All posts by C. J. Summers

I am a fourth-generation Peorian, married with three children.
Caterpillar, Museum Block

Cat talking points on museum

19 Comments

In the post office box of the Citizens for Responsible Spending, we anonymously received this memo purportedly from Caterpillar, dated April 9, 2009:

Build the Block: Peoria Riverfront Museum and Caterpillar Visitor Center Leader Talking Points (Peoria Area)

Caterpillar is pleased about the vote to move forward with Build the Block. We made a commitment in 2002 to support a new regional museum and we will stay true to this commitment. Caterpillar’s funding of this project will be in the near future, but will not occur in 2009.

  • The budgeted cost of the Visitor Center is $41 million. Planning for this project will be modified to reflect our current financial circumstance.

  • The Caterpillar Foundation has pledged $13.5 million to the museum. We have made the decision to temporarily suspend outright cash payments, however, the Foundation will continue to match payments to the museum project from employees and retirees.

The Visitor Center will benefit Caterpillar in many ways:

  • Enhance the overall customer experience when Caterpillar dealers bring customers to Peoria to visit the company.

  • Provide a complete perspective of our commitment to customer success, regardless of where they are working around the world.

  • Exhibits will focus on the value of our equipment, engines and services and the long-term relationships which offer customers a superior value in providing solutions to their business challenges.

Hmmm. So much for stimulating the economy while so many people are facing hard times. Evidently the new plan is to wait for better economic times to build.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 principal fired (UPDATED)

79 Comments

Lindbergh Middle School principal Julie McArdle was fired tonight at a special meeting of the District 150 Board of Education. The story is on WEEK’s site, and more details are on Billy’s blog.

Since it’s a personnel matter, the District is not talking. However, McArdle’s lawyer, Richard Steagall, is saying the principal is actually a whistleblower who uncovered a number of different improprieties by someone in central administration. A lawsuit will be filed against the District.

This story is bound to get bigger.

UPDATE: The Journal Star’s story is up now. Note:

The action [firing McArdle] occurred about six months after McArdle is said to have first blown the whistle on the previous Lindbergh principal….

Police and other sources confirmed that the investigation centers around McArdle’s allegation that her predecessor as Lindbergh principal, Mary Davis, misused district money in 2007-08….

[McArdle’s attorney, Richard] Steagall said McArdle informed district administrators about the credit card after receiving a phone call from a credit card company on Oct. 26 regarding late payments on the balance due. Previously unaware of a school credit card, McArdle asked for statements to be sent to the school.

According to Steagall, the balance on the card had at one point climbed beyond $9,000. He said McArdle also found documentation that $4,002.05 was paid toward the balance of the credit card from student activities funds on June 30, with that amount received by the credit card company on July 4.

“She found out there was a credit card for Lindbergh School with $9,000 in charges on it,” Steagall said of his client. “There were charges for Peoria Toyota, FedEx/Kinko’s, Amazon.com, Best Buy, an American Girls doll store, cash advances, things like that. One payment for over $4,000 was from the student activity fund. She’s reported all of this.”

After bringing the suspicious financial information to the district’s attention in October, McArdle assumed the district was investigating and didn’t pursue if further, Steagall said.

But recently, McArdle was asked by the district to resign, Steagall said. He believes that was directly in relation to McArdle’s whistle-blowing.

What’s interesting is reading the comments on WEEK’s and the Journal Star’s sites. If each commenter is really a different person, it would seem that there is no small amount of animosity toward McArdle. Yet other sources tell me McArdle is innocent and is being punished for blowing the whistle. Hopefully the police investigation will get to the bottom of the matter.

However it turns out, it’s another black eye for District 150.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council preview 4-28-09

14 Comments

Here are some items of note that will be discussed and possibly decided on Tuesday (if they don’t defer everything like last week):

  • Defending BVA. The City will be defending Council Member Barbara Van Auken against charges brought by the Sigma Nu Fraternity. This is the official notification to the council.

