Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Firefly closes, taxpayers left holding the bag

18 Comments

In May-June 2007, the City of Peoria and Peoria County pledged a combined total of $6.6 million as a guarantee for a loan from National City Bank to Firefly Energy, the darling Caterpillar spin-off and “poster child” of PeoriaNext. The source of the funds breaks down to $3.3 million in utility tax revenues from the City, $1 million in Keystone revenue and $2.3 million in Personal Property Replacement Tax Revenue from the County.

Today, WEEK-TV reports that Firefly is closing down its operations and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That’s not like Chapters 11 or 13 where they reorganize. Chapter 7 means they’re kaput and they will be liquidating their assets, and that means taxpayers are on the hook.

[Firefly’s CEO Ed] Williams said, “After 15 months of unsuccessful attempts to raise $20 million in equity capital, in the midst of this world-wide financial crisis, funds that would have enabled the Company’s transition to full production and commercial sales, the Firefly Energy Board has decided to cease operations and voluntarily file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.”

So, what happens to the taxpayers? The City and County released the following joint statement:

In May 2007, following the significant investment of the private sector and the state and federal governments, the City and County of Peoria unanimously joined in a community partnership to guarantee a $6 million loan to Firefly Energy, Inc. by PNC National City Bank. Unfortunately, after 3 years of extensive efforts to make a commercially-viable alternative to the traditional lead-acid battery, Firefly has not been successful. Along with our state and federal partners, the City and County did everything we could to help Firefly succeed and bring technology-centered, specialized manufacturing jobs to Peoria. It has long been a goal of both private sector and government in the Peoria area to take ideas spun off from Caterpillar to create jobs and commerce in the Peoria area.

As guarantors, the City and County are determined to exercise their full legal rights to protect their interests. In the worst case, the City and County might lose their $6 million guarantee. In the likely case, the governments will pursue by legal means the pledged collateral, the physical and intellectual assets of Firefly Energy, Inc., to reduce any investment losses that may be realized by the City and County. We believe that the value of these assets is considerable and will reduce any amounts that may need to be paid by the City and County as guarantors. Furthermore, we expect that the lender PNC National City will fulfill its legal obligation under the loan agreement to protect the interests of the guarantors and maximize the value of the collateral. Again, the City and County intend to exercise their full legal rights to protect the interest of the tax payers of the City and County of Peoria.

Not to be nit-picky, but the guarantee was for $6.6 million — $6 million for the loan, and $600,000 to cover accrued interest. Regardless, the bottom line is that it’s going to cost taxpayers. Four million dollars of the loan was to be used for equipment, and the rest for working capital. So it looks like we will be on the hook for a sizable chunk.

I love how they are saying they intend to “protect the interest of the tax payers.” You know what would have really protected us? Not guaranteeing a $6 million loan for a risky start-up business in the first place.

Not quoted anywhere is Rep. David Leitch, the former VP at National City who is credited with orchestrating the public-private partnership. He was quoted in the Journal Star back in 2007 as saying this deal was “the most exciting thing Peoria had done since building the Civic Center.” But my favorite quote was what he said after the City approved its half of the guarantee: “This will be a moment we can all look back on and say, ‘Wow.'”

Well, he was right about that. $6.6 million potentially down the drain. Wow.

City of Peoria, General News

No regional brand?! Oh, we’ve got trouble, my friends!

27 Comments

Ryan Spain and the Heartland Partnership are cooking up a new idea:

The idea behind the project is to brand the Peoria region with a tag line and, perhaps, another logo.

It would be a comprehensive approach to selling the region to tourism groups and those who could come to Peoria on business, Spain said.

“I would argue we don’t have anything now,” he said. “The timing and the urgency for creating a brand for our region … if we don’t have one, we run the risk of someone doing it for us. It may or may not be what we want to be known for.”

You gotta love marketing people. Urgency? Risk? Peoria County was established in 1825; Tazewell County followed in 1827, and Woodford in 1841. From that time to the present we’ve never had a regional brand. But now, suddenly it’s urgent to brand the region, and we’re at risk if we don’t!

This kind of exaggeration reminds me of someone… a salesman I heard once. Ah yes, I can just hear Mr. Spain explaining this dire situation to the town leaders now:

“Either you’re closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the absence of regional branding in your community. Well, ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble right here in River City, with a capital T that rhymes with B that stands for Brand!

