Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS2-01 Ordinance No. S2-01 AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK (325 South Street) WHEREAS, on September 27, 2000, the City Council of the City of Elgin adopted Ordinance No. S10-00 which designated the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street as a historical landmark as provided in Chapter 20 . 06 of the Elgin Municipal Code, 1976, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, by and through its President and Presiding Bishop, has filed a petition dated December 3 , 2000, to rescind the designation of the Grace United Methodist Church as a historical landmark; and WHEREAS, the Elgin Heritage Commission has conducted a public hearing on the petition to rescind and has determined that the petition to rescind was well founded and has recommended that the designation of the Grace United Methodist Church as a historical landmark be rescinded; and WHEREAS, the Elgin Heritage Commission has submitted to the City Council its report and findings in support of its recommendation to rescind the designation of the Grace United Methodist Church as a historical landmark; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Heritage Commission and concurs in the recommendation to rescind the designation of the Grace United Methodist Church as a historical landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that Ordinance No. S10-00 previously adopted by the City Council of the City of Elgin on September 27, 2000 be and is hereby repealed and that the previous designation of the Grace United Methodist Church at 325 South Street as a historical landmark is rescinded and declared to be null and void and of no further effect . s/ Ed Schock Ed Schock, Mayor Presented: March 14 , 2001 Passed: March 14 , 2001 Omnibus Vote : Yeas : 6 Nays : 0 Recorded: March 15, 2001 Published: Attest : s/ Dolonna Mecum Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk z City of Elgin Agenda Item No. rillk rEO4 E G �' Tr L February 16, 2001 G I TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council N x . FROM: Joyce A. Parker, City Manager NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY SUBJECT: Rescission of the Landmark Status of the Grace United Methodist Church PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members of the City Council with information to consider the rescission of landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church. BACKGROUND The Grace United Methodist Church, located at 325 South Street, was designated as a local Elgin landmark by the City Council on September 27, 2000 . The property was nominated by the congregation of the Grace United Methodist Church and designated over objections of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. A petition was submitted on November 6, 2000, by the President and Presiding Bishop, C. Joseph Sprague of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. The church requested the rescission of the landmark status of the property based on concerns that the landmark ordinance designating the church was enacted without a valid and proper nomination petition having being made by the local church and was carried out contrary to the express wishes and legal position of the only authorized ownership entities and officials of the church, namely the Annual Conference. The Annual Conference claimed that the local church' s title to the property is subject to a trust clause which limits the local church' s authority regarding the use of the property, including the authority to nominate the church as a landmark. rim" Rescission - Grace United Methodist Church February 16, 2001 Page 2 Per the requirements to Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code, the Elgin Heritage Commission conducted a public hearing to obtain the testimony of the property owners, petitioners and other concerned citizens on the submitted petition. Following the close of the public hearing, the Corporation Counsel provided a recommendation to the Commission with an opinion and finding of fact concerning the testimony submitted. A similar opinion and finding of fact was simultaneously conducted by Stephen Hart, member of the Elgin Heritage Commission. Information on the findings of the Corporation Counsel and Commissioner Hart are attached for reference. Based on the recommendation of the Corporation Counsel and Commissioner Hart, the Elgin Heritage Commission passed a resolution to recommend to the City Council the rescission of landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church based on the fact that the local Grace United Methodist Church lacked the authority to nominate the subject property as a landmark. If landmark status is rescinded, the property will no longer be Aplik subject to the requirements of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Ordinance. COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED A public hearing was conducted by the Elgin Heritage Commission on January 2, 2001 . A transcript from the hearing was obtained and is attached. At their next regular meeting, on February 6, 2001, the Commission adopted a resolution and finding of fact on the nomination, based on the opinions rendered by the Corporation Counsel and Commissioner Hart . The Commission determined that the landmark ordinance designating the church was enacted without a valid and proper nomination petition having been made by the local church and was carried out contrary to the express wishes and legal position of the only authorized ownership entities and officials of the church, namely the Annual Conference. I e Rescission - Grace United Methodist Church February 16, 2001 Page 3 Copies of their resolution and report on the findings of the Commission are attached. 51kFINANCIAL IMPACT The expenses associated with the conducting the public hearing, mailing printed educational and informational material are estimated to be under $700. There are sufficient funds within the Elgin Heritage Commission FY 2001 budget (account number 010-0902- 709 . 80-04) to cover the expenses . LEGAL IMPACT The petition to rescind appears to be well-founded n Oa/ PP o ded a d should be granted. ALTERNATIVES 1 . Accept the recommendation of the Elgin Heritage Commission to rrescind the landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church. 2 . Reject the recommendation of the Elgin Heritage Commission to rescind landmark status . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council rescind landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church. R ectfully submitted, CZL_ J ceL1-Y. Parker City Manager JAP/sbs rek .$ 3 (Q R C Ct-tux- City. of Elgin Mayor Ed Schock it*. Council Members Juan Figueroa Robert Gilliam Ruth Munson John Walters Stuart Wasilowski February 13, 2001 Marie Yearman City Manager Joyce A. Parker Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, President and Presiding Bishop Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church 77 West Washington St, Suite 1820 Chicago, IL 60602 Re: Grace United Methodist Church, 325 South Street, Elgin, Illinois Petition to rescind landmark designation Transmittal of findings and determination of the Elgin Heritage Commission At their last meeting held on February 6, 2001, the Elgin Heritage Commission passed a resolution to recommend to the Elgin City Council the rescission of landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church. The information on the findings, determinations and resolution of the Commission regarding the petition will be transmitted to the City Council for their consideration. For your reference, a copy of the findings, determinations and resolution of the Commission is attached along with this letter. The information submitted by the Elgin Heritage Commission, is likely to be heard and discussed by the Elgin City Council Committee of the Whole by the end of this month or early next month. Copies of the transcript of the Public Hearing that was held on February 6, 2001, to obtain the testimony of the property owners and interested parties on the issue of the petition are available at City Hall for your reference. Please contact me if you wish to obtain copies of this document. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (847) 931-5943. Sincerely, 41 Sarosh B. Saher Urban Design & Preservation Specialist cc: Charles Keysor, President of the Board of Trustees, Grace UMC, Elgin 150 Dexter Court • Elgin, IL 60120-5555 • Phone 847/931-6100 • Fax 847/931-5610 • TDD 847/931-5616 Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, President and Presiding Bishop page 2 February 13, 2001 George A. Albee 41,11) Rev. Duk Kyu Kwon, Grace UtiIC Arlene Christopherson, District Superintendent, UMC Rodney W. Osborne, Ekroth & Osborne, Ltd. Samuel W. Witwer, Witwer, Poltrock & Giampietro Rev. Dr. Gessel Berry, Jr., Board of Trustees,NIAC, UMC Elgin Heritage Commission William A. Cogley, Corporation Counsel, City of Elgin I I • ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE RECISION OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ELGIN ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the structure described as the Grace United Methodist Church, attached hereto, is located on the west side of the City of Elgin, Illinois; and WHEREAS, the structure described as the Grace United Methodist Church, attached hereto, had been identified by the Elgin Heritage Commission, Illinois, as a significant historical and architectural structure within the City of Elgin due to its connection to the religious and cultural development of the area and its unusual architectural design; and WHEREAS, the structure described as the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street was designated by the EIgin City Council as an Elgin landmark in the Year 2000; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for owners of Elgin landmarks to object to the designation of landmarks and request that status be rescinded; WHEREAS, the recision of the landmark status of the Grace United Methodist Church, as proposed elk by the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of United Methodist Churches, is in accordance with the requirements as specified in Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLNOIS, that the Elgin Heritage Commission, hereby recommends the rescission of landmark status of the structure described and attached hereto, and made part hereof by reference, be and hereby named as the "Grace United Methodist Church." s/d Dan Miller Dan Miller, Chairman, Elgin Heritage Commission s/d Stephen O. Hart Stephen 0. Hart, Vice-Chairman, Elgin Heritage Commission Presented: February 6, 2001 Adopted: February 6, 2001 Vote: Yeas: 8, Nays: 0 Attest: s/d Sarosh Saher Sarosh B. Saher, Urban Design & Preservation Specialist Staff Liaison, Elgin Heritage Commission ELGIN HERITAGE COMMISSION CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS Report on the findings of the .Elgin Heritage Commission concerning the nomination of the Grace United Methodist Church as a local Elgin landmark. The petition to rescind the landmark designation of the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street, Elgin, IL 60120, submitted by the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of United Methodist Churches satisfies the requirements of Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code providing for the persons and organizations who are authorized to file nominations for landmarks and historic districts or petitions for amendment or rescission of such properties. Per Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code; Chapter 20.06; Section 20.06.120 (Amendment or Rescission of Designation) The Commission's findings are included in the attached document authored by Cor.oration Counsel of the City of Eicin and Ste.hen Hart Member of the El in Heritau_e Commission, (Attachment A). Recommendations as to appropriate permitted uses, special uses, height and area regulations, minimum dwelling size, floor area, sign regulations and placing regulations necessary or appropriate to the structure. The property shall comply with the provisions of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Elgin Municipal Code for permitted uses, special uses, height and area regulations, minimum dwelling size, ' floor area, sign regulations and placing. A map showing the location of the nominated Iandmark. (Attached) 4.1) • • February 2 , 2001 MEMORANDUM TO : Members of the Elgin Heritage Commission FROM : William A. Cogley, Corporation Counsel SUBJECT : Petition to Rescind Landmark Designation of Grace United Methodist Church The office of the corporation counsel has been asked to render a legal opinion on the pending petition to rescind the landmark designation for the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street, Elgin, Illinois . On September 27 , 2000 the City Council adopted Ordinance No . S10-00 which provided for the designation of the Grace United Methodist Church at 325 South Street as a historic landmark pursuant to Chapter 20 . 06 of the Elgin Municipal Code . Such ordinance was adopted after a nomination for the landmarking had been filed by the local Grace United Methodist Church. , r The Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, by and through its President and Presiding Bishop C. Joseph. Sprague, (hereinafter the "Conference" ) has filed a petition dated November 3 , 2000 to rescind the landmark designation of the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street, Elgin, Illinois . Elgin Municipal Code Section 20 . 06 . 120 provides in relevant part that landmark designations previously made by the City Council may be rescinded upon a petition to the Heritage Commission in compliance with the same procedures and according to the same criteria as set forth for the original designation. Such procedures include a public hearing by the Heritage Commission and the Heritage Commission making findings and a recommendation regarding the proposed rescission to the City Council . The principal issue raised in the Conference ' s petition to rescind the landmark designation is that the landmark ordinance for the subject property was enacted without a valid and proper nomination petition having been made by the local church and was carried out contrary to the express wishes and legal position of the only authorized ownership entities and officials. of the church. The Conference ' s position is based upon the fact that the local church ' s title to the subject property is subject to a trust clause which limits the local church' s authority regarding the use of the subject property including the authority to nominate the subject property as a landmark. ;;oers �L L11 C �_�_. .... . February 2 , 2001 Page -2 - The Heritage Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject petition to rescind on January 2 , 2001 . The evidence presented included the following matters : - - The deeds conveying the subject property to the local Grace United Methodist Church (then the Grace Methodist Episcopal Church) in 1883 and 1888 were introduced as Petitioner ' s Exhibit 5 . The conveyances in such deeds were subject to a trust clause which provides that the property was conveyed: " In trust that said premises shall be used, kept and maintained and disposed of as a place of divine worship for the use of the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America; subject - to the discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of said church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference of said church and the Annual Conference in whose bounds the said premises are situated. " -- Excerpts from the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 1996, were introduced as Petitioner' s Group Exhibit 6 . Section 2501 thereof provides in relevant part that the United Methodist Church is organized as a connectional structure, and titles to all properties held at general, jurisdictional , annu,.:1, or district conference levels, or by a local chu .:h or charge, or by an agency or institution of the church, shall be held in trust for the United Methodist Church and subject to the provisions of its discipline . Section 2503 thereof provides in relevant part that all written instruments of conveyance by which premises are held or are hereinafter acquired for use as a place of divine worship for members of the United Methodist Church or for other church activities shall contain a specified trust clause which provides in part that such premises shall be used, kept and maintained as a .place of divine worship the United Methodist ministry and members of the United Methodist Church subject to the discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of said church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference • and by the Annual Conference within whose bounds the premises are situated. Section 2512 (7) thereof provides in relevant part that the Annual Conference Board of Trustees shall develop a policy for an Annual Conference response, on behalf of any local church to any governmental effort to designate a property held in trust for the benefit of the United Methodist Church as a . • cultural , historical or architectural landmark. Members of the Elgin eri cage Com zss�o� • February 2 , 2001 Page -3 - - - The bylaws of the Northern Illinois Conference of the "'' United Methodist Church were introduced as Petitioner ' s Group Exhibit 7 . Article VI thereof provides for the Conference ' s regulations relating to governmental landmarking of church-owned property . Section 3 thereof provides in relevant part : "The Annual Conference Board of Trustees , or the Board of Trustees of any agency, organization or local church which voluntarily wishes to cooperate with the governmental body in having any property landmarked which said Board of Trustees holds in trust for the United Methodist Church, must do the following : (a) Comply with the provisions of the - discipline in regards to the encumbrance of church property; and either (1) Obtain the consent of the conference _ Board of Trustees, the Presiding Bishop and of the majority of the Cabinet or • (2) Obtain the consent of the Annual Conference . " -- In early 2000, the local church requested that the Board of Trustees of the Northern Illinois Conference consent to the landmarking of the church building on the subject property. The Board of Trustees of the Conference denied such request . The local church thereafter petitioned the Annual Conference at its 2000 Annual Conference meeting in June of 2000 in Petition Number 700-20 for the Annual Conference ' s consent to the landmarking of the church at the building on the subject property. The members of the Annual Conference did not approve such petition. Despite not having obtained the consent of the Board of Trustees of the Conference or the consent of the Annual Conference the local church persisted with the nomination for a landmark designation of the church building on the subject property. Elgin Municipal Code Section 20 . 