A number of agreements regarding the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum were passed by the Peoria County Board on Thursday. They passed nearly unanimously, with only board members Merle Widmer and Brad Harding voting nay.
The six agenda items pertaining to the museum included an ordinance and five resolutions:
- An ordinance for the issuance of $41,600,000 debt to cover construction expenses for the museum
- A resolutions approving the museum “facilities design concept”
- A resolution approving a $5,040,000 bid from Williams Brothers Construction to building the museum parking deck
- A resolution approving engineering agreements with PSA-Dewberry and Whitney & Associates for “construction oversight and material testing” for the project
- A resolution approving the museum redevelopment agreement
- A resolution approving a Capital Facility Development, Lease and Operating Agreement
Dave Ransburg and Ryan Beasley (the chair and vice chair of the Peoria Riverfront Museum, respectively) gave presentations on behalf of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. Ransburg stated that this will be the “greatest building built in Peoria since the Civic Center.” He also gave a brief history of how we got to this point, stressing that thousands of hours and millions of dollars have already been spent on this project.
Beasley gave a lengthy presentation, including an update on the IMAX situation. He stated that “it has always been our plan” to deliver a “giant screen” theater with a 70′ x 52′ screen capable of showing 2D and 3D digital, ultra-high definition movies. While that may well have always been their plan, they’ve told the public in no uncertain terms they would be building an IMAX theater, specifically. It’s well documented, even on their own “Build the Block” website.
Beasley went on to say that the museum is “a mission-driven organization,” and that the theater has to fit with their mission, which is “to inspire lifelong learning for ALL, connecting art, history, science and achievement through collections, exhibitions and programs.” In order to do that, the museum has three “negotiating terms”: control over programming, technology, and exclusivity. The biggest obstacle is control over programming. The museum wants to show “classic” (i.e., educational) films during the day and second-run movies on evenings and weekends. That has been IMAX’s traditional model. However, IMAX is apparently interested in seeing their theaters run more first-run movies — what they call “day and date DMR” movies — that would require multiple showings for the first two or three weeks the movie is out. “DMR” is IMAX’s proprietary large-screen film process. The museum’s concern is that agreeing to “day and date DMR” would be more profitable, but violate their mission. They’re also concerned about being required to show some films that are R-rated or otherwise not family-friendly.
The “next steps” for the museum are:
- To “continue preferred IMAX path” — that is, they’re going to continue negotiating with IMAX. Board member Merle Widmer asked about an e-mail one of his constituents received that indicated IMAX “does not have a client interested in opening an IMAX theatre in Peoria.” Beasley stated that was not surprising, given that IMAX received an inquiry from the general public about their “internal operations” — he would expect them to either give no answer, or to answer in the negative. He assured Widmer that he could provide proof of on-going negotiations with IMAX on IMAX letterhead. Media inquiries to IMAX by the Peoria Chronicle have gone unanswered.
- To “continue to evaluate alternative options,” none of which have “the brand power of IMAX,” he admitted.
- To “communicate progress and direction” to everyone, including the County Board and the general public.
There was another speaker (didn’t catch his name, sorry) who provided an overview of the building and grounds. There will be three “free-standing” signs (they looked like monument signs in the illustration) that would be lighted. Also, on the large blank walls of the museum, there will be humongous banners that can be used for decoration and/or to advertise the movie(s) playing at the “giant screen” theater. The only entrances are the main entrance off of Washington street and the elevator entrance from the parking garage. Thus, most of the area around the museum will be dead space (i.e., there will be no meaningful pedestrian activity outside).
County Administrator Patrick Urich explained that the cost of the project (including the parking deck) has risen from $83.4 million in April 2009, to $87.1 million in February 2010, to $92,198,731 this month. He then went on to talk about various “protections” that are built in to the agreements. For instance, there is $4.3 million in construction contingencies that will not be spent if the bids come in on budget and there are no change orders. There are also fundraising requirements built into the development and lease agreement with the museum: they have to raise $2.5 million by October 2011 and another $2.5 million by October 2012. If they don’t reach this target, then they have to reduce their capital or operating budgets “consistent with the shortfall from the goal.”
This is a marked departure from assurances the County gave to voters before the April 2009 referendum that no construction would start until the money was raised. In the July 9, 2009 Regular County Board Meeting minutes, it states explicitly, “Mr. Urich replied that currently the commitment for private funding is $8,000,000.00. If the funding is not there on the private side, the project will not go forward.” And later in the same meeting, “Mr. Urich has made it clear that ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8,000,000.00 in private funds to cover the gap.” Now, this has been replaced with toothless requirements that money be raised during construction.
