Peoria approves 11.5-acre University War Memorial TIF district; redistricting vote delayed to February 22
PEORIA, ARIZONA — February 8, 2022

Peoria approves 11.5-acre University War Memorial TIF district; redistricting vote delayed to February 22

Peoria City Council held heated redistricting public hearing amid community opposition to splitting West Bluff neighborhoods, approved University War Memorial TIF development, debated $17M bond issuance, and learned of Spirit of Peoria riverboat sale with community mobilizing to prevent relocation.

Peoria Council Approves War Memorial TIF and Holds Fractious Redistricting Hearing as Riverboat Sale Threatens Community Asset

On the evening of February 8, 2022, Peoria City Council approved the first tax increment financing district in nearly a decade while simultaneously presiding over a heated public hearing on proposed council district redistricting that revealed deep divisions over process, community representation, and the fate of historic West Bluff neighborhoods. The meeting also surfaced an emerging crisis: the Spirit of Peoria riverboat, a 30-year-old civic institution, has been sold to an undisclosed buyer and is scheduled to relocate to another Mississippi River port—potentially without the city exercising its contractual right of first refusal.

Key Speeches

"I come here on behalf of the West Bluff Council and also of the neighborhoods of the West Bluff our policy our longtime policy on redistricting is simple but effective our neighborhoods stay together in one District preferably our current District 2. looking at your map it doesn't fit that bill I was looking at the splitting the Moss Bradley neighborhood a historic district uh into two districts I find that unpalatable." — Conrad Stinnett, West Bluff Council President

"We do not have formal comments to share we just would like to have the council um here are some concerns that we have about the speed with which this decision was made and whether or not keeping the West Bluff intact is something that you're really committed to um we understand that I mean and I give just huge kudos to the staff who spent many hours putting all the variations together but it seems to me at least that it's it's rushed." — Joanne Bannon, Moss Bradley Residential Association

"I think it's rather impossible to please everyone as a couple of the council people have said we had a process it was an open process it was a public process we followed the process we were finished more quickly than we thought we'd be but we followed the process." — Council Member Michael Vespa

"I think it's imperative that we follow our own procedures and rules and the process that we set up if you have problems with the map please vote against it in two weeks but do not hijack the process now and change it let's this that we shouldn't even be discussing this tonight." — Council Member Timothy Riggenbach

"The Spirit of Peoria really is the core of This Heart of this town... Peoria is built as a river boat town... 30 years ago when the Julia Bell Swain left it was a huge loss and distributed Peoria was built to replace the Julia Bell." — Brian Fox Ellis, 30-year Spirit of Peoria employee

"Don't it always seem to go That You Don't Know What You Got Till It's Gone." — Barry Cloyd, 22-year Spirit of Peoria musician, quoting Joni Mitchell

Timeline

Redistricting

University War Memorial TIF

General Obligation Bonds

Opposition to Redistricting Map Version 2.3

Number of speakers against: Seven public commenters plus four written comments.

Main concerns:

  1. Splitting of historic Moss Bradley neighborhood across two districts, threatening neighborhood cohesion and the association's upcoming 50th anniversary.
  2. Fragmentation of West Bluff community of interest—eight neighborhood associations, Bradley University, and Main Street Merchants had unified representation in District 2 under earlier versions.
  3. North-south divide: Version 2.3 pairs river-valley precincts with far-north precincts, creating districts with "very different experiences" and needs; disparate voter turnout raises concerns about effective representation.
  4. Rushed process: Map presented only 3 hours before the February 1 policy session vote; public unaware of specifics until the February 8 public hearing.
  5. Lack of transparency: Decisions made "behind closed doors"; insufficient prior public input on this major 10-year decision.
  6. Removal of landmarks from District 1: Civic Center and City Hall would shift to different district.
  7. Better alternatives exist: Map Version 1 kept West Bluff more intact; speakers advocated for special census, commission to develop 10-year transition plan, or revisiting the number of districts.

Organized groups:

Most compelling arguments: Conrad Stinnett warned that the last council member to attempt to gerrymander the West Bluff was voted out in the next election; Joanne Bannon emphasized the rushed timeline and speed of decision-making; James Hucci presented voter-turnout data showing that pairing wealthy, high-turnout northern precincts with lower-turnout river-valley precincts would systematically disadvantage older neighborhoods.

