Category Archives: City Council

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.

Grayeb’s leading referendum question

Here is the question retiring city councilman Chuck Grayeb would like to have on the ballot in April:

Should the City of Peoria Join Other Smoke-Free Illinois Cities and Smoke-Free States (including California and New York), by Prohibiting Smoking in All Indoor Work Places and All Indoor Public Places?

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to say, “Should the City of Peoria prohibit smoking in all indoor work places and all indoor public places?” Does not the inclusion of “join other smoke-free Illinois cities and smoke-free states (including California and New York)” make this an argumentative and leading question?

I did some checking, and it looks like the Circuit Court of Cook County said in Leman v. County of Cook “that a municipality which initiates even an advisory referendum has the obligation to set forth the question in as neutral and non-argumentative a fashion as possible.”

Grayeb’s question does not do that; indeed, if you read Grayeb’s Request for Council Action, the adoption of smoke-free policies by other states and Illinois cities is a large part of his argument for making Peoria smoke-free. He can’t put his argument into the advisory referendum.

Of course, I think this is a waste of time anyway; but if they’re going to do it, they should at least do it right.

Council roundup: TIFs don’t expand, one-year Riverfront agreement approved

With surprisingly little discussion, the City Council quietly rejected almost all suggestions to add more land to the proposed Warehouse and Eagle View Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts.

Lately — especially since the most recent budget was passed — people have been asking, “is this council any different than the one they replaced?” I think this is an example where they are indeed different. This council showed restraint when presented with suggestions to expand a TIF, and I thought their performance tonight was commendable.

Another area where they’re different: the council approved only a one-year intergovernmental agreement with the Park District to do programming for Riverfront events instead of rubber-stamping another five-year agreement. They’re trying to wean the Park District off of city funds and push them toward making Riverfront events self-supporting. This is practically a paradigm-shift from the previous council.

It was a good, fiscally-responsible council meeting.

Let’s get r-r-ready to RUMBLE!!!

Wrestling picTonight, at the same time the City Council was meeting, the Civic Center was hosting WWE wrestling. Not a big deal, except for one little problem: both events were using wireless microphones and there was a bit of “interference.”

Specifically, we in Peoria could hear the wrestling event in the background during the meeting on TV and radio and, better yet, millions of people got to hear our city council meeting in the background of the nationally-televised Smackdown! All over America tonight, confused wrestling fans are Googling Lori “Blackbelt” David….

I have to say, the wrestling underscore really made the council meeting more entertaining. I wonder if they can work that in every week? Maybe they could get Michael Buffer to read the consent agenda….

Reader poll: What is adequate police protection?

In my last reader poll, I asked the question, “What are essential services?” and the answers were terrific — very enlightening. Certainly there was a lot more disagreement than I thought there would be, but there was one thing, and one thing only, on which everyone agreed: police protection is an essential service.

But how do we assess whether this essential service is adequately provided by the City? What would the City have to do for us each to say, “yes, they’ve adequately provided for police protection in Peoria”?

Is it as simple as staffing x-number of cops on the beat? Is it solely punitive, or is there a prevention or early-intervention component to having adequate police protection (e.g., could some funding for education be considered an investment in crime prevention, and in that sense be considered part of providing adequate police protection)? Is it a funding issue — having enough money for all the communications and other equipment needed?

I think a distinction needs to be made here for the purposes of this question not becoming too large. I’m talking about what the City Council can do to adequately provide police protection. I’m not looking for a critique of the police department’s or the state’s attorney’s effectiveness or what they can do better at this point. Just from a Council perspective, at what point are you/we satisfied that they (the Council) are doing enough, and any problems or shortcomings are someone else’s fault other than the Council’s?

Grayeb seeks to trample private property rights

From the Journal Star over the weekend:

Calling the city “behind the curve,” Councilman Chuck Grayeb says people in Peoria deserve the right to enjoy dinner without a side order of second-hand smoke.

