Category Archives: Museum Block

Museum Block, State Legislation

Another “moment of truth”

4 Comments

Before the Peoria County Board:

“We’re really at a moment of truth,” said Lakeview Museum board chairman Jim Vergon. “This is a defining moment for the Peoria Riverfront Museum, or Museum Square. Without being too melodramatic about it, this is also a defining moment for central Illinois in so many ways.”

–Journal Star, Nov. 9, 2007

Before the Illinois Senate Appropriations Committee:

Jim Vergon, chairman of the Lakeview Museum Board, told the Senate committee that the sought-after $12 million in state funding would trigger a $136 million redevelopment project on the Peoria riverfront…. “The moment of truth is really upon us for this project,” Vergon said.

–Journal Star, May 15, 2008

I’ll bet there’s another “moment of truth” just around the corner when they ask the Peoria City Council for yet another extension on their redevelopment agreement for the Sears block.

Museum Block, Peoria County

New poll: Same results, different conclusion

4 Comments

Peoria County has done another survey that includes a question gauging support for a sales tax to benefit the proposed Peoria Regional Museum:

[A] majority of people who completed the survey also said they are either somewhat or strongly opposed of a referendum supporting the Riverfront Museum project…. Sixty-five percent reported they are somewhat or strongly opposed, while about 35 percent strongly or somewhat support the referendum. County officials say that is consistent with results of a telephone poll conducted earlier this year on the same topic.

But wait! What did county officials say after the last poll?

The survey administrator felt very positive that less than 50% of the respondents were either undecided or do not support a tax increase. In other words, more than 50% of the polled voters would support a tax increase to help fund the Museum Project.

It’s good to see they’ve dropped the positive spin this time.

This issue shouldn’t even be going to a referendum. The museum’s contract with the city has deadlines in it — deadlines they’ve already extended at least once, new deadlines they’re still not going to meet. How much longer are we going to prolong the agony?

If the citizens of Peoria really wanted this museum as proposed they would have financially supported it already. A tax just takes money from the opposed and indifferent. And if we’re going to raise taxes, let’s raise taxes for something we really need, like improved infrastructure.

The city should extend its thanks to the museum group for a valiant effort, but tell them to go back to the drawing board. This plan is dead. If the museum group would like to come up with another plan — urban in design, narrower in scope, and willing to share the block with retail and residential components like every urban planner the city has ever hired has recommended for that block — then the city should definitely entertain the idea.

Museum Block, Peoria County, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation, Taxes

Higher taxes on the way

7 Comments

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?!”).

Museum Block

It slices, it dices, it juliennes — it’s Museum Square!

27 Comments

[A] project of this magnitude will likely never again be seen in Peoria. The economic development potential will only add to the diversity of our economic base. As a community, each and every one of us should do everything reasonably possible to ensure the huge opportunity of Museum Square is not lost: it is much too important to our future.

You heard right! A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. An offer this good won’t last long, so act now! Or am I the only one who found Mr. Bryant’s Museum Square article in this month’s Interbusiness Issues a wee bit overstated?

I especially liked the part where he said, “The synergies between the Caterpillar Visitors Center and the Peoria Riverfront Museum will bring upwards of 400,000 people per year to downtown Peoria.” Wow. The museum’s own website says “The Museum, in tandem with the Caterpillar Visitor Center, will attract more than 300,000 visitors each year….” Apparently Mr. Bryant believes it will attract a lot more — “upwards of” 100,000 more! The projections are looking better all the time. Heck, as long as we’re throwing out manipulatively-worded numbers, why not just say “upwards of a half-million people”? It’s true, give or take a couple hundred thousand, and it makes the whole project just sound more exciting (and profitable), doesn’t it? Or how about “upwards of four million visitors decennially”? That’s even more impressive.

Of course, “It does appear that a public funding mechanism will be necessary to complete the project.” Hey crossword puzzle fans, can any of you give me a three-letter word for “public funding mechanism”? So, first they disregard the public’s wishes and every city planning expert’s recommendation for redeveloping the old Sears block (urban density, mixed-use, residential component) — in fact, they propose the exact opposite — then they want the public to help pay for it. Genius.

