It’s the last Tuesday in July, and time once again for the Peoria City Council meeting. We’re in Room 400 of City Hall, and the meeting begins at 6:15. As usual, I’ll be reporting and commenting on the meeting in real time, so refresh your browser often if you’re following along at home. You can also listen live on WCBU radio at 89.9 FM, or watch live on Comcast cable channel 22. Here is tonight’s agenda (a hyperlinked agenda is available from the City’s website):
ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting to Receive and File the 2010 AUDITED COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT by MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP.
City Manager Patrick Urich turns things over to Finance Director Jim Scroggins, who turns things over to representatives of McGladrey and Pullen to give a short overview. The opinions the City received were “unqualified” which is the best opinion that can be given by a public accounting firm. She generally has very nice things to say about the City and the staff. Overall, total revenues increased 10% in 2010, including HRA and utility taxes. Intergovernmental revenues and grants increased, too. Expenditures increased 10%, too. I should mention that they’re referring to a printed report that was not included in the online packet or provided to the audience. I’m sure it’s very informative. Perhaps next time they could put it up as a PowerPoint presentation or something so everyone could see it. Motion to receive and file passes unanimously. No discussion.
ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:
A. Communication from the City Manager and Fire Chief Requesting Approval to Conduct an ONLINE AUCTION for the SALE of a 1983 FIRE LADDER TRUCK with a MINIMUM BID of $10,000.00.
B. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to Conduct a SALE of EXCESS BRICKS from the City of Peoria Storage Facility on Darst Street, at a MINIMUM COST of FIFTY CENTS PER BRICK.
C. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Approval of a BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LOAN for CONEYS, in the Amount of $30,000.00, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents.
D. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Human Resources Commission to Approve the Following:
1. Receive and File a REPORT on the STATUS of the 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT and EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT ACTIVITIES;
2. Approve the APPLICATION TIMELINE and PUBLIC SERVICE PRIORITIES for the 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM.
E. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Authorization to SUBMIT APPLICATION to the STATE of ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT of COMMERCE and ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (DCEO), with Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Approve, and to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance 11,051, for an EXPANSION of the ENTERPRISE ZONE BOUNDARIES to Include Specified Areas Along UNIVERSITY and BRANDYWINE Zoned Commercial and Office.
F. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending the City of Peoria Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Relating to the 2011 CDBG, HOME, and ESG BUDGET to Reflect the Actual 2011 Allocation from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
G. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending the City of Peoria Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Relating to the PROPERTY OWNER SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION RECAPTURE AMOUNT of $50,273.00.
H. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Approving a SPECIAL USE in a Class R-4 (Single Family Residential) District for Existing Legal Non-Conforming OFFICES, and to ADD a CHURCH with Existing Site Conditions for the Property Located at 1716 N. UNIVERSITY STREET, with Conditions.
I. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending an EXISTING SPECIAL USE Ordinance No. 16,524, which Amended Special Permit No. 8,436, in a Class I-3 (General Industrial) District for a RECYCLING and SCRAP METAL FACILITY to RELOCATE and REPLACE a SHREDDER and TWO EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS for the Property Located at 2405, 2411, 2424 and 2510 W. CLARK STREET, with Condition.
J. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending an EXISTING SPECIAL USE, Ordinance No. 14,599, as Amended, in a Class R-7 (Multi-Family Residential) District for ELDERLY HOUSING to REPLACE TWO EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS with ONE FREESTANDING SIGN for the Properties Located at 1920 and 2000 W. WILLOW KNOLLS ROAD, with Conditions.
K. Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of the APPLICATION for a CLASS H (Temporary Outdoor) LIQUOR LICENSE from ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PARISH at 6001 N. UNIVERSITY for a FUNDRAISER on AUGUST 19, 2011.
L. APPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, with Request to Concur:
Erica Baird (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2014
M. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller with Request to Receive and File the QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2011.
The following items were removed from the consent agenda by the council member in parentheses: M (Spears), B (Akeson), C and E (Sandberg). The remaining items passed unanimously (motion by Turner/Akeson).
