Loading...
Economic Development Packet 2012 10-02-12 CIT�- �` � United City of Yorkville R 800 Game Farm Road EST. 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 <LE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: September 4, 2012 New Business: 1. EDC 2012-49 Business District for Imperial Investments Downtown Properties 2. EDC 2012-50 RFP for Sale of Downtown West-Alley Parking Lot 3. EDC 2012-51 Resolution Designating Staff as Real Estate Representative for Sale of Old Post Office 4. EDC 2012-52 Countryside Concept PUD Plan Review 5. EDC 2012-53 Electronic Signs — Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment 6. EDC 2012-54 Building Mounted Signs — Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment Old Business: 1. EDC 2012-33 Sixth Amended Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with the Aurora Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (AACVB) Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. September 4, 2012 ❑ Approved ❑ As presented ❑ As amended --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2012-49 Business District for Imperial Investments Downtown Properties ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2012-50 RFP for Sale of Downtown West Alley Parking Lot ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2012-51 Resolution Designating Staff as Real Estate Representative for Sale of Old Post Office ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2012-52 Countryside Concept PUD Plan Review ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2012-53 Electronic Signs—Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2012-54 Building Mounted Signs —Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2012-33 Sixth Amended Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with the AACVB ❑ Moved forward to CC consent agenda? Y N ❑ Approved by Committee ❑ Bring back to Committee ❑ Informational Item ❑ Notes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 CIP Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number J� 6 Legal ❑ Minutes EST. 1&36 Finance El Engineer ❑ Tracking Number Gy City Administrator El r� 9 _© Public Works ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Minutes of the Economic Development Committee— September 4, 2012 Meeting and Date: EDC—October 2, 2012 Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Committee Approval Submitted by: Minute Taker Clerk's Office Name Department Agenda Item Notes: DRAFT UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 4, 2012, 7:00pm City Conference Room In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Marty Munns Alderman Jackie Milschewski Alderman Chris Funkhouser Alderman Diane Teeling Other City Officials Mayor Gary Golinski City Administrator Bart Olson Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble Code Official Pete Ratos Other Guests Lynn Dubajic, YEDC Chris Hamilton, Aurora Area CVB Tony Scott,Kendall County Record Nitin Patel, Hampton Inn Yorkville Ken Koch Kathleen Tompkins, Raging Waves Daryl Wiese, Hampton Inn Yorkville Carrie Herr, AmericInn Oswego Tom Stahl, Bristol Bay Subdivision The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marty Munns at 7:00pm. Citizen Comments: None Minutes for Correction/Approval: None New Business 1. EDC 2012-43 Building Permit Report for August 2012 For information—there was no discussion. 2. EDC 2012-44 Building Inspection Report Summary for August 2012 No discussion 3. EDC 2012-45 Property Maintenance Report Alderman Funkhouser said that Windett Ridge had been assessed again and fined $57,000 in October. Mr. Ratos confirmed they had been issued one citation and one finding of libel this year. The most recent fine is over$532,000 ($100 per day). He had requested a fine $750 per day per lot, but the Hearing Officer recommended $100 per day. Mr. Ratos is working with Caledonia and Prestwick that have been responsive but, noted that no maintenance has been done in Windett Ridge. The fine structure will remain in place at Windett even if the property changes hands. Mr. Funkhouser recommended against any leniency at this time. 1 Alderman Milschewski inquired about the Nicholson property on Heustis Street. A fence on the property is being improved and the owner also asked about obtaining a permit. There is a judgment against the owner for the fence and he has also been cited for the long grass. Currently there are at least 7 vehicles on the property, however, they cannot be towed off private property. Mr. Ratos said all vehicles except the semi truck have valid license plates and do run. Ms. Milschewski said she is concerned for the people who live in the nearby apartments and the owner of Casa Santiago who is trying to run his business. She would like the property to be more well-maintained in general and Mr. Ratos is working with Mr. Nicholson to try and improve the property. Complaints have also been received about the burning, however, it is for campfires. Mr. Ratos has spoken with the City Attorney. 4. EDC 2012-46 Kendall County Revolving Loan Fund Application Mr. Rick Tollefson of Imperial Investments and landowner in the downtown area, approached the City about relocating overhead electric wires/equipment underground. Since there are not enough TIF funds to cover the entire cost, the City can possibly qualify for a loan through a County Fund Program at a 3-4% interest rate and pay it back over 10 years. This item is on the County agenda for the month-end meeting. Cobblestone Bakery has been losing electric power and revenue as a consequence of the old wires and ComEd is researching this according to Mr. Ratos. Bart Olson will talk with Kendall County and this item will then move forward to the City Council. S. EDC 2012-47 Dairy Queen Incentive Agreement Administrator Olson said this agreement allows a 50% sales tax rebate over the next 10 years or a maximum sum of$30,000, whichever occurs first. Due to difficulties with the first choice of locations in Kendall Marketplace and associated double costs, the City encouraged this business to stay in the Yorkville area and drafted the proposed incentive agreement. This business will be located near Blackstone Restaurant on Rt. 34. Alderman Funkhouser stated that the rebate is a result of a failure between the buyer/seller, not a failure of the City. He asked if it is fair to give them a full rebate or a lesser option, however, he is in favor of an incentive agreement since the owner has stayed within the City. Alderman Teeling noted that if the business did not build in Yorkville, there would be no tax at all from them. Mayor Golinski said there were many hurdles this business had to overcome and he feels this agreement is a positive step. This item will move to the Council regular agenda on September 11th 6 EDC 2012-48 RFP for Sale of Old Jail Bart Olson said there had been inquiries about the old jail and said it was a good idea to put it up for RFP, though all inquiries can be rejected. An ordinance would have to be passed to approve the RFP process and all bids would have to be opened and read at a City Council meeting. The City would still move forward with the proposed parking lot slated for this area and the property would be subdivided in order to sell the jail. 2 Alderman Teeling asked about the grant the City had used to purchase the building and the possibility of having to pay back the $64,000 if the building is sold. Mr. Olson thought it would be necessary,but the City is inquiring about this. Alderman Funkhouser asked about the possibility of non-repayment of the grant if the building were kept as a museum or something similar. Mr. Olson will research all possibilities. Ms. Milschewski stated the building should not be demolished and it was noted that it is one of 10 endangered historical buildings in the State. Mr. Olson said any contingencies could be put on a sale and any potential buyer would have to state the intended use of the building. Mayor Golinski suggested a minimum bid of the grant amount be required, however, Mr. Olson said the City should keep all options open. This item will move forward to the regular Council agenda. OLD BUSINESS 1. EDC 2012-33 Agreement with AACVB/Use of Tourism Dollars This item was returned to EDC from a recent C.O.W. meeting. Ms. Teeling said the tourism bureau extends much further than another recently interviewed firm could. She asked to have input from area hotels since they generate the tax that goes to the tourism bureau. AACVB Executive Director Chris Hamilton stated that 54,000 tourism guides were distributed throughout the State last year. He handed out a list of social media sites that provide tourism information. He said the website that the AACVB will launch, will impact a very large area. It will also feature booking mechanisms and on-line ticket sales. Downtown events,weekend getaways, trade shows, lodging, meeting space and giveaways were just a few of the features on the website. He said Yorkville will now have at least 3 seats on the tourism Board, one of which will be a hotel representative. It was state that all communities contribute 90% of their hotel tax to the Tourism Bureau. Mr. Olson noted that a portion of the State hotel tax also comes back to the City. Alderman Funkhouser had inquired about a possible 3-year commitment rather than a 5-year. Mr. Hamilton said he does not think his Board would allow less than a 5-year commitment. Alderman Milschewski commented that she was concerned that the City rarely saw anyone from the AACVB until it was contract time and that no feedback was given on a regular basis. She asked for quarterly reports and Mr. Hamilton committed to providing this information. She said the Council also needs to be diligent about following up on the progress. Hampton Inn representative Daryl Wiese commented that the Hampton Inn provides $32,000 of the $45,000 hotel tax to the AACVB. He said his business at the Hampton comes from outside the Yorkville area and he was concerned that any alternative tourism firm would not have the reach or resources of the AACVB. He said at this point he has received $40,000 of business generated by the Visitors Bureau with a total of over $100,000 for the future. Super 8 and Hampton Inn together, generate 90-95% of the yearly tourism dollars for Yorkville. He already has business booked for 2013 and 2014. He fears any departure with this group will cause tourism to lose momentum in 3 Yorkville. Transportation to local attractions is another service the AACVB can offer that often helps seal some deals. Mr. Olson also noted that the Bureau can coordinate other items such as gift baskets, shuttle services, logistics planning and other items. It was noted that Oswego's self-travel bureau has closed their doors. Other comments were also heard. The current sales manager for Raging Waves, Kathleen McDonald Tompkins, said that the Aurora Tourism Bureau has been a major player in the State and recommended staying with them. Ken Koch added that 90 baseball teams were brought into the area this year and Mr. Wiese noted a very positive impact from that event. Mr. Nitin Patel of Hampton Inn also recommended staying with the AACVB. It was noted that the Hampton Inn tracks results from the CVB also. Mr. Olson requested direction from the committee as to their wishes. The committee stated the following: Ms. Teeling recommended 5 years, Ms. Milschewski suggested a 3- year contract and add a contract stipulation for quarterly reports. She said the other Aldermen should be made ware of the businesses represented at this meeting as well. Mr. Funkhouser agreed with 3 years. Mayor Golinski said the CVB scope is much larger and it would be short-sighted to discontinue the current relationship--he recommended 5 years. All other current members have 5-year terms. Since the CVB Board has already said no to a 3-year contract, it was decided to recommend a 5-year contract to the Council and then take a vote. This item will move to the next Council agenda. Additional Business Chairman Munns commented that he would like to see the City website be modernized. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 8:24pm Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young 4 `� 13 fry Reviewed By: �� �•s► Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ NB #1 EST. -� _ 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development j� ���� Police F-1 Public 2012-49 LE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Business District for Imperial Investments Downtown Properties Meeting and Date: Economic Development—October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Aug 2012 Action Taken: COW recommends approval Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Memorandum To: City Council EST. -�` Yid 1s36 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator -- � � CC: Date: September 26, 2012 C<wrMY Sad Subject: Downtown Business District ALE Summary Proposal to create a downtown business district over a group of properties owned by a single entity. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council at the July COW meeting. The packet materials from that meeting are attached. The Council was in favor of the business district proposal as presented. After the meeting, the developer requested postponement of the business district while other matters were attended to. After a few weeks, Imperial Investments approached the City with a slightly different proposal. Instead of imposing a 0.5%business district tax and the City committing to remit all proceeds to the developer for on-site project development costs (building construction, land acquisition, etc.), the developer has requested the business district tax be collected and remain with the City for purposes of improving public infrastructure within the district. This money could be used for sidewalks, streetlights, parking lot upgrades, utility relocation, and other items. The geographic boundaries of the business district are the same as was proposed a few weeks ago. The business district will only incorporate properties owned by Imperial Investments, and the money collected from those businesses can only be used within the business district. A business district eligibility report and business district plan are attached for your review. The creation of a business district requires a public hearing, as discussed in the attached memo from Attorney Orr. Recommendation Because the business district and incremental sales tax has been requested by the property owner, staff recommends approval of the creation of the downtown business district. Ordinance No. A ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO SET A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DOWNTOWN YORKVILLE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. It is necessary and in the best interests of the City that a public hearing be held at least one week prior to the adoption of an ordinance or ordinances by the City Council approving the Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan (the "Business District Plan"), establishing the Downtown Yorkville Business Development District (the "Business District"), as legally described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this Ordinance, and imposing a retailers', service, and hotel operators' occupation taxes (the "Taxes"), in accordance with the Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1, et seq. (the "Act"). Section 2. The Act grants the Village the power to establish by ordinance or Ordinance procedures for the planning, execution and implementation of business district plans; and pursuant to the Act, the Village desired to authorize the date for a public hearing (the "Public Hearing") on the proposed Business District Plan, proposed Business District, and the imposition of Taxes therein, and the publication of notice thereof. Section 3. It is hereby determined that the Public Hearing shall be held by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville on the day of , 2012, at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois. Section 4. Notice of the Public Hearing is hereby authorized to be given by publication in the Section 5. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, the invalidity of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Ordinance. Passed this day of , 2012. APPROVED: Mayor AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held on , 2012 at 7:00 p.m. before the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois on the proposed Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan, establishing the Downtown Yorkville Business Development District and imposing a 0.5% retailers', service, and hotel operators' occupation taxes, all in accordance with the Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1, et. seq. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District includes an area founded on the north by West Hydraulic Avenue, on the east by Bridge Street(Illinois Route 47), on the south by West Van Emmon Street and on the west by the alley approximately 190 feet of Bridge Street, and is legally described as: Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in Block 1 of Blacks Addition to the Village of Yorkville, being a subdivision of part of section 32,Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian according to the plat recorded June 29, 1863 in Book 4, Page 8, Kendall County, Illinois. At the public hearing all interested parties shall be heard. Copies of the proposed Downtown Yorkville Business District Development Plan are available at the United City of Yorkville City Hall, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois. /s/Beth Warren City Clerk UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared by: Kathleen Field Orr Kathleen Field Orr&Associates 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 935 Chicago,Illinois 60604 312.382.2113 1 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN L INTRODUCTION The Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, as from time to time amended (65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1 et seq.) (the "BDD Act"), provides the means for municipalities to revitalize and redevelop commercial areas and has been most successfully used in aging central downtown districts which lack the structures, parking and improvements mandated by modern retailing and business operations. The objectives of the BDD Act are to attract sound and stable commercial growth; to reduce or eliminate blighting conditions in order to attract private investment; and, to assure opportunities for development and redevelopment thereby enhancing the tax base of the municipality and all affected taxing districts. The purpose of this document, entitled "United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, Downtown Business District Development Plan", is to provide a redevelopment Plan (the "Business District Plan"), for those properties included in the Yorkville Downtown Business District (the "Downtown Business District") legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Downtown Business District includes approximately acres and is characterized by structures at least fifty(50) years and older. The City has been advised that the Downtown Business District qualifies as a business district pursuant to the BDD Act, pursuant to an Eligibility Report attached hereto as a business district pursuant to the BDD Act and to an Eligibility Report attached hereto as Exhibit C, which report analyzes the blighting factors now found within the proposed Downtown Business District. The City believes that the Downtown Business District would benefit from the designation as a "business district" as such designation empowers the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville (the "Corporate Authorities"): (1) To make and enter into all contracts necessary or incidental to the implementation and furtherance of a business district plan. A contract by and between the municipality and any developer or other nongovernmental person to pay or reimburse said developer or other nongovernmental person for business district project costs incurred or to be incurred by said developer or other nongovernmental person shall not be deemed an economic incentive agreement under Section 8-11-20, notwithstanding the fact that such contract provides for the sharing, rebate, or payment of retailers' occupation taxes or service occupation taxes (including, without limitation, service occupation taxes (including, without limitation, taxes imposed pursuant to subsection (10)) the municipality receives from the development or redevelopment of properties in the business district. Contracts entered into pursuant 2 to this subsection shall be binding upon successor corporate authorities of the municipality and any party to such contract may seek to enforce and compel performance of the contract by civil action, mandamus, injunction, or other proceeding. (2) Within a business district, to acquire by purchase, donation of land and other real or personal property or rights or interests therein; and to grant or acquire licenses, easements, and options with respect thereto, all in the manner and at such price authorized by law. No conveyance, lease, mortgage, disposition of land agreement relating to the development of property, shall be made or executed except pursuant to prior official action of the municipality. No conveyance, lease, mortgage, or other disposition of land owned by the municipality, and no agreement relating to the development of property, within a business district shall be made without making public disclosure of the terms and