Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School Board sets table for rebuff of city plan

4 Comments

The District 150 School Board didn’t vote on the city’s proposal tonight to build a new school at Wisconsin and Frye, but the outcome is just short of certain: forget it.

School Design and Construction Committee members Guy Cahill (also district treasurer) and Marty Collier (Cat-employed architect) gave a short presentation, then took questions from the school board, some of which they answered immediately but most of which they plan to report back next week.

During the presentation, Cahill raised questions about the city’s land acquisition assessment; he said the city expects to acquire homes in the Glen Oak School area at market value (three times the assessed value), whereas the school board estimated higher than market value rates. He also raised questions about the “geometry of the site,” saying it “may or may not lend itself to what ultimately is planned.” He wants to have an educational expert compare and contrast the two sites for suitability, and he has questions about what all the city will be paying for — specifically, he wants to compare what the city paid for in the Valeska-Hinton agreement with what is being proposed now.

Collier reported on what’s coming out of the workshops he’s conducting with the School Design and Construction Committee. He said first of all that, since it’s going to be a “community school,” it’s going to need to be designed differently than a standard elementary school. Because of the mix of uses, the space will need to be “distributed widely” — in other words, it should be one-story instead of multi-story. This creates “segmentation” that keeps very young children from comingling with older children, and keeps the children separated from the “community” part of the school that would include a health clinic, for instance. He also mentioned there would need to be quite a bit of space devoted to (you guessed it) parking and bus queueing.

The questions from the board members were far from neutral or evenhanded. A lot of them were worded negatively: e.g., “what sports fields would be eliminated if we went with the Glen Oak School site?” “What programs will be lost by going to a smaller footprint?” It was pretty obvious the only purpose of their questions was to get information that will help them build a case against the current school site and for the park site.

There were a couple of interesting points, however. New board member Debbie Wolfmeyer stressed that, in comparing the two sites, the school board should only consider the land the district will actually own — which would be ten acres at the park site or ten acres at the school site — because the district will have no control over the land the park district owns, even though it’s adjacent to the proposed site. For instance, she brought up that the park already plans to replace one of the ball diamonds for a parking lot, so there’s no guarantees the other ball diamond will be there forever.

Also, new board president David Gorentz said, “The building plan and site plan should be driven by the programmatic plan. Until you have a program plan, you don’t know how much space you really need.” Since the program plan won’t be completed until this Wednesday, and the school board announced their selection of the park site back in March, I found Dr. Gorentz’s statement to be a tacit admission that the school board has been going about site selection completely backwards.

The bottom line is, the school board will rebuff the city’s offer and build the new school at Glen Oak Park like they planned all along. It’s in the cards.

City of Peoria, Renaissance Park

One World Café to expand with a little help from the city

1 Comment

One World Café, established in 1994 at the corner of Main and University, recently purchased the former Lagron-Miller building to their immediate east and is trying to secure financing to expand their restaurant:

Their expansion plans include the relocation of the kitchen and upgrade of appliances, reconfiguration of the dining room to increase customer capacity, creation of a separate smoking friendly dining room/bar, improvements to a privately owned parking lot and a modification to the building’s façade to conform to the proposed Renaissance Park design guidelines.

They also want to add more staff — 8 full-time and 6 part-time employees — to meet the demands of the increased customer capacity.

They’re on the city council’s agenda for Tuesday because they want to borrow money from the city’s Business Development Fund (BDF). According to the Request for Council Action, the BDF’s purpose is to provide “a secondary or ‘gap’ financing source for local businesses,” especially those in the city’s Enterprise Zone.

One World owners Husam and Salam Eid (brothers) are putting $47,200 of private equity toward the expansion and have secured a $372,000 loan from Princeville State Bank. But with the project cost estimated to be $519,200, they’re $100,000 short. That’s where the city’s BDF loan comes in.

“The BDF is a separate and dedicated account, whose sole purpose is to provide secondary financing to local companies.” In this case, the city would loan One World $100,000 at 4.25% interest for 5 years. It’s a good deal for One World and a good deal for the city — more private investment in Renaissance Park and increased employment.

As a side note, did you catch the “smoking friendly dining room/bar” in their plans? Some people think business owners shouldn’t be allowed to permit smoking on their own property.

Arbor District, Bradley University, City of Peoria

Bradley’s 1991 Plan an interesting read

3 Comments

Bradley UniversityBradley University first filed an Official Development Plan (ODP) in 1991 when the city created the N1 (Institutional) zoning designation. Since then, it has been amended four times, expanding their institutional boundaries each time, but the balance of the plan is still in effect. The largest addition was the St. James apartments east of campus.

