Tag Archives: Peoria City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development, TIF

Saving downtown one new hotel at a time

4 Comments

I stopped blogging for several years shortly after the big Wonderful Development opened downtown. You may recall that they remodeled the Pere Marquette, opened the new Courtyard Marriott, and had plans to put in restaurants and bars and retail, and oh, goodness, that block was going to be hopping! And the best part was, it wasn’t going to cost taxpayers a thing because, “It pays for itself,” an exuberant Mayor Ardis said at the time.

As it turns out, not one restaurant, bar, or retail shop has ever opened in the storefronts along Monroe. In fact, the interior was never even finished; it still looks like a construction site inside. Taxpayers lost the $7 million loan and is saddled with ongoing lawsuits with developer Gary Matthews. And since the pandemic, the Courtyard has been closed, ostensibly due to low demand.

But no worries. It turns out that what downtown really needs to start bustling like it’s 1939 again is — wait for it — another hotel! Yes. The Peoria City Council has just approved another redevelopment agreement with another hotel developer that’s promising 70% occupancy, a national flag (this time it will be a Hilton Garden Inn), a restaurant/bar, and a convenience store. And it won’t cost taxpayers anything. It’s risk-free!

The new hotel is planned for Adams street, across the street from the new OSF Health Care corporate headquarters, in place of the former Sully’s bar and the former downtown Illinois Central College campus (also known as the Perley building). Plans call for the two properties to be razed to make way for the new development. Incidentally, artists’ renderings show Fulton Plaza replaced with two-way vehicular traffic again, but there’s nothing in the redevelopment agreement about it.

Oh, and it’s absolutely, positively, nothing at all like that Wonderful Development from a decade or so ago. Everybody says so: the developer, the developer’s attorney, various other people with a vested interest in the project, and the City Manager.

They have a point. There are many differences. This project includes apartments on the upper floors in addition to hotel rooms on the lower floors. That’s a new twist. The City isn’t loaning $7 million from underfunded pension funds this time. That’s a plus. They’re also not handing $33 million to the developer up front (backed by municipal bonds that we’re still on the hook to pay off), although they swore that was an awesome idea the last time. But hey, we all make multi-million-dollar mistakes with other people’s money now and then. Can’t remain bitter about that forever, am I right?

But on the other hand, there are a lot of similarities. It’s highly debatable that we need more hotel rooms downtown. As mentioned, one entire hotel downtown is still closed–try to book a room in the Courtyard. The occupancy predictions presented at the council meeting tonight (brought to you by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, a consultant for the hotel industry who reportedly did the feasibility study for this project) are unrealistically high, just like they were for the Wonderful Development. They’re also promising a new restaurant and retail, just like they did with the last hotel project, but which never materialized.

And there’s one more similarity worth mentioning: This does come with a cost to taxpayers. This hotel will be in the Downtown Conservation TIF (tax increment financing district), and the City has promised to pay the developer up to 100% of the redevelopment costs out of the increase in taxes attributable to the project site. That’s money that otherwise would go to other taxing districts, such as the County, District 150, the Park District, ICC, etc. That means taxpayers like you and me will have to take up the slack.

This also means the new hotel will be competing with the Pere Marquette and (still shuttered) Courtyard Marriott. The $33 million in bonds to build those hotels is supposed to get paid back out of revenues from those hotels. If revenue goes down due to increased competition for an (I would argue) over-supply of hotel rooms, then the bond repayment has to be made up from taxpayers like you and me. You can’t stop a private developer from building another hotel (that’s capitalism), but you don’t have to give them a sweetheart TIF deal that will likely harm your other investments, either.

True to form, however, the deal was sealed before the Council ever met, and it passed unanimously tonight. That’s okay. We’re finally going to get downtown moving again, just like we were promised with the Pere Marquette renovation. And the Civic Center expansion. And the museum. And the new Cat headquarters. And One Technology Plaza. And Riverfront Village. And….

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg appeals for judicial review

3 Comments

At-large councilman Gary Sandberg, who was removed from the first district ballot last week by the Peoria Election Commission, has petitioned the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court for a review of that ruling.

Sandberg argues in his petition that a requirement that “aldermen” reside in their “ward” for one year prior to the next election does not apply to councilmen in the Council/Manager form of government.

