Category Archives: City of Peoria

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

“Mature neighborhoods” worth saving from IDOT, but not Bradley

13 Comments

At Tuesday’s council meeting, there was quite a bit of discussion about the Northmoor Road improvement project. If the city is going to use IDOT funds for this project, they have to follow IDOT’s rules, and in this case it would mean widening the street to five lanes between Allen and Sheridan roads. The road doesn’t need five lanes.

So, the City Council is trying to persuade IDOT to see things the city’s way and approve fewer lanes for this project, yet not jeopardize our share of federal funds in the process. This is all laudable.

I couldn’t help but notice the irony, though, when Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken started waxing eloquent about why we need to say “no” to IDOT. We need to stand up and say “no,” she said, because these five-lane highways harm “mature neighborhoods.” And if they don’t believe it harms “mature neighborhoods,” then they can come down here and a take a little tour, she continued. We need to tell IDOT that we’re not going to let them mar one more “mature neighborhood,” even if it means losing that federal money, she concluded. She made a very strong statement, and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

I just wish she’d been that bold toward Bradley University when they decided to decimate a “mature neighborhood” for the sake of a parking garage in her own district.

Arbor District Demolition

*My thanks to PeoriaIllinoisan from whom I shamelessly stole this picture.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission lives on

5 Comments

The City Council on Tuesday approved the compromise agreement that will leave the Heart of Peoria Commission intact. The compromise agreement had three parts:

  1. Approve the Heart of Peoria Commission Work Plan — The council approved this work plan with one exception: the money that’s listed in the capital budget column was not approved Tuesday, but will be requested through the normal capital budget process.
  2. Expand the Planning Commission by two positions — There are no openings currently on the Planning Commission, but it’s important to infuse New Urbanism principles into that commission since they are responsible for the Comprehensive Plan, which is the city’s vision document. Thus, in order to appoint a couple of Heart of Peoria Commission members to the Planning Commission, two new positions needed to be created, expanding the size from seven to nine members.
  3. Appointing several HOPC members to other commissions — This is what was suggested in the Committee on Commissions report: that HOPC members would be dual-appointed to other commissions in order to instill the principles of New Urbanism into the existing committee structure. The appointments that were made were:
    • Joe Richey — Planning Commission
    • Dick Schwebel — Planning Commission
    • Nancy Biggins — Zoning Board of Appeals
    • Pat Sullivan — Traffic Commission
    • Bill Washkuhn — TBD

Mayor Ardis was on WCBU’s “Outside the Horseshoe” program with Jonathan Ahl Tuesday night before the council meeting. He explained that, while he originally planned to expand the Planning Commission by four members, there was some concern from current Planning Commission members about that, and that reducing the expansion to two members was part of the compromise agreement. WCBU will eventually put that program up as a podcast, so you can check this link to see if it’s there yet.

The next Heart of Peoria Commission meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 24 at 8:00 a.m.

City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Journal Star blindly supports more money for D150

9 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoThe Journal Star Editorial Board thinks District 150 deserves more support from the City. They think the proposal on tonight’s agenda to “share inflationary revenue growth from those properties in the [Eagle View] TIF that don’t participate in the redevelopment program” is too stingy.

They start off by saying, “The Peoria City Council should have no trouble approving an agreement with District 150 tonight that, for the first time locally, would allow the city’s largest school system to share in the proceeds from a tax increment financing district before its term is over.” First time, eh? Apparently the JSEB is unaware of or has forgotten about the $236,000 the school district receives annually from the Southtown TIF.

“That said, it’s little more than a toe in the water of the city-school cooperation that is so desperately needed if Peoria is to be an attractive place for young families,” they continue. By “cooperation,” they mean “giving money to District 150.” Never mind that the city already gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school system every year. Never mind that District 150 is its own taxing body — it takes the lion’s share of our property taxes every year. Never mind that, after figuring in all sources of revenue, the City of Peoria’s budget is only about $10 million more than District 150’s to start with (~$160 million vs. $150 million, respectively).

That’s not enough for the JSEB, or District 150.

