According to the recently-published Peoria Riverfront Museum redevelopment agreement, the County wants to obtain the museum site from the City for one dollar.
The site is reportedly valued at $10 million. The City acquired it after Sears moved from downtown to Northwoods Mall in 1998. At that time, the City also acquired the remaining parcels on the block, and in 2005 Caterpillar razed the land to prepare it for construction of the proposed museum and Caterpillar visitors center.
“The City’s conveyance [of the land] is in essence a $10 million contribution to the project,” explained County Administrator Patrick Urich. “In fact, the $145 million price tag figure for the entire project (Cat, PRM and parking deck) includes the City’s contribution and the $2 million Water Street upgrade.”
City representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment, except for at-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg. “Selling price toooo low. Should be $10,000,001.00 and I’ll give them the dollar,” he said via e-mail.
Urich also stated that, “Since at least February, the City has not given any of the parties any indication that they object to conveying the property to the County.” The Council has taken no public action or made any public comments regarding conveyance of the land to my knowledge.
The last museum agreement the City approved called for them to lease the land to the Peoria Riverfront Museum for $1/year for 99 years, not deed them the land permanently. “Initially there were discussions that included a ground lease,” Urich continued, “but since February (publicly at the County Board Committee of the Whole meeting) and prior to that in the negotiating sessions we have discussed the City conveying the property to the County.”
The City is facing a budget deficit of more than $10 million in 2011.
As I recall from the conception of the museum on the Sears block site it has ALWAYS been the intention of the city to donate the land to the museum project and in fact I recall many discussion around the horseshoe from many of our “esteemed” councilmembers that that would be there only contribution to the project. They kept hammering on how generous they were being donating the land to the museum. I’m sure a quick check of minutes would bear this out with some great historical quotes from those in office at the time.
So I don’t think anyone should be surprised that this is what is being contemplated at this point nor that the museum expects to get the land essentially for free. They’ve been told that for a decade by the City. Nothing new that I can see about this arrangement other than that the County is now involved when back there it was only an agreement between the City and Museum.
I don’t believe they ever said they would donate the land — as in conveying ownership to the PRM or anyone else. They certainly were willing to donate use of the land, which they acquired for no small amount of taxpayer money. That’s still a great value for the museum, and frankly is very generous of the City. However, giving away a $10 million asset forever — conveying ownership to the County — is a horse of a different color.
I would add that times have changed. The museum never fulfilled their agreement with the City, and the City is under no obligation to give them the land anymore. The City is in much worse fiscal condition now and can ill afford to give it away.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x312167059/Riverfront-Museum-pushes-forward
The redevelopment agreement, …. stipulates that the city convey the nearly 4-acre museum site to the county and that the county constructs and owns the parking deck and museum facility.
….. Lakeview already has approved the agreements. The city could vote Aug. 17, though Mayor Jim Ardis said they “need some work.”
CJ: Could this be the horse?
I’ll give the city $5 for the land!
Charlie: If you will lease out the land for $1.00 per year, in five years you will make back your investment.
“It has been a decade-long vision that central Illinois would be able to enjoy a magnificent centerpiece on its riverfront in conjunction with Caterpillar that will represent the next 50 years of cultural, scientific and education opportunities for central Illinois,” said County Board member Andrew Rand, chairman of the county’s museum construction committee.
– Who is Andrew Rand…and what the hell does he know about museums?!?
– …”will represent the next 50 years of cultural, scientific and education opportunities for central Illinois.”
What?!?!? Did he really say that?
Here I thought the Redneck Asian Carp Fishing Tournament was going to do all that….?
Wow! The next thing you know the council will put the whole city up for sale to Friedrichshafen if they’ll build a Zeppelin plant here.
NV: Yes, he actually made that statement as I heard it at the press conference.
True, Karrie, but I gotta wait 6 years to see any profit, so I propose that the city give me $9 million dollars to reimburse my expenses of providing this land for the county to rent so that the museum can charge people to visit Caterpillar’s visitor center.
Charlie – I’ll up your bid. I’ll give them $2 a year for 99 years payable now, upfront, in cash. 🙂
Did the quick check I mentioned on September 23, 2003 the agreement approved by the City Council was explained to them as follows (only quoting short relevent section on price – though the discussion on some other elements was very interesting and humorous give the passage of time / events):
“Corporation Counsel Randy Ray explained the agreement was to lease 56% of the Sears Block to the
museum for 75 years for $1 per year. He said the museum would build a $48 million structure on the
premises which would include approximately 110,000 square feet and would include a lobby, exhibit areas,
large format theatre, digital dome theatre, and planetarium.”
I see know that you’re distinguishing on selling / leasing the land for this effort. No matter which work / concept utilized; it is still clear that the Council has always planned to cede control, use and potential revenue from this parcel to the museum effort.
