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?
CJ – I could be wrong, but sometimes one parcel of property has more than one tax ID as a result of boundary re-drawing, driveway easements, etc. In the grant request, they probably had to refer to the number of tax ID numbers, not necessarily the number of commonly accepted parcels. Does that make sense?
Good guess, Diane, but no. First of all, the application says “12 residences,” which would exclude the “parcel” explanation on its face. Secondly, there are nine parcels — one is a vacant lot.
come on, CJ, it’s the Death Star, er, I mean, the Park District, resistance is futile.
I think it is clear that Diane (and others in her profession) need to be on the school board and park board and city council… it certainly is clear that Real Estate is becoming the Real Purpose of our government agencies… we might as well have someone in there who knows something about it.
After the Park District buys the properties from the School District… at “fair market” prices, of course… what would that be Diane? About 20% less than the district paid for them? Anyway, after the PPD gets them… then what? What good is that strip of land to the park? They will have to rip out the parking lot and move it to make that new acquisition usable.
I understand where you are coming from C.J. But what would you suggest be done with the properties owned by the District? As I recall, one of the reasons the Glen Oak School in Glen Oak Park fell through is that the Park District did not honor its letter of intent with the District. Ironic that it now may reap benefits from a deal it backed out of.
Having the Park District buy those up makes more sense than the School District.
Let’s protest at the District office. School District selling properties. We could use the old signs that said; “School District buying Properties” and change the wording. My God….so what? Maybe Vespa could offer to list them and sell them to private citizens? Who? No one wants them. Why not let that great park have them? It was too good for a school so what’s wrong with some added space?
C.J.’s point No. 3 is the most troubling. During the time the district has owned these properties, the district, of course, has not had the benefit of property taxes from the property. Now if the park district buys the houses, they will never generate property taxes. It seems ironic that the district itself is contributing to the already steady loss of revenue from property taxes.
Taking the “owned by the local school district” line out of the aforementioned quote, it would seem to me that the park district is interested in the homes on the east side of Prospect between Atlantic and Arcadia. There are 12 lots on that side of the block, only 7 of which are owned by D150 (according to CJ’s posted map), which means then the park district would also be buying private properties.
In that case, that means the block south of Atlantic (bordered by East and Frye) would remain untouched, which makes more sense to me. The 12 properties to be bought and demolished would increase the frontage of Glen Oak Park on Prospect, which would apparently help reach the goals listed (provide open public access to the park from the neighborhoods to the west, open up visibility and provide a higher degree of safety).
The last few lines of the press release sound like the typical copy-and-paste fluff that they’d add into anything that has to do with Glen Oak Park and isn’t necessarily specific to this idea.
I’m not defending or condemning this action, mind you, just playing devil’s advocate to try to better understand the plan.
The Peoria Tennis Association was blackmailed by the PPD into paying $2200 to keep the 7 clay courts open at Glen Oak even though more than half the players using Glen Oak clay courts do not belong to the PTA.
Folks, the Park is stapped for money and it will be interesting to see if the new zoo opens ENTIRELY in June as scheduled and whether work begins on the new ball diamonds at Peoria Stadium. The job was let for bids due Sept. 4, 2008.
Also, what did the PPD get for the years ago land swap with Bradley U for Meinen Field? Not even some board members know.
Did you know that 2 PPD members ran uncontested for four more years on the park board; Allen and Ryan? Did you ever see that in the JS before it was too late to enter the contest?
Then again, why serve on that board? For one thing a lot of freebies like golf passes, free trips to convention centers and a lot of event passes plus your name on a gold plate like the RiverPlex and African Exhibit.
The JS is so protective of the park that they will not seek out the facts that they feel might shed some transparency.
Did anyone find it not odd that no park official came out with a museum endorsement in the newspapers?
Hmmmmmm.
If you look at the PPD approved minuets there is no listing for buying property for Glen Oak Park. Where did that request come from? All of the other request to Arron was listed. Wonder where this came from?
Our East Bluff Neighborhood Association has no info on this.
Good points Merle.
Marty: Perhpas just priming the pump in executive session. It does not seem that there has been any public discussion of this ‘purchase’.
How much in actual tax revenue has been lost (in any one year since the purchase) of these “valuable properties”? I’ll bet it isn’t much.
Well, in 2006, we lost $877,500 on them.
C.J., you’re such a stickler with details…….
CJ: $877,500? Lost in property taxes in 2006? On those eight properties? That comes to apporx. $73,125 per house. Remind me never to buy in that end of town.
Wasn’t $877,500 the original purchase price of the properties? Taxpayer dollars comprised the $877,500 before demolition and renovation expenses are even figured in.
