Monthly Archives: August 2010

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Entitlement mentality fostering discontent with the city

42 Comments

There was a meeting Wednesday at Friendship House where residents could talk with City and School District officials about their concerns. I was dumbfounded by this one:

Another [attendee] said she was worried for two of her younger children because of a lack of youth activities.

“After 5:30 (p.m.), there’s just nothing for them to do . . . when are you going to give them something to do to keep them off the streets, out of the gangs . . . and be part of the community,” the woman said.

First of all, I can’t believe someone actually said that. There are a lot of ellipses — perhaps she was misquoted or taken out of context. But if that’s an accurate representation of the question, God have mercy on our nation. Think about the philosophy described here: she believes the reason her kids are on the streets and joining gangs is because the government hasn’t provided sufficient youth activities. And “when are you going to give them something” exhibits a textbook definition of “entitlement mentality.” I wonder what she thinks her responsibility is, if anything, as the parent of her children.

That said, there are, in fact, plenty of free entertainment options. We just expanded the libraries in Peoria, so there is more opportunity to borrow and read good books. The libraries even have organized summer reading programs that include prizes. District 150 has just built two new schools with huge outdoor playground areas where kids can play basketball or baseball. The park system has baseball diamonds, tennis courts, frisbee golf courses, and other amenities. Lots of churches have youth activities. The Christian Center has bowling, pool, ping-pong, and other games at low prices. There is no shortage of opportunities for young people to entertain themselves in this city.

I wish someone would have pointed out to her that it’s not the City’s or the School District’s job to entertain her children. The City and School District don’t have the resources or responsibility to raise the children of Peoria — that’s the parents’ responsibility. We can and do provide a number of resources, but parents and children need to take some initiative to avail themselves of those resources.

Here’s the answer she got:

Riggenbach said with dwindling money that it could be difficult to fund such activities.

“I think it’s time the churches stand up and join all the forces, the park district and schools and hit this head-on,” Riggenbach said. “I don’t have an easy answer tonight but I do hear you.”

In essence, Riggenbach reinforced her entitlement mentality. He didn’t dispute it. He just said there wasn’t enough money or church involvement to provide those entitlements. Ironically, he’s a Republican.

Peoria Journal Star

The incredible shrinking Journal Star

35 Comments

They’ve taken an axe to the staff. They’ve cut out whole sections of the paper, and reduced some sections to as few as four pages. What else can they cut at this point?

Why, the width of the paper, of course. It seems the paper is getting a bit more narrow:

“Readers will notice that the width of each page of the newspaper will be reduced by 1 1/2 inches [starting in October]. The depth of the pages will remain the same.

“This format is fast becoming the industry standard […] Readers in markets where the narrower format has been introduced have said they prefer the ‘feel’ and portability.”

The current format is about 12½ inches wide, so that works out to about a 12% reduction in newsprint. I wonder if they’ll be lowering their subscription price by 12% to compensate. (Not!) I love the way they try to sell this reduction in content: It’s preferred by readers! It’s more portable! It feels better! Kind of an insult to their readers’ intelligence, no?

I predict the Journal Star will abandon broadsheet publication altogether in a few years, opting for tabloid format. The Chicago Tribune already prints a version of its paper in tabloid format for sale at airport and train station newsstands. And this is the popular format for newspapers “across the pond,” too, meaning it’s becoming the “industry standard” of tomorrow.

And then, eventually, it will be reduced to the size you see on the left.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

Yes, Mr. Riggenbach, we were promised an IMAX

52 Comments

Former County Board member and current Third District City Councilman Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”

On Saturday, March 7, 2009, Friends of Build the Block chairman Brad McMillan stated in the Peoria Journal Star: “If The Block is built, we will be able to experience: (1) A state-of-the-art 3-D IMAX theatre that will allow children to dive into a mystical, undersea world during the day and adults to watch current films in the evening….”