Against all evidence to the contrary, everyone seems to be very confident in the museum’s ability to raise additional funds. When asked in a follow-up question about the stall in fundraising, Beasley said that “it’s not as simple as passing the referendum and then the money flows in,” although they did receive some additional funding (he declined to specify how much). Of course, this is exactly what the museum group assured us would happen before the referendum. Then, the only thing holding up donations was the referendum. But now people “want to see shovels in the ground” before they give more money, so we need to start building to get more funds, Beasley said. The target continues to move.
Several board members stated that the agreements weren’t “perfect,” but that they were “very good.” Several board members also stated that they had reservations and concerns about the plans, but not enough to vote against going forward. And there were a lot of self-congratulatory speeches all around as the final votes were taken.
Did all 18 board members vote on this agreement? IF not who was absent?
This is the biggest load of CRAP Peoria has ever seen! The County was supposed to be the ‘guiding hand’ here. Instead of restraint and good judgment, we get Peoria County recklessly barreling ahead because the plan looks……”very good?”
Let Ardis do his ‘posturing’, as if the outcome -so far as the city is concerned- is at all in doubt.
1) “This is not a perfect product, but perfect is the enemy of good. This is a good product that substantially protects the financial interests of the taxpayers of Peoria County”
The taxpayers of Peoria County do not want a good product…they want a GREAT product. Yes, it doesn’t have to perfect. But if attendance figures are not what is projected, with or without IMAX, guess who will might be getting the bill to subsidize the operations?
2) (Playing Devils advocate here) Some brand names have become synonymous with the actual product they sell. When was the last time you said, “someone get me a facial tissue”, instead of “Kleenex”? When was the last time you cut a finger, and needed a ‘bandage’ instead of “Band-Aid”? When was the last time you made a “Gelatin Dessert” instead of “Jello”? IMO, that’s the same mindset people have with IMAX. It has come to represent the ultimate 3-D experience. But just like Band-Aid, Kleenex & Jello have competitors in their product areas, IMAX does too, and I don’t see anything wrong with exploring other 3-D theater providers.
Sorry, quote in my comment was from the PJS website.
Judging by the City’s track record at killing or crippling development down by the riverfront (casino, Embassy Suites), I’m hoping they go for the trifecta and kill the museum just as easily.
“Judging by the City’s track record at killing or crippling development down by the riverfront (casino, Embassy Suites), I’m hoping they go for the trifecta and kill the museum just as easily.”
– I agree, but lets hope they can keep the collateral damage to a minimum……
The bait-and-switch on the design plan (IMAX/planetarium) is one thing (as deceptive as that is/was). The part that really galls me is the ‘assurances the County gave to voters before the April 2009 referendum that no construction would start until the money was raised. In the July 9, 2009 Regular County Board Meeting minutes, it states explicitly, “Mr. Urich replied that currently the commitment for private funding is $8,000,000.00. If the funding is not there on the private side, the project will not go forward.” And later in the same meeting, “Mr. Urich has made it clear that ground will not be broken, even for the parking deck, until there is $8,000,000.00 in private funds to cover the gap.” Obviously, these people have no integrity whatsoever. The COP needs to hold the County accountable…but they won’t. They are knee-deep in it already.
One: Junior Watkins was absent; I don’t know why. Also, Bartolo abstained from the resolution on the Williams Brothers Construction bid (some sort of conflict of interest regarding his employer), and Mayer abstained from the resolution on the engineering agreements because his wife works for PSA-Dewberry.
All: If you get a chance, read Billy’s post on “The ‘sunk cost fallacy'” because this was exactly what Ransburg was promoting last night — this idea that we’ve put so much time and money into it already, it would be a waste to kill the project now. The word used on Wikipedia to describe this kind of thinking hits the nail on the head: irrational.
Dennis in Peoria: You’ve named brands that have generally-accepted substitutes. But there are brands to which many people are loyal and will not accept substitutes. Many people prefer Coke over Pepsi, or Budweiser over Miller, etc. And that’s just a couple of examples where there are two or more well-known brands for the same product. When it comes to IMAX, there are no other competitors that have comparable brand recognition in the giant-screen-theater business. And here’s the thing: the profitability of the museum is based on having an IMAX theater in particular, not a generic giant-screen theater.
CJ have you contacted the Mayor since there early morning CLOSED DOOR meeting about OUR money.
As stated by C,J., both I and Brad Harding voted no. I gave extensive background as to why I was voting no. Board Member Democrat Allen Mayer attepted to get Democrat Board Chairman Tom O’Neill to shut me up: O’Neill attempted to but attorney Bill Atkins told O”Neill he could not do that.
