I’m here at City Hall again, council chambers. It’s time for another night of liveblogging. I’ll be updating this post throughout the night, so refresh often.
Here’s the agenda for tonight. As the night goes on, I’ll add discussion summaries and vote counts under each individual item:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(09-323) PRESENTATION by ILLINOIS AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Regarding IAWC RATE FILING, with Request to Receive and File. (Rescheduled from the July 14 Meeting)
Illinois American Water is asking for a 30% (!) increase in rates from the Illinois Commerce Commission. This presentation is to explain why. Same thing they always say: They need to increase rates because (a) they need to invest in upgrading the infrastructure and (b) the economy has really hit them hard. Rate increases have been low compared to all the investment they’ve done in the community. Lots of talk about what a great corporate neighbor Illinois American Water is and how committed they are to the community.
Councilman Gary Sandberg (At-Large) asked for clarification on how they came up with their capital investment figure (estimated) for 2010.
Councilman Ryan Spain (At-Large) wondered what exactly had increased. Answer: labor, chemicals (volatile in price — one in particular went up 300%). Spain asked about the CPI that was stated in IL-AWC’s presentation. IL-AWC explained that this was a “water and sewer CPI” — i.e., a more specific index than the CPI the city looks at.
Council Person Barbara Van Auken (2nd Dist.) asked what the ROI would be. Answer: 12.4%. Van Auken’s response: “Wow.”
Councilman Bill Spears (4th Dist.) asked some questions for clarification.
Councilman George Jacob (At-Large) asked Randy Ray what control the City Council has over pricing. Answer: None.
Councilman Dan Irving (5th Dist.) asked what percentage IL-AWC expects to get, given that they don’t usually get what they ask for. Answer: Usually get 80% of what they ask. Irving asks about their plans for the future — i.e., are they going to be doing more $80 million projects in the near future that will require these kinds of large increases? Answer: no.
Sandberg asked if developers help pay for main extensions. Answer: yes. Sandberg asked what the industry average is for capital investment. Answer: very low; don’t have exact numbers. Replacing 1-2% of infrastructure per year at $5-$7 million per year. They’re on a 12-year cycle to replace meters.
Jacob asked about the process to intervene in a rate case. Answer from Randy Ray: No costs to do it, unless you want expert testimony as to what the rates should be, which can be extremely expensive. Can intervene and monitor the case relatively cheaply. Jacob requests report back that would estimate what we could expect in costs if we wanted to intervene (makes that request in form of a motion). Motion passed unanimously.
Spain moves to receive and file report, seconded by Irving. Passes unanimously.
REGULAR BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:
- A. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a CLASS H (Temporary Outdoor) LIQUOR LICENSE at 418 S.W. WATER STREET (MICHEL EAST PARKING LOT) for a FUNDRAISER for CRUSADERS FOR KIDS, INC., on AUGUST 15, 2009.
- B. REPORT of CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the Month of JUNE, 2009, with Request to Receive and File.
- C. MFT AUDIT REPORT NO. 70 for the Period Beginning January 1, 2000, and Ending December 31, 2005, from the Illinois Department of Transportation, Dated July 23, 2009, with Request to Receive and File. (On File in the City Clerk’s Office for your Review.)
- D. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting to Receive and File a REPORT on OPTIONS Regarding ADJUSTING CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION. (Refer to Item No. 09-277)
Short consent agenda! Jacob abstaining from item A due to having a liquor license. Jacob request Item D be removed. Remaining items approved (moved by Turner, seconded by Tim Riggenbach-3rd Dist.) unanimously.
Item D (regarding lowering pay for council members): Jacob asks “what process was used to come up with the conclusion on this matter.” Answer from Randy Ray: “We read the statute.” Ha ha! Jacob says “statutes like this are patently wrong.” The purpose of the statute was to “protect the taxpayer from arbitrary increases in salary,” and to use it to keep the pay from being lowered is not right.
Van Auken thinks the statute is reasonable. She believes it keeps someone who plans not to run again from decreasing pay for their successor.
Councilman Jim Montelongo (At-Large) moves to receive and file, seconded by Irving. Passes unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Irving moves, Riggenbach seconds to approve as outlined.
