Councilman Jacob seriously injured in motorcycle accident (Updated)

I’ve been hearing rumors about this since last night; just received official word from the City:

Council Member George Jacob was involved in a serious motorcycle accident yesterday and after he came back to consciousness advice he will reach offshore accident lawyer houston to get represented properly at court. Click here to be informed on the common causes of vehicle accidents in the US.

The michigan’s no-fault car insurance law drivers will choose how much No-Fault medical benefit coverage to purchase.

The family would like to thank everyone for their calls of support. They ask that you keep George in your prayers because it will be a long road in paid recovery paid thanks for the help they found in this website https://www.spauldinginjurylaw.com/savannah-car-accident
they will represented him at court and advise toward the best possible resolution of his case.

If you engage the services of an accident lawyer, he or she will be able to assist you in obtaining the monetary compensation you deserve to cover any accident-related losses, such as car repairs, lost wages and medical expenses. An auto accident attorney will be able to help you make the insurance company pay up. Contact a truck accident lawyer, no further information will be released at this time, and we would ask that you respect the family’s privacy.

However life is full of unexpected things that may happen. We have to move ahead to get over those unwanted scenarios, we have to have the right life protection like the ones at lifecoverquotes.org.uk that can help us in the future. Check it out for more info!

According to 1470, Jacob was wearing a helmet at the time of the crash, and he’s in intensive care at OSF St. Francis Medical Center and will then be prescribed a CBD tangie strain to help deal with the pain while healing. And that’s all the information I can find online. My prayers and best wishes go out to Councilman Jacob and his family. We’ll be praying for a speedy recovery.


UPDATE: The Journal Star has some additional details. The accident took place on a track at the Espy Motocross Park in Hollis Township. He has a severe head injury and several broken bones including fractured ribs but is now receiving proper treatments at Pain Control Clinic in QC Kinetix (Westover Hills).

Committee begins review of sign ordinance

From this week’s Issues Update:

The first meeting of the Sign Review Committee was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. This committee was created at the request of the Zoning Commission to review key issues involving sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The 14?member Committee will meet monthly and intends to forward its recommendations to the Zoning Commission by December 2010.

I happen to be on this committee. All the meetings are open for public observation and will be posted. The first meeting was spent getting acquainted with each other, getting an overview of the current sign ordinance and the portions of it we will be reviewing (it’s not a comprehensive review — we’re just looking at some specific parts of it), and setting the meeting schedule.

The committee members are, in no particular order:

  • Ron Naples (Adams Outdoor Advertising)
  • Tim Shea (Zoning Commission)
  • Bill Hardin (Hardin Signs, Inc.)
  • Mark Misselhorn (Apace Design, Zoning Commission)
  • Julie Waldschmidt (Wald-Land Corporation)
  • Mike Wiesehan (Zoning Commission)
  • Jason Fuller (Manager, Peoria Metro Centre)
  • Marjorie Klise (Zoning Commission)
  • Ed Barry (Farnsworth Group)
  • Margaret Cousin
  • Robert Powers (Historic Preservation Commission)
  • Jim Hardin (Hardin Signs, Inc.)
  • Rob Parks (Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce)
  • C. J. Summers

And the sign regulation issues we will be reviewing are:

  • Size of digital display area
  • Definition of sign area
  • Violation penalties/enforcement
  • Size of wall signs and freestanding signs
  • Multiple application of the same sign (franchise)
  • Signs for multi-family development
  • Billboard extensions
  • Inflatable signs
  • Temporary banners/signs

Something I learned at the first meeting: Peoria used to have an enforcement officer on staff who was assigned solely to zoning violations. As a result of budget cuts, that position is gone and zoning enforcement is now assigned to planners. Each planner is responsible for a defined geographical area. Enforcement is complaint-driven.

Also, the last item on the list of issues to be reviewed, temporary banners/signs, were discussed quite a bit at the first meeting. Apparently, those large banners you see on the sides of businesses or staked in the ground in front of businesses require a permit. Few businesses actually apply for a permit, however. It could be that businesses are simply unaware that these signs are regulated. Or it could be that businesses are taking advantage of lax enforcement.

The next meeting is June 22 at 10 a.m. in Suite 402 of the twin towers (456 Fulton St.) where the City’s Planning and Growth Department is located.

