Daily Archives: October 17, 2009

City of Peoria, Museum Block

Will someone please be a leader and kill the museum project now?

25 Comments

This week’s Issues Update from the city includes this information on the current status of the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum (emphasis added):

Per the terms of the Third Amendment to the Peoria/Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement, (the Third Amendment was approved by the Council on December 9, 2008), the Project Closing was to have occurred on or before June 30, 2009. The Agreement further provides that if that condition is not met, and it obviously has not been met, any party to the Agreement may terminate the Agreement by written notice to the other parties, provided such notice is received by the other parties before such conditions are satisfied. To date, none of the parties to the Agreement, the Museum, City, nor Caterpillar, have terminated the Agreement. Any party could terminate the contract. The anticipation is that there will be a four-way Redevelopment Agreement to include the County, which will supersede the current Redevelopment Agreement.

In other words, now is the perfect time to drive a stake into the downtown museum project. Yes, we had the vote back in April, but what has happened since then? The museum group has missed their deadlines again (this is the fourth time). The city’s deficit has risen to $14.5 million. The museum group has been unable to raise the rest of the money they need to start construction, and they’ve been unable to reach a consensus on a new redevelopment agreement. They haven’t kept their promises during their campaign to provide jobs during the recession, making this project our area’s own little economic stimulus. There’s still no contract with IMAX theater, despite earlier assertions from museum supporters that there was a contract sitting on their desk just waiting to be signed once the tax referendum passed. The failure of the museum group has continued, but no one is willing or responsible enough to pull the plug on this white elephant.

The city is in desperate need of more revenue — not just this year, but in future years. As we have been reminded time and time again, we’re facing a structural deficit, and we need to look at long-term solutions. Taking prime real estate off the market and giving it to a non-profit organization so they can build a single-use building that has no adaptive reuse potential is the height of irresponsibility.

Museum supporters famously claimed that the block would remain vacant for years if left up to the free market. Ironically, it’s the museum’s inability to raise money that has kept the block vacant for the past several years. A serious free market solution has never been tried. Once Sears closed its downtown store in order to move to Northwoods Mall, the city immediately bought the land. Since all the parcels have been assembled and the buildings demolished, the property has never been put on the market. If it were, I believe it would be snatched up in short order and developed, and would start generating tax income for the city.

But even if it didn’t sell right away, so what? We’re looking at long-term solutions here. In the long term, the museum would tie up that land for at least 99 years (going by the last redevelopment agreement) and generate no property tax revenue. Even if the property were to remain vacant for ten years before a commercial venture bought it, it would still be revenue-producing after that in perpetuity. And the city will need that revenue, not to mention the jobs and residents it would provide.

What about the county’s public facilities tax? What would happen to it if we were to get out of the museum deal? Well, that money was never tied specifically to the museum. It just has to be used on public facilities. It could be put to other use improving the county’s infrastructure; part of it would likely be used to build a new Belwood Nursing Home.

If you have any doubts about the folly of this project, consider this: The city, the county, Caterpillar, Methodist, the Journal Star, Illinois Mutual, Bradley University, numerous other large employers in the area, organized labor, local school districts, Illinois state legislators, Congressmen LaHood and Schock, and even a majority of the voters in the April election have worked together to make this project a reality over a period of several years. And yet, it still hasn’t happened. Now you have to ask yourself, how can this be?

Answer: Flawed plan, poorly executed. It’s time to kill this project and move on.

City of Peoria, East Bluff

Is East Bluff NHS controversy all smoke but no fire?

4 Comments

Rev. Tom Stone would like one thing to be clear: the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Service is not a governmental body.

I got a chance to talk with East Bluff NHS President Stone on Friday and ask him about some of the criticisms that were leveled at the organization during Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. He’s heard them all. He believes they boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding: The East Bluff NHS is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization — not a governmental body. Thus, it doesn’t have to abide by the Open Meetings Act, but is free to act like any other private, non-profit organization.

