Urbana

Today's News-Gazette:

The board Wednesday gave the MTD staff approval to look into annexing properties including the Stone Creek subdivision in Urbana, the Boulder Ridge and Sawgrass subdivisions in Champaign, areas north of Interstate 74 in Champaign and Urbana including Frasca Field, a commercial area north of Interstate Research Park in Champaign, a new addition to the Myra Ridge subdivision in Urbana and a small area in Savoy west of Colbert Park.

In addition to discussing the annexations at next month's meeting, the MTD board would be required to hold a public hearing on each of the proposals, said MTD Director Bill Volk.

Every year in January, Volk said, the MTD assesses whether new areas in the community are eligible for annexation. Under an agreement the transit district has with Champaign, Urbana and Savoy, areas are eligible for annexation if they are contiguous to current MTD boundaries, if they are not taxed as farmland and if they are within the corporate limits of one of the municipalities.

Discuss.

So here we are, right after the Holidays and many of us are now honoring our New Year’s Resolutions and trying to benefit from some kind of Weight Watchers Diet to offset our indiscretions with candy and way too much at Holiday meals. Well, like it or not, the Urbana Administration has put us all on a Wait Watcher’s Diet also.

The local chapter of the Illinois Society of Professional Engineers, extends an annual invitation to the local Cities to discuss the upcoming Capital Improvements and any effects they may have on our communities and the effect of those plans on any possible developments that we engineers could be or are associated with. That has been going on for years and is usually one of the better meetings that we have each year. The meeting was on May of 2009 right after the City Elections.

The City of Champaign presented the expected work on Curtis Road, the I-57-Curtis Road Intersection, University Avenue and other drainage and general maintenance projects. It also presented the work on the Boneyard Creek constructing the new City operated detention basin between Springfield Ave. and University Ave. With the latter being improvements that would allow pumping to relieve the viaduct flooding on University, Springfield, Locust and Green St. A really good idea.

Then came Urbana’s presentation which was very stunning in its content. It contained philosophies like none that had ever been presented at these meetings in the 30 years I have been attending them. First we were told Urbana is considering a Boneyard Creek improvement program for the beautification of the Boneyard Creek. Unlike Champaign, the emphasis was not on helping flooding and did not include hydraulic improvements. Then Goodwin Ave. was going to be expanded to accept the bicycle traffic from Bradley to Springfield Ave. A very costly project.

We were told that for the last year and all future years, the Mayor and the City Council had implemented a “Road Diet” policy on all future roads and improvements to existing roads in Urbana. We were told that the Mayor and City Council had realized that the citizens of Urbana did not know the best way to travel inside Urbana. The Mayor and Council knew it was best for the Citizens to travel by “Bus or Bike” and had implemented a two part program to assure we would travel in Urbana by those methods. The first part was the “Road Diet” to discourage traffic and the second part was an education program for the citizens on why the Mayor and City Council knew better than we on how to travel. The City said they were meeting significant resistance by the Citizens when they were being educated that the Mayor and Council knew best on how they should travel, but that resistance did not and would not change the implication of the actual “Road Diet” program.

Simply put, a “Road Diet” is converting an existing 4 lane highway to a 3 lane highway, with one lane being a turn lane for both directions and if there is useable space available having optional bicycle lanes on the outside of the highway for both directions. It can also be changing a 2 lane highway to 3 lanes, but without bike lanes. For those of you who never believe me look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_diet). A perfect and well designed “Road Diet” configuration is Philo Road from Colorado Ave. to Scovill in Urbana. It was designed by Gale Jamison, P.E. and correctly did not include bike lanes. It works great as is. The most important factor in determining if an existing (or proposed street) will be well served by the 3 lane configuration is if the intersecting streets or opposing entrances are directly opposite each other. If they are not opposing, then the center turn lane becomes a “suicide lane” and very ineffective (and dangerous). Even the above location has a small, inefficient area between Amber Lane and McHenry, with left turn traffic frequently heading directly at each other in that area.

If properly used, “Road Diet” transportation arteries can induce more traffic than was experienced before their introduction, and increase business opportunities because of less traffic “hassle” in those areas. Conversely, and to a more significant degree, improper application can decrease traffic and business opportunities served by that traffic, thereby eliminating much of the traffic which they were originally designed to help and increase. Improperly adding the bicycle lanes can eliminate all sight line safety benefits created by the 3 lane configuration, especially in higher traffic density areas.

