Peoria approves 55-unit homeless housing, restricts 4am liquor licenses in warehouse district
PEORIA, ARIZONA — December 14, 2021

Peoria approves 55-unit homeless housing, restricts 4am liquor licenses in warehouse district

Peoria City Council approved downtown development projects and housing initiatives while deferring a controversial property disconnection request and restricting new 4am liquor licenses in the warehouse district.

Peoria Approves Housing and Liquor Restrictions Amid Debate Over Landlocked Property's City Status

On December 14, 2021, Peoria City Council navigated competing visions of downtown revitalization and municipal boundaries, approving a permanent supportive housing project and warehouse-district liquor restrictions while deferring a contentious property disconnection request that exposed disagreements over the city's historical growth obligations.

The 2.5-hour meeting highlighted three distinct challenges: housing chronic homelessness in concentrated downtown locations, balancing entertainment amenities against neighborhood quality of life, and deciding whether a 27-year-old landlocked parcel should remain tethered to the city despite minimal municipal benefit. Council approved two initiatives decisively but split on the third, reflecting deeper questions about urban strategy and procedural fairness.

Permanent Supportive Housing for Families Experiencing Homelessness

Phoenix Community Development Services' 55-unit development across four downtown properties—415 and 509 St. Mark's Court, 122 Northeast Greenleaf Street, and 113 Fowler Street—earned strong council support as a remedy for family homelessness. The units, comprising one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, would eliminate the current waiting list for families on Peoria's homeless continuum of care.

Christine Call, representing the petitioner (UnityPoint Health/Methodist), clarified the project's scope and legal standing:

"The majority of these units are one, two, and three bedroom apartments for families and so this would eliminate the current waiting list of families that are on the homeless continuum of care master wait list. We would offer the same supportive services that we offer at all of our other permanent supportive housing programs however the residents of the property are leaseholders they're protected by landlord tenant law and they're also have the right to decline service participation." — Christine Call, Phoenix Community Development Services

Call also addressed a critical policy question from Dr. Andre W. Allen regarding sex-offender eligibility:

"Our properties all of our properties including this proposed development are within the 500 feet requirement that the state of illinois prohibits sex offenders so no registered sex offenders will be allowed to live in the development." — Christine Call

The project faced scrutiny not from public comment but from internal council debate. Zachary Oyler, despite backing Phoenix's work, flagged concentration risk:

"I do have some reservations about this location and it troubles me a little bit from the perspective of downtown that we're getting so concentrated in our projects here in one area that there's three of them that i know of that are in eye shot of each other in an area that we're trying to do a lot of business development in." — Councilmember Zachary Oyler

Councilmember John Kelly questioned whether supportive housing genuinely addresses root causes—a skepticism rooted in recollections of deinstitutionalization:

"I remember... public housing began as a very temporary way to help people out who kind of hit the skids for a moment and kind of bring them on their way... we had peoria state hospital... the psychiatric establishment told us we don't need to do that anymore we have medications that can take care of all this stuff... we got a homeless problem." — Councilmember John Kelly

Councilmember Jensen countered by endorsing Phoenix's track record:

"I enthusiastically support this project... phoenix community development services can do a good job they've proven themselves over and over again and they're helping us and or fight this problem that we're facing as a city." — Councilmember Timothy Riggenbach (identified as Jensen in transcript context)

The vote was 8–0–1, with Dr. Andre W. Allen abstaining "as an employee of methodist college of unity point health."

Removal of 4am Liquor Licenses from Warehouse District

An ordinance amending Chapter 3, Section 59 of the Peoria code eliminated new 4am liquor license eligibility in the warehouse district while grandfathering Status nightclub at 1412 Southwest Jefferson—a concession that triggered sharp debate between council members valuing downtown amenities and those prioritizing residential livability.

Zachary Oyler, who championed the ordinance after warehouse-district stakeholder meetings, outlined community support:

"This has been brought out of many discussions with warehouse district folks the warehouse district association... they're very supportive of this and getting in front of the topic and even the bar owners in the area would like to prevent 4am licenses in the area... the trend is to increase the residential along with the street retail business there and that 4am license would hurt the some of those high-rises being converted into residential living." — Councilmember Zachary Oyler

Councilmember Denise Jackson, however, objected fiercely to Status's exemption, citing chronic violence, litter, and police surveillance:

"I have serious problems with the status being allowed to continue to have its 4am liquor license because of the concerns that have been brought up to me by the business owners as well as the residents in that area and the fact that there are additional lights down there now that have been put up over the last year or two is indicative of the nuisance that facility has created in the community." — Denise Jackson Corporation Counsel explained that licenses are property interests revocable only via due process, Denise Jackson pressed for clarity on renewal dates and possible conditions:

Denise Jackson asked: "When are they up for renewal... how does that process work?"

