UPDATE/CORRECTION 10/11/07: Below, I mistakenly cited the City of Peoria operating budget. In fact, the money in question was $200,000 from the capital budget set aside in 2007 for design and engineering of the Sheridan Loucks Triangle specifically and exclusively. $200,000 per year from 2007 to 2011 was requested, but only $200,000 in 2007 was funded. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks to my friend at the city who wishes to remain anonymous for pointing out my error.
In the 2007 City of Peoria budget (pp. 128-129), money was set aside for economic development. Here’s where some of that money was designated to go (emphasis mine):
2. Community Revitalization Activity – Activity cost $238,529
This program is responsible for undertaking projects which promote downtown Peoria and adjacent areas, including the Riverfront and residential neighborhoods, as an attractive location for working, living, and entertainment. Specific activities, to be undertaken, within the next five years, include:
- Create and implement residential enterprise zone.
- Identify and execute initiatives to revitalize the Warehouse District and Southern Gateway.
- Finalize redevelopment plans for the former Sears block to create a cultural and entertainment destination for the Region.
- Identify and redevelop blighted/contaminated property.
- Continue revitalization initiatives in Council-directed areas (Sheridan Loucks, Prospect Road, Renaissance Park).
- Undertake and complete public infrastructures improvements to support business and industry.
So, at tonight’s council meeting, Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken brought forth a motion to spend some of that money to enter into a contract with the Farnsworth Group, Inc. “for the DESIGN of the SHERIDAN TRIANGLE BUSINESS DISTRICT ENHANCEMENT from McCLURE AVENUE to HANSSLER PLACE, in an Amount Not to Exceed $183,750.00.” This is in the Sheridan Road form district that was created by the council back in May of this year.
In order for form districts to be successful, there are two things that need to take place. First, there needs to be a form-based code — a pre-planned area that provides a consistent and predictable development pattern. That’s the private investment side of the equation. Second, improvements need to be made to the streets and sidewalks in order to make it an attractive area both for redevelopment by investors and patronage by potential customers. That’s the public investment side of the equation.
Plans for improving the intersection and streetscape in this area were developed during a charrette hosted by Farrell-Madden Associates. You can see the results of that charrette by clicking on the picture to the right. You’ll notice the pictures show wider sidewalks, street trees, intersection changes, etc. The next step is to develop a project plan “splitting the area into logical phases for construction” with estimates and specifications for each phase. That’s what Councilwoman Van Auken asked for this evening.
But the council voted it down 6-5. Ardis, Turner, Gulley, Jacob, Montelongo, and Spears Spain voted against it. Van Auken, Sandberg, Manning, Spain Spears, and Nichting voted for it.
Why? I’m certain I don’t know. It appears they voted it down because it’s too close to the next budget cycle. Councilman Clyde Gulley kept talking about the Griswold Improvement Project — for which there is $0 in the 2007 budget — that the council voted against funding earlier this year because it would have been a budget amendment. He somehow thinks the two projects are analogous, and since the council voted down his street improvement project, he’s going to vote against everyone else’s. Other council members said we need to set priorities before spending that much money — as if they didn’t already set the priorities for 2007 in the 2007 budget.
So now, evidently the money set aside for improving the Heart of Peoria area this year will not get spent.
Add Spain to voting for it, Spears against.
Oh, and remember the context for the no vote — that the city needs to go through the budget process to select such spending items, and not just pick one on the floor when it comes up.
The unspoken issue here is some frustration from some council members that BVA keeps bringing up pet projects to get funded instead of waiting for the budget process. Things like the Arbor on Rebecca Place, lights for the Orchard District, and now this. Some council members are telling me they want her to get the message to slow her roll and try to get these into the budget instead of piecemeal one at a time add-ons in th middle of the year.
I don’t she’ll get the message. Promises to fulfill; votes to gather.
Not that she’s that different from others. But this is one reason why having all 10 members from Districts is dangerous. They become too parochial and short-sighted – funding projects (and they may be good ones) without a look at the bigger picture.
Thanks Jonathan — I updated the list.
As for the “budget process,” this money was already in the budget. This wasn’t a budget amendment, nor did it move any money around. It was money that was budgeted for this area in 2007. I understand the other criticisms of her, but it looks to me like she was playing by the rules on this one.
Clyde has just as much right to ASK for spending on his district’s sidewalk projects as BVA has to ASK for spending in hers. I agree the Sheridan Triangle, etc. project was already budgeted, which makes her request more reasonable. Budgeting, however, is NOT the same as spending. Spending decisions must be made according to how much money the city actualy has.
Billy, I agree. And if the council had said they were voting it down because they didn’t have the money/cash-flow/whatever, then that would be one thing. But that’s not what they said — they said they were voting it down because it needed to go through the budget process, even though it had already gone through the budget process.
