HomeMy WebLinkAbout02012021 City Council Meeting Minutes5:15 p.m.Public Hearing: Downstate Small Business Stabilization Program
Galesburg City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
55 West Tompkins Street, Galesburg, Illinois
February 1, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Called to order by Mayor John Pritchard at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call #1:Physically Present:Mayor John Pritchard,Council Members Bradley Hix,Wayne
Dennis,Corine Andersen,Peter Schwartzman,Wayne Allen,and Larry Cox,7.Absent:Council
Member Lindsay Hillery,1.Also Present:City Manager Todd Thompson,City Attorney Bradley
Nolden, and City Clerk Kelli Bennewitz.
Mayor Pritchard declared a quorum present.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
A moment of silence was observed in lieu of an invocation.
Council Member Hillery entered the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
Council Member Hix moved,seconded by Council Member Cox,to approve the minutes of the
City Council meeting from January 19, 2021.
Roll Call #2:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA #2021-03
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine by the City Council and will
be enacted by one motion.
21-2003
Approve MFT Resolution for the 2021 annual sealcoating in the amount of $250,000.
21-4007
Approve the quote from Burke Cleaners for an annual contract for cleaning of uniforms for the
Galesburg Police Department.Total annual budget is $3,000;each officer is allowed $250 each
year.
21-4008
February 1, 2021 Page 1 of 8
Approve the updated Zoning Map.
21-4009
Approve the waiver of normal purchasing policies and approve a three-year sole source
renewal agreement with Cloudbakers in the total amount of $157,140 for the use of Google
Workspace.
21-8002
Approve bills in the amount of $1,079,522.93 and advance checks in the amount of
$346,477.52.
Council Member Andersen moved,seconded by Council Member Cox,to approve Consent
Agenda 2021-03.
Roll Call #3:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried by omnibus vote.
PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
21-1000
Council Member Hillery moved,seconded by Council Member Dennis,to approve Ordinance
21-3630 on final reading authorizing the City of Galesburg to borrow $2,000,000 from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency through the Public Water Supply Loan Program for the
purpose of replacing lead water service lines.It was noted that after Phase V is completed,the
City will have approximately 500 active lead service lines remaining to be replaced and
approximately 200 closed lead service line accounts still connected to the distribution system.
Roll Call #4:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
21-1001
Ordinance on first reading amending Section 152.018 of the Galesburg Municipal Code to allow
a Special Use to be revoked under certain conditions and allow for a public hearing for
revocation if necessary.
21-1002
Ordinance on first reading amending Section 152.005 of the Galesburg Municipal Code to allow
a Public Library in a B2 zoning district,allow a 75-foot building height,and provide parking
provisions for a Public Library.
BIDS, PETITIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS
February 1, 2021 Page 2 of 8
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Hunt addressed the Council as a board member of the Western Illinois Nature Group,
supporting the Blackthorn Hill Nature Preserve.He stated that there are few outdoor natural
recreational areas such as Lake Storey and he believes if expanded would disrupt the waterway.
Lake Storey has been a feature of Galesburg for over 90 years and is a natural habitat that
people can enjoy. He asked the Council to consider if the project will outweigh the habitat.
Henry Gray,nine years old,stated that he is a fourth grader at Silas Willard School.He is
opposed to the idea of expanding Lake Storey for three reasons:1)he likes to run and ride his
bike on the trails and the expansion would flood one of his favorite sections;2)his closest
friend would have to move to a different area if the expansion took place;and 3)he thinks the
money for this project could be better spent on things that would benefit everyone in town.
Mark Holmes addressed the Council and expressed his objection to any further investment into
expansion of Lake Storey.He believes it is ethically dubious and an inappropriate use of public
funds.He added that there is no convincing evidence that there is a potential market for
expensive lake front homes.He believes that adding additional tax money is a reckless gamble
for a city that has so many other urgent needs.He stated that he applauds the City Council for
entertaining bold ideas but boldness alone with uniformed good sense and sound judgment will
end in folly.He urged the City to think of ways to revitalize the core of our community,the
downtown, adding new businesses, improving our current recreational opportunities, etc.