There are several things that are notable about the university’s ODP, which you can read in its entirety by clicking here (1.71M PDF).

NEIGHBORHOOD COLLABORATION

First, there was considerable collaboration between Bradley and the surrounding neighborhoods. An institutional planning committee was established through the West Bluff Council, which included representatives from Bradley-West (Arbor District), Moss-Bradley, and the Uplands neighborhoods, as well as representatives from Bradley University.

This process of collaboration was praised throughout the document, such as these statements:

The Committee frequently acknowledged that the University will not be as prominent an institution, nor will the Neighborhood maintain or improve its character, without cooperation and consideration of the needs of each other.

The University is furthermore committed to continue to exchange information and have open dialogue with Neighborhood representatives which will hopefully lead to further improvements toward resolving quality of life issues.

The document concluded by saying the process “reaffirmed the need for ongoing dialogue between the Neighborhoods and the University.” I wonder at what point the university decided to start stonewalling the neighbors until they’d acquired a critical mass of properties in the area where they wanted to expand?

PARKING UNDER ELMWOOD?

Another fascinating part of the document is their plan to solve Bradley’s long-term parking needs. They hired a consultant to assess the immediate and long-term needs and come up with solutions. The short term solution was to reconfigure existing lots (including widening Elmwood Ave.), lease space from owners of nearby lots, and better utilize on-street spaces within the institutional district. That added 305 spaces by the Fall of 1992. But the long-term solution was really interesting (emphasis mine):

Subject to further specific study and of course financing, the ultimate solution for additional parking supply appears to rest with construction of a parking structure. The proposed structure concept would lie underground from Main Street to Bradley Avenue under what is now Elmwood Avenue. The facility, which would be at least one level underground, would be accessible only from St. James (the campus entranceway). Surface parking would be retained.

In providing this solution, there is the related effect of improving parking to the central campus without encouraging additional neighborhood traffic. The plan would also allow the University to remove campus internal parking on the ODK circle (in front of Bradley Hall). Furthermore, the additional capacity of approximately 600 spaces could allow the University to vacate Fredonia Avenue for use as a pedestrian mall and also alleviate (or eliminate) the need for ancillary lot usage of the St . Mark and Newman Center lots.

Now that’s an ambitious plan, isn’t it? I wonder whatever became of it? I’m going to guess that cost was a major factor. In 1997, Bradley built an above-ground parking deck near the Global Communications Center instead. This provided an additional 690 parking spaces — almost a hundred more than the underground deck plan — and cost $4.5 million to construct.

LONG-TERM BOUNDARIES

The plan, and specifically the boundary of the N1 district, was designed to be “useful” for “at least 20-25 years.” That would be at least until 2011-2016. Now, I realize that no one in 1991 had a crystal ball, and that significant changes could have occurred between 1991 and 2006 that require the plan to be modified. But that begs the question: What has changed? Enrollment hasn’t dramatically increased.

The only thing that’s really changed is that the men’s basketball team gained nationwide recognition this year when they made it to the Sweet Sixteen. The university wants to take this opportunity to attract top-caliber athletes, and the way to do that is to have top-caliber training facilities. That means (to the university) replacing the aging Robertson Memorial Fieldhouse, which began life as a WWII airplane hangar.

But the replacement building will be larger and wipe out what little parking exists, thus the need for a new parking deck. The university wants to put that on the west side of Maplewood, where those big, historic homes stand now.

THE BOTTOM LINE

In the end, I think a lot of controversy and hard feelings could have been averted if the university would have continued their dialog with the neighborhoods instead of quietly buying up homes along Maplewood and keeping their plans a secret. They may have had to compromise — only use half of the frontage along Maplewood, for instance — but would have formed a stronger bond of trust with the surrounding neighbors.

The university’s plans, as far as I can discern them, are pretty modest as far as expansion goes. But they’ve created a climate of suspicion now that won’t be easily overcome. That’s unfortunate.

City of Peoria, Parking

The only “free parking” is in Monopoly

1 Comment

Free ParkingWhen we used to play Monopoly at my house growing up, not only did landing on Free Parking mean you didn’t land on someone’s hotel on St. James Place, it also meant a windfall of cash, since any Chance or Community Chest fees went into the “kitty” and were awarded to the next person to land on “Free Parking.”

But in the real world, there’s no such thing as free parking, and there is no windfall of cash, either. Gary Sandberg explained it best on Tuesday’s Outside the Horseshoe program on WCBU.  Someone is always paying for parking, even in the suburbs.  The only difference between downtown parking and suburban parking is who’s paying.

