Hi everyone. I’m here at Peoria City Hall, Council Chambers, typing on my new laptop on the city’s wifi connection. I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so check back.

The agenda is here.

Fair warning: This is a really, really long post because it’s a really, really, really long meeting.

The consent agenda was passed with several items pulled: D, H, I, O, U, AA, KK, LL, and MM. Motion by Jacob, seconded by Spain. Unanimously passed. The mayor is absent. Montelongo is filling in. Councilman Eric Turner (At-Large) is also absent.

• Item D. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting to REALLOCATE $186,163.00 in CDBG FUNDS from the Special Assessment Assistance Program to the GLEN OAK SIDEWALK PROGRAM ($90,000.00), and the GRISWOLD SIDEWALK PROGRAM ($96,163.00).” Councilman Ryan Spain (At-Large) would like to see assistance to the Glen Oak Sidewalk Program continued. Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes said the concern is that, if it doesn’t get used, HUD may take the money back. Only 17 out of 400 households have used it so far, so reallocating it somewhere that will use the funds will help us keep them. Spain is okay with it as long as it’s reevaluated during next year’s budget discussion; motions to approve, seconded by Councilman Gary Sandberg (At-Large). Councilman Gulley (1st Dist.) asks for clarification that curbs as well as sidewalks will be done. Public Works director Dave Barber affirms that it will. Passes unanimously.
• Item H. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT with AECOM USA, INC., in an Amount Not to Exceed $127,471.00, to Provide DESIGN SERVICES to RECONSTRUCT WATER STREET from Liberty Street to Hamilton Boulevard.” Councilman Sandberg objects to this project being a sole source contract; he thinks the cost is large enough that the design work should be sent out to bid. Gulley wants to know if there’s some reason why this is sole source. Director Barber stated plans for parking on Water Street by the proposed museum have changed. There are more problems with flooding in that area. So they believe it’s important to “relook at the elevations on Water Street.” The flood plain designation is being changed in this area. Staff wants to get this underway before the museum starts working on their project. They chose the company (AECOM USA) that’s already actively involved in the project. Staff believes estimates would be higher because of the time it would take a new company to get up to speed. Gulley supports recommendation and moves to approve; seconded by Councilmember Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.). Councilman Bill Spears (4th Dist.) says he hasn’t heard of AECOM USA; Barber explains that this is the new name for STS Consulting (they got bought out, apparently). Spears is concerned about cost overruns and will not support the motion. Councilman Dan Irving (5th Dist.) asks if Barber thinks the bid is high; Barber says he does think it’s somewhat high, but he thinks it’s because of recent concern over flooding (and new FEMA regulations). Sandberg challenges whether there really is a time crunch, considering we don’t have a contract with the museum group currently, and more changes could come about before they start building anyway. Van Auken asks Barber if the cost was high when the contract was awarded; Barber says yes. Barber wants to get project done before first of the year when the FEMA changes take effect; once they take effect, the project could be delayed for years as it may need to be completely redesigned. Van Auken continues asking leading questions to make her point that the motion should be passed. This vote needs a two-thirds majority to pass. Motion passes with 6 ayes, 3 nays. Sandberg, Spears, and Councilman Tim Riggenbach (3rd Dist.) voting against.
• Item I. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Interim Director of Human Resources Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Negotiated Between the City of Peoria and the FIVE LABOR UNIONS that Comprise the MULTI-UNION AGREEMENT, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 627, LABORERS LOCAL 165, CARPENTERS LOCAL 183, PAINTERS LOCAL 157, and STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 353, Covering the Period from December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2013.” Spain moves to approve, but wants to express his concern about wage and benefit increases going up higher than the city’s revenue increases each year; seconded by Irving. Motion passes unanimously.
• Item O. ” Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT with the Illinois Department of Transportation for Federal Participation for STIMULUS FUNDS, in the Amount of $1,939,728.00 for Right-of-Way, Construction, and Construction Engineering for the NORTHMOOR ROAD STAGE 3 PROJECT. (Refer to Item Nos. 05-609 & 09-153).” Irving asks for deferral until August 11; seconded by Van Auken. Passes unanimously.
• Item U. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,142 Pertaining to COUNCIL RULES.” Councilman George Jacob (At-Large) asks some clarifying questions of City Attorney Randy Ray. Concerned that this would keep the council from getting timely information from staff on behalf of citizens. Motion to approve by Jacob; seconded by Spain. Passes unanimously.
• Item AA. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE, Which Amends a Previous Use With Approval in a Class C1 (General Commercial) District for a CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION and RETAIL BUILDING for the Property Identified as Parcel ID Nos.14-07-329-003, 14-07-329-004, and 14-07-329-005, with an Address of 7205 -7225 N. ALLEN ROAD, with Conditions.” Irving moves to approve with an amendment to condition 1 requiring a new fence be built instead of fixing up the old fence; seconded by Sandberg. This is for Huck’s gas station, and Irving thanks them for being willing to agree to these changes. Sandberg expresses reservations about the 100% waiver of the transitional buffer yard — instead of getting quality buffering, we’re only getting a new fence instead of fixing up an old fence, which is small consolation. Motion passes with 9 ayes, 1 nay (Sandberg).
• Item KK. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Inspections Requesting to Receive and File the REPORT BACK Regarding CHAPTER 4 of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to ANIMALS and a RESTRAINT REQUIREMENT. (Refer to 09-200)” Van Auken moves to receive and file with comment; seconded by Sandberg. After considering staff’s information, Van Auken does not recommend changing the city’s current ordinance. Passes unanimously.
• Item LL (“Communication from the Interim City Manager and Information Systems Director Requesting to Receive and File the REPORT BACK on the STATUS of ON-LINE REGISTRATION of RENTAL PROPERTIES”) and Item MM (“Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Inspections Requesting to Receive and File the REPORT on the RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM”). Jacob pulled these items off to highlight the successes of the new rental registration ordinance. Jacob motions to receive and file item LL; seconded by Sandberg. Motion passes unanimously. Jacob motions to receive and file item MM; seconded by Sandberg. Motion passes unanimously.