disposition of all bids and proposals submitted to the municipality in connection therewith. (3) To acquire property by eminent domain in accordance with the Eminent Domain Act. (4) To clear any area within a business district by demolition or removal of any existing buildings, structures, fixtures, utilities, or improvements, and to clear and grade land. (5) To install, repair, construct, reconstruct, or relocate public streets, public utilities, and other public site improvements within or without a business district which are essential to the preparation of a business district for use in accordance with a business district plan. (6) To renovate, rehabilitate, reconstruct, relocate, repair, or remodel any existing buildings, structures, works, utilities, or fixtures within a business district. (7) To construct public improvements, including but not limited to buildings, structures, works,utilities, or fixtures within any business district. (8) To fix, charge, and collect fees, rents, and charges for the use of any building, facility, or property or any portion thereof owned or leased by the municipality within a business district. (9) To pay or cause to be paid business district project costs. Any payments to be made by the municipality to developers or other nongovernmental persons for business district project costs incurred by such developer or other nongovernmental person shall be made only pursuant to the prior official action of the municipality evidencing an intent to pay or cause to be paid such business district project costs. A 3 municipality shall adopt such accounting procedures as shall be necessary to determine that such business district project costs are properly paid. (10) To apply for and accept grants, guarantees, donations of property or labor or any other thing of value for use in connection with a business district project. (11) If the municipality has by ordinance found and determined that the business district is a blighted area under this Law, to impose a retailers' occupation tax and a service occupation tax in the business district for the planning, execution, and implementation of business district plans and to pay for business district project costs as set forth in the business district plan approved by the municipality. (12) If the municipality has by ordinance found and determined that the business district is a blighted area under this Law, to impose a hotel operators' occupation tax in the business district for the planning, execution, and implementation of business district plans and to pay for the business district project costs as set forth in the business district plan approved by the municipality. In order to impose a tax pursuant to item (11) or item (12) cited above, the Corporate Authorities shall undertake the following: 1. Hold a public hearing prior to designation of the business district and approval of the business district development plan. 2. Affirms that the area proposed to be designated as a business district is contiguous and includes such parcels of real property as shall be directly and substantially benefitted by the proposed development. 3. Shall find that the proposed is a blighted area and has not been subject to growth and development through private investment and without a business district development plan is not reasonably anticipated to be developed. Upon the finding that the proposed Business District is "blighted," as hereinafter defined, the Retailers' Occupation Tax may be imposed in quarter percent (.25%) increments at a total rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the gross receipts from such sales made in the Downtown Business District in the course of selling tangible personal property, other than an item of tangible personal property titled and registered with an agency of the state's government. The Retailers' Occupation Tax may not be imposed for more than 23 years and may not be imposed on "food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and non-prescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin,urine testing materials, syringes, and 4 needles used by diabetics for human use. A Service Occupation Tax may be imposed in a quarter percent (25%) increments at a total rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the selling price of tangible personal property so within the Business District incident to making sales of service. The Retailer's Occupation Tax and Service Occupation Tax shall hereafter collectively be referred to as "Sales Taxes." Sales Taxes, if imposed, shall be collected by the Illinois Department of Revenue and then disbursed to the City. The BDD Act defines a"blighted area" as: "Blighted area" means an area that is a blighted area which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non-existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." Given the Eligibility Report which concludes that the Downtown Business District is a blighted commercial area as defined by the BDD, the City desires to proceed with all other actions required under the BDD Act to impose such taxes as permitted thereby in order to implement this Business District Plan. 5 IL THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE The United City of Yorkville is located 50 miles southwest of Chicago in the Fox River Valley of Kendall County. The City is generally bounded on the north by the Villages of Montgomery and Sugar Grove; the Village of Oswego on the East, the City of Plano on the west and the City of Morris on the south. The town of Yorkville was originally settled in 1832 south of the Fox River as an agricultural business center with a downtown district along the Fox River on Bridge Street. From the beginning, the City was a growing area which was soon reinforced by the designation of Yorkville as the County Seat in 1859. Yorkville was incorporated as a village in 1874. Simultaneously, on the north bank of the Fox River, the town of Bristol was also growing and incorporated in 1861 until it combined with Yorkville in 1957, hence the name the "United City of Yorkville". Yorkville has grown from a population of 6,189, as of the census of 2000, to its current population of 16,921 per the 2010 census. During this decade, the City has annexed hundreds of acres for development as residential subdivisions while also developing new commercial corridors and an industrial park. Its attraction to tourists as a recreational destination has recently grown due to the opening of the Marge Cline Whitewater Course at the Glen D. Palmer Dam located at the City's Bicentennial Riverfront Park. 6 III. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT BOUNDARIES The proposed Downtown Business District encompasses some of the oldest properties and oldest structures of Yorkville in the City's historic downtown area which is a mixed use area with a wide range of commercial and retail uses, restaurants, residences, public and civic uses, and several industrial uses. The Downtown Business District constitutes a portion of the historic downtown bounded on the east by Bridge Street, on the south by Van Emmon Street, on the west by Main Street and on the north by Hydraulic Street. Until 1970, the historic downtown area was the City's only business district when the City annexed acres at US Route 34 and substantial retail development has occurred with major "big box" users coming to the City. As a result of this new development and general market changes, the historic downtown area has not benefitted from new private investment. With the improvements to Bicentennial Riverfront Park, a new interest in the historic downtown area has been sparked. In 2006, the City of Yorkville designated the Downtown Yorkville Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Project Area ("Downtown TIF District") pursuant to the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq.) (the "TIF Act") which includes approximately 200 acres inclusive of streets and rights-of-way. The benefits of the TIF Act remain to be realized but it is evidence of the City's commitment to recognize the changing requirements for development and redevelopment and to pursue all avenues to achieve opportunities for growth and redevelopment. The Downtown Business District is the City's effort to focus on the commercial development of a portion of the Downtown TIF District and to apply the benefits of the BDD Act to a specific commercial strip to increase the interest in this area and excitement to attract private investment in the entire district. A list of the parcels included in the Downtown Business District is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 7 IV. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT GOALS General goals for the Yorkville Downtown Business District include, but are not limited to, the following: $ To create an environment that will contribute more positively to the health, safety and general welfare of the City; $ To improve infrastructure that will provide safe and efficient access to the parcels and detention/retention to address stormwater needs; $ To encourage new investment and development that will increase the value of properties within and adjacent to the Downtown Business District, improving the real estate and sales tax base; $ To increase construction, part-time, and full-time employment opportunities for residents and non-residents of the City; $ To maintain and enhance the viability of the City's historic downtown as a commercial center; $ To eliminate the factors that qualified the Downtown Business District as a blighted area; and, $ To provide a strong, positive visual image of the Downtown Business District through attractive and high-quality building design and site improvements, and landscaping. $ To develop a land use pattern which promotes the highest degrees of health, safety and the well-being of the community. 8 V. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT PROJECTS The City proposes to achieve its development and redevelopment goals for the Downtown Business District through the use of public financing techniques and the imposition of Sales Taxes as authorized under the BDD Act to undertake the activities, improvements and projects described below. The City also maintains the flexibility to undertake additional activities, improvements and projects authorized under the BDD Act and other applicable laws, if the need for activities, improvements and projects changes as redevelopment occurs in the Downtown Business District, including: • Construct buildings and facilities; • Revitalize and upgrade buildings through site planning, fagade improvements, and construction methods that provide cohesive urban design features, provide focus to the streetscape and buildings in the Downtown Business District, and quality building materials; • Improve streetscape design, pedestrian access, distinctive lighting, signage and landscaping, and other appropriate site amenities; • Redesign site to improve access, which may require the demolition and replacement of buildings; • Provide and upgrade infrastructure to serve the development, including the construction of and improvements to utility and stormwater management infrastructure; • Create convenient parking areas as mandated by users no longer within walking distances; • Study of utility services to the Downtown Business District and the reconfiguration of such utility services to sufficiently serve the developments; • Construction of streetscape enhancements including new light poles; accent paving in crosswalks; street tree and ornamental vegetation plantings; and community banners and attractive features to attract pedestrian usage and provide increased safety for both pedestrians and motorists; • Site clearance and site preparation, such as subdividing or combing parcels for commercial use, to attract development; and, 9 • Make access improvements to provide safe, convenient, efficient and effective access to the business in the Downtown Business District for automobiles, trucks and delivery vehicles, public transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians. 10 VI. BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS A. The BDD Act states: "Business district project costs" shall mean and include the sum total of all costs incurred by a municipality, other governmental entity, or nongovernmental person in connection with a business district, in the furtherance of a business district plan, including, without limitation, the following: (1) Costs of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of a business district plan, and personnel and professional service costs including architectural, engineering, legal, marketing, financial, planning, or other professional services, provided that no charges for professional services may be based on a percentage of tax revenues received by the municipality; (2) Property assembly costs, including but not limited to, acquisition of land and other real or personal property or rights or interests therein, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for property assembly costs incurred by that developer or other nongovernmental person; (3) Site preparation costs, including but not limited to clearance, demolition or removal of any existing buildings, structures, fixtures, utilities, and improvements and clearing and grading of land; (4) Costs of installation, repair, construction, reconstruction, extension, or relocation of public streets, public utilities, and other public site improvements within or without the business district which are essential to the preparation of the business district for use in accordance with the business district plan, and for use in accordance with the business district plan, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for site preparation costs incurred by the developer or nongovernmental person; (5) Costs of renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or remodeling of any existing buildings, improvements, and fixtures within the business district, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons as reimbursement for costs incurred by those developers or nongovernmental persons; (6) Costs of installation or construction within the business district of buildings, structures, works, streets, improvements, equipment, utilities, or fixtures, and specifically including payments to developers or other nongovernmental persons 11 as reimbursements for such costs incurred by such developer or nongovernmental person; (7) Financing costs, including but not limited to all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations, payment of any interest on any obligations issued under this Law that accrues during the estimated period of construction of any development or redevelopment project for which those obligations are issued and for not exceeding 36 months thereafter, and any reasonable reserves related to the issuance of those obligations; and (8) Relocation costs to the extent that a municipality determines that relocation costs shall be paid or is required to make payment of relocation costs by federal or State law. B. Estimated Project Costs (1) Costs of studies, development plans engineering and professional services $ 500,000.00 (2) Land assembly $ 3,000,000.00 (3) Site preparation, including land clearance $ 2,000,000.00 (4) Repair and remodeling of existing buildings $ 3,000,000.00 (5) Improvements to public utilities $ 1,000,000.00 (6) Streetscape improvements $ 1,000,000.00 (7) Construction of improvements $ 3,000,000.00 (8) Interest costs $ 1,000,000.00 $14,500,000.00 12 The City reserves the right to exceed budgeted costs in particular estimated development project costs categories so long as the total estimated cost is not exceeded over the 23 year life of the Downtown Business District, unless otherwise amended. 13 VII. SOURCES OF FUNDS TO PAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS Upon designation of the Downtown Business District by City ordinance, the City intends to impose the retailers= occupation within the Downtown Business District, at a rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the gross receipts from sales made in the course of any business within the Downtown Business District. Such tax shall not be applicable to the sales of food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and nonprescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin, urine testing materials, syringes, and needles used by diabetics for human use. The City also intends to impose a service occupation tax upon all persons engaged within the boundaries of the Downtown Business District in the business of making sales of service at a rate not to exceed one percent (1%) of the selling price of all tangible personal property transferred by such serviceman as an incident to a sale of service. Such tax may not be imposed on food for human consumption that is to be consumed off the premises where it is sold (other than alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and food that has been prepared for immediate consumption), prescription and nonprescription medicines, drugs, medical appliances, modifications to a motor vehicle for the purpose of rendering it usable by a disabled person, and insulin, urine testing materials, syringes, and needles used by diabetics for human use. The retailers' occupation tax and the service occupation tax shall be collectively referred to as the "Taxes." The proceeds of these Taxes shall be used during the term of the designation of the Downtown Business District (not to exceed 23 years from the date of adoption of this Business District Plan) for the planning, execution and implementation of the Business District Plan, the payment of business district project costs as set forth in the Business District Plan and permitted by the BDD and the payment of obligations of the City issued to provide for the payment of business district project costs. A City ordinance shall also be adopted by the Mayor and City Council to create a separate fund entitled the "Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund" in order to receive the revenues generated by the Taxes. Pursuant to the Business District Act, all funds received from the Taxes must be deposited into this special fund. Funds necessary to pay for business district project costs and to secure municipal obligations issued for such costs are to be derived primarily from the Taxes. Other sources of funds which may be used to pay for business district project costs or to secure municipal obligations are state and federal grants, investment income, private financing 14 and other legally permissible funds the City may deem appropriate. All such funds shall be deposited in the Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund. 15 VIII. ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS The City may issue obligations pursuant to the BDD Act and other authorities in order to pay for business district project costs. The obligations may be secured by the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes, and other sources that the City may deem appropriate. Additionally, the City may provide other legally permissible credit enhancements to any obligations issued pursuant to the BDD Act. All obligations issued by the City pursuant to this Business District Plan and the BDD Act shall be retired within twenty-three (23) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving this Business District Plan. One or more series of obligations may be issued from time to time in order to implement this Business District Plan. Obligations may be issued on either a taxable or tax-exempt basis, as general obligation bonds, general obligation debt certificates, alternate bonds or revenue bonds, or other debt instruments, with either fixed rate or floating interest rates; with or without capitalized interest; with or without deferred principal retirement; with or without interest rate limits except as limited by law; with or without redemption provisions, and on such other terms, all as the City may determine and deem appropriate. 16 IX. ESTABLISHMENT AND TERM OF THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT The establishment of the Downtown Business District shall become effective upon adoption of an ordinance by the Mayor and City Council adopting the Downtown Business District Plan and designating the Downtown Business District. Development agreements between the City and any developers or other private parties shall be consistent with the provisions of the BDD Act and this Business District Plan. Pursuant to the BDD Act, the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes described in Section VI may not be imposed for more than twenty-three (23) years pursuant to the provisions of the BDD Act. The Downtown Business District shall expire upon the termination of the imposition of the Downtown Business District Sales Taxes and the final payout of the same from the Downtown Business District Tax Allocation Fund, which shall be no later than 23 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving this Business District Plan. 17 X. FORMAL FINDINGS Based upon the information described in the attached Exhibit C, the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville finds and determines the following: (a) the Downtown Business District is a contiguous area and includes only parcels of real property directly and substantially benefitted by the proposed business district development or redevelopment plan; (b) the Downtown Business District Plan is consistent with the United City of Yorkville=s Comprehensive Plan for the development of the City as a whole; (c) the Downtown Business District is a blighted area as defined in the BDD Act by reason of the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; (d) the Downtown Business District constitutes an economic liability to the City in its present condition and use; and, (e) the Downtown Business District on the whole has not been subject to growth and development by private enterprises or would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed or redeveloped without the adoption of the business district development or redevelopment plan. 18 XI. PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN The Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville may amend this Business District Plan from time to time by adopting an ordinance providing for such amendment. 