Monthly Archives: October 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.

Bradley University, City of Peoria, Muni WiFi

What Bill Dennis dreams about at night

13 Comments

Actually, I have no idea what Bill Dennis dreams about at night — nor do I want to know — but I found this video about Peoria Wireless on YouTube and it immediately made me think of Billy. It’s a project that was done at Bradley University and uploaded to YouTube by our old friend Kevin Reynen, and it presents a utopic vision of what Peoria could be if only we had citywide WiFi:

Kellar Branch

O’Brien Steel grudge against Pioneer Rail resurfaces

5 Comments

In today’s Kellar Branch installment, there’s a new filing with the Surface Transportation Board from O’Brien Steel. Says President J. P. O’Brien:

It has come to our attention that the Pioneer Industrial Railway is petitioning the Surface Transportation Board to resume providing rail service along the Kellar Branch. Our business, O’Brien Steel Service Co., is located at the beginning of the Kellar Branch and is the largest receiver/shipper along the Kellar Branch. For the past year we have enjoyed a good working relationship with and excellent service from Central Illinois Railroad. Prior to commencement of service by Central Illinois Railroad we were served by Pioneer. Our relationship with Pioneer was contentious and a constant struggle.

O’Brien Steel Service Co. is very satisfied with our current service provider along the Kellar Branch and is strongly opposed to being forced to accept service from Pioneer Industrial Railway. Please do not allow Pioneer to resume providing rail service to O’Brien Steel Service Co.

Since O’Brien Steel is down close to the riverfront where the Kellar Branch begins, it will not be affected by the City’s rail-to-trail plan. The Park District plans to have the Rock Island Trail meet up with the Pimiteoui Trail further up the line from O’Brien, so it’s no skin off their nose if the rail line to Pioneer Park is taken out of service.

As far as I know, O’Brien has nothing against Carver Lumber, but this the second time their grudge against Pioneer Railcorp has affected Carver Lumber’s service. The first time was when O’Brien provided $175,000 to plug the funding gap for the western spur. Had the City not been able to build the spur, the trail project would have been dead and Carver likely would not have experienced the higher prices and deterioration of service.

Now O’Brien writes to the STB to try to stick it to Pioneer again. What is the source of this resentment against Pioneer? One plausible explanation has been offered by local transportation guru David P. Jordan on the PeoriaRails Yahoo Group.

Jordan says that in late 1995 or early 1996, a rail spur was built to service O’Brien Steel that was long enough to allow four gondolas (open railroad cars) to be unloaded at a time:

The downturn in the domestic steel industry and the practice of foreign steelmakers to dump steel in the U.S. market at below cost during the late 1990’s/early 2000’s reduced O’Brien’s use of rail for delivery of steel I-beams and pilings.

For the first few years [Pioneer] operated the line, O’Brien was probably getting most of its product via barge (then trucked the rest of the way) and had the habit of placing steel beams ACROSS the four-car capacity spur on their property so that only one car could be unloaded at any one time. This required additional switching when O’Brien returned to rail for the majority of its shipments. Eventually, space was cleared so that two cars could be unloaded at one time.

[…] at times, several cars would arrive off the P&PU interchange and [Pioneer] could spot only one or two cars at one time. Any additional cars delivered to O’Brien would be “constructively placed.” Since many or most of the cars arriving with product were in railroad-owned railcars, per diem charges kick in and if the consignee (O’Brien) is unable to accommodate these cars, the serving rail carrier passes on these charges in the form of demurrage. [If I remember correctly], O’Brien was always angered by this, but since their four-car capacity spur was blocked by material and they were unable to unload but one or two cars at a time, they only have themselves to blame.

To add further fuel to the fire, Jordan says, “in an earlier post to the STB prior to [Pioneer’s] pullout, O’Brien Steel claimed that a dispute between PRY and another railroad brought an end to an outbound scrap metal move. Translation: O’Brien was forced to use more costly motor carrier transportion.”

Suffice it to say, there appears to be a lot of bad blood between O’Brien Steel and Pioneer Railcorp. So that makes for a fine predicament. The shipper at one end of the line wants Pioneer and the shipper at the other end wants Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY).

There is a solution. I say the city should abandon their rail-to-trail plan and reinstate Pioneer Railcorp. Have the Public Works Director write a letter to Mr. O’Brien promising that he will get comparable service from Pioneer, and further promising that the City will take any and all legal action necessary to enforce its contract with Pioneer. Then the City can stand behind that promise the same way they’ve stood behind the promises they made to Carver Lumber about CIRY. That should do it, don’t you think?

