03/18/198254
March 18, 1982
The recessed March 15, 1982 regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village
of Deerfield was called to order by President pro tem Jerold Heisler in the Council
Chamber of the Village Hall on Thursday, March 18, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. The Clerk
called the roll and announced that the f lowing were:
Present: Marvin.W. Ehlers
Jerold L. Heisler
Cynthia J. Marty
Edwin B. Seidman
J. Robert York
�Osent: Bernard Forrest, President
Vernon E. Swanson
and that a quorum was present and in attendance. Also present were Village
Manager Robert D. Franz and Village Attorney James Stucko.
Upon motion by Trustee Ehlers, second by Trustee York, and unanimous approval by
by the Board, Trustee Marty was appointed President pro tern of the meeting.'
Mgr. Franz briefly sketched the history of the Brickyard's proposed development.
He stated that on March 26, 1981 the Plan Commission had held a public hearing to
consider the request for the rezoning of the Brickyards from P -1 (Public Lands)
and R -1 (Single Family Residence) to R -5 (General Residence), I -1 (Office, Re-
search, and Restricted Industrial), and C -2 (Outlying Commercial), as well as
a Special Use for a PUD for the entire property and approval of a preliminary
plan of development for the R -5 portion of the property. The Plan Commission
had recommended that the R -5 PUD be appr ed along with the conceptual plan (at
that time) of the entire parcel. .
On June 1, 1981 the Board tabled the recommendation of the Plan Commission as
well as a recommendation of the Board of 'Zoning Appeals pending further discussion
of a land swap and the possibility of forming a tax increment - financing district.
On November 16, 1981, the petitioners reappeared before .the Board with revised
plans which were referred to the Plan Co:n- fission for.review.
On January 28, 1982 a public hearing was held and recessed to February 11, 1982.
Following that hearing,the Plan Commission recommended: 1).denial of the C -2'
zoning and PUD, emphasizing the unsuitablity of the proposed uses, 2) approval
of the I -1 rezoning and PUD with variations in setback and screenings, .3).:.a;
denial of the proposed text amendment for a hotel, and 4) Staff development of a
text amendment for a hotel use..
On March 4, 1982, at a special meeting, the Plan Commission reconsidered its recom-
mendation of February 11, 1982 in light of two modifications submitted by the
petitioner, but recommended denial of both modifications (providing additional
open space, landscaping, and repositioning of the hotel).
Mr. Allen Stephaniac, attorney for the peitioners, Mr. Sven Flodstrom and Mr.
George Fink, submitted that the I -1 and R -5 PUDS had been favorably received, and
only the C -2 portion of the plan was in question. He added that the two modifi-
cations of March 4, 1982 had been presen �d with the hopes that the Plan Commis-
sion would reconsider its negative recom, !ndation on the C -2 area. He further
stated that part of the modification was to have two instead of three restaurants
and that the developers have interested parties under contract.
Mr. Les Pollock, land planner of Camiros, Ltd., presented a general summary of
the proposed modifications, placing them in context with what was originally pro-
posed. He noted that the proposed uses in C -2 had not been changed from those
discussed at earlier meetings, but explained the differences in the two modifica-
tions proposals. Addressing certain concerns of the Plan Commission,'the develo-
pers had 1)modified the facade of the hotel to bring it into greater conformity
with the other buildings, 2) the hotel had been relocated closer to the road, 3)
a complete roadway system, operating through the C -2 area, linked the restaurant,
hotel and office building, reducing the blacktop parking areas, and 4) provided
greater open space, etc. Mr. Pollock stated that the Budgetel hotel was not
unique, but that it was part of a chain emerging in many areas near large office
complexes. He submitted that the developers were willing to share the cost of
building a bridge over the "creek" to allow for a connector road from Pfingsten
to.Kates Rd.
