Category Archives: City of Peoria

Letter to District 150 School Board and Peoria Park Board

I received the following as a comment to my blog and as an e-mail, and feel it’s worthy of its own post. If you agree with this letter, I encourage you to send it to school board and park board members as suggested:

This is a letter compiled by some East Bluff residents regarding the placement of the new school into the Park. If you still respect our position; are still willing to back us, please copy and send this letter to all Park/School board members listed below before Monday night’s School Board meeting. The School and Park Board state that they have not received e-mails from constituants disagreeing with their position. Wouldn’t you think that public comment during school and park board meetings would be enough…apparantly not.

Please include your name at the bottom of this letter….thank you for your help regarding this issue.

tcassidy@cassidymueller.com
rpallen4@insightbb.com
sbudzinski@aol.com
robertjohnsonsr@sbcglobal.net
petty7@aol.com
pcwrt2004@yahoo.com
david.gorenz@psd150.org
martha.ross@psd150.org
alicia.butler@psd150.org
sean.matheson@psd150.org
mary.spangler@psd150.org
jim.stowell@psd150.org
debbie.wolfmeyer@psd150.org

The City of Peoria adopted the Heart of Peoria Plan, which states on page 13 that a school should be in the center of the community which it services. The way the Glen Oak School situation was handled from Day One, there has not been a full study done examining the cost of renovating and adding to the existing school site, compared to building a new school. Based solely on a preliminary study and letter of intent between the two boards, over $800,000.00 has already been spent acquiring adjacent properties, prior to either board having a signed legal agreement. Additional funds have already been spent with architectural firms designing a facility with only consideration of new construction at the new location, not revitalizing or new construction at the existing location. Neither board approached the citizens within the area covered, requesting input on the location of the new school. Both the City and the citizens have presented several workable footprint alternatives at the existing location. It is our contention, that thus far, the elected officials of both the District 150 School Board and the Peoria Park District Board, have no consideration for the position taken by its constituents on this matter. All direction has come from subordinate appointed staff members. The following have stated, both written and verbally, the dissatisfaction of placing this school within the boundaries of Glen Oak Park: Illinois State Senator George Shadid, U.S. Congressman Ray LaHood, City of Peoria (both Mayor and most Council), Peoria Fire Department, Peoria Police Department, Neighborhood Alliance, East Bluff United Neighborhood Association, Glen Oak Neighborhood Association, East Bluff Serenity Neighborhood Association, Gift Avenue Neighborhood Association, and East Bluff Housing Services. We, the citizens within the District 150 and Park District boundaries, request this situation be terminated by both District 150 School Board and Peoria Park District Board. Although there are many individual reasons not to put the new school at the park location, we feel the main concerns of ALL citizens is the protection of the children who will attend this school. Due to the busy Prospect, Frye, and Abingdon intersection, additional crossing guards will be required. The park location will continue to require additional costs exemplified by the busing of additional students. The busing will require additional buses, drivers, fuel, maintenance, and bus monitors. The City Police Department will need to provide additional protection due to the access to the bordering park area. Known sex offenders will be able to go into the adjacent park, zoo, and amphitheater. Should the school be required to have a major lock-down, the zoo, Children’s Museum and play area will also be required to go down to lock-down status. The continued loss of assets — Sunken Garden, Palm House, Log Cabin, Train, etc — is also a concern. This proposed school will further limit and cause public usage to diminish. Although the School District has suggested that there will be no loss of property by the park district, we have been told that only the parking lot will be utilized by both facilities. Where do you propose to put all the vehicles of the employees of both facilities? Nothing has been said regarding the requirements of movement of the park maintenance facility. The park belongs to ALL the Peoria tax paying citizens. If the proposed school is constructed, the bus and other traffic will increase. Will the East Street be relocated on park land, further reducing already limited park space? With the planned zoo expansion, along with the Children’s Museum, open free green-space will be unavailable to the public. Your consideration on this very important and sensitive matter will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
The Concerned Citizens of Peoria

More budget talks tonight

The Peoria City Council will not have a regular business meeting tonight, but rather a special meeting starting at 5:00 to continue discussing departmental budgets. However, there are a couple of unfinished business items on the agenda (health care coverage and janitorial services).

The departments who will be discussing their budgets tonight are Legal, Inspections, City Manager’s Office, Clerk’s Office, and Treasurer’s Office. Not exactly a hot time in the old town tonight.

