Tag Archives: Peoria Public Schools

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 approves $38 million bond issuance

9 Comments

The deed is done:

The School Board unanimously approved the sale of $38 million in working cash bonds on Monday, estimated to add some 21.7 cents to the tax rate. . . .

Much like the cost of a loan to purchase a home or car is much more than what is actually borrowed, the amortized cost to issue the $38 million bonds, essentially borrowing the cash, will cost taxpayers $60,461,887.

The $38 million goes into the district’s reserve fund and will hopefully mean that the district no longer has to issue tax anticipation warrants, which will preserve more money for the education fund. It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this, but there are few options left after several years of irresponsible spending by the school district. The real question is, will the school board stick to the plan and not deplete their reserves again?

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Journal Star might want to pay closer attention to numbers, especially when they come from District 150

263 Comments

Eleven District 150 schools will split $1.3 million earmarked for underprivileged students under a plan still being finalized by school officials.

Okay, remember those numbers: 11, $1.3 million.

But the plan, nearly doubling the number of schools designated as Title I, comes at a cost to 13 other schools within the district already receiving the grants.

Ah, so 13 other schools already receive Title 1 funding. If we take that number, plus the aforementioned 11 schools that will be added, we come up with 24 schools total. Got it.

Despite the district increasing the number of Title I schools from 15 to 24, it won’t receive any additional money.

Wait a minute. Now they’re saying 15 schools already receive Title I funding, but the total is still only going to be 24, which is an increase of 9. This must be a typo; I’m sure they meant to say “from 13 to 24.” Maybe the editor will catch it before the paper copy goes to press.

Essentially, it would redistribute the same $7.5 million it receives annually.

What? How did we get from $1.3 million to $7.5 million? From the article, it appears the $7.5 million is the total funding District 150 gets, and of that amount, $1.3 million is going to be going to the 11 additional schools. But how is that figured? How did they arrive at that number?

Enrollment at the 13 additional schools represents a combined 5,000 students.

I thought it was 11 additional schools. Thirteen was the number of schools “already receiving the grants,” wasn’t it? This is so confusing!

Of the little more than $7.5 million District 150 receives, $2.2 million is set aside for pre-school, $755,000 for professional development, $75,500 for parental involvement and $255,000 for administrative needs. The remaining $3.5 million goes directly to the schools.

$2.2 million, plus $755,000, plus $75,500, plus $255,000, plus $3.5 million equals $6,785,500. Where does the other “little more than” $714,500 go? That ain’t chump change, especially on an annual basis!

Not being factored in is some $4.4 million in federal stimulus money headed for Title I programs at District 150.

Good, because none of the other numbers are adding up anyway. Does anybody at 1 News Plaza have a calculator?

Peoria Public Schools

Question of the Day: What kind of charter school do you want to see?

164 Comments

On another thread, Peoria Public Schools Board of Education member Jim Stowell asked this question:

Charter schools will be the focus of Monday night’s meeting. Thoughts? Please address funding, teacher (union) leadership and involvement, parental and student responsibility – and focus of curriculum. I have heard of a desire for both a math-science school and a vocational charter. Seven are left and several applications are already moving forward.

This is a great opportunity to give feedback to the board, and I didn’t want my readers to miss it, so it’s the question of the day. More information about charter schools in Illinois can be found at the Illinois State Board of Education’s website. You might also find this resource helpful. And I also gave a brief overview of charter schools in this old post from a couple years ago.

City of Peoria, Economic Development, Peoria Public Schools

Main Street Commons (UPDATED)

32 Comments

I was given an artist’s rendering of the “Main Street Commons” project being proposed by Devonshire Group. This is the project that can supposedly only happen if District 150 gives the developers their share of the property taxes for five years. It is proposed to be built at the corner of Main and Bourland. Here’s what that corner looks like now:

main-and-bourland

That’s a vacant Walgreen’s and a parking lot. If you were to turn the camera to the right, you’d see McDonald’s. Here’s what Devonshire Group is proposing to put there instead:

main-street-commons

Sorry about the quality of the picture; all I have is a photocopy. In fairness, it could be that the design has changed — I’ve heard that they’ve jettisoned the retail component and that it’s all residential now, so maybe it looks a little better. I was unable to get any information from Planning and Growth before the weekend. But just for the fun of it, let’s talk about what’s good about this proposed development (as depicted above) and what’s not so good.