- Item B — Akeson asks Public Works Director David Barber if the bricks could be donated to the Warehouse District instead of being sold. Barber: His opinion is that the bricks are already nicked, broken, or made of clay and generally not that good. [Makes you want to buy them, doesn’t it?] He says this wouldn’t be enough brick for use in the Warehouse District. Akeson/Van Auken move to approve. Sandberg wants to get it on the record that Public Works will not say in the future that they can’t fix brick streets because we don’t have bricks. Barber says that is so.
- Item C — Sandberg has two reservations: (1) it is a retail establishment, and (2) the private equity is only 10%. He says it’s bad public policy to use tax dollars for the benefit of a business at the retail level. It doesn’t add to the economy, but merely shifts the commerce from one ice cream stand to another ice cream stand. Councilman Irving makes his case in favor of the project. He says we can’t use the money for anything else because it’s money allocated specifically for this purpose. He moves to approve; seconded by Turner. Weaver says he will support this, but wants more information. He would also prefer to incentivize manufacturing jobs rather than retail. He wants to know the total balance of outstanding loans. Urich has that info now: 42 total loans, $752,000 current outstanding balance on 11 loans. $231,973 written off as bad loans. $348,000 available for new loans. Have the ability to do two more loans this year, if they were $150,000. Sandberg asks for net present value; staff doesn’t have that. Weaver asks when the account started; Urich says 1989. Motion passes 9-2 (Sandberg, Akeson).
- Item E — Sandberg takes issue with the statement that without this enterprise zone status, development will not happen on Brandywine Drive. He would like to know on what objective information that statement is based. Urich basically says there is no objective information. The statement was based on the number of vacancies in the area. Sandberg asks how much of our budget is sales-tax supported. Answer: 34%. Sandberg asks how much of our budget is property taxes. Answer: 20%. Spears says this sales tax exemption is only on building materials. So if someone moves in there, property tax goes up, sales tax goes up, and the only thing we lose is the sales tax on the building materials. Thus, we come out ahead. Now Spears and Urich say that there are projects “in the pipeline” and that this incentive will help them move along quicker. [So after all that, they falsify the statement on the council communication that said there would be no development if not for this incentive.] Spears/Irving move to approve; passes 9-2 (Sandberg, Akeson).
- Item M — Urich had some general statements to make. Van Auken/Riggenbach move to receive and file; passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Fire Chief Requesting Approval to Accept a $1,558,107.00 GRANT, from the DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), Under the “STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE” (SAFER) GRANT, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents.
Van Auken/Riggenbach move to approve. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager Requesting Authorization to Negotiate and Execute CONTRACT EXTENSIONS with CURRENT CITY VENDORS in Exchange for DISCOUNTED PRICING, for any CONTRACT with an ANNUAL COST of $250,000.00, or Less.
Spain/Van Auken move to approve. Ardis says he’s pleased that we’re doing this, and doesn’t think this has been done before. Motion passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 26 of the Code of the City of Peoria Adding SECTION IX Pertaining to FIBER OPTIC LICENSING AGREEMENTS Allowing for Licensing Agreements for the Long Term Use of City Rights-of-Way, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Agreements.
Spain/Van Auken move to approve. Weaver asks where the contract came from. Answer from Randy Ray (city attorney): Champaign. Sandberg is concerned about the provision that the City Manager can waive or reduce the fee if it will “benefit the city.” He’s concerned that no other fee can be waived or reduced without the Council’s approval. Why is this being left up to the administration? “If the city is going to benefit, it needs to be done by the City Council, not the administration.” Van Auken agrees with Sandberg and asks Urich if he considered having discretion only up to a certain dollar amount, and above that dollar amount it would have to go to the city. Answer from Urich: no. He says the discretion would only be if the city is going to actually use the fiber optic cable, and it’s based on the Champaign ordinance. Weaver questions whether that is made clear in the ordinance. Randy Ray says yes. Spain asks if there’s a situation where the city could derive a different kind of benefit than actual use of the fiber, and whether that would fall under the manager’s discretion. Urich says that would have to come back to the council; this discretion was not intended for secondary benefits. Sandberg says everything should come back to the City Council where the taxpayers will know about it. The final deal should be approved by the whole council. The taxpayers should know what benefit the city is getting. Ardis recommends the item be deferred. Sandberg moves for deferral to change the language; seconded by Weaver. Motion passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 6 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to Adopt ORDINANCE A, OR to Concur with the Recommendation from Staff to Adopt ORDINANCE B, Amending an EXISTING SPECIAL USE, Ordinance No. 16,210, as Amended, in a Class C-2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a SHOPPING CENTER to Add BUILDINGS and Revise SITE DESIGN for the Property Located at 7301 N. RADNOR ROAD, with Conditions.
