City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block, Peoria County

County told State it already owns land for museum

23 Comments

In April, Peoria County applied for a $5 million grant through the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). A copy of the grant application was acquired from the County:

DCEO Grant Survey – Peoria Riverfront Museum

The County listed itself as the “grantee” on page 2, and 203 SW Water St. (which is the City-owned Sears block) as the “project location” on page 4. Then, in answer to question 2d — “If the property is being improved, is the property owned by the grantee?” — the County checked the “Yes” box.

Question 10c asked, “If grant funds are to be utilized to make capital improvements to real property (structures/land) that your organization does not own [emphasis in original], provide a copy of the lease or other agreement (i.e., easements, rights-of-way. etc.) between your organization and the property owner that will allow your organization to continue to use the improved premises for an appropriate length of time, consistent with applicable state law and rules.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10d asked, “Does your organization have an executed contract for the purchase/acquisition of the land/building in question?” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

Question 10g asked, “Provide the name, address, phone number and email address (if applicable) of the entity from which the land/building(s) is/are being purchased.” The County’s answer: “N/A.”

As you can see, the County consistently represented itself to the State as the owner of the land. When asked why, Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich said:

By April when the grant survey was submitted, we had already negotiated the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria. As I said before, the redevelopment agreement has included language regarding title transfer since at least February, and by April, this issue had been to the County’s understanding, resolved. There were several other issues (paying permit fees, the commercial space approvals, the assurance that the funds would be there to build the museum, and what happens to the property if PRM no longer operates the museum) but the negotiating teams had moved on from the title issue.

That still doesn’t explain why this information wasn’t included on the grant application. The proper way to complete the application would have been to answer “No” to question 2d, and explain these negotiations in question 10d, at minimum. The questions couldn’t be any more specific; they clearly expect even anticipated ownership to be disclosed. The County misrepresented its ownership status no matter how one looks at it. No response was received from Urich to follow-up questions on this issue.

Other Questions

Urich’s answer raises another question: is it true that the title transfer issue with the City of Peoria had been resolved by April of this year? That was surprising, considering it has appeared as such a contentious issue here in August. I asked City attorney Randy Ray for some clarification. He replied:

There is no contract in place that requires the City to convey title to the Museum Site to the County.
It is true that there were negotiations, and draft agreements which contemplated such a conveyance. That was a major topic of a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people that took place the first week of March, 2010. Obviously, those meetings did not convey the property, nor did anything else the City has done up to this point. If Council does not approve a Redevelopment Agreement, no conveyance will occur.

Ray acknowledges that negotiations did in fact take place, and we know from Urich’s statement that the County believed the issue of land conveyance was “resolved.” These negotiations were not just with City staff, mind you. There were “a series of meetings with 3 or fewer council people” at a time. Unfortunately, we’ll never know the real story because the City took great pains to completely skirt the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

The funny thing is that negotiation of the sale or lease of property can take place in closed session according to OMA, so why not just discuss it in executive session instead of these little meetings? Did they not want the negotiations on the record? (Minutes are taken during executive sessions.) Were they not giving the same information to each of the council members? Somewhere there seems to be a breakdown in communication because the City now appears reluctant to convey the land, but the County thought the issue was “resolved” way back in April.

Of course, there’s no legitimate reason not to conduct these negotiations in public, in open session. The reason property transactions are allowed to be conducted in secret is to protect taxpayers from market reaction. In this case, since the land is owned by one government body and being conveyed to another government body, there are no market forces and those concerns are moot.

During the 2005 mayoral campaign, then-candidate Ardis promised, “My leadership, a new generation of leadership, will be open, not closed; inclusive, not reserved for the select few; and bottom-up, not top-down.” Yet from the hotel deal to the museum, right up to the recent secret meeting with Ransburg — against whom Ardis ran in 2005 and, ironically, whom Ardis criticized for doing the public’s business in secret — he has not shown us this so-called “new generation of leadership.”

23 thoughts on “County told State it already owns land for museum”

  2. Has this grant been approved? If not, all this is moot.
    Has someone forwarded this very useful and deceitful information to the DCEO? It seems to me, this would almost be fraud. Like me applying for a grant for improvements on property I don’t own. People go to prison for this. Wonder what size jumpsuit the Mayor wears…

    One last inquiry: What in the name of all that is holy has Bush got to do with this?

  3. CJ: IMO The museum is a done deal with the county and the city just a need to line up the council vote by the city is all that is needed. I can’t see the COP throwing everyting under the bus at this 11 hour.
    Most (Not All (Sandberg,Widmer,Harding,Alms))people running or in office will say one thing and do another to get elected. There is backroom arm twisting, verbal agreements,and other “understandings” done. The OMA is just somthing the city and county put up with and skirt it if they can. Wake Up this is Illinois.Open Goverment, It’s better here…

  5. Emtronics, the Mayor did not fabricate the replies on this grant application. Why would he be in a jumpsuit? Secondly, CJ, who signed or prepared this grant application? Surely it had to have a signature somewhere…

    Remember when County Board members were ripping on City Government a few weeks ago to the Journal Star? Paybacks are Hell.

