Monthly Archives: February 2011

Museum Block

Giant screen theater decision to be announced in spring

12 Comments

According to the Peoria Riverfront Museum’s February 2011 report, a final decision will be made by spring on whether to contract with IMAX as they promised the voters in no uncertain terms, or renege on their promise and go with another brand:

The PRM Board of Directors continues its due diligence as it works to select the appropriate technology for the museum’s giant screen digital theater. In January 2011, a number of board members and staff attended the Moody Gardens Digital Cinema Symposium in Galveston, Texas, in order to evaluate potential vendors. They viewed side?by?side comparisons of digital and analog films, attended presentations and engaged in conversations with a variety of companies that manufacture equipment, produce content, develop projector and 3?D technology, and integrate systems to ensure that our decision is optimal for the audience and business plan.

We are still evaluating a wide variety of equipment suppliers and system integrators, and we have many outstanding candidates. Our decision will be based on quality, flexibility, upfront and operating expenses and revenue opportunities. We expect to announce our plans for the theater this spring.

The monthly report also states that “Many people have started to pay on their pledges,” but gives no specifics. According to the county’s Finance Committee information from February 24, the museum has only received approximately 30% of its promised pledges to date. The County had originally promised that construction wouldn’t start until all the pledges had been received.

Some board changes were also announced: “Sally Owens has joined the PRM Board of Directors, replacing Jane Converse. Jane and her organization will continue to provide marketing support to the PRM. Cal MacKay will become the board secretary/treasurer, replacing Andy Herrera. Herrera resigned due to time constraints and other business commitments.”

Museum Block, Peoria County

Moving grant funds will require new application

1 Comment

The Journal Star reported on February 25 that, due to lower construction bids on the Peoria Riverfront Museum, taxpayers will save “the additional $4 million that otherwise would have gone to interest payments on bonds, county officials said. In addition, the county is now able to slide $3 million in grant funding from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity [DCEO] to the museum group to help build exhibits inside the museum, County Administrator Patrick Urich said.”

The county’s application for the DCEO grant specifically stated that it was to be used for the parking garage portion of the project. If the county wishes to “slide $3 million in grant funding” to build exhibits inside the museum, they are going to have to reapply for the grant with a new scope of work. According to County Administrator Patrick Urich, the county sent in their new application last week. Nevertheless, the county’s Finance Committee approved a resolution moving $3 million of the DCEO funds to the “non-building” portion of the project. The county has not received any funds from the DCEO grant as yet.

Certain “durable movable equipment” is considered a “bondable expenditure” under the grant guidelines. According to Mr. Urich, “exhibit construction” would fall under this category. The grant application specifically lists the following as examples of expenditures that could be approved: “Art-in-architectural art, heavy duty fire protection apparatus, office and household equipment and furniture, machinery and implements, scientific instruments and apparatus with the exception of those with short useful life.” Specific examples of expenditures that would not be approved are: “commodities; library books, maps and paintings other than those purchased with the Art-in-Architecture Program; livestock; rolling-stock including cars, trucks, boats and related items; spare and replacement parts; items such as glassware, crockery, etc.; computers, related equipment and software.”

City of Peoria, Weather

The cost of removing snow

5 Comments

Last week, the City of Peoria issued this press release:

“The City of Peoria incurred expenses of $554,671 in combating and managing the 15″ snow storm and blizzard conditions of February 1 and 2, 2011. Clean-up continued throughout the balance of the week. The majority of expenses, $541,000, were incurred by the Public Works Department, and included payment of $192,000 to private contractors to manage and remove snow in a timely and safe manner. The Illinois Emergency Management Administration will be reviewing these expenses to determine the level of reimbursement to the City.

As a matter of interest, we note that the combination of severe ice and sleet storm of 2-3 inches on November 30, 2006, coupled with the following 13” inches of snow and rapidly dropping temperatures on December 1, onward resulted in total expenses of $290,329. Public Works expenses were $274,000 (numbers rounded).

Public Works Department’s redesigned snow routes and increased pre-event planning, plus the use of private contractors during the February 1 blizzard, resulted in quicker response and clean-up compared to the 2006 storm. However, these two storms were much different from one another in terms of the 2006 pre-snow ice build-up and then dramatic temperature drop.

The Journal Star ran an article with some additional cost breakdowns.

This seems like a good time to remind everyone how city planning and development have contributed to these high costs. A 2007 Six Sigma project report found that “The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years [2000-2007] and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed,” but that, “No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.” In other words, as the City has grown in land mass, not enough attention has been given to the cost of providing City services to these new areas. When the City annexes land or builds new roads, you never hear any discussion about the costs of maintaining and clearing them, or the cost of providing additional police and fire protection.

