ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, under ordinances adopted on February 5, 1998, and published in the Journal of Proceedings of the City Council (the "Journal") for such date at pages 60917 to 61070, and under the provisions of the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11 . 74.4.1 et seg,., as amended (the "Act"), the City Council (the "Corporate Authorities") of the City of Chicago (the "City"): (i) approved the "Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Finance Program Redevelopment Plan and Project" (the "Plan") for a portion of the City known as the "Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area" (the "Area") (such ordinance being defined herein as the "Approval Ordinance"); (ii) designated the Area as a "redevelopment project area" within the requirements of the Act (the "Designation Ordinance") and, (iii) adopted tax increment financing for the Area (the "Adoption Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the Approval Ordinance, the Designation Ordinance, and the Adoption Ordinance are collectively referred to in this ordinance as the "TIF Ordinances"; and
WHEREAS, Public Act 92-263, which became effective on August 7, 2001, amended the Act to provide that, under Section 11-74.4-5(c) of the Act, amendments to a redevelopment plan which do not (1) add additional parcels of property to the proposed redevelopment project area, (2) substantially affect the general land uses proposed in the redevelopment plan, (3) substantially change the nature of the redevelopment project, (4) increase the total estimated redevelopment project cost set out in the redevelopment plan by more than 5% after adjustment for inflation from the date the plan was adopted, (5) add additional redevelopment project costs to the itemized list of redevelopment project costs set out in the redevelopment plan, or (6) increase the number of inhabited residential units to be displaced from the redevelopment project area, as measured from the time of creation of the redevelopment project area, to a total of more than 10, may be made without further hearing, provided that notice is given as set forth in the Act as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities now desire to amend the Plan further to change the land uses proposed in the Plan with respect to certain parcels of property, which such amendment shall not (1) add additional parcels of property to the proposed Area, (2) substantially affect the general land uses in the Plan, (3) substantially change the nature of the redevelopment project, (4) increase the total estimated redevelopment project cost set out in the Plan by more than 5% after adjustment for inflation from the date the Plan was adopted, (5) add additional redevelopment project costs to the itemized list of redevelopment project costs set out in the Plan, or (6) increase the number of inhabited residential units to be displaced from the Area, as measured from the time of creation of the Area, to a total of more than 10;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part
hereof.
SECTION 2. Approval of Revision Number 1 to Plan. The "Amendment Number 1 Roosevelt/Cicero Tax Increment Financing Plan And Project," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. is hereby approved. Except as amended hereby, the Plan (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) shall remain in full force and effect.
|1010|
SECTION 3. Invalidity of Any Section. If any provision of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. Supersedes All ordinances (including, without limitation, the TIF Ordinances), resolutions, motions or orders in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflicts.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage.
|1010|
EXHIBIT 1 Amendment Number 1 (see attached)
|1010|
CITY OF CHICAGO AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 ROOSEVELT/CICERO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND PROJECT
NOTICE is hereby given by the City of Chicago of the publication and inclusion of changes to the City of Chicago Roosevelt/Cicero Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan and Project (as amended by this Amendment Number 1, the "Plan") for the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area approved pursuant to an ordinance enacted by the City Council on
pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-5 of the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation
Redevelopment Act, as amended, 65 ILCS Section 5/11-74.4-1 et seq. (the "Act").
In Section III entitled, "Redevelopment Project Area and Goals and Objectives", in subsection entitled "Redevelopment Objectives" under the following shall be added to the third bullet:
Facilitate the development of vacant land, through the assembly of property and other mechanisms, and the redevelopment of underutilized properties for industrial and commercial uses.
In Section III entitled, "Redevelopment Project Area and Goals and Objectives", in subsection entitled "Redevelopment Objectives" under the following shall be added to the fourth bullet:
Eliminate unnecessary streets, alleys, and railroad rights-of-way to increase the amount of land available for private investment and redevelopment for industrial and commercial activities.
In Section V entitled, "Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan and Project," add a sixth paragraph in sub-section A. "General Land Use Plan", entitled "Commercial", shall be added:
Commercial land use proposed within the Redevelopment Project area for the area bounded by Kostner Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Roosevelt Road, and Kildare Avenue.
In Exhibit 4 "Map Legend", Map 1 entitled "Redevelopment Project Boundary", Land Use Plan Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Area", shall be replaced with and updated "Map Legend", Map 1 entitled "Redevelopment Project Boundary."
In Exhibit 4 "Map Legend", Map 4 entitled "Proposed Land Use", shall be replaced with and updated "Map 4", "Proposed Land Use".
|1010|
EXHIBIT 2 Plan (see attached)
|1010|
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ROOSEVELT/CICERO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.
The Cornmittee on Finance submitted the following report:
CHICAGO, February 5,1998.
To the President and Members of the City Council:
Your Committee on Finance, having had under consideration an ordinance approving a Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan for the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area, having had the same under advisement, begs leave to report and recommend the Your Honorable Body Pass the proposed ordinance transmitted herewith.
This recommendation was concurred in by a viva voce vote of the members of the committee.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) EDWARD M. BURKE,
Chairman
On motion of Alderman Burke, the said proposed ordinance transmitted with the foregoing committee report was Passed by yeas and nays as follows:
Yeas — Aldermen Granato, Haithcock, Tillman, Preckwinkle, Holt, Lyle, Beavers, Dixon, Shaw, Buchanan, Balcer, Frias, Olivo, Burke, Jones, Coleman, Peterson, Murphy, Rugai, Troutman, DeVille, Munoz, Zalewski, Chandler, Solis, Ocasio, Burnett, E. Smith, Burrell, Wojcik, Suarez, Gabinski, Austin, Colom, Banks, Giles, Allen, Laurino, O'Connor, Doherty, Natarus, Bernardini, Levar, Shiller, Schulter, M. Smith, Moore, Stone — 48.
Nays — None.
Alderman Beavers moved to reconsider the foregoing vote. The motion was lost.
|1010|
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
The following is said ordinance as passed:
WHEREAS, It is desirable and in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Chicago, Illinois (the "City") for the City to implement tax increment allocation financing ("Tax Increment Allocation Financing") pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et. seq. (1993), as amended (the "Act"), for a proposed redevelopment project area to be known as the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area (the "Area") described in Section 2 of this ordinance, to be redeveloped pursuant to a proposed redevelopment plan and project (the "Plan") (the Plan, as changed and updated as described below, is attached hereto as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 5/11-74.4-4 and 5/11-74.4-5 of the Act, the Community Development Commission (the "Commission") of the City, by authority of the Mayor and the City Council of the City (the "City Council", referred to herein collectively with the Mayor as the "Corporate Authorities") called a public hearing (the "Hearing") concerning approval of the Plan, designation of the Area as a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Act and adoption of Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area pursuant to the Act on December 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, The Plan (including the related eligibility report attached thereto as an exhibit) was made available for public inspection and review pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-5(a) of the Act beginning October 7, 1997, at a time prior to the adoption by the Commission of Resolution 97-CDC-88 on October 7, 1997 fixing the time and place for the Hearing, at the offices of the City Clerk and the City's Department of Planning and Development; and
WHEREAS, Due notice of the Hearing was given pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-6 of the Act, said notice being given to all taxing districts having property within the Area and to the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs of the State of Illinois by certified mail on October 10, 1997, by publication in the Chicago Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune on November 5, 1997 and November 12, 1997, and by certified mail to taxpayers within the Area on November 12, 1997; and
WHEREAS, A meeting of the joint review board established pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-5(b) of the Act (the "Board") was convened upon the provision of due notice on October 23, 1997 at 10:00 A.M., concerning the approval of the Plan, designation of the Area as a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Act and adoption of Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area; and
|10 10|
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, The Commission has forwarded to the City Council a copy of its Resolution 97-CDC-104 attached hereto as Exhibit B, adopted on December 9, 1997, recommending to the City Council approval of the Plan, among other related matters; and
WHEREAS, The Corporate Authorities have reviewed the Plan (including the related eligibility report attached thereto as an exhibit), as the Plan has been changed and updated to December, 1997 and notice of such changes has been given by mail to each affected taxing district and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the taxing districts not less than ten (10) days prior to the adoption of this ordinance in accordance with the provisions of Section 5/ll-74.4-5(a) of the Act, testimony from the Hearing, if any, the recommendation of the Board, if any, the recommendation of the Commission and such other matters or studies as the Corporate Authorities have deemed necessary or appropriate to make the findings set forth herein, and are generally informed of the conditions existing in the Area; now, therefore,
Be It Ordained by the City Council of the City of Chicago:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. The Area. The Area is legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. The street location (as near as practicable) for the Area is described in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein. The map of the Area is depicted on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 3. Findings. The Corporate Authorities hereby make the following findings as required pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-3(n) of the Act:
the Area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise and would not reasonably be expected to be developed without the adoption of the Plan;
the Plan:
conforms to the comprehensive plan for the development of the City as a whole; or
the Plan either (A) conforms to the strategic economic development or redevelopment plan issued by the Chicago Plan Commission or (B) includes land uses that have been approved by the Chicago Plan Commission; and
10
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
c. the Plan meets all of the requirements of a redevelopment plan as defined in the Act and, as set forth in the Plan, the estimated date of completion of the projects described therein and retirement of all obligations issued to finance redevelopment project costs is not more than twenty-three (23) years from the date of the adoption of the ordinance approving the designation of the Area as a redevelopment project area, and, as required pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-7 of the Act, no such obligation shall have a maturity date greater than twenty (20) years.
SECTION 4. Approval of the Plan. The City hereby approves the Plan pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-4 of the Act.
SECTION 5. Powers of Eminent Domain. In compliance with Section 5/11-74.4-4(c) of the Act and with the Plan, the Corporation Counsel is authorized to negotiate for the acquisition by the City of parcels contained within the Area. In the event the Corporation Counsel is unable to acquire any of said parcels through negotiation, the Corporation Counsel is authorized to institute eminent domain proceedings to acquire such parcels. Nothing herein shall be in derogation of any proper authority.
SECTION 6. Invalidity of any Section. If any provision of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 7. Superseder. All ordinances, resolutions, motions or orders in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage.
[Exhibit "E" referred to in this ordinance printed on page 60996 of this Journal.]
Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and "D" referred to in this ordinance read as follows:
11
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Exhibit "A".
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Ordinance)
Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Finance Program Redevelopment Plan And Project
I.
Introduction.
The Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area (hereafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Project Area") is located on the far west side of the City of Chicago, approximately five (5) miles from the central business district. The Redevelopment Project Area is comprised of approximately five hundred thirty-one (531) acres and includes fifty-six (56) (full and partial) blocks. The boundaries of the area are generally: Menard Avenue on the west (north of Roosevelt Road) and the Belt Line Railroad/city limits of Chicago on the west (south of Roosevelt Road); Pulaski Road on the east; Cermak Avenue on the south; and Lexington/the Eisenhower Expressway on the north. The boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area are shown on Map 1, Boundary Map.
Within the Redevelopment Project Area, the existing primary land-use is industrial and the underlying zoning throughout is industrial-oriented. The Redevelopment Project Area is situated directly south of the Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate 290) which links it to the overall interstate highway network in Chicago including the Dan Ryan Expressway (Interstate 90/94), the Stevenson Expressway (Interstate 55), the Kennedy Expressway (Interstate 90/94), and the Edens Expressway (Interstate 94). Additionally, the Redevelopment Project Area is accessible by rail.
The Redevelopment Project Area is also well served by public transportation making the area easily accessible to the local work force. Chicago Transit Authority buses that transverse the Redevelopment Project Area and the areas surrounding the Redevelopment Project Area include the Routes 53 and 54 north/south routes and the Routes 7, 12, 18, 21 and 57 east/west routes. C.T.A. rapid transit service is provided at the northern borders of the corridor by the Congress Blue Line within the median of the Eisenhower (1-290) Expressway
12
60922 JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
and at the southern end of the Redevelopment Project Area by the Douglas Blue Line. Stations for the Congress Blue Line are located at Cicero Avenue and Pulaski Road. Stations for the Douglas Blue Line are located at Kildare Avenue and Pulaski Road.
Pace bus routes that transverse the Redevelopment Project Area and surrounding areas include Route 305 (Roosevelt Road between Menard Avenue and Laramie Avenue and Laramie Avenue from Roosevelt Road south to the limits of the project area) and Route 767 (east/west along Cermak Road).
Much of the Redevelopment Project Area is characterized by:
deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and site improvements;
difficult and inadequate ingress and egress;
current and past obsolescence;
inadequate infrastructure; and
other blighting characteristics.
The Redevelopment Project Area represents an opportunity for the City to implement its current plans to preserve, retain, redevelop and expand industry within an area that has traditionally been industrial in nature. Few locations such as the Redevelopment Project Area within the City offer a solid industrial history, diverse transportation systems (expressways as well as public transportation), and an accessible industrial workforce, factors which are factors that are important in the locational decision-making of manufacturing, industrial, storage and distribution-related industries. To ensure that the City maintains a balanced and viable economy, it is necessary to preserve and enhance its existing hubs of industrial activity.
Recognizing the Redevelopment Project Area's continuing potential as an industrial center, the City of Chicago is taking action to facilitate its revitalization, following on its previous actions to stabilize industrial land uses and support industrial expansion and attraction. The City recognizes that the trend of physical deterioration, obsolescence, depreciation and other blighting influences will continue to weaken the Redevelopment Project Area unless the City itself becomes a leader and a partner with the private sector in the revitalization process. Consequently, the City wishes to encourage private development activity by using tax increment financing as a prime implementation tool.
13
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The purpose of this Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Finance Program Redevelopment Plan and Project (hereafter the "Plan" or the "Redevelopment Plan") is to create a mechanism to allow for the following: development of new industrial and industrial-support facilities on existing vacant or underutilized land; the adaptive reuse of vacant and underutilized structures to new and growing industries; the expansion of existing industrial businesses; the improvement of the physical environment and infrastructures.
This Plan summarizes the analyses and findings of the consultants' work, which, unless otherwise noted, is the responsibility of Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. and The Lambert Group, Inc The City of Chicago is entitled to rely on the findings and conclusions of this Plan in designating the Redevelopment Project Area as a redevelopment project area under the Act (defined below). Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. and The Lambert Group, Inc. have prepared this Plan and the related eligibility study with the understanding that the City would rely: 1) on the findings and conclusions of the Plan and the related eligibility study in proceeding with the designation of the Redevelopment Project Area and the adoption and implementation of the Plan, and 2) on the fact that Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. and The Lambert Group, Inc. have obtained the necessary information so that the Plan and the related eligibuity study will comply with the Act.
A. Overview.
In 1981, a small section of the Redevelopment Project Area located between
B. O.C.T. Railroad, Roosevelt Road, Kostner Avenue and the Belt Line Railroad
was designated as a Blighted Commercial Area (see Map 3 - Roosevelt/Kostner
Redevelopment Area). In 1991, that original area was expanded to include
Lexington Avenue and West Fifth Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Road on the
south, the Belt Line Railroad and Kildare Avenue on the east and Cicero Avenue
on the west. The expanded area was designated as the Roosevelt Kostner
Redevelopment Area by the Community Development Commission. In 1981, a
small section of the Redevelopment Project Area located between B.O.C.T.
Railroad, Roosevelt Road, Kostner Avenue and the Belt Line Railroad was
designated as a Blighted Commercial Area. In 1991, that original area was
expanded to include Lexington Avenue and West Fifth Avenue on the north,
Roosevelt Road on the south, the Belt Line Railroad and Kildare Avenue on the
east and Cicero Avenue on the west. The expanded area was designated as the
Roosevelt Kostner Redevelopment Area by the Community Development
Commission.
14
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
The Redevelopment Project Area is also located within the broader area of the West Side Industrial Corridor (hereafter referred to as the "Corridor") which is one of Chicago's oldest, largest and most diverse industrial corridors according to City plans. Historically, much of the Redevelopment Area has been occupied by industrial and industrial-related uses which are located on the west side for a variety of reasons.
According to the City of Chicago's Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side, "The industrial activity of the Corridor developed as Chicago's central business district became too costly and congested for wholesale and warehousing operations. As a result, at the turn of the century, industry began to locate along the Belt Railway. Simultaneously, Fifth Avenue and Pulaski Road attracted fight manufacturing activities."
According to the Roosevelt/Cicero Model Industrial Corridor Strategic Plan, "The Corridor, like the adjoining Lawndale Neighborhood, has deteriorated greatly since the 1950s. Major corporations vacated primary facilities. Numerous smaller companies have also left the area leaving a patchwork of abandoned buildings, vacant sites and remaining businesses. Renewed use of the Alden's Headquarters (5000 West Roosevelt Road) and Sunbeam Plant (Sungate Park) together with the South Kilbourn Avenue area, suggest a continuing vitality for the Roosevelt/Cicero Corridor."
"Excellent access to highway and rail, a centralized metropolitan location and relatively good infrastructure are the Corridor's major strengths. High crime rates, obsolete facilities and a deteriorated physical environment, including blighted conditions, are the most detrimental characteristics of the Corridor."
"In 1969, International Harvester closed its tractor works, resulting in a loss of three thousand four hundred (3,400) jobs. Between 1950 and 1970 it is believed that North Lawndale lost seventy-five percent (75%) of its businesses and twenty-five percent (25%) of its jobs. Throughout the 1970s, as Zenith and Sunbeam electronics factories shut down, and the Copenhagen Snuff plant closed, eighty percent (80%) of the area's manufacturingjobs disappeared along with forty-four percent (44%) of the retail and service jobs. The downturn continued through the 1980s as Western Electric disappeared completely by 1985, and Sears (which is located just east of the Redevelopment Project Area) closed its Homan Avenue complex in 1987, resulting in a loss of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) jobs."
Although there are a few signs of revitalization — the renewed use of the Alden's and Sunbeam facilities and the residential development at Homan Square — the area continues to suffer from severe blight and vacancy.
15
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The continuing decline of the City's industrial base and the loss of industrial jobs threatens the health of Chicago's economy and the public's welfare. Without the use of tax increment financing, the Redevelopment Project Area will continue to decline in its physical environment and disinvestment in industrial facilities will also continue.
B. Existing Land-Use And Zoning Characteristics.
The Redevelopment Project Area continues to reflect the industrial land-use patterns first evidenced along the west side of the City during the 19th century. At the present time, the existing land uses are predominantly industrial in nature. In addition to industry, the Redevelopment Project Area is home to residential uses and a small scattering of commercial. These land-use patterns are reflective of the underlying zoning. The majority of property within the Redevelopment Project Area is zoned for light to medium industrial uses (M1-1, Ml-2, M2-2, M2-3, M2-4, M3-3). There are small sections of the following zoning districts within the Redevelopment Project Area: commercial (CI-2) at the southeast corner of 16th and Kostner Avenue, business (B2-1) south of Taylor Street, between Pulaski Road and Springfield Avenue and two (2) residential (R3, R4) districts one (1) on the south side of Fillmore Street, between Kildare Avenue and Keeler Avenue and another on Kilboum Avenue, between 14th and 15th Streets on the west side of the street and on both the east and west sides between 15th and 16th Streets.
Demographic And Statistical Characteristics:
A variety of demographic and other statistical data were collected for the general area in which the Redevelopment Project Area is located. The Census of Population and Housing data for 1990 can be found in (Sub)Exhibit 1 — 1990 Selected Census Data for Selected Census Tracks Located in the Roosevelt/Cicero Project Area.
C. Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act.
An analysis of conditions within this area indicates that it is appropriate for designation as a Redevelopment Project Area under the State of Illinois tax increment financinglegislation. The Redevelopment Project Area is characterized by conditions which warrant its designation as an improved "Blighted Area" and a vacant "Blighted Area" within the definitions set forth in the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq., as amended (the "Act").
16
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
The Act provides a means for municipalities, after the approval of a Redevelopment Plan and Project, to redevelop blighted and conservation areas by pledging the increase in tax revenues generated by public and private redevelopment. This increase in tax revenues is used to pay for upfront costs that are required to stimulate private investment in new redevelopment and rehabilitation, or to reimburse private developers for eligible costs incurred in connection with any redevelopment. Municipalities may issue obligations to be repaid from the stream of real property tax increment revenues that are generated within the tax increment financing district.
The property tax increment revenue is calculated by determining the difference between the initial equalized assessed value (E.A.V.) or the Certified E.A.V. Base for all taxable real estate located within the district and the current year E.A.V The E.A.V. is the assessed value of the property multiplied by the state multiplier. Any increase in E.A.V. is then multiplied by the current tax rate, which determines the incremental real property tax.
The Plan has been formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is a guide to all proposed public and private action in the Redevelopment Project Area. In addition to describing the objectives of redevelopment, the Plan sets forth the overall program to be undertaken to accomplish these objectives. This program is the Redevelopment Plan and Project.
The Plan also specifically describes the Redevelopment Project Area. This area meets the eligibility requirements of the Act (see Roosevelt/Cicero — Tax Increment Finance Program — Eligibility Study attached as (Sub)Exhibit 5). The Redevelopment Project Area boundaries are described in the introduction of the Plan and shown in Map 1, Boundary Map.
After approval of the Plan, the City Council may formally designate the Redevelopment Project Area.
The purpose of this Plan is to ensure that new development occurs:
on a coordinated rather than a piecemeal basis to ensure that the land-use, vehicular access, parking, service and urban design systems will meet modern-day principles and standards;
on a reasonable, comprehensive and integrated basis to ensure that blighted area factors are eliminated; and
within a reasonable and defined time period.
17
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Revitalization of the Redevelopment Project Area is a large and complex undertaking and presents challenges and opportunities commensurate to its scale. The success of this effort will depend to a large extent on the cooperation between the private sector and agencies of local government.
Regardless of when the Redevelopment Plan and Project is adopted, it will include land uses that have already been approved by the Chicago Plan Commission.
There has been no major investment in the Redevelopment Project Area for the last five (5) years. The adoption of the Plan will make possible the implementation of a logical program to stimulate redevelopment in the Redevelopment Project Area, an area which cannot reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of this Plan. Public investments will create the appropriate environment to attract the level of private investment required for rebuilding the area.
Successful implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and Project requires that the City of Chicago take advantage of the real estate tax increment revenues attributed to the Redevelopment Project Area as provided in accordance with the Act.
II.
Redevelopment Project Area And Legal Description.
The Redevelopment Project Area is located on the far west side of the City of Chicago, approximately five (5) miles from the central business district. The Redevelopment Project Area is comprised of approximately five hundred thirty-one (531) acres and includes fifty-six (56) (full and partial) blocks. The boundaries of the area are generally: Menard Avenue on the west (north of Roosevelt Road) and the Belt Line Railroad/city limits of Chicago on the west (south of Roosevelt Road); Pulaski Avenue on the east; Cermak Avenue on the south; and Lexington/the Eisenhower Expressway on the north. The boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area are shown on Map 1, Boundary Map and the existing land-uses are identified on Map 2. The Redevelopment Project Area includes only those contiguous parcels of real property that are expected to be substantially benefited by the Redevelopment Plan.
The legal description of the Redevelopment Project Area is attached to this plan as (Sub)Exhibit 2 — Legal Description.
18
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
in.
Redevelopment Project Area Goals And Objectives.
Comprehensive goals and objectives are included in this Plan to guide the decisions and activities that will be undertaken to facilitate the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project Area. Many of them can be achieved through the effective use of local, state and federal mechanisms.
