Category Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Traffic

Cancellations frustrate Traffic Commissioner

5 Comments

Curphy Smith, a member of Peoria’s Traffic Commission and a candidate for City Council in the last election, wants to know why the Commission’s meetings keep getting cancelled. “Why was the meeting cancelled for the 3rd time in a row?” he asked in a recent e-mail that went to several members of the City Council and staff.

At the City Council meeting Tuesday night, during a discussion on the Riverfront Entertainment District, Councilman Sandberg asked why the Traffic Commission wasn’t consulted, considering the district involved closing Water Street. Public Works Director Dave Barber said he didn’t see it as a big traffic issue because there isn’t much traffic on Water Street.

Smith sees things differently. “I disagree with Mr. Barber’s response,” he said in his e-mail. “Any traffic (car, train, foot, bike, etc) at any given levels should be addressed. I think if more items were brought before the traffic commission we could spend our money more wisely and have better designs that promote safer and more pedestrian friendly roads.”

One of the items on the Traffic Commission’s work plan is to develop a city-wide neighborhood traffic calming plan. That effort remains stalled, even as private companies such as Methodist Hospital are implementing traffic calming for their own businesses. Smith applauds Methodist’s changes to Hamilton Boulevard and wonders why the City continues to drag its feet on rolling out these options to all neighborhoods: “[Methodist] did a wonderful job of taking the opportunity to introduce a very pedestrian friendly street level which includes bump outs, bike paths, colored crosswalks and other traffic calming measures. Are measure[s] such as these that are so obvious to other communities and companies, not that important to us? Why is that?”

Public Works Director Dave Barber had this response to Smith’s e-mail:

As to the cancellation of the Traffic Commission there are two basic reasons they were cancelled.

The first is that the Commission has two vacancies and gathering a quorum has been difficult. When scheduling the meeting we want to make sure that a quorum will be present so any action items can be addressed. It’s not fair to those who can make to be present and then not be able to address business matters.

The leads to the second reason for the cancellations. There have [not] been any actionable items for the Commission to address. Many items relating to traffic in [Peoria] are handled through administrative procedures and do not need to have Traffic Commission approvals nor Council approvals for many items. This reduces the potential matters for the Commission to address. This enables a more rapid response relative to addressing customer issues and provides for quicker response time. As I have addressed with the Commission in the past it does not seem appropriate to have meetings to just present updates. We can do this via email without the need for staff dedicated to taking and printing minutes and preparing and delivering packets to Commission members. I have asked the Commission to address their future plans and present a proposed list of what the Commission should be doing but I strongly believe meeting just to meet is not in the best interests on the Commission members nor is it a wise allocation of limited staff time and expense.

I will have Nick Stoffer meet with the acting Chair of the Traffic Commission to establish an agenda for the next meeting and will ask that the Commission address the matter of what they should and should not be addressing. I would suggest the Commission continue to meet as needed and not every month when not required.

The Traffic Commission has been without a chairman since Pat Sullivan resigned last October. A new chairman has not yet been appointed by the Mayor. Furthermore, the two vacancies on the Commission have gone unfilled for months. There were vacancies when the Heart of Peoria Commission was disbanded and its members were to be appointed to other commissions. All but two HOPC members were appointed to other commissions, but none were appointed to the Traffic Commission.

“As far as the second reason for the meetings being cancelled,” Smith responded to Barber, “I will disagree. I think I laid it out in my last email that I believe there have been many items for us to address. I have given my input on the Jefferson Street project and the Glen Oak project as well as others. I would suggest we start asking for our input in the beginning stages and not near the end.”

This is the same problem HOPC faced. Instead of seeing the commission as an asset — a part of the process that could help improve the built environment for all citizens — presentations to and recommendations from the commission are viewed as a nuisance or impediment to getting the project done. Thus, we continue to see regrettable development patterns and wonder why things never improve.

Smith concludes, “My belief and you can correct me if I am wrong is that you [Director Barber] would just like to do away with the commission. You have made it clear in your response that ‘[many] items’ ‘do not need to have Traffic Commission approvals.’ I am not looking for us to approve anything, but I do believe we can be a major asset in making sure the city staff is addressing appropriate measures through input and recommendations.”

