From a press release:
Due to a water main break, southbound Sterling Avenue will be closed between Bainter and Overhill. Please avoid this area and take an alternate route. Detour signs will be posted. This will remain closed until repairs are made and surface restored.
On the agenda for the April 10, 2008, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is this item:
CASE NO. ZBA 2878
Petitioner Franklin Scudder, on behalf of Richard Hayes, is requesting a 100% variance from the provisions of the Land Development Code for the Heart of Peoria Article 4.1.5.E.2. to eliminate and exceed the attached garage design standard of placement 6 feet behind the longest plane of the street-side façade to 12 feet in front of the longest street-side façade plane. Approval of the request will result in an 18-foot variance. The property is located at 819 E. Fairoaks Avenue, in the R-4 Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
I reported on this earlier this month:
This is a new house being built in an older neighborhood — in fact, it’s within the Heart of Peoria Plan area and falls under the regulations of the Land Development Code. The site plan that was submitted to and approved by the city was in compliance. But the house that’s constructed there — and almost completed — is different than the site plan, and decidedly not in compliance (The attached garage was supposed to be “set back 6? from longest plane of street side facade,” but instead it was built 12? in front of the facade, a difference of 18?). Once it came to the attention of the Planning & Growth Department, a stop work order was issued, and now the contractor will either have to comply with the approved site plan or seek a variance.
He’s seeking a variance, as expected. If he gets it, we’ll have a new way around the Land Development Code — submit a compliant site plan to the city, then build whatever you really want. It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission, you see. Since apparently no one with the City checks to see if construction is proceeding as approved, I predict we’ll be seeing a lot of these kinds of projects in the Heart of Peoria Plan area.
The date is November 21, 1964. The voters are going to the polls to decide whether Peoria should annex Richwoods Township. The voters approve annexation by a slim margin: only 336 votes.
But let’s do a little thought experiment, just for fun. Suppose that vote had gone the other way. Suppose the annexation vote had lost by 336 votes. What would things look like today? What would be different? What would be the same?
Here’s some further background info. From a 1979 article in Illinois Issues:
The population of “old” Peoria slipped from 106,000 in 1960 to less than 100,000 in 1970, but the addition of Richwoods added some 25,000 new residents to its population. Present city officials believe that the tax revenues collected from the Richwoods section have been vital to the city in maintaining its services in the older parts of Peoria.
The annexation has not been without cost to the city. Because Richwoods, like so many fringe areas around Illinois cities, had been developed according to the relatively lax zoning, construction and planning standards of county government, resulting deficiencies became Peoria’s responsibility to remedy. Fortunately, a preannexation agreement with Peoria County spared the city from having to remedy all the problems at once. As Peoria’s Mayor Richard E. Carver complained recently: “Our city is, even today, spending millions of dollars developing the basic road network which would normally have been constructed as the area developed had there been an adequate degree of planning and control present at that time.”
And also, here are a couple of charts from an undated (but apparently late-1990s) report on Peoria population growth (click on the thumbnails below to view larger image):
On the population chart, you’ll notice that population declined from 1970 to 1990. Census figures from 2000 (not included on the chart) show the population was 112,936 — a further decline. There have been special censuses conducted since 2000 that would indicate population is rising, but since they only look at population growth in one section of the city, they’re not really comparable to the decennial censuses.
One argument is that population migration would not have been any different if the annexation referendum had failed. The 15-square-mile Peoria would have suffered from the population loss, while Richwoods Township would have been a boomtown, acquiring all the wealth that used to belong to Peoria. The two municipalities would look identical to the way they look today (booming growth to the north, destitute of commerce to the south).
The other argument is that Peoria and Richwoods would have been in competition for residents and businesses, and thus would have both been stronger as a result. Without greenfield development sites, Peoria would have had to invest its money revitalizing or keeping vital its east bluff, west bluff, and south side neighborhoods, attracting developers and industry to the core of the city, etc. It would have incentivized people and businesses to stay in the city instead of acquiescing to the perceived inevitability of northward migration. As a result, Richwoods would still be a boomtown, but Peoria would not be in as bad of condition as it is today (infrastructure, commerce).
Which scenario do you buy? Or do you have a completely different scenario you think would have played out?
First of all, kudos to the Peoria Times-Observer for putting their articles online. Welcome to the Internet.
Secondly, take a look at this article about the Northmoor Road improvement project. Apparently, they have to plan for five lanes in order to get federal funding, even though they have no intention of building five lanes:
The federal government is willing to pay for a project that only involves three lanes as long as planning is done for five lanes. [Sen. Dale] Risinger said the city has no choice but to go along with the federal government’s wishes.
