UPDATE: Here’s the audio from the meeting, as promised:

[audio:http://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Policy-Session-07192011.mp3]

There’s a special meeting (policy session) of the Peoria City Council tonight, and I’ll be live-blogging it. I’ll also put a recording of the meeting up once the meeting is over. All the council members are here except second-district council member Barbara Van Auken. The purpose of the meeting is to talk about the Washington Street corridor — specifically, what section of the street to work on improving first. After a short introduction by Patrick Urich (City Manager), the floor is opened to anyone who wants to address the council.

Public Comment

Jim Duggan, representing Caterpillar, is the first to speak. He says Cat is concerned about safety, as Washington goes right by their world headquarters downtown. “The prime concern,” he says, “is a safety concern for our employees.” But they also want to see more data on impact these changes will make on traffic, particularly on the other streets downtown. They would also like to see the council allocate money toward fixing sidewalks on the northwest side of Washington across from Caterpillar and the museum block, and takes the opportunity to remind the council that they are spending more than $50 million on the museum/visitor center project.

Councilman Sandberg asks if it’s Caterpillar’s position that it’s safer to have someone walk across six or seven lanes of 50 mph traffic than three or four lanes of 30 mph traffic. He also says the traffic counts are not very high in this area compared to Knoxville, Glen, and other streets. If narrower lanes and slower speeds cause a safety concern, can Cat provide data to back that up? Duggan says Cat is asking for a “comprehensive, data-driven study” on that very question. Councilman Spain says that he believes Cat’s concern is that reducing lanes on Washington will move traffic to other streets (like Adams) and could cause safety problems there, especially with truck traffic. Councilwoman Akeson asks Director Barber if a specific traffic study that was done in 2009 would answer Mr. Duggan’s concerns. Barber says, basically, yes. Akeson asks Duggan if he’s had a chance to look at that study. Duggan says Cat is familiar with that study, but not satisfied with it. [I guess that means they didn’t get the results they wanted.]

Dan Silverthorn, speaking for the building trades, says they would like to see the whole corridor fixed, not just one portion. But, if only one portion can be done, they would like to see the effort made in the Warehouse District.

Pat Sullivan, developer in the Warehouse District, says he appreciates the work various committees have done to come up with a plan that satisfies everyone. He doesn’t like seeing these two projects (corridor in front of the museum vs. corridor through the Warehouse District) pitted against each other. He’s asking that if it comes down to picking and choosing, that the money be put toward the Warehouse District first because we’re losing business due to the lack of infrastructure in that area. He says they don’t even have sidewalks in some places and aren’t part of the sewer system in some places either.

Former mayor Dave Ransburg, representing the Peoria Riverfront Museum, stumps for (surprise!) starting the road improvements in front of the museum. He believes the “front door” of the museum should be pedestrian friendly. He also says that the museum will be opening in 16-17 months, so it would be appropriate to begin at that end of the corridor. Sandberg asks why the street in front of the museum would need to be fixed when they’re self-contained with their own parking deck. Ransburg says they’re not self-contained; that they won’t have enough parking spaces in their deck to accommodate all the visitors to the museum, so visitors will be crossing the street.

John Hunt, business partner with Pat Sullivan, says the museum will already have usable sidewalks, but “that is not the case in the Warehouse District.” He says the Warehouse District is “ready to explode.” They just need infrastructure in order to get started on building residential units.