06 . 010 provides for the persons and organizations who are authorized to file nominations for landmarks and historic districts as follows : "Nominations shall be made to the Heritage Commission on a form prepared by it and may be made and submitted by a member of the Heritage Commission, owner of record of the nominated property or structure, the City Council , or any :embers oz February 2 , 2001 Page -4 - other person or organization having a substantial interest in the property . " (emphasis added) The Conference has argued in its petition to rescind the subject landmark designation that because the local church' s title to the subject property is subject to a trust clause which limits the local church ' s authority regarding use of the subject property the local church is neither the owner of record nor an organization having a substantial interest in the subject property so as to authorize the local church to file a nomination for landmark designation pursuant to Section 20 . 06 . 010 . Elgin Municipal Code Section 20 . 04 . 055 provides that unless otherwise specifically defined in Chapter 20 . 04 , words or phrases used in Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code shall be defined in accordance with the definitions contained in Webster ' s Dictionary. Section 20 . 04 . 010 defines an "owner of record" as being the person, corporation, or other legal entity who holds "fee simple title" in a subject property. Webster' s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "fee" in relevant part as " . . . in absolute and legal possession" and defines "simple" in relevant part as "not limited or restricted" . Chapter 20 . 04 provides no definition of " . . . a substantial interest . . . " in a property. Webster' s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "substantial" in relevant part as " . . . important, essential . . . being largely but not wholly that which is specified . . . " and defines "Interest" in relevant part as " . . . right, title, or legal share in something" . The . determination of whether the local church is the owner of record of the subject property (i . e . the holder of fee simple title) or an organization having a substantial interest in such property requires an interpretation of the subject trust clause and an interpretation of the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church and the bylaws of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church. The United States Supreme Court and appellate courts in Illinois have promulgated rules regarding how civil courts must interpret and analyze the rules and internal policies of religious organizations on matters of church policy. In Watson v. Jones, 80 U. S . 679, 20 L.Ed 666, 13 Wall 679 (1871) the United States Supreme Court announced the general rule that civil courts are required to defer to the internal policies of religious organizations on matters of church polity. This case arose out of a disagreement between certain local church members and the parent Presbyterian church. Each faction believed that it had exclusive rights to possess, use and control the subject church. The local church members held the record title to the property in question subject to the parent church' s "fundamental laws" which included that the 471 • Members of the Elgin Heritage Commission February 2 , 2001 Page -S - property was held in trust " for the parent church . The rUnited States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parent Presbyterian church or the "Session" which could be analogized co the "Conference" in the present matter . The Supreme Court found that the local church members were mere nominal holders and that the real owner was the parent church or "Session" due to the nature of the Presbyterian organization and faith . The Supreme Court also stated that it would seem to be the "obvious duty of the court" to see that a property so dedicated with a trust clause is not diverted from the trust which is thus attached to its use . The Supreme Court announced the general rule in Watson v. Jones that whenever local churches bind themselves voluntary to a parent church (mentioning specifically the Methodist Episcopal Church at Page 729) secular courts must defer to that parent church' s doctrines in matters of church polity. In Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada v. Milivolevich, 426 U. S . 696, 96 S .Ct . 2372 , 49 L . Ed 2d 151 (1976) , the United States Supreme Court again dealt with a disagreement between rival church factions over the use of church property. The United States Supreme Court held in favor of the parent church and reversed an order of the Illinois Supreme Court . The United States Supreme Court, following its earlier opinion in Watson, again found that the use of the church property should be determined by church law which dictated that such use was controlled by the parent church organization. The Supreme Court in reiterating the general rule enunciated in Watson that civil courts are required to defer to the internal policies of religious organizations on matters of church polity stated: " . . . When rival church factions seek resolution of a church property dispute in the civil courts there is a substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs . Because of this danger the first amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes . " (426 U. S . at 710) . In Jones v. Wolf, 443 U. S . 595, 99 S .Ct . 3020, 61 L.Ed 2d 775 (1979) the United States Supreme Court again dealt with a case involving a disagreement over ownership of church property following a dispute between a local church affiliated with a hierarchal church organization. In Jones v. Wolf the Supreme Court modified the above discussed "deference" doctrine enunciated in the Watson line of cases and held that if the controversy does not involve church doctrine that the first amendment does not require that the states adopt a rule of rik compulsory deference to religious authority in resolving property disputes . Instead, the Supreme Court held that February 2 , 2001 Page -6 - courts may chose from a variety of approaches . One of these , the "neutral principles" approach allows the court to apply objective legal principles to its examination of church documents and ocher pertinent evidence . In this manner the All court can determine who owns or controls church property in much the same manner it would decide a secular property dispute . (See Jones v. Wolf , 443 U. S . at 602 , 605) . The "neutral principles" analysis to resolve church property controversies where no church doctrinal issues are involved has been adopted by the First and Second District Appellate Courts in Illinois in the cases of Aglikin v. Kovacheff, 114 Ill .Dec . 549 , 163 Ill .App . 3d 426 , 516 N. E. 2d 704 (1st Dist . , 1987) and St . Mark Cootic Orthodox Church v. Tanios , 157 Ill .Dec . 214 , 213 Ill .App . 3d 700 , 517 N.E . 2d 283 (2nd Dist . , 1991) . In Aalikin V. Kovacheff the court specifically approved and utilized the neutral principles analysis in a case involving a disagreement over the use of church property. The foregoing legal authorities suggest that the analysis of the subject controversy between the local Grace United Methodist Church and the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church over the authority to nominate the subject church property as a landmark should be analyzed and resolved utilizing the neutral principles analysis . The evidence establishes that the local Grace United Methodist Church holds title to the subject property subject to the trust clause quoted above which limits and regulates the use of the subject property pursuant to the requirements of the discipline of the United Methodist Church. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church includes a provision . whereby the Board of Trustees of the Annual Conference are required to develop a policy for the Annual Conference in response to any governmental effort to designate a property held in trust for the benefit of the United Methodist Church as an architectural landmark. The bylaws of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church include provisions relating to a governmental landmarking of church-owned property and specifically require the local church which voluntarily wishes to cooperate with a governmental body in having any property landmarked to obtain the consent of the Conference Board of Trustees or obtain the consent of the Annual Conference . The evidence further establishes that the United Methodist Church is organized as a connectional church, and titles to all properties held at general , jurisdictional, annual or district conference levels, or by a local church or charge, or by an agency or institution of the church, shall be held in trust for the United Methodist Church and is subject to the provisions of its discipline (See Section 2501 of Book of • • I Members of the Elgin eritaJe Comm ss_or Eebruary 2 , 2001 Page -7- Discipline of the United Methodist Church, Petitioner ' s Group egok Exhibit 6) . Reviewing courts in other states have recognized and upheld the United Methodist Church ' s authority to control the property of local congregations through a trust clause and the Church Book. of Discipline . In Western Conference Board of Trustees of United Methodist Church, Inc . v. Culver, 614 NW 2d 523 (Wisc . App . , 2000) , the court ruled in favor of the parent church Wisconsin Conference Board of Trustees of the United Methodist Church in a property dispute with a local church and upheld the parent church' s authority to control the property of the local church based upon a trust clause and the doctrinal law of the United Methodist Church as set forth in the Church Book of Discipline . In Western Pennsylvania Conference of United Methodist Church v. Everson Evangelical Church of North America, 312 At1 . 2d 35 (PA S .Ct . , 1973) the court ruled in favor of the parent Western Pennsylvania Conference of United Methodist Church in a property dispute with a local church and upheld the parent church' s authority to control the property of the local church based upon the provisions of the Church Book of Discipline and the Constitution of the United Methodist Church. In Northside Bible Church v. Goodson, 387 F . 2d 584 (Ct . of Appeals, Alabama, 1967) the court held unconstitutional an Alabama statute which permitted a local church to withdraw a local eift church property from the use and control of the parent church organization contrary to a trust clause similar to the trust clause in the present case . As a result of the substantial limitations and regulations of the subject trust clause, the Church Book of Discipline, and Conference Bylaws, including the specific requirement that the local church first the consent of the Conference Board of Trustees or the Annual Conference before voluntarily cooperating with a governmental body to have the subject property landmarked, it is my opinion that the local Grace - United Methodist Church does not hold the requisite "absolute" and unlimited or unrestricted fee simple title interest in the subject property so as to be considered the owner of record of the subject property as that term is defined in Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code . It is also my opinion that the substantial limitations and regulations of the subject trust clause, the Church Book of Discipline, and Conference Bylaws, including the specific requirement that the local church obtain the consent of the Conference Board of Trustees or the Annual Conference before voluntarily cooperating with a governmental body in having any property landmarked, sufficiently limit the property interest of the local Grace United Methodist Church in the subject property such that the eisk local church does not hold the requisite " important or essential" title interest in the subject property so as to be Xembers of the Elgin eri`age February 2 , 2001 Page -8 - considered to have "a substantial interest " in the property for the purposes of nominating the property for landmarking . Article VI of the Bylaws of the Northern Illinois Conference Alo of the United Methodist Church (Petitioner ' s Group Exhibit 7) requires special mention. Such Article VI provides for the Conference ' s. regulations relating to governmental landmarking of church-owned property and requires a local church which voluntarily wishes to cooperate with a governmental body in having a property landmarked to obtain the consent of the Conference Board of Trustees or obtain the consent of the Annual Conference . These specific requirements within Article VI which prohibit a local church from voluntarily cooperating with a governmental body to have a property landmarked without obtaining the consent of the parent church organization, taken together with the language of the trust clause and other provisions of the Book of Discipline, require the conclusion that the local church is not an owner of record or has a substantial interest in the . su.:bject property as those terms are defined in Title 20 of the Elgin Municipal Code . An assertion was made by a witness at the hearing before the Heritage Commission that the phrase within the Conference Bylaws of "voluntarily cooperating" with a governmental body in having a property landmarked is distinguishable from the local church' s action in the present case of having voluntarily filed the nomination for landmark designation. This assertion attempting to distinguish between the provision in the Bylaws and the action of the local church is not persuasive . A reasonable reading of the general concept of "voluntarily cooperating" as such phrase is utilized in the Conference Bylaws must be said to include a local church voluntarily filing a nominating petition for landmark designation. Based upon all of the foregoing it is my opinion that the local Grace United Methodist Church lacks the authority to nominate the subject property at 325 South Street as a landmark pursuant to Elgin Municipal Code Section 20 . 06 . 010 . I am aware that this office had previously indicated that the local . church could submit an application nominating the subject property for landmark designation. This position was based upon a title commitment received from Chicago Title Insurance Company which provided that the local church was the owner of the subject property in fee simple . However, in light of this office ' s own subsequent investigation of property records in the Kane County Recorder ' s Office as well as the information and documents submitted into the record by the Conference relating to the Church Book of Discipline and Conference Bylaws it is now apparent that the local church is not the owner of the subject property in fee simple and lacked the authority to nominate the subject property for landmark designation. 47, Xarnbers of the Elgin Heritage Commission • February 2 , 2001 Page -9- This office has also been asked by a member the Heritage rCommission to render a legal opinion on the applicability of the Illinois statute known as the Trust and Trustees Act found at 750 ILCS 5/1 et seq. The question presented appears to be that if the subject Act is applicable and the local church is considered a trustee pursuant to such Act whether Section 5/4 . 04 thereof applies and would provide the local church authority to petition for landmark designation . Assuming that the trust clause in the subject deeds did in fact create a trust as that term is defined under the Trust and Trustees Act , the authority of a trustee to dedicate any interest in real estate provided for in Section 5/4 . 04 of the Act would not apply to the church property pursuant to Section 5/3 (2) of the Act which provides that the provisions of Sections 4 . 01 through 4 . 08 , Sections 4 . 10 through 4 . 12 and Sections 4 . 14 through 4 . 24 apply only to trusts executed on or after October 1, 1973 . Section 5/4 . 04 would also not apply to the local church pursuant to Section 5/3 (1) of the Act which provides that the provisions of the Act apply to a trust only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the instrument . The provisions of the Church Book of Discipline and Conference Bylaws would in fact be directly inconsistent with the broad powers of Sections 5/4 . 04 which authorize a trustee to grant interests in real estate . folk The Illinois Trust and Trustees Act would therefore not be applicable to the present matter nor provide the local church with authority to nominate the subject property for landmark designation. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the Petition to Rescind the Landmark Designation filed by the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church appears to be well-founded and should be granted. Wit) 2 WAC nr cc : Joyce A. Parker Mark Biernacki Sarosh Saher Michael R. Gehrman Richard G. Kozal Donald B . Leist r HART & FALK Attorneys at Law STEPHEN 0. HART' 10 Shannon Street KRISTEN E. FALK Edgerton.Wisconsin 53534 •AD.O1TED TO PRACTICE N W SCONSrN.FLORIDA&ILLINOIS (603)884-9411 Fax (608)884-9412 411) 20 East Milwaukee Street Suite 404 February 6 , 2001 Janesville,Wisconsin 53545 (608)758-9292 To the Heritage Commission, City of Elgin, IL: e-mail: edgelaw@earth.inwave.com I am submitting this in written form in order that it can be easily incorporated into the record of these proceedings . Issues I do not believe the free exercise of religion or separation of church and state is at issue. The City of Elgin ordinance is clearly "neutral" in this regard and would be applied to both religious and non-religious structures. The narrow issue is, in my view, whether or not the local congregation has the legal ability to apply for landmark status. Discussion Substantial Interest. The City of Elgin ordinance requires the petitioner to have a "substantial interest" in the real estate. The local congregation meets this test. The record at our previous hearings is clear that the congregation has possessory rights to the property. This right is of real worth and importance and has considerable value, in my opinion. This renders it "substantial" as defined in Black ' s Law Dictionary, 4th editior Church Building in Trust. The record reflects, and it. is not challenged by the congregation, that the congregation does not have absolute ownership of the. church building. The Heritage Commission previously, I believe, reasonably relied upon a title insurance commitment obtained by the City Attorney' s office which showed that the local congregation held "fee title" in the property. It now appears that the title insurance policy failed to disclose the nature of the "trust" referred to in the deed. The fundamental purpose of title insurance, however, is not to provide a "title search" but to insure a title after evaluating underwriting risks. The title insurance company may have concluded that the trust language on the deed to the church could be disregarded for underwriting purposes . In discussing this issue with the owner of a title insurance company, however, he believes that the title insurance company should have obtained further documentation from the Methodist Church hierarchy. All In any event, the deed and documents and testimony presented at the hearing held on January 2 , 2001, make it clear that the local congregation holds the property "in trust" , and that the Methodist Church routinely structures church property ownership in this way. This "trust" status was not challenged by the congregation. Powers of Trustee. I believe we must look to what powers and duties the "trustee" (the congregation) has with reference to property held in trust. Although the City of Elgin ordinance grants standing to the local congregation to apply for landmark status, because the congregation satisfies the "substantial interest" test, it is my opinion that Illinois state law would control regarding the power of the congregation, as a trustee, to deal with property in the trust. I have reviewed Illinois Compiled Statutes 760 ILCS 5/ , entitled "Trusts and Trustees Act" (the Act) . Attached are portions of the Act. The Act provides at section 2 paragraph (1) that a trust is created by deed . . . or other written instrument. The trust pertaining to the church real estate was created by deed. The Act, Section 3 paragraph (1) , provides that the provisions of the Act apply to the extent "that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the instrument. " The instrument in this case is the deed. The deed itself does not set forth the powers and duties of the trustee are. Section 3 , paragraph (2) of the Act provides "This Act applies to every trust created by . . . deed . . . except that the provisions of s. 4 . 01 through 4 . 08 . . . apply only to trusts executed on or after October 1, 1973 . . . " . Therefore, since the Act would apply to this "trust" , we must look to the Act to determine the Congregation ' s powers as trustee. There is no provision in the Act which specifically grants the power to a trustee to make application for landmark status. Nevertheless, section 4 . 04 grants to the trustee the right "To grant easements, subdivide, improve, give consents and enter into contracts relating to real estate or its use and to dedicate any interest in real estate. " (emphasis supplied) It is my opinion that the right to freely alter the exterior of real e'' estate is "an interest in real estate" ; the local congregation seeks to give up or dedicate this right to the city of Elgin. Section 4 of the Act entitled "Powers of Trustee" states : "The trustee has the powers specified in sections 4 . 01 through 4 . 25" . A fair reading of this provision is that unless a specific power to do something is given to a trustee, the trustee does not have that power. Conclusions 1. The petition by the local congregation, while authorized by the city of Elgin ordinance, is not authorized by Illinois law. The power to "dedicate any interest in real estate" is granted by the Act to trustees of trusts created after October 1, 1973 . The deed creating the trust predates October 1, 1973 . Because the Illinois statutory scheme regarding the powers of trustees would preempt local law (as it is a matter of statewide concern) , the Illinois statute controls. 2 . The Elgin ordinance does not violate the separation of church and state because it is "neutral" . Nevertheless, because of the unique way the Methodist hierarchy and their congregations have chosen to structure the ownership rights of church properties, the "trust" created in the deed cannot be ignored. 3 . Nothing would prevent the Commission itself from initiating landmark status proceedings, but the local congregation lacks the legal right to do so. Therefore, I vote to recommend to the City Council the landmark status of the church be rescinded. Respectfully submitted. Stephen 7 Hart Member of Heritage Commission 471 0 .--- .,0 I. • I... :.-- I, •• i , ... s ) t ,."If^. . ...._.., --• • ...... ...,:,/ 0 i............. ... / .... , -- . • • 1 ! , ` -,‘,1:2.-.....z- .1j1 _ I..'.k.,•.,,/ 1 1 . ‘, • r;,7ir 47-.t , ..-'1•1;'!••11 ..1 1 1 . . 1 I . %., • ,: .... .111,; TV 1, r , . .--4.. ,7,•„._ 1 • . . .. .. , t74 .f....:70.,,,),„..„ ( (•,,,.0 . • , , i . 111:11...!. 1 . 1 .' .k -\ ::. I/. iii I 'j. (;4, .,,1 ,1 ..--f,-r''. :;2-' ;" • " . • t,.... ..•1'.1 ..% .i;.' }0. f,...., I.,:..7.1 . • 1. o: N lir - T f ' ' - 17 • rif It - L -rx-rd•-...-T.ilk:Fi IF): i f;'''r' '.' /1'''''':-/ l'I 1,- ■■•'"*/IN 'I ' t1-.5--- •/.1:1•\''N);.1.(-A,kti- \,_0- 1 .i,4',.. q).!..f.l.„1, ,. „(--,,-. I.. . P , . ....-9i-J,--,-;• -V'(1!) - . .• XellE.!":1 ../.. - / ,..,...,4,...'if' I, 0.i i,,....:-_,,p,,\I ft,i ob,1,-,--.'„,1-•r. ,.'$, y'l ''" ! '' ''''- 1 ,...1:1 . „ ,_%,•__.:, ,c1*.);-,..-;•. % •-r-•••T i'.•-(;=-1JA---,-1 .---t •6:01--.:5)_, ' ,\,w_LI.I.,.is,,:.\ _03.,$1.1.: I i•,, ,i ! ...I ,.. • ,7-piii, ..,,c311,_ , .1 ... cril 1, .4illet•%=.4 - • li'1 il 1-;:-');•-••,... :i,- ,„;,11. f., i).: \-!,:iv,13%--- --t.;;A%--1,1";,•;.151.), %,, 7.1 ,.. t ,1 '1 .11 4 :1-11_. k7-..,_:.,1:7-:--.,1:-.:-",, '7•,••:-.1 I ' •I''r,' -11,',;< .%.---"---..111"-!4:-.--.•,,N i itl'+1 .7 .,-,•.--•- •-'•,. -,./j.i...-1-i ,1 z,I•rrt If"..rInA ti 1 t(A,I.0 1.., .„....,,ftfic r,...--:,•-••,:;%. .,,lc•37.17,, . .._ . ., ,„....-rfs.1,Li,}_{,,1 . ../„..,,,,..A.,....,t.,:. i‘i fr. VV.I...'II 1,.:IP, it 1,41:v-,1 li ih-j1,1 • '1„,,,,.,k k .• / 11 1 ti I,.• 1111,4 li A)1 L.I Il 11 P. IL:,I(14..t•I k..,: .,,,,if 1•,.. r 1 ti-',")!•1.. •rcp., . ,.• ,..; 1 1 ...,....... ?...„, •,.:.,.„...!,cull, .1 sl: II I ,Illy,./ :,....,:,i...., ......:r:',“,1;;I; ft',;',...‘.... ,, : 1 ... , 1 •I 1:11-•-• .1(1',;-.) ,,,N- , ,„.....::-..:4..L., - I.. :..,, G--' 111.pti-• --11 -" .N...;:;:.42•h".."":"tr (ill I(I II 11,1, 11*---/C..\'‘..-1'. '' :---,,--Iv. .'1,,.., , r t 1 trill----101 . r. ' l , . 11.1 ":"..-- 1 I if(-..;‘• ..'"'1 11 . Ii. r: 1-."'I 4; I,.1 r•Ill''. II..- 1/(,,....,'\.,--.-.. . ic-- *h, "/ 1\ 1P'" 4 •#. !;'.1:1 I":.' •I.,1---)';•.;•. , c.11.4.:.K..f' •- _.„..:11-:„ 1 i. ; ci-11. ,,1!) .;', .,.:• !;• .t t .t I.1.1-?•1 fici" 0. "t"-.,; -'.,.; ..,,-1.•11,., r...,11/ 1 . •..k.:. .- . ':. - .,-- : • ."' 1.-- 6 \•;.'' 1 •il.11 {^11." !.1, ''•11!r41(VIIP . 1.•A's le TT-4.1'7 ^ 4 1 A.''k;\" ! •'\ 1:7'.-.--. - -.1... • / ,,',....11: ' \ ,,,.., V 4i..' .. 11 . ., ,I,,I',1,4 L.1.4-Litt.). .*! r,,,X4 k.,I1'A 4 iv. • 'A----. , -0,.., ,,,..I : ...... 1 1 1..",-- . - .•+ : ; ---,1 .,3i- 1-.. • ; kr,•ii,t,,f p 1 ...:. 1, -Tie•i.4:' . , ' ril,r,-.) .Ir- r fir\ -:-... 1 ,., , , ■...... il• „IL; '•••■ii.fl..,1:. ,p.: ..1 ,. :) -- :. el.. -,-;'•• • .„R.c A:_kJ ......-, 1 ....,...7:7-. s•'I ... . ',.., . . i . .. . I, it - t h.r.),t4._.,L- 1;r...t,iii, .r 1_,g._A' st‘e.,.. -. ty ,1 ,,..-_,, ■ . F.N - ,s\ .; 1. ... o. -. . ir-/ ''N-_ "/ s'.. ''i ), ..<;,e1;.:.'• .)C7--IL-It':'.ii.1111.,1(,. - '• 1--•-: 1 -. ■ s• .,:i - .i.r...:'...kjiir t'ft;) 1,:,\I . ''-' '.•-•-- " 'Jr; ' r.--•• ...- .\\ -r----) • " ..'••••::____1;06\1\11,..;,11 5,,• ./Lipkijitil., ,..-n.si . . - 1 '-'''f"•,.. •,r-!:::i.71)N• ) • • 7 i Ir.■ '. u.i.-: .:4;00.,--citu.-,1_,_ ._ .,.., --- - i. ......:'-...--.1. i. . 1 It-:i,' .,,..-11.,,e .,,T.'-liv-_:„4p..s- xg-•-k.-.fril 1---i • i ‘-) .:,- --„;•-•,....4\___:. ,- -., ..c tq,•;;A.,f :,11... ,(.14 IUU • ! ■*--- .1'16-IT‘\.V..;n1--- ' .70-11;,:f?.4;1131b711-:..-1:14. i'll.kalkiliirtj'HUlt:-, .. !? .1 of .. A #.. II Alp 1 ,ric... %.,,-41%- J.v.:.:A....4.02_17- • , i. ir--,17z.... •t••.t.?Ai ! ,___I • 1 i ,.. 1 , // • / '% ):1.1..:.2Y.t.,,,• ii-zic I, /,_:: .4.T1L: .1 1 1 1,-- iff • II,:,--1 n •• ,..2.11:,1:71:-i,:,,-)..7. t,,,tilt,i,-.,:),. .,,,,,„-••• , ,,•P"i r;c:-..11::::1---:!,--K-I ;• 1 .1---1:' .1 .fff-u-aji-, :3;1'I?. 1 '-'11,1.1116,‘77.-c.4;:::'''''•-,;;r-i l'''''''.-,11 (..) ,..x...x;)w,L._"„c,„„..,.,:• ( /1 Ili( Tito) 11,3 ylik.f I ' s'il i'• --`'N". - --, „ , Kz.,, ,....,0 _.f) .---1:1 CI ,,,',i) •6.11 . _-.7.!. -Ti , / 1.1 .1 -)'11 1 'tql-ii-'1).,,,u..".,-",,;.i .'a' - , ,,- ... _//1- .1, --1--r-lktj:Ti°:-.4`::•!--------..'A----. '--.-- - -.. . ---....---". • ,,-,4 ,,,....rri:„We, . , \ ,.....••••• ,t,, .1.:-:;,1(:::.:(1-,,:.'rlt .-or--!-" ....