Peoria approves 2.2-acre car wash development and $5 million engineering services contracts
PEORIA, ARIZONA — April 13, 2021

Peoria approves 2.2-acre car wash development and $5 million engineering services contracts

City council approved car wash development after extensive public review of traffic concerns and engineering services contracts to address staffing shortages, along with utility assistance and infrastructure programs.

Peoria Council Approves Glen-and-University Car Wash, Authorizes Four Engineering Firms to Fill Critical Staffing Gaps

On April 13, 2021, the Peoria City Council voted unanimously to approve a car wash development at the corner of Glen Avenue and University Street—a decision that resolved months of contentious public debate over property rights, tenant displacement, and traffic impacts—and simultaneously approved four separate master service agreements with engineering firms to address severe staffing shortages caused by retirements.

The car wash vote represented a culmination of careful negotiation and public process. The engineering contracts signal a strategic pivot away from in-house staffing toward outsourced program management in the face of an $109 million, 18-year EPA consent decree program to address combined sewer overflow.

Key Speeches

Seth Uphoff, attorney for the Joseph family property owners, opened the car wash discussion by announcing that all existing tenants had been successfully relocated or supported:

"We really want to thank the city and the development department for joining in that effort and providing some guidance and insight to those tenants so that they could find successful locations." — Seth Uphoff, attorney for the Joseph family

Diane Joseph, a niece of property owner Diana Joseph, delivered an emotional defense of the family's 66-year stewardship:

"Our family like many other like many here in peoria immigrated here from lebanon over 100 years ago... they had a vision and trusted peoria to grow and expand and they did... we humbly ask that you vote in favor of this proposal." — Diane Joseph, representing the Joseph family

Council Member Timothy Riggenbach, who championed the car wash approval, placed the decision in comparative context:

"If we would allow a gas station to go there which is permitted under current zoning... you could expect 1 thousand six hundred and forty three vehicles entering and exiting the day compared to the peak number of nine forty nine... a fast food restaurant... you could expect over 1300 cars a day coming and going." — Timothy Riggenbach Ross Black, Community Development, addressed wastewater concerns:

"The car wash like any business any new construction business would not be able to open without a certificate of occupancy and uh they would not receive a certificate of occupancy until all of the applicable regulatory agencies have signed off on the construction." — Director Ross Black

On the engineering services, Public Works Director Powers explained the rationale for outsourcing program management:

"The majority of our engineering staff with any tenure are leaving meaning all but one for the most part of that entire division and our historic inability to recruit meaning we've had a vacancy within the department for five years... we believe are actually offering us greater depth meaning they bring the full breadth of their firm with them that we don't have even within the city." — Director Powers

Timeline

Car Wash Development (Item 21-103):

Engineering Services Agreements (Items 21-100 and 21-101):

Sewer Fund Balance Allocation (Item 21-103):

Opposition

The car wash project faced significant public opposition, documented through social media and public meetings, though no formal opposition speakers appeared at the April 13 council meeting.

Main concerns raised by the public (per Director Black and Council Members):

  1. Traffic impact on University Street: Residents worried the car wash would exacerbate congestion on an already heavily traveled corridor.
  2. Tenant displacement: Uncertainty about what would happen to existing businesses (Nerd's on Call, Habitat for Humanity ReStore, Isle of Erin Irish Dance Studio, Lee's Chinese Garden, Relics collectibles, Mediterranean Market, Cottage Care home services).
  3. Property rights and city authority: Confusion about whether the city could block the sale or demolition.
  4. Environmental discharge: Concerns about wastewater disposal and potential pollution.
  5. Parcel size adequacy: Claims the 2.2-acre site was insufficient for a car wash.
  6. Nostalgia for existing shopping center: Public preference for the status quo or "full occupancy" of the older building.
  7. Broader question of "do we need more car washes?": Market saturation argument.

Most compelling arguments from opposition (synthesized from council discussion):

Organized groups:

None identified in the transcript. Opposition appeared to be uncoordinated residents expressing concerns via social media and public comments at earlier meetings.

Support

Support speakers at April 13 meeting:

Council member support arguments:

  1. Traffic data justified the use: Timothy Riggenbach presented comparative data showing a car wash (949 peak vehicles) would generate fewer trips than a permitted gas station (1,643) or fast food restaurant (1,300+), based on Institute of Traffic Engineers standards.
  2. Private property rights: Multiple council members emphasized the Joseph family's right to sell their property and the city's limited authority to prevent property sales or demolition without technical code violations.
  3. No city investment: The project is entirely private; the city bears no financial risk.
  4. Tenant relocation support: Director Black and Kevin Evans (Economic Development) confirmed all six existing businesses had either relocated or were actively negotiating new locations, with three choosing to expand within Peoria.
  5. Environmental and permitting safeguards: Director Black explained that the car wash would require a permit from the Illinois EPA, city plumbing inspector approval, sanitary district approval, and a certificate of occupancy—ensuring compliance with all applicable codes before operations.
  6. Stacking capacity: Director Black presented detailed analysis showing 40+ vehicles could stack internally in the main drive lane and 25-30 in a secondary driveway, preventing backup onto University Street.
  7. Reputation of Club Car Wash: Council members cited positive reputation and existing successful locations on Knoxville and Sterling avenues in Peoria.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Car Wash Special Use Approval (Item 21-103):

Engineering Services Agreements:

CSO Sewer Fund Balance Allocation (Item 21-103):

Outcome & Next Steps

Car Wash Development:

The Special Use Permit for the car wash was approved unanimously with one additional condition: dual exit lanes (separate northbound and southbound lanes onto University Street) to improve traffic flow.

