Peoria Public Schools

District 150 slowly coming back to reality

2 Comments

Despite some ridiculous quotes in this story about last night’s school board meeting, I actually found it somewhat encouraging. The school district is at least acknowledging that there is a limit to the amount of money it can realistically spend, even if it is for the worthy goal of children’s education.

New board president David Gorentz is quoted as saying, “My concern is that we might spend more money in a few schools and really have that be the ideal design, but is that really the best for 15,000 students in District 150?” Good question. I would say, no.

If these buildings are really as inadequate as we’ve been told by the school board, and are really hampering the children’s education, then it would be irresponsible to put all the construction money into one or two schools while the other four or so are left in a state of disrepair. I think the school board is slowly coming to the realization that they can dream up what they believe is the perfect learning environment, but in the end, it takes money — money they don’t have — to accomplish it. Compromise will have to be made.

But compromise is always talked about in the gravest of terms. To wit (emphasis mine):

Education consultant Judy Helm said the schools could be reduced to a square footage similar to original estimates but at a significant cost to kids’ education.

That sounds ominous. We don’t want to jeopardize the kids’ education…. But, what specifically would have to be cut?

The district would have to forgo the concept of a community library and a health clinic, eliminate teacher planning areas, eliminate “integrated learning areas” for kids, reduce the size of classrooms, reduce the lunch room size and eliminate all classrooms for community/parent education, Helm said. These cuts would reduce the square footage to about 93,000.

Read over that list again. Do these items really represent a “significant cost to kids’ education”? Since when is a community health clinic or the size of the lunch room vital to a child’s education, for instance? Some of those things are easy to eliminate. (I’m not sure what “teacher planning areas” are in a grade school where teachers have their own rooms; do they need a separate “planning area”? I’m open to correction on that one.)

The biggest problem is the transformation of these facilities from replacement elementary schools to “community schools.” Most of the items Helm lists are a direct result of this shift. Since “community schools” are not part of the documented Master Facilities Plan, the district should either follow the plan or revise it — if they choose the latter, they should re-crunch the numbers to see if they can afford such an aggressive plan. I bet they can’t, and it looks like the school board is coming to that same conclusion, albeit slowly.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria Journal Star

Luciano is right about museum

9 Comments

In a move sure to make his bosses unhappy, Phil Luciano wrote a scathing column criticizing the city’s plans for a new downtown museum. He doesn’t think it will be much of a draw:

Think of it this way: Peoria is about the same size as Allentown, Pa.; Evansville, Ind.; and Waterbury, Conn. Would you pack up the kids, gas up the van and head to any of those places to drink in their rich history?

I think Phil makes a good point. But I don’t think having a downtown museum is the problem per se — it’s the scale of the project. Why is the whole Sears block going to be devoted to the museum? Isn’t that putting all our eggs in one basket? What happens if the city’s tourism projections don’t pan out? Aren’t we left with a multi-million dollar millstone?

This is why, as I’ve argued before, it would be better to make the museum square more densely developed, as all our handsomely-paid consultants have been telling the city for years. Add retail, restaurants, and especially a residential component. By including private development on that block, the city collects property and sales tax revenues to offset the costs of maintaining and managing a museum on part of that parcel.

Plus, if people are living, shopping, and eating down there, the block will be buzzing around the clock throughout the week and weekends. Without those components, the block after 5:00 and on weekends will look exactly as it does now before a single brick has been laid: a black hole.

In short, I think there is enough interest in Peoria and its history to support a museum, but not a “museum square.” Scale it back and allow private development.

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

How much does it cost to rehab Kellar rail line?

1 Comment

On July 24, the City of Peoria stated in a filing with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) that, according to a 2000 estimate from IDOT, it would cost approximately $2,015,469 to rehabilitate just 6.29 miles of the Kellar Branch rail line.

On August 2, just a week and a half later, the City of Peoria stated in a filing with the STB that, according to a 2006 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) inspection report, it would only take $50,000 to rehabilitate 8 miles of the Kellar Branch rail line.

