At-large councilman Gary Sandberg, who was removed from the first district ballot last week by the Peoria Election Commission, has petitioned the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court for a review of that ruling.
Sandberg argues in his petition that a requirement that “aldermen” reside in their “ward” for one year prior to the next election does not apply to councilmen in the Council/Manager form of government.
You can read the petition here (PDF format):
Just minutes before Peoria’s Board of Election Commissioners voted to remove Gary Sandberg’s name from the first district ballot, Sandberg told the Peoria Chronicle, “If I am disallowed I will appeal to circuit court.”
Published reports so far have not detailed which part of the municipal code was cited by the Election Commission in making their decision. The Journal Star, for instance, just says, “Commissioners cited municipal code that states a candidate has to live for one year in the district in which he or she runs for office.”
Updates will be made to this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE (12/18/2012): Despite having asked for a copy of the ruling a week ago, the Election Commission would not release it. However, I was able to get a copy from Sandberg. Incidentally, Sandberg asked for it to be emailed to him and signed a document to that effect with the Election Commission, but they wouldn’t email him a copy. They sent it regular mail. It’s unclear why the commission chose this tactic of deliberate and unnecessary delays in releasing public information that was already announced at a public meeting a week ago. I guess just to show us peasants who the lord of the fiefdom is.
The analysis I provided in a previous post was basically correct, except that I missed one thing. You’ll recall that I was unsure how 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(c) would be interpreted, since it used the terminology of “alderman” and “ward,” and our form of government is council-manager which uses the terms “councilman” and “district.” The answer is found in 65 ILCS 5/1-1-2(8), which states: “Wherever the words ‘city council,’ ‘aldermen,’ ‘commissioners,’ or ‘mayor’ occur, the provisions containing these words shall apply to the board of trustees, trustees, and president, respectively of villages and incorporated towns and councilmen in cities, so far as those provisions are applicable to them.” Based on that, the election commission determined that the one-year residency requirement for aldermen also applies to councilmen.
So far, Sandberg has not filed an appeal to the Circuit Court.
First district city council candidates Denise Moore and Randall Emert have filed formal objections to Gary Sandberg’s bid to run for the same office. They both claim that Sandberg does not meet the residency requirement per the state’s election code.
Emert’s Challenge
Emert’s challenge is simple: he says, “It is my understanding, that under law, a person has to have lived for one year at an address within the district a person files to run for in an election, such as City Council District seat. I maintain that Mr. Sandberg has not lived at his current address since November 26th, 2011.”
Illinois’ election code is confusing and contradictory — some would say purposefully so. As a result, it’s nearly impossible to do a “plain reading” of the code and draw any solid conclusions. Emert does not cite any specific Illinois statute, but merely repeats what has been published in the Journal Star: “According to an Illinois State Board of Elections representative, it appears Sandberg has to live at what he declares to be his home address for at least one year prior to the filing deadline, which this year was Nov. 26.” As with Emert’s challenge, the newspaper also does not cite any specific portion of the election code to back up this assertion, nor do they publish the name of the ISBE representative who provided this information.
Given that, let’s see if we can find what the residency requirement is. If you look at the 2013 Candidates Guide published by the Illinois State Board of Elections, you will see that there are four types of municipal governments covered on pages 21-30: Commission Form, Mayor-Alderman, President-Trustee, and Council-Manager. Peoria’s form of government is Council-Manager, so page 28 covers our elections.
Note first that it says: “The council-manager form is the only form of municipal government covered (for election of officers) by Article 5 of 65 ILCS/5.” So here we have a definite citation from the State’s municipal code. If you take the time to read through this code, you will find this section:
65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3
Sec. 5-2-18.3. Selection of part of council at large and part from districts. If a city elects to choose part of the city council at large and part from districts, then the following provisions of this Section shall be applicable. The term of office of the mayor and councilman shall be 4 years, and the election of the mayor and councilmen shall be every 4 years after the first election. In addition to the requirements of the general election law, the ballots shall be in the form set out in Section 5-2-18.4 and 5-2-18.5. Sections 4-3-5 through 4-3-18, insofar as they may be applicable, shall govern the election of a mayor and councilmen under this Section.
(Source: P.A. 87-1119.)
