Tag Archives: City of Peoria

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.

City Council, City of Peoria

The (not so) Wonderful Development, 2008-2011, R.I.P. (UPDATED)

37 Comments

It’s all over but the shouting.

The Journal Star reports that the City has notified Gary Matthews that they are terminating the redevelopment agreement for the Hotel Pere Marquette and surrounding properties.

In short, the three-page letter states the city is within its rights to pull out of the agreement because it is after Dec. 31, 2010 — the date at which the city could unilaterally withdraw under the terms of the deal if certain benchmarks were not met — and that there still are significant details missing on the financing Matthews’ business, EM Properties, was required to obtain. Indeed, it states that what has been provided thus far is “nothing close to what the city could prudently accept” as evidence. […] Though city lawyers believe the letter sent to EM Properties is adequate notice to terminate the agreement, City Council members will be asked to formally ratify the decision in a vote at their Sept. 13 meeting to confirm they agree with the move.

Letter Terminating the Wonderful Development

And so dies the vaunted Wonderful Development — a project that was so time-critical that it had to be approved practically overnight three years ago without any public input and as little notice as legally possible; a project that was going to be constructed “immediately” according to Matthews in May 2010; a project, the financing of which the Council was assured by Mr. Matthews was all in place over a year ago; a project Mr. Matthews was so confident about that he loudly and publicly blew off Councilman Gary Sandberg’s questions, saying “Just vote no, councilman”; a project that was going to cost the City of Peoria taxpayers up to $37 million, most of which was going to go into the pockets of Mr. Matthews and the owners of Big Al’s; a project that was going to relocate Big Al’s to a piece of property immediately adjacent to a day care facility; a project that ultimately fell apart like a house of cards.

City leaders will no doubt bemoan the cancellation of this project and say it’s a sad day for Peoria. And there may indeed be some unfortunate outcomes. The fate of the Pere Marquette would seem to be in question, for instance. But the losses that would have resulted had the project come to fruition would have been far worse. The City simply can’t afford the debt service on up to $37 million in bonds. No matter what they tell you, that project was never going to pay for itself. Their predicted occupancy rates and revenues were about as likely to come to pass as the Cubs winning the World Series.

On a positive note, I just want to express my appreciation to Mayor Ardis and City Manager Patrick Urich for finally pulling the plug on this project. You just know there was no small amount of pressure placed on the City to contribute even more toward making this project a reality, but to their credit, they said enough is enough. They didn’t let Matthews come back to the well a third time looking for more concessions and/or funding.

My hope is that, out of this abject failure a better project will arise: one that is privately funded and likely to succeed; a truly wonderful development.

UPDATE: I contacted Randy Ray to find out the disposition of the Franklin Street lot. Here’s his response: “The contract with Main Street Trust and Al’s for the Franklin lot terminated by its own terms because closing did not occur by July 31.” So, in other words, Big Al’s will not be moving, and the City retains ownership of the lot adjacent to the bus depot.

City Council, City of Peoria

Business District project costs to double if amendment passes

44 Comments

A public hearing will be held at Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting on a proposed amendment to the downtown Hospitality Improvement Zone Business District Development Plan (or HIZ BDD Plan, for short). The amendment consists of these two changes:

  1. Adding Staybridge SuitesIn order to add property to the HIZ BDD Plan, the added property has to qualify as “blighted.” According to state ordinance a “blighted area” is an area

    which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non?existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements
    the definition of timesheet>, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. [65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-5]


    According to the council communication [note: large PDF file], Staybridge Suites qualifies “due to the deterioration of site improvements which constitutes an economic underutilization of the area.”

    Staybridge Suites was built in 1999 for around $7.5 million. In twelve years, we’re supposed to believe that it’s now “blighted” due to “the deterioration of site improvements”? Well, maybe, if it was built by the same contractor that built Riverfront Village. Still, if this is “blighted,” then every building in the City of Peoria is blighted:

    Looks like a real dump, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that the council communication does not provide any documentation to substantiate this supposed “deterioration” and “economic underutilization.” It simply makes the claim without any evidence to back it up.

