It’s Tuesday evening, and time for another Peoria City Council meeting. I’m coming to you live from Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh often.
Absent tonight are Mayor Ardis and 5th District councilman Dan Irving. Mayor Pro Tem is At-Large councilman Eric Turner.
ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:
O. APPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the FIRE & POLICE COMMISSION, with Recommendation to Concur:
Dianne Happ (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2012
P. APPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the RENAISSANCE PARK COMMISSION, with Recommendation to Concur:
Kip McCoy (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2013
Items I (Barbara Van Auken), B and H (Spain), L and M (Montelongo), and A and G (Sandberg) were removed from the consent agenda. Also, Spain is abstaining from Q, and Jacob is abstaining from L, M, and N. Montelongo moved to approve remaining items, seconded by Sandberg. Passed unanimously.
- Item A is for LED lights. Gary Sandberg (At-Large) questioned whether this expense is really necessary given the city’s current financial situation. We have mechanical lights that currently work, so why the need to switch to LED? Sandberg moves to deny; seconded by Ryan Spain (At-Large). Barbara Van Auken speaks against the motion. Spears speaks in favor. Motion fails 4-4; Eric Turner (At Large), Spain, George Jacob (At Large), and Van Auken voting nay; Sandberg, Jim Montelongo (At Large), Bill Spears (4th Dist.), and Clyde Gulley (1st Dist.) voting yea. Then, Spain moves to approve item A, seconded by Van Auken. Motion fails 4-4 (along the same lines as before, only in reverse).
- Spain moves to defer item B, seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously.
- On to Item G: Sandberg asks why our specifications are so narrow that no one except Harris can meet them. This is practically a sole source because of the way we’ve written our specs, leading to the high cost. Sandberg moves to deny item G; seconded by Gulley. Van Auken comes to the defense of the police department request again; asks leading questions of Chief Settingsgaard in order to make her point that this process and request is justified. Spears asks how Settingsgaard can know this is a reasonable, competitive price when there are no other bids; really, a rhetorical question. Spears makes substitute motion to defer until October 27 so he can get a report back on how much was spent on the last contract for comparison; Van Auken seconded. Motion passes unanimously.
- Spain talks about Item H, which is designed to help the city make sure they’re getting their sales tax receipts due from transient merchants. Says this is a step in the right direction, and gives props to Sandberg. Spain moves to approve; seconded by Sandberg. Sandberg says this is a step in the wrong direction; “it obfuscates whose responsibility it is to collect, pay, and submit the sales tax to Springfield.” He urges the council not to approve this motion. Spain disagrees; he says the problem is that we don’t know these transient merchants exist. By requiring there to have a license puts them on the radar screen. Sandberg counters that a better solution would be to require each and every transient merchant to register with the State. Ray says every person who is doing the selling does indeed have to be licensed with the State. Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay. Note: Although my name was used in Sandberg’s example, I do not have a transient merchant license.
- Van Auken pulled Item I off the agenda just so she could thank a couple of Bradley representatives, one of whom is my neighbor, Seth Katz. Van Auken moves to approve; seconded by Spain. Sandberg cannot support motion because “it does nothing to create a buffer between an institutional activity use (that is more than doubling in size) and a single-family neighborhood.” There’s no 25-foot transitional buffer yard included. We don’t need to provide ten parking spaces for students who live on campus (within the institutional zone). Van Auken asks Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes to clarify the requirements and if this project meets them. Landes does so. Sandberg says we need to establish “good planning principles” that minimize the risk of conflict between institutional uses and residents. Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.
- Montelongo moves to deny Item L; seconded by Spain. Montelongo wants to deny based on its close proximity to a large shopping area. Motion fails, 4-4 (Sandberg, Spain, Turner, and someone else voting nay).
Spain moves to defer until October 13; seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously. - Motion to defer Item M until next meeting by Montelongo; seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously.
Motion to approve by Van Auken; seconded by Montelongo. Motion passes unanimously. No discussion.
