Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria

Holiday Inn City Centre seeks to become Crowne Plaza, asks for $8 million from city

12 Comments
Crowne-Plaza-rendering

“Peoria Hotel Associates LLC is seeking partnership with the city of Peoria in a redevelopment plan for the revitalization and upgrade of the Holiday Inn City Centre.” So states a memo addressed to the Mayor and City Council members. The content of the proposal is very similar to the Marriott Hotel deal the council approved in December 2008, albeit on a smaller scale.

The redevelopment plan calls for the current Holiday Inn City Centre property to be “brought into the 21st century through a complete and comprehensive rehabilitation and renovation plan,” which would include upgrading the exterior, redeveloping the lobby and commercial space, changing 66 rooms into 35-40 suites, replacing Bennigan’s with an “upscale branded restaurant,” and changing the hotel from the Holiday Inn brand to either Crowne Plaza or Doubletree Suites.

The cost of the upgrade would be $10 million. The current owners of Peoria Hotel Associates LLC (d/b/a Holiday Inn City Centre) is Iowa-based Kinseth Hospitality Companies. According to the memo, they’ve already “maximized financing available through conventional bank lenders with a current loan in placee of $11,750,000.” So, they’re proposing this redevelopment “with the intent to participate in a city bond program similar to the redevelopment package that the current Pere Marquette Hotel is utilizing.”

We are requesting $8 million of financing similar to the Pere Marquette financing program with the goal of signing a redevelopment agreement very similar to the Pere Marquette/Marriott hotel redevelopment agreement. This will be coupled with a $10 mil New Market Tax Credit (netting $2 mil in cash). Listed below is a capital budget for our redevelopment process. We believe that the bonds will be paid through substantial sources of additional tax revenues that the city will achieve, including TIF, BDD taxes, BDD sales taxes, as well as substantial new taxes on the increases in revenues that we expect to achieve.

Cost Summary:

Exterior Upgrade $2,500,000
Lobby/Commercial Facilities $3,500,000
Restaurant & Bar re-concepting $1,000,000
Suites Conversion $1,000,000
Infrastructure/Systems $1,000,000
Meeting Rooms Upgrade $500,000
Brand Conversion $500,000
Total $10,000,000

You can read the entire memo and accompanying report here (warning: it’s a 7 MB PDF file):
PDF Link Kinseth Hospitality Memo and Report

It’s not surprising to me that they would ask for a similar deal to the Pere Marquette/Marriott. And I fully expect the council to approve it whenever it comes to the floor for a vote. Once you open that door, everyone wants to come in and get their share of the money. It’s only a matter of time before a similar request from the Mark Twain appears.

It’s also not surprising that they want to dump Bennigan’s. The restaurant chain filed for bankruptcy last July, and Kinseth Hospitality recently filed a lawsuit against the franchise’s parent company for damages allegedly resulting from that bankruptcy.

Cafe-Exterior-rendering

UPDATE: The Journal Star now has the story you read here first, and they’ve interviewed a few council members. Funny, it’s one-fifth the cost of The Wonderful Development, yet the council members interviewed aren’t too keen on this new project. They cite concerns such as the amount of debt it involves and whether there’s enough market for that many upscale hotel rooms. Huh. I thought a project like this “pays for itself.” That’s what they said about the nearly $40 million bond for the Marriott. And as I recall, there were questions about the optimistic occupancy rates predicted in the Marriott project. Yet the council had no problem approving that project with next to no deliberation. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Dismantling the LDC one piece at a time

26 Comments

The deconstruction of the Land Development Code continued at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Now the City is going to allow “separate, accessory parking lots in the West Main Street, Local Frontage category.” Because nothing says “pedestrian-friendly” and “urban” like large surface parking lots . . . or so City administrators in the Planning and Growth Department think. They defended the amendment by saying surface parking lots fulfill the intent of the code:

Administration of the LDC found that prohibiting separate, accessory parking lots is not consistent with the intent of the Land Development Code as stated in section 1.5:

  1. Create a “park-once” environment.
  2. Promote reuse, redevelopment and infill.
  3. Encourage mixed-use neighborhood main streets.

