City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

County told State it already owns land for museum

23 Comments

In April, Peoria County applied for a $5 million grant through the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). A copy of the grant application was acquired from the County:

DCEO Grant Survey – Peoria Riverfront Museum

The County listed itself as the “grantee” on page 2, and 203 SW Water St. (which is the City-owned Sears block) as the “project location” on page 4. Then, in answer to question 2d — “If the property is being improved, is the property owned by the grantee?” — the County checked the “Yes” box.

Question 10c asked, “If grant funds are to be utilized to make capital improvements to real property (structures/land) that your organization does not own [emphasis in original], provide a copy of the lease or other agreement (i.e., easements, rights-of-way. etc.) between your organization and the property owner that will allow your organization to continue to use the improved premises for an appropriate length of time, consistent with applicable state law and rules.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10d asked, “Does your organization have an executed contract for the purchase/acquisition of the land/building in question?” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10g asked, “Provide the name, address, phone number and email address (if applicable) of the entity from which the land/building(s) is/are being purchased.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

As you can see, the County consistently represented itself to the State as the owner of the land. When asked why, Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich said:

By April when the grant survey was submitted, we had already negotiated the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria. As I said before, the redevelopment agreement has included language regarding title transfer since at least February, and by April, this issue had been to the County’s understanding, resolved. There were several other issues (paying permit fees, the commercial space approvals, the assurance that the funds would be there to build the museum, and what happens to the property if PRM no longer operates the museum) but the negotiating teams had moved on from the title issue.

That still doesn’t explain why this information wasn’t included on the grant application. The proper way to complete the application would have been to answer “No” to question 2d, and explain these negotiations in question 10d, at minimum. The questions couldn’t be any more specific; they clearly expect even anticipated ownership to be disclosed. The County misrepresented its ownership status no matter how one looks at it. No response was received from Urich to follow-up questions on this issue.

Other Questions

Urich’s answer raises another question: is it true that the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria had been resolved by April of this year? That was surprising, considering it has appeared as such a contentious issue here in August. I asked City attorney Randy Ray for some clarification. He replied:

There is no contract in place that requires the City to convey title to the Museum Site to the County.
It is true that there were negotiations, and draft agreements which contemplated such a conveyance. That was a major topic of a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people that took place the first week of March, 2010. Obviously, those meetings did not convey the property, nor did anything else the City has done up to this point. If Council does not approve a Redevelopment Agreement, no conveyance will occur.

Ray acknowledges that negotiations did in fact take place, and we know from Urich’s statement that the County believed the issue of land conveyance was “resolved.” These negotiations were not just with City staff, mind you. There were “a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people” at a time. Unfortunately, we’ll never know the real story because the City took great pains to completely skirt the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

The funny thing is that negotiation of the sale or lease of property can take place in closed session according to OMA, so why not just discuss it in executive session instead of these little meetings? Did they not want the negotiations on the record? (Minutes are taken during executive sessions.) Were they not giving the same information to each of the council members? Somewhere there seems to be a breakdown in communication because the City now appears reluctant to convey the land, but the County thought the issue was “resolved” way back in April.

Of course, there’s no legitimate reason not to conduct these negotiations in public, in open session. The reason property transactions are allowed to be conducted in secret is to protect taxpayers from market reaction. In this case, since the land is owned by one government body and being conveyed to another government body, there are no market forces and those concerns are moot.

During the 2005 mayoral campaign, then-candidate Ardis promised, “My leadership, a new generation of leadership, will be open, not closed; inclusive, not reserved for the select few; and bottom-up, not top-down.” Yet from the hotel deal to the museum, right up to the recent secret meeting with Ransburg — against whom Ardis ran in 2005 and, ironically, whom Ardis criticized for doing the public’s business in secret — he has not shown us this so-called “new generation of leadership.”

City of Peoria, Firefly Energy, Peoria County

Firefly update: Cost to settle bankruptcy just went up a half million dollars

Leave a comment

On Thursday, the Peoria County Board approved a resolution to settle a lawsuit with other creditors involved in the Firefly Energy loan default. The $500,000 settlement allows the City and County to own Firefly’s intellectual property, which they can then sell free and clear to Electrotherm Ltd. of Ahmadabad, India. After the sale of the assets, the County and City will only owe the bank $2 million, so the total cost to settle the original $6.6 million loan guarantee will be $2.5 million.

