Category Archives: Peoria Park District

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park Board may be East Bluff neighbors’ ace in the hole

5 Comments

If the Peoria Park District decides not to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Peoria Public Schools, then the possibility of putting a replacement school adjacent to Glen Oak Park for the Woodruff attendance area is essentially dead.

It also means the school district may come crawling back to the city asking for that $500,000 from Councilman Manning that they turned down.

It also means the school district will have purchased eight properties adjacent to the park at twice their market value for nothing, and will only be able to recover a fraction of what they paid for them.

For those of you keeping score, here is the vote count so far according to the Journal Star:

  • 1 against sharing park land with the school district (Roger Allen)
  • 2 in favor of sharing park land (Jackie Petty, Robert Johnson)
  • 2 undecided (Tim Cassidy, Jim Cummings)
  • 2 unknown (Stan Budzinski, Matthew Ryan)

East Bluff residents who are against the school locating in the park may want to start lobbying the Park Board trustees now; it sounds like a decision could be made on Dec. 13.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

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

Peoria Park District

Casual Comment II

15 Comments

Faithful reader Karrie suggested I also post when the Peoria Park District trustees’ terms expire. I think that’s a fantastic idea:

Park District Logo

Timothy J. Cassidy 2007
Stanley P. Budzinski 2007
James A. Cummings 2007
Jacqueline J. Petty 2007
Roger P. Allen 2009
Robert L. Johnson, Sr. 2009
Matthew P. Ryan 2009

They’re not as well-known as the school board members. You don’t see them in the newspaper much. But they spend a lot of your tax money and have made some questionable decisions. For instance, they’re the ones who want to toss a $565,000 rail asset in the garbage and drive Carver Lumber out of business so they can ride on a taxpayer-funded bike path on warm summer days.

Note that four out of the seven board members (including President-at-Large Tim Cassidy) come up for reelection next year.

Peoria Park District

Trial date set for Park District’s Open Meetings Act violation

7 Comments

Park District LogoWhen the Peoria Park District (PPD) met in executive session to discuss partnering with District 150 on a new location for a school building for the Woodruff attendance area, they violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Only if they were discussing a sale price for land could they make such plans away from the public eye. That’s the gist of the suit being brought against the PPD by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sarah Partridge.

Alms reports that their attorney recently went before Peoria County Chief Judge John Barra “to see if our original complaint could be amended to capture the new admissions of the PPD deleting the tapes from the March 8, 2006 PPD Executive Board Meeting. Judge Barra moved that our complaint was so amended. In addition, a trial date has been set for 7 December 2006.”

Their attorney is William Shay of Howard & Howard. He says the deletion of the March 8 closed session tape is a separate violation of the OMA; the Act states that the tape must be retained for at least 18 months after the meeting.

There’s not a lot of litigation over OMA violations, Shay said, because there’s not much in it for the complainant. Typically, by the time one of these cases makes it through the courts, it’s a moot point because either the public body has subsequently ratified any questionable actions in open session, or the plans have already been carried out (for instance, in this case, it could be decided after the school district has already broken ground).

If the Park District is found guilty of violating the OMA, Alms and Partridge could be awarded their attorneys fees, but that’s it for damages. As far as what relief they can get from a successful suit, they are asking for three things: (a) declaration that the PPD did, in fact, violate the OMA, (b) admonishment by the judge for said violation, and (c) prohibition of the PPD from having any further discussions with District 150 regarding sharing Glen Oak Park land. Of those, (c) seems to be the least likely outcome, but is a legal remedy under the OMA if a judge would choose to impose it.

Even if Alms and Partridge get the first two outcomes and nothing more, it will still send a strong message to the PPD not to play fast and loose with the Open Meetings Act. Shay would like to see that strong message sent to all public bodies — that we all have a right to hear public business discussed in public.

Peoria Park District

I wonder if it’s an 18-minute gap

2 Comments

Part of the Open Meetings Act requires that audio recordings be made of executive sessions precisely for the reason that’s facing the Peoria Park District now — someone is challenging the legality of action taken in closed session. Specifically, there’s a lawsuit over the Peoria Park District’s actions regarding sharing parkland with District 150 so they can build a school on a portion of Glen Oak Park. A judge can review the executive session recordings to see if any illegal action took place during the meeting…

But guess what? Merle Widmer reports that parts of the recordings in question have been erased!

