Category Archives: City Council

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Supermajority restriction fails

14 Comments

Only three council members voted in favor of the zoning commission’s recommendation to require a supermajority of the council to expand the boundaries of an institutional district. The general consensus was that the system isn’t broken, so they didn’t want to “fix” it.

One of the council members trotted out the popular notion that there’s no harm being done by Bradley because they’re buying out their neighbors at above-market prices — in some cases, five times the property value. It sounds like they’re a really good neighbor, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t you just love to get a cool half-million for your $100,000 house?

The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the whole neighborhood. Take the example of Bradley University buying the houses along Maplewood across from the Fieldhouse. Yes, the people on Maplewood are getting a great deal, but what about the rest of the Arbor District? What about the properties on Cooper or Rebecca?

The answer is that the neighborhood as a whole is destabilized.

Why? Because who wants to buy in a neighborhood when the university is expanding west and that beautiful historical house on Cooper may be the next to be acquired within a few years? It’s not the family who wants to put down roots in the neighborhood and raise their kids there. It’s someone looking to buy a property for $100,000 and hopefully get $500,000 for it when the university decides it wants it.

And for those neighbors who are already there, how many of them want to put new landscaping around their house? Or put in new windows? Or new siding? Or even a new paint job? If the residents reasonably expect the university to keep moving west, it would be silly to put a lot of capital improvements into their houses.

Speculative purchases. Deferred maintenance. This is what happens when institutions disregard the boundaries of their institutional district.

But the council, judging by the rhetoric of the “nay” voters, thinks everything is hunky-dory with Bradley’s property acquisitions. They’re not interested in taking any action against Bradley’s encroachment into the Arbor District, let alone enacting the modest proposal that came before the council tonight. As far as they’re concerned, Bradley’s doing the neighborhood a favor by disobeying the city’s own ordinance.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School debate contentious enough without cynicism

5 Comments

I finally figured out what it is that really gets my goat in the debate over where District 150 wants to put its new school. It’s cynicism.

A letter printed on the Journal Star editorial page today (under the misnomer “Another View,” since it’s the same view as the JS Editorial Board’s) is a good example. Even though I disagree with her, Dawn Gersich of Peoria makes some good arguments in favor of the Glen Oak Park site for the new school. Those are appropriate and helpful to the debate. What is not helpful is the cynical eye she casts on those who disagree:

Regarding the proposed school site in Glen Oak Park, I have yet to hear, “What’s best for the children?”

And:

The fate of our neighborhoods, indeed our nation, is dependent on the investment we place in our children. It’s a shame that some people get caught up in politics and forget that we should be focused on what is best for kids.

See? Those who oppose the Glen Oak Park site are not concerned about what’s best for the children and are “caught up in politics.” This attribution of ulterior motives is known as cynicism.

Ms. Gersich is not the only cynical one. Garrie Allen said in an interview on WCBU last week that he believed the city council and others have “an agenda” to “clean up” the East Bluff. In other words, he thinks they’re more interested in urban renewal than what’s best for the children’s education. Mr. Matheson has made similar remarks.

This kind of rhetoric is horribly misleading, and it is not healthy for the debate.

First of all, Peorians want District 150 to succeed. They want the best for their children and all children in the city. They want the schools to be second to none so people want to move into District 150 instead of out of it. The debate is not between those who care about the children and those who care about politics. We all care about the children.

Secondly, doing what’s best for the children cannot be divorced from considering what’s best for the city and what’s best for the financial health of the school district.

You can dismiss city cooperation as “politics” if you want, but the school is not an enclave, uneffected by and not affecting the city. If urban flight continues, if crime increases, if property values continue to go down, it’s not just the city that loses, it’s the school district. They lose students, performance, property tax revenue, and federal funds. Similarly, if schools are in disrepair and test scores are low, it’s not just the school district that suffers, it’s the city, because what young family wants to live in a failing school district? The city and school district must work together for their mutual success, and that directly affects the children.

