Leach rates published; PMI answers to city clear as mud
Nearly five months after getting the nod from the Oshkosh Common Council to manage the Leach Amphitheater, Green Bay area-based PMI has finally published its rates for using the facility. Or have they?
Here's how the published rate structure breaks down:
Commercial group rate - $2,000
Non-profit group rate - $1,500 (groups must show proof of non-profit status)
These rates are for a period of 14 consecutive hours or less. Anything beyond 14 hours will be billed at $250 per hour. And if more than one performance is given in the same day, the rate is basically 1.5 times the above published rate.
The non-profit group rate is pretty steep, especially when non-profit groups are usually strapped for cash and PMI said it wanted to be community-oriented in its approach to managing this facility.
But beyond that, it would appear that the published rates could change at any given time. Consider this response from PMI's chief operating officer (Cora Haltaufderheid) to questions from the city about their fixed rates:
"As discussed with city officials in our contract negotiations, the first year out was going to be a learning period for both the city and PMI. None of us knew what the Amphitheater would or could bring to the table to enhance the city as a entertainment venue...."
"We therefore, did not post any of our fees having to do with rental rates, as there were (in some cases still are many, many) unanswered questions that need (to be) evaluated before the rate can be determined. (FYI- Our rates at the Resch are in writing but each one changes given the promoter.)"
What exactly does this mean, you ask? One does not need a translator to know what it means, but here it is anyway. These are PMI's published rates for the Leach UNLESS they decide to change their mind at the drop of a hat. Then the rate apparently can become something different.
This COO's statement claims that no one knew what the Leach could or would bring to the table to enhance the city as an entertainment venue. Yet these people got a sweet contract based on their experience and expertise. They are the professionals who have supposedly seen similar type venues in the past. Maybe not an amphitheater, per se, but certainly people with such wide-ranging experience could and should have been able to venture an educated guess. People in business never know for sure what the future holds when they set prices. But you take your chances and set prices based on your past experience, future predictions and/or your best-guess estimates. Then you pray for the best and hope you come out on the winning end of the deal and make a profit. If it doesn't work out you raise your rates across the board, not just on a whim.
Consider this hypothetical situation as an example: The city has published rates for water usage. In setting those rates, city leaders never expected that the city might incur some of the expenses it has, such as needing to create water detention ponds, storm management utilities, etc. Imagine how outraged we as citizens would be if on a water bill the city jacked up the rates and simply said, "Sorry for the higher than expected bill, but we've had some extra unanticipated expenses. We hope you understand."
We wouldn't tolerate that from the city or anyone else and we shouldn't tolerate it from PMI, especially on what was a gift to this community which we have helped pay for and which resides in one of our public parks.
The only exception I can see for fluctuating rates is if an organization needed something above and beyond the norm, which would likely incur a higher cost. But here again, PMI has been in the promotions business awhile now. They ought to be able to anticipate the various things a group renting a facility like the Leach might need and set rates accordingly, based on each type of scenario.
Bottom line: The city needs to demand that PMI come up with some reasonable and complete rates for the amphitheater's use and stick to them. If that can't be done because the council acted with such haste and now has us locked into a contract, we need to see about rescinding that agreement or at a minimum not renewing it when its three-year term is up. At this stage of the game, though, it's apparent that PMI not only did a "sales job" on the parks department and city council, but with their talk of being community-oriented, they have sold this entire community a bill of goods.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 19 2005 @ 07:43 PM MDT
[The following was written by Tony Palmeri and published here with his permission. We thank him for his generosity in allowing us to do so.]
by Tony Palmeri
September 19, 2005
As reported first by Oshkosh News, PMI has now published the rates it is charging for use of the Leach Amphitheater. Given that the city of Oshkosh expended $2.5 million of taxpayer money for this Leach family "gift" to the community, PMI's rate of $1,500 for nonprofit groups is absurd. While one might expect a somewhat higher fee to be charged for the amphitheater as opposed to city park shelters, one shudders to imagine what the relatively inexpensive shelter fees would be if PMI managed the parks.
Back in February, Green Bay based PMI was given the nod to manage the Leach over the local Supple-Hopper group. At the time, Oshkosh Parks Director Tom Stephany said that while "the Supple-Hopper group presented ideas that had a nice local flavor . . . the PMI group demonstrated that they would be community oriented, plus that they had regional and national ties." So far, PMI's community orientation has resulted in the all-volunteer Oshkosh Community Band not being able to afford the facility and the Oshkosh Earthdance organizers having to mount a frantic last minute fundraising drive to make their event happen.
So much for PMI's community orientation.
