Tag Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria

Congratulations to the City Council

17 Comments

I just want to congratulate the Peoria City Council on accomplishing something I really thought was impossible. According to the Journal Star, the Council has managed to find a deadline that Gary Matthews was able to meet. This is no small feat. It only took three and a half years, three redevelopment agreements, and five or six deadline extensions, but through persistence, perseverance, and a political will unrivaled by any other effort the council has made, they have succeeded in foisting this folly on the taxpayers.

I sincerely wish they would put this much effort, determination, and tax money toward the things they should be doing: enforcing law and order, maintaining existing infrastructure, and making Peoria a safe and beautiful place to live for those who actually, you know, live here, and pay taxes that increasingly go toward baubles that hang on our deteriorating civic structure.

No doubt, I ask too much.

City Council, City of Peoria

Chronicle prediction comes true

56 Comments

Back in January, when the Peoria City Council agreed to extend the Wonderful Development deadline until the end of February, I predicted that “Long about February 21, you can reasonably expect the council agenda to include another deadline extension.” Well, it’s February 22, and guess what? The council agenda for next Tuesday includes a request to extend the deadline until the end of March now.

I feel confident in predicting that, if this is approved, the new deadline won’t be met either. At the end of March will be another deadline extension request. This may happen every month in perpetuity, or at least as long as the majority of this council is allowed to remain in office, and Gary Matthews is never held to a real deadline.

Just for those council people who are unaware of the definition of “deadline,” here it is: “The time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something.” That’s not how the Council has been defining it, obviously.

City Council, City of Peoria

How many different funding sources can we tap for the Wonderful Development?

19 Comments

The City Council is poised to add another funding source to the downtown hotel project next Tuesday. Keep in mind the funding sources already tapped for this project:

  • HIZ TIF (10/28/2008) — First, they created the Hospitality Improvement Zone TIF (tax increment financing) district. This happened in October 2008 while the mayor and council were still telling the public there was no hotel project being proposed. It was designed primarily as an economic incentive for the Wonderful Development.
  • HIZ BDD (11/10/2008) — Following close on the heels of the TIF was the HIZ Business District Development (BDD) Plan. BDDs are like TIFs except that, whereas TIFs use property tax money, BDDs use sales taxes. In March 2009, under this BDD, the council established an extra 1% sales tax within the BDD boundaries to be used for “capital improvements related to new or existing hotels.”
  • General Obligation Bonds (pending) — These bonds, which have been approved for various amounts between 2008 and 2011 but have not been sold yet, will supposedly be paid back by the project via property taxes plus the HIZ TIF increment and BDD sales tax explained above. However, since they’re general obligation bonds and not revenue bonds, that means that the full faith and credit of the City of Peoria is backing them. In other words, if the project doesn’t pay for itself, the City’s general fund has to pony up the money. That’s money that we need for police, fire, public works, etc. It’s also the fund that has been bailing out the failed Midtown Plaza TIF.
  • Post Employment Benefits Reserve (11/1/2011) — Under the terms of the latest (i.e. third) redevelopment agreement, the City of Peoria will loan the developer (Mr. Matthews) $7 million for 25 years at 7% interest (but the first two years will be interest-free) because he couldn’t get all the private financing he needed. What is the way of finding the right lender? Where is the City getting this money to loan? From the Post Employment Benefits Reserve, an underfunded pot of money set aside to pay health benefit obligations to future retirees.

One more thing about those general obligation bonds: they’re supposed to be for $29 million, but the City would actually have to issue bonds for $32.5 million. Why? Because the money is needed for construction, but during construction the property is not generating any income to make bond payments. So between the time the bonds are issued and when payments start, the interest that’s accrued gets added to the principal. It’s called “capitalized interest,” and if you’ve had student loans, you’re probably familiar with it.

