Tag Archives: City of Peoria

Bradley University, City of Peoria

Students complain of broken promises at Main Street Commons

17 Comments

Bradley students and nearby residents of Main Street Commons, the new student apartment complex at the corner of Main and Bourland, have something in common: disappointment.

The Bradley Scout reported earlier this month:

Last year the apartment complex was announced as a new housing option for Bradley students and many were excited about the promises of free tanning, a swimming pool, furnished apartments, private bathrooms and flat screen TVs.

Roommates Jori Lee and Shabre Jones, both juniors, said they noticed differences between what they were told and what they actually got.

“They didn’t have a lot of the things they promised,” Lee said. “We’re going to have to use our own money to buy a router for internet when it seemed like WIFI was going to be everywhere in the building.”

Nearby residents have also noticed differences between what they were told and what they actually got. For instance, the artist’s rendering of the building showed an all-brick exterior, but what was actually put up was fiber cement siding made to look like a mix of brick and lap siding. No one was expecting it to be used partially as a freshman dorm, either.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council brings Wonderful Development back to life, for two weeks at least

44 Comments

It’s alive.

The agreement was cancelled. The developer didn’t perform. The letter had been sent. All the Council needed to do was ratify the action. They could have definitively ended the hotel deal last night. They should have supported the City Manager driven the final stake into the heart of the Wonderful Development.

But they didn’t. They voted to defer the cancellation of the agreement for two weeks. During that time, the City will meet with developer Gary Matthews and try to work out their differences so the project can move forward. If they can’t, then supposedly the Council will end the deal at their next meeting on September 27. (But who can believe that, really? It’s more likely they’ll just defer it again if Matthews misses yet another deadline.)

One must seriously question what difference two more weeks can make considering he’s already nine months past the deadline. But they think they can work things out and allow this project to proceed. They want to bring it back to life.

And who made the motion to keep this project alive? One of the newest council members, Beth Akeson, who ran on a basic services platform in April’s at-large election. Given the opportunity to vote down this expensive white elephant, she led the way in keeping it alive. So it appears it only took five months for her to be assimilated into the Council’s dysfunctional culture of spending gobs of tax money on foolish projects.

On a positive note, though, the other new council member, Chuck Weaver, voted against the deferral, preferring to cancel the project. He can recognize a bad deal when he sees one.

I shouldn’t be surprised by all of this, but I really thought there was a good chance the deal would really die because the Mayor and the City Manager were in favor of killing it. But last night, even the Mayor did an about face and voted for the deferral, speaking in favor of keeping the project alive after all.

Just when there was hope that the City had finally come to its senses, it’s back to business as usual for the Peoria City Council. And the roads continue to crumble. And the police department continues to be stretched thin. But we’ll jump through hoops to give a millionaire developer $37 million of our tax money as a gift.

City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 9/13/2011 (Live Blog)

34 Comments

Hello everyone. It’s 6:00 and I’m here in Council chambers at Peoria City Hall. The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:15 with several proclamations. As usual, I will start live coverage once the business portion of the meeting begins. Then, refresh your browser every so often to see the latest updates; I’ll be updating this post frequently.

The place is already getting crowded. Lots of union workers have pledged to be here tonight to support the Wonderful Development. Council members are trickling in, and the City Manager is at his desk and ready to go.

All the council members are here — Gulley was a little late, but now that he’s here, we have a full council. Gary Matthews is in the audience, as well as some other investors in the hotel project.

Here’s tonight’s agenda:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 9/13/2011 (Live Blog) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Rewind: History of City Council election process

4 Comments

Back in November 1987, the last time the City Council’s election process was changed, then-Journal Star reporter Paul Gordon wrote a very interesting story on the history of the process.

