Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

Cable franchise agreement on agenda Tuesday

6 Comments

When the Cable and Video Competition Law passed in Illinois, I expressed some concern over what it would mean for Peoria. You may recall that the Act states:

…if the holder [of a state franchise agreement] is an incumbent cable operator or any successor-in-interest company, it shall be obligated to provide access to cable or video services within the jurisdiction of a local unit of government at the same levels required by the local franchising authorities for that local unit of government…

And I said:

The Act defines “incumbent cable operator” as an entity “that provided cable services or video services in a particular area under a franchise agreement with a local unity of government…on January 1, 2007.” Insight has not had a franchise agreement with Peoria since April 2006 when the last agreement expired. The city has been negotiating a new franchise agreement ever since, but the two parties have not come to terms. So it’s very possible that Insight would not be subject to the “incumbent cable operator” provisions of the Act.

But on Tuesday that problem may very well be solved. The council likely will approve a franchise agreement extension until January 1, 2008, retroactive to April 15, 2006. This extension would also approve a transfer of the agreement from Insight to Comcast. The upshot is that Comcast will be considered Peoria’s undisputed incumbent cable operator, and that may work to Peoria’s advantage whenever Comcast decides what kind of franchise agreement (state or local) it wants to pursue.

Basically what this means is that we won’t see any reduction in cable service, if this agreement is approved.

City Council, City of Peoria, Traffic

The Coves keeping out the riff-raff?

19 Comments

On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.

The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.

Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.

So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.

The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.

I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.

So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.

The Cove of Charter Oak
City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library

Snarky Szynaka

1 Comment

Fellow blogger PeoriaIllinoisan recently expressed his dismay that the Peoria Public Library is not open on Saturdays over the summer. Library director Ed Szynaka took the time to respond, explaining that “ALL branches will be open on both Saturday and Sunday when we finish this building alignment.” “This building realignment” refers to the library’s plan to expand some branches, close others, and build a new branch on the north end. But, he added, “we cannot issue the bonds that will let us move forward without the approval of the City Council.”

Then he makes what I consider to be a bit of a snarky comment at the end:

Thank you for supporting the recent vote. 72% of your fellow citizens who voted that also supported that measure. Now getting the City Council to support what the citizens voiced is becoming a very difficult task. Why is no one questioning that issue.

Just for the record, 9,970 votes were cast in favor of the referendum, which was indeed 71.61% of the votes cast (13,923). However, it’s about 14.8% of the total number of registered voters (67,011), and 8.81% of the total Peoria population (113,107). And it’s an advisory referendum, not a binding one. Hence, the need to go through the city council.

I voted for the referendum, but with the understanding that the money to be spent by the library would be subject to city council oversight. It wasn’t a blank check, as Mr. Szynaka seems to imply. I’m willing to pay more for improved library infrastructure and services, but last I looked, the library reps aren’t elected. I don’t want unelected people spending my money with no oversight. I don’t want the city council saying, “oh, the people voted for it, so let’s just let the library do whatever they want with $35 million.”

The best news that came out after that vote was that Gary Sandberg was appointed library liaison. I’m confident that Gary will keep their feet to the fire and make sure that no money is being wasted. And that’s why I’m not “questioning that issue.”

City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Take wrong ticket? Fired. Kill someone while boating drunk? Reinstated.

8 Comments

I just about fell out of my chair this morning when I read that Troy Parker has been put back on the police force by an arbitrator, albeit on unpaid administrative leave. Parker, you’ll recall, was fired for driving a boat while intoxicated, crashing the boat, and killing Damon Teverbaugh.

So, let me see if I understand how things work here. If you get drunk and kill your best friend in a boating accident, you should be allowed to stay on the force until convicted in a court of law — internal investigations are insufficient to fire you read more about the DWI Criminal Law Center who can help you get representation. But if you take a winning ticket at the Par-a-dice by accident because you thought it was your own, then make restitution immediately upon finding out you were mistaken, and no charges are filed — you’re fired anyway. Case closed.

Something is not right here. I don’t know if it’s racism or just that Dunnigan was disliked by the wrong people, but you can’t tell me there isn’t an inequity in punishment here. Why is Troy Parker still on the force and Marshall Dunnigan isn’t?

City of Peoria

City evidently looking to outsource code enforcement

14 Comments

The City of Peoria has been looking for ways to save money, and one of those ways is to consider outsourcing certain functions currently done in-house. When City Manager Randy Oliver looked at outsourcing the mechanics that work on the city’s fleet of vehicles, he met with a tremendous amount of push-back. Now it looks like another department is on the list for outsourcing: code enforcement.

