Polly's Reply

Sean,

Thanks for replying. Your answers provide some comfort. However, I take issue with your contention:

"There has been only one decision by the District, and that is where
the school will be located. We feel that is solely our call based on
what we believe is best for the children who will attend the school."

Solely the Board's call? Not likely. Kind of begging to be put in your place on that one, Sean. The sole commandment and most important element of real estate is, of course, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. The location of this proposed school will remain the most controversial element of the entire plan and therefore the Public should have been privy to it before said decision was cast. Polly predicts "the one decision [made] by the District" will be the first one vetoed by the public. Considering the location would require homes to be demolished and that the proposed property trade with the Housing Authority could result in public subsidized housing built on the old Glen Oak School site, it amazes me that the School Board didn't predict public outrage on its location "decision."

I appreciate and admire the District's relatively low debt. However, the District still has seven years until its current debt is paid. It is too early to celebrate by acquiring more debt, which is what a bond represents. Moreover, the District needs to come up with a plan to reign its personnel costs before the Public will embrace any new construction. You could build the public school B-8 equivalent of Harvard, but unless and until The Board solves its "annual spending problem", the best new school will solve nothing. In fact, you will ruin the one thing the District may have going for it- it's comparable low debt. No person, business, or institution with a serious "cash flow problem" would be well advised to solve the situation with yet more debt.

As I see it, The Board has four options:

1. Cut waste and/or expenses, (Think Edison)

2. Re-negotiate contracts/benefits with Unions, (Think strike)

3. Raise taxes, (Think bodyguard)

4. Combination of the above. (Think riots)

I think number four is the most responsible alternative, although it won't be popular. I'd rather chew glass than take your job. If your goal is to make Peoria Public Schools the place where parents want to have their kids get an education LONG TERM, The Board must admit and respond to all of its financial problems/mistakes. Otherwise a new school, regardless of its location, is simply frosting on a manure cake.

God speed,

Polly

I'm starting to like this guy...

I received another fine e-note from School Board Vice President Sean Matheson this morning, replying to my last post. He is succinct in answering/justifying some common concerns so I'm posting his entire letter:
Polly,

I know as soon as I write these words that they are instant fuel for
the "District 150 is run by idiots" machine, but here goes nonetheless:
we don't actually have a "plan" to show you.

But there is a reason for this. The plan as to how the school will
look, its footprint on its site, and the community programs it will
offer (such as a health and dental clinic, Peoria Public Library branch,
senior citizen exercise and meeting rooms, etc) are all intended to be
determined by a 2-3 day community charrette starting in May or June.

There has been only one decision by the District, and that is where
the school will be located. We feel that is solely our call based on
what we believe is best for the children who will attend the school.

There are some fundamental beliefs on what the school should be like,
though, that guided that decision. It will house students from 6 weeks
old through 8th grade (what we call B-8). It will be air conditioned and
be open well into the evening and weekends for community use. It will
incorporate LEED (or high energy efficiency) design characteristics that
will keep our costs of running it down. And it will have room for
students to run and play and learn in green areas, not on blacktop.

As for the financing, these two new schools (and the ones to follow)
are critical to our cost cutting strategy of consolidating two older,
educationally outdated schools into one new, educationally appropriate
school (I can explain what we mean by "educationally appropriate", but
it would be another longer email). District 150 has an amazingly low
debt level. Indeed, we are scheduled to repay almost all of our existing
bonds over the next seven years or so. We will structure repayment of
our new construction bonds so that as our existing bonds retire, we will
begin paying off the new ones. This will allow us to keep the tax rate
steady, i.e. no increase. Or to put it more simply, District 150's
financial problems are all in its annual spending (91% of it personnel
costs), not in its overall financial health. We are cash-flow poor, but
luckily unencumbered by debt.

I am sure you may have more questions, but I don't want to bog you
down with an endlessly long email. If you would like to post some
questions on your blog with my responses, I would be willing to do that.

Best,

Sean