Following a couple of raging parties in the neighborhoods surrounding Bradley University, Second District Councilperson Barbara Van Auken promised to propose “a $1,000 fine for both the host(s) and the property owner if it’s owner-occupied.” That proposal will be presented to the City Council at tomorrow evening’s meeting.

The municipal code already has the following fines in place:

(a) A person who knowingly enters or remains in any house, building, yard or other premises, other than premises licensed to sell alcoholic liquor, under circumstances where the person knows or reasonably should know that alcoholic liquor is being illegally possessed or consumed by persons under the age of 21 years shall be guilty of a petty offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200.00 nor more than $500.00.

(b) It is unlawful for a parent, legal guardian or other person to knowingly permit a person under the age of 18 years old in his or her custody to violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be fined not less than $500.00.

The ordinance requested by Van Auken would add the following:

(c) Any owner or person in actual or constructive possession of a property, including, but not limited to, an occupant or tenant of property who suffers, allows, consents to, acquiesces by failure to prevent, or expressly assents or agrees to a violation of paragraph (a) of this section shall be guilty of a petty offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000.00.

It is hoped that this ordinance will motivate property owners and landlords to evict chronic disturbers of the peace by hitting them where it hurts — in their pocketbook. I wonder how property managers feel about this ordinance. I can tell you that homeowners and responsible renters in Bradley’s adjacent neighborhoods love it.

In response to a couple of recent, over-the-top, raging parties around the Bradley area (well-reported by PeoriaIllinoisan), Second District Councilperson Barbara Van Auken is proposing raising the fines for noise violations and criminal activity to $1,000. She wrote in an e-mail to Uplands residents:

I want to update you on activities related to the riotous weekend you and your neighbors experienced. Uplands President Goitein has talked with Bradley Security Chief Baer who, in turn, is meeting with BU officials about what happened and why. I also spoke with VP Gary Anna who was very concerned about the events and promised to personally look into them. He is also supportive of […] hefty fines to property owners and party hosts. Additionally, Chief Settingsgaard is investigating the situation and plans to talk with Chief Baer about coordinating their efforts to put a halt to these raucous parties. He, too, is strongly supportive of the hefty fine suggestion.

I talked with both Randy Oliver and Randy Ray about fines to hosts and property owners. It cannot depend on how many calls we get about a party–one call is enough. If, in fact, there’s ordinance violations, e.g., noise, and/or criminal activity, e.g., underage drinking, at a party, I’m proposing a $1,000 fine for both the host(s) and the property owner if it’s owner-occupied. If the property owner is a landlord, I’m proposing that the individual–within 30 days– pay the $1,000 fine or present documentation to the Legal Department that eviction proceedings are in process or complete. While there are responsible landlords who almost never know about party activities at their property; once they know, they need to take immediate action–not just promise it won’t happen again. I’ve heard that too many times, and the problem goes on for months.

This is welcome news. I hope Van Auken’s proposal makes it to the council soon and is passed. There needs to be greater consequences for parties that involve “150 people fighting in the street” and require the use of pepperball guns to break them up.

Despite its breach of contract and public endangerment, Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) was rewarded Tuesday night with a fat no-bid contract to do some rail improvements along Allen Road. I’m guessing this “see no evil” approach is the city’s way of saying “thank you” to a company that has conspired with them to stop serving Carver Lumber via the Kellar Branch.

City staff had the audacity to defend CIRY’s record of service, insisting as they did before the Surface Transportation Board (STB) that CIRY has been delivering Carver’s shipments within two hours of when Union Pacific places the cars on the western spur. As Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) ably argued in a letter to the STB yesterday rebutting the city’s claim:

While the [city’s] letter claims that the “records show” that CIRY made deliveries “no more than two hours after receiving the car from Union Pacific,” this is not what the records show. Even if we were to believe these belatedly-produced, unverified “records”, they show notification times, not UP delivery times. It is also a matter of fact in the record that Carver routinely has to notify CIRY of UP deliveries because CIRY has no local presence.

David Jordan explains how long it really takes CIRY to deliver shipments:

The fact is, Union Pacific’s “Peoria Wayfreight” works five days a week, Sunday thru Thursday beginning at 5:00pm. A trip up to Pioneer Jct. is usually the first job for the wayfreight, which does this on Mondays and Wednesdays. Basically, UP delivers to CIRY in the early evening, but CIRY’s crew does not work the Pioneer Jct. to Pioneer Park line until late morning or early afternoon the following day (if there are any cars). [Assuming] that CIRY receives notice from the UP the following morning that these cars have been delivered […] UP physically interchanges these cars to CIRY the prior evening and then some 18-20 hours later, CIRY delivers to Carver Lumber.

That’s assuming that CIRY receives notice from UP in a timely manner, which isn’t necessarily the case, as Pioneer points out that Carver has had to notify CIRY on occasion as well. But who cares if Carver is getting adequate service? Certainly not the city. To the city, Carver is not a business that provides 50 good-paying jobs plus property and sales taxes to the economy; rather, they’re just obstructionists standing in the way of a hiking/biking trail the Park District wants to build.