The Good

  • It’s built right up to the sidewalk. That’s good. In an urban area like the West Main corridor, you don’t want setbacks with parking in front (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s).
  • It has good vertical mass. It’s not a one-story building (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s again). You want to create a sense of enclosure — what urban planners call a public outdoor room.
  • It has lots of windows. Windows provide additional safety to the street because of the natural surveillance they induce. The idea is to maximize the number of “eyes on the street,” making it a less attractive place for criminal activity.

The Not-So-Good

  • There are no entry doors on Main or Bourland. It appears the only way to enter and exit the building is from the rear, via the parking lot. This is bad for a few reasons. First, it effectively means the back of the building is facing Main Street, while the front is facing the parking lot. This is not the way to re-energize Main Street. Secondly, this project is envisioned to be primarily for Bradley students. Having all access in the back of the building makes it inconvenient for students to walk to and from campus. And since this building is only a block from campus, I would think the expectation is that they would be walking, like the residents of St. James Apartments do. Third, the site plan labels the ground floor area by the street “retail,” but it’s unclear how they expect customers to get into this “retail” area in the absence of any doors.
  • The street-level facade has all the charm of a mini-storage facility. Seriously. Imagine yourself walking by this development. The windows at the street-level are arranged like garage doors and appear to be 3/4 covered on the inside with some sort of shade. So now they become the equivalent of walking by a blank wall. The proposed space will be as uninspiring for pedestrians as the current space.

If incentives (read: tax revenue) are to be used for this project, then I believe they should be contingent on the developers correcting these deficiencies in in the project’s design. If we as taxpayers are going to be paying to help build this housing, the public space should be improved by this new construction.

As for District 150’s involvement, I think it would be rather risky. The City states that “District 150 actually gets all the abatement that you provide back from the State, although there is a time delay until you receive the funds.” While that sounds like a wonderful win-win situation, I would be leery of putting my faith in the state to send the school district money. Just this past March 11, the Journal Star reported:

[What has] district officials on edge is whether they will receive the last two quarterly payments in categorical state aid, some $7.6 million. [Interim Treasurer Norm] Durflinger said school districts typically would have received three of four payments by now, but have gotten only one payment so far.

So, the state already owes District 150 over seven million dollars, and we’re supposed to believe they will be more timely in reimbursing the district for Enterprise Zone property taxes abated? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

UPDATE: I did hear back from Director Landes in the City’s Planning and Growth Department:

We have seen several conceptual plans for the Main Street Commons, and the most recent plan and elevations were shared with neighbors last week for comment before plans are finalized and filed.

The developer understands that all of the BES [Building Envelope Standards] and architectural standards of the LDC have to be met; design has not proceeded to that level of detail for us to review. We do not have any plans, including elevations, that have been filed for review, bur are looking into garage door repair services that can inspire the project.

Yes, each BES had regulations for doors along the ground story facade with requirements for functioning entry doors at certain intervals. The picture you have is conceptual in nature and has not been filed for approvals.


Peoria Public Schools, Television

Latest D150 happenings; Hinton on “At Issue”

68 Comments

Parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens will be protesting at 5:30 tonight in front of the District 150 administration building on Wisconsin. They’ll be protesting against plans to close schools — especially a high school yet to be named — in order to plug the district’s budget gap. Also scheduled tonight is a public hearing on the district’s plans to issue $38 million in bonds. A revised estimate by the district indicates that this bond issuance will raise property taxes 23 cents (down from 25 cents in an earlier estimate) per $100 equalized assessed valuation.

