Tag Archives: Peoria County

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, 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.

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Not a good year for companies with Energy in their names

10 Comments

On the heels of Firefly Energy’s bankruptcy, another Peoria company that got loans from the City and County is not looking too good:

On March 22, 2010, Busey Bank filed Judgment orders against Globe Energy Eco-System LLC, David M. Jones and Joan Jones, totaling $7,938,676.81 with attorney fees reserved.

Ouch. Both the City and the County provided loans to Globe Energy:

Globe Energy hasn’t made a payment on its government assistance program loan from the county since Dec. 15, 2008, and owes more than $116,000, plus interest, on its $150,000 loan. The city is owed $141,775 on its $150,000 loan.

I suppose the silver lining is that this is significantly less than the $6 million the City and County combined may have to shell out due to their loan guarantee of Firefly, but it’s still an awful lot of taxpayer money down the drain if Globe Energy doesn’t pay up. And let’s face it, the chances of them paying up at this point are pretty slim.

I have to admit, I was excited about the promises made by Globe Energy when they first came to town. They looked like exactly the type of company we wanted — one that would add manufacturing jobs, and lots of them, which paid a living wage. Unfortunately, none of that ever came to fruition.

Now it looks like it may just be another pile of taxpayer money thrown down the drain. Merle Widmer gives a list of recent companies that have failed and left the City and/or County holding the bag:

Bad bets by the EDC who recommends these companies to the county, recently include In_PLay, River Station and FireFly and now, apparently Globe.

And, taking a look into my crystal ball, I would venture to say we’ll be able to add the downtown hotel to that list pretty soon if the City decides to go ahead and finance that as well. Only this project will impact City taxpayers more heavily than all the other failed projects put together, because this one isn’t for $150,000 or even $3 million, it’s for a whopping $37 million.

Bottom line: I think the City and County have proven they don’t have the chops to be in the venture capital business, and frankly, that’s not the purpose of municipal government anyway. They should stick to providing basic public services and stop financing private ventures.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

Peoria sends four reps and a lobbyist to our three reps in Washington … or their staff

16 Comments

From Word on the Web:

Peoria County officials and a Peoria City Councilman are on their way to D.C. to meet with U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, and U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Roland Burris, or at least their staff … to discuss legislative agendas and projects the city and county hope receive federal funding.

Those officials are Scott Sorrel, Tom O’Neill, and Jimmy Dillon for the County, and Tim Riggenbach for the City. Peoria taxpayers are sending them as our representatives to Washington so they can ask our other representatives in Washington for federal money. Or they might just meet with their staffs — I guess they don’t have local offices or something. This comes on the heels of the County extending its contract with a D.C. lobbying firm to March 31, 2011, for $85,000. This begs the question, “How many representatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Meanwhile, the rest of us are living in an age of rapid communication — e-mail, internet, video conferencing, telephone. I wonder if there’s a way our government officials could tap into these mysterious new communication tools the way private companies are doing during this economic downturn.

But wait, there’s more. Look at what they’re requesting:

  • $900,000 for the City:
    • $500,000 to improve sidewalks/infrastructure around Harrison School
    • $300,000 to fix erosion issues at Springdale Cemetery
    • $100,000 for the Peoria Police Department’s drug market initiative program
  • $1,250,000 for the County:
    • $250,000 for a mobile dental clinic in partnership with OSF
    • $500,000 for engineering/design work to replace E.M. Dirksen Parkway
    • $500,000 for solar panels for Peoria Riverfront Museum
  • $1,100,000 in joint City/County projects:
    • $100,000 for a minority business incubator
    • $1 million for public safety radios

Total: $3.25 million.

All of the City’s requests are things the City should be doing with City revenues. But they can’t, of course, because they’re using City revenues to pay off the MidTown Plaza TIF bonds and Firefly Energy’s loan from National City (which could cost the City up to $3 million). And they’re trying feverishly to give Gary Matthews $37 million to build a hotel across the street from the Civic Center. The City squanders taxpayer money, then goes to the federal government for more taxpayer money to cover the basic services they’ve neglected.