Does the Wonderful Development have all its financing?

I got the impression from the City Council meeting Tuesday night that all of the financing for the Wonderful Development (downtown Marriott) was in place, and all he needed was the City’s okay in order to start construction. But then I read this in the Journal Star this morning:

Before the conventions can be attracted, EM Properties, the developer of the Marriott Hotel project, needs approval from the Illinois Finance Authority. The authority next meets June 8, and it’s unknown whether a request for a moral obligation bond supporting the hotel will be on the agenda.

“Realistically, that may be too soon for all the materials to come together after the City Council decision but our team is working closely with EM Properties,” finance authority spokeswoman Marj Halperin said.

So the project is dependent on Matthews getting this IFA loan? Am I reading that right? If so, why was the project characterized as having all its financing in place in the days leading up to the City Council’s vote? Why did the council communication say, “EM Properties . . . has now secured all necessary private financing”? (I know, the IFA is public financing, not private — nevertheless, the council communication gave the impression that the City’s $37 million obligation was the only public financing needed for the project to begin.) Why was it not mentioned during the marathon City Council meeting?

Unedited video of D150 meetings available on WMBD-TV site

The Peoria Public Schools Board of Education stopped broadcasting their meetings live in May of this year, opting to show the meeting a week delayed and with the public comments portion of the meeting excised. The first meeting in May was recorded (audio only) by blogger Elaine Hopkins and posted on her site. This week’s meeting was recorded by Diane Vespa (video and audio), and she and Hopkins, on behalf of the District 150 Watch group, have partnered with WMBD-TV to put the video on channel 31’s website. You can see this week’s meeting by clicking on this link: http://centralillinoisproud.com/district-150.

These videos are complete and unedited, and will be uploaded sooner than the replay on cable access channel 17. Plus, they will be available on demand to anyone with an internet connection. Kudos to District 150 Watch and WMBD-TV for providing this public service.

Liveblogging the City Council 5/25/2010

Hello everyone, and welcome to the Peoria City Council meeting for May 25, 2010. Hold on to your wallets, as a lot of your tax money is destined to be given to a private developer tonight. It’s also packed in council chambers. Outside there are a bunch of AFSCME employees chanting “chop from the top” very loudly to try to disrupt the meeting [note: the crowd was dispersed by the time the meeting got underway]. All the council members and the mayor are present, and we’re on our way. The clerk is reading the consent agenda now. As usual, I’ll be updating this post throughout the night, so please refresh your browser often to see the latest comments. Here’s the agenda:

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 5/25/2010

Is the Civic Center expansion meeting consultant’s predictions?

In 2005, the Peoria Civic Center broke ground on a $55 million expansion project. The project was completed on March 1, 2007. The project was approved in part because of a study done by Charles H. Johnson Consulting, Inc., in 2002 which predicted a positive economic impact for the expansion. Peoria would be able to attract more conventions, bringing more people to Peoria, which would lead to higher sales tax revenues.

I thought it might be helpful to look at the predictions and compare them to the newly-expanded Civic Center’s actual performance. Let’s look at these three indicators: Event Days, Attendance, and Net Operating Income.

First, to be fair, I should point out that the Johnson report’s predictions are for “a stabilized year of operation after facility improvements are completed.” What constitutes a “stabilized year of operation” is open to some debate. It could be as early as the third year of operation after completion, or as late as the fifth or sixth. We only have numbers up through FY2009, since FY2010 won’t be complete until the end of August. So, while it’s been three years since March 2007 by the calendar, we only have numbers up through August 2009, or roughly two years after completion of the project.

Nevertheless, it’s worth looking at the trends even this early for two reasons: (1) the time leading up to a “stabilized year” is called the “ramp up” time, and one would expect to see the numbers trending upward even if they haven’t yet reached the predicted levels, and (2) the success of the Civic Center is cited as one of the biggest reasons (if not the only one) for approving the Wonderful Development (i.e., downtown Marriott hotel deal).