Without getting into too much detail, suffice it to say that the sections cited do not require a councilman to live in a district for a year before he can run for office in that district. It does, however, require that he live within the district. 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.7¶8 states, “One councilman who is an actual resident of the district, shall be elected from each district. Only the electors of a district shall elect a councilman from that district.” Getting back to the Candidates Guide, it has a section on page 28 that specifically states what the length of residency requirement is:
One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election. If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person’s spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement.
[65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5]
As you can see, there is no requirement stated here that one has to live in the district for a year before becoming eligible to run for district councilman. But we have another municipal code citation: 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5. I won’t quote the whole thing, but I will quote section (c) so we can see if this applies:
A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.
Now here’s where it will be interesting to see how the board of elections interprets this. It would appear to me that this section does not apply to our form of government. It applies to “the office of alderman,” but that is not the same as the office of city councilman. Considering the Candidates Guide makes a clear distinction between the Mayor-Alderman and Council-Manager forms of government, it would appear that this provision of the code only applies to the Mayor-Alderman form of government. Section (a), on the other hand, applies to all municipal offices:
A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.
Notice the difference in wording. It doesn’t say “alderman” here, but “elective municipal office,” which would apply to all forms of government. If section (c) had been intended to apply to all forms of government, it is reasonable to assume they would have used the same wording. Since they didn’t, it appears they intended to make a distinction in section (c) that is different from section (a). Section (a), just as the Candidates Guide indicated, says that candidates for elective office must have lived in the municipality for a year, but does not specify that they have to have resided within the district for a year.
Moore’s Challenge
Moore’s challenge to Sandberg’s residency is more sophisticated. She writes:
I intend to show that Mr. Sandberg could not and does not reside at the 1213 SW Adams street address listed on his Statement of Candidacy petition, and that his eligibility based upon his residency is not compliant with Illinois State Statute [65 ILCS 5/3.1-10.5]
The objections are grounded by information found in the State of Illinois Candidate’s Guide for 2013, Council-Manager Form of Government-Municipal; (page 28)
- Office: Mayor, Councilmen-at-large (and part from districts in some cities), Clerk, Treasurer.
- Residency: “One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election”.
With the acknowledgment of the wording “and part from districts in some cities”…I contend that ‘municipality’ in this case refers to the district in question and not the entire city as would be the case for an At-large race.
There’s a problem with her logic here. The phrase, “and part from districts in some cities,” is a reference to 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3, which was quoted above. The purpose of that phrase is not to restrict the meaning of “municipality,” as Moore contends, but rather to acknowledge that some cities with a Council-Manager form of government elect all their councilmen at large, and some cities elect part of their council at-large and part from districts.
She continues:
These objections are based upon my belief that:
- Mr. Sandberg does not reside at the address listed on the petition filed for office of 1st District City Council.
- Mr. Sandberg has not met the length of residency requirement outlined in state statute.
- Mr. Sandberg’s Bigelow address was not impacted by the recent Redistricting.
We have already dealt with objection 2, as this is the same as Emert’s objection. Objection 3 is moot if there is no district residency requirement. So the only new objection here is Objection 1. Moore says:
Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star. Mr. Sandberg states the property listed on his petition is “intended to be home for his son when he’s in the United States”. This would make Mr. Sandberg a temporary visitor rather than a permanent occupant. In addition, the property, like those adjacent to it, appear to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant.
We’ve learned quite a bit about what it takes to establish residency here in Illinois, thanks to Rahm Emmanuel’s mayoral run in Chicago not that long ago. There’s also another recent case (2005) that deals with residency, People v. Baumgartner. This appellate court ruling stated:
[B]ecause eligibility to run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a particular jurisdiction, we will use the definition of “residence” as used within the Election Code for voter registration. […]
Two elements are necessary to create a “residence” for voter registration purposes: physical presence and an intent to remain there as a permanent resident. Delk v. Board of Election Commissioners, 112 Ill. App. 3d 735, 738, 445 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (1983). […] To change residence, “there must be, both in fact and intention, an abandonment of the former residence and a new domicile acquired by actual residence, coupled with the intention to make it a permanent home.” Welsh v. Shumway, 232 Ill. 54, 77, 83 N.E. 549, 559 (1907).
If Sandberg has moved his voter registration and personal belongings to this new residence and is actually living there, as newspaper accounts indicate, then it would appear that he is a resident of that address in that district for the purposes of being a candidate for City Council.
