Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission given another month to live

The City Council tonight deferred action on the fate of the Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) until July 24. There was a meeting tonight at 4:30 that included Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.), HOPC Chairman Bill Washkuhn, Councilman Patrick Nichting (5th Dist.), and Mayor Jim Ardis. Although an effort was made to resolve the issue in time for tonight’s meeting, they did not reach a consensus, hence the item was deferred.

Van Auken said that several ideas were discussed, but didn’t elaborate on them. I imagine the HOPC will hear about them at our next meeting which is currently scheduled for this Friday, June 22, at 8 a.m., City Hall, fourth floor.

Councilman Gary Sandberg was the lone vote against the deferral. He wants to see the Heart of Peoria Commissioners appointed to other commissions — especially the Planning Commission, which is working on the Comprehensive Plan right now — regardless of whether HOPC is retained. This deferral delays that possible action another month.

In other Heart of Peoria Plan news, I had the opportunity to talk to Nichting briefly after the council meeting tonight. I asked him what he thought of the HOP Plan. He mentioned that he had voted for it and thought it had some good ideas. But he feels that ultimately the market decides which ideas will and won’t work — that there are certain market realities we have to acknowledge. He didn’t elaborate on that idea much further.

Of course one has to take the market into consideration. Just because a city comes up with good ideas does not guarantee that entrepreneurs will flock to fulfill them. However, on the flip side, it should be pointed out that Euclidean zoning did not come about by free market forces. It was imposed by cities upon developers to give us the kind of cities we see today. So, if anyone were to argue that segregated land use and automobile-dependent city planning were the result of popular demand by developers, they’re sorely mistaken. Zoning is all about cities deciding what they want their cities to look like rather than developers having free rein. New Urbanism is, among other things, a new and improved zoning plan that’s rooted in the tried and true principles of strong city planning.

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District, Village of Peoria Heights

Kellar Branch Update

8 Comments

Kellar Branch RailroadThere have apparently been a lot of behind-the-scenes dealings lately in the City’s effort to convert the Kellar Branch to a hiking trail. I recently acquired a copy of the minutes of the last Recreational Trail Advocates (RTA) meeting. Under “New Business” was this interesting info (interspersed with my comments):

Bruce Brown reported that Randy Oliver, city manager, and Randy Ray, city attorney, have sent a counter offer to Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY) stating what would be required for them to continue to use the Keller Branch. The railroad bed must be brought up to a standard so that a train could operate at 5 miles an hour. This would probably cost $100,000 and the railroad company would have to pay 12.2 % of assessed valuation using the appraisal figures this annual rent would be between $160,000 to $190,000. The amount using the appraisal of Klopfenstein would be $204,960. The City offered to allow CIRY to use the western connection for $1.00. The railroad company dismissed this counter offer and said it would make a reply that has not yet been received. Dick Carver and Steve Van Winkle have volunteered to work with CIRY to get an agreement. The city has done everything that J.P. O’Brien and Dave Maloof have asked of them except the modified Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) Agreement from CIRY.

So the City is putting pressure on Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) to abandon the Kellar Branch by charging upwards of $200,000 annually for use of the right-of-way, plus requiring the line to be upgraded. Meanwhile, the City would subsidize use of the western connection by offering use of it for only $1 per year.

Also, Dick Carver has offered to work with CIRY — I wonder if the Park District is going to fly him into town at taxpayer expense again for that service.

I find this line rather disturbing: “The city has done everything that J.P. O’Brien and Dave Maloof have asked of them….” O’Brien owns O’Brien Steel and is still benefiting from the advantages of rail service via the Kellar Branch because he’s on the southern end of it which will not be converted to a trail. Maloof is a commercial realtor who has land interest in the Pioneer Park area. The City is taking marching orders from these two people whose businesses and livelihoods are completely unaffected by the fate of the Kellar Branch to the detriment of Carver Lumber Company and its fifty employees who are the only ones directly affected. So much for the City trying to shed its anti-business reputation.

Ray LaHood formally asked for a meeting with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), which would also include the mayors of Peoria and Peoria Heights and several city council members. STB turned Ray down stating that they didn’t want individuals appearing before them. We are still working with Dick Durbin for a favorable ruling from the STB. Bruce would like to arrange an opportunity for Randy Ray, Randy Oliver, Dick Carver and other government officials to see the 6 miles of the proposed trail.

There’s a clear, public process for making your case before the Surface Transportation Board. Having your congressman arrange back-room meetings with the board members is not part of that process. The board could ask for oral arguments if they were so inclined, but then they’d want both sides to be represented.

