Tag Archives: City of Peoria

Bradley University, City of Peoria, New Urbanism, West Bluff

Bradley University’s Plans for 2025-2026

1 Comment


If this video is blocked for any reason, you can click here to watch it on YouTube directly.

Bradley University recently presented their annual conference where President Shadid gave a 30-minute presentation. You can see the whole thing above, although the format is a bit weird on Zoom during the first part–but then you’ll see the PowerPoint presentation eventually.

I’m especially interested in two sections:

A. Bradley wants a “front door.” (9:00-10:36)
President Shadid claims that Bradley has no “front door” to the campus, even though they built a front door in the late 80s and early 90s when University south of Main was turned into a big S-curve with a large entrance and three large “Bradley University” entrance signs with landscaping and flowers. Turn onto St. James, and you drive right through the center of campus with Bradley Hall ending up as the terminating vista. Not clear how changing the “front door” to Main and University works or is more attractive, or what happens to the old “front door.”

Now he wants to tear down the brick building on the southwest corner of the Main and University intersection, and instead erect two archways over Main Street:

We have moved to this concept below where we would have a defined entry where we’d have an archway over Main Street that says Bradley University. That we would have an archway the other way over University that says Bradley University. And in between those two archways, we would have a landscaped and walkway entry into our our campus to clearly define where and who we are.

But does it? The archways are over the perimeter streets of Bradley, whereas the current “front door” is in the center of campus. Also, if it’s just pedestrian, then it’s just for “looks” for drivers coming in to visit or bring their children for move-in. Why not just tear down the brick building and then put one “Welcome to Bradley” archway on that corner at a 45-degree angle that everyone can see and points them directly into campus?

B. Perimeter of campus is unattractive and needs improvement (13:18-15:14)

President Shadid says: “This is the campus perimeter. Our campus perimeter does nothing to help us attract students. Now, that’s as simple as I can say it.”

That’s interesting of him to say, since the map shows the red lines as the “campus perimeter.” This perimeter includes the brand new Business and Engineering Convergence Center (BECC) at Main and Institute, the new Renaissance Coliseum, and the five-story parking deck that replaced all the beautiful Maplewood homes; it includes the front door that leads people through the center of campus right up to Bradley Hall at University and St. James. Is he that unhappy with all that newer (some very new) construction? Why does he think it does “nothing to help attract students”?

On the negative side, it also includes a gravel lot at Bradley Ave. and Clarissa that was supposed to be turned into new student housing 15 years ago (or at least be paved), and the Kauffman building that was razed recently and is a very unattractive property now.

Oh, and how could I forget the old Avanti’s that they have done nothing to keep in good condition at minimum or rent out to another restaurant or desired tenant. This is particularly noteworthy because the next thing he does is show additional slides that are basically New Urbanism-type examples of construction with mixed-use (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops, bookstores, retail outlets, etc. on the main floor with living arrangements above them) that he would like to see the City encourage being built along Main toward downtown.

The dotted lines that you’ll see on Main Street and University there are what city hall has agreed to help us do, and … city hall is prepared to do their best to help develop Main Street to make a more attractive and vibrant air urban area around this campus for our students to be able to wander off the campus, have a great environment and yet be safe.

I actually am in favor of that idea. I just wish they would set the example of what they say they desire by working with the City to sell the old Avanti’s building to a good, City-supported new owner that will repair or recreate such a mixed-use building on that property. It will be the closest property to the university faculty and students to use, and would provide the kind of beauty he says he wants. Besides, Avanti’s is not the “front door” to Bradley University; it’s the front door to the Uplands neighborhood.

Here’s the obvious answer to this speech: Bradley should focus their work, budget, and improvement on the area within their Institutional Zone (the area zoned N1). That means that his plan to turn the gravel lot into pickleball courts or tearing down the brick OLLI building and putting up a pedestrian entrance to campus (as I described it) is fine–no problem. But outside of the N1 zone, Bradley should collaborate with neighbors and the City and find solutions that are best for all organizations.

City of Peoria, Economic Development

One Technology Plaza up for auction

1 Comment

If you’re looking for a bargain on an office building downtown, don’t miss the auction for One Technology Plaza October 16-18. Starting bid is $1.5 million. The marketing description indicates the office building is 148,055 square feet (contiguous space up to 22,441 square feet) and only 31.7% occupied.