Irving says this is an $8-10 million local project. He’s gotten lots of support from the community. He moves to approve ordinance A, seconded by Turner. Sandberg asks what the difference is between ordinances A and B. Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes answers that it has to do with whether or not there is a fourth drive-through on the property. That part of the project did not go through the proper process. There was no public hearing on it. Sandberg says that the process should be followed regardless of how much money is being invested. [Irving and Ardis are having a sidebar while Sandberg is talking.] Sandberg says this is a slippery slope. It’s not in the public interest. He’s not supporting A, but would support B. Irving asks why the Zoning Commission recommended ordinance A. Susan Arnhold, one of the owners of the parcel, is given the privilege of the floor. She says this is the third time she’s gone through the process, and each time it’s a $700 fee and three months of time. So what she would like is one additional drive-through, bringing the total to four. She says she understand she needs to comply with all the zoning rules and regulations. But she’s trying to save the 2-3 month delay so she doesn’t lose customers. “You can go to Pekin and they almost give you the land,” she says. [Well, we certainly want to look like Pekin if at all possible!] She feels it would be a waste of time to go back through the process. She wants the drive-through to be an administrative decision.
Sandberg moves for a substitute ordinance to pass ordinance B; seconded by Akeson. Spears asks where the fourth drive-through is on the plan. Landes says it’s not on the plan because it came up verbally at the zoning commission hearing. Spears asks what protection there is for the neighbors of the third drive-up. Landes says there are no buffering requirements because there are no neighbors at the moment. Substitute motion passes 7-4 (Riggenbach, Van Auken, Weaver, Gulley).
ITEM NO. 7 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to Adopt ORDINANCE A (with Conditions and Waiver), Amending Ordinance No. 16,376, a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan, and Ordinance No. 16,467, a Final Plan for VILLAS at GRAND PRAIRIE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1, in a Class R-3 (Single Family Residential) District to Revise BUILDING TYPES and LOCATION of Previously Approved Multi-Family Buildings for the Properties Located at 5200-5300 BLOCK of W. WOODSAGE ROAD, and 8900-9000 BLOCK of N. SCRIMSHAW DRIVE, OR to Concur with Recommendation from Staff to Adopt ORDINANCE B, with Conditions.
Irving moves to approve Ordinance A with a change in the requested waivers (basically to limit the size of the sign); seconded by Spain. Weaver is abstaining because he’s involved in the project.
Sandberg asks for the difference between ordinances A and B. Landes says the only difference has to deal with signs. The zoning ordinance allows only one sign; the petitioner wants three signs that are larger. With Irving’s modification, the signs would not be larger. Sandberg next points out that two Zoning Commissioners abstained from this item during the commission hearing, but then participated in the discussion and advocated for the three signs, which is a violation of the law. That action “distorts the zoning commission’s recommendation,” he says. Because of their inappropriate action, and because only one sign is needed, Sandberg says Ordinance B should be adopted, not Ordinance A.
Irving says he was unaware of the improper activity on the zoning commission. He says it’s “not my job to determine if the developer can afford one sign or three signs.” He still supports ordinance A, as amended. Sandberg says “it is our job to uphold our ordinances.” Spears asks Landes to explain why they need three signs. Landes says the administration believes only one sign is necessary, so perhaps that question would better be answered by the petitioner. Andy Chiou, who represents the development, addresses the council. He says the development is “buried in the back of Woodsage,” which will get more visibility when Orange Prairie Road is extended. So for now, he needs directional signs from Route 91 to locate the development. He says people are desiring apartments in that area. He says they will be “nice signs,” “not gaudy.” Spears asks if these signs are on the property or not on the property, and if you can see the apartments from the road. Answer: the signs would be on the property. Chiou doesn’t know the exact location of where the signs would be placed. Sandberg explains the layout of the development and reiterates that there is no need for three 20′ signs. Irvings asks for the size of the development. Answer: 45 acres. Riggenbach says he’s still disturbed that two members of the zoning commission with an interest in the project were discussing it. So he won’t be able to support it. Motion passes 7-3 (Sandberg, Riggenbach, Akeson), Weaver abstaining.
