HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.19.18CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF EVANSTON, ILLINOIS
LORRAINE H. MORTON CIVIC CENTER
JAMES C. LYTLE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Monday, March 19, 2018
Administration & Public Works (A&PW) Committee meets at 6 p.m.
City Council meeting will convene at conclusion of the A&PW Committee meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(I) Roll Call – Begin with Alderman Rainey
(II) Mayor Public Announcements and Proclamations
National Public Health Week, April 2-6, 2018
(III) City Manager Public Announcements
(IV) Communications: City Clerk
(V) Public Comment
Members of the public are welcome to speak at City Council meetings. As part of the Council
agenda, a period for public comments shall be offered at the commencement of each regular
Council meeting. Public comments will be noted in the City Council Minutes and become part of
the official record. Those wishing to speak should sign their name and the agenda item or non-
agenda topic to be addressed on a designated participation sheet. If there are five or fewer
speakers, fifteen minutes shall be provided for Public Comment. If there are more than five
speakers, a period of forty-five minutes shall be provided for all comment, and no individual shall
speak longer than three minutes. The Mayor will allocate time among the speakers to ensure that
Public Comment does not exceed forty-five minutes. The business of the City Council shall
commence forty-five minutes after the beginning of Public Comment. Aldermen do not respond
during Public Comment. Public Comment is intended to foster dialogue in a respectful and civil
manner. Public comments are requested to be made with these guidelines in mind.
1 of 129
City Council Agenda March 19, 2018 Page 2 of 4
(VI) Special Orders of Business
SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
(SP1) Mayor’s Climate Action Resilience Plan Working Group Update
Staff will present City Council with an update from the Mayor’s Climate Action
Resilience Plan Working Group.
For Discussion
(SP2) Evanston Fire Department 2017 Annual Report
Staff will present City Council with the Evanston Fire Department’s 2017 Annual
Report.
For Discussion
(SP3) Evanston Police Department Stop and Frisk Policies
Staff will present City Council with information on the Evanston Police
Department’s stop and frisk policies and statistics from 2017 arrests.
For Discussion
(SP4) Public Benefits and Impact Fees from Planned Developments
Staff requests City Council direction, which could come in the form of a referral to
the Plan Commission if a Text Amendment is recommended or a recommendation
for no further action.
For Discussion
(SP5) 2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the City’s
Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships, and
Emergency Solutions Grant Programs
Staff recommends approval of the 2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER). The CAPER reviews how the City of Evanston used
federal entitlement funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to implement programs and projects that addressed
community needs successfully during the 2017 program year (January 1 to
December 31, 2017), and is posted on the City website at cityofevanston/caper.
The CAPER must be submitted to the Chicago Field Office of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development by March 31, 2018.
For Action
(SP6) 2019 Budget Projections and Priority-Based Budgeting
Staff recommends City Council accept and place on file the projections for the
2019 budget and direct staff to move forward on a priority-based budgeting
process.
For Action: Accept and Place on File
2 of 129
City Council Agenda March 19, 2018 Page 3 of 4
(VII) Consent Agenda and Report of Standing Committees:
Administration & Public Works - Alderman Rainey
Economic Development - Alderman Rainey
CONSENT AGENDA
ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
(A1) Resolution 18-R-18, Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine Request for Financial
Assistance
Staff recommends City Council consideration of Resolution 18-R-18 for financial
assistance in the amount of $25,000 to Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC to
purchase additional equipment needed to open their new location at 711 Howard
Street. Funding will be from the Economic Development Business Attraction Fund
(Account 215.21.5300.62660), which has a budget and current balance of
$50,000.
For Action
(A2) Ordinance 33-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New
Class F-2 Liquor License
Local Liquor Commissioner and staff recommend City Council adopt Ordinance
33-O-18, amending City Code Section 3-4-6 by creating the new Class F-2
Liquor License for a retail liquor dealer/gourmet food and amenity store. This
ordinance is returning for consideration following its introduction and hold over to
March 19, 2018.
For Introduction
(A3) Ordinance 31-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New
Class X Liquor License
Local Liquor Commissioner recommends City Council to adopt Ordinance 31-O-
18, amending City Code Section 3-4-6 by creating the new Class X Liquor
License. Ordinance 31-O-18 was prepared to allow arts and crafts studios the
sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption. Ordinance 31-O-18 was
introduced February 26, 2018; At the City Council meeting of March 12, 2018,
the Ordinance was re-referred back to Committee on March 19, 2018 for Action.
For Action
3 of 129
City Council Agenda March 19, 2018 Page 4 of 4
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
(O1) Evanston Great Merchants Grant to Herrera Landscape & Snow Removal for
2018 Business Districts Planters & Landscape Improvements
Staff and the Economic Development Committee seek City Council approval to
award the Request for Proposal (RFP) 18-04 for 2018 Business Districts Planters
& Landscape Improvements contract to Herrera Landscape & Snow Removal for
$32,569. The project is a cornerstone of the annual Great Merchant Grant
Program. Staff recommends utilizing the Economic Development Business District
Improvement Program Fund (Account 100.21.5300.65522). The City Council
approved a 2018 budget totaling $250,000 for this account. To date no funds have
been spent.
For Action
(VIII) Call of the Wards
(Aldermen shall be called upon by the Mayor to announce or provide information
about any Ward or City matter which an Alderman desires to bring before the
Council.) {Council Rule 2.1(10)}
(IX) Executive Session
(X) Adjournment
MEETINGS SCHEDULED THROUGH MARCH 2018
Upcoming Aldermanic Committee Meetings
3/20/2018 7:00 PM Housing & Community Development Act Committee
3/20/2018 7:00 PM Northwestern-City Committee
3/21/2018 6:30 PM M/W/EBE Committee
3/22/2018 5:30 PM Emergency Telephone System Board - CANCELED
3/26/2018 6:00 PM Administration & Public Works, Planning & Development, City Council -
CANCELED
3/28/2018 7:00 PM Economic Development - CANCELED
Information is available about Evanston City Council meetings at: www.cityofevanston.org/citycouncil.
Questions can be directed to the City Manager’s Office at 847-866-2936. The City is committed to
ensuring accessibility for all citizens. If an accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Manager’s Office 48 hours in advance so that arrangements can be made for the
accommodation if possible.
4 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP1
Mayor’s Climate Action Resilience Plan Working Group Update
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Kumar Jensen, Sustainability Coordinator
Subject: Mayor’s Climate Action Resilience Plan Working Group Update
Date: March 13, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff will present City Council with an update from the Mayor’s Climate Action
Resilience Plan Working Group.
Memorandum
5 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP2
Evanston Fire Department 2017 Annual Report
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Brian Scott, Fire Chief
Subject: Evanston Fire Department 2017 Annual Report
Date: March 13, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff will present City Council with the Evanston Fire Department’s 2017 Annual Report.
Memorandum
6 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP3
Evanston Police Department Presentation on Stop & Frisk Policies and Statistics
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Richard Eddington, Police Chief
Ryan Glew, Commander
Subject: Evanston Police Department’s Stop and Frisk Policies
Date: March 13, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff will present City Council with information on the Evanston Police Department’s
stop and frisk policies and statistics from 2017 arrests.
Summary:
The following policies are included for discussion:
• Special Order 17-05 – Investigative Stops – updated procedure
• Special Order 15-90 – Investigatory Stops
• Training Bulletin 06-11 – Permissibility of handcuffing in the course of a Terry
stop
• Lexipol Policy 418
In addition the Evanston Police Department will review 2017 stop and frisk statistics and
2017 suspect/victim charts.
Memorandum
7 of 129
8 of 129
9 of 129
10 of 129
11 of 129
12 of 129
13 of 129
14 of 129
15 of 129
16 of 129
17 of 129
18 of 129
19 of 129
20 of 129
21 of 129
22 of 129
23 of 129
24 of 129
25 of 129
26 of 129
27 of 129
28 of 129
29 of 129
30 of 129
31 of 129
32 of 129
33 of 129
34 of 129
35 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP4
Public Benefits and Impact Fees for Planned Developments
For Discussion
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Erika Storlie, Assistant City Manager/Acting Director of Community
Development
Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Subject: Public Benefits and Impact Fees for Planned Developments
Date: March 8, 2018
Recommended Action
Staff requests City Council direction, which could come in the form of a referral to the
Plan Commission if a Text Amendment is recommended or a recommendation for no
further action.
Livability Benefits
Built Environment: Provide compact and complete streets and neighborhoods
Summary
An exaction, commonly known as a public benefit, is a legal concept in which a condition
for development is imposed on a piece of property that requires the developer to mitigate
negative impacts of the development.
The City of Evanston Zoning Ordinance (City Code Section 6-3-6-3) lists the nine public
benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole that are intended to be
derived from the approval of planned developments, which include, but are not limited to:
(A) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space.
(B) A pattern of development which preserves natural vegetation, topographic and
geologic features.
(C) Preservation and enhancement of historic and natural resources that significantly
contribute to the character of the City.
(D) Use of design, landscape, or architectural features to create a pleasing
environment or other special development features.
(E) Provision of a variety of housing types in accordance with the City's housing goals.
(F) Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or
rehabilitation.
Memorandum
36 of 129
2
(G) Business, commercial, and manufacturing development to enhance the local
economy and strengthen the tax base.
(H) The efficient use of the land resulting in more economic networks of utilities,
streets, schools, public grounds, buildings, and other facilities.
(I) The substantial incorporation of generally recognized sustainable design practices
and/or building materials to promote energy conservation and improve
environmental quality, such as level silver or higher LEED (leadership in energy
and environmental design) certification.
While a definitive list of all appropriate public benefits does not exist, the following
exactions can be utilized by the City for a development:
· Dedications for Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Public Ways
· Impact Fees
· Payment into a Public Fund Not Already Required By Code (e.g. Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance)
· Public Art
· Cultural Facilities
· Landscaping/Creation of Open Space for the Public
· Open Space
· Public Access to Private Facilities
· Public Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements
· Public Access to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Car Share Programs
· Public Safety Enhancements (such as blue lights)
· Free or Discounted Transit Passes for Employees and Renters
· Operation of a Shuttle Service
· Recreational Facilities Open to the Public (e.g. Parks or Gardens)
· Facilities for Non-Profit Organizations
· Historic Preservation
Recent planned development ordinances have contained a range of conditions of
approval relating to public benefits. A summary of recently approved planned
developments and their associated benefits is attached. Many of the benefits relate to
supporting transportation systems, streetscape infrastructure, public art components,
sustainability elements, and affordable housing.
Other Local Municipalities
Preliminary research indicates that other municipalities have enacted ordinances which
vary in whether or how they address public benefits. For example, the Village of Skokie
provides for the imposition of reasonable contributions, including dedications of land for
public purposes, installation of streetscape infrastructure, and/or preservation of areas
containing significant natural, environmental, or historic resources. The Village of
Wilmette requires benefits to grant exceptions to district regulations for Planned
Developments including community amenities, preservation of historic structures,
adaptive reuse, preservation of environmental features, public open space, public
infrastructure, affordable or accessible dwelling units, and/or sustainable design. The City
of Highland Park requires public benefits, which include sustainable building and site
37 of 129
3
design, streetscape improvements, and/or downtown improvements.
A number of other municipalities either do not have ordinances that require public
benefits for planned developments or have requirements for impact fees relating to all
residential development. Impact fees are more common in jurisdictions where
considerable open land exists that requires new infrastructure in order to be developed.
Impact Fees
A proposal raised by City Council was to look at the implementation of impact fees for
Planned Developments. According to a 2008 study prepared by TischlerBise for the City
of Evanston regarding park and library impact fees, impact fees are one‐time payments
used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An
impact fee represents new growth’s fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees
must only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact
fees are subject to legal scrutiny and must satisfy three key requirements: need, benefit
and proportionality. First, to justify an impact fee for public facilities, it must be
demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second,
new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the impact fees (i.e., in the
form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the impact fee
paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the
capital cost for system improvements.
