yes, we are the same group - the group still operates the facility.
There's an article about a similar group that had a similar issue with a park district, some years ago, here. Maybe they'll have some suggestions.
Not as funny as you may think.
(65 ILCS 5/11-75-5) (from Ch. 24, par. 11-75-5)
Sec. 11-75-5. If, in the judgment of the corporate authorities, the public interest requires that any building erected in the leased space be removed so that a street, alley, or public place may be restored to its original condition, the lessor municipality may condemn the lessee's interest in the leased space by proceeding in the manner provided for the exercise of the right of eminent domain under the Eminent Domain Act. After payment of such damages as may be fixed in the condemnation proceedings, the municipality may remove all buildings or other structures from the leased space and restore the buildings adjoining the leased space to their original condition.
(Source: P.A. 94-1055, eff. 1-1-07.)
That statute is not even slightly relevant to the situation we are discussing.
Would you explain why? It is in the same section of the municipal code that give a municipality the authority to lease property.
The statute referenced above describes what could happen if a municipal landlord leases space to a tenant and, before the end of the lease term, seeks to exercise eminent domain to terminate part or all of the tenant's leasehold interest. The statute does not expand the rights of a municipal tenant beyond those of any other tenant, such that they would be entitled to a payment from the city when their lease ended merely because the municipality did not want to renew their lease. Terminating a periodic tenancy is not an act of condemnation of the lessee's interest in the leased space. Evicting a tenant who fails to vacate after receiving proper notice is not an act of condemnation of the lessee's interest in the leased space. The fact that a tenant chooses to leave behind property or structures that it finds to be too expensive to move does not transform an eviction into an act of condemnation of the lessee's interest in the leased space.
If the landlord successfully evicts the tenant following a court proceeding following proper notice to terminate a periodic tenancy, the landlord bears absolutely no responsibility for the burden that the need to relocate places upon the tenant, and has absolutely no obligation to compensate the tenant for fixtures that revert to the landlord along with the real estate or for property that the tenant chooses to abandon because they find it to be too expensive to move.
(65 ILCS 5/11-75-5) (from Ch. 24, par. 11-75-5)
Sec. 11-75-5. If, in the judgment of the corporate authorities, the public interest requires that any building erected in the leased space be removed so that a street, alley, or public place may be restored to its original condition, the lessor municipality may condemn the lessee's interest in the leased space by proceeding in the manner provided for the exercise of the right of eminent domain under the Eminent Domain Act. After payment of such damages as may be fixed in the condemnation proceedings, the municipality may remove all buildings or other structures from the leased space and restore the buildings adjoining the leased space to their original condition.
(Source: P.A. 94-1055, eff. 1-1-07.)
Note the two places I emphasized.
1 - "leased space" - There is no lease. It's a tenancy at will. The municipality need not invoke eminent domain to remove a tenant at will.
2 - "may" - Gives the municipality a choice of invoking eminent domain or not invoking eminent domain. Refer back to 1 as to why eminent domain need not be an option.
Actually a leased space refers to any space where a tenant is allowed to use space in exchange for some consideration. A tenancy at will and a month to month tenancy still create a leasehold ergo, a leased space.
emminent domain could apply if the lease was non-terminable within a time period the city was willing to wait. If this was truly an indefinite lease, emminent domain could have come into play since if evicted, the city would be "taking" from the group and as such would be required to compensate the group for their loss. The most likely truth of the matter is this is not an indeterminable lease. At best we have heard it was a 10 year lease with an option to renew for a period of the tenants choosing at that point. We do not know what period the tenant renewed for. We do not know if it was able to be renewed for additional terms after the renewal period expired. We do not know if after the first renewal, if it allowed for additional renewals if it was renewed ever again and if so, for what period of time.
We do know that group was told when attempting to renew the lease was lost but it wasn't needed as the city had no intent of removing them as a tenant (at the time). So what it sounds like is the group, either through trust or ignorance of the law may have caused what might have been an indefinite lease into at best an annually renewable lease since any contract that cannot be performed within one years time must be in writing thereby requiring a lease in excess of one year must be in writing lest it be unenforceable.
We don't have a lot of info that would be required to make a reasonably dependable guess but what we do have makes it pretty clear the group is limited to annual lease renewals. It would be a rare lease where the lessor was not given the right to refuse to extend a lease upon expiration of any defined term.
So you put that all together and more than likely group will be moving out and more than likely will recieve no compensation for the building.