Giant screen theater decision to be announced in spring

According to the Peoria Riverfront Museum’s February 2011 report, a final decision will be made by spring on whether to contract with IMAX as they promised the voters in no uncertain terms, or renege on their promise and go with another brand:

The PRM Board of Directors continues its due diligence as it works to select the appropriate technology for the museum’s giant screen digital theater. In January 2011, a number of board members and staff attended the Moody Gardens Digital Cinema Symposium in Galveston, Texas, in order to evaluate potential vendors. They viewed side?by?side comparisons of digital and analog films, attended presentations and engaged in conversations with a variety of companies that manufacture equipment, produce content, develop projector and 3?D technology, and integrate systems to ensure that our decision is optimal for the audience and business plan.

We are still evaluating a wide variety of equipment suppliers and system integrators, and we have many outstanding candidates. Our decision will be based on quality, flexibility, upfront and operating expenses and revenue opportunities. We expect to announce our plans for the theater this spring.

The monthly report also states that “Many people have started to pay on their pledges,” but gives no specifics. According to the county’s Finance Committee information from February 24, the museum has only received approximately 30% of its promised pledges to date. The County had originally promised that construction wouldn’t start until all the pledges had been received.

Some board changes were also announced: “Sally Owens has joined the PRM Board of Directors, replacing Jane Converse. Jane and her organization will continue to provide marketing support to the PRM. Cal MacKay will become the board secretary/treasurer, replacing Andy Herrera. Herrera resigned due to time constraints and other business commitments.”

Moving grant funds will require new application

The Journal Star reported on February 25 that, due to lower construction bids on the Peoria Riverfront Museum, taxpayers will save “the additional $4 million that otherwise would have gone to interest payments on bonds, county officials said. In addition, the county is now able to slide $3 million in grant funding from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity [DCEO] to the museum group to help build exhibits inside the museum, County Administrator Patrick Urich said.”

The county’s application for the DCEO grant specifically stated that it was to be used for the parking garage portion of the project. If the county wishes to “slide $3 million in grant funding” to build exhibits inside the museum, they are going to have to reapply for the grant with a new scope of work. According to County Administrator Patrick Urich, the county sent in their new application last week. Nevertheless, the county’s Finance Committee approved a resolution moving $3 million of the DCEO funds to the “non-building” portion of the project. The county has not received any funds from the DCEO grant as yet.

Certain “durable movable equipment” is considered a “bondable expenditure” under the grant guidelines. According to Mr. Urich, “exhibit construction” would fall under this category. The grant application specifically lists the following as examples of expenditures that could be approved: “Art-in-architectural art, heavy duty fire protection apparatus, office and household equipment and furniture, machinery and implements, scientific instruments and apparatus with the exception of those with short useful life.” Specific examples of expenditures that would not be approved are: “commodities; library books, maps and paintings other than those purchased with the Art-in-Architecture Program; livestock; rolling-stock including cars, trucks, boats and related items; spare and replacement parts; items such as glassware, crockery, etc.; computers, related equipment and software.”

The cost of removing snow

Last week, the City of Peoria issued this press release:

“The City of Peoria incurred expenses of $554,671 in combating and managing the 15″ snow storm and blizzard conditions of February 1 and 2, 2011. Clean-up continued throughout the balance of the week. The majority of expenses, $541,000, were incurred by the Public Works Department, and included payment of $192,000 to private contractors to manage and remove snow in a timely and safe manner. The Illinois Emergency Management Administration will be reviewing these expenses to determine the level of reimbursement to the City.

As a matter of interest, we note that the combination of severe ice and sleet storm of 2-3 inches on November 30, 2006, coupled with the following 13” inches of snow and rapidly dropping temperatures on December 1, onward resulted in total expenses of $290,329. Public Works expenses were $274,000 (numbers rounded).

Public Works Department’s redesigned snow routes and increased pre-event planning, plus the use of private contractors during the February 1 blizzard, resulted in quicker response and clean-up compared to the 2006 storm. However, these two storms were much different from one another in terms of the 2006 pre-snow ice build-up and then dramatic temperature drop.