After the report came out, the City initially increased the number of snow routes from 25 to 26. But due to budget cuts in 2009, the number of snow routes was cut back to 23, and there were some layoffs. According to a 12/11/2009 article in the Journal Star, “The route reductions and job cuts resulted in $222,500 in savings.” One wonders what the net savings have been this winter, given the cost of hiring private contractors, renting additional equipment, and paying overtime to the City’s plow drivers.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Guest Editorial: Response to Riggenbach’s East Village TIF article

27 Comments

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Frederick E. Smith, a resident of the East Bluff. It’s a response to Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s Spotlight article that appeared in the Journal Star over the weekend. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

I read yesterday’s comments by Councilman Riggenbach in the Journal Star and honestly had to wonder if we were looking at the same EVGC TIF. There were many half-truths that need to be cleared up if this TIF is to be considered fairly.

Yes, the City of Peoria has established a Citizens Advisory Council that serves at the pleasure of his honor the Mayor. This council consists of two City representatives, one County representative, one District 150 representative, two OSF representatives, and three members at large, one from each of the affected City Council areas, who are also appointed by the Mayor, and not by their respective Neighborhood Associations. This Advisory Committee “shall only serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council.” So not only are the neighborhood representatives outvoted 2 to 1 by the government and business members, but the committee itself lacks any authority whatsoever as to the outcome of the decision to implement the TIF. [East Village Growth Cell Committee Project Charter November 23, 2010]

And yes, Tim, State Law is very specific about the requirements to establish a TIF, and also about how the funds may be used once it is established. As confirmed by Corporate Counsel Randall Ray at the “TIF 101” meeting when Mr. Combs from Springfield spoke, the City Council may use TIF funds from one area to pay for projects in other areas, at their discretion. In other words, the City Council might decide to use TIF funds to pay off other things, like the failed MidTown Plaza TIF you mentioned. Once enacted, the area residents who are paying the bills (myself included) will have no say in how that money is spent. There is no guarantee that the money will end up going to the projects you mentioned, like the rehabilitation of private homes on the East Bluff. And speaking of that, since we already live in a Special Service Area where the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (a 501 (c) (3) organization that intends to spend 48% of it’s 2011 budget in salaries) receives a sizable amount of tax dollars ($64,987.24 in 2009, up from $57,972.76 in 2008, the 2010 budget is not on file yet.) to provide low interest housing improvement loans to residents of the East Bluff (which according to the Board of Directors at their last meeting they have not done for the last two years), will these funds be added to the TIF funds instead, or will we be asked to contribute duplicate taxes to the City in order to complete the $42,585,488.00 in infrastructure needs and the $22,000,000.00 in rehabilitation of public and private fixtures as described on page 16 and page 1 of Appendix E of the Teska report? (By the way, Tim, if my banker was off by $10,414,512.00 in his estimates, I would be changing banks pretty quick.)

Last, but certainly not least, is the claim that no big project is pushing the development of the EVGC TIF. One look at the map shows the boundaries were deliberately drawn to include OSF St. Francis Medical complex and the entire Knoxville business corridor in the TIF. If this was only about the East Bluff, why not just stop at the Glen Oak border, go up Armstrong to Pennsylvania and straight across to Knoxville? Oh, wait, that would include the White School property that was recently acquired by OSF, wouldn’t it? The fact of the matter is that OSF intends to be a major player in the way this project is run, and will definitely require a substantial amount of public money to “improve” the area around OSF. Why else are they deserving of two seats on the Advisory Committee? Why else have they been vocal and present at every meeting? Their interests may have nothing to do with the desires of the residents of the East Bluff. Their interests haven’t been publicly aired, and until they are, we have no idea of how much money they will expect, or what they intend to do.

Yes, there is a possibility that the TIF might “turn around” the East Bluff area, make into the neighborhood we would like it to be, but the key to that is transparency and honesty, not half-truths and sleight of hand descriptions.

City of Peoria, History

Guest Editorial: Peoria’s Song

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Margaret E. Cousin, Vice-President of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation. It was also published as a Spotlight article that appeared in the Journal Star over the weekend. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

I talk a lot about buildings that sing. Their loveliness creates a special kind of music that stirs a powerful response in me. Most often it’s old buildings that do this. Perhaps this is because they have those special ingredients of historic importance and architectural uniqueness that evoke an awareness of and perspective on our past.

