The real snow test could be tonight

Snow ShovelerThe Journal Star reports that city crews are ready for the 4-8 inches of snow we’re supposed to get starting tonight.

After the December 1 snow storm, Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle told the council he wouldn’t change a thing. During last week’s snowfall, Van Winkle told WCBU’s Jonathan Ahl that his department is “capable of fighting snow,” but the “big ones” are “not as doable from the standpoint of achieving satisfaction on the part of all the citizens.”

Taken together, it sure sounds to me like Van Winkle is saying that, if we were to have another snowfall like December 1, there would be no difference in the outcome. We still would have had immobility problems because the city is prepared to adequately handle snowplowing for weather events like last week’s snow, but not “big ones” like the one December 1.

And that raises questions about the snow that is supposed to hit us tonight. This will be more like December 1 than last week, so it will be a truer test of any changes the city has made to improve their performance. And there have been some changes — they’ve been using more calcium chloride on the streets and have a fancy new AVL (automated vehicle locater) system so they can track the snowplows. Will it be enough? Time will tell.

David Haste tells the Journal Star he and his crews are ready. I would assume he has a case of Red Bull handy just in case he has to pull three or four consecutive all-nighters again. Since they know the snow is coming, I wonder if his superior suggested he flex his time — say, by coming in late today — so as to mitigate overtime pay. Nah, I’ll bet that’s one thing that didn’t change.

Guest Editorial: Peoria Riverfront Museum

First, a special thanks to CJ for the opportunity to submit this piece and explore the potential of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

As a 30-year resident of Peoria — where my children were born and grew up — I am very interested in how my city faces the future. So when the museum project came on the horizon, I wanted to find out just how this will “play in Peoria.” After much research, I am a firm supporter of the new museum. I believe communities are largely defined by how well they preserve their heritage, promote and present the arts, stretch young minds and imaginations, and celebrate human achievement.

The Peoria Riverfront Museum will do all of those things in a unique way — known as the Delta concept. Through the Delta concept, museum visitors will learn about history, art, science and achievement in a way that puts it all in a shared context.

While one-dimensional museums present an isolated view, the Delta concept will blend and merge many views so that the visitor learns about more than just a single historic event or piece of artwork. They will be able to understand the many factors that influenced the historic figure or artist as they made their decisions or created their painting.

Museums are, first and foremost, about education. Lakeview Museum has been a magnificent resource to this community for arts and sciences education. By joining with its other partners—Peoria Historical Society, Illinois High School Association, African American Hall of Fame and the Peoria Regional Museum Society — the education component of the new museum will explode. In one setting, thousands of people will be able to explore hundreds of subjects in a depth and scope normally found only in museums in much larger cities.

The education component is particularly important for our children who are struggling in school. It is no secret that the core of our community is going through difficult times. Those factors affect and impact on children’s abilities to stay focused in school. All children can benefit from the stimulation and sense of wonder that comes from visiting museums. I am hopeful that there will be a special emphasis to bring in children who are having a difficult time in school—perhaps through after school or weekend programs sponsored by businesses—to help spark their interest in education. The community as a whole will benefit.

Another issue that has been put forth by some is the use of such a large space for just two buildings, the museum and Caterpillar Visitor’s Center, and how that fits in with the Heart of Peoria Plan and its emphasis on what is known as New Urbanism.

First, it should be mentioned that the museum planners originally received two-thirds of the space for the museum, with the remainder being retained by the city for possible retail development. Caterpillar then stepped forward and asked for the other one-third for the visitor’s center, which was granted by the City Council with full knowledge of the general space utilization and overall footprint of the two buildings.

As a general comment, I support New Urbanism as it applies to new development; it makes a lot of sense. Upon doing research regarding New Urbanism I found that the proposed use of the space fits in well with New Urbanism principles. Rather than criticize the approach, New Urbanism proponents should be using it as a shining example.

First, the riverfront area should be defined as a neighborhood, or even a district in New Urbanism lingo. A neighborhood consists of mixed uses for apartments, homes, shops and offices, while a district has a more defined use but should retain the principles of neighborhoods where possible. One could consider the riverfront more of an entertainment district than a neighborhood.