19 DOWNTOWN YORKVILLE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT 1 DOWNTOWN YORKVILLE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District includes thirteen (13) parcels as identified on Exhibit D of the proposed Downtown Business District Development Plan. The area includes approximately acres and is bounded on the north by West Hydraulic Avenue, on the east on Bridge Street (Illinois Route 47), on the south by West Van Emmon Street and on the west by the alley approximately 190 feet west of Bridge Street (the "Proposed Business District'). The legal description of the Proposed Business District is attached as Exhibit A to the proposed Downtown Business District Development Plan. In order for the United City of Yorkville to designate the Proposed Business District as a "business district"under the Business District Development and Redevelopment Law (65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1 et seq.) (the "BDD Act') and to implement a sales tax or a hotel tax to fund improvements to the Proposed Business District, the City is required to make a formal finding that the Proposed Business District is a "blighted area" which is defined by the BDD Act as: "Blighted area" means an area that is a blighted area which, by reason of the predominance of defective, non-existent, or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or any combination of those factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, an economic underutilization of the area, or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." The BDD Act also requires the municipality to determine that the Proposed Business District has not been subject to growth and development through private investment and would not reasonably be anticipated to experience investment and redevelopment without the adoption of the proposed Downtown Business District Development Plan. 2 I. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED BUSINESS DISTRICT The Proposed Business District encompasses some of the oldest properties and oldest structures in the United City of Yorkville dating back to the early 1900's and is surrounded by a wide-range of mixed uses, including commercial and retail uses, industrial uses, residential uses, as well as civic uses. Despite the fact that the downtown runs along the Fox River and has significant structures such as a historic court house and other historic buildings, interest in this area waned with the annexations of properties along Route 34 by the City and the development of "big box" users creating new and modern retail centers. In addition, population growth of the City within the past decade caused numerous vacancies in the downtown due to the fact that the local post office and the local downtown bank required larger facilities and left the historic downtown are to locations on major thoroughfares which have ample parking. Decline in the downtown area was progressive and severe. As part of its economic development program, the City engaged planning experts to develop a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of the entire downtown area and in 2006 adopted Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.3-1 et seq.) (the "TIF Act"), in effort to spur interest in the area and induce private investment. As a result of its efforts, the City entered into a Development Agreement for a mixed use development to house retail uses on the street level and condominiums for residential use on two-floor above street level. As in most historic districts, parking is a key component of redevelopment due to the limited area available. Problems arose when the developer attempted to construct underground parking and, due to the significant costs and unforeseen structural difficulties, the project failed to proceed. It was several years thereafter before the City was able to generate any interest or any potential developer. Curiously, as hope waned, a local businessman realized the downtown area presents an opportunity for creating an attractive "main street" incorporating some of the historic buildings into new commercial endeavors and began to acquire properties. Despite significant investment, the issues of the area have stalled continuing development and shall continue to limit the redevelopment of the area unless addressed. 3 II. EXISTENCE OF BLIGHTING FACTORS A. Obsolete Platting The most significant blighting factor to be found in the Proposed Business District is obsolete platting. Exhibit A, attached hereto depicts 8 parcels which are 22 to 26 feet in width. Exhibit B is a depiction of the buildings located on these parcels which appear to have been built without regard to lot lines. Redevelopment can only occur if ownership is combined into a single entity and the parcels are combined or the structures are demolished to permit replatting. Given the historical buildings which give the area its greatest potential for the creation of a new commercial district combining old with new, demolition of the structure is not recommended. B. Deterioration of Site Improvements The structures within the Proposed Business District are used for commercial purposes, however, these properties do not provide adequate parking. Moreover, the minimal parking that is currently available is either completely unpaved or the pavement is significantly deteriorated. In addition, the areas around the buildings, as well as the alleyway, demonstrate serious deterioration. C. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The Proposed Business District is bordered on the west by an alley way of twenty (20) feet in width. Two of the structures depicted on Exhibit A as 1 and 209 abut the alley thereby limiting circulation of parking areas serving the operating businesses. Vision is seriously hampered for vehicles exiting into the alley whether going north or south. The structure identified as number 1 on Exhibit B houses a well and pump station owned and operated by the City. The cost to remove this structure is prohibitive so that providing for alternate parking to serve the area is essential in order to further development of the area. 4 III. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE BDD ACT The proposed Downtown Business District meets the requirements of the BDD Act for designation as a blighted area. Several of the blight factors listed in the BDD Act are present and the presence of these blight conditions has hindered growth and development in the area. The blight conditions in the area have been present for an extended period of time and the market alone has not been able to support new development to mitigate these conditions. The City has tried for several years to encourage economic investment in this large and important part of the community and has achieved very limited success; however, future private reinvestment would not be reasonably expected to continue by private enterprise alone. The conclusion of this Eligibility Study is that the Proposed Business District qualifies as a blighted commercial area under the requirements of the state statutes and the area is in need of revitalization and guided growth to ensure that it will contribute to the long-term physical, economic and social well-being of the City. 5 IV. FORMAL FINDINGS A. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District is a contiguous area and includes only parcels of real property which will be directly benefitted by the proposed Downtown Business District Development Plan. B. The Business District Plan is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. C. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District is a blighted area as defined in the BDD Act due to: 1. Obsolete platting; 2. Deterioration of site improvement; 3. Defective or inadequate street layout. D. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District is an economic liability in its present condition due to the economic underutilization of the area. E. The proposed Downtown Yorkville Business Development District has experienced minimal development by private enterprise but continued development is not reasonably anticipated without the adoption of the BDD Act, approval of the proposed Downtown Business District Plan and assistance of the City with the extraordinary costs of the necessary improvements to induce private investment. 6 Memorandum To: City Council EST. -�` Yid 1s36 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator -- � � CC: Date: July 3, 2012 C<wrMY Sad Subject: Downtown Business District ALE Summary Proposal to create a downtown business district over a group of properties owned by a single entity. Background Imperial Investments now owns all buildings and lots with Route 47 frontage between W Van Emmon Street and W Hydraulic Avenue. Imperial Investments also has a TIF agreement with the City for Cobblestone Bakery and Follies Theater, and the agreement contemplates inclusion of future properties and buildings owned by Imperial Investments. For inclusion in the TIF agreement, Imperial Investments must get an approved TIF plan for future properties. To date, no new TIF plans have been submitted to the City. While the City and Imperial Investments waits for the TIF reimbursement process to kick in on Cobblestone Bakery and Follies Theater, the owner of Imperial Investments inquired about other ways to get incentives and assistance from the City sooner than TIF incentives. One such approach is to create a business district, which is explained in detail in the documents supplied by Attorney Orr and attached to this memo. The owner of Imperial Investments is willing to enact a business district on property that he owns, as long as 100% of the proceeds from the business district are forwarded to the owner. This is the exact same proposal that is in place in Kendall Marketplace. In Kendall Marketplace, a'/z percentage point business district sales tax was implemented at the request of Harlem Irving to fund on-site infrastructure 2. The owner of Imperial Investments has requested a '/2 percentage point