Tag Archives: Wonderful Development

City Council, City of Peoria

Deadlines? What deadlines?

15 Comments

From today’s Word on the Street column in the Journal Star:

The mayor, meanwhile, said the hotel project – which has yet to begin – could be finalized by the Fourth of July. He said Marriott representatives were in Peoria a couple of weeks ago. He said progress is being made toward demolition work on the existing parking deck and the businesses attached to Big Al’s later this summer.

The City Council has to vote on changes to the redevelopment agreement, which are likely to take place in July.

That quote, of course, is about the downtown hotel project that City Attorney Randy Ray dubbed a “wonderful development” during the time the city was suppressing public information about it. It was rushed through the council in December 2008 with only one business day of public disclosure. The information was released on a Friday afternoon, and the council voted for it the following Monday evening. The timing was so crucial, they couldn’t wait a couple of weeks, or one week, or even a few days extra. It had to be passed that night — December 15, 2008 — or else the whole project would have fallen apart.

Interim City Manager Henry Holling (during his first interim appointment) explained, according to the council minutes, “although the proposed development would not be completed until 2012, the timing of the project was critical because convention and meeting planners were making decisions for events three to four years from now.” Councilman Spain said, “time was of the essence.” Mayor Ardis said, “as soon as the Agreement was signed, the hotel could begin booking events
as many events were booked two to three years in advance.” It was all so … urgent.

And now it’s Monday, May 2, 2011, and nothing — zero, zip, nada — has happened to the site. The original deadlines were never met, so the developer, Gary Matthews, returned to the city council on May 25, 2010 — nearly a year ago — to get those deadlines extended and make some major changes to the design and scope of the project. The council obliged.

One of those new deadlines, from section 3.1 of the agreement: “The Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Project not later than one (1) year from the date of the execution of this Agreement….”

That means construction is supposed to commence before the end of this month. But now Word on the Street tells us the Mayor says the project won’t be finalized until July. And Matthews will be coming back to the council for more changes to the redevelopment agreement.

That’s right. The Mayor has essentially announced that the second agreement’s deadlines will also not be met. Instead, a third redevelopment agreement will have to be drawn up and approved this July, more than two and a half years after that time-critical first vote.

One wonders why the council ever bothers writing deadlines into these agreements when they are never, ever enforced.

City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star

Puff piece ignores controversy on Matthews Market disposition

25 Comments

The Journal Star just published a puff piece on East Peoria developer Gary Matthews written by the recently retired Paul Gordon. It includes this gloss over the disposition of Matthews Market:

Matthews returned to Peoria – something he’d always planned to do – and went to work for his father at Matthews Market in the early 1970s after they made peace with each other. The idea was that he’d take over the business some day.

“But I didn’t like the grocery business. I don’t know why, exactly, but it just wasn’t for me,” he said.

He got his real estate license and went to work for David Joseph in his company’s residential real estate division. “My dad was disappointed, but he understood. He sold the grocery store after I left.”

Well, there’s a lot more to the story than that. And it’s all chronicled in erstwhile reporter Gordon’s own newspaper’s archives.

Matthews Market was located at 1500 NE Jefferson and was open until December 1992 under Gary Matthews’ ownership. It closed reportedly due to crime and urban decay in the neighborhood, as well as competition from larger grocery stores. The store still carried a mortgage and a lien, but suddenly the City of Peoria was interested in acquiring the property. On January 16, 1993, the Journal Star reported this:

Peoria’s second police storefront is expected to open this spring in the former Matthews Market building, 1500 NE Jefferson.

The City Council will be asked Tuesday to approve a deal to acquire the building.

The city’s cost is expected to be $135,000, provided a deal can be worked out with Northside Neighborhood Housing Services. That deal would involve the trade of a city-owned house at 1120 NE Jefferson in exchange for the housing service releasing its $33,000 lien on Matthews Market.

First of America Bank holds the first mortgage on the building, which closed in December.

The city’s first police storefront opened Dec. 15 in a city-owned building at 101 N. MacArthur. In addition to neighborhood policing, the storefronts deal with zoning and code enforcement issues.