I think now the only political angle the RTA hasn’t tried is writing to President Bush asking for an executive order to discontinue train service on the Kellar Branch. I’m sure that will be next.

The Peoria Park District (PPD) has been asked to cut the weeds along the trail within the Peoria Heights section this fall. We will wait to hear from the PPD. The RTA might be responsible for doing one section of this area that is the flattest.

Why isn’t the Village cutting the weeds themselves? They own the property and it’s not a trail yet. Why should Park District resources be expended to cut the weeds? Does the Village not own weed cutting equipment?

Ray LaHood’s chief of staff, Tim Butler, is looking to the RTA for direction on how to proceed to further the cause of the trail. Mike Pula feels that someone needs to again talk to Carver Lumber about their opposition to using the western branch. It was suggested that perhaps Patrick Nichting and Randy Oliver could talk to them. Keith Bonds offered to contact Carver Lumber Company about its current position and what it would take to allow the Kellar Branch service to be discontinued.

Yes, by all means, keep trying to convince Carver Lumber to use the most expensive and least reliable transportation option available. As for “what it would take to allow the Kellar Branch service to be discontinued,” we’ve been over this a hundred times. Comparable rates, reliable service via the western connection. That’s what it would take, and what the City, Park District, RTA, Dick Carver, Ray LaHood, CIRY, Union Pacific, et. al., have been completely unable to deliver.

Mike Pula brought up the development off Knoxville (Trail Creek), which is touting their closeness to the trail as a selling point. We need to contact the developers on the north side and see if they would like to become more involved with supporting the extension of the Kellar Branch. Is there a volunteer to make contact with these developers?

Mike Rucker sent Rails to Trails magazine subscriptions to various government officials including Peoria City Council, Peoria Heights Trustees, Peoria Park District members and other park districts officials in the area and to Peoria and Peoria Heights libraries.

Tim O’Hanlon volunteered to get information from Rock Island and Champaign’s trail coordinators as they have been successful in the past few years implementing trails.

More lobbying. Just think what these people might accomplish if they were to put this much time and effort into something productive, like coming up with a way to keep the rail line and build the trail. I mean, they’ve been at this for, what, something like 13 years?

It seems to me that if the primary objective were to get the trail, they would have abandoned conversion of this rail corridor long ago and found an alternative route for the trail. Had they done that, they could have had the trail built years ago and been enjoying it all this time!

Keith volunteered to call Mike Friberg to try to get published a picture and information about the bridge over Knoxville Avenue.

The bridge over Knoxville — this is a pedestrian bridge that would be installed where the Kellar Branch crosses Knoxville at Junction City, near Prospect, if the trail ever gets the green light from the STB. It’s estimated to cost $2.6 million. It’s interesting that this is the only intersection that is planned to receive a bridge. At other major intersections, the Park District is planning to run the trail alongside the road to the nearest traffic signal before crossing. Why they aren’t planning to do that at Knoxville, I’m not sure, but it could have to do with the fact that Knoxville is a state route.

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for a decision from the STB on whether CIRY or Pioneer should be allowed to operate the Kellar Branch. There is still no request pending to discontinue service on the Kellar Branch (CIRY withdrew their request). So, it looks like we’re in for several more years of haggling over this. I guess all the parties in favor of the project feel this fight is worth the expense, effort, and ever-increasing time it takes to resolve. I can think of better ways to spend taxpayer money.

City of Peoria

The strain of city growth revealed in snow report

17 Comments

If you’d like to read the Six Sigma report on how to improve Peoria’s snow removal process, here it is in PDF format (1.43M). To me, one of the more significant observations is this one:

The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed. No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.

This report is focused on snow removal, obviously, but I think the findings point to a more systemic problem in the city. That is that the city, when annexing land and expanding, has not adequately planned for or provided the additional resources needed for increased demand on public works, police, and fire service. Hence, all these basic services get stretched to the point where we read today about problems with fire personnel having enough manpower and equipment.

Peoria was about 39 square miles in 1970. By 2006, it had grown to over 48 square miles (a 23% increase) and will soon hit 50 as new land is annexed. During that time, police staffing grew by 24 people (9%, 263 to 287), fire staffing grew by 31 people (18%, 175 to 206), and public works staff actually has 13 fewer people (-9.7%, 134 to 121). I’m talking about total staff, not just officers, firefighters, and crew members; i.e., these numbers also include desk jobs and other positions.