Against the recommendation of the design professionals, the Mayor is immediately applying the “Road Diet” to existing road areas that are completely unsuitable for their use and so counter productive that businesses will fail and already have failed because of the traffic inconvenience caused by these improper applications. Presently the Mayor has applied it to Philo Road between Colorado Ave. and Florida Ave. and is applying it to Philo Road between Washington St. and Florida Ave. and Philo Road between Colorado Ave. and Windsor Ave. and also to Main St. between Vine and the “V” intersection of Main St. and Springfield Ave. Rather than inducing more traffic to these already economically strained areas, she is going to discourage traffic and the associated businesses at a time when we desperately need additional business and tax revenues.

The time to increase Urbana’s business viability is now at hand and simple and correct planning could attract those businesses. The “Road Diet” plan as implemented by the Mayor will simply and effectively eliminate that opportunity. Even worse, the opportunity will be eliminated at a time when Urbana needs additional revenue to offset the spending habits of the same Mayor and Council.

We do not need to make the traffic serving our businesses go on a Wait and Watch diet.

According to US News and World Report, Urbana High School was the only school in the area school to receive "Bronze" or better.   University High earned an honorable mention.  

News Gazette article here. 

You can find the methodology used here.  

Summary statistics found here.  

Congrats to Urbana High School!

This ordinance was so bad as drafted, that it apparently needed a second look:

November 19 Commentary in News Gazette.

Ideally, Prussing would have the people most able to help her craft a good ordinance working with her to solve the problem, instead of spending their time and energy having to fight her unreasonable notion of good government.

What if the Chamber of Commerce hadn't rallied the business community?   I supect that took time and energy that could have been better spent solving problems and promoting our community.   I suspect the proposed ordinacnce would have passed because the city (at Prussing's urging) was hell bent on passing this.  The most in depth analysis you might have heard would have been from a local landlord stating, "I have no problems with this."

Where was the Urbana Business Association on this?  

After the vote, I was told that Mayor Prussing cancelled a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce once she heard they would be opposing the ordinance in its proposed form.   On top that, she apparently ditched a meeting to discuss the ordinance with the Urbana Business Association to discuss the ordinance (at the 11th hour). 

Would the city have called a meeting to discuss the ordinace with the UBA unless the Chamber hadn't pushed back?    Probably not.  Wouldn't it be logically to have your local business group weigh in?  

The more I hear about this, the more amazed and amused I become.    Thank God for the Chamber of Commerce injecting some common sense into the process. 

This story on the expected revival of the chronic criminal nuisance ordinance was in yesterday's NG, but I didn't see it until last night.  There are two statements in here that are headscratchers - the first is from the Mayor:

"I think the general public understands that there is a problem," she said. "I've talked to people who know of a house where drugs were being sold, and they're concerned about it."

If the Mayor talks to people who know where drugs are being sold, isn't that a problem for police and prosecutors?  If the problem is chronic, isn't that a problem for police and prosecutors?  Why do they need an ordinance targeting property owners?  Don't the police work for the Mayor?

The second is from Alderman Smyth:

"What this ordinance really needs to do is reduce the environment in which these crimes can occur, reduce the opportunities for crime to occur. We're going after the environment, not after the people."

Again, environments don't commit crimes, people do.  If there is a location that lends itself to criminal activity and the City is aware of the location, why in the world aren't the police doing something about it?  If the police, for whatever reason, cannot locate criminals at locations with chronic criminal activity then why would they go after the property owner?  What possible sense does that make?

The more I learn about this ordinance and the concept behind it the more stupid and illogical it seems.

I can't wait to see what Rex has to say about this:

Earlier, as Prussing was being challenged for a second term as mayor, her supporters wrote letters to the editor, bragging about Urbana's unusually vibrant economy.

"Urbana's financial scene is healthy enough it's been able to withstand the blow of the recession in a way very few cities in Illinois can match," wrote David Gehrig, a member of the city council.

Bernadine Stake, a longtime Prussing ally, wrote that Urbana's financial situation "stands in stark contrast to our sister city where the city manager is asking the council to approve fee increases and program cuts and allow 16 staff positions to remain vacant."

So guess who's enacting fee increases – hundreds of thousands of dollars of them – now?

Ron Eldridge, Urbana's veteran comptroller, said that when the city budget was put together in March and April, Urbana's financial numbers still looked better than most other communities in the state, thanks to the sales tax revenue from a new Meijer store and the financial proceeds from a special census. Soon, though, sales tax revenue was down around 5 percent from the year before and income tax receipts were off more than 10 percent. The gloomy numbers haven't begun to turn around.

