Remember back in 2006 when District 150 purchased several properties adjacent to Glen Oak Park in hopes of locating a new school there? Well, now the Peoria Park District wants to buy them, and they’re asking for some help from Congressman Schock.
Included in Schock’s appropriations requests is one for “land appraisal, platting, demolition and acquisition to provide open public access to [Glen Oak] park.” I asked for some more information on this request from the Park District, and David Wheeler kindly sent me this text from their application for Federal assistance:
Glen Oak Park is bordered on the southwest corner with 12 residences owned by the local school district. Originally purchased for the purpose of constructing a school adjacent to Glen Oak Park, their plans have changed and the 2 acres of land is now available for the purpose of adding invaluable open space and stability to a social and economically challenged east bluff neighborhood. It will provide open public access to the park from the neighborhoods to the west, open up visibility and provide a higher degree of safety in one of Illinois’ oldest and most historic 19th century parks. Glen Oak Park is well known for its ancient oak trees, looped “carriage” drives, views of the Illinois River and was designed by the renowned landscape architect, Oscar Dubois. The opportunity to purchase land for expanding open space in an older established neighborhood is a rare occurrence and the opportunity is now.
To the best of my knowledge, the school district actually owns eight properties on the southwest corner of Glen Oak Park, not twelve. I double-checked the county’s website just to see if D150 picked up any additional land there, and it doesn’t appear they have. So either this was a minor error on the application, or else the school district has recently purchased additional properties.
In any case, I have to take issue with this proposed transaction for a few reasons:
- It’s odd that the park district, which just finished shrinking the size of the park in order to expand the zoo, would now be concerned about expanding the size of the park. It’s also strange that they would cite the “ancient oak trees,” many of which were uprooted to make way for the zoo expansion.
- If this transaction goes through, it will be the second time the taxpayers have paid for these properties. The school district bought these eight properties with $877,500 of tax money (and overpaid for them at that; fair-market value of the properties in 2005 was $609,540). Now the park district wants to use $1.2 million of tax money to purchase the same properties again (and demolish the structures). How many times do we taxpayers have to buy the same land? And why does the cost keep going up each time?
- If the properties are sold to the Park District, they will remain off the property tax rolls. That hurts not only those who receive property tax revenue (like the School District and the Park District, just to name a couple), but everyone who pays property taxes as well. Whenever tax-paying property is taken off the tax rolls, the remaining property owners pick up the slack. The School Board should be trying to get more property on the tax rolls where it can produce annual revenue for the district.
Also, if the school district does indeed only own the eight properties they purchased in 2006, here are their locations:
You’ll notice they’re not contiguous; how long before the park district tries to acquire the remaining properties?
Sure, I’ll help where I can. I thought I heard somewhere that at least part of the Johns Hopkins fee was coming out of Title funds. Will try and find out.
Sharon, basically any expense that isn’t covered by a funded program or grant (including Transportation and Bldgs. and Grounds) will be paid from Ed Fund. This includes salaries, benefits, tuition reimbursement, training/professional development, supplies (office or classroom), travel, mileage reimbursement, substitute costs are covered by the E-rate funds (federal government) if the district wrote up the specific items in their yearly application.
For example, any of the supplies and materials for most of the Admin Bldg offices will be Ed Fund expenses. The expenses for the Title I office would be paid from Title funds.
It really would be interesting to see the cost breakdown for the Skyward system in its entirety – not just the initial cost. There could be service/maintenance contracts, upgrade fees, programming fees, additional modules purchased, training expenses, etc., that would cover the time frame since Skyward was acquired (that was a Cahill innovation so it would sometime after Spring 2005).
If you go online to the ISBE website, you may be able to find posted some of the district’s financial info that would give you an idea of the types of costs and how they are categorized.
Oops – in paragraph 2, it should read “and infrastructure related technology costs are covered by E-rate funds . . .” Sorry.
PrairieCelt: Very, very helpful. I would appreciate learning about Johns Hopkins–if Title I. Yes, I do want to ask for Title I expenditures–but separate from other funds, etc. Also, the original cost and maintenance for Skyward, Plato, Dashboard??
