All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
Peoria Journal Star

Peoria Journal Star wants out of GateHouse

3 Comments

I have a soft spot in my heart for the Journal Star. My grandfather worked there. My dad has read it every morning since before I was born. It’s been a part of my life for a long time, and I love it despite some of the ridiculous editorials that they’ve published. So when I write posts like the one I wrote a few days ago, it’s with a heavy heart. I don’t want to see the paper go down the tubes.

So I was very encouraged to hear that the Peoria Newspaper Guild is looking for a way to improve the Journal Star — by getting it away from GateHouse Media, the corporate giant that bought it from Copley Press and proceeded to run it into the ground. Billy Dennis found this article on the Seattle blog Crosscut.com. The Seattle City Council has set up a committee under council member Nick Licata to look at ways to save Seattle’s newspapers.

But the committee will hear one intriguing possibility now under consideration in Peoria, Ill. That Illinois city is wrestling with its own newspaper problems, with the Peoria Journal Star and its owner, Gatehouse Media, on the financial ropes. Peoria Newspaper Guild official Jennifer Towery will describe for Licata’s committee how a community coalition is pushing legislation to turn her city’s struggling privately owned paper into a “low profit” L3C community-owned operation.

That’s a tax term for a new hybrid business model that meets the IRS’s definition of a charity, but operates like a for-profit corporation. [… Peoria] has put together support for L3C legislation that includes four state legislators, local businesses, and a handful of bank presidents. “Their goal,” Licata says, “is to get their paper back on track.”

So it sounds like the first step is to get legislation passed in Illinois that allows for these L3C operations. Then they have to raise the money to buy the paper off of GateHouse, which means they have to convince GateHouse to sell. It’s a long row to hoe, but well worth the effort. Especially since I heard last night that the Journal Star only has eight reporters left to cover the 22 counties in their readership. Something needs to change.

Go for it, Jennifer!

City Council, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan

LDC continues to go unenforced by Council

15 Comments

Tuesday night, the Peoria City Council decided twice not to enforce the Land Development Code (LDC). They made decisions that weren’t just minor variations to the LDC, but decisions that were a fundamental affront to the very intent of the LDC. In fact, they showed an ignorance of and contempt for the intent of the LDC. They have evidently never read the LDC nor the Heart of Peoria Plan on which it was based.

The two items on the Council’s agenda were:

  • New Taco Bell. The Taco Bell restaurant at 1811 N. Knoxville is going to be rebuilt. The developer is going to tear down the building and put up a new one. This would be the perfect opportunity to bring the property into compliance with the code. Yet Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken moved to approve the developer’s request to comply with none of the LDC — to be completely non-conforming. Why? Because he’s reportedly spending $1.8 million and because she thinks there are “problems” with the LDC. That latter reason is the latest rage, don’t you know. Just declare something “broken” or “a problem” (like the Historic Preservation Ordinance, for instance) and then you can completely disregard it until it’s “fixed.” What does Van Auken think is wrong with the code? Wait till you hear.

    The code calls for buildings to be built close to the street — preferably right up to the sidewalk — so that they’re more pedestrian friendly and so that they’re pushed further away from the residential neighborhoods that are behind the businesses, among other reasons. When the code was enacted, buildings that didn’t conform to the code (like Taco Bell) were grandfathered in. They could even make minor additions and renovations without having to bring the building into compliance in an attempt to be “business friendly.” But if they were to make major renovations — like tearing down and reconstructing the building — then they would have to bring it into compliance. Makes sense, right? They’re rebuilding the thing anyway, why not build it in compliance with the code? No doubt the code would have been roundly criticized if it required a building to be torn down and rebuilt (i.e., brought into compliance) whenever the owner wanted to make any minor change.

    Yet Barbara Van Auken turned that reasoning on its head Tuesday night. She said the code was unfair to require major renovations to trigger full compliance, but not minor renovations. It rewards those who slap up shoddy additions, but penalizes those who want to invest $1.8 million to put up a “state-of-the-art Taco Bell,” she explained. That wasn’t her intent when she voted to enact the LDC, she said.

    Thus, she voted to approve a brand new building construction that completely defies the LDC, not just in siting, but also the buffering from the neighborhood. Under the LDC, a masonry garden wall would have been required as a buffer. The Council said a repaired wooden fence was sufficient.

