Aaron Schock isn’t the only candidate paying back public costs of a campaign event. The State Journal-Register reports that presidential candidate Barack Obama has started paying back bills he received from Springfield.
Monthly Archives: October 2008
Water company buyout on agenda for Tuesday
As my letter from Illinois American Water indicated, the council will be taking up the matter of whether to buy the water company at their Oct. 28 meeting.
Included in the council communication are (1) the March 1, 2005, letter of appraisal that set the value/purchase price of the Illinois American Water Peoria District at $220,000,000, and (2) the City’s Water Company Acquisition Financial Analysis. The financial analysis estimated that 2006 revenues would have been $29,360,000, based on actual revenue information acquired through the due-diligence process at that time. It also estimated that an operations contract to manage the water company would cost about $11,000,000 in 2006, increasing 3% each subsequent year.
The analysis showed that the water company would pay for itself — i.e., taxes would not have to be raised to cover the debt service — and water rate increases would only be 3% per year. Under this scenario, sufficient funds would be set aside for capital improvements as well.
Of course, things have changed since 2005. A new analysis would have to be done, as well as a new appraisal. According to the council communication, due diligence could cost as much as $2 million, and the city could find that it now can’t afford the water company when all is said and done.
Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper today as saying, “To me, it will be very difficult to justify spending $2 million to do due diligence on this under the current budget constraints…. I don’t think that is a priority.” Ardis voted against the buyout last time, also.
Also of interest in the Journal Star’s article are some preliminary numbers from Illinois American Water Company’s telephone poll:
Company spokeswoman Karen Cotton said the research shows that of 400 registered voters in Peoria who were polled, 55 percent strongly opposed a city-backed buyout of the waterworks, while 89 percent believe City Hall has higher priorities.
In a 2005 referendum, 82% of voters were opposed to the water company buyout. Depending on how many were “somewhat opposed,” we may find that opposition is softening.
Council to look at raising their salary
The council next Tuesday will consider raising the salaries of the mayor, district and at-large council members, city clerk, and city treasurer positions. I can’t actually say “raising their own salaries,” because the new salaries won’t take effect until after the next election. In other words, if they pass this increase, they’ll only get the raise if they get reelected.
Here are the proposed salaries and car allowances:
| Position | Salary | Car Allowance |
|---|---|---|
| Mayor | $32,400 | $475/month |
| District Councilman | $14,000 | $400/month |
| At-Large Councilman | $14,000 | $400/month |
The City Clerk and City Treasurer salaries are the same, and would increase by 5% each year as follows:
| Period | Annual Salary |
|---|---|
| May 5, 2009 to May 4, 2010 | $94,264.80 |
| May 5, 2010 to May 4, 2011 | $98,978.04 |
| May 5, 2011 to May 4, 2012 | $103,926.94 |
| May 5, 2012 to May 4, 2013 | $109,123.29 |
It’s funny — in a private company, salaries are something that is kept secret among the staff. And generally, most people don’t disclose their salary to others. But if you work for the city or some other public body, your salary is public knowledge. Everybody knows. Your co-workers, your friends, your neighbors. They all know what you make. That has to feel a bit awkward at times.
Report: Rail with trail feasible for Kellar Branch
The verdict is in: A side-by-side rail with trail on the Kellar Branch corridor is indeed feasible, and it only costs about 2/3 what the Peoria Park District estimated.
Earlier this year, the City of Peoria hired T. Y. Lin International to do the feasibility study. The full report is included in this week’s city council agenda.
Whereas the Peoria Park District said it would cost $29 million to build a trail next to the rail line, this civil and structural engineering firm estimated it would only cost $18 million. The Peoria Park District’s estimate can be viewed on the Friends of the Rock Island Trail website.
Why the divergence in cost estimates? A few reasons. For one thing, the park district lists as their very first assumption that “This option [side-by-side alignment] would require a fence separating the trail from the rail.” Not so, says T. Y. Lin: “this item is not required by the IDOT BDE [Bureau of Design and Environment] Manual, and is not necessary as identified in design recommendations prepared for the Federal Transit Administration with respect to rail-with-trail traffic operations.” That saves almost a million dollars right off the bat.
Also, T. Y. Lin assumed “that the proposed trail could cross the rail line where needed in order to minimize cut and fill improvements” — i.e., the entire trail needn’t be located on the same side of the tracks for the entire length as the park district suggested. That cut down on costs.