It’s about time we were able to see some “real” figures instead of what the District wants to put out to the public. I’m getting ready to go to the budget committee meeting tonight.
sharon, I am sure you are already there. I can’t make it tonight.. please take lots of notes!
I second Diane – and could you post a report on the meeting? Thanks.
diane – Reply to your confusion – it does make sense – “the capitalization of the insurers”. If you have a claim against an insurance provision that can’t be paid because the insurer is under-capitalized and unable to honor, you have a problem. Also, how responsible would it be to carry the cavalier attitude you brought up that it doesn’t matter if the district is solvent, because the bonds are insured? The lower our financial rating, the higher our interest costs. Clear? Two other points: I am reviewing the Dunlap teachers contract. Why do you think it is fair that Dunlap students have their teachers work an 8 hr. day, but Dist. 150 students deserve only 6.5 hrs. from their professional instructors? Don’t our students deserve equal time? As has been mentioned repeatedly, our cost containment will come from labor costs our facilities management. Bring me a firm indication of interest for Blaine and the building committee will consider. Administration thought that an alternative use would be better than a vacant structure and the staff that was in the DLC was cramped, from what
I have been told. Do you propose we spend money to relocate staff, yet again, and hope the property can be sold? I, too, would like to have sufficient funds to upgrade all the old neighborhood schools and reward our teachers financially. Given our student demographics, declining revenue, and no reserves – we don’t have that ability. We have to live within our means – and that means that bonuses to gross up pensions, along with many other items, need to be scrutinized. Many on this blog are apologists for the Royster (Schock?) era and lay all the blame on the Hinton term. A lot of our problems began before 2003. If you represent yourself as an investigator, please go back and see the warnings that were made by many when Rhonda Hunt was Board President. Hint – it were those transgressions that helped Rep. Schock win his first election.
Jim, if the capitalization of the bond insurer is in question then why pay for the bond insurer? From what I understand it’s a pretty penny. The increased interest cost is due to mismanagement, not an act of God. Does anyone there on Wisconsin Avenue take any responsibility whatsoever for the current state of affairs?
… and why do you keep complaining about the teachers contract? Why is it our fault that the admin sucked at negotiating with the union?
Did the District undertake any efforts whatsoever to sell Blaine Sumner?
Ok, call me crazy… but I think they should keep Blaine Sumner… it has air conditioning!! Use it for year round school.. put admin offices there…
Go back towards the light MAWB!
LMAO owmmmmmmmmmm
diane – it helps with the marketability, but you are right that it is costly. The rating is reflective of the fact that for years we have spent more than we have received, and unless addressed, leads to a downgrade, which we haven’t had – yet. Who is the “our” to which you refer – the constant critics you represent, or parents who might not realize that Dunlap teachers work a longer day. Maybe they do realize it and that contributes to the flight…..Why can’t you answer a question instead of deflecting? When you suggest it was admin, you expose your ignorance of the facts. Where would we be if our students had the benefit of more instructional time from outstanding teachers? I’ll be waiting for a lucrative offer for Blaine. MAWB – Sorry about Apollo. Lost my lab to seizures a couple of years ago. A year-around school (several?) is a goal, but we have to be able to afford them. I’ve also asked why it couldn’t be utilized more fully -gym, etc. Thank you for your input.
MAWB: I think Diane should reconsider–I think the administrative offices should move to Blaine and close down the building on Wisconsin.
Meeting tonight: Remember I am not a numbers person, so I can only tell you how the meeting made me feel. First of all, they almost made the “numbers thing” simple enough so that I could understand–or, at least, feel like I understood. I can honestly say that the budget committee members and the presenters were extremely congenial and helpful. Unfortunately, there were very few present–the largest group was the committee and presenters.
Karen Adkins-Dutro, (Jeff went fishing with the kids), Terry Knapp, Hedy Elliott-Gardner and I went. I don’t know if any of the others were teachers or retirees. Jim Stowell and Rachael Parker came for a while–at least, they came. Dr. Butts was there. One parent identified herself as a parent. There were very few others in the audience.
