Today’s news: Guaranteed
Here are some tidbits of links and associated commentary to keep all my readers agitated for the rest of the day as a toil away at my real job:
- After months, if not years, of behind-the-scenes scheming about land swaps,
Peoria School District 150 and thePeoria Housing Authority finally decide that, gee, maybe they both ought to not be getting legal advice on the deals from same friggin’ law firm. If course, it took an article by JS reporter Clare Jellick to make what should be obvious, well, obvious enough then even these clowns could see it. - The Peoria City Council approved a liquor license for a grocery store at the former Miracle Mart location on Southwest Adams, next to
Harrison Homes . The project is being backed in a big way by 1st District Councilman Clyde Gulley, who came very close to close to blowing it when he initially objected to language being added to his motion that would include conditions to which developer Ahmad Abud had agreed verbally. The vote passed 6-3, and there was at least one councilman, At-large memberEric Turner , who prepared to vote “no” without attached conditions. Turner rarely votes against the wishes of neighborhood organizations anyway. It’s now up to the city to actually enforce the conditions. Although passage was the right thing to do, Gulley’s support increases the level of dissatisfaction many in the Old Town South Neighborhood association feel toward him. OTS memberJune Moore essentially vowed to make Gulley pay at the polls next election. - The council rejected an effort to rezone 2308 W. West Nebraska from single family residential to multi-family residential. Because of a a neat little parliamentary maneuver by 2nd District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, the issue of rezoning was separated from the issue of a special use permit that would let that property be used as a halfway house for convicted and allegedly recovering drug criminals. Failure of the rezoning meant the special use permit issue was moot because halfway houses cannot go into single-family units. Attorney’s for the halfway house people got up and left, without being able to make their argument. Van Auken’s maneuver also let the council reject the halfway house on the issue of zoning density along, and not have to argue, one again, about the wisdom of trying to wedge yet another group home into a neighborhood with a plethora of crime issues. Inevitably, council members who think these is a bad idea are accused of being non-my-backyarders who lack compassion. Speaking of which, Councilman
Clyde Gulley told WCBU newsmanJonathan Ahl that’s he’ll be speaking to halfway house operators because he thinks there are one or two perfect locations in the 1st District. You see, Mr. Gulley is a compassionate soul and wants to help these people. - The council approved using $3.3 million in utility tax revenues to help guarantee a $6 million loan to
Firefly Energy . Talking to council members after the meeting, they are absolutely bullish on this company, and they don’t think there’s any risk to the city of county. They are that sure. They know there’s no guarantee that even if Firefly does become a huge success and end up being the supply for the next generation of electric cars that these batteries would be made here in Peoria or even in central Illinois. The fact remains that no matter how wonderful Firefly technology is, a hundred and one bad and unexpected things could happen, not the least of which is that someone comes along and develops better technology. That means that the city could have to pay $3.3 million to the bank, and that’s $3.3 million that would otherwise go to the police protection, fire protection, sidewalks, etc. Kudos to council member Bob Manning for having the stones to ask tough questions, such as why isn’t Caterpillar coming up with the cash — or at least guaranteeing the loan, considering it owns 35 percent of Firefly. The answer: “They did not want to control or dominate financially the agenda of the company.†I think they are far less bullish than the 10 council members who voted in favor. And when Manning asked State Rep.David Leitch why the state government isn’t coming up with loan guarantee, Leitch didn’t answer, except: “This will be a moment and all look back on and go ‘wow.’ ” So Manning asked again, and was told that the state didn’t have that much available. I think the real answer is that since Sen. George Shadid retired, Peoria lacks clout and couldn’t get anyone in state government to even have lunch in Peoria, let alone cough up $3.3 million in supposedly risk-free loan guarantees. - Council member Eric Turner expressed his enthusiastic support for the Firefly loan guarantee . He also voted for it. My question is this: Since Turner is an employee of Caterpillar, wasn’t he obligated to abstain from any vote that could provide a benefit to Caterpillar, including a loan guarantee to a company
Caterpillar owns?
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Isn’t the threshhold for abstaing “direct” financial connections? Yes, Turner is employed by Cat, but does not benefit in any direct manner from their relationship with Firefly. How many Councilpeople own CAT stock? As such, wouldn’t their relationship be just as questionable (more so if you consider them part owners). Another example: The Mayor is employed by ELM, which has property in the proposed Warehouse District TIF. You don’t see him abstaining. Why? Because while his bosses might have a financial stake in the TIF, the Mayor doesn’t.
Also, if Manning was so unsure, why did he vote yes. And why did your gal Barbara vote yes, too. My guess: They didn’t want to look wrong when this turns out to be a sweet deal for the city/county.
The problem isn’t that Turner may benefit financially directly from Firefly succeeding, and Cat getting a higher return from its substantial stock ownership. The problem is the perception that Cat executives may have put pressure, or Turner may perceive pressure even if it wasn’t explicit, to advocate for and back the deal. The potential benefit and return to Cat isn’t trivial. It just looks improper for Turner to have been involved.
The fact is the City doesn’t know how to evaluate and judge the merits of what it did (that’s no criticism, just a fact, as that’s not the City’s job) – this is a venture capital deal and even though the City isn’t currently making a cash transfer, the City most certainly is conferring a substantial economic benefit to Firefly, and could end up transferring cash to National City down the road. The City has no way of knowing what factors are important to Firefly’s success and its ability to repay the loan so the City doesn’t have to step in. Venture capitalists are highly trained and paid to do that sort of thing. The real mistake here is that the City didn’t know that it doesn’t know how to evaluate this.
I hope no one on the council owns CAT stock.
Billy,
Clyde didn’t just object, it appeared that he deliberately tried to ignore what was agreed upon by people. He was so anxious to ram this through. I’m sorry the faster people talk, the more b/s spews. From my viewpoint there was misdirection, manipulation, avoidance, etc. NOT what an elected official who is sworn to represent his constituents should do and I sincerly hope that the first district folks hammer him for this. It was incorrigable for a representative to try to violate the trust of the people in the manner that it appeared was being done and but for other council members putting a screeching hault to those games, would have really been even more disasterous. Makes me wonder what or if there is any personal stake. What does this deal do the the property values of those things which are owned by him down there. I was very angry at that process. It should have been deferred and investigated to see what other compromises could have been worked out.
It seems to me that Manning asked the two very valid questions that no one brought to the table- why didn’t Cat finance the deal and why didn’t the State get involved. Bedlieve he just wanted those answers on the record and had nothing to do with his vote and others. Leitch ignored the question, which is his position on most things. Good going, Council!!
“Peoria lacks clout and couldn’t get anyone in state government to even have lunch in Peoria, let alone cough up $3.3 million in supposedly risk-free loan guarantees. ” Last week on Wednesday and Thursday Michael Smith of the State Treasurer’s office was here in Peoria visiting by invitation of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Michael has two new programs through the state that can finance these loans for Firefly if they will just apply. The state does have the money and the loan rate is very low, why haven’t they applied there instead of on our backs. Another thing if the city council is so enamored of this project how about adding a section of Growth Cell Two as a base for the manufacturing of the Firefly business and bringing those jobs to Peoria instead of out of state. This would make more sense for us to back the loans if we were going to get economic development in manufacturing from them.
or how about instead of putting more things out north, put it in the Southern Gateway and bring better jobs to that section of town? i agree we could end up with nothing for 3.3 million, no stock, no more than 30jobs, etc.
[...] a deal is a deal. As I recall, Mr. Gulley objected to any written conditions be applied to his motion to grant approval, stating that these conditions were already set by the [...]