More on the New Tourism Proposal for Marion

I've now had a chance to read most of state Rep. John Bradley's House Amendment 3 to Senate bill 2093 which is the vehicle being used for this IDEA — the Innovative Development and Economy Act.

Here are some additional thoughts basically in the order that I read and compared Bradley's amendment to the previous version of the bill designed for Glen Carbon.

Glen Carbon's project had to be at least 600 acres. Marion's has to be 250 to 500 acres. It also has to be adjacent to an interstate highway and within one mile of two state highways, and within one mile of an "entertainment user, or a major or minor league sports stadium or other similar entertainment venue that had an initial capital investment of at least" $20 million.

The fifth requirement is that it includes land previously stripped mine. See "Abandoned Mines to Tourist Attractions" for the history of mining in this area.

Both amendments define an "entertainment user" as a business that "has a primary use of providing a venue for entertainment attractions, rides or other activities oriented toward the entertainment and amusement of its patrons". The MetroEast project would have required it to cover 50 acres and cost at least $100 million. The scaled-down version for Marion is just 20 acres and an investment of no less than $25 million.

I don't think the existing ball park can be the "entertainment user" for this district as there would be virtually no new taxes generated there over what has already been generated. I think this refers to something new.

Like TIF districts, the incentives can be used for a whole host of public improvements like streets and roads, parking lots, etc. Unlike a standard TIF, the STAR bonds could also be used for "vertical improvements" which normal persons would call buildings.

The legislation allows for the use of the STAR bonds to pay for construction of two "destination users" which are 150,000-plus square foot retailers that attract at least 30 percent of their customers from at least 75 miles away (or out-of-state). Think Cabela's or Bass Pro Shops rather than a Wal-Mart.

STAR bonds could also be use to build a "destination hotel" which is defined as at least 150 rooms and a venue for entertainment attractions, rides or other amusements, i.e. indoor water park. This is the Great Wolf Lodge-type establishment.

The bonds could also be used to cover the costs of one "entertainment user", i.e. theme park, specifically, "costs of buildings; rides and attractions, which include carousels, slides, roller coasters, displays, models, towers, works of art and similar theme and amusement park improvements."

In what appears to be different from last year's version of the legislation, rather than take 100 percent of the state's sales tax increment for everything in the STAR development, only 100 percent of transactions from up to 2 destination users (big retail attractions like a Cabela's), 1 destination hotel (Great Wolf or something similar), and 1 entertainment user (Legoland or another theme park). For everything else in the district, the state would be pledging only 25 percent of the tax increment.

Another limiting factor is that the state sales tax increment pledge to pay the STAR bonds cannot exceed 50 percent of the total development costs.

Before a STAR bond district can be created, the developer will have to submit a plan that includes at least $100 million in capital investments, at least $100 million in annual gross sales revenues and 500 new jobs.

Despite Holland's spokesperson's downplay of a Legoland, the legislation still requires a "potential entertainment user" or theme park as part of the initial plan as well as the retail "destination user". The language is not "either or", it's an "and".

Section 33 of the act (p. 60 of Amendment #3) outlines the STAR Bonds School Improvement and Operations Trust Fund, otherwise known as the reason why surrounding communities are backing this project, particularly schools. It's also why Regional Superintendent Matt Donkin is driving back to Springfield tonight or early tomorrow morning.

This fund is created in the state treasury. The moneys in the fund will be used to make "payments to school districts in educational service regions that include or are adjacent to the STAR bond district." This is later defined as the Franklin-Williamson Regional Office of Education.

Basically, 15 percent of the property tax increment generated from the development each year would go into this fund. Each fall, the regional superintendent would allocate the moneys to the various schools districts in proportion to the districts' fall enrollments.

What I don't see defined is a "qualifying school district". Even more loosey-goosey is a phrase that allows the regional superintendent the power to use "any other method or formula" he "deems fit, equitable, and in the public interest."

He would also be able to allocate "moneys to school districts that are outside of his or her educational service region or to other regional superintendents". However, politically, I don't think that will be case.

This weird language may be due to the simple fact that school district boundaries don't follow county lines. Thus there are schools in neighboring counties that include students from Franklin and Williamson counties.

In the Glen Carbon proposal, this fund was the "STAR Bonds Community Improvement Trust Fund" and the 15 percent property tax increment was to be distributed to municipalities within a 12 mile radius of the project. A third went to communities within 5 miles of the project and two-thirds went to communities in the 5 to 12 mile radius.