So Monday night, the city council took the first in a series of steps toward fixing the budget problem – with "revenue increases."

Discuss.

An Honest Mistake

One of the most difficult issues with which I had to deal during any campaign was the matter of honesty or truthfulness candidates had when representing their accomplishments to the public. In fact, in all the campaigns, in which I participated the norm was being untruthful, rather than giving the public the opportunity to actually judge qualifications.

Fortunately, for me my professions prohibited me, by law, from that kind of thinking, to wit, for example:

“The land surveyor shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of the land surveyor's or the land surveyor's associates' academic or professional qualifications. The land surveyor shall not misrepresent or exaggerate the degree of responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or their past accomplishments, or the land surveyor's past accomplishments, with the intent and purpose of enhancing the land surveyor's qualifications and work.”

Additionally, campaign contributions always made me very nervous because:

“The land surveyor shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other
parties dealing with the client or employer in connection with work for which the land surveyor is responsible.”

And I am still not sure about that.

No matter how good or how convincing, one of the problems with lies is they are not acceptable currency for the payment of actual bills and services. If they were, we all would look like Pinocchio.

In fact, it was that kind of activity which was one of the solidifying factors in my decision to run for Mayor. Simple reading of available accounting forms clearly indicated that during Mayor’s Prussings first term, she was spending more than was coming in, a lot more, nearly an average of a million dollars per year more. It was also obvious that her presence was also severely curtailing any future developments which would create much needed tax revenues and jobs to provide income to spend on retail needs. So my campaign was structured on creating jobs and creating a development atmosphere to entice significant businesses to locate in Urbana.

My ideas were sound and polls showed they did appeal to the general public, in fact they were so appealing and hard to dispute that Mayor Prussing turned to the long tried and successful counter to a good idea. She started lying about her accomplishments, or in some cases, just lying.

During the campaign, Durl, Rob and myself had real problems getting the facts concerning the city finances. But we all agreed that we were in deficit spending, and did get Ron E. to agree to that concept, but not provide any documentation as to how much. We kept putting the heat on Mayor Prussing at any and all forums, or media questions, to the point that she finally had Ron release information to the News Gazette, that even though Champaign was struggling and in debt, Urbana was flush with additional sales revenue and could weather the storm. Everyone remembers that, and her ads correct? Hard to believe, Champaign had all those stores and was $2 million in debt and Urbana was flush. Hmmmmmmmm, hard to believe.

So we were not convinced, because no documents were available that supported her lie, none. We were all in the News Gazette candidate assessment meeting and we confronted her, saying where is the proof?

Mayor Prussing responded by asking each of us who had done a multi-million budget and followed that up with she would not release any budget figures until they met her approval and none met her forecasting approval at that time. The she followed that up with she had 98 new businesses and the City had more than enough money because of the increased tax revenue.

Okedoke, but what she had actually done was released the accounting projections on that very day, as we were speaking, and those documents DID NOT SHOW any surplus taxes of any significance. She lied and without announcing, released documents in a completely unexpected place (not in the usual Internet location heading), 10 days before the election. The City was on a financial express train to Hell, and she did not care, only getting elected by lying mattered.

No list of 98 new businesses ever existed, and staff said, the only way new businesses could be identified in Urbana was probably through building permits, but those also included existing businesses that were doing some remodeling or relocations like Carle on Windsor. Staff felt the actual increase was negative, or very slightly positive with small businesses being the 98.

Under Laurel Prussing, Urbana has spent its $4.5 million surplus and according to the New Gazette today, is $1.3 million short and that does not include the increase she will have to offer the City Workers and Police Union negotiations. $1.3 million since March 27, when she said Urbana was flush with unexpected sales revenue.

Well, just like the Lottery, and her statement in the WUNA meeting that Wal-Mart, Mejers, Menards were all under her watch, having two homestead exemptions on her homes, I guess it was an “Honest Mistake”.

This would not have happened if a Candidate only followed the simple rule of not lying. Now Urbana is doomed to have to increase an number of public service fees and also property tax. Oh, Oh did I mention, that according to Laurel during the campaign, the City tax rate was 0.118? Check your tax bill you paid in September, it was 0.120.

She has already spent that lie.

Discovery in this suit could get a little messy:

Unit 5 School District deliberately misled the Urbana school district about former Colene Hoose teacher and convicted sex offender Jon White, according to an Urbana lawsuit filed against the local district.

In the civil action asking at least $1 million in damages, Urbana officials accuse Unit 5 of failing to investigate parental complaints of White's inappropriate behavior toward female students and falsifying White's tenure in Unit 5.

