Amtrak and the Illinois Department of Transportation is currently studying the feasibility of establishing passenger train service between Chicago and Peoria. The report was originally supposed to be released toward the end of last year, but there were a number of delays, sources tell Mayor Ardis. Ardis recently gave me a status update — Amtrak/IDOT has finished their visual inspection of the routes being studied, and they are crunching the numbers. The study should be completed by next month.
Monthly Archives: February 2009
New D150 budget committee members revealed
From a District 150 press release:
Planning and Budget Committee Members
As announced at the February 2 meeting, the Board of Education is establishing a special committee to assist with the school district’s budgeting issues. Below is a list of the appointed members to the Planning and Budget Committee.
Mr. Pat Roesler
Chief Financial Officer, G & D. IntegratedMrs. Lois Boaz
Retired Caterpillar Executive with experience in accounting, business analysis and Six SigmaMr. Erik Bush
Chief Financial Officer, Peoria CountyMr. David Underwood
Vice President of Finance & Chief Financial Officer Proctor HospitalMr. Charles Randle
President, Illinois Business Financial ServicesDr. Bernie Goitein
Professor of Business Management & Administration at Bradley UniversityMr. Ken Casper
Retired BankerMr. Larry Williams
Retired Superintendent and Business Manager of Illinois Valley Community School DistrictThe main functions of the committee include:
- develop financial templates for presenting and outlining the district budget; allowing easy assessment and financial impact of proposals, suggestions and changes
- establish a “district finances” section on the district website
- create one-page documents explaining school district financial terms and how these issues impact Peoria Public Schools. Examples include: Title I, Special Education Funding, Corporate and Property Taxes, Public Building Commission Funding and TIF Districts.
This sounds like a real positive step for District 150. My hat’s off to these community members who have stepped up to lend their expertise to Peoria’s public schools. And I commend the board for putting this group together and setting goals for greater transparency in the district’s financial dealings. If these goal are attained, I think it will go a long way toward reestablishing some trust in District 150.
Build the Block numbers questioned
I took down my previous post on the economic impact study by a couple of Bradley professors because I unfairly portrayed them as being uncooperative and unwilling to back up their numbers. They have both contacted me and assured me that they will be happy to meet once they’re both in the country and can coordinate their schedules. My apologies to them for implying they were stonewalling me.
In the meantime, it appears I’m not the only one wondering how they came up with such impressive numbers in favor of the museum. (Last week, they held a press conference where they announced the museum and Cat visitor center would create 1,100 jobs during the two-year construction phase, 90 jobs per year after construction, and $572 million in economic growth over 20 years.) The chairman of the economics department at Knox College is skeptical of those numbers, too.
Richard Stout is the chairman of the economics department at Knox College in Galesburg. Though he hasn’t read the economic impact study, he said he has some questions about how the study drew some of its conclusions. He was skeptical about how the $572 million of economic growth over 20 years figure was calculated. For one thing, included in that figure is the $136 million cost of the project and estimated additional spending that would be created because of it.
“You can’t say the cost of construction is not a cost, that it’s an economic benefit. The cost of construction is a cost,” said Stout, who also questioned how the museum’s operating expenses through the years would also be tallied as an economic benefit to the region.
I also found this interesting. The Bradley professors told me that they weren’t “e-mailing out [their] spreadsheet work on Build the Block at this time.” But according to the Journal Star article, “The summary mentions a copy of the report will be filed with the Peoria County Clerk’s Office and available for sale. It has not yet been filed, according to Scott Sorrell, assistant to the county administrator.”
Once it’s filed with the County Clerk’s office, doesn’t it become a public document? How can it be available “for sale”? Couldn’t a person just FOIA it? Who would get the money from such a “sale”? If I write my own report on Build the Block, will Peoria County sell my report on consignment as well? Perhaps this was just a typo, and the “sale” referred to is simply photocopying charges, as allowed under the Freedom of Information Act.
CSO improvements head wish list for stimulus funds
On the Peoria City Council’s agenda for Tuesday is a “resolution establishing the City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects.” Here they are:
The City of Peoria’s highest priorities for stimulus package projects are as follows:
- Combined Sewer Improvement Projects as follows:
a. Western Avenue Storm Sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $5.1 million.
b. Glen Oak Avenue storm sewer removal from Combined Sewer System. Estimated cost: $1.2 million.
c. Spring Street supplemental sewer. Estimated cost: $6.5 million.