Back in February the Supple-Hopper group argued that the management selection steering committee was swayed toward PMI because of "a fundamental misconception of the purpose behind this facility: a venue created by the community, serviced by the community and with access for the community." Sadly, Supple-Hopper have been proven correct.
At the time of the management selection, PMI's Ken Wachter said “I’m a believer in, ‘You only have one time to make a first impression.' So, we want to make a good first impression.”
$1,500 for nonprofits. How's that for a good first impression?
Visit: www.tonypalmeri.com
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:20 AM MDT
According to Tom Stephany, their is a different rate of rental for use of the facility without using the backstage and concessions. I have not seen the rate card on that, but I have heard him say that a few different times. Although the rates seem a little steep, it should be expected to pay for use of a facility that has to be supervised by PMI. I don't think you can automatically assume that the Supple-Hopper group would be doing a better job at this point. The city has done a terrible job of communicating to the citizens how this was all going to work. I am not sure you can put that blame on PMI. They obviously had an agreement with the city to let things ride for this season before establishing rates for rental. Unfortunately, no one told us!!!
This is all fairly new to everyone, and I believe there will be some growing pains before it is all worked out. As usual the council did not do all of their homework before putting everything in place. And now we have questions and issues. Regardless of your position on this "gift", I still truly believe this facility will be a huge asset to our community. It will be interesting to see what happens next season when PMI has enough time to book acts in advance of Summer.
Jim B.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM MDT
So much for a public park. Let's hire some other out of town management companies to run other things here in town. Maybe the public library, Menominee park, or perhaps the new water park. These all are in need of out of town representation to run them into the ground. They have the audacity to charge a nonprofit (that means they don't make any extra money) groups $1500, which is a savings of only $500, for 14 hours. What a joke!
Maybe we need to look at our representatives when election time rolls around. We need to keep Oshkosh affairs in Oshkosh!
Kent Monte
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: DRR on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:07 PM MDT
We are not talking about a park shelter here. We are talking about the stage with its lighting and sound system and the personnel to run it. Please do not compare it to a shelter in the park. If you want to have a picnic on the stage at the Leach you can for free.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:57 PM MDT
Is PMI actually providing personnel to run the sound and electrical equipment? If they are that does indeed make a difference. However, they still need to be more community-oriented as they promised. And they need to publish a set of rates and stick to them for the time frame established.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:06 PM MDT
Cheryl,
I believe this is the case that PMI is in charge of running the equipment(sound and light). I agree that rates should be published, but I think your frustration should be directed toward the city and council and not PMI. It is almost as if the city is taking a hands off approach since they have contracted out with PMI. This puts PMI in a tough position.......as it is the city that should be communicating these issues to the citizens.
The list continues to grow of "gifts" to the city that are not well thought out and planned properly!
Jim B
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:15 PM MDT
I have expressed a great deal of frustration with the city and city council over this issue and others like it. That was one of the messages in my campaign this past spring. I understand that unforeseen events can always come up, no matter how well planned out things are. But the entire amphitheater and its management/operations were pushed through at lightning speed and with virtually no questions being answered. Yet five of our then city council members (Harris, Castle, B. Tower, F. Tower and Mattox) and current member Bryan Bain all thought things were just fine and apparently needed no further clarification before proceeding forward. The city, city council and PMI are all at fault in this mess.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM MDT
Cheryl, I think you are mixing two issues together (the amphitheatre project and the management contract). If you go back and watch an interview conducted on your show during the campaign, Bain said he would have voted for Supple not PMI. I think he said he felt they were more community-oriented or something like that. We shouldn't mix the two issues together (the project and the contract). I also believe that Parks should be more hands-on with PMI!
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:45 PM MDT
If it seems like I am mixing the issues together it is because the entire project and the management thereof has been handled poorly. While they are two separate issues they are, in many people's minds, one and the same. And while Bain may not have voted for PMI, had he been on the counsel - for which I give him credit - he did speak in favor of waiving the construction bids for the bathrooms at the amphitheater. So, again, if there are some generalities in my comments it is because the entire thing - both the project and the operation of it - have been mishandled and mismanaged. And again, that includes by the city, the city council and PMI.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:41 PM MDT
I agree Cheryl, and although we can not go back and change it, we can prevent it from happening in the future. By simply voting the people who did this out of office. Nonprofit groups should not be faced with such a large price in an attempt to raise money. PMI and the city get all the money that was meant for charity. Would you go to a fundraiser at the Leach knowing that a large chunk of whatever you just spent wasn't even going to the charity? The people who selected PMI and those who voted for them need to wake up and take charge.