Motion to approve by Gulley; seconded by Van Auken. Sandberg asks some questions of Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger for clarification. Specifically, why is the total cost of renovation pertinent when all the city cares about is the EAV increment? (Rhetorical.) Also, on what are we going to use the predicted increment increase? Answer: Whatever we can in the Warehouse District. Spain says he will be supporting the motion. Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.
Gulley moves to approve; seconded by Van Auken. Sandberg speaks against motion for same reasons as last item. Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.
Gulley moves to approve; seconded by Van Auken. Sandberg asks if anyone around the horseshoe knows what “licensing the lot” means. Blank looks. State of Illinois owns the lot, leases space at $55 per space per month. The “license” says the developer only has to pay half that amount ($22.50) as long as he leases all 78 spaces. And, these spaces would no longer be available to the general public. Why are we cutting our rates when we’re hurting for cash? Spain says he’s also concerned because he works in an office that leases spaces at $55/month, so if this passes, his office will probably try to cut the same deal with the city. We could lose more revenue.
Van Auken asks Hullinger to explain the disparity. Hullinger says the lot is owned by the State of Illinois; it gets little use even though it’s free to use by the public. Hullinger doesn’t think the rate is out of line given its location. Sandberg says this lot is one block away from the “museum rectangle.” “Why aren’t we valuing that?” “We throw away things of value and then wonder why we’re poor.”
Tim Riggenbach (3rd Dist.) asks if we would still get use of the lot under this license agreement. Hullinger: yes. Riggenbach: How many spaces are rented at $55 currently? Hullinger: None. Gulley: That’s why he’s in favor of this agreement; we’re not getting any revenue currently. Montelongo: How long is the license for? Hullinger/City Attorney Randy Ray: Ten years, with options to continue. Price can go up as city’s price for downtown rentals goes up.
Motion passes 7-2; Sandberg and Spain voting nay.
Riggenbach moves to approve; seconded by Spain. Sandberg asks why we’re going to have a public hearing after we approve creating this. Ray: This vote is just to start the process, not give final approval. There has to be a second vote after the public hearing for this to get final approval. Points out that West Bluff Housing Service is still in existence, but doesn’t use tax money anymore; seed money should not continue indefinitely. East Bluff housing service was created 20 years ago (1989).
Riggenbach reiterated Ray’s comment that this is only beginning the process. He’s impressed with the way the East Bluff housing service is run now, acknowledging there were problems in the past.
Motion passes unanimously.
Public Works Director David Barber gave some background on this request. Montelongo moves to approve; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
Gulley abstains from voting. Jacob moves for deferral; seconded by Montelongo. Motion passes unanimously.
Interim City Manager Henry Holling asks his assistant Chris Setti to give background on this request. There’s only one remaining applicant. The council had set a cap of 30 applicants, and the city got 31. The city believes it would be prudent to extend the cap to accept that 31st applicant. Spain asked some follow-up questions.
Motion to approve by Van Auken; seconded by Gulley. Motion passes unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(09-277) Communication Requesting INITIAL DIRECTION ON STEPS TO REDUCE THE ANTICIPATED FY 2010 BUDGET DEFICIT:
A. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works with REPORT BACK and Request to PROVIDE DIRECTION to STAFF Regarding CHANGING the CITY’S SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION PROGRAM and SIDEWALK IN NEED OF REPAIR (SINR) PRGRAM from an 80/20 CITY/CITIZEN SPLIT to a 50/50 SPLIT.
MOTION ON THE FLOOR: Adjust the Sidewalk Assistance Program and the SINR Program to a 50%/50% split, which should be reviewed on a year-to-year basis.
Van Auken makes substitute motion to adjust the Sidewalk Assistance Program to a 50/50 split, to be reviewed on a year-to-year basis (in other words, dropping the SINR portion); seconded by Spain. Note: “SINR” is “Sidewalks In Need of Repair.” Spain asked Van Auken about SINR. Van Auken is concerned that potential liability to the city could wipe out any savings they get from dropping SINR from 80/20 to 50/50, so that’s why she’s removing it from the motion.
Sandberg asked how much the City is paying for the sidewalks at Sheridan Village. Barber: 100%. Sandberg won’t be supporting the motion; we should give the same benefits to the residents as the developers get.