- Various sidewalk projects including, but not limited to,
a. Glen Oak School Impact Zone. Estimated cost: $475,000.
b. Sidewalks at Kellar Primary School, Charter Oak School and Rolling Acres School. Estimated cost: $525,000.
c. Lake Avenue sidewalk at Sheridan Village. Estimated cost: $90,000.
d. Sheridan and Lake Intersection improvement. Estimated cost: $125,000.
e. ADA Ramp Program. Estimated cost: $250,000.
f. Liberty Park sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $100,000.
g. Sheridan Road sidewalk improvement. Estimated cost: $230,000.
- Construction of Darst Street and Clark Street in the Southern Gateway Area. Estimated cost: $3.33 million.
Presumably, these are all “shovel ready” projects. My only thought is, we keep hearing that the total CSO project is going to cost at least $100 million, but the three CSO projects listed here total just $12.8 million. I guess I wish we could get more money for that project since it’s an unfunded mandate that’s going to be very hard for our city to afford.
But on the other hand, every little bit helps, and it’s pretty unlikely we would receive anywhere near $100 million from the federal government. So this sounds like a good list to me.
Soda pop and zombies
I’m sharing these merely because I found them amusing:
- The Great Pop vs. Soda Controversy — What do you call carbonated beverages? Soda? Pop? Coke? If you live in Peoria County, odds are you call it “soda,” even though most of northern Illinois calls it “pop.” How do I know? Because someone has taken the time to put together a map of Generic Soft Drink Names by County. It’s just part of a website created by Alan McConchie devoted to the topic.
When I was in grade school, our family called everything “coke.” It was like calling all tissues “Kleenex” or all copiers “Xerox machines.” We didn’t mean the brand, but the type of product. “Do you want a coke?” “Sure.” “What kind?” “7-Up.” According to the map, that’s a southern thing.
And then there are the variations. A former co-worker of mine used to call it “sodee.” She was the assistant team leader of our work group, and a couple of us in the group teased her about her pronunciation. “How do you get ‘sodee’ out of a word spelled s-o-d-a?” we’d ask. Irritated with us, she said, “Everyone I know pronounces it that way,” and then, to prove her point, turned to another team member and asked, “How do you pronounce soda? Sodee?”
- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies — Yes, that’s the real title of a real book that is due to be released later this year, written by Seth Grahame-Smith and co-author Jane Austen. According to the publisher, Quirk Books, it’s “The Classic Regency Romance—Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!”
“It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.” So begins Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, an expanded edition of the beloved Jane Austen novel featuring all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie mayhem. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton—and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she’s soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers—and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead. Can she vanquish the spawn of Satan? And overcome the social prejudices of the class-conscious landed gentry? Complete with romance, heartbreak, swordfights, cannibalism, and thousands of rotting corpses, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies transforms a masterpiece of world literature into something you’d actually want to read.
That’s one way to get teenage boys to read Austen. I can’t wait for the movie.
Peoria Public Library weeding its collections
A concerned taxpayer recently told me about the library throwing out a large number of books:
I take my kids to the downtown library a few times a week. I have noticed on a number of occasions that there are people dumping books into the dumpsters behind the buildings. When I asked [someone at the library] what was going on she said that the library was eliminating thousands of books from their collection. I was told that they are also removing most of the magazines and older books that have been stored in the basement level. She said that most all eliminated material is being thrown away and hardly any of it is being donated.
Well, that was certainly a provocative tip! I immediately wrote to library director Ed Szynaka, and he forwarded my inquiry to assistant director Leann Johnson. She basically confirmed what I was told and gave me the following explanation:
Withdrawing items from the collection is an ongoing process for libraries and Peoria Public Library locations strive to maintain an up-to-date and useful collection as well as a strong local history and genealogy collection. As observed, materials are discarded and the reported comment as to the number of items refers to an intensified effort to get the collection in good condition before the imminent building project begins. That being said, this is a very tough thing for librarians to do as we, like all book lovers, find it hard to let go of books of any kind. But the reality of the renovation of the Main Street Library has taken hold and we are now making the decisions that have been on the back burner for a long time.
