Peoria Public Schools

District 150 employees exonerated

56 Comments

Several accusations were made against District 150’s director of technology and library media services Mary Ward and many other employees in her department. Interim superintendent Norm Durflinger took them seriously and conducted an investigation. Today, he announced the results of that investigation:

Interim Superintendent Norm Durflinger said 35 people in all were interviewed about 14 separate accusations ranging from employees giving away district-owned computer equipment or selling it on the Internet to viewing pornography or smoking marijuana while at work.

“We investigated all the accusations and could find no basis for any of them,” Durflinger said Tuesday, noting attorneys trained in such questioning performed the internal inquiry, which acted on claims that were made by people in the community as well as employees….

“There is a view by some in the community there is no credibility when it comes so some people in Peoria School District 150,” he said. “In this case, we had to prove whether there was any truth to the accusations or not. . . . There was not.”

So all the employees have been exonerated. Durflinger is personally apologizing to each person who was suspected of wrongdoing. I don’t blame Durflinger for feeling bad about the situation, but I still think he did the right thing. He’s exactly right — District 150 has a serious credibility problem. Exculpating these employees I believe gives Peorians more confidence in the District and will help quell unfounded rumors (although it certainly won’t eliminate them).

Even though the employees were absolved of any guilt, the district is going to enact some new internal controls, including tracking equipment worth less than $500. That’s a positive outcome as well.

City of Peoria, Streets

Main Street improvements inch forward

10 Comments

I received a copy of the following memo from Peoria Public Works Director Dave Barber outlining his recommendations for improving Main Street from Glendale to University. Notable is that on-street parking will be reinstated, some sidewalks will eventually be widened, travel lanes will be reduced, and the speed limit will be lowered in some places to 25 mph. Here is the full memo (attachments are PDF files):

MEMORANDUM

To: Barbara Van Auken, City Council District 2
From: David Barber, Public Works Director
Cc: Scott Moore, City Manager
Steve Settingsgaard, Police Chief
Date: March 12, 2010

Re: Main Street Safety Improvement

In 2008 the City of Peoria, in conjunction with the local MPO, PPUATS, participated in a roadway safety assessment study sponsored by State Farm. As a part of that study, “high accident” locations in the tri-county area were reviewed. The “high accident” location focused on in the City of Peoria was the Main Street corridor, from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, which includes the curve near Crescent Avenue. Several of the suggested safety improvements for this corridor were: install additional speed limit signs, upgrade the crosswalks, install no right turn on red signs on Sheridan Road for both northbound and southbound traffic, and to give the road a “diet” by reducing through lanes to calm traffic.

As part of the safety study, State Farm’s consultant, Opus International, assisted local municipalities in applying for safety grants to implement the proposed safety improvements. On March 24, 2009, City Council voted to approve an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding to incorporate these proposed safety improvements on Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue, and to support a Capital Budget Request for the local 10% match, if grant funds were received. A safety improvement project estimated at $48,491 was submitted to IDOT. On September 24, 2009 the City received notice from IDOT that the funds were approved for construction in 2010. A striping and signage plan for Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue can be seen on Attachment A.

Attachment A shows the proposed plan to restripe Main Street from Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue as a three lane cross-section, with one through lane in each direction and a bi-directional center left turn lane. This will be accomplished by dropping a westbound through lane at Globe Avenue and an eastbound through lane at Sheridan Road. Potential proposed parking is also shown on this plan sheet, where “P” indicates a proposed parking space and “M” indicates a proposed metered parking space. Further study and/or input from local businesses may be needed to determine if there is the need for any posted loading zones (LZ) for loading and unloading at businesses. The current practice of loading and unloading in a travel lane would not be acceptable with only one through lane in each direction. Parking was not placed on the curve/hill which runs on Main Street from North Street east towards Glen Oak Avenue, due to safety concerns.

Using information from previous meetings and the Main Street Traffic Study performed by Hanson Engineering in 2008, additional effort was spent to continue these concepts to improve the pedestrian safety on Main Street from Sheridan Road to University Street. This portion of the Main Street corridor would be beyond the scope of the HSIP Grant, so any work would be 100% City funded. Taking the Hanson study and traffic counts into consideration, it appears that Main Street from Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue could be restriped similar to the corridor between Sheridan Road and Glendale Avenue, as a three lane section, without major disruption of traffic service levels. This can be seen in Attachment B. As with the previous section of Main Street, the placement of loading zones must be considered in front of area businesses.