The building sits at the corner of Fulton and Adams streets, where the downtown Bergner’s store once stood. The old Bergner’s building was razed in the fall of 1997 to make way for the new “Riverfront Technology Center” (as it was called before a naming contest came up with “One Technology Plaza”). Developed by Diane Cullinan, the project was slated to cost $32.2 million, $12.4 million of which consisted of public investment from ICC ($3.2 million) and the City of Peoria ($9.2 million for the parking deck). It also got $1.2 million from Caterpillar and a state grant for $500,000.

At the time it was proposed, the City had high hopes for the tech center. It was going to provide high-tech training and provide high-tech infrastructure for tenants. It was going to revitalize downtown, make us part of the “silicon prairie,” lure new technology businesses to the city, help create a home-grown high-tech workforce, and beautify a blighted corner in the center of town.

The training portion of that dream, a company called RiverTech Community Technology Center, folded just a year after it opened due to lack of business, leaving 6,000 square feet of empty space. And just like that, One Technology Plaza became just another office building downtown, and everyone moved on to the next big project that was going to revitalize downtown.

City Council, City of Peoria, Economic Development, TIF

Saving downtown one new hotel at a time

6 Comments

I stopped blogging for several years shortly after the big Wonderful Development opened downtown. You may recall that they remodeled the Pere Marquette, opened the new Courtyard Marriott, and had plans to put in restaurants and bars and retail, and oh, goodness, that block was going to be hopping! And the best part was, it wasn’t going to cost taxpayers a thing because, “It pays for itself,” an exuberant Mayor Ardis said at the time.

As it turns out, not one restaurant, bar, or retail shop has ever opened in the storefronts along Monroe. In fact, the interior was never even finished; it still looks like a construction site inside. Taxpayers lost the $7 million loan and is saddled with ongoing lawsuits with developer Gary Matthews. And since the pandemic, the Courtyard has been closed, ostensibly due to low demand.

But no worries. It turns out that what downtown really needs to start bustling like it’s 1939 again is — wait for it — another hotel! Yes. The Peoria City Council has just approved another redevelopment agreement with another hotel developer that’s promising 70% occupancy, a national flag (this time it will be a Hilton Garden Inn), a restaurant/bar, and a convenience store. And it won’t cost taxpayers anything. It’s risk-free!

The new hotel is planned for Adams street, across the street from the new OSF Health Care corporate headquarters, in place of the former Sully’s bar and the former downtown Illinois Central College campus (also known as the Perley building). Plans call for the two properties to be razed to make way for the new development. Incidentally, artists’ renderings show Fulton Plaza replaced with two-way vehicular traffic again, but there’s nothing in the redevelopment agreement about it.

Oh, and it’s absolutely, positively, nothing at all like that Wonderful Development from a decade or so ago. Everybody says so: the developer, the developer’s attorney, various other people with a vested interest in the project, and the City Manager.

They have a point. There are many differences. This project includes apartments on the upper floors in addition to hotel rooms on the lower floors. That’s a new twist. The City isn’t loaning $7 million from underfunded pension funds this time. That’s a plus. They’re also not handing $33 million to the developer up front (backed by municipal bonds that we’re still on the hook to pay off), although they swore that was an awesome idea the last time. But hey, we all make multi-million-dollar mistakes with other people’s money now and then. Can’t remain bitter about that forever, am I right?

But on the other hand, there are a lot of similarities. It’s highly debatable that we need more hotel rooms downtown. As mentioned, one entire hotel downtown is still closed–try to book a room in the Courtyard. The occupancy predictions presented at the council meeting tonight (brought to you by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, a consultant for the hotel industry who reportedly did the feasibility study for this project) are unrealistically high, just like they were for the Wonderful Development. They’re also promising a new restaurant and retail, just like they did with the last hotel project, but which never materialized.

And there’s one more similarity worth mentioning: This does come with a cost to taxpayers. This hotel will be in the Downtown Conservation TIF (tax increment financing district), and the City has promised to pay the developer up to 100% of the redevelopment costs out of the increase in taxes attributable to the project site. That’s money that otherwise would go to other taxing districts, such as the County, District 150, the Park District, ICC, etc. That means taxpayers like you and me will have to take up the slack.

This also means the new hotel will be competing with the Pere Marquette and (still shuttered) Courtyard Marriott. The $33 million in bonds to build those hotels is supposed to get paid back out of revenues from those hotels. If revenue goes down due to increased competition for an (I would argue) over-supply of hotel rooms, then the bond repayment has to be made up from taxpayers like you and me. You can’t stop a private developer from building another hotel (that’s capitalism), but you don’t have to give them a sweetheart TIF deal that will likely harm your other investments, either.

