Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Here I am at Peoria City Hall, Room 400, waiting for the city council meeting to start at 6:15 p.m. As always, I will be providing live reaction to the city council meeting, so if you’re following along live, be sure to refresh your browser periodically. There will be some preliminaries that I won’t cover; my coverage will start once the business portion of the meeting begins. You can see a hyperlinked version of the meeting agenda on the City’s website here.

And now, without further ado, here’s tonight’s agenda:

ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the LOW BID of ORDAZ CONSTRUCTION, in the Amount of $204,435.40, with Authorization Up To $224,878.94, (Additional 10% for Contingencies) for SINR CONTRACT #38 for SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT on VIRGINIA, GIFT, and HANSSLER from University to Sheridan.

B. Communication from the City Manager and Inspections Director Requesting Approval to Execute a TWO-YEAR CONTRACT to the LOWEST BIDDER, SHERWIN WILLIAMS, in an Amount Not to Exceed $15,000.00, for the 2011 PAINT PROGRAM.

C. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to REPLACE SEVEN STREET LIGHTS on COOPER STREET at an Estimated Cost of $24,510.00, Using City Funds and Grant Funds from the Neighborhood Association.

D. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a Total of $46,377.50 for Both Right-of-Way ACQUISITION and TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT of Portions of Parcel 13-02-100-005, for the Construction of ORANGE PRAIRIE ROAD from US Route 150 (War Memorial Drive) to Illinois 91/Grange Hall Road/Alta Lane.

E. Communication from the City Manager, Police Chief and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting the Following:

1. Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending the City of Peoria Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Relating to the U.S. DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JAG GRANT, in the Amount of $118,416.00; And

2. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA and the COUNTY OF PEORIA Under the EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2011 LOCAL SOLICITATION, in the Amount of $118,416.00.

F. Communication from the City Manager, Information Systems Director and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting to DISPOSE of EXCESS COMPUTERS, MONITORS, PRINTERS, COPIERS and RELATED ITEMS Through State of Illinois Registered Collectors, Recyclers, and Refurbishers of ELECTRONIC WASTE.

G. APPOINTMENTS by Mayor Jim Ardis to the WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, with Request to Concur:

Vickie Clark (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2014
Patrick Urich (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2014

H. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of MAY 2011, with Request to Receive and File.

The following items were removed from the consent agenda by the council member indicated: A (Akeson), D (Weaver). The remaining items passed unanimously.

• Item A — Akeson says she’s in favor of sidewalk repairs, but feels the current system for deciding which sidewalks get repaired is subjective. Also says the City does not have the GIS technology needed to make objective decisions. Director Barber will put together a report for the council. Turner wants some additional info, and Barber says it will be in the report. Van Auken disputes the idea that these decisions are made subjectively. Sandberg says staff did a report on this already a few years ago. He also says the “sidewalks in need of repair” program was originally designed to address the “worst of the worst,” and these sidewalks (in this request) are not the worst of the worst. The worst sidewalks are on the South Side, and they’re still not being addressed. Gulley agrees we need to revisit this policy. “This council doesn’t put sidewalks where we need them,” he says. Also wants to know how much is left to spend in the SINR program, and how are we going to spend the balance of the money this year. Barber: $300,000/year, so this would leave us about $75,000. Gulley moves for two-week deferral to determine if we really want to spend 80% of our budget for this kind of project. Van Auken is against the deferral because “we’re in the construction season” and we need to get this done. “Time is of the essense,” she says. Barber says two weeks won’t make a whole lot of difference, but if we don’t spend it here, there won’t be enough time to get another project started this year. City Manager Patrick Urich adds that the staff has been following the guidelines of the current program, and reiterates Barber’s comments. Sandberg challenges the staff’s assertion that they’ve been “following the guidelines,” because if they were, they would be replacing the worst of the worst sidewalks. Ardis supports a deferral. Weaver asks what the purpose of the project is; i.e., is it repairing the worst sidewalks or looking at where sidewalks can have the most impact. Barber doesn’t directly answer the question. Spears asks if there is any data on how much home values have improved in areas where the city has spent money on new/repaired sidewalks. Barber says he doesn’t have that information, and that it’s a safety program, not a program to increase home values. Motion to defer is seconded by Akeson. Motion passes 9-2 (Riggenbach, Van Auken).
• Item D — Weaver doesn’t think we should pay property owners for a temporary easement because we’re going to improve their property values by putting a road up to their property. Nevertheless, he moves to approve, seconded by Irving. Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 2 Communication from the City Manager Requesting to Approve the CHARTER of the METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE (MPC) and to Concur with the Mayor’s Recommendation that the City Appointees to the Committee be Councilman Bill Spears, Councilman Tim Riggenbach and Councilman Ryan Spain.