The infuriating thing about the Jon White story, to me, is not that administrators in Normal and Urbana should have known earlier or more fully that he was abusing his students.  It's that, first in Normal and then in Urbana, the administrators apparent initial reactions was to try to protect the district by covering up the discovery. 

In Normal, unbelievably, they wanted to make the problem go away so badly that actually recommended White for hiring by the Urbana district, and in doing so they put other children in harm's way.  It's unthinkable.

PPP#2 (Policy Per Prussing #2)
On Wednesday, September 16, I was going to eat at the New Resturant at the old Todd and John’s location. They have a great menu and good atmosphere. I turned West off Vine and onto Water and parked at the westerlymost meter on the North side of the street in front of the Civic Center.

During my campaigning, I realized that one of the best ideas someone had come up with was the “Parking Stick”. A really great idea, you get money on it, put it on your car key ring and never have to worry about getting a parking ticket…………….. except in Urbana.

The way the Sticks work is you insert them into a hole on the sidewalk side of the meter and it immediately tells you your remaining balance on the LCD screen in the meter. Then you push it in and out and in for the number of quarters of time you want to park at that location. Really good stuff. It does have a little bug on it, that if the meter has time on it when you first insert your Stick, it immediately takes a quarters worth of time. But that is ok, because the meters are flashing 0’s if there is not time remaining so all you have to do is see the flashing. Cool huh.

In my case, the meter was flashing 0’s and I inserted my stick and it showed $4.00 left on my stick. I pumped it 3 times because I knew I would have to leave before 45 minutes and that was plenty for a “black meter”, left and had my lunch and came back to a ticket after about 25 minutes. What was going on, $0.75 was plenty of time, so I called the Urbana collection office as said,

“Hey I am standing at this meter (gave the location) and it has “failed” on it and I got a ticket, I am not inclined to pay this ticket.”

“Too Bad, So Sad, We are glad. (or something like that) The meter has failed and in Urbana, if you are at a failed meter, it has the universal no parking sign on the street side of the LCD and you cannot be parked at a meter with that showing.”

I said,

“It showed my balance and took my money off my stick, and might have failed while I was eating. You cannot see the back side of the meter because the sun overwhelms the LCD and anyway the hole is on the other side. I am not inclined to pay the fine.”

They said,

“You can go on line and file a written objection but if you do not prevail you have to pay the fine with penalty, plus the cost of the objection hearing.”

So in Urbana, if their meters are broken or “Failed” either at the time you park or during the time you park, then you are screwed and the City collects some really “dirty” money to pay for Laurel’s travels, or something.

Name any other service that you pay for that if the service does not work, you are obligated for its being operational.

This just stinks, Meter Maids have enough trouble without having to tell someone the meter failed and they should have know it was going to fail. That is the stuff that black eyes are made from.

The Parking ordinance should be amended to say, if a meter fails, it is the obligation of the City to repair and make the meter operational, until that time, the parking space is considered to be available without charge.

I don't mind paying for Laurel to fly to all those places and would have loved to go myself, but I would have trouble going on the peoples money when it was obtained in this manner.

PPP (Policy Per Prussing)
Recently, I was hired to be an expert witness for a court case of the City of Urbana vs Urbana Citizen. In Eastern Urbana, two neighbors had become at odds to each other for reasons of which I was unaware. The neighbors owned adjacent rectangular properties on the north side of an East-West Urbana Street. The front of the lots was on the north side of the street with the back of the lots abutting another tier of lots on the south side of the next street to the north. The properties had a common lot line running North-South between them.

2 years ago I was hired by the neighbor on the East to locate her property corners. I found all corners, but had to replace the southwest corner as it was bent from some construction activity. For purposes of further discussion, we will call the neighbor on the East of the common lot Line Ms. L and on the West Ms. H. At the time of that survey, I found Ms. H to have a decorative rock garden approximately 30’ long and 2’ wide which was encroaching on Ms. H’s property. I informed my client of my findings and showed Ms. L all her property corners and left.

