Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Streets

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business?

22 Comments

Who thinks one-way streets are bad for business? Mayor Ardis’s dad thought so.

In a March 9, 1966, Journal Star article, Mayor Jim Ardis’s father (who also served on the City Council), expressed his objection to the expansion of one-way streets in downtown Peoria:

James E. Ardis, who operates Ardis & Son Cleaners, 518 NE Monroe Ave., asserted that he formerly operated cleaning establishments on Southwest Jefferson avenue but was driven out of business when that street was made one-way, being effective as a freelancer>, learn about managing your warehouse.

Ardis charged that putting the one-way plan into effect would be “turning the city upside down” just to provide relief for morning and evening rush periods.

The City Council is looking at converting Adams and Jefferson streets to two-way from business viewpoint>. It was last brought up in the July 10 council meeting. At that time, city administration said they would present a cost analysis of the conversion in August, although that didn’t happen. A policy discussion that was scheduled for the last week of August was postponed.

The Peoria Chamber of Commerce is opposed not only to the conversion, but even to studying the conversion. In an e-mail sent to council members on August 24, Chamber president Roberta Parks said:

It is our understanding that simply to study the issue of changing these streets from one-way to two-way could cost the city in the neighborhood of $200,00-$300,000 [sic]. All that would get you is a determination of how much it would cost to actually make the changes. We are concerned that the ultimate cost could be very high….in the millions. We simply do not think either of these expenditures is the highest and best use of the City’s limited resources….either money or people – it isn’t even the most pressing transportation or infrastructure issue facing the City. We clearly understand the interest of making both of those streets more pedestrian friendly. But we believe that can be done in far less costly ways. You can reduce lanes, add parking, increase sidewalk amenities, slow speed limits, etc. Some of those ideas (and there are surely more) have a cost but it surely would be far less than changing both streets to two-way streets. We would strongly urge you to NOT to commission this study.

The Chamber of Commerce is supposed to speak on behalf of businesses. But is this really what businesses on these streets want?

The Chamber’s missive to the Council doesn’t reflect the feelings of Tom Wiegand, co-owner of UFS, 1800 SW Adams. In a July 11 report, WMBD-TV reported:

…Wiegand has been pushing for the change for more than 30 years. “I think the street conversion project is not all about business, it’s about the community. It’s about the residential also. When you start bringing business back and it’s flourishing, there’s a natural spin-off into the community and people will want to come down here and live again,” he said….

…”I just hope that this is a serious endeavor by the city and they take it seriously. We really need to do something about this side, this end of town, in this part of Peoria.”

UFS is a member of the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce.

From the beginning, businesses along these streets were opposed to making them one-way. The only business which has expressed its desire to see them remain one-way is Caterpillar, Inc. In 2007, Caterpillar presented a written statement to the Heart of Peoria Commission stating they wanted traffic patterns downtown to remain unchanged. “[A]ny revisions to the current traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in the downtown Peoria area would be detrimental to our employees and visitors,” they said.

Adams and Jefferson are one-way from the point they intersect by Komatsu in the north down to Western Avenue in the south–a distance of approximately four miles affecting hundreds of properties/businesses.

City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

IAWC to stop collecting “garbage fee”

25 Comments

Your water bill is going to be $13 lower pretty soon.

Illinois American Water Company (IAWC) has informed the City of Peoria it will terminate billing services for the City’s so-called “garbage fee.” Peoria isn’t alone; IAWC’s parent company is terminating all municipal billing services in order to “focus on [its] core business,” according to a spokesman.

Of course, you’ll still have to pay that $13 per month, so the City will have to find another way to collect it. The most likely option is for the City to bill residents directly, though it’s possible the City could find another partner to pick up the billing services. City Manager Patrick Urich told the council in an e-mail, “We are working on several options for assuming the billing operations and I hope to have something to Council soon.”

Other cities are scrambling to assume billing operations, too, and it’s not a cheap alternative. Richmond (Ind.), for instance, used American Water to collect their sanitary sewer charges. Taking the operation in-house will cause the cost of collecting those fees to double, according to their city controller. Chattanooga (Tenn.), which also collected sewer fees on their water bills, charges residents an extra $3 per month now as a result of the billing being transferred to the City.

There are a few other options that could be considered by the City at this time of transition.