These goals and objectives generally reflect existing City policies affecting all or portions of the Redevelopment Project Area as identified in the following plans and regulations:
Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side (Adopted by the Chicago Plan Commission on February 13, 1992.)
Industrial Corridor Capital Investment 1995: A Guide to Industrial Improvement Projects.
City of Chicago Capital Improvements Program: 1996—2000.
1996 Chicago Zoning Ordinance
(Planned Manufacturing District Regulations).
Roosevelt/Cicero Model Industrial Corridor Strategic Plan (Lawndale Business and Local Development Corporation and West Side Industrial Research and Retention Corporation, March 1995).
-- Roosevelt/Kostner Redevelopment Plan (Community Development Commission, June 1992).
Discussion with staff of Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne regarding a model corridor plan which they are in the process of drafting.
Certain goals and objectives of these plans and regulations are listed below.
Finally the goals and objectives take into consideration the desires of the local community as expressed by the participants in the Lawndale Business and Local Development Corporation's workshop in January 1997 as a part of their Preliminary Implementation Plan process and by the Constituent and Technical
19
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Assistance Committees and Corridor Focus Groups who participated in the Lawndale Business and Local Development Corporation's preparation of their 1995 Model Industrial Corridor Plan.
Existing City Policies.
1992 Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side:
Create and preserve jobs. "Encourage economic diversity".
"Provide opportunities for synergy between related industrial activities".
"Minimize the conflicts between industrial and other land uses".
"Maximize the benefits of public investment in capital programming related to industrial investment".
1995 Industrial Corridor Capital Investment Guide:
Retain and expand the City's economic base by shaping a modern industrial environment out of the existing industrial foundation.
"Create a competitive physical environment within each industrial corridor".
Provide well-maintained infrastructure within industrial corridors that "accommodates modern production facilities, distribution centers and transportation hubs".
Ensure that industrial corridor street patterns provide access.
Separate land uses that are incompatible with industrial activities within industrial corridors.
Promote physical streetscaping amenities within industrial corridors. "Improve transportation access to and within (industrial) corridors".
20
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program 1996 — 2000: "Enhance the City's economic vitality".
"Support development efforts and objectives of an adopted plan".
"Encourage expansion or additional industrial development".
"Encourage private investment".
Improve the City's tax base.
Encourage the retention and creation of jobs.
1995 Roosevelt/Cicero Model Industrial Corridor Strategic Plan:
Increase safety for business owners, employees, customers, vendors and nearby residents.
Improve accessibility and functionality of streets and parking.
Establish a clear direction for the long-term use and development of the Corridor.
Establish a sense of stability, safety, success and opportunity through overall enhancement of the visual /spatial conditions in the Corridor.
Create a management organization responsible for directing and accomplishing all aspects of the Corridor's long-term plan.
1997 Draft Preliminary Implementation Plan for the Roosevelt/Cicero Industrial Corridor:
Create designs that enhance safety, accessibility and functionality and attractiveness.
Create a management structure that addresses safety, accessibility and functionality, marketability and attractiveness.
21
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
1992 Roosevelt/Kostner Redevelopment Plan:
Establish the Roosevelt/Kostner area, which is surrounded and served by excellent transportation amenities, as a vital industrial area.
Provide adequate circulation within and through the area for pedestrians, public and private vehicles.
Promote development which employs the most efficient use of energy resources.
Encourage participation of minorities and women in professional and investment opportunities involved in the development of the project area.
General Goals.
In order to redevelop the Redevelopment Project Area in a planned manner, the establishment of goals is necessary. The following goals are meant to guide the development and/or the review of all future projects that will be undertaken in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Preserve, retain, redevelop and expand industry in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Improve the quality of life in Chicago by revitalizing the Redevelopment Project Area to enhance its importance as a secure, functional, attractive, marketable, suitable and competitive modern urban industrial park environment.
Enhance the Redevelopment Project Area's tax base.
Create and preserve job opportunities in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Employ residents within and surrounding the Redevelopment Project Area in jobs in the Redevelopment Project Area and in adjacent redevelopment project areas.
Encourage participation of minorities and women in the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project Area.
22
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Redevelopment Objectives.
To achieve the general goals of this Plan, the following redevelopment objectives have been established.
Reduce or eliminate those conditions which qualify the Redevelopment Project Area as a Blighted Area.
Encourage private investment, through incentives, in new and rehabilitated industrial development that will enhance the Redevelopment Project Area's tax base and create job opportunities.
Facilitate the development of vacant land, through the assembly of property and other mechanisms, and the redevelopment of undemtilized properties for industrial uses.
Eliminate unnecessary streets, alleys and railroad rights-of-way to increase the amount of land available for private investment and redevelopment for industrial activities.
Provide public and private infrastructure improvements and other relevant and available assistance necessary to the successful operation of a modern urban industrial park.
Promote the implementation of security measures throughout the Redevelopment Project Area.
Use City programs, where appropriate, to create a unified identity for the industrial portions of the Redevelopment Project Area to enhance the industrial marketability of the Redevelopment Project Area.
Support the elimination of existing environmental contamination through the remediation of affected sites in order to promote new industrial development.
Develop properties in a manner which will not adversely affect traffic patterns.
Establish job training and job readiness programs to provide residents within and surrounding the Redevelopment Project Area with the skills necessary to secure jobs in the Redevelopment Project Area and in adjacent redevelopment project areas.
23
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Secure commitments from employers in the Redevelopment Project Area and adjacent redevelopment project areas to interview graduates of the Redevelopment Project Area's job readiness and job training programs.
Design Objectives.
Although overall goals and redevelopment objectives are important in the process of redeveloping such a large and important industrial area, the inclusion of design guidelines is necessary to ensure that redevelopment activities result in the development of an attractive, functional and modern urban industrial park environment. The following.design objectives give a generalized and directive approach to the development of specific redevelopment projects.
Establish a pattern of land-use activities arranged according to modern urban industrial park standards which can include groupings to increase efficiency of operation and economic relationships of industry in a compact area. . .
Encourage coordinated development of parcels and structures in order to achieve attractive and efficient building design, unified off-street parking, adequate truck and service facilities and appropriate access to nearby arterial streets.
Achieve development which is integrated both functionally and aesthetically with adjacent and nearby existing development.
Ensure a safe and functional traffic circulation pattern, adequate ingress and egress, and capacity in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Encourage high standards of building and streetscape design to ensure the high quality appearance of buildings, rights-of-way and open spaces.
Ensure that necessary security, screening and buffering devices are attractively designed and are compatible with the overall design of the Redevelopment Project Area.
Use signage and other devices to create a unified industrial identity for the Redevelopment Project Area to facilitate the marketability of property.
24
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
TV.
Blighted Area Conditions Existing In The Redevelopment Project Area.
The Act states that a "Blighted Area" means any improved or vacant area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality where, if improved, industrial .commercial and residential buildings or improvements, because of a combination of five (5) or more of the following factors: age; dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures arid community facilities; lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; deleterious land-use or layout; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning, is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals or welfare. If vacant, the sound growth of the taxing districts is impaired by (1) a combination of two (2) or more of the following factors; obsolete platting of the vacant land; diversity of ownership of such land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on such land; flooding on all or part of such vacant land; deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land, or (2) the area immediately prior to becoming vacant qualified as a blighted improved area, or (3) the area consists of an unused quarry or unused quarries, or (4) the area consists of unused rail yards, rail tracks or railroad rights-of-way, or (5) the area, prior to its designation, is subject to chronic flooding which adversely impacts on real property in the area and such flooding is substantially caused by one (1) or more improvements in or in proximity to the area which improvements have been in existence for at least five (5) years, or (6) the area consists of an unused disposal site, containing earth, stone, building debris or similar material, which was removed from construction, demolition, excavation or dredge sites, or (7) the area is not less than fifty (50) nor more than one hundred (100) acres and seventy-five percent (75%) of which is vacant, notwithstanding the fact that such area has been used for commercial agricultural purposes within five (5) years prior to the designation of the redevelopment project area, and which areas meets at least one (1) of the factors itemized in provision (1) above, and the area has been designated as a town or village center by ordinance or comprehensive plan adopted prior to January 1, 1982, and the area has not been developed for that designated purpose. All factors must indicate that the area on the. whole has not been subject to growth and development through investments by private enterprise, and will not be developed without action by the City.
25
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Based upon surveys, site inspections, research and analysis by Louik/Schneider & Associates, Inc., The Lambert Group, Inc. and Pacific Construction Services, the Redevelopment Project Area qualifies as a Blighted Area as defined by the Act. A separate report, entitled "City of Chicago Roosevelt/Cicero Tax Increment Finance Program Eligibility Study" dated October 1997 (the "Eligibility Report"), is attached as (Sub)Exhibit 5 to this Plan and describes in detail the surveys and analyses undertaken and the basis for the finding that the Redevelopment Project Area qualifies as a Blighted Area under the Act. Summarized below are the findings of the Eligibility Report.
Summary of Eligibility Factors:
The Redevelopment Project Area (also referred to in this Plan as the "Study Area") consists of fifty-six (56) (full and partial) blocks and six hundred thirty-two (632) parcels covering five hundred thirty-one (531) acres. Of the five hundred thirty-one (531) acres of the Study Area, the land-use percentage breakdown is as follows: industrial ~ ninety percent (90%), commercial — five-tenths of one percent (.5%), residential ~ two and five- tenths percent (2.5%), institutional — one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) and vacant parcels — five and five-tenths percent (5.5%).
It was determined that the Redevelopment Project Area would be qualified in two (2) ways. The twenty-nine (29) of the six hundred thirty-two (632) parcels referred to as the vacant portion of the Redevelopment Project Area will be qualified as a vacant Blighted Area. The remaining six hundred eleven (611) parcels in the Redevelopment Project Area will be referred to as the improved portion of the Redevelopment Project Area and will be qualified as an improved Blighted Area.
The vacant portion of the Redevelopment Project Area exhibits either the first criteria category listed below or two (2) of the criteria of the second category listed below which would allow for a finding of a vacant Blighted Area as defined in the Act. Specifically:
The area consists of an unused disposal site containing debris from construction, demolition, excavation or dredge sites.
A combination of two (2) or more of the following factors: obsolete platting of the vacant land; diversity of ownership of such land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on such land; flooding on all or part of such vacant land; and deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land.
26
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Throughout the improved portion of the Redevelopment Project Area, nine (9) of the fourteen (14) blighted area eligibility criteria are present in varying degrees. Six (6) factors are present to a major extent and three (3) are present to a minor extent. The nine (9) factors that have been identified in the Redevelopment Project Area are as follows:
Major extent: :
Age.
Obsolescence. Deterioration.
Structure below minimum code. Deleterious land use or layout. Depreciation of physical maintenance.
Minor extent:
Dilapidation.
Excessive vacancies.
Excessive land coverage.
The conclusions for each of the factors that are present within the Redevelopment Project Area are summarized below.
Conclusion.
The conclusion of the consultant team is that the number, degree and distribution of Blighted Area eligibility factors as documented in this report warrant the designation of the Study Area as a vacant and improved Blighted Area as set forth in the Act. Specifically:
27
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Of the seven (7) blighting factor categories set forth in the Act for vacant land, where one (1) is required for a finding of blight, such factor was found, and where two (2) or more of five (5) factors is required, at least two (2) are present in the vacant portion of the Study Area.
Of the fourteen (14) blighting factors set forth in the Act for improved land, of which five (5) are required for a find of blight, nine (9) are present, six (6) to a major extent and three (3) to a minor extent.
The Blighted Area factors that are present are reasonably distributed throughout the Area.
All the blocks except for blocks that have active rail lines (16 15 501, 16 15 502, 16 22 500, 16 17 500, 16 22 501 and 16 22 502) within the Study Area exhibit the presence of vacant and improved Blighted Area eligibility factors.
While it may be concluded that the mere presence of the stated eligibility factors in this Section IV may be sufficient to make a finding of qualification as a Blighted Area, this evaluation was made on the basis that the factors must be present to an extent that would lead reasonable persons to conclude that public intervention is appropriate or necessary. In addition, the distribution of Blighted Area eligibility factors throughout the Study Area must be reasonable so that a basically good area is not arbitrarily found to be a Blighted Area simply because of proximity to an area which exhibits Blighted Area factors. All blocks (except for the previously mentioned blocks that have active rail lines) in the Study Area evidence the presence of some of the eligibility factors.
Additional research indicates that the area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development as a result of investments by private enterprise, and will not be developed without action by the City. Specifically:
(Sub)Exhibit 2 — Building Permit Requests, contains a summary of the building permit requests for new construction and major renovation from the City of Chicago. Building permit requests for new construction and renovation for the Study Area from 1993 — 1997 total Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-six Dollars ($3,200,686). On an annual basis from 1993 - 1996, this represents only three and five tenths percent (3.5%) of assessed value in the Study Area. Of the sixteen (16) permits issued, one (1) permit was issued for One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000). This permit is not representative of the typical request for building permits in the Study Area. Eight (8) of the remaining fifteen (15) (fifty-three percent
28
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(53%)) permits issued were valued at less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). Three (3) (twenty percent (20%)) permits were issued from Ten Thousand One Dollars ($10,001) ~ One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and the remaining four (4) (twenty-seven percent (27%)) for more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).
Additionally, there were twenty-five (25) demolition permits issued for the Study Area. The number of demolition permits has increased on a yearly basis except for 1994; in 1993 ~ four (4), 1994 - - one (1), 1995 - five (5), 1996 - eight (8). As of June of 1997, seven (7) demolition permits were already issued.
The Study Area is comprised primarily of industrial uses, residential uses and vacant land with some commercial uses. The equalized assessed value (E.A.V.) for all property in the City of Chicago increased from Twenty-seven Billion Nine Hundred Sixty-four Million One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-six Dollars ($27,964,127,826) in 1992 to Thirty Billion Seven Hundred Seventy-three Million Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-one Dollars($30,773,301,521) in 1996, a total often and five hundredths percent (10.05%) or an average of two and fifty-one hundredths percent (2.51%) per year. Over the last four (4) years, from 1992 to 1996, the Study Area has experienced an overall E.A.V. increase of six and twenty-five hundredths percent (6.25%) from Forty-five Million Four Hundred Thirty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($45,438,587) in 1992 to Forty-eight Million Two Hundred Seventy-nine Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($48,279,419) in 1996, an average increase of one and fifty-six hundredths percent (1.56%) per year.
The analysis above was based upon data assembled by Louik/Schneider & Associates, Inc., The Lambert Group, Inc. and Pacific Construction Services.
The surveys, research and analysis conducted include:
exterior surveys of the conditions and use of the Redevelopment Project Area;
field surveys of environmental conditions covering streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, lighting, traffic, parking facilities, landscaping, fences and walls and general property maintenance; ^
comparison of current land uses to current zoning ordinance and the current zoning maps;
29
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
historical analysis of site uses and users;
analysis of original and current platting and building size layout;
review of previously prepared plans, studies and data;
analysis of building permits from 1993 — 1997 and building code violations from 1992 — 1997 requested from the Department of Buildings for all parcels in the Redevelopment Project Area; and
evaluation of the equalized assessed values in the Redevelopment Project Area from 1992 to 1996.
Based upon the findings of the Eligibility Study for the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area, the Redevelopment Project Area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise and would not reasonably.be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan.
V.
Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan And Project.
A. General Land-Use Plan.
The Land-Use Plan, Map 4, identifies the proposed land uses that will be in effect upon adoption of this Plan. The major land-use category for the Redevelopment Project Area is industrial. The location of all major thoroughfares and major street rights-of-way are subject to change and modification as specific redevelopment projects are undertaken.
Almost all of the Redevelopment Project Area is located within the boundaries of the West Industrial Corridor as delineated in the City's Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side. Part of the City's intent with regard to the formulation of the West Industrial Corridor as well as the other industrial corridor plans was to create a comprehensive, citywide industrial land-use policy in order to focus and coordinate its economic development efforts in Chicago's existing industrial employment centers.
30
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
This Plan, and the proposed projects described herein, will be approved by the Chicago Plan Commission prior to its adoption by the City Council, and is consistent with the City's Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side. Following is a discussion of the rationale supporting the determination of the major land uses.
Industrial.
The primary land-use proposed within the Redevelopment Project Area is industrial in support of the City's industrial-oriented policies and regulations for the general area. The specific types of industrial land uses proposed for the industrial portions of the Redevelopment Project Area reflect the uses allowed under the zoning regulations for the Redevelopment Project Area as presented in the 1996 Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
Institutional.
Institutional land uses include property utilized by public agencies, departments or governments for their own use. Existing institutional land uses within the Redevelopment Project Area include a Chicago Public School Athletic Field and a State of Illinois Drivers Training Facility. The specific types of institutional land uses proposed for the institutional portions of the Redevelopment Project Area reflect the uses allowed under the zoning regulations for the Redevelopment Project Area as presented in the 1996 Chicago Zoning Ordinance.
B. Redevelopment Plan And Project.
The primary intent of this Redevelopment Plan and Project is to build upon the work that the City has already undertaken within the broader West Industrial Corridor to preserve and enhance the existing industrial areas. The Redevelopment Plan and Project will allow the City to proactively implement its policies to protect, attract and support industrial investment within the Redevelopment Project Area. Additionally, the Redevelopment Plan and Project will help to eliminate those existing blighting conditions within the Redevelopment Project Area.
It is the City's intention to promote new industrial development as well as the protection and enhancement of existing industries.
31
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
This Redevelopment Plan and Project incorporates the use of tax increment revenues to stimulate or stabilize the Redevelopment Project Area through the planning and programming of improvements. The underlying Plan strategy is to develop a public improvement program using tax increment financing, as well as other funding sources available to the City, that reinforces and encourages further private investment. This public improvement program can basically be categorized as follows:
improving the functionality of the Redevelopment Project Area's physical environment through infrastructure improvements;
enhancing the marketability of the Redevelopment Project Area as an industrial center by creating an industrial identity, beautifying the physical environment, and improving the attractiveness of the Redevelopment Project Area;
strengthening the Redevelopment Project Area's competitiveness as an industrial location by assisting new and existing industrial businesses in locating, expanding or modernizing their facilities within the Redevelopment Project Area; and
enhance the Corridor through cohesive management.
Specific public and private redevelopment strategies to achieve the purpose, goals and objectives of this Redevelopment Plan and Project are described in the following sections.
Improving Functionality.
While the Redevelopment Project Area is ideally situated from a transportation standpoint given its proximity to the Eisenhower Expressway, its location on the CSX and Belt Line Railroads, and its accessibility to downtown, there are numerous impediments which impact traffic flow. These impediments include low viaducts, insufficient lanes to accommodate traffic, inadequate roadway surfaces for industrial traffic, insufficient turning radii for truck traffic at certain intersections and lack of separation between industrial and residential traffic. To address these problems, the following redevelopment strategies are recommended.
Public Strategies:
Improve the turning radii at problem intersections, or reconfigure such intersections, along major arterial streets to better accommodate industrial traffic to, from and within the Redevelopment Project Area.
32
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Install turning lanes and/or turn signals, where feasible, at busy intersections along major streets within the Redevelopment Project Area to ease traffic congestion.
. Reconstruct or resurface major and feeder streets within the Redevelopment Project Area to accommodate industrial traffic.
Investigate traffic management tools such as one-way streets, cul-de-sacs and diverters as ways to manage industrial traffic or as ways to assemble larger tracks of land for industrial uses.
Upgrade or close viaducts that are too low to accommodate truck heights.
Upgrade non-roadway infrastructure where necessary.
Work with the transit agencies, through the appropriate City departments, to facilitate access to public transit and the installation of transit amenities such as bus shelters.
Improve the visibility of pedestrian crossings at problem locations to ensure pedestrian safety.
Private Strategies:
Provide sufficient off-street parking for employees and visitors.
Investigate the re-design of truck docks to accommodate interstate trucks so that trucks do not extend into the right-of-way or impede traffic flow when backing into docks.
Enhancing Marketability As An Industrial Center.
To compete with modern, attractive suburban industrial parks, the Redevelopment Project Area's physical character must be enhanced. To achieve this, the following redevelopment strategies are recommended.
Public Strategies:
Establish a unified and attractive system of identifiable gateways within the Redevelopment Project Area that clearly reflects the area's industrial nature.
33
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Use a variety of methods such as banners, streetscaping, signage and lighting to carryforward the unifying industrial theme throughout the Redevelopment Project Area.
Improve the attractiveness of the public areas within the Redevelopment Project Area through landscaping and other means.
Improve the safety of the Redevelopment Project Area through demolition of abandoned and undeveloped properties, demolition assistance to owners of unused and" undevelopable properties, upgraded lighting, increased police presence and other improvements and services.
Private Strategies:
Use existing organizations and resources to market the industrial property within the Redevelopment Project Area as a unified modern industrial park.
Promote the Redevelopment Project Area's amenities that are well suited to industrial development and redevelopment.
Create an attractive physical environment on private property that will encourage other development within the Redevelopment Project Area.
Consider using existing public programs such as special service financing to provide a higher level of public services or special services that are not provided by the public sector.
Employ private security patrols to supplement police activities to increase the area's security.
Strengthening The Project Area's Competitiveness As An Industrial Center.
The Redevelopment Project Area suffers from constraints affecting industrial development and from competition from modern suburban industrial parks. The potential for redevelopment as an industrial location must be strengthened in order for it to be competitive. The following strategies are recommended to achieve that goal.
Public Strategies:
Facilitate the assembly of vacant land and underutilized properties to create development sites for industrial users.
34
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCILS-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing vacant or underutilized industrial buildings to create uses compatible with the existing industrial development.
Facilitate the rehabilitation and reuse of vacant or outmoded industrial buildings for new industrial uses through the use of established public programs.
Demolish obsolete and abandoned buildings to create available space for new construction or expansion of existing businesses.
Ensure that large vacant and underutilized properties and sites are reserved for industrial activities through the use of appropriate government controls.
— . Ensure that private development is well designed and occurs in a planned and cohesive manner through the use of appropriate government controls.
Facilitate the remediation of environmental contaminants as necessary.
Facilitate the creation of job training opportunities to assist the city's work force in obtaining the skills needed to fill available jobs generated by companies located in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Private Strategies:
Buffer unsightly areas located on private property through the use of aesthetic screening.
Support public agencies in the creation of job training programs to enhance the work force's skills necessary to obtain jobs generated by companies within the Redevelopment Project Area.
Provide job training, job readiness training and other skill enhancing programs for employees.
Provide adequate security measures to protect employees and visitors on private property.
35
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Maintain and enhance private property in an attractive manner.
Enhance The Corridor Through Cohesive Management.
Public Strategies: •
Establish clear lines of communication and control with the Corridor's management group to permit the Corridor's management to effectively respond to constituents' concerns.
Private Strategies:
Create a management organization responsible for directing and accomplishing the Corridor's plan.
Establish clear lines of communication and control with the City to permit the Corridor's management associations to effectively respond to constituents' concerns.
Promote job development/training/placementto maximize employment opportunities for local residents.
Expand constituent interest and support for the Corridor plan and initiatives.