Given the number of meeting cancellations, the lack of action on the Mayor’s part to appoint a chairman or fill vacancies on the commission, and Director Barber’s easy dismissal of the Traffic Commission’s role in traffic-related projects, it’s obvious that there is little support for the Traffic Commission at City Hall. Maybe it will be the next commission to be disbanded, leaving one less opportunity for citizen input and involvement. That would be a shame.

City Council, City of Peoria

City decides to do market study of Wonderful Development after all

6 Comments

On the Peoria City Council agenda for Tuesday night is this item:

ACTION REQUESTED: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT WITH HVS FOR UP TO $15,000 TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION REGARDING DOWNTOWN HOTEL PROJECTS.

BACKGROUND: Since 2006, the City has worked with HVS to analyze potential hotel projects involving the Peoria Civic Center. This work included conducting a 2006 market study for a Hilton adjacent to the Civic Center at Kumpf and Jefferson and professional advice on the redevelopment agreement reached with EM Properties in December 2008. Currently, the City has contracted with HVS to conduct a market study of the most recent version of the Marriott Pere Marquette project at a cost of $7,500 [emphasis added]. (The City was able to work with HVS to reduce the cost of a full market study by agreeing to complete some of the local staff work.) That specific task will be concluded by April 30, 2010, but HVS’ expertise may also be required to analyze particular facets of the redevelopment agreement. The proposal from HVS to provide these services is attached.

HVS’ 2006 market study is available here. The most recent version of the downtown hotel project has a different design and fewer rooms, but at the same overall cost of $102 million. The developer is asking for $37 million in public assistance for the project.

City of Peoria, Streets

Main Street improvements inch forward

10 Comments

I received a copy of the following memo from Peoria Public Works Director Dave Barber outlining his recommendations for improving Main Street from Glendale to University. Notable is that on-street parking will be reinstated, some sidewalks will eventually be widened, travel lanes will be reduced, and the speed limit will be lowered in some places to 25 mph. Here is the full memo (attachments are PDF files):

MEMORANDUM

To: Barbara Van Auken, City Council District 2
From: David Barber, Public Works Director
Cc: Scott Moore, City Manager
Steve Settingsgaard, Police Chief
Date: March 12, 2010

Re: Main Street Safety Improvement

In 2008 the City of Peoria, in conjunction with the local MPO, PPUATS, participated in a roadway safety assessment study sponsored by State Farm. As a part of that study, “high accident” locations in the tri-county area were reviewed. The “high accident” location focused on in the City of Peoria was the Main Street corridor, from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, which includes the curve near Crescent Avenue. Several of the suggested safety improvements for this corridor were: install additional speed limit signs, upgrade the crosswalks, install no right turn on red signs on Sheridan Road for both northbound and southbound traffic, and to give the road a “diet” by reducing through lanes to calm traffic.

As part of the safety study, State Farm’s consultant, Opus International, assisted local municipalities in applying for safety grants to implement the proposed safety improvements. On March 24, 2009, City Council voted to approve an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding to incorporate these proposed safety improvements on Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, and to support a Capital Budget Request for the local 10% match, if grant funds were received. A safety improvement project estimated at $48,491 was submitted to IDOT. On September 24, 2009 the City received notice from IDOT that the funds were approved for construction in 2010. A striping and signage plan for Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue can be seen on Attachment A.

Attachment A shows the proposed plan to restripe Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue as a three lane cross-section, with one through lane in each direction and a bi-directional center left turn lane. This will be accomplished by dropping a westbound through lane at Globe Avenue and an eastbound through lane at Sheridan Road. Potential proposed parking is also shown on this plan sheet, where “P” indicates a proposed parking space and “M” indicates a proposed metered parking space. Further study and/or input from local businesses may be needed to determine if there is the need for any posted loading zones (LZ) for loading and unloading at businesses. The current practice of loading and unloading in a travel lane would not be acceptable with only one through lane in each direction. Parking was not placed on the curve/hill which runs on Main Street from North Street east towards Glen Oak Avenue, due to safety concerns.

