Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria

Some details on Peoria’s budget-balancing effort

3 Comments

From the City of Peoria:

On Monday, November 10, the City Council was presented with an updated budget proposal that reduced a potential budget deficit from $2,183,163 to $117,771. We have attached the entire packet of information given to the Council that night, which includes a transmittal memo, line item breakdown of reductions and additions, narrative and various other tables. At Council’s direction, staff continues to work to close this gap without cutting services to citizens or raising taxes. A final balanced budget will be presented to Council on Tuesday, November 25, 2008.

In addition to sending you this information electronically, we have also updated www.peoriabudget.com.

Museum Block, Peoria County, State Legislation, State of Illinois, Taxes

Who’s afraid of the big bad economy? Not the museum!

10 Comments

From the Journal Star:

With little debate, the Illinois Senate today voted 51-4 to send Gov. Rod Blagojevich a proposal to let Peoria County ask voters to OK a special sales tax to help pay for the Peoria riverfront museum.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1290, passed earlier in the House of Representatives. With Blagojevich’s signature, it would become law, and the question could be put to voters in the February or April municipal elections.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the bill allows increases in 1/4% increments, and could be used toward any “public facility” (e.g., Belwood Nursing Home), not just the museum. The way it will likely read on the ballot is:

To pay for public facility purposes, shall Peoria County be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .25% (.0025) for a period not to exceed (insert number of years)?

This would mean that a consumer would pay an additional 25¢ ($0.25) in sales tax for every $100 of tangible personal property bought at retail. If imposed, the additional tax would cease being collected at the end of (insert number of years), if not terminated earlier by a vote of the county board.”

A quarter of a percent increase doesn’t sound like a whole lot, does it? But consider that, if this referendum were to pass, you would be paying .25% more on things that already are highly taxed — like restaurant food (which would go from 10% to 10.25% in the city). Is that going to make Peoria more or less competitive than East Peoria, right across the river? How many people do you think will come to see the museum in Peoria, then go have lunch in East Peoria?

And what about the economy? Is this the time to be increasing taxes when there’s plenty of unemployed people? What is the city’s solution on how to decrease the unemployment rate?
Consider these other items in the news as of late:

  • “[T]he effects of the economic crisis are being felt beyond Wall Street as charities locally and nationwide report increases in basic needs and decreases in donations to provide those. Some of the people who used to be donors are now asking for donations…. Nearly 90 percent of Catholic Charities nationwide report more families seeking help, with senior citizens, the middle class and the working poor among those hit hardest by the downturn…. The Salvation Army already has seen between 15 percent and 20 percent more need than last year in its first week of assistance applications received for the holidays…. The Friendship House scaled back the number of families this year allowed into their Adopt-A-Family program to ensure they could fulfill the need.”
  • “Fiscal restraint was the guiding principle in crafting next year’s [Peoria] county budget, which represents a 6 percent overall decrease over last year’s budget. In what is being described as a ‘maintenance budget’ with no new taxes or fees and no spending cuts, preliminary figures show spending requests at nearly $122 million while the county expects to bring in about $119 million in revenues. The approximately $3 million deficit – mostly in the capital fund – will be covered by reserve funds that sit at nearly $74 million, said Erik Bush, Peoria County’s chief financial officer….. The county expects to collect $25.5 million from taxpayers, about $1 million more than what was collected in 2007. Although the tax rate will drop 1 cent to 81 cents per $100 assessed valuation, property values are projected to increase 5.4 percent, so homeowners actually will pay more taxes to the county. The owner of a $120,000 home, whose value increases the projected 5.4 percent will pay $341.50 in taxes to the county, or $13.50 more than last year.”
  • “In total, the city’s staff whittled a $2.2 million budget deficit down to $117,771, an amount that some council members praised. ‘We asked an unbelievable task of our staff,’ Mayor Jim Ardis said. ‘Without cutting any positions or having any tax increase.’ …Finance Director Jim Scroggins said the biggest savings comes from the city’s health care costs, reflected in a substantial difference between the 12 percent budgeted increase for 2008 and the actual increase in health-related costs of only 4 percent…. In addition, the city plans to scale back on parking deck repairs ($300,000), repairs to some of its buildings ($200,000), delay repairs to police headquarters ($25,000), and reduce the neighborhood signs program ($68,662).”
  • “Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills has hit a record $4 billion, and Comptroller Dan Hynes said Thursday the situation is ‘potentially catastrophic’ if allowed to continue…. Earlier this week, Blagojevich’s office said state revenues will fall $800 million short of projections because of the recession. The Senate Democrats’ top budget person, Sen. Donne Trotter of Chicago, said borrowing money right now may not be a good idea because of interest costs. He said the state should tap into its ‘rainy day’ fund first. Hynes said money in the rainy day fund was used in July. Trotter’s Republican counterpart, Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont, also didn’t think much of borrowing money. ‘That’s exactly what’s gotten us into this problem,’ Radogno said. ‘Continuing borrowing is not a good idea. They’re going to have to look at making cuts. The wiggle room is gone.'”

It’s time to use all that advertising money to come up with another plan — one that doesn’t involve raising taxes.


Museum Block, before it was turned into a temporary parking lot
City of Peoria, History

HPC: AMVETS should be historic landmark

12 Comments

From the Journal Star:

The Downtown AMVETS building should be considered a historic landmark and preserved for future uses, the city’s historic preservation commission decided this morning.

With a 4-2 vote, the commission endorsed an application from the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation to landmark the building at 237 NE Monroe St.

The City Council has the final vote on the landmarking status and is scheduled to do so on Nov. 25.