That’s it for the consent agenda (Item 1). Next up is the rest of New Business:

Item 2. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Interim Director of Human Resources Requesting Authorization to Enter Into a RENEWAL AGREEMENT for LOSS CONTROL SERVICES with BICKMORE RISK SERVICES, in an Amount Not to Exceed $66,000.00 for the Second Year of a Three Year Agreement.” Move to approve by Van Auken; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously with no discussion.

Item 3. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Interim Director of Human Resources Requesting Approval to EXERCISE the OPTION to RENEW the CONTRACT for HEALTH CARE CONSULTING SERVICES with GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES, INC., for ONE YEAR for CONSULTING to the Joint Labor/Management Health Care Committee (LMHCC) and the City Council, at a Cost Not to Exceed $98,880.00.” Van Auken moves to approve; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously with no discussion.

Item 4. “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to DEVELOP a REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS for GARBAGE HAULING, RECYCLABLES COLLECTION and LANDSCAPE WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES for ONE to FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, and for GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES and LANDSCAPE WASTE COLLECTION for CITY BUILDINGS and STACKED CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS of FIVE or MORE UNITS with a CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION DATE of JANUARY 1, 2010. (Refer to 09-311)” Director Barber explained the council communication and emphasized that he’s not recommending any of the options listed in the communication; he only wants to get pricing so the council can make an informed decision based on prices received.

Van Auken moves to approve; seconded by Gulley. Van Auken will not accept or agree to any proposal that is curbside only. We should use alleys as designed; our form-based code requires that alleys be put in when redeveloped. Putting large trucks down narrow streets in older neighborhoods and getting toters to the trucks would be problematic. There’s also a concern that the alleys will deteriorate if the city stops using them for utility services like garbage collection. Finally, it would be bad aesthetically to have garbage and recyclables in front in these older neighborhoods.

Spain questions whether, under Alternate #1, would citizens still get unlimited hauling above what would fit in the supplied toter; Barber says yes. Spain expresses his support for improving recycling services in Peoria, even though it’s a tough budget year. Spain stresses that all items (garbage, recycling, land waste, and landfill issues) are interrelated; Barber understands and wants to get a cost per household and also look at what impact it would have on tipping fees at the landfill.

Gulley is totally opposed to all-curbside collection in older neighborhoods and pay-as-you-throw proposals.