Those huge surface lots out by, say, the Shoppes at Grand Prairie, didn’t just descend from the sky.  Somebody bought the land, somebody built the lot, somebody maintains the lot — and that all costs money.  At the Shoppes, or Metro Centre, or Northwoods, or Sheridan Village, the business owners pay for it.  It’s part of their rent structure.  The patrons don’t have to pay (directly) for parking because the business owners have decided to provide “free” parking for their customers.

Now let’s go downtown.  Who owns the land, builds the decks/lots, and maintains them?  For much of downtown, it’s the city.  Can businesses downtown provide free parking for their patrons?  Sure!  All they need to do is work out an arrangement where they validate parking tickets from a nearby city-owned deck or lot.  Then the business pays the city instead of the customer.

But why is the city providing parking (other than street parking) at all?  The city doesn’t build lots or decks in the suburbs for any of the businesses out there.  They didn’t build decks or lots downtown until about thirty years ago.  Before then, downtown developers had to build and maintain their own parking structures.  Remember Sears?  They had their own on-site parking.  Bergners?  Carsons?  The city didn’t provide parking for these businesses.

So, it will be nice having free two-hour parking on the riverfront now, but one has to wonder why the city is providing “free” parking to some businesses and not others.  When Gary Sandberg says the city should get out of the parking business, I think he may be on to something.  If the city sold all their decks and lots (which are not making the city any money), they could get a tidy influx of cash and no longer have the maintenance headaches.

Then businesses downtown would be on an even playing field with the suburbs as far as parking goes, and the city could focus on providing other, more essential services.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Supermajority restriction fails

14 Comments

Only three council members voted in favor of the zoning commission’s recommendation to require a supermajority of the council to expand the boundaries of an institutional district. The general consensus was that the system isn’t broken, so they didn’t want to “fix” it.

One of the council members trotted out the popular notion that there’s no harm being done by Bradley because they’re buying out their neighbors at above-market prices — in some cases, five times the property value. It sounds like they’re a really good neighbor, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t you just love to get a cool half-million for your $100,000 house?

The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the whole neighborhood. Take the example of Bradley University buying the houses along Maplewood across from the Fieldhouse. Yes, the people on Maplewood are getting a great deal, but what about the rest of the Arbor District? What about the properties on Cooper or Rebecca?

The answer is that the neighborhood as a whole is destabilized.

Why? Because who wants to buy in a neighborhood when the university is expanding west and that beautiful historical house on Cooper may be the next to be acquired within a few years? It’s not the family who wants to put down roots in the neighborhood and raise their kids there. It’s someone looking to buy a property for $100,000 and hopefully get $500,000 for it when the university decides it wants it.

And for those neighbors who are already there, how many of them want to put new landscaping around their house? Or put in new windows? Or new siding? Or even a new paint job? If the residents reasonably expect the university to keep moving west, it would be silly to put a lot of capital improvements into their houses.

Speculative purchases. Deferred maintenance. This is what happens when institutions disregard the boundaries of their institutional district.

But the council, judging by the rhetoric of the “nay” voters, thinks everything is hunky-dory with Bradley’s property acquisitions. They’re not interested in taking any action against Bradley’s encroachment into the Arbor District, let alone enacting the modest proposal that came before the council tonight. As far as they’re concerned, Bradley’s doing the neighborhood a favor by disobeying the city’s own ordinance.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School debate contentious enough without cynicism

5 Comments

I finally figured out what it is that really gets my goat in the debate over where District 150 wants to put its new school. It’s cynicism.

A letter printed on the Journal Star editorial page today (under the misnomer “Another View,” since it’s the same view as the JS Editorial Board’s) is a good example. Even though I disagree with her, Dawn Gersich of Peoria makes some good arguments in favor of the Glen Oak Park site for the new school. Those are appropriate and helpful to the debate. What is not helpful is the cynical eye she casts on those who disagree:

Regarding the proposed school site in Glen Oak Park, I have yet to hear, “What’s best for the children?”

And:

The fate of our neighborhoods, indeed our nation, is dependent on the investment we place in our children. It’s a shame that some people get caught up in politics and forget that we should be focused on what is best for kids.

See? Those who oppose the Glen Oak Park site are not concerned about what’s best for the children and are “caught up in politics.” This attribution of ulterior motives is known as cynicism.

Ms. Gersich is not the only cynical one. Garrie Allen said in an interview on WCBU last week that he believed the city council and others have “an agenda” to “clean up” the East Bluff. In other words, he thinks they’re more interested in urban renewal than what’s best for the children’s education. Mr. Matheson has made similar remarks.

This kind of rhetoric is horribly misleading, and it is not healthy for the debate.