C. Estimated Redevelopment Project Activities And Costs.
The City proposes to realize its goals and objectives of redevelopment through public finance techniques, including but not limited to tax increment financing, and by undertaking certain activities and incurring certain costs. Such activities may include some or all of the following:
1. Analysis, Administration, Studies, Legal, Et Al. Funds may be used by the City or provided for activities including the long-term management of the Redevelopment Plan and Project as weD as the costs of establishing the program and designing its components. Funds may be used by the City or provided for costs of studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications, implementation and administration of the redevelopment plan, including but not limited to staff and professional service costs for architectural, engineering, legal, marketing, financial, planning, environmental or other services,
36
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
provided, however, that no charges for professional services may be based on a percentage of the tax increment collected.
Assemblage of Sites. To achieve the revitalization of the Redevelopment Project Area, the City of Chicago is authorized to acquire property, clear the property of any and all improvements, if any, engage in other site preparation activities and either (a) sell, lease or convey such property for private redevelopment or (b) sell, lease or dedicate such property for construction of public improvements or facilities. Land assemblage by the City may be by purchase, exchange, donation, lease or eminent domain. The City may pay for a private developer's cost of acquisition of land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interests therein, demolition of buildings, and the clearing and grading of land. Acquisition of land for public rights-of-way may also be necessary for the portions of said rights-of-way that the City does not own.
In connection with the City exercising its power to acquire real property, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, under the Act in implementing the Plan, the City will follow its customary and otherwise required procedures of having each such acquisition recommended by the Community Development Commission (or any successor commission) and authorized by. the City Council of the City.
As a necessary part of the redevelopment process, the City may hold and secure property which it has acquired and place it in temporary use until such property is scheduled for disposition and redevelopment. Such uses may include, but are not limited to, project office facilities, parking or other uses the City may deem appropriate.
In connection with the City exercising its power to acquire real property, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, under the Act in implementing the Plan, the City will follow its customary and otherwise required procedures of having each such acquisition recommended by the Community Development Commission (or any successor commission) and authorized by the City Council of the City.
Rehabilitation Costs. The costs for rehabilitation, reconstruction or repair or remodeling of existing public or private buildings or fixtures including, but not limited to, provision of facade improvements for the purpose of improving the facades of privately held properties, may be funded.
37
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Provision of Public Improvements and Facilities. Adequate public improvements and facilities may be provided to service the entire Redevelopment Project Area. Public improvements and facilities may include, but are not limited to:
Provision for streets, public rights-of-ways and public transit facilities.
i
Provision of utilities necessary to serve the redevelopment area.
Public landscaping.
Public landscape/buffer improvements, street lighting and general beautification improvements in connection with public improvements.
Public open space.
Job Training and Related Educational Programs. Funds may be used by the City, or made available for programs to be created for Chicago residents so that they may take advantage of the employment opportunities in the Redevelopment Project Area.
Financing Costs. Financing costs, including but not limited to all necessary and incidental expenses related to the issuance of obligations and which may include payment of interest on any obligations issued under the act accruing during the estimated period of construction of any redevelopmentproject for which such obligations are issued and for not exceeding thirty-six (36) months thereafter and including reasonable reserves related thereto, may be funded.
Capital Costs. All or a portion of a taxing district's capital costs resulting from the redevelopment project necessarily incurred or to be incurred in furtherance of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and Project, to the extent the municipality by written agreement accepts and approves such costs, may be funded.
Provision for Relocation Costs. Funds may be used by the City or made available for the relocation expenses of public facilities and for private property owners and
38
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
tenants of properties relocated or acquired by the City (or a developer) for redevelopment purposes.
9. Payment in lieu of Taxes.
Costs of Job Training. Funds may be provided for costs of job training, advanced vocational education or career education, including but not limited to courses in occupational, semi-technical or technical fields leading directly to employment, incurred by one or more taxing districts, provided that such costs a) are related to the establishment and maintenance of additional job training, advanced vocational education or career education programs for persons employed or to be employed by companies located in a redevelopment project area; and b) when incurred by a taxing district or taxing districts other than the municipality, are set forth in a written agreement by or among the municipality and the taxing district or taxing districts, which agreement describes the program to be undertaken, including but not limited to the number of employees to be trained, a description of the training and services to be provided, the number and type of positions available or to be available, itemized costs of the program and sources of funds to pay for the same, and the term of the agreement. Such costs include, specifically, the payment by community college districts of costs pursuant to Sections 3-37, 3-38, 3-40 and 3-40.1 of the Public Community College Act (as denned in the Act) and by school districts of costs pursuant to Sections 10-22.20a and 10-23-3a of The School Code (as denned in the Act).
Interest Costs. Funds may be provided to developers or redevelopers for a portion of interest costs incurred in the construction of a redevelopment project. Interest costs incurred by a developer or redeveloper related to the construction, renovation or rehabilitation of a redevelopment project may be funded provided that:
such costs are to be paid directly from the special tax allocation fund established pursuant to the Act;
such payments in any one year may not exceed thirty (30) percent of the annual interest costs incurred by the developer or the redeveloper with regard to the redevelopment project during that year;
39
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
if there are not' sufficient funds available in the special tax allocation fund to make the payment pursuant to this paragraph (11) then the amounts due shall accrue and be payable when sufficient funds are available in the special tax allocation fund; and
the total of such interest payments paid pursuant to the Act may not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total of 1) costs paid or incurred by the developer or redeveloper for the redevelopment project plus 2) redevelopment project costs excluding any property assembly costs and any relocation costs incurred by a municipality pursuant to the Act.
New Construction Costs. Funds may not be used by the City for the construction of new privately-owned buildings.
Redevelopment Agreements. The City may enter into redevelopment agreements with private developers or redevelopers, which may include but not be limited to, terms of sale, lease or conveyance of land, requirements for site improvements, public improvements, job training and interest subsidies. In the event that the City determines that construction of certain improvements is not financially feasible, the City may reduce the scope of the proposed improvements.
To undertake these activities, redevelopment project costs will be incurred. "Redevelopment project costs" (hereafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Project Costs") mean the sum total of all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estimated to be incurred, and any such costs incidental to this Plan pursuant to the Act. The estimated Redevelopment Project Costs are shown in Table 1. The total Redevelopment Project Costs provide an upper limit on expenditures (exclusive of capitalized interest, issuance costs, interest and other financing costs). Within this limit, adjustments may be made in line items without amendment to this Plan. The costs represent estimated amounts and do not represent actual City commitments or expenditures.
The estimated Redevelopment Project Costs are shown in Table 1. The totatl Redevelopment Project Costs.
Table 1 — (Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs) represents those eligible project costs in the Act. These upper limit expenditures are potential costs to be expended over the maximum twenty-three (23) year life of the Redevelopment Project Area. These funds are subject to the amount of projects and incremental tax revenues generated in the Redevelopment Project Area and the City's
40
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
willingness to fund proposed projects on a project by project basis.
D. Sources Of Funds To Pay Redevelopment Project Costs.
Funds necessary to pay for Redevelopment Project Costs are to be derived principally from tax increment revenues, proceeds of municipal obligations which are secured principally by tax increment revenues, and/or possible tax increment revenues from adjacentredevelopmentproject areas created under the Act. There may be other sources of funds that the City may elect to use to pay for . Redevelopment Project Costs or other obligations issued to pay for such costs; these sources include, but are not limited to, state and federal grants, developer contributions and land disposition proceeds generated from the Redevelopment Project Area. The City may incur Redevelopment Project Costs which are paid for from funds of the City other than incremental taxes, and the City may then be reimbursed for such costs from incremental taxes.
The tax increment revenue that may be used to secure municipal obligations or pay for eligible Redevelopment Project Costs shall be the incremental real property tax revenue. Incremental real property tax revenue is attributable to the increase in the current equalized assessed value of each taxable lot, block, tract or parcel of real property in the Redevelopment Project Area over arid above the initial equalized assessed value of each such property in the Redevelopment Project Area. Without the use of such tax incremental revenues, the Redevelopment Project Area would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed.
The Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area may be or become contiguous to, or be separated only by a public right of way from, other redevelopment project areas created under the Act. If the City finds that the goals, objectives and financial success of contiguous redevelopment project areas or those separated only by a public right of way are interdependent, the City may determine that it is in the best interest of the City and in furtherance of the purposes of the Act that net revenues from each such redevelopment project area be made available to support the other. The City therefore proposes to utilize net incremental revenues received from the Redevelopment Project Area to pay eligible redevelopment project costs, or obligations issued to pay such costs, in other contiguous redevelopment project areas, or those separated only by a public right of way, and vice versa. The amount of revenue from the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area made available to support such contiguous redevelopmentproject areas or those separated only by a public right of way, when added to all amounts used to pay eligible Redevelopment Project Costs within the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area, shall not at any time exceed the total Redevelopment Project Costs described in Table 1 of this
41
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Project Area may become contiguous to, or be separated only by a public right of way from, redevelopment project areas created under the Industrial Jobs Recovery Law (65 ILCS 5/11-74.6-1, et seq.). If the City finds that the goals, objectives and financial success of such contiguous redevelopment project areas or those separated only by a public right of way are interdependent with those of the Redevelopment Project Area, the City may determine that it is in the best interests of the City and in furtherance of the purposes of the Plan that net revenues from the Redevelopment Project Area be made available to support any such redevelopment project area, and vice versa. The City therefore proposes to utilize net incremental revenues received from the Redevelopment Project Area to pay eligible redevelopment project costs (which are eligible under the Industrial Jobs Recovery Law referred to above) in any such areas, and vice versa. Such revenues may be transferred or loaned between the Redevelopment Project Area and such areas. The amount of revenue from the Redevelopment Project Area so made available, when added to all amounts used to pay eligible Redevelopment Project Costs within the Redevelopment Project Area or other areas as described in the preceding paragraph, shall not at any time exceed the total Redevelopment Project Costs described in Table 1 of this Plan.
E. Issuance Of Obligations.
To finance Redevelopment Project Costs, the City may issue general obligation bonds or obligations secured by the anticipated tax increment revenue generated within the Redevelopment Project Area, or the City may permit the utilization of guarantees, deposits and other forms of security made available by private sector developers to secure such obligations. In addition, a municipality may pledge toward payment of such obligations any part or any combination of the following: 1) net revenues of all or part of any redevelopment project; 2) taxes levied and collected on any or all property in the municipality; 3) the full faith and credit of the municipality; 4) a mortgage or part or all of the Redevelopment Project Area; or 5) any other taxes or anticipated receipts that the municipality may lawfully pledge.
All obligations issued by the City pursuant to this Plan and the Act shall be retired within twenty-three (23) years (by the year 2020) from the adoption of the ordinance approving the Redevelopment Project Area. Also, the final maturity date of any such obligations which are issued may not be later than twenty (20) years from their respective dates of issue. One (1) or more series of obligations may be sold at one (1) or more times in order to implement this Plan. The amounts payable in any year as principal and interest on all obligations issued
42
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
by the City pursuant to the Plan and the Act shall not exceed the amounts available, or projected to be available, from tax increment revenues and from such bond sinking funds or other sources of funds (including ad valorem taxes) as may be provided by ordinance. Obligations may be of a parity or senior/junior lien nature. Obligations issued may be serial or term maturities, and may or may not be subject to mandatory, sinking fund or optional redemptions.
Tax increment revenues shall be used for the scheduled and/or early retirement of obligations, and for reserves, bond sinking funds and Redevelopment Project Costs, and, to the extent that real property tax increment is not used for such purposes, shall be declared surplus and shall then become available for distribution annually to taxing districts in the Redevelopment Project Area in the manner provided by the Act.
F. Most' Recent Equalized Assessed Valuation Of Properties In The
Redevelopment Project Area.
The total 1996 equalized assessed valuation for the entire Redevelopment Project Area is Forty-eight Million Two Hundred Seventy-nine Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars($48,279,419). After verification by the County Clerk of Cook County, this amount will serve as the "Initial Equalized Assessed Valuation" from which all incremental property taxes in the Redevelopment Project Area will be calculated by the County. The 1996 E.A.V. of the Redevelopment Project Area is summarized by permanent index number (P.I.N.) in Table 2 — 1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation of this Redevelopment Plan.
G. Anticipated Equalized Assessed Valuation.
By the year 2004, when it is estimated that the projected development, based on currently known information, will be completed and fully assessed, the estimated equalized assessed valuation of real property within the Redevelopment Project Area is estimated at between Fifty-five Million Dollars ($55,000,000) and Seventy Million Dollars ($70,000,000). These estimates are based on several key assumptions, including: 1) all currently projected industrial development will be completed in 2004; 2) the market value of the anticipated developments will increase following completion of the redevelopment activities described in the Redevelopment Plan and Project; 3) the most recent State Multiplier of 2.1517 as applied to 1996 assessed values will remain unchanged; 4) for the duration of the project, the tax rate for the entire Redevelopment Project Area is assumed to be the same and will remain unchanged from the 1996 level; and 5) growth from reassessments of existing
43
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
properties will be at a rate of two and five-tenths percent (2.5%) per year with a reassessment every three (3) years. Although development in the Redevelopment Project Area is likely to occur after 2004, it is not possible to estimate with accuracy the effect of such future development on the E.A.V. for the Redevelopment Project Area. In addition, as described in Section N of the Plan, "Phasing and Scheduling of Redevelopment", public improvements may be necessary in furtherance of the Plan throughout the twenty-three (23) year period that the Plan is in effect.
H. Lack Of Growth And Development Through Investment By Private Enterprise.
As described in the Blighted Area Conditions Section of this Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Project Area as a whole is adversely impacted by the presence of numerous factors, and these factors are reasonably distributed throughout the Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Project Area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise. The lack of private investment is evidenced by continued existence of the factors referenced above and the lack of new development projects initiated or completed with the Redevelopment Project Area.
The lack of growth and investment by the private sector is supported by the trend in the equalized assessed valuation (E.A.V.) of all the property in the Redevelopment Project Area. The E.A.V. for all property in the City of Chicago increased from Twenty-seven Billion Nine Hundred Sixty-four Million One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-six Dollars ($27,964,127,826) in 1992 to Thirty Billion Seven Hundred Seventy-three Million Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-one Dollars ($30,773,301,521), a total of ten and five hundredths percent (10.05%) or an average of two and fifty-one hundredths percent (2.51%) per year. Over the last four (4) years, from 1992 to 1996, the Redevelopment Project Area has experienced an overall increase of six and twenty-five hundredths percent (6.25%), from Forty-five Million Four Hundred Thirty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($45,438,587) in 1992 to Forty-eight Million Two Hundred Seventy-nine Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($48,279,419) in 1996, an average increase of one and fifty-six hundredths percent (1.56%) per year.
A summary of the building permit requests for new construction and major renovation from the City of Chicago is found in (Sub) Exhibit 3 — Building Permit Requests. Building permit requests for new construction and renovation for the Study Area from 1993-1997 totaled Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-six Dollars ($3,200,686). On an annual basis from 1993-1996,
44
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
this represents only three and five-tenths percent (3.5%) of assessed value in the Study Area. Of the sixteen (16) permits issued, one (1) permit was issued for One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000). This permit is not representative of the typical request for building permits in the Study Area. Eight (8) of the remaining fifteen (15) (fifty-three percent (53%)) permits issued, were valued at less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). Three (3) (twenty percent (20%)) permits were issued from Ten Thousand One Dollars($ 10,001) — One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and the remaining four (4) (twenty-seven percent (27%)) for more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). Additionally, there were twenty-five (25) demolition permits issued during the same time period.
It is clear from the study of this area that private investment in revitalization and redevelopment has not occurred to overcome the Blighted Area conditions that currently exist. The Redevelopment Project Area is not reasonably expected to be developed without the efforts and leadership of the City, including the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan.
I. Financial Impact Of The Redevelopment Project.
Without the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan and tax increment financing, the Redevelopment Project Area is not reasonably expected to be redeveloped by private enterprise. There is a real prospect that the Blighted Area conditions will continue and are likely to spread, and the surrounding area will become less attractive for the maintenance and improvement of existing buildings and sites. The possible erosion of the assessed value of property, which would result from the lack of a concerted effort by the City to stimulate revitalization and redevelopment, could lead to a reduction of real estate tax revenue to all taxing districts. If successful, the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan may enhance the values of properties within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Project Area.
Sections A, B and C of this Plan describe the comprehensive redevelopment program proposed to be undertaken by the City to create an environment in which private investment can occur. The Redevelopment Plan and Project will be staged with various developments taking place over a period of years. If the Redevelopment Plan and Project is successful, various new private projects will be undertaken that will assist in alleviating the blighting conditions which caused the Redevelopment Project Area to qualify as a Blighted Area under the Act, creating new jobs and promoting development in the Redevelopment Project Area.
45
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The Redevelopment Plan and Project expected to have minor financial impacts on the taxing districts affected by the Redevelopment Plan. During the period when tax increment financing is utilized in furtherance of this Plan, real estate tax increment revenues (from the increases in E.A.V. over and above the certified initial E.A.V. established at the time of adoption of this Redevelopment Plan) will be used to pay eligible redevelopment project costs for the Redevelopment Project Area. Incremental revenues will not be available to these taxing districts during this period. When the Redevelopment Project Area is no longer in place, the real estate tax revenues will be distributed to all taxing districts levying taxes against property located in the Redevelopment Project Area.
J. Demand On Taxing District Services.'
The following major taxing districts presently levy taxes on properties located within the Redevelopment Project Area: City of Chicago; Chicago Board of Education District 299; Chicago School Finance Authority; Chicago Park District; Chicago Community College District 508; Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago; County of Cook; and Cook County Forest Preserve District.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan and Project involves the assemblage of vacant and underutilized land, and new construction and rehabilitation of industrial and commercial buildings. Therefore, as discussed below, the financial burden of the Redevelopment Plan and Project on taxing districts is expected to be negligible.
The proposed industrial uses, should not cause increased demand for services or capital improvements on any of the taxing districts named above except for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and the City of Chicago. Replacement of vacant and under utilized land with active and more intensive uses will result in additional demands on services and facilities provided by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. However, it is expected that any increase in demand for treatment of sanitary and storm sewage associated with the Redevelopment Project Area can be adequately handled by existing treatment facilities maintained and operated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. Any additional cost to the City of Chicago for police, fire protection and sanitation services will be minimal since commercial and other mixed-use developments will privately pay for the majority of the costs of these services (i.e., sanitation services).
46
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
K: Program To Address Financial And Service Impacts.
As described in detail in prior sections of this Plan, the complete scale and amount of development in the Redevelopment Project Area cannot be predicted with complete certainty at this time and the demand for services provided by the affected taxing districts cannot be quantified at this time. As a result, the City has not developed, at present, a specific plan to address the impact of the Redevelopment Plan and Project on taxing districts.
As indicated in Section C and Table 1, Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs of the Redevelopment Plan and Project, the City may provide public improvements and facilities to service the Redevelopment Project Area. Potential public improvements and facilities provided by the City may mitigate some of the additional service and capital demands placed on taxing districts as a result of the implementation of this Redevelopment Plan and Project.
L. Provisions for Amending Action plan.
The Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Finance Program Redevelopment Plan and Project may be amended pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
M. Fair Employment Practices, Affirmative Action Plan and Prevailing Wage Agreement.
The City is committed to, and will affirmatively implement the following principles with respect to the Redevelopment Project Area.
The assurance of equal opportunity in all personnel and employment action with respect to the Redevelopment Plan and Project, including but not limited to hiring, training, transfer, promotion, discipline, fringe benefits, salary, employment working conditions, termination, et cetera, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicapped status, national origin, creed or ancestry.
Redevelopers will meet City of Chicago standards for participation of Minority Business Enterprise and Woman Business Enterprises and the City Resident Construction Worker Employment Requirement as required in Redevelopment Agreements.
47
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
This commitment to affirmative action and non discrimination will ensure that all members of the protected groups are sought out to compete for all job openings and promotional opportunities.
Redevelopers will meet City of Chicago standards for the prevailing wage rate as ascertained by the Illinois Department of Labor to all project employees.
N. Phasing and Scheduling of Redevelopment.
A phased implementation strategy will be used to achieve a timely and orderly redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project Area. It is expected that over the twenty-three (23) years that this Plan is in effect for the Redevelopment Project Area, numerous public/private improvements and developments can be expected to take place. The specific time frame and financial investment will be staged in a timely manner. Development within the Redevelopment Project Area intended to be used for industrial and commercial purposes will be staged consistently with the funding and construction of infrastructure improvements, and private sector interest in new industrial facilities. City expenditures for Redevelopment Project Costs will be carefully staged on a reasonable and proportional basis to coincide with expenditures in redevelopment by private developers. The estimated completion date of the Redevelopment Project shall be no later than twenty-three (23) years from the adoption of the ordinance by the City Council approving the Redevelopment Project Area.
(Tables 1 and 2 referred to in this Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan printed on pages 60997 through 61013 of this Journal.]
[Maps 1,2,3 and 4 constitute (Sub)Exhibit 4 to this Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan and are printed on pages 61030 through 61033 of this Journal.]
[(Sub)Exhibits 1 and 3 referred to in this Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan printed on pages 61014 through 61029 of this Journal.]
48
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
[(Sub)Exhibit 2 referred to in this Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan constitutes Exhibit "C" to the ordinance and is printed on pages 60993 through 60995 of this Journal.]
(Sub) Exhibit 5 referred to in this Roosevelt/ Cicero Redevelopment Plan reads as follows:
(Sub)Exhibit "5". (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Roosevelt/ Cicero Tax Increment Finance Program:
Eligibility Study.
I.
Introduction.
Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. has been retained by the City of Chicago to conduct an independent initial study and survey of the proposed redevelopment area known as the Roosevelt/Cicero Area, Chicago, Illinois (the "Study Area"). The purpose of the study is to determine whether the fifty-six (56) blocks in the Study Area qualify for designation as a "Blighted Area" for the purpose of establishing a tax increment financing district, pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq., as amended (the "Act"). This report summarizes the analysis and findings of the consultants' work, which is the responsibility of Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. has prepared this report with the understanding that the City would rely 1) on the findings and
49
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
conclusions of this report in proceeding with the designation of the Study Area as a redevelopment project area under the Act, and 2) on the fact that Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc. has obtained the necessary information to conclude that the Study Area can be designated as a redevelopment project area in compliance with the Act.
Following this introduction, Section II presents background information of the Study Area including the area location, description of current conditions and site history. Section III explains the Building Condition Assessment and documents the qualifications of the Study Area as a Blighted Area under the Act. Section IV, Summary and Conclusions, presents the findings.
This report was jointly prepared by Louik/Schneider and Associates, Inc., The Lambert Group, Inc. and Pacific Construction Services.
II.
Background Information.
A. Location.
The Roosevelt/Cicero Study Area is located on the west side of the City of Chicago, approximately five (5) miles from the central business district. The Study Area contains approximately five hundred thirty-one (531) acres and consists of fifty-six (56) (full and partial) blocks.
The boundaries of the Study Area are shown on Map 1 — Project Boundary Map, and the existing land uses are identified on Map 2 ~ Existing Land-Uses.
B. Description Of Current Conditions.
The Study Area consists of fifty-six (56) (full and partial) blocks and six hundred thirty-two (632) parcels covering five hundred thirty-one (531) acres. Of the five hundred thirty-one (531) acres of the Study Area, the land-use percentage breakdown is as follows: industrial — ninety percent (90%), commercial — five-tenths of one percent (.5%), residential — two and five-tenths percent (2.5%), institutional — one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) and vacant parcels — five and five-tenths percent (5.5%).