Another unpleasant subject when determining “what’s best for the children” is money. You know what would be best for my children? The best private tutor(s) money can buy, then college at Harvard or Oxford. Are my kids going to get that? No. I don’t have the money to do that. When you want to do what’s best for the children, you have to what’s best for them within your means.

The school district is in bad financial shape. Contrary to popular belief, their ambitious plan to build new schools was not based purely on “what’s best for the children.” The plan came about as a way for the district to save money. The idea is to eliminate old, inefficient buildings, and consolidate into fewer, larger, but more efficient buildings. Educational experts will tell you that “what’s best for the children” are small, neighborhood schools — not large, consolidated schools. In fact, a District 150 subcommittee headed up by Bradley professor Bernard Goitein reported exactly that to the school board before the master building plan was put together.

I say all this, not to say that the school board doesn’t have the best interests of the students at heart (I believe they do), but to point out that the issue is not as black and white as some letter writers would have you believe. Both sides in this debate want what’s best for the children, but have different views on how to accomplish that within the financial means of the district and in cooperation with the city.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Zoning committee recommends supermajority to change institutional boundaries

3 Comments

The City Council will decide Tuesday night whether to require a supermajority — a 2/3 vote — to change the boundaries of an institutional zoning district.

Institutions such as colleges, hospitals, and universities have a special zoning designation in Peoria. It’s known as “N1,” or “institutional,” and it has advantages for the institutions and the city.

For the institution, it gives them a self-contained campus area within which they are free to do almost anything (there are some limits, of course). They can set up restaurants, libraries, book stores, parking, athletic fields, etc., without having to go to the city for permission.

The city, on the other hand, benefits from, first of all, not having to deal with every little change or request that these institutions want to do within their campus area. But more importantly, this arrangement provides stability to the neighborhoods surrounding the institutional district. People can purchase homes in abutting neighborhoods with a reasonable expectation the institution won’t be encroaching into their subdivision.

Currently, to change the boundary of an N1-zoned district requires a simple majority of the council. But the zoning commission is recommending the council change that to a supermajority for institutional boundaries that have been in effect less than 10 years.

The zoning commission’s rationale for this change is to promote even greater stability:

Requiring a super majority vote of the Council will promote stability in the Institutional District and abutting neighborhoods. An inter-reliance between the Institution and the adjacent neighborhood exists: a stable institution suggests a more predictable market place in the adjacent neighborhood, which promotes stability; a stable adjacent neighborhood likewise encourages stability for the Institution. An example of an unstable, unpredictable market place is one of speculative purchases, and deferred maintenance.

Even though this change affects several institutions (Bradley University, Illinois Central College, Methodist Medical Center of Illinois, OSF St. Francis Medical Center, Proctor Hospital, and Midstate College), I have a suspicion that the reason for this change is because of Bradley University’s not-so-subtle acquisition of houses in the Arbor District and plans to expand their campus west.

The text of the proposed ordinance states (emphasis mine):

12.3.1 An amendment which adds territory to an existing institutional district, which territory is contiguous to a boundary which previously has been changed less then ten (10) years prior to the date of the amendment, shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of Council Members actually voting, but in no case shall an amendment be passed by less than the affirmative votes of six (6) Council Members.

Just two months ago, Bradley’s institutional boundary changed slightly to allow them space to put in a transformer as part of an electrical upgrade to their Global Communications building. Given the wording of this ordinance, it appears the ten-year provision will be counted from May 2006 when that last boundary change was put into effect.

In any case, when Bradley comes to the council asking for their institutional boundary to be extended to the west, it would take a 2/3 vote of the council (that’s 8 votes, assuming everyone is present) to approve it, if this ordinance passes Tuesday.

Nevertheless, neither Bradley nor the other affected institutions appear to be worried about it. They didn’t even respond to the zoning commission’s request for input.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission

News flash: Shadid okays PBC bill

2 Comments

George P. ShadidDuring a presentation about the Public Building Commission at tonight’s City Council meeting, it was revealed that Senator Shadid advised the Governor to approve SB2477, a bill he had previously asked the Governor not to sign pending public input on the site of District 150’s new school building.

“Senate Bill 2477 would allow the Peoria Public Building Commission the temporary authority to enter into construction contracts with Peoria School District 150.”

