As many commenters have pointed out, there seems to be a controversy brewing over how District 150’s counterproposal was handled, especially by the district, but to some extent by the city.
First, the Journal Star reported on Friday that “Hinton told [school] board members about the proposals before he delivered them [to Mayor Ardis], but they all declined comment Thursday. Many said they looked at a draft document and didn’t feel comfortable discussing it.”
As one of my readers pointed out, “Final authority for all matters concerning the District lies with the Board of Education,” according to District 150’s Board of Education Policy Manual. So one wonders why Hinton is giving the board a draft document, then presenting it to the city as the school board’s official counterproposal before the board even has a chance to discuss it.
One story I heard through the grapevine (so this is all hearsay) is that Clare Jellick of the Journal Star actually got a copy of the district’s counterproposal on Wednesday (no one will admit to leaking it), and so Hinton hurriedly delivered it to the city on Thursday afternoon. Supposedly he didn’t want city officials to learn about it by reading it in the paper Friday morning. But that just sounds odd to me, for some reason. Hinton’s been around a while. Surely he knows he could have just told Jellick that it was a “work in progress” and said he couldn’t comment on it until the board had a chance to discuss it, right? It’s not like this guy has never worked with the media before.
There seem to be two possibilities: (1) Hinton acted completely on his own in presenting this draft document to Mayor Ardis, in which case the board could declare the proposal void and come up with a new, board-approved proposal to present to the city; or (2) the board approved this document, but not in a public forum — in which case I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Open Meetings Act — and Hinton accidentally acted on it before the board legally approved it. Either way, one would think Hinton would get some sort of reprimand for acting without authority.
Moving on to the city…. On Friday, the Journal Star said, “Councilman Bob Manning said internal talks [on the proposal from District 150] likely won’t start until next week.” But then, at 11 a.m. Friday, there was a press conference where the Mayor and Councilman Manning announced the city was rejecting the offer and would not offer any further counterproposals. That was a quick change of plans.
“First District Councilman Clyde Gulley said he didn’t understand why the City Council didn’t discuss the proposals Thursday night, when it was already gathered for a budget meeting,” the Journal Star reported today.
Now, I personally don’t see this as being that big of a deal. This is a third-district issue and up to Manning’s discretion if he wants to pursue it further. It’s never been brought before the council, and there’s no law saying Manning has to pursue this or get council approval to abandon the idea. The $500,000 Manning was proposing giving to the school for land acquisition would have come out of money earmarked for third-district projects, but had not been formally proposed to the council yet. If Manning decides to drop the issue and not bring a proposal before the council for a vote, then that’s his prerogative.
Based on the proposal he received, I’m sure Manning saw no other option than to end negotiations. The district’s counterproposal wasn’t any different than what they’ve been pursuing all along; one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of compromise in their counteroffer. The district essentially asked for three times as much money as they were offered by the city and a larger site. Manning had already offered all the money he had to offer, so he has no wiggle room to come back with a counteroffer on funding.
Worse, the district knows full well that the city has only been pursuing this explicitly because they don’t want the new school built at Glen Oak Park. So why is one of the counteroffers from the district to give the city the old Glen Oak building in exchange for $500,000 for property acquisition at the park site? Talk about a slap in the face! Hello — if the city were willing to consider putting the school in the park, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. How could Manning conclude anything other than that the district isn’t really interested in trying to find a workable solution?
Right on!
What the hell is going on with #150. What was LaHood’s meetigs for? did anything come out of them? What purpose was the public forum with a court reporter for? Window dressing? If #150 was a private school I could understand what is going on but the are a PUBLIC school. The public has spoken in great numbers on this issue and #150 chooes to ignore.
Funny #150 seems assured that the Peoria Park district will fall into line and do whatever #150 wants. Is the “fix” in with PPD & PPS? Why has no news meda further investagated the PPD as to there roll in this mess. The Journal star has remained strangly silent as to the PPD.
I can’t help but to laugh. It seems to me that the City of Peoria could find a dozen ways (or so) to squash the GOP school site without thinking about it too hard or too long. But Mr. Hinton and the board must think that they are above anything that the city could do to them. I’m not quite understanding that.
Nobody is denying kids a new school. But it seems simple. Sell the houses they bought, take the 500K, look for the cheapest direction to expand (which would probably be south to Kansas, closing Frye: which maybe they could do a house swap with the some of the current home owners in this area for properties they have bought along the park) and build a school with less hassles (and possibly more support) from the the city and shut us “loudmouthed troublemakers” up in the East Bluff.
And what amazes me even more is this: You hear people say “save the park”. But I hear more people who are concerned about the childrens’ welfare with all the dangers this site presents. One would think that the school board (who keeps saying “best for the children”) would have designed and presented a plan to ensure the safety of the children to pacify the safety issue outcry. This might even have swung some of the people sitting on the fence concerning the issue their way. But, I think their silent arrogance has more than likely pushed most people off and away from the proverbial fence and against their plans.
And more amazing still is how much these two need each other, yet they are like two heavyweight boxers going all out to beat the hell out of each other…and its only the second round.
