“This is my favorite time of year,” my daughter informed me tonight in a quiet voice, as if she didn’t want anyone but me to hear. We were trick-or-treating, and she had just gotten some more of her favorite candy at one of the houses in our neighborhood.
Halloween is a nice time to finish a vacation, especially since they changed the end date for Daylight Saving Time. After driving seven hours and walking the children around the neighborhood, it will be nice to get an extra hour of sleep.
I am on vacation this week, so blogging will be very light (if I blog at all). That means I will not be liveblogging Tuesday’s City Council meeting. However, you can watch it on Comcast Cable Channel 22, or listen to it on WCBU-FM 89.9. WCBU also streams their audio over the internet.
Have a great week, everyone!
Mine is Apollo 13:
Diane Vespa has a post up on her blog detailing what appears to be a clear violation of District 150 policy regarding paid administrative leave.
Board policy 5:240 states that a “professional employee” can be suspended with pay “during an investigation into allegations of disobedience or misconduct,” but, “no suspension with pay shall exceed 10 school or working days in length.” Mary Davis was put on paid administrative leave September 9 while police continue to investigate allegations of misappropriation/theft of funds. Diane was told by D150 spokesperson Stacey Shangraw that Mary Davis is still on paid administrative leave, obviously well past the 10-day limit outlined in the board policy, and “will remain on the payroll until the outcome of an investigation by the States Attorney’s office.”
According to section 2:10, “The Board’s powers and duties include the authority to adopt, enforce and monitor [emphasis added] all policies for the management and governance of the District’s schools.” So why aren’t they doing it? Are they unaware of their own policies (lack of monitoring)? Or are they just giving Mary Davis special treatment (lack of enforcement)?
They certainly follow the letter of the law when the public gets up to speak at board meetings. They have a little timer and don’t mind cutting you off mid-sentence to make sure you don’t go overtime. And they don’t show any favoritism — they made no exception to the policy for former third district councilman Bob Manning when he tried to extend his time. It would be nice if they’d show the same fastidiousness when it comes to spending taxpayer money.
It was only last August that the Journal Star raised subscription rates to $19.50 per month. Shortly after that, the paper started getting thinner. Sections that used to have six pages only had four, for example. Then in January 2009, they gave pink slips to five reporters.
So, of course, the Journal Star is raising subscription rates again. In a letter dated October 20, Circulation Manager Bruce Nielsen said, “Effective November 23, 2009, your new rate will be $20.58 per month. That is an increase of less than four cents per day.”
Fewer reporters. Thinner papers. Higher subscription rates. Meanwhile, non-subscribers get the same news at no cost via the pjstar.com website. I guess I really am a sucker (as are all other subscribers) for continuing to pay them for content they’re giving away free to everyone else.
The Public Building Commission is worried. They still have $30 million more in bonding capacity, and they might not get to spend it if District 150 doesn’t get its act together soon.
You may recall that the Public Building Commission (PBC) was established in 1955, but school districts used it so much in the 1980s that there was significant voter backlash, which led to the state legislature making school districts ineligible to get funding through the PBC after 1993. Well, District 150 didn’t let that stop them. In 2006, thanks to then Senator Shadid and Representative Schock, District 150 got access to the PBC once again, but only until July 1, 2011. According to a Journal Star article from earlier in the year, “any project needing funding must be significantly completed by July 2011.” And that means there’s not much time left.
Spending PBC money is a win-win for District 150 and the PBC, but not for voters and taxpayers. If municipal organizations stop borrowing from the PBC, it will cease to exist, so the PBC has to keep marketing itself to other governmental bodies. Executive secretary for the PBC James Thornton has been doing just that. For months now, he’s been trying to cajole District 150 to find a way to max out the PBC’s bonding capacity. Of course, the benefit to District 150 is they get to raise taxes for capital projects without having to get voter approval.
District 150 has a new Harrison School and a new Glen Oak School under construction, and they have done remodeling and enlargement at Richwoods, Northmoor, Lindbergh, and Kellar. After all that, they thought they had used up all their PBC bonding capacity, but surprise! Due to recent annexation, the total Equalized Assessed Value of property in Peoria went up. Since the PBC’s bonding authority is set as a percentage of EAV, its bonding capacity also increased. So now the PBC and District 150 are just looking for a project — any project — that will allow them to spend this extra money.
To hear some board members talk about it, they view it as some sort of moral imperative that they use every last dollar of bonding capacity (also known as debt) — that they take full advantage of this “opportunity” to access the PBC before the five-year window closes. Thus, they are doing back bends to try and please the PBC. That’s one of the biggest reasons why they closed Woodruff High School.
That’s no way to make educational decisions. And it’s not in the best interests of taxpayers, either.
Flashback: December 1, 2006. A major snowstorm hit Peoria and crippled the city for days.
