The agenda for Tuesday night’s City Council meeting has enough business on it to keep the council there until the wee hours of the morning — Thursday morning.  Okay, I’m exaggerating.  But it’s a really, really long agenda.  Of note:

• The city is providing a little over $3,000 to various neighborhood associations to help with the cost of producing neighborhood newsletters.  The money comes from a HUD grant.
• The new facade-improvement programs along Prospect (3rd district) and Sheridan (2nd district) roads are getting their first requests for grant funds.  A new “working art studio” on Prospect called “Tittamus-Tottamus” (I don’t make this stuff up, folks) is getting $10,000 and Craig’s Upholstery on Sheridan is getting $14,350.  The funds are for things like replacing glass/glazing, washing/sanding/painting the building exterior, landscaping/fencing, replacing doors/awnings, etc.
• The Heart of Peoria (HOP) Commission wants to expand the borders of the HOP to include more of the Center and East Bluffs.  All the affected neighborhood associations were in favor of being added to the HOP area.
• The City wants to change the way parking tickets are enforced, adopting what’s called an “administrative adjudication system” similar to the way Normal, Chicago, Champaign, and other cities handle them.  Basically, it would mean unpaid parking tickets are sent to a collection agency instead of through the court system.
• Bar Louie and Famous Dave’s are switching places, and Bar Louie wants to be able to stay open until 2:00 a.m. Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.  Just to make things confusing, Bar Louie is currently located in Famous Dave’s old location across the street from the Shoppes.  So, Famous Dave’s is moving back to its original location and Bar Louie is moving into Famous Dave’s current spot in the Shoppes.  Clear as mud?
• As you probably know, the city has set up “institutional districts” in certain areas, most notably Bradley University.  Institutions like Bradley can do whatever they want within their institutional district, but they’re not allowed to stray outside of it, the idea being that adjacent neighborhoods want some form of predictability and stability — i.e., they don’t want to be worried about the institution taking over their neighborhood.  Of course, that’s exactly what’s worrying the Arbor District as Bradley keeps buying houses in that neighborhood in an attempt to expand westward.  What Bradley is going to ask at some point is for their institutional boundary to be changed, and when that happens the council will have to vote on it.  An item on the agenda tonight would require a 2/3 supermajority for such an expansion to pass.  Expect lots of discussion (or a deferral) on this one.
• The Seventh-Day Adventist Church on Knoxville wants to build a youth center and parking lot addition, but it encroaches into the adjacent neighborhood.  Staff recommends allowing the parking lot, but not the youth building.
• Finally, the council will resume arguing about a parking agreement with AmerenCILCO that was deferred from an earlier meeting.

Whew!  And that’s just the “highlights.” If you go to the meeting, bring a pillow.

The Journal Star has an excellent report (it was written by Jennifer Davis, so I expected nothing less) on the special council meeting last night. Last year, new council members Bob Manning and Barbara Van Auken were just learning the ropes of city budget planning. This year, they’re ready to make good on their campaign promises of increased fire protection and elimination of the regressive garbage tax.

Mayor Ardis is helping that cause by starting early to establish budget priorities and communicate them proactively to city staff (in the past, the city manager would write up a proposed budget and the council would react to it). But the big question is, how do you pay for more fire protection and eliminate a $2.4 million revenue source (garbage tax)?

In 2007, Mayor Jim Ardis wants the city to fully restore Fire Station 11 and find a “dedicated total public safety revenue stream.” Exactly what that is, Ardis admits he doesn’t know yet….

One idea is to take public safety funding off the property tax bills and replace it with a separate public safety tax. The difference is that the public safety tax could be applied to everyone who benefits from public safety services. Right now, non-profit organizations like hospitals, churches, and charities don’t pay property taxes, yet they benefit from police and fire protection.

If the protection we all share were paid for through a public safety tax instead of property taxes, the cost of that protection would be shared by all as well. Spreading out the cost would be more equitable, and may actually lower the amount homeowners pay for public safety services while increasing overall revenue at the same time.

Council members Van Auken and Manning also are throwing around ways to help strengthen Peoria’s older neighborhoods:

Van Auken also supports helping stabilize the older neighborhoods by freezing their property taxes so any additional increase in property tax revenue can be reinvested in those areas, somewhat of a pseudo TIF district. […] Third District Councilman Bob Manning suggested a similar “urban renewal” plan to Van Auken’s – freezing property taxes in certain areas to entice people to move back into the city’s core and reinvest.

It should be mentioned that these are just ideas and nobody has run the numbers yet to see how much such a plan would cost. This meeting was more of a brainstorming session. If the cost estimates come back too large, then the whole idea may be scrapped. But I’m glad to see them (forgive me for using this cliche) “thinking outside the box.”

That said, I doubt this plan is going to get off the ground. Whenever you freeze property taxes, you’re taking money out of district 150’s pocket, and they can’t afford any more revenue loss. And the state of the schools is one of the prime reasons people aren’t moving to the older neighborhoods (crime being the other reason) in the first place — not high property taxes. So this plan would seem to be self-defeating.

John Morris had several ideas, including one to make Peoria “a walkable city”:

He suggests $2 million each year from capital for sidewalks connecting Peoria’s neighborhoods to its assets, like the library and parks. “I can’t walk my two children from my home in the heart of the city to the library without feeling I’m taking our lives in my hands,” he said.

Well, there’s a difference between making the “heart of the city” more walkable and making the whole city more walkable.

In the heart of the city, sidewalks will help, but only if it’s coupled with slower traffic and a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. For instance, not long ago I walked from my house in the Uplands to the Blockbuster video store in Campustown. Walking on my street with its on-street parking and 25 mph speed limit was very pleasant. Walking on Main Street was a nightmare. Main Street is five lanes, which means traffic moves much faster than the posted 30 mph speed limit, and the narrow sidewalks abut the street, making you feel very unsafe as cars go whipping past you.

In the newer parts of the city, as you go north, these areas were not created to be “walkable,” but to be accessible only by automobile. Adding sidewalks (other than for recreational walking around the neighborhood) is not going to allow you to walk to the park or the library, unless you’re willing to walk several miles along an arterial road. My dad and I have walked down the shoulder of Route 150 from Charter Oak Road to Glen Hollow and let me tell you, it’s not a pleasant walk on which you’d want to take your family. And when you get to the end, you still haven’t seen a park or library. It would take some radical changes to make these newer neighborhoods “walkable” in the way Morris describes.

There were more ideas that I may discuss in future posts, but this one is long enough!

The city council on Tuesday will also be considering a recommendation from the zoning commission that provides some relief to businesses in the older areas of town that have unpaved (rock or gravel) parking lots or loading areas.  Right now, if someone complains about such lots, the city can require that the business pave their lot within a year of receiving notice.  Under new rules proposed by the zoning commission, they would not have to pave their lot or loading area unless there is a change of use or expansion of the business.

The new rules apply only to businesses whose gravel lots were created prior to 1972.  The city established rules requiring lots to be paved that year, so any business that established a gravel lot after 1972 did so illegally and would still be subject to the old rules (requiring pavement within a year).

This is a good example of the city showing some flexibility in their zoning to take into consideration the concerns of long-time businesses in the older parts of town.  This sounds like a good compromise by the zoning commission.