March 18, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING
Tax Increment Financing District
Village President pro tem Cynthia Marty opened the public hearing' on Thursday,
March 18, 1982 at 8:25 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the Village Hall to con-
sider the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District. The Clerk
called the roll and announced that the following Trustees were:
f Present: Marvin W. Ehlers
Jerold L. Heisler
Cynthia J. Marty
Edwin B. Seidman
J. Robert York
Also present were Village Manager Robert D. Franz, Finance Director George Val-
entine, and consultants Mr. Lewis Greenbaum, Attorney with the Bond Counsel firm
of Borge and Pitt, and Mr. Ronald Norene, Financial Consultant with.. the firm of
R. V. Norene, Inc.
Pres. pro tem Marty announced that the.purpose of the hearing was to present the
proposed plan to form a Tax Increment Financing District and to hear testimony
regarding it. She stated the proof of notification was on hand as follows: Legal
Notice in the Deerfield News Advertiser on February 25 /March 4. and certified mail
receipts of notification of all involved taxing districts and property owners,
a's required by law. She added that a workshcp meeting,to which all taxing dis-
tricts and property owners had been invited,had been held on March 3, 1982.
Mr. Lewis Greenbaum submitted a general description and legal background of Tax
Increment Financing (TIF). He stated that the "Real Property Tax Increment Allo-
cation Redevelopment Act" was designed to permit municipalities to direct their
resources toward a redevelopment plan, enabling the Village to borrow money for
the purpose of financing redevelopment.costs. He added that through the Village's
Administrative Staff, a redevelopment plan had been prepared in-accordance with
the requirements of law as to its preparation and proper notification, and that
the meeting that evening was the required statutory hearing- in.respect to the
plan. He stated that the Board was prohibited from taking any official action at
the hearing; there is a fourteen day period required before any action can be
taken, but that the Board is required to act no later than ninety days after
the close of the public hearing or repeat the notice of hearing procedure.
Mgr. Franz stated that the Village has been discussing the Brickyard development
for several years and has always recognized it as an important piece of property
and one of the few undeveloped parcels left in Deerfield. In 1977 Barton- Aschman
and Associates were hired to study alternatives for development, and while their
report was considered by the Plan Commission and, Board, no action was taken. Re-
visions of the Deerfield Comprehensive Plan throughout the last five years have
all included discussions on this-.unique parcel, and the latest 1979 Plan even
suggested the possibility of trading land to bring about development.
Mgr. Franz identified some of the unique features of the area: 1) frontage
on Lake -Cook Rd. but major portions bordering residential areas, 2) major portion
of site committed to large retention basin in the southwest corner proposed by
the .Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Waterways, 3) multiple
ownership and a large portion of public land, 4) large portion a former land fill
site, difficult to develop conventionally, 5) a 40- year -old, non - conforming, shed
type warehouse in a state of disrepair, and 6) 3 radio towers, existing as a
non - forming use
Mgr. Franz stated that the property has sat idle for several years, but the Village
has been dealing with Mr. Sven Flodstrom who has held an option to purchase. In
discussing conventional development it was soon apparent that because of some,of
the unique conditions conventional financing was impossible, and that there was a
need to explore a public /private partnership. The Village then began looking
seriously at Tax Increment Financing, a relatively new concept, and decided to
explore it for possibilities in Deerfield. The Village's consultants, Mr. Green-
baum and Mr. Norene, encouraged Staff to look beyond the Brickyards for a TIF
district and to include other undeveloped and underdeveloped areas. He stated
that the primary concept of a TIF district was to use public funds to.foster
private development. He passed out copies of Deerfield's Redevelopment Plan provid-
ing for establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District. He described the
eight sections of the proposed district and the projected municipal improvements,
planned in two phases as follows:
Phase I - Short Term Improvements
Land acquisition and site preparation of approximately 45 acres of land loca-
ted north of Lake -Cook Rd. immediately west of the Milwaukee railroad tracks
- -- $3,500,000
Construction of a street from Lake -Cook Rd. north-to the proposed residen-
tial development west of the Milwaukee Road railroad tracks - -- $550,000
Installation of traffic signals on Lake -Cook Rd. at the above new inter-
section - -- '$100,000
Installation of an 18" sanitary sewer from Lake -Cook Rd. at the creek north
to the Wastewater Reclamation Plant - -- $313,000