Sandberg questions value in a five-lane solution to this section. There’s only one turning opportunity to the south (golf course). Why do you need a turn lane when there’s no place to turn? Has never seen the quantity of traffic on that section needing two travel lanes in each direction. It wastes energy (blacktop, snow removal) and is “overkill.” “We don’t need to make big, wide roads just because traffic engineers like big, wide roads.” And are there any sidewalks?
Director Dave Barber explains that it is a three-lane cross-section, not a five-lane. It’s one through-lane in each direction plus a turn lane. There will be a walkway on one side of the project; not sure which side. Sandberg asked why not on both sides? Glad that it’s not five lanes. After conferring with staff, Barber says it’s a sidewalk on one side and a bike lane on the other side.
Motion passes unanimously.
Chris Setti, Assistant to the [Interim] City Manager, gives a brief overview of the communication to help get the ball rolling, since no council member jumped up to make a motion. Mayor Jim Ardis asked for Setti to take an educated guess on how many people would take the offer. Setti: 20-30, but don’t hold him to it — it’s just a guess, based on a survey he did. Ardis asked how many of those would have retired this year anyway. Setti: No idea. There are several fire department employees who have 30 years and are eligible to retire, but aren’t 65 years old yet (or even 60 in some cases), so it’s hard to say. There’s concern about health care costs and the number of years before they qualify for Medicare.
Spain asks if Setti thinks the “alternate package (similar to Carpentersville)” will be more attractive as far as employee participation. Setti: Yes. Spain: Maybe we should put a cap of 30 employees to limit our potential liability.
Jacob says we’re showing a benefit load of 50%, but the overall city benefit load is 64%. Why is it so much lower in this report? Finance Director Jim Scroggins says it’s because this is looking at a particular employee (e.g., a firefighter in this example), not an overall city average. Setti: Trying to be conservative in approach; savings may be higher. Jacob had some other technical questions. Overall, Jacob’s concern is that we may be offering an awfully big package to junior staff members (on a percentage basis).
Van Auken recommends that any package be offered to people with ten years or more of service (instead of four years or more, as it says in the proposal). Also recommends that a cap of 30 employees be set, as Spain suggested.
Ardis asked Ray if we can legally cap it on 30 people. Answer: yes.
Van Auken asked if they could expand the number later if it works financially. Ray: Maybe; we’d have to look at it more, but it could be possible.
Montelongo asked Setti some technical questions for clarification about the plan.
Sandberg says the biggest bang for the buck is when no one is rehired to fill the positions of staff members who retire. The concern is that we could end up with 30 fewer patrol officers. If we hire them back, then all we’ve done is replace experienced employees with inexperienced ones and saved a marginal amount of money. We’re looking at this from a money standpoint only rather than a service standpoint. What are we gaining by going this route?
Ardis: “Size of our workforce will be smaller next year, and probably even smaller in 2011.” This is a mechanism to help achieve that reduction.
Van Auken says part of Sandberg’s concern is addressed on page 4. We may need to exclude some departments if we’re concerned that takes are going to be all from, for example, public safety. Ray says it is legal to exclude “critical employees.”
Spain moves, Montelongo seconds to adopt alternate plan with cap of 30 employees (and possibly more based on seniority if it’s financially feasible) who have 10 years or more of service.
Councilman Bill Spears (4th Dist.): This costs a half million dollars more than the original proposal? Setti: Yes.
Riggenbach: What impact would changing it to 10 years or more of service have? Setti: Negligible.
Jacob: How many employees do we “lose” (retire) historically on an annual basis? Scroggins: Don’t know. Jacob is still concerned that we may be incentivizing employees to retire who were going to retire anyway. Ardis presses for an estimate on how many employees retire every year. Setti: Closer to 10.
Motion passes 8-2. Voting nay: Spears, Jacob.
Note: Council Rules Permit Motions and Advisory Votes on Direction to Staff.
- A. Communication from the Interim City Manager Requesting to Receive and File an INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT on RESTRUCTURING CITY GOVERNMENT.
This is a work in progress that will be updated as it evolves. Motion to receive and file by Montelongo, seconded by Turner. Passes 10-1; Spears voting nay.
- B. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting to Cancel the 2010 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATION PROCESS and Allocate 2010 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS for CRIME PREVENTION ACTIVITIES Carried Out by the Peoria Police Department.
Van Auken moves to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Montelongo.