I’ve reprinted the complete article below, but here’s the summary, with some additional information to bring us up to 2011:

Years Election Process
Before 1845 Governed under township system, with a board of trustees and a board president
1845-1953 Mayor and, initially, eight aldermen elected from four wards, with elections held annually. The council grew with the city, and by 1951, there were 11 wards and 22 aldermen.
1953-1960 Council-manager form of government adopted; one mayor and all council members elected at-large.
1960-1972 In a special election, voters decide to reestablish the ward system. Ten wards are established with one councilman elected from each; terms are not staggered. There are no at-large seats.
1972-1991 Under new state legislation, a binding referendum was held that established five districts and three at-large seats (total of 8 council members, plus the mayor), with staggered terms.
1991-present As a result of the 1987 Voting Rights lawsuit settlement, our current system was established with five district councilmen and five at-large councilmen elected via cumulative voting. The first at-large election under the new system was held in 1991.

Now in 2011, there is talk of doing away with the current system and returning to possibly ten districts and no at-large councilmen, which would be essentially what we had in the 1960s. It’s also the resolution originally sought in the voting rights case of 1987.

In 1987, a lawsuit (Joyce Banks, et al. v City of Peoria, case number 87-2371) was filed against the City of Peoria, District 150 Board of Education, and the Peoria Park District, alleging that the method of electing at-large members “prevented minorities from getting elected to the boards because the number of white voters outnumbered minorities.” The suit originally sought to abolish at-large voting completely from all three boards. But in a settlement before the case went to trial, plaintiffs agreed to eliminate at-large voting from the school district and park boards, and develop a different solution for the City Council: a total of five at-large members (an increase from three) plus the implementation of a cumulative voting system.

Why? According to a Nov. 1, 1987, Journal Star article, one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Banks, stated “their original demand for across-the-board district voting was dropped because blacks reasonably could be assured of one seat on a district-only council…. With the agreed-upon changeover to cumulative voting for at-large seats on the City Council, Banks said a well-organized black community could capture two or three seats on what would become a 10-member council.”

That’s more or less how it has worked out. Today, there are two black members on the council: first-district councilman Clyde Gulley and at-large councilman Eric Turner. If the council were to change back to a ten-district system, it’s hard to say how minority representation would change. Minority population has increased over the past 24 years, so presumably more than one district could be made up of a majority of minority voters. Plus, it’s not as if white people only vote for white people or black people only vote for black people. For instance, Turner lives in the fifth district of the City, which is predominantly white, and he received a large number of votes from that area in the last at-large election. There’s no reason he couldn’t continue to win a seat in that area of town even under a district-only process.

It is interesting that changing to a ten-district council would be a trip back to the future, so to speak. One wonders if, in another ten or twenty years, there will be yet another group vying for a return to the good old days of cumulative voting, or perhaps a strong-mayor form of government. It seems we’re never satisfied with whatever process is currently in place.

Continue reading Rewind: History of City Council election process →

City Council, City of Peoria

Pro-Wonderful-Development letter-writing campaign continues

50 Comments

Investors, doctors, politicians, and other wealthy and well-connected citizens have been flooding the City Council’s mailboxes with letters of support for Gary Matthews and the downtown hotel project. Many of them are form letters, or at least incorporate boilerplate language such as this:

It is my [or “our”] understanding that EM Properties has worked closely and judiciously with city staff, Civic Center authorities, labor unions, construction companies, lenders, sellers and the well respected hotel group, Marriott, in order to piece together all of the parts of this intricate transaction. All aspects of the project have been vetted, reworked and vetted again to insure its success. It is crucial to the revitalization of our downtown and the future of our city and region that the project moves forward. Job creation and maintenance are vital.

The completion of this project will better position many companies in the area to better market our community and enrich our local economy in order to compete with surrounding areas.

In March of this year, ground was broken for a new Courtyard by Marriott in Newark, New Jersey. It will include 150 rooms and 14,000 square feet of retail space, and is “expected to generate approximately 175 construction jobs, and a total of between 50 and 75 permanent jobs through the hotel and retail operations.” How much money do you think the City of Newark contributed to this boon to their local economy? Answer: a $500,000 loan “to assist the Courtyard by Marriott with gaining site control.”

Meanwhile in Peoria, to get our own new 119-room Courtyard by Marriott, plus a renovation of the Pere Marquette with a gerbil tube to the Civic Center, it will take a gift of $37 million from the taxpayers. Does something seem a little off to you? Perhaps the reason is that our workers are not as efficient. According to a May 23, 2010 Journal Star article, “professor Bob Scott at Bradley University expects 840 construction jobs to be created when EM Properties and Marriott International team up on the $102 million Downtown project.” That’s nearly five times as many construction jobs as are necessary to build a hotel in Newark.