Take a look at this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on the International Code Council website:

Job ID: 2331984
Position Title: Property Maintenance Code Enforcement and Administration
Company Name: City of Peoria
Job Function: Code Compliance/Enforcement Officer
Entry Level: No
Location(s): City of Peoria, Illinois, United States
Posted: August 8, 2007
Job Type: Contract
Job Duration: 1-2 Years
Min Education: None
Min Experience: 1-2 Years
Required Travel: None

Request for Qualifications
City of Peoria, IL invites experienced companies interested in administering and enforcing property maintenance codes to respond to this RFQ. Peoria, IL currently enforces the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code, with adopted amendments. Peoria has a diverse population of 112,000, which includes many older neighborhoods, as well as continuous growth with numerous new subdivisions under construction. Interested companies would be expected to provide housing and environmental enforcement, to include, but not limited to, tagging vehicles for towing, posting abate notices, issuing work orders, issuing housing violation notices for admittance to Housing Court, issuance of citations and follow up appearances in Housing Court, as well as Peoria County Circuit Court. If you would like more information, please call the Inspections Office at (309) 494-8626. Interested organizations should submit information no later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, August 31, 2007.

Please submit your response to:

City of Peoria
John Kunski
456 Fulton St., Suite 401
Peoria, IL 61602

Peoria currently has 21 employees according to the City’s website (2 managers, 13 inspectors, and 6 support staff members). So outsourcing this department could conceivably save considerable money. Other cities have done it, to mixed reviews. At least one blogger has suggested it.

I think most people would agree that we need more code enforcement officers because of the huge work load out there (right now, it’s my understanding that code enforcement is complaint-based), but the city simply doesn’t have the money to hire more and more people with salaries and benefits. So maybe this is the solution to both problems. On the other hand, if they do outsource it, we’d better not have to report our complaints to a call center in India.

City of Peoria, Southern Gateway

City ready to issue license once Abud meets conditions

3 Comments

Chicago developer Ahmad Abud complained to the media last week that the city wasn’t moving fast enough in getting him a liquor license for his new south side grocery store, Adams Supermarket.

Abud said, “I never expected to spend one-point-two-million and then having all these problems going through all these hard times. I was expecting that we, investors would be welcomed here. The city’s gonna help us, I mean no headache.”

But the City says he will get his liquor license and Certificate of Occupancy once he meets the conditions the City Council required and to which he agreed. City Manager Randy Oliver says that as of the last inspection, which was July 30, the following conditions have not been met:

  • Parking lot lighting does not work (no power to the lights).
  • Landscaping not complete.
  • Misc. construction items (emergency lighting, exit signs, GFI and open electrical).
  • We have also not verified operation of the security cameras.

Oliver added that the City is “prepared to reinspect and if the items are completed issue the Certificate of Occupancy and Liquor License upon completion of these items.” So it would appear that the ball is decidedly in Mr. Abud’s court.

Frankly, I don’t know what Abud is complaining about; these don’t appear to be unreasonable conditions for getting a permit; are we to believe that the requirements were any lower in Ohio or California (where Abud has other stores)? I think not.

Update: Mayor Ardis, who is also the City’s liquor commissioner, informed me that businesses “can’t get a city liquor license until they have a health department license,” and Abud doesn’t have a health department license yet.

City of Peoria, New Urbanism

How the other Peoria does things

10 Comments

Peoria Arizona LogoIn Peoria, Arizona, it appears they have a new Wal-Mart opening in their town (two of them, actually), but it won’t look anything like the ones here:

The façade of the Oldtown Wal-Mart at Peoria and 79th avenues will make it appear as if it is broken into small shops, said James Mason, assistant to the city manager.

With such features as upper-story windows with awnings and shutters, changes in elevation and materials, the store will give the impression of a variety of stores that developed over time.

“It has that . . . old Main Street kind of look, even though it’s a large, big-box store,” said Mason. “That’s one of the best things you can do with a large, contiguous space. It breaks it up, it makes it more pedestrian-friendly, it makes it more pleasant to look at.”

I hate Wal-Mart, but I quote this article to make a couple points: First, even big box stores (and there’s no bigger box than Wal-Mart) can adapt their cookie-cutter templates to conform to a community’s design standards, in this case making their store façades attractive and consistent with existing architecture.

And second, this didn’t happen by accident. Although the newspaper article made it sound like it was Wal-Mart’s idea, in fact Wal-Mart was simply complying with Peoria, Arizona’s Non-Residential Design Manual. Some of the requirements of that manual can be seen here in this excerpt from their Planning and Zoning Commission’s minutes regarding another Wal-Mart that is being built on the north side of town:

Section 20-70-4 of the Non-Residential Design Review Manual requires rooflines to be varied in height, form, and materials. Building mass is to be broken into small components through the use of recesses and projections, wall plane off-sets and changes in texture and color. The elevation plans for the Wal-Mart structure demonstrate conformance with Design Guidelines. The elevation plans provide ample horizontal and vertical articulation to break up the mass of the buildings. The buildings also incorporate a diverse color and material palette. Decorative cornices along the roof parapet, fenestration and wainscoting have been included in the design. Upon completion of this building and supporting landscaping, the development will provide a significant aesthetic enhancement to the existing commercial node at the intersection of Thunderbird and 75th Avenue.