  • Funding PACVB. The Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau wants to keep getting extra revenue from the hotel tax. The hotel tax is the “H” portion of the infamous HRA (Hotel, Restaurant, Amusement) tax. The PACVB originally got 40% of the revenue from that tax. Since July 2000, however, they’ve been getting an extra 4% to pay for the costs of leasing and subsequently buying their 456 Fulton Street office. Thus, this extra amount was supposed to be eliminated once the mortgage was paid off, which was supposed to be in 2006. But, unbeknownst to the Civic Center or the City, the PACVB refinanced their loan in 2003 over a longer time period. The difference between their old mortgage payment and their new lower payment was diverted to operations. The chickens came home to roost in 2006 when the PACVB came to the City asking for that 4% increase to be extended so they could continue paying their mortgage for another four years (until 2010). City Council members were none too happy, but gave them the money– for one year. So in 2007, the request came back again that the extra 4% be extended through 2010. That was approved. One would think that would be the end of it.

    But no! They’re back again, and now they want that extra 4% to be permanent. Of course, the current council communication doesn’t include any of the background information I just provided, nor does it explain why the PACVB wants it extended permanently, what they’re going to use the money for, or what benefit it would bring to the city. It also doesn’t include any information on whether the Civic Center Authority concurs with this request. It’s a poor excuse for a council communication, frankly.

    Furthermore, take a look at this breakdown of income sources published by the PACVB in their annual report:

    pacvb-income

    Keep in mind that this is the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, covering eight counties: Bureau, Fulton, Marshall, Mason, Peoria, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford. Now, doesn’t that income distribution look a little disproportionate? The PACVB needs to do more than explain why they should get an extra 4% indefinitely; they need to explain why the City shouldn’t reduce the other 40% of H tax revenue they’re receiving. Perhaps a reduction here could pay for the latest $500,000 upgrade the Civic Center has floated.

  • Upgrading streets around Glen Oak School. The city is contemplating upgrading the streets around the new Glen Oak School. This is necessary because the city allowed the School District to increase their footprint dramatically and cut off Frye, a major East Bluff thoroughfare. This not only affects motorists, but also utilities. A water line will have to be relocated along Maryland, and AmerenCILCO will have to relocate their facilities from the abandoned portion of Frye. A block of brick street on Maryland and two blocks of brick street on Kansas will be converted to asphalt. Upgrading the streets, curbs, and sidewalks is estimated to cost about $2.93 million. If they want to add ornamental streetlights and other streetscape enchancements, it would cost an additional $1.35 million. That should be a breeze, considering we can afford to give a private developer $40 million to build a hotel downtown. I sure don’t understand all the handwringing in the council communication about “the need to establish priorities” and “the need to further consider bonding for improvements.” There was none of that kind of talk in the communication about the — what was it they called the Marriott/Pere Marquette project? — oh yes, the “wonderful development”!

  • Approving Harrison Homes Subdivision. In addition to the new Harrison School, the Peoria Housing Authority is planning to put in a “RiverWest” type development to replace the slums known as Harrison Homes. Before the council on Tuesday will be the preliminary plat showing how the neighborhood will be arranged. My only complaint is that they have a great opportunity to restore the street grid system, but they are choosing instead to make inefficient use of their land by putting a couple streets diagonally. Why? To what advantage? It’s demonstrably inefficient and incongruous with the surrounding area. Why wouldn’t we want to restore the grid system, as is recommended in the Heart of Peoria Plan? Yes, that last question was rhetorical.

  • Saving money. The city is still trying to save money rather than raise taxes. What this effectively means is that they’re going to continue subsidizing downtown parking, the Civic Center, the proposed museum, the Gateway Building, and the “wonderful development,” at the expense of basic services such as sealcoating of streets, weed control, building inspections, and code enforcement. The city really knows how to tighten its belt when it comes to services that benefit all Peoria residents, doesn’t it?

No doubt, all these items will pass with little or no discussion, since what we really value on the Peoria City Council is “consensus.” Who needs deliberation or critical thinking, especially where the public can see? They make for long, boring, and informative meetings. We want a council that just comes and votes “yes” or “no” as determined ahead of time in private meetings outside the purview of the Open Meetings Act. No fuss, no muss.