Van Auken says this is not an easy decision, but she hopes it’s temporary and won’t have to be repeated next year. Also, maybe the police department can work with the organizations who usually get the money.
Turner asks if we can defer just 50% instead of the whole amount.
Sandberg says the action before is “dangerous.” The amount we’re looking at is only 1% of the police department’s budget. “How much value can we put on early intervention and mentoring … that, in their own way, prevent or reduce crime?” He doesn’t want to “put all our eggs in one basket” regarding crime prevention. The only solution for crime prevention is not the police department. We need to keep these funded at some level. Not supporting the motion.
Councilman Clyde Gulley (1st Dist.) agrees with Sandberg. Also mentions that we can’t make this decision ourselves; we have to request and get a waiver to do this; it isn’t worth it. It would be better to vote this motion down.
Director Pat Landes (Planning & Growth) shares her support of the plan, and confirms that a waiver will have to be obtained in order for this to happen.
Ardis recognizes social services workers in the audience (about 10-12).
Motion fails 10-1 (Van Auken only “aye” vote).
- C. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Authorization for Staff to Renegotiate the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA and the PEORIA CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY, and Requesting to Provide Guidance on Its Parameters.
Spain has several concerns about this motion. We already have revenue sharing with the Civic Center that has been as much as $300,000 in the past. There is an expectation among citizens that HRA funds go toward the debt on the Civic Center, and any dollars over that should go to similar activities. Rockford did something similar to this and it didn’t work out too well. Also, the HRA tax is taking a beating right now — a year to year decline of over $90,000 for one month. Also, the Civic Center is going to need some money to create a place to receive the walkway from the Marriott hotel.
Van Auken asks if there has been any thought of combining ArtsPartners as part of the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau? Ardis says the discussion should really be about whether to cut the funding per se, not whether to cut the funding to ArtsPartners. Van Auken’s question not answered.
Sandberg says 9% of our budget is collected in HRA taxes. Whereas in 2008 the Civic Center returned about $197,000 to the city, but in 2009 they may not return any of it. And don’t forget that the City provides services to the Civic Center — and “we get paid a pittance for it.” The HRA funds always exceed the amount needed for debt service and subsidies, especially the “R” or restaurant portion of the tax. The pain has to be shared. We’re going to take some of the library’s money; the same percentage should be taken from this agency. The City should use some of the extra money for basic services — street maintenance, police, fire, and other services.
Sandberg moves that we renegotiate the intergovernmental agreement with the Civic Center; seconded by Van Auken.
While no figure is specified in the motion, Sandberg would like it to be the same percentage as the City is asking from the library.
Riggenbach says the HRA tax was sold to the citizens as a tax for a specific purpose. So for us to use this tax for operating expenses “sets a dangerous precedent.”
Spain doesn’t think the library is comparable to the Civic Center. The library isn’t a sales-driven organization. He thinks Sandberg is comparing apples to oranges. Turner also doesn’t think the comparison to the library is fair. He says the HRA tax was supposed to be for ongoing maintenance, and he’d like to see it stay that way.
Ardis opposes motion; prefers to have Spain (council liaison to the Civic Center) work with the Civic Center instead of the administration.
Spain offers substitute motion to engage Civic Center Authority in further discussion over the next four weeks; seconded by Turner. Motion passes 8-3; voting nay Sandberg, Jacob, Gulley.
- D. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Authorization for Staff to Notify the PEORIA PUBLIC LIBRARY that the City Will Withhold $.02 of Its LEVY IN 2010.
Van Auken moves to approve recommendation as outlined for sake of discussion; seconded by Turner.
Van Auken says this reduction would not impact the building program that is being funded by bonds. Scroggins confirms. Van Auken would like to know the rationale for the reduction in the levy; i.e., how they came up with the number.
Interim City Manager Henry Holling basically says the number was arbitrary; it was part of a package of cuts that added up to a predetermined number. The point of this is not to actually lower the levy, but rather to enter into discussion with the library staff. In light of that, Van Auken supports the motion.
Sandberg says what this proposal does is take two cents from the library levy and gives it to the city to control. It has the net effect of moving $400,000 from the library’s budget and puts it in the city’s budget. The building program is intertwined with this decision because they made a commitment not to increase the number of staff for five years even though they’re adding a north branch. Also, he said the HRA tax was to build the Civic Center, not to operate it (he was responding to Turner’s earlier comments).
