Category Archives: State of Illinois

City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Bridges under scrutiny

2 Comments

McClugage Bridge

Ever since Minnesota’s I-35W bridge collapsed, communities throughout the U.S. have started casting a concerned eye toward their own bridges. I asked City Manager Randy Oliver for some information about Peoria’s bridges and the city’s role, if any, in inspecting and maintaining them. Here’s what he said:

The bridges that are the City’s responsibility are primarily box culverts (e.g. concrete boxes with openings) which are more durable and require less maintenance. The State is responsible for all significant bridge structures over the River, Interstate and on State Routes.

The City is only responsible for and only inspects bridges that are the City’s responsibility. Inspection of the Murray Baker Bridge, for example, takes someone with specific technical skills and experience. We have not one with the skills or experience to inspect that type bridge.

So, it’s the State’s responsibility, and the State is taking action. The Chicago Tribune reports that “Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Thursday ordered state inspectors to examine all bridges considered to be critical.” That would include the Murray Baker and McClugage bridges.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a National Bridge Inventory, which includes inspection information. I looked at the most recent inspection information available (2006) and found a couple of interesting items.

Bridges are given what’s known as a “sufficiency rating.” The FHWA defines it this way:

The sufficiency rating formula […] is a method of evaluating highway bridge data by calculating four separate factors to obtain a numeric value which is indicative of bridge sufficiency to remain in service. The result of this method is a percentage in which 100 percent would represent an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent would represent an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge.

What are those four factors? They are (1) structural adequacy and safety, (2) serviceability and functional obsolescence, (3) essentiality for public use, and (4) special reductions. You can get a full explanation by reading the mind-numbing Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (1995).

The sufficiency rating of the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was 50%, but that doesn’t really tell the whole story. Since there are four factors that go into that rating, not all pertaining to safety, it’s also important to look at the individual structural ratings. For instance, the superstructure of the I-35W bridge was rated as being in “poor condition.”

In the chart below, I’ve listed the 2006 ratings of Peoria’s bridges, along with three other scores indicating the condition of each bridge’s deck, superstructure (structure proper, bearings, joints, paint system, etc.), and substructure (piers, abutments, piles, fenders, footings, etc.):

Bridge Rating Deck Super Sub
McClugage EB/US-24/150 63.5% 8 5 5
McClugage WB/US-24/150 89.0% 6 6 7
Murray Baker/I-74 60.1% 7 6 7
Bob Michel/IL-40 78.7% 7 5 5
Cedar Street/IL-8/29/116 65.3% 7 5 7
Shade-Lohmann EB/I-474 92.1% 8 6 7
Shade-Lohmann WB/I-474 80.0% 8 5 7
McNaughton/IL-9 (Pekin) 83.0% 7 5 8

Here’s what the ratings mean:

9 = EXCELLENT CONDITION
8 = VERY GOOD CONDITION – no problems noted.
7 = GOOD CONDITION – some minor problems.
6 = SATISFACTORY CONDITION – structural elements show some minor deterioration.
5 = FAIR CONDITION – all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour.
4 = POOR CONDITION – advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.
3 = SERIOUS CONDITION – loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.
2 = CRITICAL CONDITION – advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.
1 = “IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION – major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.
0 = FAILED CONDITION – out of service – beyond corrective action.

As you can see, our bridges are in pretty good condition, but there is definitely room for improvement of some of them. To be eligible for funds from the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, “a bridge must carry highway traffic, be deficient and have a sufficiency rating of 80.0 or less.” It looks like we have a few that qualify.

AmerenCILCO, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Ameren touts benefits of rate relief

1 Comment

Ameren is pleased with the new rate relief package that was unveiled yesterday. A press release from Ameren today explains why:

Gary L. Rainwater, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Ameren Corporation, noted: “This comprehensive rate relief package provides significant benefits to our Illinois electric customers, while benefiting our shareholders by providing legislative stability. It also avoids a costly, lengthy and undesirable court battle to overturn a rate freeze and power generation tax.”