Their purpose, of course, was not to speak in any way for District 150 administrators, etc. I believe everyone was impressed with the capabilities of this program–Terry, especially, felt that this could be a very helpful program to use during contract negotiations. It certainly provides the opportunity for both transparency and clarity in understanding the district’s financial situation–and projecting into the future. They showed us how the financial would look under various conditions: like what if they didn’t close schools but just increased class size, what if the attendance goes up or down, etc. If I start getting too specific, I’ll show my ignorance.
Jim didn’t stay long enough enough to plug in the numbers to see how many teachers will hate him if they have to work an 8-hour day. Just kidding, Jim!
On that subject, Jim, have you ever committed yourself on the question I’ve asked you several times? If you can negotiate an 8-hour day with no extra pay, will the Edison and Manual teachers lose the money they now make working more hours?
Jim – why wouldn’t they have waited to close the school until after they had a buyer. That is how most of us do it in the real world when we don’t have a money tree in the back yard like the district likes to think they do.
You really think that people are leaving 150 because Dunlap has a better teachers contract??? OMG google the definition of denial.
The “our” is a large group of like minded people that are dumbfounded at the incessant and systemic incompetance of the district, the complete disregard for the best interests of it’s students and the propensity towards uncontrolled spending of money that they may or may not have on things that have -0- impact on student achievement.
Erik: Will there be another showing of the software? Tonight was Heartland District Roundtable so that was a conflict in timing. There will always be a conflict with some other activity. Perhaps some additional presentations would be helpful to promote understanding and to develop common ground. Sharon’s report is encouraging.
Oops — FYI — Heartland District Roundtable is training for Cub Scout and Boy Scout Leaders!
Yes, I had a conflict as well and would really like to see this!
Thank you, Jim…. 🙁
I am sorry about your family pet, too…. For whatever reason, Apollo was special.
:back to the topic:
Sharon and Jim, I agree, yes, we need to be able to afford year round schools, but if Admin moved to Blaine Sumner, we could close Wisconsin 🙂 Then, maybe we could afford it a little more!!
Okay, I am seriously confused . . . “If you have a claim against an insurance provision that can’t be paid because the insurer is under-capitalized and unable to honor, you have a problem.” Why would you retain the services of an insurer/bond house to insure your bond issue if they are under-capitalized? Surely there are other bond houses that are not under-capitalized. Either I’m really missing something or this just isn’t logical. Is it fair to assume that the district entered into the public bidding process to select a bond house? If so, was due diligence done by the district before contracting with whatever bond house you selected to make sure they were properly capitalized? If not, why not?
Sorry Jim, but it still seems that you are stating that the district’s financial rating is more important than their core business – education. That’s just not acceptable.
Jim, at what rate are the Dunlap teachers compensated? Are they compensated at the rate of an 8-hour workday or a 6.5 hour workday? Do the Dunlap teachers actually provide 8 hours of instruction/student contact? You do realize that there are many teachers within #150 that work well beyond their scheduled, compensated 6.5 hour day? And they stay later for reasons other than they have a compensated extra-duty assignment. Contrary to popular belief, teachers in every building (not all, but a good percentage) willingly stay to provide extra help to students, work on lesson plans, meet with their instructional team, etc. It is disingenuous to lead people to believe that when the “6.5 hour bell rings” every teacher gathers up their things and leaves the building.
Rhonda Hunt was BOE president during the negotiations for the 2002-05 PFT contract. She also was a big supporter of the Edison program and successfully advocated for its adoption. She was instrumental in promoting labor peace at any price, dismissed the district’s bargaining team (she actually made them leave the room), and personally took over (with the assistance of the Chicago labor attorney Mr. Rose) the negotiations. She basically gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Before your time, but at the end of Strand’s administration, the district’s finances were in real disarray. Roger Kilpatrick was hired as Controller in September 1991 after Harvey Jenkins resigned. Shortly thereafter Strand was gone. Kilpatrick was charged with righting the ship, and he did that without borrowing or closing schools. He put a freeze on spending for all nonessential purchases, and a freeze on hiring and wages. Honorable dismissals went deep – for certified and noncertifiedl. No doubt he made many other shrewd financial decisions to shepherd the district’s resources.
But he did succeed, and by the time the 2002 contract negotiations came around, the district had both a working cash fund and substantial reserves.
