Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Crime

Noise ordinance violation dismissed

37 Comments

City attorney Randy Ray recently sent this update to the City Council regarding the noise ordinance violation against Caleb Matheny, president of the Sigma Nu fraternity on Bradley’s campus:

Sonni Williams has looked into this ticket which was issued at the Sigma Nu house. She has spoken with the officers who were present and has determined that we cannot prove a case against Mr. Matheny. There is a report that loud voices could be hear 500 feet away, but we cannot prove whose voices were heard. Accordingly, this ordinance ticket is being dismissed.

Matheny is suing Second District Council Representative Barbara Van Auken over the incident that led to the noise ordinance ticket being issued.

City of Peoria

City seeks declaratory judgment against Elliott’s

19 Comments

From a press release:

Date: March 12, 2009
Released by: Alma Brown, Communications Manager, 494-8554
Subject: ELLIOTT’S BBW, Inc.

The City of Peoria has filed an action for Declaratory Judgment against Elliott’s BBW, Inc. The Complaint seeks a Declaratory Judgment from the Court that the use of the premises at 7805 North University for a dressing room to serve the adult business at 7807 N. University is not permitted.

The City has filed this action in the interest of reaching a quick and economical resolution of this issue. The City intends to try the case in Court and not the press. A copy of the Complaint is available by contact Alma Brown at (309) 494-8554.

Without looking at the actual addresses, I think I can surmise what’s happening here. You may recall that the building in which Elliott’s wanted to open their strip joint was too close to a residential area according to City ordinance. However, it was just barely too close (no pun intended). So, to get around the ordinance, the owners of the building put up a wall in the middle of the building to turn it into two separate legal addresses. The legal address farthest from the residential area then was able to have a strip joint in it.

Now, it sounds like they’re using part of the other half of the building for a “dressing room” for the strippers, and the City is saying ixnay. If that’s the case, then I agree with the City. If that’s not the case, well, it doesn’t matter because “the City intends to try the case in Court and not the press.” 🙂

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Glen Oak School Neighborhood Impact Zone adopted

4 Comments

For those who think the City isn’t doing enough to support District 150 schools, take a look at the Neighborhood Impact Zone that was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan Tuesday night. This was a collaborative effort of the City, School District, neighbors surrounding Glen Oak School, and Tri-County Regional Planning, led by Third District Councilman Bob Manning and At-Large Councilman George Jacob. You can download a PDF of the zone/plan from the city’s website.

Here’s what I found most impressive: it includes measurement and follow-up. They’ve set incremental four-year goals for homeownership, crime reduction, neighborhood satisfaction, business retention, infrastructure improvement, community involvement, and education. They measured all these before the plan was adopted so they had a baseline from which to evaluate changes from year to year.

I hope that this type of planning effort is next applied to the area surrounding the new Harrison school, as it could certainly benefit from a focused effort to improve all the items on the measurement list.

Kudos to the City, which has really gone the extra mile to improve this area. Although I’m still disappointed that the school district felt it necessary to purchase (for $3.2 million) and tear down three blocks of housing stock, an historic school building, and local business structures in order to build a suburban-style mega-campus, I applaud the fact that at least they stayed centrally-located in the neighborhood and are willing to open up the campus and building as a community center.

City of Peoria

Liquor license moratorium proposed

21 Comments

Proposed Liquor License Moratorium Area, March 2009On Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council will consider a request to place a three-year moratorium on new liquor licenses in a three-block area downtown (see map to right for specific boundaries).

That’s what the council will consider. Why this moratorium is being proposed is sketchy. According to the Journal Star, it comes at the request of Deputy Liquor Commissioner Eric Turner.

Turner has gotten numerous requests from business people wanting to open taverns around the hotel area, which is currently home to several taverns, he said Thursday.

But in order to plan for development around the hotel, he said, the city needs to hold off before approving any more taverns. Earlier this year, the council voted down a request to open a tavern at 619 Main St., the former Dungeon Music & Apparel Inc., next to SOP’s.

“Let’s get a plan together before we know what the area should look like,” Turner said. “If someone is going to make this much investment in the city and the city puts up tax dollars, we need a nice area that will spur Downtown development. We are trying to do the right thing.”

