From the Peoria Riverfront Museum Facebook page — the July 13, 2010 entry:
What’s an “IGST Theatre”? It’s interesting that these same slides were shown at the County Board meeting, except that the “IGST Theatre” sign was removed. Why were the slides changed?
Former County Board member and current Third District City Councilman Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”
On Saturday, March 7, 2009, Friends of Build the Block chairman Brad McMillan stated in the Peoria Journal Star: “If The Block is built, we will be able to experience: (1) A state-of-the-art 3-D IMAX theatre that will allow children to dive into a mystical, undersea world during the day and adults to watch current films in the evening….”
On the “Build the Block” website under “Frequently Asked Questions,” it states, “What will the Peoria Riverfront Museum include? The 81,000-square-foot Peoria Riverfront Museum will feature wide-ranging opportunities for learning, culture and fun, including a digital 3-D IMAX Theatre….”
The January 2009 “Build the Block” Newsletter stated this: “The Block’s IMAX Theatre will be a five-stories-tall, 3-D-equipped classroom kids will love!” And this: “‘At The Block, we’ll have even more to share, including expanded exhibits just for kids, a state-of-the art planetarium and a 3-D, digital IMAX Theatre,’ says Lakeview Museum President and CEO Jim Richerson.”
The March 3, 2009, Attendance Analysis put out by the museum group stated: “When analyzing the museum attendance projections listed above, it becomes apparent that the IMAX Theatre is assumed to be the primary generator of attendance at the new museum.” And this: “…museum planners are projecting 146,000 for annual attendance at the Peoria Riverfront Museum IMAX….”
Pay close attention to this one. The March 9, 2009, Sustainability paper published by the museum group stated:
On average, Lakeview Museum receives approximately $600,000 per year through earned income, including general memberships, gallery admissions, planetarium admissions, museum store, book court and book sales, museum schools and programs, and rental of museum space. This represents approximately 40 percent of total annual income. The remaining 60 percent of annual income, or approximately $900,000 per year, is categorized as support income. The support income is generated from the museum endowment, annual fund drives, exhibit sponsors, other miscellaneous fundraising events, and grants received from various foundations and governmental agencies.
In the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum Pro Forma, the relationship between earned income and support income is shifted, with earned income now representing 65 percent of the total and support income representing only 35 percent of the total. This change is due to the presence of the IMAX Theatre in the new museum, projected to generate almost $1 million per year in operating income. The concessions area adjacent to the IMAX Theatre also would be a new source of income at the Peoria Riverfront Museum and is projected to generate close to $300,000 annually.
Finally, there’s this lengthy report from January 8, 2009, titled, “Report to the County Board – Peoria Riverfront Museum Policy Considerations.” It comes with a cover memo addressed to none other than “Timothy Riggenbach, Chairman, Finance Legislative Study Committee.” In the 241-page document, which I’m sure Riggenbach read, are the results of a phone survey conducted by the County, including the questions asked. Here’s one:
The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of Central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater [emphasis added]. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86% funded. To complete the project, would you support an increase in the sales tax of one quarter of one percent in Peoria County? This is 25 cents on every $100 of retail purchases.
The report also includes the “Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year)” which is replete with references to IMAX. Oh, and it also includes the museum’s pro forma which states in no uncertain terms, “IMAX Revenue.”
So, with all due respect, Mr. Riggenbach, yes, we were promised an IMAX, your historic revisionism notwithstanding. It was promised to us by museum officials in official public documents. Furthermore, IMAX was essential to the attendance and revenue projections that were used to sell the museum to the County and the community.
What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article. Promises of an IMAX are so well-documented, I can’t believe anyone seriously believes there’s a question about it. Perhaps Mr. Riggenbach and the Journal Star want us to believe the entire County of Peoria just imagined we were promised an IMAX — that it was some sort of mass psychosis. Maybe we were all hypnotized by aliens.
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:
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:
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.
