Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

Secrecy the order of the day at City Hall

15 Comments

The City of Peoria’s liquor commission can’t even get information on what’s happening with Big Al’s plans to move, resulting in a “no decision” Monday on whether to grant them a liquor license. Via 1470 WMBD radio:

[A] NO recommendation was forwarded to the City Council concerning a change in liquor class for the former EuroJacks and an application for a liquor license at 414 Hamilton Boulevard by the owner’s of Big Al’s. The Commission cited the owners could not produce enough information at this time on specific plans for the properties.

But apparently some city officials know what’s going on, as evidenced by these quotes from a recent Journal Star article:

“They are basically moving to make way for what could be a wonderful development,” city attorney Randy Ray said, declining to discuss specifics. “At this point, it’s just a tremendous opportunity to develop the Downtown.”

Added 1st District City Councilman Clyde Gulley Jr., who represents the Downtown, “we need to move (Big Al’s) because of another project.”

Others involved at City Hall and Zuccarini remained tight-lipped about what they have planned.

The city attorney, first district councilman, and unspecified “others involved at City Hall” all know what this “tremendous opportunity” and “wonderful development” is all about. The rest of us, however, will just have to wait to find out — probably until after it’s a done deal.

Secrecy fever has found its way into the budget process as well. At a special City Council meeting Monday night, it was announced that staff had cut the budget deficit from $2.2 million to half a million dollars. When Councilman Gary Sandberg asked how they accomplished that, he was told he’d have to come in tomorrow and talk to interim City Manager Holling in private to find out. In other words, they weren’t going to divulge that information on the council floor where citizens might hear.

Of course, the sad truth is that most citizens wouldn’t have heard since the meeting was on a Monday when there’s no radio or television coverage like on Tuesday nights. Interestingly, some council members (Van Auken, Manning, Nichting, Mayor Ardis) seemed to know what was going on, while the rest of the council was in the dark about this budgeting miracle.

And it was only a few months ago that the Journal Star reported, “City officials decided in June that this year, the budget process would be more open to the public, transparent, and easily communicated between city staff members and the council.” So much for that plan.

City Council, City of Peoria

Press conference tomorrow regarding “serious” crime issues

17 Comments

I have no idea what this is about. I’ve checked all the usual news sources, but found nothing, so if you have any details, please share. From a press release:

Mayor Jim Ardis and Members of the Peoria City Council, will hold a news conference on Sunday, November 2, 2008, at 12:00 Noon. The news conference will be held in front of the Peoria Police Department, 600 S. W. Adams Street.

The news conference will address serious concerns relating to crime issues in Peoria, specifically addressing the Friday night shooting directed at our police officers and a recent drug bust in a central Peoria neighborhood.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who explained the situation in the comments section. As someone pointed out, the Journal Star has the story up on their site now:

Peoria police shot a man to death early this morning after the man allegedly opened fire at officers with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

The 27-year-old Peoria man, whose name has not been released, reportedly shot a patrol car near the intersection of Idaho and Montana streets about 12:45 a.m.

If you’re wondering where Idaho and Montana streets are, they’re on the south side, near Harrison Homes.

UPDATE 2: The press release also says they’re going to discuss “a recent drug bust in a central Peoria neighborhood.” That would probably be this one, reported by HOI News:

HOI 19 news has learned that three people arrested during a drug and weapons raid this week are out of jail without posting bond [emphasis mine] and neighbors say they are outraged…. Peoria city councilman Bob Manning, who represents that area, says many concerned neighbors have contacted him. He says city leaders are planning on sitting down with the police department tomorrow to discuss this situation further.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Streets, West Bluff

Van Auken abandons Main Street improvements

21 Comments

According to our neighborhood newsletter, second-district councilperson Barbara Van Auken is not going to ask for any funding for Main Street improvements in 2009:

The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million. Barbara Van Auken (our City Council representative) will not support inclusion of changes to Main Street in Peoria’s 2009 budget, citing the need to do further study of the project, as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.

That’s right. After all the time, money, and effort that has been expended for these improvements over the past six years, now, at the 11th hour, our city councilperson is evidently going to abandon the project.

