Category Archives: City Council

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Meeting of the minds reveals division

12 Comments

The Peoria City Council and District 150 Board of Education met at Valeska-Hinton School Tuesday evening to reopen the lines of communication that had become strained over the past seven years. It’s easy to see why — the two bodies are working from different philosophies of school design.

District 150

First, we’ll look at District 150’s point of view. School Board President David Gorenz and District Superintendent Ken Hinton kicked off the meeting by giving a “State of the District” address. In the course of that presentation, it was explained that the single biggest challenge the school district has right now is poverty. Seventy percent of the students in District 150 are considered to be at poverty level, and that’s just the overall number. Some schools have a poverty rate over 90%, leading Gorenz to observe that our schools are more segregated today than they’ve ever been — not racially, but economically.

Furthermore, there is a strong negative correlation between poverty and achievement; i.e., as poverty goes up, achievement goes down. This was compellingly illustrated using a scatter chart.

The School Board concludes that the course of action they need to take is to “strive to eliminate high-poverty schools.” They want to accomplish that by offering “school choice” within the district through the use of larger magnet schools. Each school would have a “strong core curriculum with specialized programs at individual schools.” Specialized programs are things like math/science/technology, fine arts, Edison, career tech, university lab, and language studies. Parents would have the choice of sending one child to the school that specializes in Fine Arts, and another to an Edison school, etc.

This would allow children from wealthier areas of town to attend school in poorer areas and vice versa. The model for this strategy is Valeska-Hinton Early Learning Center. Superintendent Hinton mentioned that there’s still a waiting list to get into that school, and that they at one time even lost their Title I funding because the level of poverty had dropped so low — even though the school is located in a high-poverty area.

City of Peoria

The council was not unanimous in their opinions. Several of them simply asked for more data and information so they could study the issue more closely. First District Councilman Clyde Gulley was in total agreement with the school board, and said that not only was Valeska-Hinton a success, but so was the development that grew up around it (the Southtown urban renewal project begun in the ’80s). He feels that it should be the model for the city to follow.

But several council members felt that neighborhood schools should be the model in the city’s older neighborhoods, and they pointed to Whittier School as the model that should be replicated. Strong neighborhood schools stabilize neighborhoods, they argued. Second District Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken explained, “We’re not going to have middle class families moving into areas without strong neighborhood schools,” and that busing kids into and out of high poverty areas of town isn’t a true solution, nor does it fit with the city’s vision for its older neighborhoods.

Mayor Jim Ardis didn’t mince any words when he said, “We acknowledge there already is school choice and one of those choices is the one to leave,” and “we need to change the choice that we’re seeing.”

My Take

The School Board never misses an opportunity to remind everyone that “it’s all about the kids.” This is usually used as a trump card during discussions to imply that all opposing opinions are merely self-interested whereas the school board is focused on the children and what’s best for them. But I question how “eliminating poverty schools,” per se, helps the children individually. It doesn’t make their parents any more involved — in fact, it could potentially mean the school is too far away for a poor parent to be able to attend parent/teacher conferences and other events. It doesn’t change the negative influences in the neighborhood where the student spends his or her non-school time. In fact, if they lose a neighborhood school because of the consolidation, the neighborhood is further destabilized, which is arguably worse for the students. On the other hand, I can see how it would help the school in the aggregate — by diluting the number of poor students in each school, you can raise overall achievement on standardized tests. But how does it help those poor children individually?

Superintendent Hinton mentioned several things the school board is doing to try to reach individual children (education geared to needs of the individual student, build upon volunteer partnerships to provide a mentor to each student, teach behavioral and social skills, etc.). These are excellent interventions that can all be done in neighborhood schools just as easily as they can be done in community magnet schools. The only advantage of the magnet schools appears to be to improve school aggregate test scores so the district can meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Next Steps

The school board and city council will be establishing two subgroups that will work on these two issues: (1) The effect of choice/magnet schools on District 150 and neighborhoods, and (2) community school sitings and facilitating community development around them.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

City Council and School Board to meet

2 Comments

AgreementAs I was reading the Word on the Street column this morning, it reminded me that there’s an historic meeting coming up tomorrow night. The Peoria City Council and the District 150 School Board will sit down and try to establish a more positive working relationship. Here’s the official notice and agenda:

NOTICE AND AGENDA

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE PEORIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT #150 SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, BEGINNING AT 6:00 P.M. AT VALESKA HINTON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION CENTER, 800 W. FIFTH AVENUE, PEORIA, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:

ROLL CALL

INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INTRODUCTION Dr. David Gorenz, President, of District #150 School Board and Mayor Jim Ardis

ITEM NO. 1 Presentation and Discussion Regarding State of the District, Vision for Our Future, and Ideas to Address Goals.

