Tag Archives: City Council

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Sears block may remain parking lot until 2010

30 Comments

There are a couple of items regarding the Sears block on the City Council’s agenda for Tuesday night, Dec. 9.

The first one is a six-month deadline extension of the Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement. The original redevelopment agreement was signed way back in 2004, and the deadline for the agreement was December 2006. Each year since then, the deadlines have been pushed back as the council waited for the museum group to get the funds they needed; there was always one more avenue that was sure to bring in the money. Each attempt to secure the needed funding has failed.

The latest plan is to ask Peorians in the midst of a recession to voluntarily raise sales taxes on themselves via referendum to pay for the construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed museum. The county board will be discussing this ballot question soon, even as Caterpillar contractors are being laid off, and other local bodies (such as the school board) are realizing dramatically lower tax revenues due to the current economic climate. Could the museum folks and our elected officials from the city and county be any more out of touch? Why are they continuing to pursue this?

No doubt there will be a fourth amendment on the agenda for June 2009 after this latest plan fails and all the players look for a way to get that tax money anyway by circumventing the voters (anyone want to take bets that they’ll be asking the Public Building Commission for the money?). That seems to be the M. O. of our “public servants” these days.

Even if the museum project folds up after June, we’re still going to have a big parking lot on the Sears block because the council will also be approving an agreement to extend Caterpillar’s lease of the block for use as a parking lot until December 31, 2009. Why not extend it only until June 30, just like the redevelopment agreement? Under this parking plan, the city would potentially be unable to pursue other development projects for this block until 2010.

Both of these items are on the consent agenda, which means there will be no discussion on them unless a council member asks for them to be voted on separately.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

HOPC votes to disband

4 Comments

At the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting this morning, commissioners in attendance voted 5-2 to disband. Voting in favor were Chairman Bill Washkuhn and Commissioners Henry Lawrence, Mark Misselhorn, Julie Waldschmidt, and Geoff Smith. Voting against were Vice Chair Beth Akeson and me. Commissioner Nancy Biggins was undecided and did not vote. Commissioners Dick Schwebel and Joe Richey were unable to attend the meeting.

The vote was technically a recommendation to dissolve the commission. That recommendation goes to the City Council as they will have the final say on whether to disband the commission or not. Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes informed the commission that the council will consider our request at their December 15 meeting, which starts at 5 p.m.

Included in the recommendation is a request that all commissioners be appointed to another city commission if they aren’t already. Those who are not currently dual appointed are Akeson, Waldschmidt, Washkuhn, and me. However, Waldschmidt lives in East Peoria and Washkuhn lives in Peoria Heights, so they would be ineligible for most other commission appointments.

There’s a possibility that a private advocacy group could be established to take up the mantle of a disbanded Heart of Peoria Commission. I’ll let you know if anything develops.

City Council, City of Peoria, Streets

A few questions about capital funding projects

15 Comments

The Journal Star reports today:

Five large-scale and expensive capital works projects were excluded from the city’s 2009 budget…. Each project will likely be considered for possible inclusion in a future bond issue, if the city decides to borrow money in order to complete them in the near future.

The five projects, including the Sheridan Triangle, are the following: City Hall restoration, reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision, stabilization of a stream bank between Holly Hedges and Devereux drives, and improvements along Main Street in the West Bluff.

…The council is expected to meet in January to discuss the possibility of a bond issue to help pay for these major capital projects.

First Question: Are we just playing a shell game here with the budget? Is the council simply delaying decisions on capital projects so they can say they have a balanced budget for 2009? If they amend the budget in January to include some or all of these capital projects, where will the money come from to pay on these bonds? Won’t they either have to raise taxes/fees or have an unbalanced budget?

Second Question: Why the heck is “reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision” one of the five top projects vying for capital funding? Are these the worst streets we have in Peoria? The ones in most need of repair? Or are they important thoroughfares that need to be improved in order to incentivize private business development? Or are they really old streets that have been neglected for far too long? No, no, no, and no. So, what is the reason?

Third Question: Why aren’t improvements to Washington, Adams, and/or Jefferson streets included on this list? There are developers waiting to turn old warehouses into loft apartments and condos, which will get more people living downtown, revitalizing the area and creating a market for more retail in our central business district. But the city is continuing to drag its feet here. Why? Are they really committed to downtown revitalization or aren’t they?

City Council, City of Peoria

New distance requirements for “convenience cash” stores

5 Comments

The Peoria City Council on Tuesday approved a new ordinance limiting how close “convenience cash” stores can be to each other and residentially-zoned areas:

With a 10-1 vote, the council endorsed an ordinance that restricts new businesses from locating closer than 1,500 feet from each other or any residentially zoned property.

