Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star says it’s too late to turn back now… I believe they’ve fallen in love

19 Comments

As I read Sunday’s Journal Star editorial, “Our View: Too late to turn back now on museum project,” I couldn’t help but think of that old Cornelius Bros and Sister Rose song — perhaps that was the intention of the headline writer:

The Journal Star has fallen in love with the museum project. And you know what they say about love: it’s blind. Those in love overlook all the flaws (even major ones) in the object of their desire. Such is the case with the Journal Star overlooking the major problems with the museum project, apologizing for them, justifying them, or just plain refusing to believe them in some cases. One can almost see them gazing at a framed picture of the museum rendering with a dreamy, far-away look in their eyes, wrapping their Caterpillar class ring with angora.

The starry-eyed Journal Star editors are wrong. In fact, it’s not too late to stop the madness. Not a spade of dirt has been turned yet. The museum plans only exist on paper. Yes, a lot of money has been expended, but that’s no justification for spending millions more on a flawed, doomed-to-fail plan that has gone from bad to worse since the referendum. As C. S. Lewis famously said, “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

The City Council should send the museum folks back to the drawing board Tuesday night by voting against the design concepts and the redevelopment agreement.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Council agenda includes museum redevelopment agreement

31 Comments

The City Council agenda for August 24 includes three items regarding the proposed museum. They include approval of the design concepts, the redevelopment agreement (which includes conveying the land to the County for $1), and vacating certain portions of Liberty and Main streets between Water and Washington streets.

Dave Ransburg, chairman of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, has been meeting privately with City Council members two or three at a time (to avoid an Open Meetings Act violation) to talk about the museum’s plans and to line up at least six votes in favor of the redevelopment agreement and land conveyance.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

County told State it already owns land for museum

23 Comments

In April, Peoria County applied for a $5 million grant through the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). A copy of the grant application was acquired from the County:

DCEO Grant Survey – Peoria Riverfront Museum

The County listed itself as the “grantee” on page 2, and 203 SW Water St. (which is the City-owned Sears block) as the “project location” on page 4. Then, in answer to question 2d — “If the property is being improved, is the property owned by the grantee?” — the County checked the “Yes” box.

Question 10c asked, “If grant funds are to be utilized to make capital improvements to real property (structures/land) that your organization does not own [emphasis in original], provide a copy of the lease or other agreement (i.e., easements, rights-of-way. etc.) between your organization and the property owner that will allow your organization to continue to use the improved premises for an appropriate length of time, consistent with applicable state law and rules.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10d asked, “Does your organization have an executed contract for the purchase/acquisition of the land/building in question?” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10g asked, “Provide the name, address, phone number and email address (if applicable) of the entity from which the land/building(s) is/are being purchased.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

As you can see, the County consistently represented itself to the State as the owner of the land. When asked why, Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich said:

By April when the grant survey was submitted, we had already negotiated the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria. As I said before, the redevelopment agreement has included language regarding title transfer since at least February, and by April, this issue had been to the County’s understanding, resolved. There were several other issues (paying permit fees, the commercial space approvals, the assurance that the funds would be there to build the museum, and what happens to the property if PRM no longer operates the museum) but the negotiating teams had moved on from the title issue.

That still doesn’t explain why this information wasn’t included on the grant application. The proper way to complete the application would have been to answer “No” to question 2d, and explain these negotiations in question 10d, at minimum. The questions couldn’t be any more specific; they clearly expect even anticipated ownership to be disclosed. The County misrepresented its ownership status no matter how one looks at it. No response was received from Urich to follow-up questions on this issue.

Other Questions

Urich’s answer raises another question: is it true that the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria had been resolved by April of this year? That was surprising, considering it has appeared as such a contentious issue here in August. I asked City attorney Randy Ray for some clarification. He replied:

There is no contract in place that requires the City to convey title to the Museum Site to the County.
It is true that there were negotiations, and draft agreements which contemplated such a conveyance. That was a major topic of a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people that took place the first week of March, 2010. Obviously, those meetings did not convey the property, nor did anything else the City has done up to this point. If Council does not approve a Redevelopment Agreement, no conveyance will occur.

Ray acknowledges that negotiations did in fact take place, and we know from Urich’s statement that the County believed the issue of land conveyance was “resolved.” These negotiations were not just with City staff, mind you. There were “a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people” at a time. Unfortunately, we’ll never know the real story because the City took great pains to completely skirt the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

The funny thing is that negotiation of the sale or lease of property can take place in closed session according to OMA, so why not just discuss it in executive session instead of these little meetings? Did they not want the negotiations on the record? (Minutes are taken during executive sessions.) Were they not giving the same information to each of the council members? Somewhere there seems to be a breakdown in communication because the City now appears reluctant to convey the land, but the County thought the issue was “resolved” way back in April.