On the “Build the Block” website under “Frequently Asked Questions,” it states, “What will the Peoria Riverfront Museum include? The 81,000-square-foot Peoria Riverfront Museum will feature wide-ranging opportunities for learning, culture and fun, including a digital 3-D IMAX Theatre….”

The January 2009 “Build the Block” Newsletter stated this: “The Block’s IMAX Theatre will be a five-stories-tall, 3-D-equipped classroom kids will love!” And this: “‘At The Block, we’ll have even more to share, including expanded exhibits just for kids, a state-of-the art planetarium and a 3-D, digital IMAX Theatre,’ says Lakeview Museum President and CEO Jim Richerson.”

The March 3, 2009, Attendance Analysis put out by the museum group stated: “When analyzing the museum attendance projections listed above, it becomes apparent that the IMAX Theatre is assumed to be the primary generator of attendance at the new museum.” And this: “…museum planners are projecting 146,000 for annual attendance at the Peoria Riverfront Museum IMAX….”

Pay close attention to this one. The March 9, 2009, Sustainability paper published by the museum group stated:

On average, Lakeview Museum receives approximately $600,000 per year through earned income, including general memberships, gallery admissions, planetarium admissions, museum store, book court and book sales, museum schools and programs, and rental of museum space. This represents approximately 40 percent of total annual income. The remaining 60 percent of annual income, or approximately $900,000 per year, is categorized as support income. The support income is generated from the museum endowment, annual fund drives, exhibit sponsors, other miscellaneous fundraising events, and grants received from various foundations and governmental agencies.

In the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum Pro Forma, the relationship between earned income and support income is shifted, with earned income now representing 65 percent of the total and support income representing only 35 percent of the total. This change is due to the presence of the IMAX Theatre in the new museum, projected to generate almost $1 million per year in operating income. The concessions area adjacent to the IMAX Theatre also would be a new source of income at the Peoria Riverfront Museum and is projected to generate close to $300,000 annually.

Finally, there’s this lengthy report from January 8, 2009, titled, “Report to the County Board – Peoria Riverfront Museum Policy Considerations.” It comes with a cover memo addressed to none other than “Timothy Riggenbach, Chairman, Finance Legislative Study Committee.” In the 241-page document, which I’m sure Riggenbach read, are the results of a phone survey conducted by the County, including the questions asked. Here’s one:

The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of Central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater [emphasis added]. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86% funded. To complete the project, would you support an increase in the sales tax of one quarter of one percent in Peoria County? This is 25 cents on every $100 of retail purchases.

The report also includes the “Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year)” which is replete with references to IMAX. Oh, and it also includes the museum’s pro forma which states in no uncertain terms, “IMAX Revenue.”

So, with all due respect, Mr. Riggenbach, yes, we were promised an IMAX, your historic revisionism notwithstanding. It was promised to us by museum officials in official public documents. Furthermore, IMAX was essential to the attendance and revenue projections that were used to sell the museum to the County and the community.

What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article. Promises of an IMAX are so well-documented, I can’t believe anyone seriously believes there’s a question about it. Perhaps Mr. Riggenbach and the Journal Star want us to believe the entire County of Peoria just imagined we were promised an IMAX — that it was some sort of mass psychosis. Maybe we were all hypnotized by aliens.

Education

L. A. Times uses value-added analysis to rate public school teachers

195 Comments

Public school students are graded and tested all the time. Schools are scored too — California rates them in an annual index.

Not so with teachers.

Nationally, the vast majority who seek tenure get it after a few years on the job, practically ensuring a position for life. After that, pay and job protections depend mostly on seniority, not performance.

That’s from The Los Angeles Times, which recently published a fascinating article about evaluating teachers (read it here). They used a statistical method known as “value-added analysis” to rate teacher effectiveness in Los Angeles public schools. They explained that, “Value-added analysis offers a rigorous approach. In essence, a student’s past performance on tests is used to project his or her future results. The difference between the prediction and the student’s actual performance after a year is the ‘value’ that the teacher added or subtracted.”