I asked Mr. Beasley from Caterpillar, as a favor, to send me some documentation that would verify that they were in constant contact with IMAX. He did not assure me he would.
Two Democrats told myself and Harding that they wanted to vote no but had too much pressure on them from a special interest group.
Union boss Mike Everett attends every meeting.
Interesting.
Board member Baietto wants the ISHA to be represented on the museum and had to vote yes. Board Member Trumpe was put on the PRM Construction Committee and Stephen Morris was made Chair of another, so there were good reasons for them to vote yes.
Also, both Baietto and Trumpe make extra money by being Committee Chairs appointed by Chairman O’Neill, more good reasons for voting yes.
So Merle, are you suggesting that Baietto was merely being a whore to his self-interest?
Spikeless,
Don’t you think it sounds like they are ALL being whores to their own special-interests? Merle and Harding excluded, everyone from the Lakeview crowd… to the Peoria County Board have been whoring themselves since this…’project’ started.
This is our “legacy” to our children?
http://www.petitiononline.com/BTB0001/petition.html
To: Peoria, IL City Council and Peoria County IL Board
We the citizens of Peoria County demand the Museum Project being built on the old Sears block in downtown Peoria include all aspects originally included in the campaign to fund the project through a sales tax increase. Precisely we demand an IMAX brand theater be built at this site as promised during the campaign. In addition, if the project does not include all items mentioned in the original plan, we demand that the county sales tax be repealed immediately.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
If you look around, the SCF is being applied throughout the City.
Karrie… you didn’t sign it.
New Voice, No, I don’t. While I continue to vacillate on the museum, I don’t really see a basis for your suggestion that everyone who favors the museum is being a whore to self-interest.
That being said, I still await Mr. Widmer’s reply to my very specific question.
BTW, NV, the word I have used is “SELF-interest” which is considerably different from “special interest”.
Karrie, where do I sign this petition?
charlie:
I applaud the efforts to get the IMAX to be built as promised pre-referendum vote.
It is interesting that the LVM’s IMAX enlightenment occurred post-referendum.
The IMAX was a huge ‘selling point’ and I know that first hand from working on behalf of Citizens For Responsible Spending. The IMAX promise was a vote-getter.
I understand the explanation given by Ryan Beasley about IMAX’s business requirements and PRM being true to PRM’s mission statement and it seems that the two entities cannot do the ‘tango’.
I do not agree with the museum as designed because the plan was and remains flawed and in my opinion will not be financially successful. The White Oaks Study which LVM / PRM has paid thousands of dollars to prepare and White Oaks is the museum ‘expert’ states that the PRM’s plan is dependent on an IMAX being included. No IMAX or another IMAX in the area, financials will not be met. Financials not met, more taxpayer dollars is the likely bailout scenario.
The lack of the IMAX just makes the PRM more of a ‘sunk cost fallacy’ project.
Therefore, I am unwilling to sign the petition.
The voters were sold a “Queen Mary” Ship and now we are getting the “SS Minow” Ransburg stated that this will be the “greatest building built in Peoria since the Civic Center.” It still bleeds red ink to this day.
No one from the public spoke aginst this issue? Just board members Brad and Merle? this ship has set sail and Brad and Merle got off, Next port of call City Council. I am sure this will be blessed by some there and set sail into a storm of prblems that we all will pay for years and years.. Is Cat still on board this ship? or are they capable of jumping ship? If they were also promissed the IMAX could they have an out?
Where’s Diane? I haven’t read a comment on here from her lately concerning this museum subject.
Are the pom-pom’s in mothballs?
Spikeless,
Really though……. aren’t you getting just a little weird?
Point taken, CJ, on the brands issue. That’s why in previous paragraph I made comment on what could happen without IMAX.
I have stated in past that I do hope the Museum is built and becomes successful; I just know many folks that comment on the blogs are not too confident in the PRM. At this point, I am not sure what avenues Peoria County residents have to stop this process if they really feel the PRM should not be built at all, IMAX or no IMAX.
My point with all this is…..
Sure, the PRM does not need a “perfect” plan. The problem is that they do not even have a “good” plan. We have a number of former and current city/county politicians, big-time local business execs, so-called pillars of the community, etc. The ONLY people associated with this project who has any knowledge of how a museum operates is the Lakeview crew, and I would call their experience and knowledge with a project of this magnitude…’limited’ at best. I would think by now this entire ‘affair’ has become more than a little embarrassing for those involved.
The economic impact of this project was considered so important that they bullied a couple of Bradley econ profs to ‘whip up’ some rather…’fantastic numbers.’ Yet no one has thought to consult an actual museum expert. White Oaks? Please, you get what you pay for.
