City saving money at neighborhood expense

I got this e-mail tonight from the City:

Update as of 9:00 p.m.: City crews are currently plowing primary routes, and will in/out plow on secondary routes. With warming temperatures expected, and in order to conserve salt, crews will not plow/salt all residential streets. Snow fall rates vary throughout the city, therefore work will be limited.

I’m not crazy about this policy. I’ll withhold judgment for a couple days to see how it works out, but I’m concerned that this could potentially be treacherous for neighborhood streets. Yes, it’s forecasted to warm up tomorrow, but if the streets were plowed, that would mean that the sun would likely dry up the streets. Instead, the sun is going to melt or partially melt the snow cover on the streets, and then it’s going to freeze overnight the next night. That means the streets could be slick and uneven. Plus, what if the weather forecast is wrong? It’s been known to happen.

What do you think of this policy? Should the city be saving money by not plowing residential streets in anticipation of “warming temperatures”?

17 thoughts on “City saving money at neighborhood expense”

  1. Neighborhood streets are typically slick and uneven anyway after plowing since the plow leaves a layer on the bottom, and not enough cars drive over it to melt it all.

  2. It is nearly 50 degrees out as I type this. Snow on a street won’t last in that temp. This was a no brainer on the part of the city.

  3. I did notice on our street the snow ruts are really bad. As long as it keeps melting it will be ok but if it were to all freeze tonight and turn those ruts into ice it would tear the crap out of your car.

  4. I learned Saturday night from an IDOT employee that this area served by IDOT, the County and the City have only limited amounts of salt left with no more coming for this winter. Claim is that the Chicago area will get more if needed.

    More big city Democrat influence.

  5. Could it be Merle that it’s because they get more snow than we do and there are more people?

  6. OR that the City and County didn’t purchase enough? Last time I checked, the local governments were responsible for purchasing their own salt and IDOT had nothing to do with it.

  7. “Could it be Merle that it’s because they get more snow than we do and there are more people?”

    I’m pretty sure we get more snow down here — but snow in Chicago DEFINITELY has a bigger impact. It’s a more 24-hour city, there’s SO much more traffic (and shipping), SO many more schools, etc. Schools close on a lot less snow up there than down here because they just can’t get enough roads cleared in time for safe school transit.

  8. OK time to weigh in a little information that needs to be “fact checked” and then considered.

    1. The City of Peoria and the County purchases it’s road salt thru a state purchase contract. THe salt purchase is bulk “salt” delivered to a location. As such, each unit of government must state how much salt will be committed to purchasing by that unit of government. The amount is hopefully based on past usage as well as any forecasts for salt based on expected weather conditions (and we know how accurate weather forecaster can be), amount of money budgetted for purchase, and to a lesser degree anticipated salt availability (no anticipated problems were anticipated because of production, delivery, labor situations, etc.)

    2. The unit of government is then REQUIRED to purchase 80% of the total quanity of salt the unit said they would purchase. The supplier also guarnatees delivery and price for up to 150% of the quanities the unit of government said they were committed to.

    As can be seen, these two limits 80% has to be purchased regardless of need and the 150% maximum guarantee of price and availability balances the unit from stating artificially high amounts and then NOT PURCHASING because of lack of need and leaving the overstocking ofsalt in the hands of the supplier and perhaps then useless overtime or until the nexr salt season. The 150% provides the guarantee that if the units don’t want to eat excess salt purchased because of the 80% rule OR because of unanticipated weather conditions or need for salt usage that units will have access to more than the unit committed to purchase.

    As of around the 27th of January, the averages usage of road salt purchased thru the State of Illinois in this area was at 138% OVERALL. As such, two dynamics start taking place, first whether the supplier can keep up with demand physically, and then the dynamics of the price changing. ( How many out there realise that Peoria is the northern most point where salt comes “UP” the river for delivery? The Salt for Chicago as was mentioned is delivered thru the Great Lakes. Duh, think about dynamics of delivery costs between those two choices)

    I used the average usage at 138% to recognise that it encompasses all the units of government locally that uses the state supplier and some may be higher in usage and other lower, but clearly the ceiling for guaranteed delievery and pricing was much closer than the minimum purchase.

    As such in the City of Peoria the Administration made an informed decision based on anticipated warming weather conditions to use less salt as the City, as well as all local units of goverment approaches the upper limits of their respective purchase contracts. Will they be correct can only be determined in the coming 6-8 weeks when snow/ice conditions may be present? If the City does not need one more tablespoon of salt during this season, all the naysayers and conspirists can blame the City for this past week’s decision. If on the other hand, the City has 2 or 3 weather incidents or perhaos just 1 “big one” in the intervening 6-8, the Administration made the correct decision. I suppose for some, the Admistration should have known about the 7 previous needs for salt usuage this season plus the remaining incidents and just committed to ordering more.

    Please feel free to contact your local unit and confirm the facts stated on the process and requirements of the State Contract purchase or simply ask a question at a social engagement and accept the pablum response, or even better, blame it on the Interim City Manager.

  9. Thanks for the info, Gary. That makes sense regarding the salt — who knew it was such a complicated process of ordering/delivering salt?

    Like I said at the beginning, I was withholding judgment for a couple days to see how it worked out. It turned out okay in my neighborhood after all as the snow/slush on the street did indeed melt as predicted.

  10. “I’m pretty sure we get more snow down here — but snow in Chicago DEFINITELY has a bigger impact.”

    According to noaa, Chicago’s average annual snowfall from the years 1971-2000 is 38″, Peoria’s is 26.3″

  11. PI, that honestly shocks me. But I lived close to the Lake, that disrupts the weather patterns. We frequently had very different weather than somewhere 10 miles further inland. They’d get 4″ of snow and we’d get a flurry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.