If I recall correctly, when the district received its audit report in the fall of 2004, the auditors stated that if this administration (Hinton’s) continued to spend at the same rate as the previous administration, the district should have reserves for approximately 2 years. Well, by late spring of 2005 the administration went through their reserves and couldn’t meet payroll. What did Hinton do to go through all that money in such a short time? Is it not correct that he reinstated 42 eliminated certified positions and began to add new administrative positions shortly after his return to the distrct? What effect on the 2004-05 budget did these additions have? It had to be considerable and, oh, guess what – these salaries and benefits weren’t in the budget. Imagine that. Instantly over budget.
You stated above that many on this blog are apologists for the Royster era and lay all the blame on Hinton. It could certainly be said that you are becoming an apologist for Hinton & Cahill and are in denial about their responsibility for this debacle.
I know one teacher that left for East Peoria after 19 yrs with the district. She was one of the best teachers I had ever seen! She handed in her resignation and not one person, not one, called her in for an exit interview to ask her why she was leaving….. I don’t think they gave a d**n. I believe they were thinking they could replace her with a new graduate for less money. We are losing experience… that counts for something, does it not?
Dunlap teachers do not teach for 8 hours (do they have common planning time?)–I believe Jim is counting their lunch hour and the time (15 min) before students arrive and after students leave–the same as in 150. There might be a 15 to 20 minute difference in time–but not the hour and a half that Jim is claiming (6.5 vs 8–impossible). I’d be willing to bet that if you stood at the doors of Dunlap High, you would see teachers leaving before the official leaving time.
Also, Jim doesn’t take the coaches into account. They will not be sticking around for those common planning times at the end of the day; they will be at practice making extra money while the other teachers are in teachers’ meetings, working for free. Coaches seldom make it to faculty meetings–because they are expected to be at practice or on the way to games, etc.
Bond insurers …… Fatal Seduction Of The Municipal Bond Insurers
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/08/municipal-bond-insurance.asp
Just putting this link for reference to add to the discussion……..
How many insurers are left after the financial meltdown? What are current prices for insurance if still available?
Do taxpayers really pay twice? Once for the insurance and then again for taxpayers to bail them out if there is a default? Bailout seems to be the name of the game with the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC and Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac and and and and … the money meltdown is akin to a financial football game and the spectators (aka taxpayers) are left footing the bill.
Pairieapologist – The public building commission secures our financing, not the District. Warren Buffet is in the bond insurance business, but even his entity suffered a ratings cut recently. Educating our children is the primary mission, but being good financial stewards facilitates that end. Your “not all, but a good percentage” is exactly my point. Most all teachers I talk to say they would work the 8 because they are there anyway. True professionals. That 8 hrs. includes prep periods and professional development. If NCLB raises minimum expectation for students, why shouldn’t taxpayers raise minimum expectations for teachers? Current admin bears a lot of responsibility, and my “no” votes on many issues they bring forward indicates my frustration and disagreement. Your constant criticism of the District seems to reflect your own inability on effectuating positive change. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.
zing!
Will there be another showing of the software? Tonight was Heartland District Roundtable so that was a conflict in timing. There will always be a conflict with some other activity. Perhaps some additional presentations would be helpful to promote understanding and to develop common ground. Sharon’s report is encouraging.
Karrie,
Thank you for your question. If it means uppity “citizens” like you are going to get involved, the answer is no. The last thing I want is for understanding and dialogue, which you seem so fond. Haven’t you got it, yet? Knowledge is power and why in the world would I want to give you that, especially with all your past shenanigans.
Just kidding. Scary, hunh?
My committee doesn’t plan another showing. Our recommendation to the board was to use this in pubic settings and in public forums, as well as in contract negotiations and for internal use.
We’re made that recommendation, we’ve tested the product, and we’ve turned it over. The district is responsible for it here on out. Our committee is going to be looking at financial reporting and best practices going forward, so we’ll be less visible, but if you do have any questions feel free to call or email me.
MAWB: the reason they don’t ask for an exit interview is not that they don’t care… they don’t want to hear it… they know why they are leaving.
Do you think John Erwin really cares why his adjuncts quit on him every year… ???
There are plenty of fish in the pond.
