What's wrong with the parker?

---

Reality Check: Property development can help generate tax revenue for a city. But the  assertion that the Parker resort will do that is based on a lot of  assumptions.

It assumes that there  is a demand for the type of lodging the Parker will be offering.  The occupancy statistics for Galena lodgings annually are below 50%.  They in no way support the idea from a business perspective  that what Galena needs is to build the largest lodging to date in the  City.

Even members of the City Council admitted when they supported the project that they don't know if it will succeed. 

It  assumes that when more lodging is built, more people will come to  Galena, rather than simply subtract from other lodgings, restaurants,  wedding venues and vineyards. In other words, it assumes the tax revenue  gain will be significantly greater than the loss from other venues.

It assumes that revenue will be significantly greater than costs.  A  year after the infrastructure for utilities is built, the City will be  responsible for maintenance costs forever. And does building the largest  lodging in Galena mean that no additional City staffing will be  needed?  Are no inspections needed? Will there be no additional police  officers needed? How will EMS be impacted? It would be nice if the City  had shown an interest in seriously examining these issues.

It  assumes that this resort is going to be well run and well maintained in  the long run. The developer from Wheaton has no record of running  anything close to what he has proposed. And as these kinds of  developments are frequently bought and sold, who will take it over and  what will their demands be once the current owner sells the property?

It  assumes that this area is appropriate for a resort when there are  serious and legitimate questions about that.  Anyone can propose any  kind of development with the promise that it will bring in tax revenue.  That doesn't mean the City should approve all of them.

Reality Check: Lodging occupancy rates annually for Galena are below 50%. Even hotel occupancy rates are barely above 50%. Ideally, a hotel would like an occupancy rate of 70-95%. Analysis of

Galena’s lodging data shows that the Parker will not add to overall lodging numbers

but instead will compete with existing lodging business

Galena chose to not allow food trucks to operate downtown two days a week because

of concerns about competition with established restaurants. Yet the Parker will have

four sizeable food service venues that will compete all week with existing restaurants.

Decline or loss of established businesses would have a negative impact on the city’s

economy, on tax revenues, on historic buildings, and on the community as a whole.

The developer has provided no market study or other analysis to support claims that

he will tap into a new or different visitor groups.

Reality Check:  It is true that Mr. Hooten is not asking for tax abatements or other help at this time.

However it is common for developers to make those requests after a project is underway or

when it’s nearing completion, particularly to offset construction costs that are greater than

expected. Doing so later in the process puts greater pressure on a city to grant those favors.

There is nothing preventing Mr. Hooten -- or a future owner –- from requesting abatements or

other assistance in the future.

Reality Check: Infrastructure must be installed in Phase 1, and then becomes the City’s responsibility.

Mr. Hooten has indicated he may not build all phases, which means the taxpayers

would be responsible to maintain extensive infrastructure that would not be paying

for itself through either taxes or usage fees.

New infrastructure will serve only a single private business, yet is required by

ordinance to be maintained at taxpayer expense. There will be no new sidewalks or

roads serving the public, only resort customers. The project will not help get city

services to adjoining properties, which face costs of over $50,000 each to connect just

to sewer.

Reality Check: Neither the developer nor his design partner have ever built a large commercial

development, and the developer has never managed or maintained a large commercial

development or business. He purchased, already built:

o A modest family hotel in Wisconsin.

o A small motel in Wisconsin with 16 cabins and no on-site staff. He closed the

restaurant and has the entire business now for sale. Its website says it is “not a full-

service resort”.

o A large house with 4 cabins converted to a vacation rental in California.

o Mr. Hooten purchased fishing lure business in Missouri in 2013. After a dispute with

the previous owner/minority shareholder, Mr. Hooten gained full ownership and

immediately closed the factory, leaving an empty building and 50 people without

jobs. He moved production to China before merging it with another company and

then selling it to a new owner who said the company was in “disarray” and needed to

be rebuilt.

Reality Check: The 2022 approvals allow the developer to carry out all aspects of the submitted plan

without further City Council input. All that is left is for the Zoning Board of Appeals

to ensure that final designs comply with the approved plan and with other

ordinances.  Even the developer’s website acknowledges this.

The City cannot impose additional restrictions or require changes, nor can it tell the

developer he can’t build all phases as he presented them in his plan.

The City failed to recognize that no one lives forever and that the Parker will

inevitably change hands in the future. Yet in the final ordinances the City failed to

include enough detail to require any owner, now or in the future, to implement details

currently promised by Mr. Hooten. The final implementing ordinance contains almost

no detail, leaving the door wide open for Mr. Hooten or a future owner to make

changes as long as they comply with the existing, general plan and with requirements

for commercial development areas.

