Category Archives: Peoria County

Attention Tea Party participants: Change happens at ballot box

From the Journal Star:

A crowd estimated at more than 500 gathered outside the Peoria County Courthouse during the noon hour Wednesday to protest what they believe to be out-of-control government spending during a tax day “TEA (taxed enough already) party,” designed to echo the rebellion of the Boston Tea Party.

I don’t disagree with these wandering fiscal conservatives in principle. And I certainly don’t deny their freedom to assemble and petition the government in this way. But there’s a big difference between the colonists in Boston and the American population today. The colonists couldn’t vote. They were taxed without representation. We, on the other hand, can vote, but most of us don’t. Not only do our representatives raise our taxes, we raise our own taxes when given the ability to decide directly.

Consider this little pie chart I whipped up based on the last election:

April 7 Sales Tax Referendum Chart

It doesn’t look like many people (in Peoria, anyway) are interested in reining in “out-of-control government spending,” does it? And if anyone feels taxed without representation, there’s a greater than 75% chance it’s their own fault.

The TEA Party participants would see greater results if they could just convince more people to participate at the ballot box rather than downtown marches.

Museum odds and ends

I’ve gone to several town hall meetings regarding the sales tax referendum, so I’m familiar with the presentations now, and I’ve heard a lot of the same questions. But at last night’s town hall meeting at Northwoods Community Church, I actually learned some new things. Not all of these items are new information — some of it I probably should have known already — but they were all new to me:

First of all, I found out that the Caterpillar Experience will not have free admission for the general public. Mark Johnson of Caterpillar explained that employees/retirees of Caterpillar and their guests will get in free. But if you don’t want to hit up your Cat friends to get you in, or if you’re a tourist/visitor from outside the Peoria area, you’ll be paying $5 for adults and $2.50 for children under 12. I was very surprised to learn this, especially in light of my recent trip to Moline to visit the John Deere Pavilion, which is free for everyone.

Second, it was stated last night that the City of Peoria will own and operate the underground parking deck, and that the parking will not be free. Mr. Johnson stated that the City theoretically could offer free parking, but that they would probably charge the same rate as other City-owned parking decks. Just what the City needs — another money-losing parking deck. It’s worth pointing out that the museum could also offer free parking to their patrons. All they need to do is validate parking tickets and then pay their patrons’ parking fees for them. It’s also worth noting that patrons of Lakeview currently have free parking at the existing Lakeview campus.

Finally, it was stated that — if the referendum passes and the museum is built — the Peoria Riverfront Museum (PRM) would take over ownership of the historic houses currently owned by the Peoria Historical Society. I don’t see how the PRM could afford to own, operate, and maintain those historic houses when the county doesn’t feel PRM has adequate funds budgeted for capital maintenance on the museum building. Living in a 105-year-old house myself, I can tell you first hand that maintenance is not cheap, especially if you want to maintain the historical integrity of the structure.

There were a couple other notable items from last night’s town hall meeting, but I’ll save that for another post.

Stimulus money sought for “The Block”

As has been mentioned before, the museum group has two funding goals — a private funding goal and a public funding goal. The $40 million county tax is supposed to plug the public funding goal, but that will still leave the museum $11 million short on the private funding side. Whenever they’re asked about this at town hall meetings, the answer heretofore has been that the CEO Roundtable had committed to raising $8 million of the remaining money from private sources, and that the museum group is “confident” that they can raise the remaining $3 million not covered by that.

Now, it appears they’re trying to plug the private funding gap with (drum-roll, please) more public funds! Stimulus funds, to be exact. There was a press conference yesterday that featured state senator Dave Koehler and Illinois Secretary of Transportation Gary Hannig.

There might yet be additional state and federal money available for the $136 million Build the Block project, maybe enough to close the funding gap that would still exist even if voters approve the sales tax increase next week. At least that’s the hope of state Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria. He said Monday he would try to help procure $4 million of federal economic stimulus money for an underground parking garage and an additional $10 million from a state capital bill to close the funding gap.

