All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
2008 Campaign

More endorsements for Darin LaHood

4 Comments

There was a press conference yesterday at which several city leaders endorsed Darin LaHood for State’s Attorney:

Mayor Jim Ardis and At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg both spoke at a news conference in City Council chambers supporting LaHood. Councilmen Bob Manning and George Jacob were present. Councilmen Jim Montelongo, Patrick Nichting, Ryan Spain and Eric Turner have indicated their support….

Other supporters at the news conference included Jim McConoughey, representing the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, and several police officers.

Peoria Public Schools

D150: Where does all the money go?

44 Comments

This is the first year we’ve put our kids in District 150. Before this year, my oldest daughter had attended a private school. Private schools, of course, don’t get any public money. Here’s how much public money goes to District 150, shown both in aggregate and per pupil:

Instructional Expenditure Per Pupil*: $6,297
Operating Expenditure Per Pupil*: $11,521
Local Property Tax Revenue*: $65,921,368
Other Local/State/Federal Revenue*: $84,928,611

One would think with that much revenue and per-pupil expenditures, all the schools’ needs would be more than met. Not so. First, we had to pay an additional fee for book rental. For our two school-age children, that came to $100. Then there have been the fundraisers — lots of fundraisers — more fundraisers than we ever had at a private school with no public funding and considerably less per-pupil (tuition) costs:

School fundraising requests received
within first two months of school year:		 4†
PTO fundraising requests received
within first two months of school year:		 3‡
Charitable fundraising requests received
within first two months of school year:		 2
TOTAL: 9

Note that this is just the fundraising requests received in the first two months of the school year. Who knows how many more are on their way. I don’t begrudge the charitable fundraisers, but include them in the chart merely to show the totality of how many requests for funds bombard parents of District 150 students — parents who, like all taxpayers in District 150, are already spending an enormous amount of money in property taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes to support public education.

Lest you think I’m being petty here, take a look at those numbers again. Totaling the per pupil instructional and operating expenditures per pupil, that comes to $17,818… per pupil. High school tuition at Peoria Christian School is only $4,932 per year. According to Peoria Notre Dame’s website, their “projected cost for educating a student for 2008 – 2009 is over $7,000.” That $7,000+ is paid for by a combination of tuition, subsidies, fundraisers, and some miscellaneous revenue sources.

Meanwhile, at District 150, they receive nearly $18,000 per student in public money. So why the need for additional private funds in the form of so many fundraisers? My question is basically this: Where does all the money go?

__________

*Source: Interactive Illinois Report Card, 2005-06 Fiscal Year

†Magazine subscriptions for computers; General Mills Boxtops for cash; recycling of aluminum cans for cash; Usborne Books’ “Reach for the Stars” for school & classroom library books.

‡Spirit Wear for cash; Bergner’s Community Day for cash; Butter Braids frozen pastry/cookie dough for cash. Cash used for Accelerated Reader program, subscription to Time Magazine for Kids, and other programs.

City of Peoria, Form-Based Code, HOPC

Heart of Peoria Commission votes against temporary LDC changes

4 Comments

The city’s Planning and Growth Department is spearheading an effort to review the portion of the Land Development Code (LDC) that deals with form-based code districts “to determine if all the regulations are performing as anticipated and to ensure compatible development which meets the purpose statements of the code.” Toward that end, they have done two things:

  1. Established an LDC Review Committee. The LDC Committee is comprised of two representatives from the Heart of Peoria Commission, Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. I’m one of the two representatives from HOPC. So far, we’ve had two meetings. No decisions have been made yet, but we’ve discussed street wall and parking setback requirements and worked on crafting definitions for “change of use” and “expansion of use.”

  2. Requested the City Council temporarily amend the LDC while the LDC Review Committee completes its work. This is on Tuesday’s agenda. Basically, they want to make it easier for projects in a form district to get an exception from the regulations. Currently, any exceptions to the regulations must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA’s decision is final; any appeals have to go through circuit court. Planning and Growth is requesting instead that any exceptions be handled as a special use request; that would require the City Council’s approval. Again, this request is just for a six-month period — long enough for the committee to complete its work.

During the Heart of Peoria Commission meeting Friday morning (which wasn’t attended by any media, incidentally), that second point was one of the topics of discussion.