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton was on WTVP’s “At Issue” Thursday night (replayed Sunday afternoon) along with the superintendent of Normal District 5. A few comments I found most interesting:

  • Hinton stated that he’s been looking at reducing administrative staff “all along,” and that he’s planning to eliminate vice principals. Then he made some equivocal comment that he might not be able to do that this year because of school closures increasing the enrollment at remaining schools.

  • Hinton said that, contrary to popular belief, the district is not top-heavy with administrators, and that he hopes that any administrative positions eliminated now will just be temporary — i.e., that they’ll be able to add those positions back eventually.

  • While he declined to get more specific, Hinton said that “the two schools will be combined.” So, as predicted, it sounds like Manual is safe from closure, and that the district is still looking to combine Central and Woodruff. It’s just a question of which building will house them.

  • Hinton also said they are looking at establishing an alternative school, but didn’t give any specifics other than this one would be bigger than ones they’ve had in the past.

  • Hinton said the new Glen Oak campus is “on the small side” — only 12 acres, whereas the Harrison school campus is 22 acres. When H Wayne Wilson asked him if that was kind of big, Hinton responded, “that’s what they all should be.” He said the research shows that “the outdoors” is important to education — that it increases test scores and makes kids less aggressive. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating: Sterling Middle School has a 26-acre campus — larger than even the new Harrison School campus — yet their test scores are abysmal, and the school was the site of a brutal beating of a boy on the basketball court in 2006. There is no evidence that increased acreage improves student achievement; that theory has been debunked many times, yet Hinton still clings to it, citing district consultant Dr. Judy Helm as his only source.

On a side note, I wish WTVP would put the latest “At Issue” programs up on its website. The last one they have up is from February. I’d like to watch the show again, since I missed the beginning of it both times it aired.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 releases audit report, statement on McArdle

131 Comments

District 150 has just released a statement (reprinted below) and a copy of the audit by Clifton Gunderson of the District’s Grade School Activity Funds.

DISTRICT STATEMENT – For Immediate Release – Wednesday, April 29, 2009

  • First, we need to clarify that Julie McArdle was not fired. Her contract was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract.
  • The Board of Education and Administration stand behind their decision to terminate Principal Julie McArdle’s contract without cause. As an employer, we are bound to personnel laws that prohibit us from discussing or outlining reasons behind the decision to terminate her contract.
  • Regarding financial reviews – as part of routine procedures, our district used an outside accounting firm to conduct random, routine financial reviews of school activity funds. These reviews occur on a rotating basis every three-to-four years at all of our schools. We also request a review of these funds each time a new principal is named at a school or a building is closed.
  • On April 24, 2009 – (last Friday) – a police report was filed because 2007-2008 Lindbergh MS financial records are missing. These documents were reviewed in the summer of 2008 by the accounting firm during a routine review of the fund, which found no misuse of the school’s funds.
  • District staff members are diligently working with multiple sources to find documentation, receipts and statements that will assist in the reconstruction of the missing Lindbergh 2007-2008 financial documents. We are also hoping for a rapid conclusion of the Peoria Police Department’s investigation into our two filed reports.
  • Regarding the use of personal credit cards and District issued credit cards:
    • It is routine practice for school or District personnel to use a personal credit card to purchase items for our students, classrooms or other needed supplies, so long as appropriate and detailed documentation is kept.
    • There are currently nine different district-issued credit card accounts. The statements for these accounts are reviewed by the Business Manager and payments are processed by the District.
  • A decision had been made to recommend the termination of Mrs. McArdle’s contract prior to receiving any allegations of misconduct under the Illinois whistleblowers act.

My take: The report from Clifton Gunderson is not exactly a clean bill of health. Notice this statement near the end:

The above procedures were performed at the request of the Controller/Treasurer of the District. We make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures for any purpose. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion of the financial statements of the Student Activity Funds of Lindbergh Middle School. Had we performed additional procedures, matters might have come to our attention that would be reported to the District.