As for the County’s requests, except for the road work, they’re all frivolous. Let’s jump right to the most egregious: the solar panels for the proposed museum. Ahem, the taxpayers are already kicking in nearly $40 million for the museum in local sales tax revenue, let alone all the “grants,” earmarks, and other pork barrel spending that’s being poured into this boondoggle. And now they’re asking for more taxpayer dollars?! What on earth are they doing with the millions of dollars they’re already confiscating from us?! For the love of Pete, another half a million dollars for the museum, so they can “save energy”? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

If they want to “save energy,” why don’t they just take all the money out in cash, put it on the Sears block, and set it on fire? That way we can save the energy of actually building the museum and watching its inevitable fall into insolvency. Plus, we can waste all that money in 2010 dollars, instead of the more expensive future value of the money.

All I can say is, thank goodness we don’t get all the government we pay for.

City of Peoria, Peoria County, Peoria Journal Star

More historic quotes about Firefly

11 Comments

“In terms of company stability, Caterpillar owns 35 percent of Firefly, and Cat is a company that does its homework. This battery technology is unique and promising enough that Firefly had little trouble raising $20 million in private equity. Company officials figure 80 percent of that money is spent locally, so there’s economic spin-off.” –Journal Star Editorial Board, May 22, 2007

The Journal Star said the risk was worth taking, and endorsed the loan guarantee. I just thought this quote was notable because there’s this attitude in Peoria that if Cat invests in something, then it must be a sure thing. Obviously, Cat didn’t get as successful as it is by making a string of poor investments, but the Firefly bankruptcy does show that Cat isn’t perfect, and their investment is no substitute for municipalities doing their own due diligence. Then again, Cat did tip its hand even in 2007. A May 23, 2007, article carried this ominous statement: “Although Caterpillar Inc. owns 35 percent of Firefly, it wasn’t clear Tuesday why it wouldn’t guarantee the loan.”

“The Firefly package was being worked on for a number of weeks between Firefly, the county and the city,” Ardis wrote in an e-mail. “The proposal went through various stages and changed a number of times. It would have been difficult to update people on financial discussions when they were fluid and evolving into what was the final proposal. Once made public, there wasn’t anything hard to understand about the deal.” –Mayor Jim Ardis, quoted in “Word on the Street,” Peoria Journal Star, May 28, 2007

This was Ardis’s defense of “dropping the deal late on the public — [and] his council colleagues — and pushing the vote” with very little deliberation and without any policy discussion. The whole article is interesting. It recounts the story of how former Mayor Dick Carver was in town to talk to the City Council about the Kellar Branch rail-to-trail initiative, and during his stay here, he set up a meeting between Mayor Ardis, Rep. David Leitch, and president of G&D Integrated Joe O’Neill. They met at Le Peep restaurant for breakfast, and, “Over toast, these four men toasted a commitment to finding a solution that would keep Firefly Energy Inc. in Peoria.” Firefly moved into the former Foster & Gallagher building on Galena Road — a building owned by O’Neill’s company — and “O’Neill also hopes his Morton firm will eventually secure contracts with Firefly to build the high-tech core components that would then be shipped to battery plants in Missouri and Ohio,” the paper reported at the time. Leitch was a VP at National City at the time, the bank that provided the loan to Firefly.

“Ultimately, this is new ground for Peoria County.” –Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich, quoted in Journal Star, June 1, 2007

The news article added, “But he [Urich] told the committees it was a worthwhile investment because the company has promised to keep its headquarters here and may manufacture in Peoria its high-tech components, parts that would then be shipped to battery plants in Missouri and Ohio.”

“I see it as one of the safest loans that we could make. If I had the money, I’d make it myself.” –County Board Chairman Bill Prather, quoted in Journal Star, June 10, 2007

If it were really that safe, why did National City require the City and County to guarantee the loan? If it were really that safe, why didn’t Caterpillar guarantee the loan? Well, now we know.

“I’m happy to be doing what I can to get them these defense dollars. In the end, I want them in Peoria. That’s going to be the icing on the cake for us.” Then-Congressman Ray LaHood, quoted in the Journal Star, June 10, 2007.

LaHood helped Firefly get millions in defense contracts. Icing on the cake? What cake?

“This is the highest and best use of this money that we have.” –Peoria County Board member Allen Mayer, quoted in the Journal Star, June 15, 2007

Note to future board candidates: Mark this quote for your campaign literature.

Before someone else says it, I concede that hindsight is 20/20. But I’m more concerned about another proverb: Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Will our elected officials take this very hard and expensive lesson to heart and stop using taxpayer money for risky private ventures?