ADJOURNMENT

Exciting stuff, huh? It will be interesting to hear the presentations from each side. In the past, the school board has asked the city for money and support while simultaneously telling the city to butt out whenever they made any suggestions or requests of the school board. Hopefully, this will open up a new chapter of true cooperation — one where the school board does some giving and not just taking.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Civic Center

What’s the Civic Center trying to hide?

5 Comments

Tuesday’s Peoria City Council meeting included this intriguing exchange:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/PCC-Budg-Req-091107.mp3]

The Peoria Civic Center submitted this five-page budget summary document to the City Council. Councilman Sandberg asked, “Is there an itemized budget that culminates in this four or five page document that the City Council has before it? And if so, where is it available for either the council or the general public to review?”

Peoria Civic Center logoDebbie Ritschel, general manager of the Civic Center, answered, “We do have an internal document, councilman, that is significantly longer than the document you get and we’d be happy to sit with you and go over with you at any time…. It is not a public document.” She went on to say, “We’ve always considered [the itemized budget] work product,” and further stated after additional questioning, “We have always considered this an SMG budget between SMG and the [Peoria Civic Center] Authority and then have created then the public document off of that.”

Well, whenever a governmental entity takes your tax dollars and then says you can’t see how they’re planning to spend it because that information is confidential, you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request today to get a copy of the itemized budget. It will be interesting to see how they respond (they have seven days to do so).

First of all, the Peoria Civic Center Authority is established by state law (70 ILCS 200/205, known as the “Civic Center Code”) and is “a political subdivision, body politic and municipal corporation,” so there’s no question that it’s a public, governmental entity. Thus, it falls under the Freedom of Information Act, which states, “[e]ach public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public records.” Just to drive the point home, the Civic Center Code itself states (70 ILCS 200/205-60), “All records of the Authority shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable hours.” See that first word there? “All.”

The State of Illinois’ FOIA Guide states that a document is “a public record under the Act if it was prepared, or was or is being used, received, possessed, or under the control of any public body.” It’s clear the itemized budget was received and is under the control of the Civic Center because it was from that document that they created the summary document.

Now, it’s true that “[p]reliminary drafts of memoranda in which opinions or policies are formulated [are] exempt from disclosure” — I’m assuming that’s what Ritschel meant when she called the itemized budget “work product” — but an itemized budget upon which a summary document was based can hardly be considered a “preliminary [draft] of memoranda.” They submitted the summary budget document to the City Council; are they seriously going to argue that their summary is based on nothing more than a draft memo?

In short, I believe the itemized budget is a public document and should be open to public inspection and copying. They haven’t provided any good reason for it not to be, and the fact that they want to keep it under wraps makes me suspicious of them. I have to wonder, what are they trying to hide?

Arts Partners, City Council, City of Peoria

ArtsPartners: Should they keep getting city subsidies?

19 Comments

ArtsPartners LogoThe city council will be considering whether or not to approve giving ArtsPartners a 2.5% share of the restaurant portion of Peoria’s HRA tax for four more years. Here’s a little background from the council communication:

In 2000, the City and Civic Center amended their Intergovernmental Agreement to provide that ArtsPartners of Central Illinois receive 2.5% of the collected Restaurant Tax revenue collected commencing with the September 2000 Restaurant Tax receipts and continuing through August 2002. In August 2002, that Agreement was extended through August of 2004, and again from 2004 to 2006. In 2006, the City approved an Amendment through August 2007. The Civic Center Authority Board unanimously voted on August 23,2007 to continue funding and approve a four (4) year Intergovernmental Agreement with ArtsPartners capped at $75,000 per year and continuing to receive the 2.5% of Restaurant Tax through August 31, 2011.

A recent Chronicle commentator argues that ArtsPartners duplicates the efforts of other organizations. Since arts groups do their own local advertising/promotion, and since the publicly-funded Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau promotes the Peoria area (which would presumably include promotion of the arts offerings) to tourists and those relocating, why do we need yet another publicly-funded agency to focus on the arts?

I think the commentator has a point. Furthermore, while the arts are important, so are other things. What about sports? Should we start a publicly-funded “SportsPartners” organization to market and promote all the sporting events in Peoria? Schools are important — how about a publicly-funded “SchoolPartners” to promote all the great public and private schools we have in Peoria?