Much of the Study Area is in need of redevelopment, rehabilitation and revitalization and is characterized by:
50
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and site improvements; difficult and inadequate ingress and egress; current and past obsolescence; inadequate infrastructure; and other blighting characteristics.
Additionally, a lack of growth and investment by the private sector is evidenced by 1) the building permit requests for the Study Area, and 2) the overall increase of equalized assessed valuation ("E.A.V.") of the property in the study Area during the period from 1992 to 1996. Specifically:
(Sub)Exhibit 2 ~ Building Permit Requests, contains a summary of the building permit requests for new construction and major renovation from the City of Chicago. Building permit requests for new construction and renovation for the Study Area from 1993 — 1996 totaled Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-six Dollars ($3,200,686). On an annual basis from 1993 - 1996, this represents only three and five-tenths percent (3.5%) of assessed value in the Study Area. Of the sixteen (16) permits issued, one (1) permit was issued for One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000). This permit is not representative of the typical request for building permits in the Study Area. Eight (8) of the remaining fifteen (15) (fifty-three percent (53%)) permits issued were valued at less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 10,000). Three (3) (twenty percent (20%)) permits were issued from Ten Thousand One Dollars ($10,001) — One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and the remaining four (4) (twenty-seven percent (27%)) for more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).
Additionally, there were twenty-five (25) demolition permits issued for the Study Area. The number of demolition permits has increased on a yearly basis except for 1994; in 1993 - four (4), 1994- one (1), 1995 - five (5), 1996 - eight (8). As of June of 1997, seven (7) demolition permits were already issued.
The Study Area is comprised primarily of industrial, residential uses and vacant land with some commercial. The E.A.V. for all property in the City of Chicago increased from Twenty-seven Billion Nine Hundred Sixty-four Million One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Eight
51
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Hundred Twenty-six Dollars ($27,964,127,826), in 1992 to Thirty Billion Seven Hundred Seventy-three Million Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-one Dollars ($30,773,301,521) in 1996, a total of ten and five hundredths percent (10.05%) or an average of two and fifty-one hundredths percent (2.51%) per year. Over the last four (4) years from 1992 to 1996, the Study Area has experienced an overall increase of six and twenty-five hundredths percent (6.25%), from Forty-five Million Four Hundred Thirty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($45,438,587) in 1992 to Forty-eight Million Two Hundred Seventy-nine Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($48,279,419) in 1996, an average increase of one and fifty-six hundredths percent (1.56%) per year.
It is clear from the study of this area that private investment in revitalization and redevelopment has not occurred to overcome the Blighted Area conditions that currently exist. The Study Area is not reasonably expected to be developed without the efforts and leadership of the City, including the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and Project.
C. Area History And Profile.
The Study Area is located within the broader area of the West Side Industrial Corridor which is one of Chicago's oldest, largest and most diverse industrial corridors according to City plans. Historically, much of the Study Area has been occupied by industrial and industrial-relateduses which had located on the west side for a variety of reasons.
In 1981, . a small section of the Redevelopment Project Area located between B.O.C.T. Railroad, Roosevelt Road, Kostner Avenue, and the Belt Line Railroad was designated as a Blighted Commercial Area (see Map 4 — Roosevelt/Kostner Redevelopment Project Area). In 1991, that original area was expanded to include Lexington Avenue and West Fifth Street on the north, Roosevelt Road on the south, the Belt Line Railroad and Kildare Avenue on the east and Cicero Avenue on the west. The expanded area was designated as the Roosevelt/Kostner Redevelopment Project Area by the Community Development Commission.
According to the City's Corridors of Industrial Opportunity: A Plan for Industry in Chicago's West Side, "The industrial activity of the corridor developed as Chicago's central business district became too costly and congested for wholesale and warehousing operations. As a result, at the turn of the century, industry began to locate along the Belt Railway. Simultaneously, 5th Avenue
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
and Pulaski Road attracted light manufacturing activities. Heavier industry such as the Sunbeam Corporation became predominant employers in the area."
According to the Roosevelt/Cicero Model Industrial Corridor Strategic Plan, "The Corridor, like the adjoining Lawndale Neighborhood, has deteriorated greatly since the 1950s. Major corporations, including Alden's and.Sunbeam, vacated primary facilities. Numerous smaller companies have also left the area leaving a patchwork of abandoned buildings, vacant sites and remaining businesses. Renewed use of the Alden's Headquarters (5000 West Roosevelt) and Sunbeam Plant (Sungate Park) together with the South Kilboum Avenue area, suggest a continuing vitality for the Roosevelt/Cicero Corridor. Excellent access to highway and rail, a centralized metropolitan location and relatively good mfrastructure are the Corridor's major strengths. High crime rates, obsolete facilities and a deteriorated physical environment, including blighted conditions, are the most detrimental characteristics of the Corridor."
According to the draft "Preliminary Implementation Plan — Roosevelt Cicero Industrial Corridor", "North Lawndale faced numerous catastrophes in the 1960s, usually resulting in deteriorating social, economic and physical climate. When riots followed the Martin Luther King assassination in 1968, a substantial number of businesses along Roosevelt Road were destroyed by fire and other store owners moved out as insurance companies canceled their policies or increased premiums. The businesses haven't been replaced". "In 1969, International Harvester closed its tractor works, resulting in a loss of three thousand four hundred (3,400) jobs. Between 1950 and 1970 it is believed that North Lawndale lost seventy-five percent (75%) of its businesses and twenty-five percent (25%) of their jobs. Throughout the 1970s, as Zenith and Sunbeam electronics factories shut down, and the Copenhagen Snuff plant closed, eighty percent (80%) of the area's manufacturingjobs disappeared along with forty-four percent (44%) of the retail and service jobs. The downturn continued through the 1980s as Western Electric disappeared completely by 1985, and Sears closed its Homan Avenue complex in 1987, resulting in a loss of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) jobs."
Although there are a few signs of revitalization — the renewed use of the Alden's and Sunbeam facilities and the residential development at Homan Square, the area continues to suffer from severe blight and vacancy.
53
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The continuing decline of the City's industrial base and the loss of industrial jobs threatens the health of Chicago's economy and the public's welfare. Without the use of tax increment financing, the Study Area will continue to decline in its physical environment and disinvestment in industrial facilities will also continue.
D. Existing Land Use And Zoning Characteristics.
The Study Area continues to reflect the industrial land-use patterns first evidenced along the west side of the City during the 19th century. At the present time, the existing land uses are predominantly industrial in nature. In addition to industry, the Study Area is home to residential uses and a small scattering of commercial. These land-use patterns are reflective of the underlying zoning. The majority of property within the Study Area is zoned for light to medium industrial uses (Ml-1, Ml-2, M2-2, M2-3, M2-4, M3-3). There are small sections of the following zoning districts within the Study Area: commercial (CI-2) at the southeast corner of 16th Street and Kostner Avenue, business (B2-1) south of Taylor Street, between Pulaski Road and Springfield Avenue and two residential (R3, R4) districts one on the south side of Fillmore Street between Kildare Avenue and Keeler Avenue and another on Kilbourn Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets on the west side of the street and on both the east and west sides between 15th and 16th Streets, (see Map 2 — Existing Land Uses)
III.
Qualification As A Blighted Area.
A. Illinois Tax Increment Act.
The Act authorizes Illinois municipalities to redevelop locally designated deteriorated areas through tax increment financing. In order for an area to qualify as a tax increment financing district, it must first be designated as a Blighted Area, a Conservation Area ( or a combination of the two) or an Industrial Park Conservation Area.
5
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
As set forth in the Act, "a Blighted Area means any improved or vacant area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project area located within the territorial limits of the municipality where, if improved, industrial, commercial and residential buildings or improvements, because of a combination of five (5) or more of the following factors: age; dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of individual structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; deleterious land-use or layout; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning, are detrimental to the public safety, health, morals or welfare or, if vacant, the sound growth of the taxing districts is impaired by (1) a combination of two (2) or more of the following factors: obsolete platting of the vacant land; diversity of ownership of such land; tax and special assessment delinquencies on such land; flooding on all or part of such vacant land; deterioration of structures or site improvements in neighboring areas adjacent to the vacant land, or (2) the area immediately prior to becoming vacant qualified as a blighted improved area, or (3) the area consists of an unused quarry or unused quarries, or (4) the area consists of unused rail yards, rail tracks or railroad rights-of-way, or (5) the area, prior to its designation, is subject to chronic flooding which adversely impacts on real property in the area and such flooding is substantially caused by one or more improvements in or in proximity to the area which improvements have been in existence for at least five (5) years, or (6) the area consists of an unused disposal site, containing earth, stone, building debris or similar material, which was removed from construction, demolition, excavation or dredge sites, or (7) the area is not less than 50 nor more than one hundred 100 acres and seven-five percent (75%) of which is vacant, notwithstanding the fact that such area has been used for commercial agricultural purposes within five (5) years prior to the designation of the redevelopment project area, and which area meets at least (1) one of the factors itemized in provision (1) above, and the area has been designated as a town or village center by ordinance or comprehensive plan adopted prior to January 1, 1982, and the area has not been developed for the designated purpose." The Act also states that, "all factors must indicate that the area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development through investments by private enterprise", and will not be developed without action by the City.
On the basis of this approach, the Roosevelt/Cicero Study Area will be considered eligible for designation as a vacant and improved Blighted Area within the requirements of the Act.
55
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Survey, Analysis And Distribution Of Eligibility Factors.
Exterior surveys were conducted of all of the six hundred thirty-two (632) parcels located within the Study Area. An analysis was made of each of the Blighted Area eligibility factors contained in the Act to determine their presence in the Study Area. This exterior survey examined not only the condition and use of buildings but also included conditions of streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting, vacant land, underutilized land, parking faculties, landscaping, fences and walls and general maintenance. In addition, an analysis was conducted of existing site coverage and parking, land-uses, zoning and their relationship to the surrounding area.
It was determined that the Study Area would be qualified in two (2) ways. Twenty-nine (29) of the six hundred thirty-two (632) parcels are referred to as the vacant portion of the Study Area and will be qualified as a vacant Blighted Area. The remaining six hundred three (603) parcels in the Study Area will be referred to as the improved portion of the Study Area and will be qualified as a improved Blighted Area.
A block-by-block analysis of the fifty-six (56) blocks was conducted to identify the eligibility factors (see Exhibit 4 — Distribution of Criteria Matrix). Each of the factors is present to a varying degree. The following three (3) levels are identified:
Not present — indicates that either the condition did not exist or that no evidence could be found or documented during the survey or analyses.
Present to a minor extent — indicates that the condition did exist, but its distribution or impact was limited.
Present to a major extent — indicated that the condition did exist and was present throughout the area (blockrby-block basis) and was at a level to influence the Study Area and adjacent and nearby parcels of property.
Building Evaluation Procedure.
This section will identify how the buildings within the Study Area are evaluated.
56
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
How Building Components And Improvements Are Evaluated:
During the field survey, all components of the improvements to the subject buildings were examined to determine whether they were in sound condition or had minor, major or critical defect. These examinations were completed to determine whether conditions existed to evidence the presence of any of the following related factors: dilapidation, deterioration or depreciation of physical maintenance.
Building components and improvements examined were of two (2) types: Primary Structural Components.
These include the basic elements of any building or improvement including foundation walls, load bearing walls and columns, roof and roof structure.
Secondary Components.
These are components generally added to the primary structural components and are necessary parts of the building and improvements, including porches and steps, windows and window units, doors and door units, facade, chimneys and gutters and downspouts.
Each primary and secondary component and improvement was evaluated separately as a basis for determining the overall condition of the building and surrounding area. This evaluation considered the relative importance of specific components within the building and the effect that deficiencies in components and improvements have on the remainder of the building.
Once the buildings are evaluated, they are classified as identified in the following section.
Building Component And Improvement Classifications.
The four (4) categories used in classifying building components and improvements and the criteria used in evaluating structural deficiencies are described as follows:
1. Sound. Building components and improvements which contain no defects are adequately maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance.
57
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Requiring Minor Repair ~ Depreciation Of Physical Maintenance. Building components and improvements which contain defects (loose or missing material or holes and cracks over a limited area) which often may be corrected through the course of normal maintenance. Minor defects have no real effect on either primary or secondary components and improvements and correction of such defects may be accomplished by the owner or occupants, such as pointing masonry joints over a limited area or replacement of less complicated components and improvements. Minor defects are not considered in rating a building as structurally substandard.
Requiring Major Repair ~ Deterioration. Building components and improvements which contain major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings and improvements in this category would require replacement or rebuilding of components and improvements by people skilled in the building trades.
Critical ~ Dilapidated. Building components and improvements which contain major defects (bowing, sagging, or settling to any or all exterior components, for example) causing the structure to be out-of-plumb, or broken, loose or missing material and deterioration over a widespread area so extensive that the cost of repair would be excessive.
D. Vacant Blighted Area Eligibility Factors.'
The vacant portion of the Study Area contains four (4) vacant tracts of land, representing twenty-nine (29) parcels (see Map 3).
Tract Number 1, the largest of the four (4) tracts is approximately fourteen and five- tenths (14.5) acres and is located between 5th Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Road on the south, Kostner Avenue on the west and Kildare Avenue on the east. This tract contains thirteen (13) vacant contiguous parcels.
Tract Number 2 is the smallest tract, approximately two and three-tenths (2.3) acres. It is located immediately to ,the east of Tract Number 1 and is bounded by Taylor Street on the north, the Burlington railroad to the south, Kildare Avenue to the west and Keeler Avenue to the east. Tract Number 2 contains twelve (12) vacant contiguous parcels.
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Tract Number 3 is located near the south end of the Study Area between the CT.A. rail line on the north, Cermak Road on the south, Kilboum Avenue on the west and Kostner Avenue on the east and is approximately three and seventy-five hundredths (3.75) acres. This tract contains a single vacant parcel.
Tract Number 4 is approximately six and five-tenths (6.5) acres and is located near the western boundary of the project area between Fillmore Street on the north, Roosevelt Road on the south, Waller Avenue on the west and Central Avenue on the east. This tract contains three (3) vacant contiguous parcels.
Each of the four (4) tracts within the Study Area qualifies as a vacant Blighted Area based on the following criteria from the act which are set forth below:
Tract Number 1.
16 15 415 002 16 15 415 019 16 15 425 010 16 15 501 003
16 15 415 003 16 15 415 020 16 15 425 015
16 15 415 012 16 15 415 021 16 15 501 001
16 15 415 013 16 15 415 022 16 15 501 002
The Area Consists Of Unused Disposal Site Containing Debris From Construction, Demolition, Excavation Or Dredge Sites.
Tract Number 1 is covered with debris and construction materials, and is engulfed with waste resulting from fly-dumping. This first tract is the location of the highly publicized "Silver Shovel" scandal. It contained approximately six hundred thousand (600,000) cubic yards of abandoned debris. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment have been completed of the site. The site will be entered into the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's — Site Remediation Program in November, 1997. Remediation of the site, expected to cost about Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
A Combination Of Two (2) Or More Of The Following Factors: Obsolete Platting Of The Vacant Land; Diversity Of Ownership Of Such Land; Tax And Special Assessment Delinquencies On Such Land; Flooding On All Or Part Of Such Vacant Land; Deterioration Of Structures Or Site Improvements In Neighboring Areas Adjacent To The Vacant Land.
1. Obsolete Platting Of Vacant Land.
59
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Obsolete Platting Of Vacant Land.
This vacant portion of the Study Area consists of twelve (12) parcels, six (6) of which exhibit obsolete platting. Three (3) of the parcels are of insufficient size for contemporary industrial uses. Two (2) parcels are "land-locked" and accessible from adjacent parcels only. The last-parcel is L-shaped making industrial development extremely unlikely to occur. Therefore, obsolete platting is a factor within this vacant portion of the Study Area.
Diversity Of Ownership Of Vacant Land.
Of the twelve (12) parcels in Tract Number 1, there are three (3) different property owners. The number of different owners would impede the ability of a developer to assemble the land for development meeting contemporary development standards.
Tract Number 3.
16 22 313 034
The Area Consists Of Unused Disposal Site Containing Debris From Construction Demolition, Excavation Or Dredge Sites.
Tract Number 3 is covered with debris and construction materials, and is engulfed with waste resulting from fly-dumping. Debris and construction materials are present in significant amounts and waste resulting from fly-dumping is present.
Tract Number 2 and Tract Number 4.
Tract Number 4.
16 15 419 001
16 15 419 002
16 15 419 003
16 15 419 004
16 15 419 005
16 15 419 006
60
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
A Combination Of Two (2) Or More Of The Following Factors: Obsolete Platting Of The Vacant Land; Diversity Of Ownership Of Such Land; Tax And Special Assessment Delinquencies On Such Land; Flooding On All Or Part Of Such Vacant Land; Deterioration Of Structures Or Site Improvements In Neighboring Areas Adjacent To The Vacant Land.
Obsolete Platting Of Vacant Land.
In Tract Number 2, obsolete platting is present. Of the twelve (12) parcels, ten (10) are of insufficient size for contemporary industrial users.
Diversity Of Ownership Of Vacant Land.
In each tract, diversity of ownership is present. Of the twelve (12) parcels in Tract Number 2, there are four (4) property owners. Of the three (3) parcels in Tract Number 4, each property is owned by a separate entity. The number of different owners would impede the ability of a developer to assemble the land for development meeting contemporary development standards.
Deterioration Of Structures Or Site Improvement In Neighboring Areas Adjacent To The Vacant Land.
Tract Number 2 is located to the previously mentioned tract that includes the highly publicized "Silver Shovel" dumping site. In addition, this tract is generally surrounded by poorly maintained properties. Tract Number 4 is located immediately east of several dilapidated and partially demolished buildings fronting on Roosevelt Road and Menard Avenue and is generally surrounded by poorly maintained facilities In each case, these conditions adversely affect the marketability of the property.
Conclusion.
Each of the four (4) vacant portions of the Study Area exhibits one (1) or more of the criteria which would allow for a finding of a vacant Blighted Area as defined in the Act.
E. Improved Blighted Area Eligibility Factors.
61
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
A finding may be made that the improved portion of the Study Area is a Blighted Area based on the fact that the area exhibits the presence of five (5) or more of the blighted area eligibility factors listed in Section A. This section examines each of the blighted area eligibility factors. The improved portion of the Study Area contains the remaining six hundred three (603) parcels.
1. Age.
Age presumes the existence of problems or limiting conditions resulting from normal and continuous use of structures over a period of years. Since building deterioration and related structural problems are a function of time, temperature and moisture, structures that are thirty-five (35) years or older typically exhibit more problems than more recently constructed buildings.
There are one hundred ninety-six (196) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (eighty-four and one-tenth percent (84.1%)) buildings in the Study Area that are at least thirty-five (35) years or older. Age is present to a major extent in forty-two (42) of the fifty-six (56) blocks.
Conclusion.
Age is present to a major extent in the Study Area. Age is present in one. hundred ninety-six (196) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (eighty-four and one-tenth percent (84.1%)) buildings and in forty-two (42) of the fifty-six (56) blocks in the Study Area. The results of the analysis of age are shown in Map 4.
2. Dilapidation.
Dilapidation refers to an advanced state of disrepair of buildings and improvements. In August of 1997, Pacific Construction Services and The Lambert Group, Inc. conducted an exterior survey of all the structures and the condition of each of the buildings in the Study Area. The analysis of building dilapidation is based on the survey methodology and criteria described in the preceding section on "How Building Components and Improvements are Evaluated".
Based on exterior building surveys, it was determined that many buildings are dilapidated and exhibit major structural problems making them structurally substandard. These buildings are all in an advanced state of disrepair. Major masonry wall work is required where water and lack of maintenance has allowed buildings to incur structural damage. Since wood
62
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
elements require most maintenance of all exterior materials, these are the ones showing the greatest signs of deterioration.
Dilapidation is present primarily in both the residential and industrial structures in the Study Area. Its presence is seen as bowed and sagging walls in both homes and industrial buildings, as missing primary components, and as broken, loose or missing secondary components.
Dilapidation is present in eighty-two (82) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (thirty-five and two-tenths percent (35.2%)) buildings. Dilapidation is present to a major extent in twenty-two (22) blocks and to a minor extent in eleven (11) blocks.
Conclusion.
Dilapidation is present to a minor extent in the Study Area. Dilapidation is present in eighty-two (82) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (thirty-five and two- tenths percent (35.2%)) buildings and thirty-three (33) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the dilapidation analysis are presented in Map 5.
3. Obsolescence.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "obsolescence" as "being out of use; obsolete". "Obsolete" is further defined as "no longer in use; disused" or "of a type or fashion no longer current". These definitions are helpful in describing the general obsolescence of buildings or site improvements in the proposed Study Area. In making findings with respect to buildings and improvements, it is important to distinguish between functional obsolescence which relates to the physical utility of a structure, and economic obsolescence which relates to a property's ability to compete in the marketplace.
Functional Obsolescence.
Structures historically have been built for specific uses or purposes. The design, location, height and space arrangement are intended for a specific occupancy at a given time. Buildings and improvements become obsolete when they contain characteristics or deficiencies which limit the use and marketability of such buildings and improvements after the original use ceases. The characteristics
63
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
may include loss in value to a property resulting from an inherent deficiency existing from poor design or layout, the improper orientation of the building on its site, etc., which detracts from the overall usefulness or desirability of a property.
Economic Obsolescence.
Economic obsolescence is normally a result of adverse conditions which cause some degree of market rejection and, hence, depreciation in market values. Typically, buildings classified as dilapidated and buildings that contain vacant space are characterized by problem conditions which may not be economically curable, resulting in net rental losses and /or depreciation in market value.
Site improvements, including sewer and water lines, public utility lines (gas, electric and telephone), roadways, parking areas, parking structures, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, lighting, etc., may also evidence obsolescence in terms of their relationship to contemporary development standards for such improvements. Factors of obsolescence may include inadequate utility capacities, outdated designs, etc.
Obsolescence, as a factor, should be based upon the documented presence and reasonable distribution of buildings and site improvements evidencing such obsolescence.
Obsolete Building Types.
Obsolete buildings contain characteristics or deficiencies which limit their long-term sound use or reuse for the purpose for which they were built. Obsolescence in such buildings is typically difficult and expensive to correct. Obsolete building types have an adverse effect on nearby and surrounding developments and detract from the physical, functional and economic vitality of the area.
These structures are characterized by conditions indicating that they are incapable of efficient or economic use according to contemporary standards. These conditions include:
64
JOURNAL—CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
multistory industrial buildings with large floor plates and antiquated building systems;
an inefficient exterior configuration of the structures, including insufficient width, low ceiling heights and small size;
inadequate access for contemporary systems of delivery and service, including both exterior building access and interior vertical systems; or
single-purpose industrial use.
The obsolescence of building types is evidenced by the current demolition of several large, industrial structures in the district. Many of the large industrial buildings occupy the majority of or entire parcel. This diminishes their desirability for future use. Also, these older buildings are not cost-effective to upgrade for current standards of use and are typically expensive to maintain.
Obsolescence of building types is present in two hundred fourteen (214) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (ninety-one and eight-tenths percent (91.8%)) buildings in the Study Area.
Obsolete Platting.