First I heard it was one tape that got erased “accidentally” of Peoria Park Board and Peoria Public School District #150 Executive Minutes. Then an unimpeachable source told me it was “two” Park Board Executive tapes that were “accidentally” erased. These tapes supposedly contain dialogue between certain Peoria Public School District #150 Board Members and members of the Peoria Park District Board of Directors concerning the relocating of Glen Oak School on Prospect Road and on private and PPD land.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I smell a cover-up.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Questions and Questionable Answers

16 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoThe Journal Star provides on their website a copy of the “Questions and Answer” sheet Ken Hinton distributed at the special District 150 School Board meeting on Monday. On pages three and four, it says this:

9. What is the actual size of the property being acquired at the park site. DW

ANSWER: A total of 10.47 acres is being acquired at the Park site either by actual purchase by the School District or subject to the 99-year Intergovernmental Agreement. In addition, however, Glen Oak Park is 110 acres and all of the facilities will be available for school use subject to mutually agreed rules and regulations (scheduling, etc.) The general Park site includes such things as Centennial Playground, the theatre bandshell, baseball/softball diamonds, Children’s Museum, Zoo, soccer fields, nature areas, numerous tennis courts (some of which are currently being used by Woodruff High School) and Botanical Gardens and Conservatory.

At the Park District Board meeting tonight, East Bluff United Neighborhood Association president Marty Palmer asked the board members about that answer during the public comments period. I wasn’t personally there to hear it, but he reports to me in an e-mail that “the board denied all of the answers” to that question, and “they (board) have not talked to #150 at all since the letter of intent was signed.”

So it does appear that District 150 is (once again) jumping the gun on their site plans. Until they have an actual intergovernmental agreement (not just a letter of intent), they can’t assume all of the things they’re proposing in their question and answer document.

But there’s something else that’s questionable about their answer to this question and question 18 (“Would the city be willing to cover the cost of going to the park if the current school site is chosen”). Please bear with me as I set this up:

One of the big selling factors for the park site is that the kids will be able to utilize the park because they’ll be immediately adjacent to it. Specifically, the document mentions such things as the baseball diamonds, zoo, children’s museum, tennis courts, and botanical gardens. Has anyone looked at how far away from the park site these features are?

The land the school wants to build on is on the corner of Frye and Prospect. Even assuming the school building would sit on the farthest northeast corner of the proposed site (which would be unlikely), the approximate distances from the building to these wonderful amenities are:

Feature Distance
Baseball Diamonds 380-700 feet
Zoo 750 feet
Children’s Museum 900 feet
Tennis Courts 1000 feet
Botanical Gardens 1300 feet

For comparison, a city block in that area is about 350 feet. So, the closest baseball diamond is about a block away, and the botanical gardens are almost four blocks away — almost as far as it is from the current Glen Oak School to the park. Are we to assume that these children are going to walk from the new school building to these features?

I’ll buy the baseball diamonds. But do you really see 30-60 six-year-olds trapsing across the park to the zoo when it’s 94 degrees outside or raining? Or walking two and a half blocks to the children’s museum in the snow in 25 degree weather? Or ever walking to the botanical gardens even if it were 72 and sunny?

My point is that it’s very likely these kids are going to be loaded up on buses and driven to many of these different parts of the park anyway (which makes their question 18 moot). And if that’s the case, why can’t they do that from the current Glen Oak School site now? Obviously the cost of transportation to the park would be far less, even given the price of gas these days, than the cost of either building on the park site or creating a 10-acre campus at Wisconsin and Frye.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

LaHood mediation meeting not inspiring confidence

2 Comments

Nothing cures distrust like more secrecy.

Today’s Word on the Street column reports that the public won’t be allowed to witness Ray LaHood’s mediation skills when he tries to broker a compromise on the location of a new school in the city’s East Bluff. LaHood will be meeting behind closed doors at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, May 31, with officials from the city, school board and park board. They’ll have a press conference after the meeting.

It appears I’m not the only one who wonders why LaHood is getting involved in this issue. In a letter to the editor that was also published in today’s Journal Star, Donald R. Jackson says:

It is too bad LaHood didn’t make himself available to mediate the conflict between the School Board, Dr. Kay Royster and members of the community who supported her then and still do. LaHood was asked to intervene, but he declined stating that he had no control or influence over the board.

In one sense, these two situations are different: the Royster issue involved one public body that was internally divided — the school board; the school siting issue involves three public bodies — the school board, park board, and city — who are at odds with each other, but are not internally divided.

But in another sense, the situations aren’t different at all. In both cases, it’s a local government issue that doesn’t warrant the time of a U.S. Congressman to mediate. What’s next? Will he be mediating a compromise between the city council and the county board regarding jail fees and election commissions?

And if that weren’t enough, he’s also related to the park board director. Doesn’t that bother anyone? I’m not trying to impugn his integrity, but LaHood seems to have a real blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his actions. He should have enough judgement to see that his in-law relationship to Bonnie Noble gives at least the appearance of impropriety and bias when he’s trying to mediate a dispute that involves the park district.

