Category Archives: Peoria Park District

City of Peoria, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Neighbors taking preventative action to save homes

5 Comments

After reading in the paper that the school board is still eyeing Morton Square Park as the possible site of a new District 150 school, neighborhood activists are not wasting any time trying to protect the park (and their homes) from unwanted intrusion. They want the park to be named an historic landmark. The Journal Star reports:

Frank Lewis, who owns property adjacent to the park and who sits on the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, brought the idea to the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation. The foundation, of which Lewis is also a member, approved supporting landmark status for the park at its meeting Monday.

Making it a landmark would stymie attempts by the park district and school district to site a school there. The funniest line, though was from park district board president Tim Cassidy, who said the park board may welcome, rather than fight, landmark status for Morton Square:

“I cannot tell you what position we’d take, because I don’t know the implications,” Cassidy said. “If one of the things driving it is the school district’s plan, we didn’t have any knowledge of it until I read it in the paper. It’s never been discussed. The request has never been made.”

This is laughable. I encourage everyone to read the District 150 Master Planning Committee Final Recommendations, dated October 11, 2005. In there, the school district  specifically states as one of their action items:

14. Engage the Peoria Park District in discussions to acquire land adjacent to or on the Morton Square and upper Glen Oak Park sites. Such discussions might include the swapping of land.

Now we know that the school board talked to the park district about the Glen Oak site in an illegal park board closed session. Are we to believe Mr. Cassidy’s assertion that he “didn’t have any knowledge of [the district’s plan] until [he] read it in the paper”? That the school board only mentioned the Glen Oak part of the plan, but not the Morton Square park portion?  Does he think we were all born yesterday?

Also in the Master Planning Committee report (emphasis mine):

Beginning in the Woodruff attendance area in Fiscal 2007 with completion by Fiscal 2009, phase-out Glen Oak Primary School and either acquire/swap land in upper Glen Oak Park or adjacent area or expand Von-Stueben campus into K-8 [ . . . ]; Alternatively a new “Glen Oak Park” campus or, a vacated administration center on the Von Stueben campus would be vacated by 2009 and re-purposed with an addition into a primary school.

Separately, property would be acquired adjacent to and/or on the Morton Square Park site. A separate replacement building would be built as funds became available with a targeted opening of Fiscal 2009. Upon completion of the new school, Kingman and Irving schools would be closed. The Glen Oak, Kingman, and Irving primary students would be re-allocated to the “Morton Square Park” and either the Glen Oak Park (preferred) or expanded Von Stueben sites.

Sounds like neighbors of Morton Square Park have plenty of cause for concern; I’d say it’s pretty clear their houses are next on the chopping block if they don’t act to protect them. Godspeed, Mr. Lewis.

City Council, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

City considering responses to school district plans

3 Comments

The city is none too pleased by the collusion of the school board, park board, and public housing authority regarding land swaps on the East Bluff that would leave some residents stripped of their property and others living next to a low-income housing project — all without any public input. It’s only fair for the city council to look out for the best interests of its constituents, but what recourse does it have?

Well, the land that the school board wants to take over by Glen Oak Park includes a couple of city streets (Republic and East). The school board can’t force the city to vacate those streets via eminent domain, and leaving the streets in place would be problematic for the board’s planned siting of the school. So the city’s control over those streets gives them some leverage.

Furthermore, the park district can’t sell land to the school district (it’s illegal), but they can lease it to them. However, if they do, any of that leased land is subject to city zoning ordinances. That means the city would have to approve the use of that land. Right now, as I understand it, the park district would want to use the leased land for parking.

It sounds as though there may be some other tricks up the council’s sleeve, too, so the siting of the new school isn’t “final” yet. It’s too bad things are shaping up for a fight. Last year, it really looked like the school board and the city were starting to get along — the city pitched in some resources to help the school district fight truancy, for instance. Now District 150 has made a lot of enemies and sown a lot of distrust because of their secret plans. Like Polly says, they’ve chosen the path of most resistance.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Could Park Board’s illegal act doom school building plans?

5 Comments

The Journal Star reported this morning that the Park Board violated the law by discussing, in closed session, plans to let District 150 use some of its park land to build a school.

What the article didn’t address were the possible consequences of the board’s illegal action. According to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, this opens up the park board to litigation in circuit court, and that court:

. . . having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.