So, if I’m reading this right, they’re not offering an opinion of the financial statements. In fact, given the parameters of what they were asked to do, it’s unlikely that they could have detected any fraud that might have been perpetrated, unless someone had actually written “stolen funds” in the ledger or on the memo line of the check. They pulled 20 disbursements at random and found two that had no supporting documentation. That’s ten percent of a random sampling that were defective. Shouldn’t that have been a tip off to the Controller/Treasurer that the controls in place were deficient?

As for the statement from the District, the last point is the most interesting. According to their statement, the decision had been made to terminate McArdle’s contract “prior to receiving any allegations of misconduct under the Illinois whistleblowers act.” This is pretty shaky. Obviously it’s designed to try to absolve the board of any impropriety; it says, “hey, we didn’t know anything about the charges against Mary Davis before we decided to terminate McArdle, so we should be held harmless.” But they did know about the charges before they voted to terminate the contract. The police reports were made on Friday, and the termination took place on Monday. Once they heard the charges against Davis, they could have held off and investigated the matter first. Instead, they went ahead and terminated the contract for reasons they cannot publicly by law disclose.

Why should they have held off? Because Davis is McArdle’s superior, and it’s most likely that the information on which the board based their termination decision was evaluative information received from Mary Davis and her supporters. If Davis were involved in wrongdoing as alleged, it stands to reason that she would have tried to keep that information from coming to light. One way would be to undermine the potential whistleblower (McArdle) and try to get her discharged. Caution should have been the order of the day.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 principal fired (UPDATED)

79 Comments

Lindbergh Middle School principal Julie McArdle was fired tonight at a special meeting of the District 150 Board of Education. The story is on WEEK’s site, and more details are on Billy’s blog.

Since it’s a personnel matter, the District is not talking. However, McArdle’s lawyer, Richard Steagall, is saying the principal is actually a whistleblower who uncovered a number of different improprieties by someone in central administration. A lawsuit will be filed against the District.

This story is bound to get bigger.

UPDATE: The Journal Star’s story is up now. Note:

The action [firing McArdle] occurred about six months after McArdle is said to have first blown the whistle on the previous Lindbergh principal….

Police and other sources confirmed that the investigation centers around McArdle’s allegation that her predecessor as Lindbergh principal, Mary Davis, misused district money in 2007-08….

[McArdle’s attorney, Richard] Steagall said McArdle informed district administrators about the credit card after receiving a phone call from a credit card company on Oct. 26 regarding late payments on the balance due. Previously unaware of a school credit card, McArdle asked for statements to be sent to the school.

According to Steagall, the balance on the card had at one point climbed beyond $9,000. He said McArdle also found documentation that $4,002.05 was paid toward the balance of the credit card from student activities funds on June 30, with that amount received by the credit card company on July 4.

“She found out there was a credit card for Lindbergh School with $9,000 in charges on it,” Steagall said of his client. “There were charges for Peoria Toyota, FedEx/Kinko’s, Amazon.com, Best Buy, an American Girls doll store, cash advances, things like that. One payment for over $4,000 was from the student activity fund. She’s reported all of this.”

After bringing the suspicious financial information to the district’s attention in October, McArdle assumed the district was investigating and didn’t pursue if further, Steagall said.

But recently, McArdle was asked by the district to resign, Steagall said. He believes that was directly in relation to McArdle’s whistle-blowing.

What’s interesting is reading the comments on WEEK’s and the Journal Star’s sites. If each commenter is really a different person, it would seem that there is no small amount of animosity toward McArdle. Yet other sources tell me McArdle is innocent and is being punished for blowing the whistle. Hopefully the police investigation will get to the bottom of the matter.

However it turns out, it’s another black eye for District 150.

City Council, City of Peoria

Council preview 4-28-09

14 Comments

Here are some items of note that will be discussed and possibly decided on Tuesday (if they don’t defer everything like last week):

  • Defending BVA. The City will be defending Council Member Barbara Van Auken against charges brought by the Sigma Nu Fraternity. This is the official notification to the council.