Kevin Malley addressed the Council and pointed out that his land is not in the City limits,is not
for sale,and it will not be annexed or obtained through eminent domain.He believes the Lake
Storey Phase II project is already dead and is a waste of money.He stated that many believe
that Phase II is simply a study and doesn’t allow for construction,but added that it is the next
step in the project.He stated that Phase I has shown that eight homes would be destroyed and
that much of the land is not for sale.Malley stated that if the project were to continue,the
Henderson Creek Valley would become flooded,as well as current farm land.He stated that he
has been involved with eminent domain before with the Route 41 overpass,which was on his
family’s land.He further added that he is unhappy with taking away the virtual option of
providing public comments.
Corey Malley addressed the Council and stated that he would also be affected by this expansion
project.He noted that he has been talking to neighbors and most are overwhelmingly against
the project and do not want to be annexed into the City.He stated that he noticed in the
proposal from Edgewater that some of the land that would be taken would be the current
Police Firing Range.
Nikki Malley addressed the Council and stated that she does not live in Galesburg but does
work in the City.She repeated that the landowners who comprise approximately 75 percent of
the land needed for the expansion do not want to sell at any price.She stated that they have
retained legal counsel and have incurred costs.She further stated that they have evidence that
February 1, 2021 Page 3 of 8
the majority of homeowners in that area feel the same way.The families question the moral
judgement in taking these farms and homes for this project.She added that no one from
Edgewater or the City has reached out to the landowners at any time,which she finds
unprofessional.She believes that because they are not Galesburg residents that they have no
voice in this project unless they are loud and persistent.
Ms.Malley stated that the Thompsons,who have joined them in this legal battle,asked her to
convey that due to a death in the family they could not attend the meeting,but asked her to
state that they are adamantly opposed to the study and the acquisition of the land.She was
also asked to read a statement from Ted Tourlentas,a landowner whose home would be
destroyed,that the City bring back the option for public comments to be read aloud during the
meeting.
Mitchell Gibson addressed the Council and stated that he feels many people have lost sight of
where we live,which is America,where a lot of the land was taken,stolen,or sold.If we are to
look towards the future and want Galesburg to be better then this is something that the City
needs to do.He stated that a handful of people would lose their homes but that they would be
compensated for their property.He stated that 100 years ago he would not have been able to
stand before the Council and that the trees that would be lost could be replanted,and homes
rebuilt.He is encouraged by the new trails that would be built,use of boats,ice fishing,
experiences and memories families could make at the Lake since there is nothing to do in
Galesburg at this time.
Kristine Crow addressed the Council and stated that this project has stirred up a lot of animated
opinions on both sides of the issue and wanted to weigh in by drawing from her professional
background as a project manager and living in Galesburg.She does not want to create an us vs.
them mentality,but instead to broaden the thinking on this topic and give the City Council facts
when considering the project.She stated that given the magnitude of the project,she would
like to broaden the discussion on several questions and concerns.
Crow stated that in 2015 the Council approved a $400,000 grant to Mark Kleine to develop a
subdivision off of Lincoln Park Drive.The proposal was for thirteen homes and thirteen
townhomes.To date,she stated there is only one single-family home and two townhomes.
She noted that at twelve percent occupancy,how can the City justify this expansion that would
propose 500 homes.She noted the recent overpasses,which did not include private funding
and had a low risk of failure.She stated that she has a concern of the project being
underestimated and added that the response time for the fire and police departments would
likely not be adequate.She also noted that public utilities would add additional costs.She has
emailed a list of questions and concerns to the Mayor and City Council.
Michele Gabriel,Knox County Public Health Administrator,reported that there have been 5,880
administered doses,with 1,033 individuals being fully vaccinated (2.06 percent of Knox County).
She understands that this process is slow and frustrating and that her Department is trying to
be as informative as possible.The Health Department is allotted a certain number of vaccines
February 1, 2021 Page 4 of 8
each week and a decision then has to be made which entity will receive them.She assured the
public that there is no institution that is sitting on vaccines.