Corporation Counsel responded: "It's annual... I'll be happy to get you some additional background information on their particular license and what they're currently operating under."

Dr. Andre W. Allen opposed the ordinance on economic grounds, arguing that younger professionals attracted to downtown require late-night amenities:

"When you talk about developing you're going to be bringing in the condos the high-rise apartments... typically who are the people that live in those it's younger professionals... and younger professionals want to have amenities and some of those amenities include 4 a.m establishments when you go to urban cities it's not uncommon for someone to be out to 4 a.m and having the ability to go to a piano bar like in a chicago or a late night pizza pub." — Councilmember Dr. Andre Denise Jackson rebutted that Status's history of violence undermined its credibility as a community asset:

"Based on the history of uh what has happened at the status we know that is not the type of uh facility that would probably uh attract that uh that group that mature group... based on what has transpired at the status i doubt very seriously that those millennials or those uh the kind of folks that you're talking about would probably want to go down there based on the history of violence that has occurred there." — Denise Jackson ordinance passed 7–2, with Dr. Andre W. Allen and Denise Jackson voting no. John Kelly, voting yes, echoed Jackson's concerns while supporting the broader restriction:

"I think that we need to keep our eye on this place and uh let's say with some prejudice and um uh if we can find a way to rid the neighborhood of this operation i think we should." — Councilmember John Kelly

Property Disconnection Request Deferred Pending Historical Review

The meeting's most procedurally contentious moment occurred over the Dumanis family petition to disconnect a 9-acre landlocked parcel (Parcel ID 13–23–326–005) from the city and join the county. The request, filed by attorney Mike Fleming on behalf of Lynn and Stephen Dumanis, sparked a 5–4 deferral vote to January 11, 2022—a compromise that revealed deep divisions over municipal obligations, property fairness, and precedent.

Background: The Huntington Point Subdivision (1993–1994)

Fleming outlined the property's origins during his public hearing testimony:

"This particular piece of property is about a nine acre outlet that was created during the subdivision of huntington point back about 25 years ago jerry weaver who was subdividing the property had approached my clients because they owned the ravina property on the west side of huntington point and they thought that they might be interested in acquiring this outlot for a very nominal price and they did because it was adjacent to their property it really was a piece of scrap property if you will as far as the subdivision was concerned." — Mike Fleming, attorney for petitioner

Fleming described the parcel's location and constraints:

"It's at the very south end it is bordered on the west side by the ravina property on the north by several private lots and family residences uh all improved in huntington point on the east there's a small border with another outlaw and on the south is the right-of-way of i-74... it's landlocked and has no utility service or any other services from the city." — Mike Fleming

The Dumanis family asserts they purchased the property circa 1993–1994 from Jerry Weaver (the original developer) for a nominal sum, assuming it would serve as a buffer or future expansion to their ~100-acre Ravina property in unincorporated Tazewell County. The parcel has never been improved, generates no impervious surfaces, and contributes only ~$70 annually in real estate taxes to Peoria (compared to $650 total annually). Utilities (water, sewer, electricity) are unavailable, and no street access exists except through private Huntington Point lots or the Ravina property in the county.

Staff Recommendation to Deny

Peoria's Community Development Department recommended denial, citing:

  1. City investment of ~$580,000 in Huntington Point infrastructure in 1993.
  2. Potential future tax loss to the city.
  3. Speculative future development potential.
  4. Municipal annexation agreements as a legal bar to disconnection.

Council Hearing: Conflicting Perspectives

Councilmember Kelly's Questions

Councilmember John Kelly, initially sympathetic to the petitioner, sought clarification on whether the 1993 investment directly benefited this parcel or only the main subdivision. He questioned whether staff or the attorney could identify the original developer's intent and whether any portion of the $580,000 was spent on this specific property.

Fleming responded that the investment benefited the roads and utilities in the subdivision itself—none of which touched the landlocked outlet:

"None of that investment benefited this property in any way shape or form since again there's no street access there's no possibility of street access that i can see from huntington point only obvious access to this would potentially be through the ravina property but there's no street back there at this time either and again there are no services provided to the property in the sense of water sewer and that type of thing electrical." — Mike Fleming

Assistant Community Development Director Leah Allison confirmed that the $580,000 was directed to the entire subdivision development under the annexation agreement, not the individual outlet:

"This development was a part of an annexation with a subdivision plat... that 580 thousand was for the entire subdivision not just one piece." — Leah Allison, Community Development

Councilmember Riggenbach's Concern About Timothy Riggenbach raised the core legal issue: if Peoria allows disconnection based on lack of benefit, could other property owners successfully petition to exit the city, eroding municipal integrity?