That’s a difference of about $1,965,469.

It sounds like the city is not only not putting forth a good-faith effort to provide Carver Lumber the level of service they promised, but is also reporting outdated and misleading estimates to the STB to make the track rehabilitation costs sound worse than they really are.

Banking, City Council, City of Peoria

Corporate welfare on council agenda

4 Comments

First, a little background: It’s apparently the latest thing in the banking industry. Banks have quite a bit of money tied up in real estate — their bank buildings, like the beautiful and historic Commercial National Bank building downtown. Until recently, that building was owned by National City, but they sold it (as of 3/1/06) to a company called First States Investors 4500, LLC (Delaware), a subsidiary of American Financial Realty Trust (AFRT), headquartered in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Commercial National Bank buildingAccording to their website, AFRT is “a self-managed, self-administered real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on acquiring, managing and operating properties leased primarily to regulated financial institutions.” Put simply, they buy bank buildings and lease them back to the banks at rates that are mutually beneficial. That frees up more money for the bank to lend.

The sale was sort of reported in the Journal Star (3/20), buried in an article about downtown revitalization and listed as an example of downtown deals that “go unnoticed by the general public.” It’s mentioned in the city council agenda for this Tuesday because there’s a pedestrian walkway and underground storage vaults that “encroach on the public way,” and AFRT wants the council’s explicit blessing on their continued use of these, fee-free.

That’s right — here’s where the corporate welfare comes into play. The bank paid property tax on the walkway and vaults, but for some reason the city had not charged them (nor had the bank paid) the ten-cents-per-square-foot annual fee dictated by the city’s municipal code for such encroachments. Because the city didn’t charge National City, city staff wants to essentially “grandfather in” the new owners under the same policy. They see that as fair.

Considering the financial condition of the city and the upcoming budget negotiations, I would want to know a few things before I rubberstamped this transaction. First, why hasn’t the city been charging this fee? Was it purposeful, or has the staff been negligent? Do they charge it to other businesses, do they use form 205? How much money are we talking about that the city is losing by not charging it? And are there other fees that the city has just stopped charging for no apparent reason? And if there are, can we add the garbage tax fee to that list? Why should we allow a multi-billion dollar company to get out of this fee while the residents don’t have a fully-staffed fire station 11 or adequate police protection, despite paying an extra six dollars a month on their water bills for things their property taxes are supposed to fund?

The answer to that last question is, according to staff, because it would be “unreasonable …given the number of years the encroachments have existed.” So, apparently, there’s a statute of limitations on how long they can charge for encroachments? Where is that in the municipal code?

I suppose someone could say that this is just an exception. That’s great. I want to know how many exceptions we have and how much money the city is losing because of them. We’ve had a rash of shootings lately and basic services are suffering. We can’t afford to keep allowing exceptions unless there’s a darn good reason for each and every one. So far, I haven’t heard a good reason for this one.

Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star

Why should city allow park district to destroy $565,000 asset?

4 Comments

That’s the question the Journal Star’s editorial doesn’t ask or answer.

Pioneer Railcorp has a standing offer to purchase the Kellar Branch for $565,000 or accept a long-term lease on it.  The Peoria Park District wants to lease the right-of-way for $1 per year for 99 years and remove the rails and ties, thus destroying this half-million dollar asset owned by the city.

The city is going to begin budget negotiations soon.  On their plate: figuring out a way to fully staff fire station 11, increase police protection, and comply with GASB 45, all without raising taxes or spurious “garbage fees.”

Maybe one would argue that the trail will be more profitable than the rail line.  Of course, that’s patently ridiculous, but even if it were true, who says you have to have one or the other?  Pioneer has also offered $100,000 as well as equipment to help build the trail next to the Kellar Branch rail line.  Between that money and the state grants the park district has already applied for and received, there’s no reason we can’t have both.

In the Journal Star’s world, they would rather rob the fire department to fund the police department and give the park district a half-million dollar asset to squander.  Hopefully the city will come to its senses and not continue pursuing such short-sighted and ruinous advice.

Israel

Quote of the Day

4 Comments

President of Iran“The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first.”

–Iranian President Ahmadinejad,
reported by Aljazeera

He might as well have added “Sieg Heil” to the end of his statements. Anyone notice the frightening similarity between “real cure” and “final solution”?  Any questions as to why Iran should not get nukes?

Kellar Branch

Shell game afoot with Kellar carrier?

2 Comments

As reported here on Tuesday, the carrier Peoria hired to operate the Kellar Branch and western spur, Central Illinois Railroad Co. (CIRY) which is owned by DOT Rail, looks to be acquired by a mysterious company called Central Illinois Railroad Holdings, LLC.

I tried unsuccessfully to find out any information on this “Holdings” company. The document doesn’t disclose who the directors are in the company, and there’s no information on the internet about them. Making things more questionable, their address is for a third-floor suite in a building in Willow Springs, Illinois, that the West Suburban Chamber of Commerce still shows as for lease. All indications are that this LLC was created solely to acquire DOT Rail’s assets, which begs the questions “why?” and “who are the players here?”

That’s exactly what Pioneer Railcorp would like to know. In a filing yesterday with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), Pioneer seeks to at least delay the approval of this transaction until further information is disclosed. Pioneer has an interest because there is litigation pending in state court between Pioneer and CIRY, and this could be an attempt by DOT Rail to shield their assets in the event the court rules in Pioneer’s favor.

Pioneer brings up several other oddities about this transaction. For instance, the petition was submitted on CIRY letterhead, not “Central Illinois Railroad Holdings, LLC” letterhead. Yet the “Holdings” company is the petitioner. Also, the attorney who filed on behalf of “Holdings” is Melinda Sammons, the CFO of CIRY! As Pioneer succinctly put it, “This places Ms. Sammons in the position of being both the attorney for the buyer and as also having a fiduciary duty to the seller.”

I can’t help but wonder what the City of Peoria thinks of this transaction. They have an interest, too, of course. Even Pioneer points this out:

As previously noted, the Board is fully aware of the ongoing litigation surrounding CIRY, PIRY [Pioneer], and the Kellar Branch. Would Holdings’ acquisition of CIRY change that litigation? Does Holdings plan to continue pursuit of CIRY’s discontinuance once it acquires control? Would Holdings use its newfound control and ownership to actually operate the Kellar Branch? What about the Western Connection and the interchange with UP, will those continue to operate as they do today? There is absolutely no information contained in the record of this proceeding to help the Board and the public understand the answers to these questions. Yet, Holdings’ control of CIRY could completely impact or subvert the Board’s decision making process in those other proceedings.

Is the city even aware of this? It doesn’t appear they’ve filed any objection to it yet. You’d think they’d want to know who this new carrier is going to be and perhaps get some assurance from them that their contract with the city will still be honored.

This transaction gets curiouser and curiouser.

UPDATE: Central Illinois Railroad Holdings, LLC, has withdrawn their petition before the STB (today, 8/3/06). Melinda Sammons states, “It is my understanding from my discussions with Mr. [Marc] Lerner [Branch Chief in Office of Proceedings] that this filing is not required.” So, it looks like this will go through without any oversight at all, leaving us all to wonder what will happen next.

Israel

Olmert defends Israel’s “proportional” attack

4 Comments

The Times Online (London) has published an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that is as billed: a full and frank exchange. I was especially impressed with his answer to the reporter’s question about “proportionality.”

Q: But there is a sense in the world, and you must be aware of it, of lack of “proportionality”. Many people question how after two soldiers kidnapped and eight killed by Hezbollah we are now seeing upwards of 400 dead and rising in Lebanon. How can such an initial incident justify such a huge response from Israel?

A: I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.

Now we know that for years Hezbollah – assisted by Iran – built an infrastructure of a very significant volume in the south part of Lebanon to be used against Israeli people. The most obvious, simple, way to describe it to the average British person is: can you imagine seven million British citizens sitting for 22 days in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham in Newcastle, in Brighton and in other cities? Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads? What would have been the British reaction to that? Do you know of a country that would have responded to such a brutal attack on its citizens softer than Israel did? Based on my knowledge of history no country in Europe would have responded in such a restrained manner as Israel did.

I don’t want now to draw comparisons [but] one could ask the question what precisely did the European forces [do] in Kosovo 10 years ago. How many innocent civilians were killed in Kosovo 10 years ago? We can draw on and on these comparisons.

What are we talking about? More than a million Israelis are sitting 22 days in shelters because of the fear of terrorists. In every single case…that we kill an uninvolved civilian in Lebanon, we consider it as a failure for Israel. And you know how many Israelis raise their voices as a result of this? And they don’t have to because we feel that we failed when we killed uninvolved people.

The difference between us and Hezbollah is that when we kill innocent people we consider it a failure, when they kill innocent people they consider it a success.

Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets on Haifa, Hanariya, Akko, Sefat, Afula and the rest of the places, if not to kill innocent people? So I’m sorry for every individual that was killed that was not involved.

And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not? Why? This is not an army. They don’t wear uniforms that distinguish them from other civilians. We didn’t attack any of the Christian quarters of Beirut. We didn’t attack any of the Christian residential areas in any part of Lebanon. We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth.

So the fact that people were killed there who were not dressed in uniforms doesn’t mean that they were innocent civilians. There were Hezbollah people, they are the terrorists. Did you ever see terrorists dressed with military uniforms like we have in our army? No.

“Katyusha” refers to multiple rocket launchers first built by the Soviets during WWII and “able to deliver a devastating amount of explosives to an area target in a short period of time, although with low accuracy,” according to Wikipedia.

To paraphrase Olmert for American audiences, one could say, can you imagine seven million American citizens sitting for 22 days in Chicago, New York, Dallas, and in other cities?  “Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads?”  What would have been the American reaction to that?икони

Kellar Branch

Lease loophole could save Kellar Branch

1 Comment

The City of Peoria entered into a lease agreement with the Peoria Park District in 2002 that would allow them, if and when the Surface Transportation Board approves the discontinuance of service, to turn the Kellar Branch into a hiking/biking trail. I didn’t even realize that there was a lease agreement until recently.

The good news is that it’s still possible to retain rail service under this contract. Section 4.2 specifically states:

4.2 Possible Reactivation of Rail Service. The Park District acknowledges that its lease of the PPD Project Site is subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service. In the event that subsequent to the commencement date, the City determines that it will apply to the Surface Transportation Board (or any successor government agency) for authority to reconstruct and reactivate rail service on all or a portion of the right of way described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, the City agrees to provide the Park District with written notice of its intention to make such an application to the Surface Transportation Board at least 180 days prior to date of filing of such an application with the Surface Transportation Board. In the event that the Surface Transportation Board would then authorize the reconstruction and reactivation of rail service on all or a portion of the right of way described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, the City agrees to pay to the Park District the then current fair market value of the PPD Improvements which would be destroyed, removed or taken out of service due to the reactivation of rail service.

Since the park district has not done any improvements yet, this is the perfect time to reactivate rail service and renegotiate for a side-by-side rail/trail compromise. Why should the city lease this right of way to the park district for a paltry $1 per year for 99 years when it could sell it to Pioneer Industrial Railway for over $500,000 or negotiate a profitable long-term lease for rail service — especially since Pioneer’s offer to help build a side-by-side trail is still on the table?

Compare this lease agreement with Pioneer’s offer and tell me if the city is being fiscally responsible if they don’t reverse this course of action. This isn’t an either-or proposition, it’s a both-and solution. If they take Pioneer’s offer (and remember, Guy Brenkman is no longer in the picture, so there’s no personal axe to grind anymore), they get rail service, competitive access to Pioneer Park and Growth Cell 2, and the park district’s beloved bike trail. What do they have to lose?