  • Funding PACVB. The Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau wants to keep getting extra revenue from the hotel tax. The hotel tax is the “H” portion of the infamous HRA (Hotel, Restaurant, Amusement) tax. The PACVB originally got 40% of the revenue from that tax. Since July 2000, however, they’ve been getting an extra 4% to pay for the costs of leasing and subsequently buying their 456 Fulton Street office. Thus, this extra amount was supposed to be eliminated once the mortgage was paid off, which was supposed to be in 2006. But, unbeknownst to the Civic Center or the City, the PACVB refinanced their loan in 2003 over a longer time period. The difference between their old mortgage payment and their new lower payment was diverted to operations. The chickens came home to roost in 2006 when the PACVB came to the City asking for that 4% increase to be extended so they could continue paying their mortgage for another four years (until 2010). City Council members were none too happy, but gave them the money– for one year. So in 2007, the request came back again that the extra 4% be extended through 2010. That was approved. One would think that would be the end of it.

    But no! They’re back again, and now they want that extra 4% to be permanent. Of course, the current council communication doesn’t include any of the background information I just provided, nor does it explain why the PACVB wants it extended permanently, what they’re going to use the money for, or what benefit it would bring to the city. It also doesn’t include any information on whether the Civic Center Authority concurs with this request. It’s a poor excuse for a council communication, frankly.

    Furthermore, take a look at this breakdown of income sources published by the PACVB in their annual report:

    pacvb-income

    Keep in mind that this is the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, covering eight counties: Bureau, Fulton, Marshall, Mason, Peoria, Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford. Now, doesn’t that income distribution look a little disproportionate? The PACVB needs to do more than explain why they should get an extra 4% indefinitely; they need to explain why the City shouldn’t reduce the other 40% of H tax revenue they’re receiving. Perhaps a reduction here could pay for the latest $500,000 upgrade the Civic Center has floated.

  • Upgrading streets around Glen Oak School. The city is contemplating upgrading the streets around the new Glen Oak School. This is necessary because the city allowed the School District to increase their footprint dramatically and cut off Frye, a major East Bluff thoroughfare. This not only affects motorists, but also utilities. A water line will have to be relocated along Maryland, and AmerenCILCO will have to relocate their facilities from the abandoned portion of Frye. A block of brick street on Maryland and two blocks of brick street on Kansas will be converted to asphalt. Upgrading the streets, curbs, and sidewalks is estimated to cost about $2.93 million. If they want to add ornamental streetlights and other streetscape enchancements, it would cost an additional $1.35 million. That should be a breeze, considering we can afford to give a private developer $40 million to build a hotel downtown. I sure don’t understand all the handwringing in the council communication about “the need to establish priorities” and “the need to further consider bonding for improvements.” There was none of that kind of talk in the communication about the — what was it they called the Marriott/Pere Marquette project? — oh yes, the “wonderful development”!

  • Approving Harrison Homes Subdivision. In addition to the new Harrison School, the Peoria Housing Authority is planning to put in a “RiverWest” type development to replace the slums known as Harrison Homes. Before the council on Tuesday will be the preliminary plat showing how the neighborhood will be arranged. My only complaint is that they have a great opportunity to restore the street grid system, but they are choosing instead to make inefficient use of their land by putting a couple streets diagonally. Why? To what advantage? It’s demonstrably inefficient and incongruous with the surrounding area. Why wouldn’t we want to restore the grid system, as is recommended in the Heart of Peoria Plan? Yes, that last question was rhetorical.

  • Saving money. The city is still trying to save money rather than raise taxes. What this effectively means is that they’re going to continue subsidizing downtown parking, the Civic Center, the proposed museum, the Gateway Building, and the “wonderful development,” at the expense of basic services such as sealcoating of streets, weed control, building inspections, and code enforcement. The city really knows how to tighten its belt when it comes to services that benefit all Peoria residents, doesn’t it?