Obsolete platting includes parcels of irregular shape, narrow or small size, and parcels improperly platted within the Study Area blocks. Throughout the Study Area, particularly along Kilboum Avenue between 15th Avenue and Cermak Road, there are parcels small in size twenty-five feet by one hundred twenty-five to one hundred fifty inches(25* x 125 — 150") that have typically been utilized for residential structures yet are currently used for industrial buildings. Additionally, single buildings are located on multiple parcels. Development of the individual parcels is not possible without the development of the surrounding parcels.
Platting characteristics that are obsolete include the land adjacent to the rail spur running diagonally through the Study Area. Parcels appear to have been subdivided over time into various sizes and shapes. The resulting diverse platting creates parcels that are difficult to market. The land adjacent to the rail spur can only be used as open space, and therefore renders the parcels adjacent to the spur economically obsolete.
65
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Obsolescence in platting is present in five hundred twenty (520) of six hundred three (603) (eighty-six and two-tenths percent (86.2%)) parcels in the Study Area.
Obsolete Site Improvements.
Site improvements, including sewer and water lines, public utility lines (gas, electric and telephone), roadways, parking areas, parking structures, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, lighting, etc., may also evidence obsolescence in terms of their relationship to contemporary development standards for such improvements. Factors of obsolescence may include inadequate utility capacities, outdated designs and others. Two hundred nine (209) of the two hundred seventy-six (276) (seventy-five and seven-tenths percent (75.7%)) parcels with sites improvements are obsolete.
Obsolescence of site improvements is present to a major extent in forty-three (43) of the fifty-six (56) blocks and present to a minor extent in five (5) blocks in the Study Area.
Conclusion.
Obsolescence is present to a major extent in the Study Area. Obsolescence is present in two hundred fourteen (214) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (ninety-eight and eight-tenths percent (98.8%)) buildings, five hundred twenty (520) of the six hundred three (603) (eighty-six and two-tenths percent (86.2%)) parcels and forty-eight (48) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the obsolescence analysis are presented in Map 6.
4. Deterioration.
Deterioration refers to any physical deficiencies or disrepair in buildings or site improvements requiring major treatment of repair.
Deterioration which is not easily correctable and cannot be repaired in the course of normal maintenance may be evident in buildings. Such buildings and improvements may be classified as requiring major or many minor repairs, dependingupon the degree or extent of defects. This would include buildings with defects in the secondary building components (e.g., doors, windows, porches, gutters and downspouts, fascia materials, etc.), and defects in primary building components (e.g., foundations, frames, roofs, et cetera), respectively.
All buildings and site improvements classified as dilapidated are also deteriorated.
66
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Deterioration Of Buildings.
The analysis of building deterioration is based on the survey methodology and criteria described in the preceding section on "How Building Components and Improvements Are Evaluated". There are one hundred seventy-six (176) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (seventy-five and five-tenths percent (75.5%)) buildings in the Study Area that are deteriorated.
The deteriorated buildings in the Study Area exhibit defects in both their primary and secondary components. For example, the primary components exhibiting defects include walls, roofs and foundations with loose or missing material (motar, shingles), and holes and/or cracks in these components. The defects of secondary components include damage to windows, doors, stairs and/or porches; missing or cracked tuckpointing and/or masonry on the facade, chimneys, and others; missing parapets, gutters and/or downspouts; foundation cracks or settling; and other missing structural components.
Deteriorated buildings exist throughout the district. Many structures appear to be in reasonable condition upon first glance. However, further study (particularly of the portions not readily visible from the street front) reveals deteriorated building components (primary and secondary) are commonplace. Deterioration of windows, frames, doors, porch structures and brick is especially apparent in the area. The deterioration of a few properties was so extensive that we marveled that the building was occupied.
Deterioration Of Parking And Surface Areas.
Field surveys were also conducted to identify the condition of the parcels without structures, of which two hundred fourteen (214) contain improved lots with no buildings (parking and outside storage), alleys and vacant lots. Of the two hundred fourteen (214) parcels, forty-nine (49) (twenty-two and nine-tenths percent (22.9%)) were classified as deteriorated. These parcels are characterized by uneven surfaces with insufficient gravel, vegetation growing through the parking surface, depressions and standing water, absence of curbs or guardrails, falling or broken fences and extensive debris. Furthermore, street and sidewalk deterioration is widespread. Street deterioration is very evident in the vicinty of the illegal dumpsites, presumably due to the repeated traffic of heavy trucks.
Deterioration can be found in three hundred twenty-seven (327) of the six hundred three (603) (fifty-four and two tenths percent (54.2%)) parcels. It is found to be present to a major extent in thirty-six (36) of the fifty-six (56) blocks and present to a minor extent in seven (7) blocks of the Study Area.
67
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Conclusion.
Deterioration is present to a major extent in the Study Area. Deterioration is present in one hundred seventy-six (176) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (seventy-five and five-tenths percent (75.5%)) buildings, in three hundred twenty-seven (327) of the six hundred three (603) (fifty-four and two-tenths percent (54.2%)) parcels and in forty-three (43) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the deterioration analysis are presented in Map 8.
Illegal Use Of Individual Structures:
Illegal use of individual structures refers to the presence of uses or activities which are not permitted by law
Conclusion.
A review of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance indicates that there are no illegal uses of the structures or improvements in the Study Area.
Presence Of Structures Below Minimum Code Standards.
Structures below minimum code standards include all structures which do not meet the standards of zoning, subdivision, building, housing, property maintenance, fire or other governmental codes applicable to the property. The principal purposes of such codes are 1) to require buildings to .be constructed in such a way as to sustain safety of loads expected from the type of occupancy, 2) to make buildings safe for occupancy against fire and similar hazards, and 3) to establish minimum standards essential for safe and sanitary habitation.
From January 1992 through February of 1997, one hundred twenty-five (125) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (fifty-three and six-tenths percent (53.6%)) buildings have been cited for building code violations by the City of Chicago's Department of Buildings.
Conclusion.
Structures below minimum code standards are present to a major extent. Structures below minimum code standards have been identified in one hundred twenty-five (125) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (fifty-three and six-tenths percent (53.6%)) buildings in the Study Area see Map 7.
68
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
7. Excessive Vacancies.
Excessive vacancy refers to buildings which are unoccupied or underutilized and that exert an adverse influence on the area because of the frequency, duration or extent of vacancy. Excessive vacancies include properties which evidence no apparent effort directed toward their occupancy or underutilization.
Excessive vacancies occur in varying degrees throughout the Study Area. A building is considered to have excessive vacancies if at least fifty percent (50%) of the building is vacant or underutilized. There are vacancies in the following building types: commercial buildings and single/purpose industrial buildings. There are twenty-six (26) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (eleven and two- tenths percent (11.2%)) buildings in the Study Area totally vacant or partially vacant (over fifty percent (50%)) buildings covering thirty-seven (37) parcels. Excessive vacancies are present to a major extent in nine (9) blocks and present to a minor extent in twenty-two (22) blocks of the Study Area.
Conclusion.
Excessive vacancies are present to a minor extent in the Study Area. Excessive vacancies can be found in twenty-six (26) of the two hundred thirty-three(233) (eleven and two-tenths percent(l 1.2%)) buildings and thirty-one (31) of the fifty-six (56) blocks, see Map 9.
8. Overcrowding Of Structures And Community Facilities:
Overcrowding of structures and community facilities refers to utilization of public or private buildings, facilities, or properties beyond their reasonable or legally permitted capacity. Overcrowding is frequently found in buildings and improvements originally designed for a specific use and later converted to accommodate a more intensive use of activities without adequate provision for minimum floor area requirements, privacy, ingress and egress, loading and services, capacity of buildings systems, et cetera.
Conclusion.
Overcrowding of structures and community facilities was not found in the Study Area.
69
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
9. Lack Of Ventilation, Light Or Sanitary Facilities:
Lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities refers to substandard conditions which adversely affect the health and welfare of building occupants, e.g., residents, employees or visitors. Typical requirements for ventilation, light and sanitary facilities include:
adequate mechanical ventilation for air circulation in spaces/ rooms without windows, i.e., bathrooms, and dust, odor or smoke-producing activity areas;
— . adequate natural light and ventilation by means of skylights or windows or interior rooms /spaces, and proper window sizes and amounts by room area to window area ratios; and
adequate sanitary facilities, i.e., garbage storage/enclosure, bathroom facilities, hot water and kitchens.
Lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities was found in eight (8) buildings in the Study Area. It was present to a major extent in one (1) block and to a minor extent in five (5) blocks.
Conclusion.
Based on the exterior surveys and analysis undertaken within the Study Area, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities was identified in a very limited number of parcels and therefore is present to a limited extent.
10. Inadequate Utilities.
Inadequate utilities refer to deficiencies in the capacity or condition of the infrastructure which services a property or area, including, but not limited to storm drainage, water supply, electrical power, streets, sanitary sewers, gas and electricity.
There were a few parking lots at industrial buildings which did not appear to have storm sewers. These parking lots evidently channel storm run-off water into the adjacent streets, which is not an adequate design.
70
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Conclusion.
Based on the exterior surveys and analyzes undertaken within the Study Area, there is no evidence of inadequate utilities.
11. Excessive Land Coverage.
Excessive land coverage refers to the over-intensive use of property and the crowding of buildings and accessory facilities onto a site. Problem conditions include buildings either improperly situated on the parcel or located on parcels of inadequate size and shape in relation to present-day standards of development for health and safety. The resulting inadequate conditions include such factors as insufficient provision for light and air, increased threat of spread of fires due to close proximity to nearby buildings, lack of adequate or proper access to a public right-of-way, lack of required off-street parking, and inadequate provision for loading and service. Excessive land coverage conditions have an adverse or blighting effect on nearby development.
Excessive land coverage occurs in one hundred ninety-eight (198) of the three hundred fifty-seven (357) (fifty-five and five-tenths percent (55.5%)) parcels with structures/buildings in the Study Area. Many multi-story buildings have been built from property line to property line, leaving no area for parking, open space or other amenities. Because these buildings cover virtually the entire parcel, there is an inadequate amount of space for off-street loading of residents, employees and/or customers. Excessive land coverage can be found to a major extent in eighteen (18) of the fifty-six (56) blocks and to a minor extent in sixteen (16) blocks of the Study Area.
Conclusion.
Excessive land coverage is present to minor extent in the Study Area. Excessive land coverage is present in eighty-eight (88) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (thirty-seven and eight-tenths percent (37.8%)) buildings and in thirty-four (34) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the excessive land coverage analysis are presented in Map 10.
12. Deleterious Land-Use Or Layout.
Deleterious land uses include all instances of incompatible land-use relationships, buildings occupied by inappropriate mixed uses, or uses which may be considered noxious, offensive or environmentally unsuitable. It also
71
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
includes residential uses which front on or are located near heavily traveled streets, thus causing susceptibility to noise, fumes and glare. Deleterious layout includes evidence of improper or obsolete platting of the land, inadequate street layout, and parcels of inadequate size or shape to meet. contemporary development standards. It also includes evidence of poor layout of buildings on parcels and in relation to other buildings.
In the Study Area, deleterious land-use or layout is identified in three hundred ninety-five (395) of the six hundred three (603) (sixty-five and five-tenths (65.5%)) parcels. The district has many areas wherein busy industries' are adjacent to groups of residences. The truck traffic and inadequate off-street car parking make these streets congested and hazardous. Furthermore, these residences are in noisy, littered, hectic settings. There are one hundred thirty-eight (138) parcels that exhibit this inappropriate use, such as residential next to industrial or residential on heavily traveled streets.
Deleterious land-use and layout can be found and is present to a major extent in thirty-four (34) of the fifty-six (56) blocks and to. a minor extent in ten (10) blocks.
Conclusion.
Deleterious land-use and layout is present to a major extent in the Study Area. Deleterious land-use and layout is present in three hundred ninety-five (395) of the six hundred three (603) (sixty-five and five-tenths percent (65.5%)) parcels, and in forty-four (44) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the deleterious land-use and layout analysis are presented in Map 11.
13. Depreciation Of Physical Maintenance.
Depreciation of physical maintenance refers to the effects of deferred maintenance and the lack of maintenance of buildings, parking areas and public improvements, including alleys, walks, streets and utility structures. The analysis of depreciation of physical maintenance is based on survey methodology and criteria described in the preceding section "How Building Components and Improvements Are Evaluated".
The entire Study Area is affected by lack of physical maintenance. Five hundred twelve (512) of the six hundred three (603) (eighty-four and nine-tenths (84.9%)) parcels, representingbuildings, parking/storage areas and vacant land, evidence the presence of this factor.
72
JOURNAL—CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
The buildings (commercial, industrial, residential and mixed use) that evidence depreciation of physical maintenance exhibit problems such as unpainted or unfinished surfaces, peeling paint, loose or missing materials, broken windows, loose or missing gutters or down spouts, loose or missing shingles, overgrown vegetation and general lack of maintenance, et cetera. There are two hundred eight (208) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (eighty-nine and three-tenths (89.3%)) buildings in the Study Area that are affected by depreciation of physical maintenance.
Depreciation of physical maintenance is widespread. This condition is noticeable on buildings, in parking lots, driveways and yards. The areas of illegal dumping especially demonstrate this condition. Many streets and public sidewalks are poorly maintained.
Depreciation of physical maintenance is present to a major extent in forty-eight (48) of the fifty-six (56) blocks and to a minor extent in one (1) block of the Study Area.
Conclusion.
Depreciation of physical maintenance is present to a major extent in the Study Area. Depreciation of physical maintenance is present in two hundred eight (208) of the two hundred thirty-three (233) (eighty-nine and three-tenths percent (89.3%)) buildings, five hundred twelve (512) of the six hundred three (603) (eighty-four and nine-tenths percent (84.9%)) parcels, and in forty-nine (49) of the fifty-six (56) blocks. The results of the depreciation of physical maintenance analysis are presented in Map 12.
14. Lack Of Community Planning.
Lack of community planning may be a factor if the proposed redevelopment area was developed prior to or without the benefit of a community plan. This finding may be amplified by other evidence which shows the deleterious results of the lack of community planning, including adverse or incompatible land-use relationships, inadequate street layout, improper subdivision, and parcels of inadequate size or shape to meet contemporary development standards.
The Study Area has been the subject of numerous development plans, so lack of community planning is not evidenced.
73
2/5/98 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 60983
Conclusion.
Based on the exterior surveys and analyses undertaken within the Study Area, lack of community planning was not found in the Study Area.
Summary.
Nine (9) Blighted Area eligibility criteria are present in varying degrees throughout the Study Area ~ six (6) are present to a major extent and three (3) are present to a minor extent. The nine (9) Blighted Area eligibility factors that have been identified in the Study Area are as follows:
Major Extent: Age.
Obsolescence. Deterioration.
Structures below minimum code. Deleterious land-use or layout. Depreciation of physical maintenance.
Minor extent:
Dilapidation. Excessive vacancies. Excessive land coverage.
74
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
rv.
Summary And Conclusion.
The conclusion of the consultant team is that the number, degree and distribution of Blighted Area eligibility factors as documented in this report warrant the designation of the Study Area as a vacant and improved Blighted Area as set forth in the Act. Specifically:
Of the seven (7) blighting factors set forth in the Act for vacant land of which one (1) is required for a finding of blight, two (2) are present in the vacant portion of the Study Area.
Of the fourteen (14) blighting factors set forth in the Act for improved land, of which five (5) are required for a finding of Blight, nine (9) are present, six (6) to a major extent and three (3) to a minor extent.
The Blighted Area factors that are present are reasonably distributed throughout the Area.
All the blocks except for blocks that have active rail lines (16 15 501, 16 15 502, 16 17 500, 16 22 500, 16 22 501 and 16 22 502) within the Study Area exhibit the presence of vacant and improved Blighted Area eligibility factors.
While it may be concluded that the mere presence of the stated eligibility factors in Section III may be sufficient to make a finding of qualification as a Blighted Area, this evaluation was made on the basis that the factors must be present to an extent that would lead reasonable persons to conclude that public intervention is appropriate or necessary. Secondly, the distribution of Blighted Area eligibility factors throughout the Study Area must be reasonable so that a basically good area is not arbitrarily found to be a Blighted Area simply because of proximity to an area which exhibits Blighted Area factors. All blocks (except for the previously mentioned blocks that active rail lines) in the Study Area evidence the presence of some of the eligibility factors.
Additional research indicates that the area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development as a result of investments by private enterprise, and will not be developed without action by the City. Specifically:
75
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Exhibit 2 — Building Permit Requests, contains a summary of the building permit requests for new construction and major renovation from the City of Chicago Building permit requests for new construction and renovation for the Study Area from 1993 — 1997 totaled Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-six Dollars ($3,200,686). On an annual basis from 1993 - 1996, this represents only three and five-tenths percent (3.5%) of assessed value in the Study Area. Of the sixteen (16) permits issued, one (1) permit was issued for One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000). This permit is not representative of the typical request for building permits in the Study Area. Eight (8) of the remaining fifteen (15) (fifty-three percent (53%)) permits issued were valued at less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). Three (3) (twenty percent (20%)) permits were issued from Ten Thousand One Dollars ($10,001) — One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and the remaining four (4) (twenty-seven percent (27%)) for more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).
Additionally, were twenty-five (25) demolition permits issued for the Study Area. The number of demolition permits has increased on a yearly basis except for 199.4; in 1993 - four (4), 1994 - one (1), 1995 --five (5), 1996 - eight (8). As of June of 1997, seven (7) demolition permits were already issued.
The Study Area is comprised primarily of industrial uses, residential uses and vacant land with some commercial uses. The equalized assessed value (E.A.V.) for. all property in the City of Chicago increased from Twenty-seven Billion Nine Hundred Sixty-four Million One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-six Dollars($27,964,127,826) in 1992 to Thirty Billion Seven Hundred Seventy-three Million Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-one Dollars ($30,773,301,521) in 1996, a total of ten and five hundredths percent (10.05%) or two and fifty-one hundredths percent (2.51%) per year. Over the last four (4) years, from 1992 to 1996, the Study Area has experienced an overall E.A.V. increase of six and twenty-five hundredths percent (6.25%) from Forty-Five Million Four Hundred Thirty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($45,438,587) in 1992 to Forty-eight Million Two Hundred Seventy-nine Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($48,279,419) in 1996, an average increase of one and fifty-six hundredths percent (1.56%) per year.
The conclusions presented in this report are those of the consulting team. The local governing body should review this report and, if satisfied with the summary
76
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
of findings contained herein, adopt a resolution making a finding of a Blighted Area and making this report a part of the public record. The analysis above was based upon data assembled by Louik/Schneider & Associates, Inc., The Lambert Group, Inc. and Pacific Construction Services. The surveys, research and analysis conducted include:
exterior surveys of the conditions and use of the Study Area;
field surveys of environmental conditions covering streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, lighting, traffic, parking facilities, landscaping, fences and walls and general property maintenance;
comparison of current land uses to current zoning ordinance and the current zoning maps;
historical analysis of site uses and users;
analysis of original and current platting and building size layout;
review of previously prepared plans, studies and data;
analysis of building permits from 1993 - 1997 and building code violations from 1992 - 1997 requested from the Department of Buildings for all parcels in the Study Area; and
evaluation of the E.A.V. 's in the Redevelopment Project Area from 1992 to 1996.
The study and survey of the Study Area indicate that requirements necessary for designation as a Blighted Area are present.
Therefore, the Study Area is qualified as a Blighted Area to be designated as a redevelopment project area and eligible for Tax Increment Financing under the Act (see Exhibit 4 - Matrix of Blighted Factors).
l(Sub) Exhibit 1 (Legal Description) to this Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study constitutes Exhibit "C" to the ordinance and is printed on pages 60993 through 60995 of this Journal.)
77
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
[(Sub)Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to in this Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study are printed on pages 61034 through 61045 of this Journal.]
[Maps 1 through 12 constitute (Sub)Exhibit 6 to this Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study and are printed on pages 61046 through 61057 of this Journal.]
Exhibit "B".
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Ordinance)
State of Illinois )
)SS.
County of Cook )
Certificate.
I, Darlene Cowan the duly authorized, qualified and Assistant Secretary of the Community Development Commission of the City of Chicago, and the custodian of the records thereof, do hereby certify that I have compared the attached copy of a resolution adopted by the Community Development Commission of the City of Chicago at a regular meeting held on the ninth (9th) day of December, 1997, with the original resolution adopted at said meeting and recorded in the minutes of the Commission, and do hereby certify that said copy is a true, correct and complete transcript of said resolution.
Dated this tenth (10th) day of December, 1997.
(Signed) Darlene Cowan
Assistant Secretary
78
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Resolution 97-CDC-104 referred to in this Certification reads as follows:
Community Development Commission Of The City Of Chicago Resolution 97-CDC-104
Recommending To The City Council Of The City Of Chicago
For The Proposed Roosevelt/ Cicero Redevelopment Project Area:
Approval Of A Redevelopment Plan
Designation Of A Redevelopment Project Area
And
Adoption Of Tax Increment Allocation Financing.
