I couldn’t attend the Peoria County finance committee meeting Tuesday, but activist and regular commenter Karrie Alms did and provides this scoop:
Today’s Peoria County Finance Meeting was a real treat of new information.
- Peoria County feels that they will need to get the City of Peoria to title the museum property to them so that the County will be able to legally issue revenue bonds for the museum project. So, the County is in the process of carrying that water to the city.
- Roughly $35M will be needed for the museum project. Roughly — not a firm figure. Is that an increase, decrease or the same amount from the last figure on record? Wonder when that figure will be firmed up?
- That the resolution (the referendum language) will refer to a “public facility” not the museum specifically.
I asked that as a voter in the voting booth, how would I know that the money would be specifically used for the museum? I wouldn’t know and that the museum people will have to make their appeal to let the voter know that the money is for the museum. Special, seeing that PA 95-1002 (born as SB 1290) refers to public facilities. I guess we will just vote to pass another tax for the County to start a fund for whatever suits them.
- And my favorite, that once the county has repaid the bonds, that the county could just give the land away to anyone — the city, the museum group or whomever. This concept was repeated at least twice.
After the bonds are paid off, Karrie told me, the County would then transfer title to the property back to the City or possibly the museum directly. I believe it was said in the meeting that it didn’t matter which entity got the property.
It’s interesting to me that they’re planning to use revenue bonds. What revenue will this project be producing exactly? Just a couple weeks ago, the city decided against using revenue bonds to pay for the new Marriott hotel downtown, opting for general obligation bonds because there was no established revenue stream. Now the county will be using revenue bonds for a project that will most likely need a perpetual operating subsidy? Where’s my municipal bond expert commenter? I need some more explanation on this one.
In answer to Karrie’s second question, the number was $24 million in November 2007 when it was first pitched to the county. By November 2008, the number reported was $35 million, evidently due to increased construction costs.
As for the referendum language, it is certainly vague if they’re indeed going to ask for a tax to go for a “public facility” without specifying said facility. They could use that money for anything, including other facilities besides the museum if the tax raised a surplus of money.
One other interesting note that Karrie didn’t mention: the results of the online survey were quite a bit more negative than the phone survey. On all the questions, a rather large majority was opposed to a sales tax increase regardless of the reason.
I too was at that meeting. One thing that came across to me was they are saying 2.9 million revenue needed to retire the debt in 20 years. If they bring in lets say 3.9 million is that extra revenue going to be used to retire the debt early or simply used for whatever they want? Also, should the museum fail in say 5 years, that public facility can be leased to a private entity and we are still paying the debt off. There are too many blind corners in this entire business plan. We are blindly voting for a tax on a public facility. Supposedly they are going to define it as bonds for the museum to the bond buyers, but that still doesn’t guarantee us that it will go only for that.
SD, kudos to you for attending the meeting. Here’s another question, one that I’ve not gotten an answer to yet. If the voters approve the referendum question, is the county them obligated to impose the tax, or does it just give them the authority to impose the tax. My question is based on the long list of other issues that must be considered here and which will have to be negotiated between the County Board and the Museum. Say the referendum is approved, but then the County Board and the Museum Group are unable to reach an agreement on some aspect of the operating agreement that would permit the Museum Group to operate the Museum in the County Building, would that mean that the County Board could just say enough is enough, and walk away from the project even though the voters had approved the referendum? ? ?
…assuming the voters approve the referendum….
NV: Roughly 10-15% of the registered voters usually vote. How difficult will it be to get the referendum passed with those type of odds?
Ileriet: Great mystery question. Since the referendum will not specify the museum, then the tax is approved for the next twenty years to be used for whatever or at least it seems per
PA 95-1002.
Since motivation to vote is always the key… who will be more motivated? Those in favor of a tax increase or those opposed?
If (when?) the museum fails, they can give it to a private party…hmm…wonder if that party is already waiting in the wings?
Karrie and [yes] KCDAD make excellent points.
Based on the overall public ‘reaction’, one would think that the ref doesn’t stand a chance.
While the Museum Groups’ campaign to sway public opinion has been lame [posters, cheap toys, terrible art, etc], they are ‘visible’.
There has been no concerted effort to sway the public to vote NO.
I’ll bet I know what one of the next few posts will read……
NV: Are you in charge of the concerted effort to sway the pubic to vote NO? (lol)
I win my bet!
Yes…in a covert kind-of-way.
What did you win? I hope something better than a new car, a trip around the world, a new Wall Street Investment Fund …. oh, you won a Happy New Year!
Good enough…and same to all of you!
Happy New Year
Does anyone know how much money has been approved for the Build the Darn Thing advertising? And is it All taxpayer dollars being spent for the Media and signage campaign?
Probably a state secret. You can bet the PJS won’t be doing any “investigative reporting” since its in the tank for the “Darn Thing”
Mouse,
HOW DARE YOU suggest that the hard-hitting reporting of The Journal Star is anything but fair and impartial!
Now you think about what you said while I mix another martini….
Mouse, The word from the City is Lakeview Museum is footing the bill for all the advertising we see and hear. Now, where is Lakeview getting the money?
From the money the City gave them as part of the new Library expansion of 28 million?
CW: Venturing a guess, from the “Preopening Operating Support line item – $4.4M or some of Lakeview’s regular advertising budget or ???
Perhaps a BTB expert would respond to your inquiry or Kathleen Woith at Lakeview, she would know the answer to your question.
Mouse: Please say it isn’t so, that you have already been assimilated and that resistance is futile?
NV: Just got my Inspector Gadget shoes shined …. still waiting…..
wacko — Lakeview Museum and Lakeview Library are separate pots of money.
Karrie,
I am working on it! I don’t want to end up a target like C.J.!
Karrie: “Lakeview Museum and Lakeview Library are separate pots of money.”
I was thinking of a different metaphor.
kcdad: lol — this is a family friendly blog. Nevertheless, the museum pot of gold is looking to be larger than the library pot of gold.