Category Archives: TIF

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development, TIF

Saving downtown one new hotel at a time

6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

EVGC meeting report

7 Comments

I wasn’t able to attend the East Village Growth Cell meeting this past Tuesday night, but a regular reader of the Chronicle (who wishes to remain anonymous) was there and has turned in this report:

Councilman Riggenbach was present, Gulley was absent.

They discussed changes to the rehab qualification. The first issue was the loan terms. City officials recommended:

“0% interest if paid back within the specified loan terms (outlined below) however, the loan becomes immediately due and payable upon sale, transfer, or if the homeowner ceases to occupy the home excluding any one or more of the following (each a permitted transfer): any sale, conveyance or tranfer (A) to a spouse upon dissolution of marriage, (B) to the surviving spouse upon death of a joint tenant Owner or (C) by will.
LOAN > $20,000 = 20 yr term
LOAN > $15,000 = 15 yr term
LOAN > $10,000 = 10 yr term
LOAN = $10,000 or less = 5 yr term

Some people had an issue with the 0% loan, suggesting that it may cause funding problems for the TIF in the future from bad loans that aren’t getting paid back. The item passed unanimously.

The owner of the Cornerstone building was there asking if businesses in the TIF district qualified for this. At this point, it’s home-owners only.

The next item addressed was how often an owner can re-apply for the $5000 grant and additional $25,000 loan. Vote on one:

“a. the $5000 grant may be obtained one time and every approved application will receive the $5000 grant if the total project costs are in excess of $5000”

or

“b. the grant can be obtained multiple times if more that $30000 total is invested in the project.”

There was a great deal of discussion on this. Someone suggested the grant and loan be applied only to one address and not to a particular person because the purpose of this program is to “better the property more than the person.” Someone disagreed and suggested that if someone is willing to put the full $30,000 into repair of a property and has paid it back, he should be able to get the grant and loan for the same property a second time to further improve the property. This motion gained a lot of support and was motioned for approval. I asked if there are any provisions to insure the recipient of the grant and loan are using the money properly and not spending it on luxuries unrelated to the property. I was told these are details that will be worked out later. I asked if the program is set up to allow do-it-yourselfers to pay themselves from this grant and loan before they can dip back into it or if they must provide receipts and receive no self-compensation for their own work. Again, was told this hasn’t been addressed yet and will be worked out in the details. City staff appeared to be noting these concerns. Item b. passed unanimously with wording changed to allow the 2nd $5000 grant after the loan is paid back.

Someone asked when funds are expected to be available. Nothing set yet, but it could be soon or as long as 3 years from now. It’s up to Council.

Someone made a comment about the people who weren’t there to vote and whether they’ll be notified first before this passes to the draft stage. A comment was made by the speaker to the effect of: “they should have been here to vote.” My thoughts are that many of them would if the webpage would be updated properly. I asked Bobby Gray about this later in the evening. He admitted to being tardy on updating the website.

Next item discussed was the point system similar to Decatur and Springfield’s TIFs. Money is distributed based on points collected from the different repairs to be done. Different categories were “Exterior Improvements, Sustainability, Density, Code Improvements and Comprehensiveness of the Project.” The crowd received this whole point system negatively, saying if shouldn’t matter what the project is, if a homeowner is willing to live in and improve the neighborhood. A motioin to deny point system and a motion to add a priority list for anyone who borrows as follows: “1. life safety (doors, windows, etc), 2. Structural integrity (roof, foundation,) 3. Occupant health (Asbesthos, mold removal) 4. Exterior.” Both motions pass

There were addtional questions about fences, lighting & landscape removal if it endangers the property. These will be looked at for the next meeting. I asked about the owner occupancy status and wether of not non-profit rehab groups can qualify for this grant. At this time, no. But this can be addressed at the next meeting because its never been discussed.

Next meeting was set for two Tuesdays from now.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Village TIF meeting tonight

5 Comments

I just found out about this meeting that’s taking place tonight:

CITY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS
EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
AT 6:00 P.M.