TOTAL PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS - -- $4,463,000
Phase II - Long Term Improvements
Installation.of a 16" water main improvement along Lake -Cook Road between
Waukegan and-Wilmot Rds. - -- $538,000
Construction of an interior road network, including bridge, south of Lake -
Cook Rd. and east of Pfingsten Rd.. - -- $450,000
Extend Kates Rd. south to Lake -Cook Rd., including railroad crossing at
grade - -- $250;000
Improve operational facilities of the Deerfield Wastewater Reclamation
Plant - -- $375,000
Construction of an interior road network south of Lake -Cook Rd. and east
of Wilmot Road - -- $125,000
Repurchase from the Illinois Department of Transportation 38.5 acres loca-
ted north of Lake -Cook Rd.. - -- $250,000
Construction of an interior road network west of Waukegan Rd. and north of
Lake -Cook Rd. - -- $88,000
Construct a new Public Works facility including administrative offices and
.garage space for.housing municipal equipment - -- $800,000
TOTAL PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS - -- $2,876,,000
GRAND TOTAL - -- $7,339,000
Explaining the financial aspects of the Plan, Mr. Norerie stated that the
TIF concept assumes that without "seed" money the development will not
occur. He explained that the TIF technique allows municipalities to sell
bonds for land acquisition, site preparation, and public improvements to
encourage private development within the site. He further explained that
the TIF is a technique whereby a municipality establishes a TIF district,
which freezes the current assessed valuation of the area for all taxing
bodies, but that taxes over and above those paid to taxing bodies (with
frozen tax base) would go to the Village, enabling it to pay off bonds
used to fund the improvements. He added that the Village may, by law,
elect to remit by "pass through" any surplus revenues to the involved
taxing bodies ... a policy the Village will adopt.
Referring to the Redevelopment Plan.(which had been distributed by Mgr.
Franz earlier in the meeting), he discussed the tables and charts and point-
ed out that most.taxing bodies would be impacted by less than 3% of their
tax base by a freeze of the assessed valuations. -He stated that the
Village has decided to use General Obligation bonding power, and that the
Village would not proceed on this basis unless it was assured that there
will be actual taxable increments generated very quickly. He distributed
a table of Tax Allocation Funds (attached) showing how the debt will be
amortized and that a. considerable surplus, after three years, could
be remitted to the districts.
Trustee Marty stated that letters had been received from the Cook'County
Department of Public Health and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Great-
er Chicago acknowledging their invitation to the hearing.
f
Ms. Linda Baer, Community Liaison Person for School District No. 109 Board of
Education, read a statement setting forth their position. (Attached hereto)
Mrs. Jean Schwaba, member of School District 113 Board of Education, read a
position paper*(attached hereto) regarding the TIF Plan as it effects School
District No. 113.
Mr..Jas. Mitchell,representing the West Deerfield.Township and the Union Drain-
age District, favored the TIF concept.
Mr. Arthur Turek of the Cook County Forrest Preserve District stated they
object to.the the TIF district located in Cook County and were sending a let-
ter to the Board outlining reasons for. their objections.
Mr. Dale Johnson from the County of Lake, Deputy Director of the Planning De-
partment, representing the Tax and Election Committee for the hearing, stated
that the County will address the plan in a letter within the next fourteen days.
He stated that the Lake County Board was supportive of the-TIF district though
they have a major concern regarding Section 8, and want to hold it out, because
of Fiat -Allis and Kleinschmidt. He.stated there may be an outside firm looking
for a tax abatement on that particular site and they do not want to forego the
ability to abate taxes to encourage firms. Moreover, they question certain
items planned in Phase 'II.
Considerable discussion ensued between Mr. Noreen and interested residents present.
.Mr. Norene stressed again and again the "pass through" policy which could remit
surplus taxes to the affected taxing districts. Mr. Robert Holder, 19 Forestway,
was of the opinion that estimates were too conservative.and did not present the
"worst case ". Mr. Norene stated that the present assessed valuation of the
district is approximately $14,000,000, but is estimated to be $55- 60,000,000
in,twelve'years. He stated that tax revenues could easily pay off annually the
debt service on the bonds. Moreover, .he again pointed to the considerable sur-
plus taxes3,within three years,which could be� remitted to the other tax districts.
Mr..George Fink, potential co- developer of the Brickyards, pointed out.that their
estimated assessed valuation of the Brickyards, upon completion, was $65,000,000
alone, whereas the estimated assessed valuation.of'the entire TIF district at the
end of'the. term was only $55- 60,000,000.