business district sales tax. Recommendation Because the business district and incremental sales tax has been requested by the property owner, staff recommends approval of the business district plan. The process for business district approval is discussed in the attached memo from Attorney Orr, and it includes a public hearing. ' Because of the timing of the property tax payment system and assessment system,it is possible that Imperial Investments will not receive any TIF assistance from the City for another year. 2 Sales tax rate in Kendall Marketplace is 8.75%,elsewhere in the City the sales tax rate is 8.25%. `� 13 fry Reviewed By: �� �•s► Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ NB #2 EST. -� _ 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development j� ���� Police F-1 Public 2012-50 LE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: REP for Sale of Downtown West-Alley Parking Lot Meeting and Date: Economic Development—October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: `,SAD C►p 011% Memorandum To: City Council EST 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: .y� p Date: September 26, 2012 �.MQW* Subject: Resolution for the sale of public property LE Summary Consideration of a request for bids on the City's west-alley parking lot in downtown Yorkville. Background The City owns a 60' x 85' parking lot to the west of Cobblestone Bakery and Bistro, adjacent to W Van Emmon Street. This lot has been most recently used as the primary parking lots for Cobblestone, Rivers Edge Theater and Kendall Grill, and contains only 15 parking spaces. With Imperial Investment's purchase of every property and building in this block, they have inquired about our future use of this lot, and whether we are interested in selling it to them. Similar to the RFP for the Old Post Office and Old Jail, we can sell public property in only one of two ways. The first method involves hiring a real estate agency,public auctioneer, or directing staff to sell the property, but not at a price less than 80% of an appraised value. This method ends up costing the municipality in real estate agency fees or auction fees, and requires the municipality to spend money getting an appraisal. Further, this first method does not allow the municipality to sell property at less than 80% of its appraised price—even though there may be good reasons for doing so (such as stimulating downtown development). The second method to sell property involves an RFP process. The municipality firsts passes a resolution directing staff to solicit bids (contemplated in this agenda item), to publish notices soliciting bids, and to set a date where the proposals are opened by the City Council and reviewed. After the opening, the City Council may select any proposal they see as beneficial, and approve it with a 3/4 majority. This sale method offers the City more flexibility in the final proposal by being able to trade a lower purchase price for development commitments (i.e. maybe we would consider selling it for cheaper, if the property were significantly renovated). It also gives the City an auction-type process,perhaps encouraging more developers to come forward with better bids. Finally, the RFP process still allows the City to reject all bids should they decide not to sell the property. For these reasons, staff recommends the RFP process as the preferred method to sell public property, if the City Council chooses to explore the sale of the Old Jail. Recommendation While downtown parking lots are typically a public responsibility, all surrounding commercial properties are owned by one entity. Additionally, this parking lot does not serve a large public base at only 15 spots. On-street parking is available in the surrounding area and the City is constructing the Old Jail parking lot immediately to the southwest of this parking lot. Finally, the RFP process allows the City to receive bids from multiple parties and then reject them if none of them are favorable to the City. For these reasons, we recommend the City proceed with authorizing an RFP for the west-alley parking lot. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on initiating a request for bids through the RFP process by resolution. Ordinance No. 2012- ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DIRECTING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (Lot 6 Van Emmon Street) WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, is a non- home-rule municipality pursuant to Article VII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the Illinois Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the best interests of its citizens to sell certain real estate which is no longer needed for City operations, said property being commonly known as Lot 6 Van Emmon Street, Yorkville, Illinois, identified as parcel number 05-38-283-009, and legally described as follows: Part of Lot 6, Block 1, Black's Addition to Yorkville, as described in Deed Records Book 63,page 290 in the Recorder's Office of Kendall County, Illinois as more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 6 of Block 1 of Black's Addition to the Village of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois; running thence Northerly along the East line of an alley, 87 feet; thence Easterly along the North line of said Lot 6, 57 feet; thence Southerly 87 feet more or less, to the North line of Van Emmon Street; thence Westerly along said Van Emmon Street, 57 feet to the place of beginning (the "Subject Property") all in accordance with the directions hereafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 11-76-2 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 11- 76-2), proceedings to sell the property commonly known as Lot 6 Van Emmon Street, Yorkville, Illinois, as hereinabove legally described, which is no longer needed for City operations, is hereby determined to be in the best interest of the citizens of the United City of Yorkville are hereby approved; and, as required by said Section 11-76-2 of the Illinois 1 Municipal Code, the City Administrator is hereby directed to publish a notice for three (3) consecutive weeks in the Kendall County Record, being a newspaper published in the United City of Yorkville, requesting bids on the sale of the Subject Property and including the following information: (i) The use of the Subject Property shall be as an off-street parking facility, and (ii) The City shall retain easements for existing public utilities upon the Subject Property, and (iii) That all bids are to be sent to: BID Response — Lot 6, United City of Yorkville, 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois, Attention: Bart Olson, City Administrator; and, (iv) That bids shall be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2012, and opened at a meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the City Council of the United City of Yorkville on November 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Section 2. The first of the three (3) weekly publications of the notice of sale shall not be less than 30 days before the date for the opening of the bids. Section 3. The Mayor and City Council shall have the right to accept or reject any and all bids and may accept the high bid or any other bid determined to be in the best interest of the City by a vote 3/4ths of the Corporate Authorities then holding office, but only a majority vote is required to reject all bids. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage by the Mayor and City Council and approval as provided by law. 2 Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK ROSE ANN SPEARS DIANE TEELING GEORGE GILSON JR. JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS CHRIS FUNKHOUSER LARRY KOT Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of 2012. MAYOR 3 `� 13 fry Reviewed By: �� �•s► Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ NB #3 EST. -� _ 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development j� ���� Police F-1 EDC 2012-51 LE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Resolution designating staff as Real Estate Representative for sale of Old Post Office Meeting and Date: Economic Development—October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Memorandum To: City Council EST. 183fi From: Bart Olson, City Administrator ' CC: Date: September 26, 2012 Subject: Resolution designating staff as real estate representative for sale ALE�"►�' of Old Post Office Summary A resolution that authorizes staff to negotiate with interested buyers of the Old Post Office, since the RFP process yielded no proposals. Backl4round The City last discussed the sale of the Old Post Office at the August 14a'COW meeting. At that meeting, the City was to review closed bids for purchase of the Old Post Office. No bids were received at that meeting. Alternate forms of sale The only other form of potential sale involves designating staff as the real estate representative for the property, and authorizing staff to negotiate with any interested parties in the future. When an interested party contacts us, we will be able to negotiate an offer and/or development proposal and bring the proposal to the City Council for review and input. Recommendation While we understand the hesitation to sell a piece of riverfront property that could potentially be used for future recreation programming, staff recommends approval of this ordinance. This ordinance will only allow staff to negotiate offers and agreements when an interested party approaches us, whenever that may be. Resolution No. 2012- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE (201 West Hydraulic Avenue) Whereas, the United City of Yorkville (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, Whereas,the surplus property of the City legally described as: The Westerly 49 feet, 9 3/4 inches of Lot 1 (Measured along the South line) and the Easterly 50 feet, 2.25 inches of Lot 2 (Measured along the South line) in Block 8 of Blacks Addition to the Village of Yorkville, in the Village of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the "Subject Property") and commonly known as 201 West Hydraulic Avenue was the former United States Post Office. The Subject Property is zoned in the B-2 General Business District which permits commercial and office uses and is improved with a building of approximately 4,200 square feet; and, Whereas,pursuant to section 11-76-2 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 11-76-2) the City adopted an ordinance seeking bids for the sale of the Subject Property and received no bids for the purchase of the Subject Property; and, Whereas, The City desires to sell the Subject Property pursuant to Section 11-76- 4.2 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 11-76-4.2)by the City Administrator or its listing with a local licensed real estate agency; and, Whereas, The City meets the requirements of Section 1 1-76-4.2 to be able to use this alternative method for the sale of surplus property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. That the sale of the Subject Property is hereby authorized to be pursuant to Section 11-76-4.2 of the Illinois Municipal Code by the City Administrator or the listing of the Subject Property with a local licensed real estate agency subject to the terms of this Resolution. Section 2. The terms of the sale shall include the future plans for redevelopment and the time to commence and complete its redevelopment. The City Council may accept any offer or bid determined by them to be in the best interest of the City by a vote of three-fourths of the corporate authorities then holding office. No sale shall be conducted until at least 30 days after the date of the first publication. 