The City has found a way not to capitalize the interest on those bonds. They’ve found another pot of money they can use to make the bond payments during construction. Where did they find it? In the Southtown TIF District. Since the Southtown TIF is adjacent to the HIZ TIF, money can be siphoned off transferred between them for allowable expenses. Financing is an allowable expense in this case.

Southtown is the City’s very first TIF district, established in 1978. TIFs are only supposed to last 23 years, but in 2001 the Council extended it another 12 years, so it’s not due to expire until 2013 now. But the City could retire the TIF sooner. I mean, since they have such a surplus of money in that TIF, they could just end it now and let that money be divvied up proportionally among the affected taxing bodies, including District 150 and Peoria County.

But instead, the City is going to take part of that money and not even use it to improve infrastructure in Southtown or add any value to Southtown. They’re going to use it to make bond payments on an ill-advised hotel project in downtown Peoria — a behemoth that already has three other public funding sources.

This plan will do one thing, though. It will give the council the opportunity to pretend they’re fiscally responsible. “Look at what we’re doing,” they’ll say. “We’re saving $3.5 million!” It’s like going to McDonald’s and ordering a Big Mac, french fries, apple pie… and a diet Coke. “See? I’m watching my weight! I’m drinking a diet Coke!”

I suppose it’s better than nothing.

City Council, City of Peoria

Our money is burning a hole in the City Council’s pocket

43 Comments

I wasn’t able to attend the City Council meeting tonight, but I heard it on WCBU. The big news is, of course, that they voted 8-3 (Sandberg, Weaver, and Akeson voting “no”) to rescind (rather than ratify) the City Manager’s letter of cancellation of the hotel redevelopment agreement. So, the project lives on as the Council just can’t pass up a chance to throw $37 million of your tax money down a hole. If you were putting together a soundtrack for the executive session, I don’t think you could do any better than including the Genesis song “Tonight, Tonight, Tonight”:

Here are some of the lyrics that are particularly poignant:

I got some money in my pocket, about ready to burn
I don’t remember where I got it, I gotta get it to you
So please answer the phone ‘cos I keep calling
But you’re never home, what am I gonna do?

Tonight, tonight, tonight, oh, I’m gonna make it right
Tonight, tonight, tonight, oh

You keep telling me I’ve got everything
You say I’ve got everything I want
You keep telling me you’re gonna help me
You’re gonna help me but you don’t

But now I’m in too deep, you see it’s got me
So that I just can’t sleep, oh get me out of here
Please get me out of here, just help me, I’ll do anything
Anything if you’ll just help get me out of here

City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 9/13/2011 (Live Blog)

34 Comments

Hello everyone. It’s 6:00 and I’m here in Council chambers at Peoria City Hall. The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:15 with several proclamations. As usual, I will start live coverage once the business portion of the meeting begins. Then, refresh your browser every so often to see the latest updates; I’ll be updating this post frequently.

The place is already getting crowded. Lots of union workers have pledged to be here tonight to support the Wonderful Development. Council members are trickling in, and the City Manager is at his desk and ready to go.

All the council members are here — Gulley was a little late, but now that he’s here, we have a full council. Gary Matthews is in the audience, as well as some other investors in the hotel project.

Here’s tonight’s agenda:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 9/13/2011 (Live Blog) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Rewind: History of City Council election process

4 Comments

Back in November 1987, the last time the City Council’s election process was changed, then-Journal Star reporter Paul Gordon wrote a very interesting story on the history of the process.

I’ve reprinted the complete article below, but here’s the summary, with some additional information to bring us up to 2011:

Years Election Process
Before 1845 Governed under township system, with a board of trustees and a board president
1845-1953 Mayor and, initially, eight aldermen elected from four wards, with elections held annually. The council grew with the city, and by 1951, there were 11 wards and 22 aldermen.
1953-1960 Council-manager form of government adopted; one mayor and all council members elected at-large.
1960-1972 In a special election, voters decide to reestablish the ward system. Ten wards are established with one councilman elected from each; terms are not staggered. There are no at-large seats.
1972-1991 Under new state legislation, a binding referendum was held that established five districts and three at-large seats (total of 8 council members, plus the mayor), with staggered terms.
1991-present As a result of the 1987 Voting Rights lawsuit settlement, our current system was established with five district councilmen and five at-large councilmen elected via cumulative voting. The first at-large election under the new system was held in 1991.