Ardis thanks the committee for their work. Spears/Spain move for approval. Riggenbach voices his support. Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 5 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, Adding a Definition of Dangerous Buildings.

Van Auken makes some opening comments, which includes her concern over letting historic properties get demolished by neglect. [That’s interesting, since she didn’t seem to have any problem with it when Trinity Lutheran Church did just that with the historic apartment building they purchased.] Jim Bateman is given the privilege of the floor. He also expresses his concern over the possibility of demolition by neglect. [But given that the council decided not long ago that historic preservation is subject to owner consent, what difference does it make?]

Sandberg takes issue with the definition of a “dangerous” building. It’s defined as three housing violations within nine months. He points out that house numbers that aren’t tall enough, peeling paint, and a cracked window could be enough to demolish a building. Ardis says Sandberg’s scenario is not the intention, but rather to give our current ordinance “teeth.” City Attorney Randy Ray says the violations do require “prosecutorial discretion.” Again, he says it was never intended as a loophole in historic preservation cases.

Spain says the current demolition process is too difficult, and houses that really do need to be demolished are still standing and having a deleterious effect on neighbors and neighborhoods. Akeson asks to hear from Director Kunski on this issue. Kunski says “this is just one more tool that can help expedite our process.” He basically says there’s currently a loophole that this ordinance would close.

Gulley asks if there are other options than demolishing the building. Kunski basically says that demolition is a last resort, and the staff tries to do everything they can to bring the building into compliance and keep it from being a blighting influence on the neighborhood. Gulley suggests some sort of eminent domain solution that would take a problem property away from a bad landlord so it can be sold to a responsible party. Ray says it would be difficult and expensive to do so.

Weaver asks Kunski if moving a property to demolition court drives an irresponsible owner to take action, or if they just let it be demoed. Kunski says there’s not much resistance once the house is slated for demolition. Weaver asks for a report back on how Flint or Genoese, Michigan, has been successful in keeping houses from getting so bad that they have to be demolished.

Akeson would like to look at ways to save the buildings and see them revitalized rather than getting more buildings demolished. Sandberg reiterates that “this code change is not going to solve the problem.” He thinks it will make things worse. The definition is “too broad and allows for too much discretion.” Van Auken moves to defer for two weeks, seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt the Following:

A. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX B of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to FRONT YARD FENCES;

B. ORDINANCE Amending APPENDIX C of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to FRONT YARD FENCES.

Wardcliffe Neighborhood Association expresses opposition, according to the City Clerk. Van Auken requests deferral until October 11 to give other neighborhood associations more time to meet and give feedback to the city on this issue. Also wants to have a forum in mid-September. Sandberg asks that fence regulations be tied into different zoning districts. Riggenbach says he will support deferral and seconds the motion. Gulley would like there to be more flexibility with building materials; Akeson would like more flexibility with heights of fences.

Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Receive and File GROWTH CELL STRATEGY REPORT 1996 – 2010.

Supplemental information was handed out, apparently, but I have not seen it. City staff is going to give a presentation on the growth cell report, and then they will answer questions from the council. [You can see the report in my previous post. The presentation is a summary of the report, so I won’t rehash it all here.]

Akeson is the first to speak. She has several questions about the assumptions in the report. Specifically: she takes issue with the equal cost per acre approach. She suggests that this report be evaluated by experts in mathematics and statistics — perhaps Bernie Goitein from Bradley University. She also says that, while this is supposedly based on David Rusk’s book, “Cities Without Suburbs,” she says we cannot cherry-pick his elasticity argument without considering the other parts of his argument. She would like to see more specific and accurate data. She also says she has a report from the sanitary district that says we have not fully recovered our costs in the growth cells for the sewers that were installed.

Sandberg takes issue with the narrowness of the report. He says it only covers costs to the City of Peoria without considering the costs to the taxpayers, who have to pay taxes to multiple taxing bodies that are all impacted by the growth cells. He also takes issue with the methodology of figuring revenue or expenses on a per-acre basis. He also points out that some of the land in the growth cells are outside the city, and it isn’t clear whether that land is figured into the calculations or not. This “should not become the template for the future,” he says, “because there are dangerous assumptions in here.”

