Category Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria

O’Brien Steel expansion: proposed or not proposed?

21 Comments

Neighbors in the near north side and Averyville area are wary of Item No. 3 on tonight’s City Council agenda.

The item itself is fairly innocuous. O’Brien Steel wants the City to vacate the alley behind their Adams St. property. O’Brien owns the property on both sides of the alley. They’ve cleared recently-acquired adjacent property and are leveling the land.

What concerns neighbors is this: “This vacation is the first step in the proposed O’Brien expansion.” Neighbors are asking, “what expansion?”

Despite this council communication stating that there is a “proposed” expansion, when you ask the City for information about that expansion, they say they’ve received no proposal.

Susan Schlupp in the City’s Economic Development Department says her department has not received any expansion plan from O’Brien Steel. Pat Landes, Director of Planning and Growth, said in response to neighborhood inquiries that her department “does not have any application for rezoning, special use, or zoning certificate on file. At a meeting in September, O’Brien representatives said that when a plan was ready and they were ready to file that they would meet with the neighbors.”

Neighbors are wary of such promises. After all, the last redevelopment agreement with O’Brien Steel (June 2000) was made public on a Wednesday and passed by the City Council the following Tuesday. Neighborhood associations asked the City to defer the item to give them time to meet and give input to the plan, but the Council feared a deferral would scuttle the project.

Incidentally, the last redevelopment project promised to “increase the number of local job opportunities from the existing 150 to over 200 when the project is complete.” But in March 2009, the Journal Star reported that “32 of [O’Brien Steel’s] production workers were laid off indefinitely. Company president J.P. O’Brien said the company employs 120, most of whom are production workers.” It would appear that the promised additional jobs either never materialized or were short-lived. In any case, O’Brien now has significantly fewer employees than before their last expansion.

Despite all the protestations from the City that no proposal has been made, a June 22, 2010, statement from Speer Financial selling City of Peoria general obligation bonds had this to say: “[O’Brien Steel] is currently in negotiations with the City of construct a new manufacturing facility and warehouse that is estimated to cost $15,000,000.”

But the City doesn’t know anything.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Economic Development, Peoria Public Schools

Open discussion on Peoria High and East Village TIF

28 Comments

I have mixed feelings about the recent windfalls of state money Peoria has been told its getting. In the news recently have been announcements that we’re getting $10 million to upgrade Washington Street and $17 million to renovate Peoria High School and build an addition onto Lincoln Middle School.

On the one hand, the money is going for a good cause, and we can certainly use it. On the other hand, the State of Illinois is in a financial crisis, and this additional spending is not helping to alleviate it.

It has led to an interesting question that I didn’t expect to hear while we’re still reeling from the recent recession: what should we do with all the money? Of course, the Warehouse District money is pretty cut and dried. But the District 150 money is another story. I got this comment recently from school board member Jim Stowell:

CJ – can I please ask if you could open the question of how we should best develop PHS and the surrounding feeder system/neighborhoods – what collaborations we should explore, etc. Thx! In light of the recent funding grant, there exists tremendous opportunity. I am optimistic about the East Bluff residential TIF, but I also have reservations. The Dist. will no doubt be convening meetings, but the discussion needs to begin now. Thanks for providing a forum.

I’d kind of sworn off open threads a while back, but this does sound like it would be an interesting discussion. Other readers have expressed interest in this as well. So, always being happy to oblige my readers, here’s an open thread to discuss Peoria High and the proposed East Village TIF.

I’ll just add that while Mr. Stowell may be “optimistic about the East Bluff residential TIF,” that doesn’t appear to be the official opinion of District 150. The District’s interim comptroller Dr. David Kinney has been attending recent City Council meetings, and when I asked him why, he said it was in case an opportunity came to speak about the proposed TIF. He’s not what you’d call a fan of the idea. On its face, he says it’s a recipe for disaster. The preferred outcome is that it would encourage families to move back into the East Bluff. If it’s successful in doing so, it will require more services from District 150 to educate the increasing number of children, but provide no additional tax revenue to support them. Thus, it would put even more of a strain on District 150’s already stretched finances.

The proposed East Village TIF area is currently being studied for eligibility (this is perfunctory, as no proposed TIF has ever been found ineligible), with the consultant’s report scheduled to come before the council November 9.

City of Peoria

Wonderful Development still sitting on launching pad

12 Comments

At the request of come commenters, I’ve been trying to get information on what’s new with the Wonderful Development. As far as I can tell, nothing.