The vote to approve the resolution was 15-2, with Brad Harding and Andrew Rand voting against it for unspecified reasons.

Museum Block, Peoria County

County approves museum agreements

48 Comments

A number of agreements regarding the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum were passed by the Peoria County Board on Thursday. They passed nearly unanimously, with only board members Merle Widmer and Brad Harding voting nay.

The six agenda items pertaining to the museum included an ordinance and five resolutions:

  1. An ordinance for the issuance of $41,600,000 debt to cover construction expenses for the museum
  2. A resolutions approving the museum “facilities design concept”
  3. A resolution approving a $5,040,000 bid from Williams Brothers Construction to building the museum parking deck
  4. A resolution approving engineering agreements with PSA-Dewberry and Whitney & Associates for “construction oversight and material testing” for the project
  5. A resolution approving the museum redevelopment agreement
  6. A resolution approving a Capital Facility Development, Lease and Operating Agreement

Dave Ransburg and Ryan Beasley (the chair and vice chair of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, respectively) gave presentations on behalf of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Ransburg stated that this will be the “greatest building built in Peoria since the Civic Center.” He also gave a brief history of how we got to this point, stressing that thousands of hours and millions of dollars have already been spent on this project.

Beasley gave a lengthy presentation, including an update on the IMAX situation. He stated that “it has always been our plan” to deliver a “giant screen” theater with a 70′ x 52′ screen capable of showing 2D and 3D digital, ultra-high definition movies. While that may well have always been their plan, they’ve told the public in no uncertain terms they would be building an IMAX theater, specifically. It’s well documented, even on their own “Build the Block” website.

Beasley went on to say that the museum is “a mission-driven organization,” and that the theater has to fit with their mission, which is “to inspire lifelong learning for ALL, connecting art, history, science and achievement through collections, exhibitions and programs.” In order to do that, the museum has three “negotiating terms”: control over programming, technology, and exclusivity. The biggest obstacle is control over programming. The museum wants to show “classic” (i.e., educational) films during the day and second-run movies on evenings and weekends. That has been IMAX’s traditional model. However, IMAX is apparently interested in seeing their theaters run more first-run movies — what they call “day and date DMR” movies — that would require multiple showings for the first two or three weeks the movie is out. “DMR” is IMAX’s proprietary large-screen film process. The museum’s concern is that agreeing to “day and date DMR” would be more profitable, but violate their mission. They’re also concerned about being required to show some films that are R-rated or otherwise not family-friendly.

The “next steps” for the museum are:

  1. To “continue preferred IMAX path” — that is, they’re going to continue negotiating with IMAX. Board member Merle Widmer asked about an e-mail one of his constituents received that indicated IMAX “does not have a client interested in opening an IMAX theatre in Peoria.” Beasley stated that was not surprising, given that IMAX received an inquiry from the general public about their “internal operations” — he would expect them to either give no answer, or to answer in the negative. He assured Widmer that he could provide proof of on-going negotiations with IMAX on IMAX letterhead. Media inquiries to IMAX by the Peoria Chronicle have gone unanswered.
  2. To “continue to evaluate alternative options,” none of which have “the brand power of IMAX,” he admitted.
  3. To “communicate progress and direction” to everyone, including the County Board and the general public.

There was another speaker (didn’t catch his name, sorry) who provided an overview of the building and grounds. There will be three “free-standing” signs (they looked like monument signs in the illustration) that would be lighted. Also, on the large blank walls of the museum, there will be humongous banners that can be used for decoration and/or to advertise the movie(s) playing at the “giant screen” theater. The only entrances are the main entrance off of Washington street and the elevator entrance from the parking garage. Thus, most of the area around the museum will be dead space (i.e., there will be no meaningful pedestrian activity outside).

County Administrator Patrick Urich explained that the cost of the project (including the parking deck) has risen from $83.4 million in April 2009, to $87.1 million in February 2010, to $92,198,731 this month. He then went on to talk about various “protections” that are built in to the agreements. For instance, there is $4.3 million in construction contingencies that will not be spent if the bids come in on budget and there are no change orders. There are also fundraising requirements built into the development and lease agreement with the museum: they have to raise $2.5 million by October 2011 and another $2.5 million by October 2012. If they don’t reach this target, then they have to reduce their capital or operating budgets “consistent with the shortfall from the goal.”