You might ask why a tax public funding mechanism is warranted. “Across the country, projects of this type generally have at least one-third of their funding from public sources,” Bryant explains. In a related story, Peoria County is listed among the highest in “relative effective property tax level…as a percentage of market value” across the country. Across the country, the State of Illinois has one of the highest sales tax rates, too, and we have lots of local taxes piled on top of that. There’s talk of the state’s income tax being raised. Meanwhile, here in the city, we just voted to raise our property taxes to pay for some library improvements, and District 150 — courtesy of Aaron Schock and the state legislature — is raising our property taxes without a referendum to pay for new school buildings. No doubt taxes will also be raised by the Park District to pay for the new zoo and efforts to build a trail next to the Kellar Branch railroad line.

But hey, what’s one more tax public funding mechanism? It’s a small price to pay for Utopia.

Museum Block, State Legislation, State of Illinois

State has money to burn, evidently

34 Comments

According to Comptroller Dan Hynes, Illinois “still sustains a deficit, ending fiscal year 2007 nearly $3.6 billion in the red based on preliminary unaudited estimates.”

Nevertheless, the General Assembly apparently feels that it has $12 million to spare for the Peoria Riverfront Museum. The House of Representatives approved the expenditure 80-23, and now the bill heads to the Senate where it’s being championed by Sen. David Koehler.

Rep. Aaron Schock voted for it. So I guess he’s okay with deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. He’ll fit right in in Congress.

Museum Block

Do we need to organize?

22 Comments

The museum supporters are pulling out all the stops to ram their proposed museum plans down our throats — at taxpayer expense, no less. So the question I have is, should we organize to oppose it? In a recent survey of 1,000 people, 300 of them didn’t want the museum at all, and nearly 300 who wanted the museum didn’t support any of the taxing options presented to them. The question is likely to be put on the ballot as a referendum next year.

My thought is that we should start a coordinated effort to oppose a tax increase of any kind (property, sales, local, regional, etc.) to fund the museum. It would not be an organization opposed to the museum, per se — just opposed to taxpayer funding of it. In fact, if the question does go on the ballot, the organization could be dedicated specifically to urging people to vote “no” on the referendum.

What do you think? And what would be a catchy name for our resistance effort?

Museum Block, Peoria County

Museum survey results yield questionable conclusion

22 Comments

The results are in. I received the following press release from the county with supporting documentation. My comments follow:

Description

On February 25, 2008, the County of Peoria conducted a phone survey of approximately 1000 registered voters living in Peoria County: 500 within the City of Peoria, 500 outside city limits. The survey’s intent is to gauge voter support of a tax increase to fund the $24 million requested of the County for the Museum Project.

Survey respondents were selected randomly from a pool of registered voters who voted three times since 2004, including voting in at least one local election. The survey was conducted both during the day and in the evening to poll a broader range of voters. Survey administrators called as many residents as necessary to garner results from approximately 500 households in both the city and in the county; 1009 total surveys were completed.

The survey is attached to this report.

Results

Survey results indicate 31% (30% in the day, 32% in the evening) of residents in the City of Peoria receiving the phone survey did participate in the survey. The survey administrator felt 30% participation is a good response. Compare this to only 17.5% of people in the County: 18% during the day, 17% in the evening. The survey administrator believes the lower percentage of response in the county indicates people in the county are either less aware of the museum or do not care as much about the museum as those living in the City.

Of the total respondents (City and County), 69.4% or 700 felt the museum is beneficial to the region. These respondents then proceeded to the second survey question: “which of three funding sources would you support to aid the Riverfront Museum?” Of the 700, 691 responded to this question. Their responses are as follows:

  • Support property tax increase for Peoria County property owners: 4.6% [32]
  • Support multi-county property tax increase for region: 21.1% [146]
  • Support temporary sales tax increase of .025% in Peoria County: 31.8% [220]
  • Undecided or does not support tax increase: 42.4% [293]

The survey administrator felt very positive that less than 50% of the respondents were either undecided or do not support a tax increase. In other words, more than 50% of the polled voters would support a tax increase to help fund the Museum Project.

