Daily Archives: October 24, 2006

Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission

Probably more about the Public Building Commission than you wanted to know

9 Comments

When I was on vacation a couple of weeks ago, I took some time out of my day to walk around downtown, visit the library, browse around the Illinois Antique Center, and, in a moment of whimsy, visit the Public Building Commission of Peoria.

The PBC office is located in a well-appointed suite on the 19th floor of the Associated Bank building. I talked to the secretary/accountant (one of two employees of the PBC) who was very kind, took my contact information, and promised to relay my request for information to her boss the next day. Her boss is James Thornton, the Executive Secretary of the PBC, and he called me the next day as promised.

We had a nice chat about the PBC’s relationship to the school district, and he offered to send me a standard letter about the PBC, which I’d like to share with my readers. It may answer some questions (though not all, by any means) that have been asked in the comments section of other posts. It’s titled, “Public Building Commissions: A Means of Attaining Necessary Public Building Construction And/or Maintenance.”

Because of conditions that existed in many counties in the State of Illinois as related to the decrepit conditions of governmental buildings throughout the state, the Legislature of the State of Illinois in 1955, enacted a law known as The Public Building Commission Act.

The reason for the Act was to make possible the construction, acquisition, or enlargement of buildings to be made available for use by governmental agencies with the intent of centralizing the activities of the different branches of governmental and eradicating inefficient buildings no longer adequate to meet the needs of a growing population.

Even though Public Building Commissions have been in existence in the State of Illinois for more than fifty years, there seems to be, in the eyes of the general public, a certain air of mystery and misconception about these municipal corporations which have been created in various counties of Illinois under the provisions of the Public Building Commission Act of 1955, for the designated purpose of providing necessary public buildings in this state.

In general it can be stated that Public Building Commissions perform a dual function:

  1. They provide financing for building construction and
  2. Provide the expertise necessary to administer and supervise a construction project; and if desired, administer maintenance and operation after completion of construction.

It should be emphasized, however, that a Public Building Commission has no taxing powers whatsoever. For a Public Building Commission (PBC) to become involved in a construction project, it is necessary that a municipal corporation with taxing powers and within the territorial jurisdiction defined in the Act request the assistance of the PBC in the construction of facilities necessary or desirable for the proper operation and functioning of that particular public body. If the PBC believes the project is feasible, it may agree to assume the responsibilities of the proposed construction. Four things must then occur to initiate the project.

  1. The PBC must select the site and acquire title to the land on which the improvement is to be constructed.
  2. The PBC then issues bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the construction costs or as much of the cost as is requested.
  3. The PBC then leases back the premises to the public body involved, who in turn agrees to pay an annual rental to the PBC in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds; retire bonds, provide adequate reserve funds during the life of the bond issue, and if desired, to maintain and operate the building during the term of the lease.
  4. The public body that is leasing the building then levies a special tax sufficient to pay annual rentals required throughout the term of the lease. This levy shall be in addition to all other taxes levied by the Lessee Corporation and shall not be included within any statutory limitation of the rate or amount for that public body. After the bonds have been paid off, legal title to the property may then revert back to the public body concerned if it so desires, along with any remaining monetary funds.

The following are some pertinent observations, which may answer some questions that sometime arise concerning Public Buliding Commissions and their function.

  1. A Public Building Commission on its own cannot engage in any building project. It can only work in conjunction with and at the request of the duly elected representatives of a qualifying municipal corporation. In other words, all provisions of a construction project including land conveyance, lease provisions, and tax levy must be adopted by elected officials.
  2. Public Building Commissions cannot have outstanding bonds that exceed five (5) percent of the assessed valuation of the county seat.
  3. Numerous counties in Illinois in addition to Peoria County — Dupage, Kane, Cook, Winnebage, Whiteside, Stephenson, Lee, McLean, St. Clair, Vermilion, and Sangamon, to name a few, have created Public Building Commissions and have used them to construct much needed public facilities in their respective areas. Projects have included courthouses, jails, law enforcement buildings, educational facilities, nursing homes, and recreational facilities. These projects have all been well received and accepted by the public in their respective counties.

Some additional items that the Public Building Commission requires:

  1. They approve or select the site and hold the title for the length of the bonds.
  2. The PBC selects the architect.
  3. They bid and approve all construction documents.
  4. They will approve and pay all construction payments.
  5. PBC will approve all change orders.
  6. PBC will sell the required bonds and make all payments for the sale from the bonds. The PBC will hire the bond Counsel and company to sell bonds.
  7. PBC will establish all payment schedules.