The Journal Star ran an article with some additional cost breakdowns.

This seems like a good time to remind everyone how city planning and development have contributed to these high costs. A 2007 Six Sigma project report found that “The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years [2000-2007] and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed,” but that, “No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.” In other words, as the City has grown in land mass, not enough attention has been given to the cost of providing City services to these new areas. When the City annexes land or builds new roads, you never hear any discussion about the costs of maintaining and clearing them, or the cost of providing additional police and fire protection.

After the report came out, the City initially increased the number of snow routes from 25 to 26. But due to budget cuts in 2009, the number of snow routes was cut back to 23, and there were some layoffs. According to a 12/11/2009 article in the Journal Star, “The route reductions and job cuts resulted in $222,500 in savings.” One wonders what the net savings have been this winter, given the cost of hiring private contractors, renting additional equipment, and paying overtime to the City’s plow drivers.

Guest Editorial: Response to Riggenbach’s East Village TIF article

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Frederick E. Smith, a resident of the East Bluff. It’s a response to Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s Spotlight article that appeared in the Journal Star over the weekend. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

I read yesterday’s comments by Councilman Riggenbach in the Journal Star and honestly had to wonder if we were looking at the same EVGC TIF. There were many half-truths that need to be cleared up if this TIF is to be considered fairly.

Yes, the City of Peoria has established a Citizens Advisory Council that serves at the pleasure of his honor the Mayor. This council consists of two City representatives, one County representative, one District 150 representative, two OSF representatives, and three members at large, one from each of the affected City Council areas, who are also appointed by the Mayor, and not by their respective Neighborhood Associations. This Advisory Committee “shall only serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council.” So not only are the neighborhood representatives outvoted 2 to 1 by the government and business members, but the committee itself lacks any authority whatsoever as to the outcome of the decision to implement the TIF. [East Village Growth Cell Committee Project Charter November 23, 2010]

And yes, Tim, State Law is very specific about the requirements to establish a TIF, and also about how the funds may be used once it is established. As confirmed by Corporate Counsel Randall Ray at the “TIF 101” meeting when Mr. Combs from Springfield spoke, the City Council may use TIF funds from one area to pay for projects in other areas, at their discretion. In other words, the City Council might decide to use TIF funds to pay off other things, like the failed MidTown Plaza TIF you mentioned. Once enacted, the area residents who are paying the bills (myself included) will have no say in how that money is spent. There is no guarantee that the money will end up going to the projects you mentioned, like the rehabilitation of private homes on the East Bluff. And speaking of that, since we already live in a Special Service Area where the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (a 501 (c) (3) organization that intends to spend 48% of it’s 2011 budget in salaries) receives a sizable amount of tax dollars ($64,987.24 in 2009, up from $57,972.76 in 2008, the 2010 budget is not on file yet.) to provide low interest housing improvement loans to residents of the East Bluff (which according to the Board of Directors at their last meeting they have not done for the last two years), will these funds be added to the TIF funds instead, or will we be asked to contribute duplicate taxes to the City in order to complete the $42,585,488.00 in infrastructure needs and the $22,000,000.00 in rehabilitation of public and private fixtures as described on page 16 and page 1 of Appendix E of the Teska report? (By the way, Tim, if my banker was off by $10,414,512.00 in his estimates, I would be changing banks pretty quick.)

Last, but certainly not least, is the claim that no big project is pushing the development of the EVGC TIF. One look at the map shows the boundaries were deliberately drawn to include OSF St. Francis Medical complex and the entire Knoxville business corridor in the TIF. If this was only about the East Bluff, why not just stop at the Glen Oak border, go up Armstrong to Pennsylvania and straight across to Knoxville? Oh, wait, that would include the White School property that was recently acquired by OSF, wouldn’t it? The fact of the matter is that OSF intends to be a major player in the way this project is run, and will definitely require a substantial amount of public money to “improve” the area around OSF. Why else are they deserving of two seats on the Advisory Committee? Why else have they been vocal and present at every meeting? Their interests may have nothing to do with the desires of the residents of the East Bluff. Their interests haven’t been publicly aired, and until they are, we have no idea of how much money they will expect, or what they intend to do.

