Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Southern Gateway, TIF

To TIF or not to TIF: that is the question

6 Comments

I’m not a big fan of tax increment finance districts (TIFs). I’ve seen them used irresponsibly (Midtown Plaza, for instance), and I’ve seen them divide this community. People are soured on TIFs. However, when used properly, TIFs can be a good thing. Sometimes, some places, you really do need tax incentives or development really won’t happen.

The Southern Gateway — and specifically the Eagle View Biotech Business Park — is one of those places.

The amount of money it would take to rehabilitate this area is enormous ($125,000/acre) and enough to dissuade even the most committed urban developer. Jennifer Davis gives an excellent overview of the city’s plans in today’s Journal Star. You can also read the Request for Council Action (PDF file) on the city’s website.

There’s a rule for determining eligibility for TIF funding. It’s called the “but for” test. According to www.illinois-tif.com, “When considering an area for TIF designation, municipal officials must ask the question ‘Will the same kind of private investment occur here without an incentive?’” I think the answer to that question for the Southern Gateway is definitely “no.”

I couldn’t say that about Midtown Plaza. I think that area could have been redeveloped without a TIF. Whether or not a TIF was needed around the Sears block, it certainly didn’t need to be extended for an unnecessary underground parking deck. It’s because of these and other abuses that Peorians are gun-shy about another TIF. I understand that.

But the Southern Gateway is different. The city isn’t trying to bring in a shopping center or visitor’s center or touristy stuff here — it wants to attract industry. And industry means real, well-paying jobs. Peoria needs to attract more industry, and putting it in this area along the river makes sense. We don’t want to see this industry go to other cities, nor do we want to see it going in a suburban corn field.

TIFs get a bad rap in Peoria, and deservedly so. But this time, I’m for it. It’s for this kind of project that TIF laws were made.

City Council, City of Peoria

On the slate: June 6, 2006

7 Comments

The council agenda has come out. A few items of note:

  • PAAG may not get their million dollars back, but they’re going to “make the city pay,” so to speak, one way or another. In case you’ve forgotten, the Peoria Area Advancement Group, LLC (PAAG) “loaned” the city a million dollars way back in 1998 to explore the financial feasibility of buying Peoria’s water works from Illinois American Water. So confident were they that it would be affordable, they promised not to ask for the money back if a buyout wasn’t feasible. Once it was determined that it in fact wasn’t feasible under the criteria stipulated by PAAG, they decided they wanted their money back anyway. It’s awfully hard to part with a million bucks, especially when you didn’t get your way. Now they’re demanding arbitration over the matter to try to recoup their foolish investment, and the city is hiring legal help to rebuff them. Legal fees are estimated to be anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 or more.
  • City Manager Randy Oliver is up for a raise. If the council approves, Oliver’s salary will go from $149,500 to $153,985 (up 3%). Here’s something curious: he also gets an “automobile allowance” of $500/month, which is also up for an increase to $575/month. I have no idea how much Mr. Oliver is required to drive for his position, but wouldn’t it be cheaper for him to drive a car from the city’s fleet? It doesn’t seem like a guy who makes over $150,000/year really needs an “automobile allowance,” does it?
  • That didn’t take long — just a couple weeks after Ferrell-Madden Associates suggested that a TIF district would be needed to revitalize the Warehouse District, here it is on the agenda for Tuesday night. Actually, it’s a recommended TIF (tax increment financing) district for the whole “Southern Gateway,” which includes the Warehouse District (to be rebranded “the Riverfront Arts District”), the River’s Edge Redevelopment Initiative, and the Eagle View Biotech Park. I predict this will elicit no small amount of discussion. After I have a chance to read up on the plans, I’ll write a separate post on this one.
City Council, City of Peoria

The Tax Man

4 Comments

Over Memorial Day weekend, I took my family downtown for our annual lunch outing. I don’t know how it got started, but for several years now we pick a date in May to go downtown, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the “Arts in Education” groups that play in courthouse square, then go in and pay our property taxes for the year.