Let’s review. Main Street is one of four form districts in Peoria (the others being the Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road Corridor). A form district is a small part of the Heart of Peoria Plan area that the City singled out for more intensive coding known as a “form-based code.” The idea was to focus resources on these areas, then spread out from there to revitalize the rest of the Heart of Peoria Plan area over time.

Main Street is starting to see some significant private investment. The old Walgreens was recently purchased and a new mixed-use development is underway. The businesses adjacent to the Costume Trunk are replacing their facade. One World recently expanded with the departure of Lagron Miller.

But at least one established business — Running Central — is getting impatient for improvements to be made to Main Street. In the past, the new owner has stated that if changes aren’t made, he’s going to move the business to Junction City.

You can’t blame him. The city seems to be stuck in “analysis paralysis” when it comes to changing the streetscape on Main. Consider the studies: The Heart of Peoria Plan (2002); Wallace Roberts & Todd Med-Tech/Ren Park study (2004); Farrell-Madden form-based code study (2006); Hansen traffic study (2008). All of these studies in one way or another said we need to “fix the streets” — i.e., make them more pedestrian-friendly, slow the traffic down, provide on-street parking for businesses, etc. — and so far, no road improvements have materialized.

Van Auken’s pronouncement that she won’t even try to get funding for this important project in 2009 is disappointing to say the least. After six years and four studies on this project, what’s it going to take to get some follow-through from the city?

In fairness, some progress has been made in other areas: specifically, the form-based code and broader Land Development Code have been enacted. But that’s only half of what’s needed to make these form districts a success. The LDC and form-based codes regulate the private space. But in order for these districts to thrive, there absolutely must be improvement to the public space as well.

Public improvements have been noticeably absent from the form districts so far. Attempts to make Adams and Jefferson street two-way in the Warehouse District has met with opposition from Caterpillar. Efforts to narrow Washington street to make it more pedestrian-friendly has met with opposition from IDOT and first district councilman Clyde Gulley, who is in the trucking business and likes having Washington be a high-speed truck route. The Prospect Road corridor hasn’t even been talked about the last two years.

The most promising area is the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, where yet another study has recently been done to look at specific ways to improve the streetscape. Whether that effort will get funded remains to be seen. I’m not sure whether Van Auken considers it one of those “more pressing priorities” for the City’s capital budget, or if it will also get the axe.

Finally, let’s quickly talk about Van Auken’s reasons for abandoning the Main Street project.

  • “The proposed changes to Main Street are estimated to be in the order of $10 million.” — Assuming that estimate is correct, yeah, that’s a lot of money. But of course it can and should be phased over several years, not spent all at once. That’s the way it is with all large road projects. Speaking of which, does anyone think that the fifth district councilman will not ask for funding for widening Northmoor Road or extending Pioneer Parkway in 2009 due to “more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city”?

  • “…citing the need to do further study of the project…” — I think we’ve already established that there’s been plenty of study. Anyone wanting more study at this point is simply looking for different conclusions.

  • “…as well as more pressing priorities elsewhere in the city for next year’s capital budget.” — Why is the Main Street project not a “pressing priority”? We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying it and countless hours getting public input on it. There’s even a grassroots organization (Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff) that has sprung up to try and push this project along. There’s no governmental or judicial agency standing in the way of it. It’s part of the city’s plan for revitalizing the older parts of town. What are these unspecified “more pressing priorities”? Implementing a new logo? Continuing to subsidize downtown parking?

I would also point out that these improvements to Main Street have quite a bit of popular support in the second district (although there are some who are opposed, of course). Neighborhood organizations, the West Bluff Council, and businesses along Main are pretty enthusiastic about seeing these changes made. I wonder how all those people will feel about Van Auken putting the kibosh on those improvements right before she’s up for reelection.

City of Peoria, Taxes

Are downtown properties underassessed?

