The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.6 Motion to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance and adopt AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS APPROVING A CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGE TO THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT FOR THE SOUTH MOUNT PROSPECT TAX INMr�GauC �'d'+rt;�iect Item Cover Page Subject Motion to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance and adopt AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNTPROSPECT,O• COUNTY,, ILLINOIS APPROVING TECHNICAL CHANGE TO THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY AND O. O. THE SOUTH MOUNT PROSPECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-5(a) Meeting May 3, 2022 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD - Fiscal Impact Dollar Amount Budget Source Category CONSENT AGENDA Type Ordinance Information The Village engaged SB Friedman Development Advisors ("SB Friedman") in October 2021 to conduct a Redevelopment Project Area feasibility study and prepare a Redevelopment Plan and Project (the ""Redevelopment Plan", officially titled South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area (RPA) Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan and Project) for the potential creation of the South Mount Prospect Tax Increment Financing District ("South Mount Prospect TIF"). This report was completed over a four month period, with the final document posted publicly on the Village website and available via the Village Clerk's office since Friday, February 18, 2022. As part of the Redevelopment Plan report, assessments were made on the presence of structures below minimum code standards. These code standards reference Village building code standards adopted in 2017. However, on February 15, 2022, during the TIF approval process, the Village Board adopted amendments to Chapters 21 (Building) and 24 (Fire) Codes; as a result, Village building code standards are now adopted in 2022. 1 The adoption of building codes in 2022 does not change the assessment or outcomes of the South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area (RPA) Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan and Project. This technical change to the TIF plan will be noticed to all parties as required by the State of Illinois TIF statues. Alternatives 1. Adopt an Ordinance approving a certain technical change to the Eligibility Study and Report for the South Mount Prospect Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-5 (a) 2. Discretion of the Village Board Staff Recommendation Adopt an Ordinance approving a certain technical change to the Eligibility Study and Report for the South Mount Prospect Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11- 74.4-5 (a) ATTACHMENTS: REVISED_FINAL_Mt Prospect South RPA TIF Plan -4-28-22 (004).pdf 2 Mount Prospect, IL South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan and Project February 28, 2022 REVISED I April 28, 2022 KI Mount Prospect, IL South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan and Project February 28, 2022 REVISED I April 28, 2022 S. B. FRIEDMAN & COMPANY 221 N. LaSalle St. Suite 820 Chicago, IL 60601 T: 312.424.4250 F: 312.424.4262 E: info@sbfriedman.com Contact: Geoff Dickinson T: 312.384.2404 E: gdickinson@sbfriedman.com SIB Friedman IDa~va"111olpiniient dva!s i s 4 Mount Prospect, IL South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Financing District Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan and Project IIII aII[)III e of @Illr,rt.elll,v.t�� SECTION PAGE 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................1 2. Eligibility Report................................................................................................................................................................................8 3. Redevelopment Plan and Project..............................................................................................................................................16 Appendix 1: Limitations of the Eligibility Report and Consultant Responsibilities....................................................... 28 Appendix2: Glossary......................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix 3: South Mount Prospect RPA Boundary Legal Description............................................................................31 Appendix 4: List of PINS in South Mount Prospect RPA....................................................................................................... 33 LIST OF MAPS PAGE Map1: Community Context...............................................................................................................................................................5 Map2: Proposed RPA Boundary.....................................................................................................................................................6 Map3: Existing Land Use....................................................................................................................................................................7 Map4: Age of Structures..................................................................................................................................................................12 Map5A: Deterioration.......................................................................................................................................................................13 Map 5B: Presence of Structure Below Minimum Code Standards.....................................................................................14 Map5C: Inadequate Utilites............................................................................................................................................................15 Map6: Proposed Future Land Use................................................................................................................................................18 S. B. FRIEDMAN & COMPANY 221 N. LaSalle St. Suite 820 Chicago, IL 60601 T: 312.424.4250 F: 312.424.4262 E: info@sbfriedman.com www.sbfriedrnan.com SIB IFiri sup ima in ID vnlllolpiniient Advo!:'„ i s 5 1. Introduction The Village of Mount Prospect (the "Village") seeks to establish a tax increment financing ("TIF") district to serve as an economic development tool and promote the revitalization of land in the southern portion of the Village. The Village engaged SB Friedman Development Advisors ("SB Friedman") in October 2021 to conduct a Redevelopment Project Area feasibility study and prepare a Redevelopment Plan and Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"). This document serves as the Eligibility Report and Redevelopment Plan (together, the "Report") for the proposed South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project Area ("South Mount Prospect RPA" or the "RPA"). Section 2 of the Report, the Eligibility Report, details the eligibility factors found within the proposed RPA in support of its designation as a "conservation area" for improved land, within the definitions set forth in the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4--1 et seq., as amended (the "Act"). Section 3 of this Report, the Redevelopment Plan, outlines the comprehensive program to revitalize the proposed RPA, as required by the Act. The proposed South Mount Prospect RPA is located within the Village in Cook County (the "County"), as shown on Map 1. The proposed South Mount Prospect RPA consists of approximately 129 tax parcels (127 improved parcels and 2 right-of-way parcels) and 81 primary structures. It comprises approximately 505 acres of land, including 462 improved acres, and approximately 43 acres of right-of-way. The parcels included in the proposed RPA are roughly bounded by Kopp Park, Busse Road, Oakton Street, and Elmhurst Road as illustrated in Map 2. Based upon SB Friedman's research, the proposed RPA currently consists primarily of a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, public institutional, and park/open space, as shown in Map 3. In instances where there was common ownership, parcels that are primarily used for parking were assigned the land use of the parcel that the parking serviced. IIIC°��:;��I�� IIIIIIII°� lill Ills m��:�:�Ilil� IIIA O This Report concludes that the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA is eligible for designation as a "conservation area" for improved land, per the Act. For the purposes of analysis, in a previously developed area, parcels that include side yards, undeveloped lots, or parking lots related to an adjacent primary structure are considered improved. IMPROVED PARCELS: CONSERVATION AREA FINDINGS Assessor data from Cook County indicated that 74% of primary structures are aged 35 years or older. This satisfies the requirement that 50% or more of the structures in the area have an age of 35 years or more. Further, the following four (4) eligibility factors have been found to be present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA: 1. Deterioration; 2. Presence of Structures below Minimum Code Standards; SIB Firiedin, a n IDeva"dllolpin°cent Advu!soi s 6 Vullllllaage of I Prospect/ South I Prospect IR IPA B49lilhnullfty I[w,elpou°t and IFltedeveIllcul imieint I 3. Inadequate Utilities; and 4. Lack of Community Planning. These factors are defined under the Act at 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3-(a) and (b) and are more fully described in Appendix 2. Based on the age of primary structures in the proposed RPA and the presence of four eligibility factors, the proposed RPA qualifies under a "conservation area" finding (age of structures plus at least three (3) eligibility factors). SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY FINDINGS SB Friedman has found that the proposed RPA qualifies as a "conservation area" with 74% of the primary structures within the proposed RPA at least 35 years of age or older, and four (4) of the thirteen (13) eligibility factors were found to be present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed within the proposed RPA. These conditions hinder the potential to redevelop the proposed RPA and capitalize on its unique attributes. The proposed RPA will benefit from a strategy that addresses the aged buildings, deterioration, presence of structures below minimum code, inadequate utilities, and lack of community planning to facilitate the overall improvement of its physical condition. IIIA°�lu�e III,°lure oa IIII, Objectives a Illn (�J�� GOAL. The overall goal of the Redevelopment Plan and Project is to reduce or eliminate conditions that qualify the proposed RPA as a "conservation area" and to provide the direction and mechanisms necessary to redevelop the proposed RPA as a vibrant industrial mixed-use district. Redevelopment of the proposed RPA is intended to revitalize the area, strengthen the economic base, and enhance the Village's overall quality of life. OBJECTIVES. The following five (5) objectives support the overall goal of revitalization of the proposed RPA: Facilitate the physical improvement and/or rehabilitation of existing structures and fa4ades within the proposed RPA, and encourage the construction of new commercial, industrial, residential, public, civic/cultural and recreational development, where appropriate; Foster the replacement, repair, construction and/or improvement of public infrastructure, where needed, to create an environment conducive to private investment; Facilitate the assembly and preparation, including demolition and environmental clean-up, where necessary, and marketing of available sites in the proposed RPA for redevelopment and new development by providing resources as allowed by the Act; 4. Support the goals and objectives of other overlapping plans, including the Village of Mount Prospect Comprehensive Plan published in 2017 (the "2017 Comprehensive Plan"), Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020), the Mount Prospect Bicycle Plan (2012), the Public Transportation System Plan (2009), and subsequent plans; SIB Friedman IDeveiolSirineit Advurioirry 7 Wllllaago mvf Iltt mu.uuut IPrr°ura14:aect/ South IIV :ro.uumd Prospect ect IRPA lE:IIIi gflgaullluty IG>.ollmou°t and IGtodevas^Illollpimieint lylllan 5. Coordinate available federal, state and local resources to further the goals of this Redevelopment Plan and Project. STRATEGY. Redevelopment of the proposed RPA is to be achieved through an integrated and comprehensive strategy that leverages public resources to stimulate additional private investment. The underlying strategy is to use TIF, as well as other funding sources, to reinforce and encourage private investment. IIIc°°°Viii IIID ��: IIII'��m�;liiia� IIII IIII°.IIII � IIII°m ELIGIBLE COSTS. The Act outlines categories of expenditures that can be funded using incremental property taxes. These expenditures, referred to as eligible redevelopment project costs, include all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred and any such costs incidental to this Redevelopment Plan pursuant to the Act. ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS. The estimated redevelopment project costs of this Redevelopment Plan are $145 million'. The total of redevelopment project costs provides an upper limit on expenditures that are to be funded using incremental property tax revenues, exclusive of capitalized interest, issuance costs, interest and other financing costs. EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN THE PROPOSED RPA. The 2020 EAV (the most recent year in which assessed values and the equalization factor were available) of all taxable parcels in the proposed RPA is approximately $152,173,065. By tax year 2045 (collection year 2046), the total taxable EAV for the proposed RPA is anticipated to be approximately $268 million. IIIc ; : IIL lilt IIII : ec,"Is and IIIc°°° iil Illy m ilii Ill ml ; The required conditions for the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan and Project are found to be present within the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA: The proposed RPA is 505 acres in size and thus satisfies the requirement that it be at least 1.5 acres; 2. Limited private investment has occurred in the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA over the last five years; 3. Without the support of public resources, the redevelopment objectives for the proposed RPA would most likely not be realized. Accordingly, "but for" the designation of a TIF district, these projects would be unlikely to occur on their own; As noted below in "Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs," this amount is expressed in 2022 dollars and may be increased as allowed under the Act by 5% after adjusting for annual inflation reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the U.S. Department of Labor SIB IFiriedimmamn ID volllolpnmaant: Advo. r„mina 3 0 Vullllllage of Iltlrmu.uuut Prospect/ South I Prospect IR IPA lE:l49lilb llfty I[w,elpou°t and IRted ,^vdllcymeunt I 4. The proposed South Mount Prospect RPA includes only those contiguous parcels of real property that are expected to benefit substantially from the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Project; 5. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to and proposes land uses that are consistent with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan, and Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020); 6. The Village certifies that the Redevelopment Plan will not result in the displacement of 10 or more inhabited residential units as a result of activities pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, a Housing Impact Study is not required under the Act; and 7. The Redevelopment Plan is estimated be completed, and all obligations issued to finance redevelopment costs shall be retired no later than December 31, 2046, if the ordinances establishing the proposed RPA are adopted during 2022. SIB Friedman ID vdol-sun°cent: Advu!soirs 4 0 Village of Mount Prospect / South Mount Prospect [UPEIIigflbflky l[�4,elpoirt ainc.1 IGta dev6lc)jpimieint I RPA Boundary TIF ParceI Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedimain IFrevelllolrin iient Advi!soirs 10 Vfl1age of I IRrau,spect/ South I Prospect RIPA Bli9flbflKy [w,ejpoirt and Redevdlc)jqirrieint I Map 2: Proposed RPA Boundary RPA Boundary Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedirnain IDevdIolpirineint Advi!ioini I 11 Vfl1age of I IRrau,spect/ South I Prospect RIPA Bligflbflity [w,ejpoirt and Redevdlc)jqimieint I Land Use s I d e i (I a I Fj))MC o rn i � i e i ( a I Private Plecreatk-)n Pay and n d t a s t it: I Office S p :l (" "', P-' ta I I 1nstiirrtlnnaI RIgIfl or -vvay Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedirnain ICaevdiolairineint Advi!ioini 7 12 2. Eligibility Report This report concludes that the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA is eligible for designation as a "conservation area" for improved land, per the Act. �� ' �Illh IIII IIII IIII m IIII IIII C x11 IIII II X1111 Illrr�l, (��...Illl,lu t 11111111 oca"tIii OIIII°lul IIID°�� IIII o IIIA IIID lug ��. IIII i, t c IIII III �V III � IIII��..� Illl.m � t Under the Act, two (2) primary avenues exist to establish eligibility for an area to permit the use of TIF for redevelopment: declaring an area as a "blighted area" and/or a "conservation area". "Blighted areas" are those improved or vacant areas with blighting influences that are impacting the public safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community, and are substantially impairing the growth of the tax base in the area. "Conservation areas" are those improved areas that are deteriorating and declining and soon may become blighted. A description of the statutory provisions of the Act is provided below. IIII°'!ft"""t'tlll'"tllll"""illllt"�tV�i�'�:�"E�dills, According to the Act, "blighted areas" for improved land must demonstrate at least five (5) of the following eligibility factors, which threaten the health, safety, morals or welfare of the proposed district. "Conservation areas" must have a minimum of 50% of the total structures within the area aged 35 years or older, plus a combination of three (3) or more additional eligibility factors that are detrimental to the public safety, health, morals or welfare, and that could result in such an area becoming a "blighted area." The following are eligibility factors for improved areas: • Dilapidation • Obsolescence • Deterioration • Presence of Structures below Minimum Code Standards • Illegal Use of Individual Structures • Excessive Vacancies • Lack of Ventilation, Light or Sanitary Facilities A definition of each factor is provided in Appendix 2. III IIII w lw wwllll '''; OVeIIrvIi emf • Inadequate Utilities • Excessive Land Coverage and Overcrowding of Structures and Community Facilities • Deleterious Land Use or Layout • Environmental Clean -Up • Lack of Community Planning • Lack of Growth in EAV SB Friedman conducted the following analyses to determine whether the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA is eligible for designation as a "conservation area" for improved land, per the Act: • Parcel -by -parcel field observations and photography documenting external property conditions; • Review of building age data from the Cook County Assessor's Office; • Review of parcel -level GIS shapefile data provided by the County; • Review of municipal and county codes, building permit records (2016-2021), and code violation records SIS IFiriedin, a n ID vdIolainiie nt Advi!soi s F. 13 V611111Iage of I IPirc ^*IYpect / Proposed South I Prospect IR IPA Blluglilb lllkyIGabnn14 oirt ann1 IRtedevarlllryment I as of November 2021; Review of a utility memorandum provided by the Village regarding locations, ages and conditions of water, stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure; Review of current and prior comprehensive plans provided by the Village (from 1965, 2007, and 2017), as well as the Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020), the Mount Prospect Bicycle Plan (2012), and the Public Transportation System Plan (2009). SB Friedman examined all parcels for qualification factors