We all cherish family heirlooms and consider ourselves fortunate if they pass down to us. They are the remaining tangible evidence of people whose stories we know, who contributed to our own evolution of identity and character. Who among us would go into the attic of a beloved relative and throw treasures away without serious, measured regard for their intrinsic value and the consequences of their loss? Our city is no different. It is our larger family. It is our greater history. It has a legacy of its own.

During several glorious autumn weekends in 2009, I made the photo album and spreadsheet that identify some of the structures in Peoria with local designation potential. They represent a portion of our extant historic stock, an astounding percent having already been destroyed. As a CLG (Certified Local Government), Peoria is required to maintain an effective historic preservation program for the identification and protection of historic resources. Not only should such a survey have been done at some point in the last 20 years to fulfill our standing with the State of Illinois, but the survey process should be ongoing. This “list” wasn’t meant to target or threaten, although it was perceived as such and was, ironically enough, produced at the request of the City Council. It was meant to identify the most significant and meaningful of our structures. These examples, sprinkled throughout our core city and gracing our streetscapes, are the singular visual and cultural inheritance of our forefathers. They are the heirlooms in our attic.

The project stirred up such consternation that it helped trigger the events which resulted in the City Council’s February 8, 2011 vote to monumentally alter our historic preservation ordinance. The Council voluntarily relinquished its role in the necessary, active process of historic preservation, a process aimed at protecting our cultural heritage. Preservation accomplishes a very pertinent and vital goal, that of promoting tourism, assuring stable neighborhoods and enhanced property values via strong historic districts, and cultivating sustained economic activity in Peoria’s center. The decision to abdicate participation in anything other than mandatory owner consent landmark cases, which are by their nature benign rather than challenging, opened the door for demolition at will. Of any or all of our most noteworthy vintage elements, possibly too old-fashioned, too worn out, too costly to be viewed as viable by their present custodians. With such an ordinance in place, Easton Mansion would not have risen from its ashes like a phoenix under the loving care of Jane Converse, nor would the beautifully restored and successful adaptive reuse of the Musicians Hall, Busey Bank, grace Kumpf Boulevard.

By making no provision for any other entity to fill the footprints it has vacated, the Council also left a critical vacuum with no representative of the community’s interests able to act on behalf of those interests. Compounding this with the directive that put the “onus” for owner education on preservationists turned what had been a collaborative effort into a lonely endeavor moving forward. “Unpleasant burden” is the literal definition of that word, and it is discouraging to think of our designation efforts and achievements in those terms.

We will be as good as the best of our decisions or as mediocre as the worst. We will sink, or we will soar. Shall we be a city whose claim to fame is what we used to have? Sad, nostalgic mentions on one of the Peoria Historical Society’s delightful and educational trolley tours? I want my Peoria skyline to include inspiring profiles from the past as well as contemporary testaments to the future. I want my elected officials to aspire to take part in that process through a restored ordinance. Not just celebrating the landmark after someone else has persuaded and researched and presented it, but in concerted partnership to promote and preserve the surviving, remarkable historic resources we cannot afford to lose. Therein lies the true vision, the true victory. For the City Council, for preservationists, and for Peoria.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Village Growth Cell Advisory Committee Meeting

18 Comments

From my inbox:

Peoria IL, (February 23, 2011) — The public is invited and encouraged to attend the East Village Growth Cell Advisory Committee Meeting, Tuesday, March 1st, in the Glen Oak School Library, 2100 N Wisconsin Avenue, at 6:00 P.M. This meeting will be devoted to a workshop session for the development of a residential program concept. The meeting will be facilitated by Ross Black, Assistant Director of the Department of Planning and Growth Management. Residents are encouraged to provide input and present ideas toward the development of a residential program concept, as part of the proposed East Village Growth Cell TIF.

This looks interesting, but it is just for “part of the proposed East Village Growth Cell TIF” — the “residential program concept.” When will the public meetings be for the other parts of this proposed TIF? For instance, where can the public see OSF’s plans? They paid for the TIF study; surely they have plans for what this proposed TIF will do for them. Will those plans be made public before the Council votes to approve the TIF?

City Council, City of Peoria

Observations

21 Comments

If you’re Marriott Hotels and you don’t want to see a strip club across the street from your property, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a lawyer and you don’t want a strip club on your street, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a large church and you don’t want to see a strip club down the block from your property, the City of Peoria will work tirelessly to find a new location for the strip club. If you’re a small-business owner running a daycare center and you have no political clout, but you don’t want a strip club next door to your business, the City of Peoria will say there’s no place else the strip club can locate.

