Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Neighbors taking preventative action to save homes

5 Comments

After reading in the paper that the school board is still eyeing Morton Square Park as the possible site of a new District 150 school, neighborhood activists are not wasting any time trying to protect the park (and their homes) from unwanted intrusion. They want the park to be named an historic landmark. The Journal Star reports:

Frank Lewis, who owns property adjacent to the park and who sits on the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, brought the idea to the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation. The foundation, of which Lewis is also a member, approved supporting landmark status for the park at its meeting Monday.

Making it a landmark would stymie attempts by the park district and school district to site a school there. The funniest line, though was from park district board president Tim Cassidy, who said the park board may welcome, rather than fight, landmark status for Morton Square:

“I cannot tell you what position we’d take, because I don’t know the implications,” Cassidy said. “If one of the things driving it is the school district’s plan, we didn’t have any knowledge of it until I read it in the paper. It’s never been discussed. The request has never been made.”

This is laughable. I encourage everyone to read the District 150 Master Planning Committee Final Recommendations, dated October 11, 2005. In there, the school district  specifically states as one of their action items:

14. Engage the Peoria Park District in discussions to acquire land adjacent to or on the Morton Square and upper Glen Oak Park sites. Such discussions might include the swapping of land.

Now we know that the school board talked to the park district about the Glen Oak site in an illegal park board closed session. Are we to believe Mr. Cassidy’s assertion that he “didn’t have any knowledge of [the district’s plan] until [he] read it in the paper”? That the school board only mentioned the Glen Oak part of the plan, but not the Morton Square park portion?  Does he think we were all born yesterday?

Also in the Master Planning Committee report (emphasis mine):

Beginning in the Woodruff attendance area in Fiscal 2007 with completion by Fiscal 2009, phase-out Glen Oak Primary School and either acquire/swap land in upper Glen Oak Park or adjacent area or expand Von-Stueben campus into K-8 [ . . . ]; Alternatively a new “Glen Oak Park” campus or, a vacated administration center on the Von Stueben campus would be vacated by 2009 and re-purposed with an addition into a primary school.

Separately, property would be acquired adjacent to and/or on the Morton Square Park site. A separate replacement building would be built as funds became available with a targeted opening of Fiscal 2009. Upon completion of the new school, Kingman and Irving schools would be closed. The Glen Oak, Kingman, and Irving primary students would be re-allocated to the “Morton Square Park” and either the Glen Oak Park (preferred) or expanded Von Stueben sites.

Sounds like neighbors of Morton Square Park have plenty of cause for concern; I’d say it’s pretty clear their houses are next on the chopping block if they don’t act to protect them. Godspeed, Mr. Lewis.

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, 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.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Uncategorized

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part III

2 Comments

Of course, the truth of the matter is that this underground parking deck isn’t for the Central Illinois Regional Museum at all — it’s for Caterpillar’s visitor center. As councilman Sandberg pointed out, Cat originally wanted an above-ground [underground] parking deck built on their portion of the Sears block and paid for with federal dollars. But they found out that federal rules prohibit the use of those funds for [public] parking decks on private property. Furthermore, the Heart of Peoria Commission strongly recommended there not be any surface parking on the site. So Cat, rather than doing away with the parking, now decides to put the deck underground on the public half of the property and use property tax dollars (through the TIF) to pay for it.

The rest of the council is, of course, perfectly okay with that. They had all kinds of justifications for it. Councilwoman Van Auken said that removing the cap on the TIF wouldn’t take money away from essential services like fire station staffing. Bill Dennis has the best response to that spurious argument.

But the most embarrassing justification was the “we- have- to- approve- this- plan- or- Cat- will- move- their- headquarters- out- of- Peoria” reason. To hear Chuck Grayeb talk, for instance, you’d think Cat was poised to pull up stakes and move out of town any second, and that Peorians should be sacrificing their virgin daughters on an altar outside Cat headquarters and paying tribute money to keep them here.

Let’s face it — Caterpillar is a very large employer and has been very generous to Peoria civic projects and charities. I’m all for giving credit where credit is due. But that doesn’t mean our council should just rubber stamp every Caterpillar request. To do so makes the council a mere figurehead government that represents Cat and not Peoria residents.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part II

3 Comments

For further proof that this museum will be a bust, we need only turn to the parking lot debacle, which consumed most of the deliberations last night. The council voted to give more money to the Museum Square project (by removing the TIF cap) so that an unwarranted and expensive parking garage could be added.

Yes, the 75+ street spaces plus the parking decks across the street to the northwest plus the surface lot to the southeast are just not enough parking according to the council and Museum Collaborative. Why? On-site parking is “part of the success factor for the facilities being built there,” said one of the presenters. “This is Peoria,” councilwoman Van Auken reminded us, as if we all just arrived here from outer space. People aren’t going to walk a block to the museum because “we live in a northern climate” and the weather isn’t always good.