  • Replacing fee with property tax hikeOne option (unlikely to be entertained at all by the Council) is eliminating the fee and collecting the revenue through property taxes. With a flat fee, everyone pays the same amount: $13. With a progressive tax, those with higher property values would pay more than those with lower property values.According to the 2012 City budget, the “Refuse Collection Fee” brings in $6,271,932 to City coffers. And according to Peoria County’s Tax Computation Worksheet for the City of Peoria, the City’s residential rate-setting Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) for 2010 (latest worksheet posted on the County’s website) is $1,324,615,014. Given those numbers, in order to collect the $6.27 million through property taxes, the tax rate would have to be raised 0.004739.That would mean the owner of a $100,000 house would pay $157.83 more on their annual tax bill. That’s only about $1.83 more than they are paying now for the garbage fee ($13/month x 12 months = $156/year). The break-even point would be approximately $98,800. Those with property values above that amount would pay more than the current $13/month garbage fee. Those with property values below that amount would pay less. The fee will also depend on Dumposaurus dumpster sizes and the waste container type.

    The argument for this system is that the burden for City services is borne proportionately (and thus, more fairly) by the residents. Critics argue that higher taxes will keep people from moving into Peoria and may drive people to move out. Furthermore, they argue, everyone benefits equally from garbage collection, so everyone should pay equally for it as well.

    From a billing standpoint, the County would collect this tax just like all the others through the property tax bill, so there would be no increased costs to the City for billing.

  • Replacing fee with garbage stickersOther cities take a different tack regarding garbage fees: they base it not on property values or flat fees, but rather how much garbage residents throw away. In Aurora (Ill.), for instance, residents purchase garbage stickers for $2.68 each and affix one sticker to each bag or 32 gallon garbage can each week. This way, those with less garbage pay less in fees than those with more garbage. It could even be used as a way to incentivize recycling.However, since garbage without valid stickers do not get picked up, there could be unintended consequences. Garbage could pile up on the properties of negligent residents or in vacant lots as people try to get around the fees by doing illegal dumping, and that would obviously be a health hazard. It would also raise costs for the City for enforcement and cleanup.From a billing standpoint, the cost of printing, distributing, and collecting revenue raised by the stickers would have to be worked into the price of the stickers. These costs would likely be less than mailing a bill directly to each household.
  • Having PDC collect the fee directlyAccording to the City, this fee is solely for garbage pickup and tote rental. If that’s the case, then a reasonable question would be, why is the City handling the billing and collection of this fee? Why not have PDC collect the fee directly and cut out the middleman? Other utilities (water, electricity, cable) direct bill for their services without going through the City, even if their rate is negotiated by the City (e.g., electricity rates were recently negotiated by a number of municipalities).This doesn’t change anything about how the fee is assessed, but it does resolve the issue of finding a new way to bill the residents for the service. It also would allow the City to completely cut out the need to collect money and pass it on to PDC.
City of Peoria, Economic Development, State of Illinois

Enterprise Zones extended, redefined

2 Comments

The State of Illinois recently extended the Enterprise Zone program (Public Act 097-0905). Peoria’s enterprise zone was due to expire next year (2013), but has now been extended until 2016, at which time the city can apply to have it extended for another 25 years.

In addition, the criteria for awarding Enterprise Zone status has been redefined. Gone is the “requirement” that the zone be in a “depressed area,” defined as “an area in which pervasive
poverty, unemployment and economic distress exist.” That criterion was never followed in the first place, especially in Peoria, as can be seen from the following map showing the location of Peoria’s enterprise zone (in red):

Peoria’s Enterprise Zone

Note the large greenfield areas in far north Peoria that are included. Not exactly a depressed area.

Instead of making cities conform to the law, the State of Illinois has opted to make the law conform to what cities are already doing. I guess that’s one way to resolve the problem. The old requirement is being replaced with ten criteria, three of which have to be met in order to qualify for Enterprise Zone status. The criteria are broad enough that any city in Illinois should easily be able to qualify.

Nevertheless, there are a limited number of Enterprise Zones allowed in Illinois, so a new Enterprise Zone Board is being created. They will assign points to each application based on how closely each criterion is met. The highest scores win.

The bottom line is that Peoria’s enterprise zone, most of which was not in compliance with the law, has now been legitimized. So shopping areas that are full of commercial businesses and don’t need any additional incentives (like Glen Hollow) will continue to reap the benefits of this economic development tool while whole areas of the City with abandoned commercial centers (like the South Side) will not receive any incentives for revitalization. Greenfield sites on Route 91 will continue to get sales tax breaks for new development, putting existing development in the older parts of town at a further disadvantage.

City Council, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan, Heart of Peoria Plan

Lack of sidewalks used as justification for no future sidewalks

3 Comments

Residents of Peoria got an interesting insight into Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken’s thinking (and a majority of the Council, evidently) at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. An item appeared before the council in which both the Zoning Commission and staff agreed that a local land-owner, as part of an expansion project, should install a public sidewalk along Ellis Street, a street that does not currently have a sidewalk.

