Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

Potential Big Al’s location fraught with problems

19 Comments

Big Al’s is now considering a move to a City-owned parking lot adjacent to the CityLink bus terminal at Jefferson and Harrison — a location that is within 500 feet of Swinger’s World, another adult business. Yet, according to the City’s municipal code (Sec. 18-53(a)(1) and (3)): “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be allowed within 500 feet of another existing sexually oriented adult use,” and “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be located within 500 feet of a preexisting school or place of worship.” So, doesn’t that disqualify the proposed location?

Section (b) of the ordinance was amended recently in order to allow Big Al’s to move to the parking lot adjacent to the Madison Theater. It allowed a provision that, “so long as the sexually oriented adult use continues and does not change the nature of the sexually oriented adult use, [it may] relocate to a location which brings the location more into compliance with the terms of section 18-53.” It adds, for clarity, “‘More into compliance’ means, for example, that if an existing sexually oriented adult use were within 250 feet of a place of worship, it would be more in compliance if it were relocated to a site more than 375 feet from any zoning district which is zoned for residential use, and satisfied all other requirements of subsection (a) above.” Since Big Al’s would still be within 500 feet of a church in the Madison Theater parking lot, but further away from a church than its current location, it would be in compliance with this newly-revised ordinance.

But moving closer to an existing adult use business like Swinger’s World would clearly violate this section. It wouldn’t be moving “more into compliance.”

Not only that, but CityLink also houses Myah’s Just 4 Kids Learning Center. It would appear that Big Al’s would also be in violation of the ordinance for moving within 500 feet of this school. According to the Journal Star, City attorney Randy Ray “said he’s not sure if the learning center would be considered a school under the city’s ordinance.” While it is certainly possible to devise a legal distinction between schools and daycare/learning centers, this is a textbook case of following the letter of the law but violating the spirit of it. Why do we have prohibitions on adult-use businesses being within 500 feet of schools? And wouldn’t those same reasons apply to a daycare/learning center?

Leaving that aside, there’s another problem with this location, and that regards its eligibility for a liquor license. Section 3-11(a) of the City’s code says, “No license shall be issued for the sale at retail of any alcoholic liquor within 100 feet of any church, school (other than an institution of higher learning) hospital, home for the aged or indigent persons, nursing homes or homes for veterans or their spouses or children, any military or naval station or any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services…” (emphasis added). This ordinance specifies daycare facilities, so we no longer have the ambiguity of what constitutes a “school.” Then the question becomes, how do you measure the distance? The ordinance says:

In the case of a church, the distance of 100 feet shall be measured to the nearest part of any building used for worship services or educational programs and not to property boundaries. In all other cases, the measurement shall be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of school, hospital, home of the aged or indigent persons, nursing home or homes for veterans or their spouses or children or any military or naval stations, any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or any publicly owned housing development containing 200 or more housing units.

Myah’s is located in the CityLink Transfer Center. Thus, it would appear from this ordinance that the measurement would have to be made from the property line of the transfer center. In that case, Big Al’s would be within 100 feet and not in compliance with the ordinance.

But let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what the ordinance says. The City Council is committed to letting the strip club go wherever it wants to go, and they will not let this or that ordinance get in their way. Why? They have to make way for the Wonderful Development:

At-large City Councilman Eric Turner, who is the city’s deputy liquor commissioner, said while the parking lot isn’t the best place for Big Al’s, the business does need to move from its current location in order for construction of the Downtown Marriott Hotel, supported with $37 million in public financing.

“My biggest concern . . . there will not be a hotel, there will be no further Downtown development,” Turner said.

He said if the learning center fights the city over the Big Al’s location, the city could have to kill the move, and potentially sink the Marriott Hotel deal.

Marriott Hotel über alles. Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no valley low enough, ain’t no children vulnerable enough to keep that hotel deal from going through, baby! If the Wonderful Development’s ever in trouble, Eric Turner will be there on the double.

