Blogosphere, Museum Block

Rumors circulating on Peoria Dot Com about museum tax

14 Comments

I can find no verification of this rumor that was recently brought to my attention:

Just talked to a relative that is on a local developement [sic] company that helped push for the museum. He told me that there will be something coming through the pipeline that will change the wording on the tax bill they passed to pay for this museum. He said it will include a scheduled increase in the tax rate for the museum in years 1-8 of operations. They are now projecting a loss when they open up. Really. He also said that the wording will be changed allowing the tax rate to go up in the future without a vote. The problem with this is that it will only have to be approved through the city counsil [sic] and not by vote. So the vote probably will happen without hearing a word about it.

Whether or not this specific allegation is true, there’s no doubt that the museum will be sucking more money from the taxpayers one way or another. You can count on it. As Thomas Andrews said to White Star Line managing director Ismay about whether the Titanic would sink, “It is a mathematical certainty.”

Uncategorized

Back soon

32 Comments

Hi all. Sorry I haven’t been blogging much. I’ll be back on the beat soon.

In the meantime, did you see the Cardinals sweep the Cubs this weekend? Albert Pujols hit the game-winning home run two games in a row! Ah, sweet victory. Wish I could have been there.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Zoning Commission

But is it a ‘state of the art’ McDonald’s?

24 Comments

The Journal Star reports that McDonald’s wants to rebuild their Knoxville restaurant the same as their University location. But there’s a catch:

The McDonald’s proposal calls for 14 waivers from the city’s land development code on items such as reducing the parking lot’s setback from properties along Arcadia, increasing the size of a sign, allowing a drive-through window adjacent to a nearby residence and eliminating some landscaping requirements, among other things.

As such, the city’s Planning and Growth Management Department opted not to recommend approval of the McDonald’s site plan. The [zoning] commission will consider the request during a 1 p.m. meeting Thursday.

The article went on to say that the second district council member, Barbara Van Auken, was unavailable for comment. But two years ago, when Taco Bell asked for nine variances — making it completely non-compliant with the land development code (LDC) — she voted for it along with a majority of the council, even though the zoning commission and City staff recommended denial. She called it a “state of the art Taco Bell,” and said it was unfair to require a business completely rebuilding its property to comply with the LDC. (If not then, one wonders when it would ever be “fair” to enforce it.) I expect she will throw the LDC (and nearby residents) under the bus again this time, too.

Van Auken and a majority of the council have consistently voted against enforcing the LDC, continuing a pattern of development that has been detrimental to the older part of town. My suspicion is that this largely done out of ignorance — that most of the council members have never read nor understood either the Heart of Peoria Plan or the LDC. Perhaps with former Heart of Peoria commissioner Beth Akeson on the council now, she’ll be able to persuade more council members of the long-term benefits of enforcing the LDC.икони

Redistricting, State of Illinois

Q: What do Peoria and Rockford have in common?

30 Comments

A: They’re both largely in the 17th Congressional District, according to the latest gerrymander:


View Larger Map

Generally speaking, Peoria south of War Memorial Drive will be in the 17th, and North Peoria will be in the 18th. The 17th covers tremendous territory, extending to Illinois’ borders with Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Rockford is carved up similar to Peoria. Talk about your legislators choosing their voters….

Here’s some good coverage from Capitol Fax, the Bloomington Pantagraph, Peoria Pundit, and the Chicago Tribune.

City Council, City of Peoria

No liveblogging tonight (UPDATED)

8 Comments

I’m unable to attend the council meeting this evening, but will report the highlights (or, more likely, lowlights) later tonight.

UPDATE: I recorded the meeting tonight (many thanks to WCBU 89.9 FM for faithfully broadcasting the meetings all these years), so now I’m going to play it back and comment on it as though it were live under each agenda item as follows:

Continue reading No liveblogging tonight (UPDATED) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development

Council to address pervasive poverty on Brandywine Drive

26 Comments

I’ve talked about the misuse of Enterprise Zone status on several occasions here at the Chronicle (e.g., “A New Kind of Poverty,” “Discussing Incentives with Craig Hullinger“), so there’s no need to go into another lengthy explanation. Here’s a quick summary: the Enterprise Zone is supposed to be used in “depressed areas,” defined as areas “in which pervasive poverty, unemployment and economic distress exist” (20 ILCS 655/3(c)). But the City of Peoria completely disregards this qualification and uses the status indiscriminately throughout the city. See for yourself:

By taking this tool and using it in growth areas, greenfield sites, and other non-depressed areas, the City has not only eviscerated its effectiveness, it’s put depressed areas at an even further disadvantage.

It looks like that trend will continue at tonight’s City Council meeting, as the Council will probably approve extending Enterprise Zone status to the horribly depressed area of — yes, you guessed it — Brandywine Drive. Yes, when one thinks of pervasive poverty and economic distress in the City of Peoria, the first place that pops into my mind is “across the street from Northwoods Mall.”

I don’t want to minimize the challenges faced by all parts of town, but having just come off a huge recession, it’s not surprising to find vacancies throughout the city. We certainly want to do what we can to encourage reinvestment, but misusing incentive tools is poor public policy. It’s dishonest — the wording of the statute is unambiguous that this should only be used in areas of pervasive poverty. It’s unfair — it puts poverty-stricken areas at an even greater disadvantage.

The Journal Star ran an article on this agenda item, and the council members they interviewed (the usual suspects) were all in favor. They have regularly defended the misuse of EZ status by saying “everybody does it,” so those responses were expected. I was disappointed to see new council member Beth Akeson’s response, however:

“I kind of question the use of the enterprise zone in the city, but the city has already set a precedent,” at-large City Councilwoman Beth Akeson said. “Once you set precedent, and once you extend an enterprise zone to (particular) properties, you are hard pressed to do other things than continue on.”