“What it represents is the partnership of the city, community-based policing and the neighborhood,” 3rd District Councilman Dave Koehler said. “Hopefully, (area residents) will have an ear for their concerns and complaints that is more readily available.”

Development Director Tom Tincher said the second storefront is expected to open within 90 days. Police Chief Keith Rippy said last year he plans to open a total of five storefront police offices throughout the city.

Pretty sweet deal for Mr. Matthews. He had more into the store building than it was worth, but the City was willing to take it off his hands for the cost of the amount owed on the property. Controversy erupted on February 11, 1993, when this story broke:

Third District Councilman David Koehler showed poor ethics in mingling his private matters with Peoria City Council business, his opponent in the upcoming election said Wednesday.

Koehler responded by calling candidate Nina Nissen’s charges “politics of desperation,” and added that Nissen is ethically suspect herself for mounting a “smear” campaign.

Nissen, a former assistant personnel director, issued a statement Wednesday calling for a “cleanup of City Hall in the area of ethics.” In recommending a city ethics code, Nissen questioned … the city’s recent purchase of the former Matthews Market, 1500 NE Jefferson, for use as the city’s second police storefront. The city will assume a $135,000 first mortgage on the building and swap another house to the Northside Neighborhood Housing Service to clear up a $33,000 lien.

The problem, Nissen said, is the building is owned by Koehler’s former campaign manager, Gary Matthews.

“It’s wrong if Koehler used his influence to help his campaign manager benefit from an action of the City Council,” she said. “Sure, we need a storefront. But does it have to be Matthews Market?” Koehler said Gary Matthews is no longer involved with his campaign. Koehler’s campaign organization statement on file with the city clerk lists Matthews as his chairman, but Koehler said the statement — — filed in July 1990 — is outdated.

“Yeah, Gary helped me out” in his 1989 campaign, Koehler said, adding that he kept a distance from the Matthews Market negotiations. “In terms of whether there was any special favors on my part for Gary — no.”

Koehler won reelection, but not before more criticism was heaped on the project. The following article appeared in the Journal Star on February 22, 1993 — which is also when we learn that, in addition to a $135,000 mortgage and a $33,000 housing service lien, Gary Matthews still owed $65,000 to the City of Peoria for a loan they gave him as well:

A local political organization claims city officials are wasting taxpayers money by purchasing a deserted grocery store for a storefront police station.

Peoria’s second police storefront is expected to open this spring in the former Matthews Market building, 1500 NE Jefferson.

Members of the People’s Coalition for Political Reform said at a news conference Sunday they want to reveal what they call “a waste of city funds” on the abandoned building.

Although not opposed to the storefront idea, group officials said there are many questionable factors involved with land acquisition, building administration and finances.

Group members said the city is paying too much for the run-down, deserted supermarket.

The city’s cost is expected to be $135,000, which is what remained on the buildings mortgage. City Manager Peter Korn said the city will make monthly payments on the building until the mortgage is paid off. He said he is unsure what the monthly payments will be.

First of America Bank holds the first mortgage on the building, which closed in December.

That deal also involves the trade of a city-owned house at 1120 NE Jefferson to the North Side Neighborhood Housing Service in exchange for the release of a $33,000 lien on the former market.

“The only thing they are doing is putting the city of Peoria more in debt. What we have here is a money pit,” said organization spokesman Rolf Sivertsen.

Korn said the city will also forgive a $65,000 loan balance owed to the city by the former owner of Matthews Market , Gary Matthews. The original loan to Matthews was $110,000, but $45,000 has been repaid.

The city became interested in the property because they already had money invested in it as a result of the loan, Korn said.

In addition to financial problems with the project, the People’s Coalition said the facility is too large for what the police need. The building is 8,000 square feet.

Korn said the police facility will occupy about 2,000 square feet and the remainder of the property will probably be used for community organizations.

But Sivertsen said he won’t believe the city will lease out the extra property until he actually sees the leases.