1 Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval as provided by law including its publication in a local newspaper once each week for three successive weeks. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this day of , A.D. 2012. CITY CLERK ROSE ANN SPEARS DIANE TEELING GEORGE GILSON JR. JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI CARLO COLOSIMO MARTY MUNNS CHRIS FUNKHOUSER LARRY KOT Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this day of 2012. MAYOR 2 `� 13 fry Reviewed By: �� �•s► Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ NB #4 EST. -� _ 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development j� ���� Police F-1 EDC 2012-52 LE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Countryside Concept PUD Plan Review Meeting and Date: Economic Development—October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: N/A Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Memorandum To: City Council EST. 183fi From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: September 27, 2012 Subject: Countryside Concept PUD plan LJILL E�% Summary Review of Concept PUD plan materials and verbal update on any new information regarding the site development. Background This item was discussed by the City Council at the September 25th City Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council heard a presentation by the developer and reviewed a summary of development and incentive proposals. In general, City Council was in favor of the development and incentive proposals presented. The materials from the City Council meeting is attached. Work on the PUD agreement is underway, and will be available to the public prior to the expected City Council meeting vote at the end of October. We hope to have a draft agreement available for review at the Plan Commission public hearing, which will be held on October 17th in the City Hall Council Chambers. The petitioner plans to be present at the EDC meeting, and we will verbally update the City Council if there is any new information. CINEM�IS WWW. NCGMOVIES . COM Neighborhood Cinema Group NCG Yorkville Cinemas Kendall Crossing ie x \ 1,r ` a 3 A V c V ` C?h k P f 1 ' `•�q.1,'. r - E B B I t f- 51, 4 P \ NCG Yorkville Cinemas Kendall Crossing Neighborhood Cinema Group NCG Yorkville Cinemas Neighborhood Cinema Group is a Family owned and operated theater company since 1985 � Headquartered in Owosso, MI "NCG" currently operates 14 Theaters with 135 screens NCG prefers to operate in smaller communities NCG is active in all communities it operates in tk NCG Currently has theaters in Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee and Georgia NCG will only build One theater at a time r Cc EMAS L h L lu �������� a son ■■ � I Neighborhood Cinema Group AYOTTE r o u p NCG Yorkville Cinemas I A R H . T E T S STELE TIOII )c; mr� !EL�T�PXWN Q :Q ?1pIER ELEVATION r, I'M PAEx5BSV91R6 xl Sf 192AI (L D U 0 0 0 z: cc: co LLI ON T-R--- MM, SCWN 0-1 NO,,UP 5=0 RA-200-3 Neighborhood Cinema Group NCG Yorkville Cinemas l i NCG ,wAl Al NCG Yorkville Cinemas r� r '1 vNIwE* POW �w NCG Yorkville Cinemas NCG Yorkville Cien. e.. m. , Proposed Theater approximately 37,500 square feet NCG Will employ approximately 50 people 100% Digital projection and sound 10 Screens with 3D capability and seating for 1900 guests 100% Stadium Seating Ink NEG Xt e — Pro-prr[et-ary-t-o-IEG 70 ft. screen , Upgraded Leather Recliners, not limited by releases from IMAX this theater can play any movie in NCG Xtreme ! Including 3D Free Refills on all sizes of drinks and popcorn Proposed open date November 15, 2013 C-G ��NEMAS WWW.NCGMOVIES.COM Neighborhood Cinema Group MAYOIFEg r u p NCG Yorkville Cinemas A R C H I T E C T S Memorandum To: City Council EST. -�` Yid 1s36 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator -- � � CC: Date: September 18, 2012 C<wrMY Sad �LE 14 Subject: Countryside Concept PUD Plan and Incentive Agreement Summary Presentation of a concept PUD plan for Countryside Center, and discussion of requested development incentives for the project. Background This item was last discussed by the Administration Committee in March 2012. At that meeting, the committee reviewed options for recruiting a developer to build on the site. Those options are itemized in the attached memo. The City Council ultimately decided to hold onto the bond proceeds and to signal to potential developers that the City Council would be open to development proposals that were outside the requirements of the original agreement(2005) or the revised agreement(2008), and would agree to use remaining TIF proceeds to develop the site. With that information in mind, YEDC Executive Director Lynn Dubajic approached various commercial developers about the Countryside site. After five months of business recruitment, Director Dubajic was able to get Jim Ratos to commit to building the attached 40,000 square foot, 10-screen movie theater. The concept plan for the movie theater development is attached, and has been preliminarily reviewed by staff. Mr. Ratos will be present to discuss various aspects of the development, and to seek feedback from City Council on the site plan. From a land-use perspective, the petitioner has already notified staff that they will need the following list of development entitlements on the site, and staff has reviewed them and feels they are tentatively acceptable, simply based upon the scope of the development: 1) A right-in-right-out access onto southbound Route 47 in the middle of the development. The Countryside redevelopment agreement approved in 2008 authorized a full access onto Route 47 for this development (developer request). Staff is in favor of this request because it will limit stop-lights on Route 47, and will still provide a means of ingress and egress for the development. 2) The petitioner is requesting that all buildings in the Countryside development (not only the movie theater) have a sign on each side of any building. Current City requirements dictate that either one or two signs are allowed per building, depending on street frontage. Staff feels this is an acceptable request, as long as the signs do not directly face the residential areas, or if they face the residential areas that they are adequately screened from the residential areas. 3) On-site directional signage, which will be lower than eye-level. Current City requirements would minimize or restrict the amount of off-site signage. Staff feels this is an acceptable request if the signs are minimal in size and match the aesthetics of the development. 4) The petitioner is requesting a smaller number of parking spaces with a narrower stall than required by City Code, and is requesting that the requirement for landscaped islands be waived. First, the petitioner has consulted with the theater company, who believes that the parking requirements in our code are much higher than necessary, based on their past experiences. Second, the dimensions of the site do not permit the required number of spaces nor landscaped islands. Third, additional parking will be available when the adjacent outlots are developed. Staff accepts limited islands to aisle-end medians only, as similar parking lot characteristics can be seen in Kendall Marketplace. 5) The original Countryside development had two large pylon-style signs in the medians on Countryside Parkway near Route 47 and Center Parkway near Route 34. The petitioner is requesting off-site signs be authorized again. Staff feels the location of the signs is an acceptable request as these signs have been historically located in the medians, and both points provide fully signalized access to the development. The second half of the discussion on this development involves the incentives needed for the developer to recruit the theater to the site. The following list includes the requests by the developer and staff's preliminary thoughts on each request: 6) Disbursement of TIF bond proceeds of$2,000,000 to the developer upon first day of operation of the movie theater(estimated to be November 15, 2013). Staff is accepting of the timing of the request, and has informed the developer that the current bond proceeds available are only—$1.8 million. Staff's preliminary proposal would be disbursement of all available TIF bond proceeds (—$1.8m) and for the remaining gap to be funded by the City's portion of the amusement tax not pledged until the difference between $2,000,000 and actual disbursement has been paid. 7) Access to the I%business district tax proceeds for all businesses developed on the site, for the duration of the business district. Staff feels this is acceptable, as this was contemplated in the most recently approved TIF redevelopment plan(2008). The business district was established in 2009 and by law may remain in effect for a maximum of 23 years from date of original approval. Since all disbursements of business district taxes must be for infrastructure and other costs within the business district, staff proposes no cap on the business district tax incentive, other than the expiration of the business district. All disbursements shall require proof of eligible costs. 8) Access to half of the City's amusement tax received from the movie theater for 10 years. The City's amusement tax is currently 3%, which means the developer would have access to the amusement tax for one and one-half(1.5%)percentage points of the amusement tax. 9) As contemplated in item#6 above, staff would propose the gap between the available bond proceeds and $2,000,000 be funded with the other half of the City's amusement tax. When the $200,000 gap is eliminated, the amusement tax would then be shared 50150 for the remainder of the term in item#8. Recommendation Staff requests feedback on the proposed site plan, development proposals, and incentive proposals. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 4 ' �► Legal ❑ NB #5 Finance ❑ EST. -�` _ ti W36 Engineer ❑ �:--- g Tracking Number �! City Administrator ❑ Consultant ❑ ❑ EDC 2012 -53 ALE Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Digital/Electronic Signs—Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance Meeting and Date: EDC/October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Community Development Director Name Department Agenda Item Notes: See attached staff report and attachments. Memorandum ESL 1836 -�` To: Economic Development Committee p [�� fl From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director °° S`"` CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator <LE rvv� Date: September 26, 2012 Subject: Digital/Electronic Signs-Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance Summary Due to the continual advancements in technology and how its application in signage by businesses to attract and inform customers, staff was asked to research amending the current Sign Ordinance to provide regulations permitting digital/electronic signs for non-residentially zoned land uses. Additionally, staff has been recently approached by business owners (Advanced Physical Medicine) and developers (proposed theater at Countryside Center)expressing interest in installing such signage. Research There are various types of digital/electronic signs typically used for on-premise business message displays, as illustrated below: Animated ---- 5729 --_- Intermittent ILra — _a Static While we are most accustomed to seeing the intermittent and static type electric type signs on commercial business properties, the popularity of animated digital signs is increasing. Digital light emitting diode (LED) signs utilize technology similar to high definition televisions, producing a vibrant digital color image allowing for changing billboard copy. Similar to staff s previous discussions with the EDC last year regarding LED billboard signs, there are significant benefits to small and medium sized businesses using digital/electronic signs which include: the flexibility to customize and update information in real-time; increased visibility than traditional wall or ground-mounted signs; and provide greater visual impact. Current Ordinance In Section 8-11-9 and 8-11-10 of the city's current Sign Ordinance, "message board signs" are permitted within the business and manufacturing-zoned districts. These signs are defined as being designed so that characters, letters or illustrations can be changed manually or electronically without altering the face or surface of the sign.' Electronic message board areas are also required to have a minimum duration time of twenty four(24)hours and no transition effects. Surrounding Communities Staff performed a cursory review of a few adjacent communities to determine how digital/electronic signs are regulated. Of the communities' sign ordinances reviewed, both Plainfield and Oswego has specific provisions permitting digital electronic signs. Below is a summary of those communities' ordinances related to electronic message signage: Permanent Electronic Message Signs: a. Electronic message signs may be incorporated into a single- or multi- tenant sign face such that the electronic message sign face occupies less than fifty(50)percent of the total area of the sign face. b. The sign message shall periodically include information such as time, temperature or other messages of interest to the traveling public. c. The sign message shall not consist of flashing, oscillating, chasing or animated lights, and shall not change more frequently than once every two (2) seconds. d. The sign structure shall conform to all applicable regulations as specified in the ordinance. Village of Plainfield Animated Signs. Animated signs shall encompass tri-vision signs, digital programmable ink signs, video/LED (light emitting diode) signs, LCD (liquid crystal display) signs as well as any other sign with a static, animated or intermitted display. a. The sign shall not exceed twenty-four(24) square feet in size. b. The sign shall not consist of animation, flashing, oscillating, chasing or animated lights, and shall not change more frequently than once every eight(8) seconds. c. Signs will require a minimum of four hundred (400) feet of separation so as not to distract drivers. d. Audio and/or pyrotechnics shall be prohibited. e. LED/video signs: ' Ordinance 2010-04, 1-12-2010 i. All LED/video signs shall be installed with a dimmer control. ii. The average intensity of the LED display shall not exceed the levels specified in the chart below: Intensity Level(NITS) Daytime 5,000 Nighttime 1,750 Message Board Signs. Message board signs may be displayed on the development sign and shall comply with the following: a. The message board may not occupy more than 60% of the development sign area. Village of Oswego b. The message board shall be designed to be compatible in design and appearance with the development sign. c. The message board may be used only for a business or businesses occupying the lot in which the sign is located. d. The message board shall be turned-off within one hour of the closing of the business, except for time/temperature display. Staff Comments Upon review of the research and surrounding community ordinances, staff recommends amending the current sign regulations to permit digital/electronic signs as on-premise displays for business and manufacturing districts. Additionally, a comprehensive amendment to the Sign Ordinance will avoid a case- by-case review of variance applications by individual business owners/developers seeking to install similar type signage. Staff proposes to present amendments to the Sign Ordinance at an upcoming City Council meeting and is seeking feedback from the EDC of the information provided. Reviewed By: Agenda Item Number 4 ' �► Legal ❑ NB #6 Finance ❑ EST. -�` _ ti W36 Engineer ❑ �:--- g Tracking Number �! City Administrator ❑ Consultant ❑ ❑ EDC 2012 -54 ALE Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Building Mounted Signs—Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance Meeting and Date: EDC/October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble Community Development Director Name Department Agenda Item Notes: See attached staff report and attachments. ° Memorandum ESL X836 To: Economic Development Committee Oz From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director madr g Caumy . �� CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator CiE '►�" Date: September 26,2012 Subject: Building Mounted Signs—Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance Summary Staff has been requested by the new business owner of the Dairy Queen restaurant to consider amending the sign ordinance to permit building mounted signs on all four (4) sides of commercial structures regardless of frontage along a roadway or location over a public entryway. Similar requests have been made in the past by other business owners with individual variance requests through the Zoning Board of Appeals being the only avenue for authorization. Current Ordinance The Sign Ordinance permits building mounted business/identification signs in the business and manufacturing districts on single tenant and multi-tenant buildings. However, it limits such exterior building-mounted signage to that part of the building where a public entrance is located or where facing a public right-of-way. These signs may not exceed two (2) square feet for each one linear foot of the fagade area and extend no more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the width of the side of the building on which it is located. In all practicality, most commercial businesses in Yorkville will have two (2) or three (3) building mounted signs (front, side and rear), in addition to up to two (2) permitted ground-mounted identification signs, depending on the size and frontage of the lot. A total of five (5) exterior permanent identification signs for commercial businesses are currently available for properties under the city's ordinance. Proposed Revision Considerations To amend the city's Sign Ordinance to allow for additional permanent wall-mounted signage for businesses, staff suggests some of the following regulations should the proposed revision be considered: • Maximum number of overall permanent type signs per business with the combination consisting of ground/identification signs,building-mounted signs, and awning signs. • Restricting the size of the secondary building-mounted signs (those not located over a public entrance or facing a public-right of way)to a maximum of one (1) square foot for each linear foot of the fagade area and extends no more than 50% of the width of the side of the building. • Illuminated building-mounted signage adjacent to or facing residential land uses should not be permitted. Staff Comments Staff is seeking feedback from the EDC of the request to amend the city's sign ordinance to permit building-mounted signs on all four(4) sides of structures in business zoned districts. If the EDC is amenable to the proposed revision to the sign ordinance, staff will present proposed text amendment language at an upcoming City Council meeting for consideration. `� 13 fry Reviewed By: �� �•s► Legal Agenda Item Number Finance ❑ OB #1 EST. -� _ 1838 Engineer ❑ City Administrator 0 Human Resources ❑ Tracking Number Community Development j� ���� Police F-1 Public 2012-33 LE Public Works ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: AACVB Sixth Agreement Meeting and Date: Economic Development October 2, 2012 Synopsis: See attached memo. Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Sept 2012 Action Taken: City Council tables item to EDC Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Majority Council Action Requested: Approval Submitted by: Bart Olson Administration Name Department Agenda Item Notes: Memorandum To: City Council EST. 183fi From: Bart Olson, City Administrator ' CC: Date: September 27, 2012 Subject: AACVB Summary Consideration of the sixth extension to the AACVB agreement. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council at the September 25th meeting. At that meeting, the City Council tabled this item to the EDC meeting in advance of the AACVB's consideration of revised by-laws at the September 27th meeting. At the AACVB's September 27th meeting, the board tabled the by-law revisions to their October meeting. AACVB board members were open to the Yorkville proposals related to board seats, resulting in the appointment of a Raging Waves and Hampton Inn representative at the meeting and a potential future appointment of a Yorkville restaurant representative. However, the item was tabled so that the board members would have more time to review the track changes by-law revisions. Recommendation Alderman Funkhouser has requested that this item be tabled until the November EDC meeting.