All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.

Prominent blogger defends subjective, secretive plans to squander taxpayer money

It’s not every day that a blogger comes right out and scoffs at objective, public processes for spending taxpayer money. But one prominent blogger has done just that. Billy Dennis says that making decisions via an objective, rational process is ludicrous and will result in poor decisions, like the failed “New Coke” formula.

That’s right. An open process like the one the library board has employed for more than the past year — including over 40 public meetings and an advisory referendum — is worthy of scorn by Mr. Dennis. In contrast, a closed-door summit between the city and school district, “held at the District 150 administrative offices with only a few elected members of each board so that the press and public could be excluded from the meeting,” is worthy of applause! The site near Expo Gardens was already publicly considered against objective criteria and discarded. For personal reasons not fully disclosed, the site is now being resurrected and pursued by the council, but behind closed doors.

I’m sure you’re wondering why Billy would take such a strange stance — against transparency, for special interest interference. For one thing, he thinks it’s good policy. Since council members are elected and answer to the people, he thinks that gives them carte blanche to discard any and all processes, no matter how well-researched or documented, in order to pursue their own personal pet projects. After all, if the people don’t like it, they’ll just vote that person out of office… after the money’s been squandered, unfortunately.

Another reason Billy stands up for arbitrary decision-making: he believes it might save $8-10 million. It has a great ring to it, doesn’t it? “Saving” $8-10 million? Where does that figure come from? Has it been verified? And are we really “saving”?

The figure comes from Mayor Ardis. The Peoria Times-Observer reported: “Ardis said closing the Lakeview Branch could potentially trim $8 to $10 million off the price tag of the library’s expansion and renovation project, projected at $35 million.” See, if they build a new library at Expo Gardens, less than two miles from Lakeview, there would be no need to keep the Lakeview branch open. Closing that branch, and thus not sinking any money into expanding or renovating it, would drop the price of the library’s renewal plans to $25-27 million (at least, by the Mayor’s calculations); hence, the $8-10 million in savings.

To my knowledge, neither the Mayor nor anyone else has released any detail on how they arrived at that figure. Not knowing the sale price of the land by Expo (it’s not for sale), the environmental clean-up costs, or a host of other variables, I don’t know how the figure could be verified.

As far as whether it’s “saving” anything, that’s kind of a backwards way of looking at things. If I say I’m going to spend $25,000 on a car, and then I decide to buy a $15,000 car instead, did I just save $10,000? No. I spent $15,000. Now, suppose the $25,000 car could seat six people, so my family of five could fit comfortably, but the $15,000 car only seats four. Have I made a wise decision to spend $10,000 less when the car I bought doesn’t meet the needs of my family?

This library upgrade works the same way. A new northern branch will cost about $11 million to construct, based on the experts at BCA (the library consulting firm that’s been working on this project who have a pretty good track record estimating library construction). Wherever we put it, it’s going to cost around $11 million. The question we have to ask ourselves is where the wisest place is to build the new branch. If we spend $11 million to build it in the wrong place, was that a wise use of that money? Is that being fiscally responsible?

Billy evidently thinks so. He’s admitted that it doesn’t matter to him where the new branch is built, which is tantamount to saying he doesn’t care whether the city council squanders $11 million or not. He’ll just be happy that the council “saved” $8-10 million, even if $11 million is wasted in the process.

Library answers the City

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.

The problem with the library “process”

I can see that I’m not making myself clear regarding what I find objectionable about recent events surrounding the library. Some people seem to think that I advocate no council oversight of the library board or that I think the advisory referendum should be taken as binding the council to every jot and tittle of the library board’s recommendation. Not so.

Let me try to explain my concerns (hopefully) better.

I believe that decisions like this one regarding library expansion should be made rationally and objectively, with real public participation and consideration of the needs of all stakeholders. I believe the library board has, to the best of their ability, done that. They have done their planning openly, had public meetings, included people in their strategic planning from all stakeholders (planning & growth department, chamber of commerce, school administration, etc.), and established an objective criteria for evaluating locations for a northern branch.

The library board ran all potential sites for a northern branch through their criteria and let the chips fall where they may. They looked at things like cost of acquisition, size, proximity to patrons, etc. The board’s initial preferred site — K’s Merchandise — did not make the cut. The board was surprised to find that the Sud’s property and the old Festival Foods were the top two sites, based on their objective criteria. That’s why they made the recommendation they did.

Contrast that with the city council. The council has no criteria for objectively choosing a site. Nor have they held any public meetings to get input from the community. The first site they floated was Elliott’s strip club on University. That was done behind the scenes in an attempt to influence the board with the promise of extra votes.