Gabriel noted that Hy-Vee has had vaccines available but that they are not part of the Incident
Command structure or taking away from the Health Department’s vaccine allotment.She
asked the public to continue to be patient and that more information will be released when it is
known.
Mayor Pritchard thanked Michele and her staff and noted that the past year has seen very
intense activity.He noted that the Health Department has done a great job and he hopes that
there is an end in sight soon.
Public comments received via email have been added as an addendum to this record.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Thompson asked Public Works Director Wayne Carl to give an update on the
recent water testing by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)of the City’s water
system for compounds known as Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)as part of a
statewide study of community water supplies.
Director Carl reported that the EPA is currently evaluating PFAS and plans to regulate them in
the future.Currently,the EPA is gathering data in all states to be able to determine a Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL)and treatment options.As part of that process,the City of Galesburg
was notified in September 2020,that the Illinois EPA (IEPA)would be testing community water
supplies in Illinois for the presence of PFAS.In November 2020,the State collected initial water
samples at Galesburg’s water treatment plant,with follow-up samples collected in December
2020.Carl stated that the City was notified that the two water samples that were collected at
the Water Treatment plant in November and December 2020,exceeded the proposed Draft
Guidance Level (DGL)for PFOA (one subset of PFAS).In response,the City is taking immediate
action to inform consumers,initiate monitoring,and evaluate options to reduce exposure
levels.
Neither the Illinois EPA nor the U.S.EPA have yet developed enforceable drinking water
standards for PFAS.In the interim,Illinois EPA has developed health-based Draft Guidance
Levels for the small number of PFAS for which there is appropriate information to do so.Draft
Guidance Levels are intended to be protective of all people consuming the water over a lifetime
of exposure.These are not regulatory limits for drinking water but are benchmarks against
which sampling results are compared to determine if additional investigation or other response
action is necessary.
The EPA samples collected in November and December tested for 18 PFAS.Of those 18,the
City’s results only detected four PFAS,three of which were below the draft guidance level,and
one which was above the draft guidance level.The one PFAS which exceeded the draft
guidance level was PFOA,Perfluorooctanoic acid,with results of 17 parts per trillion (ppt)in
February 1, 2021 Page 5 of 8
November and 12 ppt in December.The draft guidance level for PFOA is 2 ppt.So far,about
25%of the 1,454 community water supplies in Illinois have been tested,and of those tested
thus far, 14 have exceeded the draft guidance level for at least one of the PFAS categories.
In accordance with the IEPA recommendation,the City is informing consumers of sample
results by distributing a PFAS Fact Sheet to all City of Galesburg water customers.This week,
the City will begin quarterly testing of all raw water sources and finished water for PFAS.To
generate a plan and timeline to reduce exposure to PFAS,the City has contacted a consulting
firm that is familiar with treatment processes that will remove PFAS from the water.
Director Carl also noted that there is information on the City’s website and that the IEPA has a
dashboard available to see all test results throughout the State.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (Agreements, Approvals, Etc.)
21-4010
Council Member Hix moved,seconded by Council Member Hillery,to approve a change order in
the amount of $63,414.43 from McClintock Trucking and Excavating for replacing valves for the
Ranney Collector Well in Oquawka.
Council Member Cox asked if Hutchison Engineering,the inspection consultant,had a change
order that would have been signed by the contractor.Director Carl stated they did not have
one for this project but did have an inspector on site who sent in the change order after his
review.
Roll Call #5:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
TOWN BUSINESS
Council Member Allen moved,seconded by Council Member Cox,that the City Council sit as the
Town Board. The motion carried by voice vote.
21-9002
Trustee Dennis moved,seconded by Trustee Andersen,to approve Town bills and warrants be
drawn in payment of same.
