Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

Press conference tomorrow regarding “serious” crime issues

17 Comments

I have no idea what this is about. I’ve checked all the usual news sources, but found nothing, so if you have any details, please share. From a press release:

Mayor Jim Ardis and Members of the Peoria City Council, will hold a news conference on Sunday, November 2, 2008, at 12:00 Noon. The news conference will be held in front of the Peoria Police Department, 600 S. W. Adams Street.

The news conference will address serious concerns relating to crime issues in Peoria, specifically addressing the Friday night shooting directed at our police officers and a recent drug bust in a central Peoria neighborhood.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who explained the situation in the comments section. As someone pointed out, the Journal Star has the story up on their site now:

Peoria police shot a man to death early this morning after the man allegedly opened fire at officers with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

The 27-year-old Peoria man, whose name has not been released, reportedly shot a patrol car near the intersection of Idaho and Montana streets about 12:45 a.m.

If you’re wondering where Idaho and Montana streets are, they’re on the south side, near Harrison Homes.

UPDATE 2: The press release also says they’re going to discuss “a recent drug bust in a central Peoria neighborhood.” That would probably be this one, reported by HOI News:

HOI 19 news has learned that three people arrested during a drug and weapons raid this week are out of jail without posting bond [emphasis mine] and neighbors say they are outraged…. Peoria city councilman Bob Manning, who represents that area, says many concerned neighbors have contacted him. He says city leaders are planning on sitting down with the police department tomorrow to discuss this situation further.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Streets, West Bluff

Van Auken abandons Main Street improvements

21 Comments

According to our neighborhood newsletter, second-district councilperson Barbara Van Auken is not going to ask for any funding for Main Street improvements in 2009:

The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million. Barbara Van Auken (our City Council representative) will not support inclusion of changes to Main Street in Peoria’s 2009 budget, citing the need to do further study of the project, as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.

That’s right. After all the time, money, and effort that has been expended for these improvements over the past six years, now, at the 11th hour, our city councilperson is evidently going to abandon the project.

Let’s review. Main Street is one of four form districts in Peoria (the others being the Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road Corridor). A form district is a small part of the Heart of Peoria Plan area that the City singled out for more intensive coding known as a “form-based code.” The idea was to focus resources on these areas, then spread out from there to revitalize the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan area over time.

Main Street is starting to see some significant private investment. The old Walgreens was recently purchased and a new mixed-use development is underway. The businesses adjacent to the Costume Trunk are replacing their facade. One World recently expanded with the departure of Lagron Miller.

But at least one established business — Running Central — is getting impatient for improvements to be made to Main Street. In the past, the new owner has stated that if changes aren’t made, he’s going to move the business to Junction City.

You can’t blame him. The city seems to be stuck in “analysis paralysis” when it comes to changing the streetscape on Main. Consider the studies: The Heart of Peoria Plan (2002); Wallace Roberts & Todd Med-Tech/Ren Park study (2004); Farrell-Madden form-based code study (2006); Hansen traffic study (2008). All of these studies in one way or another said we need to “fix the streets” — i.e., make them more pedestrian-friendly, slow the traffic down, provide on-street parking for businesses, etc. — and so far, no road improvements have materialized.

Van Auken’s pronouncement that she won’t even try to get funding for this important project in 2009 is disappointing to say the least. After six years and four studies on this project, what’s it going to take to get some follow-through from the city?

In fairness, some progress has been made in other areas: specifically, the form-based code and broader Land Development Code have been enacted. But that’s only half of what’s needed to make these form districts a success. The LDC and form-based codes regulate the private space. But in order for these districts to thrive, there absolutely must be improvement to the public space as well.

Public improvements have been noticeably absent from the form districts so far. Attempts to make Adams and Jefferson street two-way in the Warehouse District has met with opposition from Caterpillar. Efforts to narrow Washington street to make it more pedestrian-friendly has met with opposition from IDOT and first district councilman Clyde Gulley, who is in the trucking business and likes having Washington be a high-speed truck route. The Prospect Road corridor hasn’t even been talked about the last two years.

The most promising area is the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, where yet another study has recently been done to look at specific ways to improve the streetscape. Whether that effort will get funded remains to be seen. I’m not sure whether Van Auken considers it one of those “more pressing priorities” for the City’s capital budget, or if it will also get the axe.

Finally, let’s quickly talk about Van Auken’s reasons for abandoning the Main Street project.

