Apparently there’s a rumor going around town that renowned activist Karrie Alms is circulating petitions for an at-large seat on the City Council. Not true, says Alms. She’s running for County Board and only County Board. She’ll be facing incumbent third district Representative Lynn Pearson in the November election. Pearson is the Democrat candidate; Alms is running on the Republican ticket. The third district’s boundaries, according to the Peoria County website, are “Downtown and northeast along the river, with boundaries of Knoxville, Nebraska, and Glen Oak Park.”
Tag Archives: Peoria County
1,623 signatures not enough to Block the Bonds
In the end, the effort to block the issuance of general obligation bonds fell short. In order to force the issue to a referendum, nearly 10,000 signatures would have to have been collected. The “Block the Bonds” supporters managed to gather 1,623. Considering that the group had only 30 days to gather signatures, and given the complex nature of the petition question (i.e., explaining what general obligation bonds are and why revenue bonds would be preferred), that’s a pretty good showing.
There are a couple lessons to be learned here.
First, the “back-door referendum” option only gives the illusion of offering voters some sort of recourse. In reality, the high number of signatures required in such a short time frame makes it practically impossible to force a referendum. I imagine it was designed that way.
Second, it’s impossible to hold elected representatives and staff accountable for their promises/commitments. Leading up to April 2009, taxpayers were promised that construction would not start until all private money was raised, that revenue bonds would be issued to mitigate the risk to taxpayers, and the maximum bond limit was $40 million. Now we’re starting construction before all the money is raised, general obligation bonds are being issued, and the amount is $41 million. Yet despite these substantial broken commitments, there is no practical recourse for voters. By the time the next election rolls around, the bonds will already have been issued, we’ll already be saddled with debt, and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.
Some would say “that’s politics,” but I think it’s an affront to the voters. And even though the water is under the bridge on this bonding issue, the incumbents who voted for it should be voted out at the earliest opportunity simply because they’ve proven themselves untrustworthy. Who can believe a word they say?
WCBU news misses the mark
WCBU News this morning said that a successful effort to stop the issuance of general obligation bonds for the museum would be “a moot point” because the County Board could just use a different kind of bond to fund the project. Apparently the reporter fails to understand that the type of bond being used is the issue. If we were to stop the issuance of general obligation bonds and the County issued revenue bonds instead, then we will have prevailed. Hardly a “moot point.”
Usually WCBU does a good job reporting the news, but this story sorely missed the mark.
Harding to ask County Board to put bond referendum on ballot (UPDATED)
From a press release:
Peoria County Board member Brad Harding will be offering an amendment at the Thursday, September 9, 2010 monthly Peoria County Board meeting to place the museum bond referendum on the February or April ballot by a direct vote of the Peoria County Board.
The passage of the new bonding instruments offers this is an alternative to gathering 9,849 petition signatures which is the other way offered by the August 2010 affirmative Peoria County Board meeting vote.
I wonder if a majority of the Board will support giving a voice to the citizens of Peoria County.
UPDATE: Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Atkins says Harding cannot offer an amendment tonight. Here is his e-mail to Brad:
The public hearings for the bond issues for Bel-wood and the museum project are not action items for the County Board. These are opportunities for the public to be heard concerning these matters, not opportunities for Board Members to offer their own views of what should be done. Offering amendments to the actions previously taken by the Board on each of these items would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act because no action item has been placed on the agenda and notice has not been given to the public. Since 48 hours public notice must be given for action to be taken it is impossible to properly notice your proposed amendments for tonight’s meeting.
Even if your proposed amendments complied with the Open Meetings Act, I don’t think they are authorized by law. Backdoor referenda are a possibility for each of these bonds and if a sufficient number of citizens want a referendum on either or both of these bonds, then they can petition for such a referendum. The County Board has to be specifically authorized by law to place a binding referendum on the ballot and I am not aware of any law that would authorize such a referendum at this point in the process of authorizing these two bond issues.
William W. P. Atkins
Chief Civil Assistant State’s Attorney
Peoria County Courthouse
324 Main Street
Peoria IL 61602
Museum bonds hearing tonight
The Peoria County Board will meet this evening at 6 p.m. in the County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, County Board Room 403. On tonight’s agenda is a required public hearing for the $41.6 million debt (bonds) to construct the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum. If you ever wondered whether such public hearings were perfunctory, just remember that they already had the museum groundbreaking two days ago. That’s how highly they regard your opinion.
Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to tell the County Board — on the record — how you feel about these bonds. I would encourage all those who are concerned about this debt to attend the meeting tonight and make your voice heard. If you haven’t signed the petition yet, you can do so at the meeting tonight — members of the Block the Bonds group will be there collecting signatures.
Urich memo raises questions about museum bonds
If you pick up a Journal Star this morning, you’ll see a “First in Print” article about the museum bonds debate:
Delays in issuing bonds, coupled with changes in the public financing of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, could result in $1.6 million to $3.4 million in additional taxpayer costs, according to a memo issued by Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich on Thursday…. According to Urich’s memo, federally backed Build American Bonds will rebate 35 percent of taxes paid on the bonds issued before New Year’s Day. Urich projects any stall on issuing those bonds until next year could cost $2 million to $2.5 million.