[See? Crime does pay!]
ITEM NO. 8 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of the SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS C (Package Liquor Store) LIQUOR LICENSE at 5832 N. KNOXVILLE, SUITE K, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.
Riggenbach moves to approve, seconded by Spain. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 9 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Council to Take Action on the SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS A (Tavern) LIQUOR LICENSE at 3410 W. WILLOW KNOLLS ROAD, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to DENY.
Irving/Sandberg move to withdraw the item from the agenda at the petitioner’s request. Passes unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(11-225) Communication from the City Manager and Corporation with Request to Receive and File the REPORT BACK Regarding COUNCIL RULES Pertaining to ATTENDANCE by FOUR or MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS at a COMMUNITY GATHERING, SUPER-MAJORITIES and ELECTRONIC ATTENDANCE.
Spain moves to receive and file, seconded by Van Auken. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
(11-246) Communications from the City Manager and Mayor Ardis with Recommendations as Follows:
A. Communication from the City Manager with Request to Receive and File a REPORT on ISSUES Involving SPRINGDALE HISTORIC CEMETERY;
B. REAPPOINTMENT and APPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the SPRINGDALE CEMETERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, with Request to Concur:
REAPPOINTMENT:
Kent Rotherham (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2015
APPOINTMENT:
Floyd C. Dailey, Jr. (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2015
Riggenbach moves to defer for two weeks, seconded by Turner. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
(11-255) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Request to Direct Staff to IMPLEMENT the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION to CONVERT LOUCKS AVENUE, Between Sheridan Road and McClure Avenue, from a ONE-WAY STREET to a TWO-WAY STREET, With a REQUEST TO DEFER for TWO WEEKS to the AUGUST 9, 2011, Regular City Council Meeting.
Van Auken moves to defer in order to get additional alternatives from the Director of Public Works, seconded by Weaver. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
(11-257) Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of the REVISED AGREEMENT for PHASE II ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (WILHELM BRIDGE) for GROWTH CELL 1A.
Weaver is abstaining due to interests in the area. Irving moves to approve, seconded by Turner. No discussion. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg), with Weaver abstaining.
Akeson moves to approve, seconded by Sandberg. Weaver asks that this be tabled instead. Ardis asks Urich if this will be ready to be discussed in two weeks. He says yes, they just need to talk some things over with the state’s attorney. Motion to defer passes unanimously.
(11-288) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the LOW BID of ORDAZ CONSTRUCTION, in the Amount of $204,435.40, with Authorization Up To $224,878.94, (Additional 10% for Contingencies) for SINR CONTRACT #38 for SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT on VIRGINIA, GIFT, and HANSSLER from University to Sheridan, AND REPORT BACK with Request to Receive and File the REPORT BACK.
Van Auken says these sidewalks were chosen as part of the Sheridan Triangle development. She says this is a strategic project and was chosen because it would have the “biggest bang for the buck.” She says the Sheridan Triangle project would cost $3.2 million to implement in total, and “we don’t have the money.” So this is an effort to give them something. She says the sidewalk policy is not to look for the worst sidewalks in the city and fix them, but to use the money strategically instead, the way we use community block grant money. She doesn’t deny that there are worse sidewalks elsewhere in Peoria. She urges the council to support the funding of the sidewalks, and moves to approve, seconded by Weaver.