If anyone at City Hall wonders why Peoria’s overall population is at best flat, and why its status in Illinois is declining even with all the new subdivisions sprouting on its northwest side in a different school district, Peoria’s core public school system is a big reason, followed closely by violent crime.

They’ve got that right. But naturally the JSEB blames the school district’s failure on the City and their TIF districts. Has the Journal Star Editorial Board ever considered the possibility that District 150 might be in the mess it is because of their own mismanagement? That maybe paying for four superintendents to do the job of one is a wee bit of a waste? That spending almost a million dollars on property they can’t use might be contributing a tad to their woes? That low testing scores and their inability to make adequate yearly progress is negatively affecting their funding more than the City of Peoria’s tax increment financing districts?

Yet some local voices are still urging the city to sever any relationship with District 150. It’s mystifying, because all involved would only be punishing themselves.

Heh. We’re being punished either way; why not save the money?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m all for true cooperation — but cooperation works both ways. The School Board (and evidently the JSEB, too) seems to believe that a “give and take” relationship with the city means that the city gives and the school board takes. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t think it’s asking too much for the school board to work with the city on, say, siting of an East Bluff school. Or, say, focusing on improving their test scores so they stop driving people out of the city.

More money is not the answer for District 150. Better management is. And sadly, the City has no control over that.

City of Peoria, Open Meetings Act

Circumventing the Open Meetings Act

13 Comments

By Invitation OnlyThe Open Meetings Act (OMA) is hard to follow. Even people like me who want to follow it conscientiously can sometimes find that we’ve inadvertently violated it. So, I just want to acknowledge up front that you really have to be on your toes when it comes to OMA.

It’s a different story, however, when officials set out specifically to circumvent the OMA. In today’s Word on the Street, intrepid reporter Jennifer Davis revealed this about efforts to get consensus on the “Knoxville corridor” controversy:

There was a special meeting with all the stakeholders this past week, which the city wanted to keep closed. That’s fine, because we’ve been promised there will be public hearings on this issue.

Still, to avoid triggering the Illinois Open Meetings Act, the city had to ensure a majority of a quorum from either the City Council or a city commission didn’t attend.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan states that, “[i]n its present form, the [Open Meetings] Act is designed to ensure that public business is conducted in public view, by prohibiting secret deliberations and actions on matters that should be discussed in a public forum.” If what Jennifer Davis described isn’t “secret deliberations,” then I don’t know what is. They wanted to deliberate (definition: “consider a question carefully”) the matter secretly, so they found a way to do so without “triggering the Open Meetings Act.”

Of course, the justification for this is that “there will be public hearings on this issue.” But that’s the point — the public hearings are where this matter should be deliberated. If it’s going to be hammered out in a back room among representatives from the council and commissions, doesn’t that abort the whole public hearing process? I mean, if a consensus was already reached by the members of the secret panel, then the public hearing becomes nothing more than a formality. The result of the hearings is predetermined.

But here’s the goofy part: We already had public hearings on this. They were the public hearings for the Land Development Code. This was all aired then. Remember the result? The Planning Commission (on which Maloof Realty employee Suzi Miller sits) and City staff recommended 150-foot setbacks, but the Zoning and Heart of Peoria commissions recommended 80-foot setbacks. Then it went to council.

Now the deliberation should take place in council chambers during one of their semimonthly meetings. They have all the information from both sides. If they have any questions, they can invite representatives to the council meeting to explain — where everyone can hear them and where they will be on the record. Why the need for these secret meetings and further public hearings?

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Housing Authority, Peoria Public Schools

City to consider intergovernmental agreement with D150

3 Comments

Peoria Housing Authority LogoDistrict 150 — the district that recently spent $877,500 to acquire properties it can’t use on Prospect, let them be stripped and then subsequently had to start razing a few of them for thousands more dollars; the district that has hired four highly-paid superintendents to do the job of one; the district that owns the Meyer building in the Warehouse district but allows it to fall further into disrepair, lowering property values in that area; the district that refused to cooperate with the city’s good-faith effort to work with them on placing a replacement school on the site of the current Glen Oak Primary School — that district is unhappy that the city is trying to raise property values in the older part of town through the use of a TIF. They want an intergovernmental agreement that gives them some of the money if property values go up.