Isn’t that interesting? If we were to get, say, $14 million additional from state and federal sources, the plan is to use it to plug the private funding gap, not lower the local tax commitment. The reason the museum is coming to the county for funding is because they didn’t receive as much in federal/state funds as they originally thought they were going to get. Now that they’re possibly going to get more federal/state funding, it should go to reduce the local tax burden, not prop up private funding shortfalls.

Reasons for spiking school referendum weak

By now, you’ve probably heard or read about how museum supporters successfully discouraged efforts by county school superintendents to put a referendum on the April 7 ballot. That referendum would have been very similar to the museum referendum, only instead of money going toward a museum and big-screen theater, the money would have gone toward school facilities in Peoria County. Each school district would get a portion of the sales tax proceeds based on enrollment. Museum supporters decided county residents shouldn’t have that choice because it would threaten passage of the museum tax. You can read the letters here.

The Journal Star got reaction from some museum supporters.

“We met with school superintendents and in very cordial conversations decided it seemed to be a matter of timing,” [Michael] Bryant [head of the CEO roundtable and the CEO of Methodist Medical Center] said. “The superintendents didn’t have a plan or projects ready, when on the other hand, the museum’s time is now. After April 7, if the referendum doesn’t pass, the museum goes away.”

First of all, this is simply false. The superintendents did and still do have projects ready. IVC is ready to build additions. Brimfield needs a new high school. Peoria Heights wants to pay off bond debt which will lower property taxes in the village. And I think we all know that District 150, which would receive the lion’s share of any sales tax proceeds, has just a few building projects underway or commencing soon. I frankly don’t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that school superintendents in Peoria County “didn’t have a plan or projects ready.” Why would they even be pursuing this option if they didn’t have a plan for how the money would be used?

But secondly, and more importantly, there’s no requirement under the statute that the superintendents have a plan before asking for a referendum to be placed on the ballot. So the argument is a red herring anyway.

“The county made the museum a top priority in February of 2008 and started working toward the goal of finding a funding mechanism,” [County Administrator Patrick] Urich said. “We met with school officials last summer and talked about the path the museum was on and that it was first in line with the sales tax referendum. The fact that the museum group definitely had a plan in place and the schools had no definitive plan on how it intended to spend the money kept us on this path.”

What is this imaginary “line” to which Urich refers? The statute states that if school districts representing 51% or more of the county’s total school enrollment votes to put a referendum on the ballot, the county is obligated to put it on the ballot. The county is not the gatekeeper as Urich implies — there is no statutory limit on the number of referenda that can be placed on the ballot, and referenda are not placed on a first-come-first-served basis. There is simply no “line” in which to wait.

Anything the county had to say to the superintendents would have been advisory at best. And that begs the question: Why was the county meeting with the school superintendents? Was the county also trying to dissuade them from putting the school funding referendum on the ballot?

Bryant said school districts will have future opportunities to see if voters are willing to raise sales taxes to pay help schools. The museum won’t.

With all due respect, that’s the museum’s problem, not the school districts’. Schools should not have to take a back seat because the museum group has been incapable of raising the funds they need over the last seven years.

Museum looks to meet private shortfall with public funds

The latest town hall meeting on the county sales tax referendum took place tonight at Dunlap Valley Middle School. The presenters were Brad McMillan for the museum, Erik Bush for the county, and Karrie Alms for Citizens for Responsible Spending. I was pleased to see that tonight’s meeting was a balanced presentation, pro and con. Kudos to the county for now allowing both sides a seat at the table.

While most of the evening was filled with no new information, there was one significant development. As you may know, the museum has set separate goals for private and public funding. The sales tax is supposed to plug the gap in public funding, but there is still an $11 million shortfall on the private funding side. At just about every meeting, the question is raised as to how the museum group plans to close that $11 million private funding gap. And the answer has always been that they’ve gotten a commitment from the CEO Roundtable to raise $8 million of it, and that they’re confident that people will come out of the wings to support the project once they know the public funding is in place. Sounds far-fetched to me for various reasons, but I don’t want to digress on that right now.

What we learned tonight is that they are also trying to plug that gap with (perhaps not surprisingly) more public money from state and federal sources. Mr. McMillan said the group is working with state senators Risinger and Koehler, as well as Congressman Schock to get grants, stimulus money, and any other funds the government might have lying around that could go toward the museum.