City Council, City of Peoria, Southern Gateway, TIF

To TIF or not to TIF: that is the question

6 Comments

I’m not a big fan of tax increment finance districts (TIFs). I’ve seen them used irresponsibly (Midtown Plaza, for instance), and I’ve seen them divide this community. People are soured on TIFs. However, when used properly, TIFs can be a good thing. Sometimes, some places, you really do need tax incentives or development really won’t happen.

The Southern Gateway — and specifically the Eagle View Biotech Business Park — is one of those places.

The amount of money it would take to rehabilitate this area is enormous ($125,000/acre) and enough to dissuade even the most committed urban developer. Jennifer Davis gives an excellent overview of the city’s plans in today’s Journal Star. You can also read the Request for Council Action (PDF file) on the city’s website.

There’s a rule for determining eligibility for TIF funding. It’s called the “but for” test. According to www.illinois-tif.com, “When considering an area for TIF designation, municipal officials must ask the question ‘Will the same kind of private investment occur here without an incentive?’” I think the answer to that question for the Southern Gateway is definitely “no.”

I couldn’t say that about Midtown Plaza. I think that area could have been redeveloped without a TIF. Whether or not a TIF was needed around the Sears block, it certainly didn’t need to be extended for an unnecessary underground parking deck. It’s because of these and other abuses that Peorians are gun-shy about another TIF. I understand that.

But the Southern Gateway is different. The city isn’t trying to bring in a shopping center or visitor’s center or touristy stuff here — it wants to attract industry. And industry means real, well-paying jobs. Peoria needs to attract more industry, and putting it in this area along the river makes sense. We don’t want to see this industry go to other cities, nor do we want to see it going in a suburban corn field.

TIFs get a bad rap in Peoria, and deservedly so. But this time, I’m for it. It’s for this kind of project that TIF laws were made.

City Council, City of Peoria

On the slate: June 6, 2006

7 Comments

The council agenda has come out. A few items of note:

  • PAAG may not get their million dollars back, but they’re going to “make the city pay,” so to speak, one way or another. In case you’ve forgotten, the Peoria Area Advancement Group, LLC (PAAG) “loaned” the city a million dollars way back in 1998 to explore the financial feasibility of buying Peoria’s water works from Illinois American Water. So confident were they that it would be affordable, they promised not to ask for the money back if a buyout wasn’t feasible. Once it was determined that it in fact wasn’t feasible under the criteria stipulated by PAAG, they decided they wanted their money back anyway. It’s awfully hard to part with a million bucks, especially when you didn’t get your way. Now they’re demanding arbitration over the matter to try to recoup their foolish investment, and the city is hiring legal help to rebuff them. Legal fees are estimated to be anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 or more.
  • City Manager Randy Oliver is up for a raise. If the council approves, Oliver’s salary will go from $149,500 to $153,985 (up 3%). Here’s something curious: he also gets an “automobile allowance” of $500/month, which is also up for an increase to $575/month. I have no idea how much Mr. Oliver is required to drive for his position, but wouldn’t it be cheaper for him to drive a car from the city’s fleet? It doesn’t seem like a guy who makes over $150,000/year really needs an “automobile allowance,” does it?
  • That didn’t take long — just a couple weeks after Ferrell-Madden Associates suggested that a TIF district would be needed to revitalize the Warehouse District, here it is on the agenda for Tuesday night. Actually, it’s a recommended TIF (tax increment financing) district for the whole “Southern Gateway,” which includes the Warehouse District (to be rebranded “the Riverfront Arts District”), the River’s Edge Redevelopment Initiative, and the Eagle View Biotech Park. I predict this will elicit no small amount of discussion. After I have a chance to read up on the plans, I’ll write a separate post on this one.
City Council, City of Peoria

The Tax Man

4 Comments

Over Memorial Day weekend, I took my family downtown for our annual lunch outing. I don’t know how it got started, but for several years now we pick a date in May to go downtown, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the “Arts in Education” groups that play in courthouse square, then go in and pay our property taxes for the year.