General News

Smoking ban hurts Springfield bars and clubs

20 Comments

The State Journal-Register (Springfield) reports today that profits are down — way down — at Springfield bars and fraternal clubs thanks to a city-wide smoking ban:

[ILBA Executive Director Steve] Riedl also cited numbers showing Springfield bars and fraternal clubs reported to the [Illinois Licensed Beverage Association (ILBA)] revenue losses ranging from 7 percent to 70 percent between Sept. 18 and Oct. 10, 2006, when compared to the same time frame a year ago. The average revenue loss among the businesses was 25 percent, according to the ILBA.

Riedl said Springfield establishments provided the ILBA with gross sales figures from the two time periods. Riedl argued that such an approach paints a clearer picture of the ban’s economic impact.

Huh. That’s funny. I thought this ban was supposed to increase revenues. Weren’t all those disenfranchised non-smokers supposed to rush right out to the bars once the ban took effect?

“Any small business caters to the customers’ demands,” [bartender Vicki] Wilson said. “It’s a supply-and-demand business. And bless their hearts, the non-smokers just don’t really come in to the bars. I don’t think they did before the ban, and I don’t expect them to after the ban.”

The ILBA is now working to overturn the ban: “Riedl said one or more aldermen will introduce for first reading on Nov. 8 an ordinance that would exempt bars and fraternal organizations from the indoor [smoking] ban.”

More power to ’em. Keep an eye on this story because it won’t be long before Smoke-Free Illinois is knocking on Peoria’s door asking for an indoor smoking ban at bars and restaurants.

Elections

Endorsement: Stufflebeam for Governor

20 Comments

I think it’s beyond dispute that no one is happy with the Democratic or Republican candidates for Governor. Rod Blagojevich is beset by scandal. Judy Barr Topinka is “Republican” in name only. Many are looking for an alternative candidate, and I’m no exception.

The obvious choice, some say, is Green Party candidate Rich Whitney, who’s actually on the ballot with Blagojevich and Topinka, even if they won’t let him debate them. I’ve checked out his platform and he does have some positions that I find attractive (for instance, he’s pro-rail, anti-gambling, and supports a moratorium on genetically-modified foods in his ag policy). However, most of his positions are what one could call “left of center.”

In fact, that’s my major problem with the governor’s race overall. It looks more like a Democratic primary than a general election. This is especially pronounced when it comes to so-called “family values” issues. All three candidates on the ballot agree: they’re all pro-choice and anti-marriage-amendment.

So, I find myself looking around and thinking, who else? Am I really going to have to hold my nose and vote for the least offensive candidate instead of someone I can genuinely support?
Randy Stufflebeam
As it turns out, there is another choice: Randy Stufflebeam. He’s a write-in candidate for governor on the Constitution Party ticket. Randy was born in Chicago, but raised downstate in Canton, Illinois. He served in the United States Marine Corp for over 22 years, retiring in 2003.

Some may be tempted to pigeonhole Randy as a typical evangelical Republican candidate. While he does support some traditionally Republican stances (pro-life, pro-family, pro-school-choice), you may be surprised to learn that he’s also against NAFTA, CAFTA, and other such agreements because he believes they ultimately hurt U.S. workers — Illinois farmers, to name just one example. That’s a predominantly Democratic position, and one with which I agree.

On an issue that perhaps strikes a little closer to home, Randy supports tort reform to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits; if doctors’ exposure to liability can be reduced, insurance rates would be lowered as a result, making health-care more affordable for everyone. To combat Illinois’ well-earned reputation for political corruption, Randy also has vowed not to take money from those doing business with the state of Illinois, and would eliminate no-bid contracts.

Do I agree with Stufflebeam’s stance on every issue? No. For example, I think his education plan doesn’t adequately address funding equity across affluent and poor communities. But do I agree with him on more issues than I agree with Blagojevich, Topinka, and Whitney? You bet. And really, who’s ever going to find a candidate with whom you’re in 100% agreement, unless you run for office yourself?

Some may view a vote for Stufflebeam as “throwing your vote away.” In one sense, that’s a fair criticism. I’m under no illusion that Stufflebeam — or any write-in candidate for that matter — is going to get much of a showing in this race. But on the other hand, if we all keep voting for one of the two major parties even when we think the candidates stink, I would contend that those votes are just as wasted. In both cases, you don’t get who you really want in office.

I’m not going to throw my vote away by voting for someone I can’t endorse. Thus, my endorsement goes to Randy Stufflebeam for Governor. He’s someone I can vote for.

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park Board may be East Bluff neighbors’ ace in the hole

5 Comments

If the Peoria Park District decides not to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Peoria Public Schools, then the possibility of putting a replacement school adjacent to Glen Oak Park for the Woodruff attendance area is essentially dead.

