Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Police Benevolent: Why haven’t they agreed to wage concessions?

24 Comments

After the Tuesday night City Council meeting, I caught up with Troy Skaggs, president of the Peoria Police Benevolent, and asked him why the police union had not agreed to any wage concessions. He said there were basically three reasons.

He told me that the union met Monday night, and that City Manager Scott Moore gave a presentation. During that presentation, Moore said this wasn’t going to be a one-year concession. It was likely that the city would be back next year asking for concessions again. And probably the year after that. This was the first time the city had come out and said these requests for concessions would be ongoing and not a one-time deal. That’s the first reason the union was uneasy with agreeing to wage concessions.

Secondly, Skaggs pointed out that the police department is already down 16 positions. Seven positions are vacancies from the beginning of the year that they simply haven’t filled, and an additional nine positions are officers who took advantage of the Voluntary Separation Initiative (VSI) recently offered by the city. They’re not going to fill any of those positions, yet the council wants to cut the department by an additional 17 positions. At the same time, according to Skaggs, the fire department is “back-filling” ten positions, eight of which were vacated due to VSI. So the police union doesn’t see the equity in these two situations.

Finally, the city wouldn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t lay off more officers anyway, even if the union did agree to wage concessions. That really made the union uncomfortable, since they could give up wage increases and lose a bunch of additional officers anyway, meaning they’d be doing more work for no additional pay. Before I talked to Skaggs, I had asked Mayor Ardis about negotiations with the police union, and while he directed me to talk to the union president, he did mention that the police department had wanted some guarantees but the city didn’t feel comfortable with the offer having strings attached.

My take: I can understand, on the one hand, the city not wanting its hands tied in case the forecasted (or actual) deficit gets worse. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for the police union to expect some sort of commitment from the city in return for wage concessions.

Bottom line, though, we need police protection. We can’t balance the budget at the expense of public safety. If we “punish” the police union for not taking wage concessions by laying off more police officers, we’re only hurting ourselves.

The council needs to face the music and raise revenue somehow. They simply can’t balance the budget by reducing expenses because the cuts are too deep. Even the City Manager recognizes this — he identified 22 positions that have been cut so far that he’d like to see restored because they’re critical for the city. Those positions include restoring six police officers and several support personnel in the police department.

The real mystery is why the council is so reticent to raise taxes for public safety when they’re so quick to raise taxes for private development schemes like the proposed downtown Marriott hotel deal. Nobody wants higher taxes, but if we’re going to be paying higher taxes anyway, the proceeds should go toward the highest public benefit. As it stands now, we’re paying higher taxes and getting less police protection in return.

Not only is that bad public policy on its face, it only exacerbates the city’s predicament because it drives residents and business out of Peoria. Nobody wants to live where it’s unsafe — whether perceived or actual — and nobody is going to want to shop and dine in Peoria when they can get the same goods and services at a much cheaper tax rate just over the river, or in Peoria Heights, or in any of the other surrounding communities. The city is cutting its own throat.

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 11/3/2009

4 Comments

I’m here, but a little late, so I’m afraid I missed the beginning of the meeting. It’s 6:48 now.

Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting the Council to PROVIDE DIRECTION to STAFF Regarding the PRELIMINARY FY2010 – FY2014 FIVE-YEAR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP).

There apparently was a relatively large handout given to the council before the meeting which I don’t have, which makes it difficult to follow the discussion.

Regarding the Community Investment Plan (CIP):