The City Council initially approved (by a 10-1 vote) an agreement in December 2008 with EM Properties to redevelop the Pere Marquette block, upgrading the Pere and building a pedestrian bridge across Fulton St. to the Civic Center. EM Properties couldn’t fulfill that agreement, so they came back in May 2010 requesting a new redevelopment agreement that was significantly different than the first one. The new agreement would have two hotels instead of one (i.e., they would still restore the Pere and make it a four-star Marriott, but would also build a separate Courtyard by Marriott on the block), and fewer rooms overall. They also requested $37 million instead of $39 million in bonds (i.e., taxpayer subsidy). At the time, the City reported on their Council Communication, “EM Properties has made modifications to their project and has now secured all necessary private financing.” The new redevelopment agreement was approved by a 7-4 vote.

The agreement required in section 3.3, “No later than ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City the Design Concept Plan for the Project which Design Concept Plan shall contain the Exterior Architectural Appearance of the Project.” And in section 3.5, “No later than August 1, 2010, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City Schematic Drawings developed in connection with the design-build contract for the Project.” So, I asked the City, via a Freedom of Information Act request, when these documents were submitted.

Well, I didn’t find out exactly when they were submitted. All I received was a letter dated September 10, 2010, from the City’s Corporation Counsel Randy Ray to EM Properties, Ltd., that said:

This letter will confirm that your booklet entitled “Downtown Peoria Mariott Hotel Project — Hotel Site Plans” containing drawings dated May 3, 2010, satisfies the requirements of Section 3.5 of the Redevelopment Agreement between the City of Peoria and EM Properties, Ltd. concerning schematic drawings.

We would take this oportunity to remind you that in order to get a building permit for the Project, the Inspections Department will need professionally sealed construction documents.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

In a follow-up phone call to Randy Ray, he stated that the booklet also included the Design Concept Plan and thus satisfied section 3.3 of the redevelopment agreement as well. However, section 3.4 of the agreement states, “The City shall within thirty (30) days from receipt approve or disapprove the Design Concept Plan.” And for the purposes of that section, the “City” means the City Council. Mr. Ray confirmed that the design concept plan has never come before the City Council, and said he will try to get it on the Council’s agenda in November. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention.

Meanwhile, you may recall that EM Properties was trying to get moral obligation financing through the Illinois Finance Authority to “finance a portion of the energy efficient upgrades of the 270-room historic Pere Marquette Hotel that will be renovated and converted to a Marriott and a ‘to be’ constructed 180-room Courtyard.” They had a big public hearing on it in March 2010. The last I heard about it was in May when the Journal Star reported, “EM Properties, the developer of the Marriott Hotel project, needs approval from the Illinois Finance Authority. The authority next meets June 8, and it’s unknown whether a request for a moral obligation bond supporting the hotel will be on the agenda.”

Well, it wasn’t on the agenda in June. In fact, it’s never again appeared on an IFA agenda. However, there are some related matters on the IFA slate. In August 2006, the current owners of the hotel, Pere Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P., entered into a participation loan with the IFA and National City Bank (now PNC). That loan should have been paid off March 31, 2010, but because of the pending sale to EM Properties, there was a request to extend the final maturity date until June 30. However, the sale didn’t close by then, so another extension was approved until September 30. The sale had not closed as of September 30 because a third extension was requested at the October 12 IFA meeting:

This is a third request by PNC Bank, and the Borrower, to extend the final maturity date beyond the originally scheduled March 31, 2010, maturity date in anticipation of the sale of the Hotel Pere` Marquette to EM Properties.

This request will provide an additional 120-day window for Pere` Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P. to close on the sale of the hotel property to EM Properties, LLC. Again, PNC and the other lenders expect this purchase to close by November 30, 2010.

Despite the expectation that the sale will close by the end of November, the extension goes through January 31, 2011.

I’m not sure what all this means, but I have to say these delays are awfully strange for a project that supposedly had “secured all necessary private financing” back in May.

City of Peoria

Case against Ardis — substantive or political?

74 Comments

There’s no love lost between State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis. Ardis supported Darin LaHood in the last State’s Attorney election and had some critical things to say about Lyons during the campaign.

Well, now the Journal Star reports that Mayor Ardis “may have committed a misdemeanor and subsequent felony by using what appeared to be official city stationery recently to request campaign donations on behalf of a judicial candidate, State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons said Wednesday.” Ardis stated that “he paid for the copies, envelopes and postage and the city letterhead was from a Word document on his home computer,” and so he thought he was complying with the law by not using city resources for campaign purposes.