Did Hinton act without authority?

As many commenters have pointed out, there seems to be a controversy brewing over how District 150’s counterproposal was handled, especially by the district, but to some extent by the city.

First, the Journal Star reported on Friday that “Hinton told [school] board members about the proposals before he delivered them [to Mayor Ardis], but they all declined comment Thursday. Many said they looked at a draft document and didn’t feel comfortable discussing it.”

As one of my readers pointed out, “Final authority for all matters concerning the District lies with the Board of Education,” according to District 150’s Board of Education Policy Manual. So one wonders why Hinton is giving the board a draft document, then presenting it to the city as the school board’s official counterproposal before the board even has a chance to discuss it.

One story I heard through the grapevine (so this is all hearsay) is that Clare Jellick of the Journal Star actually got a copy of the district’s counterproposal on Wednesday (no one will admit to leaking it), and so Hinton hurriedly delivered it to the city on Thursday afternoon. Supposedly he didn’t want city officials to learn about it by reading it in the paper Friday morning. But that just sounds odd to me, for some reason. Hinton’s been around a while. Surely he knows he could have just told Jellick that it was a “work in progress” and said he couldn’t comment on it until the board had a chance to discuss it, right? It’s not like this guy has never worked with the media before.

There seem to be two possibilities: (1) Hinton acted completely on his own in presenting this draft document to Mayor Ardis, in which case the board could declare the proposal void and come up with a new, board-approved proposal to present to the city; or (2) the board approved this document, but not in a public forum — in which case I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Open Meetings Act — and Hinton accidentally acted on it before the board legally approved it. Either way, one would think Hinton would get some sort of reprimand for acting without authority.

Moving on to the city…. On Friday, the Journal Star said, “Councilman Bob Manning said internal talks [on the proposal from District 150] likely won’t start until next week.” But then, at 11 a.m. Friday, there was a press conference where the Mayor and Councilman Manning announced the city was rejecting the offer and would not offer any further counterproposals. That was a quick change of plans.

“First District Councilman Clyde Gulley said he didn’t understand why the City Council didn’t discuss the proposals Thursday night, when it was already gathered for a budget meeting,” the Journal Star reported today.

Now, I personally don’t see this as being that big of a deal. This is a third-district issue and up to Manning’s discretion if he wants to pursue it further. It’s never been brought before the council, and there’s no law saying Manning has to pursue this or get council approval to abandon the idea. The $500,000 Manning was proposing giving to the school for land acquisition would have come out of money earmarked for third-district projects, but had not been formally proposed to the council yet. If Manning decides to drop the issue and not bring a proposal before the council for a vote, then that’s his prerogative.

Based on the proposal he received, I’m sure Manning saw no other option than to end negotiations. The district’s counterproposal wasn’t any different than what they’ve been pursuing all along; one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of compromise in their counteroffer. The district essentially asked for three times as much money as they were offered by the city and a larger site. Manning had already offered all the money he had to offer, so he has no wiggle room to come back with a counteroffer on funding.

Worse, the district knows full well that the city has only been pursuing this explicitly because they don’t want the new school built at Glen Oak Park. So why is one of the counteroffers from the district to give the city the old Glen Oak building in exchange for $500,000 for property acquisition at the park site? Talk about a slap in the face! Hello — if the city were willing to consider putting the school in the park, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. How could Manning conclude anything other than that the district isn’t really interested in trying to find a workable solution?

City to D150: Thanks, but no thanks

At a joint press conference today, the City officially responded to District 150’s counterproposal regarding the site of a new school for the Woodruff attendance area: “We respectfully decline.” Bob Manning explained that there was really very little room for negotiation to begin with.

“From day one, we put together our best-faith effort,” Manning said, referring to the City’s offer of $500,000 in property acquisition costs if the school board would build the replacement school at Frye and Wisconsin, site of the current Glen Oak Primary School. He added the City wouldn’t be making any further counterproposals.

It’s practically certain that the school district will now continue their pursuit of building the school at the corner of Prospect and Frye, adjacent to Glen Oak Park, and resume acquiring that property. But Ken Hinton, District 150 Superintendent, wouldn’t confirm that. He said he didn’t have the authority to make that statement because it’s a school board decision.

