Category Archives: Peoria County

Who’s afraid of the big bad economy? Not the museum!

From the Journal Star:

With little debate, the Illinois Senate today voted 51-4 to send Gov. Rod Blagojevich a proposal to let Peoria County ask voters to OK a special sales tax to help pay for the Peoria riverfront museum.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1290, passed earlier in the House of Representatives. With Blagojevich’s signature, it would become law, and the question could be put to voters in the February or April municipal elections.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the bill allows increases in 1/4% increments, and could be used toward any “public facility” (e.g., Belwood Nursing Home), not just the museum. The way it will likely read on the ballot is:

To pay for public facility purposes, shall Peoria County be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .25% (.0025) for a period not to exceed (insert number of years)?

This would mean that a consumer would pay an additional 25¢ ($0.25) in sales tax for every $100 of tangible personal property bought at retail. If imposed, the additional tax would cease being collected at the end of (insert number of years), if not terminated earlier by a vote of the county board.”

A quarter of a percent increase doesn’t sound like a whole lot, does it? But consider that, if this referendum were to pass, you would be paying .25% more on things that already are highly taxed — like restaurant food (which would go from 10% to 10.25% in the city). Is that going to make Peoria more or less competitive than East Peoria, right across the river? How many people do you think will come to see the museum in Peoria, then go have lunch in East Peoria?

And what about the economy? Is this the time to be increasing taxes when there’s plenty of unemployed people? What is the city’s solution on how to decrease the unemployment rate?
Consider these other items in the news as of late:

  • “[T]he effects of the economic crisis are being felt beyond Wall Street as charities locally and nationwide report increases in basic needs and decreases in donations to provide those. Some of the people who used to be donors are now asking for donations…. Nearly 90 percent of Catholic Charities nationwide report more families seeking help, with senior citizens, the middle class and the working poor among those hit hardest by the downturn…. The Salvation Army already has seen between 15 percent and 20 percent more need than last year in its first week of assistance applications received for the holidays…. The Friendship House scaled back the number of families this year allowed into their Adopt-A-Family program to ensure they could fulfill the need.”
  • “Fiscal restraint was the guiding principle in crafting next year’s [Peoria] county budget, which represents a 6 percent overall decrease over last year’s budget. In what is being described as a ‘maintenance budget’ with no new taxes or fees and no spending cuts, preliminary figures show spending requests at nearly $122 million while the county expects to bring in about $119 million in revenues. The approximately $3 million deficit – mostly in the capital fund – will be covered by reserve funds that sit at nearly $74 million, said Erik Bush, Peoria County’s chief financial officer….. The county expects to collect $25.5 million from taxpayers, about $1 million more than what was collected in 2007. Although the tax rate will drop 1 cent to 81 cents per $100 assessed valuation, property values are projected to increase 5.4 percent, so homeowners actually will pay more taxes to the county. The owner of a $120,000 home, whose value increases the projected 5.4 percent will pay $341.50 in taxes to the county, or $13.50 more than last year.”
  • “In total, the city’s staff whittled a $2.2 million budget deficit down to $117,771, an amount that some council members praised. ‘We asked an unbelievable task of our staff,’ Mayor Jim Ardis said. ‘Without cutting any positions or having any tax increase.’ …Finance Director Jim Scroggins said the biggest savings comes from the city’s health care costs, reflected in a substantial difference between the 12 percent budgeted increase for 2008 and the actual increase in health-related costs of only 4 percent…. In addition, the city plans to scale back on parking deck repairs ($300,000), repairs to some of its buildings ($200,000), delay repairs to police headquarters ($25,000), and reduce the neighborhood signs program ($68,662).”
  • “Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills has hit a record $4 billion, and Comptroller Dan Hynes said Thursday the situation is ‘potentially catastrophic’ if allowed to continue…. Earlier this week, Blagojevich’s office said state revenues will fall $800 million short of projections because of the recession. The Senate Democrats’ top budget person, Sen. Donne Trotter of Chicago, said borrowing money right now may not be a good idea because of interest costs. He said the state should tap into its ‘rainy day’ fund first. Hynes said money in the rainy day fund was used in July. Trotter’s Republican counterpart, Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont, also didn’t think much of borrowing money. ‘That’s exactly what’s gotten us into this problem,’ Radogno said. ‘Continuing borrowing is not a good idea. They’re going to have to look at making cuts. The wiggle room is gone.'”