Another reason for the high figure from the park district was because, “It was determined that ‘trestle’ (platform) improvements identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report were excessive in some cases. Many segments of the proposed alignment could be adequately stabilized using less-intensive fill and retaining wall improvements than those identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report.” Further savings.
Even the $18 million figure could be lowered if the City and park district were to consider having a grade crossing across Knoxville instead of a pedestrian bridge. T. Y. Lin gives some recommendations on how to provide a safe grade crossing across Knoxville. A pedestrian bridge is estimated to cost about $1.9 million. No cost estimate was given for a grade crossing, but one can safely assume it would be less than a bridge.
Of course, the park district will still say that it’s too expensive. After all, $18 million is three times as much as $6 million — the estimated cost of ripping out the rail line and putting the trail on the former rail bed. That may be true, but that fails to recognize that ripping out the rail line is not an option. The Surface Transportation Board has already ruled on that. Thus, the options available to the park district are three: (1) build the $18 million side-by-side alignment, (2) build the less-expensive, but less-than-ideal “alternative alignment” which would include some on-street portions of the trail, or (3) consider a completely different route for connecting the Pimiteoui and Rock Island trails (e.g., extending the trail further north along the river, then extending west up through Detweiller Park).
Unfortunately, the park district and trail supporters will probably choose to continue their failed strategy of laying siege to the Kellar Branch rail line, dreaming that someday they’ll be able to eliminate this municipal asset.
LaHood says Callahan is not telling the truth
From a press release:
Congressman Ray LaHood calls on Colleen Callahan to pull TV ad
LaHood “irritated” Callahan is using his name to smear Schock in a “dishonest” ad
(SPRINGFIELD) In news conferences today in Peoria and Springfield, Congressman Ray LaHood expressed his irritation with Colleen Callahan’s latest TV ad using his name and that of his predecessor Bob Michel to attack Aaron Schock.
“The ad is dishonest and I am calling on Colleen to pull it,” said LaHood. “Honesty requires you to tell the truth and Colleen Callahan is not telling the truth in this ad.”
LaHood continued, “If people want to carry on the legacy of honesty and integrity in the 18th District then Aaron Schock is the person who should be elected. The Chicago Tribune said that today. Bob Michel has said it and I am saying right here and now.”
“Using my name to insult the integrity of Aaron Schock really irritates me and it’s just not true. Colleen’s ad cites the Chicago Tribune which today strongly endorsed Aaron Schock for Congress in a lengthy, well-reasoned editorial. Using Bob Michel’s and my names to say that Aaron is dishonest is a dishonest attack itself. To that I say, Colleen Callahan pull that ad.”
LaHood said the notary issue that Callahan’s ad focuses on is a non-issue, “It was a clerical error eight years ago and it didn’t take long for a Democrat State’s Attorney to find no merit to the allegation.”
LaHood said the campaign ought to focus on the issues confronting our country now instead of “October Surprises”. LaHood noted Schock has aired ads on the economy and jobs, agriculture, energy, the environment and saving the river, while Callahan has only aired ads attacking Aaron Schock. LaHood said, “Colleen’s ads are not only negative attacks, they are dishonest and this one needs to be pulled off the air.”
“I strongly support Aaron, his integrity is rock solid and he has been an outstanding State Representative who is fully prepared to step up to represent the district in Congress. I want everyone to be clear on this,” said LaHood.
LaHood said, “Colleen Callahan should talk about what she is going to do, where she stands on the issues and how she wants to represent the people instead of attacking her opponent all the time and not picturing him in a way that is just plain not factual.”
When asked about Callahan’s calls for candidates to release tax returns, LaHood said in his 14 years he has not released his tax returns and that Bob Michel did not release his tax returns during his 38 years in office. LaHood said the reason is that there already are tough financial disclosures required by candidates and Members of Congress and these disclosures are far more detailed than a tax return. “Unlike a tax return, these financial disclosures list all assets, income and debts,” said LaHood.
Schock noted he has had to file financial disclosures for the past eight years as a school board member and state representative. He urged his opponents to catch up to him by filing disclosures for the past eight years.