That the building “appear[s] to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant” is a valid challenge. It’s possible that an inspection could be done to determine if the property can, in fact, support a tenant, and perhaps Sandberg could be asked to produce witnesses who will attest to him in fact living there.
However, Moore goes off track in saying that because Sandberg does not actually own the building, he cannot be a resident. In addition to quoting Sandberg’s statement to the Journal Star, she continues:
In addition, the most recent information (dated 11/27/2012 attached) provided by the Peoria County Assessors’ office indicates the address in question, 1213 SW Adams Street, is owned by Sue D. Johnson, not Mr. Sandberg. […] Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star indicate the property was purchased in the summer of 2012. As such, Mr. Sandberg could not have lived at the address for the required 12-months as outlined int he state statute cited above.
Mrs. Moore may be surprised to learn that many of the residents in her district do not actually own the home in which they live. They might be surprised to learn that Mrs. Moore does not consider them “residents” because of this. The point is, one can reside in a home without owning it. The ownership of the property can even be transferred while a tenant continues to occupy that property. So appeals to the property’s ownership are completely immaterial in this case.
Conclusion
As stated earlier, the state’s election rules are difficult to decipher. Emert and Moore could very well prevail in their challenge based on an interpretation or conflicting statute I haven’t been able to contemplate. But based on my layman’s reading of the materials available, it appears there is a requirement that a candidate live in the district he seeks to represent, and there is a requirement that a candidate live in the municipality for a year in order to be eligible to run for council, but there is apparently no requirement that a candidate live in a specific district within that municipality for a specified period of time before he is eligible to run for district councilman.
And that, ultimately, is the point. Candidates for City Council are not experts in state election law, nor should they be required to be. They read the information available to them and do their best to abide by the rules as they understand them. Sandberg was also quoted in the media as saying that he read the Candidates Guide and saw no district residency requirement. If it turns out there is one, perhaps the State Board of Elections should rewrite their Candidates Guide to make that clear, so no other well-meaning candidates get led astray.
Note: The post above has been revised to remove ambiguity. Specifically, I have tried to make it clearer that there is a residency requirement, but there is apparently no length of residency required in the district to be eligible to run as a district councilman.
More residential parcels will become parking lots for the Main Street Commons development following the City Council’s 8-2 vote Tuesday night. The student apartment complex at Main Street and Bourland Avenue was granted approval to add 32 more apartment units to the existing 88 units and nearly double the number of off-street parking spaces from 97 to 182.
The plan, which violates the letter and spirit of the Land Development Code, was agreed to by City staff, the Zoning Commission, and the majority of the City Council. The plan was opposed by the University East Neighborhood Association and council members Akeson and Sandberg.
And they say Peoria isn’t “business friendly.” The Zoning Commission approved the plan even though the developer stood in front of them and admitted that he didn’t respond to the neighborhood association’s request to have him explain his plan to them. Second district council member Barbara Van Auken, who is seeking reelection next spring, made the motion to approve on the Council floor in spite of opposition to the project from the neighbors she represents.
Whither the West Main Form District?
What’s especially disappointing about this latest addition to Main Street Commons’ special use permit is that this project is set in one of the City’s four form districts — areas with very specific form-based codes. Form-based codes are used to combat urban sprawl — to proscribe built environments like the very one being created by Main Street Commons. This code was put together following a long process of public involvement and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the area.
But form-based codes only work if they’re followed. In this case, certain limits within the code have been consistently overridden by the Zoning Commission and the Council to the detriment of the neighborhood.
The buildings that front Main Street, according to the code, can be up to 5 stories tall, but as you move away from Main Street and into the adjoining neighborhood, the building mass is supposed to diminish. The code permits structures to be built along Bourland (going north from Main) to be 2-3 stories high and have frontage that does not extend further than 130 feet. The structure the council is allowing will be 4 stories high and extend 200 feet. This does not sufficiently taper the building mass into the neighborhood.
Another purpose behind the limits on building mass is to provide enough room on and around the block for parking. By increasing the mass of the building, additional parking needs are generated, and that has led to the razing of houses in the adjoining neighborhood to make way for surface parking lots. As of Tuesday night, two more parcels were added for conversion to surface lots. This again violates the letter and spirit of the code. Two of the goals of the parking requirements are to “reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, single-purpose reserved parking,” and, “avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the form districts.” This special use does just the opposite.