The Times obtained seven years of math and English test scores from the Los Angeles Unified School District and used the information to estimate the effectiveness of L.A. teachers — something the district could do but has not.[…]

Among the findings:

  • Highly effective teachers routinely propel students from below grade level to advanced in a single year. There is a substantial gap at year’s end between students whose teachers were in the top 10% in effectiveness and the bottom 10%. The fortunate students ranked 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math.

  • Some students landed in the classrooms of the poorest-performing instructors year after year — a potentially devastating setback that the district could have avoided. Over the period analyzed, more than 8,000 students got such a math or English teacher at least twice in a row.

  • Contrary to popular belief, the best teachers were not concentrated in schools in the most affluent neighborhoods, nor were the weakest instructors bunched in poor areas. Rather, these teachers were scattered throughout the district. The quality of instruction typically varied far more within a school than between schools.

  • Although many parents fixate on picking the right school for their child, it matters far more which teacher the child gets. Teachers had three times as much influence on students’ academic development as the school they attend. Yet parents have no access to objective information about individual instructors, and they often have little say in which teacher their child gets.

  • Many of the factors commonly assumed to be important to teachers’ effectiveness were not. Although teachers are paid more for experience, education and training, none of this had much bearing on whether they improved their students’ performance.

I highly recommend reading the whole article. A question for teachers and administrators who read my blog: what do you think of value-added analysis, and using this as a tool to evaluate teachers? The article concedes that it should not be the sole method of evaluation, but suggests that it would be beneficial if it made up 30-50% of a teacher’s review.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

County told State it already owns land for museum

23 Comments

In April, Peoria County applied for a $5 million grant through the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). A copy of the grant application was acquired from the County:

DCEO Grant Survey – Peoria Riverfront Museum

The County listed itself as the “grantee” on page 2, and 203 SW Water St. (which is the City-owned Sears block) as the “project location” on page 4. Then, in answer to question 2d — “If the property is being improved, is the property owned by the grantee?” — the County checked the “Yes” box.

Question 10c asked, “If grant funds are to be utilized to make capital improvements to real property (structures/land) that your organization does not own [emphasis in original], provide a copy of the lease or other agreement (i.e., easements, rights-of-way. etc.) between your organization and the property owner that will allow your organization to continue to use the improved premises for an appropriate length of time, consistent with applicable state law and rules.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10d asked, “Does your organization have an executed contract for the purchase/acquisition of the land/building in question?” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10g asked, “Provide the name, address, phone number and email address (if applicable) of the entity from which the land/building(s) is/are being purchased.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

As you can see, the County consistently represented itself to the State as the owner of the land. When asked why, Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich said:

By April when the grant survey was submitted, we had already negotiated the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria. As I said before, the redevelopment agreement has included language regarding title transfer since at least February, and by April, this issue had been to the County’s understanding, resolved. There were several other issues (paying permit fees, the commercial space approvals, the assurance that the funds would be there to build the museum, and what happens to the property if PRM no longer operates the museum) but the negotiating teams had moved on from the title issue.

That still doesn’t explain why this information wasn’t included on the grant application. The proper way to complete the application would have been to answer “No” to question 2d, and explain these negotiations in question 10d, at minimum. The questions couldn’t be any more specific; they clearly expect even anticipated ownership to be disclosed. The County misrepresented its ownership status no matter how one looks at it. No response was received from Urich to follow-up questions on this issue.

Other Questions

Urich’s answer raises another question: is it true that the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria had been resolved by April of this year? That was surprising, considering it has appeared as such a contentious issue here in August. I asked City attorney Randy Ray for some clarification. He replied:

There is no contract in place that requires the City to convey title to the Museum Site to the County.
It is true that there were negotiations, and draft agreements which contemplated such a conveyance. That was a major topic of a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people that took place the first week of March, 2010. Obviously, those meetings did not convey the property, nor did anything else the City has done up to this point. If Council does not approve a Redevelopment Agreement, no conveyance will occur.