February 1, 2021 Page 6 of 8
Fund Title Amount
Town Fund $2,156.97
General Assistance Fund $5,268.56
IMRF Fund
Roll Call #6:
Ayes:Trustees Hix, Dennis, HIllery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
Trustee Allen moved,seconded by Trustee Cox,to resume sitting as the City Council.The
motion carried by voice vote.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Council Member Schwartzman stated his appreciation for the update from Michele Gabriel and
for Fire Chief Randy Hovind’s excellent work in trying to get the word out about the vaccine.He
believes it is important for the community to know as well that if there are inefficiencies
occuring in higher levels of government that the Council should also be made aware so that
they are able to clarify for their constituents.He stated that he is a true believer that local
government can do a lot of things but when it comes to something as significant as a pandemic,
with vaccines coming in from far away, it is critically important that we speak loudly.
Council Member Schwartzman stated that there was an article in the newspaper on the Lake
Storey Expansion Phase II project.He noted that it was mentioned by the Mayor that he would
recommend two weeks’notice be given before it is placed on the agenda and he would concur
with this suggestion so that people can be alerted.He also mentioned that he does not want to
see this item held in limbo forever and that he hopes it is definitely resolved by May of this
year.
Lastly,Council Member Schwartzman stated that this entire process for the Lake Storey
Expansion is a civics lesson that everyone can gain something from.It shows that we have
tremendous vitality in our community and that people speak their minds.He added that
everyone does not agree on things but that everyone respects each other and the other’s
opinions and thoughts.Ultimately it will be resolved through reasoning and deliberation,which
is a measure of a strong community’s vitality.
Mayor Pritchard stated that the vaccination phase is anticipated to take longer than expected
so he urged everyone to continue to be safe and practice social distancing,wear a mask,wash
their hands, and stay home if they feel sick.
The Mayor also thanked the Council for their approval of the recent $500,000 COVID-19 Relief
Program for local businesses.It is his hope that this will help businesses survive,give them
hope, and help them keep their employees.
February 1, 2021 Page 7 of 8
Social Security/Medicare Fund
Liability Fund
Audit Fund
Total $7,425.53
Council Member Cox moved,seconded by Council Member Allen,to adjourn into Executive
Session a 6:20 p.m.for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining and approval of the
minutes from the December 21, 2020, executive session meeting (5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (2) and (21).
Roll Call #7:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
During the Executive Session,Council Member Dennis moved,seconded by Council Member
Hillery, to adjourn the Executive Session at 6:44 p.m.
Roll Call #8:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
There being no further business,Council Member Cox moved,seconded by Council Member
Andersen, to adjourn the regular meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call #9:
Ayes:Council Members Hix, Dennis, Hillery, Andersen, Schwartzman, Allen, and Cox, 7.
Nays:None
Absent:None
Chairman declared motion carried.
John Pritchard, Mayor
Kelli R. Bennewitz, City Clerk
February 1, 2021 Page 8 of 8
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey Expansion
1 message
'Rebecca Malley' via Public Comments <public@ci.galesburg.il.us>Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 3:58 PM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Story Expansion
1 message
Myron Stachniw Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:28 AM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Fw: Letter from Western Illinois Nature Group(WING) regarding Lake Storey
Expansion
1 message
'Carl Moore' via Public Comments <public@ci.galesburg.il.us> Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 4:11 PM
pschwart@ci.galesburg.il.us pschwart@ci.galesburg.il.us council@ci.galesburg.il.us council@ci.galesburg.il.us
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey Expansion & Phase II Study
1 message
Helen Hoyt Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Concern over Lake Storey proposal
1 message
Todd Heidt Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:13 AM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey expansion
1 message
Michael Runbom Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:25 AM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey Expansion Phase Two Study
1 message
Rebecca Yowler Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:11 PM
https://beccaminister.com
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey Expansion Project
1 message
Mary Armon Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 6:02 PM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Continued opposition to Lake Store expansion
1 message
Kathryn Koca Polite Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:25 PM
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Message to the Council
1 message
K Crow Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:55 AM
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
2 attachments
Lake Storey Expansion Council Statement 2-1.docx
14K
Lake Storey Expansion Questions.docx
21K
Questions related to the Lake Storey Expansion project
Respectfully submitted by Kristine Crow with input from the public
Pre-Study (Questions that should have been asked prior to the feasibility study
1. How did the Lake Storey expansion idea start? Who or what initiated the idea
and why?