Using information from previous meetings and the Main Street Traffic Study performed by Hanson Engineering in 2008, additional effort was spent to continue these concepts to improve the pedestrian safety on Main Street from Sheridan Road to University Street. This portion of the Main Street corridor would be beyond the scope of the HSIP Grant, so any work would be 100% City funded. Taking the Hanson study and traffic counts into consideration, it appears that Main Street from Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue could be restriped similar to the corridor between Sheridan Road and Glendale Avenue, as a three lane section, without major disruption of traffic service levels. This can be seen in Attachment B. As with the previous section of Main Street, the placement of loading zones must be considered in front of area businesses.

The design of the roadway striping becomes more complicated on Main Street between University Street and Bourland Avenue. This is because of the very congested nature of the intersection of University and Main and all the turning traffic at this location. Using available traffic information, four options have been generated for discussion and consideration:

Option 1: No change, see Attachment C. Currently the pedestrian safety features include: pedestrian countdown signals at Main/University intersection and “Yield to Pedestrian” signs for the right turning motorists. This option continues to provide maximum capacity for motorists in this corridor. To help calm traffic in this area in order to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph could be posted.

Option 2: Parking on south side, see Attachment C. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that one eastbound through lane could be eliminated in this section, without a major reduction in traffic level of service. This through lane, which is on the south side of Main Street, could be converted into parking or a wider sidewalk/parkway. While this option would add some on-street parking spaces, they would not be located in a desirable location. Because of the existing, available parking for the shopping center on the south side of the roadway, it is likely that the users of these parking spaces would largely be the businesses on the north side of the street. Although some of the persons crossing to the north side of the street will utilize the pedestrian signals at University, many pedestrians will be tempted to cross mid-block—through heavy traffic. Unless there was a positive way of encouraging them to cross at the intersection, this space would be better served as a widened sidewalk/parkway area. Additionally, the persons entering and exiting parked cars in the first block of the south side will have to contend with traffic turning onto Main from University, as well as the heavy through traffic in a narrow (11’) lane. This situation will likely lead to more personal injury and property accidents in this corridor and would not be seen as a safety improvement. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

Option 3: Parking on north side, see Attachment D. The attachment shows a layout of this corridor with parking and loading zones allowed on the north side of Main Street. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that two through lanes were needed to accommodate the westbound traffic levels at this location for the traffic queuing for the University/Main intersection. The study also showed that one eastbound lane could be dropped in this area. Therefore, to provide parking on the north side, the travel lanes would have to be shifted to the south. This shift of traffic lanes to the south will cause an unacceptable offset for traffic crossing University on Main Street at this busy intersection. Additionally, because the traffic counts show that the traffic is consistently heavy at this location from 7 am to 7 pm any cars parked on the north side of the street would have to interrupt the flow of traffic, which would be on very narrow (10.5’) lanes, to enter and exit the parking spaces. Furthermore, many of these spaces may be blocked by stacked traffic waiting for a green light at University making them virtually unusable at times. This scenario will likely result in additional property and injury accidents and would not be seen as a pedestrian safety improvement. This option is not recommended.

Option 4: Provides pedestrian buffers on both sides. This scenario, seen on Attachment D, shows a painted out area on each side of the roadway that will buffer the pedestrians on the curbline sidewalk from the through traffic on Main Street. The Hanson Study showed that one eastbound through lane east of University Street could be dropped. By utilizing this lane width, an area would be painted out to prevent traffic on each side of Main Street on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue. To minimize the offset at the University/Main intersection, the buffer would be slightly more on the south side than the north. Parking would not be allowed on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue, but the additional distance between the pedestrians and the through traffic will give the roadway a more walkable appeal. Additionally, if this proves to be a successful means to give the pedestrians more comfort on this roadway corridor, a future CIP request could be made to curb in this painted pedestrian buffer and widen the sidewalk and/or add landscaping. Several parking spaces could be striped on the north side of Main Street between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue in the area outside the transition from one to two lanes. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

______________________________________

Staff Recommendations for improvement of the Main Street Corridor:

Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue (HSIP grant area):

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Restrict left turns into and out of Crescent Avenue.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Install additional chevron signs on the curve/hill near Crescent Avenue.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Install parking meters between Crescent Avenue and Glendale Avenue.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.

Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue:

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing. Find more details about professional waste and garbage cleaning services at dumposaurus.com/popular-dumpster-rental-blog-articles/.