Check out that last possibility: “declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.” It would be interesting to know what actions were taken at those meetings, wouldn’t it? I mean, if they decided to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the school district at that meeting in closed session, then that action could be subject to reversal.

Circuit court may again be the answer. The Open Meetings Act requires closed sessions to not only take minutes, but have an audio or video recording of the proceedings, and the circuit court can examine those as evidence.

But there’s a time limit of 60 days from the discovery of a violation for action to be taken. When those east bluff residents meet this afternoon at 1:15, they may want to consider their options in light of the park board’s violation.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools, Uncategorized

If you live close to a park or school, beware

1 Comment

I got to thinking about the park and school districts’ plan to site a school at the corner of Frye and Prospect. Their justification for this is that they need 15 acres to build a new school, and thus the current campuses aren’t large enough. They also see an intergovernmental agreement as a major boost for civic cooperation, and the Journal Star has already patted them on the back for it.

Now, if you recall the long-range plan for the school district, they want to tear down 11 schools and build five new ones. This proposed school at Frye and Prospect is only the first one of five. So my question is this:

Where are the other four schools going to be sited?

Since all the schools to be replaced are in the older part of town where there’s very little greenspace left, and since intergovernmental agreements are seen as such a positive thing, I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination that the other four schools will be sited exactly the same way.

Thus, if your property abuts a park in the older part of town — you might want to make some contingency plans now. You may pick up the paper one morning and discover your house is the next to go.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

State does not require 15 acres to build new schools

3 Comments

I listened to WMBD radio’s morning show today and they interviewed Ken Hinton on the school & park districts’ school-building plan. I don’t have a transcript of the interview, so I can’t swear to what exactly he said, but I came away from the interview believing the State of Illinois requires new schools be built on 15 acres of land.

Not that I don’t believe Mr. Hinton, but I was just curious where that statute was written, so I started doing some checking. I looked on the state’s website, at the Illinois School Code, and at building grant requirements. Nowhere could I find any reference to a minimum site requirement of 15 acres.

So I called the school district offices and spoke with Mr. Guy Cahill (Mr. Hinton was unavailable). He said that he hadn’t heard the interview, but that if Mr. Hinton said 15 acres was “required,” then he misspoke. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) recommends new K-8 schools be built on at least 15 acres (and new high schools on at least 50 acres), but there is no minimum requirement.

Mr. Cahill also referred me to the ISBE for more information on the reasoning behind their recommendations. I’m still waiting for a call back.

By the way, I’m in agreement with Bill Dennis of the Peoria Pundit on why this land-grab building plan is a bad idea. One item I would add to his list is that the problem with the school district is not its buildings. They make it sound like people will flock into Peoria to send their kids to a new school building or that student achievement will magically improve simply by virtue of building a new, “modern” structure.

And I couldn’t help but notice that the Journal Star already had an editorial written praising this plan on the very day details of the plan were disclosed to the public. Considering the Journal Star has never seen a park district proposal it didn’t like, I think they’ve become the park district’s de facto marketing department. They clearly knew about the park district’s plans ahead of time (or else that was the hastiest endorsement I’ve ever seen), yet I’ve seen no reports on it in the paper. Why not?

Blogosphere, Peoria Disposal Company, Peoria Park District, Uncategorized

PDC and PPD: The plot thickens

2 Comments

Remember when I called up Bonnie Noble because I was surprised that the Park District came out in favor of the proposed PDC landfill expansion?  Well, apparently, I wasn’t the only one who was surprised by that — so was the Park Board.

The Journal Star today reports that Noble’s letter, even though it was on Park District letterhead, did not reflect the park district’s view:

The Park Board voted at its Feb. 22 meeting not to take a position on the proposed landfill expansion. Trustee Jim Cummings said then that Noble’s letter doesn’t represent the official position of the park district.

That actually makes me feel better about the park district as a whole. If Noble wants to express her own opinion, that’s fine — she made some interesting points.  However, to print her personal feelings on park district letterhead misrepresents the Park Board to Peoria County.

I hope county board members are aware that Noble’s letter is not a park district endorsement of the landfill expansion.