Here's how the published rate structure breaks down:
Commercial group rate - $2,000
Non-profit group rate - $1,500 (groups must show proof of non-profit status)
These rates are for a period of 14 consecutive hours or less. Anything beyond 14 hours will be billed at $250 per hour. And if more than one performance is given in the same day, the rate is basically 1.5 times the above published rate.
The non-profit group rate is pretty steep, especially when non-profit groups are usually strapped for cash and PMI said it wanted to be community-oriented in its approach to managing this facility.
But beyond that, it would appear that the published rates could change at any given time. Consider this response from PMI's chief operating officer (Cora Haltaufderheid) to questions from the city about their fixed rates:
"As discussed with city officials in our contract negotiations, the first year out was going to be a learning period for both the city and PMI. None of us knew what the Amphitheater would or could bring to the table to enhance the city as a entertainment venue...."
"We therefore, did not post any of our fees having to do with rental rates, as there were (in some cases still are many, many) unanswered questions that need (to be) evaluated before the rate can be determined. (FYI- Our rates at the Resch are in writing but each one changes given the promoter.)"
What exactly does this mean, you ask? One does not need a translator to know what it means, but here it is anyway. These are PMI's published rates for the Leach UNLESS they decide to change their mind at the drop of a hat. Then the rate apparently can become something different.
This COO's statement claims that no one knew what the Leach could or would bring to the table to enhance the city as an entertainment venue. Yet these people got a sweet contract based on their experience and expertise. They are the professionals who have supposedly seen similar type venues in the past. Maybe not an amphitheater, per se, but certainly people with such wide-ranging experience could and should have been able to venture an educated guess. People in business never know for sure what the future holds when they set prices. But you take your chances and set prices based on your past experience, future predictions and/or your best-guess estimates. Then you pray for the best and hope you come out on the winning end of the deal and make a profit. If it doesn't work out you raise your rates across the board, not just on a whim.
Consider this hypothetical situation as an example: The city has published rates for water usage. In setting those rates, city leaders never expected that the city might incur some of the expenses it has, such as needing to create water detention ponds, storm management utilities, etc. Imagine how outraged we as citizens would be if on a water bill the city jacked up the rates and simply said, "Sorry for the higher than expected bill, but we've had some extra unanticipated expenses. We hope you understand."
We wouldn't tolerate that from the city or anyone else and we shouldn't tolerate it from PMI, especially on what was a gift to this community which we have helped pay for and which resides in one of our public parks.
The only exception I can see for fluctuating rates is if an organization needed something above and beyond the norm, which would likely incur a higher cost. But here again, PMI has been in the promotions business awhile now. They ought to be able to anticipate the various things a group renting a facility like the Leach might need and set rates accordingly, based on each type of scenario.
Bottom line: The city needs to demand that PMI come up with some reasonable and complete rates for the amphitheater's use and stick to them. If that can't be done because the council acted with such haste and now has us locked into a contract, we need to see about rescinding that agreement or at a minimum not renewing it when its three-year term is up. At this stage of the game, though, it's apparent that PMI not only did a "sales job" on the parks department and city council, but with their talk of being community-oriented, they have sold this entire community a bill of goods.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Monday, September 19 2005 @ 07:43 PM MDT
[The following was written by Tony Palmeri and published here with his permission. We thank him for his generosity in allowing us to do so.]
by Tony Palmeri
September 19, 2005
As reported first by Oshkosh News, PMI has now published the rates it is charging for use of the Leach Amphitheater. Given that the city of Oshkosh expended $2.5 million of taxpayer money for this Leach family "gift" to the community, PMI's rate of $1,500 for nonprofit groups is absurd. While one might expect a somewhat higher fee to be charged for the amphitheater as opposed to city park shelters, one shudders to imagine what the relatively inexpensive shelter fees would be if PMI managed the parks.
Back in February, Green Bay based PMI was given the nod to manage the Leach over the local Supple-Hopper group. At the time, Oshkosh Parks Director Tom Stephany said that while "the Supple-Hopper group presented ideas that had a nice local flavor . . . the PMI group demonstrated that they would be community oriented, plus that they had regional and national ties." So far, PMI's community orientation has resulted in the all-volunteer Oshkosh Community Band not being able to afford the facility and the Oshkosh Earthdance organizers having to mount a frantic last minute fundraising drive to make their event happen.
So much for PMI's community orientation.
Back in February the Supple-Hopper group argued that the management selection steering committee was swayed toward PMI because of "a fundamental misconception of the purpose behind this facility: a venue created by the community, serviced by the community and with access for the community." Sadly, Supple-Hopper have been proven correct.