  • There’s a bridge in Springdale Cemetery, and the repair of it is in the budget as a capital expenditure for next year. The motion was made not to fund it. That motion passed unanimously.
  • Councilman Spears (4th Dist.) is now talking about the Gateway Building Plaza. He doesn’t want to see it replaced with granite.
  • Councilman Spain (At-Large) says they only got their booklets about a half hour before the meeting tonight. He asks administration if there are any non-essential projects or any that are not essential for 2010 and could be put off. Mayor Ardis agrees. Mayor says he didn’t get booklet at all.
  • Councilman Sandberg (At-Large) asks about a bridge on Sheridan Road and why we were funding (until the vote) a bridge in Springdale Cemetery, but not this bridge. Rhetorical question.
  • Councilman Jacob (At-Large) asked about a state grant.
  • Councilman Sandberg says he doesn’t know what we’re getting for the $2.7 million allocated for the Glen Oak School Neighborhood Impact Zone. He’s committed to the project, but he wants to make sure we’re reinvesting in the new vision of this area and how it ties into the East Bluff, not just replacing concrete. “It’s not just ‘put it back the way it was.’ Integrate it into a new solution that will stabilize and bring people back into the East Bluff.” He made some disparaging remarks about the Columbia Terrace project, basically saying that all we did there was put it back the way it was, instead of implementing the principles of New Urbanism (traffic calming, pedestrian friendliness, form-based code, etc.). Council Member Van Auken (2nd Dist.) took umbrage and said they did more than just put it back the way it was. Councilman Riggenbach (3rd Dist.) thanked Sandberg for his remarks and then proceeded to thank a number of other people, including former third district councilman Bob Manning.

Motion to receive and file by Van Auken; seconded by Turner. Motion passes unanimously.

Communication from the City Manager Requesting the Council to PROVIDE FINAL DIRECTION to STAFF on CLOSING the REMAINING FY2010 BUDGET DEFICIT.

No wage concession agreement reached with Police Benevolent union or AFSCME. So, there’s still a budget gap of $642,597. The City Manager is recommending that 22 positions be restored at a cost of $1.1 million, creating a larger deficit. Floor is open for deliberation.

  • Councilman Spain moves to accept the budget as presented with concessions identified, seconded by Councilman Irving (5th Dist.). In other words, not restore the 22 positions as recommended. Sandberg is concerned that the motion includes refinancing debt, which will only cost us more in interest, which is exacerbating the problem; thus, he will be voting against the motion. Councilman Montelongo (At-Large) clarified that in the next couple of meetings, the council will be looking for ways to close the remaining budget gap. Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg voting nay).

Floor is open for comments concerning the budget.

  • Charles Williams — Concerned about the Peoria Police Department. We have all this crime. Why do we need to provide a Tahoe for the Police and Fire chiefs? Why do we need a captain on duty all night? We have crime all around the city, but we’re cutting officers? We need 20-25 police officers. We need to raise taxes to pay for it. We need safety. What is the Police Chief doing? He needs to account for what he’s doing. He’s also upset that PAWS funding was cut.
  • Lavetta Ricca — [Missed what she said; sorry.]
  • Savino Sierra — Unions need to sacrifice.

Ardis announces that this is the last meeting for Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger. Recognizes Hullinger for what he’s done for Peoria, and praises him for living in Peoria, and he looks forward to working with him in the future. Ardis also recognizes Captain Baer (sp?) who retired. Recognizes newest captain, Captian Mitchell, and welcomes him to their administrative team.

No executive session. Van Auken/Irving move to adjourn. That’s it. Short and sweet.

City Council, City of Peoria

Will council “show leadership” against discrimination?

17 Comments

Generally speaking, small businesses are exempt from employment discrimination statutes. “For example,” says one state publication, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, gender, disability and national origin, only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. These threshold limits are designed to protect small employers from the considerable financial and time costs associated with compliance with the statutes.”

Peoria’s city code reflected that same threshold for filing a discrimination complaint with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. A few weeks ago, the City Council decided to change the code, so now a discrimination complaint can be filed against any employer, even those with 1-14 employees. If you find yourself in situations like this, then make sure to consult a qualified disability attorney to help you build your case.

During the discussion, the official minutes of the meeting state: “Senior Staff Attorney King said neighboring areas such as West Peoria and Peoria Heights did not have such an ordinance to her knowledge…. Council Member Sandberg expressed concern that Peoria was putting itself at a disadvantage when being competitive to bring in new business. He said he felt the resolution that was passed at the State level had the responsibility to govern these issues.” His concerns were roundly pooh-poohed by the mayor and several council members:

Mayor Ardis answers: “We shouldn’t not do the right thing because our neighbors aren’t doing it.” Turner says Peoria should show some leadership in this area. Gulley says he hopes this ordinance will drive every business out of Peoria that wants to discriminate. Privilege of the floor given to Don Jackson, President of [Illinois] NAACP. He speaks in favor of the motion “in the spirit of Everett Dirksen.”