I think the letter writers and supporters of the Wonderful Development are missing the point. They’re all arguing the merits of an upscale downtown hotel in close proximity or connected to the Civic Center. That’s all well and good. But at what price? Should the City take on a third of the risk for this $102 million private development? Should a City taking on said risk continue to trust a developer that has demonstrated a consistent inability to meet deadlines and projections? Would doing so really be in the taxpayers’ best interests? If the developer is unable to meet short-term projections (like when he can start construction), how can we trust him to meet long-term projections (like the future profitability of the venture)?

This project has been approved for two and a half years. It was approved twice. It has been over nine months since the latest deadline was missed. Each time the developer has come to the table, he’s assured the council that he was ready to start. In May 2010, he said he was ready to start “immediately.” Everything was in place. All that was missing was the Council’s approval.

Sixteen months later, nothing has started, and the City Manager cancels the agreement. So now what do we hear? Here’s another sample from a pro-hotel letter to the Council: “All pieces are in place, as outlined in brief above, we just need the nod from the council, and the city to sell the bonds. We can close in 60 days.” Where have we heard that before?

The Wonderful Development must die.

City of Peoria

New York consultant should put money where his mouth is

7 Comments

On today’s Journal Star opinion page is a letter “in the spotlight” from Peter Bazeli of New York, New York. He extols the Wonderful Development and warns that “this facility is critical to Peoria’s economy.” I don’t know about you, but when I want to know what’s critical to our economy here in Peoria, the first person I ask is a resident of New York. I’m sure Mr. Bazeli often consults with Peoria residents on what’s critical for New York’s economy as well.

“If the project is executed well,” he says, “the investment will be well worth it in the long term, paying dividends in many diverse ways for generations to come.” Of course, the successful execution of the project is precisely what is in question here, but I imagine it’s a little hard to follow all the details of this issue when you live 900 miles away.

And just what does Peter Bazeli do that makes him such an expert on how we should spend our tax money here? He explains, “Professionally, I am a consultant to developers and private equity funds investing in projects like this throughout the United States….” Well, hot dog! That’s great news for the Wonderful Development! Mr. Bazeli could save this project by simply recommending it to his New York colleagues and drumming up $37 million worth of private equity to replace the City’s tax investment. Problem solved!

Why not? After all, this investment will be well worth it in the long term, paying dividends in many diverse ways for generations to come. Why wouldn’t his partners, or even Mr. Bazeli himself, want in on that kind of sure-fire investment?

I sure hope Mr. Matthews reads the paper today and is able to contact Bazeli soon. This could be just the break he needs.

City of Peoria, Nation/World

Peoria Hosts Event In Observance of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11

3 Comments

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Sunday will be the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There have been one or two stories in the news about it recently. The City of Peoria is having a big remembrance event downtown tomorrow, the day before the anniversary. Here’s the press release:

Peoria, Illinois – The City of Peoria’s 9/11 Remembrance Event will be held at O’Brien Field on September 10, 2011, from 10:00 until 11:15 a.m. This special service, which is free and open to the public, is a tribute not only to those individuals who lost their lives on that fateful day, but to the men and women who continue to risk their lives to keep our nation safe. The gates of O’Brien Field will open at 9:00 a.m., and spectators will be greeted with performances by The Peoria Ballet, Pulses of Hope, and the Richwoods Gospel Choir. Vehicles will be displayed along Jefferson Street as we showcase first responders from the military, police, fire, and medical services.

We are pleased to welcome Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, Deputy Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) as the guest speaker for our 9/11 Remembrance Event. Vice Admiral Harward commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for over six years since September 11, 2001, where he last served as the commander of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force (CJIATF) 435.

Due to the power outages experienced in Southern California, the Navy Parachute Team (Leap Frogs) will be unable to perform at the event. The Leap Frogs’ originate from San Diego, California, and the power outage prevented their flight from taking off this morning.