Any changes to allow for a cash store to locate closer than the 1,500 feet restriction will require a special permit granted with approval from the City Council.

The ordinance is designed to keep cash stores from clustering the way they have along University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill Avenue, and to keep them from driving down residential property values. At-large councilman Gary Sandberg questioned whether the cash stores drive down values, or if they move into areas where property values are already depressed. He argued that cash stores are a symptom of a bigger problem, not the cause of the problem, and that the council should be looking for and dealing with root causes.

City Council, City of Peoria, History

Historic Duroc building doomed

27 Comments

The Peoria City Council denied historic preservation for the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe, at tonight’s council meeting. First district councilman Clyde Gulley moved to deny the request, seconded by at-large councilman Eric Turner. The vote was 9-1 in favor of Gulley’s motion to not landmark the building (Councilman Sandberg voted against; Councilman Jacob abstained).

This was no surprise. AMVETS members started lobbying the council before the Historic Preservation Commission even heard the case or made a recommendation, so the vote was practically preordained. Several council members spoke to the issue.

  • “It’s not pro-business or pro-development,” Councilman Turner said about the historic preservation process.
  • Second district council member Barbara Van Auken concurred, but said historic preservation should be pro-business and pro-development and certainly can be; thus, she reported that she has asked Planning and Growth director Pat Landes to look at how historic preservation is handled in other communities.
  • Fifth district council member Pat Nichting gave his time to AMVETS Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell to address the council. Mr. Mitchell is opposed to historic preservation for this building because it impedes his organization from selling it to Riverside Community Church, which wants to demolish it. Find more info on the building maintenance and facilities services here.
  • At-large councilman Gary Sandberg cited the Easton mansion as an example of a building where a previous owner did not want historic preservation, but was ultimately preserved and is now a beautiful, well-preserved building with a successful business (Converse Marketing) housed in it. He also argued that the item before the council is whether this building meets the standard for historic preservation; it does, and therefore should be landmarked. He also mentioned that, in response to concerns over economic development, not landmarking this building will not give any economic advantage to the city, since it will most likely be sold to a non-profit organization, which is going to raze it.
  • Fourth district councilman Bill Spears doesn’t want to vote against a veterans organization.
  • Mayor Jim Ardis stated his frustration with the last-minute nature of this situation. He also stated that there’s no independent arbiter to determine whether a building is historic or not. This was a curious statement, as I thought that was why we had a Historic Preservation Commission. What is their role if not to be just such an independent arbiter? Ardis also stated that non-profit organizations such as churches improve the area and make it more conducive to economic development, even though they don’t provide economic development themselves.

Les Kenyon was given the privilege of the floor and spoke in favor of landmarking the building, but his pleas were all for naught. The council voted against landmarking this building, not on the merits of whether the building is historic or not, but on the circumstances surrounding the application.

So, Peoria will soon lose yet another historic building. But we can put big pictures of it in the new history museum we’re going to build downtown once that sales tax referendum is passed. Eventually, a museum is the only place you’ll be able to see any historic architecture in Peoria.

City Council, City of Peoria

No “wonderful development” on agenda for Tuesday

2 Comments

Of course it could be revised on Friday, but as of today there is no “wonderful development” on the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting. However, there are some other interesting items:

  • AMVETS building landmark status: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted in favor of preserving the AMVETS building (formerly United Duroc building), but the city council informally voted against it when they were polled by the AMVETS before the issue even went to the HPC. So now it’s really a muddled mess. If the council votes for landmark status, the AMVETS will feel disenfranchised as property owners because it will make their building harder to sell. If the council votes against landmark status, it marginalizes the HPC and sets up a precedent of bypassing them altogether. Oh, and it will mean the loss of another historic building, but that’s nothing new. Peoria never has much cared for preservation. I predict the council will not landmark the building, and it will be torn down before the end of the year. The lesson to take away: don’t wait until the last minute to request historic designation.

  • Convenience loan restrictions: The moratorium is about to expire on any new so-called convenience loan establishments from opening. The city has done some research on possible restrictions to keep such establishments from clustering the way they have along University between War Memorial and Forrest Hill. Their recommendation:

    a. Permitting the use of Convenience Cash Businesses, as permitted and/or special uses only in the B1, CG, C1, and C2 zoning districts (Currently permitted in these districts plus 01, 02, and CN).

    b. Distance requirements of a 1500 foot radius from other Convenience Cash businesses (Note that the City has an inventory of 1,681 parcels with appropriate base zoning {B1, CG, C1, and C2}. Of that inventory, 61% or 1026 parcels meet the distance requirements and could be developed with new convenience cash businesses {Map 2}).

    c. If the distance requirements cannot be met business owners would have the option of obtaining Special Use approval.