Sandberg has questions regarding landscape waste. He points out that the proposals include an alternate for “leaf season” that will allow unlimited bags for pickup without having to pay extra per bag. Sandberg asks about Christmas trees; Barber says they will continue to pick up Christmas trees as they always have (no extra fee). Sandberg asks if they have considered biweekly landscape waste the same way they’ve considered biweekly recycling pickup. Could cost savings come from having landscape waste and recycling pickups on alternating weeks? Barber says it’s an interesting option, but he’s concerned about odors from decomposing leaves/grass and bags getting too wet to hold the waste if left set too long. Sandberg doesn’t think curbside pickup in older neighborhoods would work. There is too much parking on older streets. In newer neighborhoods, houses have large garages and wide driveways and most people park off the street. But in the older neighborhoods, lost of houses don’t have driveways or garages, and lots of people park on the street, so it simply won’t work for large and automated truck equipment to get adequate cost savings. The citizens have spoken and they pretty much universally don’t want to experiment with moving garbage to curbside. Sandberg asks if there is an opportunity to pick up garbage in the older neighborhoods on Monday and move north instead of starting in the northern parts of Peoria and moving south. Barber says they can look at it.

Riggenbach supports taking recycling seriously because the community wants it. He doesn’t want to say “no” to anything until the RFP comes back. Asks about the timeframe for getting bids; Barber says he believes the timing is good to get changes on garbage contract by January 1.

Sandberg moves to amend motion to include looking at alternating weeks for recycling and landscape waste; seconded by Riggenbach. Motion to amend passes unanimously.

Amended motion passes unanimously.

Item 5:

Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting the Following:

A. Receive and File the PROGRESS REPORT for the GLEN OAK SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ZONE as Required by Ordinance No. 16,273;

B. Request to Adopt an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,273 Creating the GLEN OAK SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ZONE, Changing the Progress Reports to be Semi-Annual.

Riggenbach moves to approve item A; seconded by Van Auken. Sandberg asks about the status of the design of streets surrounding the new Glen Oak School; Barber met this week with consultant to go over plans and prepare for a late August public hearing with construction drawings completed by the end of the year, and start construction next year. Sandberg is concerned that just fixing the streets impacted is a problem; instead, the consultant should be looking at a proactive plan to divert traffic so that it doesn’t all travel through residential streets.

Riggenbach says they’re going to stay on track to have the streets done by the time school starts in August 2010.

Gulley says Riggenbach missed Sandberg’s point. Frye is a major east-west street, and the only thing the city is doing is fixing the streets that immediately abut the new school. That fixes those streets, which is good, but it doesn’t fix the problem. He thinks the scope needs to be broadened so that the traffic problem is fixed. How will the traffic be directed around the obstruction (the school) in the major east-west route? Barber says they’re not going to widen any streets; he’s going to keep them at residential widths, fix the curbs and sidewalks, etc. And he says that’s what the council agreed to do.

Sandberg says Frye is a red route snow route; what’s going to happen to the snow? Are we going to pile it up at the end of the street? Is it still going to be a snow route? We have a responsibility to think those things through ahead of time, not after the fact.

Jacob says we’re mixing apples and oranges. We voted unanimously to vacate Frye. Now we’re just looking at fixing the roads around the school. “We owe it to the folks to continue the momentum on this project.” Traffic is an issue, and we need to be proactive in dealing with it. But at the same time, we need to improve the infrastructure around the school. Jacob makes it sound like the city somehow stopped the school district from putting the school in the park (but it was actually the park district). He says we have an obligation to help with the infrastructure around the school.

Motion passes unanimously.

Riggenbach moves to approve item B; seconded by Van Auken. Jacob hesitantly supports this item. He’s afraid that if we reduce the frequency of information from quarterly to semi-annually that it will hurt the city’s ability to implement the plan adequately. Jacob says the people of the East Bluff are excited about this project, and he hopes we can continue the council’s strong support of this program, especially when it comes to the point to appropriate funds for it.

Motion passes unanimously.