The design of the roadway striping becomes more complicated on Main Street between University Street and Bourland Avenue. This is because of the very congested nature of the intersection of University and Main and all the turning traffic at this location. Using available traffic information, four options have been generated for discussion and consideration:

Option 1: No change, see Attachment C. Currently the pedestrian safety features include: pedestrian countdown signals at Main/University intersection and “Yield to Pedestrian” signs for the right turning motorists. This option continues to provide maximum capacity for motorists in this corridor. To help calm traffic in this area in order to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph could be posted.

Option 2: Parking on south side, see Attachment C. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that one eastbound through lane could be eliminated in this section, without a major reduction in traffic level of service. This through lane, which is on the south side of Main Street, could be converted into parking or a wider sidewalk/parkway. While this option would add some on-street parking spaces, they would not be located in a desirable location. Because of the existing, available parking for the shopping center on the south side of the roadway, it is likely that the users of these parking spaces would largely be the businesses on the north side of the street. Although some of the persons crossing to the north side of the street will utilize the pedestrian signals at University, many pedestrians will be tempted to cross mid-block—through heavy traffic. Unless there was a positive way of encouraging them to cross at the intersection, this space would be better served as a widened sidewalk/parkway area. Additionally, the persons entering and exiting parked cars in the first block of the south side will have to contend with traffic turning onto Main from University, as well as the heavy through traffic in a narrow (11’) lane. This situation will likely lead to more personal injury and property accidents in this corridor and would not be seen as a safety improvement. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

Option 3: Parking on north side, see Attachment D. The attachment shows a layout of this corridor with parking and loading zones allowed on the north side of Main Street. The Hanson Study in 2008 showed that two through lanes were needed to accommodate the westbound traffic levels at this location for the traffic queuing for the University/Main intersection. The study also showed that one eastbound lane could be dropped in this area. Therefore, to provide parking on the north side, the travel lanes would have to be shifted to the south. This shift of traffic lanes to the south will cause an unacceptable offset for traffic crossing University on Main Street at this busy intersection. Additionally, because the traffic counts show that the traffic is consistently heavy at this location from 7 am to 7 pm any cars parked on the north side of the street would have to interrupt the flow of traffic, which would be on very narrow (10.5’) lanes, to enter and exit the parking spaces. Furthermore, many of these spaces may be blocked by stacked traffic waiting for a green light at University making them virtually unusable at times. This scenario will likely result in additional property and injury accidents and would not be seen as a pedestrian safety improvement. This option is not recommended.

Option 4: Provides pedestrian buffers on both sides. This scenario, seen on Attachment D, shows a painted out area on each side of the roadway that will buffer the pedestrians on the curbline sidewalk from the through traffic on Main Street. The Hanson Study showed that one eastbound through lane east of University Street could be dropped. By utilizing this lane width, an area would be painted out to prevent traffic on each side of Main Street on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue. To minimize the offset at the University/Main intersection, the buffer would be slightly more on the south side than the north. Parking would not be allowed on the block from University Street to Underhill Avenue, but the additional distance between the pedestrians and the through traffic will give the roadway a more walkable appeal. Additionally, if this proves to be a successful means to give the pedestrians more comfort on this roadway corridor, a future CIP request could be made to curb in this painted pedestrian buffer and widen the sidewalk and/or add landscaping. Several parking spaces could be striped on the north side of Main Street between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue in the area outside the transition from one to two lanes. To further help calm traffic in this area to increase pedestrian safety, a speed reduction to 25 mph would be recommended.

______________________________________

Staff Recommendations for improvement of the Main Street Corridor:

Sheridan Road to Glendale Avenue (HSIP grant area):

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Restrict left turns into and out of Crescent Avenue.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Install additional chevron signs on the curve/hill near Crescent Avenue.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Install parking meters between Crescent Avenue and Glendale Avenue.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.

Sheridan Road to Bourland Avenue:

  • Reduce roadway to a 3 lane cross section to calm traffic.
  • Restrict right turn on red for both northbound and southbound Sheridan Road traffic at Main Street.
  • Install additional 30 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate.
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing. Find more details about professional waste and garbage cleaning services at dumposaurus.com/popular-dumpster-rental-blog-articles/.