How many people voted for the $40 million museum tax referendum in 2009 because they were promised an IMAX theater downtown? No small number, to be sure. Opponents of the museum plan questioned whether we were really going to get an IMAX since no contract was signed. We were assured there would be an IMAX. Their attendance and revenue predictions were predicated on it. The contract with IMAX was sitting on the desk at Lakeview just waiting to be signed once the referendum passed! Remember that?
Well, guess what?
Lakeview Museum’s president/CEO Jim Richerson said while an IMAX theater is not off the table, other alternatives are being explored.
“We want to build the best thing going out there,” Richerson said, adding that ETI 3-D digital screens also are a giant screen possibility for the riverfront museum.
“If it’s something better, we plan to go with them,” Richerson said. “We won’t open this for another two years, but again, we want to make sure we deliver the best thing.”
County Board member Andrew Rand, chairman of the county’s museum construction committee, said utilizing the IMAX brand could be costly.
He said museum officials would have to plunk down $1.2 million in an advance payment in order to utilize the IMAX brand, an amount that is twice as much as what other vendors are asking.
“I don’t think we’re specifically hung up on IMAX, which is a specific brand, for any reason,” Rand said. “The agreement the county has is for a high-definition, giant screen digital cinema. That’s what we expect.”
Huh. Who’da thunk they wouldn’t follow through on their promise of an IMAX? I mean, they’ve followed through on… um… come to think of it, they’ve never followed through on anything they promised, have they?
To all the voters who fell for the propaganda of the museum group in April 2009, I have just one thing to say: Suckers.
For more great updates on the museum fiasco, see County Board Member Merle Widmer’s blog entries: Peoria Riverfront Museum and Peoria Riverfront Museum – Additions.
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.
Karen McDonald reports that “The first meeting of the Peoria County Riverfront Museum Committee has been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Friday on the fourth floor of the Peoria County Courthouse.” The agenda packet was posted to the County’s website just before 2:30 Wednesday afternoon — barely meeting the deadline set by the Open Meetings Act.
That gives the public just 48 hours to review the 348-page document which includes:
I guess museum committee members have their reading assignments for today, as do local news reporters. Of course, its adoption is a fait accompli, at least for the County. The big question now is whether the City will approve it. I’ll have more on this after I get a chance to review the documents. If you have the time and inclination to read it today (due to, say, insomnia or masochism), please leave your observations in the comments section.
According to a spreadsheet document distributed at a recent Peoria County Finance/Legislative Study Committee meeting titled “Peoria Riverfront Museum Capital Budget by Project,” updated 7/28/2010, pledges to the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum total $23,073,484. Of that, only $6,475,076 (28%) have been collected.
In addition, whereas the County has said in the past it would only be contributing $34.5 million to the museum project from the public facilities sales tax revenues, the latest spreadsheet shows a full $40 million being contributed. While that’s the lion’s share of public money, there are also significant amounts coming from other public money pots, including the Illinois capital budget, Illinois Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, NASA, and the Peoria Civic Center Authority. Despite all of this public help, and presuming they’ll actually collect all the pledges that have been committed over their multiple years of fundraising, they’re still looking at a budget deficit of $6,448,988.
But they’re moving ahead with construction anyway. What happened to all the money that was going to come in after the sales tax referendum passed? Remember that? When questioned as to why they weren’t making their private fundraising goals before the referendum, their response was a very confident assertion that people were waiting in line to give money, but wanted to make sure the public would support the tax referendum first. Once the referendum passed, the funds would come rolling in, we were told then.
Perhaps the most shocking thing on this spreadsheet is the total amount that has already been spent. Are you sitting down? It comes to $13,471,440. $4.5 million has been spent on architectural and engineering fees for the museum building — another $1.8+ million in fees for the parking garage. $2 million has been spent on something called “pre-opening operating support.” Almost $1 million was spent on “public awareness” — which was their campaign to make sure the $40 million tax referendum passed, so I guess that was money well spent from their perspective.