“Leaders of River City! Heed the warning before it’s too late! Watch for the tell-tale signs of having no regional brand! When you talk to out-of-town clients and say you’re from Peoria, do they ask ‘Where’s that’? Do the bloggers in your community make their own sarcastic logos of the region? Does Rocco Landesman not know that there is a Civic Center in your town?

“If so, ya got trouble, my friends. Yes, ya got lots and lots of trouble — with a capital T that rhymes with B that stands for Brand!”

Perhaps he can institute The Think System, where he gets everyone to just think that “it’s better here” in Peoria and they start to believe it. Oh wait, someone’s already tried that one…..

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

This land is my land, say City and County

11 Comments

There’s a new conflict in the museum soap opera. Here’s the skinny: the County wants to own portion of the Sears block on which the proposed museum would be built, but they don’t want to pay the City for it, and the City isn’t too keen on that idea.

Let’s start with these lines:

“We’ve made it this far and all of a sudden now they want ownership?” Dillon asked, questioning the city’s motives.

Some affiliated with Peoria County are shaking their heads, noting the city has always indicated it wasn’t going to be “a roadblock” on any museum issue….

At-large City Councilman Ryan Spain acknowledged ongoing discussions but he said he didn’t know of any “strong push” from council members for the ownership or the co-ownership of the land.

“We still stand behind giving the land away,” Spain said. “That was our major contribution for the project.”

First of all, nowhere did anyone say that the City was going to just give the land to the County. The original redevelopment agreement between the City and the museum group agreed to lease the land to the museum for $1 per year for 99 years. So, essentially, they were donating the use of the land, but not ownership of it. Enter the County, thanks to the public facilities tax referendum. It would seem reasonable to assume that the City still planned to lease the land for the same amount, thus not being “a roadblock” in the way of museum progress. But now the the County has decided it wants/needs to own the land… well, that’s a different story. Perhaps the County was assuming facts not in evidence. Or maybe they just misunderstood. And as for Mr. Spain, I’d like him to show me the vote where the City Council said they were going to give away the land for nothing.

Moving on:

In fact, county officials argue it is necessary for them to have ownership of the property as part of a legal basis for the referendum allowing them to seek voter approval on a special sales tax through a new law.

This raises some rather disturbing questions. Is the County now saying that they have a legal requirement to own the land in order to use the sales tax revenue for the project? If so, the County has been keeping its proverbial cart in front of the horse for longer than I realized. The way the statement is worded, it’s not even clear to me that the referendum itself was legal, but I presume it must have been since the ballot wording was so broad (it was, after all, a “public facilities tax,” not a museum tax).

For those who may not remember, the “new law” includes this language (emphasis mine):

For purposes of this Section, “public facilities purposes” means the acquisition, development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, financing, architectural planning, and installation of capital facilities consisting of buildings, structures, and durable equipment and for the acquisition and improvement of real property and interest in real property required, or expected to be required, in connection with the public facilities, for use by the county for the furnishing of governmental services to its citizens, including but not limited to museums and nursing homes.

If the County is indeed required to own the land in order to expend funds on the project, this raises other questions. For instance, where is the money coming from to pay for Mark Johnson, the county’s museum consultant? And where is the money to pay for the “experienced counsel at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery“?

I’m still wondering how they were able to apply for federal money to build a parking deck on land they don’t own without first having an agreement with the owner of the land. There’s still no redevelopment agreement, yet the County is moving ahead as if there were.

Maybe the land conflict will be the thing that finally does in the museum. Nah. Like zombies in a bad horror film, this project comes back to life every time you think it might be dead.

City Council, City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council 2/23/2010

5 Comments

Good evening, and welcome to Peoria City Hall! Sorry I wasn’t able to liveblog last week’s special meeting. I had a scheduling conflict. I was disappointed that it was carried on neither WCBU nor cable channel 22, but more on that later. For now, it looks like all council members are present and accounted for, and ready to tackle this agenda (remember to refresh your browser often as I’ll be updating this throughout the evening):

Continue reading Liveblogging the City Council 2/23/2010 →

City of Peoria, Internet, Peoria County

Peoria to try to woo Google

10 Comments

From a press release:

Mayor Jim Ardis will hold a news conference on February 23, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. The news conference will be held at the PeoriaNEXT Innovation Center (801 W. Main Street, Peoria). The Mayor will be joined by community leaders to discuss our efforts to submit an application to become a test market for Google.

County Board member Merle Widmer has some additional information on his blog, including an e-mail from Mayor Ardis:

As you may have recently seen, Google announced an effort to bring 1GB Internet service to a test market somewhere in the United States. This would be a phenomenal service that would deliver speed up to 100x faster than the best current system available. The impact on economic development will be enormous.