It’s time to use all that advertising money to come up with another plan — one that doesn’t involve raising taxes.


Museum Block, before it was turned into a temporary parking lot

New poll: Same results, different conclusion

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.

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?!”).

Museum survey results yield questionable conclusion

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 survey being done by Peoria County (UPDATED)

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.

Early voting not without risk

Vote!Did you vote early? Is your candidate still in the race?

In Peoria County, registered voters could cast a ballot between Jan. 14 and Jan. 31 for the Feb. 5 primary. The trouble is, since Jan. 14, several candidates have dropped out. If you voted for Fred Thompson, John Edwards, or Rudy Giuliani, sorry, they’re not in the race anymore and there’s no way to change your vote.

Similarly, in the weeks leading up to a campaign, you may find out some new information that will change your mind about a particular candidate. Blogger BlueOllie found that out the hard way:

[N]ow I find out that a candidate I voted for has some serious ethical issues. First a misstatement about her graduating from college in a radio ad. Then a shoplifting conviction, as an adult. Then she paid the fine 8 years later, and now has a 3 year old moving violation that she has just paid. Oh boy. That sign is not staying up in our front yard. I am sorry that I voted the way that I did.

Now that’s not to say that early voting is a bad thing. It just has considerably more risk in a primary election than a general election. In a general election, I’ve never heard of a candidate dropping out, although I don’t doubt there’s some obscure situation where that did happen. Likewise, voters are unlikely to cast a ballot for the other party’s candidate unless there were some really devastating revelation about their own party’s candidate (like, “he was the man on the grassy knoll that shot Kennedy”).

As for me, I’m in no hurry. I can wait until election day to vote.

More on the Museum

Peoria County LogoSince I was attending our neighborhood association meeting last night, I was unable to attend the County Board meeting and hear the museum presentation. So I asked Patrick Urich, Peoria County Administrator, what happened. Here’s his account of the evening:

The Museum supporters came to the Board last night in force. Congressman LaHood opened by providing a historical account of where they have come from, Dave Koehler urged support for the project as a legacy project, Jim Vergon outlined the funding shortfall ($24 million), Jim Richerson presented the museum overview, Sid Banwart (Cat VP) stated that they have a significant commitment that will not go forward without the museum, Mark Johnson of Cat outlined what the Visitor’s Center would look like, Dan Silverthorn of the West Central Building Trades Council outlined the number of jobs and the payroll this would generate locally, and Dave Leitch closed by urging support. The challenge is that they would like an answer by mid-December.

Tim Riggenbach asked that the County staff review what options we have to assist and present that to the Finance Committee. The main issue is that as non-home rule county, we can only do what the statutes allow, unlike the City – which is home rule – who have the authority to raise taxes (HRA, sales, utility, property) by a simple majority vote. So our options are likely limited in the short term, but long term (which may mean forgoing the new market tax credits for now) we would work with the legislature to craft something that would have some sort of voter approval tied to it.

…We will also be putting the video up on our website. You can check today at http://www.peoriacounty.org/county/avmeeting

The best part of this report is the commitment to getting voter approval. If only other public bodies (*coughdistrict150cough*) would have such a commitment to inclusion.

Museum’s fate in the taxpayers’ hands

PRM LogoWEEK-TV reports that the Peoria Riverfront Museum is only going to receive four to ten million dollars in New Market Tax Credits — far, far less than the $100 million they were hoping to receive. Now there’s only one place left to get funding: the taxpayer.

So, museum officials appeared before the Peoria County Board tonight and asked for $24 million to plug the funding gap. Just for comparison purposes, the county collected $22.35 million in property taxes in 2006, and the proposed spending plan for 2008 is $122.1 million, according to the Journal Star. It’s a lot of money, and obviously it would have to be raised through municipal bonds.

