Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

Spain to be sworn in on Tuesday

3 Comments

Ryan SpainA source tells me that city attorney Randy Ray put a note in council packets this week informing City Clerk Mary Haynes she can swear in Ryan Spain on Tuesday even though questions regarding his eligibility remain unresolved. As of Friday, Ray was still waiting for an opinion from the states attorney’s office on whether Spain’s service on the council would be prohibited under state law. Apparently, there is nothing legally prohibiting Spain from being sworn in while the matter is being investigated.

Granted, as has been pointed out numerous times, I’m no lawyer. But this course of action seems a little risky to me when you consider that violation of the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act is a felony. If I were Spain, I wouldn’t let them swear me in until the uncertainty surrounding this issue was settled. Or short of that, I would at least consult with my lawyer before agreeing to go along with the city attorney’s interpretation.

Chamber of Commerce, City of Peoria

Chamber of Commerce inconsistent on tax increases

3 Comments

Here’s an interesting postscript to the library referendum vote. The last time the idea of a property tax increase was floated was in 2003 when some city council members suggested it to eliminate the dreaded garbage fee. At that time, the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce had this to say (according to City of Peoria minutes from 11/25/2003):

Ms. Roberta Parks, 124 S. W. Adams, Suite 300, Chief Operating Officer of the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, requested that the Council vote against a property tax increase. She said a property tax increase would send a negative message to the business community and it made it more difficult to encourage business expansion and attracting new business to the area.

But this year, during the library’s push for a property tax increase, the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce endorsed that tax increase.

The inconsistency is especially surprising when you consider that, if we were to raise property taxes enough to eliminate the “garbage fee,” which actually has nothing to do with garbage but rather pays for police patrols and general deficit relief, it would cost $36 more annually on a $100,000 home. If the City Council passes the library referendum, which would update some branches, close a couple in south Peoria and build a new branch in north Peoria, it will cost $50 more annually on a $100,000 home.

Did you catch that? Eliminate garbage fee = +$36/year for $100,000 home. Library referendum = +$50/year for $100,000 home.

Does the Chamber think that increasing taxes for police protection will hurt business, but increasing taxes for libraries will help? What message are they trying to send?

Updated 4/30/2007

City of Peoria, Crime

Eight murders so far in 2007

21 Comments

HomicideSo far this year, there have been eight homicides (i.e., murders) in Peoria, and it’s not even May yet. That’s an average of two murders per month. Lest we forget the citizens and neighbors we’ve lost, here are their names, ages, and when they were killed:

  1. DeAndre Allen, 18 (1/1)
  2. Virginia K. Mallow, 72 (1/13)
  3. Domonique Alexander, 16 (1/25)
  4. David L. McCreary, 35 (1/26)
  5. Tamara Gregory, 42 (4/7)
  6. Anthony D. Hart, 32 (4/16)
  7. Dequarrius Sims, 17 (4/22)
  8. Carlyts Bovan, 22 (4/27)

Anyone have any ideas on how to cauterize this wound on our city? I have this poignant feeling of helplessness whenever I think about these senseless killings.

City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan

The future of Peoria is in your hands

3 Comments

Peoria LogoThe City is embarking on an 18-month process to completely rewrite Peoria’s Comprehensive Plan, and you can be a part of it! There will be a number of community workshops and public hearings held so the Planning Commission and Planning & Growth Department can get as much public input as possible. If you’ve ever wanted to have a say in what the city’s vision should be or where the city is going, this is your chance. Here’s an informational flyer on it.

I know you’re all just dying to know the history of the Comprehensive Plan, so here it is from the 1973 Comprehensive Plan:

Planning in Peoria

As the city has grown, so has the planning process. The need for planning was first recognized in the late 1920’s with the “City Beautiful” movement being the stimulus.

On November 1, 1927, the City Council passed an ordinance creating a City Planning and Zoning Commission under the State Enabling Act approved June 24, 1921. On December 22, 1927, a contract was drawn for a “Comprehensive City and Regional Plan” to be done by Harland Bartholomew and Associates of St. Louis, Missouri. The plan was finally completed and adopted on March 15, 1932, and was entitled “A Comprehensive City Plan.” The planning process was only in its infancy in those days and the plan made certain recommendations but in respect to land use did little more than recognize what was existing.

The Commission remained intact and processed zoning requests and subdivision plats, but there was never a technically trained staff until a Planning Director was hired in 1958. In 1959 the staff began a Master Plan Study to obtain the needed guidance on such diversified matters as zoning, urban renewal, highway locations, utilization of future land use, and many other issues. The plan was completed in 1960 and entitled Planning Peoria… A Master Plan Report.

