Peoria Park District

Park District unanimously approves settlement

12 Comments

At tonight’s Peoria Park Board meeting, the settlement terms of the Alms/Partridge lawsuit were approved unanimously. Here’s the text of the joint press release:

JOINT PRESS RELEASE OF PARTIES

Karrie E. Alms, Sara A. Partridge, and the Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria and its Trustees are announcing today the settlement of the lawsuit pending between them.

Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge filed suit against the Park District and its Trustees in May, 2006, alleging that the Park District violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act in holding closed meetings on March 8 and 22, 2006, to discuss leasing to District 150 a portion of Glen Oak Park which, along with adjoining private property along Prospect Road, would serve as a site for a new school to replace the existing Glen Oak School.

That lawsuit was subsequently amended to add a count asserting that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act when an audiotape of the March 8 closed session was mistakenly deleted by a Park District employee.

Trial was scheduled in the case for May 17-18, 2007.

During the past few weeks, the parties, with the assistance of Chief Judge Richard Grawey, have met on several occasions to discuss a potential settlement of the case. Both sides have concluded that settlement terms exist which are acceptable to each and which would end the further expenditure of public and personal funds. Additionally, with the Park District’s decision not to move forward with the School District’s request for property, a significant focus of the suit is no longer present.

The terms of settlement offer more than an end to spending public dollars. They provide for improved policies and training at the Park District. They further provide for the Park District to make a partial payment of the attorney’s fees incurred by Mrs. Alms and Ms. Partridge in this suit. The Park District had conceded that the mistaken deletion of the March 8 tape was not proper under the Act and the Open Meetings Act allows for a recovery of attorneys fees by private parties in such circumstances.

The terms of the settlement are the following:

  1. All official Peoria Park District Board of Trustee meetings pertaining to the possible location of public school facilities partially or totally on Peoria Park District property shall be held in open session and otherwise in compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
  2. The Park District will contact the Illinois Attorney General’s office to schedule training in Open Meetings Act compliance; the training will be conducted at times and places as soon as is convenient and in open session.
  3. The Park District will amend its official policy manual to reflect appropriate Open Meetings Act compliance procedures.
  4. The terms of this settlement agreement do not constitute an admission by the Defendant Peoria Park District or its Trustees that the closed meetings of the Board of Trustees on March 8 and March 22, 2006, were in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The terms of settlement do not constitute a concession by the Plaintiffs that the closed meetings were held in compliance of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
  5. The District shall pay to Plaintiffs $27,500, representing partial payment of their attorney fees and expenses.

Both sides are satisfied with the outcome and are pleased the suit is concluded.

File this one under, “You Can’t Fight City Hall.” It’s hard to wage a lawsuit against a public body that has an endless supply of public funds to expend and lots of legal tricks up their sleeve. The Park Board came out smelling like a rose in this settlement and it only cost them $27,500.

The question I have is, why did Alms and Partridge have to do what the state’s attorney should have been doing in the first place? The taxpayers pay the state’s attorney to prosecute cases like this; if he won’t prosecute, then who’s looking out for the taxpayers?

Peoria Park District

Park District lawsuit could be settled tonight

8 Comments

Park District LogoNeighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge sued the Peoria Park District last May for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA) when they discussed a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session.

The OMA allows public bodies to meet in closed session only for narrowly-defined exceptions, one of which is the “setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body.” The argument is that since the Park Board was not setting a price for the property, but instead intended only to share the land, it did not fall under any exceptions and deliberations should have been held in public.

Fortunately, closed-session meetings have to be audiotaped, so in cases like this the judge can simply listen to the proceeding and determine whether or not the OMA was violated. Unfortunately, the Park Board secretary erased several closed-session tapes, including one pertinent to the lawsuit. That in itself was a violation of the OMA, and the judge declared it so. However, the board secretary was not prosecuted by the state’s attorney.

But the erased-tapes issue was an add-on to the original lawsuit. The main question is whether the Park District violated the OMA by discussing a land-sharing deal with District 150 in closed session. That case is still ongoing, but it could be settled out of court tonight.

At tonight’s Park Board meeting, one of the items on their agenda is “Discussion—Possible Approval of Negotiated Settlement re: Alms vs. Peoria Park District litigation.” I thought it was odd that this would be discussed in open session since pending litigation is approved by OMA to be discussed in closed session. According to Alms and Partridge’s attorney, the Park Board will discuss the proposed settlement in executive session, then bring it to the open session for approval, if appropriate. As to what the proposed settlement terms are, no one was willing to comment, of course.