Of course, there’s no legitimate reason not to conduct these negotiations in public, in open session. The reason property transactions are allowed to be conducted in secret is to protect taxpayers from market reaction. In this case, since the land is owned by one government body and being conveyed to another government body, there are no market forces and those concerns are moot.

During the 2005 mayoral campaign, then-candidate Ardis promised, “My leadership, a new generation of leadership, will be open, not closed; inclusive, not reserved for the select few; and bottom-up, not top-down.” Yet from the hotel deal to the museum, right up to the recent secret meeting with Ransburg — against whom Ardis ran in 2005 and, ironically, whom Ardis criticized for doing the public’s business in secret — he has not shown us this so-called “new generation of leadership.”

City Council, City of Peoria

No liveblogging again… sorry (UPDATED)

6 Comments

Hi everyone. Friends from Massachusetts are in town, and we’re spending the evening with them. But I’ll do a recap of the meeting later tonight. You can hear the meeting live on WCBU (89.9 FM) or watch it live on Comcast cable channel 22.

UPDATE: Here was the agenda for Tuesday night with some summary comments about each item:

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding a PLAN OF FINANCING for a CERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT in Connection with the RENOVATION and REHABILITATION of the PERE MARQUETTE HOTEL in Peoria, Illinois.

Finance Director Jim Scroggins explained that this public hearing is required by law. You may recall that the City agreed a few weeks ago to give Gary Matthews $37 million to redevelop the Pere Marquette and build another hotel downtown. The City wants to use $2,195,000 in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (the maximum amount allocated to the City under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to fund a portion of that $37 million. Recovery Zone Facility Bonds are tax-exempt bonds. The entire City of Peoria is designated a “recovery zone.” This is not the time to argue the merits of the hotel project; this hearing is just about the type of financing that is used; specifically, the use of Recovery Zone Facility Bonds.

  • Phyllis Pryde — Asserts the hotel will be a better investment than the museum because it will earn money and pay taxes. Spoke more against the museum than in favor of the hotel.
  • Kenny Carrigan — He’s in favor of the hotel because it will provide union jobs and bring more activity to the Civic Center. Also speaks in favor of the museum because it will draw tourists, he said. Had positive comments to say about Gary Matthews.
  • Savino Sierra — Supports the hotel because it will provide jobs to union workers and service workers.

That’s it. All three people were in favor of it. Hearing closed.

ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A.NOTICE of LAWSUIT Filed on Behalf of TERRANCE JACKSON Regarding a Complaint Against the City of Peoria and Several Police Officers Alleging Excessive Force During a Traffic Stop and Arrest on January 26, 2009, with Request to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.

B.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Recommendation to ACCEPT the LOW BID of R.A. CULLINAN & SONS, INC., in the Amount of $872,242.50, and Award the CONTRACT for the WEST HICKORY GROVE ROAD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (West of Dunmore Drive to Knoxville Avenue) ALTERNATE A, and to Approve CHANGE ORDER #1, in the Amount of $172,033.74, with Additional Authorization of $52,213.81 (5% for Contingencies).

C.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a FINAL PAY ESTIMATE, in the Amount of $12,501.26, which is $10,683.43, or 15% Over the Approved Amount of $67,849.93, for a Total Contract Amount of $78,533.36, for GLEN OAK IMPACT ZONE PHASE I SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.

D.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the ADDITION of $140,000.00 to the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT with J. C. DILLON, INC. for ANNUAL STORM SEWER REPAIR CONTRACT to Include the Repair at 1100 W. MacQUEEN AVENUE (24.6% of Original Authorization Amount of $570,000.00), for a Total Amended Authorization of $710,000.00. (Amends Item No. 10-118)

E.Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 31, Schedule A, of the Code of the City of Peoria Prohibiting the Use of Ground Water as a POTABLE WATER SUPPLY by the Installation or Use of POTABLE WATER SUPPLY WELLS or by Any Other Method.

F.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Receive and File the GLEN OAK SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ZONE PROGRESS REPORT for the FIRST HALF of 2010, as Required Semi-Annually by Ordinance No. 16,461.

G.REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK A. NICHTING for the MONTH of JUNE 2010, with Request to Receive and File.

Riggenbach removed item F from the consent agenda. The remaining items were approved unanimously.

Riggenbach wanted to highlight the Glen Oak Impact Zone report. Recognized George Jacob and Bob Manning for starting this project. Stated the new Glen Oak School is scheduled to open on Monday, August 30. Highlighted sidewalk and street improvements around the new school. Says there are still challenges in the area, but things are improving. Says he sees fewer for-sale signs in that area now, and thinks that it may be because people are “feeling better about their neighborhoods than they have in the past.” (Or, maybe it’s because several blocks of homes were torn down, so there are fewer houses overall.) Wants staff to come back with “creative ways to increase homeownership in this area” and other improvements.