You might also have seen me talk about the importance of this opportunity to Peoria. The City of Peoria has started an application and has now joined the County of Peoria in working collaboratively.

You can read the rest at Merle’s blog, but you get the idea. Here’s some more information on Google’s effort from their official blog.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Former mayor counsels council

7 Comments

Former mayor of Peoria Bud Grieves, who also happens to own a hotel downtown, has written the current mayor and council a letter with some advice on how to handle the so-called “wonderful development” — i.e., the proposed downtown Marriott hotel deal:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lowell (Bud) Grieves, Mark Twain Hotel
DATE: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT: JOURNAL STAR ARTICLE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2010

I am writing to clarify my position regarding the Downtown hotel project that was covered in an article appearing in the Journal Star on February 16, 2010. The article, while generally correct, missed some important points of which you should be aware.

I am supportive of City assistance in this project and stated so publicly over a year ago. I am still supportive of the concept of public assistance but only for the purpose of tearing down Big Al’s and other bars in upgrading the entire block. It’s a stretch, but this can be interpreted as a public improvement that the City can choose to make to leverage the recently upgraded Civic Center – I understand the importance of this!

However, I talked to City Attorney Randy Ray prior to the interview and was told that the $40 million in public funds were not restricted to public use outside the hotel but instead could be applied to any portion of the project. That means carpeting, televisions, elevators, and even the walkway connecting a private hotel to the Civic Center could be paid for with these funds. This is simply not fair to taxpaying, existing Downtown hotels that have to pay for these very same things on their own to compete. If your goal is to offer public assistance to Downtown hotels to accommodate Civic Center conventions, then you should see to it that all Downtown hotels get public assistance! I would like to build a skywalk from my hotel to my banquet facility (Packard Plaza) and would request City funding assistance to do so.

The convention business is slow, and I have never seen the hotel business this bad. John Q Hammonds recently backed away from the build out of additional rooms at the Embassy and gave back $500,000 to the City of East Peoria. Does this sound like a strong recovering market to you? Perhaps this project will not go and let you off the hook. If not, I would urge you to limit the use of public money to public improvements, prior to issuing the bonds. Failure to do so will set an indefensible precedent, and you will have to live with the consequences.

Thank you.

The project’s developer, Gary Matthews, who last year confidently stated that he’d have all his financing in place by January of this year, now says he’ll ask for an extension from the City Council on the redevelopment agreement. He added this:

Design plans for the $100 million hotel are also set to change: Matthews tells us the “blended look” between the Pere Marquette and the Marriott will be slightly different.

There’s only one reason to change the design at this point, and that’s to save money. I shudder to think what the “new” look will be.

What the Council should do (but they won’t) is cancel the whole project for the same reasons they never should have entered into the agreement in the first place. Matthews’ inability to secure financing despite having 40% of the cost of the project covered by the City should be a clear enough sign to the council that this is a bad investment.

But then, bad investments are no big deal when all you’re investing is other people’s (i.e., Peoria taxpayers’) money.

Kellar Branch

Next obstacle for Kellar Branch trail dreams: reversion rights

10 Comments

The Peoria Park District, City of Peoria, and the clandestine Kellar Branch Corridor Corporation have just about all their loose ends wrapped up to convert the Kellar Branch railroad to a hiking/biking trail. But there’s one more wrinkle left to iron out: reversion rights.

The land over which railroad tracks run is not always owned by the railroad operator or track owner. Rather, the corridor is often an easement on private property. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “easement” as “[a] right, such as a right of way, afforded a person to make limited use of another’s real property.” So in some places along the corridor, the city doesn’t actually own the land under the tracks, they just have the right to run the tracks over someone else’s property. That’s an easement. That means if the Kellar Branch ceases to be legally recognized as a railroad right-of-way, there’s a possibility that at least some of the right-of-way would revert back to the adjacent property owners. If that happened, then the corridor could not be turned into a trail unless all those pieces of the corridor were acquired through voluntary sale or eminent domain — likely at considerable cost.

There’s a way around this, though. It’s called “railbanking.” Railbanking is “preserving railroad rights-of-way for possible future use” (Wikipedia). Basically, if it’s railbanked, the corridor would continue to be treated as if it were still a rail corridor, even though it’s being used for other purposes. It preserves the corridor so that it could be returned to rail use in the future. It’s a legal sleight of hand maneuver in this case since the City and Park District clearly have no intention of ever reverting the corridor back to rail use under any circumstances. They just want to get railbanking designation so they can convert the right-of-way to a trail without having to pay owners of the underlying property for the use of their land.

