|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 20:57:36 GMT -6
What type of taxpayer supported economic incentives could the city exclusively offer to a big developer that cant be offered to a developer buying off a private entity? Is there a law (and anything to make them abide by it) to keep them from saying this? Well Mr.(or Mrs.) Nubiz, since it would result in getting ABC properties back on the tax rolls, I am very confident that the council will approve the TIF funds for all of the upgrades that you need. If you want to purchase DEF properties so that you can apply for the funds, there is a chance that it might be approved. Since the developer knows that they will have to go to the city for license and inspection approvals, doesn't that inherently create an aspect of not wanting to go against them by purchasing DEF properties? They wouldn't want to go against the City and find themselves in a position where they were publicly declared illegal residents or be given a requirement of industrial zoning for their project, would they? In November I had a meeting with Vern Reynolds. He was the theatre owner that I heard started working on a building on the north edge of town after he was given a set of requirements from the City for the building, but then stopped and scrapped the project, losing money, because he was given another big requirement. We didn't have time to talk about the particulars of that situation, but knowing that I was from Streator, he did indicate that he was not given fair treatment from our City. The City's power and advantages just makes it unfair for individuals to have to try to compete in business with them.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 28, 2014 21:37:11 GMT -6
That project died because he was required to have a sprinkler system throughout the proposed theater. He was going to convert the old Food Expo grocery store to a theater.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 28, 2014 21:53:00 GMT -6
I copied this from part of what Myself posted earlier from the plan. In addition, it is also important to note that there are ways the City can gain some form of control over a site short of an outright purchase, such as entering into a purchase option and/or a cooperative process with the owner to seek development proposals. Lastly, the City also should consider an approach whereby interim uses (such as parking or open space) are identified for acquired sites until market conditions are more favorable for a significant redevelopment project. Often referred to as “land banking,” this approach acts to acquire sites as they become available understanding that the opportunity to pursue an ultimate use may still be several years away.
So it states, short of an outright purchase and gives an explanation. Then is states, lastly for land banking.
It also says in the plan that e.g. Parking lots are spaces the city should consider as well as vacant property. Are you assuming vacant property means vacant buildings? Vacant property could also be property in the downtown area where there are no buildings and could be used for parking now and offered for development.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 23:08:40 GMT -6
I copied this from part of what Myself posted earlier from the plan. In addition, it is also important to note that there are ways the City can gain some form of control over a site short of an outright purchase, such as entering into a purchase option and/or a cooperative process with the owner to seek development proposals. Lastly, the City also should consider an approach whereby interim uses (such as parking or open space) are identified for acquired sites until market conditions are more favorable for a significant redevelopment project. Often referred to as “land banking,” this approach acts to acquire sites as they become available understanding that the opportunity to pursue an ultimate use may still be several years away. So it states, short of an outright purchase and gives an explanation. Then is states, lastly for land banking. It also says in the plan that e.g. Parking lots are spaces the city should consider as well as vacant property. Are you assuming vacant property means vacant buildings? Vacant property could also be property in the downtown area where there are no buildings and could be used for parking now and offered for development. It does state, as a side note that there are options short of outright purchase, but mainly is talking about actual purchases. It does not state "lastly for land banking". It states, lastly they should consider interim uses until market conditions are more favorable for development. Then, the last sentence sums up the land banking practice. I am not assuming that vacant property means buildings, but obviously it does include buildings since they do mention cleaning up asbestos in them.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 29, 2014 0:41:15 GMT -6
That project died because he was required to have a sprinkler system throughout the proposed theater. He was going to convert the old Food Expo grocery store to a theater. I believe you are right that it was over sprinklers, which can add considerable costs to a project. I know that sprinklers are required for new commercial construction and that theatre complexes over 1000 total seats not only require sprinklers, but an alarm system that will stop HVAC system airflow, turn off projection systems, close auditorium doors, play a recorded message throughout, contact the fire department, etc. Vern's theatre was not going to be new construction or over 1000 seats though. What is it that triggers the requirement for sprinklers to be included for existing building remodel projects? Is there a black and white requirement threshold, or is it somewhat of a grey area? During years of installing theatre equipment, I've been involved with three theatres, all