Daily Archives: October 11, 2007

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Jellick checks on Chronicle post, gets different answer from State

4 Comments

Clare Jellick, intrepid education reporter for the Journal Star, followed up on my previous post. She spoke to “Illinois State Board of Education spokesman Matt Vanover.” He gave her a different answer than the one I got from Lou Ferratier in the Illinois State Board of Education’s School Business and Support Services division. Now the State Board of Education says that District 150 does indeed have to close the school buildings.

I have no quarrel with Jellick’s post or with the new information provided by the ISBE, per se. But I am irritated that I was evidently given false information by the Illinois State Board of Education.

Jellick says, “Vanover said the state official quoted in C.J. Summers’ blog was likely speaking in generalities.” Well he shouldn’t have been. When I called, I identified myself, where I was calling from, that this was regarding School District 150, and I referred specifically to the certificates I had received through a Freedom of Information Act request from the district. I told Mr. Ferratier that I had a copy of the HLS documentation in front of me — I don’t know how much more specific or pointed I could have been in asking my question. I quoted verbatim from the certificate, told him that school board officials have been claiming the state requires them to close schools, and asked Mr. Ferratier if that was true. Answer: No; they don’t have to close them. They can close or repair them. If Mr. Ferratier was “speaking in generalities,” it wasn’t for lack of me asking for specific information.

Bottom line, though, Jellick and I agree:

All that being said, I’m not arguing that the closures were a decision handed down by the state, and District 150 was a helpless bystander. District 150 picked the schools that it wanted to replace. It knew full well that the schools would have to close if the replacement funding was granted.

And that was my main point anyway — that it really wasn’t a state decision, but a District 150 decision, and that the school board is trying to use the state as a scapegoat. The ISBE’s flip-flop doesn’t change that.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 not required to replace schools

7 Comments

UPDATE: Some of the following information has been disputed. Please see this follow-up post.

District 150 has been holding community forums to get input from citizens on where they would like a new school located in the East Bluff/North Valley area. At each forum, citizens have been told that the Illinois State Board of Education requires that the Kingman, Irving, and Glen Oak school buildings be replaced. For instance, one of the slides in their presentation is titled, “Buildings to be replaced per State.”

I’ve learned not to trust the school board when they tell me something is required by the state. Not long ago, Superintendent Hinton went on the radio and said the state required any new school to be built on 15 acres or more. It turned out that wasn’t true.

So I wasn’t surprised when I discovered that the state actually does not require that the buildings be replaced. I spoke to Lou Ferratier in the Illinois State Board of Education’s School Business and Support Services division. He said the buildings need to be either repaired or replaced, but the state does not require replacement. This is clear even from reading the applicable section of the state’s School Code (105 ILCS 5/17?2.11):

For purposes of this Section a school district may [emphasis mine] replace a school building or build additions to replace portions of a building when it is determined that the effectuation of the recommendations for the existing building will cost more than the replacement costs. Such determination shall be based on a comparison of estimated costs made by an architect or engineer licensed in the State of Illinois. The new building or addition shall be equivalent in area (square feet) and comparable in purpose and grades served and may be on the same site or another site.

Here’s how much the state has approved for District 150 to expend in fire prevention and safety funds (acquired from District 150 via FOIA request):

School Approved Expenditure
Glen Oak Primary $8,373,980
Harrison Primary $12,261,377
Irving Primary $6,794,380
Kingman Primary $6,474,213
Total $33,903,950

The school can use that money to fix up the schools or replace the schools. They can build several smaller schools or one big school. The only requirements are:

  1. Their buildings are brought up to code regardless of whether it’s through repair or replacement,
  2. The replacement school(s) be used for the same purpose (elementary school), and
  3. The replacement school(s) have equivalent aggregate square footage.

Here’s the deal: the reason the school district says they need to replace the school buildings is because, according to their last “Health Life Safety” report completed by STS Consultants, it would cost more money to repair the buildings than to replace them. However, that’s based on their reported replacement costs, which are obviously too low.

