Tag Archives: Illinois Finance Authority

Wonderful Development still sitting on launching pad

At the request of come commenters, I’ve been trying to get information on what’s new with the Wonderful Development. As far as I can tell, nothing.

The City Council initially approved (by a 10-1 vote) an agreement in December 2008 with EM Properties to redevelop the Pere Marquette block, upgrading the Pere and building a pedestrian bridge across Fulton St. to the Civic Center. EM Properties couldn’t fulfill that agreement, so they came back in May 2010 requesting a new redevelopment agreement that was significantly different than the first one. The new agreement would have two hotels instead of one (i.e., they would still restore the Pere and make it a four-star Marriott, but would also build a separate Courtyard by Marriott on the block), and fewer rooms overall. They also requested $37 million instead of $39 million in bonds (i.e., taxpayer subsidy). At the time, the City reported on their Council Communication, “EM Properties has made modifications to their project and has now secured all necessary private financing.” The new redevelopment agreement was approved by a 7-4 vote.

The agreement required in section 3.3, “No later than ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City the Design Concept Plan for the Project which Design Concept Plan shall contain the Exterior Architectural Appearance of the Project.” And in section 3.5, “No later than August 1, 2010, the Redeveloper shall submit to the City Schematic Drawings developed in connection with the design-build contract for the Project.” So, I asked the City, via a Freedom of Information Act request, when these documents were submitted.

Well, I didn’t find out exactly when they were submitted. All I received was a letter dated September 10, 2010, from the City’s Corporation Counsel Randy Ray to EM Properties, Ltd., that said:

This letter will confirm that your booklet entitled “Downtown Peoria Mariott Hotel Project — Hotel Site Plans” containing drawings dated May 3, 2010, satisfies the requirements of Section 3.5 of the Redevelopment Agreement between the City of Peoria and EM Properties, Ltd. concerning schematic drawings.

We would take this oportunity to remind you that in order to get a building permit for the Project, the Inspections Department will need professionally sealed construction documents.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

In a follow-up phone call to Randy Ray, he stated that the booklet also included the Design Concept Plan and thus satisfied section 3.3 of the redevelopment agreement as well. However, section 3.4 of the agreement states, “The City shall within thirty (30) days from receipt approve or disapprove the Design Concept Plan.” And for the purposes of that section, the “City” means the City Council. Mr. Ray confirmed that the design concept plan has never come before the City Council, and said he will try to get it on the Council’s agenda in November. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention.

Meanwhile, you may recall that EM Properties was trying to get moral obligation financing through the Illinois Finance Authority to “finance a portion of the energy efficient upgrades of the 270-room historic Pere Marquette Hotel that will be renovated and converted to a Marriott and a ‘to be’ constructed 180-room Courtyard.” They had a big public hearing on it in March 2010. The last I heard about it was in May when the Journal Star reported, “EM Properties, the developer of the Marriott Hotel project, needs approval from the Illinois Finance Authority. The authority next meets June 8, and it’s unknown whether a request for a moral obligation bond supporting the hotel will be on the agenda.”

Well, it wasn’t on the agenda in June. In fact, it’s never again appeared on an IFA agenda. However, there are some related matters on the IFA slate. In August 2006, the current owners of the hotel, Pere Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P., entered into a participation loan with the IFA and National City Bank (now PNC). That loan should have been paid off March 31, 2010, but because of the pending sale to EM Properties, there was a request to extend the final maturity date until June 30. However, the sale didn’t close by then, so another extension was approved until September 30. The sale had not closed as of September 30 because a third extension was requested at the October 12 IFA meeting:

This is a third request by PNC Bank, and the Borrower, to extend the final maturity date beyond the originally scheduled March 31, 2010, maturity date in anticipation of the sale of the Hotel Pere` Marquette to EM Properties.

This request will provide an additional 120-day window for Pere` Marquette Hotel Associates, L.P. to close on the sale of the hotel property to EM Properties, LLC. Again, PNC and the other lenders expect this purchase to close by November 30, 2010.

Despite the expectation that the sale will close by the end of November, the extension goes through January 31, 2011.

I’m not sure what all this means, but I have to say these delays are awfully strange for a project that supposedly had “secured all necessary private financing” back in May.

Does the Wonderful Development have all its financing?