in different cities that were constructed in existed buildings with former uses that were not theatres(I think one was a grocery store) and sprinklers were not required. I'm sure those communities use the same Universal Building and Fire Codes as Streator. Vern was basically going to change the floor plan, put up some non-load bearing interior walls, add some plumbing and electrical and furnish the place. At the Majestic, the Health Department required a three compartment sink, but there was just no room for it in the small concession stand. In order to open, I had to change the floor plan, take seats out of the back row of the theatre, build new walls to expand the concession stand, add plumbing and electrical, etc. The City did not require us to add sprinklers. If they had, I'm sure it wouldn't have opened either. Is there a chance that it did happen the way that I heard and that he was told that they were not going to require him to sprinkle the building, but then after he had already started the project, they added the requirement? I still have his number. I suppose I could call to ask that specific question. Like I said he indicated that he did not feel that he had been treated fairly by our City. I think he went on to open a nice 10 screen in the Peoria area after Streator. He has been getting out of the theatre industry now though, except for his favorite movie palace in the town he lives in. He seems like a pretty nice guy; a gospel singer who gives back pretty generously to the communities he has businesses in. I wonder if Danny Roger's interest in coming to town had anything to do with the situation? His brother Michael told me years before I ever considered moving here that they would be closing Northpoint soon after their reduced property tax period was over. Offering economic incentives like that is supposed to entice new business to be here long term. I don't think it worked right that time.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 29, 2014 8:58:46 GMT -6
You might be able to go to the library and read the times stories on it too. Just find out the year. They have them archived on microfilm.
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Jan 29, 2014 9:28:11 GMT -6
I wonder if the city is land banking for the development of an adult entertainment venue? That would generate income and use available space. Maybe, they could consider the new building, at Abderson fields
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 29, 2014 9:41:54 GMT -6
I understand your concerns Kyle and am interested to see just how this plays out. Buying and sitting on property just in case a developer wants one makes no sense. Getting an agreement with a developer and purchasing the property to make clean up cheaper and then recouping the costs would help both parties.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Jan 29, 2014 10:47:46 GMT -6
That project died because he was required to have a sprinkler system throughout the proposed theater. He was going to convert the old Food Expo grocery store to a theater. Not exactly the case. I sat on the Zoning board of appeals throughout that travesty. Sprinklers were not a requirement in the whole of the building, but the codes did require a portion to be sprinklered, and there were issues with egress and fire lanes. It would have added some to the cost, but not anything that extravagant, IIRC Sprinklers were required over the projection booth, fire rated sheetrock on the egress area, and an easement was required for a fire truck to reach the back side in the event of a fire. I would have to dig up my notes and consult BOCA again to be 100 percent. He was very close to being in compliance, but I really believe by then he had been jerked around too many times to trust anyone representing the city.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Jan 29, 2014 10:53:35 GMT -6
Vern was basically going to change the floor plan, put up some non-load bearing interior walls, add some plumbing and electrical and furnish the place. he was told that they were not going to require him to sprinkle the building, but then after he had already started the project, they added the requirement? He was going to do a whole heck of a lot more than that, it was a class act, his capital expenditures were sizable. As for the initiation, he was told by a city council member he could go ahead and start without a permit...... it was not a good thing. He got screwed , blued, and tattooed. I still believe he would have went ahead with it had he not been told falsely to start without a permit.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 29, 2014 11:31:22 GMT -6
He got screwed , blued, and tattooed. Well, I was phrasing it a little nicer than that, buy yes, that is the attitude that I detected from him. My point in bringing him up was that having the ability to treat people that way makes it unfair for private people to try to compete with the City in any business. The Nubiz group might not want to even consider locating at properties DEF for fear that they will get "Verned".
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 29, 2014 18:30:29 GMT -6
Now that jogs my memory sniper. Wasn't Crawford the City Manager back then?
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Jan 29, 2014 18:58:21 GMT -6
Now that jogs my memory sniper. Wasn't Crawford the City Manager back then? I think so, was he the one prior to Nicholson the first time? I know Lee was mayor ( not the one who gave the bum info though....), he warned me what we were getting into before I accepted the position. I am not even sure they have a board of appeals any longer.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Jan 29, 2014 23:52:10 GMT -6
Crawford was city manager back then (yes)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 5:04:42 GMT -6
Crawford was city manager back then (yes) correct
|
|