Spain asks if the proposal is a tax increase. Scroggins: no. (If Spain had been listening, he would have heard this answer already.) Spain asks if the funding level will be restored the next year, resulting in a tax increase? He doesn’t think it’s revenue-neutral over the long haul.
Ardis would like to see the motion include language that says this is for one year only, not in perpetuity. Van Auken agrees to specify that. It should be revisited after current budget year. Turner agrees to amended motion.
Gulley is voting against the motion. The new buildings will have reduced staff, but now we’re going to take more from them. He thinks 6% is too much, so he wants this voted down and a second motion made for a 3% reduction instead.
Motion passes 8-3; voting nay Spears, Spain, Gulley.
- E. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting to Receive and File a REPORT on REVENUE SOURCE OPTIONS and to Provide Direction to Staff Through ADVISORY NOTES, if Necessary, on which OPTIONS to Pursue.
Turner would like to pull the business licensing fee and defer it until the next meeting. Seconded by Van Auken. Passes unanimously.
Jacob will be obtaining from the item for packaged liquor tax.
Ardis opens the floor for public input on packaged liquor tax (two minute limit on comments). Van Auken apologizes for having to step away during this time.
- Mr. Wiggins, UFS: “We are 100% against this tax increase.” This is a “border tax.” We (Peoria) would no longer be able to compete with our surrounding communities, such as Peoria Heights and West Peoria. There’s no comparison to restaurants in how it’s taxed.
- Steve King, resident, wholesaler: Talks about other additional taxes that are coming online soon. Also emphasizes border tax problems — will actually end up being a money-loser for the city.
- Stan Cohen (sp?): Been in liquor sales for 40 years. Emphasizes the border tax problems. Also says that several years ago, business fees were raised on liquor establishments.
- Owner of Super Saver Liquors on Western: Two blocks away from another liquor store in West Peoria. Will definitely lose business if this tax passes. Please don’t force us to leave Peoria.
Van Auken came back at some point during the discussion. Says she has discussed this topic with up to 300 constituents and have gotten no objections. She’s proposing it for two reasons: (1) fairness; there’s an additional two percent HRA tax at restaurants and bars, so why not do the same on package liquor? (2) Liquor is not a necessity. (3) Will a person really drive elsewhere to save sixteen cents on a bottle of $8 wine or a six-pack of beer, especially with high gas prices? She discussed this with the late Mayor Tebben where this same tax was passed in Pekin, and it’s the “only growing source of revenue in Pekin, Illinois.” She says the cross-border impact will be negligible. Urges council to support motion.
Ardis reminds council that these are not final actions tonight; council is simply giving approval to pursue further investigation of these items.
Turner says we’re talking about highly-competitive businesses that exist on a very small profit margin. He doesn’t believe we’ll see the sales tax gains we expect to see because of the border issues talked about earlier. We’ll lose not only the sales tax revenue, but may lose businesses. When this kind of tax was approved in Bloomington-Normal, both municipalities agreed to put the same tax into effect at the same time.
- Van Auken moves to keep the “package liquor tax” item be left on the list of items to be considered; seconded by Sandberg. Motion fails 2-8; Sandberg and Van Auken voting yes; Jacob abstaining.
- Turner moves to leave “garbage fee” item on the list; seconded by Van Auken; motion fails 5-6 Ardis, Sandberg, Riggenbach, Van Auken, Turner voting aye.
- Sandberg moves to leave “parking deck fees” item on the list; seconded by Turner. Motion passes 10-1; Van Auken voting nay.
- Sandberg moves to remove “taxing hospitals” item from the list; seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously.
- Sandberg moves to leave “litter tax” item on the list; seconded by no one. Motion dies. Motion moved to remove item from list by Spain; seconded by Turner. Motion passes 10-1; Sandberg voting nay.
- Van Auken moves to leave “water user fee” on the list; seconded by Montelongo. Motion passes 10-1; Sandberg voting nay.
- Sandberg moves to leave “local motor fuel tax” on the list; seconded by Irving. Motion fails 1-10; Sandberg voting aye.
- Montelongo moves to leave “storm water utility” item on the list; seconded by Spain. Substitute motion by Jacob to remove from list; seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.