At the time of the management selection, PMI's Ken Wachter said “I’m a believer in, ‘You only have one time to make a first impression.' So, we want to make a good first impression.”
$1,500 for nonprofits. How's that for a good first impression?
Visit: www.tonypalmeri.com
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:20 AM MDT
According to Tom Stephany, their is a different rate of rental for use of the facility without using the backstage and concessions. I have not seen the rate card on that, but I have heard him say that a few different times. Although the rates seem a little steep, it should be expected to pay for use of a facility that has to be supervised by PMI. I don't think you can automatically assume that the Supple-Hopper group would be doing a better job at this point. The city has done a terrible job of communicating to the citizens how this was all going to work. I am not sure you can put that blame on PMI. They obviously had an agreement with the city to let things ride for this season before establishing rates for rental. Unfortunately, no one told us!!!
This is all fairly new to everyone, and I believe there will be some growing pains before it is all worked out. As usual the council did not do all of their homework before putting everything in place. And now we have questions and issues. Regardless of your position on this "gift", I still truly believe this facility will be a huge asset to our community. It will be interesting to see what happens next season when PMI has enough time to book acts in advance of Summer.
Jim B.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM MDT
So much for a public park. Let's hire some other out of town management companies to run other things here in town. Maybe the public library, Menominee park, or perhaps the new water park. These all are in need of out of town representation to run them into the ground. They have the audacity to charge a nonprofit (that means they don't make any extra money) groups $1500, which is a savings of only $500, for 14 hours. What a joke!
Maybe we need to look at our representatives when election time rolls around. We need to keep Oshkosh affairs in Oshkosh!
Kent Monte
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: DRR on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:07 PM MDT
We are not talking about a park shelter here. We are talking about the stage with its lighting and sound system and the personnel to run it. Please do not compare it to a shelter in the park. If you want to have a picnic on the stage at the Leach you can for free.
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:57 PM MDT
Is PMI actually providing personnel to run the sound and electrical equipment? If they are that does indeed make a difference. However, they still need to be more community-oriented as they promised. And they need to publish a set of rates and stick to them for the time frame established.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Jim B. on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:06 PM MDT
Cheryl,
I believe this is the case that PMI is in charge of running the equipment(sound and light). I agree that rates should be published, but I think your frustration should be directed toward the city and council and not PMI. It is almost as if the city is taking a hands off approach since they have contracted out with PMI. This puts PMI in a tough position.......as it is the city that should be communicating these issues to the citizens.
The list continues to grow of "gifts" to the city that are not well thought out and planned properly!
Jim B
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:15 PM MDT
I have expressed a great deal of frustration with the city and city council over this issue and others like it. That was one of the messages in my campaign this past spring. I understand that unforeseen events can always come up, no matter how well planned out things are. But the entire amphitheater and its management/operations were pushed through at lightning speed and with virtually no questions being answered. Yet five of our then city council members (Harris, Castle, B. Tower, F. Tower and Mattox) and current member Bryan Bain all thought things were just fine and apparently needed no further clarification before proceeding forward. The city, city council and PMI are all at fault in this mess.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM MDT
Cheryl, I think you are mixing two issues together (the amphitheatre project and the management contract). If you go back and watch an interview conducted on your show during the campaign, Bain said he would have voted for Supple not PMI. I think he said he felt they were more community-oriented or something like that. We shouldn't mix the two issues together (the project and the contract). I also believe that Parks should be more hands-on with PMI!
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:45 PM MDT
If it seems like I am mixing the issues together it is because the entire project and the management thereof has been handled poorly. While they are two separate issues they are, in many people's minds, one and the same. And while Bain may not have voted for PMI, had he been on the counsel - for which I give him credit - he did speak in favor of waiving the construction bids for the bathrooms at the amphitheater. So, again, if there are some generalities in my comments it is because the entire thing - both the project and the operation of it - have been mishandled and mismanaged. And again, that includes by the city, the city council and PMI.
- Cheryl
So much for PMI's community orientation
Authored by: Kent Monte on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:41 PM MDT
I agree Cheryl, and although we can not go back and change it, we can prevent it from happening in the future. By simply voting the people who did this out of office. Nonprofit groups should not be faced with such a large price in an attempt to raise money. PMI and the city get all the money that was meant for charity. Would you go to a fundraiser at the Leach knowing that a large chunk of whatever you just spent wasn't even going to the charity? The people who selected PMI and those who voted for them need to wake up and take charge.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 4:29 PM
<< Home