So, city staff has worked with them to hammer out a proposed agreement — which, interestingly only affects the Eagle View TIF, not the Warehouse District TIF. In the agreement, the city would reimburse District 150 $1.5 million to be used toward the cost of infrastructure improvements around their new Harrison Primary School they want to build, only if/when the fair-market value of improvements within the TIF equals or exceeds $95 million. The city would also agree that if/when $250 million in new construction is completed, the city will stop incentivizing with TIF funds and instead pay off any debts/bonds and retire the TIF.

It would also include the new Harrison Homes Primary School in the TIF. At least, that’s what I believe the language is stating. But I’m a little concerned about the wording. According to item 3 of the proposed agreement, it says that the two governments would agree that “the Harrison Homes site shall be included in the Eagle View TIF redevelopment project area.” Not the Harrison School site, notice, but the Harrison Homes site.

Now, it’s possible that “Harrison Homes Site” could have been defined earlier where it says, “WHEREAS, District 150 plans to construct a community school in the Eagle View TIF redevelopment project area at the Harrison Homes Site, bounded by Krause, Griswold, Folkers and Grinnell Streets;” but it’s vague at best.

You see, back in December, the Peoria Housing Authority asked for all of Harrison Homes to be included in the Eagle View TIF. But in January, the city council said “no.” In fact, they said “no” to a lot of requested additions. I wouldn’t put it past someone over at the PHA to come knocking on Peoria’s door if this agreement is approved and say that they should be included in the TIF because of it. Perhaps the wording should be clarified.

It’s sporting of the city to play nice with the school district, but honestly, I hope the council rejects this agreement. You’ll notice that it benefits the district, but not the city, as usual. The city should require the school district to agree to put an East Bluff replacement school on the site of the current Glen Oak Primary School as part of the bargain. There shouldn’t be any more of this one-directional, so-called “cooperation.” The school district needs to start giving back to the city. Right now they’re doing nothing but driving people away.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

New Heart of Peoria Commission proposal submitted

3 Comments

Mayor Ardis had proposed decommissioning the Heart of Peoria Commission back in May. His proposal then was to take the HOPC members and place them on other commissions. Most notably, he wanted to increase the size of the Planning Commission by four members and put four HOPC members in those newly-created seats.

However, the HOPC discussed the Mayor’s plan at their next scheduled meeting and communicated to the council that the commission believed it could be more effective continuing as a city commission rather than as an independent advocacy group, but that it fully supported the proposed dual appointments. When the issue came up for a vote in June, it was deferred a couple of times, most recently until July 24. So it’s on Tuesday’s agenda.

In June and July, the HOPC met a couple of times and hammered out a work plan to aid the council in considering whether to keep us or not. On the agenda, the Mayor has submitted a new recommendation. This one would have the Heart of Peoria Commission remain a commission, provided that capital funding in the work plan go through the normal process for all commissions (fair enough).

However, now the Mayor is suggesting only two seats be added to the Planning Commission instead of four. The two HOPC members who would be appointed to Planning would be Joe Richey and Dick Schwebel. Beth Akeson and I would not receive dual appointments until there’s an opening on an applicable commission (e.g., zoning, planning, ZBA, etc.). There’s no explanation given in the council communication as to why this change was made, but it’s the Mayor’s prerogative to appoint or not appoint people to commissions, so I don’t have any beef with it. After all, two is better than none, and I’m pleased that the Mayor has agreed to allow HOPC to remain (if it’s approved by the council, of course).

I’m a little concerned about whether HOPC will be able to complete its work with only six meeting per year, but we’ll see how it goes.

City Council, City of Peoria

City trying to keep Northmoor widening to three lanes

5 Comments

The July 24 Peoria City Council Agenda has been posted on the city’s website. There are a few items of interest on the docket next week.

One of them is a funding switcheroo from the Northmoor Road project to the Sheridan Road project. The city wants to widen Northmoor Road between Allen and Knoxville to three lanes. But since they would be using IDOT funds, they have to get IDOT approval. Well, IDOT insists that if we’re going to use their funds, we have to make it a minimum of four lanes. So the city staff is requesting that we delay that project for the time being while we keep trying to persuade IDOT to change their mind and let us make the road three lanes and pedestrian-friendly.

