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.

This week’s Word on the Street is especially snarky, and for good reason. Open government is highly valued by most voters (but not everyone), so reporters generally get miffed when government officials deliberately try to skirt the Open Meetings Act in order to conduct the public’s business in secret:

They didn’t break any rules, but definitely skirted the intent of the Open Meetings Act. There were only three councilmen, two School Board members, two District 150 administrators and two representatives from the Library Board there. Clever.

After the meeting, it was the library board president who was the most candid, reports Karen McDonald. She wasn’t surprised by that, and neither am I. I was, however, surprised by this:

When the City Council deferred the issue, it said it would be submitting questions to the Library Board. Council members came up with the now-renowned list of 49 questions, which only made it into library officials’ hands after they went searching for them. Said the Library Board’s spokeswoman, Trisha Noack, “Actually, we got our questions from the city Web site, as they were not sent to us.”

I expect better from this council. Even if official protocol didn’t dictate that the council communicate directly to the library board, common courtesy should. Whether or not the council agrees with the library board’s recommendation, they should at least treat the board with some respect. As has been pointed out by the Journal Star and others, the library board has done everything that’s been asked of them. They’ve done their due diligence. Where is the city council’s?

If you haven’t already seen them, you can read the library’s answers to the City’s questions here (large PDF file). It’s over 40 pages long, so I’m not going to paste the text into this blog entry like I did for the questions. I did like this answer, though:

There is a desire to achieve the goals arrived at after extensive study by expert consultants and input from the Peoria public, including over 45 public meetings, and web, in-house and mail comments. However, since building a consolidated branch at Exposition Gardens does not address those goals, we set aside this idea after applying the same tests we did to all other sites. One of the main goals of our building program is to be sure that we are not just doing a temporary fix on our libraries but building for the future.

Here you can see an example of what I said in my previous post. They got public input, they utilized expert consultants, and they ran the Expo Gardens site through an objective criteria. It’s also nice to see that the library is thinking about long-term solutions and not temporary fixes. That way, they won’t have to come back asking for more money in just a few years.

It will be interesting to hear the discussion that ensues Tuesday night at the council meeting.