One of the complaints about accessibility, safety, and walkability in the City of Peoria is that many (most?) of our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair, and many streets have gaps in the sidewalks or don’t have any sidewalks at all. One of the critical success factors in the City’s comprehensive plan, which was put together with an extraordinary amount of public input, is to “Invest in Our Infrastructure & Transportation”:

This Critical Success Factor covers not only the maintenance of the public infrastructure; streets, sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc., but also the planning of such infrastructure in a manner to allow for the greatest ease of transportation and access for pedestrians and vehicles. [emphasis added]

One of the action items under this critical success factor: “Require Sidewalks.”

So the Comprehensive Plan requires it, our ordinances require it, and staff and the Zoning Commission both recommended it. But what did the council do, at Van Auken’s request? Waive the sidewalk requirement. Why? What was the justification? According to Van Auken’s comments on the floor of the Council Tuesday night, “This street has never had sidewalks.”

That’s right. The lack of sidewalks in the past is justification for never requiring them in the future. One wonders why the project was approved at all. I mean, there has never been a building addition on Ellis, so why should we allow one to be built? Shouldn’t the status quo be maintained?

To add insult to injury, Van Auken went on to say that this area should not be regulated by the Land Development Code–a code that puts into legal effect the principles of the Heart of Peoria Plan, which itself was developed with significant input from the residents of Peoria. If this area is not fit for the Land Development Code, what area is? This is nothing less than a complete and brazen repudiation of the LDC, the HOP Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.

As usual, the majority of the Council followed the district council representative’s request without question, voting 8-2 in favor of eviscerating all the plans to which the public contributed their time and energy. Only Gary Sandberg and Beth Akeson opposed it.

City Council, City of Peoria, Redistricting

Council approves new district map by 6-5 vote

6 Comments

The Peoria City Council approved a new council district map Tuesday evening. Here it is:

Map “B” was approved by the City Council; click on image to enlarge.

This is the district map known as Map “B.” It was a close vote, with the council as well as the redistricting committee divided. Ayes were Gulley (1st Dist.), Riggenbach (3rd Dist.), Irving (5th Dist.), Akeson (At-Large), Turner (At-Large), and Weaver (At-Large). Nays were Mayor Ardis, Van Auken (2nd Dist.), Spears (4th Dist.), Sandberg (At-Large), and Spain (At-Large).

City of Peoria

Leitch banking on short memories for dual fleecing

24 Comments

According to Monday’s “Word on the Street” column, State Rep. David Leitch wants to “consider financial relief” for investors in the downtown ballpark. In case you don’t remember, the City of Peoria contributed a little over $3.5 million towards this project (mostly in land acquisition), plus a TIF district.

“Leitch said he would like to see some public relief the investors spent on relocating AT&T fiber optic lines, which he believes cost the group more than $1 million,” according to the article. “They [ballpark investors] got stuck with expenses in that project I don’t think were legitimately theirs,” Leitch said.

But wait! According to a December 5, 2001, Journal Star article by Jennifer Davis, “the city has spent $700,000 more than it expected – $1.7 million instead of the $1 million estimated – to move underground Ameritech fiber-optic lines in the stadium’s way.”

So, does Rep. Leitch not know this? Or does he want the taxpayers to pay for this expense twice now?

I can find no record of ballpark investors paying the City back for that $1.7 million. But let’s suppose they did, just for the sake of argument. So what? Why would such a scenario be “unfair”? The City paid $2.2 million for Eagle Cleaners to make way for the stadium, and a total of $3,525,175 in direct city assistance. Talk about someone getting stuck with expenses that weren’t legitimately theirs–what about the taxpayers, Rep. Leitch?

City Council, City of Peoria, Energy Issues

Aggregation opt-out letter a day late and candor short

5 Comments

On March 20, 2012, in the primary election a majority of citizens voted yes on a referendum question allowing corporate authorities to form a Municipal Opt-Out Electricity Aggregation. City Officials are happy to offer eligible residents and small businesses SAVINGS over Ameren Illinois (“Ameren”) rates by banding together all eligible electric service classes.