16 Comments

While I was looking at some property information on Main Street, I noticed a disparity between the assessed value of the property and what actual sales have been. Here are the properties adjacent to the Pere Marquette on Main:

Property ID Address Assessed Value 2007 Taxes
1809206011 533 Main $14,280.00 $1,174.82
1809206012 531 Main $178,700.00 $14,701.58
1809206013 527-529 Main $87,580.00 $7,205.18
1809206014 519 Main $58,780.00 $4,835.82
TOTAL $339,340.00 $27,917.40

That gives those properties, according to the tax assessor, a fair market value of $1,018,020 (i.e., three times the assessed value). However, also according to the assessor, these four properties were sold for $1.05 million in 1997, and $1.5 million in 2004. So the current assessed value is lower than the properties were worth over 10 years ago, and a half-million dollars lower than they were worth four years ago. Underassessment means lost revenue to the city as well as the county.

Are we talking about a lot of money in lost tax receipts here? Maybe not one year from just these four properties (although every little bit helps when the city is looking at a $2.2 million deficit). But over time, it adds up.

And what if this isn’t an anomaly? What if other downtown properties are underassessed? I think it’s worth investigating, especially with the city in need of extra money and contemplating raising taxes and fees. Why shouldn’t downtown property holders pay their fair share?

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission votes against temporary LDC changes

4 Comments

The city’s Planning and Growth Department is spearheading an effort to review the portion of the Land Development Code (LDC) that deals with form-based code districts “to determine if all the regulations are performing as anticipated and to ensure compatible development which meets the purpose statements of the code.” Toward that end, they have done two things:

  1. Established an LDC Review Committee. The LDC Committee is comprised of two representatives from the Heart of Peoria Commission, Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. I’m one of the two representatives from HOPC. So far, we’ve had two meetings. No decisions have been made yet, but we’ve discussed street wall and parking setback requirements and worked on crafting definitions for “change of use” and “expansion of use.”

  2. Requested the City Council temporarily amend the LDC while the LDC Review Committee completes its work. This is on Tuesday’s agenda. Basically, they want to make it easier for projects in a form district to get an exception from the regulations. Currently, any exceptions to the regulations must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA’s decision is final; any appeals have to go through circuit court. Planning and Growth is requesting instead that any exceptions be handled as a special use request; that would require the City Council’s approval. Again, this request is just for a six-month period — long enough for the committee to complete its work.

During the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting Friday morning (which wasn’t attended by any media, incidentally), that second point was one of the topics of discussion.

Some commissioners felt the temporary LDC change was a good idea. They argued, like Planning and Growth, that the LDC Review Committee’s recommendations “could include rewriting of certain regulations or removal of them after a determination that they may be too extensive.” Hence, exceptions during this time should be able to be made legislatively (through the council) rather than judicially (through the ZBA). The applicant would still have to make their case either way; it would only change which body has the final say.

Others, like me, were skeptical. I didn’t hear a compelling reason why this change was necessary. First of all, there don’t appear to be a rash of requests before the ZBA (in fact, their last regular meeting was cancelled because they didn’t have a single case). Secondly, the issues that are being reviewed by the committee are limited in scope, so there’s no need to change the exceptions procedure for all form district regulations. Others pointed out that exceptions made under this proposed temporary change could set a bad precedent.

The Heart of Peoria Commission was split on the issue. A motion in favor of the temporary change failed 3-4. That was followed by a motion to make no changes to the exception process while the commission completes its work; that motion passed 4-3.

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

Water company buyout on agenda for Tuesday

12 Comments

As my letter from Illinois American Water indicated, the council will be taking up the matter of whether to buy the water company at their Oct. 28 meeting.

Included in the council communication are (1) the March 1, 2005, letter of appraisal that set the value/purchase price of the Illinois American Water Peoria District at $220,000,000, and (2) the City’s Water Company Acquisition Financial Analysis. The financial analysis estimated that 2006 revenues would have been $29,360,000, based on actual revenue information acquired through the due-diligence process at that time. It also estimated that an operations contract to manage the water company would cost about $11,000,000 in 2006, increasing 3% each subsequent year.

The analysis showed that the water company would pay for itself — i.e., taxes would not have to be raised to cover the debt service — and water rate increases would only be 3% per year. Under this scenario, sufficient funds would be set aside for capital improvements as well.