City of Peoria

“Now more than ever”: WEEK 1979

2 Comments

I ran across this on (where else?) YouTube:

Now, wasn’t that a fun trip down memory lane? The times certainly have changed, but one thing hasn’t: “Getting the news is like fighting a battle.” Ain’t that the truth! And can you believe Tom McIntyre has been doing the news for the same channel for 30 years? Amazing.

These clips were put together by Paul Daniel — he wrote this about his time in Peoria:

What were you doing in 1979? I had my second job in TV at WEEK-TV in Peoria, IL. I was initially hired to do Saturday sports and shoot news during the week. Later I did both weekend shows and also did promotions for the station. What was it like? Did you ever see the movie “Anchorman”? It wasn’t too far off that. Cameras weighed about 15 pounds and you had to carry a recorder with it that weighed another 10. Back then news was shot and edited on 3/4 inch tape. This was actually good because we had just transitioned from film. We had big hair and drove Chevy Citations for news cars! Here’s a series of promos that I put together. As I look at them and remember how they were put together back them, the editor I use now, iMovie blows the effects away. Keep in mind that there were no computers then or they were even bigger than the cameras we carried. I worked with a company called Tuesday Productions to compose the music. It was cutting edge then as were the spots. Of course I got to fly in the chopper. You will even see me in the promos, Paul Daniel. I live in Pewaukee, WI now and am in marketing having left the TV world about 20 years ago but they are sure fun to look at and think “Did we really do that?” Enjoy!

Thanks for sharing, Paul.

2008 Campaign, Peoria Public Schools

Working cash bonds will raise property taxes 25¢ per $100 EAV

63 Comments

I recently spoke with District 150 interim comptroller Brock Butts about the $38,000,000 in working cash bonds the District wants to issue. He said the plan is to issue 15-year bonds, but hopefully pay them off early — possibly as quickly as five years. The bonds would be paid for by putting an additional levy on property taxes. Property taxes within the District would increase 25¢ per $100 of equalized assessed valuation (EAV). That means the owner of a $150,000 house would pay an additional $125 in property taxes.

Public notice of the District’s intent to issue the bonds was given in the Journal Star on April 7. Voters have 30 days from that date to either do nothing, in which case the district will go forward with the bond issuance in May, or gather at least 6,355 signatures to force the bond issuance to a binding referendum. The soonest a vote could be taken is February 2010, unless a special election were held earlier.

I asked what would happen if the voters did, in fact, succeed in petitioning for a referendum. Butts said that unless the District receives categorical funding from the State, the District will run out of money mid-May. At that point, the district could borrow money under something called “teacher’s orders” to pay certified staff salaries, but that’s about all they could do until October when they could issue tax anticipation warrants again. In short, it would keep them in a perpetual cash flow crisis.

Some explanation may be helpful here. Tax anticipation warrants are kind of like payday loans. As the name implies, money is borrowed in anticipation of receiving future tax revenue. The loan is paid off when the future tax revenue is collected. Basically, they’re using next year’s tax money to pay this year’s bills, just like you can use next month’s paycheck to pay this month’s bills if you get a payday loan. Companies like Investors Choice Lending do this and the District has been doing this for years, allowing people to try Investors Choice Lending.

That comes with a cost: interest. Tax anticipation warrants don’t raise your property tax bill, so guess from where the money for interest comes. According to Dr. Butts, it comes out of the education fund. Not good.

This is why the comptroller (and others) have recommended that the district issue $38 million in working cash fund bonds. It will give the district money to build up their reserves so they no longer have to issue tax anticipation warrants. That, coupled with efforts to balance the budget, will get the District back on sound financial footing. While it will cost a little extra in property taxes now, it will save money in the long run. It will also keep the interest costs from coming out of the education fund. Once the working cash fund bonds are paid off, property taxes will be abated.

This plan sounds reasonable and fiscally responsible to me, and I can support it. In fact, I’ve decided I’m not going to be a part of any effort to force this issue to a referendum.