GLEN [OAK] COMMUNITY LEARNING
CENTER LIBRARY
2100 N WISCONSIN AVE
PEORIA, IL 61603

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF MARCH 1, 2011 MINUTES

I. WORKSHOP SESSION TO REFINE THE EVGC RESIDENTIAL REHABILITAION PROGRAM. THE MEETING WILL BE FACILITATED BY ROSS BLACK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

III. OLD BUSINESS

IV. NEW BUSINESS

CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE

ADJOURNMENT

It doesn’t necessarily matter that I didn’t hear about it, since I live in the West Bluff. But I hope East Bluff residents did hear about it and are planning to attend. Also, I didn’t mistype the notice above — item number II is missing in the original notice I received.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Guest Editorial: Response to Riggenbach’s East Village TIF article

27 Comments

Editor’s Note: The following editorial was written and submitted by Frederick E. Smith, a resident of the East Bluff. It’s a response to Councilman Tim Riggenbach’s Spotlight article that appeared in the Journal Star over the weekend. The views expressed by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.

I read yesterday’s comments by Councilman Riggenbach in the Journal Star and honestly had to wonder if we were looking at the same EVGC TIF. There were many half-truths that need to be cleared up if this TIF is to be considered fairly.

Yes, the City of Peoria has established a Citizens Advisory Council that serves at the pleasure of his honor the Mayor. This council consists of two City representatives, one County representative, one District 150 representative, two OSF representatives, and three members at large, one from each of the affected City Council areas, who are also appointed by the Mayor, and not by their respective Neighborhood Associations. This Advisory Committee “shall only serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council.” So not only are the neighborhood representatives outvoted 2 to 1 by the government and business members, but the committee itself lacks any authority whatsoever as to the outcome of the decision to implement the TIF. [East Village Growth Cell Committee Project Charter November 23, 2010]

And yes, Tim, State Law is very specific about the requirements to establish a TIF, and also about how the funds may be used once it is established. As confirmed by Corporate Counsel Randall Ray at the “TIF 101” meeting when Mr. Combs from Springfield spoke, the City Council may use TIF funds from one area to pay for projects in other areas, at their discretion. In other words, the City Council might decide to use TIF funds to pay off other things, like the failed MidTown Plaza TIF you mentioned. Once enacted, the area residents who are paying the bills (myself included) will have no say in how that money is spent. There is no guarantee that the money will end up going to the projects you mentioned, like the rehabilitation of private homes on the East Bluff. And speaking of that, since we already live in a Special Service Area where the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (a 501 (c) (3) organization that intends to spend 48% of it’s 2011 budget in salaries) receives a sizable amount of tax dollars ($64,987.24 in 2009, up from $57,972.76 in 2008, the 2010 budget is not on file yet.) to provide low interest housing improvement loans to residents of the East Bluff (which according to the Board of Directors at their last meeting they have not done for the last two years), will these funds be added to the TIF funds instead, or will we be asked to contribute duplicate taxes to the City in order to complete the $42,585,488.00 in infrastructure needs and the $22,000,000.00 in rehabilitation of public and private fixtures as described on page 16 and page 1 of Appendix E of the Teska report? (By the way, Tim, if my banker was off by $10,414,512.00 in his estimates, I would be changing banks pretty quick.)

Last, but certainly not least, is the claim that no big project is pushing the development of the EVGC TIF. One look at the map shows the boundaries were deliberately drawn to include OSF St. Francis Medical complex and the entire Knoxville business corridor in the TIF. If this was only about the East Bluff, why not just stop at the Glen Oak border, go up Armstrong to Pennsylvania and straight across to Knoxville? Oh, wait, that would include the White School property that was recently acquired by OSF, wouldn’t it? The fact of the matter is that OSF intends to be a major player in the way this project is run, and will definitely require a substantial amount of public money to “improve” the area around OSF. Why else are they deserving of two seats on the Advisory Committee? Why else have they been vocal and present at every meeting? Their interests may have nothing to do with the desires of the residents of the East Bluff. Their interests haven’t been publicly aired, and until they are, we have no idea of how much money they will expect, or what they intend to do.