Now in 2011, there is talk of doing away with the current system and returning to possibly ten districts and no at-large councilmen, which would be essentially what we had in the 1960s. It’s also the resolution originally sought in the voting rights case of 1987.

In 1987, a lawsuit (Joyce Banks, et al. v City of Peoria, case number 87-2371) was filed against the City of Peoria, District 150 Board of Education, and the Peoria Park District, alleging that the method of electing at-large members “prevented minorities from getting elected to the boards because the number of white voters outnumbered minorities.” The suit originally sought to abolish at-large voting completely from all three boards. But in a settlement before the case went to trial, plaintiffs agreed to eliminate at-large voting from the school district and park boards, and develop a different solution for the City Council: a total of five at-large members (an increase from three) plus the implementation of a cumulative voting system.

Why? According to a Nov. 1, 1987, Journal Star article, one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Banks, stated “their original demand for across-the-board district voting was dropped because blacks reasonably could be assured of one seat on a district-only council…. With the agreed-upon changeover to cumulative voting for at-large seats on the City Council, Banks said a well-organized black community could capture two or three seats on what would become a 10-member council.”

That’s more or less how it has worked out. Today, there are two black members on the council: first-district councilman Clyde Gulley and at-large councilman Eric Turner. If the council were to change back to a ten-district system, it’s hard to say how minority representation would change. Minority population has increased over the past 24 years, so presumably more than one district could be made up of a majority of minority voters. Plus, it’s not as if white people only vote for white people or black people only vote for black people. For instance, Turner lives in the fifth district of the City, which is predominantly white, and he received a large number of votes from that area in the last at-large election. There’s no reason he couldn’t continue to win a seat in that area of town even under a district-only process.

It is interesting that changing to a ten-district council would be a trip back to the future, so to speak. One wonders if, in another ten or twenty years, there will be yet another group vying for a return to the good old days of cumulative voting, or perhaps a strong-mayor form of government. It seems we’re never satisfied with whatever process is currently in place.

Continue reading Rewind: History of City Council election process →

City Council, City of Peoria

Pro-Wonderful-Development letter-writing campaign continues

50 Comments

Investors, doctors, politicians, and other wealthy and well-connected citizens have been flooding the City Council’s mailboxes with letters of support for Gary Matthews and the downtown hotel project. Many of them are form letters, or at least incorporate boilerplate language such as this:

It is my [or “our”] understanding that EM Properties has worked closely and judiciously with city staff, Civic Center authorities, labor unions, construction companies, lenders, sellers and the well respected hotel group, Marriott, in order to piece together all of the parts of this intricate transaction. All aspects of the project have been vetted, reworked and vetted again to insure its success. It is crucial to the revitalization of our downtown and the future of our city and region that the project moves forward. Job creation and maintenance are vital.

The completion of this project will better position many companies in the area to better market our community and enrich our local economy in order to compete with surrounding areas.

In March of this year, ground was broken for a new Courtyard by Marriott in Newark, New Jersey. It will include 150 rooms and 14,000 square feet of retail space, and is “expected to generate approximately 175 construction jobs, and a total of between 50 and 75 permanent jobs through the hotel and retail operations.” How much money do you think the City of Newark contributed to this boon to their local economy? Answer: a $500,000 loan “to assist the Courtyard by Marriott with gaining site control.”

Meanwhile in Peoria, to get our own new 119-room Courtyard by Marriott, plus a renovation of the Pere Marquette with a gerbil tube to the Civic Center, it will take a gift of $37 million from the taxpayers. Does something seem a little off to you? Perhaps the reason is that our workers are not as efficient. According to a May 23, 2010 Journal Star article, “professor Bob Scott at Bradley University expects 840 construction jobs to be created when EM Properties and Marriott International team up on the $102 million Downtown project.” That’s nearly five times as many construction jobs as are necessary to build a hotel in Newark.

