Guest Editorial: Under the Radar Screen

Editor’s note: This is a guest posting from my friend and fellow commissioner on the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson. Please note that the comments you leave on this post will be forwarded to Beth.

Tuesday, I attended a District 150 Building Committee meeting. They reviewed the schematic design of the new Harrison Birth through Eighth Grade Community Learning Center.

It was noticed as a “public” meeting since more than two school board members would be in attendance. The meeting was scheduled to last two hours starting at noon and was located in the Superintendent’s conference room at the administration building. I was the only member of the public in attendance except for a couple of people from a local news station and they left early.

Attending the meeting were members of the building committee; Rachael Parker, Jim Stowell and Debbie Wolfmeyer. Ken Hinton, Guy Cahill, Dave Ryon were there representing the administration. David Walvoord, District 150’s attorney, and Julie Cramer, the school board secretary sat in as well. I have no idea why they were there. David Walvord made no comments and was asked no questions. I did not see Julie Cramer taking notes.

Each person at the table was either a paid administrator, outside paid advisor (attorney and architects) or an elected official. What is the purpose of having a public meeting if the public is not in attendance in significant numbers, unable to watch from home and not able to offer suggestions?

The plan for the new Harrison school is definitely suburban in concept. After the meeting I talked with the local LZT architect, David Henebry, and I asked why the suburban design? He said the area is not urban and never will be. Funny, that is not how it appears if you base urban versus suburban on whether there is a grid pattern of streets. Did they ask the PHA what they are planning or have they read the Heart of Peoria Plan? We need to be building for the future with less dependence on automobiles.

The proposed Harrison Birth through Eight Grade Learning Center is a one story building, set back from the street with on-site parking [see artist’s rendering at the top of this post]. The price of gas is now over $4.00 per gallon and it will climb higher. Childhood obesity and limited auto ownership are prevalent in poor neighborhoods and yet there was no discussion about creating a walkable environment; the plans are totally auto centric. There was no mention of sustainability and LEED certification.

District 150 is planning an unremarkable, factory type school building and the only guiding principle given to the architects seems to be building as inexpensively as possible. The building is suburban and uninspiring. As the presentation went on Ken Hinton asked the architect about a tower depicted in the rendering and the architect responded:

…it represents a feature to give some importance to the entrance, since this is a single story and economical building…

Could it be he was trying to say in a diplomatic way that the building’s envelope is just run of the mill?

After the schematic renderings were presented there were few questions. Jim Stowell asked about “water reclamation” which stumped the architect since reclamation is the “reuse” of the building’s water. Eventually, the architect realized Stowell was asking about storm water runoff management. The architect assured him they would be meeting the city’s requirements

Jim’s question made me think: If he is really concerned about conservation maybe he could investigate how District 150 determined it to be more desirable to build new buildings and not restore and modernize the existing buildings? There are many examples in other cities of older buildings restored with well designed new additions. I have attached a PDF for examples [see below]. The problem with Peoria is we have not had good experience with either.

If the building committee had consulted an architect familiar with school restoration or renovation, as I have, they would have been told that as much as twenty-five percent of the cost of building a new building lies in preparing the site, laying the building’s foundation, and installing utilities. Another twenty-five percent goes toward the building structure—its framing, walls, and roof. With an historic building, you already have those components in place. Wouldn’t that translate into cost savings and conservation?

The citizenry needs to weigh in on this design and the building’s siting. Commenting during the obligatory public hearing will be too late. District 150 officials hand picked people to give programming suggestions and they have not given the public any opportunity to discuss how the building meets the street. If they are worried about too much community push-back then maybe the design deserves the scrutiny. However, if the designs are truly impressive why wouldn’t they want to show the public the renderings at every step? I think the answers are obvious.

Additionally, I do not believe they have anyone in house with design expertise to give necessary guidance.

