Gene’s Dairy Dream, 2411 N. University St., is for sale. This is (was) one of my favorite ice cream stands. It’s right on the way to/from work/church, and a great place to go with the kids. I have no idea why it closed, but I hope someone else opens it back up soon.
Tonight, the City Council will be discussing whether to offer a somewhat unique incentive to a local private business. Firefly Energy needs a loan, and they’ve been unable to secure it through the Small Business Administration (Caterpillar owns 35% of Firefly, hence they’re not small enough for an SBA loan) or Industrial Revenue Bonds (also ineligible).
So the plan is for National City to provide them a loan that would be secured by their equipment and a loan guarantee from the City of Peoria and Peoria County. For the City’s part, they are wanting to pledge $3.3 million in utility tax receipts.
This is organized more or less just like a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan. The SBA doesn’t directly loan money, but rather acts as guarantor, which reduces the risk for private financing companies and allow loans to be made that otherwise would not be approved. “The policy question for Council,” the council communication states, “is whether the City of Peoria should guarantee private debt to encourage economic development. Furthermore, if this approach is used what should be the guidelines for assistance? City and County staff could develop guidelines if the Council so desired.”
I expect this to be the question that gets the most discussion. This kind of incentive has apparently not been used before by the City. If the City approves using it tonight, you can bet they’ll be asked for such assistance again. What kind of precedent, if any, does this vote set? There are two parts to any precedent that may be set: (1) The use of this incentive at all, and (2) how much money they’re willing to guarantee.
It’s common for loan guarantees to be provided at the state level, but not as common for cities. My efforts at Googling such a situation at the city level only turned up one city that provides such incentives: New Brunswick, New Jersey. They’re a city of about 49,000 residents, and their program works like this:
New Brunswick provides a 50% guaranty to loans made through the program with participating banks. The guaranty permits banks to make loans they would otherwise decline. The borrower gets access to capital at reasonable rates.The Economic Development staff will also assist business owners in developing a business plan for presenting their loan ideas to bankers or hard money lenders.
Loan Term: 1-7 years
Loan Rate: Prime + 2 points. The rate is fixed at the time of closing
Loan Amounts: $25,000 – $150,000
I called the Peoria City Manager’s office and also talked to the Economic Development department, but neither of them could provide the names of other cities that provide similar programs. I didn’t talk directly to City Manager Randy Oliver, however, so it’s certainly possible he knows of other cities.
What I found interesting was the amount of the loan they guarantee in New Brunswick — the upper limit is only $150,000. According to this website, the average loan guarantee in Michigan’s Capital Access Program is $53,000. California’s Small Business Loan Guarantee Program “cover[s] up to 90% of the loan amount, with the guaranteed portion of the loan not exceeding $500,000.” Here in Peoria, we’re talking about $3.3 million — and that’s only the City’s share. The County is putting up an equal amount for a total guarantee of $6.6 million!
I’d like to see Firefly Energy stay in Peoria, and I’m not against providing them incentives, but this seems to be a rather large loan guarantee when compared to other state and local programs I could find. Considering the County won’t take up this issue until June, I would suggest the City not vote on it tonight. Discuss it, think it over, consider the ramifications, take up the staff’s offer to write up guidelines — this is too big to rush into.
Jennifer Davis reports today on Gary Sandberg’s disputes with the city over property he owns. He had to pay fines before he was sworn in as an at-large councilman or else face the possibility of being removed for being in violation of state law 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5(b). That statute states you can’t hold municipal office if you’re “in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness.” Sandberg owed a couple of fines ($110 for the city to clean up what he claims were properly-stored construction materials on his property, and $500 for not registering another property he owns as rental property; he claims it’s owner occupied) which he paid off just before being sworn in a couple weeks ago.
Having heard both sides of the story on the the city clean-up item, I feel that Gary should have paid those fines a long time ago (the incident happened in 2004). He still could have fought against any due-process violations he felt were made without withholding payment.
The housing issue is interesting, though. Sandberg claims he occupies the house at 1723 N. Bigelow at least part-time, but the city says otherwise. Because the property doesn’t have water or electric service, it was determined by the city that it is not occupied and therefore has to be registered. I think that sounds logical and reasonable. While a case could be made that you don’t have to have electricity to occupy a house, I think you definitely need to have water, if for no other reason than to flush the toilet.