  • “The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million.” — Assuming that estimate is correct, yeah, that’s a lot of money. But of course it can and should be phased over several years, not spent all at once. That’s the way it is with all large road projects. Speaking of which, does anyone think that the fifth district councilman will not ask for funding for widening Northmoor Road or extending Pioneer Parkway in 2009 due to “more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city”?

  • “…citing the need to do further study of the project…” — I think we’ve already established that there’s been plenty of study. Anyone wanting more study at this point is simply looking for different conclusions.

  • “…as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.” — Why is the Main Street project not a “pressing priority”? We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying it and countless hours getting public input on it. There’s even a grassroots organization (Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff) that has sprung up to try and push this project along. There’s no governmental or judicial agency standing in the way of it. It’s part of the city’s plan for revitalizing the older parts of town. What are these unspecified “more pressing priorities”? Implementing a new logo? Continuing to subsidize downtown parking?

I would also point out that these improvements to Main Street have quite a bit of popular support in the second district (although there are some who are opposed, of course). Neighborhood organizations, the West Bluff Council, and businesses along Main are pretty enthusiastic about seeing these changes made. I wonder how all those people will feel about Van Auken putting the kibosh on those improvements right before she’s up for reelection.

City of Peoria, Taxes

Are downtown properties underassessed?

16 Comments

While I was looking at some property information on Main Street, I noticed a disparity between the assessed value of the property and what actual sales have been. Here are the properties adjacent to the Pere Marquette on Main:

Property ID Address Assessed Value 2007 Taxes
1809206011 533 Main $14,280.00 $1,174.82
1809206012 531 Main $178,700.00 $14,701.58
1809206013 527-529 Main $87,580.00 $7,205.18
1809206014 519 Main $58,780.00 $4,835.82
TOTAL $339,340.00 $27,917.40

That gives those properties, according to the tax assessor, a fair market value of $1,018,020 (i.e., three times the assessed value). However, also according to the assessor, these four properties were sold for $1.05 million in 1997, and $1.5 million in 2004. So the current assessed value is lower than the properties were worth over 10 years ago, and a half-million dollars lower than they were worth four years ago. Underassessment means lost revenue to the city as well as the county.

Are we talking about a lot of money in lost tax receipts here? Maybe not one year from just these four properties (although every little bit helps when the city is looking at a $2.2 million deficit). But over time, it adds up.

And what if this isn’t an anomaly? What if other downtown properties are underassessed? I think it’s worth investigating, especially with the city in need of extra money and contemplating raising taxes and fees. Why shouldn’t downtown property holders pay their fair share?

City of Peoria, General News

Big Al’s looking for new digs

25 Comments

According to the latest Liquor Commission agenda, Big Al’s is requesting a liquor license for 414 NE Hamilton. Rumor has it that the Pere Marquette has bought out Big Al’s current location for (pardon the pun) an obscene amount of money. So now, Big Al’s has its eye on this building:

For context, the G.A.R. Hall is two doors to the left, Enterprise car rental is next door to the right, and across the street is the Associated Bank building. I hear tell some tenants in the latter building are opposed to Big Al’s moving in across the street.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup 10/28/08

Leave a comment

Possibly the biggest news from Tuesday’s Peoria City Council meeting is that the council decided not to pursue purchasing the Peoria District waterworks. So, the clock starts ticking — the city has the option of buying back the waterworks every five years, so mark your calendars for 2013 when this will come up again. The vote, by the way, was 4-7. Voting in favor were councilpersons Manning, Sandberg, Montelongo, and Van Auken.

Naturally, the council approved a temporary change to the Form District portion of the Land Development Code (which I discussed in a previous post). The vote was 9-2, with councilmen Sandberg and Jacob voting against it.

A new Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district was created downtown. Sandberg was the lone “no” vote. This TIF is part of the new “Hospitality Improvement Zone Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Project” (HIZTIRPAP?), which, if I understand it correctly, is designed to help existing downtown hotels improve and encourage the development of new hotels downtown — especially a hotel near the Civic Center. I’ve heard unconfirmed rumors that the Pere Marquette is going to be one of the first hotels to take advantage of these incentives by planning an expansion.

The council made no decision on whether to raise elected officials’ salaries, deferring the item until next Monday’s special meeting. However, there was a last-minute attempt by councilperson Van Auken to tie any future raises to the Consumer Price Index instead of a flat percentage. This led to a six-and-a-half-minute sermon from councilman Nichting on the value of public service and the sacrifices of public servants.