In Illinois, impact fees are limited to infrastructure for items such as parks, schools,
libraries, roads, and water infrastructure. Since impact fees must be imposed in a
proportional manner, the City should not exclusively limit impact fees to planned
developments; impact fees would need to be applied to a broader base, such as all new
residences.
Attached are the 2008 Parks and Libraries Impact Fee Study and two recent Northwest
Municipal Conference Surveys should the Planning and Development Committee decide
to explore more in depth discussions about impact fees.
Incentive Zoning
Some municipalities have implemented incentive based zoning regulations, where
developers are granted development bonuses (i.e. increased height, floor area ratio, etc.)
as a result of certain development criteria (i.e. green roofs, preservation, increased
building setbacks, and other urban design features). This approach was included in the
Form Based Zoning component of the 2009 Downtown Plan that was proposed in the
plan, but never codified.
City of Chicago – Neighborhood Opportunity Fund
The City of Chicago moved away from an incentive based downtown zoning strategy in
2016 with the establishment of the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus. The Neighborhood
Opportunity Bonus essentially allows developments to voluntarily purchase additional
FAR in certain areas adjacent to downtown where a map amendment is requested in the
form of a planned development. Cash contributions for additional FAR are allocated
38 of 129
4
toward the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (80%) used for economic development in
underserved areas of the City, Local Impact Fund (10%) to support improvements near
the site, and Adopt-a-Landmark Fund (10%) to restore structures designated as official
landmarks.
Attachments
Public Benefits approved per recent Planned Development Ordinances
2008 TischlerBise Parks and Libraries Impact Fee Study
Northwest Municipal Conference Surveys relating to Impact Fees in other Communities
39 of 129
40 of 129
41 of 129
42 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY
~PARKS AND LIBRARIES~
City of Evanston, Illinois
January 31, 2008
Prepared By:
43 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
i
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
City of Evanston, Illinois
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................1
Overview ............................................................................................................................................1
Methodologies and Approach ..........................................................................................................2
Credits ............................................................................................................................................2
Summary of Impact Fees ...................................................................................................................3
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees By Type of Land Use ............................................................3
Figure 1. Summary of Maximum Allowable Parks and Library Impact Fees.............................4
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................5
Definition ............................................................................................................................................5
Legal Framework.................................................................................................................................5
Required Findings ..............................................................................................................................6
Methodologies and Credits...............................................................................................................7
Generic Impact Fee Calculation .......................................................................................................8
Figure 2. Generic Impact Fee Formula........................................................................................9
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES ...................................................................................10
Methodology......................................................................................................................................10
Figure 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Methodology Chart...............................................11
Parks & Recreation Level of Service Standards and Costs........................................................11
Community and Lakefront Parks Improvements....................................................................11
Figure 4. Parks Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ...................................................13
Recreation and Community Centers .........................................................................................14
Figure 5. Recreation / Community Center Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors.........14
Cost for Impact Fee Study...........................................................................................................14
Figure 6. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Parks Portion)............................................................14
Credit Evaluation..............................................................................................................................15
Figure 7. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt ......................15
Summary of Factors for Parks and Recreation Impact Fee........................................................16
Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Input Variables........................................................................16
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation....................................................17
Figure 9. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit .17
Service Area........................................................................................................................................17
Cash Flow Projections......................................................................................................................18
Figure 10. Cash Flow Summary for Parks................................................................................18
LIBRARY IMPACT FEES.................................................................................................................19
Methodology......................................................................................................................................19
Figure 11. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart...................................................................19
Library Level of Service Standards and Costs.............................................................................20
44 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
ii
Library Building ...........................................................................................................................20
Figure 12. Library Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ..............................................20
Library Collection Materials.......................................................................................................20
Figure 13. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards.........................................21
Cost for Impact Fee Study...........................................................................................................21
Figure 14. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Library Portion).......................................................21
Credit Evaluation..............................................................................................................................22
Figure 15. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Library Debt ..........................................22
Summary of Factors for Library Impact Fee.................................................................................23
Figure 16. Library Input Variables............................................................................................23
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Libraries..........................................................................24
Figure 17. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit .....................24
Service Area........................................................................................................................................24
Cash Flow Projections......................................................................................................................25
Figure 18. Cash Flow Summary for Libraries...........................................................................25
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................26
Credits and Reimbursements .........................................................................................................26
Future Revenue Credits...............................................................................................................26
Site‐Specific Credits......................................................................................................................27
Collection and Expenditure Zones.................................................................................................27
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................A‐1
45 of 129
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
OVERVIEW
TischlerBise was retained by the City of Evanston, Illinois, to analyze potential impact fee
funding to meet the demands for public facilities generated by new development in the City.
TischlerBise calculated impact fees for two types of public capital improvements: (1) Parks and
Recreation and (2) Libraries. (TischlerBise also calculated capacity fees for Water and excise
taxes for Streets; reports are issued under separate cover.) Methodologies and calculations are
presented in this report as supporting documentation for implementation of impact fees in
Evanston.
Impact fees are one‐time payments used to construct system improvements needed to
accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth’s fair share of capital
facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or
maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three
key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must
be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second,
new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public
facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid by a particular type of
development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system
improvements.
TischlerBise documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the impact
fees. Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and costs. This report includes
summary tables indicating the specific factors used to derive the impact fees. These factors are
referred to as level of service standards. The Park and Library impact fees are based on
residential demand only. The geographic area for the implementation of the fees is the City of
Evanston for all categories.
46 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
2
METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACH
There are three basic methods used to calculate impact fees. The incremental expansion
method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures. The intent is to use revenue collected to expand or
provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the
current cost to provide capital improvements. The plan‐based method is commonly used for
public facilities that have adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital
improvements, such as utility systems. A third approach, known as the cost recovery
method, is based on the rationale that new development is paying for its share of the useful
life and remaining unused capacity of an existing facility. The incremental and cost recovery
methodologies are employed for the fees included in this study and are described further in
this report.
CREDITS
A general requirement common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. Two
types of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site‐specific credits.
Revenue credits may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from
a one‐time impact fee plus the payment of other revenues (e.g., property taxes) that may also
fund growth‐related capital improvements. Because new development may provide front‐
end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to
future payments on debt for public facilities.
Future revenue credits are necessary for the Parks and Library impact fees due outstanding
debt on capacity projects that will be retired using property taxes. Due to this outstanding
debt, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal
payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments
because interest costs are not included in the fee calculations. This type of credit is integrated
into the Parks and Library impact fee calculation.
The second type of credit is a site‐specific credit for system improvements that have been
included in the impact fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site‐specific credits
for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the
development fees. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site‐
specific credits only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the
impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development
approval process are not eligible for credits against impact fees.
47 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
3
SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES
The impact fees calculated for the City of Evanston represent the highest amount feasible for
each type of applicable land use, or maximum allowable amounts, which represents new
growth’s fair share of the cost for the appropriate capital facilities. The City may adopt fees
that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will
necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or
a decrease in levels of service.
The Parks and Recreation impact fee is based on the current level of service for Parks and
Recreation facilities and uses the incremental expansion methodology. Components of the
fee include Community / Lakefront Parks and Recreation Centers. The Parks impact fees are
calculated for residential development only. Based on the current level of service for Parks
and Recreation Centers, current costs, and average household size by type of unit in
Evanston, the maximum allowable Parks impact fee for a single family detached unit is
$3,516 per unit; for a townhouse and multifamily unit in a building with 2‐9 units, the fee is
$2,965 per unit; and for a multifamily unit in a building with 10+ units, the fee is $1,921 per
unit.
The Library impact fee uses both the cost recovery and incremental expansion
methodologies and includes costs for library buildings and collections serving the City of
Evanston. Library impact fees are calculated for residential development only. The current
Library building is estimated to have excess capacity to serve new development, therefore
levels of service are based on projected population. Based on levels of service, current costs,
and average household size by type of unit in Evanston, the maximum allowable Library
impact fees by type of land use are: $848 per single family detached unit; $715 for a
townhouse and multifamily unit in a building with 2‐9 units; and $463 per unit for a
multifamily unit in a building with 10+ units.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Figure 1 provides a schedule of the maximum allowable impact fees by type of land use for
Parks and Libraries. Fees are shown per housing unit. The fees represent the highest amount
allowable for each type of applicable land use, which represents new growth’s fair share of
the cost for capital facilities. The fees are based on costs in current dollars. Fees should be
collected when building permits are issued. The City may adopt fees that are less than the
amounts shown. However, a reduction in fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other
revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.
48 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
4
Figure 1. Summary of Maximum Allowable Parks and Library Impact Fees
Parks &
Recreation Libraries TOTAL
Residential ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Per Housing Unit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Single Family Detached* $3,516 $848 $4,364
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $2,965 $715 $3,680
Attached Units: 10+ Units $1,921 $463 $2,384
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted
using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using one‐and two‐digit places (in
most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures
carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the
analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the
factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown).
49 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
5
I NTRODUCTION TO I MPACT F EES
DEFINITION
Impact fees, also known as development or development impact fees, are one‐time payments
used to fund capital improvements necessitated by new growth. Impact fees have been
utilized by local governments in various forms for at least fifty years. Impact fees do have
limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing
needs. Rather, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive portfolio to
ensure adequate provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of
service in a community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following
limitations:
Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to
finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance costs;
Impact fees cannot be deposited in the local government’s General Fund. The funds
must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the
capital expenses for which they were collected; and
Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there
is a funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and
businesses in the community.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U.S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions—including impact
fees—are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the
imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,
provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply
with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially
advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the
protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not
detrimental to the quality of essential public services.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most
50 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
6
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing
exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and
the interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more
recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be
“roughly proportional” to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision
appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for
monetary exactions such as impact fees.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related
to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of
state courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the
standard by which courts evaluate the validity of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we
prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “impact or need,”
“benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the
first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the statute
is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual
elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands
on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not
increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for
the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of
development‐related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a
consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the
principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the
developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees.
In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for
specific facilities, based on applicable level‐of‐service standards.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that facility fee revenues be
segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were
charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees
must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or
the State enabling Act requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively
to development paying the fees. In other words, existing development may benefit from
these improvements as well.
51 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
7
Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by
the State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously
or refunded. All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit
from the fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address
procedural as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts
of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the
relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to
establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to
identify development‐related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees
for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is
measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the
need for school improvements is measured by the number of public school‐age children
generated by development.
METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning
requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and
disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because
each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps:
(1) determining the cost of development‐related capital improvements and (2) allocating
those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of
impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in
defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following
paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods
can be applied.
Plan‐Based Fee Calculation. The plan‐based method allocates costs for a specified set of
improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a
facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost
of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then,
the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development
(e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per
specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit).
52 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
8
Cost Recovery or Buy‐In Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that
new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities
already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This
methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water
facilities.
Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the
current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and
qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student).
This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies nor surplus
capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for
growth‐related infrastructure. The level of service standards are determined in a manner
similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies.
However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee revenues would not be for renewal
and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue will be used to expand or provide
additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental
expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular
increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community.
Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to the
development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of “credits”
each with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the
development of impact fees. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations.
This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital
costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the
impact fee calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of
public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is
imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a
facility fee program.
GENERIC IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
In contrast to development exactions, which are typically referred to as project‐level
improvements, impact fees fund growth‐related infrastructure that will benefit multiple
development projects, or even the entire jurisdiction. The basic steps in a generic impact fee
formula are illustrated in Figure 2. The first step (see the left box) is to determine an
appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the particular type of infrastructure. The
demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or service units for each unit of
53 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
9
development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population
growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons
per housing unit. The second step in the generic impact fee formula is shown in the middle
box below. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called “Level of Service” (LOS)
standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is park acreage per
thousand people. The third step in the generic impact fee formula, as illustrated in the right
box, is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the
formula would establish the cost per acre for park development.
