Board of Trustees Minutes

Acting President Packham called the Meeting to Order at 7:30 P.M.

PRESENT: Trustees Wesley Eby, William Manton, Rodney Craig, Lori Kaiser, Joseph Nicolosi, and Acting President Robert Packham

ABSENT: None

ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Village Manager Mark Masciola and Corporation Counsel Norman E. Samelson

Everyone joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Motion by Trustee Manton and seconded to Accept the Agenda as Amended. VOICE Vote: All AYES.

No one signed up for Townhall Session.

Mr. Masciola noted that the firm Jackson Square Properties was from San Francisco and that they were purchasing Prairie Station Apartments. He stated part of the financing would insure availability for low to moderate income families. He stated they were proposing to spend $3.6 million in apartment and common area improvements. He stated there was a representative from Jackson Square Properties, Mr. Jeffrey E. Jaeger, to answer any questions.

He continued they were requesting that the Village authorize a letter of support for the project and staff recommended support. Acting President Packham stated some board members were able to converse with Mayor Claar of Bolingbrook where Jackson Square Properties purchased a similar complex in Bolingbrook. He noted Mayor Claar indicated he was not very pleased with Jackson Square Properties and stated the moderate income part was thrown out. Acting President Packham also noted that Hanover Park had more than its share of low income housing.

Further comments echoed the comments made by Bolingbrook’s mayor. However, it was noted that the company did what they stated they would do. It was further stated that subsidized, low income housing at 100% of a development raised some red flags of concern. It was a noted that Hanover Park was already at 24% with low income housing and that we carried our weight for DuPage County as well as our community.

Mr. Jaeger commented on the low to moderate income housing and noted there had been some confusion on what the restrictions were in Bolingbrook. He stated they were not affordable housing or low to moderate incoming housing developers and they were a for-profit and market rate developers. He stated they were trying to take advantage of the financing available for large scale renovations.

Low to moderate income was addressed and Mr. Jaeger stated it was moderate income housing, which was 60% of the average median income, and being tied in with downtown Chicago, the rent disparity would be between $250-$300, depending on the unit type, across the board. He also stated once in, the resident was able to stay in with no threat of moving out, even if their income increased. It was commented that in the Bolingbrook, it was noted that the residents were being told to move out. Mr. Jaeger continued that there were two distinctions: 1) An audit of tenants’ incomes, he stated 80% of the residents today qualified for the program. The average median income on the property was approximately $10,000 per year below. He continued once tenants were qualified, they were grandfathered in. He also addressed Section 8, which he noted by law, they had to qualify. He stated their tenants were qualified at 3 times income rent levels, which was higher than what was currently being done at most projects in the city. He also stated Section 8 residents in 99-100 cases did not meet those restrictions.

The affordable component was questioned and answered it was distinguished between market rate housing and affordable housing. Any restrictions qualified as affordable housing, which was really moderate income housing. He further noted moderate income housing required a tenant could not be turned down because they were Section 8; however, Section 8 people did not have 3 times their rent which was a qualification they were able to maintain.

It was next questioned what the rules were that governed the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) multi-family financing and Mr. Jaeger stated there was a 30-year restriction, with 100% of the units reserved, the resident had to make 60% of median income, and the rents were tied to the 60% of median income. It was asked if we could obtain a copy of the IHDA rules and noted we could. The 100% component was a noted concern.

Mr. Jaeger continued the 100% was related to the tax credits available. He noted the more money spent on renovations, the more tax credits received. It was then multiplied by the percentage of the project that was affordable. It was questioned if a TIF could be used as another financing tool instead of 100% funding and answered they needed to have the funding at the close of escrow when the property was purchased and thus it would not be feasible. He stated there would be a 60-day window when all the capital would need to be raised for the improvements.

It was questioned why the 100% was a concern and answered it was tied up at 100% for 30 years. It was further noted we were at our share of 24% low to moderate income housing and that this would not only be a move in the wrong direction but it was not appropriate. Additionally, across the street from this complex a senior care facility was planned. Mr. Jaeger questioned where our statistics were from and answered it was through the Northwest Housing Partnership.

It was questioned if this was renovated through private funding and answered it was private dollars that were tax exempt. Mr. Jaeger stated they were privately purchased bonds, that were credit enhanced by a private organization, but with the land-use restriction, the bond holders took advantage of having tax exempt interest. It was questioned who had oversight and answered it was IHDA. Mr. Jaeger stated IHDA controlled the process and certified that Jackson Square Properties were providing the moderate income housing. It was also questioned what restricted Jackson Square from selling out and Mr. Jaeger noted the project was unsaleable, with restrictions from their lenders, with IHDA, and it was not allowed for sale to the public for 15 years. It was noted it was a 15-year hold for ownership, but 30 years with moderate income housing with IHDA.