I can suggest several options for Mr. Grayeb and the “people in Peoria” about whom he’s concerned. Here’s a list of smoke-free restaurants from the Illinois Department of Health. In addition, Mr. Grayeb is free to start his own smoke-free restaurant — he’ll certainly have time for a new venture now that he’s leaving the council.

Of course, neither of those options are Grayeb’s solution. He’d rather trample private property rights:

To that end, he plans to push for a referendum in the next few months banning smoking in Peoria restaurants.

I think this is focusing on the wrong problem. Instead, the council should be doing something to stop the gangs that are tying people up and forcing them to eat in restaurants that allow smoking!

The Council returns Tuesday, Jan. 9

The first thing on Tuesday night’s agenda is (after the proclamations) is:

INITIAL SNOW DEBRIEFING by SIX SIGMA BLACK BELT LORI DAVID from CATERPILLAR, INC. to Provide an OVERVIEW, INITIAL OPPORTUNITIES, OBSERVATIONS for IMPROVEMENTS, and the APPROACH for COMPLETING THE ASSIGNMENT.

Oh, goody. Like we need a Six Sigma black belt to figure this one out. Please tell me Ms. David is doing this service pro bono and we’re not wasting any more money on this snow fiasco. If she is being paid, perhaps they can fire Mr. Haste and take her fee out of the money they would no longer be wasting on him.

Other notable items, in no particular order:

  • Website redesign. They may hire IceCentric, LLC to redesign the city’s website for up to $45,000.

    The website seriously needs to be updated, so this is good news.

  • Sign ordinance changes. Adams Outdoor Advertising wants the City to change its sign ordinance to allow electronic off-premise billboards that can change messages every six seconds.

    Because traditional billboards just aren’t garish enough.

  • Riverfront programming. The proposed intergovernmental agreement between the City and Park District to provide programming along the Riverfront has been reduced from five years to one. Furthermore, during that one year, “additional revenue sources and cost reduction opportunities [will] be identified to move the Riverfront toward being self-sustaining.”

    Who proposed this course of action? Councilmembers Van Auken and Manning, of course. I’m still disappointed that they caved on Fire Station 11 and the garbage fee, but at least they’re taking steps to reduce expenses. It’s “little” cuts like this that eventually add up to enough money to take care of the big issues.

  • TIF Bloat. The Warehouse and Eagle View proposed TIF districts seem to be expanding all over the place. The Peoria Housing Authority wants to be in the Eagle View proposed TIF because it means they “get a better rating from the Federal government for redevelopment funds.” Some unnamed council member asked that the Warehouse District proposed TIF be extended north along MacArthur Blvd. because it “might have significant future financial impact as developers are induced to develop the area and more taxes and fees are generated.”

    Heck, let’s just make the whole city a TIF! Just think of how much development and, presumably, wealth we would have then! The council should stick with the original intent of the proposed TIF districts and only expand boundaries that fit within that intent. I hedge my statement this way because there are some boundary changes that are perfectly defensible and should be adopted (for instance, there are some parcels that were obviously omitted unintentionally). But to include PHA and additional housing is unwarranted.

If nothing gets deferred, be prepared to settle in for a long meeting.

The Thetford Files: MidTown Plaza

[In the time leading up to the at-large City Council election, I’ll be occasionally pulling out some pertinent data on Gale Thetford and posting it under the headline “The Thetford Files,” lest we forget why she was voted off the council.]

From the March 10, 1999, edition of the Journal Star:

The City Council narrowly approved a deal Tuesday night that will create MidTown Plaza with $5.5 million in public financing.

Third District Councilwoman Gale Thetford, sponsor of the East Bluff project, secured the minimum nine “yes” votes needed to OK the agreement with developer David Joseph. […]

“It was sweaty, but we did it,” Joseph said after the 9-2 vote, when he hugged Thetford outside council chambers.