Gulley asked some clarification questions. Turner asked for Barber’s estimate as to how much participation we can expect. Barber: Numbers will be down.
Jacob clarified that if SINR is not reduced, we will have to find that predicted savings elsewhere. He would like to see more data on this item, because he thinks we can make some changes to the proposal that will be a win-win. For example, he’d like to see if we can charge 80/20 for residential properties, but 50/50 for commercial properties.
Jacob makes substitute motion to defer until Oct. 13 for further study; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
A discussion with Barber about the SINR program ensues, led by Van Auken. Van Auken moves to defer the SINR program discussion until Oct. 13; seconded by Gulley. Gulley asks for areas that don’t have any sidewalks to be included in the report back/communication from staff. Motion passes unanimously.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS Regarding the FY 2010 BUDGET.
The floor is open.
- John White. Has some concerns regarding the garbage collection contract for next year, and how money can be saved by modifying trucks to pick up garbage and recycling; thus, new trucks would not need to be purchased.
- Savino Sierra. Urges city unions to accept wage freeze.
NEW BUSINESS
- Turner reported that Jacob, Spain, and Turner spent the weekend at the Regional Neighborhood Network Conference.
- Jacob reported on the need for volunteers to help do a door-to-door survey in the Glen Oak Neighborhood Impact Zone this weekend (Saturday, Sept. 26). Call 494-8600 if you want to volunteer for a couple of hours.
- Spain reminded everyone of the 2010 Census. Our performance is important as federal dollars are tied to our population as determined by the Census, so participate.
- Spain, Turner, and City Clerk Mary Haynes gave accolades to Interim City Manager Henry Holling, who is leaving. The new City Manager (Scott Moore) takes over in October.
CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
- LaVetta Ricca: Spoke on the issue of uniforms that was debated earlier in the evening. Buy local.
- Savino Sierra: Also praises Holling.
- John White: Speaks against TIFs. They hurt the city. They hurt the residents. They hurt the school district. It’s okay to be generous sometimes, but other times you have to say “no.”
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to go into executive session by Montelongo; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
Motion to adjourn by Spain; seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously.
Good night, and have a pleasant evening, everyone. I’m going to Whitey’s if you want to come down and have a slice of pizza or something. The time is 8:54 p.m.
Boy if they could just get rid of that pesky Sandberg, everything could pass unanimously.
Mazr — It’s amazing, isn’t it? When Sandberg isn’t there, everything sails through the council. Nobody questions, deliberates, or discusses anything. They all just set their switches to “aye,” lean back and relax as the votes are taken. When Sandberg is there, the outcome is the same; the only difference is the viewing and listening public get to hear how bad the projects/decisions are that the council approves.
Sandberg, BVA and Jacobs showed leadership on the participation and SNR sidewalk issues! Taxpayers and citizens will experience the Draconian cuts to no road repair in 2010. It is excellent that there will be more dialogue and hopefully a different proposal rather than the 50/50 split suggested.
The talk that the 50/50 cut will bring Peoria’s split levels line with other communities is a red herring (imo). Other communities are not paying for all the icing and sprinkles while letting the cupcake deteriorate. My understanding is that Morton has a comprehensive maintenance plan. Proposed and actual plans to maintain Morton are carried out on a regular basis. Other communities do not seem to spend as much on the sprinkles and icing because Peoria takes care of that for the surrounding communities while neglecting basic services. All in the planning and then having the courage to carry out the plan! 🙂
The report backs and votes will be interesting on the 13th of October!
Gary Sandberg was my councilman for years. I loved him! There isn’t anything that man doesn’t know about Peoria!
“Mazr — It’s amazing, isn’t it? When Sandberg isn’t there, everything sails through the council. Nobody questions, deliberates, or discusses anything. They all just set their switches to “aye,” lean back and relax as the votes are taken. When Sandberg is there, the outcome is the same; the only difference is the viewing and listening public get to hear how bad the projects/decisions are that the council approves.”
They get information on all of this in advance, there are only a handful of issues that are contentious enough for them not to have the information they need or the time to deliberate before the meeting. If you disagree with their decisions thats a different story.