I have mixed feelings about this. I really do. On the one hand, I agree with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) that this building should be landmarked. After reading the application, I believe a solid case was made for preserving this 1916 building originally known as the United Duroc Building.

But on the other hand, the timing couldn’t have been worse. The AMVETS need to move, and they had their plans all set. They were going to move to the former Penguin Tap in Peoria Heights. Riverside Community Church was going to buy their downtown building, raze it, and build a new children’s wing. All the arrangements had been made and all they needed to do was close the deal. And then this historic preservation request was filed and scuttled everyone’s plans.

That has made for a lot of hard feelings. It’s no small irony that this happened to a veterans group. “Post 64 Commander Richard Mitchell said the vote was ‘another example of rights we fought for being taken away from us,'” reported the Journal Star.

I hope that preservation groups recognize the spot they put people and organizations in when they wait until the last minute to file preservation applications. Instead of waiting until the wrecking ball is at the door, it would be better if these groups were more proactive. There are a finite number of buildings in Peoria that are worthy of historic designation; make a list, submit it, and be done with it.

City of Peoria

City manager search suspended; Holling’s contract to be extended

1 Comment

From a press release:

For the past five months the City Council has been engaged in an intensive search process for a permanent City Manger. The process produced several excellent candidates. We interviewed three well-qualified individuals. One candidate was a consensus choice of the council. Two weeks ago the City Council offered the position to Mr. Eric Stuckey, Assistant County Administrator of Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati). Mr. Stuckey was very impressed with the opportunity in Peoria and visited with us on two occasions. He was also interviewing for a similar position and in the end he selected a position in Franklin, Tennessee because of family considerations.

Based on past City Manager search experience, and with the advice of our consultant Jim Mercer, the City Council has elected to postpone further search activities until after the first of the year. The coming holidays, ongoing national economic concerns and local spring elections would all suggest suspending the search a couple months.

The City is fortunate to have a seasoned administrative team in place with leadership by Interim City Manger Henry Holling. The City Council and staff have continued to move Peoria city government forward. Important projects and critical services are progressing. We will have a balanced budget for 2009 in very challenging economic times with no service cuts and no tax increases.

Our plan is to continue the present Interim City Manger arrangement and remain focused on our vision of an excellent quality of urban life … vibrant, progressive, diverse and welcoming.

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.
City Council, City of Peoria

Council greasing the skids for Big Al’s move

37 Comments

On the agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting is a change to the city’s adult business ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to a new location while keeping their “grandfathered in” status. The council communication explains:

Since approximately 1978, the City has had an adult business ordinance that restricted the locations of adult businesses by limiting their distances from other adult businesses, from churches and schools, and from residentially zoned properties. There has always been at least one adult business that has not been in compliance with the ordinance but has been grandfathered and, therefore, allowed to continue at its present location. The attached ordinance would allow such a business to relocate, obtain an adult use license for a property which brings the location more into compliance. The relocation may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of a significant development opportunity.

In other words, Big Al’s adult use license would follow them to a new location. They wouldn’t have to reapply. And they continue to be “grandfathered in.” Couple this with the liquor license that was requested for 414 NE Hamilton (which the Liquor Commission didn’t approve or deny), and I think you see where this is going.

Once again, oblique reference is made to “a significant development opportunity,” which is rumored to be either an expansion to the Pere Marquette or a new hotel that will be connected to the Civic Center somehow (pedestrian bridge?). In any case, the deal apparently hinges on allowing Big Al’s to move without giving up their adult use license, so the city is doing everything in its power to facilitate that.

I’m concerned that by doing this, the council will be invalidating their adult use ordinance. What I mean is, they’re changing the ordinance to benefit one business. If they do this for one adult business and not another, with no consistent or reasonable justification for such discrimination, the ordinance becomes arbitrary and capricious, and ultimately unconstitutional.

For example, in 2002, the owner of 617 W. Main St., Frank Genusa, also had a grandfathered-in business called Playmate Video. When he changed tenants to a business called The Dungeon Music and Apparel that sold the same kind of adult material, the city revoked his adult use license, saying the grandfathering no longer applies — even though it was the same landlord, the same type of business, and the same location. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that place is gone, but you see my point: the rules seem to be rigidly applied to one owner, but easily changed for another.

The next year, the strip club now known as Elliott’s started its effort to get an adult use license at its North University Street location. The city fought that by denying a Class A liquor license for the establishment (a requirement for selling liquor if the establishment also holds an adult-use license). That resulted in a lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars, and they got their liquor license after all. Again, the rules are applied aggressively to one business, but bent and rewritten for another.

Why the double standard? This “significant development opportunity” must be a real doozy. I wonder when the public will be let in on the council’s little secret.

City Council, City of Peoria, Crime

National Night Out moving back to August

Leave a comment

They gave it the old college try, but holding the National Night Out Against Crime in September this year apparently didn’t go over too well. In an online survey, over half the respondents requested that the event go back to its original date of the first Tuesday in August:

Those in favor of the traditional August date most often wrote that the September date conflicted with after school events, sports, and student homework assignments. Several of those respondents added that the September date brought an early nightfall which caused a premature end to their events. Those in favor of the September date cited favorable weather and more participation by elderly citizens. (NOTE: The National Association of Town Watch (NATW), which sponsors this event, also conducted a pilot date change in Texas this year. NATW has announced that NNO will continue to be held on the first Tuesday in August.) As a result of the majority date preference, City staff is recommending the NNO for the City of Peoria be set for the first Tuesday in August.

There were 94 respondents to the survey, and 53 of them voted for the August date. Since this is a national event, as the name implies, it makes sense to me to hold it on the same date as everyone else. The council will make the final decision at its next meeting on Monday, Nov. 10, at 6:15 p.m.