The Full Story of the Emma’s Landing Grift Will Never Be Known, But What Is Known is Ugly
This is page 2 of the Minutes of the Secret Session of the Geneva City Council from April 20, 2020. The audiotape of this meeting was destroyed in November 2022 even though a FOIA request had been made for it. As will be demonstrated below the Council did not deliberate over the selling price. Rather the Council schemed over how to put lipstick on the lips of porcine grift. The Council “rushed to a decision behind closed doors,” to use its own description. The Council kept the Burton Foundation informed but hid its planned ambush of its own constituents. The “May 4” meeting never occurred for reasons shrouded is mystery, but probably because of insufficient votes cast and gathered secretly. Ironically, the mayor-inspired donation plan was abandoned in the waning hours of the process. The donation never occurred but the ruse fooled the State Authorities into awarding bonus points to Emma’s application. All this while the Geneva community was focused on a pandemic. What is hidden by the redaction of minutes of a meeting where a land deal was consummated two years earlier? What was the Open Meetings Act exemption used to allow this material to be redacted?
On November 7, 2022, the Geneva City Council finally released partial minutes of its April 20th, 2020, secret session. Although a FOIA request had been made for the minutes and tape of that secret meeting, the tape was destroyed anyway. The released minutes were redacted, so the release was only partial. The OMA exemption from transparency cited by the City Council does not exist for several of the closed sessions. The Council often invented an exemption by combining two provisions into one. The fragment of the April 2020 minutes made public reveals the council discussed a donation of the Emma’s Landing site, not the “sale or lease” of the property. No OMA exemption exists for discussion of the donation of public property. The Council on April 20 also discussed “pending litigation” but failed to cite the legal action that was pending.
The nuances of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) are many, and judicial case law is sparse. OMA_Reference_Guide.pdf (champaign.il.us) Given that no duty or requirement exists that closed secret session minutes be redacted or that verbatim recordings be destroyed, why is the City of Geneva so zealous in covering its Emma’s Landing tracks? The Geneva administration and City Council claim this: “The City of Geneva’s mission is to conduct government business in an open and transparent manner for all of our community stakeholders.” Government Transparency | Geneva, IL – Official Website
The City of Geneva talks the virtuous talk, but does it walk the straight and narrow path to transparency? Presented here is an example of one closed secret session, that of April 20th, 2020. The subject matter was both contentious and emotionally charged. The context is important. The meeting took place during the darkest days of a novel pandemic: Sars CoV-2 (Covid-19). The governor claimed emergency powers (some still “in force” today) that, among other things, suspended the Open Meeting Act. The legislature voluntarily disbanded. The governor did not call the legislature into an emergency session. The governor urged and advised but never ordered that only “emergency” measures be addressed by local governments during the crisis. On March 20, 2020, the governor ordered, without any due process, that citizens be detained by issuing a universal “stay at home” decree. (The mayor introduced an ordinance that would have the Geneva police cite and fine Genevans who “violated” this decree.) Pritzker also banned gatherings of ten or more people. The time was ripe for Rahm Emanuel’s “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” Quote by Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste….” (goodreads.com)
The Geneva City Council Archivist at work.
Please note that the land donation was discussed secretly several times, including on February 10, February 24, and April 20, 2020. Here are copies of the minutes of the three secret sessions minutes (the other minutes refer to an unrelated land matter):
The document below was also acquired via FOIA from IHDA. “11831” was Emma’s Landing file number of its application for federal and state grants. “Site Control” was mandatory and “land donation” garnered the application extra points.
Below is the State of Illinois Press Release (see page 2) that Emma’s Landing was a “winner” of IHDA approval for funding and that wrongfully claims that the site was donated by the City of Geneva. after the Press Release is another improper communication with the Burton Foundation providing it with information unavailable to Geneva citizens. The Mayor and Council were obsessed with the delusion that they could tax and spend Geneva into affordability.