I know, that last part sounds like a downer, but because of the music and food, it makes the whole experience a little more palatable. This year we paid three times as much as previous years because we bought a bigger house last September to accommodate our growing family. It was the last day of the “Arts in Education” performances, and we heard a little of the Jazz All-Stars, but couldn’t stay long because there’s no shade where they were playing. We went over to the fountain area, which is surrounded by trees. There we sat in the shade and listened to the third grade class from Charter Oak School perform. They were really good — their music teacher is very talented and entertaining. You could tell he was having fun, and so were the kids.

After paying my taxes, it got me wondering how much property taxes contribute to Peoria’s income, and what those taxes pay for. So, I consulted the City of Peoria’s 2006 Budget, which is conveniently available online on the city’s website. I was surprised by what I learned:

Property taxes, which are projected to bring $20.9 million to city coffers, only account for 14.2% of the city’s total revenue. Of course, the city collects all kinds of other taxes, most notably a 1.5% sales tax which accounts for 15% of the city’s revenue. That’s right, sales taxes bring in more money than property taxes. The city also collects taxes on gasoline, utilities, and hotels/restaurants/amusements (HRA).

Where does the money go? Mostly for personnel costs. In 2006, personnel costs are expected to account for 75% of expenditures — that includes benefits, which are rising astronomically as we all know. In fact, between 2005 and 2006, benefits increased 15.9%, and benefits alone account for 24% of city expenditures. The city has 787 employees (I’m assuming this is when fully staffed), and that includes police officers, firefighters, public works employees, council members, and administrative staff.

They say you can tell a lot about a person’s values by looking at where he spends his money. If that can be applied to cities, then Peoria values public safety and public works. Police services account for 19% of expenditures, fire protection 13%, and public works 17% — that’s not including benefits.

It’s easy to criticize the city for not providing more police/fire protection, but the question always remains — how do you pay for it? What other services do you cut? What taxes or fees do you raise? This is why it’s easier to be a blogger than a council person, especially around budget time.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

LaHood mediation meeting not inspiring confidence

2 Comments

Nothing cures distrust like more secrecy.

Today’s Word on the Street column reports that the public won’t be allowed to witness Ray LaHood’s mediation skills when he tries to broker a compromise on the location of a new school in the city’s East Bluff. LaHood will be meeting behind closed doors at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, May 31, with officials from the city, school board and park board. They’ll have a press conference after the meeting.

It appears I’m not the only one who wonders why LaHood is getting involved in this issue. In a letter to the editor that was also published in today’s Journal Star, Donald R. Jackson says:

It is too bad LaHood didn’t make himself available to mediate the conflict between the School Board, Dr. Kay Royster and members of the community who supported her then and still do. LaHood was asked to intervene, but he declined stating that he had no control or influence over the board.

In one sense, these two situations are different: the Royster issue involved one public body that was internally divided — the school board; the school siting issue involves three public bodies — the school board, park board, and city — who are at odds with each other, but are not internally divided.

But in another sense, the situations aren’t different at all. In both cases, it’s a local government issue that doesn’t warrant the time of a U.S. Congressman to mediate. What’s next? Will he be mediating a compromise between the city council and the county board regarding jail fees and election commissions?

And if that weren’t enough, he’s also related to the park board director. Doesn’t that bother anyone? I’m not trying to impugn his integrity, but LaHood seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his actions. He should have enough judgement to see that his in-law relationship to Bonnie Noble gives at least the appearance of impropriety and bias when he’s trying to mediate a dispute that involves the park district.

Then to have the meeting behind closed doors is just the icing on the cake. As the WOTS column points out, decisions made in closed-door meetings are one of the biggest points of contention! And I loved this line:

Tim Butler, LaHood’s spokesman, defended the decision to have the meeting closed, saying there would not be any decisions or determinations and therefore still plenty of time for public input.

There won’t be any decisions? What exactly is the point of this meeting? How do you resolve a dispute without making any decisions? Is Ray just going to do one of those little team-building exercises — like having Councilman Manning fall backwards while Ken Hinton and Tim Cassidy catch him so they can all build up trust for each other?