You read that right: the City is arguing that big surface parking lots are consistent with the Land Development Code, which is based on the Heart of Peoria Plan, which is based on New Urbanist principles. Somehow, I don’t think that tearing down single-family residential houses in order to construct large surface lots is the kind of “redevelopment and infill” the authors of the LDC had in mind. In fact, it goes directly against other intent statements in section 1.5, such as:

  • Encourage and assist in the preservation of existing buildings and housing stock.
  • Use the scale and massing of buildings to transition between the corridors and surrounding neighborhoods.
  • Use the commercial corridors as a seam sewing neighborhoods together rather than a wall keeping them apart

But the change was approved in a rare 7-3 vote, with Sandberg, Jacob, and Gulley voting against it. Not so rare was the fact that only two council members spoke to the issue — Van Auken in favor, Sandberg against — before it was approved. The LDC will not be repealed all at once. It will simply be pecked away little by little until it looks no different than the old Euclidean zoning it replaced.

City Council, City of Peoria

Repeat after me: “Consensus is bad”

25 Comments

During the last election, one of the big buzz-words was “consensus.” For instance, then-councilman Bob Manning wrote an endorsement of his eventual successor in which he said, “He is known as a consensus builder. He is not a divisive or polarizing figure. Rather, he brings people together to achieve results.” Conventional wisdom at the time was that the council was working better now than it ever had, and the reason was because of this new ethos of consensus-building.

At first, I tried to differentiate between good and bad “consensus.” (Good consensus involved timely and effective public input into projects; bad consensus was just another word for “groupthink.”) But since then, I’ve determined that what I was calling “good consensus” would be better described as simply “good leadership.” And “consensus” is always bad.

Certainly the last thing the council needs is more consensus. “Consensus” is defined as “general agreement or concord; harmony.” The city council couldn’t be any more in agreement if they held hands and sang Kumbaya . . . unless they found a way to get Sandberg off the council so every vote could be unanimous. The council (then or now) doesn’t need more consensus; it needs more critical thinking. It needs more deliberation — public deliberation.

Billy Dennis is right when he says, “Technically, policy might be set in public, but the process of arriving at the decision is not.” How many times have you seen this happen? An issue comes before the council. A motion is made to approve and is seconded. Councilman Sandberg speaks against it. There is no further discussion. Ballots are cast, and the motion passes 10-1. This happens time and time again. On big votes, like the decision to give $39.5 million to the Wonderful Development (aka Marriott Hotel), a few more council members speak in support of it, but the outcome is the same: no deliberation; 10-1 vote to approve.

How can eleven people get together and not have any major disagreements on nearly every issue — even one involving almost $40 million? Is this not an amazing phenomenon? As I see it, there are only two possible reasons why this would happen consistently over a long period of time (I’ve excluded the implausible option of it all being a huge coincidence that they agree on absolutely everything):

  1. The council members are skirting the Open Meetings Act and deliberating these issues out of the public eye. (Note I said “skirting,” not “violating.”) This is Billy’s theory. He suggests that decisions are made “during phone calls and emails, and during social events.” Conflicts exist, but they are being resolved in secret.
  2. The council members are blindly following the recommendations of staff or the district council person without thinking through or deliberating the issue at all. Council members avoid conflict by not thinking.

Both of these options involve “consensus.” Neither of these options is in the best interests of the taxpayers.

Lewis Lapham once said, “In place of honest argument among consenting adults the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children [i.e., “consensus”]: the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which we no longer need politics.” And former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher explained, “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Did you ever read a quote more descriptive of the Peoria City Council’s decisions?

Council members, the Journal Star, and the proverbial “man on the street” all think consensus on the council is fantastic — soooo much better than those old, divisive councils where they argued about stuff (gasp!) in public! And yet, the decisions haven’t gotten any better. They just have fewer, shorter meetings with more unanimous or nearly-unanimous votes. And — did I mention? — more secrecy. Because if you’re going to keep up “the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist,” you can’t have transparency in government.