  6. Emtronics asks, “Has this grant been approved?” Answer: I don’t know, but the County has it listed on their spreadsheet as a source of funding for the museum.

    Emtronics asks, “Has someone forwarded this very useful and deceitful information to the DCEO?” Answer: Funny you should ask. Guess who the legal counsel is for the DCEO — the person to whom one would report such deceptive information? It’s Allen Mayer, who also just happens to be on the County Board. The political incest is dizzying.

    Emtronics asks, “What in the name of all that is holy has Bush got to do with this?” Erik Bush was the Chief Financial Officer for the County until he got a job with the Normal School District recently.

    “Some Questions” asks, “who signed or prepared this grant application?” Answer: Patrick Urich signed it originally and may have prepared it as well (the handwriting looks similar). Interestingly, it appears he didn’t actually have the authority to sign the application because it was later amended with the only change being that County Board Chairman Thomas O’Neill signed it this time. Whoever signs the application does so under a line that states, “Under penalty of perjury, I certify that I have examined this document and the document(s), schedule(s), and statement(s) submitted in conjunction herewith, and that, to the best of my information and belief, the information contained herein is true, correct, and complete.”

  8. So, who would investigate Peoria County government for perjury, which is apparently what happened. State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons or Illinois Attorney general Lisa Madigan?

    I want to know who is responsible for prosecuting this kind of thing, because there may be a case for malfeasance if there isn’t a prosecution.

  15. HAHAHAHA!!!! Em you thought they were talking about the ex-prez… now you’re trying to clean it up…. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That’s funny.

  16. No, Erik Bush was not gone by then. From several indications, my friend Erik Bush may have been a little leery of the goings-ons of the PRM project.

    But not BelWood. I hope he is correct although I still do not believe the County should still be in the Nursing home business.

    $65-70 million including interest is a lot of money to committ for maybe 30 years no matter how cheap the money.

    I remind you that Mr. Bush was offered approximately $32,000 MORE a year than the County felt it could pay. Plus his wife was offered a teaching job. I do not think Mr. Bush was unhappy with his couty position, just opportunity knocked.

  17. Nope, Knew Bush and his wife went to Normal and remember why. It’s just as Merle posted. They offered more money. I didn’t think he had anything to do with the museum grant and was asking.

  18. It seems to me the anon above was implying that Erik Bush was astute enough to be open to other opporutnities. Looks like he hit the ground running, he was already on the news in his new position as CFO of Unit 5 Schools in Normal. He would have been great working in that capacity at 150.

  20. Did not I read somewhere that the City has to convey this land to the county before the county becomes the owner and can do all these glorified things we hear about? The Council has yet to vote on doing this, and don’t bet your house that they will. (For One dollar($1.00)yet? What has been going on behind the scenes? I wish someone with realistic feelings and knowledge would speak out on this museum matter, and let’s put a legitimate referendum on the ballot and see how the people really feel when truly informed. Bet no one except the “no-“voter has the guts to ask for it or even try to put it to a vote with the council, but he will simply voice his opinion and register another “no” vote for the future election for Mayor.

  21. wacko: It appears that the county needs to own the land in order to sell bonds to build the PRM on the land that the county does not currently own. The very piece of land that the county has said that they already own but do not own.

    Another question to ask, since the public facility sales tax is so general, would the county need to own the land in order to collect the tax?

    Yet another question, DID the county need to already own the land, WHEN expenses for the PRM project were incurred in order for the public facility sales tax to be able to reimburse the county for those expenses?

    CJ went to a previous Peoria County Board meeting in March or April, as I recall, and spoke to that very issue … How was the Peoria County Board able to enter into a contract with an architect to prepare bids for the parking deck because the Peoria County Board did not own the land? Peoria County Board members voted for the contract anyway …. oh the city has given us access to their (as in the city’s) land.

    Well, you know how those in power treat the likes of CJ, Merle, Gary and myself … it’s only CJ … Merle … Gary … or Karrie speaking as they roll their eyes and think of some response(s) to condescendingly marginalize your inquiry and facts.

    At the committee level, you have to get the committee chair to recognize you to speak…. public input is not a given, as I have been told that it is the perogative of the chair if he/she wants to grant you the privilege to speak. Most chairpersons are respectful and grant privilege of the floor to all speakers. A couple chairpersons, as of late, have not granted privilege.

    Those are just my realistic feelings on the matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.