This is old news, but I just wanted to give everyone a chance to comment on it: District 150, it was reported last Friday in the paper, is going to spend $94 million in new buildings and renovations. Here’s how it breaks down:
| Harrison Primary | $21.2 M |
| Lincoln Middle | $19.7 M |
| Glen Oak | $27.9 M |
| Richwoods Attendance Area (Kellar, Lindbergh, Northmoor, Richwoods) |
$12.0 M |
| New math/sci/tech academy | $11.7 M |
| SSA bldg. renovation | $1.2 M |
| Total | $93.7 M |
|---|
And where will all this money come from? According to the paper, $72 million will come from the Public Building Commission ($28 million from a previous request, $44 million in a new request), and “[t]he nearly $22 million remaining would come from the District 150’s own bonding authority and about $8.2 million in cash balances.” The paper also said that “Board President David Gorenz said the board was intent on working within its means without raising the tax rate while at the same time trying to make the greatest impact.”
Now I have some questions about all this. First of all, the paper reported on Nov. 30, 2006, that the school board would only have access to “up to $60 million” from the Public Building Commission. When and how did that get increased to $72 million? Also, according to information I got from District 150 via FOIA request, the school district can spend a little over $33.9 million in fire prevention and safety funds on these projects. So why aren’t they using all of those funds first before asking the Public Building Commission for more money?
Here’s the problem with trying to keep track of what’s going on with District 150 — the numbers change often and with no explanation. At the time we all thought $60 million was the cap for PBC funding, we were told that the tax rate would stay the same because other bonds would be paid off, so it would be a wash. Now that the number has increased to $72 million, we’re still told the tax rate won’t go up. How can that be?
Also, anyone know what STS Consultants said it would cost to replace Glen Oak School? If you guessed $7.95 million, you’re right! Cost to renovate that building: $8.36 million. Now it’s going to cost $27.9 million to build a new Glen Oak School. Wow.
They can’t get the kids educated so they’re going to spend $ 94 million on three grade schools and renovations throughout the district. What about better education? I realize PBC money is for buildings but how do they swing remodeling and Johnny can’t read? I guess spending another person’s money on physical plants can preserve the administrative pay scale. The average taxpayer in District 150 would be surprised to learn that the District relies solely on consultants to coordinate projects such as these. The District does not have their own four year degreed engineer or architect in the entire Buildings & Grounds department.
I wondered how they were going to build a NEW math/science/ tech academy for 11.7 million when the going rate for replacement schools is double that.
Personally I am glad to see the district finally taking the replacement and upgrading of their properties seriously.
Yes the district has other issues but that should not mean that the students shouldn’t have access to some modern facilities to learn in. Of course I still think that education dollars should be spread out evenly to all districts throughout the state. Of course they are even’t spread out fairly within a given district. We live on the north side of town but I see no reason why the schools on he bluff and southside should get any less than say Charter Oak or Richwood’s.
Yes interesting figures — Glen Oak School:
To replace – $7.95 million;
To renovate – $8.36 million;
PJStar – Jan 8, 2008
estimated – $25 million
PJStar – Jan 18, 2008
$27.9 million
How and why did this cost estimte increase $2.9 million in ten (10) days?
And so if D150 uses $8.2 million in cash balances — which funds are being used? Is that legally possible? What position(s) does that put D150 in for any future need of those particular cash balances?
Is there a Public Building Commission Meeting this Thursday?
The $33.9 million in fire prevention and safety funds are HLS (Health, Life Safety) monies, correct?
How did the BOE accumulate $33.9 million when just a few years ago the balance was $2 million – just enough to pay for roof repairs/replacements that we were then told (in the last year) were deferred and placed on a “replacement schedule”?
Generally, HLS monies are to be allocated first to projects or repairs in existing structures that currently need to be done; i.e., upgrading fire alarm systems, electrical repairs, roof repair/replacement, etc. – anything that threatens the health or life safety of students and/or staff.
My question is, has the accumulation of the $33.9 million been at the expense of other buildings in the district that require repairs due to conditions that threaten the health and/or life safety of students and staff; or has money been diverted from other sources or restricted funds in order to free up the $33.9 million when HLS monies should have been used first?
Has the district deferred maintenance of serious problems in existing buildings and if so, are they gambling with the health and safety of children and staff that nothing catastrophic will occur?
The only way the BOE can authorize the purchase or construction of new buildings without a public referendum is if they use the proceeds from the sale of other district buildings or funds received as a grant under the School Construction Law, or from gifts or donations, provided that no funds to complete such building, other than lease payments, are derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or the tax levy of the district. (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36)
Why won’t the BOE have a public referendum on these proposed projects and let the public decide how their tax dollars should be spent?