But for these purposes, let’s consider it a neighborhood. In New Urbanism, a neighborhood has a public space at its center which is no more than a five or 10 minute walk for all of those in the neighborhood. The Charter for the Congress For New Urbanism says, “Civic buildings and public gathering spaces require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.”

Adreas Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyber, the inspiration for Peoria’s New Urbanism efforts through the Heart of Peoria Plan, put it this way, “Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities (emphais added).”

And finally, the Heart of Peoria: Implementation Charrette Report and Master Plan produced by Farrell Madden Associates with Urban Advisors in May of 2006 suggests creating new outdoor civic spaces and providing new outdoor public spaces, people places, squares and civic greens. The report focuses on the Warehouse District, Sheridan Triangle and Prospect Rd., but did not look at the museum block. It did make a brief reference to “reclaiming” the Peoria riverfront for all of its citizens through walkways, displays of public art, access to the water, etc., all of which were in place at the time the report was prepared.

If you consider the area from the RiverPlex to WTVP and from the river to Washington St. a neighborhood, then the new museum is clearly the center of the neighborhood and the open space there meets all of the recommendations cited above for gathering places, people spaces, community meetings, education, cultural activities and so forth.

The use of the outdoor museum space as a gathering place is the very definition of what New Urbanism recommends for the center of a neighborhood. Other aspects of a neighborhood already exist, including a variety of housing options, shops and offices, all with entrances right off the street. There are many entertainment venues as well.

Consider a bright spring day with people enjoying the outdoor space at the museum, perhaps playing a game of chess with giant chess pieces, playing hopscotch, watching street performers or enjoying lunch or coffee at an outdoor café. Children are creating giant bubbles while another group listens to a storyteller. This is what gathering places and people spaces are all about, and they just don’t exist without some kind of driving force such as a museum.

The only reference I find in the Heart of Peoria Report and Master Plan to the museum block is a rendering that shows seven buildings in the space, six of which I believe are to represent separate buildings for the various museum partners and one is designated for retail space.

This approach is so ill-advised that it really doesn’t deserve comment. Clearly the report producers did not understand the museum’s vision of creating a Delta concept, nor did they have any grasp of or give any consideration to the cost of building, maintaining and staffing six different museums. Increasing the density of the block eliminates the center of the neighborhood and is actually in conflict with New Urbanism principles.

There are many other aspects of the project that have been challenged at one time or another: the cost; the need; who supports and controls the project; the potential use of tax credits for funding; will be a tourism draw; and, of course, the name. I hope the planners don’t listen too much to all the naysayers and give up and I hope delays are minimized so that increasing costs don’t result in a downsized museum.

There is a great deal of work yet to be done and few final decisions have been made. As with most projects of this magnitude there surely will be changes and compromises in the future. But when the doors open, I will be at the head of the line and I’m sure I’ll be joined by thousands of other central Illinoisans who will be proud of the result and proud of all the people who worked so hard to make the Peoria Riverfront Museum a reality.

Peoria Chronicle to run guest editorials

The next post I put up will be the first one on the Peoria Chronicle not written by yours truly. Instead, it will be a guest editorial by a regular reader of my blog — an anonymous commenter who goes by the handle “justanobserver.” Justanobserver has a different view than I about the current designs for the Peoria Riverfront Museum and how they fit with New Urbanism, as you will be able to tell immediately.

So, why a guest editorial? In a previous post, “Museum Project Too Big, Too Expensive,” there was quite a back-and-forth discussion going between a museum supporter and a museum critic, and both felt the use of the comments section to express themselves was a little constraining. So I made an offer:

I happen to think this discussion has been very interesting and educational. I love to hear both sides of the issue, and I feel like that’s what we’re getting here.

If you want, and if it would make this forum easier for each of you, I’ll make you an offer. Each of you write up your “side” of the argument — make your case — and send it to me via e-mail, and I will post both of them as guest editorials on my blog.

