All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
Peoria Mayor, Peoria Public Schools

While Peoria waits for anonymous donors, other cities look at alternative Promise funding

Peoria isn’t the only city jumping on the Kalamazoo Promise bandwagon. The Kalamazoo Gazette reports that “there’s now a Ventura Promise in California, and talk of a Newton Promise in Iowa, a Peoria Promise in Illinois and a Promise-type program for Hammond, Ind.”

As you may remember, the money for the Kalamazoo Promise came from an anonymous group of private citizens. Mayor Ardis wants the “Peoria Promise” funded the same way, but so far there’s been no indication any anonymous donors have come forward. Other cities are considering different funding scenarios (emphasis mine below):

The Ventura Promise is a community-college scholarship program for lower-income families. Under the program, announced this month, the Ventura College Foundation will pay a year’s tuition for high school graduates and General Educational Development certificate holders from families with household incomes up to $50,000.

The version proposed by Hammond, Ind., Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. would be funded by casino revenues and limited to children of homeowners.

In Newton, Iowa, economic-development leaders are pushing for a scholarship program funded through a local sales tax that voters approved Tuesday. City leaders said the tax would not be used to create The Newton Promise this fiscal year but have not ruled out creating such a program down the road.

I personally think the Kalamazoo Promise is fantastic, and I’d love to see it work here in Peoria. However, as the Journal Star points out today, Peoria is being tapped for an awful lot of funding for other projects right now (e.g., museum, Ren Park, zoo, schools), so perhaps the timing is a bit off to ask for large philanthropic donations.

So, if the donations don’t come through, what should the city do? Options:

    1. Find alternative funding, like other communities
    2. Continue to wait for anonymous donors
    3. Speak of it no more and hope no one remembers

    I vote for #2. The last thing Peoria needs is more taxes — sales taxes in particular — so option #1 is out. But I don’t want to see the idea just be forgotten either. I think the idea is good enough that it’s worth keeping the challenge out there for a while, even if the chances of funding seem slim at present.

Heart of Peoria Plan, Peoria Public Schools

Speaking of the Heart of Peoria Plan . . .

4 Comments

What does the Heart of Peoria Plan have to say about our District 150 schools?  This:

Project Name: Neighborhood Schools.

Finding: Peoria has maintained an architectural legacy of attractive brick school buildings, well located in its inner city neighborhoods.

Discussion: This plan has little to say about the schools, beyond emphasizing their importance to the revitalization of neighborhoods. However, the issue of the schools came up again and again at the charrette. Peoria’s inner city schools are reported to be in much better shape than in many cities, with some particularly noteworthy successes such as the programs at Harrison School. At the charrette, however, a number of citizens brought up the possibility of closing and replacing the inner city schools–including, most pominently, the high school. At a time when many cities are re-discovering the importance of smaller scale neighborhood schools to healthy communities, Peoria has an opportunity to capitalize on a resource that fortunately hasn’t yet been lost as a result of the fashion of the 1960s for increased centralization.

Recommendation:

  • Encourage the continuation and expansion of programs to strengthen Peoria’s well-located historic schools, using available funds to renovate and enhance rather than consolidate or replace these schools.
  • As a priority, renovation should include restoring the glass in the windows.

I thought the line about increased centralization being “the fashion of the 1960s” was especially amusing in light of all the people who think tearing down old buildings is “progressive.”

Caterpillar, City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Museum Block

Cat blames HOPC for higher Museum Square costs

6 Comments

The Heart of Peoria Commission (HOPC) is on the agenda for Tuesday night. They are recommending approval of the proposed elevations of Museum Square. But included in their request is a copy of the HOPC’s meeting minutes, and they reveal something of Caterpillar’s mindset.

Putting Museum Square parking underground is expensive. As was reported back in February, it may add as much as $3 million to the cost. At that time, the Journal Star editorialized that, essentially, this extra expense was the HOPC’s fault because they didn’t want to see another surface parking lot downtown.

Now it’s Caterpillar’s turn to play the blame game.

Despite the fact that Cat got almost everything it wanted in the museum site plan (except the surface parking lot) even though it severely compromised the Heart of Peoria Plan, and despite the fact that this project is continuing to get support from the HOPC, commission minutes reveal that Caterpillar representative Mark Johnson (Project Manager for the Caterpillar Visitor Center) wanted this line included in the commission’s recommendation to the council on Tuesday:

“The Commission recognizes that the inclusion of the underground parking structure in the site plan has resulted in a substantial increase in infrastructure development cost and urges the Council to work with the developers to adopt a mutually acceptable financing plan.”

In other words, he wanted the Commission to take responsibility for the additional parking expense on Museum Square. Why? The minutes state:

Mr. Johnson said, “I urge the Commission to step up to their responsibility, as we developed this underground parking as a part of this plan in response to this Commission’s strong recommendation; and we have to find a way to pay for it.”