According to the City’s latest filing with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), it sounds like this issue is a point of contention between the two parties. It will be interesting to see how the STB rules in the end. If they grant a discontinuance on the line, but don’t agree to railbank it, the process of converting the Kellar Branch to a trail will get a whole lot more complicated and expensive.

I’ll never understand why the City and Park District are so determined to turn this rail line into a trail. The amount of money, effort, time, blood, sweat, and tears spent on this project is disproportionate to its value, real or perceived. It’s become an irrational obsession, and naturally, it’s the taxpayers who will pay the ever-increasing price.

Peoria Police

Settingsgaard on red-light cameras: “I don’t care about the revenue”

92 Comments

Peoria Police Chief Steven Settingsgaard says he’s not proposing red-light cameras as a way to bring more revenue into the city, but only as a way to improve safety because speeding is one of the most common causes of rear-end collisions.

“I don’t care about the revenue, not one bit,” Settingsgaard said via e-mail. “It would be a Council decision ultimately but I would like to see any revenue go toward something that also helps traffic safety in the City rather than going into the general fund or to the police department.”

For example, he suggested the revenue could go toward construction or repair of sidewalks, which would improve pedestrian safety. “I believe there a lots of options here that would put the money to good use but would also alleviate any fears that red light cameras are first and foremost revenue generators.”

According to a recent Peoria Times-Observer article, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis also “told [state] legislators this request was not being sought to create a revenue generator for the city.” Instead, it’s all about safety. “Our community is very dangerous,” he was quoted as saying.

According to the 2009 Crime Summary and additional statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, only 2.8% of all traffic citations (721 of 25,476) and 3.8% of total accidents (173 of 4,560) were for red-light violations. But Settingsgaard believes these numbers can be deceiving.

“The number of citations or percentage of citations issued do not reflect the severity of the problem,” he explained. “It is the difficulty of enforcing red light running that is a major deterrent to enforcement and contributes to the low number of citations, not the lack of violators.”

For the police to safely and effectively enforce red lights, it takes two officers and two cars. One officer (the “witnessing officer”) is positioned in front of the intersection and is the one who actually observes the violation. The other officer (the “pursuing officer”) is positioned on the other side of the intersection and is the one who pursues the violator. It would be unsafe for the witnessing officer to try to pursue the violator through the intersection.

Given the time and staffing required to stake out traffic signals, Settingsgaard believes it would be cheaper and more effective to use photo enforcement.

While recent studies have shown that red-light cameras actually increased the number of crashes at photo-enforced intersections, those crashes have been rear-end fender-benders. In contrast, red-light runners cause “T-bone” style crashes, Settingsgaard point out, which “are extremely hazardous and injuries can be severe if not fatal.”

“It is important to note though that the need goes beyond the actual number of crashes or even the severity of crashes,” he continued. “Just like perception of crime is nearly as important as crime itself, perception of traffic safety is important. It is a common perception, and maybe a common reality, that it is wise in Peoria to pause before proceeding with a green light due to the prevalence of red light runners. This perception/reality impacts the quality of life in Peoria and it frustrates the public when they believe the police don’t give it enough attention.”

My take: With all due respect to the Chief and the Mayor, I don’t see any warrant for using photo-enforcement. I think it’s clear that all safety concerns are based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence and subjective experience. Thus, if photo-enforcement were established, there would be no objective way to quantify or measure its effectiveness. Any claims of improved safety would be anecdotal as well.

The only thing we would be able to measure is how many citations are being issued and how much money it’s bringing into the city. Despite the Mayor’s and Chief’s professed disinterest in that revenue, I don’t think it’s cynical to recognize the city will inevitably become addicted to the revenue once it starts. So even if the establishment of photo-enforcement is not motivated by desire for a new revenue stream, the end result will be the same. Red-light cameras will be little more than a means to extract more money from residents under the pretense of improving safety.

City of Peoria

Liveblogging the City Council (from home) 2/9/2010

Leave a comment

Hello everyone. I’m not going to venture out in the snow and try to find parking on a night that Bradley is playing ISU at the Civic Center. So, I’m going to snuggle up at home and listen to the council meeting on WCBU radio. As usual, I’ll be updating this post throughout the evening, so be sure to refresh often. Here’s the agenda:

PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES & COMMUNICATIONS – CITY OF PEORIA UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(09-500) PUBLIC HEARING Regarding Proposed ANNEXATION of 9900 N. ALLEN ROAD (Temporary Address) (Continued from November 24, 2009).