Of course, things have changed since 2005. A new analysis would have to be done, as well as a new appraisal. According to the council communication, due diligence could cost as much as $2 million, and the city could find that it now can’t afford the water company when all is said and done.

Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper today as saying, “To me, it will be very difficult to justify spending $2 million to do due diligence on this under the current budget constraints…. I don’t think that is a priority.” Ardis voted against the buyout last time, also.

Also of interest in the Journal Star’s article are some preliminary numbers from Illinois American Water Company’s telephone poll:

Company spokeswoman Karen Cotton said the research shows that of 400 registered voters in Peoria who were polled, 55 percent strongly opposed a city-backed buyout of the waterworks, while 89 percent believe City Hall has higher priorities.

In a 2005 referendum, 82% of voters were opposed to the water company buyout. Depending on how many were “somewhat opposed,” we may find that opposition is softening.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council to look at raising their salary

15 Comments

The council next Tuesday will consider raising the salaries of the mayor, district and at-large council members, city clerk, and city treasurer positions. I can’t actually say “raising their own salaries,” because the new salaries won’t take effect until after the next election. In other words, if they pass this increase, they’ll only get the raise if they get reelected.

Here are the proposed salaries and car allowances:

Position Salary Car Allowance
Mayor $32,400 $475/month
District Councilman $14,000 $400/month
At-Large Councilman $14,000 $400/month

The City Clerk and City Treasurer salaries are the same, and would increase by 5% each year as follows:

Period Annual Salary
May 5, 2009 to May 4, 2010 $94,264.80
May 5, 2010 to May 4, 2011 $98,978.04
May 5, 2011 to May 4, 2012 $103,926.94
May 5, 2012 to May 4, 2013 $109,123.29

It’s funny — in a private company, salaries are something that is kept secret among the staff. And generally, most people don’t disclose their salary to others. But if you work for the city or some other public body, your salary is public knowledge. Everybody knows. Your co-workers, your friends, your neighbors. They all know what you make. That has to feel a bit awkward at times.

Kellar Branch

Report: Rail with trail feasible for Kellar Branch

25 Comments

The verdict is in: A side-by-side rail with trail on the Kellar Branch corridor is indeed feasible, and it only costs about 2/3 what the Peoria Park District estimated.

Earlier this year, the City of Peoria hired T. Y. Lin International to do the feasibility study. The full report is included in this week’s city council agenda.

Whereas the Peoria Park District said it would cost $29 million to build a trail next to the rail line, this civil and structural engineering firm estimated it would only cost $18 million. The Peoria Park District’s estimate can be viewed on the Friends of the Rock Island Trail website.

Why the divergence in cost estimates? A few reasons. For one thing, the park district lists as their very first assumption that “This option [side-by-side alignment] would require a fence separating the trail from the rail.” Not so, says T. Y. Lin: “this item is not required by the IDOT BDE [Bureau of Design and Environment] Manual, and is not necessary as identified in design recommendations prepared for the Federal Transit Administration with respect to rail-with-trail traffic operations.” That saves almost a million dollars right off the bat.

Also, T. Y. Lin assumed “that the proposed trail could cross the rail line where needed in order to minimize cut and fill improvements” — i.e., the entire trail needn’t be located on the same side of the tracks for the entire length as the park district suggested. That cut down on costs.

Another reason for the high figure from the park district was because, “It was determined that ‘trestle’ (platform) improvements identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report were excessive in some cases. Many segments of the proposed alignment could be adequately stabilized using less-intensive fill and retaining wall improvements than those identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report.” Further savings.

Even the $18 million figure could be lowered if the City and park district were to consider having a grade crossing across Knoxville instead of a pedestrian bridge. T. Y. Lin gives some recommendations on how to provide a safe grade crossing across Knoxville. A pedestrian bridge is estimated to cost about $1.9 million. No cost estimate was given for a grade crossing, but one can safely assume it would be less than a bridge.

