Logan County Board votes to put Public Facilities Tax referendum on the March ballot

 

[August 27, 2019] 

At the Logan County Board meeting Tuesday, August 20, one focus of discussion was a tax referendum that would be put on the ballot in March 2020.

Board members present were Dave Blankenship, Emily Davenport, Janet Estill, Bob Farmer, Cameron Halpin, David Hepler, Steve Jenness, Chuck Ruben, Bob Sanders, Scott Schaffenacker, Annette Welch and Jim Wessbecher.

Building and Grounds Committee Chairman Dave Blankenship brought forward several motions related to the referendum.

The first two motions were to rescind motions that occurred during a Special Regular Board Meeting July 23, 2019. At the previous meeting, Welch made a motion seconded by Halpin to move forward with a Public Safety Sales Tax. This tax was Option 2 of a proposition to impose an increase on local sales tax by one-half percent with a 20-year sunset clause to pay for public safety purposes.

At the prior meeting, Ruben then made a motion seconded by Hepler to go out for a bond referendum at the next election in the amount of 50 cents per $100 to be used for courthouse restoration and jail upgrades, subject to drafting of the required language.

On Tuesday, Aug. 20th, the board unanimously voted to rescind both these motions.

Blankenship then made a motion to move forward with a proposition to increase local sales taxes for public facilities purposes. This tax would be Option 4 on the ballot and the question posed would be: To pay for courthouse restoration, shall the county of Logan, Illinois, be authorized to impose an increase on its share of local sales taxes by .5 percent with a 20-year Sunset Clause.

Ruben amended the motion to include “and other county facilities” because when the board met with bond specialist David Pistorius, he said the half-cent on the sales tax could generate up a to a $12 million bond. Since restoration specialist Bill Walter’s estimate for courthouse repairs is close to $8 M and other buildings need repair. Ruben wants to include other buildings on the referendum.

Ruben said just putting the courthouse on the referendum ties the county’s hands of using the full value of the bond and limits the money to being used for the courthouse only.

However, since a referendum is not easy to pass to begin with, Hepler said making it for the courthouse only would make the referendum stand a better chance of passing.

Schaffenacker said the main need is the courthouse and agreed that it has a better chance of passing.

Halpin also agreed that limiting it to just the courthouse is best, and asked whether the extra money could be set aside as a cushion for future repairs to the courthouse. He said we cannot let the building get back to the state that it is in and just continue to put “band-aids” on the courthouse.

The bond would be for the amount needed to do the courthouse, so Ruben said there would not be a pot of money for it. It might be 20 years before more repairs are needed and the county would be paying interest on that money the whole time, which Ruben said would be foolish.

Since several buildings need repairs, Welch said she understands the concern, but would only be in favor of Ruben’s amendment if he changed the sunset clause to 25 years. She feels 20 years does not give them enough money.

Twenty years is already a long time on a bond as it is, and Ruben said he is not even sure 25 years is an option. Though a 25-year bond would generate more money, it would also cost more in interest over that period.

If they did put something in about other public facilities, Davenport asked, who would decide where the extra money would go.

The way the referendum is currently (the original motion included other facilities including the safety complex jail expansion), Ruben said, the money generated would go for the purposes stated. If some of the money was used to buy a bond to do more up front, that would be fine, but the other would stay in an account strictly for the courthouse. The rest would be for whatever building needed it.

Jenness asked whether the board could state that initial funds go primarily to the courthouse and once it is completed, it could be divvied up for other projects. But, Ruben said the question would just get more complicated and confusing.

For the last two referendums that were for public safety purposes, Schaffenacker said, there was a lot of confusion and he believes keeping the referendum as it is for just the courthouse would make it less complicated for the voters.

Some voters in the last election thought the new city complex would house a jail. Schaffenacker said that is why some voted no.

Ruben agreed that for some voters, using the safety complex for the referendum was a stumbling block, but he said many people are aware there are many facilities in the county.

The courthouse is the priority, but Sanders said the problem with the safety complex has not gone away. Sanders had asked earlier whether the safety complex that was in the last referendum was no longer important.

Though Sanders said he cannot blame the others for not understanding the amount of liability in the complex, he feels they cannot just throw the complex project “out the window.” Sanders said because of the liability, the safety complex should still be part of the project, so it would be a major mistake not to have the complex included.

Ruben said that what board needs to keep sight of is that bonds depend on interest rates the county can get. He said rates are good now, but with falling interest rates, they may be two percent lower in a few months.

If that happens, Ruben said by March when they go out for a bond, the county could possibly get $16 M or $17 M instead of $12 M, which is a huge pile of money to leave on the table.

Leaving the language open for a lot of other things is what Jenness said he is concerned about. Jenness said they could get the courthouse partially done just to “kick the can” down the road where future boards could say “we got half of it done, [so] let’s build a new building somewhere else.”

With Lincoln’s economy, Hepler said the county is probably not going to be collecting more sales tax. If anything, the county could be collecting less due to business and factory closures and people leaving. Hepler said there might be just enough money to do a courthouse and he wants to make sure there is enough money to get the courthouse done.

Though Wessbecher said he sees both sides, he feels adding in more buildings like the safety complex would be a “backdoor” plan that would make people say these buildings were snuck in.

Even though Blankenship made the motion the way he did, he said he supports both the courthouse and safety complex projects. Blankenship said he has listened for two years to the public misunderstanding of the referendum and feels that is why it has failed twice.

The board already tried the “coattail approach” on two separate occasions, and Blankenship said the board needs to show agreement on whatever they do. Some are acting as if the county would never be able to get a bond referendum issued again, but Blankenship said it is not like the county cannot go out at a future date to deal with the safety complex issues.

Blankenship said he thinks what the public is looking for [in a referendum] is something very clean and straightforward and the best chance of getting it passed is to say ‘courthouse only.’

After two failed attempts, Blankenship said he wants to make sure they do it right this time. Though the safety complex is a project that does need to be addressed, Blankenship said it can be dealt with down the road.

Ruben’s amendment to add in other buildings to the language on the ballot failed 8-4.

Blankenship, Davenport, Estill, Halpin, Hepler, Jenness, Schaffenacker and Wessbecher voted no.

Farmer, Ruben, Sanders and Welch voted yes.

The original motion for a Public Facilities Tax increase of five percent with a 20-year Sunset Clause to pay for courthouse restoration passed unanimously.

The next motion was to go out for a bond referendum at the next election in the amount of $.50 per $100 to be used for the courthouse restoration, subject to drafting the required language and passage.

Ruben asked what this motion was for, since it sounded like the previous one and the board is not going out for a bond. He said a bond will be what the county will buy with the money from the referendum and a bond cannot be approved until money is there to pay for it.

Blankenship said since there was a bond referendum passed in the special board meeting and rescinded, the new motion needed to be brought forward.

There is $900,000 in Public Safety Tax money the county could say they were going to do a bond with even though they would not do it unless they got the additional money, which is why Ruben said the previous motion was worded that way. That way, the board could send a letter to the state telling them they were getting a bond.

Hepler asked if taking out the word ‘bond’ would work? But, Ruben said it would still be a duplicate motion.

After this discussion, Blankenship withdrew the motion since it was a duplicate.

The board will place a referendum asking for: Public Facilities Tax increase of five percent with a 20-year Sunset Clause to pay for courthouse restoration on the March ballot.

[Angela Reiners]