The annexation of nearly all of Richwoods Township in December of 1964 increased the emphasis on long range planning. The annexed area contained approximately 30,000 people but its ultimate capacity was projected at nearly 100,000. The chance to guide future growth lead to the developing of neighborhood future land use maps, the updating of the subdivision and zoning ordinances, the thoroughfare plan, and a number of background studies. The Long Range Planning Section was increased in 1971 and a scheduled program was begun to produce a completely new plan to replace the 1960 plan. This is the culmination of that effort.

The 1932 plan they mentioned was actually passed by the City Council in pieces between 1927 and 1932. The complete plan was published in 1937 along with an executive summary under separate cover. Both these documents are available at the Peoria Public Library (reference only). It’s interesting to peek into the minds of planners in 1937 Peoria by reading the executive summary, titled, “Planning a Greater Peoria”:

Why a City Plan?

Peoria grew, as did the majority of American cities, without planning for the future. AS cities grew larger and began to review the results of their labors, they were appalled to realize the harm resulting from planless haste. Streets had been laid haphazardly, existing streets were too narrow to care for the traffic demand, houses had been built so close together as to exclude air and sun. People soon discovered that their cities were neither efficient nor attractive, and realized that if they were to save their investments something must be done, not only to correct past mistakes but to see that such mistakes never again occurred.

What is a City Plan?

The demand for comprehensive city planning, which aims to bring about order in the physical development of the entire city, was the result of such realization. City planning is that phase of municipal activity which analyzes the character and probable extent of urban growth, suggests certain physical readjustments, and provides for the proper development and coordination of all future improvements. Properly administered it will make possible the gradual and economical development of an efficient, healthful, attractive city, free from the physical defects that hamper business and living conditions. City planning is essentially concerned with the physical elements of cities rather than with legislative and administrative matters. In brief, it provides a long-term program for physical improvements instead of the usual aimless and haphazard growth. Several thousand people may have some excellent ideas about the development of the city, but unless all ideas are brought together and properly revised and coordinated in a single comprehensive plan, it is impossible to expect anything but chaos in the city’s growth. The city plan is a beneficial instrument affecting the lives of all inhabitants, and should transcend all selfish consideration.

Fast-forward seventy-five years and, while the 1932 plan was not executed exactly as proposed, the fundamental concepts were incorporated into all subsequent plans: wider streets, less density for residential areas, and adoption of the first zoning ordinance for Peoria, beginning the regrettable process of strictly segregating land uses. The same concepts were perpetuated in the 1973 plan, which covered the newly-expanded city that was doubled in size by the annexation of Richwoods Township.

We’ve seen those plans come to fruition, and the result is not the “efficient, healthful, attractive city” we were promised. As a result, the Heart of Peoria Plan, adopted in principle by the City Council in 2002, completely reversed the plan put in motion seventy years earlier, at least for the HOP Plan area.

A lot of citizens were involved and a lot of work was done to put that HOP Plan together, but it only covered 8,000 acres of the city — more or less everything south of War Memorial Drive. The Comprehensive Plan (as its name indicates) covers the entire city, which stretches north practically all the way to Dunlap today. This document that will be created between now and the end of next year is going to be “the guiding document for development over the next ten to twenty years.” What’s our vision for the rest of the city?

Remember, the City is going to go by the public input they get from these meetings — if you don’t go and express your opinion or your wishes, the City won’t hear you and they won’t take your voice into account. So, it’s up to you. The future of Peoria is in your hands.

City of Peoria

Do Peorians care about the garbage fee?

4 Comments

The most surprising quote appeared in this morning’s Journal Star. In a story about Councilwoman Van Auken’s request to research the feasibility of changing from a garbage fee to a combination franchise fee/utility tax that would spread out the costs of the fee, Mayor Ardis had this to say (emphasis mine):

“I have to say I’ve never gotten a phone call. Nobody is saying you’ve got to get rid (of the garbage tax) to me. To have us do something that, at the end of the day, is revenue neutral, I have a problem with that.”

Interesting.

First of all, what needs to be remembered here is that, while Van Auken’s plan is indeed “revenue neutral” for the city, it isn’t “revenue neutral” for the citizens. In fact, the amount citizens would pay would go down, as the new fee would be a percentage of usage. For instance, if your water bill is $30/month, and you’re paying a 10% fee on that, you would be paying only $3/month instead of the current $6. It’s not perfect, as I would like to see the garbage fee eliminated entirely, but at least it mitigates it.