Turner says the work done by staff was “exceptionally well done” and doesn’t think that any other experts from Bradley should come in and “second-guess” the work that’s been done. [This is not surprising, since the report tells him what he wants to hear.] He offers unmitigated praise of the growth cells. Akeson says she just wants to verify that these growth cells are paying their own way. She says the report is not mathematically accurate, and it would be unwise for the council to use that for future decision-making.

Irving says he’s lived in his house for 12 years in Growth Cell One, and he says if the growth cell wasn’t there, he wouldn’t be living in Peoria. [Incidentally, the All-Star Game is going into the third inning with no score, and only one hit.] Irving says the revenue from the growth cells fund projects city-wide. He asks rhetorically where we would be today without the growth cells. He says “it defies logic to say it’s [the growth cells] not working.”

Motion to receive and file by Irving/Turner.

Weaver says “we need to deal with facts, not opinions.” He points out that 7% of the population lives there, it’s 10% of the acreage, and [missed the number]% of the revenue. He doesn’t think that redoing the math is going to greatly change the outcome of the report.

Van Auken says she doesn’t like to see parts of town being pitted against each other. Ardis says he thought there were legitimate questions about the assumptions. Nevertheless, he thinks the report is a good starting point. He doesn’t think changing the assumptions is going to “shoot a hole in $40 million.”

Spears says he’ll “poke holes in your forty million” to Ardis. He says we passed the biggest rise in taxes at the time the growth cell was established. Also, he asks how we’re going to maintain this into the future, and how much that is going to cost. He says we’ve widened the roads and thinned out the blacktop. He questions the $35 million of operating costs; he wonders what that includes. What will be the long-term cost, and what will be the return on investment? Nevertheless, he says he believed it was the right thing to do at the time, and it had to be done.

Riggenbach defends the report and the growth cells in general. He believes we have achieved “smart growth” as a result.

Sandberg says he supported the growth cell in 1996 “as a necessary evil.” He says the question in this report is the cost of those growth cells. He points out again that the total cost needs to be taken into consideration — not just the costs to the City of Peoria alone. He also says we need to know specifically what makes up the gross numbers that were reported. He asks why we’re facing these large deficits every year if we’re making so much revenue as a result of the growth cells.

Weaver asks if there are some specific questions we need to ask of staff. Ardis says this isn’t an action item, but a receive and file, and the council has given good feedback to staff.

Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(11-030) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation to Concur with Either the Recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission to Adopt ORDINANCE “A” OR to Adopt ORDINANCE “B” Amending CHAPTER 16 of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FEES, and Receive and File the Supplemental Information. (Refer to 10-465)

Van Auken moves to table, seconded by Gulley. Motion passes unanimously.

(11-038) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission to Adopt ORDINANCE “A” OR ORDINANCE “B” OR ORDINANCE “C” Amending CHAPTER 16 of the Code of the City of Peoria Relating to DESIGNATION FEES, and to Receive and File the Supplemental Information.

Van Auken moves to table this item as well, seconded by Turner. Passes unanimously.

(11-183) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to DENY an ORDINANCE Amending an EXISTING SPECIAL USE, Ordinance No. 16,082 as Amended, in a Class C-2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a SHOPPING CENTER to Add a FIVE FOOT TALL, THIRTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN for Property Commonly Known as JUNCTION CITY SHOPPING CENTER with an Address of 5901 N. PROSPECT AVENUE with the Proposed Sign Being Located at 5832 N. KNOXVILLE AVENUE; AND WITH SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION AND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from Staff to Adopt a REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE Amending an EXISTING SPECIAL USE, Ordinance No. 16,082, as Amended, in a Class C-2 (Large Scale Commercial) District for a SHOPPING CENTER to Add a 25.5 SQUARE FOOT SIGN to the Existing MULTI-TENANT FREESTANDING SIGN for the JUNCTION CITY SHOPPING CENTER Located at 5901 N. PROSPECT ROAD.