University Street to Bourland Avenue (Option 4, pedestrian buffers on both sides):

  • Drop one eastbound through lane at University Street.
  • Stripe Main Street from University Street to Underhill Avenue with two westbound through lanes and one eastbound through lane.
  • Taper down to one eastbound lane between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue.
  • Stripe out pedestrian buffers on both sides of street along the curbline, (3’ on the north side and 5’ on the south side) to minimize the traffic offset at the Main/University intersection.
  • Request administrative approval to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph.
  • Install 25 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate (north side between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue).
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.
City of Peoria

No market study performed on Wonderful Development

9 Comments

The other day, I was reading in the Journal Star about former mayor Bud Grieves’ plan to publicly unveil his all-hotels-connect-to-the-Civic-Center idea, and this just jumped out at me:

City Manager Scott Moore said the city is looking to do its own market study on Grieves’ plan, a similar process the city took in 2008 when Matthews of EM Properties Ltd. pitched the $102 million Marriott project.

The city did a market study on the “Wonderful Development”? Really? I don’t remember any council action authorizing funding for that. I immediately sent a Freedom of Information Act request to see this market study of which the City Manager spoke. Here’s the response I received:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a “market study on Gary Matthews’ hotel plan.” No official market study of Mr. Matthews hotel plan in 2008 was conducted. [emphasis added] Over the past few years, the City has worked with HVS – a global hospitality services consulting firm – to determine the feasibility and reasonableness of a variety of hotel projects. Their largest work for the City was conducted in 2006-7 in support of a plan to build a Hilton at the corner of Kumpf and Jefferson. HVS was involved in the discussion regarding the December 2008 Matthews plan, but never produced any written analysis. They provided us with advice and counsel on the scope and need for the project and the parameters of the Redevelopment Agreement. Their involvement included a series of phone calls with City staff, representatives of EM Properties and our respective attorneys.

So, as it turns out, there was no market study. No independent analysis of Matthews’ plans. There are references to a feasibility study that took place before the recession started. This is evidently what the City of Peoria calls “due diligence.” And this is the process they’re going to use on Grieves’ plan as well.

I suppose we should be grateful that the City didn’t spend money on doing its own market study, since they’ve been known to ignore them anyway and just go with the developers’ promises, like they did with MidTown Plaza. That certainly turned out well; I’m glad we’re doing the same thing again, and with higher stakes.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria County

Schock and Durbin in Peoria the week after City/County trip to D.C.

9 Comments

Guess who was in Peoria this week? Dick Durbin and Aaron Schock. You may recall that Scott Sorrel, Tom O’Neill, Jimmy Dillon, and Tim Riggenbach just last week traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with these same two people, at a cost to taxpayers of $3,000. They didn’t actually meet with them, though. They met with Schock’s and Durbin’s staffs.

The justification for this trip was that the city council and county board reps could meet with “key projects directors for the legislators, who are the one’s who really make things happen,” and who “typically don’t make it to Illinois.” Of course, those staffs work for the Senator and Congressman, not the other way around. So they only “make things happen” with the support of Durbin and Schock.

The bottom line is, they could have met face to face here, and Schock and Durbin could have directed their staffs to “make things happen” when they got back to D.C., and the taxpayers could have saved $3,000. Better yet, the City and County could simply stop squandering our money on bread and circuses so we wouldn’t have to lobby Congress for money to take care of basic services like municipal road repair.

Hope our local officials enjoyed their taxpayer-funded vacation to D.C.

City Council, City of Peoria

No limit on preliminaries, but precious little time for people’s business

5 Comments

This is not an observation original to me — in fact, it’s been pointed out by a couple different people since the last council meeting — and it concerns the time limit for discussion by council members during City Council meetings.

The City Council has a self-imposed rule of five minutes per council member on any one topic of business. In 2007, they started “enforcing” it with a (very expensive) timer and a buzzer. Furthermore, any citizens wishing to address the council must limit their comments to five minutes. This was done to keep the meetings from going too long due to council members repeating the same arguments in their own words.