I got the impression from the City Council meeting Tuesday night that all of the financing for the Wonderful Development (downtown Marriott) was in place, and all he needed was the City’s okay in order to start construction. But then I read this in the Journal Star this morning:

Before the conventions can be attracted, EM Properties, the developer of the Marriott Hotel project, needs approval from the Illinois Finance Authority. The authority next meets June 8, and it’s unknown whether a request for a moral obligation bond supporting the hotel will be on the agenda.

“Realistically, that may be too soon for all the materials to come together after the City Council decision but our team is working closely with EM Properties,” finance authority spokeswoman Marj Halperin said.

So the project is dependent on Matthews getting this IFA loan? Am I reading that right? If so, why was the project characterized as having all its financing in place in the days leading up to the City Council’s vote? Why did the council communication say, “EM Properties . . . has now secured all necessary private financing”? (I know, the IFA is public financing, not private — nevertheless, the council communication gave the impression that the City’s $37 million obligation was the only public financing needed for the project to begin.) Why was it not mentioned during the marathon City Council meeting?

Civic leaders line up to tout Wonderful Development

I regret that I couldn’t make it to the Illinois Finance Authority’s public hearing on Tuesday regarding the Wonderful Development (i.e., the proposed downtown Marriott hotel project). It looks like I would have been the only dissenting voice. The Journal Star reports that “Every person who publicly spoke before the authority was in favor of it. No one spoke in opposition.” Those who publicly spoke included Mayor Jim Ardis, Civic Center General Manager Debbie Ritschel, Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau President/CEO Bob Marx, and “various trade groups.”

Mayor Jim Ardis defended the city’s position that it has done the appropriate due diligence on a project that is backed by nearly $40 million in public bonds.

If they really did “the appropriate due diligence,” it was all done in secret. No vetting was done in public, nor was there any public hearing before the city council decided to commit $40 million to the project.

He also defended the use of a tax bond for the project, saying that without public assistance, major Downtown projects would languish. He cited the “10 to 15 years” without development within the museum block as an example of the lack of the private industry moving forward with a project.

The City purchased the downtown Sears property in 1998 when Sears announced it would be moving to Northwoods Mall. Following that, they acquired the rest of the block. Ever since then, they’ve owned the whole block. They spent a few years haggling over what to do with it, then ultimately decided to give it to the museum. And that’s why there was a “lack of the private industry moving forward with a project.” They couldn’t. John Q. Hammons expressed interest in building a hotel on the block and the Mayor wouldn’t even return his calls. Furthermore, the museum group has had public assistance (lots of it!) for almost a full year and they still can’t get anything built down there.

“I would ask any . . . critics to name for me projects of this importance to the city that will have a private investor come before us and shoulder all of the burden,” Ardis said. “It doesn’t happen anymore.”

First of all, I take issue with his characterization of this project as one of “importance.” It’s not important to Peoria. All it will do is give us an overbuilt hotel to go along with our overbuilt Civic Center. Secondly, the reason a private investor won’t come before us and shoulder all of the burden is because they know it won’t be profitable. That’s why banks won’t loan the money, either. Why should we build an unprofitable hotel? Peoria has money to burn, apparently.

Ritschel and … Marx defended the hotel project as something that will make the Civic Center a more attractive destination for larger conventions and events.

Marx said at least 10 groups representing more than 17,000 room nights have approached the city about wanting to have an event at the Civic Center only if there was an attached hotel.

“They won’t event talk to us until we have this project come to fruition,” Marx said.

If it were that important to the Civic Center, then why didn’t they include a hotel in their $55 million expansion plan? Why did they say they could be successful without an attached hotel?

And what about those 17,000 room nights? Suppose they got $120 per room night for those (keep in mind that it will probably be less because they’ll give lower rates to big groups like that), how much would that amount to? $2,040,000. That’s not enough to make one bond payment. 17,000 room nights out of 178,850 annual room nights available (proposed 490 total rooms times 365 nights per year) accounts for 10.5% occupancy. Considering the current Pere Marquette (which has only 287 guest rooms) is barely getting 50% occupancy, I’d say we’re looking at some serious losses on this project.

But there’s no reason why Peoria residents should have to go to the IFA to complain about it. We should have had an opportunity to voice our concerns before our own local elected leaders. It’s too bad the IFA has provided more opportunity for input than our own City Council.