- Jacob moves to remove “Fire Protection District” from the list; seconded by Turner. Motion passes 10-1; Spain voting nay.
- Van Auken moves to remove “Animal Control Fees” from the list; seconded by no one. Motion dies. Spain moves to keep item on the list; seconded by Sandberg.
Van Auken argues that this is a serious public safety issue. It has to do with catching stray dogs, wild animals, etc. The reason why the city took this over from the county is because the county doesn’t uphold their responsibility. She got no response from her county board representative or two other representatives when she inquired about operating expenses. She doesn’t want to see this go back under the county’s purview.
Ardis pointed out that the county board that didn’t do a good job with animal control is not the same county board that is in office now.
Sandberg says that 12 of the county board members represent the same constituents that the city council represents. They should be able to handle the concerns of residents.
Motion passes unanimously.
- Spain moves to leave “Arrest Fee” on the list; seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes 7-4; Ardis, Spears, Irving, Gulley voting nay.
Riggenbach said that some businesses are using PODS inappropriately; is there a way to put extra fees on those? Other council members tell him that PODS are already regulated. Director Landes confirms.
- F. PUBLIC COMMENT Regarding the FY 2010 BUDGET.
No one wants to comment.
NEW BUSINESS
Turner requests volunteers for the “Safe Walk Project” — an effort on the East Bluff to help walk kids to and from school.
Van Auken announces the Uplands 100th Annual Picnic fundraiser on August 18 at One World. Mention the Uplands when you eat there between 2 and 10 and part of the proceeds from your meal will go toward the Uplands.
Spain talks about the Regional Neighborhood Network Conference. Fundraiser taking place this Thursday at 5 p.m. at Brewers Distributing.
City Clerk Mary Haines announced that today is Beth Ball’s 20th anniversary with the City. Beth is the assistant city clerk.
Ardis announces tomorrow’s Taste of Peoria event on the Peoria Riverfront.
Gulley recommends having an appreciation day for city staff at O’Brien Field.
CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL
- Savino Sierra: Spoke against moving garbage from alleys to curbside. Thanked the firefighter’s union for taking the lead on cutting their pay raise to help the city plug its budget gap. Was disheartened that some of the firehouses canceled their appearance at local National Night Out Against Crime rallies.
- General Parker: Took issue with Van Auken’s comment that the salary increase for council members wasn’t very much. First, it is a lot of money to some people, although maybe not to most of the council members who have good jobs. But secondly, she’s missing the point — it’s about solidarity; the council is asking city employees to sacrifice; the leaders should also sacrifice. Also talked about how level of service will diminish under the early-retirement plan. And mentioned that the museum project is a want, not a need; we shouldn’t be spending money on that, but rather on something that the city needs. [Mayor Ardis mentions that the council’s pay increase doesn’t take effect until 2010 — last year the council moved and approved putting off the effective date for a year to help with the budget issue, so they did show leadership.]
- Barbara Pierce: Complains about weed ordinance. The weed ordinance doesn’t cover “the uncultivated growth of weeds and trees along the fence line.” Her neighbor across the alley is not keeping his/her weeds and junk trees under control. Asks the council to amend the current weed ordinance to address these junk trees.
- Lila (?) Manion (?): Also complains about junk trees and requests that the council look into it. [Sandberg mentions that the tree cited by this speaker is prohibited in the city.]
- [? Didn’t catch his name ?]: Wants to thank Henry Holling for his work for the city, as the city is close to hiring a new city manager.
POLICY SESSION
(09-343) POLICY SESSION Regarding Discussion and Review of the CITY’S SERVICES.
Note: Council Rules Permit Motions and Votes on Citizen Participation and Motions and Advisory Votes on Direction to Staff.
Spain moves to enter policy session; seconded by Irving. Motion passed unanimously.
Sandberg says the council has had a month to review 488 city services. Now the next step is to figure out how to use this basic information. Need to look for ways to get an overall 5% cut in services — some services will be cut 2% and others 7 or 8%, but overall it will be approx. 5%.
Spain moves to establish special meeting to continue policy session next Tuesday (8/18); seconded by Van Auken. Motion passes unanimously.
Motion to close policy session passes unanimously.
Motion to go into executive session passes unanimously.
Motion to adjourn passes unanimously.
End of meeting. Goodnight, folks!