Looking back at my notes of the public hearing Tuesday night, that did seem to be a recurring theme. “There’s no accountability; EBNHS keeps its meetings closed,” one speaker said. “There needs to be notification of the meetings, and neighbors should be allowed to attend the meetings,” said another. That would be true if this were a governmental body, like the City Council or a city commission. But private organizations such as Catholic Charities or Children’s Home of Illinois are not required to have open meetings or invite the public to attend their executive board meetings. The East Bluff NHS is just that sort of organization.

Apparently past officers thought that, since the organization gets grant money from the City through a special service district, that made the EBNHS a quasi-governmental organization, and so they conducted the meetings that way. That’s why residents, some past officers, and other interested parties think it’s supposed to be subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), according to Stone. Legal counsel has since affirmed that it is not quasi-governmental, and new officers are no longer abiding by the OMA. Naturally, some people are feeling left out now.

Stone sees freedom from the OMA as a positive thing for the neighborhood. He explained that the belief by previous officers that they were subject to the OMA caused the organization to be slow to respond when needs arose. For instance, when a tree limb fell on a structure owned by the EBNHS, Stone said, the officers believed they couldn’t do anything about it without first having a regularly-scheduled, properly-noticed public meeting. Meanwhile, the limb and structure were a danger to residents in the neighborhood. By not being “hamstrung” by the OMA, Stone continued, the EBNHS can be more responsive and take quicker action on matters.

Another criticism from the council meeting was that one property the EBNHS has rehabilitated is being rented instead of sold as an owner-occupied property. Stone said that they did try to sell that property initially and couldn’t find a buyer, but they were continuing to pay all the utilities on the property as it sat vacant. They felt it would be better for the neighborhood to rent it to a good tenant than to have the property remain vacant. Besides, he explained, 50% of the residents in the East Bluff are renters, and there is a legitimate need for decent, well-maintained rental property as part of the housing mix.

After the Council meeting, concerns were expressed to me over the fact that the EBNHS was changing its bylaws. Stone confirmed that they are doing that, but the reason is because past changes to certain parts of the bylaws had put those provisions in conflict with other portions of the bylaws. So, the changes are designed to make the bylaws consistent. While he didn’t mention it, I imagine (this is pure speculation on my part!) that parts of the bylaws that required compliance with the OMA were probably removed, and this was upsetting to those who thought the EBNHS should be subject to the OMA, as discussed earlier.

One last criticism I didn’t talk to Stone about was the claim that there isn’t enough accountability. This criticism also shows up in Third District Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s comments to the Journal Star:

Riggenbach said the council likely will ask for the group to submit minutes from its meetings or provide the city with its quarterly financial data. “We are expending taxpayers’ dollars on this, so we need to hold them accountable,” Riggenbach said. “Ultimately, the council is responsible for it.”

While it’s not quarterly, most non-profit agencies have to complete IRS form 990, which is open for public inspection through services such as GuideStar. Form 990 lists the officers, financial information, and the mission statement of the organization. I wondered if the East Bluff NHS had been completing and submitting these forms, which would indicate whether it’s being as accountable as other non-profit ventures. They have. The most recent form posted is for the 2007 tax year, which was filed in November 2008.

Whether there needs to be more accountability is debatable, but it does appear that they’re doing everything they’re legally required to do at this time. The City can attach whatever legal strings they want to the grant; in fact, they could make it so unpalatable that the EBNHS decides not to take it and pursue private funding instead, such as through NeighborWorks.

But all this controversy is a mystery to Rev. Stone. He points out that the EBNHS has done next to nothing the last couple of years and hardly any residents have attended the heretofore open meetings. Yet he didn’t hear any complaints about the lack of progress. Why all the criticism now that they are moving forward to improve the neighborhood? Why would the residents want to stop the City from reinvesting in the East Bluff? And why haven’t any of the critics contacted him to discuss their concerns?

It sounds to me like George Jacob has the right solution:

At-large City Councilman George Jacob said all parties involved in the issue need to come together and talk.

“I think it would be an idea for the groups to get together and air out their concerns and see if there is a constructive way we can resolve people’s concerns,” he said.