    The Zoning Commission had some slightly different suggestions, such as requiring the convenience loan establishment to be 1500 feet away from any residential-zoned district, which would leave only two parcels in all of Peoria where a new loan place could locate. No doubt there will be no small amount of discussion on the council floor before a vote is taken on this one.

  • 4 a.m. liquor license area expansion: Most bars in the area have to close at 2 a.m. But there’s a small area downtown where you can get a special subclass of license allowing you to stay open until 4 a.m. The council is considering a pretty major expansion of that area — one that will include the Warehouse District and extend all the way to South Street. Here’s a map of the current license area and the proposed addition:

    This would include the Club Apollo and Excalibur nightclubs. Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard is in favor of the expansion, and the Liquor Commission approved it 5-0. It looks like a shoo-in for approval by the council, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few citizens who ask for the privilege of the floor to try to persuade the council against it.

There will also be more discussion on the 2009 budget. You see the proposed budget by visiting the PeoriaBudget.com website.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

“Wonderful Development” odds and ends

3 Comments

Since I started writing on this proposed hotel project, I’ve gotten some calls and e-mails about issues directly and indirectly related to it. Rather than put up an individual post on each item, I’ve decided to just lump it all together under “Odds and Ends.”

Details, Details

I was contacted by a person who is close to the hotel project but wishes to remain anonymous. He told me a lot of the same things Billy has already mentioned in this post, but he added some information and elaborated on other issues:

  • This project has been in the works for over a year and a half.

  • The Hospitality Improvement Zone TIF (HIZ TIF) was proposed because of this potential development. However, the TIF was spread out to include the other existing downtown hotels so they could all take advantage of it if they so desired. Since the establishment of a TIF was open to numerous public hearings and ample public discourse, they feel that the public interest in this project has so far been served.

  • They’re not asking for any additional public subsidy other than those already available (TIF, Enterprise Zone, etc.). So it’s not going to cost the city anything that would directly impact their capital or operational budgets.

  • Part of the business plan of the investors is to be the convention hotel for the Civic Center. And that’s why they want the skyway (climate-controlled pedestrian walkway/bridge) to connect the hotel to the Civic Center. You may recall that the Civic Center Authority believes an attached hotel is “critical” to their expanded Civic Center’s success.

  • Their plan is to tear down the current parking deck and build a new one that will have retail shops on the ground floor. Hence, even though they would be adding a skyway, they believe they will actually be helping rather than hurting pedestrian activity on the street as they will be generating pedestrian traffic with the new street-level shops.

  • There has been some confusion over whether there will be two hotels or one. There will be one. These investors will buy the Pere Marquette and acquire the rest of the block. The other buildings on the block will be razed and a new tower built that will be as high as the Pere Marquette, built of brick, masonry, and glass, and designed to complement the Pere’s architecture. Once the new building is up and running, the old Pere building would be temporarily closed for top-to-bottom renovations. However, they would maintain the historic character of the Pere — i.e., they will be cleaning it up, but not changing it in architecturally-significant ways (meaning some changes will have to made for ADA compliance and things like that). Once it’s all done, it will be one big hotel under one flag.

  • They claim the project will be fully compliant with the Land Development Code and the principles of New Urbanism (except for the skyway, of course).

  • The reason they want/need to move quickly is because they currently are paying for options to buy all the properties — they haven’t actually purchased them yet, pending approval of this deal by the city and all the pieces falling into place (e.g., Big Al’s moving, approval to raze the remaining buildings, etc.). The longer they wait, the more they pay for the options, so it’s in their interests to conclude this process one way or the other as soon as possible.

  • They want to raze Big Al’s and the other buildings north of it on that block during the winter months when they can’t do any construction anyway, then start construction on the new tower in the spring.

  • The major hotel chain that they want to bring in won’t fly their flag across the street from a strip joint, so if Big Al’s moves across the street to the former Euro Jack’s at 500 Main, it will have the same effect as them not moving at all. Thus, it would seem most likely that 414 Hamilton would be the new location for Big Al’s at this point, although recent news reports say that Al Zuccarini is willing to consider other sites.

  • Carnegie’s will be elevated to a fine dining establishment again.