[The American League has now scored and lead the All-Star Game 1-0.] Riggenbach moves for approval of the motion, seconded by Spain. Sandberg asks Planning Director Landes if this is a unified shopping center special use. Answer: yes. If this wasn’t so designated, the sign could only be 70 square feet. Thus, he says this 285 square foot sign is an addition to the special use, even though it’s not technically a waiver. Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

(11-235) Communication from the City Manager and Communications Manager Regarding REPORT BACK on QUESTIONS Raised Concerning CATERING at the GATEWAY BUILDING with Request to Approve ONE of the Proposed Recommendations And Request to Receive and File the Report Back. (New Communication)

Spain moves to receive and file and adopt staff option #1, seconded by Turner. Sandberg will not support option 1 as he favors option 2. He believes it’s taxpayer-owned, so any caterer should be allowed to use it. There is no logical reason to restrict it to only four caterers. The privilege of the floor was given to James Barrack of Barrack’s Cater Inn. He says they cater approx. 60 events at the building and is the only caterer there that has a liquor license. His business has been catering there since the building opened. He says he’s invested 15-20 thousand dollars there, adding an ice machine, water heater, etc. He believes he followed the process and that process should be honored. He thinks additional caterers makes things more complicated for the Park District which operates the building. Akeson asks why Barrack’s would make a private investment in a public building. Also wonders if Barrack’s can’t accommodate you, then can you not have your event at the Gateway Building. Sandberg asks if Barrack’s was the caterer for the 4th of July event at the Gateway Building. Answer: yes. Weaver says he’s going to support the motion, but he wants to use Barrack’s knowledge of the building to figure out how the city can better market it. [All-Star Game update: NL leads 3-1 after 3 innings! Go NL!] Sandberg asks what percentage of the catering is done by each caterer. Barrack’s says the Park District has that information. The privilege of the floor is given to Mr. Roder (sp?), and he says he can provide a report. He also says he provides a report to the Finance Dept. monthly. Irving asks where the protection is for the business owners who followed the rules for putting in their bids in. Andrew Speck owns Haddad’s downtown, and says he didn’t receive an opportunity to bid because he wasn’t invited to bid because he was a new business owner, and he thinks he should be given the opportunity to bid since it’s a publicly-funded building.

Passes 7-4 (Ardis, Sandberg, Irving, Akeson).

(11-277) APPOINTMENT by Mayor Jim Ardis to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, with Request to Concur: (New Communication)

Steve Pierz (Voting) – Term Expires 6/30/2014

Motion to approve by Irving. Passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

(11-281) Communication from Mayor Ardis Requesting to Reconsider and Place Item No. 11-281, the SITE APPLICATION at 801 – 803 S.W. ADAMS on the Council Agenda for July 12, 2011, And, if Reconsideration Passes, Requesting Action be Taken on the Following:

Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting ACTION on the SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS A (Tavern) with a SUBCLASS 1A (2:00 A.M. Closing) and a SUBCLASS 2 (Live Entertainment) LIQUOR LICENSE at 801-803 S.W. ADAMS STREET, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to DENY.

Turner so moves, seconded by Spain. Motion passes unanimously.

Turner moves that if a liquor license is granted, the adult use license must be given up, and an adult use can’t be granted as long as a liquor license is in effect at that property. Sandberg has a question about what would happen if the liquor ordinance changes in the meantime. Randy Ray says the conditions would take precedence. Sandberg says it’s against the law now, so why the need for a condition? Doesn’t this condition supersede future laws? Ardis doesn’t think it’s worth tweaking the motion based on hypotheticals. Randy Ray adds that the premise is erroneous because some adult use businesses do have liquor licenses.

Motion passes unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

Akeson asks the City Council to consider a joint venture with various historic preservation groups to develop an historic preservation ordinance on which everyone can agree. Ardis says and Akeson acknowledges that there is already a group working on this. Akeson would like to expand the group. Ardis wants to discuss it more. Van Auken applauds Akeson (and Weaver?) for bringing this forward. Van Auken also apologizes for not recognizing Mr. Bateman on an earlier item. Jim Bateman states that several preservationists feel that the Council is against them, and that there were several items on the agenda tonight that were offensive to those interested in historic preservation. He would like to work with the Council and would like to see more education on the positive benefits of preservation.

Sandberg passes on a sarcastic thank-you to staff for starting work on the intersection of University and Glen the first week of the Heart of Illinois Fair when the traffic would be the heaviest.

Weaver asks for Sanger Street to be included in the CIP.

Riggenbach introduces his daughter Amanda who has been observing the meeting.

CITIZENS’ OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/TOWN BOARD

Mr. Sierra addresses the council, expressing his concerns over the fireworks incident at Taft Homes, as well as other unauthorized fireworks displays throughout the city. [All-Star Game update: NL now leads 4-1 after 5 innings.]

LaVetta Ricca addresses the council, expressing her concerns over the sidewalks and boarded-up houses on the South Side.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Well, I’m just about out of battery life on my computer, so I’ll have to bug out early tonight. I’ll be heading to The Bullpen to watch the All-Star Game. Go National League!