Ray acknowledges that negotiations did in fact take place, and we know from Urich’s statement that the County believed the issue of land conveyance was “resolved.” These negotiations were not just with City staff, mind you. There were “a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people” at a time. Unfortunately, we’ll never know the real story because the City took great pains to completely skirt the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

The funny thing is that negotiation of the sale or lease of property can take place in closed session according to OMA, so why not just discuss it in executive session instead of these little meetings? Did they not want the negotiations on the record? (Minutes are taken during executive sessions.) Were they not giving the same information to each of the council members? Somewhere there seems to be a breakdown in communication because the City now appears reluctant to convey the land, but the County thought the issue was “resolved” way back in April.

Of course, there’s no legitimate reason not to conduct these negotiations in public, in open session. The reason property transactions are allowed to be conducted in secret is to protect taxpayers from market reaction. In this case, since the land is owned by one government body and being conveyed to another government body, there are no market forces and those concerns are moot.

During the 2005 mayoral campaign, then-candidate Ardis promised, “My leadership, a new generation of leadership, will be open, not closed; inclusive, not reserved for the select few; and bottom-up, not top-down.” Yet from the hotel deal to the museum, right up to the recent secret meeting with Ransburg — against whom Ardis ran in 2005 and, ironically, whom Ardis criticized for doing the public’s business in secret — he has not shown us this so-called “new generation of leadership.”

City of Peoria, Firefly Energy, Peoria County

Firefly update: Cost to settle bankruptcy just went up a half million dollars

Leave a comment

On Thursday, the Peoria County Board approved a resolution to settle a lawsuit with other creditors involved in the Firefly Energy loan default. The $500,000 settlement allows the City and County to own Firefly’s intellectual property, which they can then sell free and clear to Electrotherm Ltd. of Ahmadabad, India. After the sale of the assets, the County and City will only owe the bank $2 million, so the total cost to settle the original $6.6 million loan guarantee will be $2.5 million.

The vote to approve the resolution was 15-2, with Brad Harding and Andrew Rand voting against it for unspecified reasons.

Museum Block, Peoria County

County approves museum agreements

48 Comments

A number of agreements regarding the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum were passed by the Peoria County Board on Thursday. They passed nearly unanimously, with only board members Merle Widmer and Brad Harding voting nay.

The six agenda items pertaining to the museum included an ordinance and five resolutions:

  1. An ordinance for the issuance of $41,600,000 debt to cover construction expenses for the museum
  2. A resolutions approving the museum “facilities design concept”
  3. A resolution approving a $5,040,000 bid from Williams Brothers Construction to building the museum parking deck
  4. A resolution approving engineering agreements with PSA-Dewberry and Whitney & Associates for “construction oversight and material testing” for the project
  5. A resolution approving the museum redevelopment agreement
  6. A resolution approving a Capital Facility Development, Lease and Operating Agreement

Dave Ransburg and Ryan Beasley (the chair and vice chair of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, respectively) gave presentations on behalf of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Ransburg stated that this will be the “greatest building built in Peoria since the Civic Center.” He also gave a brief history of how we got to this point, stressing that thousands of hours and millions of dollars have already been spent on this project.

Beasley gave a lengthy presentation, including an update on the IMAX situation. He stated that “it has always been our plan” to deliver a “giant screen” theater with a 70′ x 52′ screen capable of showing 2D and 3D digital, ultra-high definition movies. While that may well have always been their plan, they’ve told the public in no uncertain terms they would be building an IMAX theater, specifically. It’s well documented, even on their own “Build the Block” website.