} :'. st:.:-.7:,-_,* ?, /..,.. - _.,Sr . j /0> i,I ? i''' • , -4 ,/.../ t----'. (i ■ ,,'ZN(''''''''k---72(,,-,..11;____C--1; v." -8 C\---._3,,t-E j:;)itili-4'. 1,_:- 1)1 1.cciii:i FIL,' .;.,....___,,,,' 4: .! ......;.I I*.-i•1 i,.,. .e/ , / •., 1:-/1si,z,.c'.•,.1,) -.pi"i..,A-A.,,,,V,;.4?./,...-.,--.-4,.;:.,..,:.,7i f;'..._i,.i/.,l:tl\1,1e: v./A'.T 4 2_'--I i;-(Li,7c)-:r&.,:R:,:,-\:".,''.,.s,-f,,..o.-l;•'.ir•‘/,-':1..,‘.,l?.,7,./9•.",.1),:7-..)-N.0.,A.;!4/2'i'1'e'.e.l m.-._.._.k:(..."..7).4.-.:,--!rr,-:-1--•',q;-e'i--r-'6-.---. •. . '/ "41I._./_-_j.i,i_ '?. .(D.C k/kC-i- i,L„liI f f-is..-4_.-r--r1-,.-:--------- -./v"-,•.-,1,_....i-*• ., _:-...,..r_ /1 • 1 • --- , . L i -•-• . ..t 7 1. 1 .r, • , I • I ) t.,. N.,..,...::1%-/' , _,,,.... ------ • - • •-- .,• . gr_ 4 • . / . • • I ! . _I \ i 1 . I / 1/ • 1 i 1--"1.---%/i'erP\/LI fr fil '''.// • 1 ! `• /.1 . .. ( • J . ...-c ,, ,,. . , \ . .. .... ,- .. •. • I / ,, . 0 / • 1-. ! .1* 1 __,‘,.1i)- li. -------_,.. / 4166.0' • , .... -- _. ., _ t,, • • / 6 /7•'71.: 11 , /I;; ■ 111116., ! .• / -..........,-.•-..-• •0 t , A .:'-,' A :•■• :.1, • , ,..., A CI , GRACE CHURCH, 323 South Street Block 32, Lots l & 2 of Kimball's OrlonaI Plan for West r lc ' Source: 188,5 Plat Vap of Elgin 411, South Street .• J a • Lot 1 C 66 x 66 j c Qrace• C,_ uraa .• • • S o = 12. St. _ - Lot 2 66x66ft • Boiler Room Addition 4) RECEIVED November 14 , 2000 NOV ; ?�^� MEMORANDUM rk.A ININ (, mar TO : Sarosh Saher, Urban Design & Historic Preservation Specialist FROM: William A. Cogley, Corporation Counsel SUBJECT : Petition to Rescind Landmark Designation of Grace United Methodist Church, 325 South Street , Elgin_, Illinois Attached is a petition from the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of the Untied Methodist Church to rescind the landmark designation of the Grace United Methodist Church located at 325 South Street, Elgin, Illinois . The petition to rescind the landmark designation has been filecd- pursuant to Elgin Municipal Code Section 20 . 06 . 120 which provides in relevant part that the designation of a landmark may be rescinded upon a petition to the Heritage Commission and compliance with the same procedures and according to the same criteria for designation of a landmark. rk The particular facts concerning the ownership of the subject property raise a number of significant church/state issues . Such issues include but are not limited to the effect of a new federal statute known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 which President Clinton signed into law at the end of September of 2000 . The legal department has commenced an additional comprehensive review of the law in this area and will be providing you a further legal opinion on this matter. In the meantime, you should proceed to process this petition according to the same procedure for the nomination of a property as a landmark. Please advise me as soon as possible as to the date of the public hearing to be conducted by the Heritage Commission regarding the subject petition to rescind. It is my intention to provide you a further legal opinion on this matter prior to such public hearing. Please also be sure to keep Mr . Witwer as the attorney for the petitioner informed as to all relevant dates regarding the consideration of this petition to rescind. WAC nr Attachment cc : Joyce A. Parker, w/att . Mark Biernacki, w/att . / I �/ WITWER. POLTROON. & GI_ MPIETRO ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2700 125 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE ROLrROCn J E ry v 1 f E R R O L T w J C+ s> VEL W WIrWER JR CHICAGO. ILLI107S 60606--4546 11) A N E S a a 0 a s .vArrvE B G1Aw.alErwp (312) 332•6000 �'C"AEL J r_ R1Ct 9 B1A.V M, WALO RON GREGORY N. FR (312) 236-0606 VuE sRARL Nc oe,■ER*o EERnSEN O.AN,EL S • ELLVER BIC •ARO c. SARNA • FAX (312) 3326008 NARLA J ..+LEr JAMES B. O''E.OVSE E'MAIL B R r A ry o O l E E R wpglawy,51 nelmall all net Or COUNSEL BEvERL♦ SUSLER PAR,N1.1RSi wDgldw ylP.mCi net NIC NAEL GALLAGHER (1695.1919) RECEIVED JO`.N L1GrENCERG (193,•1976) J November 3, 2000 . ALFRED MORAN (la3D•1066) r.10uA5 O. avRL.GE (■a■6•lOal) NOV 1 5 2000 S A++V EL W. WITWER. SR. (1906•1996) BY FEDERL EXPRESS PRIORITY DELIVERY Planning Department CITY OF ELGIN William A. Cogley, Esq. 150 DEXTER COURT Corporation Counsel ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60120 City of Elgin 150 Dexter Court Elgin, IL 60121 Re: Petition to Rescind Landmark Designation of Grace United Methodist ''' Church, 325 South Street, Elgin. Illinois 60123 Dear Mr. Cogley: Enclosed, in triplicate, is the above-referenced Petition which is our effort to carry out the settlement proposal submitted to you by Mr. Osborne and me last month. We trust this will be acted upon in the same spirit of good faith in which it was submitted. As you can see, the enclosure provides a mechanism for correcting the problem outside of court and within the City's own procedures. • Will you kindly route the enclosures to the appropriate persons and keep us posted? We ask for the maximum expedition possible. Very truly yours, SWWJR:cc P Enclosures cc: Bishop C. Joseph Sprague (By fax) PETITION TO RESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 325 SOUTH STREET, ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60123 November 3, 2000 TO: City of Elgin, Illinois, by and through its City Council and Elgin Heritage Commission c/o 150 Dexter Court Elgin, IL 60120 The undersigned, as President of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference, United Methodist Church ("the Conference"), an Illinois non-profit corporation, and as a Bishop of the United Methodist Church, an international religious denomination ("the Denomination" and "Church"), respectfully petitions the City of Elgin, its City Council and the Elgin Heritage Commission, to rescind that certain Ordinance No. S10-00 designating the Grace United Methodist Church as a historical landmark, together with all antecedent findings and recommendations of the Heritage Commission. This ordinance was enacted without a valid and proper nomination and was carried out contrary to the expressed wishes and legal position of the only authorized ownership entities and officials of the Church. Further, both facially and as applied, I believe this action infringes upon constitutional and statutory provisions guaranteeing the Denomination's free exercise of religion, r_ due process and equal protection of the laws, and other statutory rights. Under federal and state constitutional religious guarantees, government must respect and defer to — not knowingly override --the internal governance and polity of religious societies. This principle was disregarded in the City's involuntary landmarking action of September 27,2000, based on a flawed nomination by a local church which lacked authority and acted in defiance of church law including the Denomination's Trust Clause and related provisions. In support of the foregoing, the undersigned Petitioner states as follows: 1. This petition is brought in part, pursuant to the Elgin Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance G8-88, Section 2, 1988) at Section 20.06.120, without prejudice to the right of the Denomination and Conference to assert all federal and state constitutional and statutory grounds which may pertain hereto including, without limitation, those enumerated below. All rights are reserved under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment; the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, respectively, and the counterpart provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Also invoked are the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, (106th Congress) ("RLUIPA") and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/1, et seq. ("RFRA"). The landmarking here in question is not justified by a compelling public interest as required by those acts. 2. By his signature on this petition, the undersigned acts, not merely for a "majority"of the property owners as set forth in Section 20.06.120 or for parties with a "property interest in the regulated land..."(RLUIPA at Section 8(5)), but rather, for all lawful and beneficial ownership entities and officials with ultimate right of control over the landmarked property. Under the Trust Clause and the Book of Discipline, these powers reside exclusively in the Conference — not in the local church which attempted to nominate this property. 3. For well over two centuries, the Trust Clause has been a central written provision of ecclesiastical law of the United Methodist Church and its predecessor denominations, codified in a succession of Books of Discipline of the faith. That clause, as set forth in the Denomination's 1996 Book of Discipline, requires that all titles to local church property be held: 4.1) "... in trust, that said premises shall be used, kept, and maintained as a place of divine worship of the United Methodist ministry and members of the United Methodist Church; subject to the discipline. usage and ministerial aPoointments of said church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference and by the Annual Conference within whose bounds the said premises are situated..." (Emphasis added.) Book of Discipline (1996) at Par. 2503. 