Figure 2. Generic Impact Fee Formula
XX
Dollars
per
Infrastructure
Unit
Infrastructure
Units
per
Demand
Unit
Demand
Units
per
Development
Unit
XX
Dollars
per
Infrastructure
Unit
Infrastructure
Units
per
Demand
Unit
Demand
Units
per
Development
Unit
Persons per
housing
unit
Level of Service
{e.g., acres per
1,000 persons}
Cost
{e.g., $ per
Acre}
54 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
10
P ARKS AND R ECREATION I MPACT F EES
METHODOLOGY
The City of Evanston Parks and Recreation Impact Fee uses the incremental expansion
methodology. Parks impact fees should only be assessed on residential development.
Community and Lakefront Parks are included as they represent community‐level facilities
serving the entire City, as opposed to smaller facilities benefiting a more limited area. Costs
to make improvements at these facilities are included. Land is not included at this time as the
City intends to make improvements at existing park sites with impact fee funds. Also
included in the fee calculation is Recreation/Community Centers. The City’s Recreation
Centers also serve a Citywide population and the City expects to expand those types of
facilities as well. All facility costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development.
Neighborhood parks and smaller scale recreation amenities are not included in the fee
calculation as they serve more limited areas.
Figure 3 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Parks and Recreation
Impact Fee. It is intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed
breakdown of the impact fee components. The park impact fee is derived from the product
of persons per housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person.
The boxes in the next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee.
55 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
11
Figure 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Methodology Chart
PARKS & RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS
Community and Lakefront Parks Improvements
Park impact fees are based on an inventory of existing citywide Parks and current values of
park improvements in the City of Evanston’s park system. The demand base for the City’s
park facilities is population. Levels of service are based on the current amount of
infrastructure provided for the existing population. Community and Lakefront Parks are
those parks that provide recreational amenities such as baseball/softball fields,
soccer/football fields, athletic courts, field houses, and beachfront access that draw from a
citywide service area. The Park impact fee component is based on the incremental expansion
methodology as the City plans to make improvements to these types of parks to
accommodate demand from new development. The City of Evanston has a parkland area for
these types of parks of approximately 219 acres. This results in a level of service of 2.8 acres
per 1,000 residents.
PARKS and RECREATION
IMPACT FEE
Persons per Housing Unit by
Type of Unit
Multiplied By Net Capital
Cost per Person
Community and Lakefront Parks
Improvements
Cost per Person
Plus Recreation / Community
Center
Cost per Person
Minus Principal Payment Credit
Residential
Development
56 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
12
Figure 4 provides an inventory of Community and Lakefront Park improvements with
replacement costs. Based on the inventory of improvements and current unit prices, Park
improvements have an average cost of approximately $197,500 per acre. On a per capita
basis, park improvements cost approximately $553 per person in the City. The total current
value of park improvements is approximately $43.3 million. City staff confirmed unit prices
for each type of improvement as shown in Figure 4, based on local costs. Miscellaneous costs
equal $100,000 per acre, which include such items as lighting, paving (parking lots,
sidewalks, paths, trails), site features/furniture (signage, benches, trash receptacles, drinking
fountains, picnic tables, grills), fencing, irrigation, and landscaping. Future park
improvements will be made at existing parks. Figure 4 provides further detail with level of
service standards shown at the bottom right corner of the figure.
57 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois 13 Figure 4. Parks Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors #Park NameAcreage Tennis Courts PlaygroundBaseball / Softball FieldsSoccer / Football FieldsOutdoor Basketball CourtVolleyball Courts Field House Misc*1Ackerman Park1.32111.32Beck, Eugene, Park**5.515.53Bent Park3.22111113.24 Burnham Shores Park5.021 5.05Butler, Isabella, Park**11.11111.16 Centennial Park and Clark Street Beach10.6 6110.67 Chandler Park3.210.53.28Clark Square4.94.99Crown Park14.7432014.710 Dawes Park12.4112.411 Elliott Park7.6 17.612 Foster Field 5.1212115.113 Garden Park1.411.414 Harbert, Elizabeth Boynton, Park**13.51113.515James Park 45.6 6 1 8 6 1145.616 Ladd Arboretum17.417.417 Lawson, Lawrence O., Park1.611.618 Leahy Park4.0411114.019 Lighthouse Landing Beach/Park6.416.420 Lovelace, Walter S., Park17.86111117.821 Lunt, Cornelia Park1.81.822 Mason Park5.221113.515.223 Patriotʹs Park0.50.524 South Boulevard Beach2.612.625 Tallmadge, Thomas Eddy, Park3.71210.53.726 Twiggs, William H., Park**13.2211.013.2Total Units219.13017201411611219.1Unit Price (wt avg)$100,000 $300,000 $100,000 $150,000 $60,000 $50,000 $750,000 $100,000Units x Price$3,000,000 $5,100,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $630,000 $300,000 $8,250,000 $21,914,200Total Value of Improvements$43,294,200Population in 2007 78,274Community Park Acres Per 1,000 Residents2.8Improvement Cost Per Acre (rounded) $197,500Improvements Cost Per Capita $553.10** Land is leased by City of Evanston; the City improves and maintains the properties, therefore the improved acreage and amenities are included in the Cityʹs level of service. Source: City of Evanston* Based on improved acreage. Miscellaneous improvements include items such as lighting, paving (parking lots, sidewalks, paths, trails), site features/furniture (signage, benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, picnic tables, grills), fencing, irrigation, and landscaping.58 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
14
Recreation and Community Centers
The Recreation and Community Center component of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is
based on the current square footage and replacement value of recreational facilities serving
the City. As shown in Figure 5, total square footage for the City’s recreational facilities is
175,931 square feet, which equates to 2.25 square feet per capita based on the 2007
population estimate of 78,274. The incremental expansion approach is used as the City plans
to maintain the current level of service to accommodate new development. Costs to expand
this type of facility are estimated at $325 per square foot, per City staff, for a total estimated
replacement value of approximately $57 million. This results in a cost per capita of $730.47.
Figure 5. Recreation / Community Center Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors
Facility Square Footage Cost/SF Cost
1Chandler‐Newberger Center 14,000 $325 $4,550,000
2Dempster Street Beach Office and Aquatics Center 3,300 $325 $1,072,500
3Evanston Ecology Center 6,720 $325 $2,184,000
4 Fleetwood‐Jourdain Center 14,911 $325 $4,846,075
5Levy Senior Center 26,000 $325 $8,450,000
6Noyes Cultural Arts Center 50,000 $325 $16,250,000
7Robert Crown Community Center & Ice Complex 61,000 $325 $19,825,000
TOTAL 175,931 $325 $57,177,575
Population in 2007 78,274
Square Foot Per Capita 2.25
Cost per Capita $730.47
Source: City of Evanston
Cost for Impact Fee Study
Included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the Parks and Recreation portion of the
impact fees. This is calculated based on the projected growth in Evanston population over
the next three years, which represents the appropriate amount of time before the fees should
be updated to reflect changes in development and levels of service. The cost per person of
$10.41 is derived by dividing the consultant cost by the projected increase in population over
three years. ($13,200 / 1,267 = $10.41.) See Figure 6.
Figure 6. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Parks Portion)
Consultant Cost $13,200
Population increase (3yr) 1,267
Cost per capita $10.41
59 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
15
CREDIT EVALUATION
The City has outstanding debt for parks and recreation improvements that will be retired
through property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in
the impact fee for future principal payments on this General Obligation debt. New
residential development in the City of Evanston that will pay Parks impact fees will also
contribute to future principal payments paid from property tax revenue.
City staff provided the amount of current outstanding Parks and Recreation Debt, which is
then averaged out over the term of the debt. To account for the time value of money, annual
principal payments per capita are discounted using a net present value formula based on an
estimated average interest rate. A credit is only necessary for principal payments because
interest costs are not added to the impact fees. Figure 7 shows the credit calculation based on
the projected principal payments starting in fiscal year 2007 through the remainder of each of
the bonds’ term. The debt is allocated 100 percent to residential development. The applicable
net present value of the credit is $45.68 per person. This will be subtracted from the gross
capital cost per demand unit to derive a net capital cost per person in calculating the
maximum supportable fee.
Figure 7. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt
Payment Series 1998 Series 1999 Series 2000 Series 2002 Series 2003 Series 2004 Series 2005 Series 2006 Series 2007 Payment Per
Year Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Total Population [1] Person
2007 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 78,274 $4.13
2008 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 78,697 $4.11
2009 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,119 $4.09
2010 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,542 $4.07
2011 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,964 $4.04
2012 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 80,387 $4.02
2013 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 80,809 $4.00
2014 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 81,232 $3.98
2015 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 81,654 $3.96
2016 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 82,077 $3.94
2017 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 82,499 $3.92
2018 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $315,077 82,499 $3.82
2019 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $297,162 82,499 $3.60
2020 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $241,398 82,499 $2.93
2021 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $241,398 82,499 $2.93
2022 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $156,316 82,499 $1.89
2023 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $140,558 82,499 $1.70
2024 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $74,987 82,499 $0.91
2025 $6,316 $11,169 $17,484 82,499 $0.21
2026 $11,169 $11,169 82,499 $0.14
TOTAL $90,917 $214,987 $724,925 $1,276,243 $252,113 $1,114,718 $1,035,043 $120,000 $223,373 $5,052,319 $62.39
Discount Rate 4.0%
Net Present Value [2] $45.68
[1] See Appendix for population projections; buildout is assumed by year 2017
[2] To account for the time value of money, total payment per person is discounted using a net present value formula assuming an average interest rate of 4%.
Source: City of Evanston; TischlerBise
60 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
16
SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE
Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Park and Recreation impact fees are shown in
the boxed area of Figure 8. Impact fees for Parks are based on household size for three types
of residential units: single‐family detached units, attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in
a building), and attached units (10+ units in a structure). Level of service standards are based
on current costs per person for Community and Lakefront Parks and Recreation /
Community Centers as described in the previous sections and summarized below. Each cost
component of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is shown as a cost per person.
The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for parks,
recreation centers, and consultant cost ($553.10 + $730.47 + $10.41 = $1,293.98). As shown, the
principal payment credit ($45.68) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to
determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $1,248.30 per
person).
Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Input Variables
INPUT VARIABLES Residential
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached* 2.82
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38
Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54
Level Of Service
Community & Lakefront Park Improvements Cost Per Person (Incremental) $553.10
Recreation Center Cost Per Person (Incremental) $730.47
Consultant Cost Per Person $10.41
Total Cost Per Person $1,293.98
Principal Payment Credit Per Person ($45.68)
TOTAL NET CAPITAL COST PER PERSON $1,248.30
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
61 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
17
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
The Parks and Recreation impact fee is the product of persons per housing unit multiplied
by the capital cost per person for each component of the fee. The gross total cost per person is
reduced by the credit per unit to arrive at the impact fee by type of housing unit. For
example, the component for Parks improvements is derived by multiplying the persons per
housing unit for single family detached housing of 2.82 by $553.10 to arrive at $1,558 per
unit. This is repeated for each component of the fee including the principal payment credit.
Each is then added together to arrive at the total impact fee per unit. For a single family
detached unit, the fee is $3,516; for attached units of townhouses and 2‐9 units, the fee is
$2,965; and for attached units of 10+ units, the fee is $1,921.
Figure 9. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES
Rec Consultant
Parks Centers Credit Fee TOTAL
~~~~ Per Housing Unit ~~~~
Single Family Detached*$1,558 $2,058 ($129)$29 $3,516
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $1,314 $1,735 ($109)$25 $2,965
Attached Units: 10+ Units $851 $1,124 ($70)$16 $1,921
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
SERVICE AREA
The impact fees calculated are for the infrastructure needed by the City of Evanston.