City Council, City of Peoria

Urich to start making $175k on April 18

96 Comments

Patrick UrichThe City Council will hire Patrick Urich as Peoria City Manager next Tuesday night. Urich recently gave 90 days notice of his resignation as Peoria County Administrator. You can read the proposed contract on the City’s website. Here are the highlights:

  • Base Salary: $175,000 for the first year
  • Starting Date: April 18, 2011
  • Incentive Pay: To be negotiated during first three months of employment
  • Car Allowance: $500/month
  • Vacation Days: 15
  • Sick Days: 10
  • Personal Days: 5
  • Health Benefits: Same as all other City employees
  • Term Life Insurance: Paid for by City, not to exceed three times base salary; premiums not to exceed $800/yr.
  • Deferred Compensation (457 Plan): Lesser of 9% of base salary or maximum deferred contribution allowed (currently $16,500)
  • Retirement System: Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF)
  • Fringe Benefits: Laptop; cell phone; dues for local civic organization memberships; dues for membership in two national, one regional, and one state professional association; travel and other expenses to attend one national and one state conference per year; reimbursement of job-affiliated expenses.
  • Involuntary termination: Lump sum of 9 months salary if terminated within first two years; 8 months if terminated in year three; 7 months if terminated in year four; 6 months salary if terminated in year five or later. All accrued but unused vacation leave up to 200 hours will be reimbursed. All life, health, dental, and disability insurance continues for 12 months (or until he’s hired somewhere else, whichever comes first) if he’s terminated within the first three years.

How does this compare to previous City Manager Scott Moore’s compensation package? Moore’s base salary was set at $165,000 for the first two years; Urich’s is $175,000 for the first year only. Moore’s contract also capped his salary increase at 8%; no cap exists in Urich’s. The city paid for life insurance equal to Moore’s base salary; will pay for life insurance equal to three times Urich’s base salary. The city contributed 8% of Moore’s base salary toward a deferred compensation (457) plan; Urich is getting 9%. Moore got six months’ salary upon involuntary termination; that would have dropped to four months if Moore had been terminated after serving two years; Urich gets nine months salary if he’s terminated within the first two years. Moore’s contract included no provision for incentive pay, but did include moving expenses since he was coming from out of state.

One last interesting tidbit. This will make the third City Manager who doesn’t go by his first name. Randy Oliver was really Charles R. Oliver. Scott Moore was really L. Scott Moore. And Patrick Urich is really F. Patrick Urich. What is it about City Managers that makes them go by their middle names?

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Village TIF meeting Monday 2/7

21 Comments

A public meeting is planned for the East Village Growth Cell TIF, and a majority of the City Council may be there:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, HAVE BEEN INVITED AND MAY ATTEND AN EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL TIF PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND GATHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DESIGNATION OF A PROPOSED REDEVEOPMENT [sic] PROJECT AREA TO BE KNOWN AS THE EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7,2011, AT 6:00 P.M. AT THE GLEN OAK COMMUNITY CENTER, 2100 N. WISCONSIN AVENUE, PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

NOTE: NO OFFICIAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

City Council, City of Peoria, History

Further chilling of historic preservation ordinance on tap (Updated)

20 Comments

The City Council is poised to raise the historic landmark application fee 1000% Tuesday night. While the Historic Preservation Commission approved doubling the fee (from $50 to $100), City Staff wants to raise it to $500. They will also increase fees for a Certificate of Appropriateness from $25 to $120 for administrative certificates, and $250 for non-administrative certificates.

The given reason is to increase revenue to the City, but let’s not fool ourselves. This will bring little additional money into city coffers. The real effect (and I believe the intended effect) will be to reduce historic landmark applications and increase the number of unapproved modifications to historic properties. The council has been undermining the historic preservation ordinance more and more blatantly as of late — not designating buildings that are clearly historic, and delisting structures that are already “protected,” meaning nothing is really protected anymore if the political forces are strong enough.

Meanwhile, still waiting in the wings is a rewriting of the ordinance itself, which is slated to be deferred once again on Tuesday.

UPDATE: I have been informed by a reliable source that “the matter of the fee increases for Historic Preservation will be deferred tomorrow night until April.”

