Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

“Wonderful development” agreement raises questions (Updated 2x)

23 Comments

The proposed redevelopment agreement (aka “wonderful development”) for the Pere Marquette hotel was finally made public at 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Monday night, the council will be voting on it. Council members have to read all the details online because the hard-copy packets weren’t ready by the end of the day Friday. Talk about a fast track!

In reading the agreement, some things caught my attention, and I hope the council members consider these items carefully before voting. In fact, it would be better if they deferred this until their next meeting instead making a hasty decision, but I’m not holding my breath expecting that to happen. Anyway, here are my concerns:

1. The use of General Obligation Bonds

The nearly $40 million in city funding is proposed to be in the form of general obligation bonds instead of revenue bonds. Both types of bonds would be paid back out of revenue generated by the project, assuming the project is profitable. The catch comes if the project is (God-forbid) not profitable. General obligation bonds are backed by the full taxing authority of the city. So if the project goes south, the bonds get paid for out of the city’s general fund — that is, taxpayers assume the risk. Revenue bonds are backed by the hotel building itself (which is used as collateral) and/or a specified revenue stream (H taxes, for instance), so if the project goes south, bond holders would be able to foreclose on the hotel, but the city wouldn’t be obligated to settle up the debt out of the general fund. As a taxpayer, that makes me nervous.

The explanation given in the packet is a bit cryptic: “A revenue bond is not likely to be successful because there is no current revenue and, thus, no history on which to base a revenue stream. A revenue bond would almost certainly result in a higher interest rate for the City.” Perhaps someone out there with a finance background can explain this to me. I thought the lack of history for a revenue stream was precisely why revenue bonds had higher interest rates. Under the scenario presented, when would a municipality ever be able to utilize revenue bonds for new construction?

2. Optimistic occupancy projections

The developer of this hotel project is anticipating occupancy rates of 60% in 2012, 69% in 2013, 72% in 2014, and 74% in 2014 and beyond — best-case scenario. However, the developer also states that the hotel will be successful even under more conservative figures: 60% in 2012, 65% in 2013 and 2014, and 68% in 2015 and beyond.

The Pere Marquette had a 54% occupancy rate in 2005, according to published news reports. And in September 2006, a Civic Center Hotel Study was prepared by HVS Convention, Sports, & Entertainment Facilities Consulting. They were looking at building a new hotel immediately adjacent to the Civic Center that would add 250 rooms to the hotel market and compete with the Pere and other downtown hotels. The project being proposed now, of course, is an expansion of the Pere by 200 rooms (the addition of a new tower). Their market analysis concluded:

HVS estimates a stabilized occupancy of 67% for the proposed Civic Center Hotel. Although the subject property may operate at occupancies above this stabilized level, we believe it is equally possible for new competition and temporary economic downturns to force occupancy levels below this selected point of stability.

So, the stabilized occupancy rate prediction was 67% in 2006 — before we entered a recession — which is a point lower than the “conservative” stabilized rate the developer is now using for his projections — in the midst of a recession.

When this report was presented to the City Council, Bob Manning asked about that projected occupancy rate and whether it could support a 250-room hotel:

Discussion was held regarding the projected number of room stays and how the projections were determined. Council Member Manning expressed concern regarding how the occupancy rate was determined, which he felt would not support a 250-room hotel. Mr. Hazinski said he agreed and that was the reason the study projected a decrease in occupancy rates in the market. He said the market ran in the mid-sixties when it was doing well, and really could not be expected to do better than that.

Given this information, and the fact that we are in a recession, it would seem that the more conservative figures are closer to the truth. And if you look at the bond payment scenario based on those conservative figures, there’s not a whole lot of room for error. It looks like, if they miss their projections on those occupancy rates by even a little bit, they could be quickly operating in the red. Guess where the money comes from to make up the difference if that happens — money that could be used to pay police officers or fix streets and sidewalks.

Also, what’s the average room rate going to be? That seems like a reasonable piece of information to include, especially in financial predictions. It will make a difference when it comes to occupancy rates. If these rates are higher than the Embassy Suites and a newly-renovated Holiday Inn, will budget-minded conference-goers and their employers opt for cheaper room rates and forgo the luxury and convenience of an attached “headquarters hotel”?