The ordinance passed unanimously.

Then, a couple of days after this council meeting, the Pekin Chamber of Commerce announced (emphasis mine): “The 48th Annual Peoria Branch Freedom Fund Banquet will be held on Saturday, November 14th at the Par-A-Dice Hotel and Conference Center in East Peoria.” Wait a minute…. Why is the NAACP holding their Freedom Fund Banquet in a community that (using the logic displayed at the Peoria City Council meeting on Oct. 13) tolerates discrimination? Why don’t they hold their banquet in Peoria — a city that has the stricter anti-discrimination policy?

Peoria City Council members were all invited to the banquet. Will they attend an event being held in a community that is not doing “the right thing,” according to Peoria’s Mayor? Will all those who spoke out so forcefully on the council floor on October 13 stick to their principles of “showing leadership” against discrimination on November 14? We’ll see.

City of Peoria

New snow plan reduces routes to pre-2007 levels

20 Comments

Flashback: December 1, 2006. A major snowstorm hit Peoria and crippled the city for days.

carburiedinsnowpeoria
Picture courtesy of weatherphotography.net.

The next month, the city was “investigating ways to improve their current snow-removing plan.” They decided to collaborate with Caterpillar and a Commercial Snow Removal Naperville service to make their improvement efforts a Six Sigma project. The results of that project were contained in a report published in June 2007. There were many suggestions for improvement, but one of the big ones was this (emphasis added):

The team understands that more snow routes should be added due to city growth of over 26 center lane miles within the past few years. The City Street Department will be looking at this over Spring/Summer 2007 and will institute better action plans with these routes and possibly develop routes within routes to even out the growth of those zones. The city currently has 25 snow routes and more routes will be added at a later date…. The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed. No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.

So, in 2007 we had 25 snow routes, and this was clearly seen as inadequate given the physical size of Peoria. Fast-forward to July 2008: the Public Works Department is proposing a new snow plan that incorporates many of the suggestions from the Six Sigma report, including this: “Due to growth, the number of snow routes needs to be increased to add one additional route.” That was approved in August, so we now have 26 snow routes.

And that brings us to next Tuesday’s City Council meeting, where the Public Works Department will be proposing yet another new snow plan. On the precipice of the winter season, we are presented with this (emphasis added):

The changes in the Plan for 2009-2010 include a change in the number of Snow Routes that will be covered based on proposed adjustments in staffing levels for 2010. In 2008-09 we included 26 Snow Routes and 5 Hill Routes. For 2009-10 the Plan includes 23 Snow Routes and 4 Hill Routes. The three Snow Routes eliminated were each split into the three adjacent routes. While this will increase our response time, we do not think the public will see much change in our response, during most events. We also still hope to complete our response to most events within about 18 hours after the end of the snow event.

Keep in mind, Peoria hasn’t gotten any smaller or removed any streets between August 2008 and October 2009. Yet we’re supposed to believe that they can go from 26 snow routes to 23 — 23!! — and we’re not going to “see much change” in response time? Imagine if this had been presented right after the snow storm in 2006. “In response to the city being shut down for over a week due to snow, we’re proposing that we remove two snow routes.” I don’t think that would have flown, do you?

But even aside from the really large snow events which are admittedly infrequent, the Six Sigma report made it clear that more snow routes were needed to provide adequate service levels — even for routine snow events — because of the growth of the city. Now either the Six Sigma report woefully overestimated our snow route needs by three routes, or Public Works is giving us a snow job now.

We all know the truth: the city council is cutting staffing, so there aren’t enough drivers anymore to sustain 26 routes. Thus, Public Works is putting unconvincing optimism into its report on how it will meet the council’s high demands for snow removal with fewer routes than we had in 2007. Fortunately, though, we’ll have a new Marriott hotel, and museum, and new landscaping on the Jefferson Street side of the Civic Center (to the tune of $600,000+), so who needs adequate snow removal, right?

The next question is, which routes will be cut? Where will the decreases in service levels hit the hardest?