This is a marked departure from assurances the County gave to voters before the April 2009 referendum that no construction would start until the money was raised. In the July 9, 2009 Regular County Board Meeting minutes, it states explicitly, “Mr. Urich replied that currently the commitment for private funding is $8,000,000.00. If the funding is not there on the private side, the project will not go forward.” And later in the same meeting, “Mr. Urich has made it clear that ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8,000,000.00 in private funds to cover the gap.” Now, this has been replaced with toothless requirements that money be raised during construction.

Against all evidence to the contrary, everyone seems to be very confident in the museum’s ability to raise additional funds. When asked in a follow-up question about the stall in fundraising, Beasley said that “it’s not as simple as passing the referendum and then the money flows in,” although they did receive some additional funding (he declined to specify how much). Of course, this is exactly what the museum group assured us would happen before the referendum. Then, the only thing holding up donations was the referendum. But now people “want to see shovels in the ground” before they give more money, so we need to start building to get more funds, Beasley said. The target continues to move.

Several board members stated that the agreements weren’t “perfect,” but that they were “very good.” Several board members also stated that they had reservations and concerns about the plans, but not enough to vote against going forward. And there were a lot of self-congratulatory speeches all around as the final votes were taken.

Peoria Township

Township ripe for waste cutting

14 Comments

For those of you who don’t know, there’s another local government entity besides the City and the County. It’s called the Township. Peoria County is divided into twenty townships (see map here), and these townships collect property taxes and provide a few services. You can read an excellent history about them in a report titled, “Township Government: Essential or Expendable? The Case of Illinois and Cook County,” by David K. Hamilton.

One of the services provided is something called “General Assistance.” According to the Illinois Department of Human Services, “The General Assistance (GA) program provides people with money and limited medical care to help take care of themselves when they do not qualify for other cash programs administered by the Department of Human Services (DHS).” Recipients of this aid can receive bus tickets; vouchers to help pay for utilities, prescriptions, dental and eye exams; and money for other medical needs. The General Assistance Fund also grants $50,000 per year to the Heartland Clinic and $10,000 per year to the Center for Abuse. All told, the General Assistance budget is $1.525 million.

Of that budget, $242,600 goes to administration. The head of the operation is the Town General Assistance Supervisor, an elected position carrying a salary of $80,796.71 per year. A salary schedule approved in 2008 shows that next year it goes up to $84,836.55. And starting in May 2012, it goes up to $89,078.38. In other words, it goes up 5% every year. At that rate, the position will rake in over $100,000 a year in taxpayer money by 2015.

And what does the Town General Assistance Supervisor do? Distribute taxpayer money. Hand out vouchers and other assistance to people who line up at the door.

So, what’s my beef here? First of all, the salary for this position — which is essentially a clerical position — is outrageous. There is no justification for it as it stands. Secondly, there’s no justification for annual 5% increases on top of it. Thirdly, why do we have this position at all? In southern Illinois they don’t even have a township government system and this function is fulfilled by the County. From an administrative standpoint, without passing judgment on the services provided, this is serious government waste.

There is a provision in state law for abolishing township government. However, it’s practically impossible to achieve. To force the question to a referendum, you have to gather signatures of 10% of the voters in each of the 20 townships. That would be a mammoth effort. And you can’t just get rid of one township — it’s all or nothing in the County. The only practical way to abolish townships is for State legislation to be passed that would do away with the antiquated and duplicatory system.

Museum Block

The big museum bait and switch

47 Comments

How many people voted for the $40 million museum tax referendum in 2009 because they were promised an IMAX theater downtown? No small number, to be sure. Opponents of the museum plan questioned whether we were really going to get an IMAX since no contract was signed. We were assured there would be an IMAX. Their attendance and revenue predictions were predicated on it. The contract with IMAX was sitting on the desk at Lakeview just waiting to be signed once the referendum passed! Remember that?

Well, guess what?

Lakeview Museum’s president/CEO Jim Richerson said while an IMAX theater is not off the table, other alternatives are being explored.

“We want to build the best thing going out there,” Richerson said, adding that ETI 3-D digital screens also are a giant screen possibility for the riverfront museum.

“If it’s something better, we plan to go with them,” Richerson said. “We won’t open this for another two years, but again, we want to make sure we deliver the best thing.”

