Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Peoria Streets, Sidewalks, Streets

Press Release: City of Peoria’s Infrastructure Design Standard Meeting scheduled

3 Comments

I thought my readers would be interested in this press release I just received from the City of Peoria:

(Peoria, IL)­­—The public is invited to attend the City of Peoria’s Infrastructure Design Standards meeting to discuss the content and implementation of an improved set of public infrastructure standards. The City’s design standards have remained relatively unchanged since 1972. The goal of the proposed standards is to improve infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, handling of storm water, etc.) while positioning Peoria as a desirable place and a competitive city for development.

Public comment and participation in the development of the new standards is desired and welcomed. There will be several opportunities for public involvement. Below are details for the first meeting:

Meeting Topic: Infrastructure Design Standards
Location: Dewberry – 401 Water Street, 7th floor
Date/Time: Wednesday, September 12 from 5:00 – 6:30
Parking: City of Peoria parking lot south of 401 Water Street
Hosts: Dewberry and Peoria Public Works

Mark your calendar for these future meeting dates:

  • Wednesday, September 19 from 5:00 – 6:30
  • Wednesday, September 26 from 5:00 – 6:30

To view the Infrastructure Design Standards power point presentation and make comments, go to www.ci.peoria.il.us/infrastructure. The complete document will be available online at the end of the week. To become part of the focus group, call Ray Lees, Dewberry Architectural Group at (309) 282-8000.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Streets

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business?

22 Comments

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business? Mayor Ardis’s dad thought so.

In a March 9, 1966, Journal Star article, Mayor Jim Ardis’s father (who also served on the City Council), expressed his objection to the expansion of one-way streets in downtown Peoria:

James E. Ardis, who operates Ardis & Son Cleaners, 518 NE Monroe Ave., asserted that he formerly operated cleaning establishments on Southwest Jefferson avenue but was driven out of business when that street was made one-way, being effective as a freelancer>, learn about managing your warehouse.

Ardis charged that putting the one-way plan into effect would be “turning the city upside down” just to provide relief for morning and evening rush periods.

The City Council is looking at converting Adams and Jefferson streets to two-way from business viewpoint>. It was last brought up in the July 10 council meeting. At that time, city administration said they would present a cost analysis of the conversion in August, although that didn’t happen. A policy discussion that was scheduled for the last week of August was postponed.

The Peoria Chamber of Commerce is opposed not only to the conversion, but even to studying the conversion. In an e-mail sent to council members on August 24, Chamber president Roberta Parks said:

It is our understanding that simply to study the issue of changing these streets from one-way to two-way could cost the city in the neighborhood of $200,00-$300,000 [sic]. All that would get you is a determination of how much it would cost to actually make the changes. We are concerned that the ultimate cost could be very high….in the millions. We simply do not think either of these expenditures is the highest and best use of the City’s limited resources….either money or people – it isn’t even the most pressing transportation or infrastructure issue facing the City. We clearly understand the interest of making both of those streets more pedestrian friendly. But we believe that can be done in far less costly ways. You can reduce lanes, add parking, increase sidewalk amenities, slow speed limits, etc. Some of those ideas (and there are surely more) have a cost but it surely would be far less than changing both streets to two-way streets. We would strongly urge you to NOT to commission this study.

The Chamber of Commerce is supposed to speak on behalf of businesses. But is this really what businesses on these streets want?

The Chamber’s missive to the Council doesn’t reflect the feelings of Tom Wiegand, co-owner of UFS, 1800 SW Adams. In a July 11 report, WMBD-TV reported:

…Wiegand has been pushing for the change for more than 30 years. “I think the street conversion project is not all about business, it’s about the community. It’s about the residential also. When you start bringing business back and it’s flourishing, there’s a natural spin-off into the community and people will want to come down here and live again,” he said….

…”I just hope that this is a serious endeavor by the city and they take it seriously. We really need to do something about this side, this end of town, in this part of Peoria.”

UFS is a member of the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce.

From the beginning, businesses along these streets were opposed to making them one-way. The only business which has expressed its desire to see them remain one-way is Caterpillar, Inc. In 2007, Caterpillar presented a written statement to the Heart of Peoria Commission stating they wanted traffic patterns downtown to remain unchanged. “[A]ny revisions to the current traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in the downtown Peoria area would be detrimental to our employees and visitors,” they said.