  • They’re eliminating route #4 and incorporating it into adjacent routes 3 and 5. That means the near north side will see a decrease in service.
  • They’re eliminating route #10 and incorporating it into routes 9 and 11. That means pretty much the whole East Bluff will see a decrease in service, as well as the west side of Knoxville between Nebraska and War Memorial.
  • They’re eliminating route #18 and incorporating it into routes 17, 19, and 20. Route 17 is picking up the majority of route 18. That will affect most neighborhoods north of Glen Avenue, south of Pioneer Parkway, and east of University.

All the other routes will stay the same. I can’t wait to hear the justification for making most of the cuts in high-density neighborhoods while maintaining service levels to low-density areas in the far-flung north and west regions of the city.

Pray for a mild winter.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Sigma Nu suit against Van Auken, Rand and Ruckriegel dismissed

32 Comments

On October 1, Associate Judge Katherine Gorman dismissed without prejudice the trespassing lawsuit brought against Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel by the Sigma Nu Fraternity and Caleb Matheny.

While the ruling allows 28 days for the complaint to be refiled, attorneys representing Sigma Nu and Matheny stated Monday that they will not pursue the matter further.

“We have consulted with our clients and they have elected to not amend the complaint within the 28 day period,” Attorney Jeffrey R. Hall stated. “Since the lawsuit was filed, they met with Bradley University officials and have become satisfied with the results of that meeting. While they filed a lawsuit to speak out against the unexplained behavior and trespass of private property on the part of Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, and Mr. Ruckreigel, they feel satisfied with the dialogue that resulted with University and City officials.”

When asked for her reaction to the ruling, Van Auken said, “I think the actions here speak for themselves.” Rand and Ruckriegel could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of September 20, 2008. Van Auken was attending a dinner party when she received a call from a constituent complaining about noise coming from the Sigma Nu Fraternity, 1300 W. Fredonia Ave. At about 12:30 a.m., Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel walked over to the fraternity and confronted the students. Alleging that Van Auken was drunk and trespassing, fraternity members called the Peoria Police on her. Van Auken was not ticketed, but then-president of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, was given a citation for violating the city’s noise ordinance. The citation was later dismissed.

In March 2009, a little more than five months after the incident, Sigma Nu and Matheny filed suit for trespassing, and alleged that Van Auken abused her power as a council member. The suit was filed during the heart of Van Auken’s reelection campaign to the City Council. Despite the negative publicity, including the release of an embarrassing video clip of the incident, Van Auken easily won reelection. Lawyers for Sigma Nu said at the time that the lawsuit was not political, and the delay in filing was due to the city being uncooperative in providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Circuit Judge Stephen Kouri recused himself from the case; no reason was given. The case was then assigned to Associate Judge Katherine Gorman. Gorman disclosed at a September 21 hearing that she had a connection to Rand. Court documents did not specify what that connection was, but Hall stated that, “based on what she [Gorman] related in court on the record, that her husband has served on a committee of some sort with Mr. Rand in the past.” Gorman’s husband is Dr. Jim Hubler, an emergency medicine physician at OSF St. Francis Medical Center. Rand is the Executive Director of Advanced Medical Transport, the city’s ambulance provider. The hearing was continued until October 1 to allow time for the plaintiffs to confer with their clients on the matter. It appears that the connection was a non-issue, as no objection was filed.

Hall believes the outcome was a positive one for his clients: “Even though the lawsuit was dismissed, we feel the process has benefited the Gentlemen of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, and all Bradley students because they finally were allowed to have a voice. And, we can confidently say that Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, & Mr. Ruckriegel will not set foot on Sigma Nu’s property without first obtaining permission from this point on.”

City of Peoria

“Wonderful Development” Update

9 Comments

The “Wonderful Development” (that’s what City Attorney Randy Ray called proposed downtown Marriott project when the City was still keeping it a closely-guarded secret) has yet to meet any of the deadlines in its redevelopment agreement with the City. The most recent Issues Update gives the details:

REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PEORIA AND EM PROPERTIES, LTD. This Redevelopment Agreement was approved by the Council on December 15, 2008. This Agreement provides that the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Project not later than one year from the execution of the Agreement (December 19, 2009). Alternatively, the Redeveloper is to commence within 20 days of closing the initial series of the Bond, and the Bond issue has not occurred and the pre-conditions to the Bond issue have not yet been met. There is another deadline contained in Paragraph 3.5 of the Redevelopment Agreement which provides that the Redeveloper shall submit construction plans to the City no later than June 1, 2009. That has not occurred. Although this deadline has not been met, the Contract remains in full force and effect.