Mayor Ardis didn’t want today’s events to be characterized as “talks breaking down,” but rather that “we’ve agreed to disagree” and are moving forward. In fact, the catchphrase for the press conference was that both parties are “moving forward.”

“The important question is, ‘Where are we going?'” Hinton retorted when asked if it was easy for him to speak of moving forward when the district got everything it wanted. He called the school siting debate “a learning experience,” called attention to all the other ways the school board and City are working together, and stressed the school board and City have the same goal — to work together to provide the best education we can for the children of this community.

When asked if the city would cut any funding they currenly provide to District 150, Manning responded that there would be “no retaliatory strikes.” George Jacob congratulated Manning on his leadership on this issue and stressed that the City’s and community’s concern is rebuilding neighborhoods, and they would like to partner with District 150 and other governmental bodies (PHA, neighborhood associations, etc.) in the future in that effort.

My take: It was clear to City officials that the school district has no interest in compromising, so they figured it’s not worth pursuing any further. I hate to say “I told you so,” but I did predict this would be the outcome way back on July 17. It was clear from day one that the school district had no intention of seriously considering the city’s offer. One wonders why it took them two whole months (Manning gave them the City’s offer July 15) to respond.

I appreciated the conciliatory tone of the press conference, but let’s be honest — there is a rift between the city and the school district. Even though there may not be any “retaliatory strikes,” I believe that school projects are not going to be as high a priority now when it comes to budget-cutting time for the city. If the police department needs more officers on the street and there’s no money in the budget to hire more officers, do you think the truancy officers on loan to the school district might get reassigned? You bet.

So, while I’m sure there will be no capricious cutting of the city’s support for District 150, I don’t see the school board getting the level of cooperation and funding that they would have if they’d cooperated with the city on this school siting project.

But hey, the school district apparently doesn’t need money anyway, right? I mean, the whole premise of closing schools was to shutter the buildings and sell them, saving $500,000 per building according to their Master Facilities Plan. Yet when they closed Blaine-Sumner Middle School, they didn’t sell it or save a half-million dollars. They retrofitted it with air conditioning and turned it into an office building for the district’s special education workers. What about the health/safety problems? What about the asbestos? What about the $500,000 they need to save, which is the whole reason they’re closing buildings in the first place?

District 150 continues to lose credibility, and now they’re probably going to lose funding, too. If only their commitment to solvency and cooperation were as strong as their commitment to putting a suburban-style school at Glen Oak Park.

$10M price tag, other excuses highly questionable

The Journal Star reported on the last public meeting about changing Adams and Jefferson streets downtown from one-way to two-way. It’s clear that Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle doesn’t want to change them (why, I don’t know). He had an engineer from IDOT figure out the cost of switching, and supposedly it’s over $10 million.

I’d like to see the itemized bill for that one. Methinks the price is a bit inflated, perhaps because of the part of this quote I’ve emphasized:

Traffic officials also talked about the possibility of having one-way streets Downtown but having traffic going two-way just outside of Downtown. IDOT estimated the cost, which included changing traffic signals, changing signs and buying land, at more than $10 million.

“Buying land”? And just why would we need to buy land when Peoria already owns a right-of-way that handled two-way traffic in the first place?

But that’s not all — if their prices don’t scare you, perhaps their accident statistics will:

According to statistics from the Illinois Department of Transportation, the one-mile stretch of Adams Street that is two way south of U.S. Route 150 has a higher accident rate than the one-way sections of Adams and Jefferson Avenue that are just south of it.

The two-way stretch of road had 8.5 crashes per million vehicle miles driven, compared to 5 and 5.2 crashes per million vehicle miles on the one-way streets.

“There’s more crashes on the two-way section,” said Eric Therkildsen, a program development engineer with IDOT.

Ah, statistics. How do you suppose they were able to prove causality based on this correlation? How were they able to isolate the traffic-direction variable and determine this was the one and only reason crashes were up on one-way streets? Do you think things like visibility; the number of intersections, business entrances, employees; or the amount of traffic volume varied at all between these two stretches? And what was the time period for these data? The two-way section includes the intersection of routes 150 and 24 — are there a disproportionate number of accidents at that major intersection that could skew the results?

When the Public Works director is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at an idea to make it go away, it’s probably not going to happen. You can’t fight city hall, and I doubt there is anyone obsessed enough with converting streets to two-way that will fund his or her own feasibility study. So, it will likely die until such time as we get a Public Works director who is more open-minded.