Next steps:

Engineering Services Agreements:

All four master service agreements (program management contracts) are effective through December 31, 2023, with potential for two-year extensions. The agreements include:

Parallel professional services agreements with 19 additional firms (Item 21-101) run through December 31, 2022 and provide project-specific engineering support. These firms may compete for specific projects issued by the city, as long as ethical barriers prevent conflict of interest (i.e., a program manager cannot bid on projects they oversee).

Staffing plan: The city will maintain its existing Engineering Division headcount but reclassify one assistant city engineer position to support contract oversight within the same union. No positions are being eliminated or outsourced beyond the program manager roles.

CSO Consent Decree Implementation:

The $800,000 sewer fund balance allocation will fund Phase 1 design, monitoring, and televising work. First-year projects target the Caroline and Spring Street sewer sheds in the North Valley (First District).

Next steps:

Controversies & Context

Private property rights vs. public process:

The car wash approval centered on a fundamental tension: the Joseph family's right to sell their property to any buyer they choose versus public concerns about the loss of a locally owned, 66-year-old business and potential traffic impacts. Multiple council members (particularly Timothy Riggenbach) invoked the private property rights of homeowners and small business owners, drawing a distinction between the city's regulatory authority (zoning, traffic, environmental compliance) and its lack of authority to block a property sale or mandate preservation of a particular use.

Tenant displacement and city support:

The initial controversy was framed, in part, as the city "forcing" tenants to relocate. However, the transcript shows that Director Black and Kevin Evans (Economic Development) provided city assistance to help tenants find new locations. By April 13, all six tenants had either relocated, begun negotiations for new spaces, or chosen (in the case of Lee's Chinese Garden) to exit the market. Council Member Moore praised the outcome, noting that the tenants were "staying here" (in Peoria), which she framed as a win for the community.

Traffic analysis and comparative zoning:

A key argument deployed by Timothy Riggenbach was that the city could not logically deny a car wash (949 peak vehicles) when the same zoning classification would permit a gas station (1,643 vehicles) or a fast food restaurant (1,300+ vehicles) without special approval. This framing—comparing the car wash to more traffic-intensive permitted uses—shifted the debate from absolute impact to relative impact. Director Black confirmed that the traffic analysis was based on actual operating data from Club Car Wash's other locations, not theoretical Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates.

Staffing crisis and outsourcing precedent:

The engineering services agreements represent a significant acknowledgment that the city cannot internally staff critical infrastructure programs. Director Powers stated bluntly that the Engineering Division had experienced retirements of nearly all tenured staff and could not recruit replacements, despite five years of vacancy. This prompted a strategic shift: rather than hiring permanent engineers, the city contracted with four firms to provide program management and oversight. However, Council Member Jensen and others insisted on safeguards: the city will retain the assistant city engineer position (reclassified) to supervise the contractors, maintain headcount in operations (where recruitment is more successful), and preserve the option for future councils to reverse the outsourcing decision.

EPA consent decree and neighborhood investment:

The $109 million, 18-year CSO consent decree was framed as an unprecedented investment in the First District, which Council Member Moore noted faces the highest unemployment and lowest income levels in Peoria. However, there was implicit tension: will the benefits (jobs, infrastructure improvement) actually reach First District residents, or will the work be performed by external contractors? Council Member Moore urged the city to proactively communicate with schools, workforce programs, and community organizations to ensure that career pathways and job training are linked to the CSO projects.

Utility shutoff crisis (separate item, public comment):

Michael Chen, representing a grassroots "No Amaranth Shutoffs" campaign, urged the council to adopt a resolution declaring utility disconnections a pandemic safety risk. He presented data showing 4,683 utility disconnections in Peoria from September 2020 to February 2021, with nearly half (2,001) occurring in the poorest zip codes. He noted that Peoria is currently the #5 metro area in the nation for rising COVID-19 cases and urged the council to either pass a resolution or invoke the city's Emergency Services and Disaster Agency ordinance to impose a local moratorium on shutoffs pending reactivation of a statewide moratorium. The council did not vote on this item; it was presented as public comment only.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Declaration of Local State of Emergency (Item 21-099): Approved 10-1 (Council Member Montalango voted no); addresses ongoing pandemic response and government operating authority.

CDBG Utility Assistance Program (Item 21-088): The council approved reallocation of $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds to provide utility assistance to low-income households impacted by COVID-19. Eligible households (at or below 80% area median income) can receive up to $5,000 per household covering up to six months of utility bills. Director Black noted that the city will operate the program via lottery (to avoid long lines) and will coordinate with utility companies and state agencies. Dr. Rita Ali pressed for data on potential shutoffs; Director Black stated that utility companies have not shared specific household-level data due to privacy concerns but that the city will pursue aggregate numbers.

Tyler ERP System Virtualization (Item 21-102): The council approved acceleration of migration from on-premise financial software to a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, moving implementation from 2023 to 2021. Immediate cost: $105,000. Deferred payment for migration until January 2022. Includes enhanced cybersecurity and business recovery services. Addresses staffing departures in the Finance Department.

Proclamations: Fair Housing Month (April 2021) and Child Abuse Prevention Month (April 2021) proclamations were issued. Jason Catton, president of the Peoria Area Association of Realtors, spoke on fair housing commitments. Dr. Channing Petrak (Medical Director, Pediatric Resource Center) and Mitch Gilfillin (Board President) spoke on child abuse prevention.

Raffle and Poker Run Ordinance (Item 21-098, First Reading): The council received and filed a proposed ordinance to establish a licensing process for raffles and poker runs conducted by charitable organizations. John Kelly raised concerns about the five-year eligibility requirement for nonprofits and the complexity of the fee structure, requesting that council consider a single flat fee in a future revision.