Au contraire, replied commissioner Beth Akeson:

Commissioner Akeson said she was sorry the Commission has been put in the position to make it appear they are the ones that forced the issue of underground parking, when in actuality the Commission was never brought into the conversation about what its recommendation would be.

(Emphasis mine.) That’s right. It wasn’t the HOPC that came up with the underground parking idea. They weren’t even consulted.

In fact, the need for any parking on that site is questionable. Even if it could be shown that parking is needed, the bulk of the cost is not simply to put it underground per se, but to put it below the site as it’s currently designed — i.e., with the boomerang-shaped buildings. Those building designs were not the HOPC’s either.

Mr. Johnson’s amendment was defeated, but expect this argument to surface again — on the very next agenda item.

Caterpillar and Lakeview want to amend the City of Peoria/Museum Block Redevelopment Agreement.  Among other things, they want to remove the $500,000 cap on TIF reimbursement.  I imagine this will be the source of some discussion, as it’s the only part of the amendment that “could result in additional money being paid over by the City to the Museum.”

I have an idea.  Instead of reducing the size of the museum by 15,000 square feet and trying to finagle more money from the city, why not make money and increase density by adding residential, restaurant, and retail components, like the Heart of Peoria Plan recommends?  You remember the Heart of Peoria Plan, right?  You know, the one the council adopted “in principle”?

Peoria Civic Center

As I was saying about the Civic Center….

3 Comments

Remember when I wondered whether the problem with the Peoria Civic Center could be the management? Well here’s a story about poor management and a little warning to any brides-to-be: don’t believe any Civic Center advertising you see in bridal magazines.

In the 2006 Central Illinois Wedding & Celebration Guide published by LimeLight Communications, Inc., the Peoria Civic Center placed this ad:

Now, what would you think if you saw this ad? Would you think that they were going to waive the rental fee if you booked your reception and catering at the Civic Center?

Think again.

Despite the plain language of the ad and the absence of any exclusion disclosures, the Civic Center recently refused to waive the rental fee for a bride-to-be who is (was) renting the Civic Center theater lobby. Supposedly, the lobby is excluded from this promotion. Too bad they didn’t say that in the ad.

In fact, elsewhere in the same magazine, there’s this listing under “Banquet, Event & Meeting Facilities”:

Notice the wording here. They list their three large venues, then say that meeting and banquet rooms are “also available” — “also” means “in addition to” — and to “see [their] ad on page 24,” which is the ad displayed above.

The Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act clearly spells out what is considered false advertising. Section 2(a)(9) says it’s a deceptive trade practice to “advertise[] goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” The Civic Center advertises free rental if you book your reception and catering there, but they apparently have never had any intention of waiving the rental fee in certain parts of their facility. Since they didn’t disclose those exclusions in their ad, it sure looks like deceptive advertising to me.

They should show some integrity and honor their ad. Since they won’t, they will lose an $8-10,000 wedding reception, settling for a $200 cancellation fee. Way to go, Civic Center. Keep driving the business away. You’ll always have our HRA taxes.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Could Park Board’s illegal act doom school building plans?

5 Comments

The Journal Star reported this morning that the Park Board violated the law by discussing, in closed session, plans to let District 150 use some of its park land to build a school.

What the article didn’t address were the possible consequences of the board’s illegal action. According to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, this opens up the park board to litigation in circuit court, and that court:

. . . having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.

Check out that last possibility: “declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.” It would be interesting to know what actions were taken at those meetings, wouldn’t it? I mean, if they decided to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district at that meeting in closed session, then that action could be subject to reversal.

Circuit court may again be the answer. The Open Meetings Act requires closed sessions to not only take minutes, but have an audio or video recording of the proceedings, and the circuit court can examine those as evidence.

But there’s a time limit of 60 days from the discovery of a violation for action to be taken. When those east bluff residents meet this afternoon at 1:15, they may want to consider their options in light of the park board’s violation.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Uncategorized

If you live close to a park or school, beware

1 Comment

I got to thinking about the park and school districts’ plan to site a school at the corner of Frye and Prospect. Their justification for this is that they need 15 acres to build a new school, and thus the current campuses aren’t large enough. They also see an intergovernmental agreement as a major boost for civic cooperation, and the Journal Star has already patted them on the back for it.

Now, if you recall the long-range plan for the school district, they want to tear down 11 schools and build five new ones. This proposed school at Frye and Prospect is only the first one of five. So my question is this:

Where are the other four schools going to be sited?

Since all the schools to be replaced are in the older part of town where there’s very little greenspace left, and since intergovernmental agreements are seen as such a positive thing, I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination that the other four schools will be sited exactly the same way.