Item 6:

Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Adoption of ONE of the Following Regarding MAIN STREET COMMONS:

A. Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to Adopt Ordinance “A”, an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class WM (West Main Form) District to Allow VARIANCES from the Requirements of Building Envelope Standards and Architectural Standards to Include Building Street-Space Entries, Street Walls, Required Building Line Frontage, Street Facades, Buildable and Open Areas, Frontage Widths, Windows, and Entries to Allow for the Development of a Residential/Commercial Project for the Properties Identified as Parcel ID Nos. 18-05-406-004, 18-05-406-005, 18-05-406-006, 18-05-406-008, 18-05-406-009, 18-05-406-010, 18-05-406-011, 18-05-406-014, 18-05-407-004, and 18-05-407-005, and with Addresses of 1014, 1016, 1021, 1023, and 1027 N. BOURLAND AVENUE, 1014, 1016, 1018 N. UNDERHILL STREET, and 1109 W. MAIN STREET, with Eight Conditions; OR

B. Recommendation from Staff to Adopt Ordinance “B”, an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class WM (West Main Form) District to Allow VARIANCES from the Requirements of Building Envelope Standards and Architectural Standards to Include Building Street-Space Entries, Street Walls, Required Building Line Frontage, Street Facades, Buildable and Open Areas, Frontage Widths, Windows, and Entries to Allow for the Development of a Residential/Commercial Project for the Properties Identified as Parcel ID Nos. 18-05-406-004, 18-05-406-005, 18-05-406-006, 18-05-406-008, 18-05-406-009, 18-05-406-010, 18-05-406-011, 18-05-406-014, 18-05-407-004, and 18-05-407-005, and with Addresses of 1014, 1016, 1021, 1023, and 1027 N. BOURLAND AVENUE, 1014, 1016, 1018 N. UNDERHILL STREET, and 1109 W. MAIN STREET, with Seven Conditions.

Motion to approve item 6-A by Van Auken; seconded by Sandberg.

Van Auken states that this is the “beginning of the vision” codified in the Land Development Code. She says the eight variances are due to a local group of architects who made the architectural standards stricter than the original code as delivered by Farrell Madden. In other words, she’s saying the requested variances do not violate the vision. She says this project will have less parking than previous projects and will incorporate shared parking. “This is a good project for Bradley University and they enthusiastically support it.” The project is primarily marketed to students. It will be a “safe, monitored environment.” This will give us 288 potential new customers on Main Street and could drive further development. Grateful to University East Neighborhood Association (she names several members by name). “Not everyone is happy with every aspect of it.” Requests privilege of the floor for the developer, Shawn Luesse.

Mr. Luesse explained the project with exhibits provided by staff (pictures on foamcore boards, placed on easels), and offers to answer any questions council may have.

Sandberg requests privilege of the floor for Conrad Stinnett on this issue. Stinnett is VP of University East NA and VP of West Bluff Council. Stinnett supports growth on Main Street, but he supports the “right growth.” He thinks the buildings are too big and go against the spirit of our form-based code. He’s concerned about the pool, especially in light of recent deaths by Bradley students due to misadventures. He’s concerned about the alley that will remain open, allowing more traffic through Underhill. The city staff and zoning commission seems to have the attitude of “why not give them what they want?” Instead, he thinks the developer should have to provide a compelling reason to be at variance from the code. He supports a code-compliant development, and urges the council to “just say no.”

Van Auken asks that staff specify the variances and starts mocking Stinnett’s concerns with a belligerent tone of voice. Nice. Planning and Growth staffer Kim Smith then goes through the variations, which I won’t go through in this post. You can read them in the council communication to which I linked above. Her explanation added nothing that’s not already in the agenda communication.

Sandberg said there was much good to say about this project, but like someone pointed out, the size is too big. The other variances are negligible. He cannot support a good project with a few bad details. He points out there are two surface parking lots. The North Underhill street lot that includes the pool has two-way access only via a 16′ alley. Furthermore, the parking lot is oriented such that headlights will be shining into adjoining residential properties. The same problem is created in the Bourland lot. Finally, by allowing this development to use surface parking and allowing access to be in alleys that are not wide enough, you are putting a burden on the surrounding residential, and that is not what we are trying to do. Let’s not focus on the little details, but the major problem of this plan: maximizing profits by not providing all the parking inside the building, and then allowing alleys to become two-way conflict points.

No further discussion. Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.

Item 7:

Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Adoption of ONE of the Following:

A. Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to Adopt Ordinance “A”, an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,010, as Amended, for a SPECIAL USE in a Class C2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a SHOPPING CENTER to ADD a RETAIL GROCERY STORE and SIGNAGE for the Property Identified as Parcel ID Nos. 09-31-351-012, 09-31-351-013, and 09-31-351-014 Located at the Northwest Corner of ALLEN ROAD and TOWNLINE ROAD, with Five Conditions; OR

B. Recommendation from the Staff to Adopt Ordinance “B”, an ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 16,010, as Amended, for a SPECIAL USE in a Class C2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a SHOPPING CENTER to ADD a RETAIL GROCERY STORE and SIGNAGE for the Property Identified as Parcel ID Nos. 09-31-351-012, 09-31-351-013, and 09-31-351-014 Located at the Northwest Corner of ALLEN ROAD and TOWNLINE ROAD, with Six Conditions.