See, if Peoria, Arizona, can dictate to Wal-Mart what form their big box store should take, surely Peoria, Illinois, can do the same for big and small developments within the Heart of Peoria Plan area… such as on the old Sears block… or along Knoxville between Downtown and McClure. All it takes is a little willpower.

City of Peoria, Southern Gateway

The city should help Abud… put his truck stop somewhere else

8 Comments

WEEK.com reports that Chicago developer Ahmad Abud has yet to receive his approved liquor license from the City. I think it’s fair for him to question why. The council already approved it weeks ago. What’s the holdup?

Of larger concern, though, is this part of the story (emphasis mine):

The grocery store is phase one of the project. Abud wants to build a diesel fuel truck stop on this property next to the grocery store. But before that happens he says he wants more support from the city.

The city should only support Abud if he puts his truck stop someplace else, away from Harrison Homes. Imagine if you were a resident of Harrison Homes. It’s bad enough that you have to live in those conditions, but now imagine someone wants to build a large diesel truck stop in your back yard (this property is literally across a narrow residential street from Harrison Homes). Further imagine that the city was helping him put it there!

No, this is not an appropriate location. The truck stop either needs to be nearer the interstate (I-474) or somewhere along the more industrial portion of Washington (north of where Adams branches off) nearer the destination of many of those trucks. In any case, the place it most certainly does not belong is right next to Harrison Homes, where the some of the poorest of Peoria’s residents live.

Here’s a little test for this project: ask yourself, would this fly if the plan were to put it just north of Route 6, right across the street from some of our fifth-district residents? If not, then it shouldn’t go across from Harrison Homes either. It’s as simple as the golden rule.

City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Bridges under scrutiny

2 Comments

McClugage Bridge

Ever since Minnesota’s I-35W bridge collapsed, communities throughout the U.S. have started casting a concerned eye toward their own bridges. I asked City Manager Randy Oliver for some information about Peoria’s bridges and the city’s role, if any, in inspecting and maintaining them. Here’s what he said:

The bridges that are the City’s responsibility are primarily box culverts (e.g. concrete boxes with openings) which are more durable and require less maintenance. The State is responsible for all significant bridge structures over the River, Interstate and on State Routes.

The City is only responsible for and only inspects bridges that are the City’s responsibility. Inspection of the Murray Baker Bridge, for example, takes someone with specific technical skills and experience. We have not one with the skills or experience to inspect that type bridge.

So, it’s the State’s responsibility, and the State is taking action. The Chicago Tribune reports that “Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday ordered state inspectors to examine all bridges considered to be critical.” That would include the Murray Baker and McClugage bridges.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a National Bridge Inventory, which includes inspection information. I looked at the most recent inspection information available (2006) and found a couple of interesting items.

Bridges are given what’s known as a “sufficiency rating.” The FHWA defines it this way:

The sufficiency rating formula […] is a method of evaluating highway bridge data by calculating four separate factors to obtain a numeric value which is indicative of bridge sufficiency to remain in service. The result of this method is a percentage in which 100 percent would represent an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent would represent an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge.

What are those four factors? They are (1) structural adequacy and safety, (2) serviceability and functional obsolescence, (3) essentiality for public use, and (4) special reductions. You can get a full explanation by reading the mind-numbing Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (1995).

The sufficiency rating of the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was 50%, but that doesn’t really tell the whole story. Since there are four factors that go into that rating, not all pertaining to safety, it’s also important to look at the individual structural ratings. For instance, the superstructure of the I-35W bridge was rated as being in “poor condition.”

In the chart below, I’ve listed the 2006 ratings of Peoria’s bridges, along with three other scores indicating the condition of each bridge’s deck, superstructure (structure proper, bearings, joints, paint system, etc.), and substructure (piers, abutments, piles, fenders, footings, etc.):

Bridge Rating Deck Super Sub
McClugage EB/US-24/150 63.5% 8 5 5
McClugage WB/US-24/150 89.0% 6 6 7
Murray Baker/I-74 60.1% 7 6 7
Bob Michel/IL-40 78.7% 7 5 5
Cedar Street/IL-8/29/116 65.3% 7 5 7
Shade-Lohmann EB/I-474 92.1% 8 6 7
Shade-Lohmann WB/I-474 80.0% 8 5 7
McNaughton/IL-9 (Pekin) 83.0% 7 5 8

Here’s what the ratings mean:

9 = EXCELLENT CONDITION
8 = VERY GOOD CONDITION – no problems noted.
7 = GOOD CONDITION – some minor problems.
6 = SATISFACTORY CONDITION – structural elements show some minor deterioration.
5 = FAIR CONDITION – all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour.
4 = POOR CONDITION – advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.
3 = SERIOUS CONDITION – loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.
2 = CRITICAL CONDITION – advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.
1 = “IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION – major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.
0 = FAILED CONDITION – out of service – beyond corrective action.

