Tag Archives: Peoria Riverfront Museum

Museum Block, Peoria County

Reasons for spiking school referendum weak

98 Comments

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 Block, Peoria County

Museum looks to meet private shortfall with public funds

22 Comments

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.)

Museum Block, Peoria County

PI reports on latest county advocacy meeting

17 Comments

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.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Advocacy by any other name is still advocacy

49 Comments

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?

Museum Block, Peoria Civic Center, Peoria County, Taxes

Ritschel not seeing all the benefits of higher taxes

42 Comments

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.

Museum Block

County sales tax opposition organized

49 Comments

Although the Journal Star says, “Group rises to oppose museum,” the group — Citizens for Responsible Spending — actually rises simply to oppose a proposed county sales tax for public facilities. The .25% tax increase would double the county’s tax rate and would be used to fill a funding gap for a museum that hasn’t even raised all its private capital yet.

That’s right. Even if the public referendum passes and successfully closes the gap in the public funding portion of the museum’s financing plan, the museum group will still be $11 million short in private funding, according to their own website. That’s after six or seven years of fundraising, including high-profile efforts by current and former mayors to get more donors.

Has anyone in the museum group ever entertained the notion that maybe — just maybe — the problem isn’t a fundraising problem? That maybe the problem is that their museum plan is too expensive, too inefficient, and unsustainable?

Museum Block

Fact-checking museum claims

34 Comments

On February 17, Greg Batton and Dan Diorio talked to Bradley professors Dr. Robert Scott and Dr. Joshua Lewer on the Greg & Dan Show on 1470 WMBD (listen to an .mp3 of the interview here). The two professors volunteered their time to conduct an “independent economic analysis” of the proposed downtown museum project. Let’s take a look at what they had to say.

As the interview began, one of the first topics they hit on was projected attendance at the museum. In response to Dan Diorio saying that museum attendance is down across the country, Dr. Scott countered, “Actually, most everything’s down a bit this year because of the recession . . . but there’s more museum attendance in the United States than there is at all athletic events combined.” He followed up by saying, “So, if you think about all of the activity that’s so prevalent on TV athletic events, there are a lot more people going to these kinds of venues.”

Museum attendance figures are relatively easy to come by; the American Association of Museums (AAM) website states that “American museums average approximately 865 million visits per year,” based on a 1999 study. But the tricky part is defining what is meant by “all athletic events combined.” A November 24, 2008, NPR story regarding museums gave this example, which corroborates Dr. Scott’s statistic:

If you add up the attendance for every major-league baseball, basketball, football and hockey game this year, the combined total will come to about 140 million people. That’s a big number, but it’s barely a fraction of the number of people who will visit American museums this year.

Museums are big business, attracting billions of tourist dollars, advancing science, and educating and amusing more than 850 million people annually.

As impressive as that comparison sounds, it’s not a fair comparison. The total attendance for major-league baseball, basketball, football, and hockey games more specifically comes to 139,474,548, according to figures available on Wikipedia. But there are only 122 teams (32 NFL, 30 MLB, 30 NHL, and 30 NBA). If you divide that out, you’ll see that it comes to an average attendance of 1,143,234 people per team. In comparison, according to both the AAM and NPR, there are 17,500 museums nationwide. If you take the 865 million visitors reported by the AAM and divide it by the number of museums, it comes out to an average attendance of just 48,914 people per museum. And we won’t even get into the fact that museums are open year-round, whereas sporting events have a limited number of games per season.

Next, Dr. Scott said, “And here in Peoria alone at Lakeview, they get over a hundred thousand — something like 110,000 — attendees a year.” This is difficult to verify. In a May 2007 presentation included in material the museum gave to Peoria County, the Museum Collaboration Group said Lakeview’s past four-year average attendance was 87,000. On the other hand, Lakeview Museum’s website now says they get 125,000 visitors per year. So, who knows what the real attendance figure is?

Next up, the John Deere Pavilion: Dr. Scott said, “They [John Deere] get over 200,000 attendees a year.” County Board Member and blogger Merle Widmer called the manager of the John Deere Pavilion and asked for their 2008 annual attendance. She said it was 175,000 to 180,000.

In fairness, Dr. Scott did say later in the interview, “Joshua [Lewer] and I did not go into a detailed analysis of the attendance. We talked to the people who had done the detailed analysis.” So his information is only as good as what was given to him by “the people who had done the detailed analysis,” which would be the museum group.

But here’s the problem: if the economic analysis was substantially based on attendance numbers provided by the museum folks, then the deck was stacked from the beginning. The success of the museum is inextricably tied to its attendance forecast. If they don’t get enough visitors, they can’t operate in the black, and the economic impact would be lower as well. By accepting the museum’s high attendance predictions, they’re conceding that the museum will be successful before they even start the economic impact study. It should come as no surprise that a rosy economic forecast resulted from optimistic attendance figures.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Build the Block numbers questioned

21 Comments

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.

City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County, Peoria Park District

More than just sales taxes may support museum

75 Comments

Did you know that your property taxes indirectly support Lakeview Museum? Karrie Alms does. She’s a community activist and frequent commenter here at the Peoria Chronicle. While doing her usual detailed research, she came across a property tax levy fund titled “Fund 123 MUSEUM PEORIA PARK.” That caught her eye, so she asked Park Board President Tim Cassidy about it. He explained:

Presently Lakeview museum owns and operates museum operations. The PPD [Peoria Park District] owns the land and building and allows Lakeview to use it under an agreement that is now several decades old.

Mr. Cassidy also confirmed that Lakeview does not pay rent for its use of the building, and “the amount of [the] museum fund levy going to Lakeview museum facility is $189,234 per the 2009 budget.” Not having to pay rent or upkeep on the building and grounds surely helps Lakeview’s bottom line and also explains why they didn’t include funds for capital improvement in their pro forma for the proposed downtown museum.