Consider also that newer parts of town put a proportionately larger strain on city resources. From the snow report again:

Cul-de-sacs can take up to eight times longer to clear than a through street. At the current time, the city has over 900 cul-de-sacs and dead end streets, and new subdivisions are developing these in to their neighborhood planning processes.

Most of the older part of the city is on a grid system of streets — that is, through streets. By far the most cul-de-sacs are on the north end and in the expansion areas. Cul-de-sacs are not only a problem for public works, but fire and police as well, since access to those properties is limited and provide only one direction of approach.

Obviously, the city’s services need to be expanded to meet the needs of the growth areas. And given that annexation and development are supposed to be bringing in so much new income to the city, that should be no problem. Only the city is still strapped for funds — so much so that not only can we not add resources, we can barely maintain the status quo.

The city simply cannot sustain a pattern of growth that sees property values deteriorate and vacancies increase in the core of the city while simultaneously acquiring more and more land to the north. We have to increase the tax base in the southern part of the city.

City of Peoria, Peoria Township

Any township law experts out there?

7 Comments

Here’s an arcane legal question for you. In my last post, I mentioned that George Jacob resides in Medina Township, not Peoria Township. That got me thinking. How can Jacob be a Peoria Township trustee if he lives in Medina Township?

It’s kind of confusing, because the state law is unclear to me. The Town of the City of Peoria falls under the “Township within a city” section of the state’s Township Code (60 ILCS):

(60 ILCS 1/15‑50)
Sec. 15‑50. Powers exercised by city council. All the powers vested in the township described in Section 15‑45, including all the powers now vested by law in the highway commissioners of the township and in the township board of the township, shall be exercised by the city council.

And it says something similar under the “Township board” section:

(60 ILCS 1/80‑5)
Sec. 80‑5. Township board membership; officers.
(b) In towns organized under Article 15, all the powers vested by law in the township board shall be exercised by the city council.

So that’s pretty straightforward. However, elsewhere in the code there is a section called “Qualification and tenure of township officers,” and it says:

(60 ILCS 1/55‑5)
Sec. 55‑5. Legal voter and resident. No person is eligible to hold any office unless he or she is a legal voter and has been a resident of the township for one year.

So, do the first two sections I quoted trump the last one? Or does the qualification section apply to members of the city council in a “Township within a city”? The issue is this: If there’s no residency requirement, then you could potentially have a situation where six members of the council and the mayor could end up living in the City, but not the Town, of Peoria. That would mean a majority of the Peoria Township trustees wouldn’t even be Peoria Township residents. That would be a strange form of representative government, wouldn’t it?

Someone may well ask, so what? What’s the big deal? Well, it’s not really a big deal, I guess, in terms of money. The township collects only 0.13659% of property tax bills, which comes out to about $38.70 for the owner of a $100,000 home. But then, if you were to have a majority of trustees someday with no personal stake in the township, that cost could go up. Basically, it’s a question of compliance with state law and, ultimately, the principle of appropriate representation of taxpayers.

One more thing: I have nothing against George Jacob. I supported him in the at-large election and I still support him for city council. I think he’s doing good work. This isn’t a personal attack, just a question about how the law works and whether this practice is in the best interests of the citizens or not.

City of Peoria, Dunlap School District 323, Peoria Public Schools, Taxes

Cheaper taxes another perk of living in North Peoria

49 Comments

House GraphicIf you live in the older part of Peoria like I do (Uplands neighborhood, near Bradley), your total property tax rate is 8.35885%. If you live where fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting lives (Sleepy Hollow Rd., north of Route 6, near the corner of Knoxville and Mossville Rd.), your total property tax rate is only 7.69782%. And if you live where at-large councilman George Jacob lives (Dana Dr., north of Route 6, off Wilhelm Rd.), your total property tax is 8.02308%. (Note: I picked Nichting and Jacob merely for descriptive purposes and because, as public figures, their addresses are already widely published.)

Why the differences? It’s because different taxing bodies have different borders. Both Nichting and Jacob live outside the Greater Peoria Airport Authority’s taxing district, saving them 0.24087% on their tax bills. They also both live in Dunlap’s school district (4.0644%) instead of District 150 (4.48456%), saving them another 0.42016%.

Jacob’s rate is a little higher than Nichting’s because Jacob lives in Medina Township instead of Peoria Township. Medina assesses 0.13019% for township government expenses plus 0.33166% for road and bridge maintenance. That totals 0.46185% for living in Medina Township versus only 0.13659% for Peoria Township.

So how does that translate into dollars and cents? Well, a $200,000 owner-occupied home in the Uplands will cost you $407.64 a year more in taxes than a $200,000 home in Nichting’s neighborhood, and $207.06 more than a $200,000 home in Jacob’s neighborhood. That’s not chump change.

