Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development, TIF

Saving downtown one new hotel at a time

4 Comments

I stopped blogging for several years shortly after the big Wonderful Development opened downtown. You may recall that they remodeled the Pere Marquette, opened the new Courtyard Marriott, and had plans to put in restaurants and bars and retail, and oh, goodness, that block was going to be hopping! And the best part was, it wasn’t going to cost taxpayers a thing because, “It pays for itself,” an exuberant Mayor Ardis said at the time.

As it turns out, not one restaurant, bar, or retail shop has ever opened in the storefronts along Monroe. In fact, the interior was never even finished; it still looks like a construction site inside. Taxpayers lost the $7 million loan and is saddled with ongoing lawsuits with developer Gary Matthews. And since the pandemic, the Courtyard has been closed, ostensibly due to low demand.

But no worries. It turns out that what downtown really needs to start bustling like it’s 1939 again is — wait for it — another hotel! Yes. The Peoria City Council has just approved another redevelopment agreement with another hotel developer that’s promising 70% occupancy, a national flag (this time it will be a Hilton Garden Inn), a restaurant/bar, and a convenience store. And it won’t cost taxpayers anything. It’s risk-free!

The new hotel is planned for Adams street, across the street from the new OSF Health Care corporate headquarters, in place of the former Sully’s bar and the former downtown Illinois Central College campus (also known as the Perley building). Plans call for the two properties to be razed to make way for the new development. Incidentally, artists’ renderings show Fulton Plaza replaced with two-way vehicular traffic again, but there’s nothing in the redevelopment agreement about it.

Oh, and it’s absolutely, positively, nothing at all like that Wonderful Development from a decade or so ago. Everybody says so: the developer, the developer’s attorney, various other people with a vested interest in the project, and the City Manager.

They have a point. There are many differences. This project includes apartments on the upper floors in addition to hotel rooms on the lower floors. That’s a new twist. The City isn’t loaning $7 million from underfunded pension funds this time. That’s a plus. They’re also not handing $33 million to the developer up front (backed by municipal bonds that we’re still on the hook to pay off), although they swore that was an awesome idea the last time. But hey, we all make multi-million-dollar mistakes with other people’s money now and then. Can’t remain bitter about that forever, am I right?

But on the other hand, there are a lot of similarities. It’s highly debatable that we need more hotel rooms downtown. As mentioned, one entire hotel downtown is still closed–try to book a room in the Courtyard. The occupancy predictions presented at the council meeting tonight (brought to you by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, a consultant for the hotel industry who reportedly did the feasibility study for this project) are unrealistically high, just like they were for the Wonderful Development. They’re also promising a new restaurant and retail, just like they did with the last hotel project, but which never materialized.

And there’s one more similarity worth mentioning: This does come with a cost to taxpayers. This hotel will be in the Downtown Conservation TIF (tax increment financing district), and the City has promised to pay the developer up to 100% of the redevelopment costs out of the increase in taxes attributable to the project site. That’s money that otherwise would go to other taxing districts, such as the County, District 150, the Park District, ICC, etc. That means taxpayers like you and me will have to take up the slack.

This also means the new hotel will be competing with the Pere Marquette and (still shuttered) Courtyard Marriott. The $33 million in bonds to build those hotels is supposed to get paid back out of revenues from those hotels. If revenue goes down due to increased competition for an (I would argue) over-supply of hotel rooms, then the bond repayment has to be made up from taxpayers like you and me. You can’t stop a private developer from building another hotel (that’s capitalism), but you don’t have to give them a sweetheart TIF deal that will likely harm your other investments, either.

True to form, however, the deal was sealed before the Council ever met, and it passed unanimously tonight. That’s okay. We’re finally going to get downtown moving again, just like we were promised with the Pere Marquette renovation. And the Civic Center expansion. And the museum. And the new Cat headquarters. And One Technology Plaza. And Riverfront Village. And….

City Council, City of Peoria

Who will get Sandberg’s seat?

51 Comments

I considered throwing my name in the running for Gary Sandberg’s seat. However, after talking it over with my family, I decided this just isn’t the right time (not that I had any illusions of actually being chosen, but I believe you shouldn’t apply for something unless you really are willing to serve).