Thus, if your property abuts a park in the older part of town — you might want to make some contingency plans now. You may pick up the paper one morning and discover your house is the next to go.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

State does not require 15 acres to build new schools

3 Comments

I listened to WMBD radio’s morning show today and they interviewed Ken Hinton on the school & park districts’ school-building plan. I don’t have a transcript of the interview, so I can’t swear to what exactly he said, but I came away from the interview believing the State of Illinois requires new schools be built on 15 acres of land.

Not that I don’t believe Mr. Hinton, but I was just curious where that statute was written, so I started doing some checking. I looked on the state’s website, at the Illinois School Code, and at building grant requirements. Nowhere could I find any reference to a minimum site requirement of 15 acres.

So I called the school district offices and spoke with Mr. Guy Cahill (Mr. Hinton was unavailable). He said that he hadn’t heard the interview, but that if Mr. Hinton said 15 acres was “required,” then he misspoke. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) recommends new K-8 schools be built on at least 15 acres (and new high schools on at least 50 acres), but there is no minimum requirement.

Mr. Cahill also referred me to the ISBE for more information on the reasoning behind their recommendations. I’m still waiting for a call back.

By the way, I’m in agreement with Bill Dennis of the Peoria Pundit on why this land-grab building plan is a bad idea. One item I would add to his list is that the problem with the school district is not its buildings. They make it sound like people will flock into Peoria to send their kids to a new school building or that student achievement will magically improve simply by virtue of building a new, “modern” structure.

And I couldn’t help but notice that the Journal Star already had an editorial written praising this plan on the very day details of the plan were disclosed to the public. Considering the Journal Star has never seen a park district proposal it didn’t like, I think they’ve become the park district’s de facto marketing department. They clearly knew about the park district’s plans ahead of time (or else that was the hastiest endorsement I’ve ever seen), yet I’ve seen no reports on it in the paper. Why not?

Kellar Branch

Kellar Branch Update: Western spur gets its first test

1 Comment

Carver Lumber finally received rail service again when Union Pacific dropped off three cars on the western spur and Central Illinois Railway delivered them to Carver’s loading dock on Thursday, March 16. Local blogger and train enthusiast David Jordan reported this event on the PeoriaRails Yahoo Group:

Central Illinois Railroad made its first revenue run today.

DRSX SW-9 #1207 pulled the three cars from Pioneer Jct. [where the western spur meets the Union Pacific line] and delivered them to Carver Lumber, restoring service to this customer for the first time in seven months, and becoming the first revenue freight train to operate on the former Union Pacific Pioneer Industrial Lead since the last boxcars were delivered to International Paper before closure in late 1995.

Boxcar BCOL 60384 is on spot by the unloading platform, centerbeam flat car TTZX 34700 was already unloaded by 4:00pm while the second boxcar, HS 3185, sits just inside the gate waiting to be spotted (still coupled to the TTZX car). A fourth car (TTZX 84700) is enroute . . . .

Central Illinois Railway (CIRY) never did provide service to Carver Lumber over the Kellar Branch as the city promised and CIRY’s contract stipulated. They attempted it once with insufficient equipment and ended up with a runaway train and a derailment. During the seven months they were without rail access, Carver Lumber had to ship their freight by truck, adding over $25,000 to their shipping costs.

You may remember that Carver Lumber reported this to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and asked the Board to stay their order allowing the city to remove the Kellar Branch tracks. Carver wanted the order stayed until they started receiving rail shipments again and could get assurance that service via the western spur would be comparable to the service they used to receive from Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) over the Kellar Branch.

Now that they’ve received their first shipment over the new spur, they will presumably be replying to the STB with their report on the adequacy of service they’re receiving. Rail experts speculate that Carver will be paying more for rail service due to the additional routing of shipments.

Meanwhile, PIRY has been busy filing multiple requests with the STB and litigation in state court and U.S. Appeals Court. The U.S. Appeals Court case is apparently on hold pending the Board’s decision on whether to lift their stay or reopen the proceeding that allowed service to be discontinued over the Kellar Branch.

So, expect this to drag out for a while.

Continue reading Kellar Branch Update: Western spur gets its first test →

City Council, City of Peoria

Council roundup: Longevity pay gets the short straw

Long-time city employees will no longer be rewarded for simply sticking it out a requisite number of years.  The city council voted to eliminate longevity raises/bonuses for city managers and give salary increases based on merit alone, like most businesses nowadays.

If I worked for the city a long time, I would probably be ticked off.  On the other hand, councilman Turner pointed out that Peoria eliminated longevity pay two or three other times in recent history, only to reinstate it a few years later.  So perhaps it will prove to be a temporary measure.

This measure is predicted to save just under $300,000.

Sorry for harping on this, but if the city is so strapped for funds, why didn’t they sell that old rail line that runs through the heart of the city to Pioneer Railway and rake in that cool $565,000 when they had the chance? Maybe they should approach Pioneer and see if they’re still willing to buy….