Some commissioners felt the temporary LDC change was a good idea. They argued, like Planning and Growth, that the LDC Review Committee’s recommendations “could include rewriting of certain regulations or removal of them after a determination that they may be too extensive.” Hence, exceptions during this time should be able to be made legislatively (through the council) rather than judicially (through the ZBA). The applicant would still have to make their case either way; it would only change which body has the final say.

Others, like me, were skeptical. I didn’t hear a compelling reason why this change was necessary. First of all, there don’t appear to be a rash of requests before the ZBA (in fact, their last regular meeting was cancelled because they didn’t have a single case). Secondly, the issues that are being reviewed by the committee are limited in scope, so there’s no need to change the exceptions procedure for all form district regulations. Others pointed out that exceptions made under this proposed temporary change could set a bad precedent.

The Heart of Peoria Commission was split on the issue. A motion in favor of the temporary change failed 3-4. That was followed by a motion to make no changes to the exception process while the commission completes its work; that motion passed 4-3.

City Council, City of Peoria, Illinois American Water

Water company buyout on agenda for Tuesday

12 Comments

As my letter from Illinois American Water indicated, the council will be taking up the matter of whether to buy the water company at their Oct. 28 meeting.

Included in the council communication are (1) the March 1, 2005, letter of appraisal that set the value/purchase price of the Illinois American Water Peoria District at $220,000,000, and (2) the City’s Water Company Acquisition Financial Analysis. The financial analysis estimated that 2006 revenues would have been $29,360,000, based on actual revenue information acquired through the due-diligence process at that time. It also estimated that an operations contract to manage the water company would cost about $11,000,000 in 2006, increasing 3% each subsequent year.

The analysis showed that the water company would pay for itself — i.e., taxes would not have to be raised to cover the debt service — and water rate increases would only be 3% per year. Under this scenario, sufficient funds would be set aside for capital improvements as well.

Of course, things have changed since 2005. A new analysis would have to be done, as well as a new appraisal. According to the council communication, due diligence could cost as much as $2 million, and the city could find that it now can’t afford the water company when all is said and done.

Mayor Ardis is quoted in the paper today as saying, “To me, it will be very difficult to justify spending $2 million to do due diligence on this under the current budget constraints…. I don’t think that is a priority.” Ardis voted against the buyout last time, also.

Also of interest in the Journal Star’s article are some preliminary numbers from Illinois American Water Company’s telephone poll:

Company spokeswoman Karen Cotton said the research shows that of 400 registered voters in Peoria who were polled, 55 percent strongly opposed a city-backed buyout of the waterworks, while 89 percent believe City Hall has higher priorities.

In a 2005 referendum, 82% of voters were opposed to the water company buyout. Depending on how many were “somewhat opposed,” we may find that opposition is softening.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council to look at raising their salary

15 Comments

The council next Tuesday will consider raising the salaries of the mayor, district and at-large council members, city clerk, and city treasurer positions. I can’t actually say “raising their own salaries,” because the new salaries won’t take effect until after the next election. In other words, if they pass this increase, they’ll only get the raise if they get reelected.

Here are the proposed salaries and car allowances:

Position Salary Car Allowance
Mayor $32,400 $475/month
District Councilman $14,000 $400/month
At-Large Councilman $14,000 $400/month

The City Clerk and City Treasurer salaries are the same, and would increase by 5% each year as follows:

Period Annual Salary
May 5, 2009 to May 4, 2010 $94,264.80
May 5, 2010 to May 4, 2011 $98,978.04
May 5, 2011 to May 4, 2012 $103,926.94
May 5, 2012 to May 4, 2013 $109,123.29

It’s funny — in a private company, salaries are something that is kept secret among the staff. And generally, most people don’t disclose their salary to others. But if you work for the city or some other public body, your salary is public knowledge. Everybody knows. Your co-workers, your friends, your neighbors. They all know what you make. That has to feel a bit awkward at times.

Kellar Branch

Report: Rail with trail feasible for Kellar Branch

25 Comments

The verdict is in: A side-by-side rail with trail on the Kellar Branch corridor is indeed feasible, and it only costs about 2/3 what the Peoria Park District estimated.

Earlier this year, the City of Peoria hired T. Y. Lin International to do the feasibility study. The full report is included in this week’s city council agenda.

Whereas the Peoria Park District said it would cost $29 million to build a trail next to the rail line, this civil and structural engineering firm estimated it would only cost $18 million. The Peoria Park District’s estimate can be viewed on the Friends of the Rock Island Trail website.