The code also requires alleys, but in a subsequent vote the Council vacated the existing alleys in the block being developed by Main Street Commons.
In short, the Land Development Code was once again eviscerated, treated like it doesn’t exist. The protections for neighborhoods were overruled and a development that could have been a welcome addition and stabilizing force has instead turned into an encroaching, destabilizing force in the University East neighborhood because it’s being allowed to grow unchecked by the very public bodies that are supposed to be representing the residents of Peoria.
Salt Lake City takes a different, better approach
The very same night the Peoria City Council voted to allow houses in an urban neighborhood to be razed to make way for a surface parking lot, the City Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, banned demolishing buildings to create parking lots. Furthermore, they are considering an ordinance that “would require property owners to keep vacant buildings and houses ‘habitable’ — fit to live or work in. It would allow for demolition only after a property owner submits plans for a replacement structure and obtains a building permit.”
Why? Because they recognize that just razing buildings does not stabilize an area. Take a look on the South Side or East Bluff in Peoria. There are lots of empty lots where houses have been razed. But has that really helped the neighborhood? There are certainly some advantages to such a strategy if the property was an eyesore, safety hazard, or haven for drug dealers. But ultimately, replacing run-down structures with vacant lots (often weed-infested) and surface parking do nothing to increase property values or attract new people to the neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods with multiple missing houses look like a smile with missing teeth: not attractive.
It’s a shame more progressive policies against blight can’t be enacted — and enforced — here in Peoria. It’s a shame we don’t enforce the existing policies that residents already worked so hard to enact.
A person in the City Council gallery Tuesday, frustrated with the Council on another issue that affects a neighborhood in the third district, asked rhetorically if the City Council represents the residents or the developers. I think we all know the answer to that question.
PEORIA — You may have noticed that your water bill is $13 cheaper lately. That’s because the so-called “garbage fee,” which used to be collected for the City by Illinois American Water Company, is no longer included on your water bill.
But now a separate bill for garbage collection is coming soon to your mailbox.
“On October 30, 2012, the City Council approved an agreement with First Tech, a subsidiary of Busey Bank, to manage the billing services for the refuse collection fee,” City Manager Patrick Urich said via email. “We will be mailing out bills shortly, and they will be going to property owners (not tenants).”
Only residential property owners will receive garbage collection bills. Commercial, industrial and non-profit properties contract separately for garbage collection service, so they are not charged for residential waste service, which is provided by Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) under a contract with the City of Peoria. “This is why it wasn’t recommended to be a property tax-supported service,” Urich explained.
One question that has been raised by residents is how payment of this fee will be enforced. Under the old system, non-payment could result in water service being shut off. The new system doesn’t have such an obvious enforcement mechanism.
“We have been reviewing all of our options,” Urich said, “including stopping trash collection, placing liens, or including non-payment in the State Comptroller’s Local Debt Recovery Program that would allow us to intercept any income tax refund if monies are owed to us.”
Another question that has been voiced in the community is why PDC doesn’t bill residents for garbage collection directly, which would save the City money on the cost of billing, which is estimated to be as much as $160,000 per year.
Urich says that “the fee is ours (the City’s),” not PDC’s. “If we did not have a contract with PDC to collect waste and dispose of it, each individual would be responsible for it (like the unicorporated county).” In other words, the contract is between PDC and the City, not PDC and individual property owners. Thus, if the City wants to recoup its costs, it must bear the cost of billing property owners.
If individuals were to contract individually with a waste collection company, Urich added, “the cost could be considerably higher.”
Monday was the first day mayoral and city council candidates could file to have their names placed on the ballot for the Feb. 26, 2013, primary election, and several candidates were there when the election commission doors opened.
Turning in nomination petitions for mayor was incumbent mayor Jim Ardis. He currently has no opponent since at-large councilman Chuck Weaver decided not to run.
In the first district, Denise Moore and Randall Emert, Sr. filed petitions. Incumbent Clyde Gulley is not running for reelection to the council, but he was at the election commission Monday morning; he will be running against incumbent Joseph Whalen for Township Supervisor. Whalen is running as a Republican, Gulley as a Democrat. (Council races are non-partisan.)
In the second district, incumbent council representative Barbara Van Auken filed her petitions. She will be opposed by former at-large councilman Chuck Grayeb, who also filed Monday morning.