  • Expanded pet clinic. Demanes Animal Hospital at the corner of Wisconsin and Forrest Hill has bought up four properties around it and wants to expand. They’re not tearing down their building, but instead adding on to it. However, they want to site the addition in such a way that it doesn’t conform with its current zoning, called CN (neighborhood commercial). The CN district requires that the building addition come right up to the sidewalk and that parking be put in the rear of the building. Where the existing building does not front the sidewalk, a street wall that can be as short as 3 feet tall would need to be built to establish the street edge and provide buffering.

    Instead of asking for a variance from these requirements, the decision was made to do a complete end-run around the requirements by asking for the property to be rezoned CG (general commercial). There is no legal justification for rezoning this property CG, as I outlined in my letter to the Zoning Commission, which I forwarded to Third District Councilman Bob Manning as well.

    You see, when you ask for a zoning change, the Zoning Commission and Council need to consider that request apart from the current use or current plans. Why? Because once the zoning is changed, it applies not just to the current owner, but any future owners. If Mr. Demanes were to decide to move his practice, or if (God-forbid) he got hit by a bus and the clinic needed to close, the next property owner could use that property for any permitted use under CG zoning, which includes such neighborhood-friendly uses as a pawn shop, oil and lube shop, and car wash. The zoning designation requested is the most intense land use designation available under the LDC. This is clearly inappropriate in a densely-populated residential neighborhood. It’s also completely contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

    But the appropriateness of the zoning proper was never discussed. Instead, Mr. Manning tore a page form Ms. Van Auken’s playbook and criticized the CN requirements, saying they weren’t appropriate for this part of his district. They may be okay for Main Street (in the second district), but they’re not “one size fits all,” he said. So the Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has proven over the past 50 years to deteriorate the third district. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that the citizens found so undesirable that they wanted to change the zoning code. The Council decided to continue a pattern of development that has been proven to destabilize neighborhoods, not revitalize them.

The Council decided to repudiate the Land Development Code. They apparently think change will come by doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. These aren’t isolated incidents, nor are they minor variances. Beginning with St. Ann’s right after the LDC was adopted, right up to the actions Tuesday night, the Council has consistently undercut the Land Development Code at every turn.

The Heart of Peoria Plan was adopted “in principle” in 2002, but it has yet to be adopted in practice, despite having been codified in the LDC.

Museum Block, Peoria County

County re-crunches museum numbers

25 Comments

Earlier this month, Peoria County administrators crunched the pro forma numbers submitted by the Museum Collaboration Group and found that it was a money-losing proposition. The museum folks objected to that analysis, saying it wasn’t accurate. They got together with the County and re-crunched the numbers, and now the County shows the museum will make a tidy profit.

Erik Bush, the County’s Chief Financial Officer explains what changed:

The first analysis actually showed a dire projection. When discussing the revenues with PRM staff, it became clear that in developing their background materials, PRM had established discounts on their revenue projections, from which I assumed as 100% projections. In reality, these numbers were in some cases 70% of their true projections. In tum, I was discounting discounted figures. A line by line narrative of these changes may be found at the end of this memorandum.

I asked PRM to provide me with the 100% revenue estimates and proceeded to run the second iteration.

The results are summarized as follows:

a. Based on the PRM’s assumptions, their projections could be off up to 9% and still operate in the black over a 20-year period.

b. In using their 100% revenue projections it appears revenues annually meet or exceed 100% of expense projections. The margin of actual to budget has historically been 1-2%; therefore, I find a 9% cushion to a structural deficit reasonable.

c. A key item missing from their pro-forma is the cost of future capital investment. A common benchmark for capital investment is 10%. Based on an expected expense base of slightly more than $4 million, it can be reasonably expected the museum is not showing close to $400,000 in potential annual future costs to properly maintain its assets. This figure is a benchmark and can be driven by annual needs.

d. In the 100% scenario, roughly $100k of the endowment will be necessary to cover the cost of capital investment and break even annually. In the 95% scenario, an endowment ofroughly eight million dollars would be needed to generate the necessary interest (assuming 4% annual return, compounded monthly) to cover the annual cost of capital investment, combined with the projected excess of revenues over expenditures.