Harrison’s Budget

Next, they presented the building’s confirmed budget, but the cost estimate will not be determined until it is let out for bid. The architects suggested that the board make a list of what they would be willing to give up in the event of cost overruns.

The architects suggested they could eliminate the health clinic, room partitions, adult education space, and outdoor basketball courts if the bid is over budget.

The group made no decisions and someone suggested the school board’s committee of the whole would have to be included in this decision. There was no mention of asking the public for their opinion and since it will be discussed during a committee of the whole meeting it will not be televised and it will most likely be during the middle of the day.

The real kicker came when the board was told the budget would not provide for interior furniture, technology, phone system, community garden, water playground, and outdoor amphitheater. The budget only covers the hard costs of construction and soft costs of design.

For me, witnessing this meeting was frustrating. I ran for the school board, and since I lost, I do not want to appear as if I am being hypercritical of District 150. I do not want to give heartburn to our volunteer school board. Yet, after today’s meeting someone needs to start asking some questions and raise the level of expectation.

Our school board has to be informed in order to make the best decisions. When the architects opened the floor for discussion only a few basic questions were asked and no comments were made, except for the usual thank you. Guy Cahill ran the meeting and Ken Hinton continued to say over and over again something to the effect of “I will keep quiet,” “I will not talk.” I was puzzled why the superintendent would make such a comment and say it more than once.

No one questioned the design, the layout, or asked for comparables. Unfortunately, the public’s window of opportunity to weigh in is shrinking and decisions are being made by individuals with limited appreciation of the urban planning task at hand. They are missing a major opportunity and the city will suffer the consequences.

Yesterday, I attended the building committee meeting where the plans for Glen Oak School were presented. I am working on a post to summarize that meeting too. Let’s say for now I was equally unimpressed.

Resources for further reading:

Great Schools By Design (Akron Report)
Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Education
New Schools for Older Neighborhoods
Planning Schools to Fight Obesity
The Case for Renovation
School Design Guidelines
School Siting Handbook

Over 1,000 residents sign petitions against 45 minute cut in school day

From a press release:

Parents, teachers and concerned citizens unhappy over the shortening of the school day for most District 150 primary schools have just secured their 1001th signature on a petition requesting the District 150 Board of Education rescind their vote of May 5th. That vote shortened the primary school Day for most District 150 Schools as well as cut specialty teachers in Art Music Science and PE.

The petition Drive continues and the group feels that given time they will easily secure thousands more.

Sharon Crews, a retired Manual teacher, and one of the many that worked on the petition drive had this to say about the experience:

“Our experience today proved one thing–this group’s efforts have definitely made an impact on the public. Almost everyone who signed the petitions today already knew about the 45 minute cut in time for primary schools. Certainly, they didn’t find out from any communications from District #150. The public was aware and very ready and willing to sign against the action. This should give us all encouragement for future efforts to make the district accountable to the public. So many thanked us for putting forth this effort to fight the shortened day.”

Chris Summers, A District 150 Parent, had this to say:

“I only spent about an hour on it, and I didn’t have any trouble getting people to sign. Most of them were already aware of what was going on in D150 and were not only willing, but eager to sign the petition. I heard a lot of positive comments for what we’re trying to do; it’s been a very encouraging experience. More signatures tomorrow!”

All of the signatures are hard copy, with actual signatures. Copies of the petition and signatures will be provided to the media upon request. The group plans to present the petition to the Board of Education at their next board meeting on June 16. The 45 minute issue is expected to be on their agenda as a discussion item.