Event Days

The Johnson study predicted that the number of Event Days would rise from 510 (the total for FY2001) to 632 — a 24% increase — after expansion. Actual Event Days from 2001 to 2009 did trend upward to a peak of 607 in FY2008, but then dipped significantly in FY2009 to 575. Here’s the breakdown by facility (Theater, Arena, Convention Center), with the total shown in green:

When you look at the Event Days by facility, the Arena and Convention Center actually met or slightly exceeded predictions, whereas the Theater fell short in FY2008. However, increasing Event Days does not necessarily translate into higher attendance or more net income, as we shall next.

Attendance

The Johnson study predicted that Attendance would increase from 849,885 (FY2001 total) to 1,071,500 (26% increase) after expansion. Actual Attendance has indisputably trended downwards. Peak attendance was way back in 2002 when it reached 913,335. Since then, it has fallen every year except for 2008 when it bumped up slightly to 832,121.

It’s interesting that, even though Event Days trended upwards, attendance trended downwards. It’s attendance that we’re really after with the Civic Center, since it’s people who eat at restaurants, stay at hotels, and go shopping in Peoria, thus adding to our sales tax base. If attendance is going down, we’re losing money on the expansion. We would expect that to be reflected in the Civic Center’s Net Operating Income, and it is.

Net Operating Income

The Johnson study said the FY2001 Net Operating Income was $212,000. I’m not sure where they got that number. According to the Civic Center’s financial statements, there was a Net Operating Loss in FY2001 of $1,732,500. Even Operating Income Before Depreciation is only $78,333, although it’s at least on the positive side. I could find no reference to a $212,000 profit anywhere in the financial statement. It’s possible the amount was a preliminary figure that was revised subsequent to the report being published.

Nevertheless, Johnson predicted Net Operating Income of $1,519,000 after improvements. The actual picture of the Civic Center’s finances is not so rosy. From FY2001 to FY2009, the Civic Center suffered Net Operating Losses every year, and those losses are trending downward. FY2009 saw an all-time low loss of $4,273,556.

Much of this is a result of depreciation. If we look at Operating Income Before Depreciation, the trend from FY2006 to FY2009 is reversed, but still in the red.

At the current rate of increase, it will take somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen years for Operating Income Before Depreciation to reach Johnson’s predicted levels.

Conclusion

While Event Days were close to reaching predictions before the downturn in business in FY2009, neither Attendance nor Net Operating Income show any signs of reaching their predicted levels.

Afterword

There’s one other prediction not related to the Johnson report that’s worth noting. That was the prediction in a March 24, 2006, memo from the Civic Center Authority to the Peoria City Council that stated:

The Peoria Civic Center Authority is not now and has not previously requested public funding for a hotel. We have always hoped that a private development would be interested by the Peoria Civic Center expansion and upgrade to come forward with a proposal. We hope that the community will enable such a development.

The Peoria Civic Center Authority is committed and continues to be committed to the success of the expanded facilities. We believe it can be successful without an attached hotel but more and larger regional opportunities will be possible if more and better downtown hotel rooms are available.

Six months after that was written, the Civic Center Authority started pushing for an attached hotel. So now, after $55 million in investment that we were promised would be successful without a publicly-supported, attached hotel, taxpayers are being asked to back another $37 million in public investment for not one, but two headquarters hotels — a Pere Marquette Marriott and a Courtyard by Marriott. To bolster hotel supporters’ predictions that these hotels will be successful and realize 68%+ occupancy rates, another study has been completed, this time by HVS International.

All indications are that the Civic Center expansion is failing and the predictions by Johnson Consulting were, to put it charitably, optimistic. Yet we’re going to follow the same process of relying on rosy predictions from consultants and promises of success from the Civic Center (and Convention and Visitors Bureau) to give $37 million toward a headquarters hotel.

Why should we believe all these predictions of success? What empirical evidence is there that this project will pay off for the taxpayers? There is none.

See also:
Journal Star editorial 5/23/2010
Wonderful Development agreement raises questions

What’s the justification for the Wonderful Development?

The ordinance that would authorize the Wonderful Development (downtown Marriott project) to move forward includes this justification:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Peoria finds as follows:

  1. That the buildings on the Project Site have remained underused for a period of at least one year.
  2. That the Project is expected to create or retain job opportunities within the municipality.
  3. That the Project will serve to further the development of adjacent areas.
  4. That without the Agreement, the Project would not be possible.
  5. That the Developer, EM Properties Ltd., meets the high standards of credit worthiness and financial strength as demonstrated by a letter from a financial institution with assets of $10 million or more attesting to the financial strength of the Developer.
  6. That the Project will strengthen the commercial sector of the municipality.
  7. That the Project will enhance the tax base of the municipality.
  8. That the Agreement is made in the best interest of the municipality.