Whereas, The Community Development Commission (the "Commission") of the City of Chicago (the "City") has heretofore been appointed by the Mayor of the
79
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
City with the approval of its City Council ("City Council", referred to herein collectively with the Mayor as the "Corporate Authorities") (as codified in Section 2-124 of the City's Municipal Code) pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-4(k) of the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, as amended (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq.) (1993) (the "Act"); and
Whereas, The Commission is empowered by the Corporate Authorities to exercise certain powers enumerated in Section 5/11-74.4-4(k) of the Act, including the holding of certain public hearings required by the Act; and
Whereas, Staff of the City's Department of Planning and Development ("D.P.D.") has conducted or caused to be conducted certain investigations, studies and surveys of the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area, the street boundaries of which are described on (Sub)Exhibit A hereto (the "Area"), to determine the eligibility of the Area as a redevelopment project area as defined in the Act (a "Redevelopment Project Area") and for tax increment allocation financing pursuant to the Act ("Tax Increment Allocation Financing"), and previously has presented to the Commission for its review the Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Tax Increment Finance Program Redevelopment Plan and Project (the "Plan") (which has as an exhibit the Roosevelt/Cicero Tax Increment Finance Program Eligibility Study (the "Report"); and •
Whereas, Prior to the adoption by the Corporate Authorities of ordinances approving a redevelopment plan, designating an area as a Redevelopment Project Area or adopting Tax Increment Allocation Financing for an area, it is necessary that the Commission hold a public hearing (the "Hearing") pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-5(a) of the Act, convene a meeting of a joint review board (the "Board") pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-5(b) of the Act, set the dates of such Hearing and Board meeting and give notice thereof pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-6 of the Act; and
Whereas, The Plan (with the Report attached thereto) were made available for public inspection and review prior to the adoption by the Commission of Resolution 97-CDC-88 on October 7, 1997 fixing the time and place for the Hearing, at City Hall, 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the following offices: City Clerk, Room 107 and Department of Planning and Development, Room 1000; and
Whereas, Notice of the Hearing by publication was given at least twice, the first publication being on November 5, 1997, a date which is not more than thirty (30) nor less than ten (10) days prior to the Hearing, and the second publication being on November 12, 1997, both in the Chicago Sun-Times, being a newspaper of general circulation within the taxing districts having property in the Area; and
80
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Whereas, Notice of the Hearing was given by mail to taxpayers by depositing such notice in the United States mail by certified mail addressed to the persons in whose names the general taxes for the last preceding year were paid on each lot, block, track or parcel of land lying within the Area, on November 12, 1997, being a date not less than ten (10) days prior to the date set for the Hearing. Where taxes for the last preceding year were not paid, notice was also mailed to the persons last listed on the tax rolls as the owners of such property within the preceding three (3) years on November 12, 1997, being a date not less than ten (10) days prior to the date set for the Hearing; and
Whereas, Notice of the Hearing was given by mail to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs CD.C.C.A.") and members of the Board (including notice of the convening of the Board), by depositing such notice in the United States mail by certified mail addressed to D.C.C.A. and all Board members, on October 10, 1997, being a date not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the Hearing; and
Whereas, Notice of the Hearing and copies of the Plan (with the Report attached thereto) were sent by mail to taxing districts having taxable property in the Area, by depositing such notice and documents in the United States mail by certified mail addressed to all taxing districts having taxable property within the Area, on October 10, 1997, being a date not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the Hearing; and
Whereas, The Hearing was held on December 2, 1997 at 2:00 P.M. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, as the official public hearing and testimony was heard from all interested persons or representatives of any affected taxing district present at the Hearing and wishing to testify, concerning the Commission's recommendation to City Council regarding approval of the Plan, designation of the Area as a Redevelopment Project Area and adoption of Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area; and
Whereas, The Board meetingwas convened on October 23, 1997 at 10:00 A.M. (being a date no more than fourteen (14) days following the mailing of the notice to all taxing districts on October 10, 1997) in Room 1003A, City Hall, 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, to consider its advisory recommendation regarding the approval of the Plan, designation of the Area as a Redevelopment Project Area and adoption of Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area; and
Whereas, The Commission has reviewed the Plan (with the Report attached thereto), considered testimony from the Hearing, if any, the recommendation of the Board, if any, and such other matters or studies as the Commission deemed
81
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
necessary or appropriate in making the findings set forth herein and formulating its decision whether to recommend to City Council approval of the Plan, designation of the Area as a Redevelopment Project Area and adoption of Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the Community Development Commission of the City of Chicago:
Section 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
Section 2. The Commission hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-3(n) of the Act or such other section as is referenced herein:
a. the Area on the whole has not been subject to growth and development
through investment by private enterprise and would not reasonably be
expected to be developed without the adoption of the Plan;
the Plan:
conforms to the comprehensive plan for the development of the City as a whole; or
the Plan either (A) conforms to the strategic economic development or redevelopment plan issued by the Chicago Plan Commission or (B) includes land uses that have been approved by the Chicago Plan Commission;
the Plan meets all of the requirements of a redevelopment plan as defined in the Act and, as set forth in the Plan, the estimated date of completion of the projects described therein and retirement of all obligations issued to finance redevelopment project costs is not more than twenty-three (23) years from the date of the adoption of the ordinance approving the designation of the Area as a redevelopment project area, and, as required pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-7 of the Act, no such obligation shall have a maturity date greater than twenty (20) years;
d. the Area includes only those contiguous parcels of real property and
improvements thereon that are to be substantially benefitted by proposed
Plan improvements, as required pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-4(a) of the
Act; and
e. as required pursuant to Section 5/1 l-74.4-3(p) of the Act:
(i) the Area is not less, in the aggregate, than one and one-half (1 lA) acres in size; and
82
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(ii) conditions exist in the Area that cause the Area to qualify for designation as a redevelopment project area and a blighted area as denned in the Act.
Section 3. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Plan pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-4 of the Act.
Section 4. The Commission recommends that the City Council designate the Area as a Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to Section 5/11-74.4-4 of the Act.
Section 5. The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Tax Increment Allocation Financing within the Area.
Section 6. If any provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution.
Section 7. All resolutions, motions or orders in conflict with this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Section 8. This resolution shall be effective as of the date of its adoption.
Section 9. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council.
Adopted: December 9. 1997.
[(Sub)Exhibit "A" referred to in this Resolution 97-CDC-104 constitutes Exhibit "D" to the ordinance and is printed on page 60995 of this Journal.]
83
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Exhibit "C. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Ordinance)
Legal Description.
That part of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 14 and south half of Sections 15 and 16 and the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 17 and the northwest quarter and the west half of the southeast quarter and the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 22, all in Township 39 North, Range 13 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois, described as follows:
beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Menard Avenue and the centerline of Roosevelt Road; thence northerly along said centerline of Menard Avenue to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Chicago and Great Western Railroad; thence southeasterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the centerline of Central Avenue; thence northerly along said centerline to the southwesterly right-of-way line of vacated 5th Avenue; thence easterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly extension of the westerly right-of-way line of vacated Long Avenue; thence northerly along said westerly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of way line of Lexington Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Lockwood Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the centerline of Polk Street; thence easterly along said centerline to the westerly right-of-way line of Leamington Avenue; thence northerly along said westerly right-of-way line to the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 189 in School Trustees Subdivision of part of said Section 16; thence easterly along said westerly extension and northerly line to the northeast comer of said Lot 189; thence southerly along the easterly line of said lot to the northerly right-of-way line of Lexington Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Lavergne Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way to the northerly right-of-way line of Arthington Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Cicero Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of-way line of said Lexington Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Kolmar Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the easterly extension of the northerly right-of-way line of Polk Street; thence westerly along said extension and northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Belt Line Railway; thence southerly along
84
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
said easterly right-of-way line to the northwesterly right-of-way line of 5th Avenue; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Kildare Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of-way line of Taylor Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Pulaski Road; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of-way line of 5th Avenue; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Kildare Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of-way line of Taylor Street; thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Pulaski Road; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 2 of W. J. & D. F. Anderson's Subdivision; thence easterly along said northerly alley line to the westerly right-of-way line of Springfield Avenue; thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley abutting Lots 1 through 24 (inclusive) of L. E. Ingall's Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly alley line to the westerly right-of-way line of Pulaski Road; thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 8 of 12th Street Land Association Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly alley line to the easterly right-of-way line of Karlov Avenue; thence westerly to the intersection of the westerly right-of-way line of Karlov Avenue with the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 7 of Butler Lowry's Crawford Avenue Addition to Chicago; thence westerly along said southerly alley line to the easterly right-of-way line of Keeler Avenue; thence westerly to the intersection of the westerly right-of-way line of Keeler Avenue with the northerly line of the south half of Lot 5 in Block 6 in Webster Batcheller's Subdivision; thence westerly along said northerly line to the easterly line of a 16 foot wide public alley; .thence southerly along said easterly line to the easterly extension of the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 6 in said subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly alley line to the easterly right-of-way line of said Kildare Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way to said centerline of Roosevelt Road; thence westerly along said centerline to the westerly right-of-way line of Kostner Avenue; thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to the southerly right-of-way line of 14th Street; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the easterly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 2 of Brenock's Addition to Chicago; thence southerly along said easterly line to the northerly right-of-way line of 15Ih Street; thence southerly to the intersection of the southerly right-of-way line of said 15th Street with the easterly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 2 of Pinkert and Schulte's Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in said Block 2;
85
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
thence westerly along said southerly line to the northeast corner of Lot 3 in said Block 2; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 3 to the southerly right-of-way line of 16th Street; thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the northeast corner of Lot 20 in Block 2 of Joseph B. Ford & Co.'s West 16th Street Subdivision; thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 20 and its southerly extension to the southerly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in said Block 2; thence easterly along said southerly line to the northeast corner of Lot 32 in said Block 2; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 32 to the northerly right-of-way line of 17th Street; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the northerly extension of the easterly line of a 16 foot wide public alley in Block 3 of said Joseph B. Ford fit Co.'s West 16th Street Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the northerly right-of-way line of 18th Street; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Kostner Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line to the northerly right-of-way line of Cermak Road; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of said Belt Line Railway; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to said centerline of Roosevelt Road; thence westerly along said centerline to said point of beginning.
Exhibit "D".
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Area Ordinance)
Street Boundary Description Of The Area.
The street boundary description for the Roosevelt/Cicero Area is an area generally bounded by South Menard Avenue (north of West Roosevelt Road), the Belt Line Railroad, and the City corporate limits on the west; the Eisenhower Expressway on the north; South Pulaski Road on the east; and West Cermak Road on the south.
86
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Exhibit "E".
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Project Area Ordinance)
Proposed Land-Use.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 1.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs.
Program Action/Improvements
Planning, Legal, Professional,
Administration Assemblage of Sites Rehabilitation Costs Public Improvements Job Training Relocation Costs Interest Costs
Site Preparation/Environmental
Remediation/Demolition
S 1,000,000
S10,000,000 S 2.000.000 515.000,000 S 5,000,000 S 2.000,000 S 500,000
SI 9.500,000
TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS*
'Exclusive of capitalized interest, issuance costs and other financing costs.
All costs are 1997 dollars. In addition to Ihe above stated costs, each issue ot bonds issued to finance a phase of the project may include an amount of proceeds sufficient to pay customary and reasonable charges associated with the issuance ot such obligations. Adjustments to the estimated line item costs above are expected. Each individual project cost will be reevaluated in light of projected private development and resulting incremental tax revenues as it is considered for public financing under the provisions of the Act. The totals of line items set forth above are not intended to place a total limit on the descnbed expenditures. Adjustments may be made in line items within the total, either increasing or decreasing line item costs as a result ot changed redevelopment costs and needs.
The total estimated Redevelopment Project Costs amount does not include private redevelopment costs. Total Redevelopment Project Costs are inclusive of redevelopment project costs incurred in contiguous redevelopment project areas or those separated only by a public right of way that are permitted under the Act to be paid from incremental property taxes generated in the Redevelopment Project Area, but do not include redevelopment project costs incurred in the Redevelopment Project Area which are paid from incremental property taxes generated in contiguous redevelopment project areas or those separated only by a public right way.
88
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment.)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 1 of 16)
Permanent Index Number EAV
16 14 317 025 $38,365
1614 317 033 J3.793
16 14 317 034 $70B
16 14 317 035 $760
317 036 $1,153
16 14 317 037 $805
16 14 317 038 $7,311
16 14 317 042 $52,110 '
16 14 319 006 Exempt
308 001 Exempt
1615 308 002 Exempt
16 15 308 003 $19,660
1615 308 004 $20,785
16 15 308 022 $42,219
16 15 308 023 .$8,607
16 15 308 024 $5,358
16 15 308 025 $4,058
1615 308 026 £6.001
16 15 308 027 $947
16 15 308 028 53.888
16 15 308 032 $947
16 15 308 033 $4,538
16 15 308 034 $1,188
16 15 308 035 $947
1615 308 036 $5,564
18 15 308 039 $12,915
16 15 308 040 $6,610
16 15 308 041 $4,555
16 15 308 042 $18,421
16 15 308 044 Exempt
16 15 308 045 $4,717
16 15 308 046 $9,941
16 15 309 011 $146,193
16 1 5 309 012 Railroad
16 15 309 013 $968
89
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 2 of 16)
16 15 309 014 $1,693
16 15 309 015 $7,208
16 15 309 016 $3,206
16 1 5 309 017 $1,052"
16 15 309 018 $947
16 15 309 019 $947
16 15 309 020 $947
16 15 309 021 $930
16 15 309 022 $3,275
16 15 309 023 $91,591
16 15 309 024 Railroad
16 15 309 026 $9,474
16 15 310 005 $6,292
16 15310 006 ' $4,183
16 15 310 007 $3,260
16 15 310 008 $8,501
16 15 310 009 $8,968
16 15 310 010 $1,937
16 15 310 011 $3,933
16 15 310 012 $947
16 15 310 015 $4,015
16 15 310 016 $947
16 15 310 017 $6,115
16 15 310 018 $947
16 15 310 019 $4,342
16 15 310 020 $947
16 15 310 021 $4,230
16 15 310 022 $1,007
16 15 310 023 $23,357
16 1 5 310 024 $23,357
16 15 310 025 $2,367
16 15 310 028 $4,073
16 15 310 029 $8,394
16 15 310 030 $9,171
16 15 310 033 $4,437
16 1 5 310 034 $4,198
16 15 310 035 $4,013
16 15 310 036 $788
16 1 5 310 037 $11,613
16 1 5 310 038 Exempt
16 15 310 039 Exempt
90
JOURNAL—CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 3 of 16)
16 15 310 040 S'.',296
16 15310 041 51.003
16 15 310 04? Exempt
16 15 310 043 $9,347
16 15 310 044 $4,925
16 15 311 022 Railroad
16 15 311 023 $67,041
1615 311 024 $143,579
16 15 312 004 $48,643
16 15 312 005 $24,973
1615 312 006 $25,377
16 15 312 007 $7,146
1615 312 008 $4,723
16 15 312 009 $94,343
16 15 312 010 $37,672
1615 312 011 $18,836
16 15 312 012 $4,105
16 15 312 013 $25,736
16 15 312 014 $25,736
16 15 312 015 $5,655
16 15 312 016 $7,245
16 15 312 017 $8,919
16 15 312 018 $5,926
16 15 312 019 $947
16 15 312 020 $3,925
16 15 312 021 $96,162
16 15 312022 $4,138
16 15 312 023 $8,017
16 15 312 024 $1,321
16 15 312 025 $5,874
16 15 312 026 $5,857
16 15 312 027 $77,235
16 15 312 028 $38,601
16 15 312 029 $77,177
16 15 312 030 $44,758
16 15 312 031 $32,964
16 15 312 032 $32,947
16 15 312 033 $33,429
16 15 312 034 $17,091
16 15 312 035 $17,063
16 15 312 036 $30,376
91
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 4 of 16)
1615 312 038 S10.246
16 15 312 039 S129.760
16 15 313 006 $947
16 15 313 007 Exempt
16 15 313 008 $4,045
16 15 313 009 $947
16 15 313 010 S947
16 15 313 011 $947
1615 313 012 $947
16 15 313 013 $2,406
16 15 313 014 Exempt
16 15 313 015 $947
16 15 313 016 $947
1615 313 017 $2,218
16 15 313 019 $3,531
1615 313 020 $22,599
1615 313 021 $22,569
16 15 313 022 $22,539
16 1 5 313 023 $22,494
16 15 313 026 Exempt
16 15 313 027 Exempt
16 15 313 028 Exempt
16 15 313 029 Exempt
16 15 313 030 Exempt
16 1 5 313 031 Exempt
16 15 313 032 Exempt
16 15 313 033 Exempt
16 15 313 034 $2,741
16 15 313 035 Exempt
16 15 313 036 53.058
16 15 313 037 $9,734
16 15 313 039 $3,355
16 15 313 040 Railroad
16 15 313 041 Exempt
16 15 313 042 Railroad
16 15 313 043 Exempt
16 1 5 313 044 Exempt
16 15 313 045 566.914
16 15 314 006 Railroad
16 15 314 007 $108,104
16 15 319 001 Railroad
92
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J 996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 5 of 16)
6 15 319 002 $21,754
$21,676 $33,827 $5,801 $311,553 $21,792 $21,792 $20,611 $6,556 $6,556 $5.71.1 $2,911 $2,687 $2,481 $2,386 $2,386 $2,687-$465,350 $160,388 Railroad
$249,791 $220,192 S27E.691 $50,561 $115,254
Railroad Railroad $60,996 Railroad $11,516 $53,754
$580,122 $109,801
$87,180 $81,969 $42,294 Railroad $31,684 $20,202 S28.2B8 $4,024
6 15 319 003 6 15 319 004 6 15319005 6 15 320 001 6 15 320 002 6 15 320 003 6 15 320 004 6 15 320 005 6 15 320 006 6 15 320 007 6 15 320 008 6 15 320 009 6 15 320 010 16 15320 011 6 15 320 012 6 15 320 013 6 15 321 008 6 15 321 009 6 15 322 001 6 15 323 002 6 15 323 006 6 15 323 012 6 15 323 015 6 15 323 017 6 15 323 018 6 15 324 002 6 15 324 005 6 15 324 006 16 15 324 007 16 15 324 009 16 15 325 003 16 15 325 004 IE 15 325 005 16 15 325 007 16 15325 010 16 15 325 011 16 15 325 012 16 15 325 013 16 15 325 014 16 15 326 003
93
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 6 of 16)
16 15 326 004 $25,024
1615 326 005 $25,024
16 15 326 006 $3,824
16 15 326 007 $3,824
16 15 326 008 $11,873
1615 326009 $11,593
16 15 326 010 $11,593
1615 326 011 $41,519
1615 326 012 $24,652
16 15 326 013 $28,015
1615 326 014 $6,599
1615 326 015 $1,183
16 15 326 016 $6,150
1615 326 017 $6,152
16 15 326 018 $6,063
16 15 326019 $6,087
16 15 326020 $6,063
16 15 326 021 $5,947
16 15 326 022 $1,183
16 15 326 023 S1.1B3
16 15 326 024 $1.1B3
16 15 326 025 $1,183
16 15 326 026 $3,972
16 15 326 027 $3,699
16 15 326 030 $31,025
16 15 326 031 $4,024
16 15 327 001 $195,917
16 15 327 002 $12,887
16 15 327 003 $17,156
16 15 327 004 $14,735
16 15 327 005 $14,735
16 15 327 006 $14,735
16 15 327 007 $19,387
16 15 327 008 $19,387
16 15 327 009 $19,387
16 15 327 010 $19,387
16 15 327 011 $38,126
16 15 327 012 $39,208
16 15 327 013 $38,126
16 15 327 014 $37,121
16 15 327 015 $37,242
94
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 7 of 16)
1615 327 016 $1,183
1615 327 017 $1.1B3
16 15 327 018 55.949
16 15 327 019 Exempt
16 15 327 020 Exempt
16 15 327 021 $1,183
16 15 327 022 $1,183
16 15 327 023 $2,367
16 15 327 024 $6,107
16 15 327 027 $1,183
1615 327 028 $1,183
16 15 327 029 $5,814
1615 327 030 $5,102
16 15 327 031 $4,693
16 15 327 032 $4,693
1615 327 033 $4,693
16 15 327 034 $4,693.
16 15 327 035 $11,367
16 15 327 036 $8,921
16 15 328 001 $2,614
16 15 328 002 $2,862
16 15 328 003 $2,855
16 15 328 004 $2,855
16 15 328 005 $2,855
16 15 328 006 $8,303
16 15 328 007 $8,303
16 15 328 008 $8,303
16 15 328 009 $8,303
16 15 328 010 $7.B19
16 15 328 011 $3,223
1615 328 012 $2,685
16 15 328 013 $2,685
16 15 328 014 $3,027
16 15 328 015 $2,836
16 15 32B016 $2,799
16 15 328 017 $12,392
16 15 328023 $16,114
16 15 328 027 $79,204
16 15 328 028 $25,431
16 15 329 001 $4,437
16 15 329 002 $1,478
95
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 8 of 16)
1615 329003 51,183
1615329004 $1,478
1615 329 005 $1,478
16 15 329 006 $1,478
16 15 329007 $1,<78
1615 329 008 $20,516
1615 329 009 $32,319
16 15 329010 $33,104
1615 329 011 $23238
16 15 329012 $1,183
1615 329 013 $1,183
16 15 329 014 $15,789
16 15 329 015 $15,789
16 15 329016 $4,448
1615 329 017 $4,448
1615 329 01B $5,235
1615 329 019 $3.7B1
1615 329 020 $18,530
16 15 329 021 $24,491
1615 329 022 $24,618
1615 329 028 $74,550
16 15 329 035 $26,333
16 15 329 036 $29,067
16 15 329 038 $20,185
16 15 329 039 $139,856
16 15 329 040 $115,030
16 15 329 041 $89,091
16 15 415 001 $266,202
16 1S415 002 $52271
16 15415 003 $53,663
16 15 415 012 Exempt
1615 415 013 Exempt
1615 415 014 $7,189
1615415015 $4,445
16 15 415 016 ' $4,265
1615415017 $4,618
16 15 41S018 Exempt
16 15 415 019 Exempt
16 15 415 020 Exempt
16 1 5 415 021 Exempt
16 15 415 022 Exempt
96
61006 JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 9 of 16)
16 15 419 001 S1.767
16 15 419 002 $1,420
16 15 419 003 $1,420
16 15 419 004 $1,4?0
16 15 419 005 $1,420
16 15 419 006 $1,420
16 15 419 007 $1,420
16 15 419 008 $1,420
16 15 419 009 $1,420
16 15419010 $1,717
16 15 419 011 $1,717
16 15 419 030 $6,668
16 15 419 031 $3,636
16 15 419 032 $3,636
16 15 419 033 $3,636
16 15 419 034 $4,239
16 15 419 035 $107,665
16 15 419 037 $183,250
16 15 420 014 $238,991
16 15 420 015 $38,692
16 15 420 016 $109,674
16 15 420 017 $108,992
16 1 5 421 001' $317,023
16 15 421 004 $190,546
16 15 421 005 Railroad
16 15 422 001 $947
16 15 422 002 $947
16 15 422 003 $11,337
16 15 422 004 $11,337
16 15 422 005 $11,337
16 15 422 006 $11,587
16 15 422 007 $11,079
16 15 422 008 $11,337
16 15422 009 ,$11,010
16 15 422 010 $11,337
16 15422011 $11,475
16 15 422 012 $6,879
16 1 5 422 013 $11,337
16 15 422 014 $947
16 1 5 422 015 $11,243
16 1 5 422 016 $689
97
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 10 of 16)
16 15 422 034 $947
16 15 422 037 $1,362
1615 422 043 $16,443
16 15 422 044 $16,295
16 15 423 001 $1,904
16 15 423 049 $61,870
16 15 424 001 $15,260
16 15 424 002 $4,551
1615 424 003 $4,402
16 15 424 004 $4,402
16 15 424 005 $4,790
16 15 424 006 $4,790
16 15 424 007 $9,181
16 15 424 008 $6,427
16 15 424 009 $5,724
16 15 424 010 $5,743
16 15 424 011 $97,752
1615 424 012 $34,197
16 15 424 013 $68,411
16 15 424 014 $4,725
16 15 424 015 $4,499
16 15 424 016 $4,499
16 15 424 017 $18,580
16 15 425 001 $5,084
16 15 425 002 $4,620
16 15 425 003 $1,289
16 15 425 004 $6,438
16 15 425 005 $4,820
16 15 425 010 Exempt
16 15 425 012 SL648
1615 425 013 $13,939
16 15 42S014 $11707
16 15 425 015 $16,587
1615 501 001 Railroad
1615 501 002 Railroad
16 15 501 003 Railroad
16 1 5 501 007 Railroad
16 15 501 008 $8,019
16 15 502 001 Railroad
16 16 307 01B Exempt
16 16 308 053 $73,765
98
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 11 of 16)
16 16 309 004 Exempt
16 16 309 006 8001 Exempt
1616 3C9 0O6 3002 S5.345
16 16 309 007 Exempt
16 16 310 008 S1.487.046
1616 310 009 S1.553.463
16 16 310 010 S3.372.846.