Going back to Paragraph 3.2.1 concerning commencement of the Agreement, the Agreement provides that if the Redeveloper does not commence construction of the Project within 18 months from the date of the execution (June 19, 2010), the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement.

According to a recent Journal Star article, the Redeveloper is “optimistic” that he will be able to get all the financing he needs to acquire the Pere Marquette and adjacent properties by January 1, 2010, or thirteen days after the deadline for construction to commence. That would leave him five months to submit construction plans to the City (already four months past deadline itself), secure approval, and start construction — or else the City could terminate the agreement.

I don’t think he’s going to make it. But then, I don’t think it’s going to matter, either, because the City never cancels redevelopment agreements that miss deadlines. In fact, I don’t know why they even bother to put deadlines into their agreements anymore when they’re demonstrably meaningless.

This Wonderful Development — to the tune of approximately $4 million in debt service per year on average — will continue to sail through, even as we cut police officers (to save $1 million annually), road resurfacing, animal control, and other vital public services. Your streets will take a little longer to get plowed in the winter, but we’ll have a downtown Marriott. The police will take a little longer to respond to your emergency, but we’ll have a downtown Marriott. That rabid dog in your neighborhood threatening your family’s safety on a Saturday? Call back Monday; the office is closed weekends due to budget cuts — but we’ll have a downtown Marriott.

As taxes continue to rise and service continues to decline, more people will give up and move out of Peoria. But that’s okay, because when those folks come back to visit, they’ll have a place to stay: the downtown . . . Embassy Suites in East Peoria.

City of Peoria

“Within walking distance”: Fact or fantasy?

40 Comments

I just have a minor quibble about this article from the Journal Star:

Putting a new piece in the latest lifestyle trends puzzle, Cullinan Cos. LLC said Thursday it will build upscale apartments within walking distance [emphasis added] of The Shoppes at Grand Prairie. Ground was broken this week on the Apartments at Grand Prairie, a 160-unit complex going up in the field behind the Rave Motion Picture theater.

I’m not sure why Paul Gordon chose to describe the proximity of these new apartments as “within walking distance,” but I find it a bit misleading. Normally, when you talk of something being “within walking distance,” it implies that you can actually walk there with reasonable ease. I don’t believe that’s the case here.

The apartments may be technically “within walking distance,” as the crow flies, but how would you walk there? Answer: not easily — or safely. While the center of the Shoppes is designed specifically for pedestrians, once you’re on the outside of the inner sanctum, all bets are off. Try crossing Grand Prairie Drive on foot to get to the restaurants across the street.

Or suppose you want to walk from the Shoppes to Rave theater. How would you do it? No path is clearly marked out. You just have to start walking across the parking lot in the general direction of the theater and be prepared to circumnavigate or hurdle some obstacles (out-buildings, a berm, American Prairie Drive, another berm, and another parking lot). In fairness, there are some intermittent sidewalks along the way. But overall, you have to blaze a path through a landscape designed for automobiles, not pedestrians.

And the apartments are going to be behind Rave, no doubt separated by a transitional buffer yard and other barriers that will make it physically impossible (or nearly so) to walk between the two even if the tenants so choose. I think the whole “walking distance” language is nothing more than a marketing slogan designed to elicit nostalgic feelings of traditional neighborhood design and sell an artificial impression of walkability in a place where it doesn’t really exist.

City of Peoria, Museum Block

Will someone please be a leader and kill the museum project now?

25 Comments

This week’s Issues Update from the city includes this information on the current status of the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum (emphasis added):

Per the terms of the Third Amendment to the Peoria/Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement, (the Third Amendment was approved by the Council on December 9, 2008), the Project Closing was to have occurred on or before June 30, 2009. The Agreement further provides that if that condition is not met, and it obviously has not been met, any party to the Agreement may terminate the Agreement by written notice to the other parties, provided such notice is received by the other parties before such conditions are satisfied. To date, none of the parties to the Agreement, the Museum, City, nor Caterpillar, have terminated the Agreement. Any party could terminate the contract. The anticipation is that there will be a four-way Redevelopment Agreement to include the County, which will supersede the current Redevelopment Agreement.