Is this the standard for getting $37 million from taxpayers? I can think of all kinds of businesses that could make such claims — it will create jobs, strengthen the commercial sector, enhance the tax base, meet “the high standards of credit worthiness,” etc., etc. Is that really a justification for taxpayer assistance? Where’s the line at City Hall for those handouts?

I would also like to point out that the buildings on the Project Site have been underused for the past year and a half precisely because of the previous unfulfilled redevelopment agreement with EM Properties, whose “high standards of credit worthiness and financial strength” were not impressive enough to result in actual financing of the original project. Why would the current owner try to get tenants for the vacant buildings when he has an agreement to sell those buildings for imminent demolition?

And I take great issue with the contention the Agreement is in the best interest of the municipality. If the hotels (there are two now!) do not perform up to expectations, the bonds will have to be repaid from the general fund — a fund which is insufficient to provide the basic needs of the City. The City Manager is asking City departments for wage concessions to plug an anticipated $10 million budget deficit for 2011.

Supporters of the project will point out that defeating this project will not help the current budget crisis, and they’re correct. But what Peoria residents need to know is that approving this hotel project will create a future budget crisis. The MidTown Plaza project didn’t create a budget crisis in year one either, but we’re feeling its effects now. The same goes for the Firefly Energy loan guarantee. We won’t have to pay the piper for this hotel fiasco for five years or so, but mark my words, we will be paying the piper for it.

Pittman resigns from RTA over silence on KBCC deal

Recreational Trail Advocates (RTA)/Friends of the Rock Island Trail Vice President David Pittman has resigned, according to an e-mail released by Merle Widmer on his blog, Peoria Watch. Why? Because the group tacitly endorsed the $140,000 payment to the cunning Kellar Branch Corridor Corporation (KBCC):

I feel that our group silence worked well for KBCC, allowing them to get $140,000 with NO PUBLIC scrutiny or audit or previous public agreement. Even though I asked our group leadership to raise these concerns in public, the email exchanges of the past weeks made it clear that I am a minority of one; don’t ask, don’t rock the boat, and speak publicly only to praise the KBCC for its success. I am alone in my dismay and I cannot reconcile continuing in this group without violating my internal sense of right and wrong. As an officer of RTA /Friends of the RI Trail I felt obligated to keep silent, per the majority will of the leadership. Now, with the deed done, I can step away….

We as taxpayers and activists were not allowed to see how the KBCC justifies $140,000 for their expenses. Why not $120,000, or $180,000? No one knows. KBCC gave the cities a bill for services rendered. But our elected representatives never signed a contract, never made a deal. I believe this is very wrong…. I have chosen to keep silent for the sake of my friends and out of respect for their long, long struggle to make the Kellar into a trail. But I am ethically challenged beyond my limits and will step away from the tainted odor.

You can read the whole e-mail at Merle’s site. Pittman and I have been on opposite sides of the Kellar Branch issue since the beginning. We even debated it once at a meeting of the Neighborhood Alliance. But on the issue of the Kellar Branch Corridor Corporation, we’re in agreement. I have the same deep concerns about the lack of public oversight and the improper obligation of public funds without any kind of contract beforehand.

While I publicly stated my concerns on my blog, in e-mails to the Council, and on the public record before the Council’s vote (not without criticism, I might add), my concerns were easily dismissed because I’ve “long opposed the rails-to-trail conversion,” as the Journal Star put it. I tried to explain in my remarks that I was not complaining about the project in this case, but the process, but I’m sure the distinction was dismissed as tactical — an eleventh-hour effort to derail the project once again.

But had Mr. Pittman spoken up, too, he might have been able to make a difference. Pittman has long been and continues to be a huge advocate of the trail project. If he had raised questions about the KBCC, I think he could have affected the outcome. Perhaps the process would have ended up being more transparent. Speaking up would have been risky — in essence the effort to buy out the rail carriers and shippers was pitted against the pursuit of good public policy.