Some may ask, why is this lawsuit still going on? Wasn’t it just an attempt to stop the school in the park plan, which was rejected anyway? Why is this still being pursued? And the answer is, this suit represents something much bigger and more important than just one’s feeling about the school in the park issue. It has to do with open government and the need to hold our elected officials accountable.

The public’s business should be done in public. That’s the basic principle. Now there are some very good reasons why a public body would need to meet out of the public eye for certain things, and Illinois law recognizes that fact. They call them “exceptions.” Exceptions to the rule — exceptions to the basic principle. They are to be defined narrowly and used judiciously. In fact, many lawsuits cause public outcry, especially if it concerns sex crimes. Learn more for sexual offenses and the way to protect your right.

If we let public bodies start stretching those exceptions, pretty soon things that should be done in public will be done behind closed doors, in secret, where no one is looking and no one can be held accountable. That’s not good for citizens and taxpayers. The Guide to the Open Meetings Act states that “public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.”

I’m disappointed that the state’s attorney chose not to pursue this apparent violation of the OMA by the Park District, and that it took private citizens putting up their own money to fight for open government.

Best wishes to Alms and Partridge in their efforts to get a favorable settlement tonight.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

District 150 pulls conflict waiver; searches for new lawyer

Clare Jellick’s investigative reporting has impacted District 150. Jellick recently revealed that the same law firm was representing the school board and the Peoria Housing Authority (PHA), presenting a conflict of interest in the district’s desire to purchase 22 acres of land from the PHA.

Apparently as a result of her report (I highly doubt it was a coincidence), the district initially put a conflict waiver on the agenda for Monday’s school board meeting, but then the waiver was pulled from the agenda, and apparently the school district is now looking at procuring independent legal representation for the land deal. Kudos to Clare for her good work!

City Council, City of Peoria

Firefly loan guarantee high compared to similar programs

11 Comments

Firefly LogoTonight, the City Council will be discussing whether to offer a somewhat unique incentive to a local private business. Firefly Energy needs a loan, and they’ve been unable to secure it through the Small Business Administration (Caterpillar owns 35% of Firefly, hence they’re not small enough for an SBA loan) or Industrial Revenue Bonds (also ineligible).

So the plan is for National City to provide them a loan that would be secured by their equipment and a loan guarantee from the City of Peoria and Peoria County. For the City’s part, they are wanting to pledge $3.3 million in utility tax receipts.

This is organized more or less just like a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. The SBA doesn’t directly loan money, but rather acts as guarantor, which reduces the risk for private financing companies and allow loans to be made that otherwise would not be approved. “The policy question for Council,” the council communication states, “is whether the City of Peoria should guarantee private debt to encourage economic development. Furthermore, if this approach is used what should be the guidelines for assistance? City and County staff could develop guidelines if the Council so desired.”

I expect this to be the question that gets the most discussion. This kind of incentive has apparently not been used before by the City. If the City approves using it tonight, you can bet they’ll be asked for such assistance again. What kind of precedent, if any, does this vote set? There are two parts to any precedent that may be set: (1) The use of this incentive at all, and (2) how much money they’re willing to guarantee.

It’s common for loan guarantees to be provided at the state level, but not as common for cities. My efforts at Googling such a situation at the city level only turned up one city that provides such incentives: New Brunswick, New Jersey. They’re a city of about 49,000 residents, and their program works like this:

New Brunswick provides a 50% guaranty to loans made through the program with participating banks. The guaranty permits banks to make loans they would otherwise decline. The borrower gets access to capital at reasonable rates.The Economic Development staff will also assist business owners in developing a business plan for presenting their loan ideas to bankers or hard money lenders.

Loan Term: 1-7 years
Loan Rate: Prime + 2 points. The rate is fixed at the time of closing
Loan Amounts: $25,000 – $150,000

I called the Peoria City Manager’s office and also talked to the Economic Development department, but neither of them could provide the names of other cities that provide similar programs. I didn’t talk directly to City Manager Randy Oliver, however, so it’s certainly possible he knows of other cities.

