The Marseilles City Council had a few things on Wednesday’s agenda, including approval for a home business license for Raymond Lindley DBA as Ray’s Small Engine Repair (1133 Washington St.), a resolution of support for safe routes to school, and paying bills. But a standing-room-only crowd of residents was at the meeting for the outcome of an ordinance authorizing Mayor Jim Hollenbeck to ‘execute a purchase contract for the Illinois Valley Cellular building, 200 River Front Drive.
MTCO Communications owns the property, building, and grounds the council is considering as a potential new home for city hall, its offices, and the Marseilles Police Department. The appraisal for the IV Cellular building is $1.6 million. The $1.45 million quote for the 27,000-square-foot facility includes 6.4 acres of riverfront property.
The council voted 3-2 to continue discussions to acquire the property for $1.45 million. Commissioners Bobby Kaminski and Melissa Small voted with Hollenbeck in favor of continuing negotiations; Commissioners Jim Buckingham and Mike Scheib voted no.
Buckingham’s no vote was inspired by a lack of transparency and the council’s interest in getting another building inspection.
Scheib said he wants the city to get at least two more building appraisals and not just accept the $1.6 million the city has received.
“My mindset is that we have been doing things very haphazardly in the City of Marseilles,” Scheib said. “It’s been going along to get along, and the status quo is okay. So, if it’s not an emphatic yes, it would be a no. Moving forward is not an emphatic yes, so it was a no.”
The normally one-half-hour meeting that lasted two-and-a-half hours was something Scheib welcomed.
“The longer meeting was needed to get the pros and cons of the decision laid out for the public,” Scheib said. “I want there to be an exhaustive consideration of the things that make it a good idea and a bad idea so the public can see we have deliberated on absolutely everything, and there seems to be a bias against that.”
Residents took the opportunity to discuss not only the possible property purchase but also the city’s need to revive the Downtown Beautification program and the current condition of the streets and weed/grass control. Many comments concerned additional renovation costs above the purchase price to accommodate police operations and the possibility of leasing other areas of the building that eclipse city and police needs.
Hollenbeck reiterated that the city is still weighing city hall renovation costs should the council vote against purchasing the property. The estimated cost to renovate city hall is $514,000.
A big question was how the city planned to pay for the property. One option would be to pay off alternate revenue bonds in 15 years. The city would not suffer a tax loss because the building was in a TIF district. With the last payment, Hollenbeck said there is no longer a TIF district.
Another concern was the Middle East Conflicts Memorial Wall and what would happen if the council voted against the purchase. Currently, the city has a 99-year lease with MTCO, so the city would take control of the memorial site if the board voted to buy the property.
“But there is no guarantee another buyer would honor that lease,” Hollenbeck said. “A different owner could demand the memorial (15 walls) be moved if it didn’t fit into their plans.”
A no vote would mean the ability of breaking the lease would have to be decided in the courts.
Small said she voted yes because she believes there is some potential to owning the building; a no vote would stop the purchase. But she wanted and needed more information, for example, ‘Given the current state of the economy, could the price be re-negotiated?’
“I want to get as much information as possible,” Small said. “I’ve vowed to make informed votes, and if I shoot down the opportunity to move forward with this process, then I won’t get that information. It’s 50-50 with the voting, and I need the answers because I’m getting the questions. How much will this (or that) cost? I want to see those numbers and present them to the public because this is a huge investment for the city, and the price tag is a lot of money right now. Transparency needs to be out there for everybody.”
Small noted the need for transparency is something that the city needs to provide as more information is received.
“There were a lot of opinions expressed here tonight, some for and some against, but I feel everyone needs a little more clarification to decide if they want to back this idea,” Small said. “If we’re not able to (make the purchase), we’re not able to, but we have to try to be as informed as possible.”
The issue will be voted on at the next council meeting, Wednesday, Sept. 20th, at city hall.