It’s interesting that only Pittman felt any pangs of conscience among the members of the RTA on this issue. Nevertheless, he submitted to the group and kept silent, allowing the deceitful process to prevail. It’s a surprising irony that a group who once decried inappropriate legal maneuverings from Pioneer Railcorp became willing participants in legal chicanery themselves.

Pittman’s resignation is really more of a confession. I think he fears he may have been wrong to put his principles of loyalty ahead of his principles of transparency and proper public procedure. I have no standing or desire to judge his decision. But I have no qualms about judging the rest of the organization for selling their integrity for a trail. Pittman did the right thing by resigning in protest, however belatedly.

Conan! (Updated)

In case you were wondering why I haven’t been blogging lately, I’ve been busy vacationing. Last night, my wife and I saw Conan O’Brien’s “Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television” show, and it was terrific. Special guests were Bears player Brian Urlacher and actor John C. Reilly. Reilly sang a little off-script number that went like this:

Missed Jay Leno last night
His jokes just make me snore
Awfully different without you
Don’t watch the Tonight Show anymore

And the crowd roared. It was surprising to hear a blatant anti-Leno joke, considering that Conan is prohibited from making fun of Leno or NBC under terms of his severance. But as Reilly explained, he (Reilly) isn’t prohibited from saying anything. I’ll share more later. It was a fantastic show.

Continue reading Conan! (Updated)

PJS Editorial pretends City asset giveaways have nothing to do with budget crisis

A couple of responses to today’s Journal Star editorial. First, there’s this:

Even Mayor Jim Ardis, who never saw a tax increase he didn’t greet with contempt, seems to have come to the realization that City Hall probably can’t cut its way out of this.

That’s not exactly accurate. Mayor Ardis happily voted to increase sales taxes by 1% within the Hospitality Improvement Zone downtown.

And then, there’s this:

As a result [of the need to make more cuts to city services or raise taxes to balance the budget], a fair number of locals are venting, understandably, though some of them paint either-or scenarios that do not exist. Indeed, the choice is not a recreational trail vs. police officers, or a museum vs. firefighters. The vast majority of the funding for those quality-of-life projects comes out of dedicated revenue streams controlled by other local governments – the park district and county, respectively, with the help of grants. Those dollars couldn’t be used to put more badges on the streets even if the council wanted to. Like them or hate them, those projects — one of them initiated by a successful citizen referendum — are not what created this operating deficit.

First of all, this framing of the argument is obviously a “straw man.” I know of no “locals” who have made the assertions they are countering. Clearly “either-or scenarios” as painted here do not exist. But to imply that these projects have absolutely no relation to the City’s fiscal crisis is also false.

Yes, construction of the rail-to-trail project is funded by the Park District, but it’s only made possible by the City of Peoria giving away a $3 million asset to the Park District for one dollar. The City just threw away $3 million (or at least $750,000, the last bona fide offer to purchase the rail line) while at the same time they need to cut $800,000 from this year’s budget. Why didn’t they put the land up for sale to the highest bidder? Putting this land into the hands of a rail carrier and working with them to woo new manufacturing business to Pioneer Industrial Park would have resulted in raising the tax base in Peoria through new business and new jobs.

Then there’s the Sears block, which has lain dormant for over a decade now because the City won’t enforce deadlines on redevelopment agreements. This is prime real estate that could be parceled off and sold, which would provide a couple of things: income from the initial sale, and on-going revenue from sales and property taxes by the businesses who locate there. Instead, the City is sitting on the land indefinitely, until they can finally give it away for nothing to be used by a non-profit organization that will be a perpetual drain on the county taxpayers.

In addition to the lost opportunity to generate revenue with these assets, taxpayers now have to pay for their development and maintenance in perpetuity. That means we have to pay higher taxes to support these drains on the economy. And that exacerbates the City’s budget woes. Since taxes are high because of increases by other local governments (to which the City directly contributed, as shown above), it puts pressure on the City not to add to the tax burden. And that means the City continues to try to balance its budget by cutting — police, fire, public works, etc.

The Journal Star is simply trying to rationalize its support for non-essential pet projects by using straw-man arguments to dismiss valid criticism.

See also Billy Dennis’s post in response to today’s PJS editorial.