Support for War Memorial TIF

Council members in favor:

Arguments made:

  1. The site is uniquely constrained (landlocked due to War Memorial Drive, state highway access, topography, traffic patterns) and has remained vacant for 8+ years despite high demand.
  2. Private development without the TIF tool appears infeasible.
  3. TIF-funded infrastructure improvements (e.g., new access off War Memorial Drive) will unlock the site.
  4. The area is "prime location" and corner of University and Sheridan is already showing demand (OSF Ergo care opening across the street).
  5. Sales tax revenue continues to accrue to city and school district under the TIF.
  6. TIF is a standard, legal instrument; the council has used it before (East Village Growth Cell, South Town, Campus Town).
  7. Economic development will generate property tax base growth once the TIF period ends (23 years + potential 12-year extension per statute).

No organized public opposition to the TIF was voiced at the February 8 meeting or prior public hearing.

Opposition to General Obligation Bond Issuance ($17 Million)

Number of speakers: Three council members voted against: Seer, John Kelly, Regal.

Main concerns:

  1. Unnecessary borrowing: City now projects $17 million general fund surplus, vs. $12 million budgeted. Borrowing $10 million in new money is imprudent when $5 million additional surplus is on hand.
  2. Debt service burden: City already spending $18–19 million annually on debt service; additional borrowing extends this burden. Debt service will not drop materially until year 8+.
  3. Preference for tax abatement: John Kelly noted that 10-year tax abatement (not 23-year TIF) allows all taxing bodies to benefit from base appreciation if development succeeds.
  4. Historical base erosion: John Kelly cited 30+ years of evidence that base assessed values decline over the life of TIFs, reducing other taxing bodies' revenues.
  5. General principle: Council members Seer and John Kelly expressed philosophical opposition to borrowing to achieve a "balanced budget"—they prefer to manage like households do.

Most compelling argument: John Kelly: "I don't want to reopen the discussion on the budget tonight... we went from 204 million dollar budget to 255 million dollar budget... I just don't believe that we needed an extra 10 million dollars uh to accomplish what we want to accomplish I believe that none of us manage our personal money the way we're managing our constituents money right now our taxpayers money."

Project Details (University War Memorial TIF)

Vote Breakdown

University War Memorial TIF Designation (Item A):

University War Memorial Redevelopment Plan (Item B):

University War Memorial TIF Authorization (Item C):

General Obligation Bonds ($17 million) (Item 22-050):

Motion to Schedule Additional Redistricting Policy Session (Denise Jackson motion):

Redistricting Public Hearing (unopposed):

Outcome & Next Steps

Redistricting: The public hearing on Version 2.3 map concluded without modification. The council rejected a motion to schedule an additional policy session before the February 22 final vote. The map remains scheduled for final council vote on February 22, 2022. If approved, the new districts will take effect approximately two weeks after the vote (early March 2022). Council Member Jensen explicitly requested that staff consider reconsidering the 2.3 map and returning with Version 1 or alternative proposals, but the council majority declined to obligate staff to do so. Denise Jackson and others indicated they may vote against the map on February 22, reserving the right to reconsider based on the public input received.

University War Memorial TIF: All three ordinances (designation, redevelopment plan, and TIF authorization) were approved. The TIF district is now established and frozen at current property-tax base levels. The city and private developers may now utilize incremental property-tax revenue to fund $11.6 million in anticipated redevelopment expenses, including land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, and remediation. Development is expected to proceed, though no specific developer or timeline was named in the transcript.

General Obligation Bonds: The $17 million bond issuance was approved despite opposition from three council members who questioned the necessity of borrowing given the improved revenue picture. The bonds will be issued by the city's underwriter (Mizuho Financial) in coordination with the city's financial advisor (Spear Financial). Interest-rate timing was not specified, though the city manager indicated the market conditions are currently favorable (approximately 3%).

Spirit of Peoria Riverboat: No immediate council action was taken. The sale to an undisclosed buyer is subject to a non-disclosure agreement and the boat is scheduled to relocate to another Mississippi River port. The city may have a right of first refusal under the original contract with prior owner Bud Greaves. Multiple speakers urged the council to review the contract, exercise the right of first refusal, or explore alternative funding mechanisms (e.g., community stock purchase). A petition opposing the sale garnered 2,500+ signatures in five days. The city has been asked to review its options and determine the best course of action, but no motion or commitment was made at this meeting. The matter is expected to resurface at a future meeting.

Controversies & Context

Redistricting Process Criticism: The core controversy centers on the speed and opacity of the redistricting process. The council voted 11–0 on February 1 to adopt Version 2.3 and schedule a public hearing for February 8, with a final vote for February 22. However, the map was not released to the public until February 1 at approximately 3:30 p.m., fewer than three hours before the 6:00 p.m. policy session vote. The public had no opportunity to review or provide input on the map before the council voted to advance it. Public speakers and council members argued this violated the implicit commitment to "public process," since earlier in the redistricting cycle the council had signaled it would hold multiple policy sessions through March to allow iterative refinement based on community feedback.