But there’s no time limit for proclamations. At the beginning of nearly every council meeting, the Mayor makes several proclamations, which recognize individuals, businesses, and civic groups for their contributions and achievements in the community. At the last council meeting, the proclamations portion of the meeting clocked in at approximately 45 minutes.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating civic achievements, of course. I have no beef about that. The problem is the disparity in time spent on “fluff” versus the time allotted to deliberate more serious matters of public policy. As important and worthy as civic achievement is, its recognition is not the main business of municipal government. For the Mayor and council members to speak as long as they wish about National Bookmobile Day, but limit them to five minutes each for the discussion of tax levies and millions of dollars in expenditures, is a poor allocation of time and does a disservice to taxpayers.

Some issues simply require more than five minutes to discuss. Some issues are more complicated than others. It’s one thing to ask someone who’s repeating themselves to wrap up their comments; it’s another thing to cut off pertinent explanations or discussions because of an arbitrary time limit. Furthermore, five minutes is too long for some topics.

The bottom line is that the moderator (and that’s the Mayor, in the case of the City Council) should be leading the meeting based on content, not the clock. The meeting should be conducted in the interests of making the best decisions for constituents, not in the interests of getting done as quickly as possible. And, the moderator should recognize that the people’s business is more important and deserves more time than proclamations or other preliminaries.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Pitch for Lakeview not made in D.C.: Word on the Web

28 Comments

Karen McDonald reports in “Word on the Web” today:

Apparently, a $500,000 request for the installation of solar panels, which will cover 7.5 percent of the Peoria Riverfront Museum’s energy usage, and other improvements aimed at energy efficiency, was not made on the county or city’s behalf. That said, the county is supporting Lakeview’s request for that project.

I’m happy to hear that, considering two-thirds of the project is already publicly funded. I wish Caterpillar would just back out of the deal and let it die. I would like Cat to build their visitor’s center, but if we can only get it by throwing away nearly $40 million in public money, it’s not worth it. Sorry. And anyone who thinks that a visitors center can in any way be correlated to Cat’s ties to the community is delusional.

Some other interesting info from McDonald’s article:

Aren’t those leaders back in Illinois enough? Why not just talk to them while they’re here?

[County board member Jimmy] Dillon explained Monday that in person face time is key. It’s the whole they don’t come to you, we go to them thing. … Furthermore, Peoria officials met with key projects directors for the legislators, who are the one’s who really make things happen and those people typically don’t make it to Illinois.

The trip cost the county roughly $3,000.

How is “in person face time” different in D. C. than here in Peoria? If Schock is here, and you’re meeting with him, are you not getting “in person face time”? Dillon really didn’t answer the question. Besides, I again express my incredulity that we send a person to Washington to represent us, and then we have to send four representatives to our representative in order to get him to represent us. That whole system is as ridiculous as it is redundant.

But, of course, it gets even more silly, because despite Dillon’s protestations that “in person face time” is so important with our representative, our delegation didn’t actually meet with Schock or Durbin, but rather with their staff. But that’s okay, the article explains, because the “key projects directors … are the one’s who really make things happen.” So what are Schock and Durbin doing, exactly? I mean, call me crazy, but it would seem that a more efficient process would be for Schock and Durbin to meet their constituents here in Peoria, find out their needs, then travel to D. C. and talk to their key projects directors so they could “really make things happen.” Isn’t that the whole idea behind them “representing” us?

And what about that lobbyist? Aren’t we paying someone or some firm $85,000 to be our “representative to our representative” already? Isn’t he supposed to get the “in person face time” with “key projects directors” on our behalf?

The duplication in government is truly staggering.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Not a good year for companies with Energy in their names

10 Comments

On the heels of Firefly Energy’s bankruptcy, another Peoria company that got loans from the City and County is not looking too good:

On March 22, 2010, Busey Bank filed Judgment orders against Globe Energy Eco-System LLC, David M. Jones and Joan Jones, totaling $7,938,676.81 with attorney fees reserved.

Ouch. Both the City and the County provided loans to Globe Energy:

Globe Energy hasn’t made a payment on its government assistance program loan from the county since Dec. 15, 2008, and owes more than $116,000, plus interest, on its $150,000 loan. The city is owed $141,775 on its $150,000 loan.