Some other interesting quotes from the minutes:
“Council Member Spears thanked former City Council Member Steve Kouri for his early vision of moving
Lakeview Museum to the downtown area. He said he felt the Council was making a mistake by not giving
the entire block to the museum. He expressed concern about future expansion and whether or not they would
have the needed land. He thanked everyone who had kept the project together over the past three years. He
also thanked former City Council Member Bruce Brown for his advice about the importance of this project.”
I particularly like this one as it came to pass (partly) AFTER this quote:
“Council Member Sandberg further thanked former City Council Member James Bateman for his support of
the Civic Center twenty years ago. He read from the 1976 minutes regarding the vote of 5 years to 4 nays for
the Civic Center funding. He said he felt in that twenty years that the City should have learned more about
regionalism. He said he felt the museum should be funded regionally and not just locally.”
As with the county taxes, this is now at least county IF not fully regionally based.
Sad thing in reading those old minutes is that was when the City began dealing with large deficits. Seems like it’s taking them as long to right their own budget (over 7 years) as it has for the museum to be built (and that’s not tying those two project together – though a great lede for those of you against the museum).
Careful charlie, you might be able to buy it for $5 but they will still assess the property at $10 million and tax you accordingly.
No, charlie will just organize as a nonprofit and not pay the taxes.
““Council Member Spears thanked former City Council Member Steve Kouri for his early vision of moving Lakeview Museum to the downtown area…”
– Whoooaa… I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative effort? I really wish Ray LaHood was here to chime in on this………
So wait, did the City already sell the 2-acre portion owned by Cat or will they be leasing that portion of the Block as well?
Leasing or selling……. $1.00 is still only $1.00. I am thinking the City knew the [money] well would run dry even before ‘they’ tapped into it.
What I find ‘funny’ is that many Peoria ‘movers & shakers’ are still promoting other not-for-profit organizations/causes. John Erwin is trying to put together a ‘business plan’ for Wildlife Pr. Park. State funds have dried up and WPP has definately sprung a leak & is in danger of sinking.
If I recall [and I do], he is also a huge supporter of the PRM. Might have been nice to ‘spread the wealth’ a little. Ah well… who needs Wildlife Pr. Park when we have the future PRM to take care of all of our… “cultural, scientific and education” needs.
We can’t raise taxes again to support another not-for-profit… can we?
As much as the Museum Group has failed to fulfill so many other promises that they have made during this decade long project, it would be an absolute tragedy if the City Council and County Board approved any agreement with these buffons without a signed and sealed IMAX contract. Without a valid IMAX contract I’m willing to forecast that Richerson will announce sometime before the end of the year, that IMAX is not willing to give his museum a agreement “which the PRM can agree with” and therefore they are going to proceed with just a “giant screen theater” thereby putting all the pressure on the County to proceed. However, any sensible person can recognize that without the name and brand of IMAX, the whole project falls on its face, many of you feel the project already falls on its face, but without the IMAX brand as an attraction, I would agree that the project will never have any chance of attracting sufficient people to the site to have achance of breaking even on it’s annual operations. Even Caterpillar staff ought to have the foresight to recognize the absolute necessity of a signed IMAX contract before approving this Redevelopment Agreement.
With the addition of an IMAX being only one of the unresolved issues concerning the PRM, one wonders how/why this project is even moving ahead at all.
Now of course… if the Journal Star would only report on stuff like this, maybe the PRM wouldn’t have [what little] support it now enjoys.
TIF!!!!
$3 for 99 years, a $10,000 cash contribution to political campaign, and free parking at the Courthouse… no, at the Cat VIP deck. (I still want the $9 million, though)
Rand owns the local ambulance service here (Mobile Medics) and is the bestest of friends with Van Auken and was with her when Van Auken tried to rouse a frat house a few years ago drunk. Remember? She poked a cop in the chest and called him a fake cop. I so want to do that someday but I think I would have been tazed and cuffed with six fake cops holding my chest to the concrete with their knees.
Emtronics,
Soooo……. what you are saying here is Rand IS an expert on museums?
Will sleep better at night knowing that.
emtronics:
the poked bradley officer was a female, not a ‘him.’ otherwise, correct.
Yes thanks for the correction. Kinky though, having HER knee in my back while being cuffed. NV: I never said Rand is an expert on anything but cocktails. Still, with Van Auken, the two of them could build mountains and maybe a museum.
…when their not turning water into wine………..
Wow – this is WAY late to the party but maybe next time an unpopular idea like this gets floated…why doesn’t the opposition unite and raise money to BUY the piece of land in question?
Imagine a group that got together that raised even – say $2 million. They could go to the cash strapped city and say “We’d like to buy the block for $2 million. We are willing to, immediately, donate the block BACK to the city as long as the city will guarantee that no tax-payer funds were expended on the block for the next 25 years.”
I guess that is the biggest problem here. This museum looks like a stinker from the get-go but there isn’t a Plan B. I think this may be the Block Backers biggest coup. Whether this is something they worked for or whether it is an oversight by the opposition.
I guess this is something I am going to try and take away from this discussion. The need to turn the question from Yes or No to This or That.