The strip club owner was going to remodel the Madison Theater (which is currently in a terrible state of disrepair). By chasing them away from the Madison parking lot location, those remodeling plans are apparently scrapped, according to the Journal Star. So the council has helped scuttle plans for revitalization of an historic property. This is not particularly surprising, given the council’s demonstrated apathy toward historic preservation.

Meanwhile, the stated purpose of this move — to make way for a new hotel on the Pere Marquette block — is still missing in action. The project was approved way back in 2008, but to date the project has not begun. A change to the redevelopment agreement approved by the council on May 25, 2010, stated that the project should commence within one year. Almost nine months have passed since that agreement was signed.

All of this angst about a project that is so shaky, it can’t seem to get started despite an infusion of $37 million in taxpayer money and extraordinary help from the City in moving the strip club off the block.

City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 2/22/2011 (Live Blog)

15 Comments

Hello everyone. I arrived a little late tonight, so if you want to get the low-down on the first part of the meeting, I recommend checking out Billy Dennis’s blog “From the Newsroom,” or John Sharp’s blog “Word on the Web,” as they’re both liveblogging this evening as well.

Here’s the agenda, starting at the point I came in, so we’re joining “in progress,” as it were:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 2/22/2011 (Live Blog) →

Peoria Public Schools, State of Illinois

What will district consolidation mean for Peoria?

31 Comments

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced recently his intention to eliminate over half of Illinois’ school districts through mandatory consolidation. There are already bills introduced in the state legislature toward that end:

State Senator Jeffrey M. Schoenberg (D-Evanston) recently introduced a bill, SB1324, which proposes to amend the Illinois School Code to require the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to conduct a feasibility and cost-saving benefits study on the prospect of consolidating school districts in the same geographic area. The ISBE would be required to recommend specific school districts for consolidation in a report due to the general assembly and the governor on or before January 1, 2013. […]

State Representative Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Aurora), Chair of the Illinois House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, has introduced HB1216 to create an 18-member School District Realignment and Consolidation Commission to report the “optimal enrollment for a school district and where consolidation would be beneficial.” The Commission would make recommendations to reduce duplication of efforts, eliminate obstacles between qualified teachers and students, lower property tax burdens, calculate the net costs savings of realignment, and advise school districts on reorganization.

So what will this mean for Peoria? The City of Peoria includes three school districts: Peoria, Limestone, and Dunlap. Peoria Heights’ district is completely surrounded by Peoria. Analysts say, “Anticipated targets of the legislation are small school districts with low staff-to-student ratios.” But, they add, “A less obvious aim of the bill is the opportunity to merge small, well-financed school districts with disadvantaged ones to balance economic inequities.”

At first glance, it would appear that Peoria would be a prime candidate for merging school districts. This would mitigate one of the major factors leading to population migration to the north by putting the whole city under one school district with a unified tax rate to support it.

But there’s always been a complication to reforming District 150. The makeup and election of its Board of Education is set by court order, not legislation, as the result of a civil rights lawsuit back in the 1980s. Will this be able to keep the State from consolidating this board with other districts in the region? Or can the State get around the court order by dissolving the various school charters and creating a new district from scratch? Will the State have the political will to make such a move?

The process as currently defined boils down to recommendations from the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). It will be interesting to see what they recommend … if the process gets that far.

City of Peoria, East Bluff

Guest editorial: The EVGC TIF Dilemma

10 Comments

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Frederick E. Smith, a resident of the East Bluff. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

The East Bluff of Peoria is in trouble. Almost 62% of the homes are rental properties, crime is up every year for the last two years (according to a study by the Glen Oak Impact Zone committee), and now that the area has been declared “blighted” by the results of a study, property values have taken a skyrocketing decline.

The Near North Side is in trouble. Almost 86% of the property there is rental, the crime rate is one of the worst in the city, and the private buildings are in a state of decay.

The Knoxville and Wisconsin business corridors are filled with empty buildings and property left to rot while property owners scramble to fill the vacancies.

The Mayor of Peoria has an answer. Tax Increment Financing. And the Mayor wants to impose this on us, whether or not we agree.

You only have to read the EVGC Advisory Committee Charter to know this is true. The membership of the Committee consists of two City representatives, one County representative, one member of the District 150 School Board, two representatives of OSF St. Francis, and one member at large each from each of the three affected Council Districts, all appointed by the Mayor.

