Hello everyone. I just realized tonight — if I were to get elected to the council, I would no longer be able to liveblog the council meetings. Billy Dennis will have to stop sloughing off and cover the meetings for the blogosphere again.
Well, here we are in Council chambers, and here’s tonight’s agenda (below). As always, I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh your browser if you’re following along live. The time is 6:37 p.m., and former mayor Bud Grieves is speaking — he’s just received a proclamation celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Mark Twain Hotel, which he owns. Congrats to him. The proclamation was notable because it pointed out that he received no public funding, but made it into a successful hotel with all private investment. Just remember that the next time some developer comes to City Hall saying they can’t be successful without $40 million of your tax money.
When they voted to approve the minutes, Sandberg’s light didn’t illuminate, as it’s apparently burned out. Mayor Ardis said, “Due to non-use, Councilman Sandberg’s green light does not work.” That got a laugh from everyone.
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the 2011 CITY OF PEORIA BUDGET.
- Roberta Parks, representing the Chamber of Commerce: Polled the “business community” (unscientific) on what the impact would be of a usage tax on natural gas therms. Low response rate. Those who did respond were generally opposed or resigned to it.
No one else spoke.
ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:
A. NOTICE of LAWSUIT on Behalf of JAMES SPENCER SMITH Regarding a Complaint of Excessive Force During an Arrest on April 2, 2010, as Outlined, with Recommendation to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.
B. Communication from the City Manager, Police Chief, and ECC Manager Requesting Approval of a SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE of INTEROPERABLE RADIOS and ACCESSORIES for the PEKIN POLICE DEPARTMENT and TAZEWELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, in the Total Amount of $41,561.20, from Ragan Communications in the Amount of $23,779.20 and from Moyer Electronics in the Amount of $17,782.00, AND the City of Peoria will be Reimbursed 100% of the $41,561.20 Purchase Price.
C. Communication from the City Manager and Assistant Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Human Resources Commission (HRC) to Approve PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING, as Outlined, Utilizing 2011 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Permission to Adjust Said funding, if Necessary, for Each Funded Application by the Percentage of Change in HUD’s 2011 CDBG Allocation to the City of Peoria, if Said Funding is No More than 5% Above or Below the CDBG Allocation Received in 2010.
D. Communication from the City Manager with NOTICE that the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, ELIGIBILITY STUDY and HOUSING IMPACT STUDY Will be Placed on File for PUBLIC INSPECTION in the OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK on NOVEMBER 24, 2010, and a HOUSING IMPACT STUDY PUBLIC MEETING will be Held on NOVEMBER 29, 2010, AT 6:00 P.M. in the GLEN OAK COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER LIBRARY.
E. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Adoption of the CHARTER to REPLACE the EXISTING CHARTER Providing for the Establishment of the East Village Growth Cell (EVGC) Tax Increment Financing Economic Development Advisory Committee.
F. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Approval of a RESOLUTION Calling for the CONVENING of a JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING in Connection with the Proposed EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF on DECEMBER 10, 2010, at 3:00 P.M. at PEORIA CITY HALL, ROOM 404, for the PROPOSED DESIGNATION of the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL TIF REDEVELOPMJENT PROJECT AREA.
G. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Vacating Approximately 495 Feet to 577 Feet of the SOUTHWESTERN END of the GROVE STREET RIGHT OF WAY Bounded by the WEST LINE of FRACTIONAL SECTION LINE 16 and the MacARTHUR HIGHWAY CEDAR STREET BRIDGE RIGHT OF WAY.
H. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt the Following:
1. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX B of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to NONCONFORMING PARKING, YARDS, and LANDSCAPING Regarding Waivers concerning Existing Developed Property;
2. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX C of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to NONCONFORMING PARKING, YARDS, and LANDSCAPING Regarding Waivers concerning Existing Developed Property.
I. APPOINTMENTS by Mayor Jim Ardis to the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, with Request to Concur:
Rev. Andrew Jowers (Voting)
Robert C. Wilton (Voting)
Richard Mitchell (Voting)
Bobby Gray (Voting)
Shannon Techie (Voting)J. REAPPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the PEORIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, with Request to Concur:
Glenda Johnson (Voting) – Term Expires 11/17/2013
Robert McQuirter (Voting) – Term Expires 11/17/2013K. Communication from the City Manager Regarding the PEORIA PARK DISTRICT SECOND and THIRD QUARTER 2010 REPORT of ACTIVITIES for the RIVERFRONT and GATEWAY BUILDING, with Request to Receive and File.