You can read the petition here (PDF format):

PDF Link Petition for Judicial Review

2013 Election, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

The challenge to Sandberg’s eligibility: an analysis

21 Comments

First district city council candidates Denise Moore and Randall Emert have filed formal objections to Gary Sandberg’s bid to run for the same office. They both claim that Sandberg does not meet the residency requirement per the state’s election code.

Emert’s Challenge

Emert’s challenge is simple: he says, “It is my understanding, that under law, a person has to have lived for one year at an address within the district a person files to run for in an election, such as City Council District seat. I maintain that Mr. Sandberg has not lived at his current address since November 26th, 2011.”

Illinois’ election code is confusing and contradictory — some would say purposefully so. As a result, it’s nearly impossible to do a “plain reading” of the code and draw any solid conclusions. Emert does not cite any specific Illinois statute, but merely repeats what has been published in the Journal Star: “According to an Illinois State Board of Elections representative, it appears Sandberg has to live at what he declares to be his home address for at least one year prior to the filing deadline, which this year was Nov. 26.” As with Emert’s challenge, the newspaper also does not cite any specific portion of the election code to back up this assertion, nor do they publish the name of the ISBE representative who provided this information.

Given that, let’s see if we can find what the residency requirement is. If you look at the 2013 Candidates Guide published by the Illinois State Board of Elections, you will see that there are four types of municipal governments covered on pages 21-30: Commission Form, Mayor-Alderman, President-Trustee, and Council-Manager. Peoria’s form of government is Council-Manager, so page 28 covers our elections.

Note first that it says: “The council-manager form is the only form of municipal government covered (for election of officers) by Article 5 of 65 ILCS/5.” So here we have a definite citation from the State’s municipal code. If you take the time to read through this code, you will find this section:

65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3
Sec. 5-2-18.3. Selection of part of council at large and part from districts. If a city elects to choose part of the city council at large and part from districts, then the following provisions of this Section shall be applicable. The term of office of the mayor and councilman shall be 4 years, and the election of the mayor and councilmen shall be every 4 years after the first election. In addition to the requirements of the general election law, the ballots shall be in the form set out in Section 5-2-18.4 and 5-2-18.5. Sections 4-3-5 through 4-3-18, insofar as they may be applicable, shall govern the election of a mayor and councilmen under this Section.
(Source: P.A. 87-1119.)

Without getting into too much detail, suffice it to say that the sections cited do not require a councilman to live in a district for a year before he can run for office in that district. It does, however, require that he live within the district. 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.7¶8 states, “One councilman who is an actual resident of the district, shall be elected from each district. Only the electors of a district shall elect a councilman from that district.” Getting back to the Candidates Guide, it has a section on page 28 that specifically states what the length of residency requirement is:

One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election. If a person (i) is a resident of a municipality immediately prior to the active duty military service of that person or that person’s spouse, (ii) resides anywhere outside of the municipality during that active duty military service, and (iii) immediately upon completion of that active duty military service is again a resident of the municipality, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality during the active duty military service is deemed to be time during which the person is a resident of the municipality for purposes of determining the residency requirement.
[65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5]

As you can see, there is no requirement stated here that one has to live in the district for a year before becoming eligible to run for district councilman. But we have another municipal code citation: 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5. I won’t quote the whole thing, but I will quote section (c) so we can see if this applies:

A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

Now here’s where it will be interesting to see how the board of elections interprets this. It would appear to me that this section does not apply to our form of government. It applies to “the office of alderman,” but that is not the same as the office of city councilman. Considering the Candidates Guide makes a clear distinction between the Mayor-Alderman and Council-Manager forms of government, it would appear that this provision of the code only applies to the Mayor-Alderman form of government. Section (a), on the other hand, applies to all municipal offices:

A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.

Notice the difference in wording. It doesn’t say “alderman” here, but “elective municipal office,” which would apply to all forms of government. If section (c) had been intended to apply to all forms of government, it is reasonable to assume they would have used the same wording. Since they didn’t, it appears they intended to make a distinction in section (c) that is different from section (a). Section (a), just as the Candidates Guide indicated, says that candidates for elective office must have lived in the municipality for a year, but does not specify that they have to have resided within the district for a year.