Section 45 in both amendments deal with restrictions. Both state that "no portion of a STAR bond project shall be financed" with basically existing TIF districts. I'm not sure how that would work out with the Hill, as TIF was used already for that development, and I believe that a TIF district has already been established for their undeveloped land on the east side of the interstate which will be included in this STAR bond district.

The Glen Carbon plan would have prohibited car dealerships and a minor or independent league baseball stadium to locate in the district. The Marion plan includes the ban on car dealerships, but not the stadium, which is probably not an issue since Rent One Park will be adjacent to the district.

The Marion plan also states that the developer can't use any land in the STAR bond district for a movie multiplex with more than 12 auditoriums or contain more than 900,000 square feet of floor space devoted to traditional retail use (that's the equivalent about about four super Wal-marts or Menard's.)

The theater bit is interesting. I guess we could see a new 12-screen complex to compete the existing 8-screen one behind the Illinois Centre Mall. Although still a very decent theater it's among the oldest 10 percent of properties owned by Kerasotes (and in the process of being sold to AMC). It's likely that AMC would be looking at a new complex sometime in the next few years anyway.

It's 12:39 a.m. Thursday morning and Bradley and state Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, have less than 48 hours to get this passed before the legislature adjourns.

Theme Parks and Destination Hotels

The spokesperson for developer Bruce Holland told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch earlier this week in a story published yesterday that Legoland may not be in the cards for Marion.

...landing a LegoLand amusement park — one of the much-touted possibilities for the Glen Carbon site — is probably off the table, as those businesses tend to seek more urban settings. "That seems less likely in Marion," said [Rebecca] Rausch.

A more likely possibility, Rausch said, would be a venue like Cabela's at Village West in Kansas City, Kan., a hunting and outdoors store and museum, or similar large-scale venues that won't directly compete with existing Marion-area businesses.

While it certainly isn't a dead idea — Legoland certainly isn't the first theme park proposed for Southern Illinois — the others parts of the proposed destination plan shouldn't be overlooked.

Despite the story set to be published in tomorrow's paper that Great Wolf Resorts may or may not be looking at this project, such as facility would offer a tremendous boost to the region's tourism economy.

If you're not familiar with the chain, Great Wolf promotes itself as "North America's Premier Family Entertainment Brand".

Their first quarter report issued yesterday describes their resorts as "family-oriented destination facilities that generally feature 300 – 600 rooms and a large indoor entertainment area measuring 40,000 – 100,000 square feet. The all-suite properties offer a variety of room styles, arcade/game rooms, fitness rooms, themed restaurants, spas, supervised children’s activities and other amenities."

The main feature consists of a 40,000 square feet indoor water park.

So far they have 12 resorts with none closer than the Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin; Kansas City, Kansas; and Kings Island theme park at Mason, Ohio.

The latest-announced resort will be one in suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania adjacent to a major shopping center. The company signed a letter of intent to license their brand and take a minority stake in the new venture.

A smaller version of a Great Wolf Resort is Illinois' first indoor waterpark — Grizzly Jack's Grand Bear Resort just outside Starved Rock State Park near Utica, Illinois. Its waterwork is 24,000 square feet and their three-story lodge offers 92 over-sized guest rooms. In recent years they've added vacation villas and cabins to the mix as well.

I've never been inside, but I drove by it a few years ago while attending a conference at Starved Rock. The parking lot was packed and it looked a whole lot more fun than the tired CCC-era lodge and generally crappy cabin I was staying in.

[To be fair to the concessionaires of Starved Rock, I've been told DNR has updated those cabins since I stayed there. They needed to be, they were a disgrace to the state.]

As far as I can tell there are only three other indoor water parks, all in northern Illinois - CoCo Key Water Resort at Rockford, Key Lime Cove's Lost Paradise at Gurnee and the Mayan Adventure at Holiday Inn Chicago-Elmhurst.

Missouri only has one indoor waterpark and that's another CoCo Key Water Resort at Kansas City.

The closest one in Indiana is Big Splash Adventure at French Lick and I can't find any indoor parks in Kentucky.

Marion offers a good location with little competition. Combined with golf at Kokopelli and baseball at Rent One Park there's a core group right there, particularly if the developers can attract Cabela's or Bass Pro Shops, which have already been mentioned as possible tenants in the development.

Legislation filed for new Marion development

State Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, filed House Amendment 3 to Senate Bill 2093 earlier this afternoon.

At first glance there's a couple of differences between the University Town Center development bill originally sponsored by Sen. James F. Claybourne and the Marion one.