What ever Peoria decides to invest in and build, we always get the same group of omniscient blowhards calling the shots. We have plenty of ‘experts’ throwing their opinions around.
HELL, we even have Ransburg screaming about that damned ugly hole in the ground again! Very professional.
Did the PRM ever consider bringing in someone who actually knows something about museums?
New Voice, would I be correct in assuming that you are an actual museum expert? I mean, since you have decided that it is not a “good” plan?
I don’t think C.J. or Karrie, for example, are actual museum experts. However, they have provided an intelligent, thoughtful rationale for their opposition. Should we dismiss them as “omniscient blowhards”, if they are not actual museum experts?
Jon,
Yes, C.J. and Karrie have both spent a great deal of time providing all of us with “an intelligent, thoughtful rationale for their opposition.” Over the YEARS so have I, so have a great many people.
AND?
Whether I am a museum expert or not is not the point is it Jon? I think most of us [including you] know that those who are in charge of this multi-million dollar, tax payer funded ‘project’ ARE DEFINITELY NOT MUSEUM EXPERTS!
Take your sanctimonious crap and stuff it Jon. The time for your ‘good manners’ is at an end. The amount of time and money that has been poured into this project over the years is a sin. That we still have the city, county, and CAT discussing what is and what is not a “deal breaker” is a bigger sin. Is “deal breaker” the new catch-phrase?
Maybe if our little ‘museum battle’ hit the news wires, our ‘blowhards’ would think twice before spouting their junk in the J Star. This project and the people in charge of it have become a downright embarrassment to the city AND county. Read the latest J Star article and tell me it isn’t so.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s $1 million or $10 million,” Ransburg said. “All along, (the property) has been their contribution on the project. Now they are saying . . . we want to do a different deal with the county.”
Seriously, he had the balls to say this.
You can’t make this stuff up.
“I applaud the efforts to get the IMAX to be built as promised pre-referendum vote. ”
Karrie… there will be no IMAX. IMAX has so announced. The petition, requiring IMAX or an end to the project, demands an end to the project.
They couldn’t get back to the original plans now if God intervened.
Aww… Mazr, do ya miss me? My thoughts haven’t changed. I would still like to see a museum downtown. You all work out the details and then send me a memo will ya?
Karrie, your stated reason for not signing the petition is pure nonsense. What am I missing? Specifically, you dedicate several paragraphs to explaining how you agree with the petition’s purpose and conclude by saying that’s why you are unwilling to sign it.
Why post the link and bash the museum at every turn yet be unwilling to sign the petition?
Nontimedum:
I respect your right to your opinion and I will agree to disagree with your opinion.
BTB promised an IMAX, the county promoted on their own County generated flyers for Town Hall meetings that an IMAX was part of THE PLAN and the PRM should deliver an IMAX.
The petition language ….
We the citizens of Peoria County demand the Museum Project being built on the old Sears block in downtown Peoria include all aspects originally included in the campaign to fund the project through a sales tax increase. Precisely we demand an IMAX brand theater be built at this site as promised during the campaign. In addition, if the project does not include all items mentioned in the original plan, we demand that the county sales tax be repealed immediately.
Did you see the PRM presenations at the recent Peoria County Board Meeting …. the presentation focused on some of the other elements that were promised during the BTB campaign?
However, have you read the redevelopment agreement just signed?
All of the elements promised by the BTB campaign and some of the same elements promised by the PRM (one major exception the GST (possibly and IMAX or some other format) is substituted for the IMAX specifically promoted, promised and published for the referendum are listed in the redevelopment agreement starting on page 378 with the agenda briefing. Please refer to page xxx cover ron page xxx at this link
http://www.peoriacounty.org/countyBoard/files/get/Agenda_and_Minutes%2F2010%2FAugust%2F12+-+Monthly%2FPeoria+County+Board+Meeting+Agenda+Packet+2010-08-12+18-00.pdf
The exhibit galleries are anticipated to be divided into several experience platforms or themed areas. Each area will be planned to accommodate a range of exhibits and programs using built-in resources.
The Museum may include some of the following components, as well as others:
• Free Zone and Lobby
• Exhibition Galleries
• International Feature Gallery (Smithsonian and temporary exhibitions)
? Fine Art and Folk Art
? The Street (history)
? Peak Performance Center (Illinois High School Association)
? Illinois River Encounter
? Discovery Worlds I & II
• Giant Screen Digital Theater
• Expanded Concessions Area
• Digital Dome Planetarium
• Pre-School; Classrooms
• Multipurpose Auditorium
• Offices, Exhibition Prep and Storage, General Storage
• Outdoor Exhibits and Museum Programming
• Retail
Please note the following emphasis …. The Museum may include some of the following components, as well as others
That’s correct … The Museum MAY include some …. say it isn’t so…..