What I found interesting was the amount of the loan they guarantee in New Brunswick — the upper limit is only $150,000. According to this website, the average loan guarantee in Michigan’s Capital Access Program is $53,000. California’s Small Business Loan Guarantee Program “cover[s] up to 90% of the loan amount, with the guaranteed portion of the loan not exceeding $500,000.” Here in Peoria, we’re talking about $3.3 million — and that’s only the City’s share. The County is putting up an equal amount for a total guarantee of $6.6 million!

I’d like to see Firefly Energy stay in Peoria, and I’m not against providing them incentives, but this seems to be a rather large loan guarantee when compared to other state and local programs I could find. Considering the County won’t take up this issue until June, I would suggest the City not vote on it tonight. Discuss it, think it over, consider the ramifications, take up the staff’s offer to write up guidelines — this is too big to rush into.

Peoria County

Anyone know a cheap forensic pathologist?

Peoria County is looking for one. Jonathan Ahl is reporting on his blog that the new $300,000 Peoria County morgue was supposed to open a year ago, but has been held up by the county’s inability to find a forensic pathologist who would work for the salary the county is offering.

It’s a shame. Here they have a huge empty building that people are just dying to get into…. Sorry, I couldn’t resist….

(If you’d like to comment on this story, please go to Jonathan’s blog.)

Blogosphere, Television

Eyebrows to take Billy’s place on TV

24 Comments

Since Peoria überblogger Billy Dennis won’t stoop to being interviewed by WHOI news, Laura Petelle (aka Eyebrows McGee) will be the guest blogger instead. Be sure to check out the live segment during the 5:00 news on channel 19 (channel 8 on Insight Cable). Discussions with Laura are always interesting.

Also, I’ve been rather impressed with WHOI’s news coverage lately (not just because of the Big Hollow story, either). They’ve been reporting on stories I don’t see in any other media. For example, not too long ago, they did investigative reporting on sex offenders living too close to District 150 schools, and just recently they investigated crime in Peoria’s parks.

City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

No kid gloves for Sandberg

10 Comments

Jennifer Davis reports today on Gary Sandberg’s disputes with the city over property he owns. He had to pay fines before he was sworn in as an at-large councilman or else face the possibility of being removed for being in violation of state law 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5(b). That statute states you can’t hold municipal office if you’re “in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness.” Sandberg owed a couple of fines ($110 for the city to clean up what he claims were properly-stored construction materials on his property, and $500 for not registering another property he owns as rental property; he claims it’s owner occupied) which he paid off just before being sworn in a couple weeks ago.

Having heard both sides of the story on the the city clean-up item, I feel that Gary should have paid those fines a long time ago (the incident happened in 2004). He still could have fought against any due-process violations he felt were made without withholding payment.

The housing issue is interesting, though. Sandberg claims he occupies the house at 1723 N. Bigelow at least part-time, but the city says otherwise. Because the property doesn’t have water or electric service, it was determined by the city that it is not occupied and therefore has to be registered. I think that sounds logical and reasonable. While a case could be made that you don’t have to have electricity to occupy a house, I think you definitely need to have water, if for no other reason than to flush the toilet.

But here’s the issue. I can find no definition of “occupied” or “occupancy” in the municipal code that requires electric or water service. Can anyone find it for me? And is electric and water service the only things necessary for a house to be considered “occupied”?

I ask only because 616 Phelps isn’t registered with the city. That’s the supposed city residence of Streets Department manager David Haste. That home apparently has water and electricity, but no stove. No stove means no cooking. Unlike the absence of a clear definition of “occupied,” the code is pretty clear on what constitutes a “dwelling.”

The definition of “dwelling” in Sec. 5-520 states (emphasis mine), “Dwelling shall mean any enclosed space which is wholly or partially habitable by human occupants, and is used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating….” So, why is it that Haste can be considered in compliance with registration requirements even though his house isn’t even a “dwelling” by definition?

My point here is not that Sandberg should get off the hook because others got off the hook. My point is that enforcement of these ordinances should be evenhanded, and they’re not. There are different rules for different people.

When Haste is found to not meet city residency requirements, it’s overlooked. But when Sandberg is found in violation of property registration requirements, he’s threatened with being unseated if he doesn’t pay.

I guess it all depends on who’s got your back.