In the meantime, in order not to lose state money, they would like to use those dollars to fund another project: widening Sheridan from Notre Dame (near Glen Ave.) to Giles/Knoxville. They don’t believe they’ll have any trouble getting IDOT to agree to three lanes there. I’m glad to see the city staff proposing this action, and I hope the council concurs.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Council Roundup: Museum bits

4 Comments

PRM LogoJim Richerson, President and CEO of Lakeview and Project Leader for Museum Square, gave a presentation to the City Council at last night’s meeting formally requesting a one-year extension of time on their agreement with the city a smaller-sized museum.

The reason for the extension is because fundraising efforts have not gone as planned, and now they’re putting a lot of their hope for funding in the New Market Tax Credit program. However, they won’t hear whether they’re approved for that funding until October, which is after one of their contract deadlines.

The size change is because construction costs have escalated significantly. Richerson said when they started this project, they were projecting construction costs rising at a rate of 4% annually based on historical data. What they’ve found is that costs are actually rising at a rate of 2-4% quarterly instead. They’ve decided to stay within their $65 million overall budget and instead reduce the size of the building.

However, Richerson went to great lengths to show that this reduction only minimally impacts the programming of the museum itself. He points out that while the total square footage is being reduced from 96,562 to 80,784 square feet (15,778, or 16%), the usable space is only being reduced from 64,400 to 57,955 square feet (6,445, or 10%). Auxiliary space (which includes offices, classrooms, store, lobby, support areas, etc.) is being cut from 32,162 to 22,829 square feet (9,333, or 29%).

It was also pointed out that when you look at the block as a whole — that is, including Caterpillar’s visitor center and their monetary commitment — you’re looking at a $130 million project that is 63% funded. From Lakeview’s standpoint, this “puts things in perspective.” However, the reality is that only 37% of the museum’s funding has been raised ($24.5 million out of $65 million), and Caterpillar’s contribution is contingent on the museum officials raising their funds.

The council received the report and then immediately started debating when it would vote on the issue. The original motion was to vote on it at the July 24 meeting, but Councilman Sandberg is going to be out of town. Normally just having one councilman be out of town would not necessarily be sufficient reason to delay a vote, but Gary’s been very involved in this issue and essentially asked for the courtesy of a deferral. After much wrangling, the council decided to discuss it at their August 14 meeting. That’s in five weeks.

City Council, City of Peoria

Almost 3/4 of a million dollars for parking deck repairs on agenda

9 Comments

The City of Peoria owns a number of parking decks downtown and outsources the management of them to National Garages. According to the 2007 City Budget, the city owns about 4,600 parking spaces in decks and surface lots. The city isn’t making any money on these lots. Between the debt service, the cost to manage the decks, and the artificially low rates, the city is heavily subsidizing downtown parking.

But there’s more than just operational costs to owning parking decks — there’s also maintenance costs. According to the budget document, National Garages takes care of routine maintenance as part of their contract. Structural upkeep, however, is the city’s responsibility. Structural repairs for the Jefferson Street and Twin Towers parking decks are on the agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting, and the cost is a whopping $738,437.

Peoria should sell these decks to the businesses that use them and let those businesses maintain them for their own patrons at their own expense — just like every other business in Peoria does that isn’t located downtown. Then Peoria could use the money it saves for services that benefit all Peorians, like fire and police.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Honey, I shrunk the museum

20 Comments

Shrinking museumI hear tell the museum folks are wanting to modify their agreement with the city to make the proposed museum even smaller than it already is. It may come before the council on July 10.

My sources say they want to reduce the gross floor area from 96,000 to 80,000 square feet. I wonder what that will do to the display space. Considering they were only going to have about 70,000 square feet of display space before, this reduction could potentially leave less than 60,000 square feet for the public.

And, of course, a reduction of square footage demands architectural changes to accommodate the smaller space. No word yet on what those changes will be, although I’m still hearing rumors that it will involve reducing or eliminating the second floor.

I would suggest that they follow the sage advice of philosopher C. S. Lewis: “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”