I suppose the silver lining is that this is significantly less than the $6 million the City and County combined may have to shell out due to their loan guarantee of Firefly, but it’s still an awful lot of taxpayer money down the drain if Globe Energy doesn’t pay up. And let’s face it, the chances of them paying up at this point are pretty slim.

I have to admit, I was excited about the promises made by Globe Energy when they first came to town. They looked like exactly the type of company we wanted — one that would add manufacturing jobs, and lots of them, which paid a living wage. Unfortunately, none of that ever came to fruition.

Now it looks like it may just be another pile of taxpayer money thrown down the drain. Merle Widmer gives a list of recent companies that have failed and left the City and/or County holding the bag:

Bad bets by the EDC who recommends these companies to the county, recently include In_PLay, River Station and FireFly and now, apparently Globe.

And, taking a look into my crystal ball, I would venture to say we’ll be able to add the downtown hotel to that list pretty soon if the City decides to go ahead and finance that as well. Only this project will impact City taxpayers more heavily than all the other failed projects put together, because this one isn’t for $150,000 or even $3 million, it’s for a whopping $37 million.

Bottom line: I think the City and County have proven they don’t have the chops to be in the venture capital business, and frankly, that’s not the purpose of municipal government anyway. They should stick to providing basic public services and stop financing private ventures.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

Peoria sends four reps and a lobbyist to our three reps in Washington … or their staff

16 Comments

From Word on the Web:

Peoria County officials and a Peoria City Councilman are on their way to D.C. to meet with U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, and U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Roland Burris, or at least their staff … to discuss legislative agendas and projects the city and county hope receive federal funding.

Those officials are Scott Sorrel, Tom O’Neill, and Jimmy Dillon for the County, and Tim Riggenbach for the City. Peoria taxpayers are sending them as our representatives to Washington so they can ask our other representatives in Washington for federal money. Or they might just meet with their staffs — I guess they don’t have local offices or something. This comes on the heels of the County extending its contract with a D.C. lobbying firm to March 31, 2011, for $85,000. This begs the question, “How many representatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Meanwhile, the rest of us are living in an age of rapid communication — e-mail, internet, video conferencing, telephone. I wonder if there’s a way our government officials could tap into these mysterious new communication tools the way private companies are doing during this economic downturn.

But wait, there’s more. Look at what they’re requesting:

  • $900,000 for the City:
    • $500,000 to improve sidewalks/infrastructure around Harrison School
    • $300,000 to fix erosion issues at Springdale Cemetery
    • $100,000 for the Peoria Police Department’s drug market initiative program
  • $1,250,000 for the County:
    • $250,000 for a mobile dental clinic in partnership with OSF
    • $500,000 for engineering/design work to replace E.M. Dirksen Parkway
    • $500,000 for solar panels for Peoria Riverfront Museum
  • $1,100,000 in joint City/County projects:
    • $100,000 for a minority business incubator
    • $1 million for public safety radios

Total: $3.25 million.

All of the City’s requests are things the City should be doing with City revenues. But they can’t, of course, because they’re using City revenues to pay off the MidTown Plaza TIF bonds and Firefly Energy’s loan from National City (which could cost the City up to $3 million). And they’re trying feverishly to give Gary Matthews $37 million to build a hotel across the street from the Civic Center. The City squanders taxpayer money, then goes to the federal government for more taxpayer money to cover the basic services they’ve neglected.

As for the County’s requests, except for the road work, they’re all frivolous. Let’s jump right to the most egregious: the solar panels for the proposed museum. Ahem, the taxpayers are already kicking in nearly $40 million for the museum in local sales tax revenue, let alone all the “grants,” earmarks, and other pork barrel spending that’s being poured into this boondoggle. And now they’re asking for more taxpayer dollars?! What on earth are they doing with the millions of dollars they’re already confiscating from us?! For the love of Pete, another half a million dollars for the museum, so they can “save energy”? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

If they want to “save energy,” why don’t they just take all the money out in cash, put it on the Sears block, and set it on fire? That way we can save the energy of actually building the museum and watching its inevitable fall into insolvency. Plus, we can waste all that money in 2010 dollars, instead of the more expensive future value of the money.

All I can say is, thank goodness we don’t get all the government we pay for.