I appreciate it.

If everyone would take their seats, we're going to get started in about thirty seconds.

Thirty seconds.

I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be part of it.

Good evening, everyone.

It is six o'clock PM on Tuesday, May 26, 2026.

I'd like to call the meeting of the Peoria City Council to order.

I'd also like to welcome everyone who's here in our historic council chambers as well as our listening audience watching on cable channel 22 and on the City of Peoria YouTube channel.

Madam Clerk, the council mics are open.

Please call the roll.

Mayor Ali.

Councilmember Allen.

Present.

Councilmember Carmona.

Here.

Councilmember Sear.

Here.

Councilmember Gordon Young.

Present.

Councilmember Jackson.

Here.

Councilmember Kelly.

Here.

Councilmember Euler.

Here.

Councilmember Riggenbach?

Here.

Councilmember Valpula.

Present.

And Councilmember Vespa.

Here.

You have a quorum present, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh, please join me, everyone, and stand for a moment of silent prayer or silent reflection, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberty and Justice.

Madam Clerk.

We do not have any proclamations.

Is that correct?

So then we would be on to the approval of the minutes.

Councilman Riggenbach.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move to approve the minutes of the joint city council and town board meeting held May twelfth, twenty twenty-six as printed.

Seconded by Councilwoman Jackson.

Any comments?

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimous.

Unanimously.

Madam Clerk.

We are at the consent agenda.

26-117 is a communication with a request to approve the 2026 annual action plan for submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development with a total grant allocation of $2,563,351.03.

26-122 is a communication with request to adopt an ordinance vacating a 150.06 feet by 16 feet portion of an alley within block 10 of Barry and Edition, running parallel to Johnson Street and McBean Street, perpendicular to MacArthur Highway and Saratoga Street, and adjacent to parallel and adjacent to parcel identification numbers 18-08-419-008, 18-08-419-009, 18-08-419-010, 18-08-419-011, 18-08-419-018, 18-08-419-019, 18-08-419-020, 18-08-419-021, and 18-08-419-022 in Peoria, Illinois.

26-123 is a communication with request to approve the side application for a Class K rental hall liquor license with on-site consumption and retail sale of alcohol for upstage theater company LLC doing business as upstage theater company at 416 Hamilton Boulevard with a recommendation from the liquor commission to approve.

26-124 is a communication with request to approve the site application for a Class B restaurant 50% food liquor license with on-site consumption and retail sale of alcohol for Chola's The Empire LLC doing business as Chola's Indian Restaurant at 1301 West Pioneer Parkway, suite 137 with a recommendation from the liquor commission to approve.

And 26-125 is a communication with request to an add a subclass 1A 2 a.m.

closing hours to an existing class B restaurant, 50% food liquor license with on-site consumption and retail sale of alcohol for Vault Peoria LLC doing business as the vault at 240 Southwest Jefferson Street with recommendation from the liquor commission to approve.

And that concludes our consent agenda.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Are there any items uh to remove from consent?

Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh 26117 and 26118, please.

What was the second one?

26118.

Okay.

17 and 18.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any more items to remove?

Can I get a motion to approve?

Councilman Allen, seconded by councilwoman Gordon Young.

Any discussion?

Please cast your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam Clerk.

26-117 is a communication from the city manager and director of community development with a request to approve the 2026 annual action plan for submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development with a total grant allocation of 2,563,351.03 cents.

Council Member Sear.

Thank you, ma'am mayor.

Thank you, Director Dooling Doolin for being here.

Just a couple questions.

First of all, I don't have anything against uh 27 26117 and 118.

I just got a couple questions or a few questions for clarification.

On 217, um she wanna make sure page two talks about the administrative cost for all these programs.

Can you tell us again?

Because as I ask you at uh in our meeting, uh talk to us about the 20%, 10%, and 7.5% for administrative charges.

Uh thank you, counsel.

Um so yeah, the uh with each of our allocations, we're allowed to take a certain percentage of each item for our administrative costs.

Uh so these are the uh funds that pay for our two grants coordinators who monitor all of our grants to make sure that uh we're not uh we and the organizations that we give money to are not doing uh things they shouldn't.

Uh it pays for one of our housing coordinators, a percentage of uh Nicole Morrow's salary, and then a percentage of our code enforcement manager's salary as well because uh that's one of the eligible activities.

So you know we always budget to max those out and try to save the general fund money as much as possible uh by using the federal money first before uh we'd have to use fund those positions through the general fund and it's salary and benefits for those employees.

Uh page seven to page twenty-five.

I'm looking at thirty different agency group and organization.

How did we select these names or these these groups?

Agency groups organizations.

Yeah, so what's actually in front of you is an annual requirement by HUD that we have to do an annual plan, essentially uh getting feedback from public meetings and also soliciting different nonprofits in this community.

Uh we uh ask anyone who's willing to comment to comment, and those are the agencies that have responded or we've worked with that have submitted those comments, and that's kind of why they're a part of that section.

Thank you very much, uh, Director Doolin for this uh uh this uh one uh Madam Mayor just move to um move to approve the one at a time.

I'm sorry, let's take one at a time.