When that was shot down, the council suggested Expo Gardens. A meeting was hastily put together with representatives of the city, school board, and library board. The city is no doubt preparing its case for this site to present during the question and answer time with the library board that’s been added to the end of Tuesday’s council meeting.

Here’s the problem I have with this “process.” It’s not a process. It’s council members with pet projects or special interests using the library for their purposes instead of establishing a criteria and making objective and rational decisions based on that criteria. Nichting would like to see Elliott’s run out of the north end of town — that would be good for his constituents and it would be good for his district — so he suggests putting the library there. Spears has big plans for making the area around Expo Gardens into a family-friendly place for recreation and entertainment, so he suggests putting the library there.

Well, guess what? You can defend almost any site on that basis. Why not put a library in one of the form districts in the Heart of Peoria area? It would be a neighborhood anchor and spur redevelopment in those areas, it would be walkable, and I could come up with a hundred other benefits if I wanted. You probably can think of a lot of reasons putting a library near your neighborhood would be good, too. That’s not a reasonable or sufficient way to decide where the library is to be sited.

If the council has legitimate questions regarding the criteria the library used, I think it’s reasonable to discuss modifying that criteria — at an open meeting, with public/stakeholder input. Then, once everyone agrees on the criteria, go out and look at potential sites again, including any for which a council member has an affinity, and run them all through the criteria and may the best site win.

That’s what I’m advocating. Does that make it clearer?

Note to Journal Star: That would be the East Bluff

From today’s paper:

West Bluff man faces child pornography charge

PEORIA — A West Bluff man appeared in U.S. District Court on Thursday accused of having several hundred child porn photos as well as talking to minors on the Internet.

Jeffrey S. Ellington, 40, of 1500 N. Knoxville Ave., Apt. 11 stands charged with distribution of child pornography, a charge that could send him to prison for up to 20 years.

Knoxville Ave. is the dividing line between the west and east bluffs in Peoria. The way street numbering works here, even-numbered addresses are on the north and east side of streets, odd-numbered addresses are on the west and south side of streets. So “1500 N. Knoxville” would be on the east side of Knoxville, putting it in the East Bluff — not the West Bluff.

Library quiz

Q: How many members of the council currently sitting around the horseshoe endorsed the library’s plan and urged voters to support the $35 million referendum in April 2007, and who are they?

Click on “Read the rest of this entry” below to see the answer. (If you’re reading an RSS feed or the permalink for this post, don’t cheat by reading ahead — see how many you can name without looking.)

Continue reading Library quiz

Council preview 6/10/08

Next Tuesday the City Council will meet. The agenda is online here. Notable items of discussion:

  • There’s a request to give Enterprise Zone status to all of Metro Centre, Sheridan Village, and Evergreen Square shopping centers. Big plans are in the works for all three, and the city wants to provide incentives. Metro Centre’s plans are fleshed out the most in the request — they’re planning to spend one- to three-million dollars on renovations and a mixed-use retail/residential development that will overlook the Lakeview nature preserve.
  • The Kellar Branch rail/trail feasibility study comes up for approval. This is specifically a request to hire T. Y. Lin International, an engineering firm, for a flat rate of $20,000 to give an independent analysis as to how much it would cost to build a trail next to the Kellar Branch rail line. Peoria Heights would pay $5,000 toward the cost, and the City of Peoria would pick up the remaining $15,000.
  • The request for a liquor license for Elliott’s strip club comes up for a vote again. It had been deferred while the City and club owners worked with a mediator. I have no idea if they reached a resolution or if this item will be deferred again.

Also of note, I believe this will be Jonathan Ahl’s last time covering the Peoria City Council and hosting “Outside the Horseshoe.” I hope he’s planning to have a “goodbye” episode that will feature his favorite interviews and clips over the past several years. I also hope he leaves the longest pause ever between “WCBU” and “Peoria” when he signs off.

Randy Oliver up for Surprise city manager job

Look out, Ed Boik — Randy Oliver is following you.

Ed Boik used to work in the Planning and Growth department, but recently moved to Peoria, Arizona. Now, word comes that former City Manager Randy Oliver is likely to become the new city manager in nearby Surprise, Arizona. The city council there selected him unanimously from a pool of 109 applicants, which had been whittled to five finalists. A contract could come up for a vote before the month is out.

Not everyone is happy about how the choice was handled. The article mentions several people who were unhappy with the lack of transparency on the part of the Surprise city council in making their selection.

