There’s a new conflict in the museum soap opera. Here’s the skinny: the County wants to own portion of the Sears block on which the proposed museum would be built, but they don’t want to pay the City for it, and the City isn’t too keen on that idea.

Let’s start with these lines:

“We’ve made it this far and all of a sudden now they want ownership?” Dillon asked, questioning the city’s motives.

Some affiliated with Peoria County are shaking their heads, noting the city has always indicated it wasn’t going to be “a roadblock” on any museum issue….

At-large City Councilman Ryan Spain acknowledged ongoing discussions but he said he didn’t know of any “strong push” from council members for the ownership or the co-ownership of the land.

“We still stand behind giving the land away,” Spain said. “That was our major contribution for the project.”

First of all, nowhere did anyone say that the City was going to just give the land to the County. The original redevelopment agreement between the City and the museum group agreed to lease the land to the museum for $1 per year for 99 years. So, essentially, they were donating the use of the land, but not ownership of it. Enter the County, thanks to the public facilities tax referendum. It would seem reasonable to assume that the City still planned to lease the land for the same amount, thus not being “a roadblock” in the way of museum progress. But now the the County has decided it wants/needs to own the land… well, that’s a different story. Perhaps the County was assuming facts not in evidence. Or maybe they just misunderstood. And as for Mr. Spain, I’d like him to show me the vote where the City Council said they were going to give away the land for nothing.

Moving on:

In fact, county officials argue it is necessary for them to have ownership of the property as part of a legal basis for the referendum allowing them to seek voter approval on a special sales tax through a new law.

This raises some rather disturbing questions. Is the County now saying that they have a legal requirement to own the land in order to use the sales tax revenue for the project? If so, the County has been keeping its proverbial cart in front of the horse for longer than I realized. The way the statement is worded, it’s not even clear to me that the referendum itself was legal, but I presume it must have been since the ballot wording was so broad (it was, after all, a “public facilities tax,” not a museum tax).

For those who may not remember, the “new law” includes this language (emphasis mine):

For purposes of this Section, “public facilities purposes” means the acquisition, development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, financing, architectural planning, and installation of capital facilities consisting of buildings, structures, and durable equipment and for the acquisition and improvement of real property and interest in real property required, or expected to be required, in connection with the public facilities, for use by the county for the furnishing of governmental services to its citizens, including but not limited to museums and nursing homes.

If the County is indeed required to own the land in order to expend funds on the project, this raises other questions. For instance, where is the money coming from to pay for Mark Johnson, the county’s museum consultant? And where is the money to pay for the “experienced counsel at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery“?

I’m still wondering how they were able to apply for federal money to build a parking deck on land they don’t own without first having an agreement with the owner of the land. There’s still no redevelopment agreement, yet the County is moving ahead as if there were.

Maybe the land conflict will be the thing that finally does in the museum. Nah. Like zombies in a bad horror film, this project comes back to life every time you think it might be dead.