Then to have the meeting behind closed doors is just the icing on the cake. As the WOTS column points out, decisions made in closed-door meetings are one of the biggest points of contention! And I loved this line:

Tim Butler, LaHood’s spokesman, defended the decision to have the meeting closed, saying there would not be any decisions or determinations and therefore still plenty of time for public input.

There won’t be any decisions? What exactly is the point of this meeting? How do you resolve a dispute without making any decisions? Is Ray just going to do one of those little team-building exercises — like having Councilman Manning fall backwards while Ken Hinton and Tim Cassidy catch him so they can all build up trust for each other?

Despite all my reservations, I nevertheless hope that something good comes out of this meeting. I hope LaHood proves wrong all my fears. But most of all, I hope Glen Oak School remains in the heart of the East Bluff, and that the school board will learn to be more transparent in the future so we don’t have to go through all this rigmarole.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

Property acquisition not illegal; just stupid

4 Comments
UPDATE 5/24/06: A real lawyer has contacted me (no, it wasn’t Chase) and said that, since 1972, the Open Meetings Act has been amended several times. Apparently the prohibition against taking final action — 5 ILCS 120/2(e) — was added after the Collinsville v. Witte case. Thus, the school district’s action may have been illegal after all. The attorney added, “There is more recent Ill. case law holding that a board of education violated the OMA when it held an executive (closed) session to determine that the planned public sale date of school property should be rescheduled.”

At first blush, it certainly looks like a violation of the Open Meetings Act. School District 150 signs purchase agreements with property owners on Prospect Road based on a closed-session decision, then rubber stamps those purchases in open session and get help form a trustworthy firm. The Open Meetings Act says no final action can be taken in closed session, and what could be more final than purchasing property for over three-quarters of a million dollars? if legal help is needed we advise to read more

As I’ve said before, I’m no lawyer, so feel free to prove me wrong on this. But from what I can determine, the school board did not act illegally. In fact, their action has already been tested in court as far back as 1972 when the Illinois appellate court decided the case of Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10 v. Benjamin and Lillian Witte. I found this information in an online version of Illinois Issues that was originally published in 1977. It says:

. . . the high court ruled that a “school board was not limited to considering only acquisition of property in executive session with formal action required to be taken at public meeting. Legal action concerning acquisition or sale of real property, including passage of motion to acquire property could be taken in closed session . . . .”

It goes on to say the ruling was never appealed and is now part of Illinois law. But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it wise. The idea behind allowing property negotiation in closed session is that it allows the public body to get a fair price on the property — if it were made public before purchase agreements were signed, the property values could be artificially inflated, making it needlessly more expensive to acquire. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t look like the district got any great deals by working in secret. They spent, on average, about one and a half times the value of each property.

While it may not have been wise, it is strategic. There are many who believe like PeoriaIllinoisan that all these public meetings are a ruse, and that the school district plans to build on the park site regardless. Considering the park district is in favor of it, and Ray LaHood is brokering a “compromise,” I fear the cynics may be right. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Ray’s son Darin married to park district director Bonnie Noble’s daughter Kristen? And, if so, wouldn’t it be a bit of a conflict of interest for Ray to be brokering a “compromise” when he’s related to an interested party? Even if it’s all innocent, it has the look of impropriety.

On the other hand, the public is pretty united on this — everyone from residents to parents to state representatives to city councilmen to neighborhood activists are all against using parkland for the school. Even for political insiders, that kind of pressure is hard to push back against. I’m still going to hold out hope for now that the school board will see the error of its ways and rebuild Glen Oak School at its current site.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Ray LaHood

WWRD: What Would Ray Do?

6 Comments

U.S. Congressional Representative LaHood is taking time away from representing our interests in Washington to try to broker a compromise between several local units of government and concerned citizens, according to the Journal Star today.

LaHood said he attended a meeting Monday where Mayor Jim Ardis and state Sen. George Shadid asked him to organize a future meeting with District 150 officials. At issue is the specific location for the school.

“I’m going to convene a meeting of all the parties to see if we can resolve whatever problems exist with the proposed project,” LaHood said Wednesday from his office in Washington, D.C.

Why?  I remember going to a debate between LaHood and his Democratic challenger in Metamora several years ago.  At issue for Metamorans at that time was the widening of Route 116.  A local farmer got up and wanted to know which candidate was going to do something to stop them from widening the road and taking part of his farmland.  Both of the candidates, to their credit, said that was a local issue and not within the scope of the office for which they were running.