Presentation by Director Barber

And that’s it for the public comment. Now Director Barber is going to give a short presentation. Washington Street Advisory Group (called “WAG” throughout the meeting) is recognized, as well as many consultants that were hired. Barber wants “input tonight, but not formal approval,” which will come later. Barber gives an overview of the problems with Washington Street as it currently exists. Talks about the Planning and Feasibility studies that were started in 2009, and says we’re now in the Phase I part of the project. After there, there are two more phases (Design & Land Acquisition – Phase II, and Construction – Phase III). He references the Heart of Peoria Plan, which gives the vision for this corridor. [Incidentally, the Heart of Peoria Plan was published in 2002.] He also reminds the council that they approved a jurisdictional transfer of the corridor (in other words, removing the Route 24 designation from Washington Street and moving it somewhere else, probably across the river). He gives an overview of the public participation that has occurred in the process. “WAG” started meeting in January and has met monthly ever since. It’s made up of business leaders and residents. They looked at adding a roundabout at Harrison and Washington. He also goes over some other special features along the route that were proposed (e.g., at Washington’s intersections with State and Fulton). He talks about their plans for sustainable design (this part is going by very fast). They are also looking for ways to reduce rainwater runoff into the combined sewers. He also says these features will require on-going maintenance, and the council should be aware of those costs up-front. They want to hire a third-party service to take care of the green features (pruning, trimming, weeding, etc.). He next goes through each intersection, starting with Main and heading south, and highlighting what changes they want to make at each one. He also highlights variances from the Form Based Code that staff is recommending (these appear to be minor, but I’m just seeing them for the first time).

Next: cost. Construction estimates have risen considerably since 2009, from $16 to $27.4 million, and Barber explains why these have risen (increases in scope, new ADA compliance rules, etc.). Funding includes $1 million received from IDOT in 2011 and a promised $2 million in 2012, and a TIGER II grant. This part was confusing. Apparently, we don’t have enough money to do the whole project, so we have to decide whether to get more money or choose between improving the corridor in front of the museum vs. the corridor through the Warehouse District. John Sharp says, “At $4.9 million and $4.1 million, the two projects are expensive. The city only has $2 million available for the construction work.”

Council Discussion

Councilman Spain kicks off the discussion with a little history of the Warehouse District. Spain complains that funding that was promised to Peoria are not being delivered quickly enough (they’re being dribbled out over five years, 2013-2017). [Of course, the state and the feds have money to burn. I can’t understand why they don’t just write us a check immediately.] Spain recommends focusing on the Warehouse District, starting at Harrison and moving south “as far as the money will take us,” possibly as far as Maple. He also broaches the idea of getting help from the County.

Councilman Turner agrees with Spain. So does Riggenbach. Riggenbach asks for more details on why construction costs have risen so much. Barber essentially says they are presenting the ideal plan, not a bare-bones value-engineered plan, so there are things that could be cut to save money on the project if the council wishes. Riggenbach also asks if there is anything we can do to cut down on ADA compliance costs. Riggenbach also asks about the WAG group, and whether their meetings are open. Answer: yes, and the meeting times are posted.

Councilman Sandberg says “this is our one shot” to “set the vision for the next hundred years.” He says we need to make Washington still narrower than what is proposed in order to keep speeds down. The narrower the streets are, the more space is available for pedestrians and commerce, and the safer the streets are for pedestrians. He thinks they’re “going in the right direction,” but it “still favors vehicles over pedestrians.” He suggests 10-foot lanes instead of 11-foot, for example. Cars should be a “secondary concern.” He says he supports starting the street improvements in the Warehouse District where it will spur private development that pays taxes. He also says, why should we start improving the road by the museum when Caterpillar — “the museum’s biggest proponent” — is concerned about narrowing the street? He says Cat and the museum group are sending mixed messages to the Council. Sandberg is also concerned about meeting the proposed budget; he thinks the engineering costs are too high and that those contracts are not being negotiated well enough. He says nearly 25% of the construction cost is engineering fees.

Mr. Duggan wants to address the council again. Ardis lets him, which is a huge departure from protocol and precedent, but it’s Cat, so they get what they want. Duggan clarifies Cat’s position as requesting more facts and data, which he said earlier, making this repetition unnecessary and redundant. He was clearly agitated by Sandberg’s comments.

Councilman Spears asks if we’re going to continue using salt on the roads in the winter (which will kill the plants) and then plant new plants each year, or will we be raising the planters? Barber says they will be using “salt-resistant plants.” [!! I’ve never heard of this miracle of science. I’m really glad that our nation has put its finest minds to work on special hybrids of plants that are “salt-resistant.”] Spears wants to know who’s going to guarantee it. Barber says there will be a one-year warranty. Spears is really concerned about this issue. Barber says he will bring a report back. Spears wants a five-year guarantee. He also asks how much we’re going to have to budget each year for maintenance. Answer from Barber: Don’t know yet, but they’re working on it. Spears wants to know if it’s going to be broken down to a block-by-block area. Answer: yes. Spears says he would like to see more roundabouts. He’s disappointed there is only one. He thinks the maintenance should be funded by a special service district. He’s also disappointed that the study didn’t provide a “grandiose gateway into the area.”