Despite all my reservations, I nevertheless hope that something good comes out of this meeting. I hope LaHood proves wrong all my fears. But most of all, I hope Glen Oak School remains in the heart of the East Bluff, and that the school board will learn to be more transparent in the future so we don’t have to go through all this rigmarole.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup 5/23

2 Comments

Jennifer Davis did such a good job summing up the council meeting last night, I’m going to cheat and say just read her article in the Journal Star.  But I would like to make just a couple of comments about last night’s meeting.

First, it was loooong — over four hours, which is unusual these days.  When they finally got to Mayor Ardis’s plans to make the city more business-friendly, they had already been at it almost three hours, leading local businessman Lee Graves to thank the “new council,” tongue-in-cheek, for holding shorter meetings than earlier councils.  That got a laugh from everyone.

Second, I found the rhetoric during the parking discussion fascinating.  The council decided on a 9-2 vote to offer free parking for two hours at a time during the day (see my previous post for more details), but only after a lot of discussion.  During that discussion, some council members talked about how people would rather walk a couple blocks for free parking than pay for the parking that is closest to the business they’re patronizing.

That’s funny.  Just a few weeks ago, the council voted to put an unnecessary parking deck under museum square based on their belief that people would never even walk across the street from one of the surrounding lots or decks.  We were told then that we live in a northern climate here in Peoria and no one is going to walk a block or two in the rain or cold.  Now we’re told that they will walk a couple blocks — if the parking is free.  Huh.

Well, based on this new information, I think the council should reconsider their plans to build that underground parking deck.  Let’s just provide free parking at any of the surrounding lots or decks by having the museum validate visitors’ parking tickets.  Compared to parking validation, I wonder how many years it would take for the city to get a return on its investment for the parking deck.

City Council, City of Peoria

Ardis: Status quo is not acceptable; Peoria must become more business-friendly

3 Comments

Peoria has a reputation for not being especially business-friendly, but Mayor Ardis wants to change that. He’s proposing the city implement nineteen specific changes and/or improvements in a six-page Business Task Force Report (read it here) that was placed on the council agenda for Tuesday. The report was a collaborative effort with Third District Councilman Bob Manning, Fifth District Councilman Patrick Nichting, and local businessman Lee Graves.

The changes are placed under four major categories, or action items:

  1. Better information and communication regarding the development process.
  2. Reduced time frames for permits and zoning certificates.
  3. Changes in codes and/or policies that will facilitate development and redevelopment.
  4. Customer service and friendly, helpful attitude is a priority and goal for all city employees and departments.

Some of the highlights of the plan: The city is working to develop a “Developer’s Handbook” that would be “a guide to assist customers in the development process, containing regulations, processes, and policies related to development approval.” They would publish it in hard copy and also digital form, presumably to put on the city’s and/or Chamber of Commerce’s website. The goal is to have this project done by September this year.

The report also calls for “a complete rewrite of the city’s comprehensive plan.” This plan hasn’t been updated since 1992. The first phase of that rewrite is happening this weekend — the development of a form-based code for the Heart of Peoria. The rest of the comprehensive plan is tentatively scheduled to be completed by January 2008. That may sound like a long time, but if you’ve ever seen the comprehensive plan (it’s huge), you know that’s a pretty ambitious goal.

City employees would receive customer service training under this plan in order to improve their attitude and professionalism in dealing with city customers. I’ve never had to work with the departments a developer would need to consult, so I can’t comment on their attitude or professionalism. However, the city employees I have dealt with, both in the treasurer’s office and the city clerk’s office, have all been friendly, helpful, and professional.

There are also several items that involve regularly-scheduled meetings between different departments to improve communication, and several very specific items that were undoubtedly brought up by developers as being pet peeves of theirs when working with the city. Many items have already been completed. My favorite is item 2A: they reduced the time it takes to get residential building permits from one day to one hour. Now that’s process improvement!

This is a big step in the right direction. Peoria should be more business-friendly, and this document shows the city is aware of the problem and working to correct it. Kudos to the Business Task Force for their work on this plan.