The other two newsworthy items were that (a) they denied a liquor license to Target in the Glen Hollow shopping center, and (b) they appointed F. Eugene Rebholz to the Peoria Public Library Board of Trustees, replacing Frank Gold, chairman of the library’s building committee.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission votes against temporary LDC changes

4 Comments

The city’s Planning and Growth Department is spearheading an effort to review the portion of the Land Development Code (LDC) that deals with form-based code districts “to determine if all the regulations are performing as anticipated and to ensure compatible development which meets the purpose statements of the code.” Toward that end, they have done two things:

  1. Established an LDC Review Committee. The LDC Committee is comprised of two representatives from the Heart of Peoria Commission, Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. I’m one of the two representatives from HOPC. So far, we’ve had two meetings. No decisions have been made yet, but we’ve discussed street wall and parking setback requirements and worked on crafting definitions for “change of use” and “expansion of use.”

  2. Requested the City Council temporarily amend the LDC while the LDC Review Committee completes its work. This is on Tuesday’s agenda. Basically, they want to make it easier for projects in a form district to get an exception from the regulations. Currently, any exceptions to the regulations must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA’s decision is final; any appeals have to go through circuit court. Planning and Growth is requesting instead that any exceptions be handled as a special use request; that would require the City Council’s approval. Again, this request is just for a six-month period — long enough for the committee to complete its work.

During the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting Friday morning (which wasn’t attended by any media, incidentally), that second point was one of the topics of discussion.

Some commissioners felt the temporary LDC change was a good idea. They argued, like Planning and Growth, that the LDC Review Committee’s recommendations “could include rewriting of certain regulations or removal of them after a determination that they may be too extensive.” Hence, exceptions during this time should be able to be made legislatively (through the council) rather than judicially (through the ZBA). The applicant would still have to make their case either way; it would only change which body has the final say.

Others, like me, were skeptical. I didn’t hear a compelling reason why this change was necessary. First of all, there don’t appear to be a rash of requests before the ZBA (in fact, their last regular meeting was cancelled because they didn’t have a single case). Secondly, the issues that are being reviewed by the committee are limited in scope, so there’s no need to change the exceptions procedure for all form district regulations. Others pointed out that exceptions made under this proposed temporary change could set a bad precedent.

The Heart of Peoria Commission was split on the issue. A motion in favor of the temporary change failed 3-4. That was followed by a motion to make no changes to the exception process while the commission completes its work; that motion passed 4-3.

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

Water company buyout on agenda for Tuesday

12 Comments

As my letter from Illinois American Water indicated, the council will be taking up the matter of whether to buy the water company at their Oct. 28 meeting.

Included in the council communication are (1) the March 1, 2005, letter of appraisal that set the value/purchase price of the Illinois American Water Peoria District at $220,000,000, and (2) the City’s Water Company Acquisition Financial Analysis. The financial analysis estimated that 2006 revenues would have been $29,360,000, based on actual revenue information acquired through the due-diligence process at that time. It also estimated that an operations contract to manage the water company would cost about $11,000,000 in 2006, increasing 3% each subsequent year.

The analysis showed that the water company would pay for itself — i.e., taxes would not have to be raised to cover the debt service — and water rate increases would only be 3% per year. Under this scenario, sufficient funds would be set aside for capital improvements as well.

Of course, things have changed since 2005. A new analysis would have to be done, as well as a new appraisal. According to the council communication, due diligence could cost as much as $2 million, and the city could find that it now can’t afford the water company when all is said and done.

Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper today as saying, “To me, it will be very difficult to justify spending $2 million to do due diligence on this under the current budget constraints…. I don’t think that is a priority.” Ardis voted against the buyout last time, also.

Also of interest in the Journal Star’s article are some preliminary numbers from Illinois American Water Company’s telephone poll:

Company spokeswoman Karen Cotton said the research shows that of 400 registered voters in Peoria who were polled, 55 percent strongly opposed a city-backed buyout of the waterworks, while 89 percent believe City Hall has higher priorities.

In a 2005 referendum, 82% of voters were opposed to the water company buyout. Depending on how many were “somewhat opposed,” we may find that opposition is softening.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council to look at raising their salary

15 Comments

The council next Tuesday will consider raising the salaries of the mayor, district and at-large council members, city clerk, and city treasurer positions. I can’t actually say “raising their own salaries,” because the new salaries won’t take effect until after the next election. In other words, if they pass this increase, they’ll only get the raise if they get reelected.