Survey results are attached to this report.

My take: With all due respect, the survey administrator has made a terrible error. I encourage you to click on the Survey Results link above (last sentence of the press release) and look at the raw numbers; they’re easier to understand and compare than percentages.

I quote Peoria County Director of Strategic Communications Jenny Zinkel from a response she sent to my previous post on this survey: “We believe if a citizen does not feel the museum is beneficial, he or she would not support a tax increase to fund the museum.” So, a “no” response to question 1 means they do not support a tax. Thus, here are the results the way I figure them:

Those who do not support a tax: 602 respondents (309 who answered “no” to question 1, plus 293 who answered “yes” to question 1 and “undecided or no tax” on question 2).

Those who support a tax: 398 respondents (those who answered “yes” to question 1 and chose a tax option in question 2).

For those of you who like percentages, that’s 60.2% against a tax increase, and only 39.8% for a tax increase. I frankly don’t see how the survey administrator could have come to any other conclusion. If they don’t consider “no” votes on question 1 as “no” votes against a tax, then in my opinion, they’ve invalidated the survey because they’ve screened people who, by the County’s own admission, would have most likely voted against a tax increase in question 2.

Kudos to the County for releasing the raw survey data so that the survey administrator’s conclusion could be either verified or challenged. In this case, I think it has to be seriously challenged. It’s clear that there is less than 50% support for a tax increase.

UPDATE: I corrected my numbers from earlier. I failed to take out the 9 people who answered question one positively, but then declined to answer question 2 (presumably by hanging up).

UPDATE 2: Merle Widmer has more information on the continuing efforts of museum officials to force this project down our throats.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Museum survey being done by Peoria County (UPDATED)

11 Comments

If you get a call from an automated poll asking your opinion on the Peoria Riverfront Museum, it’s not a call from museum officials, but rather Peoria County. Several readers reported they were getting calls about this, so I put up a post about it. I received this comment explaining the whole thing, which I’m reprinting here so no one misses it:

Hello CJ. I appreciate you and your readers taking an interest in the recent Riverfront Museum Survey. This survey was not conducted by “Museum folks,” but rather by Peoria County Government. Peoria County was approached last year to spend $24 million tax payer dollars to fund the museum project. The only way Peoria County may raise these proceeds is by creating a museum district funded by property taxes or to get legislative authorization for a sales tax. For either, we would need to ask the voters by including a referendum on the ballot.

We decided to take a proactive approach by asking voters before placing the referendum on the ballot. We are very much interested in the results because the results provide guidance for how we should proceed. By conducting this poll, our intention is not to generate more interest in the museum but rather to gauge how much interest our citizens currently have in spending $24 million of their collective dollars to support the museum.

In response to two of your readers’ comments regarding the abrupt conclusion to the survey should a respondent select “no” (or number 2) as to whether he or she feels the museum would be beneficial to the region, both the County Administrator and I approved the survey by taking it via phone several times ourselves. When a respondent selects “no,” the recording says “Thank you for your time. I appreciate your participation.” We believe if a citizen does not feel the museum is beneficial, he or she would not support a tax increase to fund the museum; therefore, by eliciting a negative reply, we had the information we needed from the respondent and did not want to unnecessarily take more of the individual’s time.

It was also respondents’ time that became the deciding factor as to whether we included “undecided” and “none of the above” in the same response. We did debate whether to offer these two replies together or separately, but when you take into consideration our citizens’ busy lifestyles and our appreciation for them taking time out of those schedules to reply to a phone survey, we did not desire to lengthen the survey unnecessarily.

