Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Ordinance against loud motorcycles should be enforced

4 Comments

I disagree with Bill Dennis on whether the noise ordinance should pass the council tonight (I think it should pass), but I agree with one thing he said: “an overly loud motorcycle wakes people up in the middle of the night just like a ‘boom-car’ does.”

When Police Chief Settingsgaard spoke at the Uplands Residential Association meeting, several people brought up the fact that loud motorcycles were much more of a nuisance in our neighborhood than boom cars. In fact, we meet in a basement in the center of a church with thick walls, and during the meeting we could clearly hear a loud motorcycle go by, but at no point did we hear any boom cars.

What the chief told us was that (1) there’s already an ordinance against loud pipes on motorcycles, but that (2) it is not enforced. Why isn’t it enforced? The police have not received any complaints about it. Councilwoman Van Auken, who was also at the meeting, said she’s never received a complaint from a constituent on loud motorcycles either.

The chief likened this issue to the jaywalking situation in town not long ago. Jaywalking laws are not usually enforced either, and no one generally complains about it. When someone did complain and the police enforced jaywalking laws one day, Peorians got all in a tizzy about it. So now you’ll have to forgive him for being a bit gun-shy about enforcing the loud motorcycle ordinance.

However, if you really want to see that ordinance enforced, call the police and complain. Loudly. If the police know that this is an issue that bothers Peorians (not just one, but many), they will respond. Their number is 673-4521.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Council Roundup: Prospect Road to get face lift à la Sheridan/Loucks triangle

1 Comment

Just like the façade improvement program approved last month for Sheridan Road, Prospect Road south of War Memorial is getting some city help to improve its look as well.

I do a fair amount of criticism of the city on this blog, but I have to applaud the façade improvement program. This program is brilliantly-conceived and well-executed. It helps older neighborhoods, it implements the Heart of Peoria Plan, and it shows some commitment from the city to long-time established businesses.

Kudos to the city for a job well-done!

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria County

Council Roundup: Ady report dispels some myths about Peoria’s attractiveness to business

8 Comments

As stated in the council’s request for action, “In 2005, the City Council and County of Peoria approved a sole source contract with Ady International Company (AIC) to evaluate locational characteristics of the City and County as a preferred location for business attraction.”  In other words, when companies are looking for a city in which to locate, how does Peoria stack up?

Mr. Ady gave a presentation to the council on his findings. Interestingly, there were a couple of popular beliefs that were dispelled :

  • First of all, we don’t need a Peoria-Chicago highway to attract more business.  Businesses want a city that is close to an interestate — multiple interstates don’t add or detract from a city’s attractiveness.
  • Secondly, the public school system was not a detractor.  To be fair, the school system wasn’t a plus for making the community attractive to business either, but it was neutral.

One other thing is worth mentioning: “Community appearance” is one of the city’s weaknesses.  I really expected that to be one of our strengths.  Even with all the public and private projects the city has been doing to beautify Peoria, apparently outsiders are getting a bad first impression of  our fair city.  This should give us all pause.  Why are visitors getting this impression?  What specific things can we or should we do to change our appearance?

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

Council Roundup: Garbage tax will be collected monthly

But we won’t know for a couple of days whether monthly collection will start in May or September.  There’s some question whether Illinois American can change their billing process quickly enough to start collecting monthly in May.

The switch to a monthly fee was opposed by council members Sandberg, Van Auken, and Grayeb.  Grayeb has a deep-seated hatred for Illinois American Water Company, and he feels the company is profiting from collecting this fee for the city.  That’s why he voted against it.  Sandberg and Van Auken voted against it because it doesn’t address the root problem — as Sandberg put it, it’s “putting sugar on” a poor funding decision by the previous council; it hides a bogus tax.

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

Will Peoria’s new cable franchise agreement be moot?

1 Comment

Peoria is in the process of renewing a franchise agreement with Insight Communications. The city has been through this twice before (for a history of cable franchise agreements in Peoria, see my previous post on the topic), so you’d think this is pretty mundane stuff.

Not so. You may surprised to learn that franchise agreements are a hot topic across the nation because of a newcomer to the video-distribution market: phone companies. Yes, telecommunications giants like AT&T and Verizon are spending lots of money upgrading their infrastructure to offer not just better broadband internet access, but cable television. Many believe this new competition will help stabilize cable prices, which are increasing at twice the rate of inflation according to the Consumers Union.

The problem is, these phone companies don’t like negotiating unique cable franchise agreements with each municipality across the fruited plain (like the cable companies have to do). So they’ve been working very hard to do an end run around local municipalities by pushing for statewide franchise agreements. They’ve already succeeded in getting franchise agreements with Texas, Virginia, and our Hoosier neighbors to the east.

