Monthly Archives: April 2006

Caterpillar, City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block

Cat blames HOPC for higher Museum Square costs

6 Comments

The Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) is on the agenda for Tuesday night. They are recommending approval of the proposed elevations of Museum Square. But included in their request is a copy of the HOPC’s meeting minutes, and they reveal something of Caterpillar’s mindset.

Putting Museum Square parking underground is expensive. As was reported back in February, it may add as much as $3 million to the cost. At that time, the Journal Star editorialized that, essentially, this extra expense was the HOPC’s fault because they didn’t want to see another surface parking lot downtown.

Now it’s Caterpillar’s turn to play the blame game.

Despite the fact that Cat got almost everything it wanted in the museum site plan (except the surface parking lot) even though it severely compromised the Heart of Peoria Plan, and despite the fact that this project is continuing to get support from the HOPC, commission minutes reveal that Caterpillar representative Mark Johnson (Project Manager for the Caterpillar Visitor Center) wanted this line included in the commission’s recommendation to the council on Tuesday:

“The Commission recognizes that the inclusion of the underground parking structure in the site plan has resulted in a substantial increase in infrastructure development cost and urges the Council to work with the developers to adopt a mutually acceptable financing plan.”

In other words, he wanted the Commission to take responsibility for the additional parking expense on Museum Square. Why? The minutes state:

Mr. Johnson said, “I urge the Commission to step up to their responsibility, as we developed this underground parking as a part of this plan in response to this Commission’s strong recommendation; and we have to find a way to pay for it.”

Au contraire, replied commissioner Beth Akeson:

Commissioner Akeson said she was sorry the Commission has been put in the position to make it appear they are the ones that forced the issue of underground parking, when in actuality the Commission was never brought into the conversation about what its recommendation would be.

(Emphasis mine.) That’s right. It wasn’t the HOPC that came up with the underground parking idea. They weren’t even consulted.

In fact, the need for any parking on that site is questionable. Even if it could be shown that parking is needed, the bulk of the cost is not simply to put it underground per se, but to put it below the site as it’s currently designed — i.e., with the boomerang-shaped buildings. Those building designs were not the HOPC’s either.

Mr. Johnson’s amendment was defeated, but expect this argument to surface again — on the very next agenda item.

Caterpillar and Lakeview want to amend the City of Peoria/Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement.  Among other things, they want to remove the $500,000 cap on TIF reimbursement.  I imagine this will be the source of some discussion, as it’s the only part of the amendment that “could result in additional money being paid over by the City to the Museum.”

I have an idea.  Instead of reducing the size of the museum by 15,000 square feet and trying to finagle more money from the city, why not make money and increase density by adding residential, restaurant, and retail components, like the Heart of Peoria Plan recommends?  You remember the Heart of Peoria Plan, right?  You know, the one the council adopted “in principle”?

Peoria Civic Center

As I was saying about the Civic Center….

3 Comments

Remember when I wondered whether the problem with the Peoria Civic Center could be the management? Well here’s a story about poor management and a little warning to any brides-to-be: don’t believe any Civic Center advertising you see in bridal magazines.

In the 2006 Central Illinois Wedding & Celebration Guide published by LimeLight Communications, Inc., the Peoria Civic Center placed this ad:

Now, what would you think if you saw this ad? Would you think that they were going to waive the rental fee if you booked your reception and catering at the Civic Center?

Think again.

Despite the plain language of the ad and the absence of any exclusion disclosures, the Civic Center recently refused to waive the rental fee for a bride-to-be who is (was) renting the Civic Center theater lobby. Supposedly, the lobby is excluded from this promotion. Too bad they didn’t say that in the ad.

In fact, elsewhere in the same magazine, there’s this listing under “Banquet, Event & Meeting Facilities”:

Notice the wording here. They list their three large venues, then say that meeting and banquet rooms are “also available” — “also” means “in addition to” — and to “see [their] ad on page 24,” which is the ad displayed above.

The Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act clearly spells out what is considered false advertising. Section 2(a)(9) says it’s a deceptive trade practice to “advertise[] goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” The Civic Center advertises free rental if you book your reception and catering there, but they apparently have never had any intention of waiving the rental fee in certain parts of their facility. Since they didn’t disclose those exclusions in their ad, it sure looks like deceptive advertising to me.

They should show some integrity and honor their ad. Since they won’t, they will lose an $8-10,000 wedding reception, settling for a $200 cancellation fee. Way to go, Civic Center. Keep driving the business away. You’ll always have our HRA taxes.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Could Park Board’s illegal act doom school building plans?

5 Comments

The Journal Star reported this morning that the Park Board violated the law by discussing, in closed session, plans to let District 150 use some of its park land to build a school.

What the article didn’t address were the possible consequences of the board’s illegal action. According to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, this opens up the park board to litigation in circuit court, and that court:

. . . having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.

Check out that last possibility: “declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.” It would be interesting to know what actions were taken at those meetings, wouldn’t it? I mean, if they decided to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district at that meeting in closed session, then that action could be subject to reversal.

Circuit court may again be the answer. The Open Meetings Act requires closed sessions to not only take minutes, but have an audio or video recording of the proceedings, and the circuit court can examine those as evidence.

But there’s a time limit of 60 days from the discovery of a violation for action to be taken. When those east bluff residents meet this afternoon at 1:15, they may want to consider their options in light of the park board’s violation.