They can find $$ to buy these houses but can’t find $$ to restore the bridge, parapet, cannon and other historical landmarks in the park. Lets not take care of the things that made this park well known and just build new stuff so the old stuff can look like crap and falling apart when people come and see it. And it would be a sin to tear down 2212 Prospect. I knew the previous owners and the house was gorgeous inside.
Can someone please explain something about District 150 that just baffles me? The BOE formed an independent panel headed by Erik Bush to review the budget that Cahill created and Hinton blessed for FY 2008-09. Am I correct so far? Then the BOE hired two retired superintendents to temporarily replace Cahill after he was fired…and yes, people, he was fired! Then the BOE hired PMA to do some forward budget projection analysis using their “down and dirty handy dandy” software program using Cahill’s budget, which still has not been thoroughly scrutinized by Erik’s group. Am I still correct? Why are we to believe Cahill’s FY08-09 estimate is gospel especially when some software program has taken it to crystal ball FY09-10 that apparently Hinton is using NOW as the basis to close schools at the major poverty level schools? Won’t there be more effort put in to budgeting for FY09-10 than the PMA report? There is nothing magical about having a budget in place by June 30, 2009 for FY09-10. In fact I believe the ISBE deadline is September 30. Why is Hinton trying to ram these school closures through NOW here in April, let alone before the panel has performed their review? Something smells rotten AGAIN at District 150!
Without Malice: I agree completely with you that everything seems very confused–therefore, not transparent. It would seem to me that the new PMA program won’t help much until the right numbers are plugged into the PMA program. I am wondering where Erik Bush and his group now fit into all this–because I find Erik and that budget group (Erik because he has communicated the most) to be the most trustworthy and insightful. However, they probably will not have much power–without official titles, etc., and the access to accounts that go with the titles.
Didn’t I ready on the PJS online yesterday that the state money has come through–does that change anything?
Can someone please explain something about District 150 that just baffles me? The BOE formed an independent panel headed by Erik Bush to review the budget that Cahill created and Hinton blessed for FY 2008-09. Am I correct so far?
No. The committee was formed to review and make recommendations on:
1. Budget Process,
2. Financial statements and reports, and,
3. Recommended Financial Best practices.
We have no role in evaluating existing budgets, nor recommendations on managing future budgets. We’re ALL about making advisory recommendations to improve how this large organization communicates with itself, the public, and in how it makes decisions.
Then the BOE hired PMA to do some forward budget projection analysis using their “down and dirty handy dandy” software program using Cahill’s budget, which still has not been thoroughly scrutinized by Erik’s group. Am I still correct?
No, sorry.
The board, on our recommendation, contracted PMA’s services to pull five years (more, really) of history to establish a “baseline” model of where the district is fiscally at as of this moment. When we started nine or ten weeks ago, it was impossible, using existing records and board reports, for our committee to determine where the district stood financially and the task was too large for six volunteer committee members, some with excellent private sector but no public sector finance or accounting experience, to undertake. We reviewed PMA’s handy dandy program and felt strongly enough to put our credibility on the line that it would meet the district’s needs of:
1. Establishing a current state. “getting everyone on the same page”.
2. Being useful in projecting out potential impacts of decisions made today in approximate terms.
Why are we to believe Cahill’s FY08-09 estimate is gospel (1) especially when some software program has taken it to crystal ball FY09-10 that apparently Hinton is using NOW as the basis to close schools at the major poverty level schools(2)?
Won’t there be more effort put in to budgeting for FY09-10 than the PMA report(3)? There is nothing magical about having a budget in place by June 30, 2009 for FY09-10. In fact I believe the ISBE deadline is September 30. (4)
(1) You’re not.
(2) Hinton is using the master facility plan to close schools, according to his comments made at the BOE meeting of April 6 to the board of his intent to basically follow a delayed implementation of that plan.
(3) PMA’s report left much to be desired at the board meeting of April 6, in part because of the forum. The committee is meeting tomorrow at 6:00pm at the Neighborhood House and inviting as many as want to attend to observe how it actually works. NO ONE got to see how the model generates impacts based on what you ask it. BUT, that was a result of trying to roll this out at a board meeting with limited time to make the presentation. We will NOT be looking at Hinton’s recommendations, but flexing the purchase.
For instance, the BOE, teacher’s union, public, administration all have the ability to bring data to the table and put it in the model and see how it interacts. There is the history, well into the past loaded up. There are all the salary schedules loaded up. It allows you to ask of it “what if we closed a middle school, what would the approximate savings be?” and the inputs would be what staff is retained, what staff is reduced. If the building is retained but use curtailed, it can approximate cost reductions. If transportation routes change, it can approximate net change in activity. What the model can’t do is give you dollar impact, to the penny, if you close John A. Smith middle school. It approximates, the further detail work is left to staff.
I write that to separate PMA from the administration, and the budget and planning committee from the administration. We’re advisory, and what they provide is a tool to assist, but not make absolute declarations of impacts.