So successful they’ve been, phone companies are ready to trump both municipalities and states by pushing for a national franchise agreement. That’s right, legislation was introduced last year in the nation’s capital that would radically change the Telecommunications Act: S.1349/H.R.3146 (“Video Choice Act”), and S.1504 (“Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act”). And this year, a bill will be introduced in the House called the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.” These bills are all designed to take franchising authority out of the hands of cities and states.

There are a couple of groups against — in fact, incensed by — this action: cities and cable companies.

Cities don’t like the idea of losing local control. Franchise agreements offer numerous benefits to communities, such as: compensation for the use of public rights of way (e.g., utility poles, easements); mandates on customer service responsiveness; accessibility for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) purposes (e.g., channels 17 and 22 in Peoria); and requirements to serve the whole city (non-discrimination of service). That’s not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. These agreements are beneficial to cities.

Cable companies don’t like the idea of these phone behemoths being treated as start-ups and given preferential treatment. They’re not buying the sob story from phone giants that it’s just so hard to negotiate all these individual franchise agreements when cable companies have managed to do it for 40 years. Plus, Verizon already has cable franchise agreements covering over two million households, so they don’t seem to be hampered too badly.

What does all this mean for Peoria? At this point, I can’t find any pending Illinois state legislation that would change the franchising process for municipalities, so there’s no threat on that front (correct me if I’m wrong). But if phone companies are successful in their lobbying efforts for national franchise agreements, it would render all Peoria’s current cable negotiations moot, and it could mean more expense to broadcast the city council meetings or the loss of PEG access altogether.

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

It’s very clear… the garbage tax is here to stay…

I got all hopeful this week when I saw the city council agenda included an item on the garbage tax fee. Could it finally be that the council is going to do away with this not-so-hidden tax on Peoria residents?

Don’t be ridiculous. They’re just going to change the collection of it from $24 three times a year to $6 a month. Illinois American Water charges the city 80 cents per bill to collect this fee on behalf of the city, which is why the city was “only” collecting it three times a year. Now the water company has agreed to charge 20 cents per bill, allowing the city to collect the fee monthly at no additional cost.

There are a couple ways of looking at this. On the one hand, it will be nice having the fee spread out, I guess. On the other hand, it’s a little too nice — a little too hidden. This fee is outrageous in a city that collects as much in property taxes, HRA taxes, gas taxes, and miscellaneous fees as Peoria does. Not to mention the fact that even with all that income, they can’t fully staff all their fire stations.

It’s good for us all to have that three-time-per-year reminder of how outrageous it is so that we’ll keep the pressure on the council to get rid of it. The garbage tax fee was one of the reasons we ousted the old mayor and two council representatives last election. It’s a regressive tax, and it’s a double tax since garbage collection is supposed to be covered under our property taxes already. The “new” council should be looking for ways to get rid of the fee, not ways to make it more palatable for residents.

City Council, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

City considering responses to school district plans

3 Comments

The city is none too pleased by the collusion of the school board, park board, and public housing authority regarding land swaps on the East Bluff that would leave some residents stripped of their property and others living next to a low-income housing project — all without any public input. It’s only fair for the city council to look out for the best interests of its constituents, but what recourse does it have?

Well, the land that the school board wants to take over by Glen Oak Park includes a couple of city streets (Republic and East). The school board can’t force the city to vacate those streets via eminent domain, and leaving the streets in place would be problematic for the board’s planned siting of the school. So the city’s control over those streets gives them some leverage.

Furthermore, the park district can’t sell land to the school district (it’s illegal), but they can lease it to them. However, if they do, any of that leased land is subject to city zoning ordinances. That means the city would have to approve the use of that land. Right now, as I understand it, the park district would want to use the leased land for parking.

It sounds as though there may be some other tricks up the council’s sleeve, too, so the siting of the new school isn’t “final” yet. It’s too bad things are shaping up for a fight. Last year, it really looked like the school board and the city were starting to get along — the city pitched in some resources to help the school district fight truancy, for instance. Now District 150 has made a lot of enemies and sown a lot of distrust because of their secret plans. Like Polly says, they’ve chosen the path of most resistance.

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Traffic

Council roundup: Good news for older neighborhoods

There were a few items passed by the council Tuesday that are good news for the older part of the city.

First was the Alley Lighting Program. This program will offer property owners, free of charge, high intensity security lights that illuminate the alley serving their property. The city had a similar program from 1995 to 2000, during which time they installed 658 lights. The council voted to spend up to $50,000 to install 150 alley lights in 2006, and tonight they chose to buy the lights from Grainger Electric and have Downard Electric install them.

Secondly, the council approved a contract with Ferrell Madden Associations (FMA) to provide “professional urban design and planning services.” Mayor Ardis praised this as the second phase in implementing the Heart of Peoria Plan (the first phase was the Renaissance Park proposals). Part of the contract is to develop form-based codes for the Heart of Peoria Plan area.