4. This clause and related provisions have always been interpreted by religious authorities within the Denomination, and by secular courts as well, as requiring local church officials to submit to the direction and authority of the larger church and the Conference in all matters concerning the use and disposition of such trust property. Without the consent of the larger church, acting through the Conference, the Bishop, and his Cabinet, the local church has no say in th. matters affecting the ultimate use, character or disposition of a United Methodist sanctuary building. Thus,_under the Book of Discipline, a local church may not deed, convey, nor may it even pledge or mortgage any interest in its sanctuary building without the consent of the Episcopal Office, as manifested by an authorizing signature of a District Superintendent in the Bishop's Cabinet. 5. Landmarking is another matter expressly made subject to a decision-making process external to the local church as set forth in the Book of Discipline at Par. 2512(7): "The [Annual Conference Board of Trustees] shall develop a policy for an Annual Conference response, on behalf of any local church ... to any governmental effort to designate a property held in trust for the benefit of the United Methodist Church ... as a cultural, historical or architectural landmark." 6. Pursuant to the Conference's express delegated authority to adopt such a policy and to serve as the lawful authority to so respond "on behalf of any local church," the Conference has such a written policy which requires, in pertinent part, as follows: "... Any agency, organization or local church which voluntarily wishes to cooperate with a governmental body in having any property landmark which said Board of Trustees holds in trust for the United Methodist Church must do the following: (a) Comply with the provisions of the Discipline in r;;gard to the encumbrance of church property(including consent signatures of a District Superintendent in the Cabinet]; and either (i) Obtain the consent of the Conference Board of Trustees, the Presiding Bishop and of the majority of the Cabinet; or 2 111) (ii) Conference.' Obtain the consent of the (full] Annual 7. None of these requirements has been fulfilled and the objections of the Conference and Denomination were clearly brought to the attention to the City of Elgin. The persons within the local church in this case who arranged for its nomination for landmark status (other than the Pastor, who dissents to any landmarking without consent of proper Church authorities), acted alone and in defiance of Church law. Specifically, these persons persisted in their efforts to obtain the landmarking, notwithstanding that the Conference Board of Trustees refused to give its consent; that I, as Presiding Bishop, refused to give my consent; and that all the District Superintendents constituting my Cabinet likewise refused to give their consent. Finally, the full Conference, in its regular session in June, 2000, declined to give its consent to the landmarking in response to a petition (No. 700-20) brought before the full membership of such Conference. 8. All this background was timely submitted to the corporate authorities of the City of Elgin, making clear that the application or "nomination"for landmarking was invalid, unauthorized and a nullity. For the sake of brevity, I do not restate, but incorporate by reference and submit herewith a copy of the detailed statement of objection to the designation of Grace United Methodist Church as a landmark filed with the City by Rodney W. Osborne, as attorney for the Board of Trustees of the Conference, on or about August 17, 2000 (Exhibit A). Also incorporated by reference and submitted herewith is a copy of my letter to the corporate authorities of Elgin dated September 27, 2000, objecting to the landmarking and cautioning the City that the local church was not acting in an authorized manner since"... true equitable and beneficial ownership under the Trust rClause resides in the larger church." (Exhibit B) I requested in that letter that the City defer to the f internal law of our religious faith by refusing to entertain a landmarking nomination which was made without authority. Unfortunately,the Council proceeded with Ordinance No. S10-00 notwithstanding this vital information which we had placed at its disposal. 9. It is my understanding that the City of Elgin has not heretofore pursued a policy of involuntary individual landmarkings, contrary to the wishes of the controlling ownership. Thus, this case stands out not only because the nomination was tainted and shown to be invalid; but also, because a religious faith was made the subject of disparate treatment and forced landmarking contrary to the City's past practice, based on voluntariness in all other individual landmarkings of non-religious properties. 10. Finally, attempting to reconstruct what went wrong here, our investigation suggests the following: certain leaders of the local church, knowing full well that they ale mere record titleholders of the property in trust for the larger denomination (akin to a land trustee obligated to uphold the interests of the true beneficiary) and wishing to attempt to place their local property beyond the reach of proper church authorities, decided to utilize the City's landmarking process to carry out their purposes. In effect, they made the City of Elgin their ally in circumventing Church law. Early in the process, some of those leaders professed that landmarking should be consented- to by the Conference, Bishop and Cabinet because it would lead to substantial governmental grants for the rehabilitation and improvement of the property. Such persons knew, or reasonably should have known, that this assumption was untrue, for the Landmarking Ordinance makes no such provision for churches. r 3 Later, it was acknowledged to the Council and public media that the actual purpose of the landmark nomination was to defy the larger church and to enable the local leadership to have its way by, in effect, removing the property from denominational control. This is confirmed in numerous news articles (copies attached as Group Exhibit C)which lend credence to the suggestion that these local persons sought to enlist the City of Elgin as a vehicle to accomplish their own ends, thus thwarting the operation of Church law. This not only constituted an interference with United Methodism's constitutional right to freely exercise and govern its faith; it was also a disservice to the City which may not have been fully and actually aware of the agenda which was being carried out. Finally,Trust Clause violations by local churches in our faith, are considered matters of such gravity that they inevitably require recourse to civil court litigation. No state or federal case of the many which have been brought under the Trust Clause of the Denomination has failed or refused to uphold Denominational ownership rights in the face of local church disobedience or schismatic action. This petition is submitted as an alternative to immediate litigation and in the hopes that this matter can be constructively reviewed and corrected without undue controversy. I consider litigation a last resort and sincerely hope that an amicable resolution to this regrettable problem can be found. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the above matter be promptly reviewed, reconsidered and rectified by vacating and rescinding the landmarking action taken on September 27, 2000. NORTHERN ILLINOIS ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, an Illinois non-profit corporation By: 441.6 �i�.• /Its P esi•-nt and esiding Bishop Subscribed and woof n to before me this a�ed day of November, 2000. 'ALI/ /Notary "ublic // My Commission expires: • • X003 "OFFICIAL SEAL" PHYLLIS E. GRIFFIN Notary Public,State of Illinois My Commission Ezp.11/03/2003 4 c {?O1H 3 OS22C71N E .3C 330 =C: 5; C3; 2 ^'3 7 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF COON _) Statement of Objection to the Designation of Grp United Methodist Church:at 325 South Stateist, Elgin, Illinois 60123 ss a Local Elgin. Lxndm. rk by the City of Et& The undersigned, RODNEY W. OSBOR'YE, hereby ccrti55es that: 1. I am the attorney fur the.Board of Trustees of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church,.an Illinois not-for-profit co.rgo,rvion (the "Conference"), 2. The administration of both Annual: Conic races and Lou .l::Churches of The United Methodist Church as well as.its eoustitution, Doctrine and l ctrinal:S ta.ternents, General Rules and Statement of Social Prune-ip(es:are found in The llookof4iiseipline of The United Methodist Church (the "Discipline")which is published quadrennially, most recently in 1996, Pursuant to 12501:and ¶2503;1 of the Discipline(a capyo(whi h is attached hereto as Exulit "A"), real property.of cac.h.and every local United ittli list Church "shall be held in tnist for The United Methodist Church and subject to the:provisior.s of its Discipline" and shall contain a.trust clause in the initial deed of conveyance:to such local church which reads substantially ss follows: . . . "In trust, that said premises shall be used.kept, and maintained.as a.pIace of dives