I think the letter writers and supporters of the Wonderful Development are missing the point. They’re all arguing the merits of an upscale downtown hotel in close proximity or connected to the Civic Center. That’s all well and good. But at what price? Should the City take on a third of the risk for this $102 million private development? Should a City taking on said risk continue to trust a developer that has demonstrated a consistent inability to meet deadlines and projections? Would doing so really be in the taxpayers’ best interests? If the developer is unable to meet short-term projections (like when he can start construction), how can we trust him to meet long-term projections (like the future profitability of the venture)?

This project has been approved for two and a half years. It was approved twice. It has been over nine months since the latest deadline was missed. Each time the developer has come to the table, he’s assured the council that he was ready to start. In May 2010, he said he was ready to start “immediately.” Everything was in place. All that was missing was the Council’s approval.

Sixteen months later, nothing has started, and the City Manager cancels the agreement. So now what do we hear? Here’s another sample from a pro-hotel letter to the Council: “All pieces are in place, as outlined in brief above, we just need the nod from the council, and the city to sell the bonds. We can close in 60 days.” Where have we heard that before?

The Wonderful Development must die.

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Koehler goes to bat for Matthews

18 Comments

The pressure is mounting on the Peoria City Council. Now State Senator David Koehler has weighed in with a letter supporting developer Gary Matthews:

Letter from Sen. Koehler

Here’s the text of the letter:

I am respectfully asking you to reconsider all available options so that we may see the Downtown Marriott Hotel Project agreement with EM Properlies, Ltd. move forward. Given the hard work carried out by you, the City of Peoria, EM Properties, Mike Everett and the West Central IL Building and Construction Trades, it would be a real setback if we were not able to move forward with this job creating and economic growth project at this time.

Further, if the project is abandoned now, we would be leaving behind valuable and hard won tax credits procured through the Illinois General Assembly. Just to clarify, if the tax credits are not used by the current developer, we would have to go back through the time consuming legislative process to have a new bill passed before they would be available to any other developer.

In the interest of downtown economic development and job creation, I hope that we can find a way to resume the Marriott Hotel Project. Again, I ask for your reconsideration of all available options to keep this project.

My take: I wonder if Sen. Koehler has sent any similar letters to developer Gary Matthews over the past two and a half years. You know, letters expressing the importance of this project and putting pressure on him to get started on it; letters explaining that the tax credits can only be used by him and that they will be lost if he fails to fulfill his agreement with the City. And about those “hard won tax credits” — are those the one that Governor Pat Quinn agreed to sign after Mr. Matthews contributed $10,000 to his campaign? Hard won, indeed. Was the point of that legislation to force the City to fulfill a contract with a developer whether or not he performs?

Also, is what Sen. Koehler said really true? According to Public Act 096-0933, “For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 and ending on or before December 31, 2015, a taxpayer who qualifies for a credit under the Historic Preservation Tax Credit Pilot Program Act is entitled to a credit against the taxes imposed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 201 of this Act as provided in that Act.” And just who is a qualified taxpayer? It’s “the owner of the qualified historic structure or any other person who may qualify for the federal rehabilitation credit allowed by Section 47 of the federal Internal Revenue Code.” And finally, what is a “qualified historic structure”? “‘Qualified historic structure’ means a hotel that is located in the City of Peoria and that is defined as a certified historic structure under Section 47 (c)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code.” That pretty much means the Pere Marquette.

So from a plain reading of the law, it appears that the historic tax credits are limited to the Pere Marquette, but not limited to Gary Matthews as the developer. The current owners of the Pere Marquette, for instance, could get these tax credits, it would appear. The only other limitation in the law has to do with timing — the credit can only be taken during tax years prior to 2016. Could there be other restrictions? Certainly. I’ve heard anecdotally that there is some sort of application process, and that the window of opportunity for applying is now closed. But I have not been able to find a citation to such a provision so far.