It sounds like you two are quite involved in Lakeview and can make a good case for your opinions, and I think my readers would love to hear both sides of the argument. Scott could write about what his vision is for a museum and why the Museum Collaboration plan isn’t living up to that ideal. Observer can write about why the current museum plan is better than the Heart of Peoria Plan vision. … Or however you want to organize it — I’m just trying to say you can both feel free to give your positive vision of how the museum project should go. If you’d rather not proceed in this way, that’s fine too. Just wanted to provide you with another option, if you’re interested.

My offer has been accepted, so the next post will be the very first guest editorial to run. I hope you enjoy hearing a different voice once in a while. Let me know what you think.

Note: Right now, I’m not accepting unsolicited editorials. It’s probably unlikely that I would get a flood of submissions if I were accepting them, but Billy is already providing that service on his blog, so it would seem superfluous for me to do the same. To differentiate myself, my guest editorials will be by invitation only.

The Candidates Forum

I was at the candidates forum Wednesday night (2/7). It was good, but with 14 people running, there was only time to give each person 4 minutes for a speech and 4 minutes of Q&A — not a lot of time to get to know them. But it was a good introduction anyway.

I’m not going to go over all the candidate’s platforms because it’s already been more than adequately covered on the Chamber of Commerce site and in the Community Word. Instead, I’d just like to give a few impressions I had of some of the candidates (sorry, I’m not going to hit them all).

As Gale Thetford got up to speak, I overheard a person sitting behind me whisper to no one in particular, “I sure hope she doesn’t get reelected!” Amen, sister. Thetford said she wants to strengthen older neighborhoods, but she didn’t say her idea of “strengthening neighborhoods” is to allow places like MidTown Plaza to be built. She said she didn’t raise taxes while she was in office, but didn’t mention that she lobbied and voted for the $6 garbage tax fee. She said she was disappointed the city cut funding to District 150 for crossing guards, and one can only wonder where she would have suggested the city get the money for that.

District 150 came up a lot with several of the candidates, actually. While they all made the obligatory caveat that District 150 is its own entity and the city can’t run the district, several spoke of the need for the city to help District 150 any way it can. What most of them didn’t mention was the need for that to be a two-way street. In fact, according to my notes, only Dan Irving made a point of saying helping D150 “should be a two-way street.” Irving also is a supporter of city-wide wi-fi, so I expect he’ll be endorsed by Billy Dennis.

Eric Turner got a cool reception, which I didn’t expect. After he got finished telling everyone that one way the council needs to address neighborhood concerns is to have an at-large councilman team up with the district councilman and meet with the neighborhood leaders to strategize, one audience member said, “Well, you’ve had a long time to work on that.” I guess, while there are benefits to incumbency, there are apparently also pitfalls.

I got to ask George Jacob how he answers those who would criticize his numerous abstentions on liquor-related issues because of his job. He said he had to abstain x-number times (I think it was something like 62 times — he gave me actual figures but I didn’t write them down), and most of those (47, I think) were on the consent agenda, which were unanimous votes. Of the 15 or so remaining votes, 8 were unanimous and the remainder were non-unanimous, but not controversial. The closest vote was 6-4 on the liquor license for the bar on W. Main St. So, he feels it’s a non-issue. I have to admit, I kind of like the guy. He’s unpretentious and he gets out in the neighborhoods. And, of course, he wins the award for “Most Expensive Campaign Materials.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Ryan Spain had a lot to say about economic development, but not much to say about anything else (Spain on crime: “Crime is a problem that needs to be dealt with”; Spain on city services: they are “an important commitment we need to live up to”). In fairness, he did only have 4 minutes, so maybe he has some fleshed-out ideas he just didn’t have time to share. But then I picked up his ad flier and saw that he’s endorsed by Ray LaHood, and that raised a red flag. It appears he’s being groomed for bigger and better things in the Republican party, and this is just the first step. He wins the award for “Most Aaron-Schock-ish Campaign.”