But beyond that, Ardis seems to believe that Peorians are okay with the garbage fee because he has personally heard no complaints. I had no idea the mayor was expecting people to contact him directly with their concern over this issue. I would expect citizens to contact their district councilman or, perhaps, at-large councilmen for an issue like this. That’s what I did. Then again, maybe he’s right. Maybe Peorians don’t care about the garbage fee anymore and are happy with the system as is.

In any case, if you favor abolishing or mitigating the garbage fee, it sounds like the person you need to contact is the Mayor.

City of Peoria, Port District, State of Illinois

State takes first step toward restoring passenger train service to Peoria

22 Comments

Amtrak EngineThe Heart of Illinois Regional Port District has just issued this press release regarding the effort to restore passenger train service to Peoria:

IDOT Requests Feasibility Study To Bring Passenger Rail Service To Peoria

(Peoria) – On March 8th 2007, a group of community leaders and organizers along with representatives from the passenger rail industry met in Peoria. Among the items they discussed were possible routes, funding sources, and the need for a feasibility study to address some of those concerns. The state has now taken the next step by requesting such a study be started by Amtrak.

George Weber, acting director of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), has made an official request that Amtrak begin a feasibility study to determine “potential routes and associated cost estimates as part of the proposed re-establishment of passenger rail service to the area.”

Explaining the cooperation between IDOT and Amtrak, Weber says, “Amtrak’s role in Illinois’ multi-modal transportation system is becoming more important. This is especially true in areas without existing passenger rail service. A feasibility study for proposed service is a critical step and will serve as the basis for continuing discussions in the possibilities of future expansions of passenger rail service in Illinois.”

Under the direction of Mayor Jim Ardis and the City Council, Peoria has been seeking support from Amtrak and IDOT to re-establish passenger service to the city. “We’re really excited to be following the lead that Mayor Ardis and the council have provided. Passenger rail service is a tool that Peoria must explore to maintain its world-class transportation infrastructure.” says Steve Jaeger, Executive Director of TransPORT (The Heart of Illinois Regional Port District).

TransPORT will continue to coordinate with the City of Peoria to facilitate the Amtrak study and work with other local communities and organizations to develop a plan to aide the entire region. It has been nearly 25 years since passenger rail service was offered in the Peoria area. A similar feasibility study was recently completed in Rockford and another has begun in the Quad Cities. It is expected that the Peoria study could take a year to finish, and further steps to secure local service could take place after its completion.

This is great news. Peoria could really benefit from passenger rail service, especially if the train came into downtown right along the riverfront — there would be all kinds of tourism possibilities. Not only that, but passenger train ridership is up all over the state, which means there’s demand for rail transportation. Bradley students could benefit from the train service just like ISU students benefit from it in Bloomington-Normal.

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Park Board Roundup

1 Comment

I attended a Park Board meeting for the first time tonight. Can I just say their meeting room is tiny! They need a bigger place to meet.

While they handled all the normal business of a Park Board meeting, the big issue on the agenda was their plan to establish an historic preservation policy. President Tim Cassidy suggested that the board appoint an ad hoc committee to develop and propose the policy on historic preservation. He would like to see them complete their work within six to eight weeks. The ad hoc committee would consist of two trustees, two park district staff members, and a citizen, plus Cassidy and Bonnie Noble who attend all subcommittee meetings. The policy will cover all park district properties, not just Glen Oak Park. While Cassidy made the suggestion, Trustee Cummings made the motion; it was seconded and passed unanimously.

During discussion, Cassidy said he was not suggesting this simply because of the flap with the city, but because he thought it would be a good idea. Also, Trustees Allen and Petty both said they believed the Park Board had been doing a good job of preserving the parks’ historic treasures already. Cassidy agreed, but added that board members and staff members come and go and that a policy would ensure consistency in protecting historic assets.

On that last point, I can’t help but wonder if, on their way home tonight, those trustees happened to drive by the foot bridge that has been cordoned off and deteriorating for years, or if they perhaps remembered their votes from February 2006 when they decided to dismantle the parapet and relocate the Spanish cannon. I could go on. The point is that I found these statements to be the height of irony.

Later, during the time they allow citizens to address the board, Jane Leathers made mention of the oft-cited “27 acres” that the Park District is supposedly razing for the Africa zoo exhibit. Bonnie Noble countered that the whole project encompasses only six acres, so she’s at a loss to know from where the 27-acre claim is coming. After the meeting, Sara Partridge mentioned that it was in the documents the Park Board filed with the City. I don’t have time to check into it now — can anyone provide some insight on this? In any case, Noble said that they are only clearing six acres, not 27.