So, evidently the city is going to “plan for development around the hotel” and determine “what the area should look like.” And apparently they expect this effort to take three years. Mayor Ardis mentioned elsewhere in the article what they don’t want the area to look like: “We don’t want to stifle new business Downtown, but we don’t want the entire area surrounding the new hotel to be gin joints, with all due respect.” The council communication further states, “The moratorium will not affect the liquor establishments already site approved for the retail sale of alcohol and would not prohibit site approvals for assembly halls or stadiums, hotels or rental halls.”

Is it just me, or does this seem to be an attempt to protect the new hotel’s bar and restaurant(s) from competition? There is no agenda item establishing a process to develop a “plan for development around the hotel.” This plan didn’t go before the liquor commission for a public hearing. This plan has seemingly come completely out of the blue.

Also hard to understand is why the council is concerned about “gin joints” around the new hotel, but doesn’t have any problem allowing a strip club in the same area. They even changed the adult use ordinance to allow it into the area. Now they want to change the liquor ordinance to keep new bars and pubs out. I can’t put my finger on it, but something just doesn’t add up.

City of Peoria, Crime

Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel sued by Sigma Nu

57 Comments

Sigma Nu Fraternity and Caleb Matheny are suing Second District City Council Member Barbara Van Auken, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel over an incident that happened last fall. Matheny and his lawyers (with the firm of Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser, LLC) held a press conference at 10:30 this morning in front of the fraternity, 1300 W. Fredonia.

The attorneys stated that this isn’t a political issue, but “a justice issue.” They allege that Van Auken abused her power as a City Council member, and that justice must be served to protect their client and other Peoria citizens from such abuse. They said they were taking the case pro bono and that Sigma Nu will donate any monetary damages they receive to their charity, Children’s Hospital of Illinois. They called on Van Auken not to use city legal resources in her defense, but to retain a lawyer at her own expense.

You can read the suit here (PDF file). Attorneys also stated that the City of Peoria has been uncooperative in providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act, which is why there has been such a delay in filing this suit. However, they did get a copy of the surveillance video of the incident — with audio — which they will be releasing to the press; no timetable was given for its release.

Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel declined to comment on the suit. Van Auken is currently in the middle of a reelection campaign against challenger Curphy Smith. Smith also declined to comment on the suit, saying he wants to “stay focused on the issues that are important to the people of the 2nd district and the city of Peoria.” At-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg didn’t have any comment on the suit itself, but did say that he had also had trouble getting information from the City and police department regarding the incident.

My take: Had this happened anywhere besides a fraternity house, I believe there would have been universal outrage at Van Auken and the others involved. But because Second District residents have had so much difficulty with unruly Bradley students through the years, many residents automatically prejudge the situation and assume that the fraternity must have been in the wrong, and that Bradley police were not doing an adequate job of keeping students quiet. In fact, Van Auken is actually seen by many in a favorable light because of this incident — like a Charles-Bronsonish vigilante hero, who finally gave those Bradley kids what they had coming. This lawsuit will only add to her “martyr” status with those supporters.

Further muddying the waters is the timing. This incident happened over five months ago, yet it’s resurfacing right now — during an election campaign — just a few weeks before residents will choose whether to give Van Auken a second term. That makes the suit look fishy to many observers, despite the plaintiffs’ protestations that it’s “not a political issue.”

And then we have the facts. Police reports and eye-witness accounts agree that Van Auken was acting intoxicated, that she did poke a Bradley police officer and show contempt to all Bradley police officers by saying they weren’t the “real” police, that she did try to intimidate the fraternity and the Bradley police by calling Peoria police to the scene and calling Bradley Vice President Gary Anna to complain about the fraternity, and that she did trespass on private property and refuse to leave when asked. Nevertheless, Van Auken and her friends were not the ones ticketed. The only ticket issued was to Matheny for violating a noise ordinance, even though the officer writing the ticket did so because he was ordered to do so by his superior officer, not because he actually witnessed any violation.

Despite the fishiness of the timing of this suit, I do not think it’s frivolous. In fact, I think it’s a win/win for the citizens of Peoria. If there was indeed an abuse of power, it needs to be dealt with for the protection of all citizens. And if Van Auken, et. al., are found innocent, then it will restore the public’s trust in these officials.

However, it doesn’t look like this is going to see a courtroom until at least August of this year, and in the meantime, things are going to get ugly. Just tonight, I got an anonymous e-mail from an address called “Anti Van Aucken” [sic] pointing me to this website. It has all the police reports and says it will have audio and video soon.