Councilman Irving moves to open the public hearing, seconded by Van Auken.

  • Joyce Blumenshine: Has a few issues with the annexation — actually with the plan for the site. She asks that the annexation not be voted on tonight. Developer is trying to maximize density for the site to the detriment of the environment. It’s not consistent with the City’s ordinances, such as the stream buffer ordinance.
  • Kiersten Sheets: Lives in Marshall County, but is on the Sustainability Commission as well as a member of other environmental groups. She also is concerned about the site plan, not so much the annexation. She also takes issue with the storm-water management plan. Recommends a “low-impact development storm water ordinance.”

That’s it. No one else wishes to speak.

(09-501) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Adopt the Following:

A. RESOLUTION Approving the ANNEXATION AGREEMENT for Property Generally Located NORTHEAST of the ROCK ISLAND TRAIL (Parcel ID No. 09-31-251-004) EAST of ALLEN ROAD, SOUTH of BROMPTON COURT and Parcel ID No. 09-31-208-031, and WEST of Parcel ID No. 09-31-226-027; the Property Proposed for Annexation is Parcel ID No. 09-31-251-006, with a TEMPORARY ADDRESS of 9900 N. ALLEN ROAD, Located within One and One-Half Miles of the City of Peoria;

Councilman Irving makes several changes to the resolution in his motion, seconded by Turner. Councilman Sandberg is concerned about the proposed apartment complex. There is too much traffic in this area already, and this apartment complex adds 96 units which will make traffic even worse. He’s also concerned about the amount of dirt that they’re planning to move and the impact it will have on drainage. In the Comprehensive Plan, this is designated as a conservation area, and the developer wants to “shoehorn in” three significant buildings. Sandberg is okay with the proposed single family home on Brookshire. Motion passes 10-1; Sandberg voting no.

B. ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY Contiguous to the City of Peoria – 9900 N. ALLEN ROAD (Temporary Address).

Irving moves to approve, seconded by Turner; no discussion. Passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

(09-502) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Zoning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Rezoning Property Located in the 9900 BLOCK of ALLEN ROAD Upon Annexation from Class R3 (Single Family Residential) District to a Class R6 (Multi-Family Residential) District.

Irving moves to approve, seconded by Turner; no discussion. Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

(09-503) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Recommendation from the Planning Commission and Staff to Adopt an ORDINANCE Approving the MULTI-FAMILY PLAN for Property Generally Located NORTHEAST of the ROCK ISLAND TRAIL (Parcel ID No. 09-31-251-004), EAST of ALLEN ROAD, SOUTH of BROMPTON COURT and Parcel ID No. 09-31-208-013, and WEST of Parcel ID No. 09-31-226-027, with the Property Identified as Parcel ID No. 09-31-251-006, with a TEMPORARY ADDRESS of 9900 N. ALLEN ROAD, with Conditions.

Irving moves to approve with some changes; seconded by Spain. Irving thanks the developer. Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BY OMNIBUS VOTE, for the City of Peoria, with Recommendations as Outlined:

A. Communication from the City Manager and Police Chief Requesting Approval for the ANNUAL PURCHASE of FACTORY AMMUNITION for POLICE DUTY USE from KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC., in the Amount of $28,992.32.

B. Communication from the City Manager and Police Chief Requesting Approval of a SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE of THREE POLICE CANINES, One with Specialty in Explosives Detection and Patrol Function and Two with Narcotics and Patrol Specialties from SOUTHERN POLICE CANINE, INC., in the Total Amount of $41,800.00, with Funds Coming from the Federal Asset Forfeiture Account.

C. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to PURCHASE THREE (3) PICK-UP TRUCKS Through the State of Illinois Contract Bid Process for the PARK DISTRICT’S USE to Include TWO FORD F250 TWO-WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UP TRUCKS and ONE FORD F250 FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UP from LANDMARK FORD in Springfield, Illinois, for ROUTINE REPLACEMENT, in the Amount of $63,000.00.

D. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to PURCHASE TWO F550 SUPER DUTY TRUCKS, Fully Equipped with Dump Box, Snow Plow and Salt Spreaders from LANDMARK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP in Springfield, Illinois, in the Amount of $138,124.00, Utilizing the State Contract Bidding Process.

E. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of R. A. CULLINAN & SONS, INC. and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $1,803,195.91, with Additional Authorization of $90,159.80 (5% for Contingencies) for the GLEN OAK SCHOOL IMPACT ZONE STREET IMPROVEMENTS for WISCONSIN, REPUBLIC, MARYLAND, and KANSAS STREETS.

F. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Acceptance of the LOW BID of ILLINOIS CIVIL CONTRACTORS, INC. and Award the CONTRACT, in the Amount of $1,373,739.95, with Extra Authorization of $68,687.00 (An Additional 5% for Contingencies) for the HOLLY HEDGES/DEVEREUX CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS. (Refer to Item Nos. 08-615 and 09-430)

G. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management Requesting Approval of an AMENDMENT to the HAND UP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2009 CHDO PROJECT SCOPE to Develop ONE NEW, SINGLE FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME Located at 522 W. WILLCOX AVENUE (Parcel ID No. 14-33-152-020) and CANCEL DEVELOPMENT of ONE NEW, SINGLE FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME Located in the 3400 BLOCK of SYLVAN LANE (Parcel ID No. 13-24-453-012). (Amends Item No. 09-450)

H. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Approval to FORBEAR on a LOAN to GLOBE ENERGY for 90 DAYS and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents. (Refer to Item No. 07-268)

I. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval to Execute a TWO-YEAR CONTRACT with INDUS LUBRICATING for OIL PRODUCTS used by the CITY’S FLEET MANAGEMENT DIVISION and FIRE GARAGE, as Outlined.

J. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a CONTRACT with FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT for 2010 ENGINEERING SERVICES for the PEORIA CITY/COUNTY LANDFILL, in the Amount of $376,000.00, as Recommended by the Peoria City/County Landfill Committee.

K. Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a SEWER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT with the GREATER PEORIA SANITARY DISTRICT for the REPAIR of SEWERS, as a Part of the City of Peoria’s Sewer Rehabilitation (Design Area 1 Sewers, Manhole Rehabilitation Project 3), and Requesting Concurrence in the Award of the CONTRACT for the Work to MIDWEST TRENCHLESS SERVICES, in the Amount of $358,660.00.

L. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE ABATING the TAX Heretofore Levied to PAY SPECIAL SERVICE AREA TAXES on the RIVERWEST NEIGHBORHOOD (Formerly the Colonel John Warner Homes Development).

M. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Approval of an ORDINANCE Partially ABATING the TAX Heretofore LEVIED to PAY PRINCIPAL OF and INTEREST ON GENERAL OBLIGATION LIBRARY BONDS SERIES 2008A, in the Amount of $798,000.00.

N. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Approval of the ORDINANCE ABATING the TAX Heretofore LEVIED to PAY PRINCIPAL OF and INTEREST ON GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, of the City of Peoria,1998 SERIES C, 2002 SERIES A & B, 2003 SERIES A & B, 2004 SERIES B & C, 2005 SERIES A & B, 2007 SERIES A, and 2009 SERIES A.

O. Communication from the City Manager and Finance Director/Comptroller Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending the CITY OF PEORIA BUDGET for FISCAL YEAR 2010 Relating to the OUTSTANDING ENCUMBRANCES as of DECEMBER 31, 2009, in the Amount of $6,481,002.00.

P. Communication from the City Manager Requesting Approval of the Following:

1. TRANSFER of PROPERTY Located at 720 E. PARK AVENUE to PEORIA AREA COMMUNITY EVENTS (P.A.C.E.) FOUNDATION for the Amount of $1.00, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents;

2. ADOPT an ORDINANCE VACATING a PORTION of LAKE VIEW AVENUE Approximately 315 FEET NORTHEAST of PERRY AVENUE.

Q. Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of DATES for SCHEDULED EVENTS SPONSORED by PEORIA AREA COMMUNITY EVENTS, INC. (P.A.C.E.), Subject to Their Filing the Necessary Permits and Approval as Required by the Peoria City Code. Dates Scheduled are: Steamboat Festival – June 17 through 19, 2010; Taste of Peoria – August 11, 2010 (Rain Date: August 12, 2010); Labor Day Picnic – September 6, 2010; and RibFest & Chili Cookoff – October 1 and 2, 2010.

R. Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of a SITE APPLICATION for a CLASS A (Tavern) LIQUOR LICENSE at 7719 N. UNIVERSITY, with Recommendation from the Liquor Commission to Approve.

