Higher taxes on the way

A couple of bills are wending their way through the State legislature and are sure to find their way into your pocketbook soon:

• SB 2071 — School Construction Bonds. Sponsored by Senators Koehler and Risinger, this little bill gives District 150 even more borrowing power by letting the district exceed debt limitations if they use the Public Building Commission (PBC) for matching construction funds. The Journal Star reported on this on March 13: “Part of the intention…, said District 150 Treasurer Guy Cahill, was to use the PBC money as matching funds if the state ever re-authorizes a school construction program.” So if this passes and the state gives them school construction money in the future, evidently the school board would be able to match that grant with PBC funds, which are paid back by taxpayers — with interest. Remember that PBC funds are accessible without a referendum; there’s no accountability to the voters, other than voting out the school board members (a process that takes a number of years, and would only be effectuated after the money is borrowed and spent).
• SB 2077 — County Code Retailers’ Occupation Tax for Public Facilities. This is also sponsored by Senators Koehler and Risinger, and it just passed the Senate 47-4 yesterday (April 1). It now goes to the House. WMBD-TV had this story: “A bill allowing Peoria County voters to decide whether they want to pay a special sales tax for the proposed riverfront museum passed the Illinois Senate Tuesday…. County officials say it would provide another source of funding for the proposed multi million dollar facility, although the size of the proposed tax hasn’t been determined.”

  The good news is that this tax is subject to referendum. They can only impose this tax if the voters approve it. And, just to sweeten the deal, the county could put a sunset provision on the tax, meaning it would expire on a certain date and a new referendum would have to be approved to reinstate/extend it.

  But here’s the thing — the museum is only one of the many possible uses for this tax. It could also be used for other public facilities, like nursing homes. This opens up many possibilities. They could try to sell a tax referendum that wouldn’t just be for the museum (which has little support), but also for other public facilities that need funding help (which have higher support). That could set up a quandary for voters, and could sway the outcome. Even if that scenario doesn’t happen, the county will now have a new potential revenue source, and they’ll likely find a way to coerce voters into approving it, with or without museum funding (e.g., “if you don’t approve this public facility tax, you will be throwing Bel-Wood residents out onto the street — have you no conscience?!”).