The changes are all well-argued, but I still have a problem with a couple of key assumptions:

  • Gallery admissions still based on projected 240,000 visitors per year. On their pro forma, the museum changed some parameters: they raised the average ticket price from $5.25 to $7.50, and they assumed 40% of the 240,000 visitors to the museum would buy a gallery admission, up from 33%. Those changes raised their projected revenue for gallery admissions from $420,000 to $718,000. However, if we use a more realistic estimate of 180,000 visitors per year, the revenue would be $540,000 — $178,000 less than the county/museum projection.

  • Planetarium tickets and attendance projected to go up. I’m stumped as to how the museum folks think they’re going to raise the admission price for the planetarium from $1.50 to $4.00 per student, yet end up having more students (19,000 vs. 16,000) visiting the planetarium, especially with schools in as bad of financial shape as they are these days. Nowhere do they explain how they came up with their number of students or how their number compares with historical attendance numbers. In my opinion, they have to assume at the very least that the number of students won’t increase. So take 16,000 students times $4 and you get $64,000, $12,000 less than the county/museum projection.

So, that’s a total difference of $190,000 from the proposed pro-forma, which would bring their projected revenues down to $4,298,000. That would still cover their projected expenses, but would only give them about a 4% cushion instead of 9%. Also, it would mean they’d have to use roughly $270,000 of their endowment for capital investment instead of $100,000. I don’t know how big of an endowment that would require, but to get $303,750 interest earned takes $6,750,000 of investable funds according to the previous pro-forma analysis available at the county’s website. Do they have that much in their endowment?

Here’s the other thing. The money raised by a county sales tax would have to go toward capital purchases, according to the statute:

For the purposes of this Section, “public facilities purposes” includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition, development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, financing, architectural planning, and installation of capital facilities consisting of buildings, structures, and durable equipment and for the acquisition and improvement of real property and interest in real property required, or expected to be required, in connection with the public facilities, for use by the county for the furnishing of governmental services to its citizens, including but not limited to museums and nursing homes.

If the museum doesn’t meet their revenue projections, I think it’s logical to expect them to scrap the capital investment fund, especially since they didn’t have it in their pro forma in the first place. Without infusions of capital, the place will get out of date pretty fast, and then you know what will happen? They’ll be back asking the taxpayers for more county tax money under this statute for “durable equipment” and “improvement[s].” And then the taxpayers will really be over a barrel because the project at that point will be “too big to fail,” if you know what I mean.

I still believe that a more compact, urban design would be significantly less expensive to build while still being an attractive civic building, plus it would free up the rest of the block (outside of Caterpillar’s visitor center, of course) for private development (retail, residential components), which will bring in property and sales tax dollars to the city and county. Plus, it would be what the public said they wanted on that block, and what professional city planners over the past several decades have said is needed on that block. Why is this option not being pursued?

County board member Merle Widmer has written extensively on the topic of the museum. I encourage everyone who’s interested in this topic to take a look at his blog, Peoria Watch.

The county votes tonight (County Board Room 403, 6:00 p.m.) on whether to put a sales tax referendum on the April ballot. No other counties of which I’m aware are planning similar measures to support this “regional” museum.

Peoria Public Schools

Mayoral candidate opposes high school closing

56 Comments

Parents and teachers gathered at Godfather’s Pizza again Sunday night to further discuss ways to keep Central and Woodruff high schools from being closed. General Parker, candidate for Mayor of Peoria, assured those in attendance that he will “stand behind [them] all the way”:

[flashvideo filename=https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Video/WHS-Protest-01252009.flv /]

Parker distributed copies of a summary report from the House Appropriations Committee on the proposed stimulus package known officially as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. The summary stated that a large amount of funding will be going toward education:

Education for the 21st Century: To enable more children to learn in 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries to help our kids compete with any worker in the world, this package provides:

  • $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion).
  • $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.

Parker emphasized that last bullet point, implying the closing of a high school would qualify as a “[cutback] to key services.” Thus, he encouraged everyone to write their senators and congressmen asking them to pass the stimulus bill, and then ask their school board representatives to pursue some of that stimulus money to help them through these tough economic times instead of closing schools.

Parker also criticized city employees — especially [acknowledged that many city employees, including] our “most highly paid city workers,” such as police officers and firefighters — who don’t live in Peoria. By living outside the city, the school district loses revenue that would come from their property tax dollars, he said. [Parker states in the comments section of this post that another quote from last night better summarizes his feelings about this: “We need to make District 150 the best school district in the area to make the firefighters and police want to move back into the district.”]