2009 Campaign, City Council, City of Peoria

Endorsement: Beth Akeson for City Council, Third District

18 Comments

Three candidates are vying to be the Peoria City Council’s third district representative: Beth Akeson, Kelley C. McGownd-Mammen, and Timothy D. Riggenbach. There is a primary on Tuesday, February 24, to narrow the choices down to two. The Journal Star Editorial Board is correct in their endorsement of Akeson and Riggenbach for the primary.

Beth Akeson and her familyI’m going to go a step further, though, and give you my endorsement for the general election, which will be April 7. I’m endorsing Beth Akeson for the Peoria City Council’s third district seat being vacated by Bob Manning.

Motivational speaker Joel Barker once said, “Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with vision is making a positive difference.” This is what sets Beth Akeson apart from the other candidates: She has that rare combination of action with vision. And she will make a positive difference for the citizens of Peoria, especially in the third district.

Vision

First, Beth has a specific vision for the future of Peoria. It’s a vision that’s shared by many because it was shaped from lots of public input. The Heart of Peoria Plan was formed through a public process that included hundreds of participants: residents, business owners, city staff, and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, many candidates and even council members have not read the Heart of Peoria Plan or taken the time to really understand the vision that Peoria’s residents have developed. The result has been a lot of action without vision.

Beth Akeson has gone beyond simply reading the Heart of Peoria Plan. She has done extensive study on urban design. An understanding of how cities work gives her a strong foundation from which to make decisions. It allows her to see how the little decisions made today will impact the future of the city. It allows her to see through expensive, ineffective “magic-bullet” theories for city revitalization and focus on long-term, time-tested methods of urban planning that will lead to real revitalization.

An important part of Beth’s vision is the principle of inclusion and consensus-building. The reason why the Heart of Peoria Plan has wide support is because of the process that was used to develop it. It was an inclusive process. All the stakeholders had a seat at the table from the beginning. Every participant’s concerns were heard and taken into consideration. The final plan was worked out through consensus-building among these stakeholders.

Beth’s vision for representing the third district is the same. She believes in giving residents a seat at the table early in the decision-making process so their concerns can be heard and have an impact on the final outcome. Most projects in the city are presented for public input too late in the process to make any difference at all (for example, the recent downtown hotel project). Beth would work to change this culture of exclusion to a culture of inclusion.

Action

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Beth from working with her on the Heart of Peoria Commission, it’s that she works hard. She took her appointment seriously and did a tremendous amount of research on the issues that came before the commission. She made phone calls, visited sites, sought out expert advice, talked to people who lived in affected areas, and more importantly, listened. Beth is a good listener; she seeks first to understand, then to be understood. I can tell you that I’ve personally witnessed this time and again — with city staff, business owners, residents, and other commissioners (including myself). She will bring this same level of commitment to her role as a city council member.

The Chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, the late Bill Washkuhn, recognized Beth’s hard work on behalf of the commission. He encouraged Beth to take her efforts to the next level. In an e-mail he wrote just this past December, he said, “Beth, continue to direct your energies toward the betterment of Peoria. Run for City Council.”

I lived in the third district for eleven years, from 1994 to 2005. It’s a diverse district with very diverse needs. I sincerely believe that Beth Akeson is the candidate that will make the biggest positive difference for her district and the city at large. I hope you’ll vote for her.

City of Peoria

City should be compensated for encroachments

6 Comments

In any city, the land is divided into public and private space. Private space is land owned and maintained by individuals and corporations, and public space is land that is owned and maintained by public bodies (cities, counties, park boards, etc.). Streets and sidewalks, as well as the space above and below them, are examples of public space. Whenever private individuals or corporations encroach on public space, some sort of compensation is naturally due to the public body on whose land they encroach.

Thus, for decades there has been an ordinance on the books that requires the private owners of pedestrian bridges and underground vaults that encroach on public spaces to get a permit. In order to get a permit, they have to pay an annual fee and assume liability for any damage to the streets, alleys, and sidewalks as a result of their encroachment.

But according to a recent Journal Star article, the City of Peoria hasn’t collected any fees for these encroachments for decades. Upon discovering this oversight, you might think that the City — which is hurting for money — would jump on the chance to restore this income stream, modest though it may be.