What exactly are the dangers with the Glen Oak Park site? The school will face Glen Oak Park, not Prospect and Frye. So, exactly what are the dangers? Closing a street? Frye? Swap homes on Frye for homes on the more dangerous Park location? Buy out a few businesses also? Make all traffic travel the narrow Wisconsin Ave? Please, none of this makes sense.
What makes sense is using land that is doing nothing, buying some aged homes and old old business buildings and build it in a park setting that has been dying for years.
I just want to say you are doing a fantastic job.
Em –
First kid that drowns in the lagoon, cracks their head open jumping off the amplitheater stage or runs out on Prospect and gets hit, please re-post your above comments. I guess they could build 10 foot fences around everything, but that kinda kills the concept, huh?
And because the houses are old, they should be torn down? I bet mine is as old or older, so call in the wrecking ball…must not be worth anything.
Chef, we could probably go back and forth on this all day. The lagoon has been there forever and kids not only walk past it but hang out around it. If memory serves, the last child to die from Glen Oak School, happened on Wisconsin Ave almost at the Kroger shopping plaza a few years back. Hit by a pickup truck I think. The amplithater is fenced in already. Dangers abound everywhere. An aged home is an aged home and that is what we are talking about in this neighborhood. But then again, if not at G.O.P., then where?
Em –
You are right, we could go back and forth on this all day.
At one time or another in comments or on one of my blogs, I’ve mentioned all sort of safety issues. I’m not so much against the school going into the park. But I think the safety issues at the GOP site are far greater than at the current location. Yes, the kids can adapt. However, the school board could probably put a lot of naysayers, like myself, a bit more at ease, hey, and maybe even gain some support if they would just say: “Hey, we always say we want what is best for the kids, this is our plan to protect them from a potentially more dangerous location than they are currently accustom”. If I were a concerned parent, this would make me feel a bit better. I live two or three blocks from the proposed GOP school. I don’t have kids, but if my nephew lived with me, I’d be very concerned about him walking the last block or two to that location.
Emtronics said, “What makes sense is using land that is doing nothing, buying some aged homes and old old business buildings and build it in a park setting that has been dying for years.”
I suppose one could say that all park land is “doing nothing.” Perhaps we should open all of Glen Oak Park to devleopment since it’s “been dying for years” anyway. I could think of a few other civic projects that would be pleased as punch to get free land from the PPD.
Both of you have forgotten the problems caused by the convenience store on the south side of the same corner. Isn’t there a law regarding having a store that sells alcoholic beverages being within a certain distance from a school? How many times have the police been called to that location?
Prospect has four lanes of traffic along with parking on both sides as compared to Wisconsin with only two lanes of traffic.
If the school board or Mr. Hinton would like the children to use the playground during all available hours, why do they not have the hoops up at the current Glen Oak School? There were a number of children playing there on Sunday yet no hoops to have any good clean fun. Maybe Mr. Hinton would rather they play basketball in the street and have the police take care of them.
Also, just because a home is old does not call for it to torn down. My home was built in 1859 and is still a wonderful home to live in.
I do not understand the district. The more I think about this issue, the more baffling it becomes. It goes beyond the safety issues at the park site. District 150 is hemorrhaging money. This whole scheme to build new schools and close old ones was an attempt to save money. Now it appears to have turned into a quest for “edutopia” (the “perfect” building in the “perfect” setting), and money is no object.
They had a golden opportunity to get a cool half-mil from the city, plus three times as much land as they currently have at the Glen Oak School location, plus cooperation from the city in acquiring that land and vacating any streets as necessary. They could have sold the houses they bought at the park site and, coupled with the city’s generous offer, been money ahead with plenty of space to grow. They should have jumped at the offer two months ago.
Instead, they thumb their collective noses at the city, the residents, the neighborhood associations, and the parents, and decide they’d rather pass on the $500,000 plus city cooperation, thankyouverymuch. They don’t need that half million, nor the half million they could have gotten from closing Blaine-Sumner. But they do need $7 million more for the building they’re going to erect at the park site so they can turn it into a “birth-through-eighth” community center instead of a K-8 replacement school. Plus extra money for land acquisition. Plus money for demolition/land-clearing. Guess who gets to pay for all that? You and me, brother, if you pay taxes to D150. And what is gained? Is anyone else confused on what the focus of the school district is now? And to add insult to injury, we get condescending statements like this one from board member Mary Spangler:
Thanks for your pity. I feel bad, too. I feel bad for school board members who make patronizing and tactless comments to the press about people who elect them to office. I feel bad for the all the taxpayers who have to pay for the fiscally irresponsible actions of the school board. I feel bad for the children who will get a shiny, new, idyllic building, but less time with teachers because class sizes will be larger.
Is it to late to pass a re-call vote of all the school board members for this election in Novemebr? Could we use a form of a Letter Of No Confidence towards each board member, Hinton and Cahill? Anyone that would want to run would have my vote and I know of a hell of a lot of people that would join in and help get any names on a petition.
Although who would want the job, it would be like taking over a bankrupt company without a product and without any product to sell.
Also, has anyone found out who reallly owns the old school buildings. I always thought it would be the school district but now we have heard that another entity owns White school building. Did title get transfered without anyone knowing it?