Hotel “crisis” shouldn’t have been surprise

John Morris was nice enough to come up to me during Tuesday’s city council meeting and compliment me on my blog. In return, I think it’s only fair that I point out Mr. Morris’s excellent observation that same night regarding the Civic Center hotel study.

Many people (council members, the Journal Star, and even I, myself) have expressed surprise over this hotel “crisis” that seems to have been sprung on us after the $55 million Civic Center expansion is almost completed. But Morris claims it shouldn’t have come as any surprise, at least to those on the council.

He referenced the “Peoria Civic Center Masterplan Analysis” study which was done in August 2002 (before the expansion was approved) by C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. I didn’t read feasibility studies on this stuff until I started blogging, which was only Spring 2005, so I’d never read this particular report. I was shocked. I’m going to quote heavily, so brace yourselves. It said (emphasis mine):

Despite the available occupancy in downtown hotels, Peoria is actually poorly positioned from an inventory standpoint to handle the needs of additional demand generators for three reasons; product quality, proximity of room inventory, and available room block. To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.

For the Peoria Civic Center, there are four hotel properties that have the potential to meet these criteria – the 288-room Hotel Pere Marquette, the 327-room Holiday Inn City Center, the 110-room Mark Twain, and the 108-room Staybridge Suites. At this time, however, the Staybridge chooses not to participate in the convention center room block, which removes it from consideration in the convention center package. The remaining three properties have a total inventory of 725 rooms, but none is located proximate the convention center. At two blocks, the Pere Marquette is the closest property, however, the property needs improvements in its quality. Given that Peoria is a cold-weather market, any distance beyond two blocks adds infinitely to the challenge of selling the center during winter months.

Under the assumption that 60 percent of the 725-room inventory in the three hotels is available, downtown Peoria can only offer a room block of 435 rooms. Even if the room block commitment is increased to 70 percent, only 507 rooms are available in the nearby properties. The lack of available rooms and their distance of many of the rooms from the PCC, means that many meeting planners and tradeshow promoters bypass Peoria as potential destination for their events, which translates directly into lost economic activity in the market.

Later in the report, they added (again, emphasis mine):

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

And, just to drive the point home, the Johnson report lists the responses from a survey of Illinois meeting planners on how they perceive Peoria as a place to hold events. One of the findings (emphasis mine):

When asked for suggestions with regard to improvements that could be introduced into downtown Peoria that would make the city a more attractive market, a common response was the need of a hotel to be connected to the convention center large enough to hold a group our size.

I keep quoting this stuff to point out that it wasn’t some isolated statement buried in the report. It came up over and over and over again. Under “Implications for Peoria,” toward the end of the report, they mention again, “as the city improves its downtown offerings and induces additional demand into the market, it must also improve its hotel offerings.”

But was it “critical” back in 2002? Yes — it even uses that exact word: “Critical the success of convention centers is the availability of proximate hotel rooms.” And look at this specific recommendation and see if it doesn’t sound familiar (emphasis mine):

…comparable facilities have a proximate hotel inventory (within three blocks) ranging from 700 to 1,000 hotel rooms, while the Peoria Civic Center has only the Pere Marquette’s 288 rooms nearby. With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US….
  • Inducing the development of an additional three-star hotel, such as the under-construction Hilton Garden Inn adjacent to the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky. …The City can help induce this development by providing a site, rebating property taxes, or any number of incentives.
  • Promoting the upgrade of the existing hotel room stock in the city….

So, what’s my point? The Civic Center Authority and the City Council knew that this hotel deal was an integral part of the Civic Center expansion and that it was likely to need public funding. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone who read the report. Nevertheless, the Civic Center tried to make the city believe that it could overcome that hurdle without adding to the $55 million price tag (see my previous post). That was wishful thinking at best, calculated deception at worst. Considering what was already known about how much comparable cities were spending to lure hotels to their areas, the city and Civic Center were naive if they thought Peoria could lure a hotel without any incentives.

So what do we do now? I recommend the city wait. Don’t react to this as if you have to build a new hotel tomorrow or the sky will fall. The Civic Center Authority told the council back in 2004, “We believe [the Civic Center expansion] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and did not request any public funding for a new hotel. I say, hold them to their word. What’s changed in the last two years? Nothing. They should be required to make a go of it without a penny more of public funding, just like they requested before this project started. It would be interesting to see what happens. It’s not like we can’t induce a hotel to locate here in the future if necessary.