West Bluff vs. Broader City Representation: Council Member Jensen raised the concern that Version 2.3 could result in a council in which all or nearly all elected members reside north of War Memorial Drive, leaving the historically significant older neighborhoods south of the river without district-level representation. She noted that nine years ago she was the only at-large member living in the south-side older neighborhoods; current proposals threaten to eliminate even at-large representation from the south. Timothy Riggenbach, Michael Vespa, and Rodrigo countered that individual council members represent the entire city regardless of district, and that Version 2.3 meets legal and demographic criteria. Council Member Graham noted that City Hall and the Civic Center are currently in District 1, and that the loss of these landmarks from District 1 raised concern about shifting the "heart" of the city.

TIF vs. Tax Abatement Debate: John Kelly articulated a long-standing preference for 10-year property-tax abatement over 23-year TIFs, arguing that abatement allows all taxing bodies (school district, library, transit authority) to participate in any property-value appreciation that results from successful development. TIFs, by contrast, freeze the current base and redirect all incremental revenue to a redevelopment fund. John Kelly cited 30+ years of reports to the Peoria Journal-Star showing that base assessments decline over the life of previous TIFs (South Town, Campus Town), systematically reducing other taxing bodies' revenues—a point the City Manager did not directly rebut. Timothy Riggenbach and others noted that creative carve-outs (e.g., the East Village Growth Cell TIF's commitment to vocational job training with the school district) can align TIF benefits across stakeholders.

School District Carve-Out Absent: Council Member Jensen specifically questioned the absence of a carve-out for the Peoria Public Schools. Historically, the school district blamed the South Town and Campus Town TIFs for lost revenue during years of financial stress. The City Manager indicated that no specific carve-out was contemplated and that school-district representatives abstained (rather than opposed) at the Joint Review Board meeting. This silence left unanswered whether the school district was comfortable with the TIF structure or simply chose not to weigh in.

Debt Service Trajectory: Council Member Seer introduced a sobering reality: the city's annual debt service is currently $18–19 million and will remain at that level for approximately seven years before dropping by roughly 50% in year eight. The $17 million bond issuance extends this burden. Seer's concern—shared by John Kelly and Regal—is that the city is borrowing rather than using improved revenue to accelerate debt reduction.

Spirit of Peoria Context: The riverboat has been an iconic Peoria fixture for 30 years, replacing the Julia Bell Swain, which departed decades earlier (another loss described as "huge" by multiple speakers). Brian Fox Ellis noted that the boat generates millions in annual tourism revenue, hosts international visitors, and is central to Peoria's riverfront identity. The sale is understood to be driven by the owner's (Alex Grieves) financial stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The buyer (undisclosed per non-disclosure agreement) is described as a company also operating the Julia Bell Swain at La Crosse, suggesting the Spirit of Peoria may be repositioned as a competitor on the upper Mississippi rather than remaining on the Illinois River in Peoria. The city's right of first refusal—if it exists and is exercised—would require either direct city purchase (unprecedented in recent history) or creative solutions (Brian Ellis proposed community stock purchase, analogous to the Green Bay Packers ownership model).

Duration

Other Notable Items

Snow Removal Post-Storm Discussion: Council Member Rodrigo raised concerns about commercial businesses and transit facilities not clearing sidewalks after the February 8 snowstorm, forcing pedestrians into streets. Director Powers acknowledged the challenge but noted resource constraints: only 17 snow routes (down from 22) and overwhelming snowfall (10+ inches with drifting). Council Member Jensen questioned whether the city should reinvest in the five lost routes for future storm readiness. Dr. Andre W. Allen praised Public Works for an "A+ rating" but urged stronger enforcement (warnings or citations) against vehicles blocking streets during snow response. No formal motion or budget commitment was made, but the discussion signaled appetite for revisiting snow-removal resource levels in the next budget cycle.

Emergency Declaration (Item 22-045): John Kelly asked Corporation Council to clarify which extraordinary powers granted under the local state of emergency had actually been used since COVID-19 onset. Corporation Counsel identified two: (1) remote meetings for boards and commissions (which require both governor's disaster declaration and mayor's approval), and (2) staffing adjustments for collective-bargaining employees to accommodate remote work and schedule changes. The council approved the emergency declaration unanimously to continue in effect.