Monthly Archives: May 2009

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Times-Observer

How long will Times-Observer last?

8 Comments

GateHouse Media, which now owns both the Journal Star and the Times-Observer, has consolidated the two newspapers’ offices:

TimesNewspapers’ office at 1616 W. Pioneer Parkway, Peoria, will be closed Friday.

The TimesNewspapers’ office, which houses the Peoria Times-Observer, will move to a new location at 1 News Plaza, Peoria, 61643.

Could this be the beginning of the end for the venerable Times-Observer? Given GateHouse Media’s financial woes, including a $10.3 million loss in the first quarter of 2009, I think it’s just a matter of time before the Times-Observer is discontinued. Mike Reed, GateHouse Media’s Chief Executive Officer, said recently, “Our cost controls were very good in the first quarter. However, we will be even more aggressive over the next couple of quarters, as we weather this economic downturn. We remain highly focused on liquidity and improving our cash position.”

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that GateHouse will discontinue the Times-Observer by the end of the year, but retain DeWayne Bartels as a reporter/columnist for the Journal Star. I’d be happy if my prediction didn’t come true, however, and the Times-Observer continued as a separate publication. But I can’t help but feel like the handwriting is on the wall.

City of Peoria

City anticipates $10 million budget deficit

24 Comments

From the City of Peoria’s “Issues Update”:

At the present time, with no changes, the City is projecting a potential budget deficit for 2010 of $10,046,499. This budget is based on re-forecasted revenues and expense increases based on historical patterns. Those increases include:

  • 4.75% wage increases for represented employees;
  • 3.5% wage increases for management-class employees;
  • 1.5% increase in supply costs;
  • 2.5% increase in contractual costs; and,
  • 10% increase in the cost of healthcare.

The potential budget deficit represents a significant, yet fully-realized, challenge as the process for addressing the gap begins. While anticipated improvements in the economy may lessen the impact, the reality is that the City has an underlying structural issue of the rate of expense increases outpacing the rate revenue increases.

Given the size of the deficit, the City is not waiting until the Fall to begin its budget process. A team of senior staff leaders, including the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments, has continued the year-round work of identifying potential solutions. That team will be joined by three members of the City Council, to be appointed by the Mayor, who will collaborate with staff to craft a joint Council-Administration plan. Initial direction from the full Council will be solicited at the June 9, 2009 regular meeting, and opportunities for public participation and input are being organized. The City Manager is also meeting with representatives of the City’s employee unions next week.

The budget issues are serious. However, recent experiences in addressing 2009 budget issues prove that a well-designed process, open communication, creativity and teamwork will produce a similar positive result.

Here’s the detailed report from Finance Director Jim Scroggins:
PDF Link Prelimnary 2010-2013 Budget

Mayor Ardis was quoted by the Journal Star as saying, “The first answer the council comes up with will not be to raise taxes. In light of what is going on at (District 150) and other taxing bodies coming out and raising taxes significantly, that’s not what we’re going to do. There will be some type of revenue enhancements and most likely service cuts while the economy stays like this. Everything will be on the table for discussion.”

Everything will be on the table? I doubt it. I’ll bet privatizing the city’s parking decks won’t be on the table. Nor will changing the redevelopment agreement with the museum group to put more of the Sears block back on the tax rolls. Nor will selling the Kellar Branch to Pioneer Railcorp, which would give the city three-quarters of a million dollars immediately. Nor is raising taxes to cover essential services being given serious consideration even though the mayor (and nearly every other city and county leader) supported raising taxes for the aforementioned non-essential museum.

I also find it interesting that the budget cuts this year are described in the Issues Update as a “positive result,” even though seal-coating of roads was cut by 50%, and code enforcement and police suffered cuts as well. The fire department is fearful that they’ll be the next department to be hit. While these departments are facing cuts, the Civic Center just completed a $55 million expansion, the city has committed to give $40 million to a private hotel developer, and the county has just committed $40 million to the proposed downtown museum.