The Petition is entitled “Petition to Rescind Shortened School Day” and reads “We the undersigned support a full rescission of the shortened school day/specialty teacher reduction plan that the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education approved May 5, 2008”

Library discussion included good and bad questions

Tuesday’s city council meeting included a time of questions and answers between the city council and Peoria Public Library board. There were some good, pertinent questions asked, and then there were some that left everyone scratching their heads. Here are the highlights:

  • Mayor Ardis — The mayor didn’t actually ask any questions, but did make some opening comments. He said that the federally-mandated combined sewer overflow (CSO) project is right around the corner and will cost $100 million or more, so he is most concerned about the $35 million price tag for this library proposal. He wants to see lower-cost options presented. He also said he’s “not drinking the Kool-Aid on the 72%” of voters who approved the library referendum. Taking into account the low voter turnout, that really means that only 15% of registered voters voted in favor, and the council has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture and represent all residents whether they voted or not. My take: In his attempt to downplay the results of the library referendum, he has repudiated all election results in the process. When was the last time any candidate was elected or referendum passed by a majority of all registered voters? That’s an insurmountable and inconsistent standard. Ardis’s stronger argument was affordability of the plan, not validity of the advisory vote.
  • Barbara Van Auken — Van Auken used her time mainly to chastise the Journal Star for criticizing the council. She said all the council is doing is asking questions and making sure this is the best plan for their constituents. My take: If that were true, there would be no controversy. In fact, the council has been trying to influence the location of the proposed northern branch by questionable means. First they tried to bribe (with their votes) the library board into putting the northern branch on the site of Elliott’s strip club. When that fell through, they started actively pursuing a site near Expo Gardens and Richwoods, showing a complete disregard for the due diligence done by the library board. That’s the point of controversy. Van Auken and others on the council (and even other bloggers) misrepresent the argument when they say critics of the council were expecting a rubber-stamp approval. Everyone expects the council to provide proper oversight of the board and the process.
  • Bob Manning — Perhaps the most adversarial council member to question the board, Manning had two major objections: (1) He said the library’s plan “should be titled ‘Field of Dreams,’ or ‘If you build it, they will come.'” In other words, he thinks the library’s proposal is completely bogus. Upgrading/expanding will not draw more patrons. (2) The council’s “responsibility is looking at the bigger picture,” and that includes a $47 million airport expansion, $100+ million CSO project, $40 million in new school construction, possibly $40-50 million for a new museum, and now up to $35 million for a library expansion — all planned to be paid for through tax increases. Thus, we can’t afford the library upgrades right now. My take: Although I don’t agree with Bob, I do at least appreciate his honesty. He doesn’t like the plan or the expense. Since Manning was not one of the council members who endorsed the plan or the referendum, I think it’s fair for him to reiterate his objections to it and try to sway his fellow council members. In response to his first point, he’s stating an opinion evidently based on his belief that current trends in library usage are going to continue no matter what the library does or doesn’t do; the library’s professional consultants hold a different opinion based on their research and experience. They believe the trends can be turned around if some modernization takes place as they have seen in other communities. And in response to his second point, it doesn’t make sense for the city alone to sacrifice its needs because other taxing bodies evidently don’t look at the bigger picture. I would submit that library services are more important than the proposed museum, the new zoo (which Manning didn’t mention, but will raise the park district’s levy), and the new airport terminal. If we’re going to have to sacrifice something, let’s put some of those other projects on hold before we kill the library upgrade. (And lest you think the city has no control over those other bodies, remember that they have control over one of them — the museum. The museum contract would have to be extended by the council for that project to go forward; if the council is concerned about the tax burden, and if the only way the museum will be built is if it can access tax dollars, then the city should do the responsible thing and not extend the contract.)
  • Clyde Gulley — Gulley agrees with my assessment — that is, that the library is a priority at least equal with the other items Manning mentioned. He also really likes the plans for combining and expanding the south side library services. He wishes that the south side plan could at least be implemented, even if the north side plan is delayed or killed. My take: I agree.