Motion to approve item A by Irving; seconded by Spain. Jacob abstaining. Irving thanks Aldi’s for expanding in Peoria. No further discussion. Motion passes unanimously.

Item 8:

A. Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an Ordinance “A” Rezoning Property from the Present Class CG (General Commercial) District to a Class N1 (Institutional) District for the Property Identified as 18-04-258-016, and Rezoning Property from a Class R8 (Multi-Family Residential) District to a Class N1 (Institutional) District for the Property Identified as 18-04-253-001, and Rezoning Property from a Class P1 (Parking) District to a Class N1 (Institutional District) for Properties Identified as Property ID Nos.18-04-430-004, 18-04-430-005, 18-04-430-006, 18-04-430-007, 18-04-431-024, 18-04-457-016, 18-04-457-017, 18-04-457-018, 18-04-457-019, and 18-04-457-020;

AND Requesting Adoption of ONE of the Following:

B. Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to Adopt Ordinance “B”, an ORDINANCE Amending (Amendment No. 7), an EXISTING OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN , Ordinance No. 13,153, As Amended, in the N1 (Institutional) District Allowing a MEDICAL CENTER and ASSOCIATED USES by Expanding the Current Limits of the Official Development Plan, Including Additional Proposed Medical Buildings, Along with Height Waivers, Parking Facilities, Alignment of Armstrong, Berkeley, and Pennsylvania Avenues, Signs, and Adjust Perimeter Setback Requirements within the Official Development Plan for the Properties Commonly Known as OSF SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER and Located at 530 N.E. GLEN OAK AVENUE, with Conditions and Waivers; OR

C. Recommendation from the Staff to Adopt Ordinance “C”, an ORDINANCE Amending (Amendment No. 7), an EXISTING OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Ordinance No. 13,153, As Amended, in the N1 (Institutional) District Allowing a MEDICAL CENTER and ASSOCIATED USES by Expanding the Current Limits of the Official Development Plan, Including Additional Proposed Medical Buildings, Along with Height Waivers, Parking Facilities, Alignment of Armstrong, Berkeley, and Pennsylvania Avenues, Signs, and Adjust Perimeter Setback Requirements and Including Conditions for the Proposed ENERGY CENTER NORTH BUILDING within the Official Development Plan for the Properties Commonly Known as OSF SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER and Located at 530 N.E. GLEN OAK AVENUE, with Conditions and Waivers;

D. AND PETITIONS Bearing 25 Signatures Opposing the PROPOSED OSF ENERGY CENTER NORTH to be Built on the Former White School Southeast Corner Property, with Request to Receive and File and Make a Part of the Permanent Record.

Riggenbach moves to approve item A; seconded by Van Auken. Riggenbach says that the biggest concern of neighbors is whether OSF is going to build a new energy center at the old White School. They are not planning to do that at this time, and what we approve tonight will not allow it to be built anyway. They’re just trying to be transparent, and if they decide to build it later, the council will get the chance to vote on it at that time.

Sandberg questions whether Riggenbach’s statement is correct. Won’t we just be deciding “what color lipstick we’ll accept” in the future? That is, we’ll be deciding what kind of technology we’ll approve, but we won’t be able to change where it’s sited in the institutional zone. Right now, it’s sited to be on the edge of N-1 zone, abutting a residential neighborhood. Energy centers are loud and they destabilize the neighborhood. Sandberg can’t support it.

Van Auken asks Sue Wozniak, COO of OSF, some questions. Wozniak states that, “if we would in the future at some time…add a new hospital wing, we may need to replace the existing energy center which is in the center of campus.” She says she doesn’t expect to expand at this time. “It could be 25 years; it could be never depending on how health care changes.” But if OSF were to expand, it would have to do so where the current energy center is in order to stay contiguous to other parts of the hospital.