Beasley went on to say that the museum is “a mission-driven organization,” and that the theater has to fit with their mission, which is “to inspire lifelong learning for ALL, connecting art, history, science and achievement through collections, exhibitions and programs.” In order to do that, the museum has three “negotiating terms”: control over programming, technology, and exclusivity. The biggest obstacle is control over programming. The museum wants to show “classic” (i.e., educational) films during the day and second-run movies on evenings and weekends. That has been IMAX’s traditional model. However, IMAX is apparently interested in seeing their theaters run more first-run movies — what they call “day and date DMR” movies — that would require multiple showings for the first two or three weeks the movie is out. “DMR” is IMAX’s proprietary large-screen film process. The museum’s concern is that agreeing to “day and date DMR” would be more profitable, but violate their mission. They’re also concerned about being required to show some films that are R-rated or otherwise not family-friendly.

The “next steps” for the museum are:

  1. To “continue preferred IMAX path” — that is, they’re going to continue negotiating with IMAX. Board member Merle Widmer asked about an e-mail one of his constituents received that indicated IMAX “does not have a client interested in opening an IMAX theatre in Peoria.” Beasley stated that was not surprising, given that IMAX received an inquiry from the general public about their “internal operations” — he would expect them to either give no answer, or to answer in the negative. He assured Widmer that he could provide proof of on-going negotiations with IMAX on IMAX letterhead. Media inquiries to IMAX by the Peoria Chronicle have gone unanswered.
  2. To “continue to evaluate alternative options,” none of which have “the brand power of IMAX,” he admitted.
  3. To “communicate progress and direction” to everyone, including the County Board and the general public.

There was another speaker (didn’t catch his name, sorry) who provided an overview of the building and grounds. There will be three “free-standing” signs (they looked like monument signs in the illustration) that would be lighted. Also, on the large blank walls of the museum, there will be humongous banners that can be used for decoration and/or to advertise the movie(s) playing at the “giant screen” theater. The only entrances are the main entrance off of Washington street and the elevator entrance from the parking garage. Thus, most of the area around the museum will be dead space (i.e., there will be no meaningful pedestrian activity outside).

County Administrator Patrick Urich explained that the cost of the project (including the parking deck) has risen from $83.4 million in April 2009, to $87.1 million in February 2010, to $92,198,731 this month. He then went on to talk about various “protections” that are built in to the agreements. For instance, there is $4.3 million in construction contingencies that will not be spent if the bids come in on budget and there are no change orders. There are also fundraising requirements built into the development and lease agreement with the museum: they have to raise $2.5 million by October 2011 and another $2.5 million by October 2012. If they don’t reach this target, then they have to reduce their capital or operating budgets “consistent with the shortfall from the goal.”

This is a marked departure from assurances the County gave to voters before the April 2009 referendum that no construction would start until the money was raised. In the July 9, 2009 Regular County Board Meeting minutes, it states explicitly, “Mr. Urich replied that currently the commitment for private funding is $8,000,000.00. If the funding is not there on the private side, the project will not go forward.” And later in the same meeting, “Mr. Urich has made it clear that ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8,000,000.00 in private funds to cover the gap.” Now, this has been replaced with toothless requirements that money be raised during construction.

Against all evidence to the contrary, everyone seems to be very confident in the museum’s ability to raise additional funds. When asked in a follow-up question about the stall in fundraising, Beasley said that “it’s not as simple as passing the referendum and then the money flows in,” although they did receive some additional funding (he declined to specify how much). Of course, this is exactly what the museum group assured us would happen before the referendum. Then, the only thing holding up donations was the referendum. But now people “want to see shovels in the ground” before they give more money, so we need to start building to get more funds, Beasley said. The target continues to move.

Several board members stated that the agreements weren’t “perfect,” but that they were “very good.” Several board members also stated that they had reservations and concerns about the plans, but not enough to vote against going forward. And there were a lot of self-congratulatory speeches all around as the final votes were taken.

