Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

Growth Cell Report makes questionable assumptions

1 Comment

The City of Peoria has released a new report on the supposed success of the City’s “growth cell” strategy.

2011 Growth Cell Report

The report states, “based on the calculations and assumptions used in this report, the following expenditures and revenues are reported for the Growth Cells from 1996 to 2010:”

Revenue $102,276,553
Capital Expenditure -$25,367,090
Operating Expenditure -$35,908,175
Difference Between Revenue and Expenditures $41,001,288

The key word in that statement is “assumptions.” In reading the report, it’s clear that the City does not have adequate actual data to use, so it must rely heavily on estimates of revenue and expenses. Their methodology for calculating those estimates is questionable.

For example, the report takes the total sales taxes and HRA taxes collected in the City and divides it by the number of acres zoned commercial in Peoria to get a per-acre value of sales/HRA taxes. It then takes that number and multiplies it by the number of commercially-zoned acres in the growth cells to estimate the revenue generated by the growth cells.

There are a couple problems with this methodology. First, it doesn’t account for the difference in density between older parts of the city and the growth cells. Let’s try a little thought experiment. Suppose you had Building A that takes up an acre in an older part of town. It relies on street parking and an adjacent parking deck from which they rent spaces, and it generates $10,000 in sales/HRA taxes per year. Building B also takes up an acre, but it sits on a four-acre lot in the growth cell. The other three acres include a large surface lot, driveway, setbacks, and screening. It also generates $10,000 in sales/HRA taxes per year.

Now let’s add their tax revenues together ($10,000 + $10,000 = $20,000) and divide by the total number of acres (1 + 4 = 5). What’s the average revenue per acre? It’s $20,000 divided by 5, or $4,000. Do you see where this is going? Using the City’s methodology, we take that $4,000 per acre and multiply it by the number of acres in the growth cell (4, in our example), and look, our “estimate” shows that the growth cell generates $16,000! Revenue from denser areas of town get artificially shifted to the growth cell through creative mathematics.

The revenue estimates also don’t take into account business and residents that move within the city, providing a gain to the growth cells but little or no net gain to the city. For instance, Menards closed their store on Pioneer Parkway (outside the growth cells) and moved to Allen Road (inside the growth cells). Is it really fair to credit Menards’ tax revenue to the growth cells?

So the revenue figures are suspect, but what about the expenses? There are three categories of expenses: capital costs, operating costs, and debt service. For capital costs, we’re given an “actual” figure of $18,819,227 — this is supposed to be the cumulative capital investment from 1996 through 2010. That means roughly $1.25 million per year has been spent in the growth cells. If you think that sounds really low, you’re not alone. It might help if we knew what capital projects were specifically included in that figure, but alas, the report does not give us that information. Does it include the building of three firehouses in the growth cell areas, for instance?

For debt service, the report states, “Calculations in this report account for the cost of debt service for sewers only,” but gives no explanation as to why. Is there really no other debt service in the growth cells? If there is other debt service, why wasn’t it included in the calculations?

Finally, the operating costs are figured on a per-acre basis just like the sales/HRA tax revenue: “The total operating budget for the City is divided by the total number of acres in the City, returning an average per acre cost. This cost is multiplied out over the total acreage in the Growth Cells to establish a base total cost. The result is discounted by 40% based on current data that indicates 60% of the total Growth Cell area within the City of Peoria is developed. [emphasis added] As operating costs are de minimis in non-developed areas, the costs associated with these areas was backed out of the final equation.

I have to question the 40% discount. Do the roads in undeveloped areas of the growth cell not have to be maintained? Do the firefighters and police officers not have to travel through undeveloped areas? Do the snow plows not have to plow the snow in these areas? And why is a discount for undeveloped property only on the expense side and not on the revenue side of the ledger?

This report should not be taken at face value. There are too many questionable assumptions.

Amtrak, City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria’s peculiar priorities

22 Comments

The City has set its “top” and “high” strategic priorities at its latest planning session, reports the Journal Star:

Of 27 possibilities, the council labeled only six policy priorities as “top” priorities for 2011-12. Those included focusing on code enforcement performance and direction, developing a school strategy and action plan, focusing on short-term shared services with Peoria County, prioritizing city services, framing the city’s economic development strategy, and the redevelopment of the Hotel Pere Marquette into the $102 million Marriott Hotel project.

What do you think, Peoria? Are these your top priorities?

