District 150: Funding plan depends on circumventing voters

Peoria Public Schools logoGuy Cahill, District 150 treasurer, is quoted in today’s Journal Star saying this: “Until we can demonstrate having our fiscal house in order, I think people would legitimately have a healthy skepticism of putting more money into our coffers.”

Bingo. That’s exactly how Peorians feel. If the district were to come up with a reasonable plan to put their fiscal house in order, I think they could get public buy-in and pass a referendum. But their current plan is pie-in-the-sky, and they know voters wouldn’t pass a tax increase to pay for it.

So, what to do? Why, go around the voters, of course! That’s why they wanted the state to pass a bill that would allow the school to get funding through the Public Building Commission (PBC) instead of having to ask voters. The only trouble is, the governor saw through their little ploy and put an amendatory veto on the bill. If his veto stands, the district would have to get voter approval to use PBC funds.

The governor has said that he doesn’t want the district to raise taxes without voter approval. The district doesn’t consider its proposal as a tax increase. The governor does, spokeswoman Becky Carroll said Thursday.

See, the school district is close to paying off some old bonds. Once they’re paid off, the tax levy that was financing them would expire. The district wants to keep that tax levy in place to pay for the new bonds. Thus, the district doesn’t consider its proposal a tax increase because, under their plan, the tax levy on the new bonds wouldn’t be any higher than the tax levy on the old bonds.

But do they really expect us to buy that logic? That’s like if I gave the district a credit card and said, “okay guys, I authorize you to spend $1,000. The bill will come to me, and I’ll pay $50 per month until it’s paid off.” Then, just about the time the debt is paid off, the district decides to charge another $1,000 — without my approval — and tell me it’s not costing me any more because I’ll still only be paying $50 per month.

Cahill thinks the district should be allowed to do just that, and if they can’t, then their whole funding plan falls apart. So, in essence, District 150’s building plan is dependent on the district’s ability to avoid a public referendum to extend the tax levy (which is plainly a tax increase). That means, their plan only works if they avoid accountability to the voters.

That’s a bad plan.

Showcase of Homes this Sunday

Ren Park LogoPRESS RELEASE

Peoria, IL – The City of Peoria and the Renaissance Park Commission are coordinating a showcase of homes for sale in Renaissance Park. On Sunday, July 16th, real estate agents with listings in the area have been invited to host an open house between 2 and 4 in the afternoon. Property owners who are selling their homes without a real estate agent have also been invited to participate.

Continue reading Showcase of Homes this Sunday

The only “free parking” is in Monopoly

Free ParkingWhen we used to play Monopoly at my house growing up, not only did landing on Free Parking mean you didn’t land on someone’s hotel on St. James Place, it also meant a windfall of cash, since any Chance or Community Chest fees went into the “kitty” and were awarded to the next person to land on “Free Parking.”

But in the real world, there’s no such thing as free parking, and there is no windfall of cash, either. Gary Sandberg explained it best on Tuesday’s Outside the Horseshoe program on WCBU.  Someone is always paying for parking, even in the suburbs.  The only difference between downtown parking and suburban parking is who’s paying.

Those huge surface lots out by, say, the Shoppes at Grand Prairie, didn’t just descend from the sky.  Somebody bought the land, somebody built the lot, somebody maintains the lot — and that all costs money.  At the Shoppes, or Metro Centre, or Northwoods, or Sheridan Village, the business owners pay for it.  It’s part of their rent structure.  The patrons don’t have to pay (directly) for parking because the business owners have decided to provide “free” parking for their customers.

Now let’s go downtown.  Who owns the land, builds the decks/lots, and maintains them?  For much of downtown, it’s the city.  Can businesses downtown provide free parking for their patrons?  Sure!  All they need to do is work out an arrangement where they validate parking tickets from a nearby city-owned deck or lot.  Then the business pays the city instead of the customer.

But why is the city providing parking (other than street parking) at all?  The city doesn’t build lots or decks in the suburbs for any of the businesses out there.  They didn’t build decks or lots downtown until about thirty years ago.  Before then, downtown developers had to build and maintain their own parking structures.  Remember Sears?  They had their own on-site parking.  Bergners?  Carsons?  The city didn’t provide parking for these businesses.

So, it will be nice having free two-hour parking on the riverfront now, but one has to wonder why the city is providing “free” parking to some businesses and not others.  When Gary Sandberg says the city should get out of the parking business, I think he may be on to something.  If the city sold all their decks and lots (which are not making the city any money), they could get a tidy influx of cash and no longer have the maintenance headaches.

Then businesses downtown would be on an even playing field with the suburbs as far as parking goes, and the city could focus on providing other, more essential services.