MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE
BOARD OF LONG GROVE
Tuesday,
January 22, 2008 at 8 P.M.
3110 RFD,
CALL TO ORDER:
President Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 8:00
P.M.
OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE:
Village President: Rodriguez
Trustees: Acuna,
Hannon, Lazakis, Schmitt, Wachs
Trustees Absent: Barry
Village Clerk: Schultheis
Also Present: Village Manager Lothspeich,
Superintendent Block,
Village Planner Hogue and Village Counsel Filippini
Opening Remarks - **President Rodriguez began the meeting with a recap of the
Special Meeting of
the Board of Trustees Tax
Increment Finance (TIF) Public Hearing on January 15, 2008 mentioning
that the Board Meeting
had been opened at 8:14 PM and adjourned at 10:55 PM. She said that Trustee
Lazakis had discussed the
definition of the TIF, and the progression of events from Historic Business
District Plan Streetscape
(October, 1999), Village Board Meetings regarding special service areas and
Downtown Special service
area (September, 2005), hiring Ehlers and Associates to evaluate financing
options for B1 and B1A
(December, 2005), voters approve infrastructure sales tax (March, 2006),
Open House for Downtown Improvement Areas (May, 2006), Master
Plan Development (September, 2007),
Village Board Open Information Meeting on TIF (December 11, 2007), Joint Review
Board Meetings on the TIF (December, 2007 through January, 2008); Joint Review
Board Meeting agree to adopt Report but neither support nor oppose the TIF
(January 10, 2008), Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) Public Hearing (January 15, 2008).- No action taken.
** Dates shown above
in parentheses were reported by the
Village Clerk for these Minutes, and were
not
necessarily all mentioned at the January 22, 2008 Meeting during President
Rodriguez’ opening remarks.
Bedrosian Presentation: President Rodriguez said that there would be a brief
presentation from the
Haig and Monica
Bedrosian that had been requested during the January 15, 2008 Special Meeting
of
The Board of Trustees
Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Public Hearing – No action was taken.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS/ITEMS FROM THE
AUDIENCE
Homeowner Associations:
Oak Hills/Oakwood Creek – Ken Krebs. – Mr. Krebs reported that speeding was an issue, as well
As running stop signs, and that there were other traffic issues. He also stated that barriers were down, and that
The
area was a “muddy mess.” Village Manager Lothspeich said that the
mitigation site was in abeyance, but
that they were looking into medians instead
of barriers. Sgt Ed Haras was mentioned
as being the
contact for traffic issues (847-277-7021)
Mr.
Krebs mentioned that the bridge was in need of repair. Village President Rodriguez said that the bridge
repair was slated in the current budget. – No action was taken.
Congregation
Beth Judea License To Conduct Raffle.
Congregation Beth Judea applied for approval of a raffle license and requested waiver of the $25
application fee and waiver of the bonding requirements for their fundraiser.
Trustee Hannon moved to approve the license
to conduct a raffle and waiver of the $25
application fee and bond requirements for
the Congregation Beth Judea fundraiser; seconded by
Trustee Lazakis.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Acuna – aye; Barry – absent; Hannon- aye;
Lazakis – aye; Schmitt –aye; Wachs – aye.
(Motion carried 5 – 0; one absent).
Special Event Application: Long Grove Art Fest.
The Kildeer Countryside PTO submitted the enclosed November 19, 2007 application for the Annual
Art Fest to be held on August 16 and August 17, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. The Art Fest is
proposing
to be located in the Stemple Municipal Parking Lot rather than
Trustee Wachs moved to approve the motion
approving the 20th Annual Long Grove Art Festival
in the Stemple Municipal Parking Lot on
August 16 and 17, 2008, subject to receipt of a complete
application no later than June, 2008;
seconded by Trustee Hannon.
VOICE VOTE:
All ayes, no nays (Motion carried 5 – 0;
Trustee Barry absent).
ACTION
ITEMS:
*** Due to
temporary technical difficulties of the Bedrosian presentation, the meeting
continued
On to the
first Action Item until the technical malfunction was repaired
Item #1: Report Of The January 16, 2008 Plan Commission & Zoning
Board Of Appeals Meeting.
The
PCZBA considered the following items during their meeting.
Ø
Continued Zoning Code Amendment And
Reclassification Of Property (R2 Residential To New HR-1 Highway Retail &
OS-P Open Space Preservation), Planned Unit Development, Special Use Permit
& Zoning Code Amendment(s) To Allow A Retail Planned Unit Development
Anchored By A Specialty Grocer Store Located At The Southeast Corner Of Route
83 & Aptakisic Road, Mid-America
Development Partners. Continued until the February 5, 2008
PCZBA Meeting. The Architectural Board
Review Continued Until February 11,
Bedrosian Presentation: Monica
and Haig Bedrosian presented slides regarding their neighborhood on
Item #2: TIF Joint Review Board Recommendation & TIF Public Hearing.
