Sayonara, Schau

From the Journal Star: “In a surprise move Monday, the Peoria District 150 School Board terminated its contract with treasurer/controller Pam Schau, an at-will employee, effective immediately.”

The district isn’t saying why they fired Schau — they can’t discuss personnel issues. But Schau herself told the newspaper that Superintendent Lathan called her after the meeting and told her “the board felt I was not providing sufficient leadership in the area of accounting.”

Schau’s contract allows her to be fired without cause, according to the paper. She’s been employed by District 150 just over a year.

County wants to acquire museum block for a buck

According to the recently-published Peoria Riverfront Museum redevelopment agreement, the County wants to obtain the museum site from the City for one dollar.

The site is reportedly valued at $10 million. The City acquired it after Sears moved from downtown to Northwoods Mall in 1998. At that time, the City also acquired the remaining parcels on the block, and in 2005 Caterpillar razed the land to prepare it for construction of the proposed museum and Caterpillar visitors center.

“The City’s conveyance [of the land] is in essence a $10 million contribution to the project,” explained County Administrator Patrick Urich. “In fact, the $145 million price tag figure for the entire project (Cat, PRM and parking deck) includes the City’s contribution and the $2 million Water Street upgrade.”

City representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment, except for at-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg. “Selling price toooo low. Should be $10,000,001.00 and I’ll give them the dollar,” he said via e-mail.

Urich also stated that, “Since at least February, the City has not given any of the parties any indication that they object to conveying the property to the County.” The Council has taken no public action or made any public comments regarding conveyance of the land to my knowledge.

The last museum agreement the City approved called for them to lease the land to the Peoria Riverfront Museum for $1/year for 99 years, not deed them the land permanently. “Initially there were discussions that included a ground lease,” Urich continued, “but since February (publicly at the County Board Committee of the Whole meeting) and prior to that in the negotiating sessions we have discussed the City conveying the property to the County.”

The City is facing a budget deficit of more than $10 million in 2011.

New redevelopment agreement published for museum

Karen McDonald reports that “The first meeting of the Peoria County Riverfront Museum Committee has been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Friday on the fourth floor of the Peoria County Courthouse.” The agenda packet was posted to the County’s website just before 2:30 Wednesday afternoon — barely meeting the deadline set by the Open Meetings Act.

That gives the public just 48 hours to review the 348-page document which includes:

  • Bid Letting for the Riverfront Museum Parking Deck
  • Engineering Agreements for Construction oversight and materials testing to construct the Riverfront Museum Parking Deck
  • Redevelopment Agreement
  • Lease Operating Agreement
  • Design Concepts

I guess museum committee members have their reading assignments for today, as do local news reporters. Of course, its adoption is a fait accompli, at least for the County. The big question now is whether the City will approve it. I’ll have more on this after I get a chance to review the documents. If you have the time and inclination to read it today (due to, say, insomnia or masochism), please leave your observations in the comments section.

Van Auken misses “Golden” opportunity

There I was Tuesday, beating the newspaper against my head after reading this:

The city’s Planning & Growth Management Department believes [Golden Corral’s] proposed sign is too big, much more so than what is allowed in the city ordinance. Proposals have the sign at 40-foot, 215-square-feet tall [sic]. The city requires 25-foot-tall, 70-square-foot signs for businesses such as Golden Corral […]

Russ Hruby of RJH Management Corp. said the company is willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council. […]

[Second District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken says,] “We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said. “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University. While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.”

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in:

Here’s a developer who is locating on University Street between War Memorial Drive and Forrest Hill — a stretch of road that is the epitome of poor urban design, and probably the most often-cited example of visual clutter in the City. Presumably, city officials would like to see the area improved and would jump at the opportunity to start scaling down the signs to bring them in line with the sign ordinance.

And it gets better! The developer says he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided upon by the zoning commission or City Council” — unlike Westlake Shopping Center which intimidated the City Council into giving it a big ordinance-busting sign by claiming its then-secret tenant (later revealed to be Fresh Market) would not locate there if they couldn’t have a humongous sign. No, this developer is very happy with the City, and doesn’t perceive the city as unfriendly to business. In fact, he’s quoted as saying, “It’s not an adversarial position at all…. Peoria has been (accommodating).”