City Council, City of Peoria

Council to pursue Urich for City Manager

20 Comments

The City has issued the following press release:

After last night’s interview, Mayor Ardis, City Council Members, and Mr. Urich, agreed that both sides would like to continue discussions towards a possible contract offer. A meeting between Mr. Urich, the Mayor and two Council Members, will be arranged soon to establish a framework to develop contract specifics. The council is expected to discuss a proposal in executive session after Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

It appears the skids are greased for Patrick Urich to be the next City Manager, well before council elections take place in April.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Peoria City Council 1/11/11 (Live Blog)

17 Comments

Tonight is the first City Council meeting of 2011. After proclamations and a “business showcase” presentation from Northwoods Mall, the City will hear from anyone who wants to talk about the proposed East Village TIF. Although it isn’t on the agenda, there has been speculation that the Council will also discuss the City’s ordinance covering grand opening displays tonight, probably under New Business.

It’s standing room only tonight in Council chambers. It looks like all the council members are here (except Jacob, of course).

Tonight’s agenda with supporting documentation can be viewed here. I’ve reprinted it below and will be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh your browser regularly if you following along live:

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – CITY OF PEORIA

Mayor Ardis asks for unanimous consent to move the Litter presentation to the beginning of the meeting.

New Business: ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN.

There will be a meeting Saturday, January 22, in City Council chambers, 9-11 a.m., to gather ideas on how to deal with the litter problem in the City. She wants to “talk trash,” she says humorously. There will be coffee and donuts. Very short presentation. No questions.

Back to the regular agenda order:

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the PROPOSED DESIGNATION of the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.

There are four letters from concerned citizens that were distributed to council members before the meeting. Ardis reminds everyone the council will not be voting on the TIF tonight; this is just a public hearing. Sandberg says Item J on the consent agenda will be discussed and voted on, and it does regard the East Village TIF.

Before the public is heard from, the City wants to make a short presentation. Bobby Gray from Economic Development and a representative from Teska and Associates are giving a brief overview of the project to date. The guy from Teska is actually giving the bulk of the presentation. Proposed TIF area includes 653 acres and 2,532 parcels — a very large area. He’s basically giving a summary of their report, which you can read here. They found the East Village area is “blighted,” and thus eligible for TIF designation, because of deterioration, code violations, age of structures, inadequate utilities (this includes streets, sidewalks, curbs/gutters, street lights, etc.), excessive vacancies (16% residential, 25% business), and decline or minimal marginal increase in the EAV over the last five years (only grown about 2%). He lists the goal and objectives of the Growth Cell Plan, reviews the Future Land Use Plan, etc., all of which you can read about in the report (too much to retype here). Current EAV is $49,626,980. Anticipated EAV upon the completion (i.e., in 23 years) of anticipated redevelopment projects is in excess of $96,000,000. He admits that this is “optimistic.” He presents a TIF budget (in the aforementioned report). The total TIF budget (“total Estimated Project Costs”) is $95 million. Also in the budget, “Developer Interest Costs” with the amount “TBD.” Hmmm….

Teska also did a housing study to see if, hypothetically, residents needed to be relocated (i.e., if the City wanted to acquire property through eminent domain and neighbors would have to move), are there similar houses elsewhere where they could move. Answer: Yes.

Now, at long last, the floor is open:

