HomeMy WebLinkAbout0379_001TO: TERRANCE L. BURGHARD, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM STEPHEN 11. PARK,, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: JULY 172 1985
The second public hearing on Tax Increment Financing ng, scheduled
for the Committee of the Whole Meeting on July 23, will fulfill
the requirements of the State Statute in order for the Village
Board to adopt T.I.F. for downtown redevelopment. As you know,
the second public hearing was needed because of an error in the
notification of the previous hearing held in Ilay. All
notifications required by Statute have been completed for this
public hearing. The taxing jurisdictions, property owners, and
newspaper publication (twice) have been completed within the
statutorily defined timeframe. In addition, we have given
courtesy notices to all the individuals at the Ilay meeting that
requested notification -of any further hearings.
Our staff will be available to make a brief presentation to the
Board members and Jack Pettigrew, of T.P.A.P., will also be in
attendance. Jack will itemize the required conditions and enter
all the required factual information into the official record.
In the time since the clay public hearing, our staff has prepared
several concepts for the possible redevelopment of target areas
la and 1d. These two areast fronting on Northwest Highway, are
the primary areas for staff attention to seek redevelopment. We
believe, because of their arterial access and visibility, they
have the greatest potential for redevelopment. They also would
contribute significantly to the increment; which would improve
the financial capabilities of this redevelopment program. We
have attached for your review, reduced copies of the different
concepts that have been developed by staff. We have made initial
contact with local developers to assess their possible interest
in these projects and, upon direction of the Board, would
actively pursue selection of a developer for these areas,
Terrance L* Burghard - Page Two
July 17, 1985
To this date, no property owners wn the T.I.F. District have
filed any written objections with the staff. lie have been in
contact with several of the property owners to give them infor-
mation over the last several months. We have also distributed
copies of the Redevelopment Project and Plan to interested
individuals. If any of the property owners or Board members need
addonal copies of the Redevelopment Plan, our office can
supply these copies.
Pending a successful outcome of the public hearing and direction
by the Village Board, we would be prepared to introduce
ordinances adopting tax 'increment financing for the regular
Village Board ■
meeting of August 6. These ordinances have been
prepared ■by our staff and reviewed by our Village Attorney. They
are currently awaiting ■review by Bond Counsel. My staff ■will be
prepared to render whatever assistance or additional preparation
is needed by the Village Board in order to follow their stated
policy on redevelopment in the downtown and adoption of Tax
Increment Flonancingo
S11P: hg
Attach, 00000",/
IL W:
S4 A, l�
'K
KIN
0
..........
. . I . .........
. .............
1*411, �j
. . . ...........
Ijl
71)
7`1
. . .. ..... .
�7
..... . ...... A
71�7
......... I I I . I
.......... . . . .
2
K.,mm � , „,;; , , .""„ . a _� �_�w� �� �_ �. ; nnnn, mm
h '�v
�. i r�wu�w�wwa. yY� pP�Ym'M`.�"mm911lIXMl^M.."."M, � W
N�•e � � inlMmm'
Ill � �jr
M4vnr
S Y mm1 n miaw.sry� pry" uybR
m M
r
1A
l� Y
0I i r„r ,nib° �yr (� yu�ny w"''•!� �,
4
{ I
I
i
w,»
m
:. ten” w-
'77
"^wr
I
oeuw
a � I
.....
U-1 U�
a
N
w
�
r
qr
p
Q
a � I
.....
V
a
d
_OLm�., .-..... n
� N•
a �Qh
�wr
I � �
w r
ru�
Tel:
rI�' m mmm mmmm_� 9 or
i
n
j
ILL
W
s
ir k
z
e
g
z
u
H
fl
Jot
M 9 v �l
µp' n '
7
" dlp
_ tea.
-µ
i
jo
Po
14
.. N
r
�I
J dd`
w u
N �
i � m
,rr
w
�J
�y�w►
D"
m � r
)lO'l
�d
ff
0 LL
�� ,��'. m . a; �um,��. � ^ � Man., ',.„. „ �
"'Of4.
I,
mr
oo
elllu
I
.. .... . ....