First of all, Peorians want District 150 to succeed. They want the best for their children and all children in the city. They want the schools to be second to none so people want to move into District 150 instead of out of it. The debate is not between those who care about the children and those who care about politics. We all care about the children.

Secondly, doing what’s best for the children cannot be divorced from considering what’s best for the city and what’s best for the financial health of the school district.

You can dismiss city cooperation as “politics” if you want, but the school is not an enclave, uneffected by and not affecting the city. If urban flight continues, if crime increases, if property values continue to go down, it’s not just the city that loses, it’s the school district. They lose students, performance, property tax revenue, and federal funds. Similarly, if schools are in disrepair and test scores are low, it’s not just the school district that suffers, it’s the city, because what young family wants to live in a failing school district? The city and school district must work together for their mutual success, and that directly affects the children.

Another unpleasant subject when determining “what’s best for the children” is money. You know what would be best for my children? The best private tutor(s) money can buy, then college at Harvard or Oxford. Are my kids going to get that? No. I don’t have the money to do that. When you want to do what’s best for the children, you have to what’s best for them within your means.

The school district is in bad financial shape. Contrary to popular belief, their ambitious plan to build new schools was not based purely on “what’s best for the children.” The plan came about as a way for the district to save money. The idea is to eliminate old, inefficient buildings, and consolidate into fewer, larger, but more efficient buildings. Educational experts will tell you that “what’s best for the children” are small, neighborhood schools — not large, consolidated schools. In fact, a District 150 subcommittee headed up by Bradley professor Bernard Goitein reported exactly that to the school board before the master building plan was put together.

I say all this, not to say that the school board doesn’t have the best interests of the students at heart (I believe they do), but to point out that the issue is not as black and white as some letter writers would have you believe. Both sides in this debate want what’s best for the children, but have different views on how to accomplish that within the financial means of the district and in cooperation with the city.

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Zoning committee recommends supermajority to change institutional boundaries

3 Comments

The City Council will decide Tuesday night whether to require a supermajority — a 2/3 vote — to change the boundaries of an institutional zoning district.

Institutions such as colleges, hospitals, and universities have a special zoning designation in Peoria. It’s known as “N1,” or “institutional,” and it has advantages for the institutions and the city.

For the institution, it gives them a self-contained campus area within which they are free to do almost anything (there are some limits, of course). They can set up restaurants, libraries, book stores, parking, athletic fields, etc., without having to go to the city for permission.

The city, on the other hand, benefits from, first of all, not having to deal with every little change or request that these institutions want to do within their campus area. But more importantly, this arrangement provides stability to the neighborhoods surrounding the institutional district. People can purchase homes in abutting neighborhoods with a reasonable expectation the institution won’t be encroaching into their subdivision.

Currently, to change the boundary of an N1-zoned district requires a simple majority of the council. But the zoning commission is recommending the council change that to a supermajority for institutional boundaries that have been in effect less than 10 years.

The zoning commission’s rationale for this change is to promote even greater stability:

Requiring a super majority vote of the Council will promote stability in the Institutional District and abutting neighborhoods. An inter-reliance between the Institution and the adjacent neighborhood exists: a stable institution suggests a more predictable market place in the adjacent neighborhood, which promotes stability; a stable adjacent neighborhood likewise encourages stability for the Institution. An example of an unstable, unpredictable market place is one of speculative purchases, and deferred maintenance.

Even though this change affects several institutions (Bradley University, Illinois Central College, Methodist Medical Center of Illinois, OSF St. Francis Medical Center, Proctor Hospital, and Midstate College), I have a suspicion that the reason for this change is because of Bradley University’s not-so-subtle acquisition of houses in the Arbor District and plans to expand their campus west.

The text of the proposed ordinance states (emphasis mine):

12.3.1 An amendment which adds territory to an existing institutional district, which territory is contiguous to a boundary which previously has been changed less then ten (10) years prior to the date of the amendment, shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of Council Members actually voting, but in no case shall an amendment be passed by less than the affirmative votes of six (6) Council Members.

Just two months ago, Bradley’s institutional boundary changed slightly to allow them space to put in a transformer as part of an electrical upgrade to their Global Communications building. Given the wording of this ordinance, it appears the ten-year provision will be counted from May 2006 when that last boundary change was put into effect.

In any case, when Bradley comes to the council asking for their institutional boundary to be extended to the west, it would take a 2/3 vote of the council (that’s 8 votes, assuming everyone is present) to approve it, if this ordinance passes Tuesday.

Nevertheless, neither Bradley nor the other affected institutions appear to be worried about it. They didn’t even respond to the zoning commission’s request for input.