In the third district, only incumbent Tim Riggenbach filed petitions.
In the fourth district, former city inspections department manager John Kunski filed. Incumbent Bill Spears has announced he will not be seeking reelection. I’ve heard that former at-large councilman Jim Montelongo will also be running in the fourth district, but he has not yet filed as of Tuesday morning, according to the list I received from the election commission.
In the fifth district, incumbent Dan Irving has filed. Two challengers have announced, but only one was there to file his petitions: Dan Adler.
City Clerk Beth Ball filed her petitions. This will be her first election. She finished the term of Mary Haynes upon her retirement. City Treasurer Patrick Nichting filed his petitions for reelection as well.
Candidates have until Nov. 26 to file.
The new Peoria Riverfront Museum opened last month, and a generous friend of mine gave me four free passes to encourage me to see it for myself. I took my kids on Saturday, Nov. 10, around 12:15 and we stayed until the museum closed at 5. It was fairly well-attended; I saw perhaps one to two hundred people while we were there.
The Exterior
We parked at Riverfront Village and walked across Water Street to the museum block. There is no entrance from Water Street, so visitors approaching from this side either have to circle the block or do what we did: climb the bare concrete stairs and cross the open space between the museum and the Caterpillar visitor center.
The pedestrian experience on Water Street is truly regrettable. The building is set back from the street over 100 feet. Between the street and the building is a berm, the aforementioned stairs, and the bare concrete air vents for the underground parking garage. Behind that — a half block away — the museum monolith rises above the landscape with its cold, gray, metallic siding.
Once you climb the stairs, there is a welcome surprise: the open space between the museum and Caterpillar visitor center is paved with bricks instead of concrete. Brick pavement provides a permeable membrane; that is, rainwater can pass between the bricks to the ground beneath, reducing runoff into the storm sewers. From the museum’s promotional material, it appears that water runoff is channeled to small gardens/plantings around the site.
The Entrance and the Theater
We entered the museum through the front doors that face Washington Street, through a large lobby, and up to the front desk. There were a lot of workers throughout the museum, and they were all very pleasant and helpful. We handed over our free passes and were each given a wristband that gave us access to all the exhibits and the planetarium, but not the “giant screen” theater. Had we paid for admission, it would have cost us $32.30 ($9.35 for adults, $7.65 for children) because we’re Peoria County residents and would enjoy a 15 percent discount. Normal price is $11 for adults and $9 for children.
I learned that the 15 percent discount for Peoria County residents does not apply to the “giant screen” theater. Everyone must pay full-price, which is $10 for adults and $8 for children. That came to $34 for me and my three children to see a 45-minute movie (“Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure” in 3D), plus the cost of popcorn and drinks. The museum workers really touted the size of the screen before starting the movie, specifically comparing it to the comparatively smaller IMAX theater at Rave Motion Pictures by the Shoppes at Grand Prairie. The museum group originally promised the public an IMAX theater that would show first-run Hollywood films, but then switched to a little-known brand (Global Immersion) showing primarily educational films once taxpayers had approved a referendum to help build the museum.
The screen was indeed very large (70 feet wide by 52 feet high), and the picture quality from the 4K (4096 x 2160 pixels) digital projector was superb. The audio system was designed by Legacy Audio, a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment. In fact, the president and founder of Legacy Audio, Bill Dudleston, actually designed this system specifically for integration with Global Immersion’s theater installations. I’ve heard Legacy speakers before because my uncle is an audiophile and used to sell their speakers. They have a very good reputation, and the sound in the theater was fantastic.
However, without the IMAX brand, and without first-run movies (or any Hollywood films, at present), this state-of-the-art theater is not going to draw many people. It’s a pretty hard sell to bring the family out for a 45-minute educational film at first-run theater prices. Fewer paid admissions means the museum will be hard-pressed to break even, given their pro forma operating budget.
The Exhibits
The museum is billed as “interdisciplinary,” and its mission is “to inspire lifelong learning for all — connecting art, history, science and achievement through collections, exhibitions and programs.” To that end, the museum includes the following exhibits: IHSA Peak Performance (achievement), “The Illinois River Encounter” (science), “The Street” and African American Wall of Fame (history), and International Feature Gallery (art). The planetarium and the aforementioned large-screen theater also add to the science portion (predominantly) of the museum.
