Good evening, readers. Here is tonight’s Peoria City Council agenda, along with live reaction from yours truly (remember to refresh your browser occasionally to see the most recent comments if you’re following along live):
All posts by C. J. Summers
D150 should know that there’s no such thing as a free lunch (UPDATED)
Here’s an informational sheet I received from District 150 on the first day of school:
A recent change in federal law allows Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee school districts with a high poverty population to offer free meals to all students in the approved school. To be eligible and receive reimbursements from the government, a school district must have 40% or more families participating in Federal poverty programs for each school that is approved for the Community Eligibility Option (CEO). CEO is a pilot program for the three states listed above, and once a school is approved to participate, their participation is guaranteed by the Government for at least four years.
That’s right. Because fewer than half of families in a particular school need free or reduced price school lunches, the federal government has developed a program that gives everyone in the school free breakfast and lunch. In District 150, this means 22 out of 28 schools are participating — every school except Richwoods, Lindbergh, Washington Gifted, Kellar, Northmoor, and Charter Oak. So now, the first 15 minutes of the day at Whittier is spent serving kids free breakfast.
Obviously, I have no problem with a program that provides free and reduced price lunches to children in need. But under this program, up to 60% of families who are not at all in need will get free meals. Why? According to a USDA press release, “By streamlining the eligibility and enrollment process, no additional application is required to provide much need nutrition assistance to children in need.” Here’s how another press release expresses it:
“Community eligibility is a great way for schools to cut through burdensome red tape for themselves and low-income families so that children in high-poverty areas have access to the nutrition they need to learn and thrive,” said Agriculture Under Secretary Kevin Concannon. “Schools will benefit from reduced paperwork, parents will not have to fill out duplicative forms, and children in need will get better access to healthy school meals.”
In other words, those in need no longer have to fill out an application form (which the government considers “burdensome red tape”), and the school doesn’t have to process them. But who’s paying for all this convenience? Ultimately, the school district:
Under this option, schools utilize preexisting data to determine the amount of reimbursement they can claim from USDA. The determination is primarily based on the percentage of households in that community who are already participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. Schools that utilize this option agree to provide meals to all children free of charge, and USDA reimburses them for the appropriate amount based on this preexisting data. Under this option, schools will still be responsible for paying the remaining difference between the Federal reimbursement amount and the total cost to operate the program. [emphasis added]
So, the federal government is only reimbursing school districts for those 40% or more students who are really in need. The up to 60% of other children that take advantage of the free breakfasts and lunches who are not in need will be paid for by the school district. This seems a high price to pay for eliminating an application form. On WCBU news this morning, it was reported that District 150 is facing a $2 million budget deficit this year.
UPDATE: I asked District 150 Comptroller/Treasurer David Kinney about the costs of this program to the district, and he had this to say:
Yes, we pay the difference [between the Federal reimbursement amount and the total cost to operate the program]. However, what is important is understanding what that “difference” is. With all formulas worked out, the feds will reimburse us 99.2% of the meals served. We are actually hopeful that we will be ahead with that formula for a couple of reasons. First we will be able to save a small amount in typical administrative costs. Second, we will NOT be in a situation with those eligible schools that we will be chasing down kids or families that haven’t paid for their lunches – which is the situation we have had in the past. What has often happened – and happens in many school districts, kids that are not “free” or “reduced” may spend their lunch money on something else and then charge their lunches – or parents didn’t have the money to give. When these charges accumulate, many school districts enact practices to try to collect those funds. For District 150, all those head aches will actually now go away. At a max of 8/10ths of one percent cost to implement this program, we project we will actually come out ahead.
We also think that with the ease of this program, we will serve more lunches and breakfasts to our kids, making for a better day for them.
He brings up another D150 policy that I find bizarre. One day my wife and I discovered that we owed D150 for milk our daughter had purchased on credit. We never gave her permission to buy milk, nor to have any kind of “credit” account. (We send an orange juice, which you can find at sites like https://orangina-na.com/, with her sack lunch, and would have given her milk money if she had asked for it — she never did.) But apparently at District 150, kids can put stuff on their parents’ tab without their parents’ knowledge. Then one day the parents get a surprise bill in the mail for it. It’s a strange economic system indeed that resolves collection problems by ceasing to charge for goods.
Business District project costs to double if amendment passes
A public hearing will be held at Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting on a proposed amendment to the downtown Hospitality Improvement Zone Business District Development Plan (or HIZ BDD Plan, for short). The amendment consists of these two changes:
- Adding Staybridge SuitesIn order to add property to the HIZ BDD Plan, the added property has to qualify as “blighted.” According to state ordinance a “blighted area” is an area
which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non?existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements
the definition of timesheet>, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. [65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-5]
According to the council communication [note: large PDF file], Staybridge Suites qualifies “due to the deterioration of site improvements which constitutes an economic underutilization of the area.”Staybridge Suites was built in 1999 for around $7.5 million. In twelve years, we’re supposed to believe that it’s now “blighted” due to “the deterioration of site improvements”? Well, maybe, if it was built by the same contractor that built Riverfront Village. Still, if this is “blighted,” then every building in the City of Peoria is blighted:
Looks like a real dump, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that the council communication does not provide any documentation to substantiate this supposed “deterioration” and “economic underutilization.” It simply makes the claim without any evidence to back it up.
- Doubling estimated business district project costsThis is perhaps the most curious part of the amendment. The amendment increases the total estimated business district project costs from $6 million to $12 million. They’ve also lengthened the list of things on which they can spend that money. Here’s a comparison between the original plan and the proposed amendment:
Original BDD Plan Amended BDD Plan (Proposed) The Business District costs are estimated at $6,000,000 and may include: - Buying and selling of land.
- Infrastructure improvements.
- Rehabilitation of existing property.
- Development costs associated with new taxable private development.
- Façade and streetscape improvements.
Business District project costs are estimated at $12,000,000 and may include the following, in accordance with the provisions of the Act: - Cost of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of a business district plan, and personnel and professional service costs.
- Property assembly costs.
- Site preparation costs.
- Costs of installation, repair, construction, reconstruction, extension or relocation of public streets, public utilities and other public site improvements within or without the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district for use in accordance with the business district plan.
- Costs of renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or remodeling of any existing buildings, improvements, and fixtures within the business district.
- Costs of installation or construction within the business district of buildings, structures, works, streets, improvements, equipment, utilities, or fixtures.
- Financing costs.
- Relocation costs
What is the meaning of all these additions? You know there’s a reason these changes are being made. If the original plan were sufficient, there would be no need for this amendment. Look closely at some of these changes.
Note in particular number 4 in the amended list: HIZ BDD funds can be used for improvements “within or without [emphasis added] the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district….” If I’m reading this correctly, it would appear that funds from the HIZ BDD could be used to prepare the new Big Al’s site, for instance, even though that site is not in the HIZ BDD, because moving Big Al’s is “essential” to a project in the business district. And check out number 8: “relocation costs.” Who do we know in the HIZ BDD that would be relocating? Number 7 should give us all pause: “financing costs.” I shudder to think what could be included under that item.
Bottom line, raising the total estimated project costs figure means that the City can borrow (i.e., issue bonds) up to that amount and use HIZ BDD tax revenues for repayment. But HIZ BDD revenue has already been promised toward the repayment of the proposed Wonderful Development $37 million bond issue (if/when that ever comes to fruition). Nowhere does the City show that it could afford this increase in project costs, given our outstanding commitments for that same pot of money.
Remember, if there isn’t enough revenue from the HIZ BDD tax and HIZ TIF revenues to make the payments on the Wonderful Development bonds, guess where they will get the money to repay those bonds? That’s right: the general fund. If you’ll recall, the City is planning to issue general obligation bonds for the Wonderful Development, which will be backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Peoria.
There is more to the expansion of the Hospitality Improvement Zone than meets the eye. The City Council and staff should disclose to the public why they want these changes and what they will mean to our financial situation so that the public hearing process can be as productive as possible.
Riverfront Village falling apart
In June 2010, the City Council voted to replace the steps up to the Riverfront Village platform because they were all rusted out. That was blamed on the salt used to melt ice on the steps in the winter, and the basic design of the steps which apparently had insufficient drainage. Now it’s the concrete platform itself that’s falling apart — literally:
Hard to blame this on ice-melt, since, to my knowledge, the City isn’t salting the underside of the platform in the winter. This week’s Issues Update gives some more detail:
A portion of concrete fell from the ceiling of the parking deck about two weeks ago onto a car causing minor damage to the vehicle. National Garages was contacted and advised staff of this incident. In response, staff decided to check the other areas of the garage and have determined there were sections of loose concrete that could potentially separate from the structure and could fall. Currently, staff is removing loose concrete to avoid future incidents. As these areas are exposed, we will engage a structural engineer to review the work. We will also be working to remove some of the rust from the steel and repaint. Sealing these areas with new concrete is not yet planned as we need to determine the full scope and find a contractor to perform this work. We will most likely need to bring this forward to City Council as the costs will exceed $10,000.
Riverfront Village is twelve years old. Twelve years old and already falling apart. This has to be an embarrassment to the contractor/sub-contractor responsible for building this platform. It should be, anyway. Hopefully the City will take the time to look up who did the work originally and at least make sure they don’t hire the same company to fix it.
Best-case scenario: the structural engineer finds that the whole structure is unsound and must be razed. No offense to the tax-paying businesses on the platform; I’d like to see them stay in business downtown. But the platform never should have been built, and the riverfront would be better off without it. There are plenty of places nearby for the restaurants to relocate . . . like the retail space promised on Water Street by the new museum. If you find your home having damage like this and need help with claims, talk to experts like LMR Public Adjusters and get help.
Writer’s Block
I haven’t had any interest in writing lately. My guess is that it’s just writer’s block, and will pass eventually.
What do you think of your property assessment?
According to Peoria County, the value of my house has gone up. But I have friends, relatives, and neighbors whose home values have gone down. According to Supervisor of Assessments Dave Ryan, the County is expecting the equalized assessed value of all property in the County to go down by 1.5%. He doesn’t have a firm figure because there will be many people who will contest their valuations in the next few months, and that will affect the final percentage.
Some people I’ve talked to — even those who have seen their home values rise — feel that the process has been fair and reasonable. Others think it’s ridiculous to think anyone’s home value has gone up given the weak economy and the decline of the housing market starting in late 2006 nationally.
What do you think?
Uplands supports 10 council districts
At the Uplands Residential Association meeting Thursday evening, residents voted to support establishing ten City Council districts to replace the current system of five district and five at-large representatives. Meeting attendees expressed several reasons smaller districts and the elimination of at-large representation would be better for the City. Smaller districts would:
- Be more manageable for council representatives. Instead of 23,000+ residents per district, there would be less than 12,000 residents per district.
- Provide more opportunity for minority representation. The current at-large/cumulative-voting system was established to increase minority representation, but has not accomplished that goal. Keeping the current system could end up reducing minority representation due to district expansion.
- Provide more representation for the older neighborhoods. Under the current at-large system, a disproportionate number of council members have come from North Peoria.
The Uplands also voted to support eight districts with two at-large members if a ten-district solution is unachievable.
In other business, The Uplands expressed concern that the Pi Beta Phi Sorority (a.k.a. “Pi Phi House”), 1004 N. Institute Pl., which is for sale, is being listed as a multi-family residence for up to 29 people, or possible commercial location. In checking with the Planning and Growth Department of the City, the property is zoned R-4 (single-family residential), with a grandfathered sorority use. Thus, the property can only be used for a sorority or a single-family home. Any other use would require rezoning. It was decided to send a letter to the realtor explaining these facts so it can be listed accurately.
Tomblin residency update
On Monday, the Supervisor of Assessments office was made aware that Tomblin has two properties in Peoria County — one in the City of Peoria and one in Dunlap — listed as owner-occupied. On Tuesday, adjustments were made to those properties. The Dunlap property (PIN 0815300023) is now listed as “Residential Non-Owner Occupied” for tax year 2011, and states under “Public Notes,” “Kent and Laura Tomblin live at 18-05-304-013 [1120 N. Maplewood] and is [sic] getting the owner occupied exemption on that parcel. Exemption removed from this parcel for 2011.” Similarly, on the Maplewood property (PIN 1805304013), it states under “Public Notes,” “08-15-300-012 is also owned by Kent Tomblin. That parcel was changed to Residential Non Owner Occupied for 2011. He lives at this parcel address and will receive the owner occupied exemption on this parcel for 2011.” Supervisor of Assessments Dave Ryan says that usually owner-occupancy is determined by whether the mailing address for the tax bill matches the property address. In this case, the property tax bill for each site is mailed to each respective address, leading to the confusion. He added that when mistakes like this are uncovered, the exemptions are corrected for future tax years, but no retroactive action is taken for the years it was incorrect — unless it was in the County’s favor, in which case they would reimburse the taxpayer for overcharges going back the last three years.
As far as the residency issue goes, Tomblin has legal cover, which is apparently sufficient for the City’s residency requirement. Tomblin doesn’t actually live at the Maplewood address, as the neighbors there will testify, but he has sufficient documentation to satisfy his superiors at City Hall. The County recognizes the house as owner occupied. The County, in addition to looking at whether the site and mailing addresses match, can also look at where the property owner is registered to vote. Tomblin is registered to vote at the Maplewood address. An inquiry made to Peoria City Manager Patrick Urich has so far gone unanswered, but according to other sources, the City’s stance is that they believe Tomblin lives at the Maplewood address.
So it appears that any management employee who wishes to skirt the City’s residency requirement can do so rather easily. It’s possible that they wouldn’t even have to go through the trouble of buying a house. One could simply rent a cheap apartment like those in apartments in columbia sc and claim it as one’s legal residence for tax and voting purposes, then actually live elsewhere in the tri-county area. It’s difficult at this point to understand why we have a residency requirement at all. If it’s not really important that a City management employee live in the City, then why not just get rid of that policy? Seriously, why put Tomblin in the position of having to fake his residency in the City if the City really doesn’t care in the first place? What’s the point?
On the other hand, if it is important that a City management employee live in the City, why don’t they enforce it? If they can’t because the wording is too weak or ambiguous, why not strengthen it?
A review of the renovated main library branch
The Peoria Public Library recently completed their renovation of the main branch on Monroe in downtown Peoria. The interior has been thoroughly modernized, so it no longer has that 1950s feel to it. But modern design is plain and unadorned, giving the library a rather sterile, utilitarian look. The new design has an open floor plan, which takes fewer librarians to oversee. That allowed some of the staff to be moved to the new north branch.
The entrance to the main branch has been moved closer to the parking lot, and the area of the old entrance has been turned into a cafe of sorts — although food and drink selections are limited to a couple of vending machines.
The book checkout area is now completely automated. Librarians don’t check you out anymore — you have to do it yourself. However, it’s a simple process. You scan your library card and put the books you wish to check out on a black pad, and the computer automatically puts the book on your account. You can choose to print out a slip reminding you of the due date.
My favorite part of the library is the local history and genealogy section. This has been moved from the main floor to the first basement — an area that until the renovation was not open to the public. Initially, the local history section had different hours than the rest of the library, but that has been changed. The section is now open the same hours as the rest of the main branch. After doing a quick survey of the materials, it appears that all of the local historical information is still there, but better organized. However, I did not see any “new” materials on the shelves — that is, materials that used to be kept in the back room accessible only to library staff, but now made available directly to the public. The microfilm has gotten a lot of new boxes and labels. The old, hand-crank microfilm readers have been replaced by more modern readers that all have printing capability (10 cents a page). There is even one microfilm reader (available to library staff only) that can scan a microfilm image to digital format. Best of all, the local history staff is still there, so patrons still get the benefit of their institutional memory.
The renovated library gives patrons plenty of space to sit and read, and lots of table space for oversize or multiple books for those doing research. And, of course, there are lots of computers available for online research as well. The library subscribes to many databases, giving patrons access to many materials it would be too expensive to access individually.
Overall, the updates have made the library more modern and functionally efficient.икони на светци
Fire Chief receiving owner occupied exemption on two homes
Kent M. Tomblin is listed as the sole owner of 1120 N. Maplewood Ave. in Peoria (PIN #1805304013) and the joint owner with Laura L. Tomblin of 13104 N. Duggins Rd. in Dunlap (PIN #0815300023). Both homes are listed as “owner occupied,” giving the Chief a property tax exemption on both houses. Both the Recorder of Deeds office and the County Assessor office verified that, legally, a homeowner can only receive an owner-occupied exemption on one residence — that is, a homeowner in Peoria County can only have one primary residence. The County took the information on these two properties and said they would look into the matter to determine which residence is the primary one.
If the Dunlap residence is found to be primary, it would cause further problems for Mr. Tomblin since the Fire Chief is required to live in the City of Peoria according to City policy. When asked about whether the Chief is breaking the City’s residency requirement, City attorney Randy Ray said he would have to research it.