(4) You are correct.
without malice – Facilities consolidation has been an on-going discussion for the last several years. Unless we show those that purchase our bonds that we are actively bringing our expenses in line with our revenue, we could face higher interest costs through a ratings downgrade. Many have pointed out that, had our revenues not decreased so significantly, the budget prepared last year would actually be in the black to the tune of $2+mil. The CPRRT revenue has dropped and I believe we need to anticipate that EAV revenue (property taxes) could decline a year or two from now. You are wrong about what Mr. Bush and his group were charged to do and you are wrong about how the PRM software is going to be utilized. Dr. Butts and Dr. Durflinger are undertaking tremendous efforts on next years budget. Planning for next year needs to be done now, not after our finances deteriorate further. I can be reached through e-mail or a phone call if you have any desire to provide productive input.
Erik, thanks for the explanation, but now I’m confused.
If you input that middle school A is to be closed and the students dispersed to middle schools B & C, wouldn’t you have to put in enrollment data by school by grade level, the teacher certification and endorsements from all 3 buildings so that the model can accurately determine which teachers will have the correct certification to teach the additional classes at B & C and enter the corresponding correct salary data, and the contract language dealing with Article XI, H. Teachers Displaced by Program Change to arrive at an approximation of what staff is retained and what staff reduced? I’m sure I’ve left something out, but you get my train of thought. I do understand that the program will approximate savings, but it seems that there is a lot of variable – non quantitative – data for the program to parse.
Erik – I did forget something – wouldn’t you have to enter all known naturally-occurring attrition for each building at the end of the subject school year to determine an accurate representation of the positions that will be available?
PrairieCelt,
mind if I pose the question to PMA tomorrow night? I think I know the answer, but don’t want to get it wrong. If I remember correctly, the model can work with contract language because you’re picking from a matrix the teacher census at any given school. The student dispersion impacts are approximated through a class size formula that I don’t want to guess the algebra of at this time.
You would enter attrition and other staff impacts as well, which the model includes.
No, Erik, I would rather have a correct answer rather than a quick answer.
Wouldn’t the model also have to compare tables of teacher certification/endorsements held to a table of position certification/endorsement requirements? Wouldn’t it also have to compare the seniority of each teacher to the appropriate contract language?
I’m guessing it would build some sort of class roster or master schedule based upon the letter of agreement between the BOE and the PFT about desired class size?
no, you wouldn’t mind, or no, find someway to answer?
No, I don’t mind waiting until after tomorrow night.
Facilities consolidation has been an on-going discussion for the last several years.
True, Jim. And according to the District Master Facilities Plan written and adopted by the B of E in October of 2005:
5. The school district should establish a clear commitment to making all facilities vibrant community centers for the neighborhoods that they serve (and where they are physically located). A corollary to this emphasis should be the development of a careful, detailed plan of implementation of the school closings and openings – a plan that absolutely minimizes disruption and negative impacts to the students, the educational setting, and the neighborhoods.
6. Every effort should be made by the school district to place students in facilities located in the neighborhoods where they reside. In tandem, every effort should also be made by the school district to absolutely minimize involuntary or arbitrary busing of students.
So Jim, how does your intention of voting on school closings on Monday April 20, a full 6 months before the budget is due, square with the objectives set forth above in the Master facillities plan?
Oh, and don’t forget this – from the same doc:
9. No displaced student would involuntarily have to leave his/her high school
attendance area by bus or other means to attend a District 150 school; that the
recommendations contemplated students attending a school as close in proximity
to their home as would be practicable; and, that no displaced student would be
involuntarily bussed “cross-town.”
Good schools are neighborhood anchors that attract and retain homeowners and
stabilize enrollments and property values, both of which are relied upon for the
funding of schools. – same doc!
Ooops! sorry for the multiple posts! This is some good shit…
12. Develop and implement a comprehensive communication plan to explain the
proposed plan and its benefit to the community.
13. Continue the school planning, design and siting process by engaging all interested
stakeholders in our community including students, parents, teachers,
administrators, neighborhood organizations, interested citizens, civic entities,
business community representatives and all others interested in developing
optimum learning environments for the children of District 150.
to be continued…
Unless we show those that purchase our bonds that we are actively bringing our expenses in line with our revenue, we could face higher interest costs through a ratings downgrade.
Jim, aren’t the bond issues insured?
Good stuff, Diane! I can’t wait to see your latest pictures!!!
diane – Either we drastically reduce labor costs across all functional areas, or we can’t afford to operate the current number of facilities. Those that we do operate, we hope take on the qualities of a “community center”. It is not 2005 and our costs have been greater than our revenue for an extended period. My desire is to help our district achieve financial stability while providing vibrant learning opportunities for our children. Every effort will be made to minimize hardships and inconveniences (unfortunately, there will be many), but these steps are necessary, in my opinion, to get us to where we need to go. The process will create obstacles and challenges, but it’s time to right size the district while planning for a better day.