How much would the repayment of those bonds be per taxpayer? I don’t know, but consider that the library referendum, which asked for bonding $35 million, would raise taxes by $50 per $100,000 equalized assessed valuation (EAV). Using that as a baseline, bonding $24 million could be in the neighborhood of $34 per $100,000 EAV. Granted, it might actually be less, since the library referendum was just for the city, and this request would include the whole county. On the other hand, most of the taxes in the county come from the city of Peoria, so it’s not going to be a whole lot less. [UPDATE: According to the Journal Star, “Museum backers say their preliminary figures indicate that…the cost to the owner of a $100,000 home would be about another $20 a year.”]

And the Museum officials need to know by the end of the year if the County is going to pitch in. That doesn’t give them much time to study or debate the proposal. And it certainly doesn’t give them enough time to have a referendum vote like the library did. The reason for the deadline? They have to have their funding in place by the end of the year in order to get that $4-10 million in New Market Tax Credits.

The Museum officials’ argument is that all museums receive public funding, and they were counting on getting $24 million in federal and state dollars that didn’t materialize. So, now the only public funding sources left are local, and the city council has made it abundantly clear they’re not going to consider any more requests for money from the museum folks. That leaves the County.

So, should the local taxpayers bail out the museum?

Believe it or not, I’m not inherently opposed to some public funding for a Peoria history museum. Further, I’m not inherently opposed to those funds coming from the county either, since I think such funding should be as regional as possible. But the question is, is this museum proposal fiscally responsible and worthy of public funding — specifically, $24 million in public funding?

I don’t think so, mainly for reasons I’ve detailed in this previous post.

Just as a thumbnail sketch, my primary concern is with the interior of the museum — it’s too small for the all the subject matter it wants to cover, even utilizing the vaunted “Delta approach.” There’s not enough storage space for artifacts. In fact, they would largely have to be stored off-site. It is, in part, a replacement of Lakeview Museum, which is unnecessary and unjustifiable.

Second, the exterior is completely objectionable. It is the antithesis of the type of development for that block that has been recommended by every consultant the city has hired from Demetriou to DPZ. The block should be urban in character, dense, and include a mix of uses including retail and residential components to make the block active 24/7. The museum’s plan is suburban in character, it leaves two-thirds of the block as open space, and is single use, making the block active only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In fairness, there is a small retail component on the Water Street side in the plans, but (a) it’s not part of the initial phase, (b) it’s a very small portion of the block, and (c) there’s no residential component which is what would make the block active 24/7.

I have other concerns, but I don’t want to look like I’m piling on. Suffice it to say, I am opposed to using public funds for this museum plan. But I still think we need a Peoria History Museum (not a Peoria Art-Science-History-Achievement-And-A-Partridge-In-A-Pear-Tree Museum), and that the Peoria Historical Society should begin (resume?) working on such a project. It could be built on a portion of the Sears block, or it could be put in a remodeled/reused building somewhere downtown. I think there would be enthusiastic support for such a project if it’s focused, offers sufficient space, and has an attractive, urban design.

Cold Case

Cold Case Kevin

Kevin Lyons announced recently that he’s going to run for reelection as Peoria County State’s Attorney. I found this interesting:

Among the items he said he wanted to focus on in the coming years were efforts to protect police officers from vicious dogs who might be housed by criminals, the possible hiring of a “cold-case” prosecutor to try to solve unsolved cases [emphasis mine] and a continued effort to protect the elderly.

One of those goals sounds familiar…. Oh, here it is, from November 3, 2004 — the last time Lyons was reelected:

Lyons, 48, of Peoria has served as Peoria County’s top prosecutor for nearly 16 years. Among his goals for his next term are to create a cold case unit for unsolved crimes [emphasis mine] and to bring criminal cases to conclusion faster.

He has a good reason why he hasn’t reached his 2004 goal yet. He’s holding out for Det. Lilly Rush (pictured above, with Lyons) to join his team. She always solves her cases, and that kind of slam-dunk record is just what Lyons is looking for.