The Holiday Inn will be under new management soon and is going to be undergoing renovations. Once the Civic Center expansion is done, presumably there will be some increase in the number of events, which will translate into more demand for hotel rooms. Let’s see what the free market does for a while. We might be surprised.

Is District 150 tacitly abandoning East Bluff school?

Mentioned briefly at the end of the Journal Star’s article on the District 150 board meeting last night is this nugget:

The board agreed to begin negotiations with an architectural team to design a replacement school for Harrison Primary School.

The district will begin negotiations with local firm LZT Associates and Chicago-based firm Perkins+Will. The district intends to replace Harrison with a new school across the street. The planned site is a recently demolished section of Harrison Homes on Krause Avenue.

No mention of the East Bluff replacement school in that story. But there was a passing comment on WCBU this morning that the school district still hasn’t come to an agreement with the city on where to build a new school in the East Bluff; and they added, one may not be built at all.

Although a decision has not been officially made, it appears to me the district has made up their mind. They’ve already established in previous meetings that they don’t like the city’s site preference and the cost of building a “birth through eighth community center” type of school will cost millions of dollars more than they budgeted for construction. Several weeks ago, Superintendent Hinton and other board members stressed how urgent it was to make a decision soon so they could get the new school built in time before Glen Oak School is slated to close. Considering that we haven’t heard anything about the East Bluff replacement school for weeks now, and seeing how the district has shifted focus to the new Harrison replacement school, my intuition tells me there isn’t going to be a new school in the East Bluff anytime soon, and Glen Oak’s closing will likely be delayed.

I could be totally wrong in my prediction. But if I’m right, it raises another question. If they do officially decide not to build a new school in the East Bluff, will they reopen White School?

Bud’s is out; VOP’s back in

It’s not easy to say you were wrong, but Mercedes Restaurants is admitting that switching Vonachen’s Old Place (VOP) to Bud’s Aged Steaks was a mistake. And now, they’re switching back!

I was very disappointed last June when the news came that VOP would be no more. One of the things I liked about it was its unusual atmosphere that was just right for almost any occasion — business lunch, family dinner, formal occasion, casual gathering to watch a sporting event in the bar, etc.

Apparently a lot of other people missed the old atmosphere as well:

“I don’t think it’s been as good as we would have liked,” said Steve Shaw, vice president of Mercedes Restaurants.

Many customers just didn’t warm to the change, saying they missed the VOP name and menu items, he said….

“As with Vonachen’s Old Place for 26 years, the menu will have something for everyone, with a casual, come-as-you-are environment,” he said. “We welcome back all of our Vonachen’s Old Place regulars.”

Apology accepted. My family will definitely be coming back.

Another local institution closing

CohensIt’s been in Peoria 127 years, but this will be the last year for Cohen Furniture Company. The Journal Star reports that Cohen’s will be closing for good by the end of the year.

My wife and I have shopped at Cohen’s quite a bit, most recently getting our couch and our basement carpeting there. It’s always sad to see a local business close, especially one that has been a mainstay for over a century. Apparently, the current president wants to retire and no one is interested in buying the company. So another local business will quietly slip away.

It’s not mentioned in the article, but this will clearly also impact Peoria Heights where Cohen’s warehouse has been located since 1989.

One way to give city leaders your input

One Way SignIt’s been a while since the last public meeting, but the city is still interested in hearing your thoughts on reverting downtown streets back to two-way traffic. Another public meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday, September 20, at 6:30 p.m. in the Gateway Building on the riverfront.

I’ve been an advocate of this plan for some time, but especially since the reconfiguration of I-74. I contend one of the benefits would be easier access to downtown from the new interstate ramps and vice versa if the streets were converted to two-way. If you’re leaving, say, O’Brien Field by going north on Adams and you want to go east on I-74, you currently have to drive over 74, turn left on Spalding, left on Jefferson, left on Fayette, and finally left onto the entrance ramp. If Jefferson were two-way, you could avoid the run-around-the-block.

Overall, there’s simply not enough traffic volume downtown to warrant one-way streets, as the Heart of Peoria Plan and other feasibility studies have observed.