Council Member Akeson wants to talk about the sidewalk width and lane width, following up on Sandberg’s comments. She says she’s not concerned about the sidewalk widths, unless the plantings get in the way of commerce (e.g., sidewalk cafes). [Background: Akeson was on the Heart of Peoria Commission as vice chair, and has supported the Warehouse District for some time.] She thinks the business owners should take responsibility for keeping the front of their stores clean — that is, the sidewalk should be swept/hosed down and kept looking nice by the adjacent stores. She and Councilman Gulley also asked for some clarification on funding. Gulley is concerned that we’re making a decision on a project we don’t have the money to complete. [Van Auken arrived recently, so now all council members are here.]

Gulley says he never looked at all the details of the concept plan. Nevertheless, he says he has never been a supporter of the plan. “I hate the Washington Street plan,” he says. He thinks the money should have been put into Water Street. [Background: this project is in Gulley’s district, but Gulley runs a trucking company and likes trucks being able to go real fast down Washington street to get to I-74.] “I can’t get excited about it; I don’t think it will work,” he says, but also says he hopes he is proved wrong. He doesn’t believe that the city has to improve the infrastructure in order to get businesses to locate there. [Really? Mark this quote for the next election.] He says that, at a meeting he was in, the “people who control the money” want the money to go to the street in front of the museum first, so he doesn’t understand why the council is discussing it. Ardis says he has no idea what Gulley is talking about, and asks him what meeting he’s referring to. Gulley tries to explain, saying that he thinks Sen. Koehler is in charge of the money right now. Ardis says “there has been a misunderstanding” on Gulley’s part. “There aren’t any strings attached that I’m aware of,” he says. Corporate Counsel Randy Ray backs up Ardis’s statement. Gulley says he supports spending the money in the Warehouse District first, and he wants to explore the special service district idea Spears suggested.

Councilman Weaver asks how we can move ahead with “proper planning” when we don’t know what the final dollar amount is going to be. he’s concerned all the money we’re spending on planning when we don’t know that we’ll have the money to construct it ultimately. Van Auken says you can’t get any money from the state if you don’t have a plan. [Also, didn’t Weaver vote for the Pioneer Parkway extension not too long ago, even though we don’t know where that money is going to come from, either?]

Councilman Irving asks how the council is going to direct staff — he thinks there needs to be a motion. He also says we need to use Cat’s expertise to help us get the data we need. He also wants to know what alternative funding sources there are — for example, what about the County? [I would ask, what about the Township? Don’t they have a fund for road improvements?]

Ardis tries to sum everything up from the evening. He says he clearly heard that the council wants to start at Harrison Street and work south; that more data needs to be gathered on the impact of these changes; and that we want to find additional funding sources so we could possibly do the whole project, not just part of it. Ardis also says he doesn’t know what to expect from the state (as far as funding goes).

Gulley asks if we can break up the project to just do, for example, Harrison to State? Answer from Barber: yes. They can work on it in one or multiple projects. Spears says another important issue that Ardis did not mention is that we need to look at how we’re going to maintain the area and what policies will need to be put in place in that regard. Councilman Weaver clarifies that he’s not supporting the Warehouse District portion or the Museum portion. He’s concerned about where the money is going to come from first. “I don’t see the money,” he says. The TIGER II grant is going to do the side streets and Jefferson and Adams, but where is the money coming from for the $27 million Washington Street project? Only $10 million is coming from the state, but over five years. [Background: Weaver was critical of the Warehouse District plan during the campaign as well. He prefers focusing on Main Street, where he’s also an investor in the Main Street Commons project.]

Patrick Urich says this is a TIF district, so we will be getting money from that, and says there are other avenues that can be explored for more funding. He says he will be doing a detailed fiscal analysis over the next 30 days.

Adjourned.