All posts by C. J. Summers

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

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I Wanna Be Like Kalamazoo

6 Comments

Another plan I will pursue this year is one we may call the “Peoria Promise.” It is based on a similar successful program in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The premise is this: Any student graduating from Peoria’s Public Schools will be eligible for a scholarship to any Public University or College in Illinois. Maybe it will give those graduating in the top 10% of their class a chance to attend Bradley. How does it work? The scholarships would be available to anyone who has been in the Public Schools at least four years at the time of graduation. The amounts are dispensed on a sliding scale, with those who have been enrolled since kindergarten eligible for one hundred percent of their tuition costs. How will it be funded? Through anonymous donors…like in Kalamazoo. What will be the impact? I believe that you will see colleges and universities competing for our students. And, I also believe that you will see the program result in more businesses, jobs and homebuyers being attracted to our area, creating the need for more schools and good teachers. Is this pie-in-the-sky? Am I being unrealistic? Can Peoria do this? Can we duplicate Kalamazoo’s success, where the benefactors underwriting the scholarships have promised funding for at least the next 13 graduating classes? Can we make this happen — right here in Peoria? You tell me. I believe we can and I invite anybody in this room with an interest to contact me.

–Jim Ardis, State of the City Address, 25 January 2006

With that, Mayor Ardis laid down the gauntlet to bring “The Kalamazoo Promise” to Peoria. I decided to familiarize myself with Kalamazoo’s program a little bit so I could better understand how it might play in Peoria.

The Kalamazoo Promise was first announced just two months ago, on November 10, 2005. It caused quite a stir in Michigan and, later, nationwide. Grand Rapids’ WOOD-TV channel 8 has a good archive of stories on this topic, and provide this concise explanation of the program:

Eligibility for this program is based on how long the student attends Kalamazoo public schools.

To receive any assistance, a student must live in the Kalamazoo Public School District and would have had to attend since at least ninth grade. Sixty-five percent of that student’s tuition would be paid.

The scale goes up from there, with eighth graders receiving 70 percent of their tuition paid, 75 percent for seventh graders, 80 percent for sixth, 85 percent for fifth, 90 percent for fourth, and 95 for first through third graders. Students attending schools in the district from kindergarten through high school graduation will have 100 percent of their tuition and fees paid.

It’s easy to see the advantages of such a program. Like Ardis said, it rewards starting and staying in the school district — the longer you stay, the more you benefit. That gives a strong incentive for parents to put their children in public schools, and a larger student population also means more state and federal funding. It’s conceivably strong enough to motivate parents to move into the school district, which would help housing sales and population density, and that means higher property tax revenues, which means more money for the school district.

In fact, that’s just what has been happening in Kalamazoo in just the last two months. “Kalamazoo Public School Superintendent Dr. Janice Brown says more than 200 students have enrolled since The Kalamazoo Promise was announced in November,” according to a report on WOOD-TV today. WZZM-TV 13 (Grand Rapids) reports that real estate agents are using the Kalamazoo Promise as a marketing tool to sell homes, and that a local developer “recently spent $7 million dollars on land in the Kalamazoo School District, to build new homes.” It’s too early to see any impact on home sales, but Kalamazoo is poised to grow.

Of course, all this only works if there is funding. In Kalamazoo, the funding is coming from a group of anonymous donors. The Journal Star erroneously reported the Promise is “funded through a private foundation. There, nearly $15 million in scholarships has been awarded to 3,800 area students over the years.” They were referring to the Kalamazoo Community Foundation which has awarded scholarships to Kalamazoo students, but has not claimed to be the Promise donor. How much will it cost? Nobody knows for sure, but it’s been estimated to cost “$12 million a year by the time four graduating classes are in college.”

A “Peoria Plan” would cost considerably more, since Peoria’s public school district has about 4,200 (40%) more students than Kalamazoo’s (14,700 vs. 10,500). And the cost could be even higher than that, considering an extra wrinkle in Ardis’ plan that differs from Kalamazoo’s. Students cashing in on The Kalamazoo Promise can only choose to go to a state university or community college. Ardis proposes “giv[ing] those graduating in the top 10% of their class a chance to attend Bradley [University].” That’s a difference of roughly $10,000 in tuition for each student.