What an opportunity! No threats, no intimidation. A new business on University street willing to abide by the code! Could this be the start of cleaning up University and reducing visual clutter? Could this business’s sign compliance be used as a shining, positive example for other businesses who locate there in the future?

Enter Barbara Van Auken, Second District Council Representative.

“We’re going to work with them and give them as close to the size as they want,” she said [emphasis mine]. What? Why in the world would you want to do that? “That area is a little unique in that way that there is a lot of big signs on University….” Hmmm, “unique” is one word for it; “ugly” is another. “Blighted” fits the bill, too.

“While we like to get signs smaller, we have to be realistic. As new businesses locate there, they have big signs to compete with.” I’m not sure whether this is doublespeak or just plain self-contradiction. If Councilwoman Van Auken really would “like to get signs smaller,” then she logically would not “give them as close to the size as they want,” which is three times the size allowed by ordinance and twice as big as the McDonald’s sign across the street, especially after the developer has already stated for the record that he’s “willing to meet whatever restrictions are decided.”

So the bottom line is that signs will continue to escalate in size along University, unless the rest of the council does the right thing and upholds the sign ordinance. The unwritten rule on the council is that you always vote for what the district council member wants for a project in his or her district. That’s a poor policy in general, and one that definitely should be disregarded in this case.

For those of you who like visuals, I drew this in Google Sketch-Up to show you a comparison of the maximum sign allowed by ordinance (on the left) versus the size of the sign requested by Golden Corral (on the right). These are to scale. Note also the size of an average human at the bottom:

Museum moves forward despite dismal finances

According to a spreadsheet document distributed at a recent Peoria County Finance/Legislative Study Committee meeting titled “Peoria Riverfront Museum Capital Budget by Project,” updated 7/28/2010, pledges to the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum total $23,073,484. Of that, only $6,475,076 (28%) have been collected.

In addition, whereas the County has said in the past it would only be contributing $34.5 million to the museum project from the public facilities sales tax revenues, the latest spreadsheet shows a full $40 million being contributed. While that’s the lion’s share of public money, there are also significant amounts coming from other public money pots, including the Illinois capital budget, Illinois Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, NASA, and the Peoria Civic Center Authority. Despite all of this public help, and presuming they’ll actually collect all the pledges that have been committed over their multiple years of fundraising, they’re still looking at a budget deficit of $6,448,988.

But they’re moving ahead with construction anyway. What happened to all the money that was going to come in after the sales tax referendum passed? Remember that? When questioned as to why they weren’t making their private fundraising goals before the referendum, their response was a very confident assertion that people were waiting in line to give money, but wanted to make sure the public would support the tax referendum first. Once the referendum passed, the funds would come rolling in, we were told then.

Perhaps the most shocking thing on this spreadsheet is the total amount that has already been spent. Are you sitting down? It comes to $13,471,440. $4.5 million has been spent on architectural and engineering fees for the museum building — another $1.8+ million in fees for the parking garage. $2 million has been spent on something called “pre-opening operating support.” Almost $1 million was spent on “public awareness” — which was their campaign to make sure the $40 million tax referendum passed, so I guess that was money well spent from their perspective.

There are two line items for endowments on the spreadsheet. One shows $2.3 million “committed” but not “received” from Lakeview as a funding source. Another line item shows a $5,248,000 “endowment enhancement” which has been neither committed nor received. The endowment is important because the museum needs the interest from the endowment to cover its ongoing operating expenses. If there’s no endowment, the museum will have no cushion when facing an operating deficit — and let’s not kid ourselves, there are going to be operating deficits.

But they’re moving ahead with construction anyway, undeterred.