I agree with the focus on code enforcement, shared services with Peoria County, and prioritizing city services. I don’t know what “framing” our economic development strategy entails, but if it’s a discussion about what we will and won’t do to attract business, I think it would be a worthy discussion.

I question the value of spending city resources to develop a “school strategy and action plan.” We have separate public bodies that administer the public schools in this area. It seems redundant to me that the City would now be spending its time discussing schools, too. What’s next? Will area school districts start spending their time on a city strategy and action plan?

And then there’s the Wonderful Development. Despite the developer’s inability to meet any deadlines in either of the redevelopment agreements he’s inked with the City, and despite the fact that he’s having trouble paying his bills across the river, the City Council is apparently still just itching to give him $37 million of taxpayer money. Regardless of who is developing it, this is not a top priority in this city right now. The redevelopment of the Pere Marquette should be done by the private sector, just like the former Holiday Inn City Centre was recently transformed into a Four Points by Sheraton without any City assistance. The City has no business getting into the hotel business; they should let it go and focus on improving their core services instead.

The council also prioritized a management agenda for the coming year. Of the 14 items, the council selected “top” priorities for engaging the community on appropriate behavior, developing a neighborhood crime reduction strategy, containing health care costs, a community investment plan for capital and equipment, study fees, and reorganize the city.

That’s all well and good, but the real test of whether it’s a “top” priority will come at budget time. Will these priorities really be reflected in the budget? Or will the increased debt service created by non-essential items like the Wonderful Development crowd out the community’s top needs?

Developing a strategy for a four-year state university leaped to a “high priority” status for the City Council to address…. [City Manager Patrick Urich] said in the next six months, the council will have discussions with state lawmakers and other state officials about whether there is an opportunity for Peoria to land a four-year public school…. Other “high priority” polices included directing an early retirement program for city employees, updating financial policies, providing more assistance for businesses, developing a strategy for landlord and tenant accountability, and advocating for a rail link between Peoria and Normal.

I’m befuddled by this attempt to attract a new four-year public university. Where did this idea come from? How long has the council been talking about it? How did this rise to the top of the list?

I like the idea of working on a strategy for landlord and tenant accountability; hopefully something positive will come from that. Updating financial policies is certainly a good idea, assuming they strengthen fiscally-conservative policies.

I think we currently provide more than enough “assistance for businesses.” We regularly waive our zoning regulations to the detriment of surrounding homeowners. We use the Enterprise Zone to benefit businesses all over the city instead of the depressed areas it was intended to help. We loan taxpayer money to businesses that doesn’t always get repaid, and we give away no small amount of tax money as a direct subsidy/grant (e.g., $37 million for the Wonderful Development). We can’t afford the “assistance for businesses” we’re providing now; how can we afford to do more? Oh, that’s right, we’ll cut police, fire, road maintenance, and other basic services.

And finally, they’re now advocating for a rail link with Normal. I applaud the priority to reestablish rail service to Peoria, but the rail link needs to be with Chicago, not Normal. Nobody wants to take a train to Normal. Such a link would not attract enough ridership to be feasible. I’ve written on this topic at length before; you can read more here and here.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Redistricting committee forwards Map #12 to full Council

7 Comments

The City Council’s redistricting committee voted to recommend Map #12 to the full Council for discussion:

(Click on map for larger image)

I was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. But the Journal Star reports the map was approved by a 3-1 vote. Voting in favor were Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Tim Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), and Bill Spears (4th Dist.). Dan Irving (5th Dist.) voted against the map, and Clyde Gulley (1st Dist.) “was absent from the vote.”

As mentioned in a previous post, this map would move the West Bluff into the first district (from the second), and move downtown Peoria — including the Warehouse District — to the third district (from the first). The second district boundary has moved to the north. And north Peoria is more evenly divided between the fourth and fifth districts.

Spears, the chairman of the redistricting committee, reportedly said that the map, “if it’s approved by the council or not, will return to the committee for further public discussion,” after it’s discussed by the full Council.

What are your thoughts on the proposed new boundaries?

City Council, City of Peoria, History

A curious appointment

33 Comments

On the City Council agenda for next Tuesday’s meeting is a curious appointment by Mayor Jim Ardis to the Historic Preservation Commission: Steve Pierz. Pierz used to be the so-called “litter czar” in Peoria and by all accounts did a wonderful job. But then he got in a dispute with the City. He wanted to put vinyl siding on a house he owns in an historic district on High Street, but was denied by the Historic Preservation Commission.