L. Communication from City Treasurer Patrick Nichting Regarding the REPORT of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the CITY OF PEORIA FIREMEN’S PENSION FUND, with Request to Receive and File.
M. Communication from City Treasurer Patrick Nichting Regarding the REPORT of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the CITY OF PEORIA POLICE PENSION FUND, with Request to Receive and File.
N. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of OCTOBER 2010
These items were removed from the consent agenda by the following council members: Turner (C), Sandberg (D, E, F, G). The remaining items were passed unanimously.
- Item C — Turner asks if CDBG funds be utilized for rat abatement programs? Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes says she thinks they can, but she needs to check with HUD. She’ll report back via Issues Update. Motion passes unanimously.
- Item D — The report will be put on public display starting tomorrow (24th). Sandberg points out that that leaves the public only one day to inspect the report before the public hearing next Monday (at 6 p.m.) due to the holidays and weekend. Bobby Gray says it is currently available in the clerk’s office and will be put up on the website tomorrow. Gulley moves to approve; seconded by Riggenbach. Riggenbach says this is the beginning of the process, and he thinks we have a good track record of public involvement. Sandberg says this isn’t the beginning of a project, “this is the completion of an analysis…. Where is it?” He further says that residents have contacted him saying that they signed up as interested parties, but haven’t heard another thing about it. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
- Item E — Everyone just says “Ditto.” Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
- Item F — Same thing; no discussion. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
- Item G — Sandberg asks Public Works Director Dave Barber, “Will the vacation of this street limit opportunities to improve Washington Street?” Barber says it will not compromise our plans for Washington St., and there are no plans to buy it back in the future. Passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Extend the FRANCHISE AGREEMENT with COMCAST of ILLINOIS/INDIANA/OHIO LLC Until Sixty Days After the Audit Approved by Council is Completed.
Motion to approve by Turner; seconded by Gulley. No discussion. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg). The never-ending franchise agreement extension — it’s been going on since 2006! I wonder if we’ll ever see a new agreement.
ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Repealing Ordinance No. 14,981 Pertaining to the HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION of 1319 N. HAMILTON BOULEVARD.
Van Auken asks the privilege of the floor for Jim Bateman and Les Kenyon. Bateman, a former council member and president of the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation (CILF), is up first. He reviews the process that properties go through before being listed as historic landmarks, and questions whether such designation should be reversed without due process. He says “when you delist, you’re saying it no longer meets the criteria,” and that isn’t the case here. So he thinks the process of demolishing this is flawed. Next up is Kenyon, a local architect who’s on the board of CILF and an avid preservationist. He is difficult to understand, I’m afraid, because he’s not really holding the microphone close enough to be heard clearly. But he’s reviewing several historic church properties — the purpose of this review is also unclear at the moment. I guess it’s to show how several historic buildings have been beautifully preserved. He speaks generally in favor of historic preservation.
Van Auken is up now. As per her modus operandi, she speaks in favor of historic preservation as a setup to her motion to demolish an historic building. Her argument is that the property owner was not notified that its property was going to be landmarked until they came in to request a demolition permit. She calls that “using historic designation as a weapon.” She says that’s not fair. She also rebuffs Bateman’s suggestion for due process, saying that the ad hoc committee looking at revising the historic preservation process won’t be ready to make recommendations until February 2011. She’s apparently arguing that there’s some sense of urgency all of a sudden, even though this issue has been going on since 2003. It just can’t wait another three months, I guess. She says she’s afraid Trinity Lutheran will move out of the neighborhood. Moved by BVA, seconded by Turner, who’s running for reelection.
Ardis asks if materials from Roanoke Apartments would be preserved for use in other historic buildings; Van Auken says yes. Sandberg asks who requested that the item be brought forward; answer from Randy Ray (legal counsel): Van Auken. Sandberg says this same issue was brought before the council in November 2006 and it was denied 10-0. Furthermore, there was a lawsuit over it, and the City won the lawsuit. Sandberg also disputes Van Auken’s assertion that the first time the church heard about the landmarking designation was when they requested a demolition permit.
Sandberg says you don’t strengthen historic preservation by tearing down historic buildings. He says that’s like killing a patient to save a life. He defends the historic preservation process, and says he will not support the motion.