Above is another entry in Emma’s Landing QAP application to IHDA that explains how the “donation” grift was perpetrated. The red box emphasis was placed by IHDA. The applicant was privvy to the inner workings of the Geneva City Council but Genevans were not. Poor “Peter” did not get the approval on April 20th. But his “hurry up” offense won the game by stampeding the City Council into precipitous last-minute changes. What about the four aldermen who suggested the “next cycle” for a well-thought-out and transparent plan? They either resigned or got cold feet, apparently.
The Geneva City Council on April 20, 2020, did not deliberate on the sale price for the Emma’s Landing site. Rather the Council schemed on how to waive permitting fees and gifting the site to the Fellhaurs, AKA, Burton Foundation. The Posse Comitatus night riders even went so far as to discuss how to darkly grease the deal past their own constituents. Is fraud too strong of a term when the City attorney secretly corresponds with an outside party and provides “the form” of a document not even yet seen by the City Council? From where in the Municipal Code does the City Administrator get the authority to set the Council’s agenda? Or does a wink and nod from the mayor suffice?
If the City of Geneva lasts a thousand years, people will look back and declare “This was their darkest hour.”
The Short-Term Solution to PM2.5 Particle Pollution is Dilution
The City of Geneva received several years ago a $1+ Million Federal CMAQ Grant to help fund the East State Street rebuild that has been in the planning stage for about two decades. Every year Geneva announces that “next year” is when the project will start. The goal of the grant is to improve diesel fuel efficiency and to dilute diesel emissions as semi-trailer trucks traverse the east side. Route 38 is an Illinois State Designated Class 2 Truck Route. Hundreds of thousands of square feet of warehouses are popping up just to the east. Some of these have been approved by the City of Geneva. Others are in the Geneva system for approval. The PM2.5 pollution problem will increase.
“CMAQ” is an acronym for “Congestion Mitigation Air Quality.” The highest priority is to lower 2.5-micron particles. Please consider going to this website for a few minutes: The Weight of Numbers: Air Pollution and PM2.5 – Undark Magazine Watch the very brief video.
In the 1926 case of Ambler Realty v. Village of Euclid, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the legal basis of zoning. The Court recognized that public health protection is the basis of zoning authority, i.e., municipal zoning police power. Am J Prev Med 2005;28(2S2): doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.028 (activelivingresearch.org)
Geneva’s East State Street Corridor is primarily residential. The parcels that abut the right of way are zoned mostly for mixed uses, but people live in these one-lot deep ribbon zones, such as B3E. Residential zoning is directly adjacent.
What has the City of Geneva done to protect East Side corridor residents? The answer is that the City has repeatedly and consistently made the wrong decisions. The Burns Dunkin at the top of the east side hill is Exhibit A.
No place exists within the City of Geneva that is more ill-suited for high intensity use during peak traffic hours than the corner of Crissey and East State. The mayor snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when he broke the 5-5 tie that would have doomed the project. Fortunately, the ineptness of the applicant and the mayor’s handpicked staff has now delayed the opening for about five years. No one thought to get an IDOT permit that was required before the construction could legally begin. Or did both parties simply hope that would get away with the “mistake”? Mayoral addiction to TIF spending was the root of the problem.
Harry Chapin’s proverbial “thirty thousand pounds of bananas” were terrifying going down the hill into Scranton, PA, in 1974. Stopping the bananas halfway up the east side hill in 2023 and then having to begin the climb anew in first gear is even more terrifying.
Then another high-intensity use (written into the zoning ordinance for the benefit of one applicant) that generates congestion and PM2.5 pollution was spot-zoned for the Geneva Pharmacy so that TIF money could be again squandered. That business folded in less than a year.