What is a form-based code? Put simply, it is a type of zoning that takes into consideration the context of an improvement or development. For instance, right now if a business in the older part of the city wants to expand, it is held to suburban standards for parking (x number parking spaces for every y number of square feet added). In dense urban areas, this is often impossible because the business is land-locked, so the business either continues without improvement or moves to an area that has more room for expansion, usually on the edge of town where such land is available. A form-based code will take into consideration the urban location and character of an area and apply urban standards for improvement/development of the property.

This goes hand-in-glove with the Heart of Peoria Plan, since it will also allow for mixed-use of properties. (For instance, a store owner could live in an apartment over his store, which would help small-business owners who may not be able to afford a separate store and residence.) This also provides incentive for neighborhood anchor stores to improve and expand, further strengthening the core of the city.

The public gets to provide input on developing the form-based codes (explanatory note to District 150 board members: “public input” means that the public gets to give input before a final decision is made). A charrette will take place May 19-25 at a time and location to be announced.

Finally, the city continues to pursue the purchase of property along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive so that it can one day be widened and improved.

All of these actions were approved unanimously.

City Council, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star selectively hears Sandberg

1 Comment

The Journal Star Editorial Board had some bitter words for Councilman Sandberg in today’s paper, saying he “found a basketful of nits to pick” regarding the museum’s request for more money from the city.  They focused in on Sandberg’s contention that TIFs are siphoning money from basic services, and defended TIFs in a paragraph that looked like a transcript of Councilwoman Van Auken’s statements from Tuesday night’s meeting.

But they also say in their editorial, “The subsurface parking was recommended by the Heart of Peoria Commission.”  Now anyone who actually watched the council meeting Tuesday night would know that Sandberg spent a considerable amount of time debunking that  misconception.  He interrogated the museum and Caterpillar representatives, and they both admitted in plain language that the Heart of Peoria Commission never recommended subsurface parking — in fact, they recommended having no parking at all, except for street parking, because the block is surrounded by public parking.

So how did the Journal Star hear Gary’s comments about TIFs (which were brief) and miss his comments on parking (which were extensive)?  I guess they’re just more interested in using Sandberg as a punching bag than getting their facts straight.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block, Uncategorized

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part IV

I’ve pulled no punches in my criticism of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) in the past, especially as it relates to Museum Square. I still think they dropped the ball in a big way when they didn’t make any recommendation for or against the site plan, despite its obvious non-conformity with the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle.”

But the city council is not without culpability for that failure. I felt a little uncomfortable last night listening to one council member use the HOPC’s failure as an scapegoat for letting this project proceed unhindered.

The HOPC is not an elected body. It’s appointed by the mayor. They don’t make binding decisions, but merely recommendations. The fact that the HOPC couldn’t produce a recommendation should have been a sign that there were problems within the commission that were preventing them from reaching consensus. At best, it should have been a sign that the site plan was controversial. And the council — our elected representatives — should have stepped up to the plate and shown some leadership on that issue.

It’s not like there’s no precedent for the council to take action against the recommendation of a commission. The Railroad Commission recommended preserving the Kellar Branch for competitive rail service, but the council overruled them and approved turning a half-million-dollar asset into a bike path.

The buck stops at the council. Like it or not, regardless of what the commissions recommend or don’t recommend, the council is responsible for the decisions. And the decision to approve this site plan for the Sears block was a poor one.

Why? As I said earlier, the council adopted “in principle” the Heart of Peoria Plan. If that’s going to mean anything, it needs to apply to every developer, not just developers who don’t have Caterpillar backing. And it should apply to every project — especially a project on the “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria.

This museum project doesn’t conform in any way to the Heart of Peoria Plan:

  • The HOP Plan called for high-density development with large buildings, making optimal use of the whole block and having an urban character. The site plan is low-density; roughly two-thirds of the block will be open space with buildings and landscape that will look suburban in character.
  • The HOP Plan called for mixed-use with a residential component to make it a true 24/7 block. The site plan includes a museum, a visitor center, and some small retail that faces Water Street — all things that will close in the evening, leaving the block dead at night.
  • The HOP Plan called for building designs and materials that will blend with the surrounding architecture. The surrounding architecture is traditional, with brick and stone façades. The museum and visitor center designs are modern, with steel and glass façades.
  • While additional parking was envisioned by the HOP Plan for a high-density design for this block, the low-density site plan design doesn’t warrant additional parking since surrounding parking areas are sufficient.

The worst part is, the council had a chance to challenge this site plan, even as late as Tuesday night. Nothing has been built yet. These buildings are still just on paper. I know there’s expense that goes into designing and engineering those drawings, but it’s nothing compared to the cost of actually building the structures.

Unfortunately, since the council won’t stand up to Cat and has a handy scapegoat in the HOPC, it looks like we’ll be stuck with yet another boondoggle.