True to form, however, the deal was sealed before the Council ever met, and it passed unanimously tonight. That’s okay. We’re finally going to get downtown moving again, just like we were promised with the Pere Marquette renovation. And the Civic Center expansion. And the museum. And the new Cat headquarters. And One Technology Plaza. And Riverfront Village. And….

Amtrak, City of Peoria

Replay: Why train service needs to be to Chicago, not Normal

47 Comments

Speaking of bad ideas, a recent Word on the Street article says that local officials are still pursuing the foolhardy idea of getting a commuter train to Bloomington instead of a direct Amtrak route to Chicago. Rather than re-explain in different words why this is such a bad idea, I’m just going to reprint an earlier article I wrote on the subject (original post here):

The old Peoria-to-Bloomington commuter train idea is apparently still on the table over at the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Let’s go over this again:

Nobody wants to take a train to Bloomington. The only reason anyone would ever take a train to Bloomington is to continue on to Chicago or St. Louis. And if their ultimate destination is elsewhere, they’ll just drive to Bloomington to catch the train. Bloomington has free parking and virtually no traffic congestion. So a Peoria-Bloomington route is doomed to fail.

Peoria to Chicago, on the other hand, would be a heavily-traveled route. Since Chicago would be the ultimate destination for most train trips anyway (they’re a major Amtrak hub, unlike St. Louis), it makes sense to have a direct route from Peoria. Those in the tri-county area could avoid the commute to Bloomington to catch the train, as well as avoiding the traffic congestion and high cost of parking in Chicago.

Look at it this way: imagine we’re talking about air service instead of train service. Can you imagine anyone seriously suggesting that the best we could do is to offer commuter flights to Bloomington for those who wanted to continue on to Chicago (or any other destination)? With a layover? Where you have to switch planes and transfer your own bags? Would anyone buy a ticket on that flight? No. And they won’t take a commuter train to Bloomington, either.

We need our legislators to start fighting for Peoria transportation options instead of fighting against them. You would think we’d be in a great position having a home-town boy as Secretary of Transportation, and yet LaHood is the biggest obstacle. He’s never supported train service for Peoria. In fact, he’s been downright ornery opposing it. Why? Does Caterpillar not want train service to Peoria or something? And what about Durbin? He supported the Quad Cities in their effort to get passenger rail service–why isn’t he doing more to push Peoria’s effort? Where are our advocates?

The Greater Peoria Area is the third-largest metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the state. There’s demand for passenger rail service here. Instead of the Illinois Department of Transportation giving away millions of dollars to build new and unsustainable roads through cornfields (Orange Prairie Road extension, Pioneer Parkway extension), why don’t they put that money toward a responsible and sustainable mode of transportation that would help the whole region: direct passenger rail service from Peoria to Chicago?

лак за паркет

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Gary Sandberg

Sandberg to appeal ruling (UPDATED)

12 Comments

Just minutes before Peoria’s Board of Election Commissioners voted to remove Gary Sandberg’s name from the first district ballot, Sandberg told the Peoria Chronicle, “If I am disallowed I will appeal to circuit court.”

Published reports so far have not detailed which part of the municipal code was cited by the Election Commission in making their decision. The Journal Star, for instance, just says, “Commissioners cited municipal code that states a candidate has to live for one year in the district in which he or she runs for office.”

Updates will be made to this post as more information becomes available.

UPDATE (12/18/2012): Despite having asked for a copy of the ruling a week ago, the Election Commission would not release it. However, I was able to get a copy from Sandberg. Incidentally, Sandberg asked for it to be emailed to him and signed a document to that effect with the Election Commission, but they wouldn’t email him a copy. They sent it regular mail. It’s unclear why the commission chose this tactic of deliberate and unnecessary delays in releasing public information that was already announced at a public meeting a week ago. I guess just to show us peasants who the lord of the fiefdom is.

The analysis I provided in a previous post was basically correct, except that I missed one thing. You’ll recall that I was unsure how 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(c) would be interpreted, since it used the terminology of “alderman” and “ward,” and our form of government is council-manager which uses the terms “councilman” and “district.” The answer is found in 65 ILCS 5/1-1-2(8), which states: “Wherever the words ‘city council,’ ‘aldermen,’ ‘commissioners,’ or ‘mayor’ occur, the provisions containing these words shall apply to the board of trustees, trustees, and president, respectively of villages and incorporated towns and councilmen in cities, so far as those provisions are applicable to them.” Based on that, the election commission determined that the one-year residency requirement for aldermen also applies to councilmen.