Therefore, the service area is the City of Evanston. Fees should be collected from
development in the City and spent on parks and recreation improvements to serve this
growth.
62 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
18
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Evanston, if the Parks and
Recreation impact fee is implemented at the maximum allowable amounts. The cash flow
projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this study and provide an indication of
the impact fee revenue and capital expenditures necessary to meet the demand for new
parks and recreation facilities brought about by new development. To the extent the rate of
development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in
impact fee revenue and capital costs. The development projections on which the cash flow
summary is based can be found in the Appendix to this report.
Figure 10 provides a summary of the projected five‐year cash flow from the Parks impact fee
and associated capital costs. The impact fee revenue averages $527,000 per year if the fee is
implemented at the maximum allowable level, for a five‐year total of approximately $2.6
million. Parks capital costs brought about by growth equal an average of $547,000 per year,
or $2.7 million over 5 years. Impact fee revenue does not cover the entire cost of future
growth‐related Park improvements due to the credit included in the fee calculation. The
projected deficits, indicated by “( )” around the numbers, will require supplemental revenue
to adequately fund the improvements. The 5‐year shortfall is estimated at approximately
$97,000.
Figure 10. Cash Flow Summary for Parks
5‐Year 5‐Year
12345Cumulative Average
(Current $ in thousands)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Annual
REVENUES
PARKS
1Parks Fee ‐ Single Family Detached* $0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0
2Parks Fee ‐ Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $667 $133
3Parks Fee ‐Attached Units: 10+ Units $394 $394 $394 $394 $394 $1,969 $394
Subtotal Parks Fees $527 $527 $527 $527 $527 $2,636 $527
CAPITAL COSTS
PARKS
Community / Lakefront Parks $234 $234 $234 $234 $234 $1,168 $234
Recreation Centers $309 $309 $309 $309 $309 $1,543 $309
Consultant Cost $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $22 $4
Subtotal Parks Costs $547 $547 $547 $547 $547 $2,733 $547
NET CAPITAL FACILITIES CASH FLOW PARKS Current $ in thousands
Annual Surplus (or Deficit)($19) ($19) ($19) ($19) ($19) ($19)
Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit)($19) ($39) ($58) ($78) ($97) ($97)
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
63 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
19
L IBRARY I MPACT F EES
METHODOLOGY
The City of Evanston Library Impact Fees uses the cost recovery and incremental expansion
methodologies. Library impact fees should only be assessed on residential development.
Components of the Library fee include costs for the main Library building and materials
included in the Library’s collections. The main Library was built in 1994 with an expansion
to the children’s area in 2007. A cost recovery approach is used to calculate new growth’s fair
share of the City’s costs for this facility. An incremental approach is used for collection
materials. All costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development.
Figure 11 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Library Impact Fee. It is
intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of
the impact fee components. The impact fee is derived from the product of persons per
housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person. The boxes in the
next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee.
Figure 11. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart
LIBRARY
IMPACT FEE
Persons per Housing Unit by
Type of Unit
Multiplied By Net Capital
Cost per Person
Building Cost per Person
Plus Collection Materials
Cost per Person
Minus Principal Payment Credit
Residential
Development
64 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
20
LIBRARY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS
Library Building
Library impact fees are based on the Evanston Library, constructed in 1994, and the
expansion to the children’s area in 2007. The demand base for the City’s Library facilities is
projected population. Costs are based on original City costs. Because the facility was
oversized and currently has excess capacity, levels of service are based on projected
population in ten years (2017), per the City. This reflects a cost recovery methodology where
new development is buying into excess capacity of existing facilities. The City of Evanston
has 112,000 square feet in its Main Library, serving the entire City. This results in a level of
service of 1.36 square feet per person.
Figure 12 provides levels of service and costs for the Evanston Public Library. The Library
was built in 1994 at a cost of approximately $22 million. In 2007, the City expanded the
Children’s area of the Library at a cost to the City of $1.2 million (the total cost of the
expansion was $2.4 million, with private and other sources). Total cost on which the fee is
calculated is almost $23.5 million. This equates to a per capita cost of $284.39 based on
projected population in 2017. Detail is provided below.
Figure 12. Library Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors
Current Years Original City
Size (SF)*Constructed Cost
Evanston Public Library*112,000 1994, 2007 $23,462,200
Totals 112,000 $23,462,200
Population in 2017 82,499
Square Foot Per Capita 1.36
Cost per Capita $284.39
* Inlcudes Childrenʹs Room expansion in 2007
Source: City of Evanston
Library Collection Materials
The Library’s collection includes adult and juvenile books, audio books, digital media,
reference books, periodicals, music and miscellaneous. The total number of current units is
495,354 with a total replacement value of over $10 million. Based on the current estimated
City population of 78,274, this equates to a level of service of 6.33 units per person, or $128.07
65 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
21
per person. Figure 13 provides detail on the current inventory and average unit costs for
each type of material. Unit costs were provided to TischlerBise by City staff.
Figure 13. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards
Average
Item Unit Count Unit Cost Replacement Cost
Adult Books 295,483 $19.12 $5,648,500
Juvenile Books 120,933 $13.23 $1,600,400
Audio Books 9,463 $57.07 $540,100
Cassettes/CDs/CD‐ROMs/DVDs/Videos 25,662 $29.05 $745,400
Reference Books 26,462 $47.78 $1,264,300
Periodicals 2,370 $5.74 $13,600
Music 5,837 $14.05 $82,000
Misc 9,144 $14.27 $130,510
Total Materials 495,354 $20.24 $10,024,810
Population in 2007 78,274
Materials Per Person 6.33
Cost per Capita $128.07
Source: City of Evanston
Cost for Impact Fee Study
Included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the Library portion of the impact fees. This is
calculated based on the projected growth in Evanston population over the next three years,
which represents the appropriate amount of time before the fees should be updated to reflect
changes in development and levels of service. The cost per person of $6.15 is derived by
dividing the consultant cost by the projected increase in population over three years. ($7,800
/ 1,267 = $6.15.) See Figure 14.
Figure 14. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Library Portion)
Consultant Cost $7,800
Population increase (3 yrs) 1,267
Cost per capita $6.15
66 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
22
CREDIT EVALUATION
The City has outstanding debt for Library improvements that will be retired through
property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in the
impact fee for future principal payments on this General Obligation debt. New residential
development in the City of Evanston that will pay Library impact fees will also contribute to
future principal payments paid from property tax revenue.
City staff provided debt service schedules for the current outstanding Library Debt. To
account for the time value of money, annual principal payments per capita are discounted
using a net present value formula based on an estimated average interest rate. A credit is
only necessary for principal payments because interest costs are not added to the impact fees.
Figure 15 shows the credit calculation based on the projected principal payments starting in
fiscal year 2007 through the remainder of each of the bonds’ term. The debt is allocated 100
percent to residential development. The applicable net present value of the credit is $117.28
per person. This will be subtracted from the gross capital cost per demand unit to derive a
net capital cost per person in calculating the maximum supportable fee.
Figure 15. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Library Debt
Payment Series 1994 Series 1995 Series 1996 Series 1997 Series 1998 Series 2006 Series 2007 Payment Per
Year Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Total Population [1] Person
2007 $300,000 $190,000 $105,000 $250,000 $75,000 $7,969 $0 $927,969 78,274 $11.86
2008 $305,000 $200,000 $110,000 $275,000 $80,000 $8,328 $15,938 $994,266 78,697 $12.63
2009 $325,000 $215,000 $120,000 $290,000 $85,000 $8,702 $16,655 $1,060,358 79,119 $13.40
2010 $340,000 $225,000 $125,000 $310,000 $90,000 $9,094 $17,405 $1,116,499 79,542 $14.04
2011 $360,000 $240,000 $135,000 $330,000 $95,000 $9,503 $18,188 $1,187,691 79,964 $14.85
2012 $375,000 $255,000 $145,000 $350,000 $100,000 $9,931 $19,006 $1,253,937 80,387 $15.60
2013 $400,000 $270,000 $150,000 $370,000 $105,000 $10,378 $19,862 $1,325,239 80,809 $16.40
2014 $20,000 $285,000 $160,000 $395,000 $115,000 $10,845 $20,756 $1,006,600 81,232 $12.39
2015 $300,000 $170,000 $415,000 $120,000 $11,333 $21,690 $1,038,022 81,654 $12.71
2016 $175,000 $440,000 $130,000 $11,843 $22,666 $779,508 82,077 $9.50
2017 $470,000 $130,000 $12,376 $23,685 $636,061 82,499 $7.71
2018 $140,000 $12,933 $24,751 $177,684 82,499 $2.15
2019 $13,515 $25,865 $39,380 82,499 $0.48
2020 $14,123 $27,029 $41,152 82,499 $0.50
2021 $14,758 $28,245 $43,004 82,499 $0.52
2022 $15,422 $29,516 $44,939 82,499 $0.54
2023 $16,116 $30,845 $46,961 82,499 $0.57
2024 $16,842 $32,233 $49,074 82,499 $0.59
2025 $17,599 $33,683 $51,283 82,499 $0.62
2026 $18,391 $35,199 $53,590 82,499 $0.65
2027 $0 $36,783 $36,783 82,499 $0.45
TOTAL $2,425,000 $2,180,000 $1,395,000 $3,895,000 $1,265,000 $250,000 $500,000 $11,910,000 $148.17
Discount Rate 4.0%
Net Present Value [2] $117.28
[1] See Appendix for population projections; buildout is assumed by year 2017
[2] To account for the time value of money, total payment per person is discounted using a net present value formula assuming an average interest rate of 4%.
Source: City of Evanston; TischlerBise
67 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
23
SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR LIBRARY IMPACT FEE
Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Library impact fees are shown in the boxed
area of Figure 16. Impact fees for Libraries are based on household size for three types of
residential units: single‐family detached units, attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in a
building), and attached units (10+ units in a structure). Level of service standards are based
on current costs per person for Library buildings and collection materials as described in the
previous sections and summarized below. Each cost component of the impact fee is shown as
a cost per person.
The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for buildings,
materials, and consultant cost ($284.39 + $128.07 + $6.15 = $418.61). As shown, the principal
payment credit ($117.28) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to
determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $301.33 per
person).
Figure 16. Library Input Variables
INPUT VARIABLES Residential
Persons Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached*2.82
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38
Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54
Level Of Service
Building Cost Per Person (Cost Recovery)$284.39
Materials Cost Per Person (Incremental)$128.07
Consultant Cost Per Person (Incremental)$6.15
Total Cost Per Person $418.61
Principal Payment Credit Per Person ($117.28)
TOTAL NET CAPITAL COST PER PERSON $301.33
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
68 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
24
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR LIBRARIES
Figure 17 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Libraries in Evanston.
The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type
by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family detached unit, the persons
per housing unit of 2.82 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $301.33 (from the previous
table) for an impact fee amount of $848 per single family detached housing unit; $715 for per
attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in structure); and $463 for attached units of 10+
units in structure.
Figure 17. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES Residential
Impact Fees Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached*$848
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $715
Attached Units: 10+ Units $463
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
SERVICE AREA
The impact fees calculated are for the main Library serving the City of Evanston. Therefore,
the service area is the City of Evanston.
69 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
25
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Evanston, if the Library impact
fee is implemented at the maximum allowable amounts. The cash flow projections are based
on the assumptions detailed in this study and provide an indication of the impact fee
revenue and capital expenditures necessary to meet the demand for Library facilities brought
about by new development. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows
down, there will be a corresponding change in impact fee revenue and capital costs. The
development projections on which the cash flow summary is based can be found in the
Appendix to this report.