Yeah, 26117.

Okay, move to move to approve the request.

Okay, great.

Seconded by council member Allen, any questions, comments?

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously unanimously.

Councilmember Sear.

Thanks.

Director do one question on this one.

Um talk to us a little bit about the last couple years for sure.

We got K She and our organization uh Lulay, and I don't see their name anywhere about me.

We we praise uh the work they they've done the last couple years, but I don't see their name anywhere in this.

I mean how they've done with are they qualified to receive money now and are they uh a non-for-profit organization?

Talk to us a little bit about that.

Yeah, so 2018 is the public service application and priorities set.

So uh the item we just approved set aside 15% of our CDBG money to specifically go towards uh nonprofit agencies that are providing services to the community.

Um those agencies to be eligible have to meet the application that's in this items and the different criteria.

Um of those uh that sometimes we hear feedback on that people don't love uh that they think sometimes hinders the ability of certain smaller nonprofits to apply is a requirement for an audit.

Uh we've talked about on the council floor why we require the audit uh and the different guidelines that require it.

But one of the things in the application that would allow an agency that uh might not be as well established as some of the others is they can partner with someone or another organization and be have a fiscal sponsor.

So smaller organizations that might just be one or two people trying to do good could partner with a larger agency to get some of those funds.

Uh and we try to make that information available as much as possible.

Uh this item approves the application and the priorities, uh, and then they really go through a summer long process.

And we really think our CDBG Public Service Commission uh who spends kind of the hours uh and hours grading the applications, and then the recommendation for funding will come back to council uh in September, October as we traditionally do.

Okay.

Uh last question, and to the combination of actually the last two items, but we're looking at the investment of about $13 million for I think it was 48 homes.

I saw it in there.

Um can we control or try to control costs of new homes when we see I've been here 10 years now, I see homes like uh pretty much the same area also, like no 48 homes, 13 million dollars.

You're looking at 260,000 per homes.

Then we have some other organization we gave money to that it's like 350, 250,000 per homes.

And then we're gonna talk tonight about the expo garden.

Uh, I mean, how can we budget for the right size home and the right amenities and and really stay within our budget?

Yeah, so I think uh you're referencing maybe an item that was uh on the consent agenda, MacArthur Flats, and just kind of the overall affordable housing projects when you divide it up between the tax credits and whatnot.

Um I will tell you that that the housing providers are not the ones uh making money, uh as much money from it as you might imagine with the cost per home.

Uh when you look at the tax credit process, just the design of it.

Uh you have um people buying the tax credit.

So you have uh firms, private investment banks who are making uh profit from it.

You have architecture firms, engineering firms, uh, a lot of layers of bankers.

Uh at the federal level with these tax credit projects and financing institutions, set up a lot of bureaucracy uh, and all of those people take a chunk of that money as you go.

So that's why you see those costs rising.

Um the other part of it is you know, construction costs these days are continuing to go up and up and up.

And so when you have those units, I think you know, with those projects, when you we look at the budget, and you know, they have to submit a pro format to show how it pencils out what they're being able to take back and put in reserves often the nonprofit agency and the um housing developer are deferring their developer fees to later in the year to make sure the project worked.

Uh, it is a good question with rising costs, how they're going to continue to be built.

And uh, I don't have a good answer to that, uh, specifically with affordable housing.

I think we're continuing to see the struggles of of nonprofit agencies trying to be able to afford housing in our community.

Um I think one of the differences when we talk about the next items with expo and housing cost, uh it's a much different market and different kind of ability to do so.

I think that that we can kind of try to encourage people to keep the costs down, but it costs the same amount of money to build a house in in Peori as it roughly does in Chicago, but you can sell the house in Chicago for a couple hundred thousand dollars more.

It's really hard for communities like Peoria to uh kind of continue to be able to have new housing built.

I think one of the strategies that we've done really successful is being able to make the land available for free, specifically with Churchview Gardens, the McKinley uh Habitat Project down there, MacArthur Flats tonight.

Uh, those are the type of projects we're able to see.

And and part of the big reason is because we were able to accumulate the vacant land and put it together, and that's one huge cost that a developer uh doesn't have to spend like they might in other communities.

So continue to explore that way, but but it will continue to be um uh all hands on deck for housing going forward as as costs continue to go up.

I wish I had a better answer, but if I did uh we'd be doing it and we wouldn't see those costs escalate.

Thank you very much, Director Dooland.

Madam Mayor, can't if I couldn't make a motion.

Okay, um move to concur with the recommendation for item 26118.

Okay, seconded by councilwoman uh Gordon Young.

Any questions or comments?

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam McClerk, we're at regular business 26-126 is a communication from the city manager and corporation council with request to approve an intergovernmental agreement between the city of Peoria and the Board of Education, City of Peoria School District 150 for the redevelopment of the exposition gardens property.

Thank you.

Which one of you will take this?

Uh, Council Hayes.

Thank you, Your Honor.

So, as uh council knows we've uh acquired the former exposition garden site and approached District 150 about some critical elements of that site that we felt were important for the city to resolve.