16 16310011. $4,331,471
1616 310 014 $509,893
16 16 310015 $489,576
16 16 310 016 $167.B39
16 16 310 017 S358.527
16 16 310 018 S99.B67
16 16 310 019 $367,751
16 16 310 020 8001 Exempt
16 16 310 020 8002 $12,420
16 16 400 016 $24,742
16 16 400 017 $47,865
16 16 400 018 $24,742
16 16 400 019 $47,865
16 16 406 008 BO01 Exempt
16 16 406 008 8003 $173,461
16 16 406 009 8001 Exempt
16 16 406 009 8002 $1,735,473
16 16 408 008 $1,810
16 16 408 010 $175,531
16 16 408 012 $781,844
16 16 408 013 $10,277
16 16 408 014 $15,615
16 16 408 015 $18,916
16 16 408 016 $29,119
16 16 408 017 $1282
16 16 408 018 $2,124
18 16 408 019 Exempt
16 16 410 005 $234,234
16 16 410 006 $135,555
16 16 410 007 $203,045
16 16410008 $19,043
16 16 410 010 $167,998
16 16 410 011 $6,134
16 16 411 001 $767,879
99
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 12 of 16)
1616 411 002 S4?S.0t>3
501 001 Railroad
400 009 5261.528
16 17 400 010 $91,662
16 17 400 012 $181,431
16 17 400 014 $708,770
16 17 400 015 $472,399
1617 413 004 $63,964,
16 17 413 006 $248,717
1617 413 008 . $233,036
16 17 413 009 $221,145
1617 413 010 $33,422
16 17 413 012 $329,912
16 17 413 013 $295,291
1617 413 014 $206,978
16 17 413 016 $130,331
16 17 413 017 $116,168
1617 413 019 $23,963'
16 17 413 020 $341,869
16 17 413 021 $154,950
16 17 413 023 $610,399
16 17 413 024 $36,011
16 17 413 025 $143,647
16 17 413 026 $172,388
16 17 413 027 $373,701
16 17 413 028 $141,491
1617413029 $240,001
16 17 501 002 Railroad
16 22 106 002 $554,665
16 22 106 003 $165,347
16 22 106 004 $357,057
16 22106 005 $8,420
16 22106 011 Railroad
16 22 106 012 $78,737
16 22 106 014 Railroad
16 22 106 015 $88,749
16 22 106 016 $1,590
16 22 106 017 51.299.119
16 22 106 018 $5,795
16 22 106 019 $914,735
16 22 107 003 $214,490
100
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Table 2.
o Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 13 of 16)
1622107 010 $77,47'.
1622 107011 $181,367
16 22107 014 $398,015
16 22107 015 $189
16 22 107 019 $59294
16 22 107 020 $78234
16 22107 021 $310,916
16 22107 022 $123,869
16 22 107 024 $674,530
16 22 107 025 $98,473
16 22 107 026 $64,071
16 22 107 027 $58,623
16 22 107 028 $70,772
16 22 109 001 $1,885
16 22 109 002 $947
16 22 109 003 $947
16 22 109 004 $5,917
16 22109 005 S947
16 22 109 006 $947
16 22 109 007 Exempt
16 22 109 006 $6,616
16 22109 009 $6,539
16 22 109 010 $6,675
16 22109011 $2,797
16 22 1 09 014 $8,831
16 22109 015 $8,951
16 22109016 $7,393
16 22 109 017 $947
16 22 109 018 $947
16 22 109 019 $947
1622109020 $947
16 22 109 021 $947
16 22 109 022 $2,199
16 22 109 044 $10,873
16 22 113 001 Railroad
16 22114 001 Railroad
16 22115 007 $85,429
1622115008 $1,168
1622115 009 $1,168
$1,168
$1,168
101
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
i996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 14 of 16)
1622 115012 1622 115013 1622 115 014 1622 11501S ¦ 1622 115016 1622 115019 16 22 115 020 1622 115 021 16 22 115 022 16 22 115 023 16 22115 024 1622 115 025 1622115026 16 22 115 027 16 22 115 028 16 22115 029 1622 115030 16 22 115 031 1622 115032 1622 115033 1622 115034 16 22 115 035 16 22 115 036 16 22115 037 1622 115038 16 22 115 039 1622 115 040 1622 115041 1622 115 042 1622 115043 16 22115045 1622 116 003 1622 116 004 1622 116005 1622 116 006 1622 116 009 16 22 116010 16 22 116011 1622 116012 1622 116013 1622 116014
$1,168 $1,168 $1,168 $1,168 Exempt $4,258 $6,956 $1235 56,206 Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt $5,341
$936 $7,116 $6,698
$936
$936 $5,777
$936 Exempt $B.037 $B,379 $1,136 $6,961 $7,363 $7,247 $6,905 $1,069 $196,747 S6.75B
$689 $5,825
$850 $6,481 Exempt
$947 $5,803 $5,345 56.403
102
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1996 Equalized Assessed Valuation. (Page 15 of 16)
16 22116015 $1,179
16 22116 016 $2,584
16 22116 017 $5,459
16 22116 036 . $26,627
16 22 116 037 $1,149
16 22116 046 $8,624
16 22116 047 $15,966
16 22 312 001 . $284,160
16 22 312 002 $113,780
16 22 312 003 $248,022
16 22 312 004 $152,175
16 22 312 005 $38,556
16 22 312 006 $27,208
16 22 312 007 $229,756
16 22 312 012 Railroad
16 22 312 013 Railroad
16 22 312 014 $39,348
16 22 312 016 Railroad
1622 312017 $11,154
16 22 312 018 $36,794
16 22 312 019 $78,836
16 22 312 020 $563,154
16 22 312 021 $5,072
16 22 312 022 $4,942
16 22 312 024 $533,363
16 22 312 029 $66,948
16 22 312 030 $29,457
16 22 312 031 $418,499
16 22 312 032 $73,113
16 22 312 033 Exempt
16 22 312 034 Exempt
16 22 312 035 Railroad
16 22 312 036 $182,589
16 22 313 001 $456,421
16 22 313 003 $432,315
16 22 313 004 $113,123
16 22 313 011 $235,422
16 22 313 016 $160,971
16 22 313 017 Exempt
16 22 313 018 Exempt
16 22 313 019 $6,741
103
2/5/98 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Table 2.
(To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J996 Equalized Assessed. Valuation. (Page 16 of 16)
16 22 313 020 $130,397
16 22 313 021 $143,473
16 22 313 022 $1,363,504
16 22 313 023 $165,216
16 22 313 027 $300,745
16 22 313 029 $475,805
16 22 313 030 $3,471
16 22 313 031 $39,553
16 22 313 032 $177;879
16 22 313 033 $74,001
16 22 313 034 $265,834
16 22 313 035 Exempt
16 22 313 036 $19,540
16 22 313 038 $28,349
16 22 313 039 $86,836
16 22 313 040 $7,927
16 22 400 039 $11,834
16 22 400 040 $345,492
16 22 402 007 $32,788
16 22 402 008 $31,809
16 22 402 009 $31,609
16 22 402 036 $209236
16 22 500 013 Exempt
16 22 500 014 Exempt
16 22 501 005 Railroad
16 22 501 006 v Railroad
16 22 502 001 $16,585
Total: $48279.419
104
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
i990 Selected Census Data. ' (Page l ofl4)
Exhibit 1-1990 Selected Census Data for
Selected Census Tracks Located in the
Roosevelt/ Cicero Study Area
Provided by:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF TKL :-t,HM'R
1990 Dais
100-PERCENT COUNT OF PERSONS . Univeraa: Penona
1CO-Percant Count of Persona 10,178
HISPANIC ORIGIN Universe: Persons
Not ol Hispanic origin 18.896
Hispanic origin:
Mexican 352
Puerto Rlcan 1B
Cuban 37
Other Hispanic
Dominican|9 10|Central Amarican:
Guatemalan|9 10|Honduran|9 10|Nicaraguan|9 10|Panamanian|9 10|Sahadoran|9 10|Olhar Central American|9 10|South American:
Colombian|9 10|Ecuadorian|9 10|Paiuvian|9 10|Othar South American|9 10|Othar Hispanic J 9
HISPANIC ORIGIN BY RACE Univarse: Paraona Nol ot Hispanic orioln:
Wide 1.418
Black 17.334
Amarican Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut ' **
Asian or Pacific talander 7S
OtharRaca 22
Hispanic origin:
Whlta 244
Black a
American Indian, Eskimo, or Alaut|9 10|Asian or Pacific Uiandar|9 10|OtharRaca 165
105
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J990 Selected Census Data. (Page 2 of 14)
RACE- BY SEX' BY AGE Universe: Whita males
linear 5 yean 87
S to 14 yaan 114
15 to 59 years 559
60 to 64 yun 19
65 years and over 88
RACE BY SEX; BY AGE Universe: While tamalas
Under 5 years 51
5 to 14 yean 46
15 to 59 years 463
60 to 64 years 44
65 yaan and ovar 191
RACE: BY SEX; BY AGE Universe: Black male
Under 5 yaan 703
5 to 14 yean 1,589
15 to 59 yaan 4,620
60 to 64 years 350
65 yean and over 650
RACE: BY SEX: BY AGE Universe: Black female
Under 5 yean 703
5 to 14 yean 1,590
15 to 59 yaan 5,710
60 to 64 yaan 535
65 yaan and ovar 692
RACE: BY SEX: BY AGE
Universe: American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut males
Under 5 yaan|9 10|5 to 14 yaan|9 10|15to59yaan|910|60 to 64 yaan|9 10|65 yean and over|9 10|
RACE: BY SEX BY AGE
Universe: American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut tamalas
Under 5 yaan|9 10|5 to 14 yaan|9 10|15 to 59 yean 37
60 to 64 yean|9 10|65 yean and over|9 10|
106
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Bxhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 3 of 14)
RACE BY SEX-BY AGE Universe: Asian Pacific Islander male
Under 5 years q
S to 14 years 9
15 to 58 years 35
60 to G4 yean) rj
65 years and over|9 10|
RACE- BY SEX BY AGE
Universe: Asian Pacific Islander female
Under 5 yean|9 10|5 to 14 years .0
IS 10 59 years 23
60 to 64 years|9 10|65 years and over 11
RACE BY SEX BY AGE
Universe: Other race males
Under 5 years 15
5 to 14 yaan 20
15 to 59 yaan 71
60 to 64 yean|9 10|65 yean and over|9 10|RACE BY SEX BY AGE
Universe: Other race female*
Under 5 yean|9 10|5 to 14 yean 26
15 to 59 yaan 48
60 to 64 yaan|910|65 yaan and ovar|9 10|
PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD Univone: Households
Person 1,400
persons 1.37B
3penons 1,218
persons 1 ,006
persons &gg
persons 245
or more persons 366
FAMILY TYPE AND PRESENCE AND AGE OF CHILDREN Unrverse: Families Married -couple family:
With children 18 yaan and over 673
No children 18 yean and ovar 1,140
Other family-.
Male householder, no wife present
With children 18 yean and over 102
107
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. . (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 4 of 14)
No children 18 yean and over 225
Female householder, no huaband present
With children 18 yaan and ovar 908
No children 18 yaan and over 1.538
HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP Universe: Parsons in Family households;
Householder «.5M Spouse 1.883 Child:
NeturaRjom or adopted 7.089 SUp 263 Grandchild 1.*19 Othar Relatives 1.355 NonrelaJhres 020 In nonf amity households: Mala householder:.
Living alone 597 Not Irving alone 95 Female householder
Living alone B03 Not Irving alone 131 Non relatives 2BG In group quartan:
Institutionalized persona 181 Othar persona In group quartan 0
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Universe: Worken 16 Yaan And Over Car, truck, or van:
Drive alone 2.566
Carpooled 9S7
Pubic Transportation:
Bus or trolley bus 1.383
Subway or elevated 536
Raflroad 22
Taxfcab 10
Motorcycle|9 10|Bicycle °
Walked 191
Othar mean* 23
Worked at home 52
PRIVATE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Universe: Workers 16 Years and Over
Car, truck, or van:
Drove alone 2-S6fi In 2-pareon carpooi ?09 In 3-penon carpool 1*8 In *-person carpool 89
108
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J990 Selected Census Data. (Page 5 of 14)
In S-person carpool . 13
In 6-person carpool|9 10|In 7 or mora person carpool|9 10|Other Meana 2219
INDUSTRY
Universe: Employed Persona 16 Years And Over Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
Mining Construction.
Manufacturing, nondurable goods Manufacturing, durable goods Transportation
Communications and othar pubic utilities Wholesale Trade Retail trade
Finance, Insurance, and real estate Business and repair services Personal services
Entertainment an drecreation services Professional and related services:
Health services
Educational services
Other protasslonal and related services Public administration
0 ' 0 226 448 758 549 121 169 923 588 290 176 45
667 340 387 251
OCCUPATION
Universe: Employed Persons 16 Years And Older Managerial and Professional specialty occupations:
Executive, administrative, and managerial 276
Professional specialty occupations 423
Technical, sales, and edmlrtistrsltve support occupations:
Technicians and related support occupations 286
Sales occupabona 310
Administrative support, fndudlng clerical 1.535
Service occupations:
Private household occupations|910|Protective service occupations 184
Service, except protecthre and household 1.022
Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations 11
Precision production, craft, and repair 504
Operators, fabricators and laborers:
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 678
Transportation and material moving occupaliona 432
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborer 432
HOUSEHOLD: INCOME IN 1989
Universe: Households Household Income In 1989
Less than S5.CO0 1259
$5,000 to $9,999 818
$10,000 to $12,499 427
$12,500 to $14,999 350
J15.000 to $17,489 321
109
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J990 Selected Census Data. (Page 6 of 14)
$17,500 to $19,999 335
$20,000 to $22,499 255
$22,500 to $24,999 239
$25,000 to $27,499 261
$27,500 to $29,999 178
$30,000 to $32,499 206
$32,500 lo $34,999 178
$35,000 to $37,499 261
$37,500 to $39,999 144
$40,000 tD $42,499 146
$42J00 to $44,999 112
$45,000 to $47,489 106
$47,500 to $49,899 6?
SSO.COO to $54,990 201
$55,000 to 159.999 126
$60,000 to $74,999 131
$75,000 to $99,999 67
$100,000 to $124,999 19
$125,000 to $149,989|9 10|$150,000 Of mom 10 -
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 Universe: Households
Modian Household income In 1989 19,421
AGGREGATE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 Universe: Households
Less than $150,000 133.311.195 Jl50.000or more 4,137.000
FAMILY INCOME IN 1989 Universe: Families Family Income In 1888
Lasa than $5,000 643
$5,000 to $9,899 547
$10,000 to $12,499 212
$12.50010114.899 267
$15,000 to $17,499 197
$17,500 to $19,989 238'
$20,000 to $22,498 226
S22JO0 to $24,999 203
$25,000 to $27,499 124
$27,500 to $29,999 130
$30,000 to $32,489 186
$32,500 to $34,999 132
$35,000 to $37,499 250
$37,500 to $38,899 106
$40.000 to $42.489 147
$42,500 to $44,889" 123
$45,000 to $47,499 98
$47,500 to $49,999 39
110
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 7 of 14)
S50.0O0toJ54.898 178
$55,000 to $59,999 126
160,000 to $74,899 118
$75,000 to $89,999 67
$100,000 to $124,889 .18
$125,000 to $148,899-|9 10|$150,000 or mora 10
PACE BY SEX BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS Univeise: Person* 16 years and ovar
While:
Male:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces 0 Civilian: Employed
412
Unemployed 10 Not In labor Force 244 Female:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces 0 Civilian:
Employed 302 Unemployed 9 Not in labor Force 372
Blade
Mala:
In labor Fores:
In Armed Forces 7
Civilian:
Employed 2,187 Unemployed 818 Not in labor Force 2,422 Female:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces ¦ 0
Civilian:
Employed 2.90a Unerrsjloyad 722 • Not In labor Force 3.303 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut Mala:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces 0
Civilian: Employed Unemployed
Not in labor Force 0 Female:
In labor Force: . _ .
In Armed Forces 0 Civilian:
Employed ' Unemployed 8
I 1 1
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
J990 Selected Census Data. (Page 8 of 14)
Not In labor Fore* 20 Asian or Pacifle Islander Mala:
In labor Force:
In Armed Foxes o
Civilian:
Employed 13 Unemployed 0 Not In labor Force 22 Female:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces 0
Civilian:
Employed 17 Unemployed 0 Not in labor Force 17
Other race: Male:
In labor Force:
In Armed Forces 0 Civilian:
Employed 66 Unemployed 0 Not in labor Force 5 Female:
In labor Force:
In Armod Forces 0 Civilian:
Employed 21 Unemployed 14 Not In labor Force 20
SEX BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS Universe: Parsons 16 years and ovar
Malo:
In labor force:
In Armed Forces 7
Civilian:
• Employed 2,677 Unemployed 826 Not tn tabor force 2,633
Female:
In labor force*.
In Armed Forces 0
Civilian:
Employed 3.257 Unemployed 753 Not In labor tores 3.732
POVERTY STATUS IN 1889: BY AGE
Universe: Persons tor Whom Poverty Status Is Determine
Income In 1989 Above poverty level:
112
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(SubJExhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 9 of 14)
Under 3 years ggg
Syean a
6t011yeara , "
12 to 17 yew ^
18to24ye«ra lit?
2Sto34yean
35to44y«u, *g
1487
55 to 59 yean «.
60 to My Mm
65to74yeen» ^
75 yean and over 472
Income in 1889 below poverty levet-
Under 5 yean ^
S-"4U3 195
6to11y»rm 9£
12ta17ye»m 39,
18 to 24 year, roi
«!0^yw™ 1.078
35to44ye«ni aiB
45t0S4y-«n ™
55 to 59 yean 161
60 to 64 years 180
65 to 74 yean 277
343
60
POVERTY STATUS IN 1888 BY SEX BY AGE Univene: Pomona tor who poverty statue la determined Income in 1889 above poverty levee
Male: Under 5 years
years
6» 11 yean 533 12to17yee/a 725
65 to 74 yaan 454 75 yean and over n3
Female:
Under 5 yean 355
Syean ^
to 11 yean S64
I2tol7yeai» 478
18 to 64 yaan 4378
65 to 74 yean 434
75 yean and over 359
Income In 1888 below poverty level:
Male:
Under 5 yaan 443 5 yean 12e 61011 yaan 42,
75 yean and over 13s
113
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Bxhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 10 of 14)
12 to 17 years 453
IB to 64 years 1,259
65 to 74 years 91
75 years and over S3
Female:
Under 5 years 391
years eg
to 11 years S87
12 to'17 years 438
18 to 64 years 1,902
65 to 74 years 186
75 yeara and over 76
100-PERCENT COUNT OF HOUSINQ UNITS Universe: Housing Unit* Total 6,639
OCCPANCY STATUS Universe: Housing units
Occupied 6,090 Vacant 567
TENURE
Universe: Occupied Housing Units Owner occupied 2,062 Rent occupied 4.483
AGGREGATE PERSONS BY TENURE Universe: Occupied housing unita
Owner occupied 8.818
Renter occupied 12.316
AGGREGATE PERSONS BY TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER Universe: Persons In occupied housing units
Totat . Owner occupied:
White 754 Black 5.845 American Indian. Eskimo, or Aluei 0
Asian or Padflc Islander 72 Other race 145 Renter occupied:
White 851 Black 11.288 American Indian. Eskimo, or Aluet 146 Asian or Padflc Islander B Other race 45
1 14
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 11 of 14)
Public system or private company Indmdualwelt
Drilled
Dug
Some other source
SOURCE OF WATER Universe: Year-Round Housing Units Source ot Water
6,657
0 0 0
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Universe: Year-Round Housing Units
Sewage Disposal|9 10|Public sewer 6.502
Septic tank or cesspool 74
Other means 81
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Universe: Housing Units
1989 to March 1980 50
1985101988|9 10|1980 to 1984 285
1970 to 1979 78
1960 to 1969 486
1950 to 1959 679
194010 1949 1,331
1939 or earlier 3,748
MEDIAN YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Universe: Housing Units
Median year structure built 13,584
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Universe: Vacant Housing Units
1989 to March 1890|910|198510 1988|9 10|198010 1984 9
1970 to 1979|9 10|1960 to 1969 48
1950 to 1858 32
1940 to 1948 132
1939 or earlier 343
115
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 12 of 14)
PLUMBING FACILITIES BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE Urwarsa' Hctising Unit* Complete plumbing facilities:
l.dstached
1,attached|1010|3or4
Sto9
10 to 19
20 to 48
50 or more
Mobile home or trailer
Othar
Lacking complete plumbing taattiss: 1, detached 1.attached|1010|3 014
5to9
10 to 18
20 to 49
50 or mora
Mobile home or trailer
Other
HOUSE HEATING FUEL Universe: Occupied Housing Una* Utility gas
Balded, tank, or LP gas
Bectnciry
Fuel oil. kerosene, etc Coal or coke Wood
Solar energy Other fuel No hie! used
116
JOURNAL--CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 13 of 14)
VALUE
Universe: Specified mneroccupiii housing unla
Less than $15,000
$15.000 to $1B,889
$20,000 to $24,889
$25,000 to $29,899
$30,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $44,999
$45,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $124,999
$125,000 to $148,999
$150,000 to $174,999
$175,000 to $199,998
$200,000 to $248,998
$250,000 to $299,998
$300,000 to $399,998
$400,000 to $489,888
$500,000 or mora
GROSS RENT
Urinaria: Specified Renter-Occupied Housing Uniu With cash rent Lass than $100 $100 to $148 $150 to $189 $200 to $249 $250 to $299 $300 to $349 $350 to $398 $400 to $448 $450 to $498 $500 to $549 $550 to $588 $600 to $848 $65010 $688 $700 to $748 $750 to $888 $1,000 or more No cash rent
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Universe: Housing units 1, detached 1, attached 2
3 or 4 5to8 10 to 19
117
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
1990 Selected Census Data. (Page 14 of 14)
20 to 49 242
50 or mora|9 10|Mobile home or trailer 11
Othar 45
CONDOMINIUM STATUS BY VACANCY STATUS Universe: Vacant housing units Condominium:
For rent|9 10|For sale only|9 10|For seasorial, recreational, or occasional use|9 10|All other vacants|9 10|Not condominium:
For rent 255
For sale only|910|For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use|910|All other vacants 297
CONDOMINIUM STATUS BY TENURE AND MORTGAGE STATUS Universe: Occupied housing units Condominium: Owner occupied:
With a mortgage 0 Not mortgaged 0
Renter occupied 0 Not condominium:
Owner occupied:
With'a mortgage 924 Not mortgaged 1.183 Renter occupied 3.983|10 10|JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 3. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Building Permit Requests. (Page 1 of 2)
new construction/investment permits
Permit # date Address Investment
766775 3/22/93 1643 S. Kilbourn Ave. > -.20.360
766776 3/22/93 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $45,000
766949 3/26/93 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $185,200
766979 3/26/93 4800 W. Roosevelt Rd. $300,000
76756B 4/8/93 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd. $13,000
770621 6711/93 1645 & Kilbourn Ave. $200,000
772642 7/26793 4501 W. 16th St. $23,000
778350 11/15/93 1821 S. Kilbourn Ave. $1,900,000
792815 9/20/94 4510 W. 16th SL $8,700
799314 272/95 4508 W. 16th St. $7,026
805494 677/95 4526 W. Grenshaw St. $6,200
829864 8/19/96 1431 S. Kilbourn Ave. $8,500
830907 9/4/96 4422 W. Roosevelt Rd. $2,000
836222 11/20/96 1840 S. Kilbourn Ave. $95,000
837846 12/17/96 734 S. Springfield Ave. $6,700
851405 7/14/97 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $80,000
TOTAL (16 permits) $3,200,868
DEMOLITION PERMITS
Permit* Date Address Imvestmeht
764447 01/13/93 4652 W. Polk St so
771231 6/24/93 4347 W. Fifth Ave. $0
777484 10/27/93 1821 S. Kilbourn Ave. $0
Louik/Schneider & Associates, Inc . _*>9
119
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 61029
(Sub)Exhibit 3. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Building Permit Requests. (Page 2 of 2)
779739 12/17/93 916 S. Springfield $0
790096 678/94 5700 W. Roosevelt Rd. $0
803252 4/28/95 4515 W. Fifth Ave. $1,500
805116 5/31/95 1157 S. Kostner Ave. $0
810268 8/28/95 4225 W. Fillmore St. $0
810716 9/5/95 4512 W. 16th St SO
811356 9/18/95 1330 S. Kilbourri Ave. $5,000
817584 1/23/96 5600 W. Roosevelt Rd. $0
96002357 03/27/96 4641 W. Arthington St. $7,450
96002358 03/27/96 4625 W. Arthington Rd. $7,450
96009916 07/23/96 5300 W. Roosevelt Rd. $20,000
829462 8/13/96 5660 W. Taylor St. $50,000
831821 9/19/96 5300 W. Roosevelt Rd. $32,800
835818 11/14/96 4704 W. Fifth Ave. $36,000
836697 11/26/96 4747 W. Arthington St. $5,200
840521 02/10/97 4456 W. 16th St. $14,700
842924 03/21/97 4426 W. Grenshaw St. $5,500
844956 04/22/97 5740 W. Roosevelt Rd $800,000
845814 05/06/97 1427 S. Kilbourn Ave. $7,300
845829 05/06/97 4733 W. Arthington St. $14,700
851932 07/17/97 1318 S. Kilbourn Ave. $414,000
854000 08/04/97 4445 W. Fifth Ave. $5,000
TOTAL (25 demolition permits) $1,426,600
120
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 4/Map 1. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Project Boundary.