I appreciate your asking if we donate books and about the library’s policy. Most of the materials are given to the Friends of the Library for their book sales. Proceeds from the book sales then support the wide variety of programs offered by the Library. Other recent cooperative efforts include working with Thomas Jefferson school after the fire, providing childrens’ books to a local church group for a school library in Louisiana, housing a collection of older materials related to the Civil War in the reading room of the GAR Hall, and working with Eastern Illinois University to transfer a large collection of government documents known as the Serial Set to an academic setting where the material is more likely to be used and stored appropriately. Materials that don’t get sold, donated, or recycled are then discarded. We do recycle and would like to recycle more. To my knowledge no recyclers in the area accept hardbound books. We continue to try to locate a recycler who will.
The answer to which books get eliminated and which are retained is a long one and depends on a variety of factors including general condition, outdated information (particularly in the areas of science, medicine and law), demand, copyright dates along with last date circulated, duplicate copies, superseded editions. These guidelines vary based on the subject (Dewey number) or genre. We do have a Collection Management Policy as well as “Weeding” Guidelines for withdrawing materials from the collection. The guidelines are adapted from The CREW Method: Expanded Guidelines for Collection Evaluation and Weeding for Small and Medium-Sized Public Libraries by Belinda Boon. Older materials present another challenge altogether and we take into consideration local topics that provide insight into the history of our area, historic events, unusual topics or unique items.
I hope this helps to answer your questions.
The acronym “CREW” in “The CREW Method” stands for “Continuous Review, Evaluation, and Weeding.” You can read about this method at the Texas State Library and Archives Commission website.
Stowell responds to Peoria Story
I linked previously to some pretty serious issues raised by Elaine Hopkins at her blog, Peoria Story. District 150 Board of Education member Jim Stowell has responded to that report and asked me to post it on my blog as well. If you haven’t read the original article, you might want to first before you read his response:
Elaine – Thank you again for sharing the full report from the anonymous “experts”. It is entirely incorrect to state that the “district spent $10.5 million more than it budgeted as allege.” The “on-behalf” payments are an intra-state transfer from the state treasury direct to TRS. Those funds were never received by the district nor spent by the district. In 2006 and 2007 a statutory amount was reflected, but in 2008 the state engaged in an actuarial computation which was necessary given the large and growing under funded pension system. I was told that past comptrollers always omitted the amount as it is not part of our working capital or restricted funds. The state, I am told, uses this figure in overall education funding to enhance their effort in showing how they “support” public education. These are not education dollars, but rather pension dollars for future retiree benefits. Page 62 of the audit reflects an amount of “revenue” of $10,410,849 while page 66 shows a like amount as an expenditure. By stating the larger gross figure than what we actually receive (and throughout the state), it inflates how much the state really spends on education. With respect to the deficit fund balances, the Medicaid operations fund and Mid-Central Assoc. fund are merely cash flow issues. We provide services (an expense) but are often not reimbursed in a timely manner, thereby resulting in a deficit fund balance. I am also told that the Municipal retirement/social security fund balance deficit has existed for some time and the district is “whittling away” at it so it doesn’t have to levy for it, which, while within their rights, causes taxes to rise. The Self insured workman’s comp reflects the extremely large number of comp claims filed and is why the Board voted to establish a Tort levy. I voted against the levy because the amount carried as a liability is an estimate provided by our third party administrator (TPA). I felt we should better manage and be more proactive in mitigating workman’s comp claims and only levy once the outcome of all these pending claims are known. These anonymous supposed “experts” also make ridiculous assumptions that “if an expense was incurred the previous year, it is probable that it will occur again the next year”. With all the work being done to balance a budget and the dynamics of various program changes, that is an ill-founded assumption, at best. The group does raise legitimate questions on certain line items that warrant clarification and I will be following up to address those. For example, our Board has been frugal in spending, yet page 69 shows budgeted salaries for “Board of Ed Services” of $71,085 and an actual amount spent of $395,008. I am told that salaries for “Board initiatives” are booked here. I am asking for clarification and a breakdown. I will follow-up with more when I receive answers. I encourage you to affirm or deny the source of this “report” being our auditors, as some are suggesting. Whoever the source, they are wrong to suggest that we “spent $10.5 million more than” we budgeted, as you state in your opening sentence. Thank you for your concern on behalf of our students and our community. For more legal advice see: http://goodwinbarrett.co.uk/how-to-claim/. Jim
I appreciate Jim responding publicly, and he offers some very helpful insight. However, someone who wishes to remain anonymous takes issue with Jim’s comments:
The disclosure of the TRS revenue and offsetting expense by the state of Illinois on behalf of the school district is a required disclosure in the audit. Laymen may not understand that since it washes out or in Stowell’s case even like it, but by generally accepted accounting standards it must be reported that way as it has been for years! Stowell’s statement that it wasn’t budgeted before is grossly in error and personally shows how shallow his understanding. Consequently there should have been a budget though this year Cahill forgot it apparently and CG was required to highlight it!