So, what happens if/when the museum moves downtown? As I reported in a previous post (“Is Peoria’s History Getting a Back Seat?” July 13, 2007) after talking to museum officials, “When the new museum opens, Lakeview is planning to hang on to its building at Lake and University to be used for storage because there’s not going to be enough storage space at the new museum. In particular, there’s not very much space planned in the new museum for special, climate-controlled storage of fragile pieces.” However, it doesn’t appear that the Park District has agreed to let the museum continue to use the building. Cassidy told Alms:

If Lakeview museum left the site to go downtown [its] continued [use] of present site would be subject to further agreement based on PPD needs for the facility. […] PPD has no final plans for Lakeview facility use if museum leaves. It remains open for discussion, although one use considered is a senior recreation/leisure facility for programming needs.

Cassidy also said that continued use of the Lakeview building “has never been approved by PPD. In fact specific request has not been made for PPD to formally act.”

If the new museum is unable to use the current Lakeview building for storage, they will have to find storage elsewhere. Without a rent-free (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) facility to use, cost of that storage would impact the museum’s profitability. The Museum Collaboration Group can’t just assume they will be able to continue using that building (rent-free, at that) when their lease expires in 2012. Off-site, specialized storage costs should be figured into their pro forma.

The Park District/Lakeview Museum arrangement also raises another question. In the ground lease the Museum Collaboration Group signed with the City of Peoria for the old Sears block, it has this interesting provision:

11.2 Permitted Assignees. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, Tenant may assign Tenant’s interest in the Lease as follows:

11.2.1 Peoria Park District. Provided the District (“Peoria Park District”) agrees, the Tenant may assign Tenant’s leasehold interest in this Lease to the Peoria Park District, subject to the following: (i) Tenant shall not be relieved of any of its obligations under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement; (ii) the Peoria Park District shall be obligated to observe the terms and conditions of the Lease applicable to Tenant; provided, however, that the Peoria Park District shall have no personal liability to Landlord, Tenant or any third parties with respect to the Lease, the Redevelopment Agreement or the Real Property, with such liability limited strictly to Tenant’s leasehold interest in the Lease; and (iii) the Landlord shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of the Lease and the Redevelopment Agreement directly against the Tenant, who shall continue to have available to it all the rights and obligations of the Tenant under this Lease and Redevelopment Agreement notwithstanding such assignment.

The “Tenant” would be the Peoria Riverfront Museum, and the “obligations under this lease” would include repair, maintenance, alterations, and additions to the building and grounds. If the museum were to assign its interest in the lease to the Park District, then the Park District could use its funds — i.e., Peoria property taxes — to maintain the building and grounds. Here you can check about student loan interest deduction with guide of an experienced firm like taxfyle. That would certainly be more than taxpayers bargained for if they approve the sales tax referendum on April’s ballot.

No deal has been made to assign the lease to the Park District at this time according to Cassidy. But the legal language is in place and could be acted upon if the sales tax referendum is approved and construction of the facility is allowed to proceed. It’s something to think about when you go to the polls on April 7.

Museum Block, Peoria County

Sales tax referendum for museum will be on April ballot

25 Comments

From Peoria County’s website:

Peoria County Board Approves Sales Tax Referendum for April Ballot

At a special board meeting earlier this evening [Jan. 27], the Peoria County Board approved the following resolution to place a referendum on the Consolidated General Election ballot this April that asks voters to raise the county’s sales tax rate by 1/4 of 1% to help fund public facilities. If approved by the electorate, the sales tax increase would be applied on retail sales of non-titled goods and would be the equivalent of twenty-five cents (25¢) for every $100 purchased. The referendum includes a sunset clause setting the tax increase to expire twenty (20) years from its effective date of January 1, 2010. Money collected from the increase would be used to help fund construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

Peoria County’s role through the April 7, 2009 consolidated election is not to advocate for or against the passing of this referendum, but rather to educate the public on the sales tax increase and its intent. County Board Members Andrew Rand and James Dillon will host an informational town hall meeting on March 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Bradley University’s Baker Hall Auditorium, Room B51. More information regarding this town hall meeting will be forthcoming.

The resolution is available for download here: www.peoriacounty.org/county/files/get/Jan09PRMrefe.pdf

For more information regarding the referendum, please call County Administration at (309) 672-6056.

I’m especially intrigued by the statement, “Peoria County’s role through the April 7, 2009 consolidated election is not to advocate for or against the passing of this referendum….” Does that mean that they will publish the pros and cons of the sales tax, the way the State published the pros and cons of holding a constitutional convention? Or does it mean that they will give multiple opportunities for the museum to sell the supposed benefits of the tax increase (without any counterargument offered) under the pretense of “providing information”?

Oh wait, I think I have the answer to that question:

Town Hall Meeting re Riverfront Museum Financing

Peoria County Board Members Andrew Rand (District 4) and James Dillon (District 7) will be hosting an informational town hall meeting regarding the Peoria Riverfront Museum and a county-wide temporary sales tax referendum at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, March 9 at Bradley University, Baker Hall Auditorium B51.

Jim Richerson, CEO of Lakeview Museum, will explain the Museum Project, and Erik Bush, CFO, County of Peoria, will explain public and private financing efforts. Scott Sorrel, Assistant to the County Administrator, will present as well. The intent of this town hall meeting is two-fold: to raise awareness of the Museum Project and to educate the public about a county-wide sales tax referendum that will appear on the Consolidated General Election ballot this April. All interested persons are encouraged to attend.

Nope, no advocacy there.