Bottom line: Consensus is bad. Remember that the next council election.

Annexation, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan

City must pursue higher density for new development

26 Comments

I’ve been reading through the City of Peoria’s new draft Comprehensive Plan and started despairing when I hit page 51:

The density of the population of Peoria in the mid Twentieth Century will not return. The current demand by the majority of the population is for larger residential lots, more space between neighbors, and more open space. Current zoning requirements cause large parking areas to accompany commercial development, further reducing the overall density of the city.

If that statement is true, then we might as well put a sign on every entrance to the city that says, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

Studies have shown that densities less than 4 to 5 dwelling units per acre are unsustainable — in other words, the expense of providing services exceeds the revenues generated. (E.g., Cost of Sprawl [2005]; Figure 4, “Residential Service Costs,” p. 5) Peoria’s growth cells currently have 2.6 dwelling units per acre according to the city’s recent Growth Cell Strategy Report. If land mass is going to continue to increase faster than population growth, and if density is thus going to continue to decrease, then we’ve barely scratched the surface of our financial difficulties. Having land that costs more to maintain than it produces in revenue is a recipe for structural deficits that will be impossible to eliminate.

Reading on in the proposed Comp Plan:

If the attempt to re-populate many of the least dense areas of the city, some of the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria, is successful, the overall density may increase, or at least offset the increase in land area. Without the successful repopulation of older neighborhoods, the projected trend is for the overall population density to continue to decline in future years.

First of all, the “least dense areas of the city” are not the oldest neighborhoods, but the growth cells and far-flung annexations to the north and west. Secondly, what “attempt to re-populate . . . the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria”? I’m not aware of any serious attempt, although one would be welcomed. Thirdly, why not attempt to also increase density in the newer areas of town? No, not to the same level of density as the West Bluff. But isn’t it reasonable to require at least 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre for new subdivisions — or enough that they can pay for the services they consume?

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Vallas returning to Peoria

106 Comments

Education reformer Paul Vallas, who last visited Peoria in late 2007, is returning this Saturday morning to meet with Peoria City Council members at Mayor Ardis’s request. The Council has scheduled a full-day retreat this Saturday at the Peoria Civic Center’s Lexus Room starting at 9 a.m. The agenda for the meeting includes several guest speakers including Vallas, a representative from Mesirow Financial, and Heart of Illinois United Way Vice President of Community Investment Don Johnson.

Ardis says he didn’t ask Vallas to speak on any specific topic, but about reforming schools in general. “His experience in successfully reforming urban school districts should make his comments informative and relevant,” Ardis said Tuesday.

The last time Vallas was in town (also at Ardis’s request), the Journal Star reported (12/22/2007):

Vallas said if District 150 were to engage in reform efforts, he would spend his spring break in Peoria working with the district. He would recruit one or more persons to work on the project locally, and he would come back to Peoria periodically to monitor the progress.

He said Ardis has agreed to pay for his gas expenses driving to and from Peoria, along with occasional overnight hotel stays during his road trips.

But despite the City’s efforts to help improve the City’s schools, District 150 said, “no thanks.” Since then, the District has shortened the school day for several Wednesdays at a number of primary schools for no justifiable reason, fired their Comptroller/Treasurer for undisclosed reasons, decided to close four schools (including a high school yet to be named), and issue bonds for $38 million to dig out of a budget deficit. No need for outside advice from a proven reformer here, huh?

City of Peoria, History

Name That Peoria Landmark* – Sandy’s Sheridan Road

68 Comments
*With apologies to PeoriaIllinoisan and NTPL.

 

peoria-landmark

Hint: The building still stands today.