That “legislative stability” is a provision of the relief package that states, “The General Assembly leadership agrees not to pass legislation that would freeze or reduce electric rates, or impose a tax, special assessment or fee on electricity generators through
Aug. 1, 2011.” So the charges of collusion are dropped and the threat of an imminent rate freeze is dropped. Ameren’s happy, and Ameren’s shareholders are happy.

How about Ameren’s customers? I think they’re going to be happy, too. Here are a couple of pie charts that Ameren released today to show the effect this rate relief will have on customers’ electric bills:

Ameren Chart Before Rate Relief

Ameren Chart After Rate Relief

Of course these graphs only depict 2007 rate increases, since they’re phasing in the rate increases over three years (January 2007 through December 2009). To make up for the higher rates we’ve been paying since January, Ameren will be mailing us all rebate checks. Ameren has provided this graphic to explain how much we may be getting:

Typical Residential Credits

All this will be funded by the electricity-generating companies — the ones who made out like bandits in the reverse auction deal:

The $1-billion statewide rate relief package will be funded by contributions of $150 million from Ameren-affiliated companies and $800 million from Exelon-affiliated companies, with the remainder coming from other electric generating companies in the state. Ameren Corporation expects earnings per share will be reduced by approximately 26, 11, 7 and 1 cents per share in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively, as a result of the rate relief package.

You can read the full press release from Ameren here. The Citizens Utility Board is cautiously optimistic about this deal, and as far as I know they’re not receiving any money from the power companies this time around. So far, this appears to be a good deal for everyone. Only time will tell if it really is or not.

State Legislation, State of Illinois

No smoking

16 Comments

No Smoking by lawGov. Blagojevich signed the Smoke-Free Illinois Act yesterday. This legislation protects health-conscious non-smokers who lack the common sense to avoid smoking establishments. You gotta love the logic: non-smokers choose of their own free will to patronize a restaurant that allows smoking, then complain about the smoke. Then these victims by choice get a law passed forcing restaurant owners to disallow smoking in their own private business.

Or, they could have just gone to a non-smoking restaurant and the problem would have been solved, leaving property rights intact. Being a non-smoker myself, I very rarely had to put up with cigarette smoke because most of the time I would just go to restaurants that didn’t allow smoking. Silly me.

AmerenCILCO, State Legislation, State of Illinois

Rate relief likely to pass

2 Comments

Ameren LogoThe Springfield State Journal-Register reports that although no votes have been taken yet, the rate relief package unveiled yesterday is likely to pass. Indeed, everyone seems to be happy with the plan, even Ameren. So it appears to be a win-win-win.

As I understand it, there’s a short-term and long-term component. In the short-term, rate increases will be phased in. That means we’ll be getting a refund for electric rate increases over the first seven months of this year and then lower, but gradually increasing bills from now until 2010, when we’ll be back up to paying market rates again.

As for the long-term:

The main component of the long-term reform involves creation of the Illinois Power Authority, which will oversee state-regulated utilities’ purchase of electricity in the future. Once the IPA is launched, the reverse auction that was used last year to set the present electric rates will be discontinued.

The reverse auction improperly led to “windfall profits” for power generators, including those sharing a parent company with ComEd and Ameren, said Michael Madigan, who touted the benefits of the IPA at every stop on the fly-around.

You may recall that Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against the energy companies involved in the reverse auction accusing them of collusion to inflate energy prices. She’s planning to drop that suit if this plan passes.

I’ll have more analysis of this later after I have a chance to look at some information I received from Ameren today.

State of Illinois

Two pieces of advice for Emil Jones

2 Comments

Emil JonesFrom the Bloomington Pantagraph:

As state lawmakers near a deal, Senate President Emil Jones credits himself for ensuring customers will see discounts on their soaring electric rates.

Jones said Tuesday at the Capitol that consumers wouldn’t see the benefits of a $1 billion rate relief package — the details of which are being finalized — if he hadn’t stopped the rate freeze that House Speaker Michael Madigan and others pushed to provide consumers relief.