Gulley says it would be a mistake to “save a building that shouldn’t be saved.” He will be supporting the motion; says he voted “wrong” in 2006.
Van Auken defends her statement that Trinity did not know about the landmark application. Sandberg, who is an architect, talks about historic preservation projects on which he’s worked. He makes the case that this apartment building can be restored.
Turner says renovations would cost $500,000 to $1.5 million, and where would the church get that kind of money? If we don’t let it be razed, it will further deteriorate.
Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg). And I hear the engines starting on the razing equipment right now. I predict it will be demolished before morning. Many people are leaving the council chamber now — they were apparently here for the historic preservation vote. One of those in attendance: attorney Bob Hall.
ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting the Following:
A. ADOPT an ORDINANCE LEVYING a TAX for the FISCAL YEAR 2011 for the EAST BLUFF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES SPECIAL SERVICE AREA and Direct the City Clerk to File a Certified Copy of the Ordinance with the County Clerk to Allow this Tax to be Extended as Provided by Law;
B. EXTEND the EBNHS SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT CONTRACT through FY 2011; and
C. RECEIVE and FILE a Copy of the EAST BLUFF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT.
Riggenbach says the EBNHS has made many improvements since March and deems the (re)organization a success. Rev. Simon J. Holly, Jr., president of EBNHS has the privilege of the floor, and he recognizes the other board members, who are also in attendance. “We’ve got a lot of plans … We’re going forward … We’ve got some great things going for us.” You get the idea.
Riggenbach points out three things he says are “significant accomplishments.” (1) All the board positions (thirteen of them) are filled. (2) Annual audits are taking place now. (3) Loan fund is being reestablished.
Montelongo speaks favorably about the organization. He asks that the groups financials be made available to the people at the annual meeting. Says he’ll be supporting it tonight.
Sandberg asks some questions about when a certain property will be completed; Rev. Holly answers. Sandberg asks if the proper permits have been taken out, and if the property is being inspected. Several more questions — rapid-fire. Sandberg follows up with Director Kunski to ask if he’s gotten requests for permit and if inspections have been made. Kunski says he doesn’t know off the top of his head. More questions rapid-fire. Finally, Sandberg says there’s no budget proposed for EBNHS in the report. He says there are too many unanswered questions.
Spain asks question about 719 Illinois. Says some neighbors have found it difficult to get information on this property; asks for a report back from staff on the rehabilitation progress/timeline for this property.
Ardis says there’s a draft/proposed budget attached as Item A; Sandberg says it’s not the final budget. Motion on Item A passes 9-1 (Sandberg). Motion on Items B and C were voted on separately with no further discussion and the same final vote.
ITEM NO. 6 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to SET ASIDE $10,000.00 from the City of Peoria’s DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM for an EAST BLUFF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES HOUSING REHABILITATION and SALE PROJECT Located at 719 E. ILLINOIS STREET.
Riggenbach moves to approve/seconded by Gulley. Sandberg says there’s no need to act on this item tonight since the house will not be ready to sell until the end of the year. He moves to defer for one month to make sure that all the City’s policies and procedures were followed before it’s approved. Rev. Holly is back at the microphone. He says that there is a class that is required in order to receive the $10,000. Not sure what his point is. Riggenbach asks a question of Leslie McKnight: is there still downpayment assistance money remaining this fiscal year? Answer: yes. Riggenbach vouches for the EBNHS — that they’re doing everything properly — but supports Sandberg’s motion to defer.
Gulley speaks against the deferral. Spain says there is no meeting in one month because of the holidays; suggests a three-week deferral instead. After some discussion, the motion is now to defer to December 7 meeting. Montelongo asks Leslie McKnight about $50,000 that is left this year for downpayment assistance. He’s against earmarking this money for a particular organization; it should be a fair competition for the money by anyone who applies. Sandberg asks for some additional information from staff.
Riggenbach asks Kunski what the process is for downpayment assistance and whether we’re setting a different standard for EBNHS than for others who request such assistance. There are differences because of the nature of EBNHS being a tax-supported entity. Motion to defer passes unanimously.
ITEM NO. 7 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to DENY a REQUEST to AMEND APPENDIX B and APPENDIX C Relating to DONATION and RECYCLING BINS.
Irving moves to approve; seconded by Van Auken. Irving asks privilege of the floor for John Lucas, et. al. He basically says that Mr. Toska is a liar and that his business is not a charity, but misrepresents himself as a charity. Next speaker: Mike Toska! He says Mr. Lucas has somehow gotten his business confused with another business called USAgain, and that he’s not affiliated with USAgain. Says he’s been misrepresented by Lucas.