In other words, now is the perfect time to drive a stake into the downtown museum project. Yes, we had the vote back in April, but what has happened since then? The museum group has missed their deadlines again (this is the fourth time). The city’s deficit has risen to $14.5 million. The museum group has been unable to raise the rest of the money they need to start construction, and they’ve been unable to reach a consensus on a new redevelopment agreement. They haven’t kept their promises during their campaign to provide jobs during the recession, making this project our area’s own little economic stimulus. There’s still no contract with IMAX theater, despite earlier assertions from museum supporters that there was a contract sitting on their desk just waiting to be signed once the tax referendum passed. The failure of the museum group has continued, but no one is willing or responsible enough to pull the plug on this white elephant.

The city is in desperate need of more revenue — not just this year, but in future years. As we have been reminded time and time again, we’re facing a structural deficit, and we need to look at long-term solutions. Taking prime real estate off the market and giving it to a non-profit organization so they can build a single-use building that has no adaptive reuse potential is the height of irresponsibility.

Museum supporters famously claimed that the block would remain vacant for years if left up to the free market. Ironically, it’s the museum’s inability to raise money that has kept the block vacant for the past several years. A serious free market solution has never been tried. Once Sears closed its downtown store in order to move to Northwoods Mall, the city immediately bought the land. Since all the parcels have been assembled and the buildings demolished, the property has never been put on the market. If it were, I believe it would be snatched up in short order and developed, and would start generating tax income for the city.

But even if it didn’t sell right away, so what? We’re looking at long-term solutions here. In the long term, the museum would tie up that land for at least 99 years (going by the last redevelopment agreement) and generate no property tax revenue. Even if the property were to remain vacant for ten years before a commercial venture bought it, it would still be revenue-producing after that in perpetuity. And the city will need that revenue, not to mention the jobs and residents it would provide.

What about the county’s public facilities tax? What would happen to it if we were to get out of the museum deal? Well, that money was never tied specifically to the museum. It just has to be used on public facilities. It could be put to other use improving the county’s infrastructure; part of it would likely be used to build a new Belwood Nursing Home.

If you have any doubts about the folly of this project, consider this: The city, the county, Caterpillar, Methodist, the Journal Star, Illinois Mutual, Bradley University, numerous other large employers in the area, organized labor, local school districts, Illinois state legislators, Congressmen LaHood and Schock, and even a majority of the voters in the April election have worked together to make this project a reality over a period of several years. And yet, it still hasn’t happened. Now you have to ask yourself, how can this be?

Answer: Flawed plan, poorly executed. It’s time to kill this project and move on.

City of Peoria, East Bluff

Is East Bluff NHS controversy all smoke but no fire?

4 Comments

Rev. Tom Stone would like one thing to be clear: the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Service is not a governmental body.

I got a chance to talk with East Bluff NHS President Stone on Friday and ask him about some of the criticisms that were leveled at the organization during Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. He’s heard them all. He believes they boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding: The East Bluff NHS is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization — not a governmental body. Thus, it doesn’t have to abide by the Open Meetings Act, but is free to act like any other private, non-profit organization.

Looking back at my notes of the public hearing Tuesday night, that did seem to be a recurring theme. “There’s no accountability; EBNHS keeps its meetings closed,” one speaker said. “There needs to be notification of the meetings, and neighbors should be allowed to attend the meetings,” said another. That would be true if this were a governmental body, like the City Council or a city commission. But private organizations such as Catholic Charities or Children’s Home of Illinois are not required to have open meetings or invite the public to attend their executive board meetings. The East Bluff NHS is just that sort of organization.

Apparently past officers thought that, since the organization gets grant money from the City through a special service district, that made the EBNHS a quasi-governmental organization, and so they conducted the meetings that way. That’s why residents, some past officers, and other interested parties think it’s supposed to be subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), according to Stone. Legal counsel has since affirmed that it is not quasi-governmental, and new officers are no longer abiding by the OMA. Naturally, some people are feeling left out now.