Figure 18 provides a summary of the projected five‐year cash flow from the Library impact
fee and associated capital costs. The impact fee revenue averages $127,000 per year if the fee
is implemented at the maximum allowable level, for a five‐year total of approximately
$635,000. Library capital costs brought about by growth equal an average of $57,000 per year,
or almost $284,000 over 5 years. A surplus is generated due to the cost recovery methodology
used for the Library facilities where new growth will buy into existing capacity of recent
improvements. Revenue generated from impact fees can be used to make debt service
payments on the outstanding library debt.
Figure 18. Cash Flow Summary for Libraries
5‐Year 5‐Year
12 3 4 5Cumulative Average
(Current $ in thousands)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Annual
REVENUES
LIBRARY
3 Library Fee‐Single Family Detached*$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0
4 Library Fee‐Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $161 $32
5 Library Fee‐Attached Units: 10+ Units $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $475 $95
Subtotal Library Fees $127 $127 $127 $127 $127 $635 $127
CAPITAL COSTS
LIBRARY
Buildings (Cost Recovery)$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0
Materials $54 $54 $54 $54 $54 $271 $54
Consultant Cost $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $13 $3
Subtotal Library Costs $57 $57 $57 $57 $57 $284 $57
NET CAPITAL FACILITIES CASH FLOW LIBRARY Current $ in thousands
Annual Surplus (or Deficit)$70 $70 $70 $70 $70 $70
Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit)$70 $141 $211 $282 $352 $352
70 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
26
I MPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION
All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation
rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual
evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction
costs by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index
(CPI), which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift
Valuation Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and
types of construction. The multipliers can be applied against the calculated impact fee. If cost
estimates change significantly the City should redo the fee calculations.
There are certain accounting procedures that should be followed by the City. For example,
monies received should be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may
only be used for the purposes authorized in the impact fee ordinance. Interest earned on
monies in the separate fund should be credited to the fund.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Future Revenue Credits
There are three basic approaches used to calculate impact fees and each is linked to different
credit methodology. The first major type of impact fee method is a cost recovery approach.
This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new
development for at least a five to six year time frame. The rationale for the cost recovery is
that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of the
existing facility. When using a cost recovery method, it is important to determine whether
new development has already contributed toward the cost of existing public facilities. As
described in this report, outstanding debt exists for Libraries where a cost recovery approach
is used, therefore a credit is necessary and include in the fee calculation.
A second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost
method. This method documents current factors and is best suited for public facilities that
will be expanded incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front‐
end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to
future principal payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for
interest payments if interest costs are not included in the impact fees. This type of credit is
71 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
27
necessary and calculated for Parks and Recreation because there is outstanding debt for
capacity expansions calculated under the incremental approach.
A third basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the plan‐based method. This method
is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. The
plan‐based method may be used for public facilities that have commonly accepted service
delivery factors to determine the need for future projects or the jurisdiction plans to
significantly increase the current level of service standards. If a plan‐based approach is used
to derive impact fees, the credit evaluations should focus on future dedicated revenues that
will fund growth‐related capital improvements. This type of methodology is not used in the
fees herein.
Site‐Specific Credits
If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it
will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the
area benefiting from the system improvement. Project improvements normally required as
part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits or offsets against impact
fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site‐specific credits or developer
reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that
establishes the City’s fees.
Based on TischlerBise’s experience, it is better for the City to establish a reimbursement
agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement rather than provide a
credit off of the fee. The latter is often more difficult to administer because it creates unique
fees for specific geographic areas. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a
payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the
outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost
incurred for the system improvement. The City of Evanston should only agree to pay the
lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If
the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee
revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers
annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area.
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local
government’s burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a benefit
usually requires communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public
72 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
28
facilities that have distinct geographic service areas. Consideration of zones will enable the
City to show that developments paying fees are benefiting from the provision of additional
capital improvements.
TischlerBise recommends a citywide fee for all impact fee calculated herein. All
improvements covered under the impact fee program are derived based on citywide
demand and will have a citywide benefit.
73 of 129
IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES
Evanston, Illinois
A‐1
A PPENDIX: L AND U SE A SSUMPTIONS & D EMOGRAPHICS
74 of 129
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vincent Jones, Assistant to the City Manager
City of Evanston, Illinois
FROM: Julie Herlands
TischlerBise
DATE: November 29, 2006 (revised October 15, 2007)
SUBJECT: Demographic Data and Development Projections for Impact Fee, Capacity Fee,
and Excise Tax Studies
As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and
development projections that will be used in the Impact Fee, Capacity Fee, and Excise Tax
Studies. The demographic data estimates for December 1, 2007, will be used in the study
calculations. The development projections are used solely for the purpose of having an
understanding of the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and capital
expenditures.
Calculations throughout this technical memo are based on an analysis conducted using Excel
software. Results are discussed in the memo using one‐and two‐digit places (in most cases),
which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their
ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not
equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the
report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
75 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐3
CURRENT POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES
Figure A1 lists recent residential development activity and the current housing unit estimate for
the City of Evanston. TischlerBise obtained information on recent residential development from
the City of Evanston Planning Division. Using this data, the current number of housing units by
type of unit in the City was estimated. Based on household size characteristics, TischlerBise
recommends using three housing unit categories: (1) Single Family Detached (2) Attached Units:
Townhouses and Multifamily Units with 2‐9 units in structure, and (3) Attached Units:
Multifamily Units with 10 or more units in structure. Based on the information provided by the
City, TischlerBise estimates the number of housing units as of December 2006 in the City to be
33,063, with 9,827 in Single‐Family Detached; 8,891 in Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units
in Structure; and 14,345 in Attached Units: 10+ Units in Structure. Also as shown below, an
average of 374 units per year have been constructed, with the majority in structures with 10 or
more units. City staff projects an estimated 250 units per year to be constructed with 45 low‐
density attached and the remainder in higher density structures. This assumption is used to
project December 2007 housing units and population (discussed below).
Figure A1. Current Estimate of Housing Units
Units Added Est. Total Units Added Est. Total Total Added % of Proj. Total
UNITS 2000 [1]2000‐04[2]2004 2005‐06 [3]2006 2000‐06 Total Added 2007 [4]
Single Family Detached*9,827 0 9,827 0 9,827 0 0% 9,827
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 8,705 149 8,854 37 8,891 186 8% 8,936
Attached Units: 10+ Units 12,285 1,219 13,504 841 14,345 2,060 92% 14,550
Totals 30,817 1,368 32,185 878 33,063 2,246 100%33,313
374 avg annual
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
[1] U.S. Census, 2000
[2] Units Constructed/Occupied since 2000; City of Evanston, Planning Division (2005)
[3] Units Approved/Under Construction plus Units Approved/Not Under Construction as of July 2005; City of Evanston, Planning Division (2005)
[4] Projected units
This information was then used to estimate a current citywide population. Based on the type of
units developed in the City and the average household size by type of unit from the U.S.
Census, TischlerBise estimated the current total City population living in households to be
71,305. Household size by type of unit is shown in Figure A2. Estimated group quarters
population is added to this figure to arrive at a current estimated total City population of
78,274. The estimates for 2007 are shown at the bottom of Figure A2.
76 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐4
Figure A2. Household Size and Current Population/Housing Estimates
Units in Renter & Owner Occupied
Structure Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Units % of Ttl
1‐Detached 27,612 9,626 9,799 2.82 32%
1‐Attached 3,546 1,433 1,519 2.33 5%
Two 7,766 2,702 2,880 2.70 9%
3‐4 4,054 1,568 1,700 2.38 6%
5‐9 5,312 2,506 2,606 2.04 8%
10‐19 5,294 3,048 3,149 1.68 10%
20‐49 8,866 5,312 5,558 1.60 18%
50 or more 4,751 3,428 3,578 1.33 12%
Mobile Homes 69 28 28 2.46 0%
Other 0 0 0 0.00 0%
Total SF3 Sample Data 67,270 29,651 30,817 2.18 100%
100‐Percent Data 67,270 29,651 30,817 2.18
Vacant HU 1,166 2.2687262
Source: 2000 US Census Vacancy Rate 3.78%
Persons Per Housing Unit by Type in 2000
Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Unit Mix
Single Family Detached* 27,681 9,654 9,827 2.82 32%
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 20,678 8,209 8,705 2.38 28%
Attached Units: 10+ Units 18,911 11,788 12,285 1.54 40%
Total Less Group Quarters 67,270 29,651 30,817 2.18 100%
Group Quarters 6,969
Sample Difference 0 0 0
TOTAL 74,239 29,651 30,817
Estimated Persons Per Housing Unit by Type: December 1, 2007
Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Unit Mix
Single Family Detached* 27,681 9,455 9,827 2.82 29%
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 21,227 8,598 8,936 2.38 27%
Attached Units: 10+ Units 22,398 13,999 14,550 1.54 44%
Total Less Group Quarters 71,305 32,053 33,313 2.14 100%
Group Quarters 6,969
TOTAL 78,274 32,053 33,313
* Includes Manufactured/Mobile Homes
In addition to estimating population, household size (persons per housing unit (PPHU)) is an
important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service demand by type of
housing. Persons per housing unit for 2007 will be held constant over the projection period
since the fees represent a “snapshot approach” of current levels of service and costs.
77 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐5
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS TO 2017
Based on discussions with Evanston City Planning staff, TischlerBise recommends projecting
housing unit growth based on an average increase of 250 housing units per year. Evanston staff
anticipates housing construction to moderate somewhat from the pace of approximately 375
units per year over the last 6 years.
Per discussions with Evanston Planning staff, the distribution of types of units is likely to shift
slightly from the past six years to reflect an increased proportion of townhouses / 2‐9
multifamily units. To reflect this trend, 18 percent of new units are assumed to be in the
Attached Townhouse & 2‐9 Units category (up from 8 percent over the past 6 years) with the
remaining 82 percent in the Attached 10+ units category (down from 92 percent). No growth in
single family detached is projected at this time. This equates to a projected average annual
increase of 45 units of townhouses and other attached units in structures with 2‐9 units and 205
attached units in structures with 10 or more units.
Using projected housing units, population is then projected over the next 10 years using
average household size from the 2000 Census as discussed above and shown below. Projected
population in new units is then added to the current population estimate of 78,274. Over the
next ten years, the City is projected to increase its population by approximately 4,225 to 82,499.
Figure A3 shows housing units and population projections through 2017 for Evanston. Group
quarters population is assumed to stay constant over the projection period.
Figure A3. Housing Unit and Population Projections to 2017
As of December 1, ==>
Base Yr. 1 2 345678910
Year =>2000 [1] 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
HOUSING UNITS
Total Housing Units 30,817 33,063 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813
Housing Unit Distribution
Single Family Detached* 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 8,705 8,891 8,936 8,981 9,026 9,071 9,116 9,161 9,206 9,251 9,296 9,341 9,386
Attached Units: 10+ Units 12,285 14,345 14,550 14,755 14,960 15,165 15,370 15,575 15,780 15,985 16,190 16,395 16,600
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 30,817 33,063 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813
POPULATION PPHU
Single Family Detached*2.82 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38 20,678 21,120 21,227 21,334 21,441 21,547 21,654 21,761 21,868 21,975 22,082 22,189 22,296
Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54 18,911 22,082 22,398 22,713 23,029 23,344 23,660 23,975 24,291 24,607 24,922 25,238 25,553
Total in Housing Units 67,270 70,883 71,305 71,728 72,150 72,573 72,995 73,418 73,840 74,263 74,685 75,108 75,530
Group Quarters 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969
GRAND TOTAL POPULATION 74,239 77,852 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499
* Includes mobile/manufactured homes
[1] U.S. Census, 2000
78 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐6
Population and housing unit projections are used solely for the purpose of having an
understanding of the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and expenditures. As
these factors will vary to the extent that future development varies, there will be minimal effect
on the amounts of the fee and excise tax calculations.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA
For the Road Excise Tax, information on current and projected residential floor area is needed.