consistent with requirements of the Act. SB Friedman analyzed the presence or absence of each eligibility factor on a building -by -building, parcel -by - parcel basis and/or aggregate basis as applicable. Building and parcel data were then plotted on maps of the proposed RPA, as applicable, to determine which factors were present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA. Area I' 11111 iiirc6I Based upon the conditions found within the proposed RPA at the completion of SB Friedman's research, it has been determined that the proposed RPA meets the eligibility requirements of the Act as a "conservation area." Of the 81 primary structures in the proposed RPA, at least 60 structures (74%) are 35 years of age or older, as they were constructed before 1985. Map 4 shows the location of primary structures that are 35 years or older. SB Friedman's research indicates that the following four (4) factors are present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA: 1. Deterioration 2. Presence of Structures below Minimum Code Standards 3. Inadequate Utilities 4. Lack of Community Planning Each eligibility factor that was found to be present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA is summarized below. Maps 5A through 5C illustrate the distribution of those eligibility factors found to be reasonably distributed on a building -by -building and/or parcel -by -parcel basis within the proposed RPA by highlighting each parcel or building where the respective factors were found to be present to a meaningful degree. 1. DETERIORATION The Act defines deterioration as defects including, but not limited to, major defects in the secondary building components such as doors, windows, porches, gutters and downspouts, and fascia. With respect to surface improvements, that the condition of roadways, alleys, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, off-street parking, and surface storage areas evidence deterioration including but not limited to, surface cracking, crumbling, potholes, depressions, loose paving material, and weeds protruding through paved surfaces. Physical deterioration was observed on 85 parcels of 127 improved parcels (approximately 67% of improved parcels). The most common form of deterioration was on surface improvements, including streets, parking lots and alleys. Catalogued surface improvement deterioration included cracks in infrastructure, and potholes. Building deterioration included stairstepping in brick and cinderblock, cracked foundations and water damage. Deterioration of buildings and surface improvements can make it appear as though the proposed RPA lacks SIS ru°uedu°nan IDevndllopunnn^unrt AcM!ioirry 14 V6111111r. ge of IlVlamu,.uumd: Irina^*IYpect / Proposed South I Prospect IRPA lE:llluglilb lllkyIGabe14 oirt anc.1 IRtedevarlllryumrient P'lllr:uuri investment and can make it more difficult to attract new businesses or consumers. This factor was found to be meaningfully present and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA. 2. INADEQUATE UTILITIES The Act defines inadequate utilities as underground and overhead utilities, such as storm sewers and storm drainage, sanitary sewers, water lines, and gas, telephone and electrical services, which are: 1. Of insufficient capacity to serve the uses in the RPA; 2. Deteriorated, antiquated, obsolete or in disrepair; or 3. Lacking within the redevelopment project area. Based on the memorandum provided by the Village's Public Works Department and a follow-up interview with the Village's Public Works Department, the water mains serving the RPA south of Dempster Street do not have sufficient capacity to service parcels in the area. Insufficient capacity has resulted in low water pressure throughout the RPA and weak water velocity at fire hydrants which the Village plans to address by constructing an elevated tank in the area. Thus inadequate utility lines (or no utility lines) serve 119 of the proposed RPA's 127 improved parcels (94%). Based on these conditions, the inadequate utilities factor was found to be present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA. 3. PRESENCE OF STRUCTURES BELOW MINIMUM CODE STANDARDS Per the Act, structures below minimum code standards are those that do not meet applicable standards of zoning, subdivision, building, fire and other governmental codes. The principal purpose of such codes is to protect the health and safety of the public, including building occupants, pedestrians and occupants of neighboring structures. According to a review of building age data, building permit data for structures within the RPA, and a memorandum prepared by the Village's Public Works Department, all of the structures in the proposed RPA were constructed prior to the adoption of the Village's current Building Code in 2022. Although the development of these properties predates current codes and standards of the Village, the buildings may not be in direct violation of all ordinances, as they may have been "grandfathered in" or received a sufficient level of upgrades and improvements since being constructed. A memorandum from the Village staff indicates that all 81 primary structures in the proposed RPA (100%) do not meet at least one current code. The presence of structures below minimum code standards, and the cost to upgrade "grandfathered" structures to meet modern codes may also reduce the overall competitiveness and economic viability of the area. Based on information provided by the Village, this factor was found to be present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed throughout the proposed RPA. 4. LACK OF COMMUNITY PLANNING Lack of community planning within the proposed RPA is an area -wide factor not necessarily attributable to any one parcel. The Act provides that "Lack of Community Planning" can be found in areas that have been developed without the benefit of a comprehensive plan, and as a result, have seen negative consequences. Examples of negative consequences include: incompatible land use relationships, inadequate street layout, SIB IFiriedunmamun ID vdlol sum°lien : Advu!soirs 10 15 V611111Iage of IIVIaru,.uurid: Irina^*IYpect / Proposed South I Prospect IRPA lE:l49lilb lllkyIGabe14 oirt anc.1 IRtedevarlllryment I improper subdivision, parcels of inadequate shape and size to meet contemporary development standards, or other related conditions. 85% of primary structures in the RPA (69 of 81) were constructed in unincorporated Cook County prior to annexation into the Village, according to Village staff. Cook County produced its first Comprehensive Plan, Cook County Comprehensive Land Use and Policies Plan, in 1976, at which point 78% of the primary structures in the previously unincorporated portion of the proposed RPA had already been constructed. Consequently, the majority (67%) of primary structures in the RPA (54 of 81 primary structures) were constructed without benefit of a comprehensive plan. The adverse effects of this development are: incompatible land use relationships, inadequate street layout, and street and parcel layouts that do not meet contemporary development standards. Examples include: • Incompatible land use relationships with single-family residential lots fronting highly trafficked roads and single-family residential lots adjacent to industrial land uses. • The two arterials serving the RPA are Oakton Street and Busse Road. Both streets are characterized by numerous curb cuts and infrequent signalization. These conditions result in roads that fail to effectively accommodate turning vehicles and the movement of freight. Data from the Village police department reveals that intersections along both roads are common places for motor vehicle crashes. • Current parcel shapes and sizes throughout the RPA do not meet contemporary standards for development. These parcel shapes and size thus, make the area difficult to redevelop on a planned basis. • In addition, the platting in some parts of the Study Area failed to create rights-of-way for streets adjacent to parcels, leaving several parcels without direct access to rights-of-way. This condition further challenges redevelopment. This factor is evaluated area -wide and is found to be present to a meaningful extent throughout the proposed RPA. S IIL IIID°m IIIn''iallry of Illi°°°Viii IIII ��m �� liii III�m� SB Friedman has found that the proposed RPA qualifies as a "conservation area" for improved land, with 74% of the structures within the proposed RPA at least 35 years of age or older, and four (4) of the thirteen (13) eligibility factors present to a meaningful extent and reasonably distributed within the proposed RPA. SIB IFiriedin,a n IDevdlolpinuentAdvu!soirs 11 16 WHiage of IPirc.sjqect / Piroposed South I Prospect IRPA Bliqflbflity Relpoirt ainc.1 IRedu^vdllrullqum eint I Map 4: Improved Land Factor: Age of Structures F I 0,135 Miles Propo,:,ed RPA Boundar)/ TIT ParceI PrInnary SU, u(. U've Aged < 5 Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedirnain ICrevdilopunnieunrt Advi!ioini 12 17 WHIage of IPirc.sjqect / Piroposed South I Pirospect IRPA Elliqflbflity Relpoirt ainc.1 IRedu^vdllrullqumrieint I 0.35IP' Iles Proposed RPA Boundary \A/Ith I.DetenoIatInn TIF ParceI Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedimain DevdIolpin iient Advi!soirs 13 18 WlHlage of IPirc.sjqect / Piroposed South I Pirospect RIPA E�liqflbflftyRelpoirt ainc.1 IRedu^vdllrullqiment I 0.35 Kies Propo,:,ed RPA Boundary TIF ParceI Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedimain DevdIolpin iient Advi!soirs 14 19 WlHlage of IPirc.sjqect / Piroposed South I Pirospect RIPA E�liqflbflftyRelpoirt ainc.1 IRedu^vdllrullqiment I 9 RI NO 0.35IP' Iles Propo,:,ed RPA Boundary Servicc, hl IMY Swvin- Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedimain DevdIolpin iient Advi!soirs 15 20 3. Redevelopment Plan and Project This document describes the comprehensive redevelopment program proposed to be undertaken by the Village to create an environment in which private investment can reasonably occur. The redevelopment program will be implemented over the 23 -year life of the proposed RPA. If