S. Communication from the City Manager Regarding the PEORIA PARK DISTRICT FOURTH QUARTER 2009 REPORT of ACTIVITIES for the RIVERFRONT and GATEWAY BUILDING, with Recommendation to Receive and File.

T. Communication from the City Manager with Request to ACCEPT the PEORIA PARK DISTRICT RIVERFRONT PROGRAMMING WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET REPORT for 2010.

U. REPORT of the CITY TREASURER PATRICK NICHTING for the MONTH of DECEMBER 2009, with Recommendation to Receive and File.

Item Q removed by Montelongo. Jacob abstaining on Q and R, removes item F. Motion to approve remaining items by Spain, seconded by Turner; passes unanimously.

  • Item F: Motion to approve Jacob; Spears seconds; passes unanimously.
  • Item Q: Montelongo moves to approve; Spain seconds; passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 2 Communication from the City Manager Requesting Approval of the CITY OF PEORIA’S PORTION of the COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Regarding FY2011 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS.

City Manager Scott Moore asks if staff can bring this item back at a later date so they can be discussed at next week’s policy session before submitting. Motion to defer by Van Auken; seconded by Riggenbach. Motion passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Requesting Approval of the MAIN CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT with ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, and Requesting Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents.

Irving moves to approve; seconded by Van Auken. Sandberg asks for clarification, that the City is not obligated to build water main extensions; it would be the developer’s responsibility. City attorney Randy Ray assures Sandberg that the City is not obligated. Motion passes 10-1 (Sandberg).

ITEM NO. 4 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with Either the Recommendation from the Zoning Commission to ADOPT or Concur with the Recommendation from the Staff to DENY the Following:

A. ORDINANCE Rezoning Property Located at 1717 W. GLEN AVENUE from the Present Class R3 (Single Family Residential) District to a Class O2 (Exclusive Office Park) District, with Conditions;

B. ORDINANCE Amending Ordinance No. 13,345, a Previous Use with Approval as Amended, for a SPECIAL USE in a Class O2 (Exclusive Office Park) District for an OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Commonly Known as the GLEN PARK PLACE OFFICE PARK to Add the Property Located at 1717 W. GLEN AVENUE and Allow for a BUILDING ADDITION and PARKING LOT for Property Located at 4909 N. GLEN PARK PLACE and 1717 W. GLEN AVENUE, with Conditions.

Councilman Spears moves to approve ordinance A; seconded by Van Auken; passes unanimously.

Spears moves to approve ordinance B; seconded by Riggenbach; passes unanimously.

ITEM NO. 5 Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with Request to Concur with Recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission Contained within the ACTION PLAN to:

A. ADOPT an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 16 of the Code of the City of Peoria Related to the DESIGNATION PROCESS and the CERTIFICATE of APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS;

B. APPROVE a PROCEDURAL CHANGE Related to HOUSING and DEMOLITION CASES; and

C. RECEIVE and FILE a COMMUNITY LIST of PROPERTY NOTED as WORTHY OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS and the LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS.

Van Auken asks chair of Historic Preservation Commission, Robert Powers, to speak before she makes a motion. Powers gives a history of the ad hoc committee that worked on this council request. He also gave an explanation of the request, which is basically a restatement of what is written here. Van Auken thanks the ad hoc committee and compliments them.

Van Auken moves to approve item A; seconded by Montelongo. Sandberg also compliments the committee. However, he suggests a couple small amendments limiting the number of colors one can have on their house without having to get a certificate of appropriateness. Sandberg moves that Item A be deferred until May 11; seconded by Gulley. The reason is so neighborhood organizations and other stakeholders who live in historic districts have time to read and clearly understand the ordinance before final action is taken. Van Auken supports deferral. Motion passes unanimously.

Van Auken moves to approve item B; seconded by Spain. Jacob asks if this ordinance will unduly delay the process of demolishing other structures. Planning and Growth Director Landes answers: No. Inspections Director Kunski agrees. Motion passes unanimously.

Van Auken moves to receive and file item C; seconded by Gulley. The floor is opened to anyone who would like to address the council on this item.