There is no way to bind the PRM to anything …. it may not even include a GST…..
The county already agreed that they are okay with whatever is eventually put into the building by signing off on the Redevelopment Agreement.
Intent ….
just like the PRM has the ‘best and brightest’ people to help with the new fundraising efforts ….
more Gobbledygook ….
here’s hoping your hip waders don’t have any holes in them …..
New Voice – I think I’ve found something that you will appreciate (sincerely):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM
What is the opinon of those responding to this blog of what would happen to Peoria if we built an IMAX on the block and had no museum at all? Is it a big enough brand seller to bring Peoria money and extended business in the area? I think it is, but I’d like to see the opinon of others more knowledgeable than myself.
When “ifs” and “buts” become candy and nuts, what a lovely party it will be.
There is no IMAX coming to Peoria. There never was an IMAX coming to Peoria. It was a grand prevarication to “sell” this to the stupid, trusting voters.
Karrie, you didn’t answer the question.
Build the museum as promised which includes an IMAX!! Why is Mr. Rannsburg so afraid of the public?
nontimendum,
After every logical argument Karrie has presented against the current museum plan -since its conception- do you really think she has to justify her stance by answering your ridiculous question?
Sorry, it is not my intention to speak for Karrie [or anyone else], but nontimendum’s ‘attitude’ is typical. Someone comes up with a [long] list of reasons why the proposed museum plan is flawed, and they are “bashing” the museum at every turn…..
Museum supporters can’t seem to come up with one valid, data-supported argument FOR the current plan, yet they continue to play the role of ‘community-minded’ citizens, boldly [blindly?] trudging ahead…
“Why is Mr. Rannsburg so afraid of the public?”
– Because it was the ‘public’ that voted him out on his butt………
The age-old question…which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? Which came 1st here, IMAX to commit once everything else is signed and approved, or the County using the IMAX carrot to get voter and city approval?
It could be that IMAX was initially committed to build in Peoria…that may have changed over last 3-4 years, based on their marketing strategies…and even AFTER the referendum passed. Is that the County’s fault if IMAX is now having 2nd thoughts? Or was IMAX waiting until all the redevelopment agreements were approved, and the land deeded over to the PRM from the City?
Just some extra questions that might be needed to ask the Powers-that-be.
Merely pointing out the obvious incongruency between Karrie’s stance against the museum and her unwillingness to sign the petition (or say why).
Thanks though, NV, for offering your own, peculiar brand of clarity. How chivalrous.
Dennis …. how about that the PRM’s business model does not fit IMAX’s business model and vice versa. There is evidence by some of the forum letters published pre-referendum vote that an IMAX was perhaps on shaky ground. When a person writes in their support letter to the PJStar forum …. IMAX-like … adding a hyphen and th word like is a conscious choice.
Nontimedum … I explained twice. At the end of the day, we are not in agreement.
Good question, Karrie..let’s add that to my list for the Powers-that-be.
nontimendum,
You are most welcome! Chivalry is my middle name.
Karrie, you twice explained your opposition to the museum. You have yet to explain your unwillingness to sign the petition.
nontimendum:
Here is the language of the petition …..
To: Peoria, IL City Council and Peoria County IL Board
We the citizens of Peoria County demand the Museum Project being built on the old Sears block in downtown Peoria include all aspects originally included in the campaign to fund the project through a sales tax increase. Precisely we demand an IMAX brand theater be built at this site as promised during the campaign. In addition, if the project does not include all items mentioned in the original plan, we demand that the county sales tax be repealed immediately.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
One try …
First, some of the ‘aspects’ in the original campaign … I do not support — so by signing the petition I would then NOW support all the ‘aspects’ originally included in the campaign that I did not the first time around.
Second, I do support the IMAX that was promised in the campaign.
Third, who knows what the project will entail because as previously explained the Redevelopment Agreement, now signed by the Peoria County Board, has a “may include some of the following” shopping list and I do not agree with some of the ‘aspects’ on the shopping list — please refer to my first reason for not signing. The taxpayer will not know what will be in the building until it is built. And it the endowment is not raised in 2011 and 2012, then perhaps it would be possible to scale back the project even more.
Although, I could sign the petition based on the second reason, the first reason precludes me from signing or I would be inconsistent. Third reason is unattainable and I am not in complete agreement with all ‘aspects’.
Not sure that helps — I still believe we will not be able to agree.
Thanks, Karrie. No, we won’t agree on the museum, but I appreciate your explanation regarding the petition.