I’ve got two pieces of unsolicited advice for Mr. Jones:

  1. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. Nothing has passed yet, and in politics anything can happen.
  2. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Crime, Immigration, State of Illinois

Illegal immigrants demand rights

31 Comments

The Chicago Tribune reports (registration required) that tomorrow there’s going to be a huge protest rally in Chicago to oppose deportation raids of illegal immigrants:

Organizers are encouraging immigrants to attend with two demands: to inform about the k1 visa income requirements in 2019, raids cease while Congress considers immigration reforms and that reforms make it possible for the country’s 12 million undocumented immigrants to gain legal status.

Stop the InvasionIt never ceases to amaze me how a group of people (and I’m speaking of illegal immigrants, not legal ones) who flagrantly break our laws and take our jobs can then play the part of victims when they’re caught and demand special rights without ever acknowledging their hypocrisy. I’m not saying the nation’s immigration policy isn’t in need of a serious overhaul, but this action is completely inappropriate.

And I’ve never quite figured out why, if all these illegal immigrants are out marching in the open and they by definition have no constitutional right to do so, the police don’t just round them up and deport them. Is that too harsh?

City of Peoria, Port District, State of Illinois

State takes first step toward restoring passenger train service to Peoria

22 Comments

Amtrak EngineThe Heart of Illinois Regional Port District has just issued this press release regarding the effort to restore passenger train service to Peoria:

IDOT Requests Feasibility Study To Bring Passenger Rail Service To Peoria

(Peoria) – On March 8th 2007, a group of community leaders and organizers along with representatives from the passenger rail industry met in Peoria. Among the items they discussed were possible routes, funding sources, and the need for a feasibility study to address some of those concerns. The state has now taken the next step by requesting such a study be started by Amtrak.

George Weber, acting director of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), has made an official request that Amtrak begin a feasibility study to determine “potential routes and associated cost estimates as part of the proposed re-establishment of passenger rail service to the area.”

Explaining the cooperation between IDOT and Amtrak, Weber says, “Amtrak’s role in Illinois’ multi-modal transportation system is becoming more important. This is especially true in areas without existing passenger rail service. A feasibility study for proposed service is a critical step and will serve as the basis for continuing discussions in the possibilities of future expansions of passenger rail service in Illinois.”

Under the direction of Mayor Jim Ardis and the City Council, Peoria has been seeking support from Amtrak and IDOT to re-establish passenger service to the city. “We’re really excited to be following the lead that Mayor Ardis and the council have provided. Passenger rail service is a tool that Peoria must explore to maintain its world-class transportation infrastructure.” says Steve Jaeger, Executive Director of TransPORT (The Heart of Illinois Regional Port District).

TransPORT will continue to coordinate with the City of Peoria to facilitate the Amtrak study and work with other local communities and organizations to develop a plan to aide the entire region. It has been nearly 25 years since passenger rail service was offered in the Peoria area. A similar feasibility study was recently completed in Rockford and another has begun in the Quad Cities. It is expected that the Peoria study could take a year to finish, and further steps to secure local service could take place after its completion.

This is great news. Peoria could really benefit from passenger rail service, especially if the train came into downtown right along the riverfront — there would be all kinds of tourism possibilities. Not only that, but passenger train ridership is up all over the state, which means there’s demand for rail transportation. Bradley students could benefit from the train service just like ISU students benefit from it in Bloomington-Normal.

City Council, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Exception might not be enough for Spain

10 Comments

Peoria City HallA couple astute readers of my blog have pointed out to me an exception to the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act that might be a loophole that would allow Ryan Spain to serve on the city council without violating the act. (We’re still waiting for an opinion from the state’s attorney’s office as of this writing.) The exception reads like this:

(b‑5) In addition to the above exemptions, any elected or appointed member of the governing body may provide materials, merchandise, property, services, or labor if:

A. the contract is with a person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or cooperative association in which the interested member of the governing body of the municipality, advisory panel, or commission has less than a 1% share in the ownership; and

B. the award of the contract is approved by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality provided that any such interested member shall abstain from voting; and

C. such interested member publicly discloses the nature and extent of his interest before or during deliberations concerning the proposed award of the contract; and

D. such interested member abstains from voting on the award of the contract, though he shall be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

Sounds pretty cut and dried, but in state law, things aren’t always what they seem. Just ask Bud Nystrom.