worship of the United Methodist ministry and members of iiie.Urt�.ted Methodist • Church; subject to the Discipline,:.usage, and ministerial appairttAtents of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by.the.Ge_n l:Conjerence 4;71d by the annual conference within whose bounds the said preMiSes:are:5ituated. This • provision is solely for the benefit of tie grantee, and the grantor reserves no right or Interest In the premises." . • 3. Grace United Methodist Church, an Illinois religious corporatin.formerly known as the Grace MethodistEpiscopal Church of Elgin, Illinois, a religzous:::corporation (the"Church") . took title to its real property commonly known as 323 South Street,.Elgin, Illinois 60123, by a deed, dated January 6, 1888'.and recorded with the Kane County Recorder on February 8, 1 888 as Document Number 22593,..in.Book 213, Page:.452:(a..copy.of which is attached hereto as Exhibit."B"), which.cantmirig.a trust clause subatantiai `the same as the trust clause Y. described is paragraph 2, above, pursuant to¶2503.1 of the Disciplrne, and said trust clause reads as follows: • "In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept and maintained and disposed of as a place of Divine worship Err the use of the ministry mid i bcrship of did Methodist -.1114TRTT A STATEMENT OF OILTECTION TO TILE DESIGNATION or GRACE UiNITLD MrrHODINT CN>.iucH AT 325 SOLTH STA k-T, Eict , II.1.2401$ 60123 AS A LOCAL ELGIN LuinMA1i.x 3Y CITY OF ELL;L.'f PAc 2 Episcopal Church in the United States Of America; subject to the discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of Said.Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the.General c onferenc :of:said church and the annual conference in whose bounds the said premises are.situated." 4. The United Methodist Church,is the successor by merger to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, The Discipline continues to.be.the authoritative common law of the United_Methodist Church.••;¶ 2537 of the Discipline:($copy.of.which is attached hereto as Exhibit"C") provides.that:: • "...the title to all property now ownedor bereefter acquired by an incorporated local church. and any organization,board,_ccnitnission, society,.or..similar body connected therewith, shalt be held by and/or conveyed to the corporate body i •its corporate mane, in tn:.-t for the use and benefit. of such local church:;and:gt the United Methodist Church. Every instrument of conveyance of real eSt4e.shall contain the • appropriate t clause as set forth in the Discipline (1 2503)."1- 5. Th.: Conference is one of the several:Annual Conf c.. which:in the aggregate make up The United Methodist Church. and is the "annual conferencs: it in.whose bounds" the property of the Church is situated.: • . • 6. Thus, the Conference has a reversionary interest in the real property of the Church. 7. The Confrren is also gavcmezi by its Articles of Incorporation and By Laws which w rc adopted by its members which. include.all clergy members.,of the Conference and lay rr!embers most of whom are elected to membership in the Conference 1.1ky Local. Churches of the Conference (a copy of the:By Law: of the Conference..are::attached hereto as Exhibit "D'). Regarding:governmentslllaitdrnar gof cttuuch=owu d:prvperty,.said By Laws state: "Section 1. The Annual CQndieretee,Bgard of Trustccs..is the Offieial.body that must be notified by any designating agency:of intent to designate as an historical landmark any property of entities forwhich_th.e Northern Il.tinois.Conference is the successor • in interest . • Section 2. The Annual Conference Board of Trustees shall assist other Boards of Trustees, and if necessary intervene, in opposing any governmental effort to 4111) involuntarily designate any church-awned property as. a:.Cultural, Historical or Architectural Landmark. STAT MENT og OBJECTION-ro THE D83IGNATIO,"(Oft GTtAC1 UNrr1n Fier -Dist Cxt:".cti .VT 32S Soim STRI<~T, ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60113 A3 A LOCAL ELGIN L tNIniARK AY`1hi& Crry of ELGIN PAGZ 3 Section 3. The Annual Conference Board of Trustees, or the Board of Trustees of any agency, organization or local turrch..which voluntarily wishes to cooperate with a governmental body in. having any property landmariced which said Board of Trustees holds in trust for The Unite Methodist Church, must do.the following: (a) Compty with the provisions of The Discipline in regard to theeiteurbrauce of church property; and.either (1) Obtain *consent of the Conference Board or Trustees, the presiding _ bishop and of a majority of the cabinet; or (2) Obtain the consent of the?.Annuai Conference." • • r S. In early 2CC0, the Church requested the'Bottrd of Trustees of the Conference consent to the landn;arlcing.of the Church building #325 South Street;.Elgin, linois 60123, and the Board of Trustees at its regularly. Scheduled:.monthly onthly meeting after i pt.:of said request, denied aui d request. • . • 9. Thereafter the Church petitioned the Annual Conference at its-:_000.Annual Conference • meeting in June,. 2000, in'petition *700...20 for the Annual Conference's consent to the larcimaricing of the Church building i t:325 South Street,.Elgin, 4Iinois 60123, and the . members of the Annual Conference did not approve said petition (a.:copy Of said petition and • of the Shy otThe Conferences Oertifi.cetion as to the failure of said petition, is attached hereto as Exhibit'`E'`}. 10. Accordingly, the Conference, as.the Owner of a revers.ionazy.interest in the Church's real - , hereby objects to the designation of thz.Chtirch's real:property as a local Elgin L.ndm= by the City • tgin. B . •e°' __ 40". -- Signed and sworn:to before me this 17±k- RO !NEY W. BORNE; as attorney for day of Au rthe Board of T +stets of the Northc .fl.inois• : : :Q1f3C1AL SEAL Annual Conference ofThe United Methodist • WAY..E:NOYSZE KI Church, an Illinois not-for-protit corporation MarMY NIsten n'x Of LiAcis WY C"44441/ 749i,Q.1 Dated _ ... —-- - - 1�"_"., -__ No . . • • is /.l ry •• ∎ , The United Methodist Church CHICAGO AREA • -s NORTHERN ILLINOIS COVT-ERENCE t 77 Wcst Washington Strcct •Suitc 1320•Chicaeo, Illinois 6C-602 Once:(312)3.16-9766 Ezt. 322 • Fa.c: (312)21;-9031 C.JOSEPH SPRAGUE PHYLLIS E.GRIFFIN Bishop Admini.ccu(v•c Sccrccary September 27, 2000 Honorable Members of the City Council • City of Elgin 150 Dexter Court Elgin, IL 60121 Re: Application for Landmark Designation of Grace United Methodist Church, 325 South Street, Elgin, Illinois, as an Historic Landmark Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Having been advised that the above matter is scheduled as an agenda item to be voted upon this evening, I write to express my own objection and that of my Cabinet, the District Superintendents of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church, to the • / landmark application now before you. Accordingly,Sve join in the statement of objection previously filed with your counsel, Mr. Cogley, in behalf of the Northern Illinois Conference's Board of Trustees dated August 17, 2000. As the Board of Trustees' statement of objection sets forth, under the polity of the United Methodist Church, and the by-laws of the Conference, matters of landmarking regarding local religious property are not left to a local church,but rather, to the Conference Trustees, Bishop and Cabinet who are responsible to uphold the denominational trust clause applicable to all such property. After the objection was made by the Conference Trustees, my office undertook independently to review all the facts and circumstances with its counsel and others prior to taking a position. Our aim was to consider carefully the pro-landmark position of the local church leadership and to be as sensitive to it as possible. Upon completion of this process,we have concluded that opposition previously filed by the Trustees is the correct and necessary course. It does not appear that any benefits to be derived from a landmarking process would justify the burdens and restrictions placed on this ministry or on the role of our religious authorities concerning the use of denominational property. • 4, EXHIBIT B Scp - 22-00 13 : 32 Chicago Area Ofc 312 214 9031 P _,02 City Council Members, City of Elgin, Illinois September 27, 2000 Page Two In closing, it is important to reiterate that though United Methodist local churches hold record title to churches and parsonages, true equitable and beneficial ownership under the trust clause resides in the Iarger church. My office, as a responsible decision maker on this matter under our church law, cannot, in the particular circumstances of this case, surrender its discretions or lose sight of its trust responsibility by endorsing the application. It is for these reasons that I respectfully ask that you defer to the working of our connectional faith and deny the application. Your thoughtful consideration is appreciated. • Very truly yours, op C. Joseph Sprague CJS:peg • r February 23, 2001 RE: Grace United Methodist Church Due to the length of the transcripts and attachments of the public hearing of January 2, 2001, copies are available for viewing at the City of Elgin Planning Department, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, IL 60120. r r