Here are some items of note that will be discussed and possibly decided on Tuesday (if they don’t defer everything like last week):
- Defending BVA. The City will be defending Council Member Barbara Van Auken against charges brought by the Sigma Nu Fraternity. This is the official notification to the council.
- Funding PACVB. The Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau wants to keep getting extra revenue from the hotel tax. The hotel tax is the “H” portion of the infamous HRA (Hotel, Restaurant, Amusement) tax. The PACVB originally got 40% of the revenue from that tax. Since July 2000, however, they’ve been getting an extra 4% to pay for the costs of leasing and subsequently buying their 456 Fulton Street office. Thus, this extra amount was supposed to be eliminated once the mortgage was paid off, which was supposed to be in 2006. But, unbeknownst to the Civic Center or the City, the PACVB refinanced their loan in 2003 over a longer time period. The difference between their old mortgage payment and their new lower payment was diverted to operations. The chickens came home to roost in 2006 when the PACVB came to the City asking for that 4% increase to be extended so they could continue paying their mortgage for another four years (until 2010). City Council members were none too happy, but gave them the money– for one year. So in 2007, the request came back again that the extra 4% be extended through 2010. That was approved. One would think that would be the end of it.
But no! They’re back again, and now they want that extra 4% to be permanent. Of course, the current council communication doesn’t include any of the background information I just provided, nor does it explain why the PACVB wants it extended permanently, what they’re going to use the money for, or what benefit it would bring to the city. It also doesn’t include any information on whether the Civic Center Authority concurs with this request. It’s a poor excuse for a council communication, frankly.
Furthermore, take a look at this breakdown of income sources published by the PACVB in their annual report:
Keep in mind that this is the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, covering eight counties: Bureau, Fulton, Marshall, Mason, Peoria, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford. Now, doesn’t that income distribution look a little disproportionate? The PACVB needs to do more than explain why they should get an extra 4% indefinitely; they need to explain why the City shouldn’t reduce the other 40% of H tax revenue they’re receiving. Perhaps a reduction here could pay for the latest $500,000 upgrade the Civic Center has floated.
- Upgrading streets around Glen Oak School. The city is contemplating upgrading the streets around the new Glen Oak School. This is necessary because the city allowed the School District to increase their footprint dramatically and cut off Frye, a major East Bluff thoroughfare. This not only affects motorists, but also utilities. A water line will have to be relocated along Maryland, and AmerenCILCO will have to relocate their facilities from the abandoned portion of Frye. A block of brick street on Maryland and two blocks of brick street on Kansas will be converted to asphalt. Upgrading the streets, curbs, and sidewalks is estimated to cost about $2.93 million. If they want to add ornamental streetlights and other streetscape enchancements, it would cost an additional $1.35 million. That should be a breeze, considering we can afford to give a private developer $40 million to build a hotel downtown. I sure don’t understand all the handwringing in the council communication about “the need to establish priorities” and “the need to further consider bonding for improvements.” There was none of that kind of talk in the communication about the — what was it they called the Marriott/Pere Marquette project? — oh yes, the “wonderful development”!
- Approving Harrison Homes Subdivision. In addition to the new Harrison School, the Peoria Housing Authority is planning to put in a “RiverWest” type development to replace the slums known as Harrison Homes. Before the council on Tuesday will be the preliminary plat showing how the neighborhood will be arranged. My only complaint is that they have a great opportunity to restore the street grid system, but they are choosing instead to make inefficient use of their land by putting a couple streets diagonally. Why? To what advantage? It’s demonstrably inefficient and incongruous with the surrounding area. Why wouldn’t we want to restore the grid system, as is recommended in the Heart of Peoria Plan? Yes, that last question was rhetorical.
- Saving money. The city is still trying to save money rather than raise taxes. What this effectively means is that they’re going to continue subsidizing downtown parking, the Civic Center, the proposed museum, the Gateway Building, and the “wonderful development,” at the expense of basic services such as sealcoating of streets, weed control, building inspections, and code enforcement. The city really knows how to tighten its belt when it comes to services that benefit all Peoria residents, doesn’t it?
No doubt, all these items will pass with little or no discussion, since what we really value on the Peoria City Council is “consensus.” Who needs deliberation or critical thinking, especially where the public can see? They make for long, boring, and informative meetings. We want a council that just comes and votes “yes” or “no” as determined ahead of time in private meetings outside the purview of the Open Meetings Act. No fuss, no muss.
I have no comment just wanted to come back where it is sane and safe.
hate to break it to ya, but the city has already filed an entry and a motion to dismiss in the case so it would seem the matter has already been decided. check the court file – its public record.
oh, and while those who know my true identity may discount my comments on this topic, regardles of where i stand, i think the decision to represent BVA sets a bad precedent in that the line as to where a city employee is acting in his/her official capacity and where that employee is not has now become very, very blurry.
Emtronics — That comment has the crackle of confederate money. Who are you mad at this time?
Dr. Thompson, since you brought it up, the city is stating in their council communication that it was the plaintiffs who claimed BVA was acting in her official capacity, which is presumably why they’re defending her. Indeed, the suit says (point 36 of the second count), “That at all times relevant herein BARBARA VAN AUKEN was acting within the course and scope of her position as Peoria City Councilperson and as agent of the CITY OF PEORIA.”
I’m sure we’re supposed to interpret that as materially different than “acting in his/her official capacity,” but I (not being a lawyer) can’t figure out how.
OK, Emtronics, we’re even now, right? Smiley Face Sanity sometimes isn’t as much fun!
Here’s an idea: Stop funding the PSVCB antirely, and retire the Peoria Civic Center debt earlier, ending the HRA tax earlier and the resulting lower tax rate will do what every rational economist since Adam Smith says it will: Increase overall economic prosperity.
you are correct cj, in that the complaint alleges alternatively that she was acting on her own (in one count) and that she was acting in her official capactiy (in another count); however, the city need not concede the point and may put the complainants to their proofs, ie they may require the plaintiffs to produce evidence of such. just as when an insurance company refuses to defend an insured, claiming for one reason or another the injury complained of is outside the policy.
for example, in the answer filed by BVA, she denies entering onto the sigma nu property. i think most informed about the case (And those who viewed her statements in the news) are aware that is not the case; however, by denying the allegation, the plaintiffs must produce evidence of the alleged entry.
the city could refuse to defend and BVA could defend herself, then seek reimbursement from the city after the fact (for attorney fees as well as the judgment, if any (and possibly sue the city for denying her representation, but she would have to show the denial was in bad faith).
i believe this will all become moot soon enuff as i hear settlement is in the works…stay tuned…
CJ: I simply post a simple little note and you think I am up to something. I am shocked.
Sharon: Why what ever do you mean?
🙂 🙂 🙂
If BVA was acting in an official capacity, the city, with its deep pockets, and a big insurance policy, is liable. That’s likely what both the plaintiffs and the defendant want! BVA is a retiree with little money to pay off a judgment. Not so the city. Lawyers go where the money is. But — where are the damages? So a big award isnt likely, thus case likely dismissed.
Well, I’m no lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and I’ll tell you already that the city’s legal department has already spent money on this case if it’s only filing papers. Legal fees are legal fees and we shouldn’t have to pony up one red cent in BVA’s defense. Go and ask any lawyer to file anything on your behalf and I guarantee you’ll be charged.
I thought GS on the council occasionally questioned the councils’ blind agreement. Why hasn’t he objected to these agenda items?
The city attorneys get paid whether they are sitting on their asses or working on cases.
I agree Themis, but I’d rather have them on their asses then defending Ms Wonderful.