So far, Sandberg has not filed an appeal to the Circuit Court.

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

Main Street Commons, City Council continue to flout form-based codes

15 Comments

More residential parcels will become parking lots for the Main Street Commons development following the City Council’s 8-2 vote Tuesday night. The student apartment complex at Main Street and Bourland Avenue was granted approval to add 32 more apartment units to the existing 88 units and nearly double the number of off-street parking spaces from 97 to 182.

The plan, which violates the letter and spirit of the Land Development Code, was agreed to by City staff, the Zoning Commission, and the majority of the City Council. The plan was opposed by the University East Neighborhood Association and council members Akeson and Sandberg.

And they say Peoria isn’t “business friendly.” The Zoning Commission approved the plan even though the developer stood in front of them and admitted that he didn’t respond to the neighborhood association’s request to have him explain his plan to them. Second district council member Barbara Van Auken, who is seeking reelection next spring, made the motion to approve on the Council floor in spite of opposition to the project from the neighbors she represents.

Whither the West Main Form District?

What’s especially disappointing about this latest addition to Main Street Commons’ special use permit is that this project is set in one of the City’s four form districts — areas with very specific form-based codes. Form-based codes are used to combat urban sprawl — to proscribe built environments like the very one being created by Main Street Commons. This code was put together following a long process of public involvement and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the area.

But form-based codes only work if they’re followed. In this case, certain limits within the code have been consistently overridden by the Zoning Commission and the Council to the detriment of the neighborhood.

The buildings that front Main Street, according to the code, can be up to 5 stories tall, but as you move away from Main Street and into the adjoining neighborhood, the building mass is supposed to diminish. The code permits structures to be built along Bourland (going north from Main) to be 2-3 stories high and have frontage that does not extend further than 130 feet. The structure the council is allowing will be 4 stories high and extend 200 feet. This does not sufficiently taper the building mass into the neighborhood.

Another purpose behind the limits on building mass is to provide enough room on and around the block for parking. By increasing the mass of the building, additional parking needs are generated, and that has led to the razing of houses in the adjoining neighborhood to make way for surface parking lots. As of Tuesday night, two more parcels were added for conversion to surface lots. This again violates the letter and spirit of the code. Two of the goals of the parking requirements are to “reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, single-purpose reserved parking,” and, “avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the form districts.” This special use does just the opposite.

The code also requires alleys, but in a subsequent vote the Council vacated the existing alleys in the block being developed by Main Street Commons.

In short, the Land Development Code was once again eviscerated, treated like it doesn’t exist. The protections for neighborhoods were overruled and a development that could have been a welcome addition and stabilizing force has instead turned into an encroaching, destabilizing force in the University East neighborhood because it’s being allowed to grow unchecked by the very public bodies that are supposed to be representing the residents of Peoria.

Salt Lake City takes a different, better approach

The very same night the Peoria City Council voted to allow houses in an urban neighborhood to be razed to make way for a surface parking lot, the City Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, banned demolishing buildings to create parking lots. Furthermore, they are considering an ordinance that “would require property owners to keep vacant buildings and houses ‘habitable’ — fit to live or work in. It would allow for demolition only after a property owner submits plans for a replacement structure and obtains a building permit.”

Why? Because they recognize that just razing buildings does not stabilize an area. Take a look on the South Side or East Bluff in Peoria. There are lots of empty lots where houses have been razed. But has that really helped the neighborhood? There are certainly some advantages to such a strategy if the property was an eyesore, safety hazard, or haven for drug dealers. But ultimately, replacing run-down structures with vacant lots (often weed-infested) and surface parking do nothing to increase property values or attract new people to the neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods with multiple missing houses look like a smile with missing teeth: not attractive.

It’s a shame more progressive policies against blight can’t be enacted — and enforced — here in Peoria. It’s a shame we don’t enforce the existing policies that residents already worked so hard to enact.

A person in the City Council gallery Tuesday, frustrated with the Council on another issue that affects a neighborhood in the third district, asked rhetorically if the City Council represents the residents or the developers. I think we all know the answer to that question.

City of Peoria

Garbage collection bill coming soon

14 Comments

PEORIA — You may have noticed that your water bill is $13 cheaper lately. That’s because the so-called “garbage fee,” which used to be collected for the City by Illinois American Water Company, is no longer included on your water bill.

But now a separate bill for garbage collection is coming soon to your mailbox.