Some additional citations from the Illinois School Code:
105 ILCS 230/5-30
105 ILCS 5/10-22.35A
105 ILCS 5/10-22.36
105 ILCS 230/5-30
PrairieCelt,
You missed one origin of funds in your statement regarding the sources without referendum – that is the Peoria Building Commission. That is the large loophole that King Hinton and the BOE stand behind and laugh at all the 150 taxpayers! It’s a sucker’s game and they know it since taxpayers can’t even squawk! By the way – you can thank Aaron Strangelove for his blatant lies in the House in Springfield which got the PBC moratorium overruled. It’s a shame Aaron isn’t straight with the public on that issue EITHER!
^oo^~
Guy – I appreciate your comments. Sometimes I feel I am the only frustrated Northside person out there. No one seems to be speaking up on behalf of the Northern neighborhoods and schools. The District would like to draw a different crowd to its schools but does not focus on the areas in which they are likely to be able to accomplish this.
I am afraid the 12M designated for the Richwoods attendance area is just an excuse to expand so more poor performing students can be transferred in.
The majdority of our tax dollars go to the school district and it has not helped. New buildings are not the answer. Ardis is correct in bringing in an expert, no matter the cost. Our children deserve the best no matter what socioeconomic situation they come from. Brains and bank accounts are not interchangeable.
BMW I think you missed my point. I was saying that I think currently the schools in the poorer areas of town are getting less. Do you think the north side of town would put up with older schools like Glen Oak and Harrison just to name a couple? The north side schools are the newest and of course they are in better shape and have more amenities. Just because you live in a poorer part of town does that mean you get any less of a building or amenities? Equal public education is not happening. BMW- What sort of “crowd” are you looking for?
Does the right “crowd” need to live out north? What about the “crowd” south of Lake, is that the right “crowd”? What about the crowd south of Forest Hill, is that the right “crowd”?
Does the right “crowd” have to drive a BMW?
I do not think that all schools are funded and staffed equally. It should be according to the needs of each school, not its geographical location or the amount of higher tax dollars from a specific district. Again, the schools are failing the children who can least afford to be left behind. That is up to the board to straighten out.
Guy, on reading your post again, I guess I did miss your point, but I think you missed mine as well. I did not state nor do I believe that poorer areas of the community do not deserve new and/or upgraded facilities. However, I do not think it is in the best interests of the City and the School District to do this at the exclusion of the North end schools. Just because these schools are not failing and the buildings are not in shambles, does not mean they should not receive some of the resources and attention of the City Council and the School Board and its Administration. Those resources do not have to be that extensive, perhaps an upgrade and enhancement of the curriculum so that these schools might attract more families that are presently choosing to live and educate their children outside of Peoria.
A few years back I lived out of town with 20 or more area families. When it came time to return to Peoria, not one of those families settled within District 150 boundaries (they did not even consider it an option), except mine. These were families that had a “choice,” the very families that the City claims they would like to attract. While replacement of decaying schools like Glen Oak and Harrison are definitely necessary they will not bring families that have “choice” back to Peoria. I realize that 12M has been earmarked for the Richwoods attendance area, but I am skeptical about the purpose for those funds and who will ultimately benefit.
The “crowd” that I want District 150 to attract and have sitting next to my child in the classroom are students that are prepared and able to learn. Period! That, I am afraid, is a shrinking population in all sections within the City of Peoria District 150.
Check this out!!
http://www.pjstar.com/php/index.php?/news/peoria_principals_performancd_to_determine_raises_under_proposed_district_1/
PEORIA: Principals’ performance to determine raises under proposed District 150 policy
Posted on 02/13 at 08:46 PM
BY DAVE HANEY
of the Journal Star
PEORIA – Increasing reading or math scores by certain percentage points and cutting truancy or dropout rates may determine whether or how much of a raise School District 150 principals could receive come the start of the next school year.
Officials say the move – from salary increases tied to what the teachers’ union bargains and receives annually to one based on performance and held to particular goals – will provide more focus at each of the district’s more than 30 schools and programs.
“The Board of Education wants more accountability,” District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton said of the proposed performance-based contracts that will be implemented with the hiring of new principals at Manual and Richwoods high schools in the coming months but also may affect all principals beginning this fall.
Not all goals will be tied to student achievement, both Hinton and board members are quick to point out, noting parental involvement and teacher and student morale likely will be as much a part of the evaluating process as will recommendations from the superintendent.
The board on Monday is expected to vote on the new policy, removing principals from the current method of compensation. School officials say the actual tool used to evaluate principals, however, likely won’t come until later this summer.
Oh, PrairieCelt, come out, come out, wherever you are! I would love to hear what you have to say about this!!