General News

AASHTO: Freight and passenger rail “critical components” of nation’s transportation system

14 Comments

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently released a report titled, “America’s Freight Challenge,” that claims freight transportation is going to grow significantly and the nation’s surface transportation system is ill-prepared to handle it. They say this increased congestion of roads, rails, and ports amounts to a tariff on trade:

This congestion increases travel times, it disrupts tightly planned supply chains, and it raises the costs of doing business with America and in America.

The effect of rising congestion is like a tax—only it escalates every year without a vote of the people. This congestion tax can be repealed only if the United States adopts a new vision and new strategy for a global, 21st Century American transportation system.

The report goes on to document the limitations of America’s highways, rail network, and water ports and especially the connections between them (intermodal transportation), show trends in the growth of freight transportation, and make recommendations to take a multi-modal approach to improving the nation’s surface transportation system.

There are many interesting points in the report, but I want to pick out those dealing with freight and passenger rail because there seems to be some anti-rail sentiment around Peoria. I don’t think this sentiment is pervasive, but you do see it occasionally, such as when the Kellar Branch debate comes up or when LaHood says we don’t need passenger rail here in Peoria.

In particular, I found these recommendations interesting (emphasis mine):

Recommendation 1. Meeting America’s surface transportation needs for the future will require a strategy which goes well beyond just “more of the same.” It will require a multi-modal approach, which preserves what has been built to date, improves system performance, and adds substantial capacity in highways, transit, freight rail, intercity passenger rail, and better connections to ports, airports, and border crossings.

Recommendation 6. Establish a National Rail Transportation Policy. Intercity passenger and freight rail are critical components of the nation’s surface transportation system. Current rail capacity is not sufficient to meet passenger or freight needs. It is imperative that a national rail policy be developed which addresses institutional roles, passenger and freight capacity, and new non-Highway Trust Fund funding and financing options.

Better intercity rail means fewer cars on the streets, and more freight rail means fewer trucks on the streets — that all adds up to cost savings on road repairs. The report states, “The expanded rail capacity analyzed by AASHTO would remove 450 million tons of freight and 15 billion truck vehicle miles. That service would save shippers $162 billion and save highway users $238 billion over 20 years and avoid $10 billion in highway repair costs.”

This is why I think rail service needs to be beefed up in this country, not remain status quo. It’s cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient than highways. We’ll always need highways, but we can significantly reduce the size requirements and maintenance costs of them by utilizing rail as much as possible.

Peoria Housing Authority, Peoria Public Schools

Expect more money to be wasted by District 150

15 Comments

Clare Jellick has been doing some digging. She found out that District 150 and the Peoria Housing Authority (PHA) are represented by the same law firm (Kavanaugh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick) — and by lawyers whose offices are apparently right next to each other. The two bodies are negotiating a land deal so that District 150 can build a new, suburban-style grade school on the site of the existing Harrison Primary School plus land it wants to purchase from the PHA.

While the best course of action would be to retain separate counsel, the district is, of course, going to instead sign a conflict-of-interest waiver. That makes everything legal and ethical, but it doesn’t remove all risk. It appears that such conflict waivers are generally discouraged, and for good reason. According to one resource I found on the web, it may mean that the District won’t be able to get as good of a deal on the land as they could if they had separate law firms. Here’s a portion of a sample conflict-of-interest waiver (emphasis mine):

It may not be possible for a single law firm to represent both parties to the Transaction in the same aggressive manner as would two separate and independent law firms. By giving the consent requested in this letter, you are, in effect, waiving that kind of zealous representation of your individual and conflicting interests with respect to the Transaction. It is possible that each or both of you might be advised by independent counsel to demand or offer different or more favorable terms and conditions with respect to the Transaction than we can or will demand or offer.

Here’s why it makes such a big difference: According to the Journal Star, the 22-acre parcel of land the district wants to buy from PHA is appraised at $178,000. The PHA, however, is asking $800,000 for the land because they want to recoup the cost of demolishing the slums that sat there until just recently. That’s a huge difference. Remember, this is the school district that supposedly can’t afford $40,000 to keep their truancy center open or $63,000 to pay for their own marketing director (she’s paid by Caterpillar). This is also the school district that paid way over market value for eight homes on Prospect road that they can’t use, wasting $877,000 in taxpayer money.

The district doesn’t really even need this extra land (a total of 25+ acres for a K-5 school?), but if they’re going to buy it anyway, the least (and I do mean the least) they can do is try to get the best possible price for it. True to form, the school district is poised to waste more money by not getting separate representation.