Gary Sandberg wore his trademark bow tie and had the crowd in the palm of his hand. I know of no one who lives in an older neighborhood (remember, this forum was held in the 2nd district) that doesn’t like Sandberg (don’t write and tell me you know someone — I know they are bound to be out there; I’m just saying I’ve never met one). He has an impeccable record for putting essential services first and supporting older neighborhoods, and he touted that record Wednesday night. He pointed out that he was the only candidate running in this election who can say he voted for requiring a supermajority to expand institutional zoning boundaries within 20 years of their filed institutional plan. He was also the only candidate who mentioned the Land Development Code, which is near and dear to my heart, of course.

Someone who came across as somewhat similar to Gary was Dan Gillette. He worked for the streets department before taking early retirement. He seemed to be a firm believer in putting essential services first and looking for forms of revenue other than taxes and fees of citizens. He gave the example of providing certain services (such as thermal striping of streets) to nearby cities for a fee. He’s worth further consideration.

Also worth further consideration are Charles Schierer and Brad Carter, with whom I spent a fair amount of time in conversation. Carter came to the last Blogger Bash (2/3), so I know him a little better. He is also an essential-services-first candidate, and he’s in favor of keeping the Kellar Branch a rail line, so obviously he’s clear-thinking. Schierer is a former accountant and current lawyer, which wouldn’t be bad skills to have on the council; he’s also a fan of form-based code. Incidentally, Carter wins the award for “Most Unintentionally-Humorous Campaign Materials.” You’ll have to get your own flier to find out why.

Those are just my initial thoughts, so sorry if they seem a bit sketchy. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has met the candidates and has any further impressions to share.

City stacks deck against rail supporters

Three weeks ago, Pat Nichting (5th District) asked the council to grant the privilege of the floor to Mike Rucker of the Recreational Trail Advocates. Rucker proceeded to hand out binders full of information to each council person and give a 10-minute presentation on why the council should continue to support the trail.

On Tuesday’s agenda, the first item is, “PRESENTATION by FORMER MAYOR RICHARD CARVER and Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Regarding REPORT on ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE Regarding the KELLER BRANCH RAIL LINE with a Request for Direction from the City Council.” Carver is, of course, on the Peoria Park District dole to help facilitate the conversion of the Kellar Branch to a recreational trail. He’ll probably have all the time he wants.

Meanwhile, rail supporters — e.g., Michael Carr of Pioneer Railcorp, former mayor Richard Neumiller — will probably be told to limit their comments to five minutes each. Are trail proponents afraid they’ll lose the argument if they have to give equal time to rail supporters?

Alexis Khazzam is expected to produce some sort of expert testimony that a shared use of the trail with the rail line is impossible or too expensive, and there are some other presenters lined up to present how great of a boon this trail is going to be to our economy, raising property values and improving Peoria’s “quality of life.”

Be sure to bring your pooper-scooper on Tuesday. The RTA and Park District’s dog and pony show should be a memorable event. Most of the council members’ minds are already made up at this point, so this is all just a formality anyway. They’ll hear what they want to hear and vote like they planned to vote all along. If you want my take on the issue, you can read it by clicking here.

District 150: Restructuring report

It’s been all over the news recently: “Test scores send Four District 150 schools into restructuring.” Because four District 150 schools did not make “adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, for the sixth consecutive year, “Sterling, Loucks-Edison, Lincoln and Trewyn middle schools have entered the restructuring process,” reports the Journal Star.

But what exactly is “restructuring”? There’s a very informative memo on the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) website that details this process. According to the memo, restructuring means that the district must undertake “a major reorganization of a school, making fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance.” Whatever plan they develop has to be approved by the school board and the State Superintendent of Education.

What do they mean by “major” reorganization or reforms?

Under federal and state law, each school restructuring plan developed by the district must indicate the district is planning to undertake one or more of the following actions in the affected school:

  1. Charter School: Reopen the school as a public charter school, consistent with Article 27A of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/27A);
  2. Staffing: Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate yearly progress;
  3. Contracting: Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school; or
  4. Other Major Restructuring: Implement any other restructuring of the school’s governance that makes fundamental reform in:
    i. Governance and management; and/or
    ii. Financing and material resources; and/or
    iii. Staffing.