I know, that last part sounds like a downer, but because of the music and food, it makes the whole experience a little more palatable. This year we paid three times as much as previous years because we bought a bigger house last September to accommodate our growing family. It was the last day of the “Arts in Education” performances, and we heard a little of the Jazz All-Stars, but couldn’t stay long because there’s no shade where they were playing. We went over to the fountain area, which is surrounded by trees. There we sat in the shade and listened to the third grade class from Charter Oak School perform. They were really good — their music teacher is very talented and entertaining. You could tell he was having fun, and so were the kids.

After paying my taxes, it got me wondering how much property taxes contribute to Peoria’s income, and what those taxes pay for. So, I consulted the City of Peoria’s 2006 Budget, which is conveniently available online on the city’s website. I was surprised by what I learned:

Property taxes, which are projected to bring $20.9 million to city coffers, only account for 14.2% of the city’s total revenue. Of course, the city collects all kinds of other taxes, most notably a 1.5% sales tax which accounts for 15% of the city’s revenue. That’s right, sales taxes bring in more money than property taxes. The city also collects taxes on gasoline, utilities, and hotels/restaurants/amusements (HRA).

Where does the money go? Mostly for personnel costs. In 2006, personnel costs are expected to account for 75% of expenditures — that includes benefits, which are rising astronomically as we all know. In fact, between 2005 and 2006, benefits increased 15.9%, and benefits alone account for 24% of city expenditures. The city has 787 employees (I’m assuming this is when fully staffed), and that includes police officers, firefighters, public works employees, council members, and administrative staff.

They say you can tell a lot about a person’s values by looking at where he spends his money. If that can be applied to cities, then Peoria values public safety and public works. Police services account for 19% of expenditures, fire protection 13%, and public works 17% — that’s not including benefits.

It’s easy to criticize the city for not providing more police/fire protection, but the question always remains — how do you pay for it? What other services do you cut? What taxes or fees do you raise? This is why it’s easier to be a blogger than a council person, especially around budget time.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

LaHood mediation meeting not inspiring confidence

2 Comments

Nothing cures distrust like more secrecy.

Today’s Word on the Street column reports that the public won’t be allowed to witness Ray LaHood’s mediation skills when he tries to broker a compromise on the location of a new school in the city’s East Bluff. LaHood will be meeting behind closed doors at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, May 31, with officials from the city, school board and park board. They’ll have a press conference after the meeting.

It appears I’m not the only one who wonders why LaHood is getting involved in this issue. In a letter to the editor that was also published in today’s Journal Star, Donald R. Jackson says:

It is too bad LaHood didn’t make himself available to mediate the conflict between the School Board, Dr. Kay Royster and members of the community who supported her then and still do. LaHood was asked to intervene, but he declined stating that he had no control or influence over the board.

In one sense, these two situations are different: the Royster issue involved one public body that was internally divided — the school board; the school siting issue involves three public bodies — the school board, park board, and city — who are at odds with each other, but are not internally divided.

But in another sense, the situations aren’t different at all. In both cases, it’s a local government issue that doesn’t warrant the time of a U.S. Congressman to mediate. What’s next? Will he be mediating a compromise between the city council and the county board regarding jail fees and election commissions?

And if that weren’t enough, he’s also related to the park board director. Doesn’t that bother anyone? I’m not trying to impugn his integrity, but LaHood seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his actions. He should have enough judgement to see that his in-law relationship to Bonnie Noble gives at least the appearance of impropriety and bias when he’s trying to mediate a dispute that involves the park district.

Then to have the meeting behind closed doors is just the icing on the cake. As the WOTS column points out, decisions made in closed-door meetings are one of the biggest points of contention! And I loved this line:

Tim Butler, LaHood’s spokesman, defended the decision to have the meeting closed, saying there would not be any decisions or determinations and therefore still plenty of time for public input.

There won’t be any decisions? What exactly is the point of this meeting? How do you resolve a dispute without making any decisions? Is Ray just going to do one of those little team-building exercises — like having Councilman Manning fall backwards while Ken Hinton and Tim Cassidy catch him so they can all build up trust for each other?