  • Margaret Cousin: Reads a prepared speech about the virtues of historic preservation, complete with dramatic analogy about being a ball instead of a cube. Cue violins. (I’m sure she was sincere; I’m just jaded.)
  • Jim Bateman: Spoke off the cuff. Makes snide comment about the city losing a previous list that was also received and filed! (“No one can find it. I guess that’s what happens when you receive and file.” LOL!) For the most part he reiterated information already presented. He did explain that the list is a list of historic properties and includes properties that are already landmarked, properties in historic districts, and properties that could potentially be landmarked.
  • Roger Meyer: Member of Trinity Lutheran Church, speaking for the church. Requests removal of the church building (135 NE Randolph) because it’s a church building and changes to the sanctuary shouldn’t be subject to a secular body. Believes all churches on the list should be taken off the list.

Van Auken basically says in response to Mr. Meyer that they’re not going to take any properties off the list at this time.

Turner asks if merely being on the list will cause a hardship — i.e., will it make it difficult for property owners to sell properties that are on the list? Van Auken says no; preservation is economical and reusing properties is sustainable development. She also says the ordinance is “not as onerous as people think it is.” Sandberg agrees with Van Auken. “There’s a whole cadre of developers who will only invest in historic properties,” he says. “Historic preservation is not a negative in almost all cases.”

Sandberg would like to see historic properties put on the City’s website, not just received and filed. He’d like to see us “show off” our historic community.

Jacob asks if all areas of the community were included. Bateman says “we tried,” and says that there very well could be properties that they missed. He says he hopes the list will be a work in progress. The list is not exclusive and can have properties added to it. Jacob says that there is a perception among some developers that the historic preservation ordinance has been used as a weapon to stop some development; he wants to make sure property rights are preserved.

Spain is “conflicted on this issue.” He’s received calls from property owners who are concerned about their properties being on the list. Yet, he recognizes that the City Council asked for this list because of previous attempts to landmark properties at the eleventh hour. So, he wants to know what the process is to get off the list. Bateman says the problem is one of uncertainty — will the property fall under the ordinance or not? In a perfect world, all the properties on the list would have applications drawn up and decided in short order to take the uncertainty out of it. “That’s in a perfect world, but we live in Peoria.” So, his suggestion is to try to get the applications done as quickly as possible, but recognize it’s going to take time to get through 115 properties. Bottom line, the way to get off the list is for the property to fail the landmarking process. Spain concludes that he will support this item.

Montelongo will be supporting this item, and would like to see a process for getting properties on and off the list.

Motion passes unanimously. That was a lot of discussion on a motion to receive and file!

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(09-616) Communication from the City Manager and Director of Planning and Growth Management with a REQUEST TO DEFER for 30 DAYS a REPORT BACK Regarding CONDITIONS to ENTER into an ANNUAL CONTRACT with the EAST BLUFF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES (EBNHS) Related to Ordinance No. 14,534.

Riggenbach reports that they have had some “really productive negotiations” in the last couple of weeks. He would like to defer the item for two weeks instead of 30 days. Moves to defer two weeks; seconded by Irving; motion passes unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

  • Turner mentions a couple upcoming boys tournaments.
  • Spain moves to remove item 09-506 from the table and place it on the 2/23/10 council meeting; seconded by Gulley. Passes unanimously. Item 09-506 was from the October 27, 2009, council meeting: “Communication from the City Manager and Director of Public Works with Recommendation to ACCEPT the LOW BID of ILLINOIS CIVIL CONTRACTORS, INC., and to Award a CONTRACT, in the Amount of $492,382.70, Plus a 5% Base Bid Contingency of $21,753.14 for the JEFFERSON AVENUE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.” I didn’t cover that council meeting, so I don’t know why it was deferred, if any reason was given at all.
  • Ardis will host a “community call to action” forum at the Dream Center this Saturday at 10 a.m.

PRESENTATION

ITEM NO. 1 PRESENTATION by the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Regarding the FOURTH QUARTER 2009 PERFORMANCE INITIATIVES Under the SCOPE of WORK for the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT Between the City of Peoria and the Economic Development Council, with Request to Receive and File.

Van Auken moves to receive and file, seconded by Montelongo. Spain is abstaining due to the EDC’s relationship with his empoyer. Presentation ensues. Technical difficulties precluded the use of a PowerPoint presentation. I think it was sabotage. 🙂 Kidding. Motion passes unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL

Nobody wants to address the council tonight. And there was much rejoicing.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Spears moves to go into executive session, seconded by Riggenbach; passes unanimously. And then they move to adjourn and we’re done!

I realized right before Citizens to Address that somehow the ability to leave comments on this post was turned off. I do not know how that happened, but that’s really annoying! I was having some technical difficulties with this post early on, so something must have gotten messed up then. Sorry if you wanted to leave a comment earlier and couldn’t.

Goodnight everyone!