This indicates a bit of a shift in strategy on the museum’s part. It would appear that they are now changing their public/private funding goals. Why might they be doing this? Could it be because they don’t really believe they can make up that $11 million shortfall with private donations after all?

(P.S. On a side note, do you remember a comment on another post from “kcdad” where he said today’s schools are set up to teach children consumerism? Well, after seeing the brand new, state-of-the-art Dunlap Valley Middle School tonight, I’m inclined to agree with him. The building looks like a shopping mall inside and out, not an educational institution. Architecture and environment teach you something about what a community values; clearly the value here is consumerism.)

PI reports on latest county advocacy meeting

I couldn’t make it to the latest museum advocacy meeting held at Bradley University Monday night. But PeoriaIllinoisan was there and turned in his own report. He doesn’t know it, but he’s a mighty fine citizen journalist. I found this particularly interesting:

One of the speakers pointed out that several fliers and information was available at the back of the room, which they were, and just to show that he was fair, he said a flier of a dissenting opinion was also there… it was… on another table was a small stack, blocked and shielded from view by a very enthusiastic Museum supporter who made snide remarks about Merle Widmer, Gary Sandberg, and anyone else who dared to question the “facts”.

Classy.

UPDATE: I’ve been told by another source that it was county board member Andrew Rand — not Richerson — who made the comment about the flyers. PI has corrected his report and that correction is reflected in the quote above.

Advocacy by any other name is still advocacy

The first town hall meeting on the Peoria County public facility sales tax referendum took place Thursday night at Kickapoo Creek Winery. The event was sponsored by County Board members Carol Trumpe and Bob Baietto. Presenters were Jim Richerson for the museum group and Scott Sorrell for the County. Questions had to be written out ahead of time, so attendees weren’t allowed to verbalize the questions themselves. Everything was highly controlled.

The meeting is billed as informational, not advocating for or against passage of the referendum. But if Thursday’s meeting wasn’t advocacy, I sure don’t know what is. Richerson gave his pitch piece for the block and used phrases like “when [not “if”] the referendum passes.” Questions were answered by board members, Sorrell, Richerson, and Mark Johnson from Caterpillar. Obviously, Richerson and Johnson are for the referendum. No one who is against the referendum was allowed a place at the table. The county did not present any risks, cons, or critical information. Everything shared at the meeting was positive toward the referendum. Yet we’re expected to believe we’re hearing an unbiased and fact-based presentation.

In the back of the room was a table full of materials from the the pro-referendum advocacy group Friends of Build the Block, including a flyer that said flat-out, “Vote Yes.” No advance effort was made to contact the anti-referendum advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Spending and offer them a table for their materials.

So, we have an event at which only pro-referendum presenters are invited, only pro-referendum materials are provided, and passage of the referendum is only shown in a favorable light. There’s an old saying: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” So if the event looks like advocacy and sounds like advocacy, guess what?

Ritschel not seeing all the benefits of higher taxes

Here’s an intriguing story from the Journal Star. It’s in regard to a request from City staff to raise sales taxes downtown to help repay general obligation bonds that will be used to build a new Mariott hotel:

Civic Center officials believe an extra 1 percent sales tax on concessions and catering could put the Downtown sports and recreations center at a competitive disadvantage compared to other nearby facilities . . . .

Ritschel said the 1 percent tax would generate approximately $30,000 a year for the Civic Center, which is less money than they anticipate losing to East Peoria and elsewhere because of the extra tax.

Peoria and East Peoria tax similarly when it comes to hotels, food and beverage sales, Ritschel said, so the extra 1 percent would make the Civic Center “more uncompetitive.”

Perhaps someone from the museum group can explain to Ms. Ritschel and the rest of the Civic Center officials the big benefits of higher sales taxes. They spur economic growth; they don’t hurt it. The new Marriott downtown will bring jobs and be like our own little stimulus package. And besides, it’s so cheap — only $1 for every $100 spent. How much does the average person spend on concessions downtown? $25? It’s only going to add an extra quarter to your purchase! Pocket change, dude. They must just be naysayers who don’t want to see progress in Peoria.