Corporation Counsel clarified the legal standard:

"There are various cases throughout illinois gaylord being the primary one where they have found that when a property was voluntarily annexed into a municipality by the owners that when they later petition to disconnect they generally have not looked favorably at those actions because they have upheld those original annexation agreements." — Corporation Counsel (name not stated in transcript)

Timothy Riggenbach responded that allowing disconnection of this single outlet, decades after the original annexation agreement, could invite similar petitions and weaken the city's growth-and-capture strategy:

"If we allow this my fear is then somebody else says well i don't have any benefit from the city so i want to de-annex myself so what is the standard uh that we would be looking at to avoid that kind of thing." — Councilmember Timothy Riggenbach

Councilmember Rec Regal's Timeline Analysis

Councilmember Rec Regal focused on the timing of the Dumanis purchase and the implications:

"On the time of the annexation um mr weaver had access to this property and this parcel was put in for the annexation at that time and a transfer of this property either through sale or some other thing happened after that annexation am i correct." — Councilmember James Rec Regal

When confirmed, Regal reasoned that the Dumanis family purchased with knowledge the parcel was within the city:

"At that time it was known that it was within the city at that time of that sale it would have been not the annexation agreement should have been recorded plus the tax bill would have reflected that." — Councilmember James Rec Regal concluded:

"Now we're asked tonight to be able to take it out of the city long after it was put in and long after that sale was done knowing that it was within the city and while i again do feel for the owners and there may not be a benefit at this point in time i don't know what that benefit might be like in the future and having heard from you that there is a higher bar to de-annex something than there is to annex it i think the timeline here is important because it has transferred at least once under the knowledge that this was within the city so i would be inclined to support councilman kelly's motion here to deny as well." — Councilmember James Rec Regal

Councilmember Jensen's Fairness Argument

Councilmember Jensen took the opposing view, arguing that 27 years of no development, no city service, and no adjacent street access rendered the annexation agreement irrelevant:

"I think this is a different circumstance um it's not us negating an entire annexation agreement this is just one parcel the last parcel that's never been developed that's never been connected to the streets to the water to the sewers it has sat there for 26 years 27 years not developed it's connected to their hundred acre property that's in the county and not in the city so i'm inclined not to vote in favor of this i understand you know what our policies have been and why the city manager is recommending denying it but i think in this case fairness outweighs um that." — Councilmember Timothy Riggenbach (identified as Jensen in the motion context)

Councilmember Graham's Deferral Motion

Councilmember Graham moved to defer, citing inadequate notice to the petitioner and insufficient council preparation:

"Well i think there are two issues uh tonight first of all uh the council for the petitioners felt that he did not receive adequate notice to prepare for tonight and frankly i don't think the council is prepared tonight because of the thin amount of information that has been given to all of you as relates to the city of periods growth strategy which took off in the 90s and continued into the 2000s... there's nothing here that gives you anything to hang your hat on you can just say well you know it looks like it would be an unhealthy precedent we might have a lot of people proposing to depart secede from the city of peoria well there are a lot of deals that were made because representations and things that advance the interests of the taxpayers of the city of peoria and so we're being asked to do something here i just think that it's unfair to the petitioner to make a decision tonight and i think the council's poorly prepared." — Councilmember Deborah Graham's deferral motion passed 5–4, with Councilmembers Seer and John Kelly voting no (supporting denial). The matter was scheduled for January 11, 2022.

Key Speeches

"This particular piece of property is about a nine acre outlet that was created during the subdivision of huntington point back about 25 years ago jerry weaver who was subdividing the property had approached my clients... they thought that they might be interested in acquiring this outlot for a very nominal price." — Mike Fleming, attorney for petitioner

"The majority of these units are one two and three bedroom apartments for families and so this would eliminate the current waiting list of families that are on the homeless continuum of care master wait list." — Christine Call, Phoenix Community Development Services

"When you talk about developing you're going to be bringing in the condos the high-rise apartments... typically who are the people that live in those it's younger professionals that we're trying to recruit to our city and retain in our city and younger professionals want to have amenities and some of those amenities include 4 a.m establishments." — Councilmember Dr. Andre Dr. Andre W. Allen

"Based on the history of uh what has happened at the status we know that is not the type of uh facility that would probably uh attract that uh that group that mature group... i doubt very seriously that those millennials would probably want to go down there based on the history of violence that has occurred there." — Councilmember Denise Jackson

"I think this is a different circumstance um it's not us negating an entire annexation agreement this is just one parcel the last parcel that's never been developed that's never been connected to the streets to the water to the sewers." — Councilmember Timothy Riggenbach

Timeline

Property Disconnection (Item 21–391)

4am Liquor License Ordinance (Item 21–392)

Permanent Supportive Housing (Item 21–393)

