Heart of Peoria Commission votes to stay city-appointed

The Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) this morning unanimously approved of the Mayor’s plan to appoint HOPC commissioners to other city commissions including the Planning, Zoning, and Traffic commissions. However, it is also asking the council to maintain the HOPC’s status as a city-appointed commission. After carefully considering the pros and cons of continuing as either a private advocacy group or a public city commission, the HOPC members felt the city’s interests could be best served by remaining public.

The issue is scheduled to go before the City Council on June 5.

Tomorrow’s HOPC should be interesting

The Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) will be discussing its future tomorrow, and that future may be a short one.

There’s a plan on the table to decommission the HOPC, freeing the members to form their own private advocacy group if they so choose, just like many other successful not-for-profit groups (e.g., Peoria City Beautiful). The proposed plan would also appoint several of the current Heart of Peoria Commission members to other commissions, such as Planning, Zoning, Traffic, and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Some commissioners are already dual-appointed. The plan is scheduled to go before the City Council on June 5.

Since this may be the last regular Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) meeting ever as a city-appointed commission, I thought I’d post the meeting agenda in case anyone is interested in attending what could be an historic event:

CITY OF PEORIA
HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION MEETING
FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2007
CITY HALL, 419 FULTON STREET, SUITE 404
8:00 AM – 10:30 AM

AGENDA

All Agenda items are subject to possible action.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2007

3. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL FOR JUNE 5, 2007, CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: PAST, PRESENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE OF THE HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION; PENDING POTENTIAL UPSTREAM APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS OTHER CITY COMMISSIONS; TRANSITIONING; FUTURE ROLE(S), FORM AND ACTIVITIES OF THE HEART OF PEORIA COMMISSION AND RELATED MATTERS.

4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL RE: SEARCH FOR A NEW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO INSURE CANDIDATES ARE ATTUNED TO AND HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH CONTEXT SENSITIVE STREET DESIGN AND SUPPORT NEW URBANISTIC APPROACHES TO PUBLIC WORKS.

5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION, IF STILL NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE, ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK PLAN TO SUBMIT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7. NEW BUSINESS

8. COMMENTS: Public (5 minutes per person)

9. FUTURE MEETING(S)

10. ADJOURNMENT

Inquiries: Gene Lear, 309/494-8604

Notice that the future of the HOPC isn’t the only topic on the agenda. As possibly our final act, we will likely be passing a resolution outlining what qualifications we would like to see in the candidate who will succeed Steve Van Winkle as Director of Public Works when he retires later this year.

Even though the public comment period is listed at the end, if you ask ahead of time you might be granted the privilege of the floor earlier if you want to speak specifically to one of the issues on the agenda before we take action on it.

Park District unanimously approves settlement

At tonight’s Peoria Park Board meeting, the settlement terms of the Alms/Partridge lawsuit were approved unanimously. Here’s the text of the joint press release:

JOINT PRESS RELEASE OF PARTIES

Karrie E. Alms, Sara A. Partridge, and the Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria and its Trustees are announcing today the settlement of the lawsuit pending between them.

Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge filed suit against the Park District and its Trustees in May, 2006, alleging that the Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act in holding closed meetings on March 8 and 22, 2006, to discuss leasing to District 150 a portion of Glen Oak Park which, along with adjoining private property along Prospect Road, would serve as a site for a new school to replace the existing Glen Oak School.

That lawsuit was subsequently amended to add a count asserting that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act when an audiotape of the March 8 closed session was mistakenly deleted by a Park District employee.

Trial was scheduled in the case for May 17-18, 2007.

During the past few weeks, the parties, with the assistance of Chief Judge Richard Grawey, have met on several occasions to discuss a potential settlement of the case. Both sides have concluded that settlement terms exist which are acceptable to each and which would end the further expenditure of public and personal funds. Additionally, with the Park District’s decision not to move forward with the School District’s request for property, a significant focus of the suit is no longer present.

The terms of settlement offer more than an end to spending public dollars. They provide for improved policies and training at the Park District. They further provide for the Park District to make a partial payment of the attorney’s fees incurred by Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge in this suit. The Park District had conceded that the mistaken deletion of the March 8 tape was not proper under the Act and the Open Meetings Act allows for a recovery of attorneys fees by private parties in such circumstances.