So he sued them.

Mind you, he didn’t just sue the City. He sued each commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission personally, many of whom are still on the Commission today. He ultimately prevailed. The City reached a settlement with him and his wife and reversed the Commission’s decision.

So now the mayor wants to appoint Pierz to the very same commission he sued, to work with the same commissioners he personally sued. Won’t that be a little awkward? And counter-productive, considering Pierz’s demonstrated contempt for the commission?

It’s just another indignity for the Historic Preservation Commission, which has seen its ordinance eviscerated and its attempts to preserve Peoria’s architectural heritage regularly thwarted by the City Council.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Residents: Keep our neighborhoods together (UPDATED)

5 Comments

Only a few people spoke at Tuesday’s City Council redistricting committee meeting, but those who did had one thing in common. They did not want to see their neighborhoods divided between two or more council districts. City staff was instructed to discard the maps that carved up the West Bluff and/or the Florence Avenue Neighborhood Association and come back with more alternatives that keep neighborhoods within a single council district.

There was also a request for staff to quantify what kind of population growth the City expects over the next ten years — taking into account plans for the Warehouse District, East Village Growth Cell, Main Street Commons, and growth cells in the current fifth district — and use that information to assist in drawing new district boundaries. Here’s how this information helps: when drawing new boundaries, the city is required to make each district equal in population. But they don’t have to be exactly equal — they’re allowed a range of deviation of up to five percent. So, if you expect one district to grow faster than the others, you can make that district a little smaller in population, as long as it’s within the five percent range. This helps keep districts from getting too lopsided over the next ten years.

The committee also recommended that the full City Council discuss whether to increase the number of council districts in the city and/or do away with cumulative voting for at-large council members. The committee felt that discussion was outside of their purview and should be taken up by the entire council.

The next redistricting committee meeting will be Tuesday, July 5, at 4:30 p.m. in City Council chambers. The meeting time was moved an hour earlier so that third district councilman Riggenbach (who was unable to attend last night’s meeting due to an unexpected work assignment) can attend both the redistricting committee meeting and an East Village Growth Cell meeting at Glen Oak School that same night at 6 p.m.

Continue reading Residents: Keep our neighborhoods together (UPDATED) →

Census 2010, City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

City redistricting maps released

9 Comments

City staff has created nine options for new Peoria City Council districts. You can see all the proposed maps in the Redistricting Committee June 21 meeting packet from the City’s website. I’ve also put a copy of the maps on my site here:

6-21-2011 Redistricting Maps

Several different scenarios are included: columnar districts (north to south), layered districts (east to west), drawn-out-from-center districts, and districts expanded from current boundaries (there are several of these). All of them have one thing in common: the fifth district gets smaller and the other four districts get bigger.

There’s also an interesting memo from Randy Ray at the end of the packet that details what the process would be for changing the number of districts and council members, and eliminating cumulative voting for at-large council members. The City’s current system of government (five at-large council members elected by cumulative voting plus five district council members) was established as the result of a civil rights lawsuit in the 1980s, so any change to this system would have to be approved by the federal court that decided that case. In addition, state law requires that changes to the system of government be approved by the voters via referendum. So the process would be this: A public referendum would have to be drafted and approved first by the federal court and then the voters. In order to have enough time to comply with redistricting requirements, the decision would have to be made this year (2011) on whether they wanted to try to make these changes. It will be interesting to hear the discussion on this possibility at the next meeting.

The next meeting of the redistricting committee is Tuesday, June 21, at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.

City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 6-14-2011 (Live Blog)

7 Comments

Hello everyone. I’m here at City Hall, room 400, for the Peoria City Council meeting on this Flag Day 2011. It’s very warm in council chambers, and the windows have been opened to help cool things off. It appears that all the council members and mayor are in attendance, and there is a rather long agenda for this evening. As usual, I’ll be adding my comments about the proceedings under each item below (the consent agenda is a single item). Also in attendance are Chris Kaergard from the Peoria Journal Star, Tanya Koonce from WCBU-FM, and Shaun Newell of 1470 WMBD radio.

Without any further ado, here’s tonight’s agenda:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 6-14-2011 (Live Blog) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Zoning Commission

But is it a ‘state of the art’ McDonald’s?