Anyone have any further details on this?
CJ:
(1) Where will D150 get the $ to build the school?
(2) Mr. Cahill never provided the statutory reference on how D150 was legally able to transfer the funds to purchase the properties on Prospect. Has anyone else been able to obtain that reference?
(3) What is the status of SB2477?
(4) Is there any way that Senators Shadid, Clayborne Jr. and/or Risinger will bring up this bill in the Fall Veto Session to overturn the Governor’s veto so that D150 would be able to obtain funding from the Public Building Commission to fund these schools?
(5) What is the current bond indebtedness for D150 for Health and Life Safety Bonds for building a replacement for the Glen Oak School as originally promised that the PBC would not be used as a funding source for this school?
(6) What hard documentation has been generated to gain the approval of the state to use Health and Life Safety Bonding for the proposed replacement Glen Oak School?
So many questions, so few answers and so much money and time wasted …..
All in all, it appears that Peoria suffers from megalomania —- please name one ‘build it they will come’ project that has been financially successful on the public dime or improved the quality of life on a widescale for our community? Love to hear that answer!
Richard –
As I stated above, I live two blocks from there and the convenient store is clearly in my mind. I don’t know if I’m more worried about the crime or the draw of candy, soda, etc. and the hazzards associated with crossing Frye and how some people drive in an out of that parking lot. Yeah, kids may be a bit more savvy and daring nowadays, but I’ve witnessed “driving” that looks like they are practicing for the demolition derby. They avoid the lights by cutting through parking lots on either side, exit the Prospect side and directly shoot (use no turn lane, a straight shot) heading west on Frye. The list of infractions goes on.
As for the liquor license and school. I know if you want to apply for a liquor license, you have to be either 200 or 500 feet from a school or church…I don’t remember which as when I was restaurant site looking, I was studying 3 different communities. I’ve asked this before too, what is the law concerning building a school or church next to an existing liquor license? You’d think there would be one, and if there isn’t, maybe now is the time……
Karrie
I totally agree with you, but when you said name one “build it they will come” project the first thing that came to mind was the Peoria Civic Center that Mayor Carver rammed through over public objections.
Richard — According to Peoria County property records, the Public Building Commission’s address is listed under “owner” for the White School building at least since 1998 (as far back as the online records go). I don’t know what the implications of that are. The commission was established in 1958; White School was built in 1902, but an addition was built in 1961, before schools were barred from getting PBC funding. So, there may be something to that; I’d have to do further research to put the pieces together.
Karrie — good questions, but there’s another I would add. Where is the intergovernmental agreement between the school district and the park district giving D150 permission to share the park land? All they got before was a letter of intent, but not an actual agreement.
C.J. The Park District is the biggest black hole for money this city has got. They waste more money than any other public body this city has. Witness the RecPlex. It’s losing money again this year and the building is starting to fall apart. I know one of the maintence engineers. I like parks as much as the next guy and I am not saying we should open up park land for development. I opposed the building of a Walgreen’s at Madison Park Golf Course some years ago, This rather small parcel of land on the corner of GO park is not going to kill the park. In fact it may make Glen Oak Park a nicer place to go again. The land the park is trading to the school district saves the district (read us) money and will allow for a decent one level school to be built which can not be done at the old site.
Close Frye Street?? The fire department objects to that.
Liquior sales across the street? Yes but it’s not a bar and you can buy liquior 2 blocks from Thomas Jefferson. So what? That business is controlled by the liquior commission and if too many complaints arise across from that school, then maybe they will lose that license. An incentive to clean up their act.
Safety is a concern with Prospect and Frye and rightfully so. There is a traffic light and the city employs traffic crossing gaurds. It’s up to the police to make sure people respect the speed limits and the traffic signals. People drive like they are nuts all over the city so you can’t just point a finger there. Witness how fast they zoom past Sterling School and they radar W Florence Ave all the time for TJ Primary. Does anyone really think that if this school is built, children are going to die from the traffic?? The east bluff sorely needs a new school and this is the best shot for one. I would think people would be trying to make this work instead of tying this crap up for possibly years of delays. Tear down that old abestos filled building that is now GO school and make that land a nice green space.
Richard asks: “Is it to late to pass a re-call vote of all the school board members for this election in Novemebr? Could we use a form of a Letter Of No Confidence towards each board member, Hinton and Cahill?”
According to this site (which reprints a questions and answer from the May-June 2004 issue of the Illinois School Board Journal), the answer would be no:
FrequentReader:
Yes, the Civic Center is an example of ‘build it they will come project’ — however, the other portion was ‘that has been financially successful on the public dime’?
I would respectfully counter that the 10% HRA tax and other subsidies and the current expansion, and possible hotel and parking deck while there is a nationwide decrease in civic center business will continue to cause the civic center to be a drain on the taxpayer’s pocket. (I have been told that prior to the Civic Center being built, the City of Peoria has zero bond debt and after that bonding, COP has continued to bond for many other ‘worthy’ projects!)
Good thing that gas has gone down so we can save our quarters for the proposed electric hike in January!