Also during the citizens-to-address portion, I made the following statement:

In 1997, the board considered the question of whether or not to televise Park Board meetings on the public access channel of our local cable provider. The proposal was defeated. I request that the board reconsider that decision and approve televising the Park Board meetings.

A functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. Citizens oversee governmental bodies to, among other things, guard against abuse and ensure decisions are being made using accurate and timely information. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.”

It is incumbent upon governmental bodies to conduct the public’s business in public and to provide information in a way that is easily accessible to the public. By televising your board meetings, you will greatly enhance accessibility and transparency in the execution of the Park Board’s business. Taxpayers can watch from home or tape the meeting to watch at a later time if they are unable to attend in person due to scheduling conflicts or work situations. Citizens would be allowed to oversee government on their schedule instead of the Park Board’s.

Some have countered that televising meetings could lead to board members preening for the cameras or making long-winded speeches. While these possibilities exist, they are not an excuse for limiting the public’s access to the affairs of this body. If the fear of long speeches is really the issue, the Park Board can easily overcome that obstacle by instituting a self-imposed time limit on debate.

I’ve talked to Insight Communications, and they have indicated they are willing to work with the Park District to televise board meetings either live or on a tape-delayed basis. While there is cost associated with doing a live feed to Insight, tape-delaying the meeting is a viable alternative. Further, having park staff do the taping would also lower costs.

Since accessibility can be provided at very low cost, the benefits are great, and the risks are low, I would implore the Board of Trustees to approve and implement televising of the Park Board meetings.

After reading this statement, Trustee Cummings made a motion to direct park district staff to research the costs of televising the meetings and report back to the park board so the board can consider it. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. This was surprising to me, since I’m used to the Peoria City Council’s citizens-to-address policy where they don’t engage in dialog or take any immediate action, but merely listen to your statement.

I was pleased to hear the favorable discussion and hope that it results in the meetings being televised soon. I really do think it would be a valuable service to the community. Trustee Cummings made a good point that televising the meetings would also be good publicity for park board events and services, such as the ones they discussed tonight.

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District

Historic preservation vote deferred

15 Comments

Park District LogoTwo citizens petitioned the City’s Historic Preservation Commission to designate all of Glen Oak Park an historic landmark. The commission wasn’t ready to take on the whole park, but they did recommend landmarking several specific structures within the park. The City Council has the final decision on whether to landmark the nine items, so it was on the agenda Tuesday.

The Council decided to defer action on it until June 5. The stated reason was to allow the Park District time to get their own historic preservation policy and process in place over the next three Park Board meetings (they meet every other week). The next Park Board meeting is tonight, and historic preservation is on the agenda.

I have to side with the Park District on the historic-preservation issue. It would be one thing if citizens had been going to park board meetings, contacting their park board representatives, or otherwise engaging the elected park board officials to preserve Glen Oak Park — all to no avail. But according to Park Board President Tim Cassidy, no one has contacted the board about their concerns with Glen Oak Park.

It’s easy to take the cynic’s defense (“they wouldn’t have listened to us anyway”), but that really doesn’t fly with me. You may suspect they wouldn’t have listened or taken action, but you can never really know until you try. That should have been the first avenue of advocacy for Glen Oak Park. Instead, the park board was bypassed completely. I don’t think that’s fair.

Another thing that bothers me about the historic-preservation option is something Cassidy did not mention at the council meeting, but did mention at the Uplands candidates forum a couple weeks ago. He pointed out that once the structures in the park are designated as landmarks, future decisions about changes to those landmarks never go before the council again, but before the Historic Preservation Commission. That commission has the final administrative authority to approve or deny improvement and alteration requests. So then you would have a sovereign, elected body (the park board) subject to an unelected, appointed body (the city’s Historic Preservation Commission) for structures under the Park District’s stewardship. That arrangement is untenable to me.

The situation now has the City holding the Park District’s feet to the fire to follow through on their stated historic preservation plans in a timely manner. Hopefully that will be all that’s necessary, and on June 5 the council request can be voted down.

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Exception might not be enough for Spain

10 Comments

Peoria City HallA couple astute readers of my blog have pointed out to me an exception to the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act that might be a loophole that would allow Ryan Spain to serve on the city council without violating the act. (We’re still waiting for an opinion from the state’s attorney’s office as of this writing.) The exception reads like this:

(b‑5) In addition to the above exemptions, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services, or labor if:

A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which the interested member of the governing body of the municipality, advisory panel, or commission has less than a 1% share in the ownership; and

B. the award of the contract is approved by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality provided that any such interested member shall abstain from voting; and

C. such interested member publicly discloses the nature and extent of his interest before or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and

D. such interested member abstains from voting on the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

Sounds pretty cut and dried, but in state law, things aren’t always what they seem. Just ask Bud Nystrom.