“This project is well beyond the scope of the city’s ability to pay,” he said. “We need the federal funds … Don’t worry about five lanes being built. That’s the city’s decision. You are the city.”
The article doesn’t say, but I’m going to conjecture that the advantage of planning for five lanes is that it will be less expensive to upgrade if needed in the future. Which means that the federal government evidently sees five lanes as inevitable in the long run. Hopefully the City doesn’t see the three-lane solution as temporary.
But there’s one other thing that I find surprising. Risinger says this road project “is well beyond the scope of the city’s ability to pay.” How can this be? I thought with all the tax base we’re capturing to the north through annexation and the increases in population that come with it, we should be awash in money for infrastructure improvements. How can this infrastructure improvement in North Peoria be beyond our ability to pay?
Here’s the press release:
There has been a cave-in in the Southbound lane of Wisconsin. Wisconsin from McClure to Arcadia will be closed from now until repairs are completed.
We are not aware what has caused the cave-in.
I just received this press release from the City of Peoria:
Due to a water main leak downtown in the intersection of Main Street and Madison Avenue, lanes will be reduced while Illinois American Water Company and Ameren make repairs to their utilities. Please plan your route accordingly to avoid this intersection for the next week as delays will be possible. It is anticipated that one lane of traffic will be maintained in all directions – but this may be subject to change depending on the extent of damage found when making the repairs.
The first steps are being taken to restore passenger train service to Peoria — a city that at one time was a hub for train passengers from all over the country.
IDOT has informed the City that a preliminary meeting with Amtrak will take place this Friday to determine which train routes they will study. Within the next two weeks, they will begin the feasibility study in earnest, and hope to have the results by late summer. Last year, IDOT and Amtrak did a feasibility study on providing train service to the Quad Cities, and the report was very favorable.
In the meantime, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association is working with legislators in Springfield to improve Peoria’s access to existing train service in Bloomington and Galesburg:
This week, an Illinois Senate Committee debated a proposal to establish better intercity bus service directly connected to Amtrak service…. Senator Michael Frerichs (D-Champaign) introduced SB 2178 to authorize the State to contract with private bus companies to provide feeder bus service that complement existing Amtrak routes….
Another key corridor is I-74 that connects Peoria, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign-Urbana. There should be intercity bus service between two of our largest university towns for lots of good economic development reasons. And Peoria currently doesn’t have any Amtrak service, so a connection to two Amtrak lines makes a lot of sense. That’s a 90 mile trip, so it’s $180 for each one-way trip. 9 passengers who each pay $10 for a bus ticket and $10 for a train ticket make that a break-even proposition. If that route is extended northwest to Galesburg to connect to that Amtrak service (another 50 miles) we might find another 5 passengers to justify that additional $100 cost.
Note that there is currently Thruway service on the I-74 route offered by Burlington Trailways, but those two daily round-trips between Davenport, Iowa and Indianapolis, IN are not particularly designed around the Amtrak schedules.
Amtrak ridership in Illinois has been hitting record levels the past few years. According to Amtrak and IDOT officials, 3.6 million passengers used Amtrak stations in Illinois in FY2007, including all trains at Amtrak Chicago Union Station.
Are we prepared for this in Peoria? With our current Fire manpower? Machines? Equipment? Budget? Imagine a crane like that falling into the Gerlach building at OSF. I understand the use of mutual aid (MABAS), but will surrounding departments be used even though there is no ongoing training together for an event? When was the last time PFD called for help from, say,a volunteer department? Likewise, when was the last time a volunteer department called the PFD?
An event like this would overwhelm the PFD even with calling in all off duty people. Stations would be empty and who would provide service? East Peoria? Pekin? They would most likely be called to the scene. We would be lucky to get other paid departments here in a short time. Canton, Bloomington, Normal, etc. There are excellent departments that surround Peoria, but the mentality is “they are just volunteers.” Look at most of the PFD and you will see a strong volunteer background. Why does the PFD shun outside agencies?
Think about this.
Yes, I am a Volunteer fireman. I have great respect for the men and officers of the PFD! I just have a problem as to the “Us and Them” issue. We both train, provide service and have pride; just some get paid more than others.
A special meeting of the Peoria City Council has been called for Tuesday, March 18. Other than a proclamation, there is only one item of business on the agenda: choosing a new search firm to assist the city in selecting a permanent city manager.