Sandberg asks that objective standards be established for operations such as this instead of just saying “no” because we have no standards for these kinds of recycling operations. He says it would be a good thing to have if done right, since encouraging recycling and reuse would be good public policy. Van Auken asks if we have immediate need for this (i.e., can recycling not be handled adequately by existing not-for-profit agencies)? She also asks who would enforce such standards as Sandberg suggests if they were enacted. Irving asks Director Landes about complaints about these bins; Landes says the complaints are that the bins are placed on property without permission, they’re put on required parking spaces, excessive litter, non-recyclables put in the bins, etc. Sandberg says the answer to Van Auken’s question is that whoever enforces it right now will enforce it in the future. He says his suggestion will lessen enforcement concerns since right now everything is illegal.
Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(10-068) Communication from the City Manager and Acting Director of Human Resources Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into an AGREEMENT Between the City of Peoria and ALL EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNITS to EXTEND the JOINT LABOR/AMANAGEMENT HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE for ONE (1) YEAR, Effective January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. (Revised Communication)
Spain/Van Auken move to approve; no discussion. Passes unanimously.
(10-490) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting a DEFERRAL of the Proposed ORDINANCE Vacating a Portion of the ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY on the NORTHERN END Located Between SPRING STREET and CAROLINE STREET, and Between N.E. ADAMS STREET and BOND STREET Until December 14, 2010.
Sandberg/Gulley move to approve; no discussion. Passes unanimously.
(10-464) Communication from the City Manager Requesting for the City Council to Provide Direction to the Administration on the PRELIMINARY FY 2011 OPERATING BUDGET.
Mayor Ardis says the City got complaints about the proposed natural gas tax from large industrial users (he doesn’t mention the name of the business, but it’s ADM). So now they’re thinking about different options — perhaps a two-tier system where large users pay less than smaller residential users. So, he wants to defer the budget discussion until this issue is further explored. Wants to wait until December 7.
Van Auken moves to defer discussion on the budget until December 7. Ardis has to feed the wording of the motion to Van Auken — she must not have gotten her crib notes from Ardis before the meeting. Seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
Van Auken next moves to set a meeting December 7 at 5 p.m. to continue budget discussions. Seconded and passes unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Regarding the FY2011 CITY OF PEORIA BUDGET.
No one requests to speak.
NEW BUSINESS
Gulley moves to reconsider item 10-515 (liquor license fee increases). He can’t because he wasn’t on the prevailing side. So, Van Auken moves instead; seconded by Turner. Motion passes 7-3 (Sandberg, Montelongo, Gulley). Original motion to approve is now on the floor. Van Auken wants to amend the motion to change one of the license fee requests. Sandberg asks for the privilege of the floor for Mr. McEnroe, a local business owner who has a class A liquor license. He talks about how small his business is and how this increase in fees will significantly impact his business negatively. He asks why fees are being raised on packaged liquor only $50/year (which will impact behemoths like Walgreens very little) but small businesses will see their fees raised $160/year. Another business owner speaks against it.
Here’s my question — how can they reconsider and vote on an issue the same night when it wasn’t on the agenda? Isn’t that against the Open Meetings Act?
Motion to amend fails 3-7 (Ardis, Spain, Van Auken voting yes). Motion to accept original motion fails 3-7 (same as before).
The clerk says this was really an unfinished business item, not a new business item, and that’s why it didn’t violate OMA; I’m not buying it, though. I think it was a violation.
There was no new business.
CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
- David Henderson — Criticizes the budget and plans to raise taxes. Reads his Ameren bill to the council — riveting. While reading his bill, he occasionally adds sarcastic comments. Often says, “I can’t afford you.” Tells Councilman Irving to call him back or he’s going to fire him.
- Savino Sierra — Says he’ll wait until next week to comment.
- LaVetta Ricca — Says she was upset to hear that some recycling/reuse containers are not run by charities.
- Mr. Lucas — Disputes Toska’s assertion that he wasn’t part of USAgain.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council candidate and ICC student George Azouri was in attendance tonight taking notes in his composition book. I didn’t see any other candidates.
There is an executive session. So, that’s it. It’s 8:58 p.m. Goodnight everybody!