Yes, there is a possibility that the TIF might “turn around” the East Bluff area, make into the neighborhood we would like it to be, but the key to that is transparency and honesty, not half-truths and sleight of hand descriptions.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Village Growth Cell Advisory Committee Meeting

18 Comments

From my inbox:

Peoria IL, (February 23, 2011) — The public is invited and encouraged to attend the East Village Growth Cell Advisory Committee Meeting, Tuesday, March 1st, in the Glen Oak School Library, 2100 N Wisconsin Avenue, at 6:00 P.M. This meeting will be devoted to a workshop session for the development of a residential program concept. The meeting will be facilitated by Ross Black, Assistant Director of the Department of Planning and Growth Management. Residents are encouraged to provide input and present ideas toward the development of a residential program concept, as part of the proposed East Village Growth Cell TIF.

This looks interesting, but it is just for “part of the proposed East Village Growth Cell TIF” — the “residential program concept.” When will the public meetings be for the other parts of this proposed TIF? For instance, where can the public see OSF’s plans? They paid for the TIF study; surely they have plans for what this proposed TIF will do for them. Will those plans be made public before the Council votes to approve the TIF?

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Valley Growth Cell TIF Meeting

3 Comments

Editor’s note: This post has been written and submitted by Frederick E. Smith, a resident of the East Bluff who attended the meeting on Monday, February 7.

There was a diverse crowd at the Glen Oak Community Center last night for the Monthly meeting of the EVGC TIF Advisory board, however the invited quorum of the City Council did not appear. Bobby Gray from the City Planning office, Randall Ray (City Attorney), Tim Riggenbach (3rd District City Councilman), and most importantly, the guest speaker, Steve Combs(sp) from the Enos Park TIF District, who added a definite flair to an otherwise bland and predictable PowerPoint presentation were in attendance to “educate” the audience on what a TIF is and how it works.

Mr. Combs was there at the behest of the EVGC Advisory Committee (the chairman of that committee, Richard “Mitch” Mitchell, sat in the audience instead of actually participating in the presentation.) and brought some new information as the the actual workings of the Enos Park TIF. It seems they (the original neighborhood folks who voted in favor of the TIF) did not have specifics down as to how the TIF funds would be used or which city entities would have access to them, and they are currently in an “adversarial” position with their City Council in Springfield. But Mr. Combs had many positive things to add about the possibilities surrounding a residential TIF and what can be done to turn a neighborhood around. Mr. Combs advice to us: “Hold their feet (the City Council) to the fire!”

Members of the audience of approximately 40 residents had the opportunity to ask specific questions, including how we could ensure the funds collected from a TIF (according to the Teska Report, up to $95,000,000.00 over the 23 year life of the TIF) would remain in the East Valley area and not be diverted to other projects around the city. Since the language of the proposal on page 17 states “The City may utilize net incremental property taxes received from the Project Area to pay eligible Redevelopment Project Costs, or obligations issue(sic) to pay such costs, in other contiguous redevelopment project areas, or those obligations issued to pay those costs, in other contiguous project areas, or those separated only by a public right-of-way, and vice versa,” one of the main concerns was that the funds could be diverted to pay for things like the Midtown Plaza TIF. While Councilman Riggenbach firmly stated that, as the 3rd District Councilman, he would fight to prevent any EVGC TIF funds from going to Midtown, City Attorney Randall Ray pointed out that, since the TIF proposal falls under state and federal law as to how it will be administered, that the funds could, by law, be diverted to other projects. He was also quick to point out that this codicil allows for funds to be placed into the EVGC TIF from other areas to “jump start” the TIF, making funds (that will have to be repaid) available before they are actually in place. The fact that the city council will be able to “shuffle” funds from one TIF to another is apparently a sticking point for some residents, judging from the reaction of the audience.