(P.S. In the category of “things that may be of interest to other bloggers,” my blog was actually quoted in this Journal Star story.   If they’re reading my little opinion columns, you can bet they’re reading other Peoria bloggers, and it’s gratifying to know they’re listening to us.)

Peoria Disposal Company, Peoria Park District

The Park District, the aquifer, and the other side of the story

4 Comments

There are always two sides to every story, so today we’ll look at PDC’s side of the aquifer question. Here to defend PDC is a surprise advocate: the Peoria Park District.

The mission statement of the Peoria Park District is “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” One definition of “stewardship” is “caring for land and associated resources and passing healthy ecosystems to future generations.”

Imagine my surprise when I happened upon this letter from the Park District urging approval of PDC’s landfill expansion. The letter states, in part, “We have served PDC as a supplier over the past several years. It is crucial for the PDC siting application to be approved . . . The economic impact to our organization may be substantial if we cannot count on PDC’s business due to the closure of the PDC No. 1 landfill.”

That raises a couple of questions in my mind. First of all, what is the Park District supplying to PDC? And secondly, why are they in favor of the expansion? I called the park district to ask and got to speak with none other than Parks Director Bonnie Noble herself.

She was an unapologetic advocate for the landfill expansion. In response to my initial question about what the Park District supplies PDC, she said that when they were building the Riverplex, PDC helped them remove and dispose of some underground storage tanks, plus they handle waste from the zoo. Also, PDC provides all the waste receptacles and clean-up for riverfront events.

She went on to state why she wholeheartedly supports the expansion. She feels there is a lot of misinformation being spread by opponents of the landfill. For instance, she disputes the contention that the landfill is located over the Sankoty aquifer. It’s actually over the “Shelbyville outwash,” she contends. I can’t find any independent verification of that, but I’m not a geologist, of course. However, PDC’s application does make a similar distinction:

The Lower Sand [of the local geology] is a side-valley outwash facies of the Sankoty Formation. It is an immature, poorly-sorted, brown, fluvial sand that was deposited by local tributary streams that discharged from the west into the ancestral Mississippi River Valley. The side-vally outwash facies should not be confused with the Sankoty Sand. The Sankoty Sand is a mature, well-sorted, fluvial sand that was deposited directly by the ancestral Mississippi River. The sand grains of the Sankoty Sand are distinctly-pink and uniformly of pure quartz composition . . . The sedimentary bedrock forms an impermeable hydrogeologic basement. The existing PDC No. 1 landfill and the proposed landfill expansion are or will be constructed in the Upper Till. Perched groundwater is discontinuously present in isolated sand lenses within the Upper Till.

The implication seems to be that this “side-valley outwash facies” is a separate entity from the Sankoty aquifer. This portion of PDC’s application is certified by two Illinois-licensed professional geologists who conclude after considerable analysis, “the proposed expansion is favorably designed and located to prevent any adverse impact on the groundwater.”

I hope they’re right.

Noble also took issue with calling the waste PDC received “toxic.” She felt that calling it “toxic waste” played on people’s emotions, and that a more appropriate name would be “hazardous waste.” I won’t argue with her on opponents’ transparent effort to play on people’s emotions. But I don’t think it’s overstating the point to describe this waste as “toxic.” The EPA describes the chemicals PDC takes in as “toxic,” so I have to disagree with Noble on that point.

So, how do I feel about it now? Well, my previous post on this topic was predicated on the belief that the landfill expansion was going to be over the Sankoty, and I was concerned about the increased risk to our drinking water. If the expansion is not over the Sankoty and there is no increased risk, then I guess my primary concern has been answered.

On the other hand, I’m never going to have warm-fuzzy feelings about hazardous waste. And I’m never going to be pleased that we’re accepting this waste from ten other states. But until I hear expert testimony from the other side — say, another licensed geologist or two — I can’t very well just dismiss the opinions of the geologists in PDC’s application.

Overall, I’m in agreement with other commenters who advocate attacking this problem from the supply-side. How can we avoid producing toxic waste in the first place? And what can be done to recycle it instead of burying it? Those are the questions we need to be asking so we can find an ultimate solution to our toxic waste problems.

And I still think it’s weird that the Park District advocates expanding a toxic-waste landfill. Isn’t that kind of like a vegetarian advocating the expansion of Alwan & Sons Meat Company?