County Board member Andrew Rand, chairman of the county’s museum construction committee, said utilizing the IMAX brand could be costly.

He said museum officials would have to plunk down $1.2 million in an advance payment in order to utilize the IMAX brand, an amount that is twice as much as what other vendors are asking.

“I don’t think we’re specifically hung up on IMAX, which is a specific brand, for any reason,” Rand said. “The agreement the county has is for a high-definition, giant screen digital cinema. That’s what we expect.”

Huh. Who’da thunk they wouldn’t follow through on their promise of an IMAX? I mean, they’ve followed through on… um… come to think of it, they’ve never followed through on anything they promised, have they?

To all the voters who fell for the propaganda of the museum group in April 2009, I have just one thing to say: Suckers.

For more great updates on the museum fiasco, see County Board Member Merle Widmer’s blog entries: Peoria Riverfront Museum and Peoria Riverfront Museum – Additions.

City Council, City of Peoria

No liveblogging again… sorry (UPDATED)

6 Comments

Hi everyone. Friends from Massachusetts are in town, and we’re spending the evening with them. But I’ll do a recap of the meeting later tonight. You can hear the meeting live on WCBU (89.9 FM) or watch it live on Comcast cable channel 22.

UPDATE: Here was the agenda for Tuesday night with some summary comments about each item:

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding a PLAN OF FINANCING for a CERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT in Connection with the RENOVATION and REHABILITATION of the PERE MARQUETTE HOTEL in Peoria, Illinois.

Finance Director Jim Scroggins explained that this public hearing is required by law. You may recall that the City agreed a few weeks ago to give Gary Matthews $37 million to redevelop the Pere Marquette and build another hotel downtown. The City wants to use $2,195,000 in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (the maximum amount allocated to the City under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to fund a portion of that $37 million. Recovery Zone Facility Bonds are tax-exempt bonds. The entire City of Peoria is designated a “recovery zone.” This is not the time to argue the merits of the hotel project; this hearing is just about the type of financing that is used; specifically, the use of Recovery Zone Facility Bonds.

  • Phyllis Pryde — Asserts the hotel will be a better investment than the museum because it will earn money and pay taxes. Spoke more against the museum than in favor of the hotel.
  • Kenny Carrigan — He’s in favor of the hotel because it will provide union jobs and bring more activity to the Civic Center. Also speaks in favor of the museum because it will draw tourists, he said. Had positive comments to say about Gary Matthews.
  • Savino Sierra — Supports the hotel because it will provide jobs to union workers and service workers.

That’s it. All three people were in favor of it. Hearing closed.

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 TERRANCE JACKSON Regarding a Complaint Against the City of Peoria and Several Police Officers Alleging Excessive Force During a Traffic Stop and Arrest on January 26, 2009, with Request to Receive for Information and Refer to the Legal Department.

B.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Recommendation to ACCEPT the LOW BID of R.A. CULLINAN & SONS, INC., in the Amount of $872,242.50, and Award the CONTRACT for the WEST HICKORY GROVE ROAD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (West of Dunmore Drive to Knoxville Avenue) ALTERNATE A, and to Approve CHANGE ORDER #1, in the Amount of $172,033.74, with Additional Authorization of $52,213.81 (5% for Contingencies).

C.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a FINAL PAY ESTIMATE, in the Amount of $12,501.26, which is $10,683.43, or 15% Over the Approved Amount of $67,849.93, for a Total Contract Amount of $78,533.36, for GLEN OAK IMPACT ZONE PHASE I SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.

D.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of the ADDITION of $140,000.00 to the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT with J. C. DILLON, INC. for ANNUAL STORM SEWER REPAIR CONTRACT to Include the Repair at 1100 W. MacQUEEN AVENUE (24.6% of Original Authorization Amount of $570,000.00), for a Total Amended Authorization of $710,000.00. (Amends Item No. 10-118)

E.Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 31, Schedule A, of the Code of the City of Peoria Prohibiting the Use of Ground Water as a POTABLE WATER SUPPLY by the Installation or Use of POTABLE WATER SUPPLY WELLS or by Any Other Method.

F.Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Receive and File the GLEN OAK SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ZONE PROGRESS REPORT for the FIRST HALF of 2010, as Required Semi-Annually by Ordinance No. 16,461.