  2. Doubling estimated business district project costsThis is perhaps the most curious part of the amendment. The amendment increases the total estimated business district project costs from $6 million to $12 million. They’ve also lengthened the list of things on which they can spend that money. Here’s a comparison between the original plan and the proposed amendment:
    Original BDD Plan Amended BDD Plan (Proposed)
    The Business District costs are estimated at $6,000,000 and may include:

    1. Buying and selling of land.
    2. Infrastructure improvements.
    3. Rehabilitation of existing property.
    4. Development costs associated with new taxable private development.
    5. Façade and streetscape improvements.
    		 Business District project costs are estimated at $12,000,000 and may include the following, in accordance with the provisions of the Act:

    1. Cost of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of a business district plan, and personnel and professional service costs.
    2. Property assembly costs.
    3. Site preparation costs.
    4. Costs of installation, repair, construction, reconstruction, extension or relocation of public streets, public utilities and other public site improvements within or without the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district for use in accordance with the business district plan.
    5. Costs of renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or remodeling of any existing buildings, improvements, and fixtures within the business district.
    6. Costs of installation or construction within the business district of buildings, structures, works, streets, improvements, equipment, utilities, or fixtures.
    7. Financing costs.
    8. Relocation costs

    What is the meaning of all these additions? You know there’s a reason these changes are being made. If the original plan were sufficient, there would be no need for this amendment. Look closely at some of these changes.

    Note in particular number 4 in the amended list: HIZ BDD funds can be used for improvements “within or without [emphasis added] the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district….” If I’m reading this correctly, it would appear that funds from the HIZ BDD could be used to prepare the new Big Al’s site, for instance, even though that site is not in the HIZ BDD, because moving Big Al’s is “essential” to a project in the business district. And check out number 8: “relocation costs.” Who do we know in the HIZ BDD that would be relocating? Number 7 should give us all pause: “financing costs.” I shudder to think what could be included under that item.

    Bottom line, raising the total estimated project costs figure means that the City can borrow (i.e., issue bonds) up to that amount and use HIZ BDD tax revenues for repayment. But HIZ BDD revenue has already been promised toward the repayment of the proposed Wonderful Development $37 million bond issue (if/when that ever comes to fruition). Nowhere does the City show that it could afford this increase in project costs, given our outstanding commitments for that same pot of money.

    Remember, if there isn’t enough revenue from the HIZ BDD tax and HIZ TIF revenues to make the payments on the Wonderful Development bonds, guess where they will get the money to repay those bonds? That’s right: the general fund. If you’ll recall, the City is planning to issue general obligation bonds for the Wonderful Development, which will be backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Peoria.

There is more to the expansion of the Hospitality Improvement Zone than meets the eye. The City Council and staff should disclose to the public why they want these changes and what they will mean to our financial situation so that the public hearing process can be as productive as possible.

City of Peoria, Riverfront Village

Riverfront Village falling apart

9 Comments

In June 2010, the City Council voted to replace the steps up to the Riverfront Village platform because they were all rusted out. That was blamed on the salt used to melt ice on the steps in the winter, and the basic design of the steps which apparently had insufficient drainage. Now it’s the concrete platform itself that’s falling apart — literally:

Concrete fell from underneath the Riverfront Village platform onto the parking lot below
Close-up of exposed rebar where concrete has fallen away

Hard to blame this on ice-melt, since, to my knowledge, the City isn’t salting the underside of the platform in the winter. This week’s Issues Update gives some more detail:

A portion of concrete fell from the ceiling of the parking deck about two weeks ago onto a car causing minor damage to the vehicle. National Garages was contacted and advised staff of this incident. In response, staff decided to check the other areas of the garage and have determined there were sections of loose concrete that could potentially separate from the structure and could fall. Currently, staff is removing loose concrete to avoid future incidents. As these areas are exposed, we will engage a structural engineer to review the work. We will also be working to remove some of the rust from the steel and repaint. Sealing these areas with new concrete is not yet planned as we need to determine the full scope and find a contractor to perform this work. We will most likely need to bring this forward to City Council as the costs will exceed $10,000.