SI
71l
77.a. MMMMMM
Ir
of "I
t
ai
................... . . . . ..............
m
�7F
d s
Z
,
TAX INCRE11ENT FINANCING
GENERAL CONSTRAINTS AND GUIDELINES
le Buffer and landscaping to any single family areas.
2* Restrict traffic from entering residential neighborhoods,
1
3* Minimize curb cuts onto Northwest Highway,
1
4. Provide open space around buildings.
5. Improve pedestrian linkages within site and to other areas
of the downtown,
6. Provide landscaping withinparking areas,
7 Maximura four-story buildings,
8e Orient development toward Northwest Highway.
9. Provide high quality residential units,
10. 11ake development compatible with sur. -rounding areas.
11. Allow for transition from higher to lower density areas.
4.
WWW"
Village "of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, 111'1'nol'S
Wd" 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Immu 1 00
TO: MAYOR CAROLYN Ha KRAUSE AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER
))ATE: JULY 16; 1985
SUBJECT.If
, FRANCIS CADILLAC
The Village staff is currently having a dispute with Francis
Cadillac. You may recall that previously we had a problem with
their employees parking in the adjoining residential districts
(Bob -O -Link and Prospect Manor) and this matter was resolved by
posting two hour parking zones. Based upon some, other co faints
in the neighborhood, Francis Cadillac was ordered to make certain
repairs to it, perimeter fence which apparently was a requirement
of its initial re -zoning several years ago.
Apparently, Francis Cadillac is doing very good business and they
have brought in substantially more new cars than they can park on
their existing property. They subsequently leased space from
Courtesy Home Center on Rand Road and are parking approximately
50-60 cars on the far western edge of that property. This matter
was brought to the attention of the Village Manager's Office and
we directed Code Enforcement to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and
instructed Francis Cadillac to remove the vehicles. Code
Enforcement gave them 24 hours within which to remove the cars
and Francis Cadillac has appealed that decision and they have a
temporary extension until July 22,
I have spoken to representatives of Francis Cadillac and they are
asking for a longer time extension. Francis Cadillac is a major
revenue producer for this community through its Sales Tax and I
am sensitive to the needs of the business community to be able to
operate with some degree of flexibility from time to time.
Nevertheless, the recent DMS situation on Prospect Avenue
under -scores the difficulty the Manager's Office has exceeding
his authority for such instances.
I have scheduled this matter for the Committee of the Whole
meeting of Tuesday, July 23 whereby the Village Board can make
the decision as to whether this should go before the Zoning Board
of Appeals, the Court or handled administratively.
10101ell
k
TERRANCE Lt BURG AR D
TT, R / -r n -ra
r^' unt �Prosplec..'
Mount Prospect, Illinois
r.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: May 22, 1985
SUBJECT: Interest Distribution on Municipal Sales Tax Collections
On Wednesday, May 22, 1985, the Village received a check for $53,384-84
which represents the Village's pro rata share of interest collected by the
State of Illinois on Municipal sales tax collections . This is an interim
distribution and covers the period of November 183 through February '85.
The payment to the Village is the result of a class action suit initiated
by the Village of Pawnee and the City of Springfield to require the State to
pay interest earned on Municipal sales tax collections to the respective
municipalities.,
John Myers of Pfeifer & Kelty, P.C.., informed me that litigation continues
toward a final distribution and for establishing procedures to ensure that
municipalities will receive interest earned in the future directly from the
State. The final distribution will include interest earned subsequent to
February 28, 1985, less fees and expenses. He could not estimate when the
final distribution will be made.
This was not a budgeted revenue in the 1985/86 budget±
is attached.
Enc
A copy of the notice
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUPICIAL CIRCUIT
SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
VILLAGE OF PAWNEE and CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
et al Plaintiffs,,
V, No. 82 -MR -141
J THOMAS JOHNSON, ROLAND W. BURRIS and
JERRY COSENTI NO, et al Defendants.
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS
The accompanying check represents your municipality's pro rata share of an
interim distribution by order of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County of
$820063171,00 in interest escrowed through February 28, 1985 by a prior order of
the Supreme Court in this case.