The terms of the settlement are the following:

  1. All official Peoria Park District Board of Trustee meetings pertaining to the possible location of public school facilities partially or totally on Peoria Park District property shall be held in open session and otherwise in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
  2. The Park District will contact the Illinois Attorney General’s office to schedule training in Open Meetings Act compliance; the training will be conducted at times and places as soon as is convenient and in open session.
  3. The Park District will amend its official policy manual to reflect appropriate Open Meetings Act compliance procedures.
  4. The terms of this settlement agreement do not constitute an admission by the Defendant Peoria Park District or its Trustees that the closed meetings of the Board of Trustees on March 8 and March 22, 2006, were in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The terms of settlement do not constitute a concession by the Plaintiffs that the closed meetings were held in compliance of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
  5. The District shall pay to Plaintiffs $27,500, representing partial payment of their attorney fees and expenses.

Both sides are satisfied with the outcome and are pleased the suit is concluded.

File this one under, “You Can’t Fight City Hall.” It’s hard to wage a lawsuit against a public body that has an endless supply of public funds to expend and lots of legal tricks up their sleeve. The Park Board came out smelling like a rose in this settlement and it only cost them $27,500.

The question I have is, why did Alms and Partridge have to do what the state’s attorney should have been doing in the first place? The taxpayers pay the state’s attorney to prosecute cases like this; if he won’t prosecute, then who’s looking out for the taxpayers?

Park District lawsuit could be settled tonight

Park District LogoNeighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge sued the Peoria Park District last May for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they discussed a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session.

The OMA allows public bodies to meet in closed session only for narrowly-defined exceptions, one of which is the “setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body.” The argument is that since the Park Board was not setting a price for the property, but instead intended only to share the land, it did not fall under any exceptions and deliberations should have been held in public.

Fortunately, closed-session meetings have to be audiotaped, so in cases like this the judge can simply listen to the proceeding and determine whether or not the OMA was violated. Unfortunately, the Park Board secretary erased several closed-session tapes, including one pertinent to the lawsuit. That in itself was a violation of the OMA, and the judge declared it so. However, the board secretary was not prosecuted by the state’s attorney.

But the erased-tapes issue was an add-on to the original lawsuit. The main question is whether the Park District violated the OMA by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session. That case is still ongoing, but it could be settled out of court tonight.

At tonight’s Park Board meeting, one of the items on their agenda is “Discussion—Possible Approval of Negotiated Settlement re: Alms vs. Peoria Park District litigation.” I thought it was odd that this would be discussed in open session since pending litigation is approved by OMA to be discussed in closed session. According to Alms and Partridge’s attorney, the Park Board will discuss the proposed settlement in executive session, then bring it to the open session for approval, if appropriate. As to what the proposed settlement terms are, no one was willing to comment, of course.

Some may ask, why is this lawsuit still going on? Wasn’t it just an attempt to stop the school in the park plan, which was rejected anyway? Why is this still being pursued? And the answer is, this suit represents something much bigger and more important than just one’s feeling about the school in the park issue. It has to do with open government and the need to hold our elected officials accountable.

The public’s business should be done in public. That’s the basic principle. Now there are some very good reasons why a public body would need to meet out of the public eye for certain things, and Illinois law recognizes that fact. They call them “exceptions.” Exceptions to the rule — exceptions to the basic principle. They are to be defined narrowly and used judiciously. In fact, many lawsuits cause public outcry, especially if it concerns sex crimes. Learn more for sexual offenses and the way to protect your right.

If we let public bodies start stretching those exceptions, pretty soon things that should be done in public will be done behind closed doors, in secret, where no one is looking and no one can be held accountable. That’s not good for citizens and taxpayers. The Guide to the Open Meetings Act states that “public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.”

I’m disappointed that the state’s attorney chose not to pursue this apparent violation of the OMA by the Park District, and that it took private citizens putting up their own money to fight for open government.

Best wishes to Alms and Partridge in their efforts to get a favorable settlement tonight.