I don’t know generally accepted accounting practices, so I’m not going to weigh in on this. All I can tell you is that the audits of the past few years haven’t looked too good, and I’m glad to see at least one board member taking these issues seriously and asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Stowell.
Martha Ross’s suggestions for District 150
Peoria Public Schools Board of Education member Martha Ross sent the following memo to Superintendent Ken Hinton and the other members of the board. I’m reprinting it here (with permission) for your information and comment:
Over the years I’ve served on the District 150 Board, when considering a vote, I have tried to make informed and sound decisions on all issues relating to the education and welfare of our children. What’s always foremost in my mind is that we hold the key to the future in how we treat, prepare and educate our students. I am of the belief that we pay now and use whatever resources we have to educate our students right or we pay later when we turn them out into the world unprepared to become productive citizens. I do realize that we cannot save all that come through our doors, but I feel that we are too quick to label, discard, discount, and or not give serious thought to what’s in their best interest.
My opinions are not intended to imply that any of you do not care and or are not interested in the children’s education, it is merely to voice my concerns, share my observations and offer my suggestions. That said, it is my opinion that some of the suggestions for “cutting” the budget bear a lot more thought to be able to avoid damaging the education and safety of our students.
The way I see it is that the following facts are apparent:
- We have far fewer students than we had 10 years ago
- We have far more staff than we had 10 years ago
- We need to balance our budget using sound strategies that can be duplicated
- We need to decrease this year’s proposed budget according to the financial information we have received
- We need to make those decreases without risking the quality of education and or the safety of the students
- We should value our staff, students, parents and community stakeholders
That said, I would like to offer some suggestions that have come from taking the time to think about this situation as well as listening to my community:
- Immediately affect a complete moratorium on all hiring, and freeze wages. It will soon be time for the March mid-year increases and this would protect the district from that additional outlay for salaries.
- Immediate and complete moratorium on all travel – except that paid for 100% by grants.
- Really close Blaine, place the property on the market and move those staff members back to the DLC. That makes more sense from a long-term cost savings standpoint.
- Keep all four high school sites but change the configuration to schools-within-schools
- Proposed vocational program could be located within Woodruff as a school-within-a-school.
- Current Fine Arts program could remain at Peoria High as a school-within-a-school.
- Since it’s been implied that Peoria High can accommodate a lot more students, leave the current 9th grade academy as a school-within-a-school.
- Create a 9th grade academy at Woodruff and Richwoods as a school-within-a-school with the separations needed to promote this concept.
- Create the “small” high school concept for the 10 through 12 in all four schools.
- Seek to qualify PHS and Woodruff as Title I schools to position them to receive more funded monies noted in President Obama’s economic stimulus proposal.
- Decrease transportation expenses by developing a plan to establish k-8 neighborhood schools so that most children can walk.
- List for sale or auction, real estate currently held by the district in inventory, including but not limited to the following parcels:
- Riverfront (if any is left)
- Prospect Road Property
- Blaine Sumner Campus
- Harrison – old campus and building site parcels
- Irving campus (Future)
- Kingman campus (Future)
- Washington Gifted campus (to be explained later)
This would also result in a cost savings in insurance premium expense and any custodial/maintenance and utilities expenses – if any – incurred by these sites. Additionally, the sale of these parcels would return them to the tax rolls and create a revenue-enhancing opportunity to the district for an increase in EAV.