Moore’s Challenge

Moore’s challenge to Sandberg’s residency is more sophisticated. She writes:

I intend to show that Mr. Sandberg could not and does not reside at the 1213 SW Adams street address listed on his Statement of Candidacy petition, and that his eligibility based upon his residency is not compliant with Illinois State Statute [65 ILCS 5/3.1-10.5]

The objections are grounded by information found in the State of Illinois Candidate’s Guide for 2013, Council-Manager Form of Government-Municipal; (page 28)

  • Office: Mayor, Councilmen-at-large (and part from districts in some cities), Clerk, Treasurer.
  • Residency: “One-year residency in the municipality preceding the election”.

With the acknowledgment of the wording “and part from districts in some cities”…I contend that ‘municipality’ in this case refers to the district in question and not the entire city as would be the case for an At-large race.

There’s a problem with her logic here. The phrase, “and part from districts in some cities,” is a reference to 65 ILCS 5/5-2-18.3, which was quoted above. The purpose of that phrase is not to restrict the meaning of “municipality,” as Moore contends, but rather to acknowledge that some cities with a Council-Manager form of government elect all their councilmen at large, and some cities elect part of their council at-large and part from districts.

She continues:

These objections are based upon my belief that:

  1. Mr. Sandberg does not reside at the address listed on the petition filed for office of 1st District City Council.
  2. Mr. Sandberg has not met the length of residency requirement outlined in state statute.
  3. Mr. Sandberg’s Bigelow address was not impacted by the recent Redistricting.

We have already dealt with objection 2, as this is the same as Emert’s objection. Objection 3 is moot if there is no district residency requirement. So the only new objection here is Objection 1. Moore says:

Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star. Mr. Sandberg states the property listed on his petition is “intended to be home for his son when he’s in the United States”. This would make Mr. Sandberg a temporary visitor rather than a permanent occupant. In addition, the property, like those adjacent to it, appear to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant.

We’ve learned quite a bit about what it takes to establish residency here in Illinois, thanks to Rahm Emmanuel’s mayoral run in Chicago not that long ago. There’s also another recent case (2005) that deals with residency, People v. Baumgartner. This appellate court ruling stated:

[B]ecause eligibility to run for office is closely linked to the ability to vote within a particular jurisdiction, we will use the definition of “residence” as used within the Election Code for voter registration. […]

Two elements are necessary to create a “residence” for voter registration purposes: physical presence and an intent to remain there as a permanent resident. Delk v. Board of Election Commissioners, 112 Ill. App. 3d 735, 738, 445 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (1983). […] To change residence, “there must be, both in fact and intention, an abandonment of the former residence and a new domicile acquired by actual residence, coupled with the intention to make it a permanent home.” Welsh v. Shumway, 232 Ill. 54, 77, 83 N.E. 549, 559 (1907).

If Sandberg has moved his voter registration and personal belongings to this new residence and is actually living there, as newspaper accounts indicate, then it would appear that he is a resident of that address in that district for the purposes of being a candidate for City Council.

That the building “appear[s] to have been vacant for a significant period of time and unable to support a tenant” is a valid challenge. It’s possible that an inspection could be done to determine if the property can, in fact, support a tenant, and perhaps Sandberg could be asked to produce witnesses who will attest to him in fact living there.

However, Moore goes off track in saying that because Sandberg does not actually own the building, he cannot be a resident. In addition to quoting Sandberg’s statement to the Journal Star, she continues:

In addition, the most recent information (dated 11/27/2012 attached) provided by the Peoria County Assessors’ office indicates the address in question, 1213 SW Adams Street, is owned by Sue D. Johnson, not Mr. Sandberg. […] Mr. Sandberg’s statement in the November 28, 2012 issue of the Peoria Journal Star indicate the property was purchased in the summer of 2012. As such, Mr. Sandberg could not have lived at the address for the required 12-months as outlined int he state statute cited above.

Mrs. Moore may be surprised to learn that many of the residents in her district do not actually own the home in which they live. They might be surprised to learn that Mrs. Moore does not consider them “residents” because of this. The point is, one can reside in a home without owning it. The ownership of the property can even be transferred while a tenant continues to occupy that property. So appeals to the property’s ownership are completely immaterial in this case.