Peoria County’s three possible options as far as tax increases to fund the museum are those we included in the survey: property tax increase for Peoria County property owners, regional property tax increase, or sales tax increase for Peoria County. On the advice of the survey administrator, the County Administrator and I agreed that if someone was “undecided” he or she would be more likely to vote against a tax increase (in any form) than for a tax increase were the question to appear on a ballot. Hence, more often than not, “undecided” would prove to be the same response as “none of the above” and would only serve to unnecessarily lengthen the survey if offered as a separate option. We also felt limiting the options to four rather than five was prudent considering the complexity of each option.

Again CJ, Peoria County Government does appreciate your interest in the Riverfront Museum survey. We value your input and that of your readers. Once we get and share the results with the County Board we will be more than happy to share those results with you. Please feel free to contact me regarding the survey: Jenny Zinkel, Director of Strategic Communications, jzinkel@peoriacounty.org. Thank you.

Many thanks to Jenny Zinkel for setting the record straight.

UPDATE: I received some additional information about the poll:

County Administration decided to conduct a phone survey, but a similar question regarding a tax increase to support museum funding was also included on a mail survey randomly sent to 3000 households in Peoria County. Residents have until March 3 to remit the mail survey. We expect to have results of that survey April 7; the results will then be made public.

Communication Express conducted the phone survey. It was completed yesterday [Monday] and we received results today [Tuesday]. Once we make the results known to the County Board, we will release those results to the public. By week’s end, the whole board will have been notified of the results; I anticipate sending a press release on Monday. The results will be used as guidance for the board when deciding whether to put a referendum on the ballot.

The survey cost was $1367.47. 1009 households participated in the survey: 504 within the City of Peoria, 505 in Peoria County, outside Peoria City limits.

Museum Block

Is museum taking a poll or telemarketing?

4 Comments

I’ve received several reports from readers that the Peoria Riverfront Museum folks are conducting a poll:

It was automated about how I felt about the new museum. As soon as I answered “no” (by pressing 2) on if this project was worthy of Peoria, it hung up on me. –Emtronics

I just got the same phone call from “Susan Anderson” with the same result- hung up after pressing 2 for no. I had debated pressing 1, just to see if they asked any further questions TikTok for business. –Septboy

After listening to all the great things this museum will bring to Peoria my wife graciously pressed 1, which was ‘in support.’ We then were given three different taxing options. I waited to see if “press 4?” would be for none of the above. “Press 4” turned out to be “undecided OR none of the above.” Not, press 4 for undecided and press 5 for none of the above… We hung up. –PeoriaIllinoisan

One reader called it a “push poll.” According to Wikipedia, “In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda … masquerading as a poll.”

Anyone else have an encounter with the museum poll that they’d like to add? Do you think it’s a legitimate attempt to gauge public opinion, or do you think it’s a push poll? I haven’t gotten the call. I’m sure my number has been specifically blacklisted. 😛

Museum Block, State Legislation

Museum may get state grant: $12 million grant passes first hurdle

4 Comments

A House appropriations committee has recommended approval of a bill that would give $12 million to the Peoria Regional Museum. The bill would have to pass the full House, Senate, and get the Governor’s okay before the museum would actually get the money.

Here’s the most interesting part of the Journal Star’s article on this effort:

[Lakeview Museum CEO Jim] Richerson said the proposed Peoria project consists of two pieces: a museum with an estimated price tag of $65 million to $75 million and a Caterpillar Inc. visitors center.

$75 million? Are they expecting that construction costs are going to rise by potentially $10 million in the next year, raising the total cost of the project by more than 15%? If so, then that $12 million in state money, if it actually comes to fruition, would mostly cover the increase in costs, still leaving a potential $22 million shortfall.

The contract with the city expires, I believe, at the end of the year (I’ll have to double-check that). So the question is, will the city extend their contract again or pull the plug?

And here’s another question. “The House Appropriations Committee on Public Safety voted 13-0 for House Bill 4664, sponsored by Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria,” the Journal Star reports. What does capital funding for a proposed museum have to do with public safety? Do these committee names have any meaning whatsoever?