How is the Glen Oak School situation different?  What compelling reason is there for escalating this to a U.S. Representative? Have we exhausted all options locally?  Are we at such an impasse that we need to bring in an arbitrator?  At best, this course of action seems premature.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Kellar Branch, Peoria County, Peoria Disposal Company, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Peoria Regional Airport

A taxing weekend

4 Comments

Yesterday I got my property tax bill.

Looking it over, I see that over half my taxes go to Peoria Public School District 150. They’re going to have another forum on the future plans for Glen Oak and White schools, this time just for parents of kids who attend those schools. Superintendent Ken Hinton said, “It’s important to me to hear the voice of the parents.” Okay, I’ll take him at his word, but he’d be a whole lot more convincing if he had listened to their voice before deciding the site of a new school.

I have the same concerns about the format as other people, so I won’t repeat that here. But I would like to make another point: I think it’s important to listen to the parents of kids who attend there, but this decision doesn’t just affect them. Alterations to Glen Oak Park affects all of Peoria. Replacing the Glen Oak School site with a park, public housing, or a vacant building affects all of the East Bluff. Let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the parents of kids at Glen Oak and White right now are indifferent to the location of a new school. That should be taken into consideration, but shouldn’t trump overall neighborhood and city concerns.

Also on my bill, I see I’m paying a good amount to the “Pleasure Driveway PKD,” aka the Peoria Park District. The park board was just slapped with a lawsuit this weekend by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge. According to the Journal Star, the suit “alleges closed meetings held by the board on March 8 and 22 violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by discussing plans to replace Glen Oak School when that wasn’t appropriate.” If the court finds that the board met illegally, and if the decision to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 was made in one of those meetings, one possible remedy would be to nullify the agreement that was made in secret.

I’m glad somebody cares enough to act on this. People complain about back-room deals and shady politics, but more often than not nobody does anything about it. Here are a couple of people who are willing to hold the Park Board accountable for their actions. Kudos to Karrie and Sara!

Let’s see, what else is on my tax bill? There’s Illinois Central College and the Peoria Library. Don’t have much to say about those except that I think the library here in Peoria is under-utilized. There’s a wealth of information and expertise down there — I’ve learned more about Peoria from the library than one could ever learn online.

The Greater Peoria Mass Transit District, aka CityLink, makes an appearance on my bill. They do a pretty good job of moving people around the city — a tough job when the city is as spread out as it is. On the Peoria Rails Yahoo group, several people have been throwing around the idea of using the Kellar Branch for a light passenger rail system instead of a walking/biking trail:

The expansion of Peoria population into the far northwest part of the city, the growth of shopping in that area, and greatly increased fuel costs might make light rail service feasible. The Kellar branch could up upgraded and extended over Rt 6 to a parking and depot area behind or near the Grand Prairie. Interconnecting bus service there, downtown, and perhaps at a stop or two along the way would make public transportation quicker and more user friendly. The light rail service could terminate at the old Rock Island Depot and the light rail unit could be run in the push/pull – Chicago METRA style. A shuttle bus could take passengers to and from the CITYLINK terminal on Adams St.

Not a bad idea, especially given the cost of gas these days. However, there are two things not mentioned that would have to happen for it to be successful: (1) the speed limit for this light rail system would have to be faster than the 10 mph city code dictates for trains, and (2) part of the upgrade of the Kellar Branch would have to be better signals at grade crossings and fences along the tracks where the tracks pass through neighborhoods.

CityLink isn’t the only transportation entity on my tax bill. There’s also the Greater Peoria Regional Airport Authority. They have a new skipper (Ken Spirito from Gulfport, Mississippi), and part of his mission is to “redevelop and redo this terminal building. […] I want it to be a ‘wow’ impression. I want to ‘wow’ them,” according to the Journal Star‘s May 1 article. At least one person doesn’t like that idea. Polly Peoria, usually an advocate of tearing down old buildings, likes this one, so it can stay. I haven’t flown since before 9/11/01, so I honestly have no idea what kind of condition Peoria’s airport is in. If remodeling can bring in more business though, I say go for it. It’s not like that terminal was built to be a hallmark civic building.

What’s left? Let’s see, Peoria County, which recently voted down an expansion to the hazardous waste landfill. Now there’s a public board that listened to the public. District 150 and the Park Board could learn a few things from them. I’ve already blogged about this issue at length, so I’ll move on.

Finally, there’s the City of Peoria and Peoria Township. Why we need both I don’t quite understand, and yes, I have read the Journal Star’s special series on this issue. It’s an interesting read, but given what services the township now provides, it seems like they could just as easily provide it as part of city services and eliminate redundant government bodies.

As usual, my wife and I will pick a day to go down to the courthouse, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the Arts in Education bands play, enjoy the beautiful weather (hopefully), and pay our property taxes. Doing it that way lessens the pain of all the money we’re paying.