a redevelopment project is successful, various new projects will be undertaken that will assist in alleviating blighting conditions and promoting rehabilitation and development in the proposed RPA. III11111,leeds of tllhi iIIID°)IIID qIII (,)se� Currently, the proposed RPA is comprised of aged buildings that are characterized by a failure to meet current code standards, building and surface deterioration, inadequate utilities, and a lack of community planning. These conditions reduce the value of the properties in the area and make the proposed RPA less competitive, overall, with property in other communities, thus limiting local area employment and development opportunities, and contributing to the lack of new investment in the proposed RPA. The existing conditions for the proposed RPA suggest five (5) major redevelopment needs: 1. Capital improvements that further the objectives set forth in this Redevelopment Plan,- 2. lan;2. Site preparation, environmental remediation and stormwater management; 3. Redevelopment of underutilized parcels,- 4. arcels;4. Rehabilitation of existing buildings; and 5. Resources for redevelopment and rehabilitation of a mix of commercial, residential, public institutional, park/open space, and vacant land uses. The goals, objectives and strategies discussed below have been developed to address these needs and facilitate the sustainable redevelopment of the proposed RPA. GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY GOAL. The overall goal of the Redevelopment Plan and Project is to reduce or eliminate conditions that qualify the proposed RPA as an improved "conservation area", and to provide the direction and mechanisms necessary to redevelop the proposed RPA as a vibrant industrial mixed-use district. Redevelopment of the proposed RPA is intended to revitalize the area, strengthen the economic base, and enhance the Village's overall quality of life. OBJECTIVES. The following five (5) objectives support the overall goal of revitalization of the proposed RPA: Facilitate the physical improvement and/or rehabilitation of existing structures and fagades within the proposed RPA, and encourage the construction of new commercial, industrial, residential, public, civic/cultural and recreational development, where appropriate; 2. Foster the replacement, repair, construction and/or improvement of public infrastructure, where needed, to create an environment conducive to private investment; SIB Friedman IDevvdllopunnei t AcM!ioirry 16 21 Vulllllla gnr of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect IG:UPIA L'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt ann1IRled ^vumrlllsulp meint I 3. Facilitate the assembly and preparation, including demolition and environmental clean-up, where necessary, and marketing of available sites in the proposed RPA for redevelopment and new development by providing resources as allowed by the Act; 4. Support the goals and objectives of other overlapping plans, including the Village of Mount Prospect Comprehensive Plan published in 2017 (the "2017 Comprehensive Plan"), Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020), the Mount Prospect Bicycle Plan (2012), the Public Transportation System Plan (2009), and subsequent plans; S. Coordinate available federal, state and local resources to further the goals of this Redevelopment Plan and Project. STRATEGY. Redevelopment of the proposed RPA is to be achieved through an integrated and comprehensive strategy that leverages public resources to stimulate additional private investment. The underlying strategy is to use TIF, as well as other funding sources, to reinforce and encourage private investment. IIID° III IIIA . IIIC°°° . ,III Illl and U IS ging The proposed future land use of the proposed RPA, as shown in Map 5, reflects the objectives of this Redevelopment Plan. For the purposes of this plan, the mixed-use designation is meant to allow for a variety of uses throughout the proposed RPA, in a manner that is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020). The Future Land Use Plan establishes long-term targets for development in the Village, which are consistent with the community's vision for the future. The plan can help guide day-to-day development decisions, infrastructure improvements, and public and private investment. The mixed-use designation promotes corridor and streetscape improvements, additional open space and access to recreation, convenient vehicular site access while minimizing the impact on traffic congestion, walkability and safe connections, thoughtful corridor signage, and several development opportunities. The designation also for the following land uses within the proposed RPA: • Commercial • Industrial • Residential • Recreational • Hospitality • Civic SIS Fu°ueagu°nan IDary,vdIolmunnumunrt AnM!ioirry 17 22 W1age of I IPirospect / Soutlh I Pirospect [UPEIhigflbflity [4,ejpoirt ainc.1R1edev6lc)jpimieint I .A'S Milos Proposed RPA Boundary MIm"d js(,-� TIF ParceI Source: Cook County, Esri, SIB Friedman, Village of Mount Prospect SIB Firiedimain DevdIolpin iient Advi!soirs 23 Vulllllla ge of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt ann1IRled ^velllsulp meint I IIIC°°° Iii IIII�;� IIII°°�Clill � IIII IIID°IIII �iw� IIID ELIGIBLE COSTS The Act outlines several categories of expenditures that can be funded using tax increment revenues. These expenditures, referred to as eligible redevelopment project costs, include all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred, and any such costs incidental to this Redevelopment Plan pursuant to the Act. The Village may also reimburse private entities for certain costs incurred in the development and/or redevelopment process. Such costs may include, without limitation, the following: Costs of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, and implementation and administration of the Redevelopment Plan including, but not limited to, staff and professional service costs for architectural, engineering, legal, financial, planning or other services (excluding lobbying expenses), provided that no charges for professional services are based on a percentage of the tax increment collected, as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(1). 2. The costs of marketing sites within the RPA to prospective businesses, developers and investors. 3. Property assembly costs, including but not limited to, acquisition of land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interests therein, demolition of buildings, site preparation, site improvements that serve as an engineered barrier addressing ground -level or below -ground environmental contamination, including, but not limited to parking lots and other concrete or asphalt barriers, and the clearing and grading of land as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(2). 4. Costs of rehabilitation, reconstruction, or repair or remodeling of existing public or private buildings, fixtures and leasehold improvements, as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(3); and the costs of replacing an existing public building if pursuant to the implementation of a redevelopment project, the existing public building is to be demolished to use the site for private investment or devoted to a different use requiring private investment. 5. Costs of the construction of public works or improvements, subject to the limitations in Section 11- 74.4-3(q)(4) of the Act. 6. Costs of job training and retraining projects, including the costs of "welfare to work" programs implemented by businesses located within the RPA, as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(5). 7. Financing costs, including but not limited to all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations and which may include payment of interest on any obligations issued hereunder including interest accruing during the estimated period of construction of any redevelopment project for which such obligations are issued and for not exceeding 36 months thereafter and including reasonable reserves related thereto. 8. To the extent the municipality by written agreement accepts and approves the same, all or a portion of a taxing district's capital costs resulting from the redevelopment project necessarily incurred or to be incurred within a taxing district in furtherance of the objectives of this Redevelopment Plan. SIS Fu°ueagu°nan ID vndllolSurinv^nrt Angvurioirry 19 24 vulllllla ge of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect IG:UPIA 1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt anc.1IRled ^vumrlllsulp imieint I An elementary, secondary or unit school district's increased per pupil tuition costs attributable to net new pupils added to the district living in assisted housing units will be reimbursed, as further defined in the Act. 10. A library district's increased per patron costs attributable to net new persons eligible to obtain a library card living in assisted housing units, as further defined in the Act. 11. Relocation costs to the extent that the municipality determines that relocation costs shall be paid or is required to make payment of relocation costs by federal or state law, or by Section 11-74.4-3(n)(7) of the Act. 12. Payment in lieu of taxes, as defined in the Act. 13. Costs of job training, retraining, advanced vocational education or career education, including, but not limited to, courses in occupational, semi -technical or technical fields leading directly to employment, incurred by one or more taxing districts, as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4- 3(q)(10). 