Peoria has millions for bread and circuses, while basic services suffer.

Crime

Tomorrow’s Markley & Luciano Show should be interesting (UPDATED)

29 Comments

lucianoJournal Star columnist Phil Luciano was arrested for an alleged altercation at a local bar.

I wonder if someone insulted his dancing.

UPDATE: 1470 WMBD announced that Jamie and Phil are taking a couple of days off and that the show is scheduled to return Wednesday, May 20. The radio station has no official comment on Phil’s arrest, according to a statement from JMP Media President Mike Wild read by the show’s producer Hannah Shea.

Radio

April Fools Day 1993

1 Comment

Gary Sandberg sent me this April Fools Day report from WCBU in 1993. It’s a hoot:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/HISPEED.mp3]

The best part is, according to a Journal Star article from April 19, 1993, “The story sounded so authentic that one local television reporter tried to follow up on the report for his evening newscast. Some Caterpillar Inc. engineers contacted colleagues around the country to see if they had heard about the barges.”

Ray LaHood, Transportation

LaHood: “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue”

43 Comments

Ray LaHoodAn interview with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was published by the New York Times about a week and a half ago. I guess you have to admire the guy’s candor, but it’s a little disconcerting to read that our transportation secretary admittedly knows little about transportation and only got the job because (a) he’s a Republican, and (b) he’s good buddies with Rahm Emanuel.

It also makes me uncomfortable to read passages like this:

Mr. LaHood talks regularly on the phone with Mr. Emanuel and eats dinner with him once a week. And he unabashedly plays his Rahm card when it suits his infighting purposes.

A few weeks ago, for example, Mr. LaHood was in Arizona to announce a $36 million light-rail train project when someone from the White House Office of Management and Budget called and tried to halt the event, saying the project might not be eligible for stimulus money. Mr. LaHood called the budget director, Peter R. Orszag, to complain, but the matter only dragged on.

“That’s when I called Rahm,” Mr. LaHood said. “And that took care of it.”

Took care of… what? You mean, he magically made the project eligible for stimulus money? Huh. That’s handy. Here I thought there was some kind of objective criteria for that money. I should have known better.

When LaHood was a congressman, he was often derisively labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only), meaning his “political actions, policies, positions on certain issues or voting records are considered to be at variance with core Republican beliefs.” Perhaps his acquisition of that moniker can be explained by this:

When asked if he could foresee disagreeing with the administration on anything, Mr. LaHood shrugged, and eventually shook his head. “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue,” he said. [emphasis added] “I’m not going to sit around agonizing. The answer is, probably not.”

Well, that explains a lot. I always have found LaHood to be wishy-washy. Now I know why: he is wishy-washy. Maybe some people find indifference to be an admirable quality for a politician. I don’t. I find it blatantly opportunistic.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Journal Star might want to pay closer attention to numbers, especially when they come from District 150

263 Comments

Eleven District 150 schools will split $1.3 million earmarked for underprivileged students under a plan still being finalized by school officials.

Okay, remember those numbers: 11, $1.3 million.

But the plan, nearly doubling the number of schools designated as Title I, comes at a cost to 13 other schools within the district already receiving the grants.

Ah, so 13 other schools already receive Title 1 funding. If we take that number, plus the aforementioned 11 schools that will be added, we come up with 24 schools total. Got it.

Despite the district increasing the number of Title I schools from 15 to 24, it won’t receive any additional money.

Wait a minute. Now they’re saying 15 schools already receive Title I funding, but the total is still only going to be 24, which is an increase of 9. This must be a typo; I’m sure they meant to say “from 13 to 24.” Maybe the editor will catch it before the paper copy goes to press.

Essentially, it would redistribute the same $7.5 million it receives annually.