Here are the proposed salaries and car allowances:

Position Salary Car Allowance
Mayor $32,400 $475/month
District Councilman $14,000 $400/month
At-Large Councilman $14,000 $400/month

The City Clerk and City Treasurer salaries are the same, and would increase by 5% each year as follows:

Period Annual Salary
May 5, 2009 to May 4, 2010 $94,264.80
May 5, 2010 to May 4, 2011 $98,978.04
May 5, 2011 to May 4, 2012 $103,926.94
May 5, 2012 to May 4, 2013 $109,123.29

It’s funny — in a private company, salaries are something that is kept secret among the staff. And generally, most people don’t disclose their salary to others. But if you work for the city or some other public body, your salary is public knowledge. Everybody knows. Your co-workers, your friends, your neighbors. They all know what you make. That has to feel a bit awkward at times.

City of Peoria, History

AMVETS building preservation app deserves public hearing

4 Comments

Thanks to the kindness of City staff members in the City Clerk and Planning & Growth departments, I was able to get a copy of the historic preservation application for the AMVETS building:

Historic Preservation Application for 237 NE Monroe (3.03 MB)

The applicant, Les Kenyon on behalf of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation, makes a compelling case for preserving this building, originally known as the United Duroc Building. Here is a summary of his argument from the application:

Built and dedicated in 1916, the United Duroc Bldg. is a Colonial Revival style with significant architectural features that meet criteria #4 and #6. Features include white enamel (glazed) brick and glazed terra cotta; there are elaborate decorative crowns above the dual entrances, fanlight-transom windows, terra cotta cornices, trabeated pilasters with triglyphs and gutta, Palladian windows.

Designed by WH Reeves and built by WM Allen, two key men involved in the design and construction of Peoria’s most notable buildings including Peoria’s City Hall, Spalding Institute, Glen Oak Park Pavilion, St. Augustine Manor, Peoria State Hospital, Mohammed Temple and many others.

The United Duroc building was also home to: the distinguished University Club, Battle Creek Baths and a Comptometer School and publishing company.

The application states that this building meets five out of the nine criteria for historic preservation:

  • #3 — Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the development of the City, State or Nation.
  • #4 — Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous materials.
  • #5 — Its identification as the work of a Master Building Designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, the state or the nation.
  • #6 — Its embodiment of elements of design, detailing, or craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant.
  • #8 — Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature.

You can read all the details in the application.

I called Les Kenyon today to ask him a couple of questions that came up in my last post. He was kind enough to take my call. I asked him why he hadn’t applied for historic preservation of this building until now — why not anytime in the last 40 years, as some have suggested. He replied that, first of all, the property didn’t come up for sale until just recently, and secondly, there wasn’t an historic preservation ordinance 40 years ago. He said we didn’t get such an ordinance until “5 or 6 years ago.” (Actually, I checked, and the city’s historic preservation ordinance was passed August 15, 1989 — about 19 years ago. Time flies.) He said prior to that time, if you wanted to preserve a building, you had to buy and save it yourself.

I asked him if he and the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation had any plans to be more proactive in requesting historic status for other buildings instead of waiting until they come up for sale or demolition. He said yes, that in fact one of the CILF board members has a list of several historic properties that they are planning to go over at a future meeting and ultimately present to the city council. However, he said they have to be careful about presenting too big of a list because it may alarm some council members who aren’t supporters of historic preservation. He feels it’s more effective to take small steps toward preservation.

And that strategy perhaps best explains why some requests for preservation come at the 11th hour. It’s not that these weren’t worthy buildings in the first place. It’s simply that they are strategic in submitting applications, and sometimes a building that’s on their list comes up for sale or demolition before they’ve gotten to it. Then they have to move it to the top of the list.

Whether or not you think the building should ultimately be preserved, I believe it at least deserves a hearing. I know this will cause some delay of AMVETS’ plans, and that’s regrettable. But once a historic structure is gone, it’s gone forever. I think it’s worth our time (and for a public hearing, we’re talking about less than 45 days) to make sure we’re not going to regret its demolition after it’s too late to do anything about it. Let’s make sure this application is fully vetted, and if the building does not warrant salvaging, so be it.

The Historic Preservation Commission will decide Wednesday morning at their regular meeting, 8:30 a.m. in City Hall Room 400, whether to grant a hearing or not.