“On October 30, 2012, the City Council approved an agreement with First Tech, a subsidiary of Busey Bank, to manage the billing services for the refuse collection fee,” City Manager Patrick Urich said via email. “We will be mailing out bills shortly, and they will be going to property owners (not tenants).”

Only residential property owners will receive garbage collection bills. Commercial, industrial and non-profit properties contract separately for garbage collection service, so they are not charged for residential waste service, which is provided by Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) under a contract with the City of Peoria. “This is why it wasn’t recommended to be a property tax-supported service,” Urich explained.

One question that has been raised by residents is how payment of this fee will be enforced. Under the old system, non-payment could result in water service being shut off. The new system doesn’t have such an obvious enforcement mechanism.

“We have been reviewing all of our options,” Urich said, “including stopping trash collection, placing liens, or including non-payment in the State Comptroller’s Local Debt Recovery Program that would allow us to intercept any income tax refund if monies are owed to us.”

Another question that has been voiced in the community is why PDC doesn’t bill residents for garbage collection directly, which would save the City money on the cost of billing, which is estimated to be as much as $160,000 per year.

Urich says that “the fee is ours (the City’s),” not PDC’s. “If we did not have a contract with PDC to collect waste and dispose of it, each individual would be responsible for it (like the unicorporated county).” In other words, the contract is between PDC and the City, not PDC and individual property owners. Thus, if the City wants to recoup its costs, it must bear the cost of billing property owners.

If individuals were to contract individually with a waste collection company, Urich added, “the cost could be considerably higher.”

2013 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Mayor

Weaver decides against mayoral run

8 Comments

PEORIA — At-large City Councilman Chuck Weaver announced today via press release that he will not run for Peoria mayor this election cycle.

Weaver told the Peoria Chronicle that when he started exploring a mayoral run, incumbent Mayor Jim Ardis had not yet announced whether he would be seeking reelection. Now that Ardis has announced, Weaver said he thought a mayoral contest would be a distraction from the work the mayor and the council are doing.

Weaver also said that exploring a run for mayor allowed him to “get back out and talk to folks.” In the process, he learned that his base has gotten bigger and more diverse since he was first elected.

Mayor Ardis is currently the only announced candidate for mayor.

Here’s the press release:

Continue reading Weaver decides against mayoral run →

City of Peoria

Good news: Your tax dollars are being wasted on time and on budget

11 Comments

The Wonderful Development (aka The Downtown Marriott Hotel Project) is progressing on-budget and on-schedule, according to a report by the City’s project manager, PSA Dewberry. The new parking garage is still expected to be completed by the end of this year, and the renovated Pere Marquette is scheduled to open as the Peoria Marriott Pere Marquette by the end of April 2013.

Now, if you’ve been following this project for awhile, you should be scratching your head and thinking to yourself, “How is an end-of-April opening considered ‘on time’?” Good question. I thought the deadline for opening the Pere Marquette was supposed to be March 1, 2013–in time to host all the people coming for March Madness.

It turns out, that wasn’t really a deadline. According to the City Manager’s office, there is a penalty if the hotel doesn’t open by March 1, but March 1 is not a deadline. (If that sounds crazy to you, remember that the City has no working definition for “deadline” — the word is simply not in their vocabulary.) Here’s the pertinent part of the redevelopment agreement:

“7.5 Liquidated Damages. In the event that the Hotel Pere Marquette is not open to the public on or before March 1,2013, the Redeveloper will pay to the City on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty an amount equal to $41,000 for each calendar month or portion thereof that transpires after March 1,2013 (including March, 2013) until the date that the Hotel Pere Marquette is open to the public. In addition, in the event that the Courtyard Inn & Suites is not open to the public on or before May 1, 2014, the Redeveloper will pay to the City on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty an amount equal to $41,000 for each calendar month or portion thereof that transpires after May 1,2014 (including May, 2014) until the date that the Courtyard Inn & Suites is open to the public.”

With an opening date for the Pere slated for the end of April 2013, it looks like the City will be receiving $82,000 in “liquidated damages” … if the City decides to collect it, that is. The City Manager’s office said today that they will collect it if the hotel is not open by the deadline target date.

Without any defined deadline, it should be easy for Dewberry to determine whether the project is on schedule. It’s always on schedule. How could it not be? There’s no reference point against which to measure it. We can just rest assured that the project is on time, whatever time it gets finished.

View the complete report:
Wonderful Development Progress Report as of 9/14/2012