So, what option is the district taking? Option #2. But if you’re scratching your head wondering why you haven’t seen a huge turnover in employment, it’s because that option is rather broadly defined. For instance, in the document cited above, the ISBE says that one possible application of option 2 is to “transfer the locus of staffing decisions, start to finish, to a turnaround specialist or to the district level from the principal or vice versa.” Two of the restructuring plans (Lincoln and Trewyn) are utilizing the “turnaround specialist.”

I obtained copies of their restructuring plans via a Freedom of Information Act request, and you can read them here:

Lincoln Middle School Lincoln Middle School
Loucks-Edison Jr. Academy Loucks-Edison Jr. Academy
Sterling Middle School Sterling Middle School
Trewyn Middle School Trewyn Middle School

Charter Schools

An interesting option that is not being considered is charter schools. There are currently 37 charter schools in Illinois and there can be up to 60, so this is a possibility. Charter schools in Illinois are governed by the Charter Schools Law, 105 ILCS 5/27A.

A charter school in Illinois is a public school that has a contract (or charter) of operation with the local school board or directly with the state. It has to be public (i.e., can’t charge tuition but is eligible for public funding), nonsectarian, nonreligious, non‑home based, and non‑profit. In fact, it’s set up like a non-profit corporation with its own board of directors, and can make decisions independently of the district, but within the bounds of its contract (charter).

However, the charter gives the school considerable flexibility — for instance, they can choose their own curriculum and disciplinary policies, set their own hours of operation and school calendar, hire their own employees/teachers, etc. In return, the charter school has greater accountability for student achievement. And, of course, the school is subject to common-sense regulations required of all public schools (e.g., civil rights mandates; criminal background checks for employees (click here for more info); open meetings act; state goals, standards, and assessments, etc.).

The local school board can choose this course of action, or it can be initiated directly with the state by public referendum. It takes a petition from 5% of the voters in a school district and approval of the proposed charter school contract by the Illinois State Board of Education (i.e., acknowledgment that the proposed contract complies with the Charter Schools Law) to put the question on the ballot.

Peoria actually had a charter school from 1996-1999. It was called the Peoria Alternative Charter School and it met in the old Greeley school building at 919 NE Jefferson. (Incidentally, my grandmother taught 3rd grade at Greeley before she retired in 1975. Back then, it was a K-8 grade school.) However, many felt this was not the original vision for charter schools — District 150 set this school up as a place to put disruptive students (hence the “alternative” part of the name). In fact, they even put expelled students in this charter school and were legally challenged over it.

Charter schools have never been attempted as a restructuring option for an existing primary or middle school to my knowledge. This may be an option worth exploring. It appears to be successful in Chicago.

Other Major Restructuring

Some examples (not an exhaustive list) of “other major restructuring” given by the state are:

  • Restructure the school by altering the school’s grade configuration (for example, a K-2 school becomes a K-6 school) or the programs offered (for example, the school becomes a magnet school or a career academy), or both….
  • Change to a site-based management school rather than centralized administration, or to centralized administration of the school rather than site-based management (non-applicable to a Title I schoolwide school).
  • Align the school with an existing research-based school improvement model of sufficient size and scope such that the model, used as prescribed and intended, can affect needed change.
  • Use school consolidation processes to create a new public school or schools….
  • Implement a school-within-a-school model or a smaller learning community model.

These options help shed some light on recent District 150 plans to consolidate schools and abandon the primary/middle school model in favor of a return to the old K-8 model.

The Next Step?