Sandberg makes the point that it doesn’t matter that OSF isn’t going to do it now. What will happen is, twelve or twenty years from now, when all the faces around the horseshoe are different, OSF will come back and want to build the energy center and will point back tot he vote tonight as justification, and there will be no opportunity to protect the neighbors at that time because there’s nothing in the ordinance that protects them now.

Irving stated his support for OSF and the motion.

Motion (Item 8-A) passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.

Riggenbach moves to approve item 8-C as amended; seconded by Van Auken. Riggenbach explains the amended item from a yellow sheet handed out tonight that I don’t have and isn’t on the website. It has certain requirements regarding the energy center and maximum heights of new buildings that may be constructed (only two stories, no more than forty feet in height), and it makes the setbacks from streets 25′, even along Missouri (along which the setback was changed from 0′).

Gulley asked questions of Director Landes, and she deferred to Planning and Growth staffer Leah Allison.

Motion passes 8-1; Sandberg voting nay.

Motion to receive and file 8-D by Riggenbach, seconded by Gulley. Motion passes unanimously.

** Van Auken leaves the meeting at this point. **

Item 9: “Communication from the Interim City Manager and Interim Director of Human Resources Requesting Authorization to Offer a VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INITIATIVE (VSI) to EMPLOYEES. (Refer to 09-277).” Spain moves to approve as amended (corrected wording); seconded by Riggenbach. City staffer Chris Setti clarified the changes for Jacob. [Battery running low; had to find a power outlet, so missed some discussion.] Scroggins and Setti are now answering some questions for Jacob.

Sandberg asked if there was any effort to look at previous early-retirement incentives to see what kind of impact it made to our budget. Apparently, Spain had brought up that we’re still paying off the bond on the last VSI the city did in 2003. So Sandberg is concerned that we’re just going to dig ourselves into a deeper hole instead of digging ourselves out of the hole. Spain thinks we need to pass this tonight and not defer it. Irving has questions about who will be taking the early retirement and how it will impact the city, worst-case scenario. Setti can only speculate.

Sandberg is concerned about reorganizing “based on leftovers.” We’ll get rid of the most experienced employees with the most institutional memory, and then reorganizing based on who’s left. That may not be the best way to do things, especially since we’re still paying off the last time we did it. Spain says this is what the business community is doing, and reiterates his belief we need to approve it tonight.

Spears asked if we can make the offers first-come, first-serve up to a maximum amount. Staff basically says yes. After that questioning is done, however, city attorney Randy Ray has a mini-conference with Setti and city staffer Kimberly King while Interim City Manager Henry Holling explained why staff was bringing this forward.

Jacob doesn’t think we have “enough data to make an intelligent decision at this point.” So he can’t support it tonight. Spears says, “But you don’t get the data until they start asking questions.” Setti suggests that a deferral may be in order because the kinds of things being suggested by council might have legal or practical problems, so it would be better to get the information/answers to council’s questions first before they vote to make the offers. King is also backtracking, saying now that essentially the answer to Spears question was no.

Spears moves for deferral; seconded by Gulley. Spain speaks against the deferral. Jacob supports deferral.

Motion to defer passes unanimously. No date is given for when it will come back to council.

And now we move along to “Unfinished Business,” which is another long list:

(09-196) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of an AMENDMENT to the 1996 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA and the PEORIA CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Document.

Spain moves to defer to August 25; seconded by Sandberg. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

(09-260) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a NEW AGREEMENT of UNDERSTANDING for MAINTENANCE and CONSTRUCTION with the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Requesting Authorization for the Interim City Manager and the City Engineer to Sign the Document, and Requesting TERMINATION of the PRIOR AGREEMENT, Dated January 4, 2001, (Refer to Item No. 00-915), SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.

Motion to approve by Spain; seconded by Irving. No discussion. Motion passes unanimously.

(09-277) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting INITIAL DIRECTION ON STEPS TO REDUCE THE ANTICIPATED FY2010.

Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting to Receive and File a REPORT Containing a SUMMARY of PUBLIC COMMENTS Obtained Through the BUDGET OPEN HOUSE PROCESS.

Spain moves to receive and file; seconded by Gulley. Spain thanks staff for time and effort in compiling the information. So does Montelongo. Passes unanimously.

(09-311) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to Negotiate an EXTENSION of the RESIDENTIAL and STACKED CONDO WASTE HAULING CONTRACTS to JULY 31, 2010, and to Seek PROPOSALS for NEW CONTRACTS for These Services to be Effective AUGUST 1, 2010.