  • David Kinney, District 150 Interim Comptroller/Treasurer — He believes this offers the City and school district “an exciting challenge” and says the school district wants to work with the City. However, he does have some concerns. Kinney has distributed a handout beforehand to the council members, and will be referring to it during his presentation. Bottom line, the District wants to share the TIF revenues, and Kinney is making his case for how much of the proceeds should be shared. He assumes an average 2% EAV growth over the next 23 years.
  • Grenita Lathan, District 150 Superintendent — Offers to provide increased vocational training/programs as part of their proposal to share TIF revenues.
  • Debbie Ritschel, Joint Review Board — Encouraging City to work with the School District on “a plan you can all agree on.” She talks about how important streets, sidewalks, and lighting are to homeowners.
  • Frederick Smith, East Bluff resident — Agrees with budgeted items in TIF for streets, sidewalks, and lighting (about $40+ million), but the rest of the $50+ million is too sketchy. He wants to know what specifically they’re going to do with that money so they can be held accountable.
  • Richard Mitchell, East Bluff resident — Likes the idea of the TIF including residences, not only businesses. He’s in favor, but acknowledges that there are still many unanswered questions.
  • Sara Partridge, East Bluff resident — Chronicles the decline and fall of the East Bluff over her lifetime.
  • Mike Chihoski, OSF St. Francis Medical Center — OSF strongly supports the TIF, says they have heavily invested in the area over the years, and hopes the TIF will spur more private development.
  • Carl Reardon, owns properties in proposed TIF district — Speaks in favor of residential TIF. Favors District 150’s proposal to provide vocational education.
  • Jessie McGowan, Jr. — When will we get specifics and how will we be notified?
  • Maleita King, East Bluff resident — Where is the money going? Who is going to benefit? What are you going to spend the money on? We’d rather spend the money on police — where we need it — rather than a TIF at this time.
  • [Didn’t catch his name, but he lives in the East Bluff] — “You’re just going to fix up the sidewalks for crackheads to walk on.” MidTown development tore down nice homes of people who wanted to stay, and now we have nothing to show for it. We’re not going to get state aid because the state’s broke. People aren’t going to come from other neighborhoods to shop on Wisconsin unless they’re drunks. The only thing that will happen is the people who live in this area are going to get taxed. Can’t sell his house for even half its EAV.
  • Don [Holland?], owns several houses on East Bluff — When he first got his houses, he thought taxes were reasonable. His taxes have gone up from $5,000 to $20,000 a year. “Taxes are already way too high” and keep people from reinvesting in their houses because they can’t afford it.
  • David Seghetti (sp?), family owns Red Carpet Car Wash on Jefferson — Fully supports this initiative.
  • Ron Johnson, owns several properties in East Bluff — Been landlord for 15 years. “You guys didn’t perform [with MidTown Plaza], so what makes you think you can perform with [this new TIF]?” Says all the council wants to do is fix up the area so they can tax the residents more. Council needs to work on lowering crime.
  • Mary Clark, East Bluff resident — “The taxes we already pay should be improving the areas we live, so where are our tax dollars going that we’re already paying?” Since tax dollars can be moved from one TIF to another (adjacent TIFs), what assurance do we have that we’ll even get the benefit of these TIF dollars?

Public hearing is now closed, and the council chambers are emptying rapidly. It looks like most of the SRO crowd was here for the public hearing. That’s encouraging to see. Bobby Gray encourages those leaving to fill out an “interested party” form so they can be notified of future meetings regarding this proposed TIF.

ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A. NOTICE OF LAWSUIT Filed on Behalf of OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, an Illinois Not For Profit Corporation, d/b/a SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER Regarding a Complaint Against DAVID P. BROWN, JR., the City of Peoria, and Peoria County Claiming Between December 1, 2009, through December 4, 2009, with Request to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.

B. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Inspections Director Requesting Acceptance of the BID for DEMOLITION of 2204 S.W. ADAMS STREET from the LOWEST BIDDER, RIVER CITY DEMOLITION, in the Amount of $49,850.00.

C. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of an EMERGENCY REPAIR to a 1998 CATERPILLAR 938G END LOADER (Unit #228) by ALTORFER CATERPILLAR, INC., in an Amount Not to Exceed $22,889.84.

D. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the 2011 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT with FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT, LLC for the PEORIA CITY/COUNTY LANDFILL, in the Amount of $369,000.00, as Recommended by the Peoria City/County Landfill Committee.

E. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA, DUNLAP COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 323, and RB INVESTMENTS I, LLC, and Requesting Authorization for the Interim City Manager to Execute the Documents.

F. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Planning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Approving the MULTI-FAMILY PLAN for Property Addressed as 2604, 2605, 2626 and 2629 N. LAVALLE COURT; 3604 and 3630 W. MARENGO DRIVE; and 3620 W. VERONA COURT, with Conditions.

G. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 3 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Site Approval Application Filing Fee, Amending CHAPTER 5 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to a Fee for Filing a Petition for Rehearing, and Amending CHAPTER 13 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Fees for Filing Liens and an Increase in the Costs to Settle Violations for Littering.

H. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS G (Restaurant, Beer & Wine Only) LIQUOR LICENSE at 1219 WEST MAIN STREET, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

I. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of SITE APPLICATIONS for CLASS C-1 (Packaged Liquor) LIQUOR LICENSES at 2515 N. KNOXVILLE and 3524 N. UNIVERSITY, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

J. Communication from the Interim City Manager Requesting to Receive and File a WRITTEN REPORT Passed by the Joint Review Board on December 27, 2010, Agreeing that the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Satisfies the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA for a “BLIGHTED AREA.”

K. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of NOVEMBER 2010, with Request to Receive and File.

The following items were removed from the consent agenda by the indicated councilman: D, G, J (Sandberg), and C (Irving). The rest of the items passed unanimously.

  • Item C — Questions whether it would be cheaper to lease replacement equipment instead of repairing this endloader. Someone from Public Works says they believe it would be better to fix this. Motion passes unanimously.
  • Item D — Asks how long we’ve been with this one firm without going out for bid. Jeff Smith, City Engineer, standing in for Dave Barber, says he doesn’t know how long it’s been, but speaks highly of this consultant. Sandberg says it’s not good public policy to just keep rolling over contracts without going out to bid, so he won’t support it. Spain, speaking on behalf of the City/County Landfill Committee, explains they’re in the process of expanding landfill number 3, and they don’t want to switch horses midstream. He moves to approve, seconded by Irving. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item G — Doesn’t support two of the three increases. Turner/Van Auken move to approve; passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item J — Asks how an 11-member board (Joint Review Board) can legally do business without a quorum present (only 5 members out of 11). City attorney Randy Ray says he doesn’t know. Sandberg goes on to say that this isn’t just a “receive and file”; it also says the council is agreeing that the proposed TIF area is a “blighted area.” Goes back to his original question. How did this come to the Council when the JRB didn’t have a quorum? Ray says that the Council is only receiving and filing, not agreeing that the area is blighted. Sandberg says we shouldn’t receive and file a report that wasn’t really passed by the JRB because they didn’t have a quorum when they “passed” it. “What I’m trying to tell you is, we could get sued down the road” because the process isn’t legal. Van Auken agrees with City attorney. The guy from Teska (I think his name is Hoffman) says JRB doesn’t have to have a quorum under state statute. It’s only those taxing bodies who show up who get to vote.

    Sandberg questions how the JRB came up with their findings. He cites the brevity of the meetings and lack of supporting documentation as reasons he’s skeptical of their conclusions. “This whole process is on a fast track to a conclusion […] there is no independent assessment.” “If this is a blighted area, then let’s just call everything a blighted area except for the growth area out north.” Ardis says this is only a motion to receive an file minutes and the JRB’s action. Says the issues Sandberg is bringing up are not germane to the issue. Riggenbach moves to approve, seconded by Van Auken. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Council to Take Action Pertaining to a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS C (Packaged Liquor Store) LIQUOR LICENSE at 9915 N. KNOXVILLE, SUITES I & J, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to DENY.

Irving moves to withdraw application at request of the petitioner.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-299) Communication from the Acting City Manager and Assistant Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class R2 (Single Family Residential) District for a SCHOOL for the ARTS for Property Located at 5211 N. BIG HOLLOW ROAD, and with No Recommendation from the Zoning Commission Due to a Tie Vote.

Spears says the neighbors are generally in favor, but want the building set back as far as possible and allow parking in the front yard. The special use is only for this school of the arts, and if it changes at any time, it would have to come back to the council. Spears/Van Auken move to approve. Sandberg says parking along the side will not work as proposed. Also says the west elevation is 110-foot blank wall that faces the nearest single-family home. That home happens to be the home of the petitioner at this time. But no one but the petitioner, Sandberg says, would want to live next to such a structure. “Don’t allow him to aim low,” because we’re setting precedent for future special uses. It’s too much building for the lot, he says. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

NEW BUSINESS

  • Irving asks for a report back from staff on what the process is for businesses to promote grand openings.
  • Turner has concerns about quality of life ordinance violations in older neighborhoods; specifically a resident using his garage as an auto-repair facility, and a resident not removing an abandoned vehicle, both of which have gone unaddressed by the City.