But here’s the issue. I can find no definition of “occupied” or “occupancy” in the municipal code that requires electric or water service. Can anyone find it for me? And is electric and water service the only things necessary for a house to be considered “occupied”?
I ask only because 616 Phelps isn’t registered with the city. That’s the supposed city residence of Streets Department manager David Haste. That home apparently has water and electricity, but no stove. No stove means no cooking. Unlike the absence of a clear definition of “occupied,” the code is pretty clear on what constitutes a “dwelling.”
The definition of “dwelling” in Sec. 5-520 states (emphasis mine), “Dwelling shall mean any enclosed space which is wholly or partially habitable by human occupants, and is used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating….” So, why is it that Haste can be considered in compliance with registration requirements even though his house isn’t even a “dwelling” by definition?
My point here is not that Sandberg should get off the hook because others got off the hook. My point is that enforcement of these ordinances should be evenhanded, and they’re not. There are different rules for different people.
When Haste is found to not meet city residency requirements, it’s overlooked. But when Sandberg is found in violation of property registration requirements, he’s threatened with being unseated if he doesn’t pay.
I guess it all depends on who’s got your back.
On Tuesday night, the city is probably going to approve a loan guarantee, in partnership with Peoria County, for Firefly Energy. This will allow Firefly to establish their headquarters here in Peoria and employ 65 people locally. Assuming they’re successful, which seems pretty likely, it won’t cost the city or county a thing. In fact, the city and county will receive $480,000 of common stock.
So here’s the little brainstorm I had*, for what it’s worth: I believe Firefly should have a place to showcase their battery technology. How about if they showcase it in CityLink buses?
Imagine if CityLink buses ran on Firefly batteries. With gasoline prices skyrocketing, I’ll bet the cost savings in fuel would be enough that CityLink could afford to run the buses more frequently and increase ridership as a result. It would also get Peoria a lot of press — even nationally — especially if they weren’t typical hybrid buses but 100% battery-powered.
Maybe it’s a pipe dream, but why not at least explore the idea? I figure, as gas prices climb, there’s going to be increased demand for convenient and affordable public transportation. That’s going to require the buses to come more frequently than once every half-hour during peak times or hour during non-peak times. In order to make it economical to provide that additional service, either fares are going to have to go up or costs are going to have to be cut somehow. It seems reasonable that Firefly battery technology — especially if it were donated as a marketing strategy — could provide enough cost savings to make improved frequency possible. I’ll bet there’s even a federal grant or two out there that could help defray the costs of a feasibility study and/or implementation.
Maybe someone can run the idea past Ray LaHood. If he shoots it down, we’ll know we have a winner.
*Hat tip: Sharon Deckard, who had the idea to run a Firefly battery-powered trolley on the Kellar Branch. That was the seed for my idea to put the batteries in buses.
Billy Dennis is reporting that the city is planning to de-commission the Heart of Peoria Commission and redistribute the members to other city commissions, most notably the Planning Commission. This has all come up relatively quickly, so I’m not going to have many comments on it until the HOPC meets (May 25) and we have a chance to discuss it. I will say a couple of things, though.
First, the part about putting Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) members on other commissions should be no surprise, since that was the recommendation from the city’s Committee on Commissions (item C.4.). The specific appointments to these other commissions that Billy lists on his blog are only suggested at this point, as not all commissioners have been contacted to see if they are able or willing to serve on those commissions. I have been contacted and have expressed my willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. I think dual appointments are a good idea, and infusing New Urbanism principles into these existing commissions will make them and the city stronger.
As for the HOPC being decommissioned, that’s something that needs to be discussed. I knew this idea was out there as a possibility, but I didn’t expect to see it coupled with the dual appointments as it was in the communication that Billy posted on his blog. There are a number of pros and cons to decommissioning HOPC, and I don’t know that all the ramifications have been thoroughly explored.
The idea promoted in the draft council communication would be to change HOPC from a city-appointed commission “to a private, civic commission, similar to that of Peoria City Beautiful, allowing the current and future members to meet as they wish, without Open Meeting Act regulations, to study, advocate, and take other actions as they wish related to the Heart of Peoria Plan and New Urbanism.” Another idea I’ve heard that was not listed, however, would keep the HOPC as a city commission, but have it meet more infrequently (quarterly, perhaps) to advocate for and educate on New Urbanism principles, kind of like it’s doing now.