  • Perhaps most importantly to the investors, it will be locally owned and operated. To those who say local ownership makes no difference, this source simply points to the difference between the Mark Twain hotel (locally owned by former mayor Bud Grieves) and the Pere Marquette and Holiday Inn City Center (neither locally-owned). The Mark Twain has decent occupancy and is making a profit. Not so with the other two. In fact, rumor has it that the Holiday Inn will be losing its flag before long… again.

Historic Buildings on Main?

I’ve already had inquiries as to whether there will be an attempt to save any of the buildings the developers want to raze:

No doubt some people are just being facetious. But guess what? There has been a fight over historic buildings on this very block in the recent past.

In March 1993, Duane Cassano announced he wanted to raze the circa-1848 building at 531-533 Main because it was crumbling. He struck a deal with the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation, saying he’d replace the building with an “authentic 19th century facade.” Everyone was happy.

And then, in August 1993, Cassano reneged, saying it would be too expensive to do what he’d promised. Instead, he put up a “wood decking” facade. While he was chastised verbally by the city council, it doesn’t appear from published reports that there were any real consequences for going back on his promise.

I have no idea if any of the other remaining buildings have any historic value or if anyone is preparing a last-minute application to the Historic Preservation Commission. I wouldn’t recommend it, though. Anyone who gets in the way of this project is liable to get run over.

City Council, City of Peoria

First steps toward Big Al’s move approved

36 Comments

As expected, the adult use ordinance change was approved by the council 8-2 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg and Nichting voting against) and the Class A liquor licenses for 500 Main St. (former Euro Jack’s) and 414 Hamilton were approved 9-1 (Jacob abstaining, Sandberg voting against).

But what’s really interesting to me is some of the rhetoric that is reported from last night. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the meeting, and of course it wasn’t broadcast since it was held on a Monday this week. But according to the Journal Star, WEEK.com, and 1470 WMBD, the council members said this:

Ardis said the potential of Big Al’s moving opens up the possibility of “one of the biggest projects that could happen Downtown since the Civic Center.”

At-large Councilman Eric Turner, however, said the votes were based on an issue of what is best for Downtown Peoria, saying that it was “dying” and losing out in economic development to East Peoria.

“The issue is not about Big Al’s, but it’s about economic development,” Turner said. “We stand to lose if we don’t make changes and start looking out for the economic development future of this city.”

Ardis says the reason the public doesn’t know more about the proposed development is because the plan has not been brought before the council yet.

“Nothing is what it appears to be until it appears to be what it is. We really don’t have all the details about this project and as time passes they’ll no more about it and they’ll be more comfortable with what were proposing to do,” says Clyde Gulley Jr.

Mayor Ardis made it a point to remind citizens that Big Al’s is doing the city a huge favor by agreeing to change locations.

In other words, even though we the citizens know nothing officially about this new development, we need to change ordinances and okay liquor licenses to make it happen based on blind faith in the city council. Even though this hotel project “has not been brought before the council yet,” according to Mayor Ardis, all the council people know about it because they’ve been skirting around the Open Meetings Act by meeting with the developer two at a time. That engenders a lot of trust, doesn’t it?

It’s clear from the comments above that the justification for approving the liquor licenses and the change to the adult use ordinance was to make way for a development project that is still being kept a secret from the public. Without the hotel project connected to it, these requests never would have passed the council. Thus, I think the citizens have a right to know what this project is that is influencing the council. I mean, if this isn’t a back-room deal, I don’t know what is.

Don’t get me wrong. This hotel may indeed be a “wonderful development,” as Randy Ray described it. I’m not prejudging the project. I’m just saying that the council is not acting with transparency on public policy issues, and that’s not good governance.

One other thing that I can’t resist commenting on: Downtown Peoria is “dying,” according to Councilman Turner. Dying? You mean the original Civic Center, Civic Center expansion, Riverfront Village, ballpark, Riverplex, etc., etc., have all been abject failures? So noted.

City Council, City of Peoria

Hotel plans still shrouded in mystery

5 Comments

It’s the worst-kept secret in Peoria. Despite not getting anyone to speak on the record, information about the proposed hotel on the Pere Marquette block has been leaking like a sieve to the Journal Star and bloggers. Unfortunately, since we don’t have any official word, we don’t know how much of that information is accurate.

There’s something else we don’t know: what public incentives will be requested for this project. According to Billy Dennis’s source, “Public financing accounted for roughly 40 percent of the cost of building [East Peoria’s] Embassy Suites,” and “Project investors are hoping to secure a similar percentage of public financing for this project through a tax increment financing project agreement.” An ancillary issue is the request to move Big Al’s, with their “grandfathered” status and adult use and liquor licenses, presumably to 414 Hamilton Blvd.