The rebate could be extended at a lesser amount, which would potentially reduce taxpayers’ savings.
“It will cost the taxpayers money if we have to delay,” Urich said Friday.
The type of bonds has been the subject of debate since last week. General obligation bonds, according to Urich, save taxpayers money over a longer period of time because their interest rate is lower. With revenue bonds, the interest rate — and the risk to the bond holder — increases.
Question: Why didn’t Urich tell the voters about all the glories of G. O. bonds before the April 2009 referendum? Just to refresh your memory, here’s what the County said during the weeks leading up to the referendum in town hall meeting after town hall meeting:
If the referendum passes, the County Board has committed to issuing up to $40 million in Revenue Bonds for the museum…. Only money collected from the sales tax increase can be used to pay the Bonds off each year. If the annual payment cannot be met with the sales tax collection, the bond holders bear the burden, not Peoria County or the tax payers…. Why would anyone take the risk to invest in Bonds that may not be paid off annually? As with all investments, the higher the risk, the greater the return. A diverse risk portfolio is a prudent investment strategy, and Revenue Bonds represent a component of that strategy.
Note that the County didn’t say “general obligation bonds” or “Build America Bonds.” They said “Revenue Bonds.” They were very clear and specific. They acknowledged then that Revenue Bonds carry a greater return (that means a higher interest rate) for the bond-holder, but that the trade-off is that the bond-holder carries greater risk. The made it a selling point to the community that “the bond holders bear the burden, not … the taxpayers” if sales tax receipts were insufficient to cover the bond payments.
Now I want to know what has changed since the town hall meetings? Don’t tell me that Build America Bonds are new since then, because they’re not. Build America Bonds were established as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which President Obama signed into law on February 17, 2009. That was before the referendum, and before the town hall meetings which took place in March and April of that year.
If Revenue Bonds are such a bad, expensive funding mechanism, why did the County promote it in March and April 2009? Why did they sing the praises of mitigating risks to the taxpayer then, but now claim there are no risks to mitigate?
One last question. How can Build America Bonds be used on this project in the first place? The rules for these bonds specifically exclude “private activity bonds,” which are defined as bonds where “more than 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue are to be used for any private business use,” including non-profit businesses. The preamble to the County’s bond ordinance makes it clear that the bonds will “finance the acquisition, construction, and installation of facilities and improvements constituting the art, science, and education components of a new Peoria Riverfront Museum, and related facilities, improvements and costs.” The Peoria Riverfront Museum is a private, not-for-profit organization incorporated June 7, 2010, in the State of Illinois. It’s unclear to me how this project qualifies for Build America Bonds.
Firefly bankruptcy hearing date set for Sept. 9
Last week’s “Issues Update” from the City Manager’s office has the latest on how things are progressing with the Firefly bankruptcy:
The Bankruptcy Court has set a hearing on the City’s and County’s settlement with the Bankruptcy Trustee for September 9, 2010. Negotiations continue with Electrotherm, the company from India who has expressed interest in acquiring Firefly’s assets. In order to move that negotiation forward, the City Manager and the County Administrator have executed an agreement that the City and County will not market the assets of Firefly to any other party than Electrotherm until September 14, 2010. It is anticipated that a purchase agreement will be on the City Council Agenda on September 14, 2010.
In related news, one market for the batteries in India would be to power two-wheeled scooters:
The electric two-wheeler industry in the country is struggling for survival, as manufacturers are making huge losses. …[T]he fledgling e-scooter segment has failed to join the bandwagon of the Indian automobile industry, which is on a high growth trajectory. From 60 players in the electric two-wheeler business, including small time assemblers, only 10 remain in contention now….
The dependence on imports for key components such as battery, motor and charger also pose a challenge for the industry. Major players such as Hero Electric and Electrotherm are looking at developing local battery manufacturing capabilities. [emphasis added]
How’s Electrotherm doing these days? Here’s a recent report:
Electrotherm (India) disclosed a steep drop in standalone net profit for the quarter ended June 2010. During the quarter, the profit of the company declined 27.28% to Rs 123.43 million [US$2,633,460] from Rs 169.74 million [US$3,621,514] in the same quarter previous year.
The City and County of Peoria guaranteed a bank loan of $6.6 million for Firefly Energy in 2007; the company went bankrupt in March of this year. The municipalities have been trying to mitigate their losses by selling the company’s assets.
Last chance to vote on museum changes
A petition drive was launched today by Citizens for Responsible Spending, County Board members Brad Harding and Merle Widmer, and At-Large City Councilman Gary Sandberg. It’s an effort to allow Peoria County residents the opportunity to vote on whether or not to issue $41 million in general obligation bonds to construct the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum.