Riverfront Village is twelve years old. Twelve years old and already falling apart. This has to be an embarrassment to the contractor/sub-contractor responsible for building this platform. It should be, anyway. Hopefully the City will take the time to look up who did the work originally and at least make sure they don’t hire the same company to fix it.

Best-case scenario: the structural engineer finds that the whole structure is unsound and must be razed. No offense to the tax-paying businesses on the platform; I’d like to see them stay in business downtown. But the platform never should have been built, and the riverfront would be better off without it. There are plenty of places nearby for the restaurants to relocate . . . like the retail space promised on Water Street by the new museum. If you find your home having damage like this and need help with claims, talk to experts like LMR Public Adjusters and get help.

City of Peoria, Peoria Fire Department

Fire Chief receiving owner occupied exemption on two homes

11 Comments

Peoria Fire Chief Kent Tomblin
I visited the Recorder of Deeds office at the Peoria County Courthouse today to check on the ownership of two homes that appeared to be owned by Fire Chief Kent Tomblin. The County’s website withholds the names of property owners, but those names can be obtained from the Recorder of Deeds’ office since it is public information.

Kent M. Tomblin is listed as the sole owner of 1120 N. Maplewood Ave. in Peoria (PIN #1805304013) and the joint owner with Laura L. Tomblin of 13104 N. Duggins Rd. in Dunlap (PIN #0815300023). Both homes are listed as “owner occupied,” giving the Chief a property tax exemption on both houses. Both the Recorder of Deeds office and the County Assessor office verified that, legally, a homeowner can only receive an owner-occupied exemption on one residence — that is, a homeowner in Peoria County can only have one primary residence. The County took the information on these two properties and said they would look into the matter to determine which residence is the primary one.

If the Dunlap residence is found to be primary, it would cause further problems for Mr. Tomblin since the Fire Chief is required to live in the City of Peoria according to City policy. When asked about whether the Chief is breaking the City’s residency requirement, City attorney Randy Ray said he would have to research it.

Peoria Fire Department

Fire Chief breaking City residency requirement

11 Comments

Since November 19, 2002, the City Council has required by policy that “a person promoted to a management position must be or become a resident of the City of Peoria.” In August 2006, when then-Assistant Fire Chief Kent Tomblin was applying for retiring Chief Roy Modglin’s job, the Journal Star reported, “Tomblin, 50, a 27-year member of the department, lives in Dunlap but owns a house on Maplewood Avenue near Bradley University and plans to move there within the year, he said Wednesday.”

Tomblin got the job on February 19, 2007. He still owns a home at 1120 N. Maplewood. But he also still owns his home in Dunlap — at 13104 N. Duggins Rd. This is not one of those Dunlap addresses that is actually in City of Peoria boundaries. It’s outside Peoria completely. If you look up the tax records for both houses, they both say, “owner occupied.” So, where does the Fire Chief live?

One way to establish legal residency is by the address on your utility bills. The telephone is a utility, and in the phone book under “Kent Tomblin,” guess what is listed as his address? You got it: 13104 N. Duggins Rd., Dunlap — and a Dunlap phone number, too. I’ve heard from a reliable source that it’s the address that is on his personal checks as well.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the fire chief still lives in Dunlap over four years since he was promoted. Not only that, but one has to wonder how he can legally claim both residences as “owner occupied.” You can only occupy one house or the other.

Whether the City should have a residency requirement or not is a topic for another blog post. The fact is that the City does require it for the fire chief, and he should follow the rules. He should be setting an example for the men and women under his command.

What really gets me is the brazenness of it all. He’s listed in the phone book as a Dunlap resident. I mean, he isn’t even trying to hide it at this point, apparently because there are no consequences for breaking the rules at City Hall.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

City looks at 8- and 10-district possibilities

7 Comments

As promised at Tuesday’s council meeting, the City has released maps showing how the City might look with eight or ten council districts instead of five. Here’s the explanation:

The Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council on Redistricting conducted several public meetings regarding criteria and possible maps for new boundaries of five City Council districts. The boundary changes are required to have nearly equal districts based on the 2010 Census data. Map 12 was selected by the Committee as an example of what the boundaries could be like for five districts. For five districts, the goal of each district was 23,001 people with a maximum deviation of 5% [21,851 to 24,151].