The bonds are insured, but one needs to realize that the capitalization of the insurers is being questioned. The underlying rating has a greater impact for purchasers and could adversely impact our borrowing costs, even the capability to access that source of funding, if we don’t work diligently to maintain our current rating.
I think the District’s main mission is to provide “vibrant learning opportunites” which is a challenge in itself. Serving as an anchor or community center for neighborhoods seems like a very, very distant second given the reduced flow of dollars into the education system. If the District continues to maintain the same structures and staff, how can costs be reduced to match revenue?
Is there a way to project all the property tax money the district has lost (per year into the future) by buying the houses on Prospect and the houses torn down to build the new Glen Oak School?
Can the district really afford these twelve-acre sites? Won’t they have to hire landscapers and caretakers for all the “park-like” land–at a time when they are trying to find ways to cut personnel, which would include custodians, etc. Also, will these two new schools (Glen Oak and Harrison) have all new furniture (students’ desks, teachers’ desks, storage, bookshelves, etc.), or will they have to use all the old furniture in these beautiful new buildings. Does the money for all the furniture, etc., come from the building fund??
Jim – I am trying to figure out your reply. It doesn’t make sense. Do you mean the capitalization of the insurer or the insured is in question? Big difference.
CJ, This has nothing to do with the topic but I thought you might be interested. When I came home today two males in there 50’s had their truck parked in my drive with camera’s out looking down the railroad tracks. I of course asked what they where doing in my driveway, one gave me some smartask answer, the other said they where there to take pictures of a train that supposedly runs on this track,since none have ran on it for years. I told them that’s cracy because trains run hear all the time. I asked who they where with and they said with nobody. I told them I know who you are you’re those trail people. Trail people in Averyville with expensive camera’s around their necks, not smart. Anyway it looks like we will hear from them soon. And the train really does run past my house. good day.
Aaron Schock was interviewed on The Colbert Report last night on his ongoing “Better Know A District” series. Very funny interview and he mentions Peoria a number of times in the segment. I still can’t believe he got Aaron Schock to say that he supports gun rights for fetuses.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224724/april-15-2009/better-know-a-district—illinois–18th—aaron-schock
Maybe a post would be appropriate?
Check out Diane’s newest PeoriaRocks post: http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/
This situation is obscene! Talk about waste and mismanagement of the District’s funds. Why is Hinton still superintendent? Just can’t believe he is still in place after his disastrous tenure as superintendent!
Diane’s blog: These are the pictures for which I was waiting. Great investigative journalism on a blog!
$900,000. for eight properties !! No wonder the District is in financial Distress! Why was he {Hinton}allowed to buy these with little or no Input ? Or restraint!!Was there any? The BOARD needs to wake up and terminate him now! Hopefully there is a new stardard for hiring and no more so called consultants either. Is it time to move out of Peoria?
Everyone keeps pointing to the “fact” that 81% of district expenditures are charged to education fund–and only salaries are every mentioned as the costs to be reduced. Do you wonder why I’d like to see a list of all education fund expenditures and their costs be listed separately. As noted below even Plastic Trash Can Liners are paid for through this fund. What other costs are lumped in with teachers’ salaries???
Plastic Can Liners 2008-09 – This bid will be charged to Education Fund.
Request for bid was sent to 24 vendors. Ten vendors returned bids. Three vendors did not include the required samples. The remaining seven vendors bid as follows:
All American Poly $46,414.50
Carter Paper & Packaging $56,419.50
Interboro Packaging $50,489.00
Liner Lady LLC c/o Jadcore, Inc. $44,660.00
Standard Companies $71,760.50
Sunrise Supply $69,266.50
Unipak Corp. $53,650.00
The above bids were opened on Thursday, July 10, 2008, at 1:30 pm by Julie Cramer and Debbie Brown. Bags were tested for durability. It is recommended to award the bid in the amount of $44,660.00 to Liner Lady LLC c/o Jadcore, Inc.
Sharon, why don’t you FOIA the Ed Fund expense info for FY’09 year-to-date?
I’m planning to do so–I’m trying to make up an “intelligent list” of Educational Fund expenditures–and I would also like a separate listing for the various categories of salaries: In building (certified and non-certified), administrators (in building and central), support staff, clerical, etc.,extra-curricular personnel.
I am just working on a rough listing right now–would like some help. Are you willling? Right now I’m getting a fairly good idea by looking at old BOE minutes.
I want to include a list of programs that might be funded through the Educational Fund: Edison, Johns Hopkins,
How about the purposes of Skyward, Plato, etc.–are they educational fund expenditures?
I’d like to see (or produce) a pie chart of Educational Fund expenditures.