Roy “Bud” Nystrom was a city councilman in Crystal Lake, a northern suburb of Chicago, when the company he worked for put in a bid to build a Bio-Solids storage facility for the city’s new wastewater treatment plant. Even though he abstained from voting on the contract, even though the council rejected his company’s bid, and even though he only inadvertently broke the Prohibited Activities statute, Nystrom was nevertheless indicted on 10 felony counts of official misconduct and prohibited financial interest in August 1998. He later worked out a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “attempted interest in a contract,” according to Chicago Tribune reports from the time.

What does this have to do with the exception I quoted? Well, the above exception I quoted was passed in 1997 and took effect in January of 1998. During Nystrom’s controversy, the Chicago Tribune had this to say about it (emphasis mine):

Already the [Public Official Prohibited Activities Act] statute has been relaxed by a new law that takes effect in January. The new law says that city officials only violate state law if they engage in public contracts on behalf of publicly traded companies in which they own more than a 1 percent stake.

Even with that change, Cowlin believes the law remains unfair. He thought the [Illinois Municipal] league should take a look at amending the law further and exempt municipal officials who are employed by private companies.

Heartland Partnership, where Spain is employed, is not a publicly traded company, but a private company, just like Nystrom’s employer. If one keeps reading the statute, it does say (emphasis mine):

(e) For the purposes of this Section only, a municipal officer shall not be deemed interested if the officer is an employee of a company or owns or holds an interest of 1% or less in the municipal officer’s individual name in a company, or both, that company is involved in the transaction of business with the municipality, and that company’s stock is traded on a nationally recognized securities market….

So it doesn’t look like the “b-5” exception is going to be enough for Spain, which may explain why it’s taking so long to get an answer from City Hall; I imagine they’re working with the state’s attorney, Spain and his attorney, and Heartland Partnership to come up with a way to allow Spain to serve without violating the statute. It will be interesting to see how it all gets resolved.

Spain controversy in the news

There have been some follow-up stories in the news that are worth mentioning. WEEK-TV interviewed Spain on their 9:00 newscast for sister station WAOE “my59”:

“I just find it very unfortunate that a particular member of the council is working to play games now as we look to get down to business,” said Spain. “So today while I was out trying to build relationship in Springfield (at the General Assembly), a member of council is looking to play games.”

I think it’s unfortunate that this is being portrayed by Spain and his supporters as just “playing games.” A more appropriate response would be, “I was unaware of that state law; I don’t believe I’m in violation of it, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure I comply with it.” Or something like that.

Spain would be smart to make friends with Gary and not treat him as an enemy just because he pointed out this state statute. Gary didn’t write the law, and he’s had to live by it — giving up business because of it — so it’s not unreasonable for him to want to make sure everyone else is abiding by it, too.

WEEK ran a follow-up story yesterday that just said Spain had met with city attorney Randy Ray, but that nothing had been resolved yet.

Yesterday’s “Word on the Street” column in the Journal Star states, “Spain’s boss Jim McConoughey says his agency is willing to do whatever needed to make sure there isn’t a problem.” That’s a very generous statement by Spain’s boss, considering it could mean the loss of $50,000 a year to his business.

Sandberg asks Lyons to retract statement

Then there’s this statement by state’s attorney Kevin Lyons that was quoted in the same article: “Lyons did note that some current City Council members have faced similar conflicts. ‘Of course, Gary Sandberg, as an architect, has had contracts and done work for people who do business with the city, and he just abstains,’ Lyons said.”