14. Interest costs incurred by a developer, as more fully set forth in 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3(q)(11), related to the construction, renovation or rehabilitation of a redevelopment project provided that: a. Such costs are to be paid directly from the special tax allocation fund established, pursuant to the Act; b. Such payments in any one year may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual interest costs incurred by the developer with regard to the development project during that year; If there are not sufficient funds available in the special tax allocation fund to make the payment pursuant to this provision, then the amounts so due shall accrue and be payable when sufficient funds are available in the special tax allocation fund; The total of such interest payments paid, pursuant to the Act, may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total of: (i) cost paid or incurred by the developer for the redevelopment project; and (ii) redevelopment project costs excluding any property assembly costs and any relocation costs incurred by the municipality, pursuant to the Act; e. For the financing of rehabilitated or new housing for low-income households and very low- income households, as defined in Section 3 of the Illinois Affordable Housing Act, the percentage of seventy-five percent (75%) shall be substituted for thirty percent (30%) in subparagraphs 14b and 14d above; and Instead of the interest costs described above in paragraphs 14b and 14d, a municipality may pay from tax incremental revenues up to fifty percent (50%) of the cost of construction, renovation and rehabilitation of new housing units (for ownership or rental) to be occupied by low-income households and very low-income households, as defined in Section 3 of the Illinois Affordable Housing Act, as more fully described in the Act. If the units are part of a residential redevelopment project that includes units not affordable to low- and very low - SIB Firiedun°Hanan ID va"Illolpun°uv^nt Advu!soirs 20 25 Alilllliage of IIS1rau.uuut Prospect / Soutllh I Prospect IG:1.1PA 1-'.Illliglilblillllity IGabell: oirt anc.1IRled ^velllsupnmieint IPlllauri income households, only the low- and very low-income units shall be eligible for this benefit under the Act. Unless explicitly provided in the Act, the cost of construction of new privately -owned buildings shall not be an eligible redevelopment project cost. If a Special Service Area is established pursuant to the Special Service Area Tax Act, 35 ILCS 235/0.01 et seq., then any tax increment revenues derived from the tax imposed pursuant to the Special Service Area Tax Act may be used within the RPA for the purposes permitted by the Special Service Area Tax Act as well as the purposes permitted by the Act. ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS The total eligible redevelopment project costs define an upper expenditure limit that may be funded using tax increment revenues, exclusive of capitalized interest, issuance costs, interest, and other financing costs. The totals of line items are not intended to place a limit on the described expenditures. Adjustments to the estimated line -item costs are expected and may be made administratively by the Village without amendment to this Redevelopment Plan, either increasing or decreasing line item costs because of changed redevelopment costs and needs. Each individual project cost will be re-evaluated in light of projected private development and resulting incremental tax revenues as it is considered for public financing under the provisions of the Act. The estimated eligible costs of this Redevelopment Plan are shown in Table 1. Additional funding in the form of state and federal grants, private developer contributions, and other outside sources may be pursued bythe Village as a means of financing improvements and facilities within the proposed RPA. Fl R7 Ca Ii.1.'YI'IIY.YiT�i1 � I � GI IL1147 Ca i(�ii C�I:7 CrTiTiiT TiY■11Ci7t�iii�CiT*jiT.] Administration and Professional Service Costs $1,000,000 Site Marketing Costs $1,000,000 Property Assembly and Site Preparation Costs $6,000,000 Costs of Building Rehabilitation $6,000,000 Costs of Construction of Public Works or Improvements $125,000,000 Costs of Job Training or Retraining (Businesses) $100,000 Financing Costs $300,000 Taxing District Capital Costs $300,000 Relocation Costs $100,000 Interest Costs (Developer or Property Owner) $100,000 Affordable Housing Construction $5,000,000 School District Increased Costs $50,000 Transfers to contiguous TIF Districts $50,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS [21 [31 [41 $145,000,000 [1] Described in more detail in Eligible Costs Section. [2] Total Redevelopment Project Costs exclude any additional financing costs, including any interest expense, capitalized interest, costs of issuance, and costs associated with optional redemptions. These costs are subject to prevailing market conditions and are in addition to Total Redevelopment Project Costs. SIS IFiriedima i n IDevelllopun°uent Advli!soirs 21 Vulli1age of IMou.uint IPirru,^nlpect: / Sou.ntllh Il6tou.nirnt IPu'ea.rapa.ct IG'°Ji'IA h'.Illligilbulllity I[4,e1i:sou°t rsnn1IRled ^verlllsulpi nneint Plllan [3] The amount of the Total Redevelopment Project Costs that can be incurred in the proposed RPA may be reduced by the amount of redevelopment project costs incurred in contiguous RPAs, or those separated from the proposed RPA only by a public right-of-way, that are permitted under the Act to be paid, and are paid, from incremental property taxes generated in the proposed RPA, but may not be reduced by the amount of redevelopment project costs incurred in the proposed RPA that are paid from incremental property taxes generated in contiguous RPAs or those separated from the proposed RPA only by a public right-of- way. [4] All costs are in 2022 dollars and may be increased by S% after adjusting for annual inflation reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the U.S. Department of Labor. In addition to the above stated costs, each issue of obligations issued to finance a phase of the Redevelopment Plan and Project may include an amount of proceeds sufficient to pay customary and reasonable charges associated with the issuance of such obligations, including interest costs. PHASING, SCHEDULING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT, AND ESTIMATED DATES OF COMPLETION Each private project within the proposed RPA receiving TIF benefits shall be governed by the terms of a written redevelopment agreement entered into by a designated developer and the Village of Mount Prospect. This Redevelopment Plan is estimated to be completed, and all obligations issued to finance redevelopment costs are estimated to be retired, no later than December 31 of the year in which the payment to the Village provided in the Act is to be made with respect to ad valorem taxes levied in the twenty-third calendar year following the year in which the ordinance approving this proposed RPA is adopted. This Redevelopment Plan is estimated to be completed, and all obligations issued to finance redevelopment costs shall be retired no later than December 31, 2046, if the ordinances establishing the proposed RPA are adopted during 2022. Funds necessary to pay for redevelopment project costs and/or municipal obligations, which may be issued or incurred to pay for such costs, are to be derived principally from tax increment revenues and/or proceeds from municipal obligations, which have as a repayment source tax increment revenue. To secure the issuance of these obligations and the developer's performance of redevelopment agreement obligations, the Village may require the utilization of guarantees, deposits, reserves, and/or other forms of security made available by private sector developers. The Village may incur redevelopment project costs that are paid from the funds of the Village other than incremental taxes, and the Village then may be reimbursed for such costs from incremental taxes. The tax increment revenue, which will be used to fund tax increment obligations and eligible redevelopment project costs, shall be the incremental property tax revenues. Incremental property tax revenue is attributable to the increase of the current EAV of each taxable lot, block, tract or parcel of property in the proposed RPA over and above the certified initial EAV of each such property. Other sources of funds, which may be used to pay for development costs and associated obligations issued or incurred, include land disposition proceeds, state and federal grants, investment income, private investor and financial institution funds, and other sources of funds and revenues as the municipality and developer may deem appropriate. The proposed RPA may be or become contiguous to or be separated only by a public right-of-way from, other redevelopment areas created under the Act (65 ILCS 5/11 74.4 4 et. seq.). The Village may utilize net incremental property tax revenues received from the proposed RPA to pay eligible redevelopment project costs, or obligations issued to pay such costs, in other contiguous redevelopment project areas, or those separated only by a public right-of-way, and vice versa. The amount of revenue from the proposed RPA made available to SIP IFiriedimai°n IDevedliolpunneunrt Advu!ioirry 22 27 Vulllllla ge of Ilt3cnu.uu ut Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt ai nc.1IRled ^vumrlllsulp meant I support such contiguous redevelopment project areas, or those separated only by a public right-of-way, when added to all amounts used to pay eligible redevelopment project costs within the proposed RPA, shall not at any time exceed the Total Redevelopment Project Costs described in Table 1 of this Redevelopment Plan. ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS To finance project costs, the Village may issue bonds or obligations secured by the anticipated tax increment revenue generated within the proposed RPA, or such other bonds or obligations as the Village may deem as appropriate. The Village may require the utilization of guarantees, deposits or other forms of security made available by private sector developers to secure such obligations. In addition, the Village may provide other legally permissible credit enhancements to any obligations issued pursuant to the Act. All obligations issued by the Village pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan and the Act shall be retired within the timeframe described under "Phasing, Scheduling of the Redevelopment, and Estimated Dates of Completion" above. Also, the final maturity date of any such obligations that are issued may not be later than 20 years from their respective dates of issue. One or more of a series of obligations may be sold at one or more times in order to implement this Redevelopment Plan. The amounts payable in any year as principal and interest on all obligations issued by the Village shall not exceed the amounts available from tax increment revenues, or other sources of funds, if any, as may be provided by ordinance. Obligations may be of parity or senior/junior lien nature. Obligations issued may be serial or term maturities, and may or may not be subject to mandatory, sinking fund or optional redemptions. In addition to paying redevelopment project costs, tax increment revenues may be used for the scheduled and/or early retirement of obligations, and for reserves and bond sinking funds. MOST RECENT EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN THE PROPOSED RPA The purpose of identifying the most recent EAV of the proposed RPA is to provide an estimate of the initial EAV for the purpose of annually calculating the incremental EAV and incremental property taxes of the proposed RPA. The 2020 EAV (the most recent year in which final assessed values and equalization factor were available) of all taxable parcels in the proposed RPA is $152,173,065. This total EAV amount by property index number ("PIN") is summarized in Appendix 4. The EAV is subject to verification by the Cook County Assessor's Office. After verification, the final figure shall be certified by the Cook County Clerk and shall become the "Certified Initial EAV" from which all incremental property taxes in the proposed RPA will be calculated by the County. ANTICIPATED EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUE By tax year 2045 (collection year 2046), the total taxable EAV for the proposed RPA is anticipated to be approximately $268 million. IIhr,qpact of .tlI,�w This Redevelopment Plan is expected to have short and long-term financial impacts on the affected taxing districts. During the period when TIF is utilized, real estate tax increment revenues from the increases in EAV over and above the Certified Initial EAV (established at the time of adoption of this document) may be used SIS IFiriedin°an IDevelllolpin°uent: Advu!soirs 23 Wlllla ge of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect IG:UPIA 1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt ai nc.1IRled ^velllsupmeint I to pay eligible redevelopment project costs for the proposed RPA. To the extent that property tax increment is not required for such purposes, revenues shall be declared surplus and become available for distribution annually to area taxing districts in the manner provided by the Act. At the time when the proposed RPA is no longer in place under the Act, the real estate tax revenues resulting from the redevelopment of the proposed RPA will be distributed to all taxing district levying taxes against property located in the proposed RPA. These revenues will then be available for use by the affected taxing districts. DEMAND ON TAXING DISTRICT SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS FINANCIAL AND SERVICE I M PACT In 1994, the Act was amended to require an assessment of any financial impact of a redevelopment project area on, or any increased demand for service from, any taxing district affected by the redevelopment plan, and a description of any program to address such financial impacts or increased demand. Replacement of underutilized buildings and sites with active and more intensive uses may result in additional demands on services and facilities provided by the districts. Given the preliminary nature of this Redevelopment Plan, specific fiscal impacts on the taxing districts and increases in demand for services provided by those districts cannot accurately be assessed within the scope of this Plan. At this time, no special programs are proposed for these taxing districts. The Village intends to monitor development in the area and should demand increase, the Village intends to work with the affected taxing districts to determine what, if any, program is necessary to provide adequate services. The following taxing districts presently levy taxes on properties within the proposed RPA: • Cook County • Consolidated Elections • Cook County Forest Preserve District • Elk Grove Township • Elk Grove General Assistance • Elk Grove Road Fund • Elk Grove Rural Fire Protection District • Cook County School District 59 • Arlington Heights Township HS 214 • Harper Community College District 512 • Mount Prospect Park District • Greater Chicago Metro Water Reclamation District • Northwest Mosquito Abatement district • Village of Mount Prospect • Village of Mount Prospect Library Fund • Village of Mount Prospect Special Service Area 5 SIB IFiriedin°an ID velllolpun°uent: Advu!soirs 24 Vilna ge of I Prospect / Sou tllh I Prospect I L'.Illliglilbulllity I anc.1IRled ^vumrlllsulp meint I ecl it, ,i lilt Ilre i��'J !";t"1"11;� � Illrii cl lil IIIbm lidiiil Iliill As a part of establishing the proposed RPA, the following additional findings must be made: FINDING 1: LACK OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PRIVATE INVESTMENT The Village is required to evaluate whether the proposed RPA has been subject to growth and development through private investment and must substantiate a finding of lack of such investment. Limited private investment has occurred in the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA during the past six years (2016-2021), as demonstrated by the following: • LIMITED CONSTRUCTION -RELATED PERMIT ACTIVITY. Building permit data provided by the Village indicates that there has been an annual average investment of approximately $950,000 each year over the past six years from 2016 to 2021. This investment has included interior remodeling of commercial spaces, plumbing and electrical work, but only six instances of building exterior or fagade remodels, three instances of commercial additions or expansions. There has been no new construction. Thus, the proposed RPA has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise. Finding: The proposed RPA, on the whole, has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise. FINDING 2: "BUT FOR..." REQUIREMENT The Village is required to find that the proposed RPA would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan. Without the support of public resources, the redevelopment objectives for the proposed RPA would most likely not be realized. The investments required to update and maintain buildings exhibiting deterioration, inadequate utilities, a lack of planning, and that are below minimum code throughout the proposed South Mount Prospect RPA are extensive and costly, and the private market, on its own, has shown little ability to absorb all of these costs. Public resources to assist with public improvements and project -specific development costs are essential to leverage private investment and facilitate area -wide redevelopment. Finding: But for the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan, critical resources will be lacking to support the redevelopment of the proposed RPA, and the proposed RPA would not reasonably be anticipated to be redeveloped. FINDING 3: CONTIGUITY No RPA can be designated unless a plan and project are approved prior to the designation of the area; and the area can only include those contiguous parcels that are to be substantially benefited by the proposed redevelopment project improvements. Finding: The proposed RPA includes only those contiguous parcels of real property that are expected to benefit substantially from the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Project. SIS I"u^uedum°namum ID va"IIiolaum°un^umt: Advli!soirs 25 30 Vulllllla ge of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt ai nc.1 IRledevumrlllsulp meant I FINDING 4: CONFORMANCE TO THE PLANS OF THE VILLAGE The Redevelopment Plan and Project must conform to the comprehensive plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan identifies the proposed RPA as a "Mixed -Use District" for the Village, as indicated in the Growth, Preservation, and Opportunities section of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan also identified most of the proposed RPA as a "Mixed -Use District". Areas of the RPA excluded from the "Mixed -Use District" include the existing commercial and park land uses north of Dempster Street as well as the existing commercial land uses in the northwest corner of the RPA along Busse Road and Dempster Street. These areas will remain their current land uses. Additionally, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020) contemplate converting existing single family lots along Dempster Street to accommodate multi -family housing. All aspects of this Redevelopment Plan are in agreement with, but subservient to, plans made in the Village's 2017 Plan and the Connect South Mount Prospect Sub -Area Plan (2020). Finding: The South Mount Prospect Redevelopment Plan conforms to and proposes predominant land uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING 5: HOUSING IMPACT AND RELATED MATTERS As set forth in the Act, if a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project area would result in the displacement of residents from 10 or more inhabited residential units, or if the redevelopment project area contains 75 or more inhabited residential units and a municipality is unable to certify that no displacement will occur, the municipality must prepare a Housing Impact Study and incorporate the study into the Redevelopment Plan and Project document. Finding: SB Friedman found that there are approximately 5 housing units within the proposed RPA. The Village hereby certifies that the Redevelopment Plan will not result in the displacement of residents from 10 or more inhabited residential units as a result of activities pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, a Housing Impact Study is not required under the Act. FINDING 6: ESTIMATED DATES OF COMPLETION As set forth in the Act, the redevelopment plan must establish the estimated dates of completion of the redevelopment project and retirement of obligations issued to finance redevelopment project costs. Finding: The estimated dates of completion of the project and retirement of obligations are described in "Phasing and Scheduling of the Redevelopment" above. This Redevelopment Plan is estimated to be completed, and all obligations issued to finance redevelopment costs shall be retired no later than December 31, 2046, if the ordinances establishing the proposed RPA are adopted during 2022. Illi°) II �� lil � Iln s � IIID �°°� IIII°°III ;� lil IIII ��' I� �°° ��..