Based on the American Housing Survey for the Chicago Metropolitan Area in 2003, the median
square feet of housing per person in the metro area outside the city of Chicago is 727 square
feet. Using this factor along with household size, median square feet by type of unit in this
study can be determined. Based on this information, total estimated residential square footage
can be estimated. Details are provided below.
Figure A4. Residential Floor Area (2007)
Residential
Median SF/Unit 2007 Units Sq. Ft.
Single Family Detached 2,048 9,827 20,123,731
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 1,727 8,936 15,431,578
Attached Units: 10+ Units 1,119 14,550 16,282,905
Total 51,838,214
Sources: American Housing Survey 2003 (HUD and US Census); TischlerBise
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of fees and excise taxes requires
data on employment and nonresidential development in the City of Evanston. For current
employment estimates, TischlerBise obtained employment data for 2006 for the City from ESRI
Business Information Solutions, a private firm specializing in demographic and market data. To
convert employment to gross floor area of nonresidential development, TischlerBise uses
average square feet per employee multipliers. The multipliers are shown in Figure A5 and are
derived from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the
Urban Land Institute (ULI).
79 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐7
Figure A5. Floor Area Per Employee
ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee*Dmd Unit** Per Emp
Commercial / Shopping Center
820 25K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300
820 50K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350
820 100K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 67.91 na 2.50 400
820 200K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 450
820 400K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 na 2.00 500
General Office
710 10K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223
710 25K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 18.35 4.43 4.15 241
710 50K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256
710 100K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 13.34 3.61 3.69 271
Industrial
770 Business Park***1,000 Sq Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317
151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 56.28 0.04 22,512
150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558
110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433
Other Nonresidential
720 Medical‐Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 36.13 8.91 4.05 247
620 Nursing Home bed 2.37 6.55 0.36 na
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 17.57 5.20 3.38 296
565 Day Care student 4.48 28.13 0.16 na
320 Lodging room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na
* Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates, except for Shopping Center
data, which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents
of Shopping Centers , published by the Urban Land Institute.
*** According to ITE, a Business Park is a group of flex‐type buildings
served by a common roadway system. The tenant space includes a variety of uses
with an average mix of 20‐30% office/commercial and 70‐80% industrial/warehousing.
The square feet per employee multipliers shown in the last column on the right of Figure A5 are
used to convert employment projections into thousands of square feet (KSF) of nonresidential
floor area. Shaded items on the above table represent prototypical development types for each
category of land use in the City of Evanston, which will be used in the cash flow analysis to
project expenditures and revenue from future development. For example, in the City of
Evanston, TischlerBise assumes new office development is typically located in a building of
approximately 25,000 to 49,999 square feet. This size office building has an average of 241
square feet per employee.
80 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐8
ESTIMATED NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
To determine nonresidential floor area for major categories of nonresidential development, total
jobs by type of employment are used. The number of jobs in 2006 for each major category of
nonresidential development is shown in Figure A6 below. As noted above, TischlerBise
obtained current estimated number of jobs from ESRI Business Information Solutions. The
estimated number of jobs located in Evanston in 2006 is 41,823. Using employee per square foot
data from Figure A5 and total employment by type as shown in the column labeled “2006 Jobs”
in Figure A6 below, TischlerBise estimated the number of square feet of nonresidential floor
area in the City in 2006 at approximately 11,698,000 square feet in 2006. Nonresidential floor
area for 2007 is based on the assumption that nonresidential development in the City is
projected to increase by 15,000 square feet of retail and 12,000 of office space per year. This
brings the current amount of estimated nonresidential floor area to 11,725,000 square feet. The
average square feet per job is assumed to remain constant through the projection period. Details
are provided in Figure A6.
Figure A6. Estimated Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area for the City of Evanston
2006 Pct at Nonres Square Feet 2006 Nonres Floor 2007 Nonres Floor
Jobs* Locations Per Employee Area (rounded)Area**
Commercial/Retail
Retail Trade 5,541
Personal Services 5,732
Entertainment/Hospitality Services 970
Subtotal 12,243 29%300 3,673,000 3,688,000
Office/Institutional
Finance/Ins./Real Estate 1,724
Health/Legal Services 13,105
Educational Services 8,861
Government 1,126
Subtotal 24,816 59%241 5,981,000 5,993,000
Industrial/Flex
Agriculture/Forestry/Mining 220
Construction 1,151
Manufacturing 2,138
Wholesale Trade/Transp/Util 1,212
Subtotal 4,721 11%433 2,044,000 2,044,000
Other/Unclassified 43 0.1%
TOTAL at Nonresidential Locations 41,823 100%11,698,000 11,725,000
* Source: ESRI Business Information Services
** Projected; City of Evanston and TischlerBise
81 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐9
NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Future employment growth and nonresidential development in the City is projected based on
historical trends and discussions with City Planning staff. While a number of large‐scale retail
projects have been constructed in the past 6 years, it is assumed that future retail development
will likely moderate and reflect an average increase of 15,000 square feet per year. Office
development is assumed to reflect an average increase of 12,000 square feet per year to
accommodate such uses as small businesses and medical services. No future industrial
development resulting in additional floor area is assumed at this time. The projected increase in
retail and office square footage is then used to project additional employment using the
employee per square foot data from Figure A5 above. Employment is projected to increase by
approximately 100 jobs per year. Results are shown in Figure A7 below.
Figure A7. Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections to 2017
Base Yr. 1 2 345678910
Year =>2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 SF)
SF/Empl
Commercial/Retail 300 3,673 3,688 3,703 3,718 3,733 3,748 3,763 3,778 3,793 3,808 3,823 3,838
Office/Institutional 241 5,981 5,993 6,005 6,017 6,029 6,041 6,053 6,065 6,077 6,089 6,101 6,113
Industrial 433 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044
TOTAL Floor Area 11,698 11,725 11,752 11,779 11,806 11,833 11,860 11,887 11,914 11,941 11,968 11,995
Employment
Commercial/Retail 12,243 12,293 12,343 12,393 12,443 12,493 12,543 12,593 12,643 12,693 12,743 12,793
Office/Institutional 24,816 24,867 24,917 24,967 25,017 25,066 25,116 25,166 25,216 25,266 25,315 25,365
Industrial 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721
Other 43 4343434343434343434343
TOTAL Jobs 41,823 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922
SUMMARY
Annual demographic and development projections for the studies are summarized in Figure A8
below. Demographic data estimates for 2007 are used in the fee calculations. The development
projections are used solely for the purpose of having an understanding of the future pace of
service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with
those service demands.
82 of 129
APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS
Evanston, Illinois
A‐10
Figure A8. Annual Demand Projections, 2007-2017
Year=>Base Yr.1234 5 678910Avg. Ann.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Increase
DEMAND PROJECTIONS (cumulative)
TOTAL POPULATION 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499 422
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 250
TOTAL JOBS 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922 100
TOTAL POPULATION AND JOBS 120,198 120,721 121,243 121,765 122,287 122,810 123,332 123,854 124,377 124,899 125,421 522
Jobs to Housing Unit Ratio 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.20 1.20
Population:
Estimated Population in Households 71,305 71,728 72,150 72,573 72,995 73,418 73,840 74,263 74,685 75,108 75,530 422
Population in Group Quarters* 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 0
Total 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499 422
Residential Units SF/Unit
Single Family Detached**2,048 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 0
Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 1,727 8,936 8,981 9,026 9,071 9,116 9,161 9,206 9,251 9,296 9,341 9,386 45
Attached Units: 10+ Units 1,119 14,550 14,755 14,960 15,165 15,370 15,575 15,780 15,985 16,190 16,395 16,600 205
Total 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 250
Residential Floor Area (1,000 SF)51,838 52,145 52,452 52,759 53,066 53,373 53,680 53,987 54,295 54,602 54,909 307
Employment By Type at Nonres Locations
Commercial 12,293 12,343 12,393 12,443 12,493 12,543 12,593 12,643 12,693 12,743 12,793 50
Office/Institutional 24,867 24,917 24,967 25,017 25,066 25,116 25,166 25,216 25,266 25,315 25,365 50
Industrial/Flex 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 0
Other 4343434343 4343434343430
Total 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922 100
Nonres Floor Area (1,000 SF):SF/Employee
Commercial KSF 300 3,688 3,703 3,718 3,733 3,748 3,763 3,778 3,793 3,808 3,823 3,838 15
Office/Institutional KSF 241 5,993 6,005 6,017 6,029 6,041 6,053 6,065 6,077 6,089 6,101 6,113 12
Industrial/Flex KSF 433 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 0
Total 11,725 11,752 11,779 11,806 11,833 11,860 11,887 11,914 11,941 11,968 11,995 27
Total Floor Area: Residential and Nonresidential (1,000 SF)63,563 63,897 64,231 64,565 64,899 65,233 65,567 65,901 66,236 66,570 66,904 334
Annual Increases 06‐07 07‐08 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 Avg Anl
Total Population 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422
Housing Units 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Jobs at Nonres Locations 101 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Commercial KSF***15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Office KSF***12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Industrial KSF***00000 000000 0
* Census 2000 group quarters population is assumed to remain constant over projection period.
** Includes mobile/manufactured homes
83 of 129
Impact Fees for Subdivisions or Development Projects Survey November 2017
Municipality
Does your municipality
assess impact fees for
subdivisions or development
projects?
If so, please indicate the type
and circumstance under which
such fees are assessed?
In addition to any school and park fees
collected on behalf of the school and park
districts, if applicable, are there any other
impact fees related to municipal
infrastructures and their legacy costs to
maintain (water, roads/traffic impact, storm
sewers, sanitary sewers, or other similar)
that are assessed through the
development/construction process? These
fees would be in addition to the tap fees or
other building permit costs assessed
therein.
Please provide either a link to
the municipal code or fee
schedule or an electronic copy
of the relevant code section.
Arlington Heights Yes.
Any subdivision which will create
new residential lots must provide
impact fees if they do not dedicate
the required land for parks and
schools.
The Village requires Library impact fees and
recently has been requiring a "detention area
maintenance fee" during the subdivision
process for residential subdivisions. This fee is
not codified in our subdivision code but is a fee
that has recently been required by the Village
Board.
See attached. Formula for impact
fee calculations can be found in
Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code,
Section 29-401.
http://ldms.vah.com/weblink/Brows
e.aspx?cr=1
Barrington Residential subdivisions.
Residential subdivisions. fees
collected for park, fire, library and
schools. No. Impact fee ordinance attached.
Des Plaines Yes.
We have a newly created Park
District impact fee for residential
developments over 15 units, but
that is it; otherwise there are no
other impact fees. No.
Elk Grove
Upon annexation, donation of
10% of real estate for park
land or cash fair market value
equivalent. No other impact
fees. Park. No - just typical connection charges.
Evanston No. No.
Glenview Yes.
A land donation is required per
ordinance for every new dwelling
unit. In lieu of a land donation
acceptable to the elementary
school district, secondary school
district, and/or park district, the
developer may make a cash
donation in lieu of a land donation,
in accordance with a schedule
based upon the type of dwelling
unit & number of bedrooms.
The only impact fees other than school & park
donations are collected at the time of
annexation in accordance with an annexation
agreement.
http://www.glenview.il.us/governm
ent/Documents/SCHOOL%20AND
%20PARK%20DONATIONS.pdf
Grayslake Yes.School, park, library and fire. Not usually.See attached.
Hoffman Estates Yes.
Road Improvement Impact Fees
and municipal impact fees
(typically tied to a annexation
agreement). Road Improvement Impact Fees.
http://www.hoffmanestates.org/gov
ernment/development-
services/transportation-
engineering/funding-sources
Lincolnshire Yes.
The Village assesses impact fees
for residential developments only.
The Fire District which is a
separate taxing body assesses
impact fees on all types of
developments, including
commercial and industrial.
We also assess library impact fees and
connection fees for water and sewer. The Fire
District assesses a separate "emergency
service" impact fee.
