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.
Will they actually collect the fees for the vaults and walkways now or is this just an exercise in keep fees that aren’t collected?
Kohlrabi: It’s a little confusing. The fees haven’t been collected since approx. 1980. That was a gross oversight on the part of the city administration (although, in fairness, this was primarily the fault of a previous administration, not the current one).
In May, the council was presented with several options as to what to do about these fees, one of which was to increase the fees and start collecting them again, and one of which was to eliminate the fees. Since they voted to eliminate them, the City Manager brought forth at last night’s meeting the legal document that would change the city’s ordinance. The council voted to not execute that document. So that means the ordinance is still on the books and in force. The City Manager asked for clarification — does that vote mean that the council wants the administration to collect the fees under the current ordinance? Answer: yes.
So, they didn’t raise the fees nor did they eliminate them. It’s status quo, except that now the administration will actually enforce the ordinance and collect the fees. Clear as mud? 🙂
Very clear. What was the snit Eric Turner was having with Gary Sandberg over simple majority vs, something higher – on budget issues? Was that attached to Turner being able to phone into the meetings?
No, it had nothing to do with the plan to allow council members to attend meetings electronically under certain conditions. It was apparently a fight over something that happened when the city was trying to work out the Chiefs ballpark deal downtown. I’m not real clear on the details, but apparently Turner and some other council members (a simple majority) had some deal worked out related to getting land for the ballpark several years ago, but it was thwarted because the city owned a parcel on that block that would take a supermajority of the council to sell. When Turner spoke against the plan to require a 2/3 majority to pass a budget amendment, Sandberg brought up that incident and that apparently ticked off Turner. They were throwing barbs again later in the meeting, too.
How about that Manning guy being able to change a 9-1 vote against to a 6-5 vote in favor? It’s only sensible to collect those fees from those companies using city property.