Years from now, the “I told you so” won’t matter. It hasn’t mattered in the past. As kooky and misguided as he comes across, Gary Sandberg has been right enough for his lone “No” votes to be vindicated many times over, but he is still, often, the lone “No” vote.
Anyone who approves of selling for $1 a property that is worth, perhaps 10 million times that during such hard economic times is, well, kooky itself.
anon e. mouse ….. the county wants the city to convey the land for $0.00 not even $1.00.
The City already committed to granting use of the land for the museum years ago. There is nothing new in this recent announcement OTHER than that now the County is involved where when originally discussed they weren’t a party.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the City already committed that their contribution would be the donation of the land toward the museum project. Like it or not, it’s a little disingenuous to get all worked up as if this is something new, insipid, or otherwise devious dealing. It’s just the time of reckoning (finally) on the land conveyance.
“Already committed?”
– Interesting choice of words, considering the ENTIRE project today is nothing like the museum plan proposed “years ago.”
– The words “insipid” and “devious” I think, are more appropriate…..
– Anyone have the LATEST attendance figures/projections? I mean… how many thousands is this ‘inter-disciplinary’ wonder-house supposed to draw annually?
Peo Proud: The County has publically stated from the beginning that the county must own the land in order to be allowed by state statute to own the building. Mr. Urich and Mr. Atkins cobbled together two statutes.
So, either the county needs to own the land in order to proceed or the county does not need to own the land in order to proceed or or or or …… just can’t have it all ways.
Now, if we had an exhibit like the Solar Flower — The Giant Robot of Buenos Aires on the block, then just maybe attendance would enhanced.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/4007754192/
Karrie – $1 or $0 doesn’t really matter when compared to $10 million, does it?
Mouse: Haven’t you heard the elected official mantra? We cannot bind the hands of future boards by actions we take today ……… so, per your idea, said group raises $2M and gives to the city council and asks for your caveat … We are willing to, immediately, donate the block BACK to the city as long as the city will guarantee that no tax-payer funds were expended on the block for the next 25 years.”
That $2M purchases that option until the next document is brought forward by the city council to undo that ‘limiting’ vote.
I would propose this action instead. Elected officials would not vote to get $24M (one of the earlier asking prices) for this project, by raising the property tax levy for 20 years to obtain funding from the Public Building Commission for a project which was not a core service (taken from the Peoria County prepared museum book).
Why not?
Because even the dimmest bulb in the box knew that that would be political suicide to vote for a property tax increase for a non-core service project. Instead, let’s petition the legislative to change the statute —- to give the voters an opportunity — when elected officials did not have the fortitude to stop the expansion of local government.
Karrie,
According to Peo Proud, “it’s a little disingenuous to get all worked up as if this is something new, insipid, or otherwise devious dealing!”
Are we …….. over reacting?
NV: It is similar to being a parent with a teenager. You ask your teenager to clean up his room (in my case a son). He is not keen on the idea. Then all of a sudden he receives a telephone call and his friend wants to pick him up in five minutes for some exciting event. My son promises me that he must go to this event and that he will for sure clean up his room upon his return. So, I relent (I wouldnt’ in reality). He goes to the event, forgets to wear sunblock and comes home as a ripe tomato sunburned son. He is not able/willing to clean up his room.
This scenario has regrettably played out with the museum project — if only …. we get this …. then surely we will be able to achieve that ….. that is why the project is at least ten years old and still not finished. Never enough.
Not over reacting, just same only song, add another verse.
Agree.
I am trying to get the facts on the PRM. Please read my blogs today. I earlier this year stated I received an email from City Manager Moore who carboned in the Mayor. Mr. Moore said the City of Peoria contriuted $18.5 million to the project.
Mayor ardis said it was less, more like $12-$14 million including the land. Now some Coucil Members are questioning why the City gave away the land.
They are forgetful; they said it was to keep Caterpillar in Peoria. Have we forgotten that Caterpillar said they would not build their Vistors Center unless the REGIONAL (ha) Museum was built next door.
$12 million to $18.5 million [I’m thinking its more like $18.6 million], plus the entire Sears block? Dang!! How generous!
Well…. whats a few million plus or minus? I am trying to remember how many people claimed that the city wasn’t ‘donating’ anything…?
How many of you Peoria Chronicle posters said the PRM was strictly a CAT/Peoria County/Donor affair?
– Here is a blast from the past!
Journal Star
Posted Feb 08, 2009 @ 01:07 AM
“Calling it Peoria’s own economic stimulus package, two Bradley University professors said Wednesday that the $136 million Peoria Riverfront Museum and the Caterpillar Visitor’s Center projects could generate more than a half-billion dollars of local economic growth over the next two decades.”
– Etc, etc! I’m sorry…, but you ‘nay-sayers’ have me perplexed. How can we turn down a half-billion dollars?!?
*If you were sitting next to me right now….you would be wondering why I am laughing so hard, my cheap domestic wine is spurting out my nose. Would a California vintage be considered domestic? What about a nice red from Arizona?