Um, and we'll be providing these outcomes as an update to our um RFQ that's already out on the street.

Um we've identified on the parcel and area that the city needs to establish a second access point for this large subdivision.

The school district owns the property uh where you might be familiar with the back entrance to the fair.

Uh so it's on uh University Street north of Northmore, quite a bit north at the very edge of the school district's property.

That in fact is school district property.

So the city wanted to acquire that because with a 200 resident subdivision, having all of that traffic on Northmore, particularly conflicting with the early morning school traffic and the school let out traffic wouldn't be conducive and certainly not optimal.

And so uh the only other viable access point um would be out to university.

And so the city made that a priority uh with the school district.

In addition, the city approached the school district with the idea that an ultimate developer might maxi the investment potential and the return of their investment, but also the return of property taxes to both the city and the school district if more Northmore frontage was available for redevelopment.

So the school district agreed to exchange outright with us one small parcel on Northmore and agreed to provide any eventual developer with the opportunity to flip the Northmore School parking lot to behind the school to open up more area on Northmore for redevelopment.

Consistent with that set of thoughts, the school district presently has a set of easements across the property for access, particularly for circulation for Northmore school to get in and out of the footprint there.

And so there's a roadway across the parcels that basically divides the northmore frontage parcels in half that the school district presently uses to circulate traffic in and out of Northmore School rather than accessing Northmore right there at the school.

The school district feels that's a critical access and safety point for their operations.

They were amenable to the city, providing the developer with the opportunity if they wanted to further open up those northmore parcels to replace that further to the north so that there'd still be circulation within the parcel between Northmore School and the Richwoods High School footprint for those safety ingress and the e-grass issues, but give the developer even more area on the Northmore frontage to have an open footprint.

So the school district has accommodated the city in those issues.

What the school district wanted back were a few things.

First of all, they wanted some property between the existing expo property and their bus uh maintenance facility to build an additional facilities building.

And the city felt that that was positive because that would create a buffer between this residential area and where hundreds of buses park on a regular basis.

And so we were amenable to that, even though that along with the frontage right up between the two properties winds up being more on a square footage basis.

Um, in many people's view, the the access to university and the northmore frontage is far more valuable than that interior square footage.

So there's no compensation of dollars flowing back and forth between these two taxpayer entities, all supported by our residents and the 150 residents, because it's out of one taxpayer pocket into another.

But the other reason for that was if a strictly you looked at the value, we felt there was a fair exchange of value.

There were a couple of other conditions that the school district asked for.

One was to not have this be proposed as a tax increment finance district, and that was not the city's ambition in any regard.

Two, that we could include it in the um in the urban enterprise zone, which was important for us because that will assist the developer with some of the costs of development by way of uh no sales tax on the goods used in those, no state sales tax on those as part of the enterprise zone credit.

The city has a modest property tax abatement as part of our enterprise zone program that the school district does not presently participate in.

And so this was part of the district's concern about having increment be impaired by any of this redevelopment.

Um we still are asking the school district to consider participating in the um in the enterprise zone tax abatement, but that is not a condition of this of this agreement either way.

Um I I think that the district's other issues that they wanted as part of the deal, that it would be about 200 residences and that it that we would contain the commercial, the neighborhood commercial type development to the northmore frontage lots.

Those were consistent with our ambitions for the for the property.

So those those are conditions as well for the district.

I don't think I've missed anything, but if I have, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh we anticipate that the district would undertake this at their June 8th uh meeting.

And so we may be to make certain that developers take all this into account, extending the RFQs a little bit to be able to issue this clarification after the district has approved it on June 8th, and giving uh the developers time to absorb these conditions.

Um there's a few other details in here, but I felt that those were the details were important for the city council's consideration.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Council Hayes, for those highlights and uh some of that detail.

I know that these discussions have been taking place now, I think, for almost eight or nine months with the school district.

There's been discussions with board members, there's been discussions with the uh superintendent's leadership team, and certainly you and the school district's legal council have kind of worked out a lot of these details.

So thank you very much for those efforts.

Uh Council Member Allen.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh I had a chance to connect with uh City Manager Urick earlier with some questions, and I just want to share those because I think that some of my colleagues also may have some of these same inquiries.

Um, as you all were going through this process, was there ever a discussion point on the city just buying the land from the school district?

In the conversation that we had, we really didn't discuss us buying the land outright.

What we really talked about is there were needs on both parties' sides, right?

The the school district had needs to kind of fill out some space around their athletic facilities.

We needed that access up on University Street.

Um, so we felt that that really an exchange was probably in the best interest uh as corporation council mentioned.

Uh as corporation council mentioned, uh, in addition, there was some of that commercial land uh that the district really doesn't need along Northmore that could potentially be valuable.

So we look at that as part of that swap.

And uh if I recall correctly, I believe we have some remaining funds of the grant that we got from the state of Illinois, which we utilized to purchase Expo Gardens initially.

Um would this have been an eligible purchase with those remaining funds?

It I do think it would have been eligible if we if we had gone that route.

Um but I do think that you know when we approached the state, we specifically asked about about the fairground piece and talked about that as being an important part that we wanted to access um those funds and use those the land bank funds for that that purpose.