Relations between Ms. L and Ms. H continued to deteriorate and Ms. H. eventually sent a certified letter to Ms. L demanding that Ms. L not trespass on their property. At the time of the letter, Ms. H had a garage located approximately 18” west of the common property line and also a driveway that was a varying distance from the property line. Ms. L had an approximately 50’ long 6’ high wooden privacy fence that was approximately 2’ east of the edge of the driveway and a varying distance of 6” at the south end to 1’4” at the north end from the property line. Both the driveway and fence were skewed to the property line and the fence was entirely on Ms. L’s property.
Upon receiving the letter, Ms. L posted a no trespassing sign on the wooden fence, in a place that was about one half way along the N-S fence and facing Ms. H’s property. Someone took that sign down and Ms. L re-installed it. At the time Ms. L was reinstalling the sign, Ms. H took a picture of her installing it and called the police saying that Ms. L had violated the trespass letter and wanted her fined for doing so. The Urbana Policeman looked at the picture and reprimanded Ms. L for trespassing and filed a trespass report with the City Attorney. The City of Urbana attorney filed a court action against Ms. L for trespass which could result in a sizeable fine of $500 or more.

Ms. L again hired me because she was aware that she had property west of the fence and she thought she was standing on her property when she was installing the No Trespassing sign.
As the law allowed, I arrived on the property and called the Urbana Police to inform Ms. H that I had the right to trespass on her property during the performing of my survey activities. When the officers arrived and I explained the reason for my survey, they were astounded that the City was involved in what was obviously a Civil dispute. At the time of my field work, I was unaware of the existence of a photograph as were the officers.

I completed a Property survey and partial topographic survey which conformed to the standards of the Illinois Professional Surveyor’s Act. That survey showed that Ms. L had approximately 10” between her fence and the property line in the area of the No Trespass sign and further showed that Ms. H, still had some encroachment problems with her rock garden onto Ms. L’s property. It also showed that the roof eve and eve trough on the garage was very close to the property line and was certainly not maintainable without trespass on Ms. H’s part.

After I prepared my Plat, the City Attorney released the photograph to the attorney representing Ms. L and that photograph was void of any reference to the property line. The photograph which the City was basing its charges upon did not show the property line, did not show any reference to anything which would indicate trespass. It simply showed Ms. L standing west and very close to the fence tacking up a No Trespass sign, the edge of the driveway, and the fence line.

Even though I was not required to appear at the arraignment hearing, I did so, with a copy of my Plat. Before the hearing, the City Attorney asked me for my opinion and I told him that from the picture I could not determine if Ms. L was standing on her property or a part of her foot was over the property line. I also told him that it was certain that she did own property West of the fence line and that property was large enough that her foot could be entirely on it.
The City Attorney then disclosed to me, he thought the fence was the property line. Certainly had the fence been the property line, Ms. L would have been trespassing on Ms. H’s property, but such was not the case. The City Attorney then said, that it did not matter that the picture was not definite, because it was up to Ms. L to prove she was not trespassing.

Yes you read it right, Ms. L was guilty of trespass and had to prove her innocence.

The City Attorney had my plat which contained the following certification:

“FROM THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE PHOTOS I AM UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE AS IT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE PHOTOS AND MY SCOPE OF WORK DID NOT INCLUDE MEASURING THE LOCATION OF THE SIGNS. I AM ALSO UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE LOCATION OF (MS. L’S) FEET WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS NO PROPERTY LINE IS SHOWN AND NO DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION OF (MS. L) AND ANY OTHER MEASURED POINT ON THE PHOTO. THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT COULD BE IN THE TRANSITION AREA AND ALSO PARALLAX FROM THE PHOTO LENS COULD BE MISLEADING. ALSO THE GRASS AREA SLOPES DOWN FROM THE DRIVEWAY EDGE, WHICH ALSO PREVENTS ANY SCALING MEASUREMENTS TO TRUE LENGTH”

Even though Ms. L’s attorney spoke with the City Attorney and requested the charge be dismissed because of lack of supporting evidence, the City of Urbana Attorney, did not dismiss the charge and asked the Judge to set a trial date. During the next month, I performed other duties in preparation for testifying as an expert witness and the attorney for Ms. L also incurred additional time. All these professional hours cost Ms. L money.

Before I began my final trial preparations, I asked Ms. L’s attorney to find out if the trial was going to take place or would the City realize the ramifications of that action and simply dismiss charges and let the problem be solved in a Civil Court. The answer was no, the trial was still on.

As is my procedure for trial preparation, I enlarged drawings and photographs, took additional photographs and attached those to foam board backings for easy and clear display in the court room, met with the attorney to script some important questions and all the other usual court proceedings that are necessary to provide the court with the facts. Ultimately these cost my client well over a thousand dollars in my time, not to mention the costs for the attorney.