So, from where is the funding going to come for the proposed “Peoria Plan”? Ardis wants it to come from private donors, just like in Kalamazoo. Well, it would be wonderful if a group of anonymous donors would come forward unsolicited like they did in Kalamazoo. I think it will be harder to get someone (or some ones) to take up the challenge here. But maybe I’ll be proven wrong. I hope so. It actually sounds like a great idea if the private funding comes through.

City Council, Peoria Civic Center

How about if Peoria buys the naming rights?

3 Comments

I got to thinking about my last post, and I have an idea.

Do you remember how the federal government regulated speed limits in the ’70s?  They told states they could have any speed limit they wanted, but if they wanted federal money to maintain the roads, the speed limits had to be no faster than 55 mph.

Suppose the City Council were to pass an amendment that says the Civic Center Authority can name the venue and arena whatever it wants, but if it wants HRA tax revenues, it will have to be named the “Peoria Civic Center” and “Carver Arena”?  Doesn’t that sound fair?  That way, if they can wean themselves off HRA taxes, they can sell the naming rights.  But as long as they’re operating on taxpayer dollars, the taxpayers get to decide the name.

I think we’ve earned that right, don’t you?  According to the Journal Star’s editorial today, HRA taxes amount to $55 million.  Here’s an issue where I agree with the Journal Star — the Civic Center should scale back their plans instead of selling the naming rights.

Peoria Civic Center

Naming the Civic Center

4 Comments

The Journal Star reports that any renaming of Carver Arena may need City Council approval. Whether or not that’s true, what do you think of selling the naming rights for the Civic Center and Carver Arena?

I personally think it stinks.  The reason they need to sell naming rights is because they don’t have enough money, which begs the question, “why are they expanding if they don’t have enough money?”  I thought the Civic Center was supposed to become self-sustaining, eliminating the need for the HRA tax.  Now, not only do we get to continue paying these taxes, we won’t even be able to call the place the “Peoria Civic Center” much longer.  If they’re that short on funds, they should scale back their expansion plans rather than strip the venue of its names.

O’Brien Automotive pays $150,000 a year for naming rights on the ballpark.  Haven’t Peoria area residents paid enough in HRA taxes to earn having the name of our city on the Civic Center?

City Council, Television

State of the City

4 Comments

Mayor Ardis delivered the State of the City address today at the Holiday Inn City Center.  HOI News and 1470 WMBD each have good reports. If you’d like to see it for yourself, Insight Communications will be rebroadcasting it tomorrow, January 26th, at noon on cable channel 22.

UPDATE: Jonathan Ahl has informed me that a podcast of the State of the City address is available from www.wcbufm.org. WCBU (89.9 FM) will also be rebroadcasting the address at 7 p.m. Tuesday, January 31.

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star has a PDF of the speech on its site.

Kellar Branch

More propaganda from the Journal Star

1 Comment

There are few things in today’s Journal Star editorial about the Kellar Branch that deserve a response:

The park district, unable to act, has watched about half of a $400,000 state grant evaporate.

It’s worth pointing out that the park district applied for that money prematurely–before going to the STB, building the spur, etc.  It’s their own fault that they jumped the gun and are paying the consequences now.

. . . the lumber company is temporarily shelling out more for truck service . . . 

This is the only reference, vague as it is, to the fact that Carver has incurred over $25,000 in additional costs for truck service. Why didn’t they put the numbers in their editorial?  They didn’t have any trouble mentioning the $400,000 grant the park district is concerned about.

. . . it has Pioneer to blame for blocking early construction.

Ah yes, it’s all Pioneer’s fault!  I’m not about to contest the fact that Pioneer did in fact delay construction, but they’ve been off the tracks since August 2005.  What’s their excuse for the past five months?  At least while Pioneer was delaying construction, they were making deliveries to Carver.  Now that construction is not delayed, Carver’s getting no shipments at all.