Move to withdraw by Spain; seconded by Sandberg. Passes unanimously; no discussion.

(09-330) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 1 of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to GENERAL PROVISIONS and the GENERAL PENALTY and SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS

Jacob moves to defer until second meeting in August; seconded by Sandberg. No discussion. Passes unanimously.

(09-341) Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a RAIL OPERATING and TRACKAGE RIGHTS AGREEMENT, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. (Replacement Agreement)

Motion to approve by Spain; seconded by Riggenbach.

Sandberg questions why the council communication said there were no objections to the discontinuance in prior hearings. He said he himself objected, as did previous mayor Richard Neumiller.

We take for granted our infrastructure and devalue the value of rail access. Removing the rail doubles the cost to rail-served businesses in Growth Cell Two if you have to go to road transportation. There will come a time when you will rue this decision, especially when you could have had rail and trail side by side. Instead, we’re willing to give up on Peoria as anything but a grocery store, hotel, and restaurant.

Irving asks Randy Ray for clarification. Pioneer Park would be served from the west via Union Pacific. O’Brien Steel would be served from the south. Both carriers are included in this agreement. Irving will support it.

Sandberg says section 10.12 says they can park up to 200 rail cars up in Pioneer Park. “It will become a parking lot for rail cars.”

Spain asked how long it’s been since we had active service on the Kellar Branch. Ray says Carver Lumber has continued to receive service, but they’re the only ones. “It’s been a diminishing activity.”

Spain says it’s a disruptive presence, just like headlights from parking lots shining into homes. Sandberg says off-mike to Spain, “You voted for the other disruption, why don’t you vote for this one?”

Motion passes 7-1; Sandberg voting nay.

Old Business: Irving thanks Ray for his work on an ordinance that was passed in the consent agenda.

New Business: Irving requests a report back from staff; he’s gotten calls from residents about signs in the medians and rights-of-way. Not sure what report he wants on that. Jacob compliments Montelongo for leading the meeting and Beth Ball for filling in for Mary Haynes.

Citizens to Request the Council:

• Brad Carter: Concern about a request to rezone some residential homes for halfway houses that will come before the zoning commission and council. He would like to see an ordinance similar to the sexual predator ordinance that will protect those areas. He’s concerned that “recovering” drug offenders could come into the neighborhood and recruit the children in the neighborhood. They have a “15% failure rate” (or 85% success rate). He wonders aloud how putting these people in residential neighborhoods will stabilize those older neighborhoods.
• LaVetta Ricca: Since the recent killing on Greenlawn, the neighborhood has a bad stigma in the community. Greenlawn is made up of mostly homeowners, and they’ve all worked hard to keep it clean and decent place to live. They have a neighborhood watch program. It’s people from the outside of the neighborhood coming in that are causing all the troubles. She’s seen “good” “upstanding” citizens in their fancy cars and pickup trucks coming through the south side neighborhoods looking for recreational drugs and prostitutes. They come from their fancy homes in the suburbs. If they didn’t have the buyers down there, they wouldn’t have the sellers.
• Pamela White — wisely went home.
• Kirsten Sheets representing Global Warming Solutions Group — Wants to say “thank you” to the council for supporting recycling opportunities in the new waste hauling contract. She would like to suggest staff look for grant programs to help with the education component of the plan. She would also like the list of recyclables revised to include all items Waste Management and PDC accept for recycling. The list was incomplete.
• Martin Palmer — Upset about the power house [energy center] that will be built on the OSF property in the East Bluff. OSF only had one meeting with the neighborhood (because they were required to), and didn’t take their suggestions or concerns seriously. It’s an industrial facility that they will be putting right next to the neighborhood, with additional truck traffic supplying it.
• Eric Pollitt — Lives in the East Bluff and is very close to proposed energy center and will be impacted by it. He was attracted to the neighborhood by the architecture. Whenever he puts money into his house, he wonders if he’ll get that back out of it, and an energy center will certainly lower his property values. Thinks it should be relocated.

Motion to go into executive session by Gulley; seconded by Spain. Approved unanimously.
Motion to adjourn by Spain; seconded by Irving. Approved unanimously.

Adjourned public meeting at 10:45 p.m.

Good night! No more blogging tonight.