Adams and Jefferson are one-way from the point they intersect by Komatsu in the north down to Western Avenue in the south–a distance of approximately four miles affecting hundreds of properties/businesses.

City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

IAWC to stop collecting “garbage fee”

25 Comments

Your water bill is going to be $13 lower pretty soon.

Illinois American Water Company (IAWC) has informed the City of Peoria it will terminate billing services for the City’s so-called “garbage fee.” Peoria isn’t alone; IAWC’s parent company is terminating all municipal billing services in order to “focus on [its] core business,” according to a spokesman.

Of course, you’ll still have to pay that $13 per month, so the City will have to find another way to collect it. The most likely option is for the City to bill residents directly, though it’s possible the City could find another partner to pick up the billing services. City Manager Patrick Urich told the council in an e-mail, “We are working on several options for assuming the billing operations and I hope to have something to Council soon.”

Other cities are scrambling to assume billing operations, too, and it’s not a cheap alternative. Richmond (Ind.), for instance, used American Water to collect their sanitary sewer charges. Taking the operation in-house will cause the cost of collecting those fees to double, according to their city controller. Chattanooga (Tenn.), which also collected sewer fees on their water bills, charges residents an extra $3 per month now as a result of the billing being transferred to the City.

There are a few other options that could be considered by the City at this time of transition.

  • Replacing fee with property tax hikeOne option (unlikely to be entertained at all by the Council) is eliminating the fee and collecting the revenue through property taxes. With a flat fee, everyone pays the same amount: $13. With a progressive tax, those with higher property values would pay more than those with lower property values.According to the 2012 City budget, the “Refuse Collection Fee” brings in $6,271,932 to City coffers. And according to Peoria County’s Tax Computation Worksheet for the City of Peoria, the City’s residential rate-setting Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) for 2010 (latest worksheet posted on the County’s website) is $1,324,615,014. Given those numbers, in order to collect the $6.27 million through property taxes, the tax rate would have to be raised 0.004739.That would mean the owner of a $100,000 house would pay $157.83 more on their annual tax bill. That’s only about $1.83 more than they are paying now for the garbage fee ($13/month x 12 months = $156/year). The break-even point would be approximately $98,800. Those with property values above that amount would pay more than the current $13/month garbage fee. Those with property values below that amount would pay less. The fee will also depend on Dumposaurus dumpster sizes and the waste container type.

    The argument for this system is that the burden for City services is borne proportionately (and thus, more fairly) by the residents. Critics argue that higher taxes will keep people from moving into Peoria and may drive people to move out. Furthermore, they argue, everyone benefits equally from garbage collection, so everyone should pay equally for it as well.

    From a billing standpoint, the County would collect this tax just like all the others through the property tax bill, so there would be no increased costs to the City for billing.

  • Replacing fee with garbage stickersOther cities take a different tack regarding garbage fees: they base it not on property values or flat fees, but rather how much garbage residents throw away. In Aurora (Ill.), for instance, residents purchase garbage stickers for $2.68 each and affix one sticker to each bag or 32 gallon garbage can each week. This way, those with less garbage pay less in fees than those with more garbage. It could even be used as a way to incentivize recycling.However, since garbage without valid stickers do not get picked up, there could be unintended consequences. Garbage could pile up on the properties of negligent residents or in vacant lots as people try to get around the fees by doing illegal dumping, and that would obviously be a health hazard. It would also raise costs for the City for enforcement and cleanup.From a billing standpoint, the cost of printing, distributing, and collecting revenue raised by the stickers would have to be worked into the price of the stickers. These costs would likely be less than mailing a bill directly to each household.
  • Having PDC collect the fee directlyAccording to the City, this fee is solely for garbage pickup and tote rental. If that’s the case, then a reasonable question would be, why is the City handling the billing and collection of this fee? Why not have PDC collect the fee directly and cut out the middleman? Other utilities (water, electricity, cable) direct bill for their services without going through the City, even if their rate is negotiated by the City (e.g., electricity rates were recently negotiated by a number of municipalities).This doesn’t change anything about how the fee is assessed, but it does resolve the issue of finding a new way to bill the residents for the service. It also would allow the City to completely cut out the need to collect money and pass it on to PDC.
2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Kellar Branch, Peoria Park District