There is no shortage of other applicants, however. Here are the 31 people who submitted their resumes:

  • Denene Ricks
  • Ken Goldin
  • Randy Ray
  • Thomas Stevens
  • Conrad Stinnett III
  • Harry Block
  • Alma Brown
  • Jody Hoerr
  • John D. Marter, Jr.
  • Patrick Williams
  • Kyie Hess
  • Robert J. Rivoli III
  • Jeff Stauthammer
  • Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald
  • Monty Spivey
  • Joseph B. VanFleet
  • Brad Douglas
  • Martha Ross
  • Amy Eckardt
  • Martin Deters
  • Brett Kolditz
  • Katherine Coyle
  • Clyde E. Gulley, Jr.
  • Todd A. Dennhardt
  • Patti Sterling-Polk
  • Tara Gerstner
  • Elizabeth Jensen
  • Thomas Angelo
  • Franklin L. Renner
  • Andre Williams
  • Bill Spears

Interesting list. Notable applicants: A couple of former council members who didn’t run for reelection the last time (Gulley, Spears); a current District 150 school board member (Ross); former city attorney (Ray); recent council also-rans (Sterling-Polk, Williams); former City of Peoria Communications Manager Alma Brown; and neighborhood advocate and “Friend Of Peoria Chronicle” Conrad Stinnett.

Notable omission: Patrick Sullivan didn’t throw his hat in the ring.

You can read the resumes of the applicants on the City’s website by clicking here. The council has 60 days to choose a successor. Any wagers on who will get the nod?

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg appeals for judicial review

3 Comments

At-large councilman Gary Sandberg, who was removed from the first district ballot last week by the Peoria Election Commission, has petitioned the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court for a review of that ruling.

Sandberg argues in his petition that a requirement that “aldermen” reside in their “ward” for one year prior to the next election does not apply to councilmen in the Council/Manager form of government.

You can read the petition here (PDF format):

PDF Link Petition for Judicial Review

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg to appeal ruling (UPDATED)

12 Comments

Just minutes before Peoria’s Board of Election Commissioners voted to remove Gary Sandberg’s name from the first district ballot, Sandberg told the Peoria Chronicle, “If I am disallowed I will appeal to circuit court.”

Published reports so far have not detailed which part of the municipal code was cited by the Election Commission in making their decision. The Journal Star, for instance, just says, “Commissioners cited municipal code that states a candidate has to live for one year in the district in which he or she runs for office.”

Updates will be made to this post as more information becomes available.

UPDATE (12/18/2012): Despite having asked for a copy of the ruling a week ago, the Election Commission would not release it. However, I was able to get a copy from Sandberg. Incidentally, Sandberg asked for it to be emailed to him and signed a document to that effect with the Election Commission, but they wouldn’t email him a copy. They sent it regular mail. It’s unclear why the commission chose this tactic of deliberate and unnecessary delays in releasing public information that was already announced at a public meeting a week ago. I guess just to show us peasants who the lord of the fiefdom is.

The analysis I provided in a previous post was basically correct, except that I missed one thing. You’ll recall that I was unsure how 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(c) would be interpreted, since it used the terminology of “alderman” and “ward,” and our form of government is council-manager which uses the terms “councilman” and “district.” The answer is found in 65 ILCS 5/1-1-2(8), which states: “Wherever the words ‘city council,’ ‘aldermen,’ ‘commissioners,’ or ‘mayor’ occur, the provisions containing these words shall apply to the board of trustees, trustees, and president, respectively of villages and incorporated towns and councilmen in cities, so far as those provisions are applicable to them.” Based on that, the election commission determined that the one-year residency requirement for aldermen also applies to councilmen.

So far, Sandberg has not filed an appeal to the Circuit Court.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Main Street Commons, City Council continue to flout form-based codes

15 Comments

More residential parcels will become parking lots for the Main Street Commons development following the City Council’s 8-2 vote Tuesday night. The student apartment complex at Main Street and Bourland Avenue was granted approval to add 32 more apartment units to the existing 88 units and nearly double the number of off-street parking spaces from 97 to 182.

The plan, which violates the letter and spirit of the Land Development Code, was agreed to by City staff, the Zoning Commission, and the majority of the City Council. The plan was opposed by the University East Neighborhood Association and council members Akeson and Sandberg.

And they say Peoria isn’t “business friendly.” The Zoning Commission approved the plan even though the developer stood in front of them and admitted that he didn’t respond to the neighborhood association’s request to have him explain his plan to them. Second district council member Barbara Van Auken, who is seeking reelection next spring, made the motion to approve on the Council floor in spite of opposition to the project from the neighbors she represents.

Whither the West Main Form District?

What’s especially disappointing about this latest addition to Main Street Commons’ special use permit is that this project is set in one of the City’s four form districts — areas with very specific form-based codes. Form-based codes are used to combat urban sprawl — to proscribe built environments like the very one being created by Main Street Commons. This code was put together following a long process of public involvement and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the area.

But form-based codes only work if they’re followed. In this case, certain limits within the code have been consistently overridden by the Zoning Commission and the Council to the detriment of the neighborhood.