With all due respect, that’s horse hockey. Ever been to a Bradley game? A symphony concert? A Chiefs game? Steamboat Days? Skyconcert? I would submit that Peorians park on the street and in surrounding parking decks and surface lots for these and a host of other downtown activities — in all kinds of weather. People are more than willing to park a block or two away and walk if there’s something worth walking to. If the parking deck proponents believe that people won’t walk across the street to see our beautiful, new, state-of-the-art museum, then why are we building it at all?

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

Museum Square: Boondoggle in the Making, Part I

1 Comment

Let’s play the old game, “Who Am I?”

  • I will be a regional draw
  • I will revive downtown
  • I will raise a lot of tax revenue
  • I will be self-supporting

Who am I? If you guessed Museum Square, you’re correct. And if you guessed the Civic Center, you’re also correct. Yes, the promises are remarkably similar. Also remarkably similar: the prospect that this project will not be self-supporting and will need ongoing help from the city to keep it afloat.

Councilmen Manning and Jacob ran the numbers, and this project has even less of a chance of being profitable than the water company buyout would have been in its proposed first year. They convinced the council to change the language of the redevelopment agreement amendment to say the museum collaborative will not ask for any more money from the city.

I applaud their effort, but realistically, everyone knows the museum is going to come back for more money around 2010. And what’s the city going to say? “No, we’ll let the museum close down and have a big vacant building on the Sears block again”? Not hardly. No, we’ll be subsidizing this thing for many years to come. And it started last night with the vote to give them more TIF (Tax Increment Financing) money.

City of Peoria, Press Release

Public meeting on landlord licensing planned

2 Comments

NEWS RELEASE
Date: April 4, 2006
Released by: Alma Brown, Public Information Officer, 494-8554
Subject: LANDLORD LICENSING

Council Member Bob Manning will hold a meeting on April 8, 2006, from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at Peoria City Hall, in City Council Chambers, to discuss the possibility of requiring landlords to be licensed.

The meeting is open to the public and the community is encouraged to attend.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup: Longevity pay gets the short straw

Long-time city employees will no longer be rewarded for simply sticking it out a requisite number of years.  The city council voted to eliminate longevity raises/bonuses for city managers and give salary increases based on merit alone, like most businesses nowadays.

If I worked for the city a long time, I would probably be ticked off.  On the other hand, councilman Turner pointed out that Peoria eliminated longevity pay two or three other times in recent history, only to reinstate it a few years later.  So perhaps it will prove to be a temporary measure.

This measure is predicted to save just under $300,000.

Sorry for harping on this, but if the city is so strapped for funds, why didn’t they sell that old rail line that runs through the heart of the city to Pioneer Railway and rake in that cool $565,000 when they had the chance? Maybe they should approach Pioneer and see if they’re still willing to buy….

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

Council roundup: Hotel “request for proposal” approved

4 Comments

The city council wants to get proposals for a new hotel that would be physically connected to the Peoria Civic Center.  The Civic Center Authority believes that such a hotel is crucial for the success of the civic center expansion.  According to the all-knowing, all-seeing consultants, convention centers “in northern climates” are more successful when they have climate-controlled hotels connected to them.  Thus, they’re looking for a hotel that meets this criteria:

  • National chain with centralized reservation system
  • Minimum 3-4 star Mobil rating
  • At least 250 rooms (300 preferred)
  • Full-service, including pool, sit-down restaurant, bar and room service
  • Facility must be architecturally compatible with Peoria Civic Center

Incidentally, I think that second bullet is funny — I mean, is the minimum 3 or 4 stars?  It can’t be both!

The request for proposals originally specified where the hotel would be sited on the Civic Center property, but the council decided to leave the specific location open to developers, so long as the hotel is physically attached somehow.

My take: This is only the latest in a series of proposed “silver bullets” for the success of the Civic Center.  What does the Civic Center need to be successful?  HRA taxes.  A consultant.  A renovation.  An expansion.  A hotel.  It never ends!  It’s like that old detective show “Columbo” starring Peter Falk.  Just when you think you’ve finally gotten rid of them, they turn around and say, “Oh, one more thing….”

We’re always just one more large capital expenditure away from wild success.  This hotel is just the latest mirage.  They’ll build it, and the Civic Center will continue to operate in the red, and then we’ll hear that there’s just one more thing we need:  a new covered parking deck, perhaps, or a private restaurant in the Civic Center proper, or whatever.

I don’t know what the answer is for the Civic Center, but I can tell you that it isn’t more tax money. Why is it that The Mark of the Quad Cities can make a profit for 12 straight years (they had their first losing year in 2005), but Peoria’s Civic Center, which is managed by SMG, can’t ever turn a profit?  Is it time for new management?