2. Why didn’t an agency of the city reach out to potentially impacted home/farm
owners to explain the idea and explain the process out of courtesy and for
awareness?
3. Is the strategic goal of the city to improve recreational opportunities, improve
property tax revenue, or both?
4. If the focus is to increase property tax revenue, did the city discuss the possibility
of annexation of these properties as opposed to the destruction of current
property for future development?
5. What studies, research, or professional literature/publication was analyzed prior
to the feasibility study to determine expansion of the lake is a large enough factor
to attract families to Galesburg and to justify the request and expenditure of the
initial feasibility study?
6. What other projects, to boost economic development and growth, has the city
considered aside from the Lake Storey expansion?
7. What other consulting firms did the city interview to determine Edgewater
provided the best services and value?
8. Did the City consider the supply/demand/completion/sales rate of homes in the
subdivision off Lincoln Park Drive.
9. Did the City contact Henderson Township to inform them the lake expansion idea
was being studied and did the City consider the project would need support from
Henderson Township?
Post-Feasibility Study warranting immediate public discussion
1. Why doesn’t the feasibility study include the possibility of expansion directly
north, east, or south of Lake Storey’s current location? Doing so would ensure all
possible options are on the table regardless of viability.
2.Director of Parks and Recreation, Tony Oligney-Estill, in an interview on WGIL,
made mention there may be a third study. If so, what may warrant this study and
what is the cost associated with it?
3.What are the benchmarks/responsibilities of the city for justifying promotion to the
next study or step in the process? Is it measures by a certain percentage of
public positive opinion, time as a variable, other influence or factor? Is there a
measurement the city is using to determine if it makes sense to further study a
proposed project in general?
4. If Lake Storey is expanded has the city considered expanding fire and police
personnel and facilities to provide adequate protection for the large expansion of
annexed property? Has that cost been included in the feasibility study?
5. What is the minimum number of firefighters and police required by law in terms of
ratio relative to population or area of the City? How would this lake expansion
impact those requirements?
6.The flooded area would cover an unofficial memorial site on North Lake Storey
road where the lives of Kalee Pringle and Kylie Allen were lost. Does the city
have a plan of community outreach to discuss this issue and work to provide
alternatives for such memorials?
7. Does the Open Space Development line item in the feasibility study for
$10,000,000 include demolition of the homes included in the current acquisition
area?
8.The three existing lake communities included in the study as comparable sites
(Lake Bracken, Spoon Lake, and Oak Run) have limitations to public access.
Considering the intent of Lake Storey to have full public access, are the proposed
new home values realistically estimated?
9. The 2019 Parks and Recreation Master Plan yielded support for funding
improvements at Lake Storey, including improved aquatic park, trail connectivity,
water access, ecological preservation, and improvement to existing facilities. Are
there any alternatives to a lake expansion project that would result in
improvements of these areas on a smaller scale? If not, why?
10.The feasibility study states that all of the elements proposed are beyond the
immediate means of the City of Galesburg to fund, and therefore a financially
viable funding strategy is required. What kind of funding strategies is the city
considering and is there interest from private investment groups to date?
11.How was the size of the proposed expansion determined?
12.The feasibility study mentions catalyst funding in the short-term could be realized
by taking underutilized public property along the lake and turning that into private
lots, which would block access to public trails. Is the City Council considering this
as a possibility?
13.Will the $135,000 for the comprehensive study be paid out of economic
development funds? If not, which fund will be tapped to cover this expense?
14.In 2015 the City invested $400,000 for Mark Kleine to develop the Lincoln Park
subdivision, but is still over 75% undeveloped. How does the City justify the
expansion of the lake with a clear lack of interest in new development?