The buildings that front Main Street, according to the code, can be up to 5 stories tall, but as you move away from Main Street and into the adjoining neighborhood, the building mass is supposed to diminish. The code permits structures to be built along Bourland (going north from Main) to be 2-3 stories high and have frontage that does not extend further than 130 feet. The structure the council is allowing will be 4 stories high and extend 200 feet. This does not sufficiently taper the building mass into the neighborhood.

Another purpose behind the limits on building mass is to provide enough room on and around the block for parking. By increasing the mass of the building, additional parking needs are generated, and that has led to the razing of houses in the adjoining neighborhood to make way for surface parking lots. As of Tuesday night, two more parcels were added for conversion to surface lots. This again violates the letter and spirit of the code. Two of the goals of the parking requirements are to “reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, single-purpose reserved parking,” and, “avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the form districts.” This special use does just the opposite.

The code also requires alleys, but in a subsequent vote the Council vacated the existing alleys in the block being developed by Main Street Commons.

In short, the Land Development Code was once again eviscerated, treated like it doesn’t exist. The protections for neighborhoods were overruled and a development that could have been a welcome addition and stabilizing force has instead turned into an encroaching, destabilizing force in the University East neighborhood because it’s being allowed to grow unchecked by the very public bodies that are supposed to be representing the residents of Peoria.

Salt Lake City takes a different, better approach

The very same night the Peoria City Council voted to allow houses in an urban neighborhood to be razed to make way for a surface parking lot, the City Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, banned demolishing buildings to create parking lots. Furthermore, they are considering an ordinance that “would require property owners to keep vacant buildings and houses ‘habitable’ — fit to live or work in. It would allow for demolition only after a property owner submits plans for a replacement structure and obtains a building permit.”

Why? Because they recognize that just razing buildings does not stabilize an area. Take a look on the South Side or East Bluff in Peoria. There are lots of empty lots where houses have been razed. But has that really helped the neighborhood? There are certainly some advantages to such a strategy if the property was an eyesore, safety hazard, or haven for drug dealers. But ultimately, replacing run-down structures with vacant lots (often weed-infested) and surface parking do nothing to increase property values or attract new people to the neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods with multiple missing houses look like a smile with missing teeth: not attractive.

It’s a shame more progressive policies against blight can’t be enacted — and enforced — here in Peoria. It’s a shame we don’t enforce the existing policies that residents already worked so hard to enact.

A person in the City Council gallery Tuesday, frustrated with the Council on another issue that affects a neighborhood in the third district, asked rhetorically if the City Council represents the residents or the developers. I think we all know the answer to that question.

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

Council hopefuls begin filing petitions

10 Comments

Monday was the first day mayoral and city council candidates could file to have their names placed on the ballot for the Feb. 26, 2013, primary election, and several candidates were there when the election commission doors opened.

Turning in nomination petitions for mayor was incumbent mayor Jim Ardis. He currently has no opponent since at-large councilman Chuck Weaver decided not to run.

In the first district, Denise Moore and Randall Emert, Sr. filed petitions. Incumbent Clyde Gulley is not running for reelection to the council, but he was at the election commission Monday morning; he will be running against incumbent Joseph Whalen for Township Supervisor. Whalen is running as a Republican, Gulley as a Democrat. (Council races are non-partisan.)

In the second district, incumbent council representative Barbara Van Auken filed her petitions. She will be opposed by former at-large councilman Chuck Grayeb, who also filed Monday morning.

In the third district, only incumbent Tim Riggenbach filed petitions.

In the fourth district, former city inspections department manager John Kunski filed. Incumbent Bill Spears has announced he will not be seeking reelection. I’ve heard that former at-large councilman Jim Montelongo will also be running in the fourth district, but he has not yet filed as of Tuesday morning, according to the list I received from the election commission.

In the fifth district, incumbent Dan Irving has filed. Two challengers have announced, but only one was there to file his petitions: Dan Adler.

City Clerk Beth Ball filed her petitions. This will be her first election. She finished the term of Mary Haynes upon her retirement. City Treasurer Patrick Nichting filed his petitions for reelection as well.

Candidates have until Nov. 26 to file.

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Weaver decides against mayoral run

8 Comments

PEORIA — At-large City Councilman Chuck Weaver announced today via press release that he will not run for Peoria mayor this election cycle.

Weaver told the Peoria Chronicle that when he started exploring a mayoral run, incumbent Mayor Jim Ardis had not yet announced whether he would be seeking reelection. Now that Ardis has announced, Weaver said he thought a mayoral contest would be a distraction from the work the mayor and the council are doing.

Weaver also said that exploring a run for mayor allowed him to “get back out and talk to folks.” In the process, he learned that his base has gotten bigger and more diverse since he was first elected.