Oh, and they’re still counting on the City just giving them the Sears block for nothing. That land is worth $10 million according to the Build the Block website. What is the City’s budget deficit for 2011? Hmmm…. $10 million, I do believe. Wouldn’t it make sense to sell the land to the museum/county and use those funds to plug our deficit so we don’t have to lay off any more police officers? Nah, the museum is more important than public safety, right?

The conventional wisdom now is that the money fairies will sprinkle the museum with cash once it’s built. You know, once people really see the thing being built, then they’ll start contributing! They’re just skeptical that we’re not really going to build it. If we show them we really mean business, then there will be a race to see who can give the most money fast enough.

Second verse, same as the first.

What’s the use of blogging?

I don’t often think about the medium of blogging; I’m usually focused on the message. But tonight, I’ve been thinking about blogging itself, and thinking seriously about a question that many people have asked, dismissively for the most part: What good is blogging? Isn’t it a waste of time?

If you were to ask me after I read today’s news, I’d say, “no good,” and “yes, a colossal waste of time.”

Museum, Bel-Wood bonds may top $90M (PJS)
Hotel options keep expanding (PJS)
Mel’s Cafe closing soon to move to East Peoria (PJS)
Committee backs partial settlement of Firefly suit (PJS)
Central Illinois Railroad Co. to Cease Operations (Peoria Station)
Preview: Schock on Top Chef (Word on the Web)
Obama flops on Snooki? It’s an awkward situation… (Peoria Pundit)

These headlines illustrate that our elected leaders are going forward with additional bad investments even as they pay the price for previous poor decisions from which they should have learned something. Meanwhile, some of our highest elected officials are being treated like celebrities (and acting like them, sometimes) instead of adults with serious responsibilities.

I’d say our nation is pretty much doomed. What’s the use of blogging?

Task force sees early success


Click above for larger image (PDF)

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard recently updated City officials on the results of his efforts to quell gun violence. So far, it’s going well:

[P]lease see attached hot spot maps relative to our current task force initiative. We are 14 days into the task force so I conducted an analysis comparing the 14 days prior to launching the task force versus 14 days afterward. City wide we had a 25% reduction in people being hit by gunfire and a 25% reduction in confirmed gun discharges.

The attached maps demonstrate the before and after picture for the combination of murders and gun discharge incidents. The red hot spot areas are gone which is very good news. I would temper the good news however by stating that 14 days is a very small sample size and we need to keep up our efforts.

I also would note that the hot spot maps include all instances where someone was killed, someone was shot, or simply where we had a confirmed gun discharged. This does not include reports of shots being heard with no witness and no physical evidence. We must have had someone who was willing to stat they saw it happen, or we found shell casings, or someone or something was hit, etc. The criteria is identical for both “before” and “after” to ensure apples to apples comparison.

Municipal decisions and game theory

Ever wonder how our elected officials could make such terrible decisions? My father-in-law has his own hypothesis. He says it can all be explained by game theory.

He uses the Firefly fiasco as an example:

  • If a council person votes against loaning money to Firefly and Firefly succeeds, voters will think the council person is an idiot.
  • If a council person votes against loaning money to Firefly and Firefly fails, no one will hear about it or remember how the council members voted.
  • If a council person votes for loaning money to Firefly and Firefly succeeds, the council member will be seen as prescient and his vote will be celebrated.
  • If a council person votes for loaning money to Firefly and Firefly fails, voters will excuse the poor decision by saying the council person only had the best interests of the city at heart.

Given those outcomes, the smartest move is to vote for loaning money to Firefly. It carries the least risk and greatest potential reward to their reputation and reelection chances. And the same goes for any public body considering any development or risky scheme.

Sign committee to meet

The ad hoc committee looking at the City’s sign ordinance meets once a month, and their July meeting is on the 27th. Here is the agenda:

SIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010
456 FULTON STREET, SUITE 402
10:00 AM

AGENDA

  1. DISCUSSION OF MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL SIGN CODE COMPARISON
  2. DISCUSSION OF SIGN AREA
    • Current regulations
    • Examples of issues
    • Suggested revisions
  3. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at 10:00 am.

The meeting is open to the public; however, there is no public comment portion of the meeting.