3. Questionable comparisons.

In the Request for Council Action cover memo, Interim City Manager Henry Holling mentions several other hotel projects in Illinois that used government subsidies, including Normal, East Peoria, and Tinley Park. So I thought I’d look up a little info on those projects.

  • Normal Marriott — This project should give us pause. According to documents available on the Normal.org, “In July of 2004, the Town of Normal entered into a redevelopment agreement with Mr. John Q. Hammons of Springfield, Missouri pertaining to the construction of a full service Marriott Hotel and Conference Center along with a required parking structure…. [T]he total project cost was estimated by the developer to be approximately $43 million ($30 million-hotel; $8 million-conference center; $5 million-parking garage).” Normal’s subsidy was estimated to be about $13 million toward the project. However, by October 2006, the estimated cost of the project had risen dramatically to $72.6 million — a $29.6 million (68.8%) increase! That, of course, meant that the Town of Normal’s share also ballooned to $21.1 million. Despite that huge increase, their share of the overall investment was only 29%. Here in Peoria, the city’s share of the Marriott project would be 40%.

  • East Peoria Embassy Suites — In 2003, the plan was to build a publicly-owned conference center and a privately-owned but publicly-subsidized Embassy Suites. The developer was the same as in Normal — John Q. Hammons. Fortunately for East Peoria, the costs didn’t rise as much as they did for Normal, only going up to $60 million. Holling’s memo states, “The level of subsidy [being proposed in Peoria] is also similar to the level provided for the Embassy Suites in East Peoria, which was also approximately 40% of the total project costs.” Yes, but we’re comparing apples and oranges here. In East Peoria, their $25 million subsidy paid for 100% of the conference center with the rest going toward the hotel. $25 million is about 42% of $60 million. But if you look at East Peoria’s subsidy to the hotel alone, it only comes out to 27% ($13 million out of $48 million). In 2007, the city decided to lease the conference center to Hammons for a progressive annual fee. They use that money to pay off its construction cost ($12 million) plus maintenance and improvements instead of relying on what one East Peoria commissioner called “unpredictable net revenue.”

  • Tinley Park Convention Center with Holiday Inn Select — According to Mr. Holling, “Tinley Park built their center with substantial governmental assistance, and is preparing a major expansion.” In the context we’re talking about, that sounds a bit misleading. Yes, construction of their approx. $6 million publicly-owned convention center was funded 100% by a $7.5 million bond issue. But the adjacent Holiday Inn Select was built with little governmental assistance compared to Normal and East Peoria. The only governmental assistance that $15 million project received was inclusion in a TIF district and some assistance with land acquisition. The hotel plan actually predated plans for the convention center and was part of a development of 300 town homes, also included in the TIF district. The Chicago Tribune reported just this month (12/4/2008) that an expansion is planned: “Tinley Park owns the convention center and will invest more than $10 million in the project. The money will come from tax-increment finance revenues, which come from increased property value from a designated area.” The hotel is also expanding, but on its developer’s own dime. Mid-Continent Development and Construction, “which manages the [convention] center and owns the adjoining Holiday Inn Select…plans to invest $10 million into upgrades to the hotel, including 68 new rooms and a second kitchen to the six-story hotel.”

None of these projects approach the kind of deal being proposed in Peoria. The highest subsidy among these three initiatives was 29% of the total project cost. So why do we need to pay 40% in Peoria? Holling explains: “The Embassy Suites did fund the Conference center construction, but site acquisition and assembly was lower cost and no parking structure was required.” So, apparently, the reason why Peoria taxpayers need to pony up more money is to help with land acquisition ($22 million) and parking ($10 million). And of course the $5 million sky bridge. Those three things total about $37 million.

So, the question is, is it worth it? That’s the ultimate question that needs to be asked and answered Monday night.

UPDATE: Regarding land acquisition, the Journal Star reports the Pere Marquette is being acquired for $11 million. The information presented to the City Council indicates that total acquisition costs are $22 million. That means the remaining properties (Lasher building and Big Al’s entertainment complex) are being purchased for $11 million. Yet the fair market value of those buildings, according to the Peoria County Assessor (and the amount on which they pay property taxes), is only $1,353,540. Even going by recent sales amounts, the Lasher building (corner of Main and Monroe) sold in August of this year for $1.05 million, and the four parcels that make up Big Al’s entertainment complex sold in 2004 for $1.5 million. That’s a total of $2.55 million for all the buildings — yet the City is poised to purchase them from Al Zuccarini for $11 million. Plus, they’ve already facilitated his move to an as-yet-undisclosed location, likely to be 414 Hamilton Blvd., by changing their adult use ordinance. Wow. One would think with that kind of money (our tax money, by the way), Al could have found a place that complied with the adult use ordinance as it stood.