Not so, according to the Journal Star. A City ordinance “prohibits city employees from engaging in ‘any prohibited political activity during any compensated time … [City] employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any [City] property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.'” When the Journal Star told Ardis about this section, he is quoted as saying it “doesn’t pertain to elected officials.”

The ordinance in question is from Section 2-336 of the City’s municipal code, and frankly I can see Ardis’s point. There is no definition that I can find of “city employee.” Assuming there is none, we have to look for clues from the context. Here are the first two items under Section 2-336:

Sec. 2-336. Prohibited political activities.

(a) City employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). City employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.

(b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties, (ii) as a condition of city employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the city (such as vacation, personal, or compensatory time off).

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but neither is Ardis, so let’s just look at this from a layman’s perspective. It would appear to me that there is a difference between “city employee,” “constitutional officer,” “official,” “director,” and “supervisor.” Section 2-266 and 2-267 indicates that Mayor is an “elected city officer.” I can find no reference to the Mayor as a “city employee.” So at best, this section’s application to the Mayor is tenuous.

But that won’t stop Mr. Lyons. He’s rattling his saber, saying that he could charge Ardis with a felony through some other legal hocus-pocus. Unless other evidence can be provided besides what was cited in the Journal Star, I’m not buying that Ardis actually broke the law here. This appears to be a politically-motivated non-event. Note that Ardis is Republican and is supporting a Republican judicial candidate, whereas Lyons is a Democrat.

Given Lyons’ reluctance to prosecute cases he has little chance of winning, I predict this one will not be prosecuted either.

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 10/12/2010

21 Comments

Good evening, Chronicle readers. I’m back at the City Council meeting this week, and there’s a relatively short agenda this evening. The meeting is starting a little early — the Town of the City of Peoria is having a meeting from 6 to 6:15 p.m., and then the regular City Council meeting will begin. The Town meeting is pretty interesting, actually. The Town Supervisor Joe Whalen wants to lease a new office on Glen Avenue for a couple thousand dollars a month, whereas they’re currently located in City Hall for free. Upon questioning as to why City Hall can’t accommodate his needs, he couldn’t give any good reason (people have to walk up and down stairs, and other horrors). When asked if he looked at city-owned property, he says he was offered space at the bus depot, but he was concerned about security. There were other locations downtown that were not considered because Whalen felt there wasn’t adequate parking.

I can’t believe (a) Town Supervisor is an elected position, (b) this guy got elected, and (c) that he makes over $80,000 a year. Van Auken asks why it’s okay to have child care at the bus station, but security is an issue for his office? Whalen says he doesn’t run the child care center, but he does run the Town Supervisor office and he doesn’t feel safe having “his girls” down there (an apparent reference to female employees). Despite all this discussion, Irving moves to approve leasing the building on Glen, seconded by Turner. It passes unanimously.

The space they’re leasing is 1,896 square feet at 624 W. Glen Ave. (near Sheridan), for $11 per square foot. That comes out to about $1738 per month, or $20,856 per year. They’re going to pay this despite the fact that they have ample space available in the Twin Towers (Whalen doesn’t want people to have to go upstairs and is concerned about kids running around) and the bus depot (as previously stated, Whalen is concerned about safety). What a waste of money!

There are several proclamations tonight which I don’t usually cover; once the meeting starts, I’ll update this post throughout the evening. Here’s tonight’s City Council agenda:

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 10/12/2010 →

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

City getting grant for police officers

18 Comments

From this week’s Issues Update:

Senator Dick Durbin’s Office contacted the Peoria Police Department on Thursday, September 30, 2010, to inform them that the City of Peoria had been chosen to be one of the cities awarded funds under the 2010 COPS Hiring grant. Peoria was awarded funding for the entire request of 10 sworn officer positions, at a total cash value of $2,721,400. This grant will fund the salary and benefits of 10 officers for a period of three years, with the City being responsible for funding a fourth year. The application was for the hiring of 10 new positions, however, once the City has received and signed off on the formal documents, we will have the opportunity to request a modification to the grant wherein it will fund 10 current positions, thereby preventing layoffs. [emphasis added] It is worthy to note that Peoria received the largest allotment of all Illinois cities with the next highest being Waukegan at $2.2 million. It is also interesting to note that all applications from across the country were scored and Peoria finished with a score of 94.49 (out of a possible 100) placing Peoria at the 99.86 percentile. A meeting will be scheduled next week with Chief Settingsgaard and his staff to sort out the details.