It was asked what median income figure did Jackson Square Properties use, and Mr. Jaeger stated it was $54,000 per year. It was commented that it was understood they would move 20% of the residents out of the project. Mr. Jaeger stated that was not entirely true. He noted the turnover at the property over the last 4-5 years was 60-70% per year. He stated it would take one year for the renovation. He stated they would not force anybody out, that all would leave on their own. It was questioned how they could keep the property at 100% moderate income for 30 years, but could only offer leases to 80% of the people, and the other 20% you could not. Mr. Jaeger stated there was a program with IHDA whereby there was buy-out program, buy them out of their lease and offer them relocation dollars or try to find something over the 3-year period. He noted the current vacancy rate in the Village was 85%. It was questioned and he stated it was 85% occupied with 15% vacancy. It was noted a good number of the 15% vacancy was designated low income, so there was concern as to how could they relocate these people.

He mentioned a condo project that was attempted was not going forward. He also noted there were several other market rate projects that had vacancies. He stated the 20% could equal 40-50 people and he believed there were 40-50 vacant market rate units available.

Another comment made was the Village was working toward a transit-oriented type of development and asked how this fit into that. Mr. Jaeger stated once these units were renovated, they could demand a premium for their units. But, it was noted, the people that use transit-oriented developments were individuals who worked downtown, and therefore their income was substantially more than the average income.

Overcrowding issues were mentioned and it was asked if Chief Moser could substantiate that information and get back to the Board.

It was asked if there would be a manager constantly present on the property and answered there would be. It was questioned if there was a pool and answered there was one originally built with the project and they would build a brand new pool with amenities. Again, it was questioned if there would be supervision at this pool and answered child safety protection was around the pool, with a presence at the property when the pool was open (which would only be during the day), typically 2-3 people in the office, plus several maintenance personnel that lived on the property.

A trustee made the comment that this issue was more complex than it seemed and he was not prepared to make a decision. It was also suggested that this be tabled until they were able to see the rules that governed IHDA, with perhaps a copy of a typical lease, Jackson Square Properties’ screening process, and how much of annual increases on the rent.

Mr. Jaeger stated the restricted rents would increase each year with an inflation percentage based upon the statistics and demographics of the area, typically 3-4% each year. But, he continued, that didn’t mean the rent went up 3-4%. He noted that was all market driven based upon the dynamics of what the vacancy was at the property as well as the surrounding market area, etc. It was questioned how much of that did IHDA control and answered they controlled the overall project based on the restrictive guidelines the demographics suggested, but in terms of annual increases for the residents, IHDA had no control, it was simply their decision.

It was suggested this decision be tabled until further information was obtained, and perhaps tour the Bolingbrook property as well. A further comment made was there was no stopping this project, but we did not have to support it. It was questioned if they would renovate the building 100% and stated that was correct. It was questioned if all the "Before" photos were in Bolingbrook or Hanover Park and answered the "Before" photos were in Hanover Park and the "After" photos were in Bolingbrook. It was further noted the complex in Bolingbrook was the exact same architecture, exact same units, and exact same vintage as the Hanover Park property.

Mr. Jaeger stated it was not entirely true that the project would go forward with or without the letter of support. He stated this property would sell, but they would not be able to renovate at the current costs.

It was also pointed out if we did not support this, either nothing would happen or something else would happen, so we would need to so consider what we were giving up.

Motion by Trustee Craig and seconded to Table the Letter of Support for the Jackson Square Properties’ Acquisition and Renovation of the Prairie Station Apartments. Roll call:

AYES: Eby, Manton, Craig, Kaiser, Nicolosi, Packham NAYS: None

ABSENT: None
Motion carried – Tabled the Letter of Support for the Jackson Square Properties’ Acquisition and Renovation of the Prairie Station Apartments

Mr. Masciola stated staff was looking for direction with regard to the "No Smoking" ordinance. He noted that the Cook County ordinance would become effective on March 15, 2007 and stated it would be beneficial for the Board to approve some type of ordinance prior to that deadline. He stated this would give us the opportunity to amend the ordinance at any time; otherwise the Cook County ordinance would take effect on March 15 for Cook County businesses.

He stated the current ordinance prohibited smoking in enclosed public places, places of employment, open air dining areas, and at public entrances. He noted it did not address taverns in the Village. He noted he would like some discussion and direction on the exemptions the board would like to consider, smoking prohibitions from public entrances, the percentage of hotel rooms for smoking being prohibited, and the effective date of the ordinance.

Mr. Binninger, Village Attorney, briefly noted two main issues: exemptions and effective dates. In DuPage County, he noted, there was a recommended list of exemptions, which included bars, taverns, and restaurants. He stated the Village of Schaumburg adopted an ordinance and had already amended it twice.