City of Peoria, Peoria County

Firefly closes, taxpayers left holding the bag

18 Comments

In May-June 2007, the City of Peoria and Peoria County pledged a combined total of $6.6 million as a guarantee for a loan from National City Bank to Firefly Energy, the darling Caterpillar spin-off and “poster child” of PeoriaNext. The source of the funds breaks down to $3.3 million in utility tax revenues from the City, $1 million in Keystone revenue and $2.3 million in Personal Property Replacement Tax Revenue from the County.

Today, WEEK-TV reports that Firefly is closing down its operations and filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That’s not like Chapters 11 or 13 where they reorganize. Chapter 7 means they’re kaput and they will be liquidating their assets, and that means taxpayers are on the hook.

[Firefly’s CEO Ed] Williams said, “After 15 months of unsuccessful attempts to raise $20 million in equity capital, in the midst of this world-wide financial crisis, funds that would have enabled the Company’s transition to full production and commercial sales, the Firefly Energy Board has decided to cease operations and voluntarily file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.”

So, what happens to the taxpayers? The City and County released the following joint statement:

In May 2007, following the significant investment of the private sector and the state and federal governments, the City and County of Peoria unanimously joined in a community partnership to guarantee a $6 million loan to Firefly Energy, Inc. by PNC National City Bank. Unfortunately, after 3 years of extensive efforts to make a commercially-viable alternative to the traditional lead-acid battery, Firefly has not been successful. Along with our state and federal partners, the City and County did everything we could to help Firefly succeed and bring technology-centered, specialized manufacturing jobs to Peoria. It has long been a goal of both private sector and government in the Peoria area to take ideas spun off from Caterpillar to create jobs and commerce in the Peoria area.

As guarantors, the City and County are determined to exercise their full legal rights to protect their interests. In the worst case, the City and County might lose their $6 million guarantee. In the likely case, the governments will pursue by legal means the pledged collateral, the physical and intellectual assets of Firefly Energy, Inc., to reduce any investment losses that may be realized by the City and County. We believe that the value of these assets is considerable and will reduce any amounts that may need to be paid by the City and County as guarantors. Furthermore, we expect that the lender PNC National City will fulfill its legal obligation under the loan agreement to protect the interests of the guarantors and maximize the value of the collateral. Again, the City and County intend to exercise their full legal rights to protect the interest of the tax payers of the City and County of Peoria.

Not to be nit-picky, but the guarantee was for $6.6 million — $6 million for the loan, and $600,000 to cover accrued interest. Regardless, the bottom line is that it’s going to cost taxpayers. Four million dollars of the loan was to be used for equipment, and the rest for working capital. So it looks like we will be on the hook for a sizable chunk.

I love how they are saying they intend to “protect the interest of the tax payers.” You know what would have really protected us? Not guaranteeing a $6 million loan for a risky start-up business in the first place.

Not quoted anywhere is Rep. David Leitch, the former VP at National City who is credited with orchestrating the public-private partnership. He was quoted in the Journal Star back in 2007 as saying this deal was “the most exciting thing Peoria had done since building the Civic Center.” But my favorite quote was what he said after the City approved its half of the guarantee: “This will be a moment we can all look back on and say, ‘Wow.'”

Well, he was right about that. $6.6 million potentially down the drain. Wow.

Museum Block, Peoria County

National Citizen Survey results reveal museum backlash

36 Comments

The National Citizen Survey results are in for Peoria County. A few observations:

The Open-ended Question report includes just five references to the museum. The question was, “What do you think will be the single most important issue facing Peoria County in the next five years?” Here are the museum responses, verbatim from the report:

  • “Reinvigorating tie downtown are a finish the Museum & Warehouse District. Attract small businesses & residential to downtown to promote growth!”
  • “Raising taxes for a museum, then not building it.”
  • “I don’t think the coming museum was what we needed. For a city this time, Lake views was quite adequate – He have enough along the never and need to address other more important ways to use our monetary spending. You have a lot to be proud if in that Previous street, sidewalks & the like are being address-long way to go yet”
  • “That stupid museum”
  • “To terminate the museum project. Taxpayers cannot afford more debt for a want. Spend money on public safety services! Repeal the public facility sales tax!”

