Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peoria council sets Sept. 23 hearing on proposed Glen Hollow business district; two council members oppose process
Summary
The council set a public hearing for Sept. 23 on a proposed Glen Hollow business development district (BDD) that could allow a 1% business district sales tax to fund redevelopment. The agenda notice prompted debate over whether using a BDD is appropriate public policy; the motion passed with two no votes.
Peoria — The City Council scheduled a public hearing for 6 p.m. Sept. 23 on a request by property owners at Glen Hollow Shopping Center to create a business development district (BDD) to finance redevelopment and acquisition within the center.
Why it matters: A BDD is a statutorily authorized local mechanism that can impose a district sales tax (commonly up to 1%) to fund infrastructure, property acquisition, marketing or redevelopment within a defined area. Supporters say a BDD can help stabilize and modernize aging retail centers; critics say it shifts costs to shoppers and may amount to subsidizing private redevelopment.
What the council set: The hearing will consider a report by SB Friedman (commissioned by the applicant) with a redevelopment plan and the formal notice required by state statute. City staff said the hearing is the statutorily required public‑input step; a final financing decision would require additional council action.
Council debate: Several council members urged the hearing as a necessary forum for public input and for the city to stay competitive with neighboring communities that have used similar tools. Council member Andre Allen said municipalities that decline to engage in incentives risk losing retail development. “If we want them, we have to actually do what it’s going to take to get them,” he said.
Other members voiced strong objections. Council member Carmona called the proposal a “bailout” and said using a sales tax for property acquisition or redevelopment is effectively asking taxpayers to underwrite private risk; he argued many residents would not learn of the tax if it were adopted and described it as “taxation without representation.” Council member Kelly likewise opposed the approach and flagged a notice clause that states the city “may issue obligations to finance project costs,” saying the language raised concerns about potential city‑backed debt.
City counsel and staff response: City staff and counsel said the language in the agenda notice is statutorily required; the manager clarified that any issuance of obligations or bonds would require a separate council approval and is not automatic. The report from SB Friedman and public testimony during the hearing will provide further detail.
Vote: The council passed the motion to set the hearing, with two members — Carmona and Kelly — recorded as voting no; the remainder voted yes.
Next steps: City staff will publish the statutorily required notice and return to the Sept. 23 hearing with the SB Friedman analysis and a draft redevelopment plan. The council will consider any subsequent ordinances or financing steps in later actions after public comment and staff analysis.