It also means the school district may come crawling back to the city asking for that $500,000 from Councilman Manning that they turned down.

It also means the school district will have purchased eight properties adjacent to the park at twice their market value for nothing, and will only be able to recover a fraction of what they paid for them.

For those of you keeping score, here is the vote count so far according to the Journal Star:

  • 1 against sharing park land with the school district (Roger Allen)
  • 2 in favor of sharing park land (Jackie Petty, Robert Johnson)
  • 2 undecided (Tim Cassidy, Jim Cummings)
  • 2 unknown (Stan Budzinski, Matthew Ryan)

East Bluff residents who are against the school locating in the park may want to start lobbying the Park Board trustees now; it sounds like a decision could be made on Dec. 13.

Uncategorized

Stranded. Out of Gas.

2 Comments

That’s what the sign said the woman was holding as she stood on the median at the corner of War Memorial and Glen Hollow this afternoon. Apparently, when she got ready to take her car trip, she had the forethought to remember a large piece of cardboard and a permanent marker just in case she might need to make an emergency sign to ask for money, but failed to check the gas guage or bring any extra cash or credit cards. Genius.

I wonder if she was related to this panhandler.

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

Central Illinois Railroad responds to City

A commenter calling himself “The Rest of the Story” has provided me with this response from Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) President John Darling regarding Carver Lumber’s recent letter to the Surface Transportation Board (STB). This letter isn’t written to the STB, however, but rather to City Manager Randy Oliver:

“John A Darling” 10/17/2006 5:00 PM

Dear Mr. Oliver:

Your legal counsel, Mr. McFarland, has responsive statements from our General Manager of Railroad Operations, Jack Stolarczyk (our senior operating officer), regarding Carver’s allegations. Carver’s pejorative mischaracterizations notwithstanding, the CIRY did everything it was asked to do, when it was asked to do it. The City’s Allen Road Project required a temporary closing of the UP connecting track from Monday afternoon, October 9th, until Thursday afternoon, October 12th. Carver Lumber was advised of this temporary closing well in advance so it could schedule its deliveries accordingly. Also, if there had been any cars on the UP Interchange on Wednesday, October 11th, then service could, and would, have been provided. But no cars were delivered to, and none picked up from, the UP interchange track during this period. The Western Connection was closed for only 72 hours (approximately), was reopened promptly following completion of the highway project, and remains open for service. Regardless of carver’s deliberate misrouting of cars away from an open interchange solely for the purpose of creating another “incident,” the CIRY can, and will, not accept any Carver Lumber cars via the TZP. Moreover, the CIRY has no common carrier obligation to repair decades of deferred maintenance by the Peoria, Peoria Heights and Western RR. The so-called Western Connection, is open and available. The central 8+ mile segment of the PPH&W railroad is out of service by General Order and will remain so until someone (other than the CIRY) invests the money required to repair the track.

I do not know what further we can provide you and your counsel. If you have a specific request, we will take it under advisement and comply, if we can. Upon Mr. Stolarczyk’s return next week, the CIRY could provide sworn statements, if useful. The CIRY does not intend to react to Carver’s spurious and unfounded allegations. As the saying goes, “We don’t have a dog in this hunt;” no one has given us any economic reasons to assert any rights that we may have, or could acquire, in the Kellar Branch, and we are not going to dignify Carver’s sophomoric allegations with a inane “tis” vs. “taint” exchange.

John A. Darling,
President
Central Illinois Railroad Co.

For those of you who don’t know, the “Peoria, Peoria Heights and Western RR” (PPHW) is the City of Peoria and the formal name of the Kellar Branch rail line. The City does business as the PPHW for purposes of managing the Kellar Branch. So the deferred maintenance to the Kellar Branch is the city’s fault, according to CIRY.

CIRY is also claiming that Carver deliberately “misrouted” rail cars in order to create an “incident” that they could exploit in their quest to get rail service restored via the Kellar Branch. I’m willing to concede that Carver may have tried to create such an incident (although I find that suggestion highly cynical), but even if they did, it only underlines the point that Carver feels backed into a corner. They’ve cooperated with the city, played by the rules, given the western spur a shot, and found themselves with inferior service and higher shipping costs. They’re desperate to get some relief, and it doesn’t appear the City is going to give it to them.

Also, CIRY’s response deals solely with the temporary closure of the western spur and the October routing of some rail cars. Yet this was an ancillary issue in Carver’s letter. The main point of Carver’s letter was to rebut CIRY’s earlier claims that the reason for the September delay in delivery was Union Pacific’s fault; Carver presented evidence that CIRY lied about that. CIRY does not respond to this main allegation.