On May 29, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 263 which makes the airport authority’s boundaries coterminous with Peoria County. Once the governor signs that into law, those in northern Peoria will have to begin paying their share of the airport’s expenses. Since the levy will stay the same, but be spread among more taxpayers, those currently paying the airport authority’s tax will actually see their rates go down a little.

That will leave the 200-pound gorilla — school taxes — as the biggest difference between living out north or closer to the center of the city, tax-wise. In the older part of the city, you can find a wide range of housing prices, but the farther you go north, the more homogeneous the housing prices become. Pretty soon, you’re in an area where the lowest-priced housing is out of many people’s price range.

Those who can afford $200,000+ houses out north are rewarded with lower taxes and better schools. Meanwhile, those who can only afford a home costing less than $180,000 have few if any options out north. In Peoria, their choices are all within District 150, which means they get relatively poorer schools (based on Illinois Report Card info) and proportionately higher taxes.

I’ve suggested before that school districts 150 and 323 be combined. I still think that’s a good idea. But there’s something else that needs to be done: new neighborhood developments in northern Peoria need to have a broader range of housing prices. Instead of building homogeneous neighborhoods where every house is $280,000, new neighborhoods should include a diversity of housing prices. I’m not talking about low-income housing (that’s a different topic); I’m just talking about a range of, say, $120,000 to $250,000 homes being built within the same neighborhood.

All of these issues intertwine. Tax disparity, school disparity, and housing disparity all converge to make Peoria a tale of two cities. Things need to change, because our current trajectory is unsustainable. Some people actually believe that it’s desirable for the city to consider South Peoria the place for the violent and criminal element to live, the East Bluff to be a buffer, and the northern part of the city to be the “safe” part of Peoria. Folks, this is not healthy thinking. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

We can dream more inspiring dreams for Peoria. Let’s set higher goals for our city. Let’s not abandon our friends and neighbors on the south side out of fear and ignorance. Let’s not build neighborhoods that keep people out, but rather invite people in. Let’s make all of Peoria a great place to live.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department

Fire Station 11 compromise in the works

21 Comments

Fire Truck GraphicMy sources tell me that a compromise is in the works for Fire Station 11. You may remember that a previous council cut an engine company from the station as a cost-savings move three years ago. Ever since then, every election has included the question of how/when the council will fully staff Fire Station 11.

Well, the fire department has recently been utilizing the city’s GIS system to plot response times from each of the fire stations. Basically, they map out where each fire station is and then draw a circle around it representing a four-minute response time for water coverage. When they analyzed the results of that exercise and looked at where the circles overlapped and intersected, they determined that Fire Station 11’s area of service was adequately covered by the other fire stations.

Although water coverage is good, there is another issue, and that’s Basic Life Support (BLS) calls. In that area, Fire Station 11’s coverage is not so good. Since they don’t have an engine, they have to run a ladder truck for BLS calls. Well, there are many problems with that, not the least of which is speed. People in need of basic life support need help fast, and ladder trucks are not the speediest vehicles.

But another problem is wear and tear on the vehicle. Ladder trucks cost about three quarters of a million dollars and should last 15 to 20 years, according to Fire Prevention Chief Greg Walters (I found this out while researching another story; Walters is not the source for this post). However, by sending the ladder truck out on BLS calls, that’s beating the heck out of the truck and if something doesn’t change they’ll probably have to replace that truck sooner. That kind of blows the cost savings the council was hoping to get by removing the engine company.

So, the compromise that’s being talked about is this: Instead of putting an engine company back in at Fire Station 11 (which is, I believe, 11 firefighters), they would put in, for lack of a better term, a BLS company (which would only be 5 firefighters, if I understand correctly). The BLS company would have their own vehicle, but it wouldn’t be a fire engine or the ladder truck. That would be cheaper than reinstating an engine company (5 more firefighters instead of 11), would save wear and tear on an expensive ladder truck allowing it to stay in service longer, and would adequately serve the Fire Station 11 area.

That’s all the information I have. I couldn’t find anyone willing to talk on the record about it. And I still have some questions, like why couldn’t they just add a vehicle instead of a vehicle and five more guys. If I had to speculate, I’d guess that it has something to do with the firefighters union. But I imagine those details will come out eventually. In fact, I understand it will be coming before the council sometime relatively soon. Said one person I asked for comment, “I don’t want to jinx it.”