In response to Callahan saying Schock has not addressed the notary issue, Schock said, “While I keep hearing I have not addressed this, I have repeatedly responded in numerous media interviews saying the first time I was aware of the issue was in press coverage this summer, that I made a mistake eight years ago and that I’m sorry. With that said, all three of my opponent’s television ads are negative attacks, and the lion’s share of her news releases and news conferences have been nothing more than attacks on me. It is certainly fair then to ask why Colleen’s campaign has been so completely negative.”
Schock said that in keeping with his past campaigns, he would remain focused on the issues and not attack his opponent. “People do want a change from our broken political system and the politics of personal destruction. Regardless what others do, I will stay positive and provide voters with yet another example of what a campaign should be.”
LaHood concluded by saying, “This is desperation on the part of a candidate who knows she is way behind but it’s not going to fool the people.”
District 150 explains $6.3 million transfer
In a previous post, I questioned how District 150 was able to transfer $6.3 million from a debt service fund to operations and maintenance. I posed this question directly to the district and received this answer today:
The applicable section of the School Code is: 105 ILCS 5/10-22.44 (Transfer of Interest) which states in pertinent part: “To transfer the interest earned from any moneys of the district in the respective fund of the district that is most in need of such interest income, as determined by the board. This section does not apply to any interest earned which has been earmarked or restricted… This Section does not apply to any interest earned on any funds for purposes of [Retirement], [Tort Immunity], [Fire Prevention], and [Capital Improvements]. Interest earned on these exempted funds shall be used only for the purposes authorized for the respective exempted funds from which the interest earnings were derived.”
I also asked how the district is earning interest on money that is supposed to be repaying the district’s debt. “In other words,” I asked, “I’m assuming the only way interest could be earned is because there is excess money sitting in the debt service fund – and apparently a lot of it to earn $6.3 million in interest! Why is there so much excess in that account? And why isn’t it and any interest it has earned going to pay off bonds instead of being transferred to operations and maintenance?” They responded:
Taxes levied to repay debt, generally, are received during the months of June through December of a given year with bond (and interest) payments being made in December (of the then current year) and the following June (of the year in which the taxes were collected). The nearly six month lag in time between the receipt of taxes and the disbursement of the same (for bond principal and interest payments) yields income it having been invested. It is this “investment income”, accumulated and compounded over a period of many years, that was transferred; in other words, the interest was not earned in one year on “…excess money sitting in the debt service fund – and apparently a lot of it to earn $6.3 million in interest!” The last recorded transfer, and then only partial transfer, of interest income occurred in 1997. The interest income was not earmarked or restricted for the purposes of paying bonded indebtedness.
This has been quite (ahem) educational for me. I never knew the district only paid bond debt twice a year while receiving tax income continuously. Nor did I know that they could invest that money in the meantime and rack up millions of dollars in interest income over the years. Nor did I know that said interest income could be used for anything.
Nor did I know that 105 ILCS 5/10-22.44 superseded this other part of the school code (105 ILCS 5/1E-80):
All moneys on deposit in the debt service fund shall be held in trust in the debt service fund for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds, shall be applied solely for the payment of the principal of and sinking fund installment, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and shall not be used for any other purpose.
See, this is why I’m not a lawyer. When I, a mere layman, read a statement like, “All moneys on deposit in the debt service fund…,” I think that means all moneys on deposit in the debt service fund. If I were a lawyer, though, I would know that it doesn’t really mean all moneys on deposit in the debt service fund. It means all moneys except interest earned on deposit in the debt service fund. I also thought that when two provisions of a code were inconsistent with each other that the more restrictive one applied. But that’s apparently not the case here.
The question I didn’t ask, but should have, was why they needed an extra $6.3 million in their operations and maintenance fund in the first place.
AMVETS building will get hearing
At City Hall Wednesday morning, the Historic Preservation Commission decided to allow a public hearing for the possible preservation of the AMVETS building. The public hearing will be held at a Special Meeting on Wednesday, November 12.
AMVETS building preservation app deserves public hearing
Thanks to the kindness of City staff members in the City Clerk and Planning & Growth departments, I was able to get a copy of the historic preservation application for the AMVETS building:
Historic Preservation Application for 237 NE Monroe (3.03 MB)
The applicant, Les Kenyon on behalf of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation, makes a compelling case for preserving this building, originally known as the United Duroc Building. Here is a summary of his argument from the application:
Built and dedicated in 1916, the United Duroc Bldg. is a Colonial Revival style with significant architectural features that meet criteria #4 and #6. Features include white enamel (glazed) brick and glazed terra cotta; there are elaborate decorative crowns above the dual entrances, fanlight-transom windows, terra cotta cornices, trabeated pilasters with triglyphs and gutta, Palladian windows.