Roy “Bud” Nystrom was a city councilman in Crystal Lake, a northern suburb of Chicago, when the company he worked for put in a bid to build a Bio-Solids storage facility for the city’s new wastewater treatment plant. Even though he abstained from voting on the contract, even though the council rejected his company’s bid, and even though he only inadvertently broke the Prohibited Activities statute, Nystrom was nevertheless indicted on 10 felony counts of official misconduct and prohibited financial interest in August 1998. He later worked out a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “attempted interest in a contract,” according to Chicago Tribune reports from the time.

What does this have to do with the exception I quoted? Well, the above exception I quoted was passed in 1997 and took effect in January of 1998. During Nystrom’s controversy, the Chicago Tribune had this to say about it (emphasis mine):

Already the [Public Official Prohibited Activities Act] statute has been relaxed by a new law that takes effect in January. The new law says that city officials only violate state law if they engage in public contracts on behalf of publicly traded companies in which they own more than a 1 percent stake.

Even with that change, Cowlin believes the law remains unfair. He thought the [Illinois Municipal] league should take a look at amending the law further and exempt municipal officials who are employed by private companies.

Heartland Partnership, where Spain is employed, is not a publicly traded company, but a private company, just like Nystrom’s employer. If one keeps reading the statute, it does say (emphasis mine):

(e) For the purposes of this Section only, a municipal officer shall not be deemed interested if the officer is an employee of a company or owns or holds an interest of 1% or less in the municipal officer’s individual name in a company, or both, that company is involved in the transaction of business with the municipality, and that company’s stock is traded on a nationally recognized securities market….

So it doesn’t look like the “b-5” exception is going to be enough for Spain, which may explain why it’s taking so long to get an answer from City Hall; I imagine they’re working with the state’s attorney, Spain and his attorney, and Heartland Partnership to come up with a way to allow Spain to serve without violating the statute. It will be interesting to see how it all gets resolved.

Spain controversy in the news

There have been some follow-up stories in the news that are worth mentioning. WEEK-TV interviewed Spain on their 9:00 newscast for sister station WAOE “my59”:

“I just find it very unfortunate that a particular member of the council is working to play games now as we look to get down to business,” said Spain. “So today while I was out trying to build relationship in Springfield (at the General Assembly), a member of council is looking to play games.”

I think it’s unfortunate that this is being portrayed by Spain and his supporters as just “playing games.” A more appropriate response would be, “I was unaware of that state law; I don’t believe I’m in violation of it, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure I comply with it.” Or something like that.

Spain would be smart to make friends with Gary and not treat him as an enemy just because he pointed out this state statute. Gary didn’t write the law, and he’s had to live by it — giving up business because of it — so it’s not unreasonable for him to want to make sure everyone else is abiding by it, too.

WEEK ran a follow-up story yesterday that just said Spain had met with city attorney Randy Ray, but that nothing had been resolved yet.

Yesterday’s “Word on the Street” column in the Journal Star states, “Spain’s boss Jim McConoughey says his agency is willing to do whatever needed to make sure there isn’t a problem.” That’s a very generous statement by Spain’s boss, considering it could mean the loss of $50,000 a year to his business.

Sandberg asks Lyons to retract statement

Then there’s this statement by state’s attorney Kevin Lyons that was quoted in the same article: “Lyons did note that some current City Council members have faced similar conflicts. ‘Of course, Gary Sandberg, as an architect, has had contracts and done work for people who do business with the city, and he just abstains,’ Lyons said.”

I e-mailed Gary to ask him about that statement, since it seems to contradict what he said in the comments section of my blog. In response, he copied me on an e-mail he sent to State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and the Journal Star that read:

Unless you were misquoted, I would like to know one instance and/or all the instances where any one of my clients had a contract with the City of Peoria to provide services or a product while I was doing Architectural work for that client. Your statement, if quoted correctly, is inflamatory [sic] and totally incorrect and creates a situation where I could lose my Architectural license from the State of Illinois.

If NOT quoted correctly, I would expect you to have already sent a correction to the newspaper….

I do Architectural work for clients IN the City of Peoria. I do NOT have clients that do work FOR the City of Peoria.

I haven’t checked today’s paper to see if there was a correction. It will be interested to see if anything comes of that. Whenever lawyers are involved, it’s always the same story: hurry up and wait.