Besides that, this editorial leads people to the false conclusion that the reason Carver isn’t getting shipments is because the western spur isn’t finished.  That’s misleading.  The reasons they aren’t receiving shipments is because (a) Metroplex tore up a part of the line where the spur meets the Kellar Branch, so no trains can cross, and (b) the city’s carrier, Central Illinois Railroad, can’t get the rail cars up the steep incline of the Kellar Branch. And did I mention because they’ve never made a sincle shipment to Carver, they’re in breach of contract with the city?  I wonder what action, if any, the city is taking against them for that. 

Central Illinois Railroad and long-hauler Union Pacific have some physical stumbling blocks to sort out.

This is excessively vague. What do they mean by “physical stumbling blocks”? Do they mean the junction the city is building where the western spur meets the UP line that will only allow for cars to be dropped off by north-bound trains?  Or do they mean CIRY’s inability to secure trackage rights to run a train to the western spur on the UP line?

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, who has worked diligently to get the trail going, has again offered to help.

And by “help,” they mean “help the park district get its beloved trail.” It’s gotta make a business like Carver feel good to know their own congressman is siding against them.

As usual, the problems with the city’s carrier (CIRY) and contractor (Metroplex) are glossed over and the plight of Carver Lumber is minimized.

Ray LaHood

Firefly Energy given military contract via controversial “earmark”

1 Comment

The Associated Press reports that Peoria-based Firefly Energy, Inc., has “landed a $2.5 million contract to develop its new generation of lighter, more powerful batteries for the military.”  Firefly is a pretty new company, founded in May 2003.  They use technology developed by Caterpillar to replace the lead plates found in batteries with a lighter, longer-lasting, and more ecologically-friendly material.

The part of the AP report I found interesting, though, was this:

LaHood said he secured Firefly’s contact through an addition to the defense bill known as an “earmark.” The practice has drawn criticism during recent debate over ethics reform because opponents say it breeds corruption, providing millions of dollars for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“Earmarks” are getting a lot of press these days. Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) gave his “Porker of the Week” award to Congress for earmarks in the federal transportation bill for “the bridge to nowhere“ last November. The bridge in question costs $320 million and connects the town of Ketchikan (pop. 8900) with the island of Gravina (pop. 50) in Alaska. And it was John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said that earmarks “breed corruption.”

Being a curious person by nature, I wanted to find out how these dastardly “earmarks” get into bills in the first place. It appears no one knows except congresspersons and lobbyists. But somehow, through some secret process, members of Congress can direct money to individual companies by inserting these “earmarks” into huge appropriations bills. The earmarks are not debated and thus need not be defended.

So, I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, do the ends justify the means?  Obviously this military contract for Firefly is good for Peoria, but I imagine the bridge in Ketchikan is good for the economy there, too.  Where do we draw the line? 

City Council, Heart of Peoria Plan, Southtown

Council roundup: Southtown deal approved

The council did the right thing by not delaying the vote on the Southtown project any longer.  The motion to defer was overturned and the council voted 10-1 to approve the project.

I wasn’t too thrilled about delaying the vote at the request of Methodist or OSF, but I thought Gary Sandberg had some excellent points regarding the suburban design of the building and the proposed density of the development.  Whatever is built in Southtown should be required to conform to the Heart of Peoria Plan.  If there is no process to facilitate that requirement, the Heart of Peoria Commission and the City Council should develop one.

Annexation, City Council

Council roundup: Crusen’s request to leave city deferred

Crusens wants their newly-acquired Hunts property at the corner of Farmington and Park roads to be annexed to West Peoria.  To do that, they have to get permission from the City of Peoria to disconnect from the city.  City of Peoria staff recommends denying that request, so Crusens asked for a one-week deferment.

After some acrimonious comments from Councilman Morris (who clearly is against letting the Hunts property out of the city), the council approved the deferral.