Sandberg has a slideshow. He says his problem is with the process. The first picture is Trewyn Park, and then moves onto the sidewalks within two or three blocks, that kids walk to get to school and the park. They are terrible. Really horrible. Some of them are non-existent. He says these are directly adjacent to the Harrison Homes / Southern Gateway projects [another “strategic” area]. He also shows houses of property owners who have invested in the area and how nice their properties look. He then shows a comparison of the east side of Laramie (in the County) and the west side of Laramie (in the city); they look no different. Just gravel on the edge of the road.
Gulley asks if this is the area where we really need to spend the money. The first district has the oldest sidewalks in the City of Peoria. He points out that they’re building new homes on Laramie and there are no sidewalks. And he says that, while the first district has gotten more money for sidewalks than other districts, you have to take into consideration two things: (a) that they are the most in need as their sidewalks are the oldest, and (b) you should look at total city funding in the various districts, which is not addressed in the report. If you were to look at total city investment, the first district would not be at the top of the list. He compares the Harrison School impact zone investment to the Glen Oak School impact zone investment, and he says investment in Harrison is a “drop in the bucket” compared to Glen Oak. Gulley will not be supporting the motion.
Riggenbach points out that the Warehouse District project lies in the first district [of course, it may be moving to the third if the currently proposed map is adopted]. He thinks it would be unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, so he supports the motion.
Akeson says “I think it’s evident that we don’t have a strategy.” She mentions that no one has even mentioned Prospect, where people are expecting change as well because that area was designated as a form district. “I think we’re in a cunundrum,” she says. “It’s complaint-drive, ad-hoc, reactive” the way the policy works today. We’re never going to be able to take care of the sidewalks in the first district, given the way the policy is written. She asks for Director Barber’s input. Barber says the issue is huge. He says it would be a $100+ million project to take care of all the sidewalks in need of repair and would take 50-100 years to complete. He basically makes Akeson’s point that there really is no strategy. He suggests that maybe sidewalk participation is not the best way to accomplish their goal.
Irving says he supports the motion “because I think it’s the right thing to do.” Van Auken says she agrees with Riggenbach. She also says “we had a lot of public input on this.” Sandberg says he’s going to support it because “we have no choice tonight; if we don’t approve it, nothing will get done.” He’s upset that the council has been put in that position.
Gulley asks if everyone in this area is CDBG eligible. Barber says this is the SINR program funded with city capital dollars as well as CDBG funds. He says the neighborhood is income-eligible and meets the CBGD standards.
Motion passes unanimously. [Note that Gulley said he would not be supporting it, but then supported it. Strange.]
(11-297) Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 5 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, Adding a Definition of Dangerous Buildings, with Request to TABLE the ORDINANCE and to Defer the Discussion on DONATIONS of PROPERTY to NOT-FOR-PROFIT GROUPS, and to Provide Information on Protecting Historic Structures in the Historic District.
Van Auken/Riggenbach move to table the motion. Passes unanimously. No discussion.
PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – TOWN OF THE CITY OF PEORIA
ITEM NO. 1 TOWN of the CITY of PEORIA FINANCIAL REPORT for Period Ending 3/31/2011, with Recommendation to Receive and File.
Irving/Turner move to approve. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 2 TOWN of the CITY of PEORIA FINANCIAL REPORT for Period Ending 6/30/2011, with Recommendation to Receive and File.
Irving/Spain move to approve. No discussion. Passes unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Riggenbach wants to recognize churches and others in the city that participated in a service project called “Imagine.” He also highlighted the Family Fun Fest at the new Glen Oak School, and will be back August 20. He also highlighted the “Mission Peoria” service projects organized through the Dream Center downtown. He says there is a lot of pride in our community. He invites everyone to the backpack giveaway this Saturday at 9 a.m. at the Dream Center.
National Night Out Against Crime is Tuesday, August 2.
Urich reports that staff was requested to draft a ten-district map and an eight-district map for consideration by the council in the redistricting process, and those will be up on the City’s website by Friday. These will be rough outlines, Ardis says.
Ardis also asks staff to report back the amount of spending on Glen Oak impact zone vs. Harrison impact zone.
Ardis wishes Irving a happy birthday.
CITIZENS’ OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/TOWN BOARD
I’m running out of battery life in my laptop, so I’m going to skip this portion and start packing up. Have a nice night, everyone!
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Letter Terminating the Wonderful Development