New council candidate chooses puzzling platform

9 Comments

Dan Adler (1409 W Kingsway Dr.), a 31-year-old Caterpillar engineer has announced he’s going to run for the 5th District City Council seat next spring, according to the Journal Star. His campaign will focus on “economic growth, regional competitiveness and civic participation,” according to a press release. That’s all well and good. But then the story takes a turn toward the bizarre:

Adler said one development issue he wants to focus on is completion of the Kellar Branch Trail.

He said he thinks it’s important for public officials to raise the required capital needed to complete an underpass beneath Knoxville Avenue to get trail users across the busy street.

“There was a lot of excitement last year when it opened to the public,” Adler said. “But we haven’t locked down the capital funding for the big under and overpass. There is so much energy over that trail for Peoria to be more open and active and walkable, and we’re pushing that off.”

First of all, the Kellar Branch trail is the Peoria Park District’s responsibility to fund, construct, and maintain–not the City’s. Perhaps Mr. Adler should consider running for the park board if his interests lie in increasing funding for our parks system.

Secondly, the Peoria Park District announced five months ago that “the Knoxville underpass has been funded” and design is underway. In fact, they’re close to starting construction on it now. Mr. Adler is apparently unaware of these developments. (Or else he subscribes to Rep. Leitch’s funding-things-that-are-already-funded school of thought.)

If Mr. Adler is concerned about making Peoria more “open and active and walkable,” I would suggest he do some research on “complete streets.” Implementing this kind of design for Peoria’s infrastructure would make Peoria more accessible for all users of the public right-of-way. And it’s something that’s actually in the City’s jurisdiction, not the Park District’s.сондажи

City of Peoria, Economic Development, State of Illinois

Enterprise Zones extended, redefined

2 Comments

The State of Illinois recently extended the Enterprise Zone program (Public Act 097-0905). Peoria’s enterprise zone was due to expire next year (2013), but has now been extended until 2016, at which time the city can apply to have it extended for another 25 years.

In addition, the criteria for awarding Enterprise Zone status has been redefined. Gone is the “requirement” that the zone be in a “depressed area,” defined as “an area in which pervasive
poverty, unemployment and economic distress exist.” That criterion was never followed in the first place, especially in Peoria, as can be seen from the following map showing the location of Peoria’s enterprise zone (in red):

Peoria’s Enterprise Zone

Note the large greenfield areas in far north Peoria that are included. Not exactly a depressed area.

Instead of making cities conform to the law, the State of Illinois has opted to make the law conform to what cities are already doing. I guess that’s one way to resolve the problem. The old requirement is being replaced with ten criteria, three of which have to be met in order to qualify for Enterprise Zone status. The criteria are broad enough that any city in Illinois should easily be able to qualify.

Nevertheless, there are a limited number of Enterprise Zones allowed in Illinois, so a new Enterprise Zone Board is being created. They will assign points to each application based on how closely each criterion is met. The highest scores win.

The bottom line is that Peoria’s enterprise zone, most of which was not in compliance with the law, has now been legitimized. So shopping areas that are full of commercial businesses and don’t need any additional incentives (like Glen Hollow) will continue to reap the benefits of this economic development tool while whole areas of the City with abandoned commercial centers (like the South Side) will not receive any incentives for revitalization. Greenfield sites on Route 91 will continue to get sales tax breaks for new development, putting existing development in the older parts of town at a further disadvantage.

City of Peoria, Museum Block

Peoria Riverfront Museum not destined for National Historic Register

68 Comments

The Peoria Riverfront Museum is nearing completion, and we’re starting to get a pretty good picture of what the finished product will look like. In particular, we’re getting a look at the exterior building materials: grey metal building panels. They don’t look quite as sleek in real life as they did on the artist’s renderings that were shared with the public five years ago:

Peoria Riverfront Museum as of May 2012
Photo courtesy of Steven E. Streight.