..There.being no others-.wishing to be heard, Pres. pro tem Marty announced that
no.Board. action could be taken until after 14 days of the hearing and no later
..than 90 days after the hearing, and that all taxing bodies would be notified
.ofany.Board meeting,at which TIF would tie discussed.
Upon.motion'by Trustee Seidman and second by Trustee Heisler, the hearing was
adjourned at 9:35.P.M.
ATTEST:
Village aler
APPROVED:.
Village sident
..
1
1 i L .� •�• '� . }.
• `, � •..: ��'_ •• ; JL,iJ •iy]) i' �''_.. 1 ..�. .. _), 'r'il�i��ll�l'�ii ii ' ''i'i'i
i t�tr^i ❑ ❑_- __�?y.- _; ten;,: +_ ii,;ii Piii ; ,iii, ��/
:. r•, .t�
1`7 =: 1 { is ; /"'; "::•�,.,
Z
W
n
W
-j
se.,
h
( I
I
• r,, ..asr�:cCCrwaC,aJ:L'i.Gi�iCLt:i
N
y O
400�w'�
Op�O
Q
inaapaonnnd�
.••.@
r 4•r•�,
• r� .
ice• HQO
s
'
se.,
h
( I
I
• r,, ..asr�:cCCrwaC,aJ:L'i.Gi�iCLt:i
N
y O
r 4•r•�,
ir Ix
IL 5
O
W
W
W
O
:[
Q-
N
7
hW.�.
n
n
n
n
n
O
n
n
O
O
4
Xj
QO
�U
n
n
n
n
n
n
N
A
N
A
e
Y:.•'
03C
4 o
a
i
a
f
a
jjr
.•1
=0
o
m
r
r
«o
m-
0
0
0
p
r
E3
eI
Z
Z
Z
N
Z
ja
'K
p
O
O
O
Op
00
NN
pQ
p0
ANV1
10
a0
4•
Q
6
Q
W
W
V
M1
Q
'
,
ZQ
O
N
O
O
m
LLer
Y1N
ni4LL
aiNf
~ON „
Z.
O
Z
O
Z
U
Q
n
Q
n
Z
:•••��
OHO■
rn
'
.
S
U
,L
u
W O i
U
W
u
�,
..
I
is
i
i
3:
h-E
L)
W•
Oa
W
K:
W i
1- .
VE
W.`
'•
f�
V-.
_
W v
TEi
C)
K
W
w
y
en
ji
Or
po
Z2
(L
W
Jj
W
J••
Ia. _
W i
J n
�e
W'.
J
J •
a'
W J
C7„
Z�
€
�_ ^
U^
O°
W.
�r
o
W V-
Z
Oo
,y,
Q
J(
U a
^
ca
/
Z
NY
2�
N n
Z�
to ,',
2..
No
W�
0..
Jv
O.,
O n
��
Jr
�O
O?
��
Jn
O.i
CL
�-
O
O
N
M
O
•fl
N
1r1
N
N
se.,
h
( I
I
• r,, ..asr�:cCCrwaC,aJ:L'i.Gi�iCLt:i
DEERFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Dkirld No. I09
DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS 60015
T0: Village Board of Deerfield .
850 Waukegan Road
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
FROM: Linda Baer, Comnunity Liaison for the Deerfield Public Schools,
District No. 109 Board of Education
S'UBJECP: Tax Increment. Financing
DATE: March 18, 1982
As duly elected representatives of the people of.Deertield responsible
to oversee.the public school education of students through the eighth grade, we
are intensely interested in the plan of the Village to enhance the development
of vacant propertied. Our interest in the development of properties within Deer-
field is twofold:
1. The possible. increased costs to the District for educating
children that nay emanate from new developments.
2. The estimated revenues. derived from new developments which
would help benefit all.the students of Deerfield..
We appreciated the opportunity to - appear before the.Village Board on
March 15, to explore some of the questions which out Board raised. We offer our
sincere appreciation to Rdbert.Franz,'Viliage Manager, and George Valentine, the
Treasurer, for the excellent cooperation in providing us materials and informa-
tion upon request to help us further understand the tax increment financing
concept.