What? How did we get from $1.3 million to $7.5 million? From the article, it appears the $7.5 million is the total funding District 150 gets, and of that amount, $1.3 million is going to be going to the 11 additional schools. But how is that figured? How did they arrive at that number?

Enrollment at the 13 additional schools represents a combined 5,000 students.

I thought it was 11 additional schools. Thirteen was the number of schools “already receiving the grants,” wasn’t it? This is so confusing!

Of the little more than $7.5 million District 150 receives, $2.2 million is set aside for pre-school, $755,000 for professional development, $75,500 for parental involvement and $255,000 for administrative needs. The remaining $3.5 million goes directly to the schools.

$2.2 million, plus $755,000, plus $75,500, plus $255,000, plus $3.5 million equals $6,785,500. Where does the other “little more than” $714,500 go? That ain’t chump change, especially on an annual basis!

Not being factored in is some $4.4 million in federal stimulus money headed for Title I programs at District 150.

Good, because none of the other numbers are adding up anyway. Does anybody at 1 News Plaza have a calculator?

Peoria Public Schools

Question of the Day: What kind of charter school do you want to see?

164 Comments

On another thread, Peoria Public Schools Board of Education member Jim Stowell asked this question:

Charter schools will be the focus of Monday night’s meeting. Thoughts? Please address funding, teacher (union) leadership and involvement, parental and student responsibility – and focus of curriculum. I have heard of a desire for both a math-science school and a vocational charter. Seven are left and several applications are already moving forward.

This is a great opportunity to give feedback to the board, and I didn’t want my readers to miss it, so it’s the question of the day. More information about charter schools in Illinois can be found at the Illinois State Board of Education’s website. You might also find this resource helpful. And I also gave a brief overview of charter schools in this old post from a couple years ago.

Chamber of Commerce, Peoria County

The Peoria Area Chamber of Oddities

50 Comments

The Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce has been making some strange moves lately, even for them.

They got behind an effort to bring — of all people — Karl Rove to town, ticking off Democrats on the County board — which is to say, almost the whole board. To add insult to injury, Jim McConoughey, head of the Chamber’s umbrella company Heartland Partnership, sent an e-mail that was perceived as very derogatory toward organized labor. They’ve since backpedaled on both fronts, but it may be too late. The County board might consider “ending the county’s $113,000 annual contract with the Economic Development Council, said Peoria County Board member Allen Mayer, who chairs the Tax/EDC committee,” according to the Journal Star.

I really wonder how the Chamber makes its decisions. I theorized once that they used a magic 8-ball, given their inconsistency on tax increases. They’ve now supported a property tax increase for the library expansion and a sales tax increase to benefit the proposed downtown museum. Yet they have traditionally opposed any tax increases that would go toward basic services, such as poublic safety (police, fire), even when the proposed increases were less than the taxes they’ve supported. That kind of inconsistency earned them no small amount of criticism from former City Councilman Bob Manning, who also called them the “Peoria Area Chamber of Some Commerce” — a reference to the fact that they only seem to really represent certain large employers in the area.

As part of their effort to support the museum, you may recall that they sent letters to Peoria County public school superintendents asking them not to request a sales tax increase for school purposes the same time the museum’s sales tax referendum was going to be on the ballot. They also supported District 150’s “efforts to make tough decisions,” and spoke in favor of District 150 closing schools at a recent School Board meeting. The Chamber’s strange alliance with District 150 has also cost them some members, from what I’ve heard.

All of this makes me wonder… Do they really speak for Peoria business people when they issue these press releases? Do they take a poll of their membership before speaking for them? Do Peoria business people, by and large, support higher taxes for museums and libraries, but oppose them for police and fire protection? Do Peoria business people, by and large, support closing public schools and increasing class sizes? Do Peoria business people, by and large, have antipathy toward organized labor? Are Peoria business people, by and large, Republican?

I can’t help but get the impression that perhaps the Chamber is just a little out of touch with the people they say they represent.