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star agrees with me. Excellent editorial. That new guy is working out okay. 🙂

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Manning pulls no punches with museum

20 Comments

The political pressure is off of Bob Manning, Third District Councilman. Since he’s not running for reelection, he can tell us how he really feels, and he pulls no punches in doing so. Take a listen to his comments about extending the redevelopment agreement for the old Sears block. This is the third time the museum folks have asked for the deadlines to be extended:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Manning-12092008_64K.mp3]

After Manning’s speech, several other council members spoke to the issue, then voted 9-1 to approve the deadline extension until June 2009. Manning was the lone dissenting vote; Turner abstained, and Sandberg was absent from the meeting.

Kudos to Bob for his incisive analysis, which just happens to be exactly what I’ve been saying about the museum project for some time now. 🙂

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

On hotels and sky-bridges: Look past the hype, Pt. 2 (Updated)

31 Comments

One of the apparent non-negotiables of this hotel deal is the $5 million pedestrian bridge that is supposed to connect the proposed Marriott to the Peoria Civic Center and the hotel also have other luxuries like a gym and a pool that they kept clean using the best pool filter for this. We are told that this will help the Civic Center draw bigger conventions to Peoria because what’s been holding us back is the lack of high-quality hotel space adjacent/connected to the Civic Center. In order for the Civic Center to consider the Pere/Marriott its official convention-center hotel, it wants to have it physically connected.

I buy the lack of high-quality hotel space — our hotels definitely need to be upgraded. But I’m not sold on the physical connectedness being essential. No objective study that I’m aware of has quantified how much more business we would get by having a physically-attached hotel.

Indeed, in a 24 March 2006 memo to the City Council, the Civic Center Authority itself said, “We believe [the expanded Civic Center] can be successful without an attached hotel [emphasis mine] but more and larger regional opportunities will be possible if more and better downtown hotel rooms are available.” Note their main concern is quality and quantity of rooms. The C. H. Johnson Master Plan Analysis said, “To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) [emphasis mine] of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.” The Pere Marquette and the proposed addition is within one block. Here’s another quote:

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

Again, the quality and quantity of rooms was most important according to the Civic Center’s own study. Connectivity was not a major factor.

I’m not saying that having an adjacent or connected hotel would not be an additional advantage for convention sales. I’m saying that (a) it’s not the most pressing problem holding back convention business, and (b) there’s no quantifiable data showing that building a $5 million sky-bridge is going to give the Civic Center a sufficient additional bump in convention sales to justify its cost. How many years (decades?) would it take for the city, private investors, etc., to see a return on that investment? To put it another way, evidence from the Civic Center and their consultant indicates increasing the number and improving the quality of rooms will provide a sufficient boost to convention sales; the additional amenity of a sky-bridge does not appear to provide a $5 million added value. The only “evidence” I’ve heard in support of a sky-bridge as a way to bring in more convention business has been anecdotal or, at best, inconclusive.

Another problem with the sky-bridge plan is this: the hotel plan includes street-level retail around the parking deck, which is a good thing if you’re trying to activate the street. But these shops are going to be below the sky-bridge. The people most likely to patronize those shops — the hundreds of guests staying at the hotel during a convention and walking back and forth to the Civic Center — are going to be directed to the sky-bridge to access the Civic Center. And the shops will be inaccessible from the sky-bridge. Has anyone thought about the self-defeating nature of this plan? Who is going to be on the street to patronize these businesses?

Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper as saying, “In addition to improving the ability of the Civic Center, it will help us revitalize Downtown Peoria on the business side.” With all due respect to the Mayor, downtown is not going to be revitalized by taking more people off the streets and funneling them through sky-bridges. Plenty of other cities have proven it.

Generally, sky-bridges are a thing of the past. Cities that have them are removing them. They’re outdated and cause more problems than they solve. We should be learning from the mistakes of other cities instead of making the same mistakes ourselves. That’s the thesis of a report by Kathleen Hill, written while she was getting her Master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Utah.

