members to attend meetings electronically (e.g., via telephone or internet connection) and vote electronically as well. So, for instance, if Eric Turner is going to be out of town on business for Caterpillar, he wouldn’t have to miss an important vote. He could call in, attend the meeting via telephone, and cast his vote with the rest of the council.

Under the proposed plan, electronic attendance would only be allowed if the council person can’t attend in person due to (1) personal illness/disability, (2) employment purposes or city business, or (3) because of a family or other emergency. Also, a quorum will have to be physically present, so you couldn’t have the whole council meeting electronically.

My guess is we won’t see this utilized a whole lot, but it will be entertaining when we do.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

Council agenda misleading regarding HOPC request

4 Comments

Here’s the item as it was presented to the council on the agenda for June 5:

ITEM NO. 2 REQUESTS for CONSIDERATION of the Following:

A. Communication from Mayor Jim Ardis with Request to Provide More Focus and Maximize Resources for the Implementation of the Heart of Peoria Plan Concepts by Adopting the Following:

  1. ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 15,571 Pertaining to the HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION Changing the STATUS of the HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION;
  2. ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 23 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to EXPANSION of the PLANNING COMMISSION by FOUR POSITIONS; and
  3. TRANSFER and APPOINTMENT of HEART OF PEORIA COMMISIONERS to EXISTING PLANNING and/or REGULATORY COMMISSIONS, with Recommendation to Concur:
    • Beth Akeson (Voting): Planning Commission – Term 6/6/2007 – 6/30/2008
    • Joe Richey (Voting): Planning Commission – Term 6/6/2007 – 6/30/2009
    • Dick Schwebel (Voting): Planning Commission – Term 6/6/2007 – 6/30/2008
    • Christopher Summers (Voting): Planning Commission – Term 6/6/07 – 6/30/2009
    • Nancy Biggins (Voting): Zoning Board of Appeals – Term 6/6/2007 – 6/30/2009
    • Patrick Sullivan (Voting): Traffic Commission – Term 6/6/2007 – 6/30/2009
    • Bill Washkuhn: Commission Assignment to be Determined.
OR

B. Communication from Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Heart of Peoria Commission to MAINTAIN the COMMISSION’S STATUS Based on the HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION’S MISSION STATEMENT, VISION, and CORE VALUES and the CONDITION that the Commission Develop a Work Plan by July 30, 2007, to Complete the Work with the Planning and Growth Management Department to Achieve those Goals.

The way this has been communicated to the council is, unfortunately, misleading. This makes it look like the choice is between the mayor’s proposal (all changes) or the Heart of Peoria Commission’s proposal (no changes). That’s simply not true.

What the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) clearly voted on at their last meeting was their preference for option A above, but without subsection 1. In other words, we strongly agreed with the expansion of the planning commission and the appointment of Heart of Peoria commissioners to various commissions as outlined, but we do not want the status of the Heart of Peoria Commission changed (i.e., we don’t want HOPC decommissioned).

We looked at the pros and cons of continuing as a city-appointed commission versus as a private advocacy group, and we decided we could be more effective as a city-appointed commission. However, we also decided that, in order for the principles of new urbanism to have the most impact, we needed the dual appointments of HOPC commissioners on other commissions — especially the planning commission, since they oversee the city’s comprehensive planning process.

So it was a little surprising to read the council agenda and see the options set so starkly opposed, all-or-nothing. Hopefully, the council can get things sorted out on the council floor Tuesday night.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council reverses course, votes to eliminate fees

13 Comments

I’m really confused. The city needs revenue. There are fees on the books to bring in revenue. The council voted to increase those fees last year. Yet, inexplicably, the council reversed that decision and is now eliminating those fees. What happened?

You may recall that last August a large property management company bought the old Commercial National Bank building (now used by National City), and they wanted the city to eliminate their annual fees for encroachments of their underground vaults on the public way. It came to light that the city had not been collecting the fee for something like 30 years, but no accounting was ever given for this gross oversight.

Well, last October, the council decided by a vote of 8-2 (Nichting and Ardis were the only nays) “to keep the existing ordinance and modify and update the fee structure regarding underground vaults.” Case closed, right?

Nope. City staff sent letters to the affected property owners and, lo and behold, they complained about the fee. They said it wasn’t fair. They said it would increase the cost of doing business downtown. City staff complained (again) that they’d have to go out to the businesses and inspect them in order to verify the proper fee. So the issue came up to the council again on May 22, 2007. This time, the council voted 9-1 (Manning was the only nay) “to eliminate the current annual fee as provided in the existing Ordinance.”