But why question him? Let’s assume he’s right, and we’ll lose these tax credits. What are we losing? Nothing. This is like the person who thinks that, if they don’t buy a $5 box of Cheerios so they can use their 50-cents-off coupon, they will be “losing” fifty cents. In fact, they could just not buy the box of Cheerios and not spend $4.50. We’re not losing the tax credits; we’re not spending $37 million that we don’t have and may never be able to recoup. Furthermore, Gov. Quinn signed into law River Edge Redevelopment historic tax credits which the City could use toward redevelopment of the Pere if it’s included in the redevelopment zone.

Bottom line, with all due respect to Sen. Koehler, the City of Peoria needs to look out for the best interests of its taxpayers, and cancelling this project is the way to do it. I know there are a lot of good-hearted investors that only want what’s best for Peoria, and I applaud them for their efforts. But there is no reason to put any more faith in the developer, and with the economy’s continuing weakness, there is even less reason than in 2008 to believe this project will ever be profitable. Not all investments work out, and the government can’t afford to keep bailing out bad investments.

The Wonderful Development must die.

City Council, City of Peoria

Matthews makes his case to Council

34 Comments

Developer Gary Matthews has written a letter to the Mayor and City Council asking them not to cancel the redevelopment agreement:

Matthews Letter 09-02-2011

The gist of the letter is that Matthews felt he had provided everything to the City that was requested, and that as a result of certain meetings he was led to believe he was meeting the terms of the redevelopment agreement to the City’s satisfaction. The December 31, 2010, deadline stipulated in the redevelopment agreement remains unaddressed and unacknowledged. He concludes:

I know and understand we are all suffering from some “hotel fatigue.” I apologize for adding to that fatigue but I feel it is necessary that you have accurate information. Yes, it has been a long, arduous journey, but we are on the cusp of what can be a very historic project. The budget has gone through many transitions as obstacles were confronted (e.g., the inability to secure new market tax credits for a hotel project in a middle sized city) but again and again, with cooperation from lenders (agreeing to better terms), sellers (agreeing to assist with financing), tax credit investors (agreeing to higher purchase prices) and us agreeing to defer the developer’s fee, new options were created to make the project successful. Also, as you know, the State of Illinois adopted a pilot State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program specifically for this project. Failure to close when we are so close will result in the loss of these credits and a missed opportunity for the City.

This project is a transformative and catalytic project for the Peoria region. Its construction will not only create jobs, but help also revitalize the downtown and surrounding Peoria areas by encouraging and influencing development resulting in a positive community and economic impact.

Pretty good sales pitch, except here we are over two and half years after we first heard it and the project has yet to start. Keep in mind that the first redevelopment agreement from December 2008 was never fulfilled. In May 2010, when the latest agreement was made, Matthews told the council that he would be drawing on the $37 million grant from the city “immediately in 2010,” something he could only do subsequent to closing on the properties. He further said that work on the Pere Marquette would begin “immediately after closing.” He also assured the Council at that time that he had all his financing in place. Now it’s September 2011, and the Council receives a letter with more promises and assurances that everything is in place and ready to start. I’m beginning to see a pattern.

Matthews stands to make $9 million from this deal, and he has already racked up no small amount of money on attorney’s fees, architect fees, marketing, etc. It’s very important to him that this deal go through. But he has consistently missed deadlines and shown an inability to get the project started. His apologists blame this failure on the economy. But I have news for you: the economy isn’t getting any better.