Others who spoke at the meeting questioned whether the school district’s plan to redraw attendance area boundary lines is legal. In the state’s school code, there is a section (105 ILCS 5/10?21.3) also known as the Armstrong Act. It says the school board has the duty:

To establish one or more attendance units within the district. As soon as practicable, and from time to time thereafter, the board shall change or revise existing units or create new units in a manner which will take into consideration the prevention of segregation [emphasis added] and the elimination of separation of children in public schools because of color, race or nationality. All records pertaining to the creation, alteration or revision of attendance units shall be open to the public.

The argument is that Peoria’s schools would become more segregated if Hines and Von Steuben students are sent to Richwoods, as is currently proposed, and that is illegal under the school code. A legal opinion on the matter is being sought.

Several people opposed to the school closings are also getting together to go over (1) Treasurer Guy Cahill’s deficit projections to verify their accuracy, and (2) the district’s budget to see what other cuts could be made instead of closing a high school.

Chamber of Commerce, Peoria Public Schools

Chamber supports D150 “efforts to make tough decisions”

35 Comments

Here’s a curious press release I received today:

Chamber Supports District 150’s Difficult Decisions

Peoria (January 23, 3009) –District 150 has some difficult decisions ahead due to significant budget deficit predictions. The Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce supports the district’s efforts to make those tough changes for the future of our educational system.

Members of the school board and the Chamber board met this morning at the Heartland Partnership office to discuss the status of District 150. Superintendant [sic] Ken Hinton said the district ended the 2007-2008 school year last July with a very small surplus (for the first time in nine years) of $300,000 on a budget of $140+ million.

They approved a balanced budget that same July for the 2008-2009 school year but almost overnight, the economic downturn set in and now there is a projected $9 million budget deficit for the 2010 school year due to a variety of funding changes.

Hinton acknowledges that some very tough choices will have to be made including whether to close or merge schools. While that is not a popular topic among many in the community, Chamber Board Chairperson Deb Ritschel says change is inevitable.

“We must focus on the long term effects this decision will have and the overall big picture.” Ritschel went on to say “Many people are emotional about the thought of closing or merging schools, but we have also [sic] look at the realities and focus on the business perspective of this issue which means dealing with capacity issues and matching revenues and expenses.” The goal, Ritschel noted, is to balance the business side of things while continuing focus on student achievement.

The Chamber Board was asked to help by getting community leaders to be a voice of this effort in hopes of changing the perception of the public schools in Peoria. Ritschel responded saying “The Chamber will support the district as it positions itself to ensure children today and children in the future have a stable school system providing a quality education.”

This raises a number of questions, so I’ll just start rattling them off: Which school board members met with the Chamber of Commerce? Was the Open Meetings Act followed (i.e., was the meeting properly noticed)? Who initiated the meeting, District 150 or the Chamber? Why?

And what is it with the tortured language of this press release? I’m having a hard time figuring out exactly what they’re trying to communicate. Can anyone explain to me what these two statements mean?

  • “The Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce supports the district’s efforts to make those tough changes for the future of our educational system.” There’s bureaucratic doubletalk if I ever heard it. What they’re literally saying is this: They’re not supporting any specific decisions, but just generally supporting the district’s efforts to make “tough decisions.” Way to go out on a limb. For the record, I support elected bodies’ efforts to make tough decisions, too. In fact, I support everyone’s efforts to make tough decisions. I mean, we all face tough decisions at some point in our lives, and, darn it, I support your efforts to make them.

  • “The Chamber Board was asked to help by getting community leaders to be a voice of this effort in hopes of changing the perception of the public schools in Peoria.” What exactly do they want community leaders to do here? Inform the community that District 150 is trying to “balance the business side of things while continuing focus on student achievement”? (I think we sort of expect that out of District 150; I mean, that is their job, is it not?) Or “[support] the district’s efforts to make those tough changes”? (See the previous bullet point.)

More questions: How many of these Chamber Board members have children who are attending District 150 schools? How many of these Chamber Board members currently operate a business that “match[es] revenues and expenses” (i.e., has a balanced budget)? (Hint: we know one who doesn’t.)

Perhaps the biggest question is, shouldn’t the district be more interested in getting the parents’ support than the Chamber’s?

Peoria Civic Center

Peoria Civic Center cuts jobs, benefits

6 Comments

The following announcement was made by the Peoria Civic Center yesterday:

At the direction of the Peoria Civic Center Authority, I am attaching a recent memo regarding the adjustments that SMG management is making for the rest of the seven months of our fiscal year.