Um and we specifically got that that in writing from them saying yes, this would be eligible and we would be able to be reimbursed for that.

We did not ask the state at that time about that university piece.

And by no means I don't pretend to be an economic development specialist and probably a neo phyte at this point, but um do you feel that us taking the TIFF district um opportunity off the table?

Um, do you feel that is possibly us taking away an incentive that we can utilize later, or do you feel like us going down the potential enterprise zone is more advantageous for this type of development?

Well, I think that that you know, as we looked at this, there's a a couple of factors that are in play with this.

We didn't think that the TIFF would be as valuable.

I mean, it certainly could be utilized to help a developer to recover some of the costs of the infrastructure work that they would need to put in place.

That would be eligible, but all of the new home construction is not eligible for reimbursement.

So that there's nothing there that would be eligible because that TIFF law is pretty straightforward about new construction isn't eligible for reimbursement.

So looking at that, and we had the school district that said that they didn't really want a uh uh TIF in that area because of all the places inside the Peore public schools boundaries, this is the only place where a large-scale residential development can help to build their tax base.

So that's why we looked at that from the very beginning of not really saying that we should look at at establishing a TIFF district here.

Now, an enterprise zone does provide some benefits to the to the developer.

It provides a sales tax exemption on building materials.

That's not uh small.

I mean, it when you're buying a lot of of um cement and pipe and things that are gonna go into the ground, um that there's an expense to that, and and that would save them um the state tax on there, plus you know, I think that there's some opportunities for uh a property tax abatement, not for all of this of the taxing districts, but for some the developers' approach, their other projects that they've done that are representative of their ability to do it, look into their financial background and other interactions they've had with other units of government, so it's a little different than uh accepting a uh proposal or proposal with alternatives.

So that'd be fair to say it's another way for us since we're the owner of the land to try to keep as much control as possible of what would be developed on that piece of a land, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Uh since my uh colleague Councilman Allen brought it up.

I need to ask again.

Sorry, Mr.

Manager.

Um did we pay?

Did we get our did we receive our grant yet from the state?

We have not received our grant funds yet from the state.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Okay, councilmember Alan, you want to move us forward.

Uh sure thing.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 26-126, please.

Can I get a second?

Second it by council member Kelly.

Um discussion.

Councilmember Reaganbach.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just want to say thank you to corporation council and the manager for for bringing this forward.

I think for those of us that have been supporting the concept of this project um from the beginning, that's just this is a significant step, and to see the collaboration with the school district is something that I think all of us as taxpayers can be proud of because clearly there were needs on both sides and to be able to exchange the property in a manner like this without expending other taxpayers' money.

I think I think that comes out as a win for everybody.

And I know we'll be discussing what kind of incentives need to be um offered to make this project successful in the future, but I think I think this agreement sets the stage for the next step and um uh wholeheartedly support it.

Great.

Yes, you're welcome.

I agree with you, Councilman Riggenbach.

I think it's a win-win for both taxing bodies as government bodies as well as for eventually for the city.

Councilman Valpula.

Thank you, Madame Mayor.

I just have one question.

Then was the out of pay shoot.

Out of cues.

So the the um the RFQ went out uh a little over a month ago, and our hope looking back at our community development director, I believe it was a little over a month ago, and um it's due the first uh or the second week um June 8th uh is when the responses are due.

So my question to you is how much how many so if you are closing the AFQs by let's say in two weeks.

Nobody we make a change now.

Is it going to affect the dollar?

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor to approve the intergovernment agreement.

Uh please cast your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam Clerk.

26127 is a communication from the city manager and corporation council with request to approve the following.

A, an agreement with core construction services of Illinois Inc.

for construction services for the D Hanks Amphitheater on the Peoria Riverfront for a maximum price to be determined.

And item A requires two-thirds vote of council members voting, no less than six votes.

And B, an agreement with Terra Engineering LTD for design and engineering services for the D Hanks Amphitheater on the Peoria River front.

And this item as well requires a two-thirds vote of council members voting, no less than six votes, and we need separate votes on each, please.

Thank you, Madam Clark.

Uh Council Hayes.

Thank you once again.

Um being a public organization is I when I make an error, I some of our citizens point that out.

I should have referred to this as festival park rather than riverfront park.

So I want to apologize for any confusion.

The uh as the council knows the we struck a deal with the Hanks Foundation to fund uh amphitheater uh in Festival Park just north of the Murray Baker Bridge.

So part of that agreement when the council got to terms with the Hanks Foundation was that the Hanks Foundation had pre-selected the design professional team as well as the construction team.

And so you'll notice that both of these items require a supermajority vote uh in order to approve that method of contracting that we're using.

One of the privileges of being a home rule entity is that we were able to make that agreement, and now that uh majority is required to live up to that part of the agreement.

Uh, we've spent some time getting to a contract.

Um the preferred method of contracts isn't our typical contract method because we don't use AI AIA contracts very often.

Um, and so uh core construction uh operates based on what is called a maximum guaranteed price contract.

So they are the construction manager.