By September 10, 1993, the City was looking to resell the building, which was too big for the City’s needs from the beginning, and lease a portion of it instead:

Peoria’s third police storefront amounts to a pig in a poke, a city councilman said this week.

The city’s purchase of the former Matthews Market, 1500 NE Jefferson, was first announced in January. The deal took a new twist in recent months, however, as a business offered to buy the building and lease a portion to the city.

“The net result will be an economic situation that’s less costly than for us to be in the . . . storefront at Sheridan and Nebraska,” city development Director Tom Tincher said Wednesday.

The city currently operates police storefront stations at Sheridan and Nebraska and at 101 N. MacArthur Highway. Fourth District City Councilman Steve Kouri is not sold on the deal, which he figures will cost more than $250,000 before the storefront opens.

“It’s a bottomless pit, as far as I’m concerned,” Kouri said.

Tincher refused to divulge details of the pending resale of the building.

The City Council in January approved the first part of the deal: assuming the $135,000 mortgage held by store owner Gary Matthews and swallowing a $60,000 city loan. The store closed in December 1992. Tincher said the business approached the city about six months ago, intent on buying Matthews Market and occupying a portion of the structure.

Third District City Councilman David Koehler agreed the Matthews Market deal might not look good on paper, but said it represents a life preserver tossed to an inner-city neighborhood drowning in disinvestment.

Further repairs on the Matthews Market building will cost an estimated $63,975, according to city estimates. The City Council approved $27,315 of that amount Tuesday in the form of a roof repair contract awarded to Peoria Roofing, a contract awarded after competitive bidding and an approval based on the criteria list in this article (Common Questions To Decide How To Treat Your Roof – SWS Roofing).

Kouri said he supports the concept of community-based policing, but not the storefronts, which have been lambasted by critics as mere public relations ploys.

On December 22, 1993, the aforementioned deal was approved. In a story about the council’s decision to grant a sidewalk cafe license for, ironically, one of the buildings adjacent to Big Al’s that Matthews now plans to tear down, the Journal Star added that the council also took the following action:

Authorized the sale of the former Matthews Market building, 1500 NE Jefferson, to A&E Blueprint, which would lease a portion of the building back to the city for a police storefront.

A&E Blueprint currently is located at 3530 NE Adams, but will be bought out for the Illinois Department of Transportation’s McClugage Bridge and Adams Street improvement.

A&E will pay the city $135,000 for the building and lease back 2,600 square feet for the city storefront, at an annual rate of $2.50 per square foot, or $6,500.

I’m not sure when the police storefront idea fizzled, but at some point this leased space became the Peoria Township office. Recently, the township also moved out of the building, and the City no longer rents the space for anything to my knowledge.

The bottom line is this: The taxpayers of Peoria gave Gary Matthews a $98,000 gift 19 years ago by forgiving his $65,000 city loan and erasing the $33,000 housing service lien as part of the exchange for his run-down Matthews Market building. The sweetheart deal was alleged to have been political payback by then-council-member Dave Koehler because Matthews had been his campaign manager. The building was in such bad shape that the city resold it less than a year later and just leased a portion of it.

This is the same Gary Matthews to whom the taxpayers of Peoria are now giving a $37 million gift (including a $9 million developer’s fee) to build the Wonderful Development (aka, the downtown hotel project).

And now you know the rest of the story.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Van Auken begs school board for what the Council denies

28 Comments

I about spit out my soda when I read this in an article about District 150’s board meeting Monday night:

Some, including City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, asked the board to halt any decisions.

“I’m here to beg you — defer these decision until you have some community outreach,” said Van Auken, who represents District 2, which includes Columbia Middle School, 2612 N. Bootz Ave. “If you have a bad process, you’re going to have a bad outcome.”

Well, I agree with that statement 100%. But I have a few questions: Where was Council Member Van Auken when the City Council rammed through a $39 million hotel deal with only a single business day of public notice and no “community outreach” whatsoever? Where was her concern over “bad process” then? Why didn’t she “beg” the council to defer that decision?

Van Auken’s admonishment kind of reminds me of the Heart of Peoria Plan: something that’s adopted in principle but ignored in practice.