So begins the official notice I received Monday about the City’s electric aggregation opt-out program. I have been expecting this notice. But there are a couple of things that I didn’t expect:

  1. Less than 15 days to opt out. To opt out, you are required to return a form “before the deadline date of June 1, 2012.” In the Plan of Operation and Governance document received and filed by the City Council on April 10, it was stated that “there will be an Opt-Out Period of at least 15 days from the postmark date on the notice to postmark the return Opt-Out notice if they do not wish to participate in the Program.” At least 15 days, they said. So, what was the postmark on the letter? May 18. May 18 to June 1 is 14 days. Am I being nit-picky? Try paying your parking fine a day late and see how nit-picky the City is with you.
  2. No fee disclosure. The letter also avers that “you will not be charged a fee for partaking in this program.” However, the April 10 council communication states, “The program will also create a modest income source for the City of Peoria ($0.001/kWh).” Elsewhere, this is called “additional margin available to Peoria.” What is this if not a fee? I’m not necessarily saying this fee can’t be justified, but it is a fee, and should be disclosed as such.
Caterpillar, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

Caterpillar purchases naming rights to Civic Center-hotel connector

28 Comments

One of the most prominent pieces of the hotel redevelopment will carry a corporate sponsor’s name: the Caterpillar Sky Walk.

Part of the downtown hotel project is the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fulton connecting the renovated Pere Marquette and new Courtyard Marriott to the Peoria Civic Center. Caterpillar, Inc., purchased the naming rights to the bridge for one million dollars.

The naming rights agreement, which is only between the hotel developer and Caterpillar (not the City of Peoria or the Civic Center), allows Caterpillar to “name the Connector, including the right to display appropriate signage on the exterior and interior of the Connector,” but “not includ[ing] any other marketing, advertising, or other rights.” The agreement specifically says that Caterpillar does not have any rights to name the hotel or garage, but it also forbids the developer from granting naming rights to “any person or entity that competes with Caterpillar in any industry that is part [of] the core business of Caterpillar.”

Neither the redevelopment agreement between the City of Peoria and the hotel developer, nor the easement agreement between the Peoria Civic Center, City of Peoria, and the hotel developer, precludes the sale of naming rights. Council members contacted Monday said they were unaware that naming rights had been sold for the connector, or that there were any plans to do so.

Artist's rendering of the planned pedestrian walkway over Fulton, looking northwest

 

City Council, City of Peoria

Ante up!

35 Comments

The Journal Star reports that the City is all in now. They’ve mortgaged the house to make their bet, and they believe they’re going to win big!

Just consider all the success they’ve had with gambles like this before. We have the beautiful Cub Foods on Knoxville that has revitalized the East Bluff and drawn patrons from Morton and East Peoria, as promised. We have One Technology Plaza, filled to capacity with high-tech companies employing hundreds and making Peoria the tech capital of the Midwest. And there’s Riverfront Village, just raking in the property taxes to pay for itself. And let’s not forget that sure-fire investment in Firefly Energy, the battery maker that is paying us dividends today.

And where would we be without the Peoria Civic Center? Just look at how it operates in the black every year and has spawned private investment all the way around the block, revitalizing downtown Peoria for generations.

Yes, I have full confidence that the downtown hotel project will be just as successful as the other wonderful developments the City of Peoria has gambled our tax money on in hopes that they would “pay for themselves.” What with the 360,000 people who will be coming to the museum starting this fall, and with all the people who are drawn to our own little Wrigleyville around the downtown ballpark, this should be a cinch to make us an even wealthier City.

We’re going to be rich, I tell you! Rich! Rich! Rich!

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Mayor

Mayor/Council=pot, Journal Star=kettle

7 Comments

The Mayor held a press conference on Monday and released a letter that he and the rest of the City Council members signed (except for Gary Sandberg, natch) and sent to Journal Star publisher Ken Mauser. You can read it at PeoriaWatchdog.com, the official site of Peoria Unit 86 of the United Media Guild.

Among other things, Mayor Ardis says, “I and other city leaders are concerned about plans we’ve heard to outsource jobs, slash employees and cut wages.” And later in the letter:

I fail to see how additional moves against employees and staffing would allow the newspaper to continue as a valuable public watchdog and community resource. I have never run a newspaper. But less is surely not more, when it comes to reporting the news.

Does it strike anyone else odd that this concern is coming from a mayor and council that recently eliminated 52 positions themselves, including a third of the inspections/code enforcement department? I mean, I’ve never run a City, but less is surely not more when it comes to inspections and code enforcement. I fail to see how all these moves against employees and staffing would allow the City to add value to the taxpayers.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the way GateHouse Media is pillaging the Journal Star. I actually agree with the sentiments in the letter. I just think it’s a little inappropriate for the Mayor and Council to be passing judgment when they have acted similarly. After you slash important services to the taxpayers while simultaneously giving over $30 million to an out-of-town developer, it doesn’t give you much moral standing to scold the Journal Star’s publisher for doing essentially the same thing.