Here are some interesting quotes:

“You’ll find I’m an upfront person,” Oliver said. “As I told the council, we may or may not agree. There are times that people don’t agree, and the key is you can do that professionally. As evidenced by my career and history, I run a very clean administration. I don’t put up with anything that’s not.”

Oliver said he left [Peoria, IL] when it became clear the job was no longer “the best fit” and city leaders had transitioned to focusing only on basic services.

“They didn’t think the city should be involved in certain things outside of police and fire,” Oliver said.

Nonetheless, Oliver provided Surprise leaders with a letter of recommendation from Peoria’s mayor.

Interesting. This is new information — he left because he perceived the city was focusing only on basic services? And therefore he didn’t see his services as “the best fit”? I guess that means he was in favor of more “progressive” spending behind the scenes. I can see how that would cause some friction, especially around budget time.

Oliver had been a finalist for city manager in Durham, North Carolina, but that job was ultimately offered to Pensacola, Fla., city manager Tom Bonfield.

Good luck to Randy in getting the gig in sunny Arizona. Maybe he and Ed can get together for supper sometime and talk about the good old days in Peoria.

City, D150, and Library Board to consider Expo/Richwoods site

The Times-Observer is reporting that officials from the City, District 150, and the Peoria Public Library will be meeting today at 4:30 p.m. to discuss possibly building a new library on D150 property by Richwoods High School and Expo Gardens. There’s a catch:

Ardis said that closing the Lakeview Branch and building the new North Peoria library branch on, or near Expo Gardens, would trim $8 to $10 million off the proposed $35 million cost of the entire library plan.

Let’s see, how was that referendum question worded again? Here it is:

“Shall bonds in the amount of $35,000,000 be issued for Library purposes of the City of Peoria, In Peoria County, Illinois, of acquiring, constructing and installing a new library building and additions to existing facilities (including site acquisition, library materials and technology) and related fixtures, furnishings, improvements, facilities and costs, bearing interest at the rate of not to exceed 7%? Paid for by a property tax increase approximately 16 cents per $100 of the equalized assessed valuation.”

That referendum was based on the Library’s master plan, which included expanding Lakeview and building a new branch in far north Peoria. Having the city step in now and suggest closing Lakeview and building a new library across the street from the fourth district is kind of a bait and switch, isn’t it? Expo Gardens is not much farther north than Lakeview, compared to how far north the City has grown.

I can see why Gary Sandberg feels like he wasted his time over the past year.

The new LDC: Do whatever the heck you want

I’m not quite sure why we even have a Land Development Code or a Form Based Code. We spent a lot of time meeting with citizens and stakeholders to come up with the vision of what we want to see. We spent a lot of money codifying that vision. But all of that work was for naught if we’re not going to enforce it.

Once again, someone has blatantly violated the Land Development Code (this time in the Sheridan Triangle Form District). And once again, the city has rolled over and played dead.

The new owner of the old Dairy Queen at Sheridan and Loucks put vinyl siding on his building, even though the Form Based Code for that area explicitly disallows vinyl siding. Then, after the fact, he asked for an administrative deviation from the Planning and Growth department. He got it, natch.

Message received by the development community: “Ignore the code. Do whatever the heck you want. Yeah, it would be best if you asked beforehand so we can rubber-stamp your variance in advance. But if that’s too much trouble, hey, just do whatever and ask for forgiveness later. We’re flexible.”

Citizens protest shorter school day

Last night, over 60 parents, teachers, and other concerned individuals protested the District 150 Board of Education’s decision last month to cut the school day by 45 minutes in 12 primary schools. The picture to the right is courtesy of Diane Vespa who helped organize the demonstration and took plenty of photos.

The issue was not on the school board’s agenda, but Superintendent Ken Hinton did say that he is meeting with several interested groups and will report back to the board. He was vague on exactly when he would be reporting back, but it could be as soon as the next school board meeting on June 16. It doesn’t appear the issue will be on the agenda for reconsideration at that meeting, however. Hinton went on to say that he would not be “pressured, threatened, or intimidated,” but would only do what he feels is best for the children. I’d like to know how restoring 45 minutes of learning time to the primary school day could not be in the best interests of the children.

In addition to the demonstration, opponents of the 45-minute cut in learning time are going door-to-door with petitions to show the school board there is broad public support for the board to reverse their decision. Those petitions will be presented at the next school board meeting.

Also at last night’s meeting, Don Jackson announced that the local chapter of the NAACP opposes the cut in learning time.