Once the design elements are finalized, they will come back to the city with a guaranteed maximum price.

If the city approves that, then we would agree to pay that price upon a completed project, and they accept any uh risk of cost overruns during the project.

For that reason, this that element is not presented today because the design isn't completed yet.

So TARA has a separate contract, which is also on an AIA template that um marries with and coordinates with the terms and the methods in the AIA contract environment for approvals of design, approvals of of costs, uh, all of the construction documents and construction engineering, all of that is um very elaborately set forth in these construction documents.

In addition, these documents are modified by the reality that the city finds itself in is that we've got a 11 million dollar project that we're contracting for.

And so these contracts protect the city, it's as it relates to the Hanks Foundation's control of these things, and makes clear that all of the cycles of approval and things like that have to go through the Hanks Foundation, and in addition, all of the payment of funds, both to TARA and to and to core, are dependent upon the approval and funding by the Hanks Foundation.

And so those terms and conditions should give the council some comfort about well, where is the money coming from and are we exposed to risk here?

And where the city is exposed to some costs is that we agreed with the Hanks Foundation that we'd do remedial site work if that's found in the assessments, and so if there's any sort of environmental cleanup or anything like that found as they do their pre-construction analysis, um, which we're also responsible for, uh, that they will report that to the city council and we'll need to take care of that.

And so we don't have those costs yet either, but we will get those costs based on estimated basis before the work starts, and those will get approved through the city managers.

So we don't have a complete amount of what the city might be exposed to, but there'll be some costs there.

There's also been some discussions in the preliminary design phase about what's going to be included within the Hanks Foundation funding and whether there's any alternatives or supplemental funding required for the actual construction of the project.

And that may be a conversation we have to have here in a few weeks, not only with the design professionals about what might be in the project and whatnot, but also with the city council and some external funders, if there are additional things that we want to pursue that we feel like this would be good for this project, we may be back to the city council with those additional items.

But the city right now isn't committed to anything beyond the site work required to make the place ready for this construction.

Um I don't know if you've got any questions.

This is a huge document compared to what we're normally approving uh along the lines of some of our largest RFPs, but I'd be happy to answer any questions as best I'm able.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Hayes.

Uh, do you know when uh construction is scheduled to start?

In fact, we don't have a construction schedule because that's part of the task that Terra Engineering is going to undertake, and that'll be more predictable once the design is approved.

So until we get through that design phase, we're not going to be able to make uh an accurate prediction about construction.

So that that document has not yet been created.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Move to approve the uh item 26-127 a.

Uh second seconded by Councilmember Gordon Young.

Uh continued discussion.

Councilmember Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh either Mr.

Manager or Mr.

Uh Corporation Council.

Um the funding for this comes from the Hanks Foundation.

Um I don't even know if we're a pass-through.

We're probably not, we're not even a pass-through, are we, as far as the money is concerned?

That's not really a big part of the question.

There'll be a mutually controlled escrow account for the funds that uh Hanks Foundation has assured us are on account with their foundation, and so uh we'll be working through those type of escrow, similar to construction escrow.

What uh my question is what happens if we have a shortfall?

Who is responsible?

So on the front end where we're at today, we'll have an identifiable amount under contract with TARA for the design of the amphitheater.

They will give us estimates of the city's responsibility for site work prior to construction.

So we'll be able to identify that in the coming weeks.

Um, but as to any amounts beyond the Hanks Foundation funding, we don't have any exposure to that today.

And if we were to enter into an agreement to expand the project beyond the donation amount, we would come back to City Council for that approval.

So if you're saying what is the exposure for shortfall, if the there isn't any exposure to shortfall at this point because the Hanks Foundation is going to fund up to 11 million dollars, and if we agree to something beyond that, that'll be theirs.

And if we agree to something beyond that, that'll be theirs.

The other thing that protects us in this evolution is that the once we strike the maximum maximum guaranteed price, the actual construction costs, if they go beyond that maximum guaranteed price, that is the responsibility of the of the construction management core construction.

I will tell you that if we make a change during construction, a change order, that then would be worked out, and the responsibility for that amount would be worked out before the change order is approved.

So as it relates to a shortfall today, we are not exposed to any shortfall.

Okay.

Uh councilman, if I can just add one other point, just the cost estimates that they're working on, they are building in just like we do with our road projects and our capital projects, they're building in contingencies into that.

So they're as what they're estimating is their construction price is carrying about a 10% contingency line, just to make sure that they've got that coverage there.

My um I didn't mean to go that deeply.

All I kind of wanted to know, because I heard what uh corporation council said about how the core contract is, etc.

And I'm aware that there's uh contingencies.

I just wanted to make sure it's leak proof.

That's that's all.

Um whether there's any other way that this could uh cost us money.

That's uh the the only other way that it would cost us money if we came back to you and said we think this would be a nice addition to the area it's not contemplated in the and it is a policy decision of this body to make that this determination right.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Allen.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Uh, just uh a clarifying question uh for city manager Eric.

Um what budget line item will be will we be funding the um the pre-construction assessment out of our budget?

The are you talking about the environmental assessment?

Yeah, so uh we'll be taking that out of the capital budget.