Why? Because things have changed since April 2009 when the revenue to pay for the bonds was approved by the voters. Back then, we were promised they would issue revenue bonds, so as to limit the exposure of Peoria County taxpayers and protect our general sales tax receipts. Now they’re trying to issue general obligation bonds. Back then, they made it very clear there was going to be an IMAX Theater — the contract was just sitting on their desk waiting to be signed as soon as the referendum passed! Now they say IMAX isn’t compatible with their mission. Back then, the County assured us that they would insist that all the private financing be raised and in hand before construction would begin. Now they’re planning to start construction before the private money is raised, before vital grant money is awarded, before they own the land, before the bonds are issued, before the bond hearing is held, and even before Caterpillar has voted on the redevelopment agreement.
In short, the County has betrayed the trust of the Peoria County taxpayers. They’ve reneged on their promises. They’ve broken their word. Peoria County residents deserve better.
The last available option to residents is to gather signatures to put the museum funding on the ballot so we can vote on their real plan, not the bill of goods we were sold in the Spring of 2009.
For more information, or to get involved, please go to BlocktheBonds.com.
Council agenda includes museum redevelopment agreement
The City Council agenda for August 24 includes three items regarding the proposed museum. They include approval of the design concepts, the redevelopment agreement (which includes conveying the land to the County for $1), and vacating certain portions of Liberty and Main streets between Water and Washington streets.
Dave Ransburg, chairman of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, has been meeting privately with City Council members two or three at a time (to avoid an Open Meetings Act violation) to talk about the museum’s plans and to line up at least six votes in favor of the redevelopment agreement and land conveyance.
Yes, Mr. Riggenbach, we were promised an IMAX
Former County Board member and current Third District City Councilman Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”
On Saturday, March 7, 2009, Friends of Build the Block chairman Brad McMillan stated in the Peoria Journal Star: “If The Block is built, we will be able to experience: (1) A state-of-the-art 3-D IMAX theatre that will allow children to dive into a mystical, undersea world during the day and adults to watch current films in the evening….”
On the “Build the Block” website under “Frequently Asked Questions,” it states, “What will the Peoria Riverfront Museum include? The 81,000-square-foot Peoria Riverfront Museum will feature wide-ranging opportunities for learning, culture and fun, including a digital 3-D IMAX Theatre….”
The January 2009 “Build the Block” Newsletter stated this: “The Block’s IMAX Theatre will be a five-stories-tall, 3-D-equipped classroom kids will love!” And this: “‘At The Block, we’ll have even more to share, including expanded exhibits just for kids, a state-of-the art planetarium and a 3-D, digital IMAX Theatre,’ says Lakeview Museum President and CEO Jim Richerson.”
The March 3, 2009, Attendance Analysis put out by the museum group stated: “When analyzing the museum attendance projections listed above, it becomes apparent that the IMAX Theatre is assumed to be the primary generator of attendance at the new museum.” And this: “…museum planners are projecting 146,000 for annual attendance at the Peoria Riverfront Museum IMAX….”
Pay close attention to this one. The March 9, 2009, Sustainability paper published by the museum group stated:
On average, Lakeview Museum receives approximately $600,000 per year through earned income, including general memberships, gallery admissions, planetarium admissions, museum store, book court and book sales, museum schools and programs, and rental of museum space. This represents approximately 40 percent of total annual income. The remaining 60 percent of annual income, or approximately $900,000 per year, is categorized as support income. The support income is generated from the museum endowment, annual fund drives, exhibit sponsors, other miscellaneous fundraising events, and grants received from various foundations and governmental agencies.
In the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum Pro Forma, the relationship between earned income and support income is shifted, with earned income now representing 65 percent of the total and support income representing only 35 percent of the total. This change is due to the presence of the IMAX Theatre in the new museum, projected to generate almost $1 million per year in operating income. The concessions area adjacent to the IMAX Theatre also would be a new source of income at the Peoria Riverfront Museum and is projected to generate close to $300,000 annually.
Finally, there’s this lengthy report from January 8, 2009, titled, “Report to the County Board – Peoria Riverfront Museum Policy Considerations.” It comes with a cover memo addressed to none other than “Timothy Riggenbach, Chairman, Finance Legislative Study Committee.” In the 241-page document, which I’m sure Riggenbach read, are the results of a phone survey conducted by the County, including the questions asked. Here’s one:
The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of Central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater [emphasis added]. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86% funded. To complete the project, would you support an increase in the sales tax of one quarter of one percent in Peoria County? This is 25 cents on every $100 of retail purchases.
The report also includes the “Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year)” which is replete with references to IMAX. Oh, and it also includes the museum’s pro forma which states in no uncertain terms, “IMAX Revenue.”
So, with all due respect, Mr. Riggenbach, yes, we were promised an IMAX, your historic revisionism notwithstanding. It was promised to us by museum officials in official public documents. Furthermore, IMAX was essential to the attendance and revenue projections that were used to sell the museum to the County and the community.
What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article. Promises of an IMAX are so well-documented, I can’t believe anyone seriously believes there’s a question about it. Perhaps Mr. Riggenbach and the Journal Star want us to believe the entire County of Peoria just imagined we were promised an IMAX — that it was some sort of mass psychosis. Maybe we were all hypnotized by aliens.