Just out of curiosity, I wondered what would happen if the district’s attempts at reorganization failed. The answer is not pretty:

[T]hese interventions could occur in the school year following the restructuring implementation year. Under the School Code, the State Board has the authority to take one of the following actions for the school:

  1. Authorize the State Superintendent to direct the regional superintendent to remove the board members.
  2. Direct the State Superintendent to appoint an Independent Authority to exercise such powers and duties as may be necessary to operate a school for purposes of improving pupil performance and school improvement. The Independent Authority serves for a period of time determined by the State Board.
  3. Change the recognition status of the school to “nonrecognized.” [This is more serious than it sounds at first; the document later explains, “If a district is nonrecognized, it cannot make any claim for General State Aid. …[I]f any school district fails for one year to maintain within the boundaries of the district a recognized school, the district is automatically dissolved and the property and territory is disposed of.”]
  4. Authorize the State Superintendent of Education to direct the reassignment of pupils or direct the reassignment or replacement of school district personnel who are relevant to the failure to meet AYP.

In other words, the state takes over. Elsewhere, the document says that under NCLB other options include: “abolish or restructure the district,” and “appoint a receiver or trustee to administer district affairs, in place of the superintendent and school board.”

Much as removal of board members or certain district personnel may be viscerally appealing sometimes, losing local control of the school district is really not in our best interests. That’s why school board elections and good school board candidates are so important. I’ll do my best to provide information about the candidates. (Full disclosure: I am supporting Beth Akeson for school board.)

School Board President: “This is fair”

I see the District 150 administrators got their raises, including a very special raise for the associate superintendents and a couple others:

The highest percentage increase goes to director of employee services, Geri Hammer, who will see her pay go up 19 percent. She’s followed by Associate Superintendent Herschel Hannah and district research director Bryan Chumbley, who will see their pay increase by 11 percent. These raises are retroactive to the beginning of the school year. […]

Associate Superintendent Cindy Fischer was approved for a 3.5 percent pay raise, also retroactive to the beginning of the school year. The board also approved giving Chumbley and Hammer raises in school year 2007-08 similar to their raises this year.

Meanwhile, the district’s deficit is reportedly $6.65 million. And they can’t afford to give teachers a raise. And several schools can’t make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and are in restructuring. I especially love the fact that these raises are retroactive to the beginning of the school year. That’s a nice perk: six months of back pay in a lump sum.

Said board president David Gorenz: “This is fair. We’ve made significant advances this past year, and it’s largely due to not only the teachers but also the administrators.” Yes, they certainly have made significant advances: several schools have advanced to the next level of restructuring, the board prematurely advanced $877,500 to buy properties along Prospect that they now can’t use, and the board has allegedly been doing some advanced planning to close Manual High School while skirting around the Open Meetings Act.

Elections are coming up on April 17. Vote wisely.

Trail advocates’ ignorance embarrassing

There are two letters to the editor in today’s paper that are supportive of converting the Kellar Branch rail line to a recreational trail. They are full of inaccuracies and misleading statements. Let’s take a look.

First up is a letter from Janice Atkinson. She writes:

A trolley would be cute but an incredible waste of funds, and be used by far fewer people than a recreational trail. The trolley would block traffic and cause accidents at road crossings. It would operate on fossil fuels.

A few things:

  1. I don’t believe this would be a waste of funds, but even if it were, it would be private funds that would be wasted instead of public funds. No one is asking the city to foot the bill for a trolley — it’s a business venture. You know, the kind of businesses that pay taxes. Turning the line into a trail, on the other hand, would be an incredible waste of funds on which we would never see a return on investment.
  2. The number of people a trolley versus a trail would draw is irrelevant. The rail line would not only be used for trolley service, but also freight. The businesses that could be lured to the industrial sites along the line would provide a much bigger return on investment in taxes and jobs than a trail ever would.
  3. “The trolley would block traffic and cause accidents at road crossings”? This is the weakest argument I’ve heard yet. Yes, it would have to cross streets, so there would be a delay while the trolley passed, but considering it would be a single car and not a 100-car freight train, this “delay” would be no longer than a regular stoplight cycle. As far as it “causing accidents,” prove it. Show me the accident records for historic trolleys. I’ll bet you the number of people injured is less than the number of walkers who have been attacked on urban recreational trails.
  4. “It would operate on fossil fuels.” Wrong. It would operate on battery technology. If Ms. Atkinson drives a car, she will be putting far more pollutants in the air in one day than a trolley ever will.