The meeting continued until 8 pm, when Councilman Riggenbach finally closed the meeting after several attempts to do so. The next meeting of the EVGC TIF Advisory Board will be on March 1st at 6 p.m. in the Glen Oak Community Center. East Bluff Homeowners are encouraged to attend.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

East Village TIF meeting Monday 2/7

21 Comments

A public meeting is planned for the East Village Growth Cell TIF, and a majority of the City Council may be there:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, HAVE BEEN INVITED AND MAY ATTEND AN EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL TIF PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND GATHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DESIGNATION OF A PROPOSED REDEVEOPMENT [sic] PROJECT AREA TO BE KNOWN AS THE EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7,2011, AT 6:00 P.M. AT THE GLEN OAK COMMUNITY CENTER, 2100 N. WISCONSIN AVENUE, PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

NOTE: NO OFFICIAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Joint Review Board decision invalid; revote scheduled

4 Comments

On December 27, 2010, the Joint Review Board approved the East Village Growth Cell TIF unanimously. However, the legality of that decision is now in question because the makeup of the Board is not compliant with state statute.

The Joint Review Board is composed of one representative from each taxing body and includes at least one member of the general public. State law requires (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-5[b]) that “If, as determined by the housing impact study [or] … based on other reasonable data, the majority of residential units [in the proposed TIF area] are occupied by very low, low, or moderate income households […] the public member shall be a person who resides in very low, low, or moderate income housing within the redevelopment project area.”

The public member of the Joint Review Board is Debbie Ritschel, who resides at 401 Water, which is not “very low, low, or moderate income housing” nor “within the redevelopment project area.” Therefore, City attorney Randy Ray says the Joint Review Board will have another meeting scheduled for January 31, and “the agenda will call for them to declare a vacancy based on current public member being ineligible. An eligible person will then be nominated and elected. They will then consider ratifying their earlier action re TIF eligibility.”

I wonder how they will go about finding an eligible person. If you live in “very low, low, or moderate income housing” within the proposed East Village TIF, I would encourage you to submit your name for nomination. The public member is selected by a majority of the board members present at the meeting. The members of the Joint Review Board (not including Ritschel) are:

  • Dave Wheeler (Peoria Park District)
  • Dave Kinney (Peoria Public School District 150)
  • Joe Merkle (Sanitary District)
  • Stan Browning (Sanitary District)
  • Jim Scroggins (City of Peoria, Finance Director)
  • Patrick Nichting (City of Peoria, Treasurer)
  • Scott Sorrel (County of Peoria)
  • John Stokowski (Greater Peoria Mass Transit)
  • Glen Olson (Airport Authority)
  • Edward Szynaka (Peoria Public Library)
City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools, TIF

District 150’s TIF proposal

13 Comments

Tuesday night, Dr. David Kinney from District 150 presented a plan to mitigate the negative impact of a TIF by sharing some of the revenue with the school district. I mentioned in my live blog that he had distributed a PowerPoint handout to the council members; here is a copy of that handout:

TIF Presentation 2 Revised

Will the City approve this proposal? My sources say yes.

City Council, City of Peoria, East Bluff, TIF

Peoria City Council 1/11/11 (Live Blog)

17 Comments

Tonight is the first City Council meeting of 2011. After proclamations and a “business showcase” presentation from Northwoods Mall, the City will hear from anyone who wants to talk about the proposed East Village TIF. Although it isn’t on the agenda, there has been speculation that the Council will also discuss the City’s ordinance covering grand opening displays tonight, probably under New Business.

It’s standing room only tonight in Council chambers. It looks like all the council members are here (except Jacob, of course).

Tonight’s agenda with supporting documentation can be viewed here. I’ve reprinted it below and will be updating this post throughout the evening, so refresh your browser regularly if you following along live:

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – CITY OF PEORIA

Mayor Ardis asks for unanimous consent to move the Litter presentation to the beginning of the meeting.

New Business: ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN.

There will be a meeting Saturday, January 22, in City Council chambers, 9-11 a.m., to gather ideas on how to deal with the litter problem in the City. She wants to “talk trash,” she says humorously. There will be coffee and donuts. Very short presentation. No questions.