Motion to receive and file approved unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Authorization for the Staff to APPLY to the U.S. DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION for a $16,000,000 TIGER II GRANT for STREET IMPROVEMENTS in the WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Acting Human Resources Department Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into a THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT with the LOW BIDDER, PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, to Provide THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION for the CITY’S SELF-INSURED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM at a Projected Cost of $216,000.00, for the Three-Year Term.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Acting Human Resources Director Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into a THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT with the LOW BIDDER, VRS-VERICLAIM, INC., to Provide Third Party Administration for the CITY’S LIABILITY PROGRAM at an Estimated Three-Year Cost of $142,000.00.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-057) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission Requesting Approval of the Following:

B. REQUEST to DEFER until NOVEMBER 9, 2010, the ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 16 of the Code of the City of Peoria Related to the DESIGNATION PROCESS.

Van Auken moves to approve. Also requests that Corporation Counsel give legal guidance to the ad hoc committee. Supports deferral so there’s adequate time for all parties to be heard. Motion passes unanimously.

Further unfinished business: Turner says they’re going to have another public hearing on Comcast’s cable service in October; specific date not yet set.

NEW BUSINESS

Turner thanks everyone who helped raise money last Friday (Elected Officials Got Talent); Gulley reminds everyone of the remaining budget open house meetings; Spain says he’s received complaints about barking dogs in neighborhoods; Ardis reminded everyone of the “Dine Out for Peoria Promise” fundraiser going on this week.

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – TOWN OF THE CITY OF PEORIA

ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the Town Attorney Requesting Approval of a Resolution Calling for TWO SPECIAL MEETINGS of the TOWN ELECTORS to Approve a LEASE or PURCHASE for the TOWNSHIP RELIEF OFFICE.

No discussion. Motion approved unanimously.

Irving moves that the Town of the City of Peoria go into executive session after regular meeting not to return in order to consider purchase or lease of property. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

Savino Sierra is the only citizen to address the council tonight. Complains about people walking in the street where there are sidewalks. Also speaks in favor of the Golden Corral restaurant coming to town.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was very short Tuesday evening. It adjourned shortly after 7:00 p.m. Gary Sandberg is on vacation didn’t say anything the whole meeting, and when he isn’t at the meeting doesn’t talk, pretty much everything gets approved with no discussion.

City Council, City of Peoria, Signs

Van Auken misses “Golden” opportunity

25 Comments

There I was Tuesday, beating the newspaper against my head after reading this:

The city’s Planning & Growth Management Department believes [Golden Corral’s] proposed sign is too big, much more so than what is allowed in the city ordinance. Proposals have the sign at 40-foot, 215-square-feet tall [sic]. The city requires 25-foot-tall, 70-square-foot signs for businesses such as Golden Corral […]

Russ Hruby of RJH Management Corp. said the company is willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council. […]

[Second District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken says,] “We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said. “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University. While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.”

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in:

Here’s a developer who is locating on University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill — a stretch of road that is the epitome of poor urban design, and probably the most often-cited example of visual clutter in the City. Presumably, city officials would like to see the area improved and would jump at the opportunity to start scaling down the signs to bring them in line with the sign ordinance.

And it gets better! The developer says he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council” — unlike Westlake Shopping Center which intimidated the City Council into giving it a big ordinance-busting sign by claiming its then-secret tenant (later revealed to be Fresh Market) would not locate there if they couldn’t have a humongous sign. No, this developer is very happy with the City, and doesn’t perceive the city as unfriendly to business. In fact, he’s quoted as saying, “It’s not an adversarial position at all…. Peoria has been (accommodating).”

What an opportunity! No threats, no intimidation. A new business on University street willing to abide by the code! Could this be the start of cleaning up University and reducing visual clutter? Could this business’s sign compliance be used as a shining, positive example for other businesses who locate there in the future?

Enter Barbara Van Auken, Second District Council Representative.

“We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said [emphasis mine]. What? Why in the world would you want to do that? “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University….” Hmmm, “unique” is one word for it; “ugly” is another. “Blighted” fits the bill, too.

“While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.” I’m not sure whether this is doublespeak or just plain self-contradiction. If Councilwoman Van Auken really would “like to get signs smaller,” then she logically would not “give them as close to the size as they want,” which is three times the size allowed by ordinance and twice as big as the McDonald’s sign across the street, especially after the developer has already stated for the record that he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided.”

So the bottom line is that signs will continue to escalate in size along University, unless the rest of the council does the right thing and upholds the sign ordinance. The unwritten rule on the council is that you always vote for what the district council member wants for a project in his or her district. That’s a poor policy in general, and one that definitely should be disregarded in this case.