The Peoria Public Building Commission has currently spent over ninety-five million dollars building public facilities in the Peoria area.

In addition to this info, I was also sent a complete list of properties held by the PBC that are being leased by District 150:

  • Richwoods High School
  • Lincoln Middle School
  • Valeska Hinton Early Childhood Education Center
  • Blaine Sumner School
  • Sterling School
  • Washington School
  • Tyng School
  • White School
  • Loucks School
  • Von Steuben School
  • Columbia School
  • Thomas Jefferson School

Obviously several of these schools are older than the PBC itself; several of the older schools had additions built and modifications done that were financed through the PBC. The last nine schools I listed are the ones that will be paid in full within the next few months (I don’t have an exact date on that).

Once those are paid off, District 150 will not be able to ask for that money in their property tax levy anymore. That means the property tax rate for District 150 will go down, and that means you will pay less in taxes….

…that is, unless the state legislature decides to override the Governor’s veto on SB2477. If that bill is made law in its original form, District 150 will have another five years to get money from the PBC without having to get the voters’ permission via referendum. And believe you me, the school district can spend a lot of your money in five years.

Peoria Public Schools

Who’s cash strapped?

5 Comments

The Journal Star reports today that the District 150 school board is now thinking of just buying land from the Peoria Housing Authority (PHA) instead of trading school property for it. Cost: $178,000 (appraised value).

Board member Sean Matheson said he thinks purchasing the land may sit better with the community, avoiding potential complaints about the spread of public housing. “The PHA obviously needs cash – they’re cash strapped, and swapping land could lead to problems down the road where people don’t want us giving the land to the PHA near their home,” Matheson said.

Well, he’s certainly right about the community being worried about what land the district might swap with the PHA; we saw that back when there was talk (now rejected) of swapping the old Glen Oak School site for some PHA land. But I thought it was like the pot calling the kettle black when he talked of the PHA being “cash strapped.” I don’t believe District 150 is in the black, is it? I mean, isn’t that why they’re closing schools?

On the other hand, $178,000 is a heck of a lot cheaper than what they’ve paid so far for eight parcels of land by Glen Oak Park. So, I’m not criticizing their plan. In fact, they should sell those houses and use that money to buy the PHA land. Then everyone would be happy.

Deer Creek-Mackinaw, General News

Deferred maintenance justification mystifying

8 Comments

Suppose I built a house and lived in it for 50 years. At the end of that time, the house is falling apart. The roof is about to fall in, the plaster is cracking, there’s lots of water damage, and it’s in jeopardy of being condemned by the city. What would you think of me as a homeowner? Well, it would be clear that I had done very little maintenance, if any. That’s a given. You’d then probably speculate as to why I didn’t — am I poor? indifferent? irresponsible?

Yet, no one ever asks these questions when school districts do the same thing. When District 150 wants to borrow money to build a new school to replace Harrison, or when they want to close Irving school, the reason we’re given is the deplorable shape those buildings are in. Now Dee Mack is getting in on the action:

The Deer Creek-Mackinaw school district is asking voters to approve a referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot for a $5.4 million project that includes renovation of the 92-year-old high school building in Mackinaw. […]

[Superintendent Steve] Yarnall said the need for the referendum has been generated by several factors, including the age and code violations of the building, increased maintenance and energy costs, lack of current technology and student growth. […]

He added that the building has water damage and was not built to support technology nor does it meet the accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I realize there are other factors at play here, but I’d like to focus on the maintenance issue here. Other news reports have school officials quoted saying the roof is about to fall in and that they’re in danger of the state board of education declaring the facility unfit for students.

So, the question that pops to my mind, but is never asked by the media, is, “why?” How did the school building sink to this deplorable state? Who’s responsible for deferring the maintenance so much that the roof is about to fall in? What policies and procedures are being put in place to ensure that the next building they get doesn’t get run down, too?

Not to be cynical, but do they defer maintenance on purpose in order to make the need for a tax increase to build a new school more urgent in the minds of taxpayers? Because, ultimately, that’s how this referendum will be framed: do the taxpayers care enough about the children of their community to get them out of that dump of a school they’re in now. Yet, the question should be, why has the school board allowed their property to get so run down that it’s endangering their students? Someone should be held accountable for that.