1) The former bill was the "STAR Bonds Financing Act". Bradley's bill is the "Innovation Development and Economy Act".

2) While a destination hotel has been part of both plans, specific language is found only in the Marion bill. A "destination hotel" means a "hotel complex" of at least 150 rooms that also "includes a venue for entertainment attractions, rides, or other activities oriented toward the entertainment and amusement of its guests and other patrons.

Both versions of the bill targets the development of "destination user" retail attractions defined as at least 150,000 square feet of sales floor area, does not have another Illinois location within 70 miles, has at least 30 percent of customers traveling to visit from at least 75 miles away or from out-of-state, and includes an initial capital investment of at least $30 million.

As of 2:17 p.m. when I last checked, Bradley had filed the amendment and it had been assigned to the Rules Committee. Also, the alternate chief sponsor was changed to Bradley.

This bill was originally introduced last year and dealt with mental health issues. It passed the Senate but stalled in the House. Claybourne had amended it to use as a vehicle for the Glen Carbon development.

The bill is currently in the House of Representatives and would have to pass the House and then go to the Senate for passage. If lawmakers adjourn as planned, there's less than 80 hours for this thing to pass.

Legoland Egypt?

Saturday's announcement of a new destination shopping and entertainment center on Marion's north side did not mention Legoland, but that was part of the deal in its previous incarnation, and city officials believe it still is.

Up until last Thursday, April 29, Bruce Holland had been pushing the University Town Center development at Glen Carbon, Illinois, in the St. Louis Metro-East area. After opposition to the use of STAR bonds, the local state Rep. Tom Holbrook, dropped legislation that would create the state incentives.

At some point last week Southern Illinois lawmakers state Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, and state Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, jumped on board. After a rash of meetings with the lawmakers, area mayors and economic development officials, Holland announced plans for the Marion project.

The clock though is ticking. House Speaker Michael Madigan wants to adjourn at the end of this week.

So what's the history on Legoland and the Midwest?

Four years ago Nick Varney, CEO of Merlin Entertainments Group, announced that his company was "actively engaged" in finding partners and a location for a fifth Legoland theme park. They already operated three in Europe and one in North America at Carlsbad, California.

The Theme Park Insider reported the news on Jan. 19, 2006, under a headlined time frame of "3 to 5 years":

Varney said that the company's goal is to develop its Legoland parks as "mini Disney Worlds," destination resorts attracting visitors over several days, rather than just destinations for local day-trippers. As a result, Varney suggested that Merlin might build new installations of its SeaLife and Dungeon amusements next to Legolands, as well as working with local governments and developers to encourage more tourist development around the parks.

Important for Marion and Southern Illinois is the following quote.

"We have three parks in Europe. Looking to the future, in the blue sky, I could see three parks in North America, too. With a Legoland here in Southern California, it does not take a genius to see the Midwest and the East Coast as potential new sites," Varney said.

.

Merlin Entertainment found its East Coast location at Winter Haven, Florida last year when it acquired the legendary Cypress Gardens site.

In the Midwest, they first looked at Kansas City before targeting the St. Louis region.

In June 2007, the city council at Columbia, Illinois, learned that St. Louis developer G. J. Crewe, which they had been working with since 2004 to develop the Columbia Crossings site, had landed the interest of Merlin to locate a Legoland as part of the proposed 2,000 acre development. Amazingly, the city backed out of the plan.

Skip forward a couple of years with a new developer, Holland, this time, and the idea of a suburban St. Louis Legoland resurfaces at Glen Carbon, Illinois, on the northeast side of the MetroEast.

Holland was able to work with his local lawmakers to get the STAR bonds incentive legislation through the General Assembly in 2009, but Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed the bill with a change that only half of the state sales tax increment could be used rather than all of it.

Plans were to address that this year, but opposition grew from other MetroEast mayors over the retail development which they feared would threatened their own retail areas. That opposition killed the Glen Carbon proposal last week.

While Legoland officials have officially "downplayed" an Illinois location, company officials did approach Quinn last October while he visited Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee in support of Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics. For those who don't know, Lego is based in Denmark.

Holland probably didn't mention the park because he was still trying to sell Merlin Entertainment on Southern Illinois. Still the possibilities are tempting for area tourism. Holbrook's legislation provides an idea of the minimum investment on a theme park needed to qualify for the bonds - $100 million. That's an investment we can take to the bank.

On the lighter side, here's something we probably won't see in a Land of Lincoln Legoland.