Opposition

Property Disconnection (5 speakers / council members opposed):

  1. Growth-strategy precedent risk: Allowing disconnection could invite cascading petitions from other peripheral property owners, eroding municipal integrity after decades of municipal capture and annexation agreements.
  2. Annexation agreement as heightened legal bar: Illinois case law (Gaylord) upholds annexation agreements as significant barriers to disconnection when property was voluntarily annexed by original owner.
  3. Timeline and knowledge: Dumanis family purchased the property post-annexation with constructive knowledge that the parcel was within the city (via tax bills, assessments).
  4. Future development potential: Speculative but plausible future use of the property as part of larger Ravina expansion or development could generate tax and non-tax city benefits.
  5. Municipal investment sunk cost: City advanced $580,000 for Huntington Point infrastructure under the same annexation agreement; disconnection negates implicit quid pro quo.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None specifically opposed; staff recommendation supported by inferred municipal interest in growth capture.

4am Liquor License (2 speakers / council members opposed):

  1. Younger professionals require late-night amenities: Downtown residential conversion relies on attracting young professionals who expect urban amenities (piano bars, late-night food) typical of peer cities.
  2. Overly restrictive precedent: Removing 4am eligibility diminishes downtown competitive position and signals risk-averse city policies to developers and hospitality operators.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: None opposed; warehouse district association supported the ordinance.

Permanent Supportive Housing (1 speaker / council members opposed / skeptical):

  1. Housing-first model inefficacy: Absent addressing underlying mental illness, addiction, and institutional deficiencies (closure of Peoria State Hospital), supportive housing warehouses people rather than resolving root causes.
  2. Concentration risk in downtown: Three permanent supportive housing developments in sight of each other, coupled with chronic homelessness challenges (parking-garage sleeping, etc.), may overwhelm services and undermine downtown business development.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: None organized opposition; Downtown Development Corporation concerns relayed by Zachary Oyler regarding homeless parking-garage occupation and need for zero-tolerance enforcement.

Support

Property Disconnection (2 speakers / council members in favor):

  1. No municipal benefit: Parcel has received zero city services (no street access, utilities, or infrastructure connection) for 27 years; $580,000 investment in Huntington Point benefited only the developed subdivision, not the landlocked outlet.
  2. Fairness to long-term property owner: Dumanis family purchased with intent to integrate with contiguous county property; administrative burden (dual tax systems, ordinances, personnel oversight) on county-parcel owner with no city benefit justifies disconnection.
  3. De minimis tax impact: $70 annual city tax revenue from the parcel is negligible and does not justify denial on fiscal grounds.
  4. Adjacent county property dominates: The ~100-acre Ravina property in the county dwarfs the 9-acre city parcel; unified county ownership is operationally rational.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: Dumanis family and Jerry Weaver (original developer, present as informal supporters).

4am Liquor License (3 speakers / council members in favor):

  1. Residential conversion support: Warehouse district is transitioning to residential (high-rises converted to apartments); 4am license noise, litter, and safety concerns undermine livability and property values for new residents.
  2. Warehouse district stakeholder consensus: Warehouse district association and bar owners themselves support the restriction, signaling genuine community preference over speculative developer fears.
  3. Preventive ordinance: Ordinance prospectively eliminates future 4am licenses while grandfathering Status, balancing existing operator rights against future livability.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: Warehouse district association (supportive); status nightclub owners initially interested, then reversed position (supportive of restriction).

Permanent Supportive Housing (4 speakers / council members in favor):

  1. Elimination of family homelessness waiting list: 55 units directly address quantified unmet need (families on continuum-of-care waiting list) with proven supportive services model.
  2. Phoenix Community Development Services track record: Years of successful permanent supportive housing, affordable housing (30 homes in East Bluff), and community reinvestment; organization has proven competence and community trust.
  3. Continuum-of-care model effectiveness: Timothy Riggenbach and Rec Regal cited measurable improvements in homelessness metrics, suggesting housing-first plus services is working in Peoria.
  4. Compassion and basic needs: Housing is foundational to addressing broader issues (employment, health, education); providing shelter is a municipal obligation regardless of long-term outcomes.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: Phoenix Community Development Services; Continuum of Care (United Way-housed); Methodist/UnityPoint Health (property owner, supportive).

Project Details

Property Disconnection (Item 21–391)

4am Liquor License Ordinance (Item 21–392)

Permanent Supportive Housing (Item 21–393)

Redevelopment Agreement – 101 Liberty Street (Item 21–394, passed unanimously)

Vote Breakdown

Property Disconnection Denial Motion (Item 21–391)

Property Disconnection Deferral to January 11, 2022 (Item 21–391, substitute motion)

4am Liquor License Ordinance (Item 21–392)