We entered into the courtroom and as is my custom I placed all my exhibits over the rail into the court area, and passed the City Attorney on my way to and from the area, acknowledging his presence and asking how he was. We sat in the Court room for nearly an hour before the trial was to commence. Immediately before the trial was to commence, the Judge indicated he was going to take a 10 minute recess, at which time the City Attorney spoke to both the Judge and Ms. L’s attorney. The Judge immediately convened the hearing and the City moved to dismiss the charges (without prejudice) because of lack of sufficient evidence.

The City of Urbana, made a purposefully effort to cause Ms L to spend thousands of dollars to defend herself, when the City knew it did not have sufficient evidence. The City of Urbana could have dismissed the case in the preliminary hearing when they learned the fence was not the property line and the picture was useless in showing where the property line was located.

What kind of City Policy is that?

The City Attorney reports directly to Mayor Prussing.

I'll admit that I have paid little attention to local news lately.   I feel guilty when I listen to radio personalities talk about local newspapers going out business as I read the WSJ.   Now that the BOT BS is behind us...now that the Gov appointed someone with a big political last name with no affiliation to the UofI...at a university where prominent professors didn't think the behavior was newsworthy...I'm looking forward to re-engaging in the local news scene.

So what's interesting?

1. Has the local media done anything besides puff pieces for city-backed development projects?
2. On that note, have the local small business been getting paid on these projects or do they continue to file liens as developers finance projects on their backs?
3. Have they asked a city council member to mathmatically explain how the return on investment is calculated on a project like the parking deck? 
4. Any follow-up on Tony Fabri or did the media take it easy on him?   They were brilliant with the phone record idea. 
5. Is it safe to assume the media didn't follow-up on Mayor Prussing's tax evasion?  http://www.illinipundit.com/2009/03/31/mayor-prussings-house-s.
6. Does either city have a plan to address rising pension costs or are they going to grow faster than the ponzi scheme requires?   
7. Does WCIA continue to report on interest groups who shockingly conclude that tax increases are the only solution to fund their special interest?
8. How's the Gorski house project coming along?   Are they required to pay prevailing wages?  
9. Is the nursing home going to make money and what happened with the negotiations?

I know blogs have a bad reputation and sit at the center of the misinformation debate.   I just wish the local media could be half as interesting as the Illini Pundit.   I will give it another chance in the name of preserving local media and sign up for a subcription and start to TIVO WCIA news.

Thank you in advance with help answering my questions as I get back into the swing of things.

Prior to, After and During the time I was running for office, Mayor Prussing has been wanting to buy the Water Company because the rate increases are intolerable. I made it very clear during my campaign and also my posts on this site, that was a very bad idea, not because of the miniscule amount that the rate increases were, but the huge risk.

But lets take a look at what is really a large portion of our water bill. I just got my 2 month water bill and it was $78.09, here are the line item charges:

Basic Service: $22.46
Use: $45.06 ($2.8149/100CF used)
Urbana Bi Mun Francise Fee: $ 0.74
5/8" Fire Protect Urbana City: $ 5.94
Municipal tax: $ 3.83
State Recovery Tax: $ 0.06
Total: $78.09

Now the $22.46 is charge we pay just for having the water system. The power company bills us for Meter fees, and gas hook ups at about the same rate. We installed a no pilot gas furnace and we still get charged $20.50 for being hooked to the gas lines and I paid $12.90 for the meter and customer for electric, so such is life, and Prussing did not want to buy the Power company so, I figure that charge is OK with her, or she also would want to buy it. I paid the Water Company $ 1.12/day for water, a Helluva Deal. During the same period of time, I paid the Power Company $6.22/day (Thank you Naomi, for holding their rates for 10 years, I love the catch up)

But lets look at the percentage of my Water Bill that is Municipal taxes of some type:
$ 0.74 + $ 5.94 + $ 3.83 = $10.51
Divided by the Water Company charges of $22.26 + $45.06 = $67.32

The Municipal Charges add 15.6% to our water bill. The Municipal charges to our Power Bill are 5.12%

Is The City Urbana a local Corporation or is it German? Can we buy Urbana?

In a surprising move, Mayor Laurel Prussing has hired News-Gazette reporter Mike Monson as her new chief of staff. 

I've known Mike for nearly20 years now. I've found him to be one of the better informed and fair reporters I've seen.  The few times I've had to revisit a story with him because of an error or unintended slant, he's always treated my criticism with due respect.  I think he'll be able to push an agenda, while always being open to concerns from other parties.

It's a bold step by Prussing.  I like the tacit acknowledgement that running the affairs of city government is less about the possession of an urban planning or public administration degree and more about judgement, concern for the city, and strong interpersonal skills.  Mike has those.  While our off the record conversations would lead me to believe that he's taken a leftward path for the last decade, I also think that at his core he's a pragmatist.