I would like to state at the outset that the Board of Education of the
Deerfield Public Schools, District No. 109, is in complete agrearent with the
Village's concern for the orderly and comprehensive development of the brickyard
pmprrty. Ile recognize the difficulty the Village is faced with in 'having t1m_ t
area develop into one single cohesive unit. We do, however, have some concerns
about the tax incre-ent financing proposal being considered by the Village at
this Une. From information we have received, we have developed a. tax inpa t
statement, attached hereto. Based upon the 1980 assessed valuation of the
properties being considered for inclusion in the Tax Increment Financing District,
District No. 109 estimates that they could lose as much as $519,455 of expected
revenues, or an average of $51,945 per year over the suggested ten year plan.
That is based upon the assur-ption that the increased assessed valuation in the
Tax Increment District %-,vuld increase only at the rate of 5. per year. This
coanParativcly short -term 'loss of $519,455 to the District could be adjusted
depending upon'the econanic health of our ccxnpunity, state, and country. It
could be lo«er• or higher. We are akare that accelerated dovelopment of the
I
property w-der discussion could, in fact, bring long -tens benefits to the District.
i` Memo to Village Board from Linda Baer - March 18, 1982 - Page two.
We are concerned, however, that any potential shrinkage of the tax expected from
that area will be just one more negative impact upon the financial health of our
District with the concomitant negative impact on the education of the students in
our schools. It could be said that the $519,000 spread over the ten years is an
investment in our future and will produce a greater amount to come once the property
is developed. We do understand and agree that that possibility exists; however, we
hope that you are sensitive to our viewpoint- about the losses that could occur
while the Tax Increment District is being developed. Ile believe that any unexpected
reductions in our tax revenues for a specified period of time will affect the
students in our schools at the time those losses are taking place. It is our
belief that it would be unfair to those students suffering the losses so that
future groups may benefit. We would rather not -be put in the position of borrowing
.against the future, thereby jeopardizing the financial condition of the District.
We do have some suggestions that we would like to offer to the Board and
hope that they will be considered as you develop your plans. As I stated earlier,
we appreciate the concern of the Village to improve not only the community, but
as well look out for the welfare of the educational programs which we do represent. °
We ask that the Village Board consider the following items for inclusion in their
planning as they come to develop their final proposal.
1. The presently proposed Max Increment Financing District be reduced
from its present scope. The assessed value estimated to be frozen
in District 109 in the proposed Tax Increment District is $5,894,070.
As we studied the Tax Increment Financing District, we did not
understand why certain parcels of property, which are already
completely developed and large tax producers for the District, were
included. They seen isolated and not part of the brickyard area.
As selected examples, we can point to several pieces of property,
such as the Whitehall Nursing Home, the Firestone Car Repair,
McDonalds, KleinscImi.dt, and Fiat - Allis. Based upon 1981 assessed
valuation, they total $3,970,403. If they were eliminated from
the District, the total.negative impact would be eased. The Board
of Education could adjust more easily to a lower negative tax
impact. We would encourage the Village to review the lines of
the Tax Increment Financing District and plead for redrawing them
to eliminate those specific properties mentioned above and any
others the Village Board deems appropriate.
2. We believe that all taxes generated from the Tax Increment Financ-
ing District must be limited'to the improvement of vacant properties
to increase the overall tax base of our caTnTunity. Once the yearly
payment of the bonds is met, all other taxes should be distributed
immediately on a year to year basis to the appropriate taxing body.
3.. We do not believe that the Tillage should be constructing public
improvements for their own benefit by using the taxes of other
taxing bodies. Specifically, we are referring to the $800,000
estimated for a public works facility and a $375,000 to improve
the waste - water reclamation plant. This is over $1,000,000, which
we believe should be the direct responsibility of the Village and
not its fellow taxing bodies.
Mem to Village Board by Linda Baer - March 18, 1982 - Page three
So that the com -rents offered tonight are placed in proper perspective
and the Village Board feels the same sensitivity that we do, we should explain
why we are so concerned. Our main source of revenue (90%) is from local taxes.