So, the multi-million-dollar company that owns the Commercial Bank building downtown won’t have to pay that extra $500 annual fee that was apparently of grave concern to them. City staff will get to save a couple of days of looking at building vaults. And the rest of Peoria’s citizens will continue to pay the regressive garbage fee.

Hey, as long as we’re eliminating fees and work, why not get rid of parking fees? After all, since the city is so spread out and there isn’t adequate public transportation, citizens are forced to drive to do business downtown, and thus forced to find someplace to park their car. Hence, using the city’s logic, it’s unfair to charge them for something that’s out of their control. All parking violations have to be verified and ticketed by city employees (meter maids). It raises the cost of doing business downtown. And it’s unpopular with citizens and businesses alike. So who will argue for the elimination of this fee? Anyone? Anyone?

*chirp* *chirp*

Let me guess: the $60,000 the underground-vault fees would bring in to city coffers isn’t worth the trouble, right? I’ll keep that in mind as the city works on the budget again this year.

City Council, City of Peoria

Changes coming to Council meetings

7 Comments

The city council may only meet half as often if an ordinance amendment is adopted at Tuesday’s council meeting. The amendment would cut back council meetings to twice a month — the second and fourth Tuesdays. Currently, the council meets the first four Tuesdays of every month.

Another part of the amendment requires citizens wishing to address the council to sign a card and restrict their comments to City of Peoria issues. It’s not clear whether the card would have to be signed before the meeting, as is the County Board’s policy, or just before the person speaks.

City Council, City of Peoria

Firefly loan guarantee high compared to similar programs

11 Comments

Firefly LogoTonight, the City Council will be discussing whether to offer a somewhat unique incentive to a local private business. Firefly Energy needs a loan, and they’ve been unable to secure it through the Small Business Administration (Caterpillar owns 35% of Firefly, hence they’re not small enough for an SBA loan) or Industrial Revenue Bonds (also ineligible).

So the plan is for National City to provide them a loan that would be secured by their equipment and a loan guarantee from the City of Peoria and Peoria County. For the City’s part, they are wanting to pledge $3.3 million in utility tax receipts.

This is organized more or less just like a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. The SBA doesn’t directly loan money, but rather acts as guarantor, which reduces the risk for private financing companies and allow loans to be made that otherwise would not be approved. “The policy question for Council,” the council communication states, “is whether the City of Peoria should guarantee private debt to encourage economic development. Furthermore, if this approach is used what should be the guidelines for assistance? City and County staff could develop guidelines if the Council so desired.”

I expect this to be the question that gets the most discussion. This kind of incentive has apparently not been used before by the City. If the City approves using it tonight, you can bet they’ll be asked for such assistance again. What kind of precedent, if any, does this vote set? There are two parts to any precedent that may be set: (1) The use of this incentive at all, and (2) how much money they’re willing to guarantee.

It’s common for loan guarantees to be provided at the state level, but not as common for cities. My efforts at Googling such a situation at the city level only turned up one city that provides such incentives: New Brunswick, New Jersey. They’re a city of about 49,000 residents, and their program works like this:

New Brunswick provides a 50% guaranty to loans made through the program with participating banks. The guaranty permits banks to make loans they would otherwise decline. The borrower gets access to capital at reasonable rates.The Economic Development staff will also assist business owners in developing a business plan for presenting their loan ideas to bankers or hard money lenders.

Loan Term: 1-7 years
Loan Rate: Prime + 2 points. The rate is fixed at the time of closing
Loan Amounts: $25,000 – $150,000

I called the Peoria City Manager’s office and also talked to the Economic Development department, but neither of them could provide the names of other cities that provide similar programs. I didn’t talk directly to City Manager Randy Oliver, however, so it’s certainly possible he knows of other cities.

What I found interesting was the amount of the loan they guarantee in New Brunswick — the upper limit is only $150,000. According to this website, the average loan guarantee in Michigan’s Capital Access Program is $53,000. California’s Small Business Loan Guarantee Program “cover[s] up to 90% of the loan amount, with the guaranteed portion of the loan not exceeding $500,000.” Here in Peoria, we’re talking about $3.3 million — and that’s only the City’s share. The County is putting up an equal amount for a total guarantee of $6.6 million!

I’d like to see Firefly Energy stay in Peoria, and I’m not against providing them incentives, but this seems to be a rather large loan guarantee when compared to other state and local programs I could find. Considering the County won’t take up this issue until June, I would suggest the City not vote on it tonight. Discuss it, think it over, consider the ramifications, take up the staff’s offer to write up guidelines — this is too big to rush into.