But no. Instead, they’re thinking about just getting rid of it.

[Public Works Director David] Barber also said he’s unsure if it’s even worth the city’s trouble to assess the fee.

“We don’t have an inventory on these things since they go back so many years,” Barber said. “We would need access to the properties, we need to measure them and, frankly, we don’t have the time to do all of that.”

First of all, the city deserves to be compensated for private encroachment on public space. This is standard practice for all types of encroachment — for instance, the permit fees that street vendors have to pay to sell food from pushcarts on the courthouse square. The city doesn’t seem to have any trouble measuring how much space these vendors are taking up, charging them fees, etc.

Secondly, there’s a liability issue here that every city with skyways and underground vaults recognizes. These encroachments need to be inventoried and insured at the private owners’ expense for the safety of the city and its citizens.

Thirdly, it’s not unreasonable to recover the city’s costs for administering this permit process through a reasonable fee assessed to the businesses. The city needs to do the responsible thing and update their ordinance to raise the fees to 2009 dollars, and finally start enforcing this ordinance that has been neglected far too long.

City of Peoria, Energy Issues, Gary Sandberg, Peoria Police

City trying to cut down on idling vehicles

11 Comments

The City of Peoria is going to try to persuade its employees not to leave their city vehicles idling for long periods of time. I wouldn’t say they’re “cracking down” on the practice, because there doesn’t seem to be much more than an awareness campaign planned at the moment. But it’s not a bad first step.

Several citizens, including councilman Gary Sandberg, noticed that some police officers who would eat breakfast at a local restaurant in Peoria left their squad cars on and idling in the parking lot the whole time they were inside eating — sometimes as much as an hour or longer. When the City’s Energy Efficiency Task Force submitted their report to the council, Sandberg asked interim City Manager Henry Holling to look into the idling problem, since that’s a huge waste of energy, not to mention unnecessary pollution.

After that, the police officers never came back to the local restaurant. They apparently eat breakfast somewhere else now. That prompted Sandberg to say at a recent council meeting that “moving the problem is not solving the problem.”

So now, according to this week’s “issues update,” the city is giving all its employees who drive a city vehicle an anti-idling brochure: “A change in behavior will be reinforced with flyers posted on bulletin boards and articles in the employee newsletters. Department Heads are also emphasizing in staff meetings the need to reduce engine idling.” It doesn’t appear, however, that there will be a policy instituted or enforced.

My take: This will be great for conscientious employees who probably aren’t letting their vehicles idle excessively anyway. For those who leave their cars idling for an hour while they eat breakfast, I doubt this will make any difference whatsoever, some of them even they go and find the best dash cam online so they car are secured while they’re apart of the car. Those employees already feel justified in leaving their cars on for excessive periods of time, and will likely change their behavior only if told by a superior to knock it off. So that’s precisely what needs to happen in addition to this public-awareness campaign for any significant change to occur.

If you witness excessive idling of a city vehicle, write down the vehicle number and location and e-mail it to me. I’ll pass that information along to the city.

City Council, City of Peoria

CSO improvements head wish list for stimulus funds

3 Comments

On the Peoria City Council’s agenda for Tuesday is a “resolution establishing the City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects.” Here they are:

The City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects are as follows:

  1. Combined Sewer Improvement Projects as follows:

    a. Western Avenue Storm Sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $5.1 million.

    b. Glen Oak Avenue storm sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $1.2 million.

    c. Spring Street supplemental sewer. Estimated cost: $6.5 million.

  2. Various sidewalk projects including, but not limited to,

    a. Glen Oak School Impact Zone. Estimated cost: $475,000.

    b. Sidewalks at Kellar Primary School, Charter Oak School and Rolling Acres School. Estimated cost: $525,000.

    c. Lake Avenue sidewalk at Sheridan Village. Estimated cost: $90,000.

    d. Sheridan and Lake Intersection improvement. Estimated cost: $125,000.

    e. ADA Ramp Program. Estimated cost: $250,000.

    f. Liberty Park sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $100,000.

    g. Sheridan Road sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $230,000.

  3. Construction of Darst Street and Clark Street in the Southern Gateway Area. Estimated cost: $3.33 million.

Presumably, these are all “shovel ready” projects. My only thought is, we keep hearing that the total CSO project is going to cost at least $100 million, but the three CSO projects listed here total just $12.8 million. I guess I wish we could get more money for that project since it’s an unfunded mandate that’s going to be very hard for our city to afford.