We are at maximum tax rates in our major operating funds. We view increases in
assessed valuation as our "cost of living" increase. We have been receiving
less money from the State, and Federal' Governments. We have closed schools,
reduced staff,'and in general, are attempting to continue good education even
in light of all the outside influences which negatively impact upon our revenues.
Even the one we are discussing tonight, ever so small as it may seen, is just
one more straw on the camel's back. We are not here crying "wolf" only to
sensitize you to our situation, but whatever course of action you take you will
now be aware what it means to your schools.
We would like "to close by again sharing with the Board our general
support for the concept of developing vacant properties for the benefit of the
Village and the-schools, as well as redevelopment of deteriorating'neighborhoods.
Our - primary concern; however, as stated previously, is for the education of
children, and any negative impact to our revenues must be of concern to us.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to share these thoughts
with you.
LB /vs
D
�� 1
' DEF. FIEU1 PUBLIC SCI100L DISTRICT P-10, 109
TAX IPICRE� 'F�'VTIN CING DATA
CURRENT ASSESSED VALUATIOV OF IDENTIFIED TIF AfFA WITN 57 WRECIATION,
ASSESSED
i X RM
1980 $ 5..'8941.070 2. 748 $ 161,964
�. :,I_ .
1981
6,188,773.
"
170,067
8,103
1982
6-1498,211
178,570
16,606
1983.
6, M3,121
187, 499
25,535
1931
7,164,277
196,874
34,910
1985
7,522,490
206,718
W4,754
1986
.7, 898, 614
"
217, 053
55, 089
1987
8,293, 544
227,906
65,942
1988
8,708,221
239,301
77,337
1989
9,143,632
251,267
89,303
1990
9, 600, 813
263,830
101,866
$ 2;139,035
$
519, 445
TOTAL TAY, REVENUE TEN YEARS
wiTH 57 APPRECIATION -
- - - - - - - - -
$
2,139,085
TOTAL TAX REVENUE TEN YEARS
FIXED LASE $ 5,894,070
--- - - - - - - -
$.
1,619,690
Loss
OF REVENUE DURING FREEZE PERIOD - - - - - - -
- --- - - - - - - -
$
519,455
ANNUAL AVERAGE Loss -- ---
____ -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
$
51,945
STATE
AID - WITHOUT MANGE
IN FORh9ULA, DISTRICT N0,
109 W I LL MOVE TO A
FLAT
GRANT STATE AID
DISTRICT, ASSESSED VNLUATION IS NO LCMER
A
FACTOR IN STATE
AID AT�THAT POINT,
HWAAG
R
r
i
DISTRICT #113 PRESENTATION AT VILLAGE OF.DEERFIELD
PUBLIC HEARING ON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
MARCH 18, 1982
of a "TIF Plan" in financing.
School District 4113 serves high school students residing within
the corporate limits of Deerfield, Highland Park, Highwood,_
Bannockburn, Riverwoods , -unincorporated.areas,.and on the Fort
Sheridan Army facility. There are two.high schools, one in
Deerfield and one in Highland Park, with a total of approximately
4200 students. School District policy is made by an elected
seven - person Board. At present, three members reside.in Deerfield,
and four reside in Highland Park. There are five elementary
districts within the #113 area.. Program continuity is maintained
'by a close working "Committee for Interdistrict Cooperation"
(CIC). This system provides local area suggestions into elementary
school policy and facilitates a smooth transition for students
into high school. All of the elementary districts feeding into
District #113 provide a very high level. of education. The #11.3
Board would be very concerned if any financial impact of the "TIF
Plan" affects the education of children residing in District
#109.
Although the District #113 budget is larger than District. #109's,
and broader based,. the "TIF Plan" as presently conceived also impacts
our budget. As we understand the Plan, the District #113 levy would
have to be increased approximately $400,698 over a ten -year period.
The principal
interest
of
District #113
is in
the educational
impact of the
deferral
of
revenue which
could
result from the use
of a "TIF Plan" in financing.