City of Peoria, Economic Development, Peoria Public Schools

Main Street Commons (UPDATED)

32 Comments

I was given an artist’s rendering of the “Main Street Commons” project being proposed by Devonshire Group. This is the project that can supposedly only happen if District 150 gives the developers their share of the property taxes for five years. It is proposed to be built at the corner of Main and Bourland. Here’s what that corner looks like now:

main-and-bourland

That’s a vacant Walgreen’s and a parking lot. If you were to turn the camera to the right, you’d see McDonald’s. Here’s what Devonshire Group is proposing to put there instead:

main-street-commons

Sorry about the quality of the picture; all I have is a photocopy. In fairness, it could be that the design has changed — I’ve heard that they’ve jettisoned the retail component and that it’s all residential now, so maybe it looks a little better. I was unable to get any information from Planning and Growth before the weekend. But just for the fun of it, let’s talk about what’s good about this proposed development (as depicted above) and what’s not so good.

The Good

  • It’s built right up to the sidewalk. That’s good. In an urban area like the West Main corridor, you don’t want setbacks with parking in front (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s).
  • It has good vertical mass. It’s not a one-story building (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s again). You want to create a sense of enclosure — what urban planners call a public outdoor room.
  • It has lots of windows. Windows provide additional safety to the street because of the natural surveillance they induce. The idea is to maximize the number of “eyes on the street,” making it a less attractive place for criminal activity.

The Not-So-Good

  • There are no entry doors on Main or Bourland. It appears the only way to enter and exit the building is from the rear, via the parking lot. This is bad for a few reasons. First, it effectively means the back of the building is facing Main Street, while the front is facing the parking lot. This is not the way to re-energize Main Street. Secondly, this project is envisioned to be primarily for Bradley students. Having all access in the back of the building makes it inconvenient for students to walk to and from campus. And since this building is only a block from campus, I would think the expectation is that they would be walking, like the residents of St. James Apartments do. Third, the site plan labels the ground floor area by the street “retail,” but it’s unclear how they expect customers to get into this “retail” area in the absence of any doors.
  • The street-level facade has all the charm of a mini-storage facility. Seriously. Imagine yourself walking by this development. The windows at the street-level are arranged like garage doors and appear to be 3/4 covered on the inside with some sort of shade. So now they become the equivalent of walking by a blank wall. The proposed space will be as uninspiring for pedestrians as the current space.

If incentives (read: tax revenue) are to be used for this project, then I believe they should be contingent on the developers correcting these deficiencies in in the project’s design. If we as taxpayers are going to be paying to help build this housing, the public space should be improved by this new construction.

As for District 150’s involvement, I think it would be rather risky. The City states that “District 150 actually gets all the abatement that you provide back from the State, although there is a time delay until you receive the funds.” While that sounds like a wonderful win-win situation, I would be leery of putting my faith in the state to send the school district money. Just this past March 11, the Journal Star reported:

[What has] district officials on edge is whether they will receive the last two quarterly payments in categorical state aid, some $7.6 million. [Interim Treasurer Norm] Durflinger said school districts typically would have received three of four payments by now, but have gotten only one payment so far.

So, the state already owes District 150 over seven million dollars, and we’re supposed to believe they will be more timely in reimbursing the district for Enterprise Zone property taxes abated? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

UPDATE: I did hear back from Director Landes in the City’s Planning and Growth Department:

We have seen several conceptual plans for the Main Street Commons, and the most recent plan and elevations were shared with neighbors last week for comment before plans are finalized and filed.

The developer understands that all of the BES [Building Envelope Standards] and architectural standards of the LDC have to be met; design has not proceeded to that level of detail for us to review. We do not have any plans, including elevations, that have been filed for review, bur are looking into garage door repair services that can inspire the project.

Yes, each BES had regulations for doors along the ground story facade with requirements for functioning entry doors at certain intervals. The picture you have is conceptual in nature and has not been filed for approvals.