No doubt, all these items will pass with little or no discussion, since what we really value on the Peoria City Council is “consensus.” Who needs deliberation or critical thinking, especially where the public can see? They make for long, boring, and informative meetings. We want a council that just comes and votes “yes” or “no” as determined ahead of time in private meetings outside the purview of the Open Meetings Act. No fuss, no muss.

2008 Campaign, Peoria Public Schools

Working cash bonds will raise property taxes 25¢ per $100 EAV

63 Comments

I recently spoke with District 150 interim comptroller Brock Butts about the $38,000,000 in working cash bonds the District wants to issue. He said the plan is to issue 15-year bonds, but hopefully pay them off early — possibly as quickly as five years. The bonds would be paid for by putting an additional levy on property taxes. Property taxes within the District would increase 25¢ per $100 of equalized assessed valuation (EAV). That means the owner of a $150,000 house would pay an additional $125 in property taxes.

Public notice of the District’s intent to issue the bonds was given in the Journal Star on April 7. Voters have 30 days from that date to either do nothing, in which case the district will go forward with the bond issuance in May, or gather at least 6,355 signatures to force the bond issuance to a binding referendum. The soonest a vote could be taken is February 2010, unless a special election were held earlier.

I asked what would happen if the voters did, in fact, succeed in petitioning for a referendum. Butts said that unless the District receives categorical funding from the State, the District will run out of money mid-May. At that point, the district could borrow money under something called “teacher’s orders” to pay certified staff salaries, but that’s about all they could do until October when they could issue tax anticipation warrants again. In short, it would keep them in a perpetual cash flow crisis.

Some explanation may be helpful here. Tax anticipation warrants are kind of like payday loans. As the name implies, money is borrowed in anticipation of receiving future tax revenue. The loan is paid off when the future tax revenue is collected. Basically, they’re using next year’s tax money to pay this year’s bills, just like you can use next month’s paycheck to pay this month’s bills if you get a payday loan. Companies like Investors Choice Lending do this and the District has been doing this for years, allowing people to try Investors Choice Lending.

That comes with a cost: interest. Tax anticipation warrants don’t raise your property tax bill, so guess from where the money for interest comes. According to Dr. Butts, it comes out of the education fund. Not good.

This is why the comptroller (and others) have recommended that the district issue $38 million in working cash fund bonds. It will give the district money to build up their reserves so they no longer have to issue tax anticipation warrants. That, coupled with efforts to balance the budget, will get the District back on sound financial footing. While it will cost a little extra in property taxes now, it will save money in the long run. It will also keep the interest costs from coming out of the education fund. Once the working cash fund bonds are paid off, property taxes will be abated.

This plan sounds reasonable and fiscally responsible to me, and I can support it. In fact, I’ve decided I’m not going to be a part of any effort to force this issue to a referendum.

However, I still have one really big reservation about this plan, and that is my lack of confidence in the school administration’s commitment to stick to it. As has been stated before, Blaine-Sumner was closed, then remodeled for use as offices, squandering the savings there. White School was closed and sold, but the Social Security Administration building was acquired and remodeled for more than the sale price of White. More squandered savings. And need we mention the money wasted on multiple superintendents and other questionable administrative/consultant positions?

What assurance can the District 150 Board of Education give the citizens of Peoria that they will not squander the savings of the recently-decided school closures, or the additional revenue from working cash fund bonds? That’s not a rhetorical question; I really think the constituents of District 150 deserve an answer.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 votes to close schools

30 Comments

The District 150 Board of Education voted Monday to close four schools — Kingman, Tyng, Irving, and a high school to be named later — and increase class sizes.

Combined, the operational savings by the end of the 2011 school year would mount to well more than $11 million.

Yep, and we were supposed to be enjoying $9 million in savings this year due to the closing of Blaine-Sumner and White schools. Who wants to bet me this new $11 million figure will similarly evaporate and a new crisis will emerge in 2011?