We actually went to the theater later in the day. The first thing we did after getting our wristbands was to visit the Illinois High School Association’s Peak Performance gallery. It included a number of interactive displays that my kids thoroughly enjoyed. In fact, they could have spent the whole day in this one area and been content. We visited it about three times altogether. Their favorite displays were the ones where you see how high you can jump, how fast your reaction time is, how well you can balance, and how fast you can throw a baseball.
In the Illinois River Encounter, most of our time was spent in a room with a model of a river channel where you can manipulate sand and water to see how silt and sediment affects the flow of water down the river. The kids really enjoyed this interactive feature. My son also liked the display on the sinking of the Columbia, a steamboat that sank near Creve Coeur in 1918. There were several parts of the displays that were unfinished. For instance, there’s a small aquarium where fish from the Illinois river will be displayed, but it was not up and running yet.
Next, we went to “The Street” and, since I’m interested in Peoria history, I spent the most time here. The kids breezed through the exhibits pretty quickly, but spent most of their time in a side room with interactive displays that appeared to be designed to keep the kids occupied while adults looked at the exhibits. They looked at small objects through a high-powered microscope, put together model cars and raced them down a track, and fit magnetic gears together on a large board and spun them.
“The Street” was smaller than I expected and offered a pretty truncated view of Peoria’s history. As you enter and go to the left, there are four panels that cover Native American history of Peoria, French exploration of the area, the rise of the City, and then modern-day Peoria. About as brief of an overview as you can imagine. Again, there were several displays that were incomplete or not yet open. On the right as you enter there is a large display of Peoria’s distilling history and a display on the mass-production of penicillin at the ag lab. In the middle of the floor was an old Caterpillar engine and some historic bicycles.
Strangely, the really big Peoria history artifacts weren’t even in this area: the Duryea automobile that used to be housed at the Peoria Public Library was tucked away downstairs away from all the other exhibits and Jerry’s famous motorcycle boots we’re no where to be seen, and the old courthouse clock was perched above the stairway by the giant screen theater.
Tucked in another side room was an interactive computer display where you can look up information on famous Peorians like Richard Pryor and Betty Friedan. It wasn’t the easiest display to navigate and didn’t offer video or audio–just static images and a lot of text to read. The African American Hall of Fame is located here, too. Not exactly prominently displayed.
I also question some of the history. One display indicated that the “village” of Peoria was incorporated in 1831, then incorporated as a city in 1845. While the latter date is correct, I cannot find any history book that talks about Peoria being incorporated as a “village” and certainly not in 1831. The Town of Peoria was incorporated in 1835; perhaps that’s what they meant. In any case, it made me suspect of some of the other information that was presented.
We next went to the movie, then to the art gallery, which didn’t seem to have any particular theme. I had to laugh at one of the pieces of art — a watercolor painting of the museum. Seriously? There was another entire room that was unfinished; it still had ladders and bare drywall. If I had had to pay full admission, I would have been upset that so much of the museum was not yet complete.
Our final stop of the day was at the planetarium. I had wanted to see Stars of Peoria, but the time it was available was the same time as the giant-screen movie. So we instead saw the “Laser Vinyl” laser light show. The kids thought it was pretty cool overall, although my son fell asleep. They had never seen a laser show before. My oldest daughter even recognized some of the songs.
We checked out the museum store on our way out. Even though the museum was closing to the general public, it was just opening for a special showing to the Peoria Symphony Orchestra, complete with hors d’oeuvres in the lobby.
Final Thoughts
For a building that is so oddly shaped and sited, the inside was surprisingly squared off. The exhibit spaces were in rectangular rooms. It made me wonder why the exterior needed to be so sprawling and inefficiently sited. The displays could easily have been placed in a building that sat on a corner of the old Sears block and rose four or five stories. That would have been cheaper to build and would have opened the rest of the block to other, mixed uses — residential, retail, restaurants. Instead, the block is completely dedicated to the museum and the Cat visitor center, both of which close around 5 p.m., leaving the block empty and the street inactive.
For a building that looks so large from the outside, it felt surprisingly small on the inside. I was especially disappointed with the small amount of space dedicated to Peoria’s history. When talk of a downtown museum first started, it was originally envisioned to be a Peoria history museum. Over the years, it morphed into an “everything” museum, largely at the instigation of former congressman Ray LaHood. Unfortunately, the museum is now the proverbial “jack of all trades, master of none.” It’s like the diner that has every dish you can imagine on the menu, but doesn’t fix any of them particularly well.