City Council, City of Peoria

Council Roundup: June 5, 2007

5 Comments

It was a looong meeting Tuesday. Here are the highlights:

  • The council surprisingly reversed course — again — on the issue of whether to charge fees for vaults and walkways that encroach on the public right-of-way. Last October they voted 8-2 to keep the fees, then last month they voted 9-1 to eliminate the fees. And tonight they voted 6-5 to keep the fees again. Well, I’m not going to complain about their fickleness too much because they made the right decision tonight. There’s no reason for the city to eliminate those fees. As Councilman Manning said, it’s not an unreasonable fee; it’s just a normal cost of doing business. And the city needs the revenue.
  • The Heart of Peoria Commission received a stay of execution for two weeks, but not a pardon. Second-district Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken made the motion to defer to allow time for the members of the various commissions and the council to come to some sort of compromise. The Heart of Peoria Commission may call a special meeting to discuss whatever compromise is brought forward.
  • A minor change was made to Mr. Abud’s liquor license conditions so he can open his grocery store on the south side of Peoria. The original agreement called for Abud to hire off-duty Peoria police officers to patrol the business during all hours of operation. The revised agreement only requires officers to provide security from 2:30 p.m. until the store closes (10:00 p.m.). This is a reasonable request, in my opinion. The goal is to provide a secure environment, and I think this accomplishes that end.
  • The council approved reducing their meetings to twice a month. It wasn’t mentioned last night, but I heard on the news today that the new schedule will start in July. Under the new schedule, the council will meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. I predict that schedule will last one year or less.
  • The council deferred a request from Councilman Gulley to appropriate funds for the improvement of Griswold Street on the south side. This is a budget amendment right before the council is getting ready to negotiate next year’s budget, so some think the timing is wrong. Others want to know what projects are going to be delayed by allocating money to this project instead. There will be a report back next week.
  • It wasn’t mentioned in the meeting, but I heard afterwards that a new website was launched for the Peoria Promise. Check it out.
City of Peoria, Museum Block

The incredible shrinking museum

19 Comments

Reading Polly Peoria’s latest post reminded me of a rumor I heard about the Peoria Riverfront Museum: it’s getting smaller.

You know they’ve been having a little trouble raising the money for this monstrosity, the plans for which are antithetical to the Heart of Peoria Plan. Rather than taking that as a hint that maybe people aren’t really as excited about this project as they thought they were, they’ve now (I’ve been told) begun cutting construction costs by making it smaller. Specifically, I hear they’ve cut it down to a one-story building except for the generic-IMAX part. Won’t that look inspiring? Maybe they can put up a weather vane and plant some prairie grass next to it to complete the anatopism.

So let’s think about this for a minute. First, the idea was to use just a portion of the old Sears block for a Peoria history museum sponsored by the Peoria Historical Society. Then Lakeview got involved and it mushroomed into a mega-museum that would include art, history, science, nature, a digital big-screen theater ala IMAX (but not actually IMAX), the African American Hall of Fame, the IHSA Peak Performance Center, and a partridge in a pear tree. All this in only 70,000 square feet. And now they want to make all that fit in an even smaller space?

Why don’t they just admit they bit off more than they could chew and go back to the drawing board? If they root around the drawing board long enough they may even happen upon this:

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

City and School Board should make a deal

3 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoI read with amusement the Journal Star’s report on the school board not supporting the proposed TIF districts for the Warehouse District and Eagle View.

The school district, however, is interested in sharing some of the tax proceeds or securing a commitment that some funds will be directed toward the area around a school planned for South Peoria.

So now they want to work with the city. You gotta love a school board whose definition of “give and take” is that the city gives and the school board takes. My initial reaction was that the city should show District 150 as much respect and willingness to compromise as the school board showed the city regarding the location of a new school in the East Bluff.

But on second thought, I think the city should use this opportunity to negotiate. The school board wants the city to share property tax proceeds from the TIFs. The city wants the new East Bluff replacement school to be located on the site of the current Glen Oak School and be urban in design. If the school board will agree to the city’s desires, then I see no reason the city shouldn’t agree to the school board’s desires, do you?

Let’s make a deal!

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Glen Oak landmark designations to be deferred again

The City’s Historic Preservation Commission voted to recommend landmarking nine items in Glen Oak Park. On April 24, that recommendation came before the City Council and was deferred until June 5 to give the Park District time to develop their own historic preservation policy. The Park Board has asked that the city defer this item two more weeks — until June 19 — because they are scheduled to take action on this issue at their June 13 meeting.

My only suggestion: If the council approves the request to only meeting the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, better defer this item to the 26th instead.