As I explained in a previous post, the multi-billion dollar company American Financial Realty Trust (through their subsidiary First States Investors) recently bought the National City Bank building downtown (the old Commercial Bank building). That bank has a pedestrian walkway and underground vaults that encroach on the public way. Therefore, the city is supposed to be collecting ten cents per square foot on that encroachment annually.

Action was deferred last week while the staff answered some questions from the council. Those answers were released today. I’d like to simply look at the whole request and comment as I go:

First States Investors 4500 LLC, as the new owners of the National City Bank Building at 301 SW Adams, seeks the City of Peoria’s permission to continue using the pedestrian walkway and underground storage vaults on the property. Since both the walkway and the storage vaults are encroachments upon the public way, the buyer is seeking assurances that the City of Peoria will allow the continued use of the property. The buyer and seller were concerned that any refusal by the City of Peoria to allow the continued use and enjoyment of the encroachments would prevent the fullest utilization of the property and would require the parties to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the sale.

This part is completely reasonable. They want to be able to continue using the pedestrian walkway and underground vaults. The city can easily provide them assurances regarding this request. It’s the next part that defies logic:

Though § 26-111 of the Municipal Code, provides that a building owner pay .10/square foot as an annual fee for any encroachment upon the public way, the City of Peoria has not collected such a fee for a number of years.

Why not? That question was not answered in this new communication from staff. It’s apparent that nobody authorized the staff to stop collecting these fees. They just stopped, and now they want to use their negligence or deliberate unauthorized action to justify the continuation of that policy:

It would be unreasonable to begin collecting same relative to this transaction given the number of years the encroachments have existed.

No, what’s unreasonable is that staff has failed to do their job and are now shamelessly flaunting it.

The language of the ordinance provides for the building owners to provide proof of adequate public liability and property damage insurance prior to commencing any reconstruction, repair or other maintenance of the encroachments. Additionally, the Directors of Public Works and Inspections must authorize and monitor any repairs or reconstruction of the encroachments such that the City of Peoria is assured that the integrity of the public way is maintained.

Of course they should provide insurance for their own encroachment. The fee isn’t assessed to cover that. As far as the directors of Public Works and Inspections authorizing and monitoring any repairs or reconstruction, I think it’s fair to ask if they’ve been doing that, or if such monitoring also ceased “a number of years” ago.

The encroachment square footage, according to the Assessor’s Office, is 750 s.f. over the alley and 848 s.f. under the alley. If the annual fee were collected on this property, it would amount to $159.80. The land and building value is more than $4,000,000 and the City is receiving tax revenue on same. We believe collection stopped in the 1980’s.

The implication seems to be here that the amount is so small in comparison to the property tax revenue the city gets that it’s not worth collecting. Hogwash. The city collects lots of petty fines from businesses that pay plenty of property taxes to the city. The city by rights should charge them for the fees they haven’t paid since “the 1980’s.” That’s over $4,000 for the past 26 years.

Perhaps the most comical part of this is that according to this request, the company buying the bank building hasn’t even asked to get out of the fee — the only thing they’ve asked for is assurance that they can continue using the walkway and vaults; i.e., that the city won’t make them tear them out ala Peoria Heights vs. Alexis. Why city staff is insisting that the city stop collecting fees is a mystery.

But if that’s really what they want, then Patrick Nichting is right: they should include an amendment to the municipal code that repeals this fee. If a multi-billion dollar company shouldn’t have to pay it, then certainly no one else should.

The council meeting was relatively short, mostly because a good number of items were deferred. Although, I have to give credit to Mayor Ardis for reining in debates — after watching several council meetings since he took over as mayor, I’ve noticed that he stresses brevity and tries to cut off debate once the council members start repeating themselves.

The council questioned staff regarding why fees have not been collected on banks that encroach on the public way, and deferred approval until they get some answers. Staff was also asked to report how much money the city has been losing because of this practice. Councilman Nichting made an excellent point as well — if the staff comes back in two weeks proposing the council continue to not collect these fees, they should bring back a request to change the municipal code so that it conforms to the city’s practices.

Councilman Nichting actually had two — count ’em, two — excellent points last night. He also questioned why the Peoria Civic Center (PCC) is giving part of their hotel tax (part of the “H” in “HRA”) to the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (PACVB). The PACVB works on behalf of the entire tri-county area, yet only City of Peoria hotels pay HRA taxes. So the whole tri-county benefits, but the funding is coming disproportionately from Peoria hotels. Good catch. That item was deferred two weeks.

A day after the school board voted unanimously to support historic landmark status for Irving Primary School, the city council voted unanimously to make it official. The designation protects the building from demolition and the exterior from modification. The inside can be renovated and repartitioned, however, to accommodate alternative uses.

Gary Sandberg asked why the Nebraska overpass on I-74 wasn’t finished yet. IDOT officials had promised the council it would be completed in June of this year, and it’s still not open. Breaking that connection, in concert with the other I-74 construction and closures, has meant longer response times for emergency vehicles and greater inconvenience for Peoria motorists who have to drive further to get across town at a time when gas prices are soaring. Not a big deal if it were only closed for a few months, but it’s been over a year and a half now. Why isn’t it completed?

In addition to this, there were a few other notable items of business and some interesting citizen requests to address the council, which have been ably reported by Jennifer Davis in today’s Journal Star.