School District 4113 serves high school students residing within
the corporate limits of Deerfield, Highland Park, Highwood,_
Bannockburn, Riverwoods , -unincorporated.areas,.and on the Fort
Sheridan Army facility. There are two.high schools, one in
Deerfield and one in Highland Park, with a total of approximately
4200 students. School District policy is made by an elected
seven - person Board. At present, three members reside.in Deerfield,
and four reside in Highland Park. There are five elementary
districts within the #113 area.. Program continuity is maintained
'by a close working "Committee for Interdistrict Cooperation"
(CIC). This system provides local area suggestions into elementary
school policy and facilitates a smooth transition for students
into high school. All of the elementary districts feeding into
District #113 provide a very high level. of education. The #11.3
Board would be very concerned if any financial impact of the "TIF
Plan" affects the education of children residing in District
#109.
Although the District #113 budget is larger than District. #109's,
and broader based,. the "TIF Plan" as presently conceived also impacts
our budget. As we understand the Plan, the District #113 levy would
have to be increased approximately $400,698 over a ten -year period.
f
in order to make up the revenues normally generated by the assessed
J
valuation within the tax increment area. Because of the multi -city
character of District #113, the Village Council should consider in
their deliberations that this plan is imposing an additional tax
burden on owners of property outside of Deerfield.
Unfortunately, during part of the period contemplated for the "Plan ",
District #113 will experience a large decrease in state aid which
must be made up by increasing the local levy. For the 1981 -82.
budget year our District received roughly $1.9 million dollars in
state aid. In 1982 -83 we expect to receive approximately $900,000-
$1,200,000, a reduction of $700,000- $1,000,000. Assuming an increase
of 7% in the state aid foundation level, state aid.will diminish to
approximately $685,000 in 1983 -84, a reduction of approximately'
2 million dollars since 1979 780. The loss for 1982 -83 required 'a
9.2� levy increase alone. It would also be important to point out
that legislation could further restrict the District's ability to
generate revenue.
In conclusion, the District #113 Board is supportive of the Village
Council's attempt to aid the Village development but is concerned
with any plan that might affect the delivery of a high level of
educational services. In our opinion, quality schools, more than
any other factor, maintain property values..
a•
I •r `
Payment
Date
1/1/84
7/1/84
1/1/85
7/1/85
1/1/86
7/1/86
1/1/87
7/1/87
1/1/88
7/1/88
1/1/89
7/1/89
1/1/90
7/1/90
1/1/91
7/1/91
1/1/92
7/l/92
1/1/93
7/1/93,
1/1/94
I
VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS
BRICKYARDS TAX INCRE14ENT DISTRICT
$2,025,000
Corporate Purpose
Bonds
Expenditures ...__... __
Interest
Capi[alize
Beginning
Tax Levy
@ 12%
Principal
Total
Amount �tiYeat
x
Accrued lnt.
$ 405,000*
$ - 0 -
$ 405,000
$ 405,000 .
1982
121.500
$ - 0 -
121',500
370,000
1984
121,500
- 0 -
121,500
243,000
1983
121,500
1,127,000
121,500
724,000
- 0 -
121,500
125,000
246,500
368,000
1984
114,000
1,672,000
114,000
2,315,000
1989
114,000
175,000
289,000
403,000
1985
103,500
368,000
103,500
403,000
- 0 -
103,500
225,000
328,500
432,000
1986
90,000
2,005,000
90,000
2,315,000
1993
90,000
250,000
340,000
430,000
1987
75,000
430,000
75,000
2,102,000
2,532,000
75,000
250,000
325,000
400,000
1988
60,000
2,315,000
60,000
400,000
1,945,000
60,000
250,000
310,000
3701000
1989
45,000
370,000
45,000
340,000
1991
45,000
250,000
295,000
340,000
1990
30,000
310,000
30,000
310,000
- 0 -
30,000
250,000
280,000
310,000
1991 '
15,000
280,000
15,000
2,315,000
2,595,000
15,000
250,000
265,000
280,000
1992
$1,956,000
$2,025,000
$3,981,000
$3,981,000
s 20 months interest trom 4130182 - 111184
J
TAX ALLOCATION FUND
FIA
1r". V. Norene & Associates, Inc.
March 3, 1982
C. 0. TAX ABATEMENT SOURCE
Revenues
Expenditures ...__... __
Capi[alize
Beginning
;Capitalizedt
Debt Servicel,
Year
Excess After
Accrued lnt.