Despite all my reservations, I nevertheless hope that something good comes out of this meeting. I hope LaHood proves wrong all my fears. But most of all, I hope Glen Oak School remains in the heart of the East Bluff, and that the school board will learn to be more transparent in the future so we don’t have to go through all this rigmarole.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Peoria Streets

The Cold War is over; no need for sprawl anymore

7 Comments

At Thursday’s form-based code “Work-In-Progress” presentation, I learned something new. Do you know what one of the big contributing factors to suburban sprawl was? Civil defense. Really!

In 1951, as a way of protecting us from nuclear attack, President Truman announced his National Industrial Dispersion Policy. The idea was to provide incentives for cities to get their industrial plants away from densely populated areas so that, if the bomb drops, it would minimize the damage. This assumes the old-school mentality that our enemies would only go after military targets and want to minimize civilian casualties.

Well, city planners started planning with this “dispersion” principle in mind, and, lo and behold, our cities are now dispersed! Everything is separate and safe from those Soviet nukes. Except the Soviets are gone and our new enemies are just as happy taking out civilians, so our sprawling cities offer us no protection now. Truman couldn’t have seen that coming.

Other than that, Thursday’s meeting was nothing new for a regular HOP presentation attender. That’s not to say it wasn’t good, because it was. But it’s lost the “wow” factor for me because I’ve seen so many of these artists’ renderings and Photoshopped pictures of what Peoria could look like in the future: tree-lined streets with landscaped boulevards, historic streetlamps, angled parking, wider sidewalks, and bustling pedestrian traffic. It’s time to take the next step of turning those pictures into reality for Peoria.

It all starts in the black and white minutiae of zoning rules and regulations. Nothing is as powerful as zoning at shaping a city.

For example, take a drive down Knoxville and check out the new doctor’s office on the northwest corner of Knoxville and Corrington. All the other professional offices along that stretch of Knoxville are set close to the sidewalk with parking in the rear. But the new office has to conform to one-size-fits-all suburban zoning laws which require it to be set back from the street and provide parking in front. As buildings are replaced, you can see how, over time, that kind of zoning could change the whole character of that stretch.

Because the stakes are so high in tinkering with the zoning ordinances, getting citizen input is essential. But at the same time, it’s the fun part of the job. The real work begins when you try to codify the citizens’ desires into regulatory language, working with public works staff, planning engineers, and other government officials. That’s why Ferrell & Madden get the big bucks.

Perhaps the hardest sell and the most controversial part of their presentation is their recommendation to create another dreaded TIF (tax-increment financing) district for the Warehouse District. Their reasoning is that it’s the only financially feasible way to turn that area around. There are myriad infrastructure needs (from environmental cleanup of hydrolic fluid to upgrading power lines), and no reasonable way to finance them other than through a TIF.

However, they reason, what people are really upset about is the abuse of TIFs in Peoria, not the proper use of them. They stressed that this is an example of the type of project for which TIFs were created. This TIF would benefit a whole area, not just one business or developer like we’ve seen at MidTown Plaza, for instance.

When Ferrell Madden Associates are done, here’s what we’ll have: (1) very specific form-based codes for the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, Prospect Corridor, and Warehouse District, and (2) zoning changes for the rest of the Heart of Peoria from euclidian zoning rules (dispersion) to traditional city planning principles (mixed-use).

Things won’t change overnight, and we certainly need to work on other problems in tandem (crime, schools), but this is one piece of the puzzle that will help transform the Heart of Peoria into a more desirable place to live and work.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Legal loopholes make a mockery of the Open Meetings Act

6 Comments

I have had further correspondance with an attorney who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. Here’s a transcript of what we talked about regarding the school district’s actions and whether or not it violates the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

Real Lawyer:

C.J., I regret that there has been some misinterpretation by others about the OMA as it applies to the actions of Dist. 150. Just to clarify, the OMA and caselaw interpreting it do not (unfortunately in my view) prohibit ratification by the board after an action has been taken. What the OMA prohibits is the board taking official action on anything in closed session. Whether the board decides to approve something in advance or ratify it afterwards, it must take that action in open session.