Back to the regular agenda order:

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding the PROPOSED DESIGNATION of the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.

There are four letters from concerned citizens that were distributed to council members before the meeting. Ardis reminds everyone the council will not be voting on the TIF tonight; this is just a public hearing. Sandberg says Item J on the consent agenda will be discussed and voted on, and it does regard the East Village TIF.

Before the public is heard from, the City wants to make a short presentation. Bobby Gray from Economic Development and a representative from Teska and Associates are giving a brief overview of the project to date. The guy from Teska is actually giving the bulk of the presentation. Proposed TIF area includes 653 acres and 2,532 parcels — a very large area. He’s basically giving a summary of their report, which you can read here. They found the East Village area is “blighted,” and thus eligible for TIF designation, because of deterioration, code violations, age of structures, inadequate utilities (this includes streets, sidewalks, curbs/gutters, street lights, etc.), excessive vacancies (16% residential, 25% business), and decline or minimal marginal increase in the EAV over the last five years (only grown about 2%). He lists the goal and objectives of the Growth Cell Plan, reviews the Future Land Use Plan, etc., all of which you can read about in the report (too much to retype here). Current EAV is $49,626,980. Anticipated EAV upon the completion (i.e., in 23 years) of anticipated redevelopment projects is in excess of $96,000,000. He admits that this is “optimistic.” He presents a TIF budget (in the aforementioned report). The total TIF budget (“total Estimated Project Costs”) is $95 million. Also in the budget, “Developer Interest Costs” with the amount “TBD.” Hmmm….

Teska also did a housing study to see if, hypothetically, residents needed to be relocated (i.e., if the City wanted to acquire property through eminent domain and neighbors would have to move), are there similar houses elsewhere where they could move. Answer: Yes.

Now, at long last, the floor is open:

  • David Kinney, District 150 Interim Comptroller/Treasurer — He believes this offers the City and school district “an exciting challenge” and says the school district wants to work with the City. However, he does have some concerns. Kinney has distributed a handout beforehand to the council members, and will be referring to it during his presentation. Bottom line, the District wants to share the TIF revenues, and Kinney is making his case for how much of the proceeds should be shared. He assumes an average 2% EAV growth over the next 23 years.
  • Grenita Lathan, District 150 Superintendent — Offers to provide increased vocational training/programs as part of their proposal to share TIF revenues.
  • Debbie Ritschel, Joint Review Board — Encouraging City to work with the School District on “a plan you can all agree on.” She talks about how important streets, sidewalks, and lighting are to homeowners.
  • Frederick Smith, East Bluff resident — Agrees with budgeted items in TIF for streets, sidewalks, and lighting (about $40+ million), but the rest of the $50+ million is too sketchy. He wants to know what specifically they’re going to do with that money so they can be held accountable.
  • Richard Mitchell, East Bluff resident — Likes the idea of the TIF including residences, not only businesses. He’s in favor, but acknowledges that there are still many unanswered questions.
  • Sara Partridge, East Bluff resident — Chronicles the decline and fall of the East Bluff over her lifetime.
  • Mike Chihoski, OSF St. Francis Medical Center — OSF strongly supports the TIF, says they have heavily invested in the area over the years, and hopes the TIF will spur more private development.
  • Carl Reardon, owns properties in proposed TIF district — Speaks in favor of residential TIF. Favors District 150’s proposal to provide vocational education.
  • Jessie McGowan, Jr. — When will we get specifics and how will we be notified?
  • Maleita King, East Bluff resident — Where is the money going? Who is going to benefit? What are you going to spend the money on? We’d rather spend the money on police — where we need it — rather than a TIF at this time.
  • [Didn’t catch his name, but he lives in the East Bluff] — “You’re just going to fix up the sidewalks for crackheads to walk on.” MidTown development tore down nice homes of people who wanted to stay, and now we have nothing to show for it. We’re not going to get state aid because the state’s broke. People aren’t going to come from other neighborhoods to shop on Wisconsin unless they’re drunks. The only thing that will happen is the people who live in this area are going to get taxed. Can’t sell his house for even half its EAV.
  • Don [Holland?], owns several houses on East Bluff — When he first got his houses, he thought taxes were reasonable. His taxes have gone up from $5,000 to $20,000 a year. “Taxes are already way too high” and keep people from reinvesting in their houses because they can’t afford it.
  • David Seghetti (sp?), family owns Red Carpet Car Wash on Jefferson — Fully supports this initiative.
  • Ron Johnson, owns several properties in East Bluff — Been landlord for 15 years. “You guys didn’t perform [with MidTown Plaza], so what makes you think you can perform with [this new TIF]?” Says all the council wants to do is fix up the area so they can tax the residents more. Council needs to work on lowering crime.
  • Mary Clark, East Bluff resident — “The taxes we already pay should be improving the areas we live, so where are our tax dollars going that we’re already paying?” Since tax dollars can be moved from one TIF to another (adjacent TIFs), what assurance do we have that we’ll even get the benefit of these TIF dollars?