Amount
Receipt eipt
Bond Paymt.
$405,000
$ - 0 -
1983
$ - 0 -
- 0 -
370,000
1984
127,000
- 0 -
674,000
1985
306,000
- 0 -
1,127,000
1986
724,000
- 0 -
1,767,000
1987
1,335;000 .
- 0 -
2,102,000
1988
1,672,000
- 0'-
2,315,000
1989
1,915,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
1990
1,945,000
801,000
368,000
'30,000
403,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
1991
1,975,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
1992
2,005,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
1993
2,035,000
2,199,000
$17,615,000
1,337,000
$14,039,000
1r". V. Norene & Associates, Inc.
March 3, 1982
Revenues
Expenditures ...__... __
Beginning
;Capitalizedt
Debt Servicel,
"Surplus',
Ending
Calendar
Year
Balance
@ Jen. '1
.. Interest
2Gmos.
s aiE
r ncXemehtG
Total
Available
Incl. Payments'
Due 1/1 next
.7 to
Taxing Diet.:
Balance
@ Dec. 31
1982
$ - 0 -
$405,000
$ __0 -
$ 405,000
$ �- .0 -.
$ - 0 -
$405,060
1983
405,000
- 0 -.
- 0 -
405,000
405,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
1984
- 0 -
- 0 -
370,000
370,000
243,000.
- 0 -
127,000
1985
127,000
- 0 -
674,000
801,000
368,000
'30,000
403,000
1986
403,000
- 0.-
1,127,000
1,530,000.
403,000
695,000
432,000
1987
432,000
= 0 -
1,767,000
2,199,000
432,000
1,337,000
430,000
1988
430,000
- 0 -
2,102,000
2,532,000
430,000
1,702,000
400,000
'1989
400,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
2,715,000
400,000
1,945,000
370,000
1990
370,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
2,685,000
370,000
1,975,000
340,000
1991
340,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
2,655,000
340,000
2,005,000
310,000
1992
310,000
- 0 -
2,315,000
. 2,625,000
310,000
2,035,000
280,000
1993
280,000
- 0.-
2,315,000
2,595,000
280,000
2,315,000
- 0 -
19
1r". V. Norene & Associates, Inc.
March 3, 1982
55
Trustee Heisler pointed out that the introduction of an entirely new concept in
terms of the road would have a great imp t upon the entire area. He stated that
with no cost data he was not prepared to ote upon such a new concept. Trustee
Marty stated that she had no .problems with the entire plan except the hotel... that
she could not accept this particular hotel. Trustee York said he did not favor
the Budgetel, but that he did favor a ho,�E1 with a restaurant capable of seating
150 persons at dinner since Deerfield was in need of such a dining facility.
Trustee Heisler stated that if even if another type of hotel could be secured, he
could not-favor it, since he did not think the area was suitable for a hotel.
Mr. Stephaniac then requested that the Board approve the R -5 and I -1 PUDS with-
out the C -2 PUD. Trustee Marty stated that from the outset the Board had agreed
that the property would be considered one total planned unit.development includ-
ing public lands. Attorney Stucko concurred. Mr. Stephaniac then stated that
the petitioners would withdraw a request for a hotel to promote passage of the
plan. It.was.determined that withdrawal or major revision of the hotel use
would constitute a new plan that would have to be considered by the Plan Commis-
sion.
Trustee Ehlers moved, seconded by Trustee Marty, to accept the Plan Commission's
recommendation of March 4; 1982, to deny the C -2 PUD. Motion carried on the
following vote:
AYES: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5)
NAYS: None (0)
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trust.: York, to accept the Plan Commission's
recommendation of June, 1981 to approve the R -5 PUD: Motion failed on following
vote:
AYES: None (0)
NAYS: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York (5)
Trustee Seidman moved, seconded by Trust , Heisler, to accept the Plan Commission's
recommendation of February 11, 1982 to approve the I -1 PUD. Motion failed on the
following vote:
AYES: None. (0)
NAYS: Ehlers, Heisler, Marty, Seidman, York' (5)
There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion by Trustee
Heisler- and second by Trustee Ehlers, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 P.M.
ATTEST:
Village Cle r
1
I
APPROVED:
r
Vi lage President