University Street to Bourland Avenue (Option 4, pedestrian buffers on both sides):

  • Drop one eastbound through lane at University Street.
  • Stripe Main Street from University Street to Underhill Avenue with two westbound through lanes and one eastbound through lane.
  • Taper down to one eastbound lane between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue.
  • Stripe out pedestrian buffers on both sides of street along the curbline, (3’ on the north side and 5’ on the south side) to minimize the traffic offset at the Main/University intersection.
  • Request administrative approval to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph.
  • Install 25 mph speed signs.
  • Update the painted crosswalks.
  • Mark parking areas and loading zones where appropriate (north side between Underhill Avenue and Bourland Avenue).
  • Restrict parking from 2 am to 6 am to prevent overnight parking and allow for street cleaning and snow plowing.
Peoria Journal Star

Journal Star no longer reporting bankruptcies

32 Comments

The Journal Star is no longer going to print personal bankruptcies in the paper. Let’s see, they no longer print all births, only those that people want in the paper. They charge for obituaries. Now they’re not going to print bankruptcies. They’ve cut so many staff members they can cover little more than “low-hanging fruit” types of news. The paper is thinner than it’s ever been, yet they’re still chipping away at staff and content.

I guess this is just another part of the Journal Star’s plan to slowly fade away into oblivion.

Museum Block, Peoria County

County ready to build without counting the cost

19 Comments

The Journal Star reports that members of the newly-formed Peoria Riverfront Museum board of directors were chosen. But that’s not the really newsworthy part of the story. The real news is contained in these two paragraphs:

Once convened, [board appointees] will work to finish the redevelopment agreement for the museum block, assist in closing the remaining private funding gap [emphasis added] and in various aspects of the construction phase and develop an operating agreement….

[Peoria County Board Chairman Tom] O’Neill said he expects to break ground on the parking deck in June. [emphasis added] The total cost of the parking lot project, including design work, is estimated at $8.5 million.

Jesus said, “‘Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, “This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.”‘”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Find out how much the project will cost, and then figure out how much money you have, before you start building the foundation. You’d do that if you were building a home for yourself, right? But what is Peoria County doing?

  • They don’t know how much the project will cost. The first design (the one with the big sphere) was rolled out to the public in January 2006. In July 2007, just 18 months later, they rolled out the current, smaller design. The reason given for the change at that time was “construction costs [had] risen at a much quicker rate than could have been anticipated based on historical data.” It’s now April 2010, 33 months after that design was presented. Even if construction costs rose consistent with historical data, it’s still going to be more expensive to build the project now than it was in 2007. What is that cost? Nobody knows.
  • They don’t have enough money raised to complete the project even at 2007 costs. Despite years of fundraising efforts, federal grants and earmarks, a successful sales tax referendum, IDOT funding, and the promise of state funding, they still do not have all the money raised that they needed three years ago. What makes anyone think they can raise the remaining funds now? Much of the private funding that has been raised is still in pledge form, not cash in hand, so there is even a question as to whether that money will really materialize.
  • The parking deck is the foundation. The parking deck is the first stage of constructing the museum. It is, of course, completely unnecessary since there is a glut of parking downtown as numerous studies have shown. Regardless of that, the parking deck is not designed or sited to be a stand-alone deck. Its design is specifically tailored to the 2007 museum plan. It’s an underground deck over which the museum building and grounds will be built.
  • The County doesn’t own the Sears block. Seemingly forgotten in all of this talk of construction is the fact that the City still owns the Sears block, and the County can’t construct anything on it using federal funds unless they own it or at least have some agreement with the City. So far, there is no such sale or agreement.

And so, the question is, why would the county even think about starting the foundation when they don’t know how much the whole project will cost and they know they don’t have all the money raised to finish it, and they know the prospects of getting the rest of the money is slim? Isn’t this foolish use of taxpayer funds, regardless of their source (federal, state, local)? Why this push to start construction by June? Are they hopeful that they’ll have final costs and all money in hand by then? I doubt it.

And then there are those assurances the County gave to voters before the referendum passed last year. Remember those? The County told us they wouldn’t start construction until all the money was raised. If they start construction in June, they will be going back on their word.

The only explanation I can see is that it’s a capitulation to Caterpillar. You may recall that Cat threatened to pull out of the project if the County didn’t start construction this year. They don’t want to “lose another construction season,” they explained.

Rather than capitulating and beginning this building project, the County should stick to a fiscally-responsible course. Here’s how to kill the museum project in three easy steps:

  1. Bid out the project and find out how much it will cost in real numbers to build the museum, and compare that number to the amount of cash in hand raised by the museum folks.
  2. If there’s not enough money to cover the project (and there won’t be), the County should insist that construction not start until the money is raised.
  3. Since that will entail losing another construction season, Caterpillar will pull out of the project, at which point the project dies.

To make up for the loss of construction jobs, the county could then reallocate the money from the sales tax to other public facilities that need constructing/rebuilding, thus giving the trades just as much work as they would have gotten from the museum boondoggle, but less long-term loss to the taxpayers.