Me:

Thanks for the follow-up. I am confused, however. If they can take final action in closed session, then approve it post facto in open session, doesn’t that make the prohibition against closed-session final action in the OMA meaningless?

Lawyer:

The board cannot take final action for the property purchases in closed session. I think Matheson may have made a remark at their last meeting stating they could do so; if he did say that, he was wrong. And “final action” doesn’t necessarily mean a formal vote; anything constituting approval can be a final action.

I don’t know what if any action the board took prior to the Prospect property purchases. But the fact that they ratified the purchases at their last meeting, in the open, was likely sufficient under current case law. This is what I think is unfortunate, but until the case law is overturned that’s what we have.

This is all sort of splitting hairs, but I wanted to try to clarify it.

Me:

Sorry I’m not grasping this. It sounds like you’re saying this (not you personally, but case law): If the school board approves in closed session the acquisition of property, it constitutes “final action” per the OMA, and is therefore illegal. But, that illegality is nullified if the board subsequently approves the purchase in open session. Am I understanding that right? They can perform an illegal act and then magically turn it into a legal act by approving it publically after the fact?

Lawyer:

In essence you are right; that’s the clear implication. And the way you phrased it helps, I think, to demonstrate why post-action ratification should not be permitted, at least in situations like the one we have with the property purchases. By allowing a board to “cure” a mistake via ratification afterwards, the courts have made it too easy to evade the intent of the OMA’s requirement for openness.

Is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard? What we have here is a legal loophole for the school board or any other public body to skirt around the Open Meetings Act and take secret action, away from public scrutiny, even though it involves spending (in this case) $877,500 of taxpayers’ money! All they have to do to make it “legal” is approve it after the fact in open session. Big deal. The money’s already gone! How could they not approve it? The contracts are already signed. Talk about violating the spirit of the law….

If the case law does indeed allow for this loophole, it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Shadid, who has expressed concern about the secrecy under which this action was taken, should work with his colleagues in Springfield to immediately propose an amendment to the Open Meetings Act that specifically prohibits such “post-action ratification” by a public body.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup 5/23

2 Comments

Jennifer Davis did such a good job summing up the council meeting last night, I’m going to cheat and say just read her article in the Journal Star.  But I would like to make just a couple of comments about last night’s meeting.

First, it was loooong — over four hours, which is unusual these days.  When they finally got to Mayor Ardis’s plans to make the city more business-friendly, they had already been at it almost three hours, leading local businessman Lee Graves to thank the “new council,” tongue-in-cheek, for holding shorter meetings than earlier councils.  That got a laugh from everyone.

Second, I found the rhetoric during the parking discussion fascinating.  The council decided on a 9-2 vote to offer free parking for two hours at a time during the day (see my previous post for more details), but only after a lot of discussion.  During that discussion, some council members talked about how people would rather walk a couple blocks for free parking than pay for the parking that is closest to the business they’re patronizing.

That’s funny.  Just a few weeks ago, the council voted to put an unnecessary parking deck under museum square based on their belief that people would never even walk across the street from one of the surrounding lots or decks.  We were told then that we live in a northern climate here in Peoria and no one is going to walk a block or two in the rain or cold.  Now we’re told that they will walk a couple blocks — if the parking is free.  Huh.

Well, based on this new information, I think the council should reconsider their plans to build that underground parking deck.  Let’s just provide free parking at any of the surrounding lots or decks by having the museum validate visitors’ parking tickets.  Compared to parking validation, I wonder how many years it would take for the city to get a return on its investment for the parking deck.

City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

The charrette: Citizens relish chance to help city improve

29 Comments

Energetic Collaboration

Over 100 people (including me) showed up at the Ironfront Building Saturday morning at 8:30 to participate in the Ferrell-Madden-Associates-facilitated charrette. After some brief opening remarks, we all gathered in small groups at tables to discuss one of three topics: the Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, the Prospect Road Corridor, or the Heart of Peoria in general.