Peoria Township

Township ripe for waste cutting

14 Comments

For those of you who don’t know, there’s another local government entity besides the City and the County. It’s called the Township. Peoria County is divided into twenty townships (see map here), and these townships collect property taxes and provide a few services. You can read an excellent history about them in a report titled, “Township Government: Essential or Expendable? The Case of Illinois and Cook County,” by David K. Hamilton.

One of the services provided is something called “General Assistance.” According to the Illinois Department of Human Services, “The General Assistance (GA) program provides people with money and limited medical care to help take care of themselves when they do not qualify for other cash programs administered by the Department of Human Services (DHS).” Recipients of this aid can receive bus tickets; vouchers to help pay for utilities, prescriptions, dental and eye exams; and money for other medical needs. The General Assistance Fund also grants $50,000 per year to the Heartland Clinic and $10,000 per year to the Center for Abuse. All told, the General Assistance budget is $1.525 million.

Of that budget, $242,600 goes to administration. The head of the operation is the Town General Assistance Supervisor, an elected position carrying a salary of $80,796.71 per year. A salary schedule approved in 2008 shows that next year it goes up to $84,836.55. And starting in May 2012, it goes up to $89,078.38. In other words, it goes up 5% every year. At that rate, the position will rake in over $100,000 a year in taxpayer money by 2015.

And what does the Town General Assistance Supervisor do? Distribute taxpayer money. Hand out vouchers and other assistance to people who line up at the door.

So, what’s my beef here? First of all, the salary for this position — which is essentially a clerical position — is outrageous. There is no justification for it as it stands. Secondly, there’s no justification for annual 5% increases on top of it. Thirdly, why do we have this position at all? In southern Illinois they don’t even have a township government system and this function is fulfilled by the County. From an administrative standpoint, without passing judgment on the services provided, this is serious government waste.

There is a provision in state law for abolishing township government. However, it’s practically impossible to achieve. To force the question to a referendum, you have to gather signatures of 10% of the voters in each of the 20 townships. That would be a mammoth effort. And you can’t just get rid of one township — it’s all or nothing in the County. The only practical way to abolish townships is for State legislation to be passed that would do away with the antiquated and duplicatory system.

Museum Block

The big museum bait and switch

47 Comments

How many people voted for the $40 million museum tax referendum in 2009 because they were promised an IMAX theater downtown? No small number, to be sure. Opponents of the museum plan questioned whether we were really going to get an IMAX since no contract was signed. We were assured there would be an IMAX. Their attendance and revenue predictions were predicated on it. The contract with IMAX was sitting on the desk at Lakeview just waiting to be signed once the referendum passed! Remember that?

Well, guess what?

Lakeview Museum’s president/CEO Jim Richerson said while an IMAX theater is not off the table, other alternatives are being explored.

“We want to build the best thing going out there,” Richerson said, adding that ETI 3-D digital screens also are a giant screen possibility for the riverfront museum.

“If it’s something better, we plan to go with them,” Richerson said. “We won’t open this for another two years, but again, we want to make sure we deliver the best thing.”

County Board member Andrew Rand, chairman of the county’s museum construction committee, said utilizing the IMAX brand could be costly.

He said museum officials would have to plunk down $1.2 million in an advance payment in order to utilize the IMAX brand, an amount that is twice as much as what other vendors are asking.

“I don’t think we’re specifically hung up on IMAX, which is a specific brand, for any reason,” Rand said. “The agreement the county has is for a high-definition, giant screen digital cinema. That’s what we expect.”

Huh. Who’da thunk they wouldn’t follow through on their promise of an IMAX? I mean, they’ve followed through on… um… come to think of it, they’ve never followed through on anything they promised, have they?

To all the voters who fell for the propaganda of the museum group in April 2009, I have just one thing to say: Suckers.

For more great updates on the museum fiasco, see County Board Member Merle Widmer’s blog entries: Peoria Riverfront Museum and Peoria Riverfront Museum – Additions.