City of Peoria

No market study performed on Wonderful Development

9 Comments

The other day, I was reading in the Journal Star about former mayor Bud Grieves’ plan to publicly unveil his all-hotels-connect-to-the-Civic-Center idea, and this just jumped out at me:

City Manager Scott Moore said the city is looking to do its own market study on Grieves’ plan, a similar process the city took in 2008 when Matthews of EM Properties Ltd. pitched the $102 million Marriott project.

The city did a market study on the “Wonderful Development”? Really? I don’t remember any council action authorizing funding for that. I immediately sent a Freedom of Information Act request to see this market study of which the City Manager spoke. Here’s the response I received:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a “market study on Gary Matthews’ hotel plan.” No official market study of Mr. Matthews hotel plan in 2008 was conducted. [emphasis added] Over the past few years, the City has worked with HVS – a global hospitality services consulting firm – to determine the feasibility and reasonableness of a variety of hotel projects. Their largest work for the City was conducted in 2006-7 in support of a plan to build a Hilton at the corner of Kumpf and Jefferson. HVS was involved in the discussion regarding the December 2008 Matthews plan, but never produced any written analysis. They provided us with advice and counsel on the scope and need for the project and the parameters of the Redevelopment Agreement. Their involvement included a series of phone calls with City staff, representatives of EM Properties and our respective attorneys.

So, as it turns out, there was no market study. No independent analysis of Matthews’ plans. There are references to a feasibility study that took place before the recession started. This is evidently what the City of Peoria calls “due diligence.” And this is the process they’re going to use on Grieves’ plan as well.

I suppose we should be grateful that the City didn’t spend money on doing its own market study, since they’ve been known to ignore them anyway and just go with the developers’ promises, like they did with MidTown Plaza. That certainly turned out well; I’m glad we’re doing the same thing again, and with higher stakes.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria County

Schock and Durbin in Peoria the week after City/County trip to D.C.

9 Comments

Guess who was in Peoria this week? Dick Durbin and Aaron Schock. You may recall that Scott Sorrel, Tom O’Neill, Jimmy Dillon, and Tim Riggenbach just last week traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with these same two people, at a cost to taxpayers of $3,000. They didn’t actually meet with them, though. They met with Schock’s and Durbin’s staffs.

The justification for this trip was that the city council and county board reps could meet with “key projects directors for the legislators, who are the one’s who really make things happen,” and who “typically don’t make it to Illinois.” Of course, those staffs work for the Senator and Congressman, not the other way around. So they only “make things happen” with the support of Durbin and Schock.

The bottom line is, they could have met face to face here, and Schock and Durbin could have directed their staffs to “make things happen” when they got back to D.C., and the taxpayers could have saved $3,000. Better yet, the City and County could simply stop squandering our money on bread and circuses so we wouldn’t have to lobby Congress for money to take care of basic services like municipal road repair.

Hope our local officials enjoyed their taxpayer-funded vacation to D.C.

City Council, City of Peoria

No limit on preliminaries, but precious little time for people’s business

5 Comments

This is not an observation original to me — in fact, it’s been pointed out by a couple different people since the last council meeting — and it concerns the time limit for discussion by council members during City Council meetings.

The City Council has a self-imposed rule of five minutes per council member on any one topic of business. In 2007, they started “enforcing” it with a (very expensive) timer and a buzzer. Furthermore, any citizens wishing to address the council must limit their comments to five minutes. This was done to keep the meetings from going too long due to council members repeating the same arguments in their own words.

But there’s no time limit for proclamations. At the beginning of nearly every council meeting, the Mayor makes several proclamations, which recognize individuals, businesses, and civic groups for their contributions and achievements in the community. At the last council meeting, the proclamations portion of the meeting clocked in at approximately 45 minutes.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating civic achievements, of course. I have no beef about that. The problem is the disparity in time spent on “fluff” versus the time allotted to deliberate more serious matters of public policy. As important and worthy as civic achievement is, its recognition is not the main business of municipal government. For the Mayor and council members to speak as long as they wish about National Bookmobile Day, but limit them to five minutes each for the discussion of tax levies and millions of dollars in expenditures, is a poor allocation of time and does a disservice to taxpayers.

Some issues simply require more than five minutes to discuss. Some issues are more complicated than others. It’s one thing to ask someone who’s repeating themselves to wrap up their comments; it’s another thing to cut off pertinent explanations or discussions because of an arbitrary time limit. Furthermore, five minutes is too long for some topics.