What is she saying? That past misuse of economic development tools has somehow become binding precedent, obligating the council to future misuse? That someone could sue the City for not giving one property the same economic development incentives as another property? If that were true, then every hotel in Peoria should be suing the City for their own pot of gold based on the Wonderful Development incentive package.

The city is under no obligation to extend the enterprise zone to a single additional property. We need not continue every bad precedent set by past councils. We are not constrained to keep repeating past mistakes.

But we will. That’s what we do in Peoria.

City of Peoria, Streets

People are richer in the fifth district

17 Comments

At the last City Council meeting, the council discussed the Pioneer Parkway extension project, which would extend Pioneer Parkway from Allen Road three miles west to Trigger Road, crossing Routes 6 and 91 along the way. The objection was raised that we’ve been unable to adequately maintain the streets we currently have (in all districts, incidentally), and perhaps a better use of our limited funds would be to maintain our current assets before they deteriorate further. In fact, there has been no sealcoating or overlayment of our city streets (not including roads maintained by the state or federal government) since 2009.

In response, Councilman Spain had this to say:

I’ve never been one that really thought that an activity taking place in one part of our community has to come at the expense of another location. And I think we have a lot of things happening in Peoria that are positive for all parts of the city. And to say that a project like this that we’ve been working on for a long time shouldn’t move forward is pretty disappointing to me. And when you think about the activities and successes that we’ve experienced with growth in the northern parts of the city, I think that has been important. That doesn’t mean we should stop our efforts to grow the older parts of the city.

But the reality of our current tax base is that the real estate taxes paid in Councilman Irving’s district are about equal to all the real estate taxes paid in all four other districts combined. And so I think it’s important that we acknowledge that, and I appreciate your leadership on this issue, Councilman, and I think this will be another project that is important for the city and something that’s used to sustain services throughout the city so that we can continue investing in all parts of the community.

I first wanted to find out if it’s true that the fifth district generates 50% of the City’s real estate tax revenue, so I went looking for some sort of report that breaks down real estate tax receipts (or at least equalized assessed valuation information) by city council district. I checked with the Finance Department, the County Assessor, the City’s Planning & Growth and Economic Development departments, and even the Heartland Partnership — none of them had such a report. So I asked Mr. Spain how he came up with his figures, and he was kind enough to provide me with a detailed explanation:

My comments are based on preliminary work we have been doing with available EAV [equalized assessed valuation, or property value] information. The current EAV in the City is more than $2B. The D150 [Peoria Public Schools District 150] EAV is about $1.4B, about 70% of the total City. In Peoria, council districts 1-4 are almost exclusively within D150 (The exception to that is a small part of the 4th in Limestone). So at a maximum, the total real estate taxes of districts 1-4 is 70% of the City total. But we also know that there are large areas of the 5th district that are also in D150. Neighborhoods like WeaverRidge, High Point, Hawley Hills, Edgewild, Lynnhurst, Huntington, Oak Crest, and Charter Oak. I’ve attached a map that overlays our current council districts with Peoria County school districts -its a pretty good sized area of the 5th district that is still part of D150. We think there is enough property included in both the 5th district and D150 to represent about 20% of total City EAV.

Plausible, but I don’t know that I’d put it on the record as a fact without qualification the way Spain did at the last meeting. His analysis is based on some big assumptions. And, ultimately, it won’t matter much once the district boundaries are redrawn in a few months.

The bigger question is, what difference does it make? The issue at hand was whether we should use our limited funds to build a new road or maintain our existing roads. Existing roads are in poor condition all over the city — including the wealthy fifth district. I’m unclear as to what the relative wealth of the fifth district had to do with the item under consideration.

Mr. Spain, who lives in the fifth district himself, says he doesn’t think “an activity taking place in one part of our community has to come at the expense of another location.” True, but nobody said it does. Money given to one project, however, does indeed come at the expense of another project. Money spent on new city logos can’t be spent on police or fire protection. Assets given away for the downtown museum and hiking/biking trails cannot be used to generate tax revenue. And money spent on a study to extend Pioneer Parkway can’t be used to sealcoat existing streets.

Mr. Spain was no doubt trying to make the point that this proposed new road would open up more land for development, which would generate more tax revenues, which could then be used to benefit the whole city. And he probably was trying to say that finishing the study puts the city in a position to take advantage of state and federal grants for road construction (i.e., it makes the project “shovel-ready”). Those are reasonable, if not persuasive, arguments.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Spain actually said was, “the real estate taxes paid in [the fifth] district are about equal to all the real estate taxes paid in all four other districts combined” and that “it’s important that we acknowledge that,” which sounds like class discrimination, pure and simple. I don’t think he meant it that way (at least, I hope not), but I do think it was a poor choice of words.

In his e-mail to me, Mr. Spain also said one other thing in his defense, so I’ll give him the last word in this post: “Since it was not mentioned in your live blogging, I want to reiterate my position that investment in older parts of the City is just as important as investment in growth areas. I’ve really worked hard to find dollars for the older areas of the City -I was disappointed you didn’t acknowledge that.”

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.

General News

Local man takes part in Ohio rally

15 Comments

Local resident General Parker traveled to Ohio to take part in a protest demonstration against JP Morgan Chase Bank in Columbus, Ohio:

“Being the number one perpetrator of home foreclosures in this country, especially after our tax dollars bailed them out. They should show some lienency and since they went through a meltdown, they should understand us going through the meltdown,” said General Parker, who traveled from Peoria, Ill., for the protest.