Hopefully the News-Gazette will fill his big shoes with at least a warm body, although with the way things are going in print media, I wouldn't be surprised if they let the position lay vacant in a cost cutting move.

The City of Urbana wants to re-examine buying IAW:

Prussing added she would welcome a discussion of pursuing public ownership with Champaign officials, and any other local communities that might be interested.

But Schweighart said he's worried about the potential costs of such a move.

Illinois American Water would undoubtedly fight any eminent-domain move by the cities, he said, and that would mean a multimillion-dollar legal battle. Buying the system itself would cost tens of millions of dollars more, he said.

"I don't see a possibility of it happening," Schweighart said. "I don't know where we'd get the money to fight. You know they'd fight it.

"I'm willing to listen to all the arguments, but I'm not in favor of buying it," he continued. "And I don't want to hire anybody to look into this."

The experiences of Pekin and Peoria in unsuccessfully pursuing public ownership have made him wary, Schweighart said. Pekin attempted to use eminent domain to buy its water system from Illinois American and saw that effort rejected by the ICC in January 2004. Peoria pursued public ownership, but then backed away when the price tag for the water system was set at $220 million.

Using a back-of-the-envelope valuation of the water system for Champaign-Urbana-Savoy at $100 (based on Peoria's being worth $220 million), what would the annual debt service be just to pay off the bonds required to purchase?

I received a mass email forward that originated from Libby Tyler, Community Development Director/City Planner for the City of Urbana, to people associated with the Central Illinois Apartment Association stating:

I am attaching the latest version of the proposed Chronic Criminal Nuisance Property Ordinance along with some background materials. We are interested in your comments and suggestions about this ordinance and whether you could be supportive of it. Please give me a call to discuss further

I have attached what appears to be the second draft of the proposed ordinance, along with two memos. The first two sections of the proposed ordinance:

(1) Any property on which on which criminal nuisance activity occurs may be declared a criminal nuisance property. No property shall be declared a criminal nuisance property unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been three (3) or more instances of nuisance activity within a six-month period of time.

(2) Any person or person in charge who (a) encourages or permits a property to become a nuisance property as defined in Subsection A.; (b) allows a property to continue as a nuisance property; (c) fails to implement reasonable and warranted measures, as specified by the police chief, shall be in violation of this section. In determining whether any person or person in charge implemented reasonable and warranted measures, the trier of fact shall consider, at least, the same factors enumerated in subsections (3)(a) through (3)(f).

If you read the entire document and memos, you will likely conclude that property owners are responsible for the behavior of their tenants. You might also note that it does not specify the "reasonable and warranted measures" referenced in section 2, except "as specified by the police chief". Since the eviction process takes time, what typically should be done to address a nuisance? These measures could be very costly. The fines associated with not implementing these measures could be very costly.

In a Criminal Nuisance Survey Memo dated January 29, 2009 from Michelle Brooks to Ron O'Neal, it is noted that other cities have "ordinances similar in intent to the one contemplated in proposed ordinance 11-135". Champaign is one of those cities listed.

On February 20, 2009 Michelle Brooks sent a Nuisance Definitions Memo to the Mayor and Ron O'Neal that include definitions of the offenses that are currently included in the draft of the City’s Criminal Nuisance Ordinance.

One might conclude that "reasonable and warranted measures" might include screening applicants and rejecting those who have a criminal history of offenses that are outlined in the Nuisance Definitions. The City of Urbana currently does not allow landlords to discriminate based on prior arrest or conviction record. Discuss.

It's a short week, but the cities of Champaign and Urbana still have Council meetings.

Champaign:

Facing a budget deficit due to declining sales tax and property tax revenues, the city council cut about $2.3 million in spending, resulting in estimated costs at $67.5 million.

The city has a 10-year capital improvements plan with $33 million budgeted for next year – down $2 million annually, phased in over the next four years. Among the significant adjustments were a $1 million expansion project on Prospect Avenue from Windsor Road to Savoy that was changed to a $260,000 asphalt overlay project; a $3.5 million expansion project on Mattis Avenue from Windsor to Curtis roads that changed to a $300,000 overlay project; a $2.5 million project on Duncan Road from Windsor to Curtis that was delayed; and a $5 million project on Duncan from Springfield to Kirby avenues that was changed to a $450,000 asphalt overlay project.

Agenda here.