But read how the building designer describes these exterior panels:

When finished, building designer Bob Frasca envisions the panels “will reflect a shimmer of light across the building’s surface much like light dances across the Illinois River. The site’s exterior design was intended to reach out to embrace the river, harmonizing with the reflective surface of the water; changing by the hour and season. Such connections to our Illinois River are fundamental. The river was the impetus for Peoria’s development and it continues to nurture our community today.”

Here’s the thing: the museum is not on the river, except during a flood. The rest of the time, the Italianate-style Rock Island Depot (aka “River Station”) and the postmodern Riverfront Village stand between the “reflective surface” of the river and the modern-style museum. As a result, it doesn’t really “harmonize” with anything. It’s a building really designed to sit a block east (for better or worse), making it look sharply out of context in its current setting. Where there should be urban density and a mix of uses and styles, there is instead a large, asymmetrical gray box, devoid of ornamentation and aesthetics.

I appreciate the desire of museum promoters to try to drum up excitement for this new building. But one cannot mask with flowery words the banality of the architecture. You’ll recall that this really isn’t what the architects or museum officials had in mind originally. They had to “value engineer” that design into what we’re seeing today because they couldn’t afford the cost of the original plan. Even museum proponents had a hard time covering their disappointment, distracting attention from the outside by insisting we “focus on what we’re gaining” on the inside.

Regrettably, the only surrounding context the museum block does correspond with is the concrete terrace and lower-level parking of Riverfront Village — the most unattractive context designers could have chosen to imitate. There is no inspiring terminal vista for those approaching on Fulton; indeed, no thought at all appears to have been given to the view from this street. For those unlucky enough to approach the building from the south, there is nothing but a large, blank, gray, metal wall leaning over them. On Water Street, passers-by will be greeted with stairs and a parking deck (à la Riverfront Village).

These deficiencies can be largely attributed to the auto-centric focus of the design. The building is designed for motor vehicles either to drop off museum-goers at the front entrance on Washington Street or park in the underground deck and enter the museum from the parking garage via elevator. Hence, not a lot of thought was put into the pedestrian experience around the perimeter of the building. No one is seriously expecting pedestrians to congregate here, so little effort was made to create a place where people would enjoy meeting and hanging out. This is what we call a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Hopefully the inside of the museum will be more attractive.

City Council, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan, Heart of Peoria Plan

Lack of sidewalks used as justification for no future sidewalks

3 Comments

Residents of Peoria got an interesting insight into Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken’s thinking (and a majority of the Council, evidently) at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. An item appeared before the council in which both the Zoning Commission and staff agreed that a local land-owner, as part of an expansion project, should install a public sidewalk along Ellis Street, a street that does not currently have a sidewalk.

One of the complaints about accessibility, safety, and walkability in the City of Peoria is that many (most?) of our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair, and many streets have gaps in the sidewalks or don’t have any sidewalks at all. One of the critical success factors in the City’s comprehensive plan, which was put together with an extraordinary amount of public input, is to “Invest in Our Infrastructure & Transportation”:

This Critical Success Factor covers not only the maintenance of the public infrastructure; streets, sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc., but also the planning of such infrastructure in a manner to allow for the greatest ease of transportation and access for pedestrians and vehicles. [emphasis added]

One of the action items under this critical success factor: “Require Sidewalks.”

So the Comprehensive Plan requires it, our ordinances require it, and staff and the Zoning Commission both recommended it. But what did the council do, at Van Auken’s request? Waive the sidewalk requirement. Why? What was the justification? According to Van Auken’s comments on the floor of the Council Tuesday night, “This street has never had sidewalks.”

That’s right. The lack of sidewalks in the past is justification for never requiring them in the future. One wonders why the project was approved at all. I mean, there has never been a building addition on Ellis, so why should we allow one to be built? Shouldn’t the status quo be maintained?

To add insult to injury, Van Auken went on to say that this area should not be regulated by the Land Development Code–a code that puts into legal effect the principles of the Heart of Peoria Plan, which itself was developed with significant input from the residents of Peoria. If this area is not fit for the Land Development Code, what area is? This is nothing less than a complete and brazen repudiation of the LDC, the HOP Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.