24 Comments

The Journal Star reports that McDonald’s wants to rebuild their Knoxville restaurant the same as their University location. But there’s a catch:

The McDonald’s proposal calls for 14 waivers from the city’s land development code on items such as reducing the parking lot’s setback from properties along Arcadia, increasing the size of a sign, allowing a drive-through window adjacent to a nearby residence and eliminating some landscaping requirements, among other things.

As such, the city’s Planning and Growth Management Department opted not to recommend approval of the McDonald’s site plan. The [zoning] commission will consider the request during a 1 p.m. meeting Thursday.

The article went on to say that the second district council member, Barbara Van Auken, was unavailable for comment. But two years ago, when Taco Bell asked for nine variances — making it completely non-compliant with the land development code (LDC) — she voted for it along with a majority of the council, even though the zoning commission and City staff recommended denial. She called it a “state of the art Taco Bell,” and said it was unfair to require a business completely rebuilding its property to comply with the LDC. (If not then, one wonders when it would ever be “fair” to enforce it.) I expect she will throw the LDC (and nearby residents) under the bus again this time, too.

Van Auken and a majority of the council have consistently voted against enforcing the LDC, continuing a pattern of development that has been detrimental to the older part of town. My suspicion is that this largely done out of ignorance — that most of the council members have never read nor understood either the Heart of Peoria Plan or the LDC. Perhaps with former Heart of Peoria commissioner Beth Akeson on the council now, she’ll be able to persuade more council members of the long-term benefits of enforcing the LDC.икони

City Council, City of Peoria

No liveblogging tonight (UPDATED)

8 Comments

I’m unable to attend the council meeting this evening, but will report the highlights (or, more likely, lowlights) later tonight.

UPDATE: I recorded the meeting tonight (many thanks to WCBU 89.9 FM for faithfully broadcasting the meetings all these years), so now I’m going to play it back and comment on it as though it were live under each agenda item as follows:

Continue reading No liveblogging tonight (UPDATED) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development

Council to address pervasive poverty on Brandywine Drive

26 Comments

I’ve talked about the misuse of Enterprise Zone status on several occasions here at the Chronicle (e.g., “A New Kind of Poverty,” “Discussing Incentives with Craig Hullinger“), so there’s no need to go into another lengthy explanation. Here’s a quick summary: the Enterprise Zone is supposed to be used in “depressed areas,” defined as areas “in which pervasive poverty, unemployment and economic distress exist” (20 ILCS 655/3(c)). But the City of Peoria completely disregards this qualification and uses the status indiscriminately throughout the city. See for yourself:

By taking this tool and using it in growth areas, greenfield sites, and other non-depressed areas, the City has not only eviscerated its effectiveness, it’s put depressed areas at an even further disadvantage.

It looks like that trend will continue at tonight’s City Council meeting, as the Council will probably approve extending Enterprise Zone status to the horribly depressed area of — yes, you guessed it — Brandywine Drive. Yes, when one thinks of pervasive poverty and economic distress in the City of Peoria, the first place that pops into my mind is “across the street from Northwoods Mall.”

I don’t want to minimize the challenges faced by all parts of town, but having just come off a huge recession, it’s not surprising to find vacancies throughout the city. We certainly want to do what we can to encourage reinvestment, but misusing incentive tools is poor public policy. It’s dishonest — the wording of the statute is unambiguous that this should only be used in areas of pervasive poverty. It’s unfair — it puts poverty-stricken areas at an even greater disadvantage.

The Journal Star ran an article on this agenda item, and the council members they interviewed (the usual suspects) were all in favor. They have regularly defended the misuse of EZ status by saying “everybody does it,” so those responses were expected. I was disappointed to see new council member Beth Akeson’s response, however:

“I kind of question the use of the enterprise zone in the city, but the city has already set a precedent,” at-large City Councilwoman Beth Akeson said. “Once you set precedent, and once you extend an enterprise zone to (particular) properties, you are hard pressed to do other things than continue on.”

What is she saying? That past misuse of economic development tools has somehow become binding precedent, obligating the council to future misuse? That someone could sue the City for not giving one property the same economic development incentives as another property? If that were true, then every hotel in Peoria should be suing the City for their own pot of gold based on the Wonderful Development incentive package.

The city is under no obligation to extend the enterprise zone to a single additional property. We need not continue every bad precedent set by past councils. We are not constrained to keep repeating past mistakes.

But we will. That’s what we do in Peoria.