City Council, City of Peoria

City buys high, sells low

10 Comments

If you ever wonder why Peoria is always broke, just take a look at how it has handled the Wonderful Development. It’s poised to give $37 million to EM Properties — $11 million of which will be used to buy a half-acre of buildings along Main Street. But that’s where the World Famous Big Al’s strip club is, so apparently we have to bend over backwards (pun intended) to find them a new place to locate.

The mayor and others constantly make a big deal out of the fact that “they didn’t choose to move; they were asked to move” — the implication being that they decided to move out of the goodness of their heart as a favor to the city. Call me cynical, but I think the $11 million might have had more to do with the decision than mere altruism. It’s one thing to be asked to move, and quite another to be paid handsomely to move.

Most people consider the eleven million taxpayer dollars to be sufficient incentive to move. But not the City. Not by a long shot. First, they changed the adult use ordinance, expanding Big Al’s “grandfather” status to the point that it can move absolutely anyplace it wants. One would think with $11 million, Big Al’s could find someplace in the City that complies with the adult use ordinance as it was, but the City felt this additional incentive was necessary.

But that wasn’t enough, either. Rather than giving Big Al’s the money and letting them find another home like the City did for the residents of Dechman when they were thrown out of their homes to make way for MidTown Plaza, the City took on itself the job of finding another location. The council and, presumably, city staff spent who knows how long looking at other potential sites on behalf of Big Al’s.

And they found one — a parking lot owned by the City of Peoria. One problem: it’s too close to a day care center. No problem! The city’s attorney invented a new definition of “property line” and read it into the code. Then they approved the site for the sale of liquor, despite having no site plan on file from the developer, which is required for any other applicant.

But last night was the coup de grace. After all this special treatment, the City did one last favor for Big Al’s. It sold this taxpayer-owned acre and a half of land at a bargain-basement price of $400,000.

Buy high, sell low. That’s the City’s approach to economic development.

City of Peoria

Does new Big Al’s location violate liquor ordinance?

36 Comments

Here’s an e-mail exchange I had recently with the City’s attorney, Randy Ray:

First e-mail to Mr. Ray

Hi Randy,

Upon reading the municipal code, Sec. 3-11, it would appear to me that Big Al’s could not get a liquor license at the proposed Jefferson Street location because it’s within 100 feet of a licensed day care facility. Is that not the case? If so, why did the Liquor Commission approve it? If not, why not?

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

Response from Mr. Ray:

C.J.,
The day care center is approx. 164 feet from the property line of the proposed site. The day care lease is for specific rooms within the building. Lessee has no rights to the bus area or any other common area.
Randy

Second e-mail to Mr. Ray:

Thanks, Randy.

The ordinance states, “In the case of a church, the distance of 100 feet shall be measured to the nearest part of any building used for worship services or educational programs and not to property boundaries. In all other cases, the measurement shall be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of school, hospital, home of the aged or indigent persons, nursing home or homes for veterans or their spouses or children or any military or naval stations, any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or any publicly owned housing development containing 200 or more housing units.”

The CityLink bus transfer center is all one parcel, and there’s one property line around the entire site. What’s the warrant (from the city code) for defining “property line” the way you described — as only those specific rooms within the building that are being used by the daycare? Elsewhere (for instance, 28-2), the code defines “property line” as “the line marking the boundary between any street and the private property abutting thereon.” I don’t see anywhere in the code where “property line” ever refers to the boundaries of leased office space within a parcel.

Thanks for your help,
C. J. Summers

No response yet from Mr. Ray. I’ll update this post when I hear back.

2011 Election, City Council, City of Peoria

Turner defends putting strip club next to day care center

51 Comments

“If (Big Al’s) doesn’t move, these hotels don’t get built,” at-large council member Eric Turner said afterward. “They’ll be built – but they’ll be in East Peoria.

“It’s essential that we do something,” Turner continued. “We have got to find a way to make this work.”

Even if that “something” is putting a strip club right next door to a day care center for children three months to 12 years of age. Sounds like a winning campaign slogan to me:

[image removed by blog owner]

It would look great on t-shirts, too!