And, of course, there is a sense of urgency for this project. According to the Journal Star, this whole project “could go before the City Council for consideration on Nov. 25.” That’s in two weeks. And, according to Billy Dennis’s source, any delays “would kill the $100 million project.”

Oh yes, the project has been estimated to be $100 million. So, going back to the earlier rumor that approximately forty percent of that would be “public financing…through a tax increment financing project agreement,” we’re talking about $40 million in public incentives. I’m not sure how a TIF is going to provide that amount of financing (consider that the proposed museum is in a TIF, is a similarly-sized development, and would arguably be built by now if they could get $40 million out of their TIF). I also don’t know how the city could afford to give $40 million to a private developer when the budget is already in a deficit.

I’m not sure about a lot of things, because when you get down to brass tacks, the citizens don’t really know anything about this project. We’re being told by many bloggers that this is the greatest project for downtown since the civic center (how do they know that?) and that the city should move heaven and earth to make it happen or else. Or else? Or else no small number of detrimental things will happen: the civic center will fail, downtown hotels will lose occupancy, Caterpillar won’t use Peoria’s hotels anymore, tax revenues will go down, downtown will deteriorate, no one will want to develop in downtown Peoria ever again because it’s so hard to do business here, etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Peoria is evidently on the precipice of oblivion and this hotel deal is its only savior. And that deal itself is tenuously held together — either the developers get everything for which they ask when they ask for it, or the deal’s off. No negotiation, no public input. They make the decisions and take your tax money, and you better thank them for it.

The Journal Star got it right:

We appreciate that negotiations like these can be sensitive and there’s a lot of financial risk involved and not all of that can or should be played out in a public hearing. Nonetheless, there is one overriding principle at work here: If you want the public’s support and especially the public’s money, the public needs to know a little something about the business government is doing on its behalf.

Right now, the public is in the dark. And this huge project might come before the council by Thanksgiving? Sorry, but that can’t be.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Journal Star reveals “wonderful development”

38 Comments

Kudos to the Journal Star for ferreting out information on the “wonderful development” we keep hearing about from the city:

The proposed project would include a new hotel bearing a nationally known flag on the same block with the Hotel Pere Marquette, which would be renovated, sources said.

Sources said the project is spearheaded by local developer Gary Matthews, whose work includes multiple commercial projects in East Peoria, including the Riverside Center and GEM Terrace….

Sources said a feasibility study has been completed for the proposed project and that it was positive. They did not say, however, who did the study.

Matthews and his partners reportedly met with Peoria City Council members two at a time – to avoid having a majority of a quorum and violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act – in recent months to explain the proposal’s basics.

The project, sources said, calls for renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette, which Matthews and his partners would acquire from current owners Innco Hospitality of Kansas City, Kan., a parking deck, a new pool and spa area.

The two hotels would be connected to the Peoria Civic Center via an elevated skywalk crossing Fulton Street, a document the newspaper obtained shows. Sacred Heart Church would be left untouched.

The hotel construction would require demolition of Big Al’s and adjoining businesses.

A new hotel in Peoria will be good for the economy and certainly good for convention business at the Civic Center. But as with anything, the devil is in the details. Some of those details that concern me are:

  • Design — What will the new hotel look like? Will it conform to the Land Development Code? Take a look at GEM Terrace in East Peoria and tell me there isn’t reason for concern here.
  • Big Al’s — Why the need to bend over backward for this business? In the past when a “wonderful opportunity” came along, the city simply took the property via eminent domain. Think Eagle’s Cleaners, or Midtown Plaza. Here, the city is helping facilitate a move to Hamilton Blvd. apparently in violation of the adult use ordinance, necessitating a change in that ordinance to make it legal. Why not take the property and let Al’s find new digs someplace that conforms to existing ordinances, like any every other business?
  • The skyway — The skyway will take pedestrians off the street. That’s what skyways are designed to do. Unfortunately, this is in direct contradiction to downtown revitalization plans (e.g., the Heart of Peoria Plan) which are designed to put more pedestrians on the street. And then there are the aesthetic issues of putting a skyway across Fulton.
  • The City’s role — What is the city’s role in all of this? What taxpayer funds, if any, will be expended? Surely there will be some — if nothing else, the connection to the Civic Center will require some modification of the Civic Center to receive the skyway traffic. Did the city pay for or help pay for the feasibility study? Since this is part of the City’s Hospitality Improvement Zone (HIZ), what incentives will this project be getting? These are things that should be discussed openly because they are public issues.