When the first principle (dilution) of short-term mitigation of PM2.5 exposure demands more setback from the source, not less, the City granted a variance for Malone funeral home’s new parking lot that reduced the required ROW setback from thirty feet to eight feet. Then the Special Use Ordinance 2021-13 required mandate for asphalt was switched to concrete without the Municipal Code required City Council approval. Due to the localized thermal inversion created by the high albedo (colder/heat reflecting) cement, the PM2.5 particles will be trapped and transmitted to nearby homes and yards. The low albedo (warmer/heat absorbing) black asphalt would have had the opposite effect of diluting and dispersing the PM2.5 particles away from the ground.
Recently the Geneva City Council approved a plan to gift $1.5 million in TIF funds to the Mayor of Naperville to build a retail outlet/high-density multistory affordable residential building with the only access/egress being Crissey directly across a substandard width street from the Dunkin exit. This, too, will require spot zoning and setback variances to move the future residents even closer to the PM2.5 source just outside their open windows. And it will add even more congestion at Crissey and E. State. Absurdly, the City will give away more money to exacerbate air pollution exposure than it received from the Feds to mitigate that same air pollution.
Other examples of bonehead aldermanic and mayoral decisions largely driven by Tax Increment Financing Addiction Syndrome (TIFAS) could be raised.
Longer term, the promise of electric vehicles could reduce PM2.5 particle pollution. But young children are particularly vulnerable, as are older people and those with chronic illnesses. For now, the City of Geneva needs to stop trying to injure those whose health and welfare it has sworn to protect through its zoning police power.
The Geneva Public Library District (GLPD) placed a referendum on the ballot in April of 2017 asking voters to approve a new $21.8 million bond issue to build a new library on the site of the old Sixth Street School. The referendum passed by 96 votes with a 32.5% voter turnout of 7705. No one asked for a recount.
Results of the April 2017 Geneva Public Library District Referendum
The purchase of the Sixth Street School had its share of drama. The Library Board initially said it would hold a referendum on the purchase. Then the board had enough spare change lying around to offer the County $1.5 million plus $300,000 for demolition. The price “drifted” up to $1.8million and the demolition cost to $450,000 because of asbestos and an underground storage tank (both problems were known to be present for at least a decade). https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150327/news/150329040/
The cost of the new 57,000-square-foot library was substantially north of the $21.8 million in bond receipts (not to mention the interest on the bonds). The GPLD wants to “transfer” the old library at 127 James Street to the City of Geneva for $450,000. The City of Geneva has not proffered a budget for remodeling and maintaining the new 30,000-square-foot space. Apparently, the $450K will come from spare change the City has found lying around.
But is the transfer ethical or even legal? Three Illinois statutes seem important: one authorizes transfers between municipalities but does not mention payments, another Act creates the statutory basis for the existence of Library Districts such as the Geneva Public Library District, and a third act sets out the general rules for the sale of publicly owned real estate.
The Act that authorizes Public Library Districts in Illinois ((75 ILCS 16/) Public Library District Act of 1991) contains these definitions for the purposes of the Act:
“District” means a public library district established under this Act and includes a proposed public library district.
“Library” means a public library, including one privately endowed or tax-supported or one established under this Act. “Municipality” means a city, village, or incorporated town.
The Act that authorizes local government property transfers (50 ILCS 605/) Local Government Property Transfer Act contains this definition:
The term “municipality” whether used by itself or in conjunction with other words, as in (a) or (b) above, shall mean and include any municipal corporation or political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and including, but without limitation, any city, village, or incorporated town, whether organized under a special charter or under the General Act, or whether operating under the commission or managerial form of government, county, school districts, trustees of schools, boards of education, 2 or more school districts operating a cooperative or joint educational program pursuant to Section 10-22.31 of the School Code, sanitary district or sanitary district trustees, forest preserve district or forest preserve district commissioner, park district or park commissioners, airport authority and township.