I sent a revised version of the Charter to Tim Riggenbach and Corporate Counsel Randall Ray over a week ago. My revisions included cutting the number of OSF Representatives to one and increasing the number of members at large to five, three from District #3 (the largest affected area), one from District #2, and one from District #1. I further changed the appointment of the members at large to the various Neighborhood Associations instead of the Mayor. My thinking here is at least there would be an even distribution of representatives for all concerned. After receiving Tim’s assurance that it would be given due consideration, I have yet to hear back from either Randall or Tim. Well, they are busy men, I am sure. (Anyone wanting a copy of my proposed revisions, let C.J. know, and he will forward the request, or if he gets too many, perhaps he can publish it.)

But this is the part that sticks in my craw: the City of Peoria wants to improve the area, but has no plan to do so,at least no plan anyone is willing to talk about.

The gentleman from Springfield who gave the first “TIF 101” presentation spoke directly to the hazards of enacting a TIF without a plan. They are currently in an “Adversarial Position” with their City Council as to the proper distribution of TIF funds. Why? Because, as noted in the current TIF Proposal, the City Council has the right to redistribute TIF funds as they see fit, without so much as a “by your leave” from the area where the TIF funds are collected. City Counsel Randall Ray confirmed this at that same meeting. The City Council of Peoria could use these funds to do other things, like pay off the debts due from the infamous MidTown Plaza TIF, or support the poorly planned Glen Oak School/Community Center. They might even use those funds to buy up properties surrounding OSF to allow them to expand their campus, enhancing the areas around the Catholic Diocese and Peoria Fire Central. And of course, there are the sewer repairs that are being done to the tune of five million dollars beneath OSF.

OSF has already stated that they want to expand their campus. Both the White School and the Irving School have been acquired, and the latest vote of the counsel has opened the door to demolishing the Irving school despite its historical properties status. OSF paid for the TIF Proposal Study. OSF has been vocal and present at every TIF meeting, even the “TIF 101” session. And one of the most vocal speakers at the City Council on the night the change was made to allow owner permission to be a prerequisite to the establishing of a historical designation was OSF.

Okay, so we know the City is wanting to ram this through, and OSF seems to have a vested interest in seeing it succeed, at least for their purposes. But how about the residents of the East Bluff?

The truth of the matter is that very few of the property owners in the East Bluff seem to care, or at least that is the impression when you start counting who shows up at the meetings. Most of the people in my area of the East Bluff are supposedly represented by the East Bluff Serenity Neighborhood Association. Jim Combs, a former member of the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, is the president of that association. I have yet to meet the man. Guess I am going to have to go knock on his door to do that, seeing as he doesn’t seem to want to be involved. Richard “Mitch” Mitchell is the president of the East Bluff United Neighborhood Association, and by all impressions to date a reasonable and honorable man. But I wonder how many people he actually speaks for. Glen Oak Flanagan and Glen Oak Park Neighborhood Associations are also present in some form, since Lisa Fischer sits on the Joint Review Board for the EVGC TIF, and is also a board member of the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services (despite earlier rumors to the contrary, I sat behind Lisa at the last board meeting).

Basically, the Mayor is going to get what he wants. Not because it is the right thing to do, and not because the project is going to save the East Bluff. It won’t.

Neither will the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, who have not made a low interest property improvement loan in the last two years, and who are currently in the business of buying and rehabbing homes in the East Bluff (they currently own four properties, including the property that serves as their headquarters on Wisconsin.), ostensibly for sale. Of course, with the area recently declared “blighted” by the TIF Proposal and those findings officially accepted by the City Council, trying to sell property in a “blighted” area might prove to be a somewhat daunting task.

The East Bluff is doomed, a victim of age, apathy, decrepitude, and obsolescence. The houses here are out of date, the infrastructure is vastly inadequate, and the median income level of the residents is near or below poverty levels, based on the number of family members per household with a median annual income level of $36,009. 50. That 62% of rental property I mentioned at the beginning is rapidly becoming too expensive to maintain, so the smart thing to do for any rental owner is to get out while the getting is good, take their profits and sell off the property for whatever they can get. If you hang on to it too long, the City will eventually use eminent domain just as they did with the MidTown Plaza TIF to snap up the land and sell it at a profit to a developer, who will build newer properties for the Doctors, Nurses, Administrators, and staff of the expanded OSF facilities. Of course, they are going to need a convenient grocery store and other retail outlets, which will open up the redevelopment of the Knoxville and Wisconsin business corridors. And they will need new schools to send their children to, so District 150 will be reborn as the new Mecca of higher education, since the tax dollars from the new residents will be several times more than is currently being collected. And Doctors, Nurses, Administrators, Lawyers and other professionals will never let their children attend inadequate schools.

Wow. Sounds like a plan to me. I wonder if they have thought of it?