I’d love to quote the whole darn thing, but it’s 43 pages long. So let me quote just this one passage that deals with the most common justification for sky-bridges I hear:

And for those who argue that protection from the elements is necessary, consider the following write-up (People of the Skyway, November 2004) specifically addressing skywalks in the winter cities,

“Why doesn’t Chicago or New York or any of dozens of other cold-climate urban centers have skyways? After all, the main difference between winters in the Twin Cities and in other places is the outlier months, November and March, which tend to be colder and snowier here. The answer is simple to urban architects and planners like Ken Greenberg, head of Toronto-based Greenberg Consultants: Skyways are a bad idea. “The skyway network is a prime example of a highly focused, oversimplified solution to one problem—exposure to climate—that in turn creates others,” he says. “Climate protection is achieved but at a great cost. Street life virtually disappears; retail is moribund, functioning at best for weekday noon hours but not on weekends or in the evening.” That criticism hits its mark in both downtowns, but particularly in St. Paul, which practically ceases to exist outside regular office hours. As one fellow bus-rider remarked to another the other day, heading from downtown toward Lowertown, “This really is a ghost town after five.”

A primary mover behind the downtown development blueprint St. Paul has been following since 1996, “The Saint Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework,” Greenberg points out that retail and street life can and do thrive in similar, very cold urban areas without skyways—even in places just outside downtown. “A good example is Grand Avenue in St. Paul,” he says. And downtown St. Paul itself, before the skyways. “Where skyway solutions have been employed in other cities like Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton,” Greenberg adds, “the results have been similar.”

For evidence, Greenberg points to an April 11, 2004, editorial in the Hartford Courant, in which urban planner Toni Gold delights in the demise of that city’s twenty-year-old skyways (which they called “skywalks”). Gold, who works at a New York City nonprofit called Project for Public Spaces, begins her commentary: “Hartford’s skywalks are coming down, with barely a whimper of protest from their one-time proponents, or even a hurray from their one-time opponents. Well, hurray, I say. Two cheers for city sidewalks. It’s now become obvious and widely acknowledged that cities should reinforce their sidewalks, not compete with them.”

Incidentally, the report goes on to state that Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak “refus[ed] to build a large hotel adjacent to the Minneapolis Convention Center, precisely because ‘people wouldn’t get out on the streets enough’.” I’ll bet they still get more conventions than we do, even without an attached hotel.

UPDATE: When I wrote this post, I was unable to access the entire C. H. Johnson study because the Civic Center’s link to it had been removed, so I was relying on incomplete information. Never a good idea. I have since been able to obtain a copy of the full report (now available here on my site), and it does, in fact, propose a sky-bridge to connect the Pere Marquette to the Civic Center:

With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US. One recent example is the 257-room Radisson Hotel in Lansing, Michigan, which is connected to the Lansing Center via a heated sky bridge over the Grand River.

That correction made, however, my larger point still stands. The report does, in fact, focus primarily on the number and quality of rooms available within close proximity. The additional boost that physical attachment would give is not quantified. And, I’m sorry, but I just don’t see Fulton Street as the same kind of physical barrier as the Grand River in Lansing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

On hotels and sky-bridges: Look past the hype, Pt. 1

11 Comments

At its next meeting scheduled for Monday, Dec. 15, the City Council will almost assuredly approve a new hotel development in downtown Peoria that includes an elevated pedestrian walkway, or sky-bridge, connecting the hotel to the Civic Center.

Naturally, the prospect of getting a downtown hotel of the caliber of a Marriott is exciting. New and/or improved hotels are desperately needed in our central business district by all accounts. When someone comes to the city and waves a $102 million project under their noses, it’s hard not to jump at the opportunity.

But this isn’t a purely private venture. The developer and investors are asking for just under $40 million in revenue bonds from the city to help pay for construction. These bonds would be paid back with revenues from the hotel over a 23-year period. It’s being presented as a sure thing — but there is a risk to consider — whether the hotel will perform well enough to pay back those bonds. The council members have an obligation to weigh that risk and make their decisions based on facts and the long-term interests of Peoria’s citizens, not hype.