Consideration of a MOTION to RESCIND Prior Action Authorizing the HIRING of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATES LLC and EXECUTIVE SEARCH, INC. AND Consideration of CITY MANAGER SEARCH FIRMS’ PROPOSALS from FRONTIER PARTNERS, INC. and THE MERCER GROUP, with the Possibility of Taking Action to HIRE ONE OF THESE FIRMS, and Authorize the Interim City Manager or Mayor to Execute a CONTRACT with that Firm.
Ironically, on March 3, Councilman Nichting (5th Dist.) moved to hire City Manager Search Firms, The Mercer Group, Inc., and the motion was seconded by Councilman Spears (4th Dist.), but everyone else on the council wanted to hire the other firm, so Council Member Van Auken (2nd Dist.) made a substitute motion, which was approved 7-2 (Councilman Turner was absent).
Reportedly, upon the first meeting with the search firm, a majority of the council and the search firm felt that the relationship wasn’t going to work out, and so the search firm withdrew their offer. Here’s their letter of withdrawal:
Dear Mayor Ardis:
As you know, we submitted a proposal to assist the City of Peoria in the recruitment of a new City Manager on February 21, 2008.
We were honored and pleased when the City Council selected our firm for this task on March 2, 2008.
We quickly started preparations to fulfill our commitments to the duties as outlined in our proposal.
Yesterday it was a great pleasure to meet personally with you to discuss the fundamental aspects of our recruitment process before entering into binding commitments to fulfill the tasks. Thank you for your hospitality.
During the six-hour drive back to Oshkosh last evening, Denise and I discussed the advisability of proceeding. As you know, we have no employees and the three partners perform all of our work. With the Peoria project, we were hopeful that a local associate could perform much of the on-site tasks.
However, our local associate, while experienced in the private sector is unfamiliar with municipal government. It became clear that as such we would need to commit significantly more time and travel than we had anticipated fulfilling the duties associated with the Peoria project.
Given the commitments we have already made to other Wisconsin municipalities and counties, doing the Peoria project would be a very burdensome task. We therefore respectfully request that our proposal to assist the City of Peoria for the recruitment of a City Manager be withdrawn from further consideration.
We are letting you know of this request as soon as possible to minimize the delay in your proceeding on this vital, local task in the City of Peoria. We Wish you all the best, both in recruiting a new City Manager and all future endeavors in your city.
Sincerely,
William D. Frueh
Partner, Public Administration Associates
It’s interesting that one of the reasons Van Auken stated she liked Public Administration Associates better was because “the representative from Executive Search, Inc. was local,” according to the March 3 minutes. But it turns out, according to this withdrawal letter, that their local representative/associate was “unfamiliar with municipal government.” Anyone else find it odd that someone with the firm of Public Administration Associates is only familiar with the private sector? Sounds like that came as a surprise to the council; I can see why they might have been disappointed.
A special meeting was called instead of waiting until the next regular meeting so that the council won’t lose any more time finding a new city manager.
As you’ve no doubt seen in the Journal Star, the new parking deck at Bradley University is being built a little too close to Main Street:
The parking deck’s concrete base – which already is in place – is anywhere from 2 to 9 feet closer to the city’s right-of-way property than allowed. “They [the local contractor] found the error and immediately informed us,” Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, whose district includes Bradley University, said.
My question is, shouldn’t this have been caught sooner? Say, by Peoria’s building inspections department? Aren’t they supposed to make sure that a building is being constructed in compliance with city codes and the approved site plan?
Here’s another example. Take a look at 819 E. Fairoaks (corner of Fairoaks and Illinois). This is a new house being built in an older neighborhood — in fact, it’s within the Heart of Peoria Plan area and falls under the regulations of the Land Development Code. The site plan that was submitted to and approved by the city was in compliance. But the house that’s constructed there — and almost completed — is different than the site plan, and decidedly not in compliance (The attached garage was supposed to be “set back 6′ from longest plane of street side facade,” but instead it was built 12′ in front of the facade, a difference of 18′). Once it came to the attention of the Planning & Growth Department, a stop work order was issued, and now the contractor will either have to comply with the approved site plan or seek a variance.
In both cases, the construction progressed to an advanced stage before non-compliance was discovered. And in both cases, the non-compliance was not discovered by the city, but by someone else (contractor, citizen) who reported it to the city. So my question again is, why isn’t the building inspections department catching this sooner in the construction process? According to the City of Peoria’s website:
The City of Peoria has six full time building inspectors who inspect all construction requiring a permit. These inspectors verify that the construction or alterations specified in the permit are carried out at the construction site.
So, how did they miss these two properties? And how many other properties are out of compliance that haven’t gotten caught?