Here’s a better idea: If the Civic Center doesn’t need all that HRA money, how about reducing the tax instead of trying to find other ways to spend it? Lower taxes have wide appeal — I’ll bet they would help tourism and relocation at least as much as ArtsPartners.

City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum hours: “9 or 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.”

20 Comments

One of the criticisms of the museum having the entire Sears block is that the block will be dead after the museum closes each night at 5:00. By having a mix of residential and retail, the block could be hopping around the clock.

Whenever that objection is raised, the rebuttal has always been along the lines of, “how do you know the museum will close at five? No one has ever said what the hours of operation are going to be. You’re assuming facts not in evidence!”

Not anymore. Councilman Bob Manning asked Jim Richerson point-blank what the new museum hours will be, and he answered that they will be the same as the hours now: “9 or 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.” He did say that the large screen theater “may” be open “later.” And that the museum “could” have “extended hours.” Maybe. Could. To only one thing did he specifically commit: “9 or 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.” So those are the hours, for the record.

City Council, City of Peoria

Satterfield to temporarily run Fleet Services Department

3 Comments

The city’s Fleet Services Manager is retiring, and the city apparently has no succession plan to replace him. As I reported earlier, city staff took steps toward outsourcing the management position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.

That plan went over like a lead balloon with Fleet Services personnel. They wrote a letter to Mayor Ardis advocating “an alternative plan…in which Tom Satterfield [a current Fleet Services union employee] would be made a super crew chief in which there would be a percentage added to his base pay.” The letter didn’t sway the mayor, but it did sway 7 of the 11 council members last Tuesday night. They voted to hire Satterfield. In addition to Ardis, those voting against that solution were Jacob, Spain, and Turner.

The back story, of course, is that there is still an open question as to whether or not the whole department will be outsourced. No doubt the personnel in the Fleet Services department saw the “temporary” outsourcing of the manager position as a step toward that outcome, and that’s why they reacted so negatively to the idea. That, and the fact that Satterfield was essentially the second in command anyway — the one who usually filled in when the Fleet Manager was away.

In the end, I believe the council made the right decision. It will save the city money, and it’s only temporary. No need to outsource what we can do ourselves in-house for less money.

City Council, City of Peoria

City wants its oldest commercial building to be commercial again

4 Comments

Peoria Riverfront Visitors CenterThe city wants to see a private retail business occupy Peoria’s Riverfront Visitor’s Center:

The City of Peoria and the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (PACVB) operate the Riverfront Visitors Center. Conveniently located on the Peoria Riverfront off of 1-74, the Riverfront Visitors Center is a great first stop for visitors to the area. The Riverfront Visitors Center is housed in the former John Schwab Grocery that was built by John Schwab in 1852; the pre-Civil War building is the city’s oldest commercial building. In 1997 the building was renovated to recreate the 1850s grocery store and it was moved to the Peoria Riverfront as the Riverfront Visitors Center.

The City of Peoria and the PACVB are interested in returning the city’s oldest commercial building to its previous use by recreating the 1850s grocery store. We are looking for a private sector partner to share space with the Riverfront Visitors Center and to operate a small retail operation in the building. The store would have the ambiance and sentimental feel of the 1850s and continue to be a place where visitors could come and get information about the City of Peoria.

If you’ve ever been in the visitors center, you know that it’s not just small — it’s tiny. So what kind of business are they thinking would be a good fit for this 1850s-era building?

There is a large outdoor pavilion that is suitable for tables. The inside space on the first floor is small but there are a number of possible ways to fit the retail operation into the building. Proposals in the nature of an old time ice cream parlor, coffee shop or the sale of soda, hotdogs, pastries, etc. [emphasis mine] will be looked upon favorably.

Not a bad idea. It would get the building on the tax rolls, and it would be another amenity on the riverfront. I like it.

You know what would really make it successful, though? If close by — say, on the Sears block — there were apartments or condos. People aren’t going to come from Dunlap (or even Fake Dunlap) to downtown to have some ice cream, but people who live downtown will. And since museum officials have assured us that their patrons will not walk across the street (hence the absolute necessity of on-site parking for the museum to be successful), we know they’re not going to support it.

The more people you have living downtown, the more successful retail businesses, restaurants, etc., are going to be.