1AV ffllMVMMf
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 4/Map 2. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Existing Land-Use.
e
ji! i -JU
61032 JOURNAL—CITY COUNCIL—CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 4/Map 3. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Roosevelt/Kostner Redevelopment Area.
1*» B«MHf
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 4/Map 4. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Redevelopment Plan)
Proposed Land-Use.
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98.
(Sub)Exhibit 2. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Building Permit Requests. (Page 1 of 2)
New Construction/Investment Permits
Permit* Date Address Investment
766775 3/22/93 1643 S. Kilbourn Ave. $320,360
766776 3/22/93 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $45,000
766949 3/26/93 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $185,200
766979 3/26/93 4800 W. Roosevelt Rd. $300,000
767568 4/8/93 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd. $13,000
770621 6/11/93 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $200,000
772642 7/26/93 4501 W. 16th St. $23,000
778350 11/15/93 1821 S. Kilbourn Ave. $1,900,000
792815 9/20/94 4510 W. 16th St. $8,700
799314 2/2/95 4508 W. 16th SL $7,026
605494 6/7/95 4526 W. Grenshaw SI. $6,200
829884 8/19/96 1431 S. Kilbourn Ave. $8,500
830907 9/4/96 4422 W. Roosevelt Rd. S2.000
836222 11/20/96 1840S. Kilbourn Ave. $95,000
837846 12/17/96 734 S. Springtield Ave. $6,700
851405 7/14/97 1645 S. Kilbourn Ave. $80,000
TOTAL (16 permits) $3,200,868
DEMOLITION PERMITS
Permit* Date Address Investment
764447 01/13/93 4652 W. Polk St $0
771231 6/24/93 4347 W. Frith Ave. $0
777484 10/27/93 1821 S. Kilbourn Ave. $0
779739 12/17/93 916 S. Springfield $0
125
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 2. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Building Permit Requests. (Page 2 of 2)
790096 8/6794 5700 W. Roosevelt Rd. $0
803252 4/28/95 4515 W. Fitth Ave. $1,500
805116 5/31/95 1157S. Kostner Ave. $0
810268 8/28/95 4225 W. Fillmore St. $0
810716 9/5/95 4512 W. 16th St $0
811356 9/18/95 1330 S. Kilbourn Ave. $5,000
817584 1/23/96 5600 W. Roosevelt Rd. $0
96002357 03/27/96 4641 W. Arthington St. $7,450
96002358 . 03/27/96 4625 W. Arthington Rd. $7,450
96009916 07/23/96 5300 W. Roosevelt Rd. $20,000
829462 8/13/96 5660 W. Taylor St. $50,000
831821 9/19/96 5300 W. Roosevelt Rd. $32,800
835818 11/14/96 4704 W. Fifth Ave. $36,000
836697 11/26/96 4747 W. Arthington St. $5,200
840521 02/10/97 4456 W. 16th St. $14,700
842924 03/21/97 4426 W. Grenshaw St. - $5,500
844956 04/22/97 5740 W. Roosevelt Rd $800,000
845814 05/06/97 1427 S. Kilbourn Ave. $7,300
845829 05/06/97 4733 W. Arthington St. $14,700
851932 07/17/97 1318 S. Kilbourn Ave. $414,000
854000 08/04/97 4445 W. Fifth Ave. $5,000
TOTAL (25 demolition permits) $1,426,600
126
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 3. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Building Code Violations.
Exhibit 3 - Building Code Violations
4641 W. Arthington SL 4653 W. Arthington St 4719 W. Arthington St.
4723 W. Arthington SL
472B W. Arthington St.
4747 W. Arthington SL
4819 W. Arthington SL
4949 W. Arthington SL
4400 W. Cermak Rd.
4450 W. Cermak Rd.
4506 W. Cermak Rd.
739 S. Cicero Ave.
759 S. Cicero Ave.
801 S. Cicero Ave.
815 S. Cicero Ave.
SI Cicero Ave.
S. Cicero Ave. 921 S. Cicero Ave. 927 S. Cicero Ave. 1030 S. Cicero Ave. 1111 S. Cicero Ave. 1142 S. Cicero Ave. 4515 W. Firth Ave.
4724 W. Fifth Ave.
4746 W. fifth Ave.
4100 W.Fillmore SL
4108 W. Fillmore St.
4112 W.Fillmore St.
4225 W. Fillmore SL
4227 W. Fillmore St.
4235 W. Fillmore St.
4242 W. Fillmore St.
4247 W. Fillmore St.
4249 W. Fillmore SL
4251 W. Fillmore St
4413 W. Fillmore SL
W. Fillmore St. 4444 W. Fillmore SL 4455 W. Fillmore St 4506 W. Fillmore St 4510 W. Fillmore St
W. Grenshaw St. 1001 S. Keeler Ave. 1102 S. Keeler Ave. 1024 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1101 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1235 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1242 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1246 S. Kilbourn Ave.
1300 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1318 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1348 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1400 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1402 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1411 S. KilboumAve. 1427 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1501 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1508 S. KilboumAve. 1531 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1534 S. KilboumAve. 1537 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1637 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1812 S. KilboumAve. 1820S. KilboumAve. 1821 S. Kilbourn Ave. 1846 S. KilboumAve. 1914 S. KilboumAve. 2001 S. Kilbourn Ave. 2140S. KilboumAve. 922 S. Kjlpatrick Ave: 1007 S. Kolmar Ave. 900 S. Kostner Ave. 1000 S. Kostner Ave. 1034 S. Kostner Ave. 1100S. Kostner Ave. 1125S. Kostner Ave. 1157S. Kostner Ave. 1200 S. Kostner Ave. 1330 S. Kostner Ave. 1338 S. Kostner Ave. 1350 S. Kostner Ave. 1850 S. Kostner Ave. 4535 W. Lexington St. 4553 W.Lexington St. 4701 W. Lexington SL 5055 W. Lexington St. 5109 W. Lexington St. 5117W. Lexington St. 4600 W. Polk St. 4640 W. Polk St. 4706 W. Polk St. 4713 W. Polk SL 473B W. Polk St.
W. Polk St.
W. Polk St. 4742 W. Polk St. 5059 W. Polk St. 5263 W. Polk St.
4340 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4350 W. Roosevelt Rd.
W. Roosevelt Rd.
W. Roosevelt Rd, 4412 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4424 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4436 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4442 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4516 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4538 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4718 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4734 W. Roosevelt Rd. 4800 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5100 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5140 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5200 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5300 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5600 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5626 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5700 W. Roosevelt Rd. 5750 W. Roosevett Rd. 4001 W. Taylor St. 4131 W. Taylor St. 4501 W. 16th SL 4508 W. 16th SL 4510 W. 16th St. 4512 W. 16th St.
Total: 125 building code violations
127
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 4. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Criteria Matrix. (Page 1 of 3)
Exhibit 4 • Distribution of Criteria Matrix
BLOCK|99999999|B 9 10 11 12 13 14
16 14317 X X X p p X X
16 14 319 X X p p p X X .
16 15 30B X X X X p p p X
16 15 309 X X X X X X X
16 15310 X p X X p p p X X
16 15311 X p X X p p p X X
16 15 312 X X X X X p p X
16 15313 X X X X p X X X
16 15 314 X X X X p X X X X
16 15319 X X p X p p X X
16 15 320 X X p p- X X
16 15321 X X X X X
16 15 322 X X
16 15 323 X X X X p p p X
16 15 324 X X X p p p X
16 15 325 X X X X X X X
16 15 326 X X X p p p p p X X
16 15 327 X X X X p p p X X X
16 15326 X X X X p X X
Key
X Present to a Major Extent P Present
Not Present
Criteria
AGE
DILAPIDATION
OBSOLESCENCE
DETERIORATION
ILLEGAL USE OF INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES
PRESENCE OF STRUCTURES BELOW MINIMUM CODE
EXCESSIVE VACANCIES
S OVERCROWDING|10 9|LACK OF VENTILATION. LIGHT OR SANITARY FACILITIES
INADEQUATE UTILITIES
EXCESSIVE LAND COVERAGE
DELETERIOUS LAND USE OR LAYOUT
DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE
LACK OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
128
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 4. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Criteria Matrix. (Page 2 of 3)
Exhibit 4 - Distribution of Criteria. Matrix (cont.)
BLOCK|999999999 9|10 11 12 13 14
16 15 329 X p X X p p' p p X
1615415 X p X X X X
16 15 419 X X X X p p X X
1615 420 X X X p X X X
16 15 421 X X X p p X X
16 15 422 X p X X p X X
IS 15 423 X X X
16 15 424 X p P p p p p
16 15 425 X p X p p x' X
16 15 501
16 15 502
1616 307 X X p X
16 16 308 X X
1616 309 X X X
16 16 310 X X X X p X p X
16 16 400 X p X X
16 16 406 X X X X X X X X
16 16 408 X X X X X
16 16 410 X X X p X X X
Key
X Present lo a Major Extent P Present Not Present
Criteria
AGE
DILAPIDATION
OBSOLESCENCE
DETERIORATION
ILLEGAL USE OF INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES
PRESENCE OF STRUCTURES BELOW MINIMUM CODE
EXCESSIVE VACANCIES
OVERCROWDING
LACK OF VENTILATION, LIGHT OR SANITARY FACILITIES
INADEQUATE UTILITIES
EXCESSIVE LAND COVERAGE
DELETERIOUS LAND USE OR LAYOUT
DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE
LACK OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
129
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 4. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Criteria Matrix. (Page 3 of 3)
Exhibit 4 - Distribution of Criteria Matrix (com.)
BLOCK|999999999 9|10 11 12 13 14
1616411 X X p X X p X X 'X
16 16501 X ¦ X X X
1617*00 X p p X X p X X X
1617 413 X X X X
1617 500
16 17 501 X
16 22 106 X X X X p p X X
1622107 X X X p p p X
16 22 109 X p X X p X X
16 22113 X
16 22114 X X X X
16 22 115 X p X X X p X X
1622 116 X p X X p X X
IS 22 312 X • p X X p X p X
16 22 313 X p X X p X p X
16 22 400 X X X X X X X
16 22 402 X X X X ¦ X X
16 22 500
16 22 501 X X
16 22S02
Key
X Present to a Major Extent P Present
Not Present'
Criteria
AGE
DILAPIDATION
OBSOLESCENCE
DETERIORATION
ILLEGAL USE OF INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES
PRESENCE OF STRUCTURES BELOW MINIMUM CODE|109|EXCESSIVE VACANCIES
OVERCROWDING
LACK OF VENTILATION. LIGHT OR SANITARY FACILITIES
INADEQUATE UTILITIES
EXCESSIVE LAND COVERAGE
DELETERIOUS LAND USE OR LAYOUT
DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL MAINTENANCE
LACK OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
130
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit. 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. (Page 1 of 6)
A. Block Number 317 319 308 309 , 310 311 312 313 314 319
B. Number of Buildings|999 99999999|
C. Number of Parcel! |99|23 15, 3.4|99|35 35|999|
1. Number of buildings 35 years or older|999 99999999|
2. A. Number of buildings showing decline of physical maintenance|999 99999999|
2. B. Number of parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline of physical maintenance|9999|14 1 . 1 it. 2 1 25 34 N/A|99|
3. A. Number of deteriorated buildings|999| 15|9999|
3. B. Number of parcels with site improvement that are deteriorated|99 999999|34 N/A|9 9|
4. A. Number of dilapidated buildings|9 9999|5 .|99 9999|
5. A. Number of obsolete buildings|99999999999|
5. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are obsolete|99 9|.5 14|999|20 34 N/A|9 9|
G. Number ot buildings below minimum code
7. Number ot buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities . 0|9 9 9 99 9 9 99 9|
S. Number of buildings with illegal uses|9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9|
9. Number of buildings with excessive vacancies|9 9 99 9999 999|
10. Number ot parcels with excessive vacancies|999|"3|9 999 99|N/A|9 9|
11 Total number of eligibility factors represented in block|9999|7. 9|9999 99|
131
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. . (Page 2 of 6)
A. Block Number 320 321 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 415
B. Number of Buildings|999999
99999|
C. Number of Parcels 13|99 99 9|27 34 21 34 , 1,4
1. Number ot buildings 35 years or older|999999
99999|
2. A. Number ol buildings showing decline ol physical maintenance|999999
99|4 .|999|
2. B. Number ol parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline ol physical maintenance ' 12 N/A|9999|15 27 16 20 9
3. A. Number ol detenorated buildings 1 .|9999999999|
3. 8. Number ol parcels with site improvements that are deteriorated|99 99999 9|4'|99 9|
4. A. Number ot dilapidated buildings|9 9 99 9999|0- • 1|99|
5. A. Number ol obsolete buildings|999999
99999|
5. B. Number ol parcels with site improvements that are obsolete 12 |9999|13 13 14 20 9
6. Number ot buildings below minimum code
7. Number ot buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities|9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 9|
B. Number ot buildings with illegal uses|9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9|b
9. Number ot buildings with excessive vacancies|9 999 9 9999 9 9|
10. Number ot parcels with excessive vacancies .0 |9 99 9 9 999 9|
11. Total number of eligibility factors represented in block|999999|10 10|99 99|
132
JOURNAL—CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Bxhibit 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. (Page 3 of 6)
A. Block Number 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 501 502 307
B. Number of Building*|99999 999 9 99|
C. Number of Parcels 18|99999|17 10|9999|
1. Number of buildings 35 years or older|9999|15 N/A|9 99|N/A N/A|99|
2. A. Number of buildings showing decline of physical maintenance|9999|14 N/A|9 99|N/A N/A|99|
2. B. Number of parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline ol physical maintenance 14|9 9 9|2.|9999 9 9 9|
3. A. Number of detenorated buildings|9 999|13 N/A|9 99|N/A N/A|99|
3. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are deteriorated 9|9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9|
4. A. Number ot dilapidated buildings|99999|N/A|9 99|N/A N/A|9 9|
5. A. Number of obsolete buildings|9999|15 N/A|999|N/A N/A|9 9|
5. 8. Number ol parcels with site improvements that are obsolete 16|9 9 999 99 9 9 9|
S. Number of buildings below minimum coda
7. Number of buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities|9 9 9 9 9|N/A|9 9 9|N/A N/A|9 9|
8. Number of buildings with illegal uses|9 9 9 9 9|N/A|9 9 9|N/A N/A|9 9|
9. Number of buildings with excessive vacancies|9 9 9 99|N/A|9 99|N/A N/A|9 9|
10 Number of parcels with excessive vacancies|99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9|
11 Total number of eligibility factors represented in block 10|9999999 9 99|
133
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. . (Page 4 of 6)
A. Block Number 308 309 310 400 408 408 410 411 501 400
8. Number of Buildings|9 9 99 99999 99|
C. Number of Parcels|999
999
99999|
1. Number of buildings 35 years or older N/A N/A 9 N/A|99999|N/A|99|
2. A. Number of buildings showing decline of physical maintenance N/A N/A 9 N/A|99999|N/A i
2. B. Number of parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline of physical maintenance|99999 99 999|i
3. A. Number of deteriorated buildings N/A N/A 9 N/A|99999|N/A|9 9|
3. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are deteriorated|9 9 999 9|b 0 .|9 9 9|i
4. A. Number of dilapidated buildings N/A N/A|99|N/A|99 99 9 9 9|
5. A. Number of obsolete buildings N/A N/A|99|N/A|99999|N/A i
5. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are obsolete|99 999 99 999|0.
6 Number of buildings below minimum code
7. Number ot buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities N/A N/A|9 9|N/A|9 9 9 9 9|N/A|9 9|
8. Number of buildings with illegal uses N/A N/A|9 9|N/A|9 9 9 9 9|N/A|9 9|
9 Number of buildings with excessive vacancies N/A N/A|999999 9|N/A|9 9|
10 Number of parcels with excessive vacancies|999 9 999 9 9 99|
11 Total number ot eligibility factors represented in block|99999999999|
134
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(Sub)Exhibit 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. (Page 5 of 6)
A. Block Number 413 500 501 106 107 109 113 114 115 lie 312
B. Number of Buildings 11|9 9 9999 9 999|12
iL Number of Parcel* ._21|99|_J _L2_ ?1 —J 1 . _27_ .11,. ?8
1. Number ol buildings 35 years or older 11 N/A N/A|9999|N/A N/A 10|99|12 .
2. A. Number ol buildings showing decline of physical maintenance 11 N/A N/A|9999|N/A N/A 11|99|12
2. B. Number of parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline ol physical maintenance|99 99|.3|99999
999|
3. A. Number of deteriorated buildings 11 N/A N/A|9999|N/A N/A 14|99|10
3. 8. Number ol parcels with site improvements that are deteriorated|99 9 9 9 9 999 99 9|
4. A. Number ol dilapidated buildings|99|N/A N/A|99 99|N/A N/A|9999|
5. A. Number of obsolete buildings 11 N/A N/A|9999|N/A N/A 12|99 9|
5. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are obsolete|99 9 999
999 999|
6. Number of buildings below minimum code
7 Number ot buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities|9 9|N/A N/A|9 9 9 9 9|¦ -|9 9|0 .
8. Number of buildings with illegal uses|9 9|N/A N/A|9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9|
9. Number ot buildings with excessive vacancies|99|N/A N/A|999 9 9 99 99|
10. Number ol parcels with excessive vacancies 10|9 9 9 9 9|2 -|9 9 99 9 9|
11 Total number of eligibility factors represented in block|99999999999|11
135
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(SubJExhibit 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Distribution Of Blighted Factors. (Page 6 of 6)
A. Block Number 313 400 402 500 501 502
B. Number ol Buildings 16|999 9 9 9|
C. Number of Parcels 27|99|4 ¦|999|__L_
1. Number ol buildings 35 years or older 12|9 99|N/A N/A N/A
2. A. Number of buildings showing decline ol physical maintenance 12|99|'1 N/A N/A N/A
2. B. Number of parcels with site improvements exhibiting decline* of physical maintenance|999 9 99 9|
3. A. Number of deteriorated buildings 13|999|N/A N/A N/A
3. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are deteriorated|999 9 99 9|
4. A. Number of dilapidated buildings|99 9 9|N/A N/A N/A
5. A. Number of obsolete buildings 15|9 99|N/A N/A N/A
5. B. Number of parcels with site improvements that are obsolete|999 9 99 9|
6. Number ot buildings below minimum code |9 9 9 9|
7. Number of buildings lacking ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities|99|0 .|9 9|N/A N/A N/A
8. Number of buildings with illegal uses|9 9 9 9|N/A N/A N/A
9 Number ol buildings with excessive vacancies|9 9 9 9|N/A N/A N/A
10 Number of parcels with excessive vacancies|99 99|N/A N/A N/A
11. Total number of eligibility factors represented in block 9|99999 9|
136
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 1. -(To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Project Boundary.
" ~ s~r —'—-
1AV a«»lM
-.:'.»
137
2/5/98 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ¦ 61047
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 2. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
138
Existing Land-Use.
61048 . JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(Sub)Bxhibit 6/Map 3. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Vacant Tracts.
"FT:
139
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 4\ (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Age.
1A* SHijCMtoal
i i
i i
I
H ft
o
t—
H a
ex o q cz rz o o
—I <
a
y~
cn
Z>
a z
o rx
UJ
o > OQ ^ »— UJ
i- < _j >
UJ J- .
UJ S= ^
O O a.
o:<
cr uj 2
140
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(Sub)Bxhibit 6/Map 5. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
141
Dilapidation.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 6. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
142
Obsolescence.
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 7. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Structures Below Minimum Code.
143
1AV OHMOMIMg
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 8. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Deterioration.
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO ' 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 9. (To Roosevelt/Cicero EUgibility Study)
Excessive Vacancies.
nn
n
il r
ll »¦
to
UJ
o z <
— <
o > S s
E111
UJ (- ,
> -,
OOO. OZi< rr uj 2
3at GNtkln
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
3AV 0~]]i*O(aa«t
HfH
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 10. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
146
Excessive Land Coverage.
JOURNAL-CITY COUNCIL-CHICAGO 2/5/98
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 11. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
147
Deleterious Land-Use/Layout
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
(Sub)Exhibit 6/Map 12. (To Roosevelt/Cicero Eligibility Study)
Depreciation Of Physical Maintenance.
CO CD O CD 0.
o:<
cc tu 5
148
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY OF CHICAGO
RAHM EMANUEL
MAYOR
October 5, 2016
TO THE HONORABLE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO
Ladies and Gentlemen:
At the request of the Commissioner of Planning and Development, I transmit herewith an ordinance amending the Roosevelt/Cicero TIF Plan.
Your favorable consideration of this ordinance will be appreciated.
Mayor
Very truly yours,
CHICAGO November 1,2016 To the President and Members of the City Council: Your Committee on Finance having had under consideration
An ordinance authorizing the approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Roosevelt/Cicero Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan and Project.
02016-7380
Having had the same under advisement, begs leave to report and recommend that your Honorable Body pass the proposed Ordinance Transmitted Herewith
This recommendation was concurred in by (a (viva voce vote
of members of the committee with dissenting vote(s
Respectfully submitted
/I
(signed
r^b CL3 U„
Chairman