For those of you who like visuals, I drew this in Google Sketch-Up to show you a comparison of the maximum sign allowed by ordinance (on the left) versus the size of the sign requested by Golden Corral (on the right). These are to scale. Note also the size of an average human at the bottom:

City Council, City of Peoria

Firefly bankruptcy may cost taxpayers “only” $2.5 million

8 Comments

I received this press release from the City of Peoria this afternoon:

Peoria, Illinois, (July 23, 2010) – We have placed on the City Council Agenda for July 27, 2010, a request for approval to satisfy the City/County obligation to PNC Bank by jointly paying $500,000 to the Firefly Bankruptcy Estate and jointly paying $2 Million to PNC Bank. We believe that this course of action will result in considerable savings to the taxpayers of the City and County of Peoria.

We would like to point out that the $500,000 settlement with the Bankruptcy Estate remains subject to approval from the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed agreement with PNC Bank and a third-party buyer also remains contingent to sensitive negotiations which are on-going. We are optimistic that those negotiations will be successful and that the Firefly matter may be resolved quickly, and that the City and County will have to pay substantially less than the $6.6 Million that had been at risk.

So, we’ll be losing $2.5 million instead of $6.6 million. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, yes, I’m glad our losses appear to have been greatly mitigated. But on the other hand, we’re losing $2.5 million! I wonder what the City will do to make up their $1.25 million share of the loss….

Still no word from David Leitch.

City Council, City of Peoria, Comcast, Television

City to temporarily extend Comcast franchise agreement … again

9 Comments

Comcast’s 20-year cable franchise agreement with the City of Peoria expired in April 2006. Since then, that franchise agreement has been extended temporarily numerous times while the City and Comcast have been negotiating a new agreement. Tuesday, the council will consider a request to extend it once again — this time until November 30, 2010. The reason is so we can see what kind of agreement Comcast makes with other communities in Illinois (Rockford, Champaign, and Urbana). City staff believes this will somehow be advantageous to Peoria.

Meanwhile, Comcast has jettisoned oversight and execution of public access (technically known as “PEG”) programming, off-loading it to the City, which has in turn outsourced it to a third-party organization. Comcast has also closed their local customer service center. And Comcast can, at any time, get a franchise agreement from the State of Illinois, thanks to legislation pushed through by AT&T.

Comcast, thanks to the complicity of the State, has the City over a barrel. So, all these extensions appear to be only delaying the inevitable: a franchise agreement on Comcast’s terms. It’s hard to see what good these temporary extensions are doing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

City to comply with HB3785

3 Comments

You may recall that the State passed HB3785, which says political signs can be displayed on residential property at any time. The law takes effect January 1, 2011, but the City of Peoria will be bringing it sign ordinance into compliance this coming Tuesday. The text amendment leaves intact size restrictions for all political signs, as well as the requirement they be removed from public property and commercial property within seven days after an election. Residential properties are excepted from the post-election removal requirement.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

We want to celebrate you! That will be $19,500, please.

12 Comments

The International Association of Chiefs of Police wants to showcase the Peoria Police Department’s “best practices and leadership in law enforcement” at its annual conference to be held in Orlando (Fla.) this year. They want to produce a five-minute video that will highlight Peoria’s Armadillo and ELITE programs and show it to an audience of “up to 15,000 police chiefs from around the world.” Peoria would be one of only ten to fifteen communities showcased.

There’s just one catch: It will cost us $19,500.

Yes, it turns out that they want to showcase us, but they want us to “offset the costs of the production and other expenses.” City staff is requesting that we pay it out of Federal Asset Forfeiture funds, which according to staff will have “no impact upon either the City’s operational or capital budget.”

How can this be? Do we have a fund that can only be used for video showcases? Can this money not be used to offset other expenses in the City’s budget? Are these funds not fungible?

According to the U.S. Department of Justice website, “The Attorney General is authorized to use the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay any necessary expenses associated with forfeiture operations such as property seizure, detention, management, forfeiture, and disposal. The Fund may also be used to finance certain general investigative expenses. These authorized uses are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §524(c).” Looking through the list of approved expenses, a couple things cross my mind: (a) there seem to be a lot of useful, crime-fighting expenses that could be paid with these funds, and (b) I don’t see where “showcase video” is an approved expenditure, although I’m sure it falls under “training” or some miscellaneous category.

I’m all for celebrating our successes, but we are looking at a $10+ million budget deficit and potentially more officer layoffs at a time when we’re on a record pace for murders. Perhaps this request is . . . ill-timed. While I grant that it’s a relatively small amount, the accumulation of “little” expenses can (and do) make a big contribution to the deficit.