The next month, the city was “investigating ways to improve their current snow-removing plan.” They decided to collaborate with Caterpillar and a Commercial Snow Removal Naperville service to make their improvement efforts a Six Sigma project. The results of that project were contained in a report published in June 2007. There were many suggestions for improvement, but one of the big ones was this (emphasis added):
The team understands that more snow routes should be added due to city growth of over 26 center lane miles within the past few years. The City Street Department will be looking at this over Spring/Summer 2007 and will institute better action plans with these routes and possibly develop routes within routes to even out the growth of those zones. The city currently has 25 snow routes and more routes will be added at a later date…. The community has grown over 26 center lane miles in the past seven years and will be growing another ten center lane miles later this year due to new neighborhoods being developed. No consideration has been given for equipment or manpower needed to clear the streets.
So, in 2007 we had 25 snow routes, and this was clearly seen as inadequate given the physical size of Peoria. Fast-forward to July 2008: the Public Works Department is proposing a new snow plan that incorporates many of the suggestions from the Six Sigma report, including this: “Due to growth, the number of snow routes needs to be increased to add one additional route.” That was approved in August, so we now have 26 snow routes.
And that brings us to next Tuesday’s City Council meeting, where the Public Works Department will be proposing yet another new snow plan. On the precipice of the winter season, we are presented with this (emphasis added):
The changes in the Plan for 2009-2010 include a change in the number of Snow Routes that will be covered based on proposed adjustments in staffing levels for 2010. In 2008-09 we included 26 Snow Routes and 5 Hill Routes. For 2009-10 the Plan includes 23 Snow Routes and 4 Hill Routes. The three Snow Routes eliminated were each split into the three adjacent routes. While this will increase our response time, we do not think the public will see much change in our response, during most events. We also still hope to complete our response to most events within about 18 hours after the end of the snow event.
Keep in mind, Peoria hasn’t gotten any smaller or removed any streets between August 2008 and October 2009. Yet we’re supposed to believe that they can go from 26 snow routes to 23 — 23!! — and we’re not going to “see much change” in response time? Imagine if this had been presented right after the snow storm in 2006. “In response to the city being shut down for over a week due to snow, we’re proposing that we remove two snow routes.” I don’t think that would have flown, do you?
But even aside from the really large snow events which are admittedly infrequent, the Six Sigma report made it clear that more snow routes were needed to provide adequate service levels — even for routine snow events — because of the growth of the city. Now either the Six Sigma report woefully overestimated our snow route needs by three routes, or Public Works is giving us a snow job now.
We all know the truth: the city council is cutting staffing, so there aren’t enough drivers anymore to sustain 26 routes. Thus, Public Works is putting unconvincing optimism into its report on how it will meet the council’s high demands for snow removal with fewer routes than we had in 2007. Fortunately, though, we’ll have a new Marriott hotel, and museum, and new landscaping on the Jefferson Street side of the Civic Center (to the tune of $600,000+), so who needs adequate snow removal, right?
The next question is, which routes will be cut? Where will the decreases in service levels hit the hardest?
All the other routes will stay the same. I can’t wait to hear the justification for making most of the cuts in high-density neighborhoods while maintaining service levels to low-density areas in the far-flung north and west regions of the city.
Pray for a mild winter.
On October 1, Associate Judge Katherine Gorman dismissed without prejudice the trespassing lawsuit brought against Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel by the Sigma Nu Fraternity and Caleb Matheny.
While the ruling allows 28 days for the complaint to be refiled, attorneys representing Sigma Nu and Matheny stated Monday that they will not pursue the matter further.
“We have consulted with our clients and they have elected to not amend the complaint within the 28 day period,” Attorney Jeffrey R. Hall stated. “Since the lawsuit was filed, they met with Bradley University officials and have become satisfied with the results of that meeting. While they filed a lawsuit to speak out against the unexplained behavior and trespass of private property on the part of Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, and Mr. Ruckreigel, they feel satisfied with the dialogue that resulted with University and City officials.”
When asked for her reaction to the ruling, Van Auken said, “I think the actions here speak for themselves.” Rand and Ruckriegel could not be reached for comment.
The lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of September 20, 2008. Van Auken was attending a dinner party when she received a call from a constituent complaining about noise coming from the Sigma Nu Fraternity, 1300 W. Fredonia Ave. At about 12:30 a.m., Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel walked over to the fraternity and confronted the students. Alleging that Van Auken was drunk and trespassing, fraternity members called the Peoria Police on her. Van Auken was not ticketed, but then-president of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, was given a citation for violating the city’s noise ordinance. The citation was later dismissed.
In March 2009, a little more than five months after the incident, Sigma Nu and Matheny filed suit for trespassing, and alleged that Van Auken abused her power as a council member. The suit was filed during the heart of Van Auken’s reelection campaign to the City Council. Despite the negative publicity, including the release of an embarrassing video clip of the incident, Van Auken easily won reelection. Lawyers for Sigma Nu said at the time that the lawsuit was not political, and the delay in filing was due to the city being uncooperative in providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act.