…er, “public” settings. of course…somewhere my momma is horrified right now…
i submitted an application for a public investor scholarship while i was in grad school. part of it included an essay on investing public funds. of course, i, then working three jobs and attending grad school full-time with a new baby, left the “l” out of every single public reference in the two page essay. this is slightly less embarrassing. luckily my error got caught in the edit.
Current admin bears a lot of responsibility, and my “no” votes on many issues they bring forward indicates my frustration and disagreement.
It’s too bad we didn’t a see a “NO” vote when you voted to renew Hinton’s contract.
Your constant criticism of the District seems to reflect your own inability on effectuating positive change. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.
If it wasn’t for the Monday morning quarterbacks, Cahill would still be behind the district calculator and you guys would still be talking about a fake balanced budget.
And Jim, seriously, why didn’t you address any of the issues raised by Prairie Celt? Specifically:
Well, by late spring of 2005 the administration went through their reserves and couldn’t’t meet payroll. What did Hinton do to go through all that money in such a short time? Is it not correct that he reinstated 42 eliminated certified positions and began to add new administrative positions shortly after his return to the district? What effect on the 2004-05 budget did these additions have? It had to be considerable and, oh, guess what – these salaries and benefits weren’t in the budget.
Where were your “No” votes as that was happening? Contrary to what you seem to believe, the district is not in the state that is currently in by accident.
Re: Yesterday’s BOE introduction to the new financial program: I wasn’t aware that the board received the presentation yesterday before last night’s viewing open to all. It is possible that my assessment is incorrect–someone–Jim, Erik–can set me straight if I am. Listening to Wolfmeyer’s comment on the news today, I gather that the board sat back and viewed Hinton’s numbers being plugged in. Then Wolfmeyer concluded that Hinton was right about all the school closings. So there’s nothing new here–that’s what the majority of board members usually do on any issue.
If my assessment is correct, it is not the fault of the program or the presenters–the board may not have asked the right questions like: What would the financial picture be if the schools weren’t closed until the new ones are ready in just one year? What if Edison were eliminated? What if the Kingman and Tyng buildings don’t sell–how much would it cost to maintain them? How much expense will be incurred if 500 or more students are bused next year? Several such questions were asked last night and the predictions immediately went up on the screen. Someone who is serious about new solutions might combine some of these other possibilities to come up with a whole new plan for saving the money.
This tool is only as effective as the questions that the decision-makers ask. Hinton’s numbers might be correct or there might be other proposals that would also result in significant enough savings–but someone has to ask to see the other possibilities. Hopefully, someone will do that before the final vote is taken.
By the way, the presenters last night did not show the district’s three scenarios at all. My guess is that those three were all they saw at the earlier presentation.
Sharon, thanks for the update of last night meetings. Sounds like business as usual. What a surprise.
Another question to input into the model: What if Kingman and Tyng don’t sell and you instead rehab them and turn them into plush, spacious working quarters for Admin and staff while you continue to condense and warehouse minority children through the system?
Diane: Clarification, the BOE meeting sounds like business as usual–but last night’s meeting wasn’t. The advocates of this program can’t jam it down the throats of the administration or BOE–they have to want to look at other alternatives. I am wondering to what extent this program will be available during negotiations –with teacher input. Of course, negotiations won’t help the school closing situation–that will already be done. One member of the budget committee and I discussed the possibility of selling Kingman or Tyng–not much chance that we could see. I offered that I can’t imagine anyone even wanting to buy the land if the buildings were leveled. I am not suggesting that lack of saleability should be a deciding factor–but the board should certainly calculate the cost of maintaining the buildings as a deficit that takes away from the savings.
Sharon, you might be surprised – the commercial real estate marked is a little different from the residential real estate market and some of these are pretty good sites.
Well, then they need to be sold as soon as possible if the schools close. As Hot in the City just wrote, they are jumping the gun a little by bringing some “anonymous” high school to the table to be closed–decision to be made Monday night. I guess I was right–they were all impressed by Hinton’s presentation with the new program. They will probably close the wrong high school–it should be Manual. In fact, I wonder just how many demonstrations there would be if Manual were chosen. I really don’t believe anyone cares about Manual anymore. I guess no one will be mentioning an alternative school any time soon either. How sad!
trackback:
http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/2009/04/dear-peoria-district-150-board-of.html