The TIF Joint Review Board (JRB) met on: December 13, 2007; January 3, 2008 and January 10,
School District 125 (Stevenson); School District 96 (Kildeer) and Long Grove Fire District (Long Grove Fire) representatives participated during the December 13, 2007 meeting with School District 96 sending the December 12, 2007 letter and December 28, 2007 email questioning the Village’s intentions for inclusion of the Kildeer School in the TIF District Boundaries. Staff replied to the December 28, 2007 email with the December 29, 2007 email. School District 96 subsequently approved a resolution formally requesting the following: (1) Removing Kildeer Countryside Elementary School from within the TIF Boundaries; (2) Creating an intergovernmental agreement to guarantee and share surplus tax increment; and (3) Securing written assurance the TIF District will not include residential development. In addition, Long Grove Fire Chief Bob Turpel provided the December 27, 2007 letter outlining their various concerns. The TIF Joint Review Board considered these requests and included various provisions to address these concerns within their following recommendations:
Recommendation
1. TIF Boundaries. The
TIF Plan and Eligibility Report should be revised to delete from the Proposed
TIF District the following parcels:
a. The sliver parcel
along Illinois Route 53 (PIN 15-30-106-003);
b. The
School District 96 parcel along
c. The
Village Hall parcel along
In addition, the JRB recommends that the TIF Plan be
revised to state that at no time in the future should the Proposed TIF District
be expanded to include properties fronting on
2. Correction to TIF Plan.
Page 2 of the TIF Plan should be corrected so that the second sentence
of the first paragraph reads: "The median home value in 2000 was
$555,400." Also, on page 15 of the
TIF Plan, in Item 15, the word "patron" should be
"resident."
3. Residential Development.
The TIF Plan should not provide assistance for the development of
additional residential units within the Proposed TIF District. To the extent that additional residential
units are developed within the Proposed TIF District, the TIF Plan should
provide expressly for compensation to the school and library districts in
accordance with Sections 11-74.4-3(q)(7.5 and 7.7) of the TIF Act. For purposes of determining student- or
resident-generation calculations, rates shall be no less than those reflected
in the current Village impact fee ordinance, or the amount reflected in the TIF
Act, whichever is greater.
4. Fire Protection Standards.
New development in the Proposed TIF District should be required to
comply with applicable code requirements of the Long Grove Fire Protection
District.
5. TIF Plan Priorities.
The TIF Plan should identify certain projects for the Historic Downtown
Area of the Proposed TIF District as "high priorities," including:
a. The establishment of a water system to serve
properties in the Historic Downtown Area of the Proposed TIF District, which
water system should be developed to the far boundary of the Proposed TIF
District so that an extension to the District 96 property is feasible; and
b. Burial
of overhead utility lines.
6. TIF Bonds. The TIF
Plan should provide that any bonds will be backed only by incremental tax
revenue generated from the Proposed TIF District, and that the Village will not
give its full faith and credit (general obligation) backing of any such bonds. The Village should seek to include a
"call" provision in any such bonds.
7. Duration of the TIF.
The TIF Plan should provide that the Village will not seek to extend the
Proposed TIF District beyond the customary 23-year term in the TIF Act. In addition, the Village should endeavor to
conclude the TIF in less than 23 years if all objectives and obligations are
satisfied.
8. Surplus Funds. At
such time as the Proposed TIF District generates sufficient incremental tax
revenue that there are surplus revenues, those surplus revenues should be
promptly returned pro rata to the
taxing districts affected by the Proposed TIF District in accordance with
Sections 11-74.4-2(c) and 11-74.4-7 of the TIF Act. The Village should consider reducing over
time the percentage of incremental revenue that will be dedicated to TIF
projects.
9. Eminent Domain. The
Village should not seek to exercise its powers of eminent domain under the TIF
Act in connection with any properties fronting on
10. Capital Expense Agreements. The Village should explore with the affected
taxing districts appropriate agreements as contemplated under item 8 on page 21
of the TIF Plan.
Conclusion
On 10 January 2008, the JRB decided by a vote of 6-1
to adopt this Report and neither support nor oppose the creation of the
Proposed TIF District, but to request the Long Grove Village Board to include
the foregoing recommendations in any approval of the Proposed TIF District
Trustee Lazakis reiterated the main
criteria agreed upon by the January 10, 2008 (third meeting of the Joint Review
Board) Joint Review Board Minutes as shown above. Trustee Lazakis emphasized that 1) Properties along Arlington Heights Road
were not part of the TIF boundaries; 2) The bonds being discussed were not
General Obligation Bonds, but bonds backed only upon incremental revenue, and
were the financial risk of the bondholders not the municipality or the residents;
3) there was no intention to exercise eminent domain powers to any properties
along Arlington Heights Road; 4) Surplus Funds monies should be proportionately
returned to the respective taxing bodies; 5) The Village should explore Capital
Expense agreements with taxing bodies to assist with any hardships that might
be caused by the TIF; 6) While the duration of the TIF had a maximum of 23
years with an extension to 35 years, it should conclude in less than 23 years
if possible; and 7) Fire Protection standards should be maintained – and there
should be a water system developed and burial of overhead utility lines.
Trustee Lazakis
noted that the conclusion of the Joint Review Board was to adopt the report but
not to agree or disagree with the implementation of a TIF.