Conclusion

As stated earlier, the state’s election rules are difficult to decipher. Emert and Moore could very well prevail in their challenge based on an interpretation or conflicting statute I haven’t been able to contemplate. But based on my layman’s reading of the materials available, it appears there is a requirement that a candidate live in the district he seeks to represent, and there is a requirement that a candidate live in the municipality for a year in order to be eligible to run for council, but there is apparently no requirement that a candidate live in a specific district within that municipality for a specified period of time before he is eligible to run for district councilman.

And that, ultimately, is the point. Candidates for City Council are not experts in state election law, nor should they be required to be. They read the information available to them and do their best to abide by the rules as they understand them. Sandberg was also quoted in the media as saying that he read the Candidates Guide and saw no district residency requirement. If it turns out there is one, perhaps the State Board of Elections should rewrite their Candidates Guide to make that clear, so no other well-meaning candidates get led astray.

Note: The post above has been revised to remove ambiguity. Specifically, I have tried to make it clearer that there is a residency requirement, but there is apparently no length of residency required in the district to be eligible to run as a district councilman.

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

No, I’m not running this time

8 Comments

I’ve had several people ask me if I’ll be running for the second district Peoria City Council seat in 2013. The answer is no. I’d once again like to thank all of those who supported me the last time I ran. I may consider another run in the future. But after evaluating my obligations at home and work, I believe this just isn’t the right time for me.

So far, in the second district, Chuck Grayeb has announced he’s running and incumbent Barbara Van Auken hasn’t said one way or the other if she’s running. Assuming she does run, and assuming no one else enters the race, I’ll be supporting Grayeb. If you’ve followed my blog from the beginning when Grayeb was still on the council as an at-large representative, you know that I don’t see eye-to-eye with him. But there’s no doubt in my mind that he would be a better representative of the second district than the incumbent. Van Auken has been instrumental in dismantling the Historic Preservation efforts of the city and eviscerating the Heart of Peoria Plan in principle and in practice. She has been complicit in squandering our tax money and public resources on baubles and trinkets. Crime around Bradley University has increased, and the Bradley top brass has responded by increasing patrols by Bradley police officers; yet I’ve heard nothing and seen no action from our city council representative on the matter.

Grayeb came in sixth, very close behind the fifth-place finisher in the at-large election. He’s been on the council before and obviously has a great deal of support. He’s susceptible to being suckered into bad deals for city taxpayers (e.g., he voted for MidTown Plaza), so we’ll have to hold his feet to the fire on those things. But no one can doubt his commitment to public safety and historic preservation. Grayeb is by far the better candidate in the second district at this time.

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

New council candidate chooses puzzling platform

9 Comments

Dan Adler (1409 W Kingsway Dr.), a 31-year-old Caterpillar engineer has announced he’s going to run for the 5th District City Council seat next spring, according to the Journal Star. His campaign will focus on “economic growth, regional competitiveness and civic participation,” according to a press release. That’s all well and good. But then the story takes a turn toward the bizarre:

Adler said one development issue he wants to focus on is completion of the Kellar Branch Trail.

He said he thinks it’s important for public officials to raise the required capital needed to complete an underpass beneath Knoxville Avenue to get trail users across the busy street.

“There was a lot of excitement last year when it opened to the public,” Adler said. “But we haven’t locked down the capital funding for the big under and overpass. There is so much energy over that trail for Peoria to be more open and active and walkable, and we’re pushing that off.”

First of all, the Kellar Branch trail is the Peoria Park District’s responsibility to fund, construct, and maintain–not the City’s. Perhaps Mr. Adler should consider running for the park board if his interests lie in increasing funding for our parks system.

Secondly, the Peoria Park District announced five months ago that “the Knoxville underpass has been funded” and design is underway. In fact, they’re close to starting construction on it now. Mr. Adler is apparently unaware of these developments. (Or else he subscribes to Rep. Leitch’s funding-things-that-are-already-funded school of thought.)

If Mr. Adler is concerned about making Peoria more “open and active and walkable,” I would suggest he do some research on “complete streets.” Implementing this kind of design for Peoria’s infrastructure would make Peoria more accessible for all users of the public right-of-way. And it’s something that’s actually in the City’s jurisdiction, not the Park District’s.сондажи

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

6 Comments

The Peoria City Council approved a new council district map Tuesday evening. Here it is:

Map “B” was approved by the City Council; click on image to enlarge.