Yes, I was surprised, too. I thought a large number of people would recognize that the single most important issue facing Peoria in the next five years will be what to do with all the money that’s going to be rolling in as a result of the new museum. Actually, between that and the huge housing boom we’re going to have because of the Kellar Branch trail being completed, Peoria’s only problem is going to be deciding whether to pave the streets with gold or marble.

Incidentally, I have to wonder if a few of these responses were originally handwritten and then run through OCR (optical character recognition) software, or if people just don’t know how to type.

Meanwhile, here’s a random sampling of responses on the overall Results report:

  • 86% of respondents said job growth is too slow in the County, while 36% said retail growth was too slow.
  • Only 26% of respondents said they had attended a local public meeting, although 51% had watched one on TV.
  • 31% of respondents said the value of services for the taxes paid to Peoria County was “excellent” or “good,” down from 36% the previous year.
  • 32% of respondents said the overall direction Peoria County is taking was “excellent” or “good,” down from 41% the previous year.
  • Only 21% of respondents said the job Peoria County does at listening to its citizens was “excellent or “good,” down from 33% the previous year.

Yes, if I had gotten the survey, I would have marked Peoria County’s ability to listen as “poor” myself. Remember the previous year’s survey? It included the question, “To what degree would you support or oppose a voter referendum to increase the sales tax rate by .25 percent (for example, from 8.0% to 8.25% for the City of Peoria) to fund the remaining cost of constructing money?” Results:

Strongly support 11%
Somewhat support 24%
Somewhat oppose 20%
Strongly oppose 45%

That’s right: 65% of County respondents somewhat or strongly opposed a tax referendum. So what did the County do? They put a tax referendum question on the very next ballot. It’s not surprising that residents the following year gave them poor marks for listening, or that fewer respondents feel the County is heading in the right direction now.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

This land is my land, say City and County

11 Comments

There’s a new conflict in the museum soap opera. Here’s the skinny: the County wants to own portion of the Sears block on which the proposed museum would be built, but they don’t want to pay the City for it, and the City isn’t too keen on that idea.

Let’s start with these lines:

“We’ve made it this far and all of a sudden now they want ownership?” Dillon asked, questioning the city’s motives.

Some affiliated with Peoria County are shaking their heads, noting the city has always indicated it wasn’t going to be “a roadblock” on any museum issue….

At-large City Councilman Ryan Spain acknowledged ongoing discussions but he said he didn’t know of any “strong push” from council members for the ownership or the co-ownership of the land.

“We still stand behind giving the land away,” Spain said. “That was our major contribution for the project.”

First of all, nowhere did anyone say that the City was going to just give the land to the County. The original redevelopment agreement between the City and the museum group agreed to lease the land to the museum for $1 per year for 99 years. So, essentially, they were donating the use of the land, but not ownership of it. Enter the County, thanks to the public facilities tax referendum. It would seem reasonable to assume that the City still planned to lease the land for the same amount, thus not being “a roadblock” in the way of museum progress. But now the the County has decided it wants/needs to own the land… well, that’s a different story. Perhaps the County was assuming facts not in evidence. Or maybe they just misunderstood. And as for Mr. Spain, I’d like him to show me the vote where the City Council said they were going to give away the land for nothing.

Moving on:

In fact, county officials argue it is necessary for them to have ownership of the property as part of a legal basis for the referendum allowing them to seek voter approval on a special sales tax through a new law.

This raises some rather disturbing questions. Is the County now saying that they have a legal requirement to own the land in order to use the sales tax revenue for the project? If so, the County has been keeping its proverbial cart in front of the horse for longer than I realized. The way the statement is worded, it’s not even clear to me that the referendum itself was legal, but I presume it must have been since the ballot wording was so broad (it was, after all, a “public facilities tax,” not a museum tax).

For those who may not remember, the “new law” includes this language (emphasis mine):

For purposes of this Section, “public facilities purposes” means the acquisition, development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, financing, architectural planning, and installation of capital facilities consisting of buildings, structures, and durable equipment and for the acquisition and improvement of real property and interest in real property required, or expected to be required, in connection with the public facilities, for use by the county for the furnishing of governmental services to its citizens, including but not limited to museums and nursing homes.

If the County is indeed required to own the land in order to expend funds on the project, this raises other questions. For instance, where is the money coming from to pay for Mark Johnson, the county’s museum consultant? And where is the money to pay for the “experienced counsel at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery“?