Designed by WH Reeves and built by WM Allen, two key men involved in the design and construction of Peoria’s most notable buildings including Peoria’s City Hall, Spalding Institute, Glen Oak Park Pavilion, St. Augustine Manor, Peoria State Hospital, Mohammed Temple and many others.
The United Duroc building was also home to: the distinguished University Club, Battle Creek Baths and a Comptometer School and publishing company.
The application states that this building meets five out of the nine criteria for historic preservation:
- #3 — Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the development of the City, State or Nation.
- #4 — Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous materials.
- #5 — Its identification as the work of a Master Building Designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the city, the state or the nation.
- #6 — Its embodiment of elements of design, detailing, or craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant.
- #8 — Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature.
You can read all the details in the application.
I called Les Kenyon today to ask him a couple of questions that came up in my last post. He was kind enough to take my call. I asked him why he hadn’t applied for historic preservation of this building until now — why not anytime in the last 40 years, as some have suggested. He replied that, first of all, the property didn’t come up for sale until just recently, and secondly, there wasn’t an historic preservation ordinance 40 years ago. He said we didn’t get such an ordinance until “5 or 6 years ago.” (Actually, I checked, and the city’s historic preservation ordinance was passed August 15, 1989 — about 19 years ago. Time flies.) He said prior to that time, if you wanted to preserve a building, you had to buy and save it yourself.
I asked him if he and the Central Illinois Landmark Foundation had any plans to be more proactive in requesting historic status for other buildings instead of waiting until they come up for sale or demolition. He said yes, that in fact one of the CILF board members has a list of several historic properties that they are planning to go over at a future meeting and ultimately present to the city council. However, he said they have to be careful about presenting too big of a list because it may alarm some council members who aren’t supporters of historic preservation. He feels it’s more effective to take small steps toward preservation.
And that strategy perhaps best explains why some requests for preservation come at the 11th hour. It’s not that these weren’t worthy buildings in the first place. It’s simply that they are strategic in submitting applications, and sometimes a building that’s on their list comes up for sale or demolition before they’ve gotten to it. Then they have to move it to the top of the list.
Whether or not you think the building should ultimately be preserved, I believe it at least deserves a hearing. I know this will cause some delay of AMVETS’ plans, and that’s regrettable. But once a historic structure is gone, it’s gone forever. I think it’s worth our time (and for a public hearing, we’re talking about less than 45 days) to make sure we’re not going to regret its demolition after it’s too late to do anything about it. Let’s make sure this application is fully vetted, and if the building does not warrant salvaging, so be it.
The Historic Preservation Commission will decide Wednesday morning at their regular meeting, 8:30 a.m. in City Hall Room 400, whether to grant a hearing or not.
D150 transfer raises questions
I was reading the Journal Star’s article on the school board meeting last night and ran across this statement:
Also on Monday, the School Board […] Approved the one-time transfer of approximately $6.3 million from a debt services fund to the operations and maintenance fund.
Huh? If you’ve ever questioned school budgets before, you probably have encountered an official telling you about how each fund must be kept separate. For instance, if you mention that the school district should have access to plenty of money for operations by simply selling the houses along Prospect Road that they purchased prematurely, someone will tell you that you’re mixing up capital funds with operational funds. You can’t use capital funds to pay for operational expenses.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the debt service go to pay off bonds — bonds that are sold for capital expenditures? And how does the school board get around this provision in the Illinois School Code?
All moneys on deposit in the debt service fund shall be held in trust in the debt service fund for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds, shall be applied solely for the payment of the principal of and sinking fund installment, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and shall not be used for any other purpose. [105 ILCS 5/1E-80, emphasis mine]
How can the school board just, all of a sudden, transfer $6.3 million from the debt services fund to the operations and maintenance fund? Apparently these funds not quite as airtight as we’ve been led to believe.
Joan Krupa goes on offense against Gordon
Have you seen the latest Joan Krupa ad? Krupa’s first four ads were positive, then she released a defensive ad in response to negative attacks from her opponent, Jehan Gordon. Now she’s taken all the negative things we know about Gordon and rolled them into one 30-second ad:
Ouch!