The rejection of a major development by the Marengo City Council has left the city struggling to form a consensus on growth issues.
It was the second time in three years that city officials courted a massive development, went through long negotiations with a developer and then killed the entire plan in a single vote.
The latest proposal had promised to increase the city’s population by 2,000 people, pay for a third of the cost of needed sewer and water improvements, and bring the city its first tourist attraction, a children’s museum and space learning center.
Even the aldermen who voted against the River’s Edge development said it had a lot to offer the city, but opponents said they couldn’t approve an agreement that was financially and environmentally risky.
The Nov. 8 vote went 5-4 in favor of River’s Edge, but an annexation requires a two-thirds majority for passage.
The vote ended almost a year of sometimes rancorous and often repetitive debate on the annexation agreement. City Council members have acknowledged they were being particularly careful because they had limited experience with large developments.
The 600-acre proposal called for 352 single-family homes, 168 single-attached homes and 118 multi-family units, plus industrial and commercial development, and the children’s center.
About three years ago, the City Council rejected a 6,000-acre development that would have tripled the size of Marengo. After months of debate, council members found themselves overwhelmed by the immensity of the project and unable to fathom the costs in terms of infrastructure and services.
This year’s debate went on throughout the summer and fall, as the council held numerous meetings on the River’s Edge annexation agreement, carefully going over an ever-changing proposal and often quizzing staff members on the details of the debate.
Ald. Dennis Hammortree was particularly suspicious of River’s Edge Development Limited Liability Corp., saying the annexation offer had changed greatly since it was originally presented to the city. The developers retorted that many of those changes were made in an attempt to satisfy the city.
Richard Eicksteadt, the lawyer for River’s Edge, voiced the frustration on his side of the negotiating table.
“Nobody ever sat us down and said points A, B and C gets you X number of votes,” Eicksteadt said. “Usually there is some sort of outline for what you can expect.”
City Atty. Robert Smith attempted to bring the City Council to consensus Oct. 11 when he and Mayor Rebecca Johnson began to feel the council was moving further away from a vote despite months of debate. Smith exhorted the council to come to an agreement about what the annexation agreement should contain, apparently to no avail.
By the vote, Johnson believed the issues had finally been ironed out and that there were enough votes to approve the annexation. She said she was “very surprised” by the “no” votes of Aldermen John Jenkner and Mary Peacock.
“The longer it went on, the more I felt all the questions had been answered,” Johnson said. “I don’t hold it against anyone. Everyone has a free vote on this council. But I do wish we would have been warned.”
Peacock said she was in favor of the development until a week before the vote, but was too uncomfortable about the increased traffic and the possible threat to the Kishwaukee River.
“You can’t vote to please everyone. Everything is not going to be peaches and cream. I’m not opposed to growth in Marengo, but personally I just didn’t feel this was going to be good for the people of Marengo,” Peacock said.
Johnson bemoaned the apparent loss of the Idea Adventures Children’s Museum and Challenger Learning Center, which would have given the city its first major tourist attraction.
Jayne McGrath, who heads the Challenger project, said she is looking elsewhere for a home for the museum.
It is possible River’s Edge could be reconsidered by the council, though all sides acknowledged that was unlikely.