In response to recent discussion at a neighborhood forum in the West Bluff, the Administration has prepared maps with either eight or ten districts as examples of what that number of districts could look like. Note that for each map staff used the criteria of:

  1. Nearly equal population with a maximum deviation of 5%, with the lower range of population in those areas planned or expecting growth
  2. Compact
  3. Contiguous
  4. Keeping together neighborhoods
  5. Using major thoroughfares as boundaries, with more weight on keeping together neighborhoods

Please find attached six maps that are examples of how the City could be divided into either eight or ten districts….

  • Maps 14 – 16 are examples of eight districts, with the goal of 14,376 people with a maximum deviation of 5% for a range of 13,657 to 15,095.
  • Maps 17 – 19 are examples of ten districts, with the goal of 11,500 people with a maximum deviation of 5% for a range of 10,926 to 12,076.

Note that these maps, along with minutes and recommendations from the Committee, will be scheduled for discussion at a future Council meeting.

Any questions or comments about the maps may be addressed to the City of Peoria Planning Department, 309?494?8600 or planning@ci.peoria.il.us.

And here are the maps (PDF): 072911-Redistricting-MapsикониПравославни икони

City Council, Crime

Councilman Irving charged with three felony counts

39 Comments

Here’s what we know so far:

[From the Journal Star:]

Peoria 5th District City Councilman Dan Irving was charged Thursday with patronizing a prostitute, a felony that could send him to prison for up to three years.

Irving, 43, of 10708 Alex Drive faces three felony counts accusing him of engaging in sexual activity with an 18-year-old whose alias is Jazzie Summers, “a person not his spouse, for money or anything of value.” […]

A $5,000 arrest warrant was issued for the felony counts and a $2,500 warrant was issued for the petition to revoke Irving’s probation. In all, he must post $750 to get out of jail plus any fee imposed by the sheriff.

[From WEEK-TV 25:]

We have learned the councilman will be in jail as early as tonight.

The Peoria County Sheriff’s Office began conducting an investigation into the councilman last week.

Each felony count carries a possible sentence of probation to three years in prison.

If convicted of any felony charge, Irving would be automatically removed from the Peoria City Council.

Irving is the 5th District council representative. He was elected in April 2009 with 80% of the vote against Gloria Cassel-Fitzgerald. His term expires in 2013, or when he resigns, or if/when he’s convicted of a felony, whichever comes first.

I wonder if his mugshot will appear on the City’s Prostitution and Related Offenses page, where they post the mugshots of those accused of prostitution and solicitation with a disclaimer that says, “The following individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” It will be interesting to see if any favoritism is shown.

City of Peoria

The Wonderful Development, Day 955

28 Comments

Since December 15, 2008, when the City Council first passed the $39 million redevelopment agreement for the Marriott Hotel deal downtown, 955 days have elapsed. That’s a little over 2.6 years for a project that had to be passed that night — after only two days of public disclosure and without any public input — because “time [was] of the essence,” according to Councilman Spain.

On May 25, 2010, a revised $37 million redevelopment agreement was passed by the Council. Developer Gary Matthews said at that time that construction “would begin immediately,” according to the official minutes of the City Council. It’s been 429 days since then. Note that the dictionary defines “immediately” as “without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once.” This does not appear to be Mr. Matthews definition, however.

On May 1, 2011 — 88 days ago — the Journal Star reported that the hotel project “could be finalized by the Fourth of July,” according to Mayor Ardis, and that “City Council has to vote on changes to the redevelopment agreement, which are likely to take place in July.” The last City Council meeting of July was two days ago, and no revised redevelopment agreement has come before the council, nor has any work begun on the Hotel Pere Marquette block.

955, 429, 88, 2 — what does it all add up to? Failure. The council should officially notify the developer that they are terminating the agreement by its own terms, “immediately” — by the dictionary’s definition, not the developers’.