Public hearing is now closed, and the council chambers are emptying rapidly. It looks like most of the SRO crowd was here for the public hearing. That’s encouraging to see. Bobby Gray encourages those leaving to fill out an “interested party” form so they can be notified of future meetings regarding this proposed TIF.

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 OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, an Illinois Not For Profit Corporation, d/b/a SAINT FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER Regarding a Complaint Against DAVID P. BROWN, JR., the City of Peoria, and Peoria County Claiming Between December 1, 2009, through December 4, 2009, with Request to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.

B. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Inspections Director Requesting Acceptance of the BID for DEMOLITION of 2204 S.W. ADAMS STREET from the LOWEST BIDDER, RIVER CITY DEMOLITION, in the Amount of $49,850.00.

C. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of an EMERGENCY REPAIR to a 1998 CATERPILLAR 938G END LOADER (Unit #228) by ALTORFER CATERPILLAR, INC., in an Amount Not to Exceed $22,889.84.

D. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the 2011 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT with FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT, LLC for the PEORIA CITY/COUNTY LANDFILL, in the Amount of $369,000.00, as Recommended by the Peoria City/County Landfill Committee.

E. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between the CITY OF PEORIA, DUNLAP COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 323, and RB INVESTMENTS I, LLC, and Requesting Authorization for the Interim City Manager to Execute the Documents.

F. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from the Planning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Approving the MULTI-FAMILY PLAN for Property Addressed as 2604, 2605, 2626 and 2629 N. LAVALLE COURT; 3604 and 3630 W. MARENGO DRIVE; and 3620 W. VERONA COURT, with Conditions.

G. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 3 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Site Approval Application Filing Fee, Amending CHAPTER 5 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to a Fee for Filing a Petition for Rehearing, and Amending CHAPTER 13 of the Code of the City of Peoria Pertaining to Fees for Filing Liens and an Increase in the Costs to Settle Violations for Littering.

H. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS G (Restaurant, Beer & Wine Only) LIQUOR LICENSE at 1219 WEST MAIN STREET, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

I. Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of SITE APPLICATIONS for CLASS C-1 (Packaged Liquor) LIQUOR LICENSES at 2515 N. KNOXVILLE and 3524 N. UNIVERSITY, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

J. Communication from the Interim City Manager Requesting to Receive and File a WRITTEN REPORT Passed by the Joint Review Board on December 27, 2010, Agreeing that the EAST VILLAGE GROWTH CELL (EVGC) TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Satisfies the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA for a “BLIGHTED AREA.”

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

The following items were removed from the consent agenda by the indicated councilman: D, G, J (Sandberg), and C (Irving). The rest of the items passed unanimously.