That's normally where we'll we'll take those dollars out.

Um when we have a good idea of where that cost is going to be, we'll come back to you with that budget to be um adopted as in a budget amendment.

We did not build that into the to the budget earlier this year when the or earlier last year when we adopted the the 26th budget.

So okay.

That'll come back to you.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Thank you, madam mayor.

You're very welcome.

The motion is to approve item A for the agreement with core construction.

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Councilmember Sear, just a second.

Okay, there we go.

Councilmember Seer.

Move to approve the uh recommendation for uh 26-27 item B.

Thank you.

Seconded by Councilmember Gordon Young.

Any discussion?

Please cash your ballot.

Oh, okay.

Hold on.

Hold on.

I light on working on your light.

Councilmember Sear.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Sorry about that.

I wanted to ask a question earlier.

Uh Mr.

Hayes, the question is really for Mr.

Manager, but Mr.

A's used two words that kind of got my attention.

Uh supplement on supplemental funding got my attention here.

Mr.

Manager, do we don't have you just said your answer, I believe was Mr.

Allen's question.

There's no fund allocate at all, not even the CIP or in the budget right now, correct?

That that is correct, not yet.

I think what what we wanted to do once we get an idea of what our our environmental costs are gonna be, then we'll come back to you with that budget amendment.

That's again just to present what we're gonna do, and then um what we'll likely do, and and this is probably a conversation uh with our finance director.

Since this is a pass-through, we'll appropriate the funds as part of the budget when we know that we're starting construction, and then you'll be able to see and we'll track everything for you and build that into the budget so you can see that.

So with with the corresponding revenue that comes from the Hanks fund.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Thank you, madam mayor.

You're very welcome.

The item uh the motion is to approve item B, which is the agreement with Terra Engineering.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam Clerk.

26-128 is a communication from the city manager and corporation council with a request to approve a sole source agreement with Lode Star Claims and Risk Services for a third-party administration services for the city's general liability claims program for a three-year agreement at a total estimated cost of 346,413.

And this item requires a two-thirds vote of council members voting, no less than six votes.

Council Hayes.

Thank you, Your Honor.

We have a third party administrator presently, it's Gallagher Bassett.

We've used them since 2023 when we switch from uh another uh third party administrator.

Um we're wanting to improve the services there.

Um I think from time to time, some of the council members are aware of our claims process, which can be uh difficult, but both from the city staff perspective as well as our residents who are uh processing those claims.

Um, in an effort to seek uh third party administrator with better focus on the city's business.

We've identified that our current third party administrator for workmen's compensation matters uh serves our our city at an excellent level, and it's believed the staff believes that a shift to that TPA would provide better services, not only for city staff purposes, but also as it relates to the experience of our residents who are filing claims, and for that reason, uh we're not gonna go back out for bids.

Um, we're gonna ask the city council to approve a sole source to expand our current uh relationship with our existing third party administrator on workman's comp to handle our liability matters, and so that's the reason the matters before the council, and the reason that it uh requires a two-thirds vote of the council members voting.

Thank you, council.

Uh, can I get a motion to approve this move by council member uh Boiler, seconded by council member Valpula?

Any questions?

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam Clerk.

26-129 is a communication from the city manager and chief of police with a request to approve the sole source annual subscription contract with shot spotter inc for shot spotter flex, a gunfire location alert and analysis service with a recommendation of a three-year renewal in the amount of 316,035 per year.

This item requires two-thirds vote of council members voting, no less than six votes.

Mr.

Manager.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm gonna turn the floor over to our police chief uh uh Brad Dixon to uh talk about this contract renewal.

Chief.

Thank you.

Good evening, council mayor.

This is uh this is my first, certainly not the last request in front of this council.

And uh I'm here tonight to talk about the shot spotter technology.

So um this is a technology we've had since 2013.

It was expanded in 2015.

Our current setup covers roughly it's two sections that covers roughly six square miles in the city.

Um, this is a budgeted item that we have within the police department.

Um we're not we're not asking for any general funds to be allocated.

This is something that we've planned for and and have in our budget.

Um you'll see the increase from our previous three-year contract.

It's a five-year, I'm sorry, a five percent one time five percent increase for the first year, and then it remains flat for the next two years.

Um, so shot spotter.

I'll I'll cover it briefly.

Uh, we do have some reps from SHOSPORTE here, and I have my data analyst here.

If there are some questions, uh, we'd be happy to answer those for you.

But it's an acoustic technology that uses sensors to detect gunfire.

Um it's it's a highly utilized technology in the city.

Uh, we use it quite often.

It provides situational awareness for the responding officers that are going on these calls.

Um the officers get there faster.

The shot spotter alerts come in faster than they are dispatched, so they get on scene quicker and they're able to provide aid if there's somebody injured.

Um it also allows us it's such a pinpoint accurate technology.

We're able to locate uh casings and forensic technology that we use to build these cases.

Uh so just locating the casings that we find on scene.

Um we're then able to utilize other technologies that we have.

Um we can do things like um believe it or not, there's some repetitive gunfire that we're able to respond to appropriately with our um some of our federal partners and and and make cases, do search warrants, things like that.