The City is doing the right thing by cutting its losses on this project. Even if they have to pay Matthews a settlement to help defray some of his expenses (I would suggest only those expenses incurred from the December 31 deadline to the present), they would be money ahead.икони

City Council, City of Peoria

Business District project costs to double if amendment passes

44 Comments

A public hearing will be held at Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting on a proposed amendment to the downtown Hospitality Improvement Zone Business District Development Plan (or HIZ BDD Plan, for short). The amendment consists of these two changes:

  1. Adding Staybridge SuitesIn order to add property to the HIZ BDD Plan, the added property has to qualify as “blighted.” According to state ordinance a “blighted area” is an area

    which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non?existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements
    the definition of timesheet>, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. [65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-5]


    According to the council communication [note: large PDF file], Staybridge Suites qualifies “due to the deterioration of site improvements which constitutes an economic underutilization of the area.”

    Staybridge Suites was built in 1999 for around $7.5 million. In twelve years, we’re supposed to believe that it’s now “blighted” due to “the deterioration of site improvements”? Well, maybe, if it was built by the same contractor that built Riverfront Village. Still, if this is “blighted,” then every building in the City of Peoria is blighted:

    Looks like a real dump, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that the council communication does not provide any documentation to substantiate this supposed “deterioration” and “economic underutilization.” It simply makes the claim without any evidence to back it up.

  2. Doubling estimated business district project costsThis is perhaps the most curious part of the amendment. The amendment increases the total estimated business district project costs from $6 million to $12 million. They’ve also lengthened the list of things on which they can spend that money. Here’s a comparison between the original plan and the proposed amendment:
    Original BDD Plan Amended BDD Plan (Proposed)
    The Business District costs are estimated at $6,000,000 and may include:

    1. Buying and selling of land.
    2. Infrastructure improvements.
    3. Rehabilitation of existing property.
    4. Development costs associated with new taxable private development.
    5. Façade and streetscape improvements.
    		 Business District project costs are estimated at $12,000,000 and may include the following, in accordance with the provisions of the Act:

    1. Cost of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of a business district plan, and personnel and professional service costs.
    2. Property assembly costs.
    3. Site preparation costs.
    4. Costs of installation, repair, construction, reconstruction, extension or relocation of public streets, public utilities and other public site improvements within or without the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district for use in accordance with the business district plan.
    5. Costs of renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or remodeling of any existing buildings, improvements, and fixtures within the business district.
    6. Costs of installation or construction within the business district of buildings, structures, works, streets, improvements, equipment, utilities, or fixtures.
    7. Financing costs.
    8. Relocation costs

    What is the meaning of all these additions? You know there’s a reason these changes are being made. If the original plan were sufficient, there would be no need for this amendment. Look closely at some of these changes.

    Note in particular number 4 in the amended list: HIZ BDD funds can be used for improvements “within or without [emphasis added] the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district….” If I’m reading this correctly, it would appear that funds from the HIZ BDD could be used to prepare the new Big Al’s site, for instance, even though that site is not in the HIZ BDD, because moving Big Al’s is “essential” to a project in the business district. And check out number 8: “relocation costs.” Who do we know in the HIZ BDD that would be relocating? Number 7 should give us all pause: “financing costs.” I shudder to think what could be included under that item.

    Bottom line, raising the total estimated project costs figure means that the City can borrow (i.e., issue bonds) up to that amount and use HIZ BDD tax revenues for repayment. But HIZ BDD revenue has already been promised toward the repayment of the proposed Wonderful Development $37 million bond issue (if/when that ever comes to fruition). Nowhere does the City show that it could afford this increase in project costs, given our outstanding commitments for that same pot of money.

    Remember, if there isn’t enough revenue from the HIZ BDD tax and HIZ TIF revenues to make the payments on the Wonderful Development bonds, guess where they will get the money to repay those bonds? That’s right: the general fund. If you’ll recall, the City is planning to issue general obligation bonds for the Wonderful Development, which will be backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Peoria.

There is more to the expansion of the Hospitality Improvement Zone than meets the eye. The City Council and staff should disclose to the public why they want these changes and what they will mean to our financial situation so that the public hearing process can be as productive as possible.