Stone sees freedom from the OMA as a positive thing for the neighborhood. He explained that the belief by previous officers that they were subject to the OMA caused the organization to be slow to respond when needs arose. For instance, when a tree limb fell on a structure owned by the EBNHS, Stone said, the officers believed they couldn’t do anything about it without first having a regularly-scheduled, properly-noticed public meeting. Meanwhile, the limb and structure were a danger to residents in the neighborhood. By not being “hamstrung” by the OMA, Stone continued, the EBNHS can be more responsive and take quicker action on matters.

Another criticism from the council meeting was that one property the EBNHS has rehabilitated is being rented instead of sold as an owner-occupied property. Stone said that they did try to sell that property initially and couldn’t find a buyer, but they were continuing to pay all the utilities on the property as it sat vacant. They felt it would be better for the neighborhood to rent it to a good tenant than to have the property remain vacant. Besides, he explained, 50% of the residents in the East Bluff are renters, and there is a legitimate need for decent, well-maintained rental property as part of the housing mix.

After the Council meeting, concerns were expressed to me over the fact that the EBNHS was changing its bylaws. Stone confirmed that they are doing that, but the reason is because past changes to certain parts of the bylaws had put those provisions in conflict with other portions of the bylaws. So, the changes are designed to make the bylaws consistent. While he didn’t mention it, I imagine (this is pure speculation on my part!) that parts of the bylaws that required compliance with the OMA were probably removed, and this was upsetting to those who thought the EBNHS should be subject to the OMA, as discussed earlier.

One last criticism I didn’t talk to Stone about was the claim that there isn’t enough accountability. This criticism also shows up in Third District Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s comments to the Journal Star:

Riggenbach said the council likely will ask for the group to submit minutes from its meetings or provide the city with its quarterly financial data. “We are expending taxpayers’ dollars on this, so we need to hold them accountable,” Riggenbach said. “Ultimately, the council is responsible for it.”

While it’s not quarterly, most non-profit agencies have to complete IRS form 990, which is open for public inspection through services such as GuideStar. Form 990 lists the officers, financial information, and the mission statement of the organization. I wondered if the East Bluff NHS had been completing and submitting these forms, which would indicate whether it’s being as accountable as other non-profit ventures. They have. The most recent form posted is for the 2007 tax year, which was filed in November 2008.

Whether there needs to be more accountability is debatable, but it does appear that they’re doing everything they’re legally required to do at this time. The City can attach whatever legal strings they want to the grant; in fact, they could make it so unpalatable that the EBNHS decides not to take it and pursue private funding instead, such as through NeighborWorks.

But all this controversy is a mystery to Rev. Stone. He points out that the EBNHS has done next to nothing the last couple of years and hardly any residents have attended the heretofore open meetings. Yet he didn’t hear any complaints about the lack of progress. Why all the criticism now that they are moving forward to improve the neighborhood? Why would the residents want to stop the City from reinvesting in the East Bluff? And why haven’t any of the critics contacted him to discuss their concerns?

It sounds to me like George Jacob has the right solution:

At-large City Councilman George Jacob said all parties involved in the issue need to come together and talk.

“I think it would be an idea for the groups to get together and air out their concerns and see if there is a constructive way we can resolve people’s concerns,” he said.

City Council, City of Peoria

Take me to your leader

3 Comments

As I mentioned in my correction to the last post, one of the cuts approved by the City Council on Tuesday is this:

Eliminate Economic Development Director
The current compensation for this position in $125,329. $25,000 is retained for restructuring the department. Without a full-time director, there will be a serious reduction in efforts, especially in marketing the City to regional and national developers and companies.

The Economic Development Director position is currently held by Craig Hullinger, who recently announced he will be retiring on November 6.

This raises a whole host of questions. Why would they keep an Economic Development Specialist position, but eliminate the Director position? How will decisions be made in the department without a Director? Majority vote? Or will one person act as the de facto leader without the title or the pay? (I don’t see how that could be avoided, frankly.) If the department doesn’t need a Director in order to function efficiently and effectively, then why have we had one all these years? And are there any other departments where the Director is unnecessary and could be cut to save money?