PRESENTATION

ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN. (Moved to start of meeting)

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – TOWN OF THE CITY OF PEORIA

ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the Town Attorney Requesting Adoption of a RESOLUTION that Creates the Right of Any Person to ADDRESS the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES at any MEETING of the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES of the Town of the City of Peoria Consistent with the State Statute and Adopting RULES Consistent with Those Previously Adopted by the City Council.

Irving moves to approve as outlined, seconded by Spain. No discussion. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZENS’ OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL

Savino Sierra, LaVetta Ricca, and Jessie McGowan addressed the council.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

And the council will go into executive session to talk about possibly hiring Patrick Urich… or at least, that’s the rumor. What we know for sure is that they’re going into executive session. Goodnight everyone!

2011 Election, Chamber of Commerce, City Council, City of Peoria

Answers to Biz PAC’s questions

16 Comments

As I mentioned in a previous post, I received a questionnaire from the new “Biz PAC” (formerly Peoria Area Chamber PAC). Here are the questions they asked, along with my answers:

What are your top three priorities if elected?
I believe city government exists for the purpose of providing basic, essential public services to residents and businesses in the fairest and most efficient manner possible. Based on those principles, my top priorities include developing a sustainable budget, improving the city’s infrastructure, and restoring faith in local government through greater transparency.

For Incumbents only: What are your top three accomplishments in your most recent term on the Council?
N/A

Please explain your position on the provision of economic development services by the City of Peoria. Discuss the options of contracting out vs. providing the services in house.
I oppose outsourcing economic development services to private organizations because it could compromise accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the use of taxpayer dollars. However, sharing these services with Peoria County or contracting them out to the County would be worth exploring. Economic Development tools should be used strategically and as intended. (For instance, Enterprise Zone status should be given to blighted areas that need it, not to greenfield sites that do not.)

Please explain your position on shared services between the City and other units of government. Be specific regarding the services you believe should be shared, with whom should they be shared and why.
I do believe in exploring and acting on opportunities to share or combine services with other governmental bodies when it’s to our mutual advantage. One possibility mentioned already is to share Economic Development activities. Additionally, the City and County should combine their election commissions to eliminate needless duplication. Peoria Township should be dissolved and its duties discharged by the City and/or the County; there is no good reason to have this superfluous layer of government. Other areas should be explored for possible consolidation such as planning/zoning, information technology, and human resources.

The City Council recently engaged an outside firm to assist in the reorganization process. Please provide your perspective reorganization of city government and be as specific as possible.
Since no specifics have been made public, I can only speak in generalities. It is a good idea to investigate whether greater efficiency can be gained through the reorganization of city departments. However, this should be a public debate, deliberated in open session.

The City Council has had two back to back challenging budget years. Please explain your perspective on the recently passed 2011 budget. Do you believe the structural deficit problem has been addressed? Do you support or oppose the fee/fine/tax increases passed by the Council?
Before instituting a natural gas tax, the City should have exhausted other, less regressive methods of raising revenue and lowering costs, such as instituting a packaged liquor tax and reducing/eliminating downtown parking subsidies. Acknowledging the recession’s role in our budget crisis, much of the crisis is of the Council’s own making. The predictable failure of MidTown Plaza is costing taxpayers a half million dollars a year. The City had to pay out over one million dollars to cover a very unwise loan guarantee to Firefly Energy. The City also gave away two very valuable assets for practically nothing (the $10 million Sears block sold to the County for $1 and the $2+ million Kellar Branch rail line sold to the Park District for $1). The 2011 budget crisis could have been significantly mitigated had the Council sold these assets for market value and stayed out of the venture capital business. To address the structural deficit successfully, we need to learn from (and not repeat) past mistakes.

While control of the pension systems for City of Peoria employees is outside the direct purview of the City Council, what will you do personally to work for change in this system?
I will support pension reform that provides fair and reasonable pension benefits that are affordable and sustainable for municipalities.

What do you believe is the role of the City Council members (both collectively and individually) in promoting regionalism?
I’m not sure what is meant by “regionalism” in this context. Regional cooperation among municipal organizations should be pursued as a matter of policy. However, cities should retain their own elected representatives and decision-making authority, not be subsumed into a large regional government. City Council members can promote regional cooperation by building relationships with other elected officials (collectively) and working with them on areas of mutual concern, resulting in more efficient delivery of public services.