The bottom line is that the moderator (and that’s the Mayor, in the case of the City Council) should be leading the meeting based on content, not the clock. The meeting should be conducted in the interests of making the best decisions for constituents, not in the interests of getting done as quickly as possible. And, the moderator should recognize that the people’s business is more important and deserves more time than proclamations or other preliminaries.

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Times-Observer

Peoria Times-Observer saying goodbye

4 Comments

The Peoria Times-Observer, formerly known as simply “The Observer,” will no longer be published after next month, the weekly paper announced today:

The April 28 edition of the Peoria Times-Observer will be the final edition of the newspaper, which is delivered free of charge to homes in North Peoria and Dunlap.

Citing the changing media landscape, TimesNewspapers’ publisher Linda Smith Brown announced the publication’s cessation.

I think we all knew that the Times-Observer’s days were numbered as soon as GateHouse Media bought them. If not then, then certainly after they consolidated their offices into the Journal Star building. Seriously, there was no reason to have two separate papers covering Peoria when they’re both owned by the same company. That’s not exactly what you’d call competition.

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that a new newspaper will be started in Woodford County. It will be called Woodford Times and be produced by DeWayne Bartels and Tom Batters, so neither of them will be out of work due to the Times-Observer ceasing publication.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Pitch for Lakeview not made in D.C.: Word on the Web

28 Comments

Karen McDonald reports in “Word on the Web” today:

Apparently, a $500,000 request for the installation of solar panels, which will cover 7.5 percent of the Peoria Riverfront Museum’s energy usage, and other improvements aimed at energy efficiency, was not made on the county or city’s behalf. That said, the county is supporting Lakeview’s request for that project.

I’m happy to hear that, considering two-thirds of the project is already publicly funded. I wish Caterpillar would just back out of the deal and let it die. I would like Cat to build their visitor’s center, but if we can only get it by throwing away nearly $40 million in public money, it’s not worth it. Sorry. And anyone who thinks that a visitors center can in any way be correlated to Cat’s ties to the community is delusional.

Some other interesting info from McDonald’s article:

Aren’t those leaders back in Illinois enough? Why not just talk to them while they’re here?

[County board member Jimmy] Dillon explained Monday that in person face time is key. It’s the whole they don’t come to you, we go to them thing. … Furthermore, Peoria officials met with key projects directors for the legislators, who are the one’s who really make things happen and those people typically don’t make it to Illinois.

The trip cost the county roughly $3,000.

How is “in person face time” different in D. C. than here in Peoria? If Schock is here, and you’re meeting with him, are you not getting “in person face time”? Dillon really didn’t answer the question. Besides, I again express my incredulity that we send a person to Washington to represent us, and then we have to send four representatives to our representative in order to get him to represent us. That whole system is as ridiculous as it is redundant.

But, of course, it gets even more silly, because despite Dillon’s protestations that “in person face time” is so important with our representative, our delegation didn’t actually meet with Schock or Durbin, but rather with their staff. But that’s okay, the article explains, because the “key projects directors … are the one’s who really make things happen.” So what are Schock and Durbin doing, exactly? I mean, call me crazy, but it would seem that a more efficient process would be for Schock and Durbin to meet their constituents here in Peoria, find out their needs, then travel to D. C. and talk to their key projects directors so they could “really make things happen.” Isn’t that the whole idea behind them “representing” us?

And what about that lobbyist? Aren’t we paying someone or some firm $85,000 to be our “representative to our representative” already? Isn’t he supposed to get the “in person face time” with “key projects directors” on our behalf?

The duplication in government is truly staggering.

Peoria Mayor

Will Ardis have more success with Google than AC/DC?

6 Comments

A friend of mine recently mentioned to me that this whole Google initiative isn’t the first time Mayor Ardis has tried to lure a national act to Peoria. Just last year, he tried to get the band AC/DC to make a tour stop here. Here’s what the Journal Star had to say back on January 11, 2009:

Peoria radio station WIXO-FM organized the rally in hopes of catching the attention of the band, which has not performed in Peoria since 1983. … A video of the event, along with the petition, will be sent Monday to AC/DC. … Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis appeared on stage at the rally. He told AC/DC fans after the band sees the video, it will have no choice but to come back. Ardis had appeared on The X’s morning show and assured listeners AC/DC is welcome. “It would be great for Peoria,” Ardis said.

On October 22, the Journal Star followed up: “The fans were fervent, as the rockers hadn’t played in Peoria since 1983. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t look like they’ll be making a stop in P-town anytime soon.”

Granted, the city didn’t have an airplane fly a sky banner over the band asking, “Will AC/DC play in Peoria?” like the City did for Google. So let’s hope the Mayor has better luck this time.