I sat at one of the “general” tables. The first thing we did was a “SWOT” analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) — they didn’t call it that; I’m just using corporate lingo to describe it. Once we finished with that individual exercise, we got to work together and draw. The tables each had a large map of Peoria with the “Heart of Peoria” (HOP) area outlined and a large piece of tracing paper over it. We were given instructions to identify several things on the map, such as:

  • Places that we considered beautiful and would like to see mimicked the rest of the HOP.
  • Places that we felt were a huge mistake and should never be allowed to happen again (true story: as soon as that item was read, several of us at the table looked at each other and said in unison, “Campustown”).
  • Special buildings we felt should be saved and/or copied.
  • Buildings that were eyesores and should be torn down.
  • Streets that work well and should be used as a template elsewhere.
  • Streets that need improvement and how they could be improved.

This process was actually quite fun because it allowed all of us to put our ideas on paper and dream a little bit. There was the tendency for it to spiral into a complaining session, there’s no denying that, but I thought our group did a good job of staying positive. There were a lot of positive observations and ingenious ideas of what could be done to improve things in the older parts of the city.

Unfortunately, I had to leave early, so I didn’t get to see what happened next, but it’s my understanding that the facilitators tried to synthesize all the SWOT analyses and improvement plans among the “general” tables. They’ll use all that information to develop a form-based code — a regulatory document that will incorporate rules for how development should look in the older areas of town.

I can tell you from my experience that the room was buzzing — there was so much energy in that room Saturday morning, it was hard not to be inspired by all the citizen involvement. Will form-based codes solve all of Peoria’s problems? No. But there really isn’t any one thing — no silver bullet — that will solve all of Peoria’s problems. It will take a combination of efforts and, above all, time. But we have to start somewhere, and I would much rather see the city start with the citizens, getting our input, than hiring another “expert” consultant to tell us what we want. I think this is a step in the right direction.

Concern about gentrification

That said, there is one concern regarding New Urbanism that came up at both the meetings I attended this weekend that I believe deserves a fair hearing: negative effects of gentrification.

Gentrification happens when an area is improved so much that it becomes hot property and many people want to live there. A negative effect of this is that lower-income residents can’t afford to live there anymore due to rising housing and rental prices. In an effort to stabilize a neighborhood, the very people it was supposed to help end up being displaced by wealthier citizens who essentially take over the neighborhood.

When asked about this, Geoffrey Ferrell affirmed that it is something to be concerned about — but not right now, he added. He said that if/when the city’s efforts to revitalize the older neighborhoods become wildly successful, measures will need to be put in place to protect those areas from the negative effects of gentrification. However, that’s a long ways down the road.

Also, USA Today reported last year that conventional wisdom about gentrification may not be supported by the facts. Lance Freeman of Columbia University did a study comparing relocation rates of the poor in gentrified and non-gentrified areas of New York and found surprisingly little difference between them. In other words, the displacement of the poor is largely theoretical.

Still, it would be a good idea for Peoria to plan for success — that is, start considering now what Peoria will do to ameliorate any possible negative effects of gentrification in the Heart of Peoria. It’s always better to be proactive, if for no other reason than to help relieve the fears of lower-income residents of the inner city. When you get right down to it, this would be a wonderful problem for Peoria to have, insomuch as it would mean our efforts to revitalize the older part of the city were successful beyond our wildest imagination.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

District pays top dollar for Prospect properties

9 Comments

It’s just a formality, but the District 150 school board is slated to approve the purchase of eight properties on N. Prospect totalling $877,500 at Monday’s board meeting. The contracts are already signed, the money spent, but this action will just make it legal.