Why the divergence in cost estimates? A few reasons. For one thing, the park district lists as their very first assumption that “This option [side-by-side alignment] would require a fence separating the trail from the rail.” Not so, says T. Y. Lin: “this item is not required by the IDOT BDE [Bureau of Design and Environment] Manual, and is not necessary as identified in design recommendations prepared for the Federal Transit Administration with respect to rail-with-trail traffic operations.” That saves almost a million dollars right off the bat.

Also, T. Y. Lin assumed “that the proposed trail could cross the rail line where needed in order to minimize cut and fill improvements” — i.e., the entire trail needn’t be located on the same side of the tracks for the entire length as the park district suggested. That cut down on costs.

Another reason for the high figure from the park district was because, “It was determined that ‘trestle’ (platform) improvements identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report were excessive in some cases. Many segments of the proposed alignment could be adequately stabilized using less-intensive fill and retaining wall improvements than those identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report.” Further savings.

Even the $18 million figure could be lowered if the City and park district were to consider having a grade crossing across Knoxville instead of a pedestrian bridge. T. Y. Lin gives some recommendations on how to provide a safe grade crossing across Knoxville. A pedestrian bridge is estimated to cost about $1.9 million. No cost estimate was given for a grade crossing, but one can safely assume it would be less than a bridge.

Of course, the park district will still say that it’s too expensive. After all, $18 million is three times as much as $6 million — the estimated cost of ripping out the rail line and putting the trail on the former rail bed. That may be true, but that fails to recognize that ripping out the rail line is not an option. The Surface Transportation Board has already ruled on that. Thus, the options available to the park district are three: (1) build the $18 million side-by-side alignment, (2) build the less-expensive, but less-than-ideal “alternative alignment” which would include some on-street portions of the trail, or (3) consider a completely different route for connecting the Pimiteoui and Rock Island trails (e.g., extending the trail further north along the river, then extending west up through Detweiller Park).

Unfortunately, the park district and trail supporters will probably choose to continue their failed strategy of laying siege to the Kellar Branch rail line, dreaming that someday they’ll be able to eliminate this municipal asset.

2008 Campaign

LaHood says Callahan is not telling the truth

34 Comments

From a press release:

Congressman Ray LaHood calls on Colleen Callahan to pull TV ad

LaHood “irritated” Callahan is using his name to smear Schock in a “dishonest” ad

(SPRINGFIELD) In news conferences today in Peoria and Springfield, Congressman Ray LaHood expressed his irritation with Colleen Callahan’s latest TV ad using his name and that of his predecessor Bob Michel to attack Aaron Schock.

“The ad is dishonest and I am calling on Colleen to pull it,” said LaHood. “Honesty requires you to tell the truth and Colleen Callahan is not telling the truth in this ad.”

LaHood continued, “If people want to carry on the legacy of honesty and integrity in the 18th District then Aaron Schock is the person who should be elected. The Chicago Tribune said that today. Bob Michel has said it and I am saying right here and now.”

“Using my name to insult the integrity of Aaron Schock really irritates me and it’s just not true. Colleen’s ad cites the Chicago Tribune which today strongly endorsed Aaron Schock for Congress in a lengthy, well-reasoned editorial. Using Bob Michel’s and my names to say that Aaron is dishonest is a dishonest attack itself. To that I say, Colleen Callahan pull that ad.”

LaHood said the notary issue that Callahan’s ad focuses on is a non-issue, “It was a clerical error eight years ago and it didn’t take long for a Democrat State’s Attorney to find no merit to the allegation.”

LaHood said the campaign ought to focus on the issues confronting our country now instead of “October Surprises”. LaHood noted Schock has aired ads on the economy and jobs, agriculture, energy, the environment and saving the river, while Callahan has only aired ads attacking Aaron Schock. LaHood said, “Colleen’s ads are not only negative attacks, they are dishonest and this one needs to be pulled off the air.”

“I strongly support Aaron, his integrity is rock solid and he has been an outstanding State Representative who is fully prepared to step up to represent the district in Congress. I want everyone to be clear on this,” said LaHood.

LaHood said, “Colleen Callahan should talk about what she is going to do, where she stands on the issues and how she wants to represent the people instead of attacking her opponent all the time and not picturing him in a way that is just plain not factual.”

When asked about Callahan’s calls for candidates to release tax returns, LaHood said in his 14 years he has not released his tax returns and that Bob Michel did not release his tax returns during his 38 years in office. LaHood said the reason is that there already are tough financial disclosures required by candidates and Members of Congress and these disclosures are far more detailed than a tax return. “Unlike a tax return, these financial disclosures list all assets, income and debts,” said LaHood.

Schock noted he has had to file financial disclosures for the past eight years as a school board member and state representative. He urged his opponents to catch up to him by filing disclosures for the past eight years.

In response to Callahan saying Schock has not addressed the notary issue, Schock said, “While I keep hearing I have not addressed this, I have repeatedly responded in numerous media interviews saying the first time I was aware of the issue was in press coverage this summer, that I made a mistake eight years ago and that I’m sorry. With that said, all three of my opponent’s television ads are negative attacks, and the lion’s share of her news releases and news conferences have been nothing more than attacks on me. It is certainly fair then to ask why Colleen’s campaign has been so completely negative.”

Schock said that in keeping with his past campaigns, he would remain focused on the issues and not attack his opponent. “People do want a change from our broken political system and the politics of personal destruction. Regardless what others do, I will stay positive and provide voters with yet another example of what a campaign should be.”

LaHood concluded by saying, “This is desperation on the part of a candidate who knows she is way behind but it’s not going to fool the people.”

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 explains $6.3 million transfer

9 Comments

In a previous post, I questioned how District 150 was able to transfer $6.3 million from a debt service fund to operations and maintenance. I posed this question directly to the district and received this answer today:

The applicable section of the School Code is: 105 ILCS 5/10-22.44 (Transfer of Interest) which states in pertinent part: “To transfer the interest earned from any moneys of the district in the respective fund of the district that is most in need of such interest income, as determined by the board. This section does not apply to any interest earned which has been earmarked or restricted… This Section does not apply to any interest earned on any funds for purposes of [Retirement], [Tort Immunity], [Fire Prevention], and [Capital Improvements]. Interest earned on these exempted funds shall be used only for the purposes authorized for the respective exempted funds from which the interest earnings were derived.”

I also asked how the district is earning interest on money that is supposed to be repaying the district’s debt. “In other words,” I asked, “I’m assuming the only way interest could be earned is because there is excess money sitting in the debt service fund – and apparently a lot of it to earn $6.3 million in interest! Why is there so much excess in that account? And why isn’t it and any interest it has earned going to pay off bonds instead of being transferred to operations and maintenance?” They responded:

Taxes levied to repay debt, generally, are received during the months of June through December of a given year with bond (and interest) payments being made in December (of the then current year) and the following June (of the year in which the taxes were collected). The nearly six month lag in time between the receipt of taxes and the disbursement of the same (for bond principal and interest payments) yields income it having been invested. It is this “investment income”, accumulated and compounded over a period of many years, that was transferred; in other words, the interest was not earned in one year on “…excess money sitting in the debt service fund – and apparently a lot of it to earn $6.3 million in interest!” The last recorded transfer, and then only partial transfer, of interest income occurred in 1997. The interest income was not earmarked or restricted for the purposes of paying bonded indebtedness.

This has been quite (ahem) educational for me. I never knew the district only paid bond debt twice a year while receiving tax income continuously. Nor did I know that they could invest that money in the meantime and rack up millions of dollars in interest income over the years. Nor did I know that said interest income could be used for anything.

Nor did I know that 105 ILCS 5/10-22.44 superseded this other part of the school code (105 ILCS 5/1E-80):

All moneys on deposit in the debt service fund shall be held in trust in the debt service fund for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds, shall be applied solely for the payment of the principal of and sinking fund installment, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and shall not be used for any other purpose.

See, this is why I’m not a lawyer. When I, a mere layman, read a statement like, “All moneys on deposit in the debt service fund…,” I think that means all moneys on deposit in the debt service fund. If I were a lawyer, though, I would know that it doesn’t really mean all moneys on deposit in the debt service fund. It means all moneys except interest earned on deposit in the debt service fund. I also thought that when two provisions of a code were inconsistent with each other that the more restrictive one applied. But that’s apparently not the case here.

The question I didn’t ask, but should have, was why they needed an extra $6.3 million in their operations and maintenance fund in the first place.