CityLink will run Park and Ride shuttles from Evergreen Square (in front of Lenscrafters – 801 W. Lake Avenue) to O’Brien Field, starting at 9:00 a.m. The shuttle will return riders to Evergreen Square immediately following the event.

Everyone is encouraged to show their pride by wearing red, white, or blue to the event.

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Koehler goes to bat for Matthews

18 Comments

The pressure is mounting on the Peoria City Council. Now State Senator David Koehler has weighed in with a letter supporting developer Gary Matthews:

Letter from Sen. Koehler

Here’s the text of the letter:

I am respectfully asking you to reconsider all available options so that we may see the Downtown Marriott Hotel Project agreement with EM Properlies, Ltd. move forward. Given the hard work carried out by you, the City of Peoria, EM Properties, Mike Everett and the West Central IL Building and Construction Trades, it would be a real setback if we were not able to move forward with this job creating and economic growth project at this time.

Further, if the project is abandoned now, we would be leaving behind valuable and hard won tax credits procured through the Illinois General Assembly. Just to clarify, if the tax credits are not used by the current developer, we would have to go back through the time consuming legislative process to have a new bill passed before they would be available to any other developer.

In the interest of downtown economic development and job creation, I hope that we can find a way to resume the Marriott Hotel Project. Again, I ask for your reconsideration of all available options to keep this project.

My take: I wonder if Sen. Koehler has sent any similar letters to developer Gary Matthews over the past two and a half years. You know, letters expressing the importance of this project and putting pressure on him to get started on it; letters explaining that the tax credits can only be used by him and that they will be lost if he fails to fulfill his agreement with the City. And about those “hard won tax credits” — are those the one that Governor Pat Quinn agreed to sign after Mr. Matthews contributed $10,000 to his campaign? Hard won, indeed. Was the point of that legislation to force the City to fulfill a contract with a developer whether or not he performs?

Also, is what Sen. Koehler said really true? According to Public Act 096-0933, “For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 and ending on or before December 31, 2015, a taxpayer who qualifies for a credit under the Historic Preservation Tax Credit Pilot Program Act is entitled to a credit against the taxes imposed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 201 of this Act as provided in that Act.” And just who is a qualified taxpayer? It’s “the owner of the qualified historic structure or any other person who may qualify for the federal rehabilitation credit allowed by Section 47 of the federal Internal Revenue Code.” And finally, what is a “qualified historic structure”? “‘Qualified historic structure’ means a hotel that is located in the City of Peoria and that is defined as a certified historic structure under Section 47 (c)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code.” That pretty much means the Pere Marquette.

So from a plain reading of the law, it appears that the historic tax credits are limited to the Pere Marquette, but not limited to Gary Matthews as the developer. The current owners of the Pere Marquette, for instance, could get these tax credits, it would appear. The only other limitation in the law has to do with timing — the credit can only be taken during tax years prior to 2016. Could there be other restrictions? Certainly. I’ve heard anecdotally that there is some sort of application process, and that the window of opportunity for applying is now closed. But I have not been able to find a citation to such a provision so far.

But why question him? Let’s assume he’s right, and we’ll lose these tax credits. What are we losing? Nothing. This is like the person who thinks that, if they don’t buy a $5 box of Cheerios so they can use their 50-cents-off coupon, they will be “losing” fifty cents. In fact, they could just not buy the box of Cheerios and not spend $4.50. We’re not losing the tax credits; we’re not spending $37 million that we don’t have and may never be able to recoup. Furthermore, Gov. Quinn signed into law River Edge Redevelopment historic tax credits which the City could use toward redevelopment of the Pere if it’s included in the redevelopment zone.

Bottom line, with all due respect to Sen. Koehler, the City of Peoria needs to look out for the best interests of its taxpayers, and cancelling this project is the way to do it. I know there are a lot of good-hearted investors that only want what’s best for Peoria, and I applaud them for their efforts. But there is no reason to put any more faith in the developer, and with the economy’s continuing weakness, there is even less reason than in 2008 to believe this project will ever be profitable. Not all investments work out, and the government can’t afford to keep bailing out bad investments.