And there’s no small amount of hype, starting with one city official’s pronouncement that this is a “wonderful development” before it was even made public. More recently, it’s been described as “a key to bringing large conventions to central Illinois and generating millions in revenues every year,” as the Journal Star put it. But are these predictions about the Civic Center and the need for a hotel with a sky-bridge to be believed?

Heywood Sanders warned the Peoria City Council back in 2004 — before they voted to expand the Civic Center — that similar predictions then of “millions in revenues” from “large conventions” being lured here were wildly optimistic. The Journal Star reported on October 18, 2004:

Since the mid-1980s, Sanders has reviewed more than 80 feasibility studies for new or expanded convention centers and tracked the outcome of those facilities in terms of new conventions and trade shows added to the annual roster, attendance at those events and hotel nights resulting from new convention business.

Without exception, every report has assured cities that if they “build it, you’ll do great.” But high expectations laid out within the studies are going unrealized as the convention market stagnates and new or recently renovated centers add millions of square feet of space per year, effectively shrinking the share of business to go around, Sanders said.

Sanders told a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee basically the same thing in 2007:

The expansion of convention center supply, coupled with changes in demand and convention attendance since the late 1990s, has resulted in a highly competitive market. A great many cities have seen significant decreases in their annual convention and tradeshow attendance in recent years, and have come to rely on a variety of financial incentives.

And what are those “incentives”? Mainly discounts on rental costs and hotel rates. He goes on:

The increased competition for convention business has two direct implications for communities that have invested in new or expanded centers. First, discounts and incentives reduce the operating revenues of a center, increasing annual operating losses and the public subsidies required for convention center operation. Second, the volume of annual convention attendees has become increasingly uncertain, as groups and organizers face a growing roster of medium to large size centers seeking to gain new business.

So, what are the projected revenues for this hotel? Are they realistic? Or are they based on optimistic numbers in a consultant study like the C.H. Johnson Consulting study from August 2002 upon which the $55 million expansion of the Civic Center was based? Johnson Consulting at that time predicted “an additional 221,600 visitors to Downtown Peoria in the first year after improvements are complete, with 87,500 attending 66 new events in the convention and ballroom areas,” according to the Journal Star, and “The total of new visitors would spend an estimated $19 million, generating $1.4 million in general sales taxes, $188,000 in hotel taxes, $102,000 in restaurant taxes and $36,000 in amusement taxes.”

So, let’s add those numbers up and compare them to actual figures. In the first year after the expansion was completed, we should have seen 66 new events and $326,000 more in HRA tax revenue. The expansion was completed in 2007. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the Civic Center reported 544 events and $1,729,846 in HRA tax revenues. At the end of fiscal year 2008, the Civic Center reported 590 events and $1,779,762 in HRA tax revenues. That works out to an increase of 46 events and $49,916 in increased HRA tax revenues — both well short of projections, just as Sanders had predicted.

Note in particular how far short the HRA tax revenues fell — they rose only 15% of what was projected: $49,916 instead of $326,000. Will the hotel’s occupancy and revenue projections be more accurate? St. Louis’s taxpayer-owned convention center hotel (also a Marriott, incidentally), which opened in 2000, is on the verge of having its bondholders foreclose on it since it started missing payments due to lower occupancy than expected. Peoria would be wise to double- and triple-check the numbers before agreeing to put the city on the hook for $40 million.

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Sears block may remain parking lot until 2010

30 Comments

There are a couple of items regarding the Sears block on the City Council’s agenda for Tuesday night, Dec. 9.

The first one is a six-month deadline extension of the Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement. The original redevelopment agreement was signed way back in 2004, and the deadline for the agreement was December 2006. Each year since then, the deadlines have been pushed back as the council waited for the museum group to get the funds they needed; there was always one more avenue that was sure to bring in the money. Each attempt to secure the needed funding has failed.

The latest plan is to ask Peorians in the midst of a recession to voluntarily raise sales taxes on themselves via referendum to pay for the construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed museum. The county board will be discussing this ballot question soon, even as Caterpillar contractors are being laid off, and other local bodies (such as the school board) are realizing dramatically lower tax revenues due to the current economic climate. Could the museum folks and our elected officials from the city and county be any more out of touch? Why are they continuing to pursue this?

No doubt there will be a fourth amendment on the agenda for June 2009 after this latest plan fails and all the players look for a way to get that tax money anyway by circumventing the voters (anyone want to take bets that they’ll be asking the Public Building Commission for the money?). That seems to be the M. O. of our “public servants” these days.