Village impact fees code section:
https://lincolnshireil.gov/sitemedia/
documents/quick_links/village-
code/title-7/code0707.pdf
Connection Fees (see Section 5-3-
4):
https://lincolnshireil.gov/sitemedia/
documents/quick_links/village-
code/title-5/code0503.pdf The
Fire District assesses their fees by
separate ordinance.
Morton Grove No. No.
http://forms.mortongroveil.org/cod
e/index.php?ti=12&ch=16&ar=0&s
c=7
Niles No.No.
Rolling Meadows Yes.
New residential subdivisions and
planned developments - impact
fees are taken for the school
districts and park district. No.
https://library.municode.com/il/rolli
ng_meadows/codes/code_of_ordi
nances?nodeId=COOR_CH98SU
_ARTIIIPL_DIV4DEST_S98-
167PUSP
Schaumburg Yes.
Please see pages 16 and 17 in the
attachment titled "Development
Review Application" for applicable
types and circumstances for
development project fees. Please
see page 13 in the attachment
titled "Teardown and Replacement
Plan" for residential rebuild fees.
Please see Section 41.01 - Village Fee
Schedule. See attached.
184 of 129
Impact Fees for Subdivisions or Development Projects Survey November 2017
Municipality
Does your municipality
assess impact fees for
subdivisions or development
projects?
If so, please indicate the type
and circumstance under which
such fees are assessed?
In addition to any school and park fees
collected on behalf of the school and park
districts, if applicable, are there any other
impact fees related to municipal
infrastructures and their legacy costs to
maintain (water, roads/traffic impact, storm
sewers, sanitary sewers, or other similar)
that are assessed through the
development/construction process? These
fees would be in addition to the tap fees or
other building permit costs assessed
therein.
Please provide either a link to
the municipal code or fee
schedule or an electronic copy
of the relevant code section.
Streamwood Yes.
New construction of residential
units. Yes.
8-3-1-4: WATER CONNECTION
CHARGES D. Special Fee For
New Residential: In addition to the
routine connection fee provided in
subsection A of this section, a
special water system connection
fee has been established for each
new residential dwelling unit for all
those premises connecting to the
village of Streamwood water
system in the amount of one
thousand two hundred thirty five
dollars ($1,235.00). (Ord. 2006-1,
1-5-2006).
Vernon Hills Yes.
For school and park with relation
to residential developments. No. See attached.
285 of 129
Municipal Impact Fee SurveyAugust 2017MunicipalitySingle-Family Multi-Family Commercial4. Do you collect a single-family impact fee? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More Schools Parks Library Traffic ArtAffordable Housing Storm water Other CommentsArlington Heights Yes.SchoolsParksLibraryAffordable HousingSchoolsParksLibraryAffordable Housing storm waterTeardown: YesNew Construction: YesAs described above.Schools- $580.00 Yes per above.Barrington Yes.SchoolsParksLibraryFire DistrictSchoolsParksLibraryFire DistrictTeardown: No.New Construction: Yes, if newly platted lots. Yes.Schools - $1,296.68Parks - $3,953.32Library - $176.49Fire District - $302.55Schools - $5,096.94Parks - $5,682.04Library - $253.66Fire District - $434.85Schools - $8,595.65Parks - $7,377.44Library - $329.35Fire District - $564.60Schools - $8,595.65Parks - $7,377.44Library - $329.35Fire District - $564.60 Yes.Schools - $28.04Parks - $3,445.68Library - $153.83Fire District - $263.70Schools - $1,230.01Parks - $3,751.44Library - $167.48Fire District - $287.12Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95 No.BartlettResidential DevelopmentsSchools Parks Library Fire and Village Schools Parks Library Fire and Village Traffic Teardown: No.New Construction: Yes with some exceptions on date of the lot creation. Yes. N/A.Schools- $4,960.23Parks - $3,875.00 Library - $447.95 Fire and Village - $3,851.50 Schools- $6,071.07Parks - $4,087.50 Library - $472.52 Fire and Village - $4,062.72Schools- $7,976.33Parks - $4,400.00Library - $543.32 Fire and Village - $4,671.50Schools- $9,017.92Parks - $5,200.00Library - $601.12Fire and Village - $5,168.47Yes but fees differ depending on type of multi-family (Townhomes, Apartments, Condos, etc.)No.School land and School Cash Different Values.10 acres per 1,000 residents. 144.50/capita. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.710.54/capita, Police = 332.10/capita, Fire = 199.78/capita.Attached is the Land Donation Ordinance with example cost charts for each individual unit (pg. 22)Des PlainesFee-in-Lieu of dedication of land. Parks Parks ParksTeardown: NoNew Construction: Yes Yes.Parks- $2,218Parks- $3,188Parks- $4,140Parks- $4,147 Yes.Parks - $1,312 Parks- $2,189Parks- $2,631Parks- $3,459 Yes Parks - $1,933Parks - $2,105Parks - $3,3585.5 acres/1,000 population Land Value 200,000 per acre.Highland Park Yes.School Parks Library School Parks Library No.Teardown: YesNew Construction: Yes Yes.School-0 Parks-0Library-0 School- $3,000.00 Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $460.00School- $8,000.00 Parks- $5,000.00 Library- $661.00 School- $8,500.00 Parks- $5,000 Library- $859.00 School- $8,500.00 Parks- $5,000 Library- $859.00 Yes.School- $55.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $401.00School- $2,350.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $437.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00 No.See attached. See attached. See attached.Please see attachment on how impact fees are calculated.Hoffman Estates Yes.School Parks TrafficSchool Parks Traffic TrafficTeardown: NoNew Construction: YesFor roads - but does not vary by # of bedrooms; value depends on land value as determined through Naperville formula.Roads - but does not vary by # of bedrooms. It depends on the land value as determined through the Naperville formula.Roads.Naperville formula.Per State Statute.Road Improvement Impact Fee sample table.NilesNo.No.No.No.Teardown: NoNew Construction: NoNo.No.No.Northbrook Yes.School Parks Library School Parks Library TrafficTeardown: No.New Construction: Net increase in new lots/units created.Yes.Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $6,440.00Parks - $9,410.00Library - $378.00Schools - $4,612.00Parks - $9,425.00Library - $378.00 Yes.Schools - $23.00Parks - $4,395.00Library - $176.00Schools - $996.00Parks - $4,785.00Library - $192.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Yes for traffic - variable rate per square foot based on zones established.See attached. See attached. See attached. See attached.Rolling Meadows YesSchools ParksSchools Parks No.Teardown: NoNew Construction: YesYes.Schools- N/A Parks- $796.00 - attached.Schools- $503.00 detached/ $445.00 attached. Parks- $1,470.00 detached/$1,536 attached.Schools- $1,296 detached/ $676.00 attachedParks- $2,117 detached/$1,766 attached.Schools- $2,237 detached/ $1,377 attached Parks- $2,722 detached/$2,467Schools- $1,568 detached.Parks- $2,668 detached. Yes.Schools- N/A Parks- $1,012.00Schools- $311.00 Parks- $1,294.00Schools- $836.00Parks- $1,713.00N/A. N/A. No.N/A.N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.SchaumburgYes, see attached.Teardown: No.New Construction: YesSee attached.WheelingYes, please see attached ordinance.Wilmette No.No.No.No.Teardown: No.New Construction: NoNo.No.No.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.1. Does your community collect impact fees for development projects?5. If yes, what is your single-family impact fee?7. If yes, what is your multi-family impact fee?10. What is your impact fee formula?9. If yes, what is your commercial impact fee rate or formula?6. Do you collect a multi-family impact fee? 8. Do you collect a commercial impact fee? 3. Do you collect impact fees for single-family?2. Do you Collect impact fees for the following:186 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP5
Business of the City by Motion: 2017 CAPER
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Erika Storlie, Assistant City Manager
Sarah Flax, Housing and Grants Administrator
Savannah Clement, Housing Policy and Planning Analyst
Jessica Wingader, Grants and Compliance Specialist
Subject: 2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the
City’s Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment
Partnerships, and Emergency Solutions Grant Programs
Date: March 13, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the 2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER). The CAPER is posted on the City website at
cityofevanston/caper. The CAPER must be submitted to the Chicago Field Office of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by March 31, 2018.
Summary:
The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) reviews how
the City of Evanston used federal entitlement funds provided by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement programs and projects that
addressed community needs successfully during the 2017 program year (January 1 to
December 31, 2017).
Evanston received $2,047,439 in HUD entitlement funds in FY2017:
• $1,621,931 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• $281,174 in HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
• $144,334 in Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds.
Together with unexpended CDBG and HOME funds from prior years, plus program
income, the City spent a total of $2,507,708 in the 2017 program year. All programs and
projects funded in 2017 addressed strategic priorities identified in the City’s 2015-2019
Consolidated Plan and in the 2017 One Year Action Plan. The City met HUD
requirements for both commitment and expenditure of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds in
2017.
Memorandum
87 of 129
Background:
2017 was the third year of the five-year 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan; the City received
access to funds in November. Despite the late release of grant funds, the City was able
to complete many of its projects in 2017 including street resurfacing, alley paving and
Ridgeville Park District Brummel Park Renovations. The City of Evanston obligated its
2017 CDBG entitlement, program income and reallocated dollars from projects
completed in prior years to fund programs and projects in the categories of Housing,
Public Services, Public Infrastructure and Facilities and Economic Development. HOME
funding was used for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and to complete the
rehabilitation of two apartment buildings for low-income seniors and persons with
disabilities. Two agencies received ESG funding to provide shelter, essential services
and rental assistance to homeless individuals and families.
The public comment period on the CAPER opened on March 5 and will close March 20,
2018 following the meeting of the Housing and Community Development Act
Committee, at which members of the public were invited to provide input on the CAPER
to the committee. One resident asked a question regarding the timeliness of maps
posted in the CAPER (the maps are from 2010-2014). However, these maps are based
on data provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates by the
U.S. Census Bureau provided to HUD. These data are not updated every year and
Grantees are required to use 2006-2010 ACS data as described in CPD Notices 14-10,
14-11 and the eCon Planning Suite: A Desk Guide for Using CPD Maps updated
February 2016. All other public comments received after the submission of this memo
will be included in the final version of the CAPER.
Legislative History:
The Housing and Community Development Act Committee (HCDA) will conduct a public
hearing on the 2017 CAPER on March 20, 2018. Because the March 26th City Council
meeting was canceled and the CAPER is due to HUD by March 31, 2018, the CAPER
will go to City Council for approval on March 19th prior to the HCDA meeting and close
of public comment on March 20, 2018. Any public comments received and responses to
such comments will be reviewed by HCDA at the March meeting in keeping with the
practice of prior years.
Attachments:
City of Evanston draft 2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
may be found at: www.cityofevanston/caper
88 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item SP6
2019 Budget Projections and Priority-Based Budgeting
For Action: Accept and Place on File
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Ashley King, Finance and Budget Manager
Kate Lewis-Lakin, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: 2019 Budget Projections and Priority-Based Budgeting
Date: March 19, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council accept and place on file the projections for the 2019
budget and direct staff to move forward on a priority-based budgeting process.
Funding Source:
N/A
Livability Benefits:
Innovation & Process: Support local government best practices and processes.
Summary:
Staff will give a presentation to City Council on current projections for the 2019 budget,
and outlining a priority-based budgeting process.
Background:
Because of the challenges faced by the City during the 2018 budget process, staff has
begun to work on projections for the 2019 City budget. To make these projections, staff
examined 10-year trends on the major sources of revenue to the General Fund,
personnel costs, and other expenses. With this analysis, staff currently projects a $3.06
million deficit in the General Fund that will need to be corrected during the 2019 budget
process.
There are also challenges and opportunities outside of the General Fund in 2019.
These include:
• Outstanding capital improvements of $353,400,013 over the next 5 years in all
funds, with $81,354,000 expected in projects in 2019.
• General obligation bond revenue needed for the Robert Crown Community
Center project – expected increase of $1.5 million in annual debt service costs.