As usual, the majority of the Council followed the district council representative’s request without question, voting 8-2 in favor of eviscerating all the plans to which the public contributed their time and energy. Only Gary Sandberg and Beth Akeson opposed it.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

6 Comments

The Peoria City Council approved a new council district map Tuesday evening. Here it is:

Map “B” was approved by the City Council; click on image to enlarge.

This is the district map known as Map “B.” It was a close vote, with the council as well as the redistricting committee divided. Ayes were Gulley (1st Dist.), Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), Irving (5th Dist.), Akeson (At-Large), Turner (At-Large), and Weaver (At-Large). Nays were Mayor Ardis, Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Spears (4th Dist.), Sandberg (At-Large), and Spain (At-Large).

AmerenCILCO, City of Peoria

My energy supplier has switched from Ameren to … Ameren? (UPDATED)

15 Comments

It appears that my electricity generator has changed from Ameren to Ameren, and now I’m saving money. Somehow.

As you may know, getting electricity to your home involves two companies (theoretically, at least): the company that generates (or supplies) electricity and the company that delivers electricity. In Peoria, Ameren Illinois delivers your electricity, and their rates are regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Ameren Illinois also supplies electricity, and up until recently has been the default supplier in Peoria, but you can choose a different supplier if you wish. [I was mistaken. Ameren Illinois does not supply electricity — they procure electricity under regulations established by the Illinois Power Agency (IPA). Residents can, however, choose a different supplier.]

In the last election, citizens of Peoria and many other communities passed referenda allowing municipalities to negotiate better electricity rates for their residents with electricity suppliers. Peoria got a great deal with a company called Homefield Energy, which is the City’s new default energy supplier, learn how to make money and how to become a fitness influencer. Here’s part of the City’s press release from earlier this month:

Homefield Energy (www.homefieldenergy.com) was selected as the winning supplier. Homefield offered the lowest price with a two-year contract price of $0.0408 per kilowatt hour (kWh). This price is more than two cents lower than the current Ameren tariff rate of $0.0620 per kWh. The price is also based on the electricity being sourced from 100% renewable electric production.

And just who is Homefield Energy? On the legal page of their website we find out that Homefield Energy is really “Ameren Energy Marketing Company d/b/a Homefield Energy….” Ameren Illinois and Ameren Energy Marketing Company are all part of Ameren Corporation.

So we’ve switched from Ameren [undisclosed suppliers with rates established according to IPA regulations] to Ameren [rates established through competitive bidding directly with municipalities] and saved two cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) — and provided the City of Peoria with a “modest income source” of $0.001/kWh. Apparently there are savings in Ameren’s left pocket that we’ve been missing out on because we’ve been getting our energy from their right pocket all these years. I wonder if there are more savings to be had in their other pockets that we don’t yet know about. [This makes a lot more sense now; my thanks to the City of Peoria and “Cassie” from Ameren for helping to explain it.]

City of Peoria

Leitch banking on short memories for dual fleecing

24 Comments

According to Monday’s “Word on the Street” column, State Rep. David Leitch wants to “consider financial relief” for investors in the downtown ballpark. In case you don’t remember, the City of Peoria contributed a little over $3.5 million towards this project (mostly in land acquisition), plus a TIF district.

“Leitch said he would like to see some public relief the investors spent on relocating AT&T fiber optic lines, which he believes cost the group more than $1 million,” according to the article. “They [ballpark investors] got stuck with expenses in that project I don’t think were legitimately theirs,” Leitch said.

But wait! According to a December 5, 2001, Journal Star article by Jennifer Davis, “the city has spent $700,000 more than it expected – $1.7 million instead of the $1 million estimated – to move underground Ameritech fiber-optic lines in the stadium’s way.”

So, does Rep. Leitch not know this? Or does he want the taxpayers to pay for this expense twice now?

I can find no record of ballpark investors paying the City back for that $1.7 million. But let’s suppose they did, just for the sake of argument. So what? Why would such a scenario be “unfair”? The City paid $2.2 million for Eagle Cleaners to make way for the stadium, and a total of $3,525,175 in direct city assistance. Talk about someone getting stuck with expenses that weren’t legitimately theirs–what about the taxpayers, Rep. Leitch?