I e-mailed Gary to ask him about that statement, since it seems to contradict what he said in the comments section of my blog. In response, he copied me on an e-mail he sent to State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and the Journal Star that read:

Unless you were misquoted, I would like to know one instance and/or all the instances where any one of my clients had a contract with the City of Peoria to provide services or a product while I was doing Architectural work for that client. Your statement, if quoted correctly, is inflamatory [sic] and totally incorrect and creates a situation where I could lose my Architectural license from the State of Illinois.

If NOT quoted correctly, I would expect you to have already sent a correction to the newspaper….

I do Architectural work for clients IN the City of Peoria. I do NOT have clients that do work FOR the City of Peoria.

I haven’t checked today’s paper to see if there was a correction. It will be interested to see if anything comes of that. Whenever lawyers are involved, it’s always the same story: hurry up and wait.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Library, State of Illinois

Referenda Results: Library, Smoking

5 Comments

The referendum to spend $35 million on the Peoria Public Library system passed overwhelmingly:

Advisory Proposition To Issue $35,000,000 Library Bonds

Yes 9,951 71.59%
No 3,949 28.41%

The referendum was advisory and non-binding, so the next step is for the library to get City Council approval for their plans.

City council members are usually reluctant to raise property taxes, fearing voter backlash. But last night, the voters showed that they don’t mind having their taxes raised for basic city services (in this case, library service). I think the council should consider that as they start working on the budget.

The other referendum on the ballot was, “Should the State of Illinois Prohibit Smoking In All Indoor Work Places and All Indoor Public Places?” Results:

Advisory Proposition To Ban Smoking In All Indoor Work Places And All Indoor Public Places

Yes 9,191 66.84%
No 4,560 33.16%

This was the most meaningless referendum on the ballot. As originally proposed by Councilman Chuck Grayeb, it was supposed to ask voters if they wanted a smoking ban in Peoria. Grayeb didn’t have the votes to get that question on the ballot, so this question was substituted. These results will be put in the form of a resolution that will be forwarded to Springfield, where it will be received, filed, and ignored.

State of Illinois

Gerrymandering won’t be easy to reverse

3 Comments

I left the League of Women Voters meeting Saturday morning a little less hopeful than when I arrived. It’s not going to be easy to change minds in Springfield about the way the legislative districts are drawn. The meeting was dedicated to exploring ways we can make the districts contiguous and compact (as the Illinois Constitution demands), unlike they are now:

The suggested action plan, as proposed by former city councilman Bruce Brown, was to “let the sun shine in.” That may not sound like much, but the fact is that most people don’t realize just how ridiculous our districts are, and when they see them for the first time, they can hardly believe it. Brown mentioned that in Iowa, where their districts are now determined by an independent Legislative Support Bureau, agitation for change began with the Des Moines Register newspaper and some concerned citizens. He also cited the increased scrutiny congressional earmarks have been getting since that process was exposed. We need to get as many people and groups as possible to see the outrageousness of the current Illinois districts, and then get those people and groups to write their legislators demanding change. If enough constituents put pressure on them, legislators will respond.

Perhaps more difficult, but more importantly, we need to hold those legislators accountable. The reason these gerrymandered districts work, as Jim Thomas pointed out, is because our voting habits are so predictable. To have real change, we’re going to have stop rewarding gerrymandering politicians with our votes.

Another possibility, but one the League seemed loathe to attempt, is to vote for a constitutional convention for Illinois in 2008. The question of whether a constitutional convention should be called must appear on the ballot at least once every 20 years, according to the Illinois Constitution. The last time a constitutional convention was on the ballot was 1988, when it was soundly defeated (only 19% voted for it). The problem with a convention is that the whole Illinois Constitution is then up for grabs, and the League members fear that Illinoisans may lose more than they gain. Call it a healthy fear of the law of unintended consequences.

The legislative map is redrawn every ten years following the census, so the next scheduled redistricting will be voted on in 2011 and take effect in 2012. Unless anyone has a better idea, I say we get the word out and start putting as much pressure on our legislators as possible.