- Look at savings related to the loss of the Medicaid Contract
- Close Washington Gifted, returning the kids (and their test scores) to their home schools. Offer a gifted component at each neighborhood school as Mr. Hinton mentioned will be included in the new Harrison model. Cost to run Washington Gifted is $1.325M. District no longer receives separate funds to operate the program — all costs now accrue to Ed Fund.
- The anticipated cost savings of a Peoria High/Woodruff merger are primarily derived from having larger classes (and hence fewer teachers). These savings can be achieved right now, in the current high schools without the disruption of these two schools which are located in the heart of the neighborhoods. Moreover, I am not suggesting that we do this in absence of a plan that includes working closely with the union groups, decreasing staff through attrition whenever possible and offering incentives.
- Right sizing is going to require time and planning so that we do it right the first time.
- The citizens of the Woodruff community and other supporters have expressed their willingness to pitch in to help us.
Finally, perhaps we should take advantage of the benefit of the HB0217 that is an act that amends the property tax code to allow a certain area to be named a special service area.- 35 ILCS 200/27-60 provides that the corporate authorities for a municipality that establishes a special services area may petition the circuit court to make the Woodruff community a special service area. This could bring in the immediate revenue needed to provide the time needed to address the right sizing of the District as well as time to develop a sustainable plan for District 150’s future health.
This plan makes a lot of sense. Of the plans I’ve heard so far to fix District 150’s budget woes, I like this one the best. It’s worth some serious consideration. I especially like items 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 because they deal directly with many of the issues on which District 150 has received the most criticism.
More than just sales taxes may support museum
Did you know that your property taxes indirectly support Lakeview Museum? Karrie Alms does. She’s a community activist and frequent commenter here at the Peoria Chronicle. While doing her usual detailed research, she came across a property tax levy fund titled “Fund 123 MUSEUM PEORIA PARK.” That caught her eye, so she asked Park Board President Tim Cassidy about it. He explained:
Presently Lakeview museum owns and operates museum operations. The PPD [Peoria Park District] owns the land and building and allows Lakeview to use it under an agreement that is now several decades old.
Mr. Cassidy also confirmed that Lakeview does not pay rent for its use of the building, and “the amount of [the] museum fund levy going to Lakeview museum facility is $189,234 per the 2009 budget.” Not having to pay rent or upkeep on the building and grounds surely helps Lakeview’s bottom line and also explains why they didn’t include funds for capital improvement in their pro forma for the proposed downtown museum.
So, what happens if/when the museum moves downtown? As I reported in a previous post (“Is Peoria’s History Getting a Back Seat?” July 13, 2007) after talking to museum officials, “When the new museum opens, Lakeview is planning to hang on to its building at Lake and University to be used for storage because there’s not going to be enough storage space at the new museum. In particular, there’s not very much space planned in the new museum for special, climate-controlled storage of fragile pieces.” However, it doesn’t appear that the Park District has agreed to let the museum continue to use the building. Cassidy told Alms:
If Lakeview museum left the site to go downtown [its] continued [use] of present site would be subject to further agreement based on PPD needs for the facility. […] PPD has no final plans for Lakeview facility use if museum leaves. It remains open for discussion, although one use considered is a senior recreation/leisure facility for programming needs.
Cassidy also said that continued use of the Lakeview building “has never been approved by PPD. In fact specific request has not been made for PPD to formally act.”
If the new museum is unable to use the current Lakeview building for storage, they will have to find storage elsewhere. Without a rent-free (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) facility to use, cost of that storage would impact the museum’s profitability. The Museum Collaboration Group can’t just assume they will be able to continue using that building (rent-free, at that) when their lease expires in 2012. Off-site, specialized storage costs should be figured into their pro forma.
