'No Financial Analysis Provided to Fiduciaries and Taxpayers for Massive Walker Apartment Block in Clarendon Hills'

Letter to the editor by Edward A. Corcoran.

The Clarendon Hills Village Staff failed to present a detailed financial analysis to Trustees, the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) and most importantly to the taxpayers for the massive Walker Street apartment block.

I thank ZBA member Jim Sheer and challenge ZBA Chairman Will Freve and real estate professional ZBA member Jan Morel to rethink the approach. Real estate professionals like Mr. Freve and Mr. Morel know that a detailed financial analysis is a normal and routine task. However, since there is no Tax Impact Analysis (emphasis on Impact) to detail the financial issues, the potential tax impacts on the Clarendon Hills tax revenue (sales tax) are unknown. Also there are no “measurable objectives” that taxpayers can use to hold the developer and staff accountable for the long list of benefits given the developer. How are we as taxpayers to believe a recommendation without the financial analysis to quantitatively measure this development vs a development in compliance with the new Down Town Master Plan (DTMP) and the other rules. The staff and others seem to have been lobbying to waive requirements while the financial justification and analysis seems to have been somehow overlooked. The taxpayers need to know what financial results we can expect for a development with and without all the variances plus with and without retail on the ground floor. The gifts recommended by the Village staff must be measured for purposes of transparency and taxpayers must know the expected results (measurable objectives) before the decisions are made, but currently we have no financial targets or Tax Impact Analysis so there can be no measurable objectives or accountability.

Also, by using the Planned Unit Development (PUD) loophole, taxpayers further need to know the revenue scenarios with and without retail on the first floor. While I (and most residents) want a development on that parcel, we want to leave a sustainable retail element in our downtown. However, there is little or no financial information to justify the elimination of arguably the last largest retail block in our small downtown. I am unconvinced that a 4 story apartment block which eliminates the last major section of retail space in downtown Clarendon Hills is the right move for our charming downtown, especially given the complete void of detailed financial justification for taxpayers and loopholes. I know there are developers that would comply with our requirements so why is this project advancing so rapidly?

The tax revenue and costs to the Village of Clarendon Hills by allowing apartments on the first floor plus an additional 4th story of apartments, are both specifically against our rules, so there must be detailed financial justification for the taxpayers to and Trustees to approve the recommendations. However there seems to be no financial analysis on these specific matters. Again, there are developers more than willing to develop a 3 story building (in compliance with the DTMP), especially given the low price the developer bought the land at.

This developer bought the land very cheap knowing the ordinance, so these variances can be viewed as gifts using taxpayer resources. The problem is again that there is no analysis or matching financial return to taxpayers from the developer for the variances recommended by staff (except for cash for a few parking spaces). The ZBA Chairman points to some minor property tax information submitted by the developer however no one can point to a Tax Impact Analysis, financial scenarios run on behalf of the taxpayers, or measurable objectives we can watch over time.

Does the financial answer for taxpayers favor retail or apartments on the first floor? What financial return do taxpayers get for allowing nearly 10 variances (rule changes) plus violation of the 3 story (40 foot) building height? What about the ZBA ignoring the referendum to eliminate PUD’s and keep the downtown at 2 stories?

Better negotiations can easily be accomplished by the Trustees with this or another developer. The gift giving to the current developer can be re-looked at before Trustees approve this. A project matching the DTMP and within our rules without the use of the PUD loophole that 2/3rd of our taxpayers were specifically against (the referendum) is easily achievable. I request that our Village Trustees reconsider the project, obtain additional financial information, set measurable financial objectives and avoid a rubber stamp of the civil servants wishes. There are other developers who would build in compliance with our ordinance and we can get a better deal.

I respectfully request the Trustees renegotiate with the developer to reduce the height to comply with the 40 foot maximum and to add retail on the first floor. I also ask that the Village Trustees consider a serious review of staff procedures so that a Tax Impact Analysis and financial analysis of all the “gifts” given a developer are analyzed for this project immediately. We must remove any appearance of impropriety and we certainly can negotiate a better deal that is based upon a financial analysis for our taxpayers.

Respectfully,
Edward A. Corcoran