District 150 pulls conflict waiver; searches for new lawyer

Clare Jellick’s investigative reporting has impacted District 150. Jellick recently revealed that the same law firm was representing the school board and the Peoria Housing Authority (PHA), presenting a conflict of interest in the district’s desire to purchase 22 acres of land from the PHA.

Apparently as a result of her report (I highly doubt it was a coincidence), the district initially put a conflict waiver on the agenda for Monday’s school board meeting, but then the waiver was pulled from the agenda, and apparently the school district is now looking at procuring independent legal representation for the land deal. Kudos to Clare for her good work!

Firefly loan guarantee high compared to similar programs

Firefly LogoTonight, the City Council will be discussing whether to offer a somewhat unique incentive to a local private business. Firefly Energy needs a loan, and they’ve been unable to secure it through the Small Business Administration (Caterpillar owns 35% of Firefly, hence they’re not small enough for an SBA loan) or Industrial Revenue Bonds (also ineligible).

So the plan is for National City to provide them a loan that would be secured by their equipment and a loan guarantee from the City of Peoria and Peoria County. For the City’s part, they are wanting to pledge $3.3 million in utility tax receipts.

This is organized more or less just like a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. The SBA doesn’t directly loan money, but rather acts as guarantor, which reduces the risk for private financing companies and allow loans to be made that otherwise would not be approved. “The policy question for Council,” the council communication states, “is whether the City of Peoria should guarantee private debt to encourage economic development. Furthermore, if this approach is used what should be the guidelines for assistance? City and County staff could develop guidelines if the Council so desired.”

I expect this to be the question that gets the most discussion. This kind of incentive has apparently not been used before by the City. If the City approves using it tonight, you can bet they’ll be asked for such assistance again. What kind of precedent, if any, does this vote set? There are two parts to any precedent that may be set: (1) The use of this incentive at all, and (2) how much money they’re willing to guarantee.

It’s common for loan guarantees to be provided at the state level, but not as common for cities. My efforts at Googling such a situation at the city level only turned up one city that provides such incentives: New Brunswick, New Jersey. They’re a city of about 49,000 residents, and their program works like this:

New Brunswick provides a 50% guaranty to loans made through the program with participating banks. The guaranty permits banks to make loans they would otherwise decline. The borrower gets access to capital at reasonable rates.The Economic Development staff will also assist business owners in developing a business plan for presenting their loan ideas to bankers or hard money lenders.

Loan Term: 1-7 years
Loan Rate: Prime + 2 points. The rate is fixed at the time of closing
Loan Amounts: $25,000 – $150,000

I called the Peoria City Manager’s office and also talked to the Economic Development department, but neither of them could provide the names of other cities that provide similar programs. I didn’t talk directly to City Manager Randy Oliver, however, so it’s certainly possible he knows of other cities.

What I found interesting was the amount of the loan they guarantee in New Brunswick — the upper limit is only $150,000. According to this website, the average loan guarantee in Michigan’s Capital Access Program is $53,000. California’s Small Business Loan Guarantee Program “cover[s] up to 90% of the loan amount, with the guaranteed portion of the loan not exceeding $500,000.” Here in Peoria, we’re talking about $3.3 million — and that’s only the City’s share. The County is putting up an equal amount for a total guarantee of $6.6 million!

I’d like to see Firefly Energy stay in Peoria, and I’m not against providing them incentives, but this seems to be a rather large loan guarantee when compared to other state and local programs I could find. Considering the County won’t take up this issue until June, I would suggest the City not vote on it tonight. Discuss it, think it over, consider the ramifications, take up the staff’s offer to write up guidelines — this is too big to rush into.

Anyone know a cheap forensic pathologist?

Peoria County is looking for one. Jonathan Ahl is reporting on his blog that the new $300,000 Peoria County morgue was supposed to open a year ago, but has been held up by the county’s inability to find a forensic pathologist who would work for the salary the county is offering.

It’s a shame. Here they have a huge empty building that people are just dying to get into…. Sorry, I couldn’t resist….

(If you’d like to comment on this story, please go to Jonathan’s blog.)