Many readers remembered Sandy’s on Sheridan, across the street from Sheridan Village. The building is now occupied by Dairy Queen. I got the above picture and the following information from this website on the history of the fast food chain:

Peoria Sandy’s Sheridan Road was Sandy’s number one. It opened on August 8th, 1958 and was originally planned to be one of the first McDonalds east of the Mississippi River. Ray Krok, however, changed the leasing agreement to his favor when the building was being built. The founders of Sandy’s were not happy with the new terms which were violations of the original contract. They decided to follow the McDonald’s playbook and open their own drive-in and called it Sandy’s which is a Scottish play on the Irish McDonalds and to present a theme of swift and thrift service….

The choice of Peoria turned out to be a great one and by 1961 there were three Sandy’s locations in the city which were incredibly popular. Supported by Peoria’s numerous high schools as well as Bradley University, they became powerhouse businesses and Sandy’s was on its way spreading across the nation and becoming a dominant force in the fast food industry….

Sandy’s Peoria was not only the birthplace of the chain but it also was the spearhead of the transition between Hardees and Sandy’s. Sandy’s was in need of capital for expansion as well as to keep up with the leading fast food rivals in the nation. Based in Kewanee, Illinois, Sandy’s had one bank for financing. McDonalds, on the other hand was based in Chicago and had many of the most powerful banks in the world to choose from to finance their expansion plans. In order to compete, Sandy’s had to either issue stock or merge with a competitor. Hardees, on the other hand, needed Sandy’s strength, which was its board of directors and had plenty of capital. The merger made total sense….

The merger itself was announced in December of 1971. At some point, most likely in 1972, Sandy’s decided that it was in its interest to allow Hardees to buy the corporation out and become one…. Ninety percent of Sandy’s by this point had converted into Hardees. A few locations such as the Muscatine, Iowa Sandy’s remained Sandy’s well into the late 1970’s! Other locations became independant operators such as Bucky’s in Lawrence Kansas which continues to this day in 2004!

Caterpillar, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

What happened to Peoria’s stimulus package? Also, will Ardis be drinking the Kool-Aid this time?

32 Comments

Well, it certainly is heartwarming to hear that $3 million in additional donations have rolled in for the proposed downtown museum, but it got me wondering… remember all the talk about this project putting people to work during the recession? Who was it that said that? Oh, yeah, Michael Bryant in InterBusiness Issues:

The message to “Build the Block” as our own stimulus package should be viewed very positively. We would be taking control of our destiny and using our talents and resources to help each other, not waiting for a helping hand. While Peoria may get some monies from President Obama’s economic stimulus package, it would be a mistake for us to wait and see what monies we may get while we have our own outstanding stimulus package right in front of us, literally “shovel-ready.”

Except that they’re not going to start shoveling until at least next year. But according to a new report by Bradley professors Scott and Lewer (you remember them), “the recession will end sometime during the second half of this year.”

So much for helping us stimulate the economy or helping our residents through tough times. Sounds like the economy is correcting itself just fine without turning a spade of dirt for the proposed museum. Who’da thunk? Why, I bet once the recession is over, there would even be a market for the land that’s been held hostage by the museum for the past 11 years.

It’s not too late to correct past mistakes. The current redevelopment agreement for the old Sears block is set to expire at the end of June and must be renegotiated. Now would be the time for the city to require a larger portion of the block be opened up to private, mixed-use development. That would allow the museum to still locate on the block, but in a different form, and it would allow a larger portion of the land to produce property and sales tax income for the city — something we desperately need.

It would not be unprecedented, you know. After voters overwhelmingly supported the library referendum, the city decided to scale back their plans, issuing only $28 million for expansion/updating instead of the $35 million voters approved. I believe the phrase at that time was that the mayor wasn’t “drinking the Kool-Aid on the 72%” of voters who approved the referendum. In fact, Ardis said, taking into account the low voter turnout, that really meant that only 15% of all registered voters voted in favor, and the council has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture and represent all residents whether they voted or not. Well, guess what percentage of registered voters voted in favor of the museum? 12.29% (15,327 of 124,730). So, it only stands to reason that the city would take the same cost-saving measures with this project that they did with the library project, right? After all, times are even more dire now than when the library referendum passed; now we’re staring in the face of a $10 million deficit. Will the mayor be representing all residents whether they voted or not this time?