This case, which was filed in 1982, successfully challenged the State of
Illinois' retention of interest earned on Municipal Retailers Occupational Tax
("MROT TAX") receipts while such receipts are in the possession of the State and
prior to distribution to the municipalities. For further details, see
villa e of Pawnee v. Johnson, 103 Ill. 2d 411 (1984).
- 9-
IF YOU WISH TO OPT OUT OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS CONSISTING OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES IN
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WHICH HAVE IMPOSED AN MROT TAX, PLEASE RETURN THE CHECK
UNENDORSED TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS AND FILE A NOTICE WITH THE
COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS EXPRESSING YOUR DESIRE TO OPT OUT. OTHERWISE,, YOU WILL BE
DEEMED BY THE COURT TO HAVE ELECTED TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS.
A report showing how the pro rata shares of the interim distribution of
individual municipalities were calculated has been filed with the Court.
Individual municipalities' shares ranged from less than $1.00 for communities with
minimal sales tax receipts to over $1,600,000.00 for the City of Chicago.
Litigation continues toward a final distribution of additional amounts
escrowed to date and for establishing procedures to ensure munici pal i ties shall
properly receive interest earned in the future.
The attorneys for the plaintiff class, Pfeifer & Kelty, P.C. and Friedman &
Koven., have requested an interim award from escrowed funds of fees and expenses.
A hearing on the fee petition- is scheduled for May, 29, 1985 at 9:30 a.m. before
The Honorable Simon Friedman of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Ninth and
Monroe, Springfield, Illinois. If you wish, you may attend such heari.ng. PI ease
do not contact Judge Friedman. If you desire a copy of the fee petition or
further information regarding this litigation, please contact the attorneys for
the plaintiff class.
Thomas W. Kelty
John M. Myers
PFEIFER & KELTY,
.o P.C.
1300 S. Eighth Steet
Springfield, Illinois 6 27 05
Telephone-. (217) 528-5604
Donald J, Kreger
Louis P. Vitullo
FRIEDMAN & KOVEN
208 S.. LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Telephone: (312) 346-8500
u
N
y
I
'�
I..
oner•
I, i,,,
y
COO
Iy '
C3 0 I
b 0.
33
M
n,,
Somme
�m�
toe` ro
nr
co` i
P
I
iwXMl°+4n�YM.S..
r.
a
G
r
tTJ
TJ
OD
G
'�
I..
oner•
I, i,,,
COO
Iy '
C3 0 I
Q
�m�
toe` ro
CA
�
CD
N �
6 ,
(7)
—4
seer
O
C'
�
Ln
nnmuiavwuci.
i
i.G
Ljj
m
M
'n J
VA
W
.am.
a
MM,
rn
�
W
CO3
00 c
O
If
* ,
c
z
McMpic
T
..o
jowl
ill
ca
-.
m
co
Vw
00
L y
W
CM3 �In
0%cz,.
is
r r mmmrn
tl
Ay4
arv�v a eimmaw ,.
ummm
..., irmlimmmennnm
n'mmiw
imnwu �.,
:.
w, �u
(I
n
POO
,.
ru
i
.13
I
r
cn
ny
�
m
b
Mw
Ln
spaI
T,�I
I
m
a
SOL
ry
Ilk
I i
I r
,n
r e
jo
"S"
c�
m
�
,
a Sm
44
z
4
z;
E0
L
f4rI
I
rTI
y
I�
n
Uj
c
00
f
�
V
I�Iu rc
if
y J.
iwXMl°+4n�YM.S..
r.
a
G
r
tTJ
TJ
OD
G
f -
CO
Q
�m�
mwuuoati .�
�
CD
N �
r
—4
seer
�
0
rr
�
Ln
nnmuiavwuci.
i
Ljj
m
M
'n J
VA
W
a
�V
�
W
00 c
O
If
r
c
z
0
T
CO
Q
CD
seer
�
nnmuiavwuci.
i
Ljj
m
M
a
�
�
O
If
r
c
z
elk
..o
m
co
Vw
00
L y
W
is
r r mmmrn
tl
Ay4
arv�v a eimmaw ,.
ummm
..., irmlimmmennnm
n'mmiw
imnwu �.,