Even if the museum project folds up after June, we’re still going to have a big parking lot on the Sears block because the council will also be approving an agreement to extend Caterpillar’s lease of the block for use as a parking lot until December 31, 2009. Why not extend it only until June 30, just like the redevelopment agreement? Under this parking plan, the city would potentially be unable to pursue other development projects for this block until 2010.

Both of these items are on the consent agenda, which means there will be no discussion on them unless a council member asks for them to be voted on separately.

City Council, City of Peoria, HOPC

HOPC votes to disband

4 Comments

At the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting this morning, commissioners in attendance voted 5-2 to disband. Voting in favor were Chairman Bill Washkuhn and Commissioners Henry Lawrence, Mark Misselhorn, Julie Waldschmidt, and Geoff Smith. Voting against were Vice Chair Beth Akeson and me. Commissioner Nancy Biggins was undecided and did not vote. Commissioners Dick Schwebel and Joe Richey were unable to attend the meeting.

The vote was technically a recommendation to dissolve the commission. That recommendation goes to the City Council as they will have the final say on whether to disband the commission or not. Planning and Growth Director Pat Landes informed the commission that the council will consider our request at their December 15 meeting, which starts at 5 p.m.

Included in the recommendation is a request that all commissioners be appointed to another city commission if they aren’t already. Those who are not currently dual appointed are Akeson, Waldschmidt, Washkuhn, and me. However, Waldschmidt lives in East Peoria and Washkuhn lives in Peoria Heights, so they would be ineligible for most other commission appointments.

There’s a possibility that a private advocacy group could be established to take up the mantle of a disbanded Heart of Peoria Commission. I’ll let you know if anything develops.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Noteworthy news links

76 Comments

Here are some news items from the Journal Star that caught my interest:

City Council, City of Peoria, Streets

A few questions about capital funding projects

15 Comments

The Journal Star reports today:

Five large-scale and expensive capital works projects were excluded from the city’s 2009 budget…. Each project will likely be considered for possible inclusion in a future bond issue, if the city decides to borrow money in order to complete them in the near future.

The five projects, including the Sheridan Triangle, are the following: City Hall restoration, reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision, stabilization of a stream bank between Holly Hedges and Devereux drives, and improvements along Main Street in the West Bluff.

…The council is expected to meet in January to discuss the possibility of a bond issue to help pay for these major capital projects.

First Question: Are we just playing a shell game here with the budget? Is the council simply delaying decisions on capital projects so they can say they have a balanced budget for 2009? If they amend the budget in January to include some or all of these capital projects, where will the money come from to pay on these bonds? Won’t they either have to raise taxes/fees or have an unbalanced budget?

Second Question: Why the heck is “reconstruction of roads within the WeaverRidge subdivision” one of the five top projects vying for capital funding? Are these the worst streets we have in Peoria? The ones in most need of repair? Or are they important thoroughfares that need to be improved in order to incentivize private business development? Or are they really old streets that have been neglected for far too long? No, no, no, and no. So, what is the reason?

Third Question: Why aren’t improvements to Washington, Adams, and/or Jefferson streets included on this list? There are developers waiting to turn old warehouses into loft apartments and condos, which will get more people living downtown, revitalizing the area and creating a market for more retail in our central business district. But the city is continuing to drag its feet here. Why? Are they really committed to downtown revitalization or aren’t they?

City Council, City of Peoria

New distance requirements for “convenience cash” stores

5 Comments

The Peoria City Council on Tuesday approved a new ordinance limiting how close “convenience cash” stores can be to each other and residentially-zoned areas:

With a 10-1 vote, the council endorsed an ordinance that restricts new businesses from locating closer than 1,500 feet from each other or any residentially zoned property.

Any changes to allow for a cash store to locate closer than the 1,500 feet restriction will require a special permit granted with approval from the City Council.

The ordinance is designed to keep cash stores from clustering the way they have along University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill Avenue, and to keep them from driving down residential property values. At-large councilman Gary Sandberg questioned whether the cash stores drive down values, or if they move into areas where property values are already depressed. He argued that cash stores are a symptom of a bigger problem, not the cause of the problem, and that the council should be looking for and dealing with root causes.