City Council, City of Peoria

Potential Big Al’s location fraught with problems

19 Comments

Big Al’s is now considering a move to a City-owned parking lot adjacent to the CityLink bus terminal at Jefferson and Harrison — a location that is within 500 feet of Swinger’s World, another adult business. Yet, according to the City’s municipal code (Sec. 18-53(a)(1) and (3)): “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be allowed within 500 feet of another existing sexually oriented adult use,” and “A sexually oriented adult use shall not be located within 500 feet of a preexisting school or place of worship.” So, doesn’t that disqualify the proposed location?

Section (b) of the ordinance was amended recently in order to allow Big Al’s to move to the parking lot adjacent to the Madison Theater. It allowed a provision that, “so long as the sexually oriented adult use continues and does not change the nature of the sexually oriented adult use, [it may] relocate to a location which brings the location more into compliance with the terms of section 18-53.” It adds, for clarity, “‘More into compliance’ means, for example, that if an existing sexually oriented adult use were within 250 feet of a place of worship, it would be more in compliance if it were relocated to a site more than 375 feet from any zoning district which is zoned for residential use, and satisfied all other requirements of subsection (a) above.” Since Big Al’s would still be within 500 feet of a church in the Madison Theater parking lot, but further away from a church than its current location, it would be in compliance with this newly-revised ordinance.

But moving closer to an existing adult use business like Swinger’s World would clearly violate this section. It wouldn’t be moving “more into compliance.”

Not only that, but CityLink also houses Myah’s Just 4 Kids Learning Center. It would appear that Big Al’s would also be in violation of the ordinance for moving within 500 feet of this school. According to the Journal Star, City attorney Randy Ray “said he’s not sure if the learning center would be considered a school under the city’s ordinance.” While it is certainly possible to devise a legal distinction between schools and daycare/learning centers, this is a textbook case of following the letter of the law but violating the spirit of it. Why do we have prohibitions on adult-use businesses being within 500 feet of schools? And wouldn’t those same reasons apply to a daycare/learning center?

Leaving that aside, there’s another problem with this location, and that regards its eligibility for a liquor license. Section 3-11(a) of the City’s code says, “No license shall be issued for the sale at retail of any alcoholic liquor within 100 feet of any church, school (other than an institution of higher learning) hospital, home for the aged or indigent persons, nursing homes or homes for veterans or their spouses or children, any military or naval station or any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services…” (emphasis added). This ordinance specifies daycare facilities, so we no longer have the ambiguity of what constitutes a “school.” Then the question becomes, how do you measure the distance? The ordinance says:

In the case of a church, the distance of 100 feet shall be measured to the nearest part of any building used for worship services or educational programs and not to property boundaries. In all other cases, the measurement shall be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the property line of school, hospital, home of the aged or indigent persons, nursing home or homes for veterans or their spouses or children or any military or naval stations, any daycare facility licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or any publicly owned housing development containing 200 or more housing units.

Myah’s is located in the CityLink Transfer Center. Thus, it would appear from this ordinance that the measurement would have to be made from the property line of the transfer center. In that case, Big Al’s would be within 100 feet and not in compliance with the ordinance.

But let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what the ordinance says. The City Council is committed to letting the strip club go wherever it wants to go, and they will not let this or that ordinance get in their way. Why? They have to make way for the Wonderful Development:

At-large City Councilman Eric Turner, who is the city’s deputy liquor commissioner, said while the parking lot isn’t the best place for Big Al’s, the business does need to move from its current location in order for construction of the Downtown Marriott Hotel, supported with $37 million in public financing.

“My biggest concern . . . there will not be a hotel, there will be no further Downtown development,” Turner said.

He said if the learning center fights the city over the Big Al’s location, the city could have to kill the move, and potentially sink the Marriott Hotel deal.

Marriott Hotel über alles. Ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no valley low enough, ain’t no children vulnerable enough to keep that hotel deal from going through, baby! If the Wonderful Development’s ever in trouble, Eric Turner will be there on the double.