Um, finally, I want to talk about uh the the transparency page we have.

If you haven't seen that, I would encourage you to go look at our transparency page.

Um we have probably the most thorough data set I've ever seen when it comes to shot spotter, it goes all the way back to 2014 once we were able to get some data.

Um it's very easy to use and navigate.

You can go year by year, you can look at total.

Um so you know, in keeping the theme of community policing, there's certainly some strong feelings sometimes with shot spotter, but you can't say we're not being transparent because we provide everything, it's all on there the the borders, the um shots that come in, um, and you can track it year to year.

So I think that's another uh a big plus the way Peoria does it.

Uh I was recently at uh a Chiefs conference talking to some of my colleagues, and and I won't name them specifically, but I think they're underutilizing the technology, and um uh the the shot spotter folks are here tonight, and they reached out to ShotSpotter and want to know how Peoria utilizes the technology, um, which which I thought was great.

Um, so in short, uh I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I'm I'm here tonight to ask for your support for this continued use of this technology.

Thank you, Chief.

You said the shot spotter uh representatives are here.

They are can we hear from them?

Sure.

Yes, can you introduce yourselves, please?

Thank you.

Good evening, your honor, members of the Peoria City Council.

My name is Kevin Johnson.

I've been with the company known as Shot uh known as Sound Thinking, formerly known as Shot Spotter.

Uh, prior to that I spent 30 years with the Chicago Police Department, retired as a rank of deputy chief, and uh implemented shot spotter in Chicago.

What I can say what Peoria's doing with Shot Spotter is outstanding.

I'm gonna put that lightly, it is outstanding.

It's a pure example of what you do when you have police officers working, the police department working to respond to gunfire, get there faster, save lives, get that evidence, the ballistic evidence, build those into cases.

The goal is to get rid of those serial trigger pullers in your community, and at the same time, they're very transparent of what they do.

I see stories every other day, what Peoria has done in terms of getting arrests, responding, leveraging public safety technology the right way.

I truly say that they are a model for public safety technology in the state.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from our representatives?

Thank you very much.

Certainly, our police have found value in shot spotter, and uh it's endorsed by our new chief, and it was endorsed by our prior chief, and certainly you found value in this tool, and we yeah, and if I could add, it's not it's not the only technology, you know.

Shot spotter is not the the end all be all, but it is definitely at the very front of our crime response, our our violent crime response.

You know, it allows us to get that um evidence and and it's a it's a great data set we use.

So it's a tool in our toolbox, it's a powerful tool, um, and and we'd like to continue our partnership.

That's a good point.

Thank you.

It's not all inclusive, it's not perfect, right?

Right, because fourth of July, we're gonna get a lot of things that are not real shot spotters, right?

There's gonna be that's correct.

We'll we'll we'll turn it down for 4th of July.

Okay, all right.

Councilwoman Gordon Young.

Thank you, madam mayor.

I was actually going to ask how does uh the Fourth of July around that time um affect the shot spotter system?

Yeah, so um the the folks from ShotSpotter can probably talk about it better, but what we do is basically turn it down, um turn it off.

We can't have everybody going there's there's too many fireworks in the city.

Um so we turn it down.

Um, it's different than how we do it on New Year's.

Um, but during those high periods, uh, you know, I think it's around nine o'clock or somewhere around there, it gets turned down a little bit, and then it then it comes back on after the after the fireworks display.

There's a there's a couple hours where we turn it down.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just find it really a great tool and really interesting.

Um it's unfortunate that we have you know shots fired in the area, but it's good to know that our officers can respond to the area as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Do you want to make a motion?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Is there a second second by council member Jackson?

Any other discussion, please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously, madam clerk.

26-130 is a communication from council member John Kelly with a request to approve a resolution providing for an abatement review board to consider an urban decay abatement ordinance.

Councilmember Kelly, Madam Mayor.

Um this proposal to uh seeks to use our uh urban decay ordinance.

This urban decay ordinance offers 10 years worth of tax abatement on new structures.

Uh you know, it also allows for uh and the land is not taxed, the land goes up.

We can help defray people's state income tax with that uh additional money.

These incentives last for 10 years.

Um the abatement of the assessed value of the improvements, any new single family owner-occupied home in but that includes duplexes and townhomes as well.

Um the abatement is from all taxing bodies, which tax the expo area.

This is the same as TIFF.

When we do a TIF district, all the districts are forced to participate.

When we do tax uh uh when we do uh enterprise zone, that is optional among the various taxing districts, and as I as I think the manager or the corporation council said, District 150 has chosen not to uh help us with uh the enterprise zone, they do not participate.

Um I've had uh discussions as you all know with uh uh almost everybody and send out my little uh comparison sheet and whatnot, but what I hear from time to time, even though I believe that this would result in the best subdivision we could possibly have, which we really need in our city.

Um I think more discussion, more questions need to be answered, uh that sort of thing, and so I am uh going to move to table this uh item for a future date.

Okay, is there a second seconded by council member oil to table any discussion?