This is the district map known as Map “B.” It was a close vote, with the council as well as the redistricting committee divided. Ayes were Gulley (1st Dist.), Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), Irving (5th Dist.), Akeson (At-Large), Turner (At-Large), and Weaver (At-Large). Nays were Mayor Ardis, Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Spears (4th Dist.), Sandberg (At-Large), and Spain (At-Large).

City Council, City of Peoria

City Manager looking for ways to save, make money

4 Comments

“With the City of Peoria facing another difficult budgeting process, no area of the budget can be ignored for potential savings,” City Manager Patrick Urich explains in an item from Tuesday’s agenda. “In line with Council’s direction to examine all costs, the Administration is seeking authorization to approach City service providers with a request to reduce current and future contract amounts in exchange for an additional year of guaranteed contract length.”

Companies like kitco is a great option when you are looking for new ways to save and invest money at the same time, the business of precious metals has been always an amazing investment.

“City service providers” would include everything “from the City’s $5.1 million contract with Peoria Disposal Company for residential refuse collection to $1,600 contract with AAA Certified Security for document shredding.” But they wouldn’t revisit every contract as per this news source about Bitcoins and kryptocurrency. “If authorization is granted,” the council communication continues, “the City Manager and the Finance Director will work with each Department Head to determine which contracts might be potential targets for an extension in exchange for a discount, check out save money.”

Consideration will be given in the following areas:

  1. Is the City happy with the service offered by the vendor?
  2. Is there an option other than this particular vendor? Many software agreements held by the City (i.e. Microsoft) have no realistic alternative.
  3. Might the City save more money by holding a competitive bid rather than extending an existing vendor?

Urich hopes the City can save $300,000 or more in 2012 as a result of this process.

Also on Tuesday’s agenda is a proposed new fee for “facilities in the City right-of-way.” In particular, the communication mentions fiber-optic conduit as one of the things they’d like to charge a fee for allowing in the public right-of-way, starting at $1.90 per lineal foot.

That will be great, if they actually enforce it. Funny, they eliminated very similar fees just a few years ago, after years of non-enforcement.

City Council, City of Peoria

Peoria City Council 7-12-2011 (Live Blog)

Leave a comment

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Here I am at Peoria City Hall, Room 400, waiting for the city council meeting to start at 6:15 p.m. As always, I will be providing live reaction to the city council meeting, so if you’re following along live, be sure to refresh your browser periodically. There will be some preliminaries that I won’t cover; my coverage will start once the business portion of the meeting begins. You can see a hyperlinked version of the meeting agenda on the City’s website here.

And now, without further ado, here’s tonight’s agenda:

Continue reading Peoria City Council 7-12-2011 (Live Blog) →

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Residents: Keep our neighborhoods together (UPDATED)

5 Comments

Only a few people spoke at Tuesday’s City Council redistricting committee meeting, but those who did had one thing in common. They did not want to see their neighborhoods divided between two or more council districts. City staff was instructed to discard the maps that carved up the West Bluff and/or the Florence Avenue Neighborhood Association and come back with more alternatives that keep neighborhoods within a single council district.

There was also a request for staff to quantify what kind of population growth the City expects over the next ten years — taking into account plans for the Warehouse District, East Village Growth Cell, Main Street Commons, and growth cells in the current fifth district — and use that information to assist in drawing new district boundaries. Here’s how this information helps: when drawing new boundaries, the city is required to make each district equal in population. But they don’t have to be exactly equal — they’re allowed a range of deviation of up to five percent. So, if you expect one district to grow faster than the others, you can make that district a little smaller in population, as long as it’s within the five percent range. This helps keep districts from getting too lopsided over the next ten years.

The committee also recommended that the full City Council discuss whether to increase the number of council districts in the city and/or do away with cumulative voting for at-large council members. The committee felt that discussion was outside of their purview and should be taken up by the entire council.

The next redistricting committee meeting will be Tuesday, July 5, at 4:30 p.m. in City Council chambers. The meeting time was moved an hour earlier so that third district councilman Riggenbach (who was unable to attend last night’s meeting due to an unexpected work assignment) can attend both the redistricting committee meeting and an East Village Growth Cell meeting at Glen Oak School that same night at 6 p.m.

Continue reading Residents: Keep our neighborhoods together (UPDATED) →