Yes, there is a possibility that the TIF might “turn around” the East Bluff area, make into the neighborhood we would like it to be, but the key to that is transparency and honesty, not half-truths and sleight of hand descriptions.

Guest Editorial: Peoria’s Song

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Margaret E. Cousin, Vice-President of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation. It was also published as a Spotlight article that appeared in the Journal Star over the weekend. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

I talk a lot about buildings that sing. Their loveliness creates a special kind of music that stirs a powerful response in me. Most often it’s old buildings that do this. Perhaps this is because they have those special ingredients of historic importance and architectural uniqueness that evoke an awareness of and perspective on our past.

We all cherish family heirlooms and consider ourselves fortunate if they pass down to us. They are the remaining tangible evidence of people whose stories we know, who contributed to our own evolution of identity and character. Who among us would go into the attic of a beloved relative and throw treasures away without serious, measured regard for their intrinsic value and the consequences of their loss? Our city is no different. It is our larger family. It is our greater history. It has a legacy of its own.

During several glorious autumn weekends in 2009, I made the photo album and spreadsheet that identify some of the structures in Peoria with local designation potential. They represent a portion of our extant historic stock, an astounding percent having already been destroyed. As a CLG (Certified Local Government), Peoria is required to maintain an effective historic preservation program for the identification and protection of historic resources. Not only should such a survey have been done at some point in the last 20 years to fulfill our standing with the State of Illinois, but the survey process should be ongoing. This “list” wasn’t meant to target or threaten, although it was perceived as such and was, ironically enough, produced at the request of the City Council. It was meant to identify the most significant and meaningful of our structures. These examples, sprinkled throughout our core city and gracing our streetscapes, are the singular visual and cultural inheritance of our forefathers. They are the heirlooms in our attic.

The project stirred up such consternation that it helped trigger the events which resulted in the City Council’s February 8, 2011 vote to monumentally alter our historic preservation ordinance. The Council voluntarily relinquished its role in the necessary, active process of historic preservation, a process aimed at protecting our cultural heritage. Preservation accomplishes a very pertinent and vital goal, that of promoting tourism, assuring stable neighborhoods and enhanced property values via strong historic districts, and cultivating sustained economic activity in Peoria’s center. The decision to abdicate participation in anything other than mandatory owner consent landmark cases, which are by their nature benign rather than challenging, opened the door for demolition at will. Of any or all of our most noteworthy vintage elements, possibly too old-fashioned, too worn out, too costly to be viewed as viable by their present custodians. With such an ordinance in place, Easton Mansion would not have risen from its ashes like a phoenix under the loving care of Jane Converse, nor would the beautifully restored and successful adaptive reuse of the Musicians Hall, Busey Bank, grace Kumpf Boulevard.

By making no provision for any other entity to fill the footprints it has vacated, the Council also left a critical vacuum with no representative of the community’s interests able to act on behalf of those interests. Compounding this with the directive that put the “onus” for owner education on preservationists turned what had been a collaborative effort into a lonely endeavor moving forward. “Unpleasant burden” is the literal definition of that word, and it is discouraging to think of our designation efforts and achievements in those terms.

We will be as good as the best of our decisions or as mediocre as the worst. We will sink, or we will soar. Shall we be a city whose claim to fame is what we used to have? Sad, nostalgic mentions on one of the Peoria Historical Society’s delightful and educational trolley tours? I want my Peoria skyline to include inspiring profiles from the past as well as contemporary testaments to the future. I want my elected officials to aspire to take part in that process through a restored ordinance. Not just celebrating the landmark after someone else has persuaded and researched and presented it, but in concerted partnership to promote and preserve the surviving, remarkable historic resources we cannot afford to lose. Therein lies the true vision, the true victory. For the City Council, for preservationists, and for Peoria.