Here are the properties the district has purchased, along with their fair market value according to the Peoria County website (based on their assessed value):

Address Sales Price 2005 FMV Tax ID #
2102 N. Prospect $140,000 $114,360 1434378004
2126 N. Prospect $98,000 $60,150 1434332012
2138 N. Prospect $82,000 $54,780 1434332009
2142 N. Prospect $90,000 $56,280 1434332008
2144 N. Prospect $89,000 $63,750 1434332007
2206 N. Prospect $120,000 $86,850 1434332017
2208 N. Prospect $133,500 $89,190 1434332016
2212 N. Prospect $125,000 $84,180 1434332001
TOTAL $877,500 $609,540

And here’s where all those properties are in a satellite photo, courtesy of Peoria GIS and Photoshop:

The school district really jumped the gun on these purchases, and the near million dollars they’ve spent will make it harder for them to back out of their plans to put Glen Oak school on this property. Instead of merely putting down earnest money on these properties until after the school board approved them, they went ahead and signed purchase agreements.

It’s understandable that they would pay more than fair market value for the homes, since the district initiated the sale and the owners want to make enough to pay for relocation and get a comparable house somewhere else. But now if the district abandons its present course of action, they would end up having to resell the property — at a significant loss. The $267,960 over fair market value they’ve spent won’t be easily absorbed by a district that’s already running in the red.

However, as expensive a mistake as it was, it would be a bigger mistake to spend another $15 million to build a school on the corner of Glen Oak Park. The district should listen to the residents, parents, city leaders, et al., and either renovate or raze and rebuild Glen Oak School on its present site. If they would just give up their crazy delusion that they need 15 acres in the middle of a dense urban area to build a new school, they could actually renovate/rebuild Glen Oak for a lot cheaper than what they were going to spend to put it in Glen Oak Park, and that would mitigate the loss from the properties for which they paid top dollar.

City Council, City of Peoria

Ardis: Status quo is not acceptable; Peoria must become more business-friendly

3 Comments

Peoria has a reputation for not being especially business-friendly, but Mayor Ardis wants to change that. He’s proposing the city implement nineteen specific changes and/or improvements in a six-page Business Task Force Report (read it here) that was placed on the council agenda for Tuesday. The report was a collaborative effort with Third District Councilman Bob Manning, Fifth District Councilman Patrick Nichting, and local businessman Lee Graves.

The changes are placed under four major categories, or action items:

  1. Better information and communication regarding the development process.
  2. Reduced time frames for permits and zoning certificates.
  3. Changes in codes and/or policies that will facilitate development and redevelopment.
  4. Customer service and friendly, helpful attitude is a priority and goal for all city employees and departments.

Some of the highlights of the plan: The city is working to develop a “Developer’s Handbook” that would be “a guide to assist customers in the development process, containing regulations, processes, and policies related to development approval.” They would publish it in hard copy and also digital form, presumably to put on the city’s and/or Chamber of Commerce’s website. The goal is to have this project done by September this year.

The report also calls for “a complete rewrite of the city’s comprehensive plan.” This plan hasn’t been updated since 1992. The first phase of that rewrite is happening this weekend — the development of a form-based code for the Heart of Peoria. The rest of the comprehensive plan is tentatively scheduled to be completed by January 2008. That may sound like a long time, but if you’ve ever seen the comprehensive plan (it’s huge), you know that’s a pretty ambitious goal.

City employees would receive customer service training under this plan in order to improve their attitude and professionalism in dealing with city customers. I’ve never had to work with the departments a developer would need to consult, so I can’t comment on their attitude or professionalism. However, the city employees I have dealt with, both in the treasurer’s office and the city clerk’s office, have all been friendly, helpful, and professional.

There are also several items that involve regularly-scheduled meetings between different departments to improve communication, and several very specific items that were undoubtedly brought up by developers as being pet peeves of theirs when working with the city. Many items have already been completed. My favorite is item 2A: they reduced the time it takes to get residential building permits from one day to one hour. Now that’s process improvement!

This is a big step in the right direction. Peoria should be more business-friendly, and this document shows the city is aware of the problem and working to correct it. Kudos to the Business Task Force for their work on this plan.