The Illinois House last week threw its weight behind a bill that would prohibit the Village of Brookfield from imposing an amusement tax on the Brookfield Zoo. By a vote of 113 to 0, members of the House on Jan. 7 concurred with the state senate, which voted to pass the bill in November. The bill now awaits the signature of Gov. Pat Quinn.
While state senators representing parts of Brookfield voted to pass the bill, the area’s state representatives punted. Rep. Bob Biggins (R-41st) – who signed on as a co-sponsor in November, removed himself as a co-sponsor two weeks later, and then signed back on the same day – voted present. Rep. Michael Zalewski (D-21st), who had not signed on as a co-sponsor, did not vote.
The passage of the bill marks an apparent defeat for the village, which sought to gain additional revenue through the imposition of a tax on zoo admission fees.
“I’m very disappointed in the General Assembly,” said Village President Michael Garvey, who noted that state representatives and senators took away from Brookfield a right that every other municipality in the state has.
But, said Garvey, “I’m politically informed enough to know why it happened.”
Garvey criticized Biggins’ “present” vote, saying, “It didn’t serve the best interests of the people he represents in Brookfield. It’s dodging the issue.”
Biggins denied dodging the issue, saying that if wanted to do that, he wouldn’t have voted at all. He expressed being uncomfortable intervening in a local dispute. But while complimenting Garvey for being “a good leader in his town,” Biggins “didn’t want to say no to the zoo.”
On the other hand, Garvey said he talked with Zalewski, who told him he inadvertently missed the vote. The bill was one of the first called this morning, Garvey said, and Zalewski didn’t hear the call.
“It was inadvertent on his part, and I believe him,” said Garvey who personally lobbied Biggins and Zalewski to stand by the village on the issue.
Zalewski later said he would have voted “present” had he not missed the vote. He had voted “present” on the bill during its presentation to the House revenue and finance committee meeting the previous night.
“I felt it was a regional dispute between the zoo and the village,” said Zalewski. “I didn’t feel it was the best approach for the General Assembly to intervene on the behalf of a not-for-profit.”
Zalewski added: “I regret not being in the chamber [when the vote was called], but my vote would not have made a bit of difference.”
The Chicago Zoological Society, which operates Brookfield Zoo, lobbied state legislators hard, winning the support of state Sen. Louis Viverito, who attached the provision outlawing a municipality from imposing an amusement tax on a Cook County Forest Preserve zoo to an unrelated motor fuel tax bill.
The zoo said such a tax would threaten its financial well-being and result in layoffs and program cuts. On Dec. 13, the same day Brookfield village trustees voted to impose a 25-cent-per-paid-admission tax on the zoo, the Chicago Zoological Society announced it was laying off 11 staffers and closing two animal yards, among other cuts.
On Monday, Matthew Mayer, vice president of government affairs for the Chicago Zoological Society, said the cuts made in December would not be reversed in light of the House vote.
However, he thanked legislators for their support.
“The Chicago Zoological Society is grateful to members of the Illinois General Assembly who stood with Brookfield Zoo and supported overwhelmingly a legislative measure that will save jobs at the state’s most popular attraction,” Mayer said.
It’s unclear just how much the village might have received in annual revenue from the 25-cent-per-paid-admission tax it imposed in December. Figures suggest it might have been between $360,000 and $500,000. That represents less than 1 percent of the zoo’s total revenue, based on the zoo’s 2009 tax returns. In 2009, the zoo’s revenues amounted to $59.8 million.
Garvey, meanwhile, said the Brookfield board will consider its legal options during a closed session scheduled for Monday night. Garvey indicated that “there’s a question as to if this bill does what the zoo thinks it does.”
The bill prohibits the imposition of a tax, to be sure, but the village imposed it before the bill was passed. It still has not been signed into law.
“We believe we have a valid amusement tax that we passed,” Garvey said. “It went into effect on December 23.”
Mayer declined to comment on Garvey’s statement regarding the validity of the tax passed by the village in December. He said he hoped that legislation would end this particular chapter in what has been a contentious six months for the zoo and village.
“The passage of the bill represents an opportunity for village officials to turn the page,” Mayer said. “We are hopeful that village officials will be more inclined to finally engage in a dialogue with the zoo about how we can work together.
“To date the village has only wanted to talk about one thing – how Brookfield Zoo can give the village more cash on an annual basis,” Mayer added.
Garvey also called the house’s vote ironic in light of an expected increase in the state income tax.
“On the same day they’re apparently about to impose a huge tax increase, the fact that our 25-cent amusement tax is viewed as too onerous is ironic to me,” Garvey said.