PEORIA — At-large City Councilman Chuck Weaver announced today via press release that he will not run for Peoria mayor this election cycle.
Weaver told the Peoria Chronicle that when he started exploring a mayoral run, incumbent Mayor Jim Ardis had not yet announced whether he would be seeking reelection. Now that Ardis has announced, Weaver said he thought a mayoral contest would be a distraction from the work the mayor and the council are doing.
Weaver also said that exploring a run for mayor allowed him to “get back out and talk to folks.” In the process, he learned that his base has gotten bigger and more diverse since he was first elected.
Mayor Ardis is currently the only announced candidate for mayor.
Here’s the press release:
I’ve had several people ask me if I’ll be running for the second district Peoria City Council seat in 2013. The answer is no. I’d once again like to thank all of those who supported me the last time I ran. I may consider another run in the future. But after evaluating my obligations at home and work, I believe this just isn’t the right time for me.
So far, in the second district, Chuck Grayeb has announced he’s running and incumbent Barbara Van Auken hasn’t said one way or the other if she’s running. Assuming she does run, and assuming no one else enters the race, I’ll be supporting Grayeb. If you’ve followed my blog from the beginning when Grayeb was still on the council as an at-large representative, you know that I don’t see eye-to-eye with him. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he would be a better representative of the second district than the incumbent. Van Auken has been instrumental in dismantling the Historic Preservation efforts of the city and eviscerating the Heart of Peoria Plan in principle and in practice. She has been complicit in squandering our tax money and public resources on baubles and trinkets. Crime around Bradley University has increased, and the Bradley top brass has responded by increasing patrols by Bradley police officers; yet I’ve heard nothing and seen no action from our city council representative on the matter.
Grayeb came in sixth, very close behind the fifth-place finisher in the at-large election. He’s been on the council before and obviously has a great deal of support. He’s susceptible to being suckered into bad deals for city taxpayers (e.g., he voted for MidTown Plaza), so we’ll have to hold his feet to the fire on those things. But no one can doubt his commitment to public safety and historic preservation. Grayeb is by far the better candidate in the second district at this time.
The Wonderful Development (aka The Downtown Marriott Hotel Project) is progressing on-budget and on-schedule, according to a report by the City’s project manager, PSA Dewberry. The new parking garage is still expected to be completed by the end of this year, and the renovated Pere Marquette is scheduled to open as the Peoria Marriott Pere Marquette by the end of April 2013.
Now, if you’ve been following this project for awhile, you should be scratching your head and thinking to yourself, “How is an end-of-April opening considered ‘on time’?” Good question. I thought the deadline for opening the Pere Marquette was supposed to be March 1, 2013–in time to host all the people coming for March Madness.
It turns out, that wasn’t really a deadline. According to the City Manager’s office, there is a penalty if the hotel doesn’t open by March 1, but March 1 is not a deadline. (If that sounds crazy to you, remember that the City has no working definition for “deadline” — the word is simply not in their vocabulary.) Here’s the pertinent part of the redevelopment agreement:
“7.5 Liquidated Damages. In the event that the Hotel Pere Marquette is not open to the public on or before March 1,2013, the Redeveloper will pay to the City on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty an amount equal to $41,000 for each calendar month or portion thereof that transpires after March 1,2013 (including March, 2013) until the date that the Hotel Pere Marquette is open to the public. In addition, in the event that the Courtyard Inn & Suites is not open to the public on or before May 1, 2014, the Redeveloper will pay to the City on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty an amount equal to $41,000 for each calendar month or portion thereof that transpires after May 1,2014 (including May, 2014) until the date that the Courtyard Inn & Suites is open to the public.”
With an opening date for the Pere slated for the end of April 2013, it looks like the City will be receiving $82,000 in “liquidated damages” … if the City decides to collect it, that is. The City Manager’s office said today that they will collect it if the hotel is not open by the deadline target date.
Without any defined deadline, it should be easy for Dewberry to determine whether the project is on schedule. It’s always on schedule. How could it not be? There’s no reference point against which to measure it. We can just rest assured that the project is on time, whatever time it gets finished.
View the complete report:
Wonderful Development Progress Report as of 9/14/2012