She further says:

When the Kellar branch was in use, the train held up traffic at various points. The rails were not properly or regularly maintained. They remain an eyesore. […] Maintenance for a trail would be minimal in comparison to what a trolley route would require.

The track belongs to the city right now, which is responsible for its upkeep. Since they’ve been trying to shut it down and tear it out for a trail, obviously it’s poorly maintained. If the line were sold to Pioneer, they would upgrade the rail line and keep it in good working condition. Again, private dollars would be maintaining it, whereas a trail would be maintained with public dollars. And in any case, it would take far less maintenance to fix the rails than to tear them out for a trail.

Let’s move along to Joyce Blumenshine’s letter:

Any City Council member who follows Sandberg should consider the 82,000 users on the Rock Island Trail, and about $3 million in trail grants the Peoria Park District has waiting.

Whoa! Wait a minute! Did she say the Park District only has $3 million in trail grants? I have a quote here that says it will cost the Park District over $6 million to convert the rail line to a trail. Where is the extra $3+ million going to come from? Short of finding a matching grant, I guess the funds will come from the taxpayers in the form of a tax hike. Are higher property taxes a big draw for people to buy homes next to a trail?

The Kellar branch line belongs to the city and people of Peoria.

Yes, all of the people, not just trail advocates. And it was purchased by the city in 1984 to provide competitive rail service to Pioneer Park, not to make a linear park.

The city needs to renew its lease with Central Illinois Rail on the Kellar branch line. Any consideration of the city dealing with Pioneer Railcorp should be dead in the water. Pioneer has a proven track record of flagrant obstructions, blatant abuse of contract terms and broken promises. It is a company totally unworthy of consideration.

Ms. Blumenshine is wrong. The record-holder for obstructions, abuse of contract terms, and broken promises goes to Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY), which never fulfilled its contractual obligation to provide service to Carver Lumber while the western spur was being built, endangered the lives of Peoria citizens with a runaway train, and withdrew their petition to discontinue service on the Kellar Branch so they could serve new customers along the Kellar Branch. It is CIRY that has doublecrossed the RTA and Ms. Blumenshine, not Pioneer. Pioneer wants to help build a trail next to the rail line, an option that is constantly rejected:

Sandberg must know resurrection of the dual rail line and trail is a death sentence for the trail due to high cost and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

The “high cost” to which she refers is the park district’s estimate that it would cost over $29 million to build the trail side-by-side with the rail line. That estimate is a joke. What engineering firm provided the estimate? How did they determine the cost per square foot? How did they determine whether a trestle was needed or if the trail could follow the natural topography of the land?

On that last point, you’ll notice on the estimate that about $20.3 million of it is in trestles alone (not including the one at Versailles Gardens, which to my knowledge is undisputed) — 8,065 feet of trestles. Over a mile and a half of trestles. Apparently the park district believes (a) the trail must be perfectly flat or it won’t meet ADA requirements (which makes one wonder what they’re going to do with the steep grade where the rail goes up the bluff), and (b) the only way to bridge such gaps is to build a $180/ft² trestle. I’ll bet a real engineering study would uncover a much different solution.

Finally, I’d like to make just two comments about the Journal Star’s editorial today:

Pioneer may be a local business, but it also has helped ensure that the truly railroaded here have been local taxpayers.

Yes, the railroaded here have been local taxpayers, but not because of Pioneer. Rather, it has been because of the Peoria Park District. A district that, although it has nearlly 9,000 acres of park land and a number of existing trails, covets a little rail line through the center of town. They’re like Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the Kellar Branch is the lonely old Building and Loan that, try as they might, the park district just can’t get control of and it’s galling them.

Any boost a sale would give the city’s operating budget shouldn’t be relevant, as it’s a one-time revenue source, not an ongoing revenue stream.