For example, the reported cost to replace Harrison School was about $11.8 million. But the school district asked for $21 million from the Public Building Commission to build a replacement Harrison. Cost to renovate? $11.98 million. That’s a $9.02 million difference. Yet somehow, replacing is supposed to be cheaper than renovating.

District 150 is trying to use the state as a scapegoat to deflect criticism of the school board’s decision to replace buildings that aren’t required to be replaced.

Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star

PJS editorial: same old disinformation

15 Comments

At this time, the Journal Star’s editorial is not available online, but you don’t have to read it to know what it says. It’s about the Kellar Branch, and the editorial writers always write the same misleading and blatantly false information about the issue every time. This time, it’s in the form of an open letter to Senator Dick Durbin, imploring him to “be a powerful ally” and “light a fire under the Surface Transportation Board.”

Along the way, they lay out their case for removing a working rail line in favor of a hiking trail:

  • “It’s a cooperative regional effort.” Yes, they’re all cooperating to pursue something they have no legal authority to effectuate. The municipal governments have no authority to remove a working rail line without Surface Transportation Board authorization, which they don’t have. Since the local governments can’t convince the STB to violate their mission by taking action that will harm rail shippers, the Journal Star is now asking Senator Durbin to abuse the power of his office to pressure the STB to do just that. How civic-minded of them.
  • “It’s a public health matter.” Say the Journal Star editors, “We think the Kellar line would enjoy heavy use from runners, dog-walkers, parents pushing strollers, cyclists, etc.” The people who will use the trail are people who are already exercising. They’re already running, walking their dogs, pushing their strollers, cycling, etc. Furthermore, they have plenty of opportunity to participate in all of these activities on streets, roads, parks, and miles of existing trails. People with a sedentary lifestyle are not suddenly going to rise from their easy chairs and start exercising because a new segment of trail in the middle of town becomes available.
  • “It’s a push for redevelopment.” The Journal Star blithely argues that customers on the line “long ago bailed.” The fact is that the threat of the line’s imminent demise is the reason the line has not gotten more rail use. Keep telling people the line’s going to be removed and it’s amazing how businesses needing rail service shy away from locating next to it. It’s also amusing that they say, “As for potential rail use, we’ve heard little more than speculation.” I would simply say, as for potential trail use and the assertion that the trail will raise property values, I’ve heard nothing but speculation. The fact is, there are potential shippers located on the line. The proof of this is the fact that Central Illinois Railroad is fixing up the line at their own expense to serve those shippers — why would they waste their money repairing the line if there were no shippers?
  • “Finally, it’s a property rights issue.” Ah, they’ve saved their most ridiculous argument for last. “Despite the fact that Peoria and Peoria Heights own the line, they have distressingly little say in its fate.” They’re shocked — shocked, I say — that a unit of government can tell a property owner what they can and can’t do with their own property! It’s so unusual, you know. Let’s see, the only other examples I can think of are, oh I don’t know, every zoning law in the nation. Since the Journal Star had so much fun dissecting Barbara Van Auken’s logic the other day, should we spend some time dissecting the Journal Star’s logic here? I guess if property owners should have unfettered rights to do what they wish with their property — no matter who it might hurt — one has to wonder why the Journal Star does not oppose zoning laws, health department restrictions, rental inspections, code enforcement, and the recently-passed smoking ban. See how much fun it is?

Bottom line, the Journal Star doesn’t think the city should have to follow federal rules that are in place to protect rail shippers from just this sort of abuse by rail owners.

I have a better idea. I’d like Senator Durbin to light a fire not under the STB, but under the Peoria Park District. Tell them to stop wasting time and money trying to get a working rail line abandoned, and instead build the trail around it. They can use part of the right-of-way where feasible, and put the other parts of the trail adjacent to the street (asphalt sidewalks), just like they do elsewhere in Peoria and surrounding communities. Part of this regional trail runs right next to the very busy Route 150, so I know it can be done.