General News

New York Times skeptical of the Wonderful Development

3 Comments

This story is from last month, but I just ran across it yesterday. Remember when Tom Ricketts asked the State of Illinois for a bunch of money to help him improve Wrigley Field, which he recently acquired? That idea went over like a lead balloon. Doling out millions in taxes to a millionaire while the state is in such dire fiscal condition? Guffaws all around.

Not so fast, says the New York Times. They wonder whether Ricketts got a fair shake, given the other projects in Illinois that did win millions in taxpayer dollars. There are no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of projects in Illinois the Times could have used to make their point. Guess what they cited?

In June, Mr. Quinn unveiled tax credits to renovate the Hotel Père Marquette in Peoria and add an adjacent Courtyard Marriott. The state figures to forgo $10 million in income-tax receipts due to this pilot project, said State Senator John J. Cullerton, the Senate president.

The Peoria gambit will supposedly generate 1,000 construction jobs, the number Mr. Ricketts cites for his Wrigley plan. In Peoria, Mr. Quinn spoke of jobs and the taxes to be paid by workers.

Note especially the word “supposedly” — the New York Times doesn’t sound convinced that this project is really going to provide the number of jobs promised. The question is, why did Gary Matthews get such a sweet deal down here in Peoria, while Ricketts got shown the door in Chicago? There are many possibilities, but I’m sure this isn’t one of them.

2011 Election, Amtrak, City Council, City of Peoria, Transportation

Quick comments on the news

15 Comments

Scanning over the Journal Star this morning, there are several interesting articles:

  • Transportation Symposium — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood had some words of wisdom for Peoria about the possibility of getting passenger rail service: “Get your act together…. Get your priorities. Put them on a list. Agree on them,” he said. “Make sure your elected representatives know what those priorities are.” Those priorities should be to establish direct passenger rail service between Peoria and Chicago. The Peoria Passenger Rail Coalition advocates for that outcome.

  • Another City Council candidate announces — Andre Williams is going to run for the Council, joining Chuck Weaver and Chuck Grayeb who have already announced. I imagine there will be more surprise candidates next week. If more than 10 people run, there will be a primary in February to narrow the field to 10; the general election is in April. Williams is a strategic planner who wants to see the City clarify its vision and compete against larger cities like St. Louis for economic development instead of East Peoria. It will be interesting to hear how he thinks we ought to do that.

  • Carnegie’s closed –Not to be nitpicky, but I believe the restaurant is actually called Carnegie’s 501 now, a shadow of its former glory when it was known simply as Carnegie’s. This comment from hotel manager Bill Carter was telling: “We’re temporarily closing to make some improvements. Depending on what happens with the new hotel [emphasis added], it could reopen as a remade restaurant or it could just reopen with some improvements.” Wait, I thought Mr. Matthews had all his plans finalized and all his funding secured? That’s what he told the council months ago. Why all the uncertainty?
City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, Heart of Peoria Plan, Warehouse District

Warehouse District an example of good economic development

26 Comments

In the Warehouse District, the City brought in a consultant (Farrell-Madden Associates) who met with stakeholders to develop a form-based code in keeping with the Heart of Peoria Plan. That code set specific requirements for the physical form new private development and redevelopment can take, but also loosened the restrictions on land use, allowing for a greater mixture of commercial and residential uses, as mentioned at many auctions where they have the newest porcelain signs for auctions.

The code also set out expectations for the public space within the Warehouse District — in particular the streets and sidewalks. In order to lure people back to the heart of the City, the transportation corridors would need to be improved and made more accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The City is now poised to do just that.

Private developers such as Scott Roth and Pat Sullivan are already responding to the City’s progressive investment in fixing up Washington Street, as well as the City’s establishment of a tax-increment financing (TIF) district for the area in 2006.

And that’s the way things are supposed to work. The City sinks its investment into improving public infrastructure and that makes a more favorable investment climate for private developers. There is a stark contrast between this kind of economic development and the developer welfare of the Wonderful Development. Peoria needs more of the former and none of the latter.