How many budget processes does a project need to go through before a council member is allowed to spend the budgeted money?
I think the bigger issue some council members had with the budgeting aspect (though maybe not said clearly) is that this was a “pot” of money for certain types of activities with no previously identified projects. But that is what they approved in the budget subject to actual approval on a specific project.
They need to decide if they want to micro-manage every dollar expenditure or not and then move forward. It does no good to put “pots” of money into the budget for projects to be identified if they don’t have a process in place for reviewing how the funds will be spent during the year. If they don’t change, this will continue to be an issue as individual councilmembers identify “qualifying” uses for the money and try to expend it. Others will continue to feel that they aren’t getting their shot at the funds.
It’s unfortunate that the City of Peoria continues to fail at the process of design and development projects. How many times have the City and other local institutions put out design projects for competition only to nix the projects or to have to re-issue for proposals? For private design consultants, preparing proposals is a high overhead cost and ends up being an enormous waste of precious (and expensive) time as well – which of course is passed on to clients. And it’s not that overhead isn’t built into business budgets; the problem is that when this happens, businesses often have to compete all over again when the project is re-advertised for competition. Furthermore, when projects are advertised the second time, they are seldom the same as the first. Thus, private businesses have to submit twice on the same project.
But aside from the squandering of time and money (and thereby hurting the business sector), it makes the private sector think twice about submitting on City projects and the futility of it all. The City’s plowing forward with consultant selection either inappropriately and/or without any certainty that the project will be performed is a huge disservice to the business sector and clients they serve. Pretty amateur stuff.
By the by, Ahl have it backwards: Spain voted ‘nay’, Spears voted ‘aye.’
And people wonder why blogs are not considered a viable alternative to news.
I stand corrected. I blame fatigue-induced typos when I posted earlier.
AYES: Sandburg, Spears, Nicthing, Manning, and Van Auken.
NAYS: Ardis, Montelongo, Jacob, Spain, Gulley, and Turner.
Thanks Kris (and Jonathan). I would point out that I got my information from a bona fide member of the mainstream media, so don’t go blaming blogs. 🙂
I may work for the “mainstream media”, but I’m far from “bona fide.”
Wait, in your post you say that part of the budget had $238K set aside for 6 different bulleted activities. The 5th bullet includes Sheridan Triangle, but also 3 other areas. Wasn’t BVA asking for $180K+ for Sheridan Triangle? Doesn’t that leave only $60K for the other identified areas, let alone the other indentified activities? I agree the money is in the budget, but I’m not sure (looking at what you’ve provided) that Council was saying Sheridan Triangle was the top priority (to the tune of 75% of the funds).
I agree — lets finish something. Why work on Sheridan Triangle ahead of Main Street and Warehouse District – two initiatives that predated Sheridan Triangle.
That goes back to Peo Proud’s comment earlier that “[i]t does no good to put ‘pots’ of money into the budget for projects to be identified if they don’t have a process in place for reviewing how the funds will be spent during the year.”
Here it is October and almost all the money is still left in that particular pot. So BVA requests they use it for something, and everyone shoots it down, saying it has to go through the budget process again. This is clearly a dysfunctional process.
All, it’s been brought to my attention that I mistakenly cited the City of Peoria operating budget above. In fact, the money in question was $200,000 from the capital budget set aside in 2007 for design and engineering of the Sheridan Loucks Triangle specifically and exclusively. $200,000 per year from 2007 to 2011 was requested, but only $200,000 in 2007 was funded. I think this clears up several of the issues we were discussing.
Sorry for the confusion, and thanks to my friend at the city who wishes to remain anonymous for pointing out my error.
You can see the full capital budget by clicking here (warning: it’s a very large PDF document!). The Sheridan/Loucks project is detailed on page 53 (page 100 of the full PDF file).
CJ: So then what was the rationale for the city council voting against this particular expenditure?
One council member who voted against it told me, “I was concerned about funding engineering services for a project before having a plan to fund the actual capital construction costs.” In other words, since there’s no money funded in years 2008-2011, he didn’t want to spend money funded in 2007 for engineering work that may never be used.
So why did the council approve any money to be spent on engineering work in 2007? It looks to me like they’re changing the rules mid-year.
This raises several questions. 1. Why did we go through the Charrettes process and not put the money into the budget to complete projects.
2. The numerous projects on the North end continue to get priority in the capital budget, deals are made etc, I suspect w/o full council approval. How do we get priorities budgeted elsewhere when citizen input for the capitol budget process is denied.
3. Why is there a continued lack of investment in the Central Bluff vs. Other parts of the second district and the city at large?
I am further frustrated by projects in the millions going to wealthier neighborhoods, and other areas continue to be the focus of urban rot. It’s the same games being played. To get money one must have money.