There are two line items for endowments on the spreadsheet. One shows $2.3 million “committed” but not “received” from Lakeview as a funding source. Another line item shows a $5,248,000 “endowment enhancement” which has been neither committed nor received. The endowment is important because the museum needs the interest from the endowment to cover its ongoing operating expenses. If there’s no endowment, the museum will have no cushion when facing an operating deficit — and let’s not kid ourselves, there are going to be operating deficits.
But they’re moving ahead with construction anyway, undeterred.
Oh, and they’re still counting on the City just giving them the Sears block for nothing. That land is worth $10 million according to the Build the Block website. What is the City’s budget deficit for 2011? Hmmm…. $10 million, I do believe. Wouldn’t it make sense to sell the land to the museum/county and use those funds to plug our deficit so we don’t have to lay off any more police officers? Nah, the museum is more important than public safety, right?
The conventional wisdom now is that the money fairies will sprinkle the museum with cash once it’s built. You know, once people really see the thing being built, then they’ll start contributing! They’re just skeptical that we’re not really going to build it. If we show them we really mean business, then there will be a race to see who can give the most money fast enough.
Second verse, same as the first.
Peoria Riverfront Museum Chairman and former mayor Dave Ransburg was on the WMBD morning show. He was lobbed softball questions (“It’s going to be really exciting once construction starts, wouldn’t you agree?”) and generally fawned over by Greg. I realize it’s not a news program, but sheesh, he could have asked the guy a mildly challenging question.
Like, how about this one: Your group is charged with raising the remaining money needed to build the museum, which is estimated to be at least $7 million. Why do you think you’ll be more successful now when you were unsuccessful as part of the “Circle the Square” group of former mayors that tried to raise money four years ago?
Or how about: “Why should this project continue to go forward when it can’t raise sufficient start-up capital even after a $40 million taxpayer infusion and a decade of fundraising efforts?”
Or even better: “Given your history of being untruthful with the public, why should we trust anything you say in this interview?”
In fairness, I did hear one question that was slightly challenging — from Dan, of course — and that was when he asked if there was going to be an IMAX. Ransburg danced around it, using a typical political trick: “The plans call for an IMAX.” Yeah, yeah. Thanks for telling us what we already know.
An interesting item is on the agenda for the Peoria County Board Rules Committee this coming Thursday evening:
ISSUE:
Establishment of Museum Standing Committee of the County Board and temporary Museum Building CommitteeBACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In the initial Capital Lease and Operating Agreement (posted on the County website in February 2010) between the County and the Peoria Riverfront Museum (PRM), it was determined that the County would construct the parking deck and the PRM Board would construct the museum and the perimeter improvements. The following changes to the County Board Rules of Order would establish a standing committee of the County Board to oversee construction of the PRM and leasing of the PRM site and create a temporary Museum Construction Committee to oversee construction of the PRM building.The Museum Standing Committee would be comprised of County Board Members. The general duties of the Museum Standing Committee would be to: a) make recommendations to the County Board for awarding contracts for the construction of the PRM; b) approve all change orders for the construction of the PRM of less than $250,000 additional cost; c) exercise general oversight of the PRM building and grounds; d) review and comment upon those items provided in the Lease and Operating Agreement with PRM; e) initiate all actions of the County exercising powers under the Lease and Operating Agreement; and f) review all actions of the Museum Construction Committee.
The Museum Construction Committee would be comprised of individuals selected by the Peoria County Board Chairman from the County Board, the PRM Board of Directors, county staff, and/or other citizens with building and construction experience. The Museum Construction Committee is a temporary committee that shall automatically dissolve upon the opening day of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. The general duties of the temporary Museum Construction Committee include: a) approve all change orders for the construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum of less than $100,000 additional cost; b) Exercise general oversight of the construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum Project; and c) report regularly to the Museum Committee regarding the progress of construction.
The advantages of the County managing the construction are numerous: a) for transparency purposes, having the construction of a public building on public property performed by a public body assures that the discussions will be open to the public; b) the PRM Board of Directors can spend more time focusing on operations, exhibit planning, and fundraising; and c) the County can be assured contractually that our capital contribution is a set dollar amount. In addition to memorializing this change in the County Board Rules, the Capital Lease Operating Agreement will have to be modified. The PRM Board of Directors is scheduled to have their organizational meeting on June 8, 2010. Once organized, the PRM Board can take up the Capital Lease and Operating Agreement and Redevelopment Agreement for either a late June or early July approval by the County Board.