However, I still have one really big reservation about this plan, and that is my lack of confidence in the school administration’s commitment to stick to it. As has been stated before, Blaine-Sumner was closed, then remodeled for use as offices, squandering the savings there. White School was closed and sold, but the Social Security Administration building was acquired and remodeled for more than the sale price of White. More squandered savings. And need we mention the money wasted on multiple superintendents and other questionable administrative/consultant positions?

What assurance can the District 150 Board of Education give the citizens of Peoria that they will not squander the savings of the recently-decided school closures, or the additional revenue from working cash fund bonds? That’s not a rhetorical question; I really think the constituents of District 150 deserve an answer.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 votes to close schools

30 Comments

The District 150 Board of Education voted Monday to close four schools — Kingman, Tyng, Irving, and a high school to be named later — and increase class sizes.

Combined, the operational savings by the end of the 2011 school year would mount to well more than $11 million.

Yep, and we were supposed to be enjoying $9 million in savings this year due to the closing of Blaine-Sumner and White schools. Who wants to bet me this new $11 million figure will similarly evaporate and a new crisis will emerge in 2011?

Peoria Public Schools

Should citizens force D150 bond issue to a referendum?

95 Comments

Elaine Hopkins thinks so.

You may recall that District 150, despite having just borrowed $30 million in tax-anticipation warrants at the beginning of the year to make payroll, is already running out of money again and needs to borrow $35 million more. This time they would raise the money through working cash bonds which will be repaid via property taxes over the next several years. Here’s the rub:

If 10 percent of voters petition the district to take the sale of the cash bonds to referendum, the district would run into a wall, having to wait until November, or plead with a judge to hold a special election, [interim controller Norm] Durflinger added.

Hopkins says “some people are now looking at this petition option.” “It could be a bargaining chip to stop future school closings, or could be affirmed on its own,” or it could be a way to get District 150 “management” to “resign in shame,” she says.

My take: When I first heard about this idea (of forcing a referendum on the bonds), I have to say, it didn’t thrill me. First of all, public schooling is an essential service and should be funded. Secondly, I just finished waging an unsuccessful effort to defeat the public facilities tax referendum, and I just don’t have the energy to do that again (so soon, at least). Thirdly, I have a hard time getting over the irony of museum tax supporters like Hopkins suddenly getting all concerned about wasting tax dollars. Apparently throwing $40 million down the drain on a museum is okay, but $35 million to pay teachers is unacceptable.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think forcing a referendum may not be such a bad idea. Why? Consider:

  1. They have been eluding voter accountability long enough. When District 150 wanted to build new schools, the money for that building program should have been submitted to the public via referendum. But it wasn’t. District 150, with the help of our state legislators (including then-state representative Schock) got legislation passed allowing District 150 to access the Public Building Commission for its building program, bypassing the voters and allowing them to raise our property taxes without a referendum. Practically speaking, this also meant they didn’t have to have public buy-in on the siting and design of the new school buildings.

  2. They have passed up other potential revenue. District 150 could have supported other school districts in the county and forced a 1/4% sales tax referendum onto the April ballot that, if passed, would have helped all county school districts get money for infrastructure needs, but they didn’t. District 150 officials won’t speak on this topic for attribution, but privately say that the reason they didn’t support this was because (a) they were asked not to by museum supporters such as Caterpillar and the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, who you may recall sent letters to all the school districts pressuring them to keep this off the ballot so it wouldn’t jeopardize the museum tax from passing, and (b) they didn’t want a new revenue stream right before they negotiated a new teachers contract because they thought it could lead to demands for higher pay/benefits. Hey, if they’re looking for ways to avoid getting more revenue, maybe they would favor forcing the bond issuance to a referendum.

  3. More money won’t resolve the root problem: mismanagement. We’ve been through this kind of crisis once already. We’ve already closed schools so that District 150 could allegedly get their fiscal house in order. Why are we going through this again — and so soon?