I’m sure there will be some (ahem) spirited discussions about these ideas over the next couple of weeks. I think the dual appointments definitely need to be done because all the commissions need to have new urbanism principles represented. Whether the HOPC is decommissioned is still an open question for me. I look forward to hearing more discussion/debate on that idea.
I’m too busy to do a lot of blogging today, but here are a few comments on the news of the day:
Feel free to discuss anything else you want. This is an open thread.
On June 15, four areas of Peoria will be the first to benefit from a new kind of zoning (some might even call it an alternative to zoning): form-based codes. The City Council last night unanimously adopted ordinances that put the new coding into place for the four form districts which are the West Main corridor, Warehouse District, Sheridan/Loucks Triangle, and Prospect Road corridor.
Form-based codes differ from our current zoning (aka “Euclidean zoning) in some significant ways. Whereas Euclidean zoning is primarily concerned about land use and only marginally concerned about design or form, form-based codes are just the opposite. Form-based codes stress limits for height, siting, and building elements, and have only a few limits on uses.
If you want to build a new building along Main street, right now you have to follow the same zoning regulations as if you were building out in a cornfield on the north side of town — setbacks from the street, surface parking requirements, etc. Just take a look at Jimmy John’s on West Main and you’ll get the idea. That’s what infill looks like under suburban zoning code.
Under the form-based codes, infill development will instead be consistent with the current built environment. For instance, on West Main street, any new buildings will have to be built up to the sidewalk and utilize nearby shared parking with other businesses or provide private parking in the rear of the building. Whereas Euclidean zoning separates land uses into residential, commercial, office, etc., form-based codes allow these uses to be mixed, thus making it possible for someone to build an apartment over their store, or to have office space above a retail business.
The council also voted to bring off the table the rest of the Land Development Code (which would apply to the Heart of Peoria Plan area outside of the four form districts) with the Heart of Peoria Commission’s recommendation for the Knoxville corridor, and a recommendation that there be a four-month transitional period following its enactment. This could come before the council as early as next month for adoption.
The transitional period would be a four-month time frame during which projects could still be approved under the old zoning ordinance if the developer can prove that he was relying on those ordinances when making plans, acquiring property, etc. That’s a reasonable request. The council often makes zoning and especially fee changes without any kind of consideration for what that would do to pending projects, so this is really a step forward.
This morning as I listened to WCBU’s news broadcast, I was shocked to hear Ray LaHood say that Amtrak is never going to come to Peoria and we should be satisfied with bus service to Galesburg and/or Bloomington to connect with Amtrak there.
First of all, IDOT hasn’t even done a feasibility study on the proposed Amtrak route to Peoria yet. Why is LaHood prejudging the outcome of that study? There are a lot of people working on getting Amtrak back to Peoria because they believe it will be good for the economy, for college students, for tourism, and of course for transportation options for Peoria residents.
Secondly, this is the second time that LaHood has tried to sabotage local transportation plans. LaHood torpedoed attempts to build a Chicago-Peoria interstate highway, suggesting widening Route 29 instead. Now he’s trying to undermine the efforts of local officials to bring passenger train service back to Peoria.
LaHood has supported upgrading existing transportation facilities, such as I-74 and the airport terminal and runways, but he apparently doesn’t support adding more transportation options that could benefit Peoria. Why is LaHood holding Peoria back? Why does Ray think Peoria doesn’t deserve better?
Update: I talked to Jonathan Ahl tonight at the city council meeting and discovered that he had posted about this topic and I missed it. My apologies. You’ll want to read Jonathan’s take on it since he’s the one who interviewed LaHood.
First, take a look at this map:
The question is: Why are there 11 inspectors for the area of Peoria south of Forrest Hill, and one inspector for all of Peoria north of Forrest Hill?
If you didn’t get a chance to read it yesterday, check out Jennifer Davis’s article on the Heart of Peoria Plan in Sunday’s Journal Star. She interviewed several members of the Heart of Peoria Commission to assess how implementation of the plan has progressed and where we will be focusing in the future.