  • Ryan Spain — Spain’s big hangup is the site selection for the northern branch. He believes they should have a site selected and a contract signed contingent on the issuance of bonds before the council votes on it. He also would like the Lakeview expansion piece taken out until we can see what impact the new northern branch would have on traffic at Lakeview. My take: I don’t have a problem with the proposed compromise of holding off on the Lakeview expansion until we can evaluate the impact of a northern branch; that sounds like a reasonable compromise. As for having a contract on a northern branch before the city votes on it, I think that’s kinda silly. The council could just as easily approve the bonds with $X used for the northern branch contingent on site approval. I don’t think approval of the whole plan should be held up for the sake of one part of it.
  • Patrick Nichting — Nichting had three talking points. First, he had the board state unequivocally that a final site for the northern branch had not been chosen yet (he had been getting calls from residents insisting that the library board had settled on the Festival Foods site). Second, he wanted to point out changes that had been made to the decision matrix since it was first given to the council. Evidently another plot on the Sud’s property had opened up that was the more preferred plot, so it was added to the matrix and the matrix recalculated. Third, he said that the proposed sites were so far to the northeast of the city that it would be just as far to drive there as to Lakeview from the northwest part of the city. The library board conceded that that was one of the cons of those locations. My take: I see nothing objectionable in these observations or questions. Indeed, this is exactly the type of questioning I was expecting. It goes to the heart of the issue — the criteria. The unstated but obvious point is that the library board should be considering proximity to the east and west parts of far north Peoria, not just north and south proximity.
  • Bill Spears — Spears asked how many meetings the board had with Ken Hinton, the “highest paid public servant” in Peoria. Have they had any conversations about libraries and schools interfacing? He pointed to a March 2006 article in the Journal Star that spoke of Hinton’s “dream” of seeing libraries locate close to schools. Library director Ed Szynaka responded that he has a good collaborative relationship with Mr. Hinton and that Hinton’s views have changed since March 2006. My take: What the heck was that all about? I have nothing against public officials leveraging the needs of other public bodies when spending public money. But Spears’ justification seemed to be merely the fact that Hinton is paid more than any other public official, as if that had anything to do with the price of eggs in China. It was a weird question mainly due to the way it was asked, but also because it’s a bit hypocritical. I mean, did Spears talk to Peoria’s “highest paid public servant” before voting to explore a new TIF for downtown? TIFs affect the school district more than the locations of libraries.
  • Jim Montelongo — After using the library board as a proxy to express his misgivings about the Expo Gardens site, Montelongo then asked for an analogy. What are we getting for this $35 million? Is it a Cadillac? McKenzie said we were not getting a Cadillac, but didn’t answer with a car analogy. He said we were getting a “good, modern library,” and went on to say that the board had been “extremely cost conscious” and is simply asking to “build what the city needs for the future.” Szynaka said he would use the analogy that the library today is like Caterpillar trying to sell 1960s tractors in 2008. My take: This was a good business-sense question. As Jonathan Ahl said in his remarks at the top of the council meeting, not everything is black and white; there are lots of shades of gray. Montelongo is looking for a way to lower the overall costs without defeating the purpose of the upgrade.
  • George Jacob — Jacob focused on the numbers, especially operating costs. He questions whether the library can afford the increase in operating costs that this expansion will bring, and he questions the operating cost projections provided by the library. Specifically, he pointed out that the full plan would increase the library’s overall square footage by 45-51%, yet projected only a 1.5% increase in utility costs. Szynaka and McKenzie asked for more time to answer this question because the person who crunched those numbers was not in the chamber Tuesday night and they wanted to find out how those numbers were determined before answering. However, Szynaka did mention that part of the renovation was to replace multiple old HVAC systems with more modern, efficient systems, adn that would have a big impact on the utility costs. My take: Fair questions. The library should be able to defend their numbers. If they’re not justifiable, they must be fixed before the council goes any further.
  • Gary Sandberg — Sandberg just used the library board as a proxy to answer other council members’ objections. Since he was the library’s liaison throughout the process, he already knew the answer to every question he asked.

There was no final action taken; the question and answer time was for informational purposes only. The issue is up for action at the next council meeting, June 24.