As you can see, our bridges are in pretty good condition, but there is definitely room for improvement of some of them. To be eligible for funds from the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, “a bridge must carry highway traffic, be deficient and have a sufficiency rating of 80.0 or less.” It looks like we have a few that qualify.

City Council, City of Peoria

Parental responsibility laws largely unenforced, likely unconstitutional

5 Comments

During the “new business” portion of Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Ardis distributed a memo to all the council members that said:

I am attaching a communication that I sent to the previous council this past spring with a few examples of Parental Responsibility Ordinances being used in other cities. l would like to entertain a discussion on the need for a similar ordinance in Peoria sometime in August.

Attached to the memo were copies of ordinances from five other communities: Des Plaines, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Royal Oak, MI; Silverton, OR; and Cincinnati, OH (repealed 2002). The council will discuss this topic at the August 28 council meeting.

Rarely Enforced

It’s not surprising that this would come up again right after an unsupervised 15-year-old threw a stone off an I-74 overpass, killing the passenger of a passing car. But how effective are these laws? According to “An Empirical Study of Parental Responsibility Laws” published just last year in the Utah Law Review, not very.

University of Oregon School of Law professor Leslie Joan Harris surveyed every police chief and prosecutor in the state of Oregon and found that “the responses to the questionnaires showed overwhelmingly that parental responsibility laws are rarely, if ever, enforced in most places.” Instead, she finds that they are generally symbolic, “enacted to articulate community values about proper parenting and to induce ‘bad’ parents to reform.” However, such laws do increase the probability that curfew laws will be more stringently enforced. She concludes (emphasis added):

Finally, parental responsibility laws define youth crime as a private problem born of familial failure rather than behavior that, at low levels, is a usual part of the maturation process and, at higher levels, may call for collective efforts to engage teenagers in positive ways, including helping parents in difficult situations. The laws provide politicians with a cheap and easy way of avoiding meaningful efforts to address significant social issues.

I’d recommend reading the whole report as it’s very interesting; it includes a brief history of parental responsibility laws over the last hundred years. It’s interesting to note that these findings are consistent with Jennifer Davis’s report in the Journal Star today. Davis has been calling the communities listed in the Mayor’s memorandum and has so far found that their ordinances are rarely, if ever, enforced as well.

Likely Unconstitutional

But there’s a bigger problem on the horizon for parental responsibility laws. On June 29, 2007, a municipal judge in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, ruled that the city of Maple Heights’s parental responsibility law is unconstitutionalbecause it violates the due process clause of the fourth amendment. (All legal documents related to this ruling are available here. Here’s a PDF version of the ruling.)

Maple Heights’s ordinance was patterned after the one in Silverton, Oregon (which is one of the ordinances being reviewed by Peoria as a possible template as well), and reads in part:

(a) A person commits the offense of failing to supervise a minor if: the person is the parent, legal guardian, or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 18 years of age, and the child has committed a status offense, unruly act or a delinquent act that would be a misdemeanor or felony of any degree if committed by an adult.

(b) It shall be a defense to the offense of failure to supervise a minor if the person took reasonable steps to control the conduct of the child at the time the person is alleged to have failed to supervise.

Judge Jennifer P. Weiler explains why this does not stand constitutional muster. “The due process clause of the United States Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.” In other words, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — the burden of proof is on the accuser. Weiler continues:

The substance of the Maple Heights offense is the failure to supervise a minor. However, the ordinance presumes a violation where a parent has a child who has committed an offense. It is up to the parent to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to control the child’s conduct. As such, it is the accused’s burden to demonstrate there was no failure to supervise. This contravenes…the due process requirements….

The ordinance also failed on two other due-process counts. Nevertheless, the City of Maple Heights filed their notice of appeal last Friday, July 20 says Blake Ledbetter of Conoscienti & Ledbetter in Atlanta, Georgia. This isn’t to say that an ordinance couldn’t be crafted that would be consistent with the constitution, but it does reveal that existing ordinances haven’t yet been adequately tested in court.

Just for the record, when I started researching this I was in favor of a parental responsibility ordinance for Peoria. I came to this topic predisposed to look for positive evidence of its efficacy. However, considering the unlikelihood of enforcement, and the questionable constitutionality of such laws, I’m now inclined to think that this is probably not a very effective tool to combat juvenile crime in Peoria.