15.The City Council mentioned a committee would be formed as a result of the
feasibility study. Has this committee been created and if so, who are the
members of that committee and what is their meeting schedule?
16.Has the city considered the legal costs in fighting to obtain the land through
eminent domain? Is the City still considering the usage of eminent domain in
order to obtain the land needed for this project?
17.How would the lake project expand recreational opportunities along the shore?
18.Currently 22% of our residents live below the national poverty level - how does
this project positively impact those families?
19.With the induction of higher priced homes/families the local poverty rate could be
impacted (lowered) – how does that impact funding for school lunches, school
boundary lines, federal assistance programs, grants, etc.?
20.Who will be responsible for obtaining financing for this project? If Edgewater is
responsible for obtaining funding, can the City provide the success/failure rate of
Edgewater’s ability to do so?
21.Did a representative from Edgewater appear before the council to explain the
results of the feasibility study to the City Council?
22.If the lake expansion project falls through, those annexed will then be in the city
limits as a result of an undeveloped project. Has any consideration been given as
to how that will negatively impact those families and farms in terms of property
tax costs?
Questions to consider should the City Council vote to move forward with a
Comprehensive Study
1.What is the current water quality of Lake Storey and how would the expansion
impact water quality?
2. What will happen to the current pavilion, beach, playgrounds, softball fields if the
lake is expanded? If they will be destroyed are the funds for these facilities
included in the estimated cost?
3. Would expansion of the lake dry up Henderson creek?
4. How does the city plan to regulate motorized activities on the lake?
5. How would the addition of homes at the lake impact the current water/sewer
infrastructure and is the cost for adding to the current infrastructure included in
the feasibility estimate?
6.How will a lake expansion and increase in traffic impact the flow of traffic around
CSC?
7. What is the impact of the lake expansion on livestock for neighboring farms?
8.What is the impact to the logistics of the farmers impacted and how their farm
operations, including travel/operating costs, will be impacted by the lake
expansion?
9. Many people use the lake because it’s serene, how does the city intend to
regulate motor boats?
10.Will the City speak to GHAS to determine how this expansion would impact their
operations?
11.Does the Galesburg School District have the capacity to accommodate 500
families?
12.How will this project impact busing routes and operational costs.
13.What is an appropriate and realistic timeline to determine if funding can be
obtained?
14.Could the topography of the land to the north, east, or south be enhanced to be
suitable as additional options for a lake expansion?
Other Questions
1. Will City Councilmember Bradley Hix recuse himself to mitigate a conflict of
interest, as he’s a local realtor and stands to profit from the lake expansion and
real estate development?
2. In the last 10 years how many construction permits have been issued in the city
(aside from Habitat for Humanity)?
3. Since District 205 restructured their schools and closed Gale, which would have
been the closest for the expanded area, has the city considered the additional
busing costs and what that would mean in terms of a possible increase in
property taxes?
4. How will this expansion impact the lack of available rental homes/apartments?
5. How many people have moved into Galesburg in the last 10 years and what is
here that will attract 500 families aside from the lake?
6. Has the city taken into consideration the change in the country lifestyle some
enjoy that will find themselves neighboring with the lake expansion?
7. Has the city considered the possibility that lake homes will be built then rented
out? Is there a zoning level that limits the ability for lake homes to be rented out?
8. Is there a possibility a homeowners association would be created for homes
along the lake?
9. Is there a possibility the lake homes would become a gated community?
10.Opportunity cost – If city funds are tied up in the lake expansion what public
projects are or could be tabled to allow for this project?
11.Is Edgewater potentially the developer that would be charged with expanding the
lake? Has the city looked into the situation with Edgewater and the City of
Rochester where Edgewater was having issues securing funding? How does that
situation compare to the Lake Storey Expansion?
The Lake Storey expansion has stirred up a lot of animated opinions on both sides of the issue and
although it’s known I’m one of the mayoral candidates I feel it necessary to weigh in by drawing from my
professional background and the knowledge I have living in Galesburg nearly all of my life.