Of course, the park district will still say that it’s too expensive. After all, $18 million is three times as much as $6 million — the estimated cost of ripping out the rail line and putting the trail on the former rail bed. That may be true, but that fails to recognize that ripping out the rail line is not an option. The Surface Transportation Board has already ruled on that. Thus, the options available to the park district are three: (1) build the $18 million side-by-side alignment, (2) build the less-expensive, but less-than-ideal “alternative alignment” which would include some on-street portions of the trail, or (3) consider a completely different route for connecting the Pimiteoui and Rock Island trails (e.g., extending the trail further north along the river, then extending west up through Detweiller Park).

Unfortunately, the park district and trail supporters will probably choose to continue their failed strategy of laying siege to the Kellar Branch rail line, dreaming that someday they’ll be able to eliminate this municipal asset.

City of Peoria, History

AMVETS building preservation app deserves public hearing

4 Comments

Thanks to the kindness of City staff members in the City Clerk and Planning & Growth departments, I was able to get a copy of the historic preservation application for the AMVETS building:

Historic Preservation Application for 237 NE Monroe (3.03 MB)

The applicant, Les Kenyon on behalf of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation, makes a compelling case for preserving this building, originally known as the United Duroc Building. Here is a summary of his argument from the application:

Built and dedicated in 1916, the United Duroc Bldg. is a Colonial Revival style with significant architectural features that meet criteria #4 and #6. Features include white enamel (glazed) brick and glazed terra cotta; there are elaborate decorative crowns above the dual entrances, fanlight-transom windows, terra cotta cornices, trabeated pilasters with triglyphs and gutta, Palladian windows.

Designed by WH Reeves and built by WM Allen, two key men involved in the design and construction of Peoria’s most notable buildings including Peoria’s City Hall, Spalding Institute, Glen Oak Park Pavilion, St. Augustine Manor, Peoria State Hospital, Mohammed Temple and many others.

The United Duroc building was also home to: the distinguished University Club, Battle Creek Baths and a Comptometer School and publishing company.

The application states that this building meets five out of the nine criteria for historic preservation:

  • #3 — Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the development of the City, State or Nation.
  • #4 — Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous materials.
  • #5 — Its identification as the work of a Master Building Designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, the state or the nation.
  • #6 — Its embodiment of elements of design, detailing, or craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant.
  • #8 — Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature.

You can read all the details in the application.

I called Les Kenyon today to ask him a couple of questions that came up in my last post. He was kind enough to take my call. I asked him why he hadn’t applied for historic preservation of this building until now — why not anytime in the last 40 years, as some have suggested. He replied that, first of all, the property didn’t come up for sale until just recently, and secondly, there wasn’t an historic preservation ordinance 40 years ago. He said we didn’t get such an ordinance until “5 or 6 years ago.” (Actually, I checked, and the city’s historic preservation ordinance was passed August 15, 1989 — about 19 years ago. Time flies.) He said prior to that time, if you wanted to preserve a building, you had to buy and save it yourself.

I asked him if he and the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation had any plans to be more proactive in requesting historic status for other buildings instead of waiting until they come up for sale or demolition. He said yes, that in fact one of the CILF board members has a list of several historic properties that they are planning to go over at a future meeting and ultimately present to the city council. However, he said they have to be careful about presenting too big of a list because it may alarm some council members who aren’t supporters of historic preservation. He feels it’s more effective to take small steps toward preservation.

And that strategy perhaps best explains why some requests for preservation come at the 11th hour. It’s not that these weren’t worthy buildings in the first place. It’s simply that they are strategic in submitting applications, and sometimes a building that’s on their list comes up for sale or demolition before they’ve gotten to it. Then they have to move it to the top of the list.

Whether or not you think the building should ultimately be preserved, I believe it at least deserves a hearing. I know this will cause some delay of AMVETS’ plans, and that’s regrettable. But once a historic structure is gone, it’s gone forever. I think it’s worth our time (and for a public hearing, we’re talking about less than 45 days) to make sure we’re not going to regret its demolition after it’s too late to do anything about it. Let’s make sure this application is fully vetted, and if the building does not warrant salvaging, so be it.

The Historic Preservation Commission will decide Wednesday morning at their regular meeting, 8:30 a.m. in City Hall Room 400, whether to grant a hearing or not.