City of Peoria, Pushcarts

How to solve the “pushcartel” problem

8 Comments

Downtown restaurants are complaining that they just can’t compete against the pushcarts for lunch business. The Journal Star highlights Fahey’s, which just closed its doors for good, saying the carts pushed them out of business there.

My first thought was, they were located in the basement of the Commerce Bank building. Doesn’t that sound like a great place to go for lunch on a beautiful summer day: the basement? You think maybe location had something to do with their demise?

But then, on second thought, I can see their point. Here you have downtown businesses that have brick and mortar buildings, pay property taxes, and every day they have these pushcarts swoop in and steal the lion’s share of their business. I would be pretty ticked, too.

So what’s the answer? Outlaw pushcarts? No, here’s my suggestion: let the downtown restaurants set up their own pushcarts for free. In other words, define a perimeter and say, any restaurant within this perimeter is free to set up a pushcart on courthouse square. They have to get a permit, but there’s no charge for the permit. Wouldn’t this level the playing field?

My theory is that people like the pushcarts because (a) they like eating outside in the summer, (b) they like being able to have a wide selection of restaurant choices conveniently located near each other, (c) they enjoy the atmosphere of courthouse square where there are regularly-scheduled musical acts, and (d) the pushcarts have really tasty food.

So, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. But businesses that have invested in downtown shouldn’t have to pay an extra fee to join ’em, in my opinion.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

Say goodnight, Garrie

13 Comments

Garrie AllenOn WCBU (89.9 FM) tonight, they aired a half-hour interview with outgoing District 150 School Board member Garrie Allen. They touched on many topics, but I was particularly interested in his remarks about the Glen Oak School controversy.

Garrie Allen believes the city should butt out of the school board’s building plans — that it’s none of their business — unless, of course, they are in favor of the school board’s plans, in which case their help is welcome. He further believes that the residents, parents, and city council have an agenda: they want the school district to “clean up” the East Bluff, which he kept calling “a blighted area.” That should be the city’s job, he contends, not the school district’s.

Allen stated he was really surprised when all the controversy erupted over the Glen Oak Park location for the school. He said he thought the school board would be praised for their progressive and innovative idea and people would be lining up to volunteer their help to make it happen. Instead, the only group that really understands what the school district is trying to do, says Garrie, is the park district, which approved an intergovernmental land-sharing agreement with the school district.

I couldn’t be more disappointed with Mr. Allen’s comments.

I don’t remember Mr. Allen asking the city to “butt out” when they offered their police force to double as truancy officers. I don’t recall the city being asked to “butt out” when Mayor Ardis challenged the community to raise money for a “Peoria Promise” program that would reward students who stayed in District 150 with a free or partially-paid college education. Apparently, Mr. Allen thinks cooperation is a one-way street, from the city to the school district.

And what kind of hyper-provincial mentality believes that cleaning up a blighted neighborhood is somehow opposed to the school board’s educational objectives? One would think the school board would welcome and assist attempts to stabilize the neighborhood, since that would improve students’ home environment — and if their home environment is safe and stable, it will be easier for students to focus on their school work. But instead, Mr. Allen paints the city’s attempts to work with the school board to stabilize neighborhoods as something that will help the city, but hurt the students. This kind of twisted logic would leave Solomon scratching his head.

I had the pleasure of voting against Mr. Allen in the last election. He lost by a considerable margin, but I savor the small part I played in his defeat.

You know what amazes me about this whole Glen Oak School thing? It’s that, despite the fact that nearly every parent, neighbor, representative, resident, professional, worker, etc., in the East Bluff and the city at large has expressed disapproval of the district’s plan, the school district still thinks that they made the right decision and are doing the right thing. They’ve had Bradley professors, city commission members, a state senator, Glen Oak students, etc., all speak out against the board’s actions. Are they deterred? Has the thought, “Hmm, maybe we were wrong,” crossed their minds, if even for a fleeting moment?

Hardly. If anything, they’re all the more steeled in their opinions. If Moses walked in the district offices on Wisconsin with two tablets that said “Don’t build on Glen Oak Park” and brought 10 plagues on the district, I’m convinced the board would ignore him, too (no doubt citing separation of church and state). This kind of overconfidence is baffling, yet endemic in this board of education. For a school district that wants to build a “community center” style school, they sure are doing their darndest to alienate the community.

I think the only thing we can do is exactly what we did to Mr. Allen. Vote them out at the next available opportunity.

ADDENDUM:  I see on the July 11 council agenda that there’s intergovernmental cooperation between the school district and the city called the “Safer Neighborhood Schools Sidewalk Improvement Project.” I wonder if Mr. Allen signed on to that agreement, or if he felt the city should “butt out” of that, too.