Ewwww! While you may think the grossest part of this story is David Joseph and Gale Thetford hugging… um… well, yeah, I guess that is the grossest part. But the second grossest part is that the City paid $5.5 million to “clear the land” (including knocking down old ladies’ houses on Dechman) required to make way for this project and made the area a TIF district after rejecting their own consultant’s report that said this was a bad deal for the City. Who did they listen to instead? The developer’s consultants, of course. I’m sure they weren’t biased….

The city’s consultant (Development Strategies, Inc.) predicted, according to a Journal Star editorial on 3/9/1999, that Cub Foods “would draw 90 percent of its customers from other city grocery stores.” Joseph’s consultants (Melaniphy & Associates, Inc.; Deloitte & Touche) predicted “43 percent of revenues would come from customers living outside the city” and that Cub Foods “would draw customers from a 10-mile radius.”

Now I haven’t done a scientific study, but I defy anyone to prove the City’s consultant wrong. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the customers are not only from Peoria, but specifically from the East Bluff, especially now that Thompson’s/Sullivan’s and John Bee have closed.

Another boondoggle, courtesy of the tireless efforts of developer-hugging Gale Thetford. In all fairness, if the City gave me $5.5 million on a silver platter, I might hug… no, no, I wouldn’t. Not even for $5.5 million.

The Thetford Files: Kellar Branch conversion

[In the months leading up to the at-large City Council election, I’ll be occasionally pulling out some pertinent data on Gale Thetford and posting it under the headline “The Thetford Files,” lest we forget why she was voted off the council.]

From the October 22, 2002 City Council Proceedings:

AGREEMENT with the PEORIA PARK DISTRICT to Allow the CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY to be Converted by the Peoria Park District to a RECREATIONAL HIKING/BIKING TRAIL Subject to Conditions as Outlined.

Council Member Thetford moved to approve the Agreement with the Peoria Park District to allow the City’s Right-of-way to be converted by the Peoria Park District to a Recreational Hiking/Biking Trail subject to conditions as outlined; seconded by Council Member Morris.

Approved by roll call vote.

Yeas: Ardis, Gulley, Morris, Nichting, Spears, Teplitz, Thetford, Turner, Mayor Ransburg – 9;
Nays: Sandberg – 1

Okay, admittedly almost everyone voted for this and it wasn’t really one of the reasons she lost reelection; nevertheless, I think it’s worth mentioning that it was Thetford who made the motion, which makes her officially the leader of this ill-conceived effort to abandon the Kellar Branch. The city is still paying lawyers to fight for their “right” to squander a half-million-dollar asset by practically giving it away to the Park District to destroy.

The Thetford Files: Fire Station 11

In the months leading up to the at-large City Council election, I’ll be occasionally pulling out some pertinent data on Gale Thetford and posting it under the headline “The Thetford Files.” George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and if there’s one part of the past it would be a real shame to repeat, it’s the election of Gale Thetford to the City Council.

So, without any further ado, here’s a quote from the Nov. 22, 2003, City Council minutes:

Council Member Thetford repeated her motion not to hire 11 firefighters this year and not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew would be utilized or putting equipment out of service.

Recovering from a fire can be really difficult, however, we recommend you to look for fire damage repair services to pick up all the damages that this incident have left.

Council Member Ardis questioned Council Member Thetford regarding her motion. He said the recommendation was directly contrary to that of a 20-plus year professional firefighter and head of the City’s Fire Department.

[…]

Motion to not hire 11 firefighters this year, but not to close Fire Station #11, or any other station, not to fund with overtime, and challenge the Fire Department to decide whether a jump crew could be utilized or to put a piece of equipment out of service was approved by roll call vote.

Yeas: Gulley, Morris, Teplitz, Thetford, Turner, Mayor Ransburg – 6;
Nays: Ardis, Grayeb, Nichting, Sandberg, Spears – 5.

Just a reminder, of the six who voted for this motion, three were defeated in the very next election: Ransburg (replaced by Ardis), Teplitz (replaced by Van Auken), and Thetford (replaced by Manning). Of the five nays, all are still currently serving on the council.