Village Counsel Filippini noted that if a TIF District
were to be established, there would still be annual meetings of the Joint
Review Board. – No action required. No action was taken.
Recap of
the January 15, 2008 Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees Open House. – Trustee Lazakis recapped the main issues of the
meeting, and discussed how in December, 2005 Ehlers had been hired to help
determine if a TIF was needed. he also
discussed the Master Plan, and the types of improvements a TIF can fund. In brief, he described a TIF thusly: A development can freeze the tax money that
goes to the taxing bodies, but have the incremental tax money go to help fund
the improvement. The litmus test being, BUT FOR those improvements the
development would not have occurred. As
the value of the property increases, so does the incremental tax money.
Trustee Hannon stated that the school district would
not lose any money in a TIF. There is a
5% or the CPI (Consumer Product Index) – whichever is less -cap on the
increases that District 96 can make.
With or without the TIF, the biggest increase tax increase that the
District 96 can impose is 5% (or, about $41,000,000.00 in total tax revenue). Trustee Lazakis further explained that the
monies being proposed for the TIF district amounted to 0.78% of the budget for
District 96. He said that the assessed
value of District 96 is $1.3 billion.
Denise Harnish (resident) – asked if future
generations would be losing money.
A corollary question was from Trustee Acuna regarding
the percentage tax change in the TIF area? – Trustee Lazakis said that in the residential areas, the percentage
change per year was 8-9%; but in the TIF area, the percentage change was only
2-3%.
Trustee Acuna also noted that without the TIF, there
would not be much development in the TIF area for the school; but at the end of
the TIF, there would be the potential for a huge jump in tax revenue.
Residents asked about sharing TIF money with the
school. Trustee Hannon replied that the tax base would not be affected for the
taxing bodies, and that incremental monies would be used to develop the TIF
area. She added that District 96 would
still be able to increase taxes based
upon their standard caps.
President
Rodriguez said that Village had been talking to District 96 Superintendent Many
about ways to lessen any impact that the TIF might have. She also reminded the audience that
Trustee
Lazakis said that where the incremental monies exceeded the amount to pay the
mortgage, it would go back into the taxing bodies and help reduce our
taxes. Without that development, there
would be no such benefit to the residents.
Current
Financing of the Village Budget:
Trustee Lazakis said that the Village currently uses downtown tax money revenue
(which has been declining) and money from building permits (which had a
precipitous drop in 2007). The sales tax
money from Menard’s would not cover the loss in revenue from other
sources.
Risks to
Village: Trustee Lazakis said that if the Village made
it impossible to develop the land, it was possible that those areas would
de-annex and become part of
Haig Bedrosian said that the Village should not be
governed by fear. Trustee Lazakis said this” was not fear but that this was a fact” – he
mentioned the Shell and McDonald’s on
Trustee Acuna said that the Village had developed a
Master Plan to make certain that there was a strategy to employ for the long
and short term – it involved developers; and that historically, monies from the
TIF were only about 20% of the total development costs (ie, five times the
amount of the TIF monies would flow into the project from private sources).
Trustee Acuna responded to a comment about using the $4,000,000.00 in the
Village’s savings to accomplish any development – he said if the TIF
development did not work, it would be the bondholders that would lose capital;
but if the Village would take it money out of its savings and the development
fail, then the Village would lose its own capital.
Developer Firsel said that the Sunset Grove property
had poor soil, and was in need of water, roadways and utility lines. He told the audience that he did not want the
TIF to build the shopping center but to improve the water, roadways and utility
lines that most other municipalities already offered. He hoped to see the Village bring the development
area to the level where it can be built.
Trustee Acuna clarified to the audience that nothing
had been decided upon.
Parks Commissioner Barry Nathanson reminded the
audience that LaSalle Bank had been annexed into
manipulate where they want to be located.
President Rodriguez noted that compared to the size
and scale of the development that Sunset Grove was designing, the amount of
money that might be accessible to the development of a TIF was minimum. She noted that the soil improvement alone
would cost $2,000,000 to the developer.
She emphasized that the TIF would not be created to build the
development for the owners.
Resident David Klein asked what the role of the
developer would be in terms of their contribution to a TIF District project.
Developer Firsel said that the developers would
contribute 90% (total project cost about $30,000,000).
Monica Bedrosian wanted to know why the Village did
not know sooner about this development.
President Rodriguez replied that the Village does not
initiate the developments, and that the Sunset Grove project was told to the
public as soon as Developer Firsel brought it forth to the Board.
Trustee Lazakis concluded by saying that the Village
lost valuable pieces of property through de-annexation. He said that the Village needed to get smart
about these developments, make certain that the Village had well-researched
opinions, a good strategy and to get something back for what we give when we
are negotiating. – No action was
required.
Item #3: Discussion Of Draft Ordinance Approving The TIF Redevelopment
Plan & Project.
Continued. No action was taken.
Item #4: Resolution Approving Waiver Of 120-Day Waiting Period For Demolition
Of 4287.
Village Superintendent Bob Block received the enclosed January 15, 2008 and will be calling Long
Grove Historical Society President Ann Dickson requesting her review prior to the January 22, 2008