Reality Check:  Only 3 of 8 adjoining property owners were invited to an early presentation, not a

discussion. Despite promises to “work with” neighbors,  there were at least two requests to meet

with Mr. Hooten prior to approvals. One of those requests included ideas to help

address neighbors’ concerns. The other occurred after Mr. Hooten heard the dozens of

concerns and questions raised by citizens at the first hearing. Neither request was

granted.

City code requires a “neighborhood meeting”, whose purpose is “to produce a project

that better meets the needs and desires of both the developer and the surrounding

neighbors”, to “find areas of mutual agreement” and increase understanding between

the developer and neighbors about a project and its impacts. This required meeting

never occurred.

Claims that the access was moved away from 4th Street to address neighbor concerns

are inaccurate at best: that access would not have been legal under City Code. 

Claims that the number of cabins was reduced to address neighbor concerns are

misleading at best: a neighbor was informed that the number of planned cabins was to

be reduced by 10% -- meaning 12 cabins out of a total of 125. The impacts of that

change would likely not be noticeable.

Claims that the phasing was changed to minimize effects to neighbors are

questionable. The phasing was changed at the same time a new access road and

additional acreage were purchased, making it more feasible and economical to begin

work in that area rather than at the end of the property furthest from the access road.

Reality Check:  The Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial development to occur on the west end,

where highway access and infrastructure can support it. There are no commercial

growth areas adjacent to or even near the proposed Parker site.

The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map, formally adopted by the City, does not

identify the Parker area for any type of growth or annexation but instead indicates it is

to remain as Limited Agriculture.

Part of the planned resort area falls within the Highway 20 Corridor area but the plan

does not appear to comply with requirements for that corridor as described in the City

Code.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for non-tourism-related economic

growth, the need to support established businesses, and the need for affordable

housing. The Parker will likely de-stabilize established businesses and worsen the

need for affordable housing.

The Circuit Court of Jo Daviess County found that the City failed to allow cross-

examination at hearings, which is a requirement of City Code 154.919(I)(2).

According to US Fish and Wildlife Service information, there are likely 5-6

federally threatened or endangered species occurring on the property. It is illegal to

“kill, harass, or harm” individuals of a protected species, yet no surveys have been

completed to identify whether they exist, and no plans have been developed to

address potential harm

Reality Check:  The project designer has repeatedly misused the terms “open space” and “green

space”. The 80+ acre figure includes tiny strips of grass between sidewalks and

parking lots, driveways, etc., which do not meet standard definitions of green space or

open space. Plans include;125 buildings, with 15 acres (3x the size of Grant Park)

covered by buildings or pavement.

Nearly the entire area in which development can legally and physically occur (area

that’s not floodplain or steep cliffs) will have buildings, roadways, or parking areas

on it or will have commercial vineyards.

Reality Check:  The approved plans, filed as final ordinances, make no requirements for energy

efficiency or sustainable practices, etc. Regardless of what is promised, the developer

or a future owner can install whatever type of heating or cooling, windows, lighting,

or other features normally allowed in a commercial development zone.

More than a hundred individually heated and cooled cabins, each with large glass

windows, is as energy-inefficient a design as possible. Current conservation practices recommend clustered development to reduce impacts, yet the Parker plans spread buildings and roads over nearly the entire ‘buildable area’ of the property.

Reality Check:  The approved plans, filed as final ordinances, make no requirements for bioswales or

other innovative runoff management features that are currently proposed.

Review of the proposed runoff management plans by a professional hydrologist

raised significant concerns about potential for increased flooding in the adjoining

neighborhood.

Although the resort must comply with City ordinances regarding runoff management,

those requirements have proved inadequate to prevent serious runoff problems in

many parts of the city. Lack of storm water management in the adjoining

neighborhood is already causing significant flooding and threats to property.

Additional runoff from a large acreage converted to pavement and buildings is an

enormous threat to neighboring landowners.  And it is a scientific fact that heavy rain events are increasingly common in the Midwest.

Removal of a large number of mature trees will exacerbate runoff issues, because

trees reduce the amount and intensity of rain reaching the ground, and they pull

groundwater upward and increase the amount of water a site can hold.

Reality Check:  ‘Standard practices’ for vineyards include use of a large number of herbicides,

pesticides, and fungicides, some of which are unsafe for human exposure. Most

vineyards are not within city limits, nor are they usually situated directly above

private wells or a river. A local vintner expressed serious concern about locating

vineyards close to guest cabins.

The entire Parker area is identified on county and state maps as being at high risk for

potential contamination of the aquifer. Just because there are other vineyards in the

area does not mean that the Parker vineyard is in an appropriate location, or that it is

safe. The City has not required, nor has the developer performed appropriate tests to

determine the risk of contamination to neighboring wells, to the local aquifer, or to

the Galena River.

Use of pesticides of any sort will impact five of the six federally protected species

likely found on the property. Two protected bat species require insects that would be

affected, two protected insect species would likely be directly affected, and the

mussel species would be affected by contaminated runoff or run-through.