CJ – I love reading your re-caps. The only problem is sometimes I can’t tell when you are being factual and when you are being sarcastic – in a deadpan sort of way. Would you be that way as a city council person too? Have to say, that would make for some fun council meetings! I might even start going to them. 😉
Rev. Andrew Jowers (Voting)
Robert C. Wilton (Voting)
Richard Mitchell (Voting)
Bobby Gray (Voting)
Shannon Techie (Voting)
Do we know if any of these folks live in the East Bluff?
Richard Mitchell (Voting) East Bluffer…
Bobby Gray (Voting)
Shannon Techie (Voting)
Bobby Gray works for COP in the Economic Development Dept (unless the city council votes to do away with that department.)
Shannon Techie works for COP in the Planning & Growth Dept.
There is a Robert C. Wilton listed at this link
http://www.thewiltonmortuary.com/
There are Jowers who live on the East Bluff.
Robert Wilton home address is on N. Knoxville – between Forrest Hill and War Memorial in 2nd district – not East Bluff.
well at least we get one the other one karrie linked to can take care of the bluff when this project dies.
Mitchel lives in the East Bluff and is President of East Bluff United Neighborhood Association. I don’t believe they have seen these documents and there has only been one meeting for residents called at the last minute.
Regarding the housing services. Gary asked questions because of the significant amount of problems in this organization pointed out last year by residents/tax payers. These concerns were ignored by their elected officials and I guarentee will be an issue at forums if no where else. The organization was founded to increase home ownership by making low cost loans to residents to keep them in the east bluff. The organization has made no loans this year, although there are promises of future loans. Concerns which were brought the councils attention was a statement made about loans not being made because they need to get more money. The house on Illinois was purchased for $12,000. It was not on the spreadsheet presented at the annual meeting of the housing services, but the expenses and loan amounts for their other rental properties were. I was told this house was purchased out of unrestricted funds. I would guess that this would be from the loan fund. I am not sure where the repairs for the other rental properties came from. Tax payers were adament last year that they did not want their money funding rental property. It was ignored by the council and by the housing services board. Tonight it was noted that the low bid for repairs on the Illinois house was from the company owned by the (now former) treasurer of the board. There were concerns about a conflict of interest last year and those concerns were not addressed this year, but allowed to continue. At the annual meeting the board member reported that the final annual report would be ready for the council by tuesday (today) one would think that the final report would include the final budget. It was not. So without having it’s questions answered or having a finalized budget report, the council voted to extend the tax dollars to the organization for another. As the residents are not allowed to have any input into the board members, they must rely on their elected officials who once again failed them. Riggs commented on three “big” areas of improvement. The major areas according to the tax payers have not been addressed. I am guessing more than 12 people are kicking themselves for voting the way they did in the last district race.
The Tiff is another animal where the process is bad. the only meeting on the proposal for the neighborhoods was a last minute ditch effort to get some people there most likely to check off that they had public input. In fact remembering, it was in fact presented that there was public input. Neighborhoods did not have notice enough to gather residents so most were completely unaware of the meeting. Bad practice. I do agree with Gary on this one. The documents, done with next to no public input are available for people to look at during business hours tomorrow. My guess is the expectation is for people to call into work and say, sorry, my representatives don’t care I have a job, but I need time off to get down to city hall. or sorry mum we will be on the road late for thanksgiving because our representatives planning. Is it poor planning, only if the expectation is to get public input or support. If it is to ram something through, then the planning is perfect. i feel bad for that district. what a screw job that is. Does no one ever learn, that by brining in your stakeholders at the beginning you would avoid so much opposition? This is OSF driven and for their needs. The neighborhoods might get a bone tossed them, but for all the talk, without their thoughts on what they want, it is as useless as the EBHS. Sad. so much money is being spent to try to revamp the area. I truely miss George Jacob. He would have been out meeting with the neighbors and getting their input.
What is the story with city manager Moore resigning?
A major thumbs-down to BVA for leading the charge on the delisting of the Roanoke Apartments. I don’t believe the majority of her 2nd district constituents are in agreement with her on this issue. Also, thumbs-down to the other council members who blindly went along and supported this very bad move. Kudos to Sandberg for doing the right thing and voting against this travesty.
So how much tax payer money was wasted to defend listing the Roanoke Apartments in 2006 to then turn around and delist it 4 years later?
I remember Gary saying the building was NOT historically significant when it was designated a landmark. Has he now changed his mind? BVA was right on this one.