Obviously, I’m poking fun at the arguments given for the museum sales tax. But all sarcasm aside, I actually agree with Ritschel on this issue. The same thing that Ritschel fears will happen with a 1% sales tax increase will also happen if voters approve a .25% sales tax increase in Peoria County to pay for the proposed downtown museum. It will make us less competitive and drive more business across the river and elsewhere. Did you catch the phrase she used? She said a tax increase would make the Civic Center “more uncompetitive.” In other words, there’s already a tax disparity, and adding to it is just going to exacerbate the problem.

Did the Bradley professors take the cross-border effect of tax disparity into account when they did their economic analysis of the museum project? I’ve added that to my list of questions to ask when we meet. I expect a call soon to set up a meeting date/time.

Did Peoria County break ethics law by conducting survey?

Recently, Peoria County did a web-based survey regarding the proposed downtown museum with this explanation:

Your Peoria County Government is interested in your opinion regarding public funding of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Museum partners have requested public funding to complete the project, so the County Board must decide whether to proceed with a referendum to increase the sales tax rate one quarter of one percent. Your participation in this brief survey will help with that decision.

And as part of its “National Citizen Survey” in 2008, it asked this question:

The Peoria Riverfront Museum project – with a focus on education, history, arts, and sciences – has fallen short of its public and private fundraising goals. To what degree would you support or oppose a voter referendum to increase the sales tax rate by .25 percent (for example, from 8.0% to 8.25% for the City of Peoria) to fund the remaining cost of constructing money?

The question is, can the county do this — legally? The municipal code (as required by state law under 5 ILCS 430) appears to prohibit this kind of political activity. Sec. 2-29(b)(1) and (2) states, “No officer or employee shall intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time, as defined herein.” There’s a whole list of what is considered “prohibited political activity,” but here’s the one about surveys from Sec. 2-29(a) [emphasis mine]:

Prohibited political activity means [. . .] (5) Surveying or gathering information from potential or actual voters in an election to determine probable vote outcome in connection with a campaign for elective office or on behalf of a political organization for political purposes or for or against any referendum question.

Isn’t this precisely what the county has done? The web survey and the National Citizen Survey question are clear attempts to determine the probable vote outcome of a sales tax referendum for the museum. They were both done at county expense, on county time, by county employees. What service does this provide citizens of the county? None that I can see. The only thing it appears to provide is taxpayer-funded market research for the museum group.

Build the Block numbers questioned

I took down my previous post on the economic impact study by a couple of Bradley professors because I unfairly portrayed them as being uncooperative and unwilling to back up their numbers. They have both contacted me and assured me that they will be happy to meet once they’re both in the country and can coordinate their schedules. My apologies to them for implying they were stonewalling me.

In the meantime, it appears I’m not the only one wondering how they came up with such impressive numbers in favor of the museum. (Last week, they held a press conference where they announced the museum and Cat visitor center would create 1,100 jobs during the two-year construction phase, 90 jobs per year after construction, and $572 million in economic growth over 20 years.) The chairman of the economics department at Knox College is skeptical of those numbers, too.

Richard Stout is the chairman of the economics department at Knox College in Galesburg. Though he hasn’t read the economic impact study, he said he has some questions about how the study drew some of its conclusions. He was skeptical about how the $572 million of economic growth over 20 years figure was calculated. For one thing, included in that figure is the $136 million cost of the project and estimated additional spending that would be created because of it.

“You can’t say the cost of construction is not a cost, that it’s an economic benefit. The cost of construction is a cost,” said Stout, who also questioned how the museum’s operating expenses through the years would also be tallied as an economic benefit to the region.

I also found this interesting. The Bradley professors told me that they weren’t “e-mailing out [their] spreadsheet work on Build the Block at this time.” But according to the Journal Star article, “The summary mentions a copy of the report will be filed with the Peoria County Clerk’s Office and available for sale. It has not yet been filed, according to Scott Sorrell, assistant to the county administrator.”

Once it’s filed with the County Clerk’s office, doesn’t it become a public document? How can it be available “for sale”? Couldn’t a person just FOIA it? Who would get the money from such a “sale”? If I write my own report on Build the Block, will Peoria County sell my report on consignment as well? Perhaps this was just a typo, and the “sale” referred to is simply photocopying charges, as allowed under the Freedom of Information Act.