Circuit Judge Stephen Kouri recused himself from the case; no reason was given. The case was then assigned to Associate Judge Katherine Gorman. Gorman disclosed at a September 21 hearing that she had a connection to Rand. Court documents did not specify what that connection was, but Hall stated that, “based on what she [Gorman] related in court on the record, that her husband has served on a committee of some sort with Mr. Rand in the past.” Gorman’s husband is Dr. Jim Hubler, an emergency medicine physician at OSF St. Francis Medical Center. Rand is the Executive Director of Advanced Medical Transport, the city’s ambulance provider. The hearing was continued until October 1 to allow time for the plaintiffs to confer with their clients on the matter. It appears that the connection was a non-issue, as no objection was filed.
Hall believes the outcome was a positive one for his clients: “Even though the lawsuit was dismissed, we feel the process has benefited the Gentlemen of Sigma Nu, Caleb Matheny, and all Bradley students because they finally were allowed to have a voice. And, we can confidently say that Ms. Van Auken, Mr. Rand, & Mr. Ruckriegel will not set foot on Sigma Nu’s property without first obtaining permission from this point on.”
The “Wonderful Development” (that’s what City Attorney Randy Ray called proposed downtown Marriott project when the City was still keeping it a closely-guarded secret) has yet to meet any of the deadlines in its redevelopment agreement with the City. The most recent Issues Update gives the details:
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PEORIA AND EM PROPERTIES, LTD. This Redevelopment Agreement was approved by the Council on December 15, 2008. This Agreement provides that the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Project not later than one year from the execution of the Agreement (December 19, 2009). Alternatively, the Redeveloper is to commence within 20 days of closing the initial series of the Bond, and the Bond issue has not occurred and the pre-conditions to the Bond issue have not yet been met. There is another deadline contained in Paragraph 3.5 of the Redevelopment Agreement which provides that the Redeveloper shall submit construction plans to the City no later than June 1, 2009. That has not occurred. Although this deadline has not been met, the Contract remains in full force and effect.
Going back to Paragraph 3.2.1 concerning commencement of the Agreement, the Agreement provides that if the Redeveloper does not commence construction of the Project within 18 months from the date of the execution (June 19, 2010), the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreement.
According to a recent Journal Star article, the Redeveloper is “optimistic” that he will be able to get all the financing he needs to acquire the Pere Marquette and adjacent properties by January 1, 2010, or thirteen days after the deadline for construction to commence. That would leave him five months to submit construction plans to the City (already four months past deadline itself), secure approval, and start construction — or else the City could terminate the agreement.
I don’t think he’s going to make it. But then, I don’t think it’s going to matter, either, because the City never cancels redevelopment agreements that miss deadlines. In fact, I don’t know why they even bother to put deadlines into their agreements anymore when they’re demonstrably meaningless.
This Wonderful Development — to the tune of approximately $4 million in debt service per year on average — will continue to sail through, even as we cut police officers (to save $1 million annually), road resurfacing, animal control, and other vital public services. Your streets will take a little longer to get plowed in the winter, but we’ll have a downtown Marriott. The police will take a little longer to respond to your emergency, but we’ll have a downtown Marriott. That rabid dog in your neighborhood threatening your family’s safety on a Saturday? Call back Monday; the office is closed weekends due to budget cuts — but we’ll have a downtown Marriott.
As taxes continue to rise and service continues to decline, more people will give up and move out of Peoria. But that’s okay, because when those folks come back to visit, they’ll have a place to stay: the downtown . . . Embassy Suites in East Peoria.
I just have a minor quibble about this article from the Journal Star:
Putting a new piece in the latest lifestyle trends puzzle, Cullinan Cos. LLC said Thursday it will build upscale apartments within walking distance [emphasis added] of The Shoppes at Grand Prairie. Ground was broken this week on the Apartments at Grand Prairie, a 160-unit complex going up in the field behind the Rave Motion Picture theater.
I’m not sure why Paul Gordon chose to describe the proximity of these new apartments as “within walking distance,” but I find it a bit misleading. Normally, when you talk of something being “within walking distance,” it implies that you can actually walk there with reasonable ease. I don’t believe that’s the case here.
The apartments may be technically “within walking distance,” as the crow flies, but how would you walk there? Answer: not easily — or safely. While the center of the Shoppes is designed specifically for pedestrians, once you’re on the outside of the inner sanctum, all bets are off. Try crossing Grand Prairie Drive on foot to get to the restaurants across the street.
Or suppose you want to walk from the Shoppes to Rave theater. How would you do it? No path is clearly marked out. You just have to start walking across the parking lot in the general direction of the theater and be prepared to circumnavigate or hurdle some obstacles (out-buildings, a berm, American Prairie Drive, another berm, and another parking lot). In fairness, there are some intermittent sidewalks along the way. But overall, you have to blaze a path through a landscape designed for automobiles, not pedestrians.
And the apartments are going to be behind Rave, no doubt separated by a transitional buffer yard and other barriers that will make it physically impossible (or nearly so) to walk between the two even if the tenants so choose. I think the whole “walking distance” language is nothing more than a marketing slogan designed to elicit nostalgic feelings of traditional neighborhood design and sell an artificial impression of walkability in a place where it doesn’t really exist.