Urbana:

Allocation of more than $125,000 in federal stimulus money for improvements to Green Street from Vine Street to Cottage Grove Avenue will be the topic of the special meeting. John Schneider, grants division manager, said in a memo to council members that use of the federal grant would reduce the amount of local money needed for the project and make that money available for other projects.

Agenda here.

Today's News-Gazette profiles the new council members taking office this week in Champaign, Urbana and Danville:

Dave Johnson served six years on the raucous, partisan 27-member Champaign County Board before deciding not to seek re-election in 2002.

He's looking forward to a different experience on the Champaign City Council, where he'll be sworn in Tuesday.

Nonpartisan issues on the county board would too often become embroiled in party politics, he said, and the sheer size of the county board often made resolving issues difficult.

"This group is nonpartisan," Johnson said about the nine-member city council. "You get the agenda, you have a study session, you decide and move on."

(Attention grabbing headline)

(Please do not even think about boycotting Urbana or think this is some sort of subliminal hint to do so)

I had been really bothered after hearing reports that Prussing supporters allegedly were warning local businesses that they would be boycotted if they did not take down their Rex Bradfield signs.   I was reminded about it again after the recent Miss California situation.   It has been bugging me for a long time because I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal to threaten a boycott for political purposes.   It bugs me because I (and the people I associate with) would not try to attack or hurt someone because they have a different opinion.  

Secondly, the thought that people will screw innocent people (like Julian Gorski) so long as the end game is favorable for them really disgusts me (if you haven't noticed by now).

Now think about this for a second:

How many people do you know who have said, "I will never live or open a business in Urbana."

Now, how many people have you heard say the same about Champaign?

What if conservatives fought back using the same tactics as the extreme left-wing liberals who engage in such tactics in Urbana?   What if they didn't care about the innocent people caught in the wake so long it resulted in favorable changes in policies or policy makers, or just to be jerks about it?

Can you imagine what $300-$500k would do to Urbana?   Anyone think it would be hard to generate that kind of cash after hearing some recent Urbana stories?  Boycott Urbana signs could be everywhere for several years.   It would only take a small % of people to not look in Urbana, to not shop in Urbana, to not show houses in Urbana (realtors), etc.   It would probably result in a long slow death.   Probably, the same thing the Prussing supporters had in mind for the business owners.   As if Michael Fuerst didn't have enough to write about already.  : )

There are many good people in Urbana, including several liberal friends of mine who would be adversely impacted by something like this.   After thinking through my hypothetical, do you think liberals would come out and say it's wrong?  We all know it's perfectly acceptable to attack conservatives so long as it is convenient for them.   What if they took some of their own medicine?  

I had trouble just thinking about something like this.   It's just not my style.   I just hope the people hell-bent on attacking people who disagree with them would refrain from attacking and/or forcing.   It may be legal, but it's shady at best.

Just because I feel bad for even thinking about the boycott scenario, I'm going to suggest the readers patronize an Urbana business tonight.   I'll suggest the Great Impasta at Harold's new location in the Lincoln Square Mall.   The owner is local and a great guy.   He operates my favorite italian restaurant and I suspect you'll all feel the same way about Harold if you get the chance to meet him.

Disclaimer: I have no personal connection to the Great Impasta.   : )

Mayor Prussing's re-election web site touted “The Urbana Farmers Market is one of the best in the nation,” but forgot that it started 30 years ago. 

Now the mayor has a chance to do something to retain the character of Urbana's Farmers' market.   She can instruct city legal staff to ivestigate if seeking  an injunction to prevent the Public Health District from enforcing the recent ban is a possibility, and if so, have the the legal staff seek such.   Please email Ms Prussing urging her to take such action.

According to documents filed with the County Recorder, 508 W Elm was sold by the Urbana Development Group to Norman Baxley.  This was recorded on April 16th.   The document identifies Urbana Development Group as the Grantor. 

Document Number Referenced: 2009R10480

County Assessors information: http://www.co.champaign.il.us/rewebapp/Assessord.pgm?permno=92-21-17-110-025

Purchase Price: $171,489.   Original purchase price from Julian Gorski: $168,000.

UDG still listed as taxpayer on Assessor's website.

Is this just an administrative move?

Were they going to lose money on the project?   If this is the case, does the City of Urbana need to reconsider backing these types of proposed conversion projects?   I'm no expert, but I can't imagine how they would break even if they plan to convert the house and sell it to prospective buyer.  

Is anyone else as SHOCKED as I am that Norman Baxley's wife Carolyn sent threating emails trying to block the Julian's original deal with a developer and her husband ends up with the title?   : )

In case you are new to the site: you can get some background here and link to other related posts from the discussion section.