The Park District/Lakeview Museum arrangement also raises another question. In the ground lease the Museum Collaboration Group signed with the City of Peoria for the old Sears block, it has this interesting provision:
11.2 Permitted Assignees. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, Tenant may assign Tenant’s interest in the Lease as follows:
11.2.1 Peoria Park District. Provided the District (“Peoria Park District”) agrees, the Tenant may assign Tenant’s leasehold interest in this Lease to the Peoria Park District, subject to the following: (i) Tenant shall not be relieved of any of its obligations under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement; (ii) the Peoria Park District shall be obligated to observe the terms and conditions of the Lease applicable to Tenant; provided, however, that the Peoria Park District shall have no personal liability to Landlord, Tenant or any third parties with respect to the Lease, the Redevelopment Agreement or the Real Property, with such liability limited strictly to Tenant’s leasehold interest in the Lease; and (iii) the Landlord shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of the Lease and the Redevelopment Agreement directly against the Tenant, who shall continue to have available to it all the rights and obligations of the Tenant under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement notwithstanding such assignment.
The “Tenant” would be the Peoria Riverfront Museum, and the “obligations under this lease” would include repair, maintenance, alterations, and additions to the building and grounds. If the museum were to assign its interest in the lease to the Park District, then the Park District could use its funds — i.e., Peoria property taxes — to maintain the building and grounds. Here you can check about student loan interest deduction with guide of an experienced firm like taxfyle. That would certainly be more than taxpayers bargained for if they approve the sales tax referendum on April’s ballot.
No deal has been made to assign the lease to the Park District at this time according to Cassidy. But the legal language is in place and could be acted upon if the sales tax referendum is approved and construction of the facility is allowed to proceed. It’s something to think about when you go to the polls on April 7.
Comcast gets raked over the coals
Over 60 people showed up at City Hall on Tuesday evening for a chance to tell Comcast what they think of the city’s only cable provider. Comcast representatives Debra Piscola (Director of Government Affairs) and John Niebur (District Director) listened as over 30 residents — including six city council members — expressed frustration over service and pricing issues.
The most common complaints were:
- No local customer service — When you need to call Comcast, there is no local number available; you have to call an 800 number and talk to a call center in some other city. There were also complaints over how long it takes these call centers to answer the phone.
- Channel movement — C-SPAN2, EWTN, and other analog channels were reassigned to digital channels, and some channels such as National Geographic were reassigned to most expensive cable packages.
- Pricing — When Comcast first took over Insight, they said they weren’t going to raise prices, then immediately raised prices. Then they reassigned channels, some to more expensive tiers, causing many residents to feel they were paying more for less service. One person reported that he was quoted one price, but when he threatened to switch to a satellite service, he received a lower price, prompting him to ask what the real price is. Another resident similarly asked for “transparency in pricing.”
One person requested the ability to choose which cable channels he wanted and pay only for those (also known as “a la carte” pricing). Another complained that he was given a 12-hour service window, meaning he had to wait around his house from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the cable company to do a simple installation; the cable technician showed up at 7:50 p.m.
The Comcast representatives answered some questions, but mostly just thanked the audience for expressing their concerns and promised to address those concerns in their franchise agreement negotiations with the city.
City council members in attendance were Clyde Gulley (1st District), Bob Manning (3rd District), Bill Spears (4th District), Pat Nichting (5th District), Ryan Spain (at-large), George Jacob (at-large), and Eric Turner (at-large). Gulley left early, but the rest of the council members in attendance said that they get numerous complaints from constituents regarding the cable company. Spain said the number of complaints he gets rivals the number of people calling about more expensive and controversial issues like the CSO project and the recent downtown hotel plans.
Turner said that he wouldn’t support a new franchise agreement if service issues aren’t addressed and improved. Unfortunately, that’s somewhat of an empty threat, since state law allows cable companies to get franchise agreements directly through the state, bypassing local municipalities completely. City Attorney Randy Ray says the public hearing Tuesday night is one advantage of having a local franchise agreement — if Comcast were to get a state franchise, local residents likely would have to trek to Springfield for any public hearings regarding cable service.
Original plans were to bring a new franchise agreement to the council for approval at the next scheduled meeting. However, due to the “level of dissatisfaction,” Ray said it may take a little longer to negotiate an agreement that the council will support. The last 20-year franchise agreement expired in April 2006, but has been temporarily extended multiple times during negotiations for a new agreement.