And I'll there's no other discussion, it looks like, but I I just want to say, Councilman Kelly, and and I do respect your proposal.

I I don't think it's a fit for I don't think the urban decay uh initiative is a fit for the expo area.

I I don't believe that it's a decayed or blighted area.

I also think that it is in contrast to the agreement that we all unanimously approve that in item 10 says that we won't have a TIFF, and and as you indicated, this is very similar to a TIFF, and it it delays um property taxes for about 10 years, and and I think that's in counter to the agreement or understanding that we have with the school district.

So because of that, I'm gonna vote no to the uh table motion just because I I think that even bringing it back, it's it does not align and doesn't fit in my opinion.

Councilmember Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Even though my remarks are not relevant to the motion on the floor, which is to table, not to discuss the item.

And uh since we're into that, I would just say that there are many differences in between these various things, and I would hope that in the course of our city manager and our and our uh our staff talking to developers, they do not restrict their discussion to TIFFs which we're not going to do.

Enterprise zone, which they which they favor, and that's fine.

And this item as well.

Uh none of us are going to be in the discussion.

But as we table this we we reserve it for future consideration, and I think that to uh be uninformed as a developer or whatever of that fact would uh uh prejudices the conversation.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

The motion is to table.

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes with two nays, Ali Jackson and Gordon Young.

Madam Clerk.

We are at unfinished business.

Do we have any unfinished business?

No.

Then we'll move on to new business.

Do we have any new business?

Then I would like to bring up one brief new business item, and that's to just remind everyone on council, and I guess everyone in our our community to let you know that uh next week we will be celebrating 50 years of our sister city relationship with Friedrichshofen, Germany.

50 years, sister city relationship.

So it was 50 years ago that Mayor Dick Carver, and hopefully I say this right, Oberbergermeister, which is the mayor over there, Dr.

Mass Gruenbeck, they signed our sister city agreement.

Uh since then, the lives of citizens on both cities, uh both Peoria and Friedrich Schaffen have been enriched by the warm friendship that continues to grow.

There will be a delegation here from Germany uh next week.

There's several different activities planned, uh dinners, events, uh they'll be uh at various locations within our city celebrating, enjoying, meeting people, and really continuing this important friendship that we have.

So I encourage those that can participate in the various activities that come about to be present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Clerk, we are at Citizens Opportunity to address the City Council.

Uh we have one, and this is Molly Cadigan.

So letting me have my five minutes.

And not unfortunately, just the 4th of July.

There have been repeated calls to the police department to stop it.

Five years ago, I called because my garage roof was set on fire by someone setting off illegal fireworks, basically adjacent to my garage.

Nothing was done.

My insurance rates went up.

Last year, they started on the 5th of June.

I called the police department and asked them to please address the issue because wherever it was two blocks away was so loud that my windows were shaking.

Now aside from that, I live in a neighborhood which is made up primarily of older people, such as myself, many of whom are Vietnam vets, Afghan vets, many of whom suffer from PTSD.

If you are not aware, many people who have PTSD are set off by fireworks.

I have two right now, who basically were on very expensive calmative medication from the 5th of June until the 18th of August when the fireworks in my neighborhood finally stopped.

Repeated phone calls basically accomplished nothing.

I'm just asking that someone from this council or the mayor address this issue so that from here on out illegal fireworks can be stopped.

I realize that the police have more important things to do, but the fact that my garage was set on fire, the fact that last year people across the street from me probably set off thousands of dollars worth of fireworks, which landed all over my yard.

One hit the screen on my front porch and burned a hole in my screen.

It caused damage to the window sills on my living room windows.

And I spent the next two and a half weeks cleaning up fireworks residue from my front yard, which included little gunpowder pellets.

Now I'm also a rabid environmentalist, and many of you may not know that fireworks basically will cause wildlife to leave their dens.

So this is not just a laughable, this is the 4th of July, we'll celebrate.

So the window just keeps getting larger and larger and larger.

I called the police and they said, well, we already talked to the guy.

And I said, well, it must not have done any good because he's still out there setting off M80s in the middle of the intersection.

This goes by every single year.

And we are all fed up.

It has got to stop.

It is basically it's destroying our neighborhood.

It's destroying the safety of people who live in that neighborhood.

I have people who are basically elderly who are shut-ins, who have no place else to go.

Last year, in fact, after Bradley or whoever does the city fireworks, I thought to myself, okay, it's now three o'clock in the morning.

It's probably safe to let my dogs out in the backyard because they hadn't even gone to the bathroom all day because I couldn't walk them anywhere because there were fireworks everywhere.

As soon as I let them out, there was this triage of fireworks going off up and down both sides of Machin.

My dogs burst through my picket fence and went running in opposite directions, and it took me two and a half hours to catch them because they were terrified and didn't know where to go.

I'm 77 years old.

I don't have to, I shouldn't have to chase my dogs because they were terrified in their own yard.

And I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I would just like to see that more law-abiding citizens are protected from illegal use of fireworks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cadigan.

Madam Clerk.

We do not have an executive session, so we're at adjournment.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Move by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Kelly.

Please cast your ballots.

Thank you for your service.

How is your weekend?