� 4��Ilil aIID IIII�)IIII aln 616 II"u^uedin°an IC na~va"Illol-sun°uent:Advu!soirs 26 31 Wlage of I Prospect / Soutlh I 12urcuspect [UPIEIhigflbflity [4,e14:oirt ainc.1RledevdIc)Ipmeint I This Redevelopment Plan and Project document may be amended pursuant to the provisions of the Act. "to ��'�ractia 5 ar,id ar��i Act'I�arii III IIID IIII ml The Village of Mount Prospect hereby affirms its commitment to fair employment practices and an affirmative action plan. SIB Firiedin,an Devdolpin iient Adv!soirs 27 32 Appendix 1: Limitations of the Eligibility Report and Consultant Responsibilities The Eligibility Report covers events and conditions that were determined to support the designation of the proposed Redevelopment Project Area ("RPA" or "TIF District") as a "conservation area" under the Act at the completion of our field research in November -December 2021 and not thereafter. These events or conditions include, without limitation, governmental actions and additional developments. This Eligibility Report, Redevelopment Plan and Project, (the "Report") summarizes the analysis and findings of the consultant's work, which, unless otherwise noted, is solely the responsibility of SB Friedman. The Village is entitled to rely on the findings and conclusions of the Report in designating the proposed RPA as a redevelopment project area under the Act. SB Friedman has prepared the Report with the understanding that the Village would rely: (1) on the findings and conclusions of this Redevelopment Plan in proceeding with the designation of RPA and the adoption and implementation of this Redevelopment Plan; and (2) on the fact that SB Friedman has obtained the necessary information including, without limitation, information relating to the equalized assessed value of parcels comprising the proposed RPA, so that the Report will comply with the Act and that the proposed RPA can be designated as a redevelopment project area in compliance with the Act. The Report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the industry, and meetings during which we obtained certain information. The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions are stated in the Report. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved will necessarily vary from those described in our Report, and the variations may be material. The terms of this engagement are such that we have no obligation to revise the Report to reflect events or conditions which occur subsequent to the date of the Report. These events or conditions include, without limitation, economic growth trends, governmental actions, additional competitive developments, interest rates and other market factors. However, we will be available to discuss the necessity for revision in view of changes in economic or market factors. Preliminary Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projections were prepared for the purpose of estimating the approximate level of increment that could be generated by proposed projects and other properties within the proposed TIF District boundary and from inflationary increases in value. These projections were intended to provide an estimate of the final equalized assessed value (EAV) of the proposed TIF District. As such, our report and the preliminary projections prepared under this engagement are intended solely for the Village's information, for the purpose of establishing a TIF District. These projections should not be relied upon for purposes of evaluating potential debt obligations or by any other person, firm or corporation, or for any other purposes. Neither the Report nor its contents, nor any reference to our Firm, may be included or quoted in any offering circular or registration statement, appraisal, sales brochure, prospectus, loan or other agreement or document intended for use in obtaining funds from individual investors, without prior written consent. S18 IFiriedin°an ID va"Illolpiniie ntAdvi!soirs 28 33 Appendix 2: Glossary IIII °� a ct aIIrs fair IIII III iri IIIA Iliroved,�� Ilr1i d Dilapidation. An advanced state of disrepair or neglect of necessary repairs to the primary structural components of buildings or improvements in such a combination that a documented building condition analysis determines that major repair is required or the defects are so serious and so extensive that the buildings must be removed. Obsolescence. The condition or process of falling into disuse. Structures have become ill-suited for the original use. Deterioration. With respect to buildings, defects including but not limited to, major defects in the secondary building components such as doors, windows, porches, gutters and downspouts, and fascia. With respect to surface improvements, that the condition of roadways, alleys, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, off-street parking, and surface storage areas evidence deterioration including but not limited to, surface cracking, crumbling, potholes, depressions, loose paving material and weeds protruding through paved surfaces. Presence of Structures below Minimum Code Standards. All structures that do not meet the standards of zoning, subdivision, building, fire and other governmental codes applicable to property, but not including housing and property maintenance codes. Illegal Use of Individual Structures. The use of structures in violation of the applicable federal, state or local laws, exclusive of those applicable to the Presence of Structures below Minimum Code Standards. Excessive Vacancies. The presence of buildings that are unoccupied or underutilized and that represent an adverse influence on the area because of the frequency, extent or duration of the vacancies. Lack of Ventilation, Light or Sanitary Facilities. The absence of adequate ventilation for light or air circulation in spaces or rooms without windows, or that require the removal of dust, odor, gas, smoke, or other noxious airborne materials. Inadequate natural light and ventilation means the absence of skylights or windows for interior spaces or rooms and improper window sizes and amounts by room area to window area ratios. Inadequate sanitary facilities refers to the absence or inadequacy of garbage storage and enclosure, bathroom facilities, hot water and kitchens, and structural inadequacies preventing ingress and egress to and from all rooms and units within a building. Inadequate Utilities. Underground and overhead utilities, such as storm sewers and storm drainage, sanitary sewers, water lines, and gas, telephone, and electrical services that are shown to be inadequate. Inadequate utilities are those that are: (i) of insufficient capacity to serve the uses in the redevelopment project area, (ii) deteriorated, antiquated, obsolete, or in disrepair, or (iii) lacking within the redevelopment project area. Excessive Land Coverage and Overcrowding of Structures and Community Facilities. The over -intensive use of property and the crowding of buildings and accessory facilities onto a site. Examples of problem SIS IFiriedin, a n IDeva"dliolpiniie t Advu!soi s 29 34 Aullllllage of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I Prospect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity I[4,e14: oirt anc.1IRledu^vumrlllsulp meint I conditions warranting the designation of an area as one exhibiting excessive land coverage are: (i) the presence of buildings either improperly situated on parcels or located on parcels of inadequate size and shape in relation to present-day standards of development for health and safety, and (ii) the presence of multiple buildings on a single parcel. For there to be a finding of excessive land coverage, these parcels must exhibit one or more of the following conditions: insufficient provision for light and air within or around buildings, increased threat of spread of fire due to the close proximity of buildings, lack of adequate or proper access to a public right-of- way, lack of reasonably required off-street parking, or inadequate provision for loading and service. Deleterious Land Use or Layout. The existence of incompatible land use relationships, buildings occupied by inappropriate mixed -uses, or uses considered to be noxious, offensive or unsuitable for the surrounding area. Environmental Clean -Up. The proposed redevelopment project area has incurred Illinois Environmental Protection Agency or United States Environmental Protection Agency remediation costs for, or a study conducted by an independent consultant recognized as having expertise in environmental remediation has determined a need for, the clean-up of hazardous waste, hazardous substances, or underground storage tanks required by state or federal law, provided that the remediation costs constitute a material impediment to the development or redevelopment of the redevelopment project area. Lack of Community Planning. The proposed redevelopment project area was developed prior to or without the benefit or guidance of a community plan. This means that the development occurred prior to the adoption by the municipality of a comprehensive or other community plan, or that the plan was not followed at the time of the area's development. This factor must be documented by evidence of adverse or incompatible land use relationships, inadequate street layout, improper subdivision, parcels of inadequate shape and size to meet contemporary development standards, or other evidence demonstrating an absence of effective community planning. Lack of Growth in Equalized Assessed Value. The total equalized assessed value