Of course, the city won’t actually do what I’m suggesting. They’ll pass up (for the fifth time now on this project alone) an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and increase revenues to the city, and instead look for more regressive ways to plug the budget deficit, like cutting public works and public safety, and raising garbage fees.

City of Peoria, Traffic

What makes one speed limit more “enforceable” than another?

29 Comments

From the Journal Star:

Nick Stoffer, a traffic design engineer, told members of the traffic commission that the Federal Highway Administration informed the Public Works Department that a blanket 25 mph speed limit “was not enforceable” and should be avoided. Stoffer said the state’s Department of Transportation echoed the administration’s thoughts.

Huh? Why is a blanket 25 mph residential speed limit “not enforceable,” but a 30 mph speed limit is? Wouldn’t one be just as enforceable as the other? Further confusing matters is this:

Instead, city officials will consider requests from neighborhood groups, district council members and others who want their residential streets or subdivisions to have a lowered speed limit.

So, if every neighborhood in Peoria requests a 25 mph speed limit, the city can do it. Apparently under that scenario, it’s enforceable. So what’s the difference between that and changing all the residential speed limits at once?

One more question: Why does the Federal Highway Administration have anything to say about speed limits on residential city streets?

City of Peoria

City anticipates $10 million budget deficit

24 Comments

From the City of Peoria’s “Issues Update”:

At the present time, with no changes, the City is projecting a potential budget deficit for 2010 of $10,046,499. This budget is based on re-forecasted revenues and expense increases based on historical patterns. Those increases include:

  • 4.75% wage increases for represented employees;
  • 3.5% wage increases for management-class employees;
  • 1.5% increase in supply costs;
  • 2.5% increase in contractual costs; and,
  • 10% increase in the cost of healthcare.

The potential budget deficit represents a significant, yet fully-realized, challenge as the process for addressing the gap begins. While anticipated improvements in the economy may lessen the impact, the reality is that the City has an underlying structural issue of the rate of expense increases outpacing the rate revenue increases.

Given the size of the deficit, the City is not waiting until the Fall to begin its budget process. A team of senior staff leaders, including the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments, has continued the year-round work of identifying potential solutions. That team will be joined by three members of the City Council, to be appointed by the Mayor, who will collaborate with staff to craft a joint Council-Administration plan. Initial direction from the full Council will be solicited at the June 9, 2009 regular meeting, and opportunities for public participation and input are being organized. The City Manager is also meeting with representatives of the City’s employee unions next week.

The budget issues are serious. However, recent experiences in addressing 2009 budget issues prove that a well-designed process, open communication, creativity and teamwork will produce a similar positive result.

Here’s the detailed report from Finance Director Jim Scroggins:
PDF Link Prelimnary 2010-2013 Budget

Mayor Ardis was quoted by the Journal Star as saying, “The first answer the council comes up with will not be to raise taxes. In light of what is going on at (District 150) and other taxing bodies coming out and raising taxes significantly, that’s not what we’re going to do. There will be some type of revenue enhancements and most likely service cuts while the economy stays like this. Everything will be on the table for discussion.”

Everything will be on the table? I doubt it. I’ll bet privatizing the city’s parking decks won’t be on the table. Nor will changing the redevelopment agreement with the museum group to put more of the Sears block back on the tax rolls. Nor will selling the Kellar Branch to Pioneer Railcorp, which would give the city three-quarters of a million dollars immediately. Nor is raising taxes to cover essential services being given serious consideration even though the mayor (and nearly every other city and county leader) supported raising taxes for the aforementioned non-essential museum.

I also find it interesting that the budget cuts this year are described in the Issues Update as a “positive result,” even though seal-coating of roads was cut by 50%, and code enforcement and police suffered cuts as well. The fire department is fearful that they’ll be the next department to be hit. While these departments are facing cuts, the Civic Center just completed a $55 million expansion, the city has committed to give $40 million to a private hotel developer, and the county has just committed $40 million to the proposed downtown museum.

Peoria has millions for bread and circuses, while basic services suffer.