That’s right, Peoria. $565,000 for city coffers is irrelevant. But putting that aside, the Journal Star should do their homework. Pioneer’s offer to the city included the option of a long-term lease — and that would, in fact, provide a revenue stream to the city. Nevertheless, I believe it would be in the city’s best interest to get out of the railroad business altogether and sell the line. They could still retain the right of first refusal if Pioneer ever decided to sell or abandon it.

The City Council should do the right thing and sell the line to Pioneer. But most likely this will be deferred for another week. So, go to the meeting, but be prepared to have to wait another week.

Museum project too big, too expensive

Now that they’ve lost their federal earmark funding, the already-heavily-underfunded Peoria Riverfront Museum is looking for something — anything — to prop up their big plans for the old Sears block. The latest funding scheme: The New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program.

As I understand it, the way NMTC works is that investors would donate money to a for-profit corporate entity (usually a limited liability company) called a Community Development Entity (CDE) which, in turn, makes debt and equity investments in low-income areas — presumably the proposed museum in this case. The benefit to the investors is that they get a 39% Federal income tax break distributed over seven years, plus a possible cash return during the life of the CDE if it’s profitable.

The first question I had was how the Sears block could possibly be considered a “low-income area.” It’s the crown-jewel of downtown Peoria, right next to Caterpillar’s world headquarters. It’s a prime piece of real estate. Well, it turns out that the way the federal government figures whether or not it is a low-income area is by census tract. Museum Square is in census tract 12, as shown here:

Census Tract 12

As you can see, this census tract not only includes downtown, but also an equal area northeast of I-74. Thus, statistically, the census tract poverty rate is 50.2%, and therefore qualifies as a low-income area. Don’t you just love statistics?

Whether this funding will be the panacea for the museum group’s fundraising woes remains to be seen. It looks like this project would qualify based on the standards set forth by the NMTC statute. However, there is still an application process through the Treasury Department, and the Museum Collaboration won’t find out if their application is approved until late summer, which means, according to the Journal Star’s report:

Officials hope to finish the New Markets financing plan by late summer and start construction of the underground parking deck by September 2008. Construction would begin on the visitors center and museum by January 2009. Exhibit installation would begin in March 2010 with a grand opening scheduled for November 2010, about a year behind original projections.

But there’s another option: redesign. Most of the $24 million they’ve already raised can be used to build a state-of-the-art Peoria History Museum on a smaller footprint, and the rest of the block could be sold for commercial development once the new Land Development Code is adopted. That would put the project more in line with the Heart of Peoria Plan, the available funding, and a reasonably-manageable project scope. It could open a whole lot earlier, with construction of commercial ventures starting even sooner, meaning more property tax revenue for the city.

People in glass arcades shouldn’t throw stones

David Stuckel, attorney for the Civic Center Authority, had his letter to the editor printed in the Journal Star today. He asks:

Why should Peoria taxpayers be ticked by the efforts of the Peoria Civic Center Authority to bring a new hotel to Downtown, as suggested in the Jan. 29 editorial? Because it will improve Downtown’s appearance? Create jobs and tax revenues? Attract people who spend money in the community?

No, Mr. Stuckel, it’s because the Civic Center Authority (CCA) lied to the city when they started this expansion. They told the city — in writing — “We believe [an expanded Civic Center] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and that they weren’t asking for any public funding for a hotel.

Now, less than a year later — before the mortar between the bricks is even dry — the CCA is coming back to the city with its hand out, begging for TIF status and claiming the Civic Center can’t even be solvent without a new hotel. Stuckel then has the chutzpah to ask, “Will our traditional lack of governmental foresight consign this to the woulda-coulda-shoulda trash bin?” The only lack of foresight in this equation is the CCA’s. All the city did was take them at their word.

No, Mr. Stuckel, we’re not ticked for any of the spurious reasons you gave. Peoria taxpayers are ticked because they don’t much care for extortion. They don’t much care for arrogant criticism of other hotels by an entity that has never been self-sufficient and continues to rely on heavy tax subsidies. They don’t much care for an organization that has taken their temporary HRA tax funding and treated it as a permanent entitlement.