Memorandum
89 of 129
Staff gave a detailed presentation on this project at the February 19, 2018 City
Council meeting.
• Increased revenue from new water sales, expected beginning late 2018.
• Additional $410,000 property tax increase in 2019 for the Solid Waste Fund, in
order to further reduce the deficit in this fund.
• Insurance Fund – continued negative fund balance due to high litigation costs.
• Washington-National TIF closes, putting these properties back on the property
tax rolls. This is expected to generate $1 million in property tax revenue annually
beginning in 2019.
• Pension funds – currently funded ratios of 43.2% in the Firefighters’ Pension
Fund and 46.9% in the Police Pension Fund
With all of this in mind, it is important for the City to take a close look at all programs
and services as they relate to overall City priorities. Staff plans to undertake a Priority-
Based Budgeting process, in which all City programs are evaluated using a single set of
metrics. This will allow staff and the Council to create an ordered list of all City programs
as they related to the City Council’s priorities in order to assist in the 2019 budget
creation process.
Staff proposes five steps in this process, all of which will be completed by the end of
June 2018.
1. Identify programs for evaluation – completed by staff
2. Define metrics for evaluation – completed by staff
3. Staff scores programs
a. March 20-30: Department staff score and rank own programs
b. April 2-6: Inter-department team scores and ranks all programs
c. April 9-13: Budget team scores and ranks all programs
4. City Council and public outreach
a. April 30: City Council workshop to score and rank all programs
b. May 1-28: Public event and online outreach
5. Final presentation and application – June 25 City Council meeting
90 of 129
ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Monday, March 19, 2018
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston
James C. Lytle Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
I. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM: ALDERMAN RAINEY, CHAIR
II. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
(A1) Resolution 18-R-18, Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine Request for Financial
Assistance
Staff recommends City Council consideration of Resolution 18-R-18 for financial
assistance in the amount of $25,000 to Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC to
purchase additional equipment needed to open their new location at 711 Howard
Street. Funding will be from the Economic Development Business Attraction
(Account 215.21.5300.62660), with a budget and current balance of $50,000.
For Action
(A2) Ordinance 33-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New
Class F-2 Liquor License
Local Liquor Commissioner and staff recommend City Council adopt Ordinance
33-O-18, amending City Code Section 3-4-6 by creating the new Class F-2
Liquor License for a retail liquor dealer/gourmet food and amenity store. This
ordinance is returning for consideration following its introduction and hold over to
March 19, 2018.
For Introduction
(A3) Ordinance 31-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New
Class X Liquor License
Local Liquor Commissioner recommends City Council to adopt Ordinance 31-O-
18, amending City Code Section 3-4-6 by creating the new Class X Liquor
License. Ordinance 31-O-18 was prepared to allow arts and crafts studios the
sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption. Ordinance 31-O-18 was
introduced February 26, 2018; At the City Council meeting of March 12, 2018,
the Ordinance was re-referred back to Committee on March 19, 2018 for Action.
For Action
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
IV. COMMUNICATIONS
V. ADJOURNMENT
91 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item A1
Resolution 18-R-18: Loan for Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Members of the Administration & Public Works Committee
From: Erika Storlie, Acting Community Development Director
Paul Zalmezak, Economic Development Division Manager
Subject: Resolution 18-R-18, Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine Request for Financial
Assistance
Date: March 8, 2018
Recommended Action
Staff recommends City Council consideration of Resolution 18-R-18 for financial
assistance in the amount of $25,000 to Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC to purchase
additional equipment needed to open their new location at 711 Howard Street.
Funding Source:
Funding will be from the Economic Development Business Attraction Fund (Account
215.21.5300.62660), which has a budget and current balance of $50,000.
Livability Benefits:
Economy and Jobs: Retain and expand local businesses; Expand job opportunities
Background:
Tony and Lenice Levy, owners of Good to Go Jamaican restaurant located at 1947 W.
Howard Street in Chicago, are nearing completion of the construction of a new
$830,000 restaurant at 709-711 Howard Street in Evanston. The new restaurant
includes expanded dining room seating and outdoor seating on a patio to the east of the
building.
After 15 years at its current location, the Levys have achieved their goal of moving from
rental to ownership, building equity and controlling their costs of doing business by
purchasing the vacant buildings at 709-711 Howard Street in Evanston.
In addition to keeping a successful business on Howard Street for its expansion, the
opening of Good to Go at its new location will bring vacant property that is currently off
the tax rolls into productive use and generate new property, sales and liquor taxes for
the City of Evanston.
Memorandum
92 of 129
The Levy’s had previously attempted to lease the city owned building at 633 Howard,
but were not granted a lease because they demanded a purchase option. The City
Council preferred to maintain the property as a rental indefinitely.
Summary
The Levy’s are seeking a $25,000 loan from the City of Evanston to pay for restaurant
equipment, point of sales equipment, and to cover the cost of unforeseen expenses.
These expenses, which Ms. Levy suggests is the result of contractors underbidding the
project include:
Item Description
Roofing $27,000 over budget due to roof conditions and
additional cost of electrical installation
Demolition $14,000 over budget
Interior Buildout $25,000 over budget
Concrete $5,000 over budget
Ms. Levy reports timing is of the essence. The Levy’s have a projected April 5, 2018
opening date and have clients who have secured three bookings beginning April 13th.
Each event is booked to accommodate 100 to 125 guests according to Ms. Levy. Due to
the time constraints, a private bank loan is unlikely. Underwriting would take a minimum
of 30 days. In addition, because of the existence of an SBA loan, private banks are not
interested as they would be taking a second lien position. And generally speaking, the
banking community shies away from restaurant loans. Staff also spoke with
Northwestern University’s LEND program managers. Timing is too tight to
accommodate the underwriting requirements.
The total project cost is estimated to be $830,000. The Levy’s secured a $583,200
Small Business Administration loan, received a Façade Improvement grant from the
City of Evanston $50,000; owner equity in the project is $150,000. The City Council
approved a CDBG loan of $25,000 at 2.5% interest with a 10-year term with no
payments for the first 12 months to assist with cost of equipment purchases. A sources
and uses table is summarized below.
Good to Go Sources & Uses Table
Sources
SBA Loan $580,000
Personal Equity $150,000
Storefront Modernization Grant $ 50,000
CDBG Loan $ 25,000
Proposed City of Evanston Loan $ 25,000
Total $830,000
Uses
Property Acquisition $250,000
Construction & Fees $380,000
Equipment & Inventory $200,000
Total $830,000
93 of 129
If City Council were to approve Ms. Levy’s request, staff recommends the following
repayment terms mirroring the existing CDBG loan terms:
• 2.5% interest
• 10-year term with no payments for the first 12 months to assist with cost of
equipment purchases
• Loan is secured by equipment (i.e. city possesses equipment in event of default)
• Funds will be dispersed directly to vendors upon presentation of invoices.
Legislative History:
The City Council approved a loan in the amount of $25,000 to Good To Go Jamaican
Cuisine on March 13, 2017. Therefore, if this loan is approved, the total amount loaned
to the Borrower for this project is $50,000.
Attachments:
• Resolution 18-R-18 Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a
Loan Agreement with Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC
• Promissory Note and Security Agreement – Good To Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC
94 of 129
3/9/2018
18-R-18
A RESOLUTION
Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Second
Loan Agreement with Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC
NOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:
SECTION 1: The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to
negotiate and execute a second loan agreement (“Loan Agreement”) between the City
of Evanston (“Lender) and Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company (“Borrower”), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. The Loan Agreement outlines the terms of the loan, including the principal
amount issued of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($25,000.00).
SECTION 2: The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to
negotiate any additional conditions of the Loan Agreement as he may determine to be in
the best interests of the City.
SECTION 3: This Resolution 18-R-18 shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
95 of 129
18-R-18
~ 2 ~
_______________________________
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Devon Reid, City Clerk
Adopted: __________________, 2018
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
W. Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel
96 of 129
18-R-18
~ 3 ~
EXHIBIT A
Loan Agreement
97 of 129
PROMISSORY NOTE
$25,000
Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine LLC
Attn: Lenice Levy
709 Howard Street
Evanston, IL 60202
Dated: March 20, 2018
1. BORROWER’S PROMISE TO PAY
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine, LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company (referred to hereafter as the "Borrower"), promise to pay
to the order of the City of Evanston, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation, acting
through its City Manager’s Office, with its principal office located at 2100 Ridge Avenue,
Evanston, Illinois (the “Lender”), in the manner provided in this Note, the principal sum
of $25,000.00 (Twenty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars) (the “Loan”). Borrower will
be relocating its restaurant “Good to Go Jamaican” to 709 -711 Howard Street,
Evanston, Illinois 60202. The loan funds will be used solely to purchase equipment in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement to enable the Borrower to begin operating
the subject business.
2. LOAN TERM, FORGIVENESS AND REPAYMENT
The term of the Loan is ten (10) years commencing on the date of issuance of the
temporary certificate of occupancy and ending 120 months later (the “Loan Term”). The
Loan will start to bear interest after issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy
for Good to Go Jamaican and prior to the first payment due date. The loan payments
will be two hundred forty-one and 65/100 Dollars ($241.65) each month. The Loan
schedule that is provided on Exhibit 1 is provided for illustrative purposes, to show the
payment schedule and amounts. The Loan repayment schedule will be revised at the
time that the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued and the loan payment date is
set in accordance with terms of this Note.
The interest rate is two and half percent (2.5%) per annum and computed on the basis
of a 365 day year. Borrower agrees to commence payment of the Loan thirteen (13)
months after issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Loan payments will be
due on or before the first day of the month. If the Borrower’s Loan payment is five days
after the first of the month or more, there shall be assessed a late fee of $25 per day.
The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive
payments under this Note will be called "Note Holder".
The Loan can be pre-paid with no penalty or fee assessed against the Borrower.
98 of 129
The Loan is secured by a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement (the “UCC
Financing Statement”) and security agreement (the “Security Agreement”), which
includes the Borrower’s equipment and fixtures (“Equipment and Fixtures”) to be located
at 709 Howard Street, Evanston, Illinois (the “Property”) for the operation of the
business “Good to Go” Restaurant, dated the date of this Note and recorded with the
Cook County Recorder of Deeds on ____________, 2018 and as Document Number
_______________ (the “Security”), together with interest computed on the basis of a
365 day year, from the date of disbursement on the balance of principal remaining from
time to time unpaid at an annual rate equal to two and half percent (2.50%). Any
principal amount not paid when due (at maturity, by acceleration, or otherwise) will bear
interest thereafter until paid at a rate, which will be eighteen percent (18%). The Lender
or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments
under this Note will be called "Note Holder".
3. LOAN DISBURSEMENTS. The Loan disbursement will be made directly to the
vendor(s) for the equipment. The City will issue the loan disbursements with the
following requirements:
Borrower cannot make requests for payment in an amount less than $5,000,
unless it is the last draw; and
Borrower is limited to a total of 3 draws;
Borrower’s request for payment for equipment purchases must include: (a)
copies of itemized invoices from vendor(s); and (c) proof of reasonableness of
the equipment selected, including copies of multiple quotes from at least 3
vendors or copies of internet searches for the same model/year of the
equipment.
The Borrower must provide the invoices as soon as available to the City prior to
disbursement and provide the City at least 15 days to disburse the payment.
The City will disburse up to $25,000. If the invoices do not exceed $25,000,
the City will only disburse up to the total amount of the invoices. The total loan
amortization schedule will be adjusted accordingly if the disbursement is less
than $25,000.
4. SECURITY FOR LOAN: UCC FINANCING STATEMENT . The indebtedness
evidenced by this Note (including all principal, interest, charges, fees, and expenses) is
secured by the aforementioned Security, dated of even date herewith encumbering the
fixtures and personal property of the Borrower. The Note, Security Agreement, and
UCC Financing Statement shall be collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents” and
the terms of which