I’m still wondering how they were able to apply for federal money to build a parking deck on land they don’t own without first having an agreement with the owner of the land. There’s still no redevelopment agreement, yet the County is moving ahead as if there were.

Maybe the land conflict will be the thing that finally does in the museum. Nah. Like zombies in a bad horror film, this project comes back to life every time you think it might be dead.

Peoria County, Regional Office of Education, State of Illinois

County looks for new ways to lose taxpayer money

32 Comments

It looks like the County, which has been trying feverishly to squander $40 million on a poorly-planned museum, took some time away from that project to potentially throw away another million:

Peoria County could temporarily pick up slack for the state of Illinois after preliminary approval to issue a $1 million line of credit to the Peoria Regional Office of Education to meet payroll.

In an unprecedented move, the County Board’s finance committee approved issuing the credit Thursday, though it still must be approved by the full board on March 11.

Genius! Since the taxes we pay to the state aren’t being distributed to the Regional Office of Education (ROE) in a timely manner, the taxes we pay to the County are going to be used to help the ROE meet payroll. Then, the taxes we pay to the state will (they hope) be paid back to the County plus interest of around 3%. Who pays that 3% interest? The taxpayers! Yes, when one government body charges another government body interest, what that really means is our tax money being flushed down the toilet. Since both government bodies cover the same taxpayers, we’re essentially charging ourselves interest.

The article goes on to explain what the money would be used for specifically:

Delayed payments from the state of Illinois have created a cash flow emergency in the regional office’s Two Rivers Professional Development Center, an intermediate educational service provider.

Staffers for the regional office and Two Rivers are implementing a $12 million virtual school contract with state money.

The virtual school offers 130 courses, from core subjects such as math, English and science to foreign languages, health and business online. It serves about 120 schools across the state, with about 3,000 students in public, private and home-school settings from fifth grade through high school enrolled annually.

“If we don’t get the credit, the program shuts down. We can’t meet payroll,” Brookhart said.

The Illinois Virtual School was established in 2001, according to published reports. Their website states, “The Peoria Regional Office of Education (ROE), in partnership with the Area III Consortium*, was awarded the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) contract to manage and operate the Illinois Virtual School (IVS) on April 1, 2009…. The Area III Consortium is a partnership of 10 Regional Offices of Education located in west Central Illinois, the Area III Learning Technology Center, Two Rivers Professional Development Center and Western Illinois University.” The ten regional offices cover the following counties: Adams, Pike, Brown, Cass, Morgan, Scott, Fulton, Schuyler, Hancock, McDonough, Henderson, Mercer, Warren, Knox, Logan, Mason, Menard, Peoria, Sangamon, and Tazewell.

Given all that, several questions come to mind:

  • Why is it suddenly Peoria County’s responsibility alone to keep this program running? Where are the other 19 counties involved?
  • Considering Peoria County is itself facing revenue cuts from the state, how is it that they think it’s prudent to cover the state’s shortfall to the ROE?
  • How is it that Peoria County can afford to make a risky $1 million loan to anyone when they spent $4.2 million more than they took in last year?
  • If the state doesn’t come through with the money, how will Peoria County be repaid? Specifically, from what revenue source will they be repaid?
  • How important is this Illinois Virtual School program? Maybe this is a program that needs to be shut down if the state is unable to pay its bills.
City of Peoria, Internet, Peoria County

Peoria to try to woo Google

10 Comments

From a press release:

Mayor Jim Ardis will hold a news conference on February 23, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. The news conference will be held at the PeoriaNEXT Innovation Center (801 W. Main Street, Peoria). The Mayor will be joined by community leaders to discuss our efforts to submit an application to become a test market for Google.

County Board member Merle Widmer has some additional information on his blog, including an e-mail from Mayor Ardis:

As you may have recently seen, Google announced an effort to bring 1GB Internet service to a test market somewhere in the United States. This would be a phenomenal service that would deliver speed up to 100x faster than the best current system available. The impact on economic development will be enormous.

You might also have seen me talk about the importance of this opportunity to Peoria. The City of Peoria has started an application and has now joined the County of Peoria in working collaboratively.

You can read the rest at Merle’s blog, but you get the idea. Here’s some more information on Google’s effort from their official blog.