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

Riggenbach removed item F from the consent agenda. The remaining items were approved unanimously.

Riggenbach wanted to highlight the Glen Oak Impact Zone report. Recognized George Jacob and Bob Manning for starting this project. Stated the new Glen Oak School is scheduled to open on Monday, August 30. Highlighted sidewalk and street improvements around the new school. Says there are still challenges in the area, but things are improving. Says he sees fewer for-sale signs in that area now, and thinks that it may be because people are “feeling better about their neighborhoods than they have in the past.” (Or, maybe it’s because several blocks of homes were torn down, so there are fewer houses overall.) Wants staff to come back with “creative ways to increase homeownership in this area” and other improvements.

Motion to receive and file approved unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Authorization for the Staff to APPLY to the U.S. DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION for a $16,000,000 TIGER II GRANT for STREET IMPROVEMENTS in the WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Acting Human Resources Department Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into a THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT with the LOW BIDDER, PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, to Provide THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION for the CITY’S SELF-INSURED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM at a Projected Cost of $216,000.00, for the Three-Year Term.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Acting Human Resources Director Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into a THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT with the LOW BIDDER, VRS-VERICLAIM, INC., to Provide Third Party Administration for the CITY’S LIABILITY PROGRAM at an Estimated Three-Year Cost of $142,000.00.

No discussion. Passed unanimously.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(10-057) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission Requesting Approval of the Following:

B. REQUEST to DEFER until NOVEMBER 9, 2010, the ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 16 of the Code of the City of Peoria Related to the DESIGNATION PROCESS.

Van Auken moves to approve. Also requests that Corporation Counsel give legal guidance to the ad hoc committee. Supports deferral so there’s adequate time for all parties to be heard. Motion passes unanimously.

Further unfinished business: Turner says they’re going to have another public hearing on Comcast’s cable service in October; specific date not yet set.

NEW BUSINESS

Turner thanks everyone who helped raise money last Friday (Elected Officials Got Talent); Gulley reminds everyone of the remaining budget open house meetings; Spain says he’s received complaints about barking dogs in neighborhoods; Ardis reminded everyone of the “Dine Out for Peoria Promise” fundraiser going on this week.

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

ITEM NO. 1 Communication from the Town Attorney Requesting Approval of a Resolution Calling for TWO SPECIAL MEETINGS of the TOWN ELECTORS to Approve a LEASE or PURCHASE for the TOWNSHIP RELIEF OFFICE.

No discussion. Motion approved unanimously.

Irving moves that the Town of the City of Peoria go into executive session after regular meeting not to return in order to consider purchase or lease of property. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

Savino Sierra is the only citizen to address the council tonight. Complains about people walking in the street where there are sidewalks. Also speaks in favor of the Golden Corral restaurant coming to town.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was very short Tuesday evening. It adjourned shortly after 7:00 p.m. Gary Sandberg is on vacation didn’t say anything the whole meeting, and when he isn’t at the meeting doesn’t talk, pretty much everything gets approved with no discussion.

Peoria Public Schools

Sayonara, Schau

220 Comments

From the Journal Star: “In a surprise move Monday, the Peoria District 150 School Board terminated its contract with treasurer/controller Pam Schau, an at-will employee, effective immediately.”

The district isn’t saying why they fired Schau — they can’t discuss personnel issues. But Schau herself told the newspaper that Superintendent Lathan called her after the meeting and told her “the board felt I was not providing sufficient leadership in the area of accounting.”

Schau’s contract allows her to be fired without cause, according to the paper. She’s been employed by District 150 just over a year.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

County wants to acquire museum block for a buck

39 Comments

According to the recently-published Peoria Riverfront Museum redevelopment agreement, the County wants to obtain the museum site from the City for one dollar.

The site is reportedly valued at $10 million. The City acquired it after Sears moved from downtown to Northwoods Mall in 1998. At that time, the City also acquired the remaining parcels on the block, and in 2005 Caterpillar razed the land to prepare it for construction of the proposed museum and Caterpillar visitors center.

“The City’s conveyance [of the land] is in essence a $10 million contribution to the project,” explained County Administrator Patrick Urich. “In fact, the $145 million price tag figure for the entire project (Cat, PRM and parking deck) includes the City’s contribution and the $2 million Water Street upgrade.”

City representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment, except for at-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg. “Selling price toooo low. Should be $10,000,001.00 and I’ll give them the dollar,” he said via e-mail.

Urich also stated that, “Since at least February, the City has not given any of the parties any indication that they object to conveying the property to the County.” The Council has taken no public action or made any public comments regarding conveyance of the land to my knowledge.

The last museum agreement the City approved called for them to lease the land to the Peoria Riverfront Museum for $1/year for 99 years, not deed them the land permanently. “Initially there were discussions that included a ground lease,” Urich continued, “but since February (publicly at the County Board Committee of the Whole meeting) and prior to that in the negotiating sessions we have discussed the City conveying the property to the County.”

The City is facing a budget deficit of more than $10 million in 2011.

Museum Block, Peoria County

New redevelopment agreement published for museum

3 Comments

Karen McDonald reports that “The first meeting of the Peoria County Riverfront Museum Committee has been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Friday on the fourth floor of the Peoria County Courthouse.” The agenda packet was posted to the County’s website just before 2:30 Wednesday afternoon — barely meeting the deadline set by the Open Meetings Act.

That gives the public just 48 hours to review the 348-page document which includes:

  • Bid Letting for the Riverfront Museum Parking Deck
  • Engineering Agreements for Construction oversight and materials testing to construct the Riverfront Museum Parking Deck
  • Redevelopment Agreement
  • Lease Operating Agreement
  • Design Concepts

I guess museum committee members have their reading assignments for today, as do local news reporters. Of course, its adoption is a fait accompli, at least for the County. The big question now is whether the City will approve it. I’ll have more on this after I get a chance to review the documents. If you have the time and inclination to read it today (due to, say, insomnia or masochism), please leave your observations in the comments section.

City Council, City of Peoria, Signs

Van Auken misses “Golden” opportunity

25 Comments

There I was Tuesday, beating the newspaper against my head after reading this:

The city’s Planning & Growth Management Department believes [Golden Corral’s] proposed sign is too big, much more so than what is allowed in the city ordinance. Proposals have the sign at 40-foot, 215-square-feet tall [sic]. The city requires 25-foot-tall, 70-square-foot signs for businesses such as Golden Corral […]

Russ Hruby of RJH Management Corp. said the company is willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council. […]

[Second District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken says,] “We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said. “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University. While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.”

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in:

Here’s a developer who is locating on University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill — a stretch of road that is the epitome of poor urban design, and probably the most often-cited example of visual clutter in the City. Presumably, city officials would like to see the area improved and would jump at the opportunity to start scaling down the signs to bring them in line with the sign ordinance.

And it gets better! The developer says he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council” — unlike Westlake Shopping Center which intimidated the City Council into giving it a big ordinance-busting sign by claiming its then-secret tenant (later revealed to be Fresh Market) would not locate there if they couldn’t have a humongous sign. No, this developer is very happy with the City, and doesn’t perceive the city as unfriendly to business. In fact, he’s quoted as saying, “It’s not an adversarial position at all…. Peoria has been (accommodating).”

What an opportunity! No threats, no intimidation. A new business on University street willing to abide by the code! Could this be the start of cleaning up University and reducing visual clutter? Could this business’s sign compliance be used as a shining, positive example for other businesses who locate there in the future?

Enter Barbara Van Auken, Second District Council Representative.

“We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said [emphasis mine]. What? Why in the world would you want to do that? “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University….” Hmmm, “unique” is one word for it; “ugly” is another. “Blighted” fits the bill, too.

“While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.” I’m not sure whether this is doublespeak or just plain self-contradiction. If Councilwoman Van Auken really would “like to get signs smaller,” then she logically would not “give them as close to the size as they want,” which is three times the size allowed by ordinance and twice as big as the McDonald’s sign across the street, especially after the developer has already stated for the record that he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided.”

So the bottom line is that signs will continue to escalate in size along University, unless the rest of the council does the right thing and upholds the sign ordinance. The unwritten rule on the council is that you always vote for what the district council member wants for a project in his or her district. That’s a poor policy in general, and one that definitely should be disregarded in this case.

For those of you who like visuals, I drew this in Google Sketch-Up to show you a comparison of the maximum sign allowed by ordinance (on the left) versus the size of the sign requested by Golden Corral (on the right). These are to scale. Note also the size of an average human at the bottom: