SALINE CO.—The April monthly meeting of the Saline County board, held on the 24th, was nearly a repeat of the April 15th special meeting wherein the county opted to vacate Rocky Branch Road to allow Peabody Coal to mine Cottage Township…but not quite.
The replacement road
At the April 15 meeting (detailed coverage of which was provided on the evening it occurred at Disclosure’s website, www.disclosurenewsonline.com, as an e-Edition Xtra), over protests from residents of that portion of the county (located northwest of Equality on the far eastern side of Saline), the board voted to accommodate Peabody Arclar Mining LLC for the mining of the property that was purchased in that township. Peabody will replace the road with a new one at their expense, dedicated for public use, in a new location. The new road will extend to Old Route 13 until mining has ended and reclamation has begun. At that point, the new road will be extended to new Route 13. Current projections show that this will occur in 2018, according to Peabody’s statements in previous meetings.
The new road will be oil-and-chip, 22 feet wide with two-foot shoulders. The current Rocky Branch Road will only be vacated after the new road has been completed and is useable. A consideration clause in the agreement states that Peabody will pay Saline County $75,000 for the road, to be paid in five annual installments of $15,000 each, the first to be made upon the execution of the agreement. Also, a “charitable donation” clause is written into the agreement as “an act of good faith and community support,” wherein Peabody shall pay Saline County $135,000 in five annual installments of $27,000 each, the first to be paid upon the execution of the agreement.
The citizens of Rocky Branch Road believe the county sold them out, as there will be no benefit to them and in fact many of them will have their lives turned upside-down, with the road situation cutting off the only emergency vehicle route to some residents, and with usable farmland turned into trash.
The full board meeting coming less than a week and a half after the decision saw many with raw emotions that hadn’t been assuaged by the passage of time.
Porter speaks again
Chief among those expressing their reservations about what the county had done was Alan Porter, who had been and remains a vocal opponent of the whole mess.
On the night of the 24th, Porter had with him a book, A Citizens Guide to Coal Mining, to which he referenced as he spoke about alleged lies from Peabody Representative John Keller on reclamation, and promised (and required, according to the guide that porter was referencing) repairs to damages done to homes as a result of the mines.
“Peabody’s been using ignorance on the part of the public to their advantage,” Porter asserted. “But I kept studying. The new mine will destroy about 2,800 acres of Cottage Township. If you were to look at the Cottage Grove mine and compare it to the guidebook, you’d find that the mine is full of violations; full of em!”
Porter spoke of the aerial photographer who’d helped him get proof of what he was finding; and mentioned the recent firing of Tony Mayville of Mines and Minerals (which actually occurred on the evening the decision to vacate Rocky Branch Road was made) due to the IDNR’s discovery that Mayville, who’d run for a seat in the Illinois House, had received campaign funds from a coal company.
Being bought; NIMBY
Porter then told the board: “If I walked into that room and offered you a $200,000 donation and you accepted it, I bought ya. Even if nothing had been signed, I would have bought the board,” Porter said, likening it to the agreement between Saline County and Peabody. “Be careful,” he said. “If Peabody bought ya, they operated in the spirit of a dictator.”
Porter continued to speak about mine blasting decreasing in frequency and intensity; and again (as with the previous meeting), reiterated how the “land reclamation” would be anything but returning the land to the same condition it was before it was mined.
Board reps Roger Craig and Danny Gibbs countered many of Porter’s points, with Gibbs questioning Porter on “where he was” when mining was going on at “Stonefort, Galatia, Carrier Mills…? Because it ends up being what we call a NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard.”
“The community has been dealing with and based upon coal for decades, and we’re still figuring out what we as a board need to do to keep the county in a good condition financially and in ways that impact citizens,” Gibbs said.
“I feel that the board had made sure that the road that would replace Rocky Branch Road would be installed. I sympathize with you; I wouldn’t want it in my back yard either; but we made the decision we felt was best for the county,” Gibbs told Porter.
This was countered by an argument put forth by another vocal opponent of the mine, Steven Karns, who pointed out that their “good neighbors, Peabody, is bringing suit against the township because the township won’t surrender that section of road,” referring to a portion of Cottage Grove Road still controlled by Cottage Township.
Reiterates wanting the coal beneath
Karns pointed out that Peabody had not needed the road as a haulage road, and that they had even said in the beginning that they could work around it. Karns told the board that he appreciated their efforts to sympathize, but that the Peabody only wanted the road for the coal that was underneath it. Gibbs pointed out that it was his belief that if Rocky Branch had NOT been vacated, it would have been a dead end road anyway, as the state of Illinois has already sold Old Route 13 to Peabody.
Karns disagreed, telling Gibbs that they couldn’t have removed the intersection, as both roads on either side of Old 13 would have remained open and used.
Karns addressed the payment that the county received for the vacation of the road, which amounted to $75,000 to be paid in 5 annual installments of $15,000.
“I wasn’t aware Peabody needed to make installments,” Karns said.
The other money, amounting to $27,000 a year for 5 years, was being given to Saline County in the form of a “Charitable Donation.” Karns told the board that it was his understanding that the money for the vacating of Rocky Branch Road must go into the Road and Bridge funds, but that the “Charitable Donation” could be used in any way the county wanted…so Karns proposed to the board that he felt the “Charitable Donation” funds should also go to Road and Bridge “to help the townships that are suffering right now, don’t have the money to repair their roads. It’s not a lot of money, but a little bit would help.” This would mean the county would still hold the money for the road vacation, but the “Charitable Donation” funds could be used in the way most charitable donations are meant to be used; to help those in need of assistance.
“Why not share some of the wealth with the townships in need?” Karns said.
Gibbs told Karns that the board does help townships, but this turned into a discussion between the board that ultimately determined that the county could help townships to an extent, but that the funding was limited. Karns then said that this was the point; if the “Charitable Donation” money were given to the Road and Bridge fund, there would be plenty of funding to go around to help the Townships of the county. “I think that would be an appropriate use of the money,” Karns told the board, asking them to consider it and thanking them for their time.
Charitable donation
arises again
The subject arose again later in the meeting during the Road and Bridge Committee, addressed by Caig and having several matters on the agenda. First, the committee presented two requests of aid from townships for help in repairing damaged roads. The first was from Independence Township Road District for the replacement of an existing culvert on Raintree Road in the amount of $4,200, half of which would be paid by Independence Township. The second was also for the replacement of an existing culvert in Long Branch Township Road District on Grisham Road in the amount of $6,600, half to be paid by the township. Both were motioned, seconded and passed.
Given this conversation, board members Bruce Tolley, Bob Oglesby, and David Phelps turned to the Karns family, who was seated near them, and informed them that if Cottage Township was in need of financial help to repair damaged roads, they could always have the road commissioner request county assistance, which would amount to roughly half of the expense. Karns thanked them, but informed them that this was not an answer to his request. Again he reiterated that he felt it would be fair that at least some of the “Charitable Donation” from the vacation of Rocky Branch should go to the road and bridge fund to help ailing townships in the county, to which Oglesby replied that the county equipment was also in need of repair, which would also be a good use of the money. The conversation was clearly going nowhere fast, and was dropped by all involved parties.
More questions
Jeff Murrie then took the floor, asking who had written the agreement, the county or Peabody? He was told that Peabody had written the original draft, and that it had been reviewed, edited, and revised several times by everyone from Peabody to the State’s Attorney Mike Henshaw. Murrie stated that he didn’t know, and he had been concerned because they were supposed to make a decision for ALL of Saline County, and he had been “getting calls and things about ‘we need to pass this on the road to keep Peabody here because of the jobs.’
“I never once heard our price was too high for the road,” Murrie said. “I think we should have—and I know it’s a dead fact now—but I think we could have asked for $500,000, a half a million dollars. I think it would have been well worth it. That would have benefited the county and its residents much more than what you accepted.”
Murrie stated that the big push was to keep the coal mining jobs in Saline County when Peabody threatened to pull them if they did not get the road vacated.
“Yes, those jobs where important, but where had the big push to support jobs been when IGA closed?” Murrie asked; “When the teacher’s jobs were cut? Every single job, including minimum wage jobs, is a valuable asset to Saline County, even down to the people who wash cars. Why had you not pushed to save every lost job in the county?”
Hypotheticals
Murrie moved back to the agreement that had been reached with Peabody, and presented the original agreement that had been received by the board in November of 2013. That agreement stated that the extension between the road replacing Rocky Branch Road, going from Old to New Routes 13 would be completed “within probably five years.” Murrie moved to the final and accepted agreement between the county and Peabody, which only stated the extension between Old and New Routes 13 would be completed after mining was ended and reclamation had been completed.
“This could go on forever if a pit’s there,” he said, highlighting that a surety bond had been made with $200,000 to guarantee the extension would be built, but Murrie wondered aloud what happened if that money wasn’t enough to build the road.
“What would happen if IDOT did not approve the intersection, as they were unhappy about another intersection coming to the highway so close to the old one? Where would that money go if Peabody did not build the extension, and IDOT wouldn’t approve it to be built by the county? Would the county receive that money?”
“It’s my understanding, Jeff, that IDOT has approved that entryway,” board member Joe Jackson told Murrie, who responded that IDOT wasn’t happy with it; Jackson agreed but said that the board could only go with what IDOT had told them now.
“What would they do if IDOT changed their mind?” Murrie asked.
“But you’re asking hypothetical questions that none of us can answer,” Craig said.
“I know I am, but I’m just wondering if the county would take the money in the surety bond if Peabody had not rebuilt the road in another 20 years,” Murrie said.
“The money will be taken FROM them,” said Oglesby.
This didn’t ease Murrie’s worries about the matter, as he reminded the board that Peabody Rep John Keller had first said it would be done in five years, and then had changed his tale to being ten years or more (see March-April edition for full details.)
Debate ensued, with Phelps finally speaking up.
“If you start talking about the board needing more money, then you’ve just reinforced what Mr. Porter just said. They’ll buy you.” He continued by asking if the decision was really over money, or over the county’s condition. He ended by saying that “if how you weigh this involves money… if that drives it… then that’s sad. We’re here to look out for the citizens, not so much the money.”
“The county’s dire financial straights are bad for the citizens,” Murrie retorted, “and some of that could have been alleviated at a higher negotiated price.”
Creating confusion
All of this discussion led to a certain degree of confusion, and Steven Karns asked for a point of clarification. Karns said that in the agreement he had read, it said nothing about Rocky Branch Road being put back where it is now after mining has ceased. All of the talk of rebuilding a road had led to this confusion amongst the listening citizens.
“It’s a permanent relocation,” Oglesby somewhat testily said to Karns. “We didn’t sell the road, we didn’t do anything. We agree to relocate a road a half a mile to the west… and it will stay at that point.”
Karns thanked him for the clarification, but Porter asked, “Will they put it back?”
At that point Oglesby, in a very frustrated tone, said, “THEY WILL NOT put it back. That road is gone!”
Porter clarified his point, asking that it was in writing that Peabody will put in the new road, and Oglesby agreed that the new road would be built, but said “They will not ever put that other road back.” Porter also rose his voice a bit, saying that was not what he’d meant to ask, and that he wanted to know that it was in writing that the new road would be built. This was met with a resolute “Yes.”
The conversation spiraled out of control slightly, as everyone began talking over each other, while Porter asked again that it was in writing that the new road would absolutely, without a doubt, be built. Everyone continued to talk over each other as terminology between “rebuilding the road” and “building the extension” began to have a blurred definition and meaning to each speaker. Karns and board chairman Carey Harbison smoothed the conversation over by explaining what each person had meant, and order was restored as everyone began to understand each other’s meanings.
What is ‘charitable’?
Murrie finished by saying that his final points were the wondering of why Peabody was paying in installments rather than a lump sum, and why it was allowed to look like Saline County was only getting $75,000 for the road relocation, and that “Peabody, in their graciousness, is giving us a charity donation ‘in good faith and community support.’” Murrie underscored the insulting implication of that by saying “If you look up charity, charity means generous donations or gifts to relieve the needs of indigent, ill, or helpless persons or animals.” This statement was said with a look of bitterness or distaste on Murrie’s face, and was met with bitter laughs of those in the audience of citizens in attendance. Murrie said that he did not like to think of the county as being in any of the previously mentioned dispositions, but Roger Craig stated that this terminology was cleared by the county’s attorney. Murrie said he was sure he was nit picking, but that he felt that when the county sold something, “it should be as a lump sum and not as a charitable donation. I know that’s a tax write-off for them, but boy… it sure makes them look good and makes us look like we can’t take care of ourselves if it’s a charitable donation, and that’s all I’ve got to say.”
As Murrie’s words trailed off, a massive round of applause broke out simultaneously from the watching citizens.