Mayor Ardis is currently the only announced candidate for mayor.

Here’s the press release:

Continue reading Weaver decides against mayoral run →

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

No, I’m not running this time

8 Comments

I’ve had several people ask me if I’ll be running for the second district Peoria City Council seat in 2013. The answer is no. I’d once again like to thank all of those who supported me the last time I ran. I may consider another run in the future. But after evaluating my obligations at home and work, I believe this just isn’t the right time for me.

So far, in the second district, Chuck Grayeb has announced he’s running and incumbent Barbara Van Auken hasn’t said one way or the other if she’s running. Assuming she does run, and assuming no one else enters the race, I’ll be supporting Grayeb. If you’ve followed my blog from the beginning when Grayeb was still on the council as an at-large representative, you know that I don’t see eye-to-eye with him. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he would be a better representative of the second district than the incumbent. Van Auken has been instrumental in dismantling the Historic Preservation efforts of the city and eviscerating the Heart of Peoria Plan in principle and in practice. She has been complicit in squandering our tax money and public resources on baubles and trinkets. Crime around Bradley University has increased, and the Bradley top brass has responded by increasing patrols by Bradley police officers; yet I’ve heard nothing and seen no action from our city council representative on the matter.

Grayeb came in sixth, very close behind the fifth-place finisher in the at-large election. He’s been on the council before and obviously has a great deal of support. He’s susceptible to being suckered into bad deals for city taxpayers (e.g., he voted for MidTown Plaza), so we’ll have to hold his feet to the fire on those things. But no one can doubt his commitment to public safety and historic preservation. Grayeb is by far the better candidate in the second district at this time.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Streets

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business?

22 Comments

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business? Mayor Ardis’s dad thought so.

In a March 9, 1966, Journal Star article, Mayor Jim Ardis’s father (who also served on the City Council), expressed his objection to the expansion of one-way streets in downtown Peoria:

James E. Ardis, who operates Ardis & Son Cleaners, 518 NE Monroe Ave., asserted that he formerly operated cleaning establishments on Southwest Jefferson avenue but was driven out of business when that street was made one-way, being effective as a freelancer>, learn about managing your warehouse.

Ardis charged that putting the one-way plan into effect would be “turning the city upside down” just to provide relief for morning and evening rush periods.

The City Council is looking at converting Adams and Jefferson streets to two-way from business viewpoint>. It was last brought up in the July 10 council meeting. At that time, city administration said they would present a cost analysis of the conversion in August, although that didn’t happen. A policy discussion that was scheduled for the last week of August was postponed.

The Peoria Chamber of Commerce is opposed not only to the conversion, but even to studying the conversion. In an e-mail sent to council members on August 24, Chamber president Roberta Parks said:

It is our understanding that simply to study the issue of changing these streets from one-way to two-way could cost the city in the neighborhood of $200,00-$300,000 [sic]. All that would get you is a determination of how much it would cost to actually make the changes. We are concerned that the ultimate cost could be very high….in the millions. We simply do not think either of these expenditures is the highest and best use of the City’s limited resources….either money or people – it isn’t even the most pressing transportation or infrastructure issue facing the City. We clearly understand the interest of making both of those streets more pedestrian friendly. But we believe that can be done in far less costly ways. You can reduce lanes, add parking, increase sidewalk amenities, slow speed limits, etc. Some of those ideas (and there are surely more) have a cost but it surely would be far less than changing both streets to two-way streets. We would strongly urge you to NOT to commission this study.

The Chamber of Commerce is supposed to speak on behalf of businesses. But is this really what businesses on these streets want?

The Chamber’s missive to the Council doesn’t reflect the feelings of Tom Wiegand, co-owner of UFS, 1800 SW Adams. In a July 11 report, WMBD-TV reported:

…Wiegand has been pushing for the change for more than 30 years. “I think the street conversion project is not all about business, it’s about the community. It’s about the residential also. When you start bringing business back and it’s flourishing, there’s a natural spin-off into the community and people will want to come down here and live again,” he said….

…”I just hope that this is a serious endeavor by the city and they take it seriously. We really need to do something about this side, this end of town, in this part of Peoria.”

UFS is a member of the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce.

From the beginning, businesses along these streets were opposed to making them one-way. The only business which has expressed its desire to see them remain one-way is Caterpillar, Inc. In 2007, Caterpillar presented a written statement to the Heart of Peoria Commission stating they wanted traffic patterns downtown to remain unchanged. “[A]ny revisions to the current traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in the downtown Peoria area would be detrimental to our employees and visitors,” they said.

Adams and Jefferson are one-way from the point they intersect by Komatsu in the north down to Western Avenue in the south–a distance of approximately four miles affecting hundreds of properties/businesses.