We felt it would be prudent moving forward to budget very conservatively due to a very uncertain immediate future. While we are not far off budget through December, 2008, we do not currently see a clear line of sight to August 31, 2009 as compared to our budget, created in May 2008.

Our goals are to preserve cash flow as well as monitor revenues and expenditures very closely in times that could very well see a downturn of activity.

The Peoria Civic Center Authority and SMG and Centerplate take our stewardship of the Peoria Civic Center and all its assets very seriously. Our hope is that we will be able to improve upon our conservative budget estimates in the months to come.

Councilman Manning may be able to answer questions you have or please don’t hesitate to call others or myself.

Thank you,

Debbie [Ritschel]

Here’s the text of the memo:

Fiscal 2009 Budget Cuts Outlook
January 2009

As we have been discussing for several months at the PCCA meetings, in the current economic uncertainty it is prudent to be conservative in projections of revenues and work toward significant budget cuts to balance a probable loss of revenues.

After the first four months of our fiscal year, we are between $150,000 and $200,000 behind budget. While we have said that this is not unusual for this early in the fiscal year, the current softening of touring concert ticket sales and fewer corporate meetings will make the recovery of these dollars more difficult. We therefore are making fiscal assumptions that our year end revenues beyond expenses will not meet the $109,000 loss that was budgeted. Trying to quantify what that year end number will be is far more difficult this year with so many uncertainties in the national marketplace which affects our local consumer confidence. It is this consumer confidence that encourages people to buy tickets to so many of events or allows show promoters to book shows of all types at PCC.

The SMG staff in communication with SMG Corporate and Finance Committee members has initiated the following budget adjustments totaling about $300,000-$350,000 in expenditure reductions by August 2009:

Executive pay reductions
Elimination of five full time positions
Hiring freeze for positions vacated by attrition
401 K match temporarily suspended
Travel and other regular department line items cut
Favorable business and health insurance renewals

The Capital Committee has agreed to freeze all further capital expenditures unless it meets a life safety or emergency repair threshold. This will result in an additional $300,000 positive cash flow. Combined with the above expenditure reductions, the improvement to cash flow will be $600,000-$650,000.

We are encouraged by the staff attitude of finding ways to economize and increase sales. We have a talented group of dedicated professionals who are ready to meet the economic challenge head on. We will continue to keep the Commission informed on our progress.

Peoria Journal Star

The decline and fall of the Journal Star

22 Comments

My wife commented this morning that the Journal Star has cut the size of its paper. Sections that used to have six pages (e.g., Taste, Business) are now down to four. The Cue section has shrunk from ten pages to eight.

Then I turn on the Markley & Luciano show on 1470 WMBD and hear that they’re also cutting staff. Luciano called it “Bloody Thursday.” While not mentioned in the Journal Star article about the layoffs, Phil said five employees in the newsroom were given pink slips, as well as five or six non-newsroom employees.

This is bad news for Peoria. Fewer reporters means fewer stories get covered, fewer leads are followed, and the watchdog capability of the fourth estate is reduced. It also means that more people are going to cancel their subscriptions, which will undoubtedly result in further cost-cutting. The future looks dismal for the largest downstate Illinois newspaper.

No word yet on which reporters were canned. Maybe one of the remaining reporters will investigate that for a future article.

Amtrak, Ray LaHood

LaHood adopts language of sustainability

9 Comments

Restoring passenger rail service to Peoria is “cost prohibitive” and “impractical,” according to U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood.

“It’s going to take an enormous amount of money,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing that previous attempts to provide passenger rail to the area failed largely because of an inability to offer a more “efficient” way to travel to Chicago. “If you cannot get people into Chicago on a train quicker than by driving, it’s impractical to think people (will travel on a train).”

LaHood, R-Peoria, said if local leaders want to enhance Peoria’s passenger rail options, they should look at supporting existing Amtrak stations in Normal and Galesburg.

“Those of us in Peoria who wanted to take advantage of that will want to promote bus service (to either Bloomington/Normal or Galesburg),” said LaHood, whose congressional position allows him to facilitate discussions on regional transportation priorities and seek federal funding for projects.

–Peoria Journal Star, May 17, 2007

LaHood also described himelf as a strong supporter of Amtrak, the nation’s intercity passenger rail system, and called legislation passed by Congress last year authorizing $13 billion over five years to Amtrak “a very good bill.”

I see. LaHood is for Amtrak in smaller metropolitan statistical areas like Galesburg and Bloomington, but for Peoria — the fourth-largest MSA in Illinois — the bus will do.

At his confirmation hearing, LaHood spoke the lingo of sustainability and livability, of the need to build new infrastructure and the importance of Amtrak, “the lifeblood of many, many communities around the country,” he was quoted as saying in the New York Times. It’s hard to square this rhetoric with LaHood’s comments from a year and a half ago. Denying intercity rail to such a large population so that their only options are to drive or take the bus is not sustainable thinking. Claiming that bringing Amtrak to Peoria is too expensive without even waiting for a feasibility study to be completed is prejudicial.

So how are we to explain LaHood’s testimony? Is he changing his mind, or just adopting language he doesn’t fully understand/believe because it’s what the senators want to hear?

General News

Koehler, Gordon town meeting outside their districts

12 Comments

From Peoria County GOP Chairman Rudy Lewis:

Koehler and Gordon so out of touch they don’t even know where their districts are located

Sen. Koehler leads Jehan Gordon off on the wrong foot as she begins her term

(PEORIA) State Representative Jehan Gordon may be getting off on the wrong foot by holding a town hall meeting with State Senator Dave Koehler outside of both of their districts.

“How can you accurately represent citizens if you invite people to a town hall meeting to voice their opinions but that location is outside of your district?” said Peoria County GOP chairman Rudy Lewis. “I wonder if Koehler and Gordon are just taking people on the South Side, the East Bluff, West Bluff and West Peoria for granted by holding their town hall outside their own districts. In any case spending tax dollars to invite people to a town hall meeting outside of their districts is a slap in the face of those they are paid to represent.”

“Imagine a U.S. Senator from Illinois holding a town hall meeting in Indiana or Missouri,” furthered Lewis. “It defies logic.”

“If these two public officials care not where they hold their town hall meeting, it calls into question their judgment when voting to spend billions of state tax dollars,” concluded Lewis.

Gordon and Koehler recently announced they would be holding a Town Hall Meeting on January 22nd at the Lakeview Branch Library (1137 W. Lake Ave., Peoria). However, the Lakeview Branch Library is not located in either Gordon or Koehler’s legislative districts. The Library is located in the 37th Senate District and the 73rd legislative districts, represented by Sen. Dale Risinger and Rep. David Leitch.

Chairman Lewis confirmed that the Lakeview Branch Library is located in the 73rd legislative district (37th Senate district) and not the 92nd legislative district (46th Senate District) with both the Illinois State Board of Elections and the City of Peoria Election Commission.

For their part, Risinger and Leitch hold a series of more than 10 town hall meetings each summer throughout the four counties in the 73rd District—but each one is inside the district they both represent.

2009 Campaign, Peoria Public Schools

News release: Petelle running for school board

5 Comments

From a news release:

Petelle Announces for District 150 School Board

Peoria – Laura Petelle formally announced her candidacy for the District 3 seat on the District 150 School Board today.

“As a professor at Illinois Central College, I get District 150 students in my classroom all the time,” Petelle said. “We have great students. They deserve a great school district. District 150 should be a first choice, not a last resort.”

Laura Petelle, 30, works as an attorney in private practice in Peoria and as an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Illinois Central College, teaching classes including philosophy and ethics.

“The school board term is five years. My baby will start kindergarten in five years. I’m very motivated to improve the District in that time,” Petelle said.

Petelle graduated magna cum laude from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana (BA, 2000); she then went to Duke University in North Carolina where she earned a law degree (JD, 2004) and a Masters in Theological Studies (MTS, 2004). She is a member of the Junior League of Peoria, where she volunteers on the Peoria PlayHouse Children’s Museum committee. Petelle serves on the community board of the University of Illinois Extension – Peoria County. She is married to Garth Madison, a litigator with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP; they are expecting their first child in late May. Petelle and Madison are members of the Biltmore Heights Neighborhood Association and of St. Philomena’s.

The District 3 seat is currently held by Mary Spangler, who will not be running. District 3 encompasses most of the city of Peoria north of Forest Hill Avenue. The election will be April 7, 2009.

Petelle also writes a local blog under the name Eyebrows McGee.