So the City is going to take this grant and try to use it to pay for current officers instead of using it to add officers. And we may still have a net loss of three officers, according to Word on the Web’s coverage of last night’s City Council meeting:

Mayor Jim Ardis talked about the city’s operations budget. The 5 percent budget reductions would mean 13 fewer police officers, 15 fewer firefighters and two fewer employees in public works. The impact of fewer police officers, presumably, would be lessened by a federal grant.

Can we afford to keep cutting police officers?

City of Peoria

Moore doesn’t get San Marcos job

6 Comments

Nuse gets the nod in San Marcos, meaning Scott Moore will remain in Peoria:

After a two-hour executive session Tuesday night, the San Marcos City Council named Jim Nuse as the lone candidate for the vacant city manager position just five weeks before an election that could sit a new council majority.

Nuse is the city manager for Round Rock, though he presented that city’s council with his resignation in June. Nuse’s resignation was to take effect in January.

The council picked Nuse over the two other finalists — Peoria, IL, City Manager Scott Moore and Kilgore City Manager Jeffrey Howell.

All three candidates met with citizens in a session on Sept. 22, then met again in executive session with the city council later that evening. The executive session included interviews with the candidates, after which the council made no decision. Councilmembers said they would use the time before Tuesday’s special session to mull over comment cards presented by residents during the public “meet and greet.”

City Council, City of Peoria

After throwing away nearly $50M, City pleads poverty on basic services

31 Comments

The City of Peoria is looking at cutting the budget Tuesday night. This isn’t part of the 2011 budget negotiations, but rather a cut to the 2010 budget. City staff is forecasting that there will be a $1.2 million shortfall in state income tax and personal property replacement tax revenues. Here are the areas to be cut:

Radios: $ 40,450
Public Safety Cameras: $200,000
Furniture and Equipment: $ 69,200
Renaissance Park: $ 43,890
Neighborhood Signs: $ 9,650
Trails Edge Hammerhead: $ 63,700
Traffic Signals: $ 1,910
GIS: $ 7,700
Fire Station Upgrades: $237,600
Fire Equipment-SCBA & Harness: $ 70,000
Fire Fleet Recap: $ 71,340
Fiber Optic: $ 60,000
Fleet Recap: $ 274,560
Western Avenue Greenway: $ 50,000

Nevertheless, the City is able to afford to give away $10 million in land to the County for $1 and to give $37 million to a millionaire hotel developer.

As is evident, when public spending increases, it creates inflation, which increases people’s living costs, which is also directly related to the mortality rate of adult men.

To that extent, it is advisable to have life insurance that provides your family with the guarantee of not being helpless. Visit https://www.lifecoverquotes.org.uk so you can see that the costs are affordable. A cheap payment for a peace of mind in your family.

City Council, City of Peoria

City to hire consultant to help reorganization

1 Comment

On the City’s agenda for Tuesday night:

The City intends on reorganizing as a major step to realize its overall goals to become more efficient and effective. The objective is to have the new organization fully deployed and operational no later than mid-December 2010 so that the financial benefits will begin accruing to the City no later than January 2, 2011.

These organizational changes will generate many changes to the current reporting structure and the processes currently utilized by City Government for the majority of the organization. And, unless this new organizational structure and corresponding process changes are readily and rapidly accepted by the employees the resistance to these changes will present the potential for lost productivity, turmoil, and risk to gaining the desired financial results.

With that in mind, Staff is recommending the approval of LaMarsh and Associates, Inc. to assist the City of Peoria plan for and roll out its new organizational structure and process changes to the organization. By proactively addressing the potential resistance to these changes, the organization can and will more rapidly accept and adopt these changes, generating the desired financial gains for the City and its taxpayers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated total cost of $45,000 to be funded through the reprogramming of capital project funds relating to Federal Grant Consultant (E04009) $18,585; Community School Initiative (PB0604) $22,760 and Competition Enhancement (PB0710) $3,655.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: N/A

I can’t wait to see what changes are being planned to the City’s organization, although I suppose I shouldn’t care. After all, neighborhood concerns are “not applicable.” Sounds like the changes, which have yet to be revealed to the taxpayers they are supposed to benefit, are quite controversial within the ranks of city employees.