At the end of a long agenda, at its meeting next Tuesday night, the Village Staff will be presenting the Resolutions seeking approval of the Agreements between the Village of Glenview and the City of Prospect Heights. 11. New Business b.
A Resolution approving a Third Amendment to the Milwaukee Road and Sanders Road Corridor Agreement
A Resolution approving a Revenue Sharing Agreement
These two documents were approved by the City of Prospect Heights on Monday night. Of course from the perspective of the City of Prospect Heights, unless they had thought that they were going to be able to annex the entire Allstate property, they are getting paid by the Village of Glenview for a parcel that is on their far eastern edge.. The key is the Village of Glenview side of the transaction. What is Glenview getting? What is Glenview giving? Glenview is going about this in a piecemeal fashion. With a fair amount of experience with Glenview, "transparency" and "communication" is something they like to pretend that they are doing. Here, at a minimum, on both, there is a lack of clarity. They know that the public wants the details. This process should not be a treasure hunt. Instead of discussing this at, say 9:00 p.m. or so on a Tuesday, there should be a full memorandum explaining the entire deal, with enough time for it to be reviewed by the public for comment. To summarize, all I have to work with is a 3 page Staff Report from a member of Village Staff that believes that the residents (even neighboring properties) do not need to know the details. The "Why". There are a lot of very literate people in Glenview who can read these documents, if they get them with enough notice. As of my sending this email at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, the agenda for the Wednesday June 22 hearing of Glenview’s New Development Commission (NDC) has been posted (the topics scheduled), but no plans (documents) have been posted. On the agenda is the proposed Dermody "Logistics Campus" to be constructed on what is currently the Allstate headquarters site. Per the Staff Memorandum, bottom of page 1, Dermody is looking for the support for a "Class 6b Cook County Tax Incentive", which would immediately drop the amount of property taxes to be generated by this project. It is unclear what other public subsidies they are seeking for their private project. None of that information has been discussed. REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT In consideration for the disconnection and annexation of the Disconnection Parcel (which is 32 acres of vacant land), as well as the modifications to the Amended Corridor Agreement, the communities of Glenview and Prospect Heights have agreed to enter into a "Revenue Sharing Agreement". It states that "consistent with the Third Amendment", Glenview and Prospect Heights agree to enter into a Revenue Sharing Agreement to provide for the sharing in perpetuity of real property tax and local sales tax revenues generated from properties that would be annexed to Glenview, consisting of approximately 290 acres. In other words, on a Tuesday night, with sketchy details, the Village is forever committing itself here. What is the rush? Supposedly this is based upon revenue sharing figures from a "detailed fiscal analysis outlining the projected revenues generated from the area once annexed into Glenview". However, this document is not provided, nor is there any explanation as to why Prospect Heights' share ends up being 18% (and Glenview 82%). Here is the basic breakdown (there are other details, that this is the main part): Tax YearLocal Sales TaxReal Property TaxMinimum Sharing Payment2023n/an/a$500,0002024n/an/a$315,0002025 and beyond18%18%$280,000 Is this a good deal? There is absolutely no way to know without more information. The Staff Report also states Prospect Heights has requested and, through the Agreement, both municipalities express their desire to negotiate a wholesale water purchase and sale agreement pursuant to mutually agreeable terms. At their meeting, Prospect Heights acted like they had an agreement with the Village of Glenview to purchase water from Glenview. This does raise the necessity that the Village of Glenview needs to spell out everything it has promised here: to the City of Prospect Heights and to the developer, the City of Prospect Heights. They should not get agreements approved on a piecemeal basis. Since Village of Glenview meetings are back to in-person, someone has to be very motivated to be there. If you can, do not let this dissuade you from participating. Please consider doing so, and demand full disclosure of the "why" and "what", the "pro" and "con".
For public comment you will be limited to 3 minutes. Village residents are needed to raise issues that the Trustees are not willing to ask. This new Board ran on a platform of increased transparency and better communication. However, these Trustees simply do not ask tough questions, and are more likely to give accolades to Village Staff. After reviewing the information, in advance of the meeting, if you cannot be there in person, if you would like to give feedback that way, here are the emails (Village President, Trustees): mjenny@glenview.il.us jbland@glenview.il.us mcooper@glenview.il.us gdeboni@glenview.il.us tdoron@glenview.il.us cgitles@glenview.il.us asidoti@glenview.il.us Ask that they not vote until the implications of this proposal have been fully studied, and that has been communicated to the public well in advance of the meeting. Giving the Village Board your input is the only way to ensure that your voice is heard. By doing so, you are sending a clear message to the Village that you care about what they are doing to your community. Glenview residents are busy, not stupid. They care about what happens in their community. Elected Trustees are supposed to be their fiduciaries.
The details matter here, and there were a lot of details to discuss. The devil is in the details, the implementation.
Village Staff is more than happy to be delegated authority. A deferential Village Board only empowers the Village Staff for more of the same.
Bottom line, there is no urgency in pushing this through. Clarity as to the impact of these proposals is essential. Details matter.
Until there is clarity, the Trustees need to vote "No". This merits further discussion, not being pushed through towards passage. What's the rush?
We need to stop this cycle of residents fighting developers who feel that they already have a deal in place against a Village who has decided that its taxpayers have no say.
Over a very long period of time here, a symbiotic relationship has been created in which the Village Staff keeps their disclosures to the Village Trustees as general as possible, as well as to describe what they are doing innocuously.
Maybe that starts to end Tuesday night?
Comments