Howdy! (waving)
Thanks to Mr. Sierra for his comments about retention of alley garbage pick-up.
The council missed the true issue of Ms. Pierce’s and Lila complaint. Weeds and trees were mentioned, but the real problem was the property owner and/or tenants were not taking care of the residences mentioned. One landlord was mentioned with obvious disgust. Bad landlords and tenants cost the city thousands and thousands of dollars in police, fire, code, zoning and other services. Often the culprits are absentee landlords and/or lazy tenants. We are looking to balance the budget, on ideas such as taxing hospital beds (yes defeated) and pulling money from non profit budgets–who do benefit the community, and this huge expense lies untouched and unregulated for the most part. I don’t understand why these problems are allowed to continue and why tax payers are subsidizing the perpertrators at so many levels.
Paul,
While I am sure you believe the City Council missed the “true issue” of Ms. Pierce and Lila statements, I am not that sure. Both specifically were concerned that after calling in complaints regarding fast growing invasive trees predominately along fence lines that crowd out other vegatation they were told that the “weed section” of the environmental ordinance did not have provisions that coverered such trees or situations. They wanted an ordinance that would give the City regulatory authority over such situations because they were under the impression that there were no local governing statutes.
Below is Section 16.7.c taken out of the Peoria Zoning Ordinance
16.7.c. Exotic, Invasive Woody Plants. The following plants are exceptionally invasive and will damage native ecosystems and cause economic losses in the attempt to control their spread. They must be removed from the site on a current and ongoing basis. Please note that most of these plants are on the Illinois Banned Species List, and are illegal to buy, sell, or plant in the State of Illinois.
1. Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima
2. Autumn Olive Eleagnus umbellatus
3. Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tartarica
4. Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula
Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica
Saw-toothed Buckthorn Rhamnus arguta
Dahurian Buckthorn Rhamnus davurica
Japenese Buckthorn Rhamnus janponica
Chinese Buckthorn Rhamnus utilis
5. Kudzu Pueraria lobata
6. Round-leaved Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus
7. Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Please note the second sentence “They must be removed from the site on a current and ongoing basis. ”
AND ALSO the third sentence “Please note that most of these plants are on the Illinois Banned Species List, and are illegal to buy, sell, or plant in the State of Illinois.”
and the FIRST TREE SPECIES LISTED
“1. Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima ”
(I believe every species mentioned last night is on the banned list except for “Absentinious Investiouious Landlordious”)
Maybe from your position of understanding the issue infinately better than everyone else, you only want the regulation to ONLY cover Landlords and their vegitation. If that is the point you are trying to make, I did NOT think that the two women were making that the central focus or an y part of their statement, but rather frustrated that there appeared to be no current regulation for the plant existance or in this case, the prohibition of it’s existance in Peoria.
Gary, what I think was the “true issue” is that these citizens called Peoria Cares and didn’t get effective resolution to their problems. True, telling them that the weed ordinance did not cover trees was not incorrect, but they had to go to a City Council meeting to discover that the zoning laws did. (kudos to you, btw, for knowing that already)
Of course, the issue is still not over. Hopefully the zoning laws will be enforced with respect to these properties and the trees removed.
Wow, great job, C.J. Very impressive typing on the fly. This was truly a service for those that didn’t attend.
By the way, I’m not positive but I think it’s Stan Komen (Stan’s Wine and Spirits), widower of Susan G. Komen.
Jon,
Pat Landes assured me after the meeting she would have complaints inspected as soon as today staff capacity permitting and would follow up. Also would contact the staff person that was not aware of the Zoning control ordinance
“Van Auken … Says she has discussed this topic with up to 300 constituents and have gotten no objections.”
Did she really discuss this “with up to 300 constituents”? Wow, that’s a lot of discussion, where does she have time for all of that? That’s a lot of undocumented constituent weight to be throwing around the horseshoe. Up to 300 folks, huh? She’s not paid enough.
I think Sandberg’s garbage tax idea is a good one. Most of the litter I pick up around my property comes from McDonald’s, Starbuck’s or Jimmy-John’s. I’m tired of it and think any way to cut down on this crap ought to be explored.
Gary,
if the property owners and/or tenants mowed the damn grass and weed eated the fence line like the rest of us the invasive trees on this property wouldn’t be a problem