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum Partners tip their hand: retail unlikely

15 Comments

PRM LogoThis week’s council agenda has a fascinating account of the city’s efforts to negotiate with the museum partners and Caterpillar over changes they want to make to their development agreement for the Sears block. They never reached consensus:

The Museum wanted total control over development of the retail space. Conversely, we believe that the City’s Office of Economic Development is in a better position to market and negotiate the deal. It was clear from this meeting that the real issue was the Museum wants architectural and functional (what the building could be used for) control. We suggested that a rendering could be included that would define the architecture; however, the Museum declined that alternative. It was even mentioned by a representative of the Museum that perhaps the idea of commercial/retail needed to be reevaluated. [emphasis mine] We advised them that was a Council decision. The architectural discussion also mentioned the possibility of extending the plaza over the retail/commercial space. We have attached the original site plan presented in February, 2006. While this is a wonderful idea and is what was originally proposed by the Museum, it will not be financially affordable as a standalone project. We agree that the function needs to be compatible with the Museum (i.e. no adult entertainment uses), however, believe acceptable function can be defined. The discussion then moved to the issue of parking (i.e. where would these individuals park). Riverfront Village was discussed as one option for parking. It appears that a concern of the Museum is use of the parking developed to support this project. [emphasis mine]

We offered, as a follow up to that meeting, to allow the Museum to have exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the Museum with the City’s Office of Economic Development having development rights after that time. If the property was developed by the City, architectural and functional control would be determined by City Council. The Museum declined that offer. [emphasis mine] The City could still recommend tenants during the first three years.

What do you think? Does it sound like the Museum/Caterpillar is seriously interested in developing retail along Water street? First, they floated the idea of getting rid of retail altogether. That’s an indication of how committed they are. At best they don’t care whether it’s there or not; at worst they have no intention of developing it and are including it in the plan for appearance’s sake.

Next they bring up parking. Now let me ask you, why is this an issue? There’s going to be on-street parking along the museum side of Water, there’s already on-street and lot parking across Water, and museum square itself is getting a parking deck. This was the configuration that Cat and the museum partners agreed was adequate when the museum was larger and all else was equal. Why, now that the museum is shrinking would parking for retail somehow become a problem? Setting aside the fact that there’s a glut of parking downtown making the new deck completely unnecessary in the first place, the mere fact that the museum is significantly smaller should lower concerns about adequate parking — unless the museum is looking for ways to put the kibosh on the retail element.

Finally, the city offers to give them exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the museum — if all goes according to the new plan, that would be years 2011-2014. But the museum folks rejected that idea. That tells me that they lack confidence that they’re going to be able to develop it in that time frame. Now remember that museum officials believe that they’re going to get 360,000 people a year visiting the museum. With all that traffic, and with low lease rates (the museum agreed to lease the retail space for $1/year), they don’t believe they can develop 15,000 square feet within three years? How many years do they think it will take? Until 2015? 2020? The fifth of never?

It all adds up to a decided lack of interest on the museum’s part in developing the retail. They don’t want to do it, and they don’t want the city to do it either. They apparently prefer the whole museum block be dedicated to the museum and Cat visitor’s center. That would be the worst of all scenarios. The block needs more mixed use development, not less. It needs a residential element added, not the retail element removed.

If the council is serious about wanting retail development on that block (and I think they are), they should reject this amendment.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School consolidation could lower property values

3 Comments

While the city explores using its enterprise zone to help incentivize reinvestment in older neighborhoods, any potential benefit may be undermined if the school district continues to consolidate and realign its neighborhood schools.

District 150 tells the Journal Star that in order to use $32 million in Health Life Safety bond money, they’ll have to close not only White and Glen Oak, but Kingman and Irving schools as well. That has the district contemplating replacing all four schools with one big building:

The new school was originally supposed to house students from Glen Oak and now-closed White Middle School. But [District treasurer Guy] Cahill said Wednesday it could also potentially serve as a replacement school for Irving and Kingman. He and district spokeswoman Stacey Shangraw also left open the possibility of more than one school being built.

I hope they’re more than open to the possibility of building more than one school; I think they should advocate it. According to a study published in the Journal of Urban Economics (2000), “disrupting neighborhood schools reduces house values by 9.9%, all else being equal.” While the authors don’t specifically study the reasons why changing boundaries and closing schools lowers home values, they have a pretty good hypothesis: “by making it harder for parents to get involved, it harms the quality of schools. It also makes it more difficult for students to participate in after-school activities relative to the case where they can walk to and from the school.”

Lower home values wouldn’t just be bad news for the city, it would also hurt the school district itself, since it relies heavily on property taxes for funding. In their attempt to save money through consolidation, it may turn out that the school board actually loses revenue because of it.