  • Item C — Questions whether it would be cheaper to lease replacement equipment instead of repairing this endloader. Someone from Public Works says they believe it would be better to fix this. Motion passes unanimously.
  • Item D — Asks how long we’ve been with this one firm without going out for bid. Jeff Smith, City Engineer, standing in for Dave Barber, says he doesn’t know how long it’s been, but speaks highly of this consultant. Sandberg says it’s not good public policy to just keep rolling over contracts without going out to bid, so he won’t support it. Spain, speaking on behalf of the City/County Landfill Committee, explains they’re in the process of expanding landfill number 3, and they don’t want to switch horses midstream. He moves to approve, seconded by Irving. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item G — Doesn’t support two of the three increases. Turner/Van Auken move to approve; passes 9-1 (Sandberg).
  • Item J — Asks how an 11-member board (Joint Review Board) can legally do business without a quorum present (only 5 members out of 11). City attorney Randy Ray says he doesn’t know. Sandberg goes on to say that this isn’t just a “receive and file”; it also says the council is agreeing that the proposed TIF area is a “blighted area.” Goes back to his original question. How did this come to the Council when the JRB didn’t have a quorum? Ray says that the Council is only receiving and filing, not agreeing that the area is blighted. Sandberg says we shouldn’t receive and file a report that wasn’t really passed by the JRB because they didn’t have a quorum when they “passed” it. “What I’m trying to tell you is, we could get sued down the road” because the process isn’t legal. Van Auken agrees with City attorney. The guy from Teska (I think his name is Hoffman) says JRB doesn’t have to have a quorum under state statute. It’s only those taxing bodies who show up who get to vote.

    Sandberg questions how the JRB came up with their findings. He cites the brevity of the meetings and lack of supporting documentation as reasons he’s skeptical of their conclusions. “This whole process is on a fast track to a conclusion […] there is no independent assessment.” “If this is a blighted area, then let’s just call everything a blighted area except for the growth area out north.” Ardis says this is only a motion to receive an file minutes and the JRB’s action. Says the issues Sandberg is bringing up are not germane to the issue. Riggenbach moves to approve, seconded by Van Auken. Passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the Interim City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Council to Take Action Pertaining to a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS C (Packaged Liquor Store) LIQUOR LICENSE at 9915 N. KNOXVILLE, SUITES I & J, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to DENY.

Irving moves to withdraw application at request of the petitioner.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-299) Communication from the Acting City Manager and Assistant Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with the Recommendation from Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Granting a SPECIAL USE in a Class R2 (Single Family Residential) District for a SCHOOL for the ARTS for Property Located at 5211 N. BIG HOLLOW ROAD, and with No Recommendation from the Zoning Commission Due to a Tie Vote.

Spears says the neighbors are generally in favor, but want the building set back as far as possible and allow parking in the front yard. The special use is only for this school of the arts, and if it changes at any time, it would have to come back to the council. Spears/Van Auken move to approve. Sandberg says parking along the side will not work as proposed. Also says the west elevation is 110-foot blank wall that faces the nearest single-family home. That home happens to be the home of the petitioner at this time. But no one but the petitioner, Sandberg says, would want to live next to such a structure. “Don’t allow him to aim low,” because we’re setting precedent for future special uses. It’s too much building for the lot, he says. Motion passes 9-1 (Sandberg).

NEW BUSINESS

  • Irving asks for a report back from staff on what the process is for businesses to promote grand openings.
  • Turner has concerns about quality of life ordinance violations in older neighborhoods; specifically a resident using his garage as an auto-repair facility, and a resident not removing an abandoned vehicle, both of which have gone unaddressed by the City.

PRESENTATION

ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by DIANA HALL Regarding LITTER CAMPAIGN. (Moved to start of meeting)

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

ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the Town Attorney Requesting Adoption of a RESOLUTION that Creates the Right of Any Person to ADDRESS the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES at any MEETING of the TOWN BOARD of TRUSTEES of the Town of the City of Peoria Consistent with the State Statute and Adopting RULES Consistent with Those Previously Adopted by the City Council.

Irving moves to approve as outlined, seconded by Spain. No discussion. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZENS’ OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL

Savino Sierra, LaVetta Ricca, and Jessie McGowan addressed the council.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

And the council will go into executive session to talk about possibly hiring Patrick Urich… or at least, that’s the rumor. What we know for sure is that they’re going into executive session. Goodnight everyone!