But on the other hand, every little bit helps, and it’s pretty unlikely we would receive anywhere near $100 million from the federal government. So this sounds like a good list to me.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County, Peoria Park District

More than just sales taxes may support museum

75 Comments

Did you know that your property taxes indirectly support Lakeview Museum? Karrie Alms does. She’s a community activist and frequent commenter here at the Peoria Chronicle. While doing her usual detailed research, she came across a property tax levy fund titled “Fund 123 MUSEUM PEORIA PARK.” That caught her eye, so she asked Park Board President Tim Cassidy about it. He explained:

Presently Lakeview museum owns and operates museum operations. The PPD [Peoria Park District] owns the land and building and allows Lakeview to use it under an agreement that is now several decades old.

Mr. Cassidy also confirmed that Lakeview does not pay rent for its use of the building, and “the amount of [the] museum fund levy going to Lakeview museum facility is $189,234 per the 2009 budget.” Not having to pay rent or upkeep on the building and grounds surely helps Lakeview’s bottom line and also explains why they didn’t include funds for capital improvement in their pro forma for the proposed downtown museum.

So, what happens if/when the museum moves downtown? As I reported in a previous post (“Is Peoria’s History Getting a Back Seat?” July 13, 2007) after talking to museum officials, “When the new museum opens, Lakeview is planning to hang on to its building at Lake and University to be used for storage because there’s not going to be enough storage space at the new museum. In particular, there’s not very much space planned in the new museum for special, climate-controlled storage of fragile pieces.” However, it doesn’t appear that the Park District has agreed to let the museum continue to use the building. Cassidy told Alms:

If Lakeview museum left the site to go downtown [its] continued [use] of present site would be subject to further agreement based on PPD needs for the facility. […] PPD has no final plans for Lakeview facility use if museum leaves. It remains open for discussion, although one use considered is a senior recreation/leisure facility for programming needs.

Cassidy also said that continued use of the Lakeview building “has never been approved by PPD. In fact specific request has not been made for PPD to formally act.”

If the new museum is unable to use the current Lakeview building for storage, they will have to find storage elsewhere. Without a rent-free (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) facility to use, cost of that storage would impact the museum’s profitability. The Museum Collaboration Group can’t just assume they will be able to continue using that building (rent-free, at that) when their lease expires in 2012. Off-site, specialized storage costs should be figured into their pro forma.

The Park District/Lakeview Museum arrangement also raises another question. In the ground lease the Museum Collaboration Group signed with the City of Peoria for the old Sears block, it has this interesting provision:

11.2 Permitted Assignees. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, Tenant may assign Tenant’s interest in the Lease as follows:

11.2.1 Peoria Park District. Provided the District (“Peoria Park District”) agrees, the Tenant may assign Tenant’s leasehold interest in this Lease to the Peoria Park District, subject to the following: (i) Tenant shall not be relieved of any of its obligations under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement; (ii) the Peoria Park District shall be obligated to observe the terms and conditions of the Lease applicable to Tenant; provided, however, that the Peoria Park District shall have no personal liability to Landlord, Tenant or any third parties with respect to the Lease, the Redevelopment Agreement or the Real Property, with such liability limited strictly to Tenant’s leasehold interest in the Lease; and (iii) the Landlord shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of the Lease and the Redevelopment Agreement directly against the Tenant, who shall continue to have available to it all the rights and obligations of the Tenant under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement notwithstanding such assignment.

The “Tenant” would be the Peoria Riverfront Museum, and the “obligations under this lease” would include repair, maintenance, alterations, and additions to the building and grounds. If the museum were to assign its interest in the lease to the Park District, then the Park District could use its funds — i.e., Peoria property taxes — to maintain the building and grounds. Here you can check about student loan interest deduction with guide of an experienced firm like taxfyle. That would certainly be more than taxpayers bargained for if they approve the sales tax referendum on April’s ballot.

No deal has been made to assign the lease to the Park District at this time according to Cassidy. But the legal language is in place and could be acted upon if the sales tax referendum is approved and construction of the facility is allowed to proceed. It’s something to think about when you go to the polls on April 7.