Mr. Binninger stated Cook County’s ban would become effective March 15 whereas DuPage County would most likely become effective July 1. He noted something would have to be done prior to March 15 for Cook County. DuPage County would have to be monitored to see if their effective date remained at July 1.

He continued other issues were smoking at public entrances and smoking in hotel rooms. He reiterated that DuPage County’s ordinance basically stated you could not smoke in public places. The number of feet one could not smoke was questioned and answered that DuPage County had it as no smoking 15 feet from any public entrance or employee entrance.

He also stated a percentage of hotel rooms can be designated as smoking, noting most were at 20%. He stated Schaumburg was the only neighboring town that actually passed an ordinance. It was pointed out that 7 other communities passed the same ordinance which included Schaumburg, Hoffman Estates, Arlington Heights, Palatine, and Buffalo Grove.

Comments made were not in favor of regulating bars, taverns and restaurants. It was understood in the workplace but not where others were free to leave, i.e., restaurants, taverns, etc.

Clerk Craig stated she attended a seminar on the smoking bans at the IML conference where a study was done with the smoking bans in restaurants in place for 2 or more years. This study tracked increases or decreases in sales tax revenues and noted the following in each community: Evanston +11.18%; Lincolnwood +11.13%; Niles +8.87%; Skokie +11; and Morton Grove -4.13% noting that there were only 3 restaurants and 1 chain restaurant closed. It was also pointed out that Champaign-Urbana had similar statistics as well with Urbana’s increase of over 22.8%.

It was questioned how many restaurants in Hanover Park allowed smoking and answered that the Health Inspector would have to get back to the Board with an answer. It was again pointed out that businesses should make their own decisions without the government mandating it.

It was also pointed out that a restaurant in Morton Grove did allow smoking. It was questioned if one was smoking within 5 feet, what was the penalty for the individual. Mr. Binninger stated there were a couple of options: the ordinance stated there was a fine up to $100; or a p-ticket could be added, which could be paid in 10 days, for $25, $50, etc. It was noted, however, it was not in the DuPage County model.

It was noted if we did not do anything the Cook County ban would apply, and that DuPage County ban would follow. It was again pointed out we should not have to regulate this. In contrast, other Board members voiced their support of the draft ordinance.

Mr. Binninger reiterated there were 3 things needed: 1) the Health Inspector feedback on the number of restaurants, and how many allowed smoking; 2) the addition of the p-ticket fine to the ordinance; and 3) the creation of an option regarding restaurants and taverns. He noted this would be brought back some time in February, closer to the deadline. It was noted there were two tobacco shops in town, and those would be exempt.

Mr. Tom Clark, 6922 West Avenue, addressed the Board that an ordinance needed to be passed in order to protect Hanover Park from an outside government agency, namely Cook County and later DuPage County, from enacting their laws. He stated his concern was that this could be the beginning of more and more government intrusion into our daily lives.

Mr. Masciola stated this issue would be brought back at a later date.

Approved Warrant

Acting President Packham fielded questions on the warrant. Motion by Trustee Manton and seconded to Approve Warrant W578 in the Amount of $141,256.38. Roll call:

AYES: Eby, Manton, Craig, Kaiser, Nicolosi, Packham NAYS: None

ABSENT: None
Motion carried – Approved Warrant W578 in the Amount of $141,256.38

Mr. Masciola wished everyone a Happy and Safe New Year.

Approved: Minutes of Post Board Meeting of Dec 7, 2006

Clerk Craig requested to Waive the Reading and Approve the Minutes of the Post Board Meeting of December 7, 2006 as Published. Motion by Trustee Manton and seconded. Voice Vote: ALL AYES.

Motion carried – Waived the Reading and Approved the Minutes of the Post Board Meeting of December 7, 2006, as published

Clerk Craig also requested to Waive the Reading and Approve the Minutes of the Regular Board of Trustees’ Meeting of December 21, 2006 as Published. Motion by Trustee Manton and seconded. Voice Vote: ALL AYES.

Motion carried – Waived the Reading and Approved the Minutes of the Regular Board of Trustees’ Meeting of December 21, 2006, as published

Mr. Samelson had no report.

Trustee Eby had no report.

Trustee Manton had no report.

Trustee Craig stated there would be a CERT meeting on January 9 at 6:30 p.m. He noted there were many young people in the audience tonight and commented that they had attended a meeting with lively discussion.

Trustee Kaiser had no report.

Trustee Nicolosi had no report.

Acting President Packham reminded the Board of a Post Board Workshop following the meeting tonight.

Motion by Trustee Eby and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote: All AYES - Motion carried – Acting President Packham adjourned the Meeting at 8:40 P.M.