    • It is not just because of revenue shortfalls. This crisis is often explained as merely a revenue problem — that everything would be hunky-dory if it hadn’t been for the recession or reductions in state aid. That would be believable except that no other school district around here is in quite the crisis as District 150. For example, Pekin’s school district actually has a surplus. While their FY08 budget does have a planned deficit built into it, it’s covered not by loans, but reserves that have been saved up over several years — most recently FY07.
    • Savings from last round of closures were squandered. In 2007, District 150 closed White and Blaine-Sumner schools. However, they didn’t sell Blaine-Sumner, but remodeled it (including adding air conditioning) and turned it into district offices for about 80 workers. They did eventually sell the White School building for $750,000, but they also acquired the former Social Security Administration building on Knoxville and spent $1.27 million to remodel it to house their “transition to success academy.” Is it really any wonder that the district was unable to put up a surplus and save for a rainy day?

    By and large, we still have the same management team in place now as was in place then. If they were unable to properly manage the last crisis, why should we have any confidence that money given them this time will be any better managed?

From what I’ve heard, the worst that could happen if a referendum is forced is that the referendum could fail, the district could become insolvent and be taken over by the state or, possibly, the city. I’m beginning to think that’s not such a bad outcome. Small changes in the makeup of the school board over the past five years doesn’t appear to be working; a complete overhaul of the administration may be necessary.

Still, my mind isn’t totally made up. If anyone can give me reasons to have confidence in the current administration and their stated plans for improvement, I’m all ears.

City of Peoria, Crime

Inconsistent enforcement of non-discrimination ordinance raises questions

18 Comments

EmergePeoria thinks the City of Peoria is a little inconsistent when it comes to not discriminating against “protected classes” of citizens.

At issue is the City’s recent smackdown of the Elbo Room bar. In case you’ve been out of town for several weeks and missed the story, here’s the scoop: the owner of the bar posted a sign outside stating, “We are not a gay bar. We are a karaoke bar. […] Diesel is down the street.” (“Diesel” is, in fact, a gay bar.) There were protests, allegations of “homophobia” and other histrionics in response to this perceived discrimination. Then the City’s deputy liquor commissioner (Councilman Eric Turner) stepped in and sent the owner a letter threatening to revoke his liquor license and take other legal action if he were observed to be discriminating against gays in the future.

The thing is, the City didn’t take similar action against other bars that had been turning away black patrons on the pretense of dress code violations. EmergePeoria observes:

In 2007 the Downtown Peoria bars were unaccepting of Black citizens supposedly because of their dress and demeanor which was considered to be “intimidating”. Instead of making downtown bars comply in the acceptance of Black patrons, the City Council, under the leadership of Mayor Ardis, undertook the notion of liquor expansion to have alternate places for “Blacks to go”…. In other words, the rights of Blacks are not protected, were minimized and only compartmentalized by this city and it’s council, whereas the rights of gays have been expressed to have somehow been protected.

In April 2003, the City added “sexual orientation” to its list of individuals or groups against which you cannot discriminate relating to employment and public accommodations. Already on that list: race. Yet that group is not being as stridently defended by the Deputy Liquor Commissioner as the newest addition. Why? Is separate-but-equal okay for some groups but not others in the eyes of the City?

EmergePeoria is right — there is definitely some inconsistency going on here.

The Peoria Chronicle

Peoria Chronicle turns four

19 Comments

I almost forgot to mention, my blog just passed another milestone. I started this little blog as “Summers in Peoria” on Blogspot way back on April 15, 2005. I later changed the name to “Peoria Chronicle” and set up my own WordPress site. I somehow lost all of my May 2005 posts in the transfer from Blogspot to WordPress, but all the rest of my posts are archived.

My perception — and I hope I’m accurate — is that my blog has become a place where we can have civil discourse about the issues facing Peoria. Even though we can all get pretty riled up about certain topics, for the most part I think we’ve all kept our arguments on topic and not let them devolve into personal attacks. When we’ve faltered on that count, I believe we’ve always climbed back up to the high road and continued on.

My first post started, “It’s been said that everyone’s talking these days, but no one is listening. The blogosphere is like being one voice in a roaring crowd.” As it turns out, there are people who are listening here at the Chronicle. Thank you to all my readers and commenters for listening and participating. This blog would be nothing without you.