My purpose in giving the following information is not to create an ‘us versus them’ mentality, but to
broaden the thinking surrounding this topic and to give the City Council facts to consider when weighing
the path that was taken to get us here and direction in the future.
Given the magnitude of the proposed lake expansion I’d like to broaden the discussion on some of the
questions and concerns I, and many others, have. Recreation aside this isn’t the only housing project the
City has supported recently.
In 2015 the City Council unanimously supported a $400,000 grant to Mark Kleine, after reducing that
amount from $1 million, to develop a subdivision at the intersection of Marmac and Lincoln Park Drive.
The proposal anticipated 13 single-family homes with a price range of $250K to $350K and 13
townhomes with a price range of $189K. To date there is one single-family home constructed and two
townhomes. The lots have been on the market for over 3,500 days. At only 12% occupancy in nearly 6
years how can we justify an expansion that would propose up to 500 new homes?
Justification of successful projects such as the Rev. Jon A. Sibley, Sr. underpass and Bickerdyke Bridge as
a reason to proceed with the lake expansion are not comparable. Private funding wasn’t required to
construct either the underpass or the bridge. The risk of failure for those projects was extremely low in
comparison to an expansion where the success hinges on private investors, as well as market interest in
lakeside homes.
Aside from the concerns about marketability there are dozens of questions from the public related to
legal issues, infrastructure, the relationship with Henderson Township, and how the City will hold itself
accountable as it progresses through each stage of the planning process.
I have a concern the cost of this project is being underestimated and that many are looking at this
project through a single lens. With an expansion to 572 acres this will put a strain on the current
capabilities of fire and police departments to respond timely and provide adequate coverage. I’m
assuming the new lakefront homes will have public utilities resulting in additional costs for water and
sewer infrastructure.
Our local poverty rate is 22%. Consideration should also be given to how an influx of high-income
families would impact the assistance currently received for school meals, federal assistance programs,
and grants.
This City needs many improvements just to bring the quality of living up to par and we should be
focusing on improvements to our current infrastructure and facilities before we make risky assumptions
in a volatile market.
~Kristine Crow
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake Storey Expansion
1 message
Sue Dickinson Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:43 PM
To: Members of the Galesburg City Council (Mr. Bradley Hix, Mr. Wayne Dennis, Ms. Lindsay Hillery, Ms. Corine
Anderson, Mr. Peter Schwartzman, Mr. Wayne Allen, Mr. Larry Cox
City Clerk Ms. Kelli Bennewitz and Mayor John Pritchard
I moved to Galesburg in 1979. I have seen Galesburg at her best and during some harder times. I taught school here for
35 years, have volunteered for many local organizations, worked on numerous local events, and have been an advocate
for Galesburg. Even though I was not born and raised here, Galesburg is my home.
I applaud the council and city management for trying to make Galesburg a better place to live. The road to progress is
never easy, but I must say, I have concerns about the Lake Storey expansion plan/studies. I think making the lake a more
inviting place is wonderful, but at what expense?
From what I have read, the major portion of the land you want to annex belongs to landowners who have no desire to sell.
My understanding is this isn’t going to change. These farms that have been in families for multiple generations. They
have no desire to sell their legacy. Would you? My question is, then, “Why are we moving ahead with the same plan and
putting money into something that, to me, isn’t going to happen?” Phase 2 wants input, but when the main residents
whose lives will be the most impacted say “Not interested,” why move ahead? Haven’t you already gotten the input you
need? Why would we spend money for a phase 2 study when phase 1 plan is not feasible? Are we going back to Phase
1 to see if there is land that is actually available before proceeding and spending any more money?
There are so many areas that have been highlighted by others where the money could be utilized better. A lake
expansion isn’t the only way to make Galesburg a better place. It’s time to step back. I urge you to vote no to spending
any money on the Phase 2 study.
Thank you,
Susan Dickinson
Galesburg, IL 61401
Kelli Bennewitz <kbennewi@ci.galesburg.il.us>
Lake project
1 message
'elysse helms' via Public Comments <public@ci.galesburg.il.us> Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:02 PM