At first blush, it looks like a reasonable action given the benefits listed. But look closer. This establishes a new standing committee, and the County Board Chairman is responsible for making appointments to all standing committees. Only those appointed to the Museum Standing Committee could “initiate all actions of the County exercising powers under the Lease and Operating Agreement.” That stipulation effectively freezes out board members who are opposed to the museum. Board members who believe the museum group is not fulfilling the terms of the agreement will have no way of holding them accountable because they can’t initiate any action on it. How is that in the public’s interest?
Furthermore, the County Board Chairman is free to appoint only those who agree with him, and remove anyone who crosses him. Just recently the Chairman removed board member Brian Elsasser from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission because he (the Chairman) “owed a political favor to a friend.” Just imagine what political favors might be called in for the museum project, especially since this committee will also “make recommendations to the County Board for awarding contracts for the construction of the PRM,” and the County Board promised to have local contractors build the project.
This is a recipe for political corruption.
A couple of responses to today’s Journal Star editorial. First, there’s this:
Even Mayor Jim Ardis, who never saw a tax increase he didn’t greet with contempt, seems to have come to the realization that City Hall probably can’t cut its way out of this.
That’s not exactly accurate. Mayor Ardis happily voted to increase sales taxes by 1% within the Hospitality Improvement Zone downtown.
And then, there’s this:
As a result [of the need to make more cuts to city services or raise taxes to balance the budget], a fair number of locals are venting, understandably, though some of them paint either-or scenarios that do not exist. Indeed, the choice is not a recreational trail vs. police officers, or a museum vs. firefighters. The vast majority of the funding for those quality-of-life projects comes out of dedicated revenue streams controlled by other local governments – the park district and county, respectively, with the help of grants. Those dollars couldn’t be used to put more badges on the streets even if the council wanted to. Like them or hate them, those projects — one of them initiated by a successful citizen referendum — are not what created this operating deficit.
First of all, this framing of the argument is obviously a “straw man.” I know of no “locals” who have made the assertions they are countering. Clearly “either-or scenarios” as painted here do not exist. But to imply that these projects have absolutely no relation to the City’s fiscal crisis is also false.
Yes, construction of the rail-to-trail project is funded by the Park District, but it’s only made possible by the City of Peoria giving away a $3 million asset to the Park District for one dollar. The City just threw away $3 million (or at least $750,000, the last bona fide offer to purchase the rail line) while at the same time they need to cut $800,000 from this year’s budget. Why didn’t they put the land up for sale to the highest bidder? Putting this land into the hands of a rail carrier and working with them to woo new manufacturing business to Pioneer Industrial Park would have resulted in raising the tax base in Peoria through new business and new jobs.
Then there’s the Sears block, which has lain dormant for over a decade now because the City won’t enforce deadlines on redevelopment agreements. This is prime real estate that could be parceled off and sold, which would provide a couple of things: income from the initial sale, and on-going revenue from sales and property taxes by the businesses who locate there. Instead, the City is sitting on the land indefinitely, until they can finally give it away for nothing to be used by a non-profit organization that will be a perpetual drain on the county taxpayers.
In addition to the lost opportunity to generate revenue with these assets, taxpayers now have to pay for their development and maintenance in perpetuity. That means we have to pay higher taxes to support these drains on the economy. And that exacerbates the City’s budget woes. Since taxes are high because of increases by other local governments (to which the City directly contributed, as shown above), it puts pressure on the City not to add to the tax burden. And that means the City continues to try to balance its budget by cutting — police, fire, public works, etc.
The Journal Star is simply trying to rationalize its support for non-essential pet projects by using straw-man arguments to dismiss valid criticism.
See also Billy Dennis’s post in response to today’s PJS editorial.