Please tell us in 400 words or less why the business community should support your candidacy.
A basic-services platform is very business-friendly. Safe streets and improved infrastructure benefit everyone in the City. When public services and incentives are provided in a fair and equitable manner, they give businesses an even playing field and set the table for economic development. Furthermore, by limiting government to its core function, taxes can be kept low.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Feds to provide money for basic City services

5 Comments

News came yesterday that the federal government will be paying for ten of our police officers for the next three years. Nevertheless, Peoria will still be losing three officers, as 13 positions were cut from the 2011 budget. Peoria can’t afford them because it’s too busy spending its money on civic centers, hotels, risky start-up businesses, and other non-essential, losing propositions, as well as giving away its assets to other tax-collecting public bodies.

The good news is that Peoria will get to keep 10 of its police officers who would otherwise get cut. The bad news is that the entire nation is now paying for the City’s poor fiscal management. What’s another $2.7 million to the federal government? They’re only in debt by $13.8 trillion or so. Big whoop.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Taxes

Don’t be fooled by empty rhetoric from City officials

51 Comments

There’s an article in today’s Journal Star I just couldn’t let pass without comment.

City officials including Mayor Jim Ardis have … expressed some of their frustrations with other taxing bodies in Peoria — namely Peoria Public Schools District 150 — for increasing its property tax rate while the city avoids similar hikes despite increasing political pressure to do so.

Reporter John Sharp did a good job of covering what I’m about to say, but I just want to emphasize it: The City didn’t raise property taxes because it raised taxes on our natural gas bills. The mayor and city council members can crow all they want about how they didn’t raise our property taxes (and District 150 did), but the truth is that the City will be taking more money out of our pockets next year than District 150.

According to this report, “Under the projected rate next year [for District 150], the owner of a $100,000 home would expect to pay about $1,640, excluding any Homestead exemptions or increase in assessed valuation, an approximately $13 increase [emphasis added] above this year under the same determinations.” In contrast, the natural gas tax is “a 3.5 percent tax on gross receipts resulting in about $33 to $34 more [emphasis added] for the typical residential user each year.” So the average homeowner will only be paying $13 more next year to District 150, but $33 to $34 more to the City of Peoria, albeit by different means. The total dollar increases are also significantly different: the City’s natural gas tax raises $2.2 million in revenue, whereas District 150’s increase raises up to $900,000 in additional revenue.

Furthermore, guess who else gets to pay the natural gas tax? That’s right — District 150! So the council has raised taxes on the school district, and is now complaining that the school district is raising property taxes. To a certain extent, the City is really raising property taxes by proxy. District 150 doesn’t have the ability to tax natural gas, garbage, water, liquor, etc., like the City does. When their costs increase, they have to go to the property owners to get more revenue.

Keeping these facts in mind, consider these outrageous statements from City officials quoted in the article:

“It doesn’t seem like there has been a lot of consideration from the other taxing bodies to continue to (not) increase their portion (of the property tax).” [Mayor Ardis]

“We’re on the edges of a tax revolt in this country…. The bottom line is we have to live within our means. If we have to afford less government, we have to put less government in place.” [Eric Turner]

This from two members of the council who voted to spend $55 million on expanding the Civic Center, spend $37 million to build a hotel (including a $9 million developers fee), give away the $10 million Sears block for $1, give away the $2.8 million Kellar Branch for $1 (and indirectly cost the taxpayers $1.25 million for its acquisition by the Park District), back a $3.3 million loan to now-defunct Firefly Energy (resulting in over $1 million owed by the City)… need I go on?

“If you are a citizen of Peoria and open your tax bill each year, you will see your taxes have been increased year after year…. I do think it’s important we continue on the city side to hold our property taxes away from an increase.” [Ryan Spain]

Apparently, all other taxes are okay to raise. Fees on our water bills, taxes on our Ameren bills, sales taxes downtown, the continuation of HRA taxes to pay for the overbuilt Civic Center — these apparently don’t have any affect on citizens. As long as we “hold our property taxes away from an increase,” then the quality of life here is golden!

A word to the wise: Council members in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.