of the proposed redevelopment project area has declined for three (3) of the last five (5) calendar years prior to the year in which the redevelopment project area is designated; or is increasing at an annual rate that is less than the balance of the municipality for three (3) of the last five (5) calendar years for which information is available; or is increasing at an annual rate that is less than the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the United States Department of Labor or successor agency for three (3) of the last five (5) calendar years prior to the year in which the redevelopment project area is designated. SIS IFiriedum°Haman Itra~va"IIIolpim°un^nt: Adva!s mirs 30 35 Appendix 3: Proposed South Mount Prospect RPA Boundary Legal Description OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: THOSE PARTS OF SECTIONS 14, 22, 23 AND 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 8 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF DEMPSTER STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 479.60 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 IN LAKE CENTER, PLAZA RESUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 0819145106; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTHERLY THE FOLLOWING (4) COURSES ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2; (1) THENCE SOUTH 270.28 FEET TO A BEND POINT; (2) THENCE WESTERLY 20.07 FEET TO A BEND POINT; (3) THENCE SOUTH 397.41 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; (4) THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 466.07 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 71.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 422.28 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN SAID LAKE CENTER, PLAZA RESUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 980.71 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN LAKE CENTER PLAZA RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 91321871; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 187.19 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF ALGONQUIN ROAD; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF 289.0 FEET TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 15 IN ELMHURST- ALGONQUIN INDUSTRIAL PARK -UNIT NO. 8 SUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 20409121; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY EXTENSION AND NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 15, A DISTANCE OF 341.54 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ELMHURST-ALGONQUIN INDUSTRIAL PARK -UNIT NO. 8 SUBDIVISION 539.36 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1175.0 FEET OF THE NORTH THREE-QUARTERS OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 4.0 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DENNES RESUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 25198789; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID DENNES RESUBDIVISION 1110.85 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN SAID DENNES SUBDIVISION; THEN EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 339.52 FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF TO THE SOUTH LINE OF OAKTON STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF OAKTON STREET TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2 IN GARLAND C. RICHARDSON'S SUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 16662336; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 2 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 1-90 TOLL ROAD; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF ABACUS CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 08009531; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND THE SOUTH LINE OF BUSSE ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT 904723385 TO THE WEST LINE OF BUSSE ROAD; THENCE SIS IFirie ima in IDa~,v dlIolainiie t dva!soi s 31 36 VdIllla ge of I Prospect / Sou tllh I I uraspect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity IG4bn"14: oirt ai ncl IFlecJu^vumrlllsulp imieint I NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF BUSSE ROAD TO THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 1 IN PLAZA UNITED RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 96489523; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (3) COURSES ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND NORTH LINE; (1) THENCE EAST ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND NORTH LINE TO A BEND POINT; (2) THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 116.13 FEET TO A BEND POINT; (3) THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 353.13 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 2 IN SAID PLAZA UNITED RESUBDIVISION; THENCE THE FOLLOWING (4) COURSES ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2; (1) THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 52.09 FEET; (2) THENCE NORTH 170 FEET; (3) THENCE EASTERLY 39 FEET; (4) THENCE NORTH 250.43 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 TO THE NORTH LINE OF DEMPSTER STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF DEMPSTER STREET TO THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 1 IN BRIARWOOD BUSINESS CENTER SUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 0627931120; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXTENSION AND SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 1 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 IN LINNEMAN'S DIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 15716544; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PICKWICK COMMONS SUBDIVISION PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 20563555; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PICKWICK COMMON SUBDIVISION AND THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 1 IN SAID LINNEMAN'S DIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE COMMONWEALTH EDISON'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A BEND POINT; THENCE CONTINUING EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. IB IFiriedum°na i n IDa~va"IlIolaum°uamnt dva!samirs 32 37 Appendix 4: List of PINS in Proposed South Mount Prospect RPA SIB Firie ima i n IDevdlojainiient dva!soi s 33 38 1 0823100018 $20,013,623 2 0823200051 $4,686,882 3 0823101014 $1,240,509 4 0823200052 $1,765,079 5 0823101015 $987,166 6 0823101016 $443,353 7 0823101017 $634,800 8 0823101020 $431,936 9 0823101024 $352,279 10 0823101032 $483,510 11 0823101033 $632,592 12 0823101034 $377,138 13 0823101036 $1,448,077 14 0823101037 $566,548 15 0823101038 $439,188 16 0823101041 $185,346 17 0823300047 $551,740 18 0823100012 $2,187,112 19 0823101044 $115,804 20 0823101045 $3,294,553 21 0823100020 $14,066,918 22 0823101047 $664,020 23 0823101051 $728,292 24 0823101055 $1,879,239 25 0823101058 $742,517 26 0823100021 $3,213,727 27 0823101059 $625,365 28 0823101062 $2,141,189 29 0823300007 $1,178,736 30 0823102005 $5,262,055 31 0823202050 $5,802,120 32 0823102006 $4,694,295 33 0823102007 $2,094,910 34 0823102009 $3,198,138 SIB Firie ima i n IDevdlojainiient dva!soi s 33 38 VdIllla ge of I Prospect / Sou tllh I I uraspect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity IG4bn"14: oirt ai nclIRlecJu^vumrlllsulp imieint I SIB Firiedum°na i n IDaava"IlIolaum°uamnt dva!soirs 34 39 35 0823202008 $1,054,049 36 0823202009 $785,704 37 0823202013 $1,447,722 38 0823202017 $1,145,197 39 0823202022 $1,305,480 40 0823202023 $406,052 41 0823202024 $288,269 42 0823202025 $647,442 43 0823202032 $1,973530 44 0823300006 $921,796 45 0823202034 $1,306,683 46 0823300051 $549,612 47 0823202035 $662,879 48 0823202036 $754,327 49 0823202037 $425,995 50 0823202038 $241,755 51 0823202042 $2,306,475 52 0823101060 $294,967 53 0823202044 $1,156,098 54 0823300017 $680,134 55 0822401019 $643,890 56 0823300018 $545,751 57 0823300024 $247,419 58 0823300025 $402,880 59 0823300026 $483,510 60 0823101052 $615,070 61 0823300027 $283,218 62 0823300028 $283,782 63 0823300029 $1,514,992 64 0823300030 $293,304 65 0823300031 $30,287 66 0823300036 $1,435,154 67 0823300049 $1,590,687 68 0823300053 $518,052 69 0823300054 $1,607,242 70 0823301003 $2,958,875 71 0823301006 $718,741 72 0823301007 $1,598,810 73 0823301008 $1,708,205 74 0823301009 $851,400 SIB Firiedum°na i n IDaava"IlIolaum°uamnt dva!soirs 34 39 VdIllla ge of I Prospect / Sou tllh I I uraspect [UPI1-'.Illliglilbulllity IG4bn"14: oirt ai nclIRlecJu^vumrlllsulp imieint I SIB Firiedum°na i n IDaava"IlIolaum°uamnt dva!soirs 35 40 75 0823202041 $1,173,904 76 0823400004 $1,274,845 77 0823400008 $3,305,171 78 0823101035 $502,850 79 0823400015 $1,753,530 80 0823400011 $275,646 81 0823400016 $615,669 82 0823400017 $1,916,041 83 0823300055 $275,085 84 0823400009 $254,368 85 0823400018 $431,707 86 0823400019 $2,349,855 87 0823400020 $867,091 88 0823101048 $244,534 89 0823400021 $473,656 90 0823400022 $2,807,894 91 0823300023 $283,898 92 0823101064 $456,005 93 0823101061 $400,765 94 0823102011 $137,143 95 0823300058 $75,476 96 0823202046 $109,644 97 0823202047 $87,712 98 0823400010 $69,635 99 0823401004 $59,620 100 0823101026 $509,294 101 0823300057 $35,754 102 0823101009 $41,543 103 0823101057 $35,490 104 0823101056 $33,394 105 0823300022 $30,181 106 0823102008 $3,584 107 0823101046 $0 108 0823202039 $0 109 0823202007 $2,202 110 0823401033 $570,687 111 0823300050 $695,088 112 0823101063 $392,987 113 0823201007 $93,717 114 0823201018 $96,370 SIB Firiedum°na i n IDaava"IlIolaum°uamnt dva!soirs 35 40 tFulllllla ge of I Prospect / Sou. tlh I IPironapect [UP1-'.Illliglilbullliter I[4,e14: oirt ai ndIRledu^vumrllic)Ip meint I Source: Cook County, SB Friedman SIB Friedman IDevelllolmunnieunrt ttngenurioirr,„� 36 41 MA111 III 115 0823201020 $96,080 116 0823201080 $77,249 117 0823201081 $97,598 118 0823201082 $70,557 119 0823201083 $77,926 120 0823201084 $147,264 121 0814401018 $0 12 0814401019 $0 123 0814403015 $0 124 0814403016 $0 125 0814403021 $840502 126 0814403024 $499,627 127 0814403029 $501,638 128 0814403030 $148,054 129 0823203042 $3,060,348 Total $152,173,065 Source: Cook County, SB Friedman SIB Friedman IDevelllolmunnieunrt ttngenurioirr,„� 36 41