The Wonderful Development must die.

City Council, City of Peoria

Matthews makes his case to Council

34 Comments

Developer Gary Matthews has written a letter to the Mayor and City Council asking them not to cancel the redevelopment agreement:

Matthews Letter 09-02-2011

The gist of the letter is that Matthews felt he had provided everything to the City that was requested, and that as a result of certain meetings he was led to believe he was meeting the terms of the redevelopment agreement to the City’s satisfaction. The December 31, 2010, deadline stipulated in the redevelopment agreement remains unaddressed and unacknowledged. He concludes:

I know and understand we are all suffering from some “hotel fatigue.” I apologize for adding to that fatigue but I feel it is necessary that you have accurate information. Yes, it has been a long, arduous journey, but we are on the cusp of what can be a very historic project. The budget has gone through many transitions as obstacles were confronted (e.g., the inability to secure new market tax credits for a hotel project in a middle sized city) but again and again, with cooperation from lenders (agreeing to better terms), sellers (agreeing to assist with financing), tax credit investors (agreeing to higher purchase prices) and us agreeing to defer the developer’s fee, new options were created to make the project successful. Also, as you know, the State of Illinois adopted a pilot State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program specifically for this project. Failure to close when we are so close will result in the loss of these credits and a missed opportunity for the City.

This project is a transformative and catalytic project for the Peoria region. Its construction will not only create jobs, but help also revitalize the downtown and surrounding Peoria areas by encouraging and influencing development resulting in a positive community and economic impact.

Pretty good sales pitch, except here we are over two and half years after we first heard it and the project has yet to start. Keep in mind that the first redevelopment agreement from December 2008 was never fulfilled. In May 2010, when the latest agreement was made, Matthews told the council that he would be drawing on the $37 million grant from the city “immediately in 2010,” something he could only do subsequent to closing on the properties. He further said that work on the Pere Marquette would begin “immediately after closing.” He also assured the Council at that time that he had all his financing in place. Now it’s September 2011, and the Council receives a letter with more promises and assurances that everything is in place and ready to start. I’m beginning to see a pattern.

Matthews stands to make $9 million from this deal, and he has already racked up no small amount of money on attorney’s fees, architect fees, marketing, etc. It’s very important to him that this deal go through. But he has consistently missed deadlines and shown an inability to get the project started. His apologists blame this failure on the economy. But I have news for you: the economy isn’t getting any better.

The City is doing the right thing by cutting its losses on this project. Even if they have to pay Matthews a settlement to help defray some of his expenses (I would suggest only those expenses incurred from the December 31 deadline to the present), they would be money ahead.икони

City of Peoria

Peoria Chronicle Exclusive: Matthews threatens to sue over hotel deal termination

24 Comments

In a statement released today, EM Properties claims it…

…has satisfied all conditions of the Redevelopment Agreement required to proceed with a closing for the Downtown Marriott Project. We believe we have provided sufficient evidence of financing. We plan to confirm the financing we currently have and further solidify our submissions to the City Council within the next week. We share the City of Peoria’s urgency for a real estate closing and look forward to one this fall to bring this great project to fruition.

And they are threatening to sue the City for breach of contract if the project is cancelled. You can read the letter from their attorney here:

Husch-Blackwell-Letter

Here’s the bottom line: The redevelopment agreement listed thirteen things that Matthews/EM Properties had to fulfill. The City’s termination letter said that EM Properties had not fulfilled them. Now EM Properties’ attorneys are saying they did fulfill them, and therefore the City has no right to terminate the agreement.

But there’s one thing that EM Properties’ attorneys are missing. The redevelopment agreement states in section 6.7, “If the conditions precedent set forth in Section 6.4 do not occur on or before December 31, 2010, then the City may cancel this Agreement by notifying the Redeveloper in writing.” Note the date: December 31, 2010. It’s a publicly-established fact that these conditions were not met by the deadline. So EM Properties doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They can argue until they’re blue in the face that they’ve satisfied all the conditions, but if they weren’t satisfied by the deadline, the City has every right to cancel the agreement. Case closed. This is nothing more than a scare tactic — an act of desperation.