Notice that the Library statute does not define a Library District as a “municipality” and for “purposes of the act” the act narrowly defines “municipality.” By its plain language, the Library Act does not give Library Districts municipality standing to participate in transactions permitted by the Government Property Transfer Act. The Transfer Act contains a very lengthy list of eligible “municipalities,” including Park Districts. But the list does not contain “Library Districts.” The Loophole-Louey at City Hall employed by Mayor Burns will point to the phrase “but without limitation” as their loophole. But the City Code requires that when two provisions apply to a given matter, the more restrictive provision “shall [defined in the code as “must”] govern.”
A couple of other library districts in Illinois have taken a bite out of the property transfer apple. Has anyone challenged their action? Does the applicable city code in those cases contain the “most restrictive shall govern” clause?
A two-party political system is ugly and difficult to watch, very much like professional wrestling. Geneva’s Burns’ single-party system is even less attractive and much more expensive to watch than the WWE. And, just like the WWE, the fix is in. What about a referendum? Or, at the very least, a public auction of the old library and let Mr. Fritz send the new owner a property tax bill?
Rules for a Public Auction of the 127 James Street Old Library
The Transfer Act is silent on the price of the parcel being transferred, so it will be asserted, perhaps correctly, that the City is not required to pay anything. If so, how did the $450K come into play? I do not recall the GPLD divulging during the referendum campaign that the gifting (or selling for a nominal sum) the old library was part of the plan. Who negotiated the $450K, and on what authority? By voting for the library referendum, Geneva taxpayers may have forfeited the property tax income from the old library. And the “yes” voters may have unknowingly granted the City a blank annual check to remodel and carry the expenses of a “new” City Hall that is three times bigger than the current City Hall. The Library Board (unwittingly) snuck in a perpetual tax liability as a reward for (narrowly) passing its $21.8 million request.
(65 ILCS 5/11-76-4.1)(from Ch. 24, par. 11-76-4.1) Sec. 11-76-4.1. Sale of surplus real estate. The corporate authorities of a municipality by resolution may authorize the sale or public auction of surplus public real estate. The value of the real estate shall be determined by a written MAI certified appraisal or by a written certified appraisal of a State certified or licensed real estate appraiser. The appraisal shall be available for public inspection. The resolution may direct the sale to be conducted by the staff of the municipality; by listing with local licensed real estate agencies, in which case the terms of the agent's compensation shall be included in the resolution; or by public auction. The resolution shall be published at the first opportunity following its passage in a newspaper published in the municipality or, if none, then in a newspaper published in the county where the municipality is located. The resolution shall also contain pertinent information concerning the size, use, and zoning of the real estate and the terms of sale. The corporate authorities may accept any contract proposal determined by them to be in the best interest of the municipality by a vote of two-thirds of the corporate authorities then holding office, but in no event at a price less than 80% of the appraised value. (Source: P.A. 88-355; 89-78, eff. 6-30-95.)
Does the GPLD have a valid appraisal of $562,000 for the 127 James Street property? This is the lowest appraisal that would make a sale of price $450,000 comport with the above statute. Proper notice is mandatory, and a 2/3’s yes vote of the Library Board is required (5 yes votes). Has an appraisal been done? Where is the required resolution? How would a “yes” vote be fair and ethical to those library district taxpayers who do not live in the City of Geneva?
The Last (August 2019) Certified MAI Appraisal of the 127 James Street Old Library Property was $1,500,000
In 2018, The City of Geneva had No Interest in the Old Library
Slow down! Thursday night, the Library Board is to vote to “sell” the old library to the City of Geneva for $450K. This will put the City of Geneva taxpayers on the hook for renovations and expenses and potentially take $1.5 million off the tax rolls. The 2018 Burns letter claims “no further interest” in the building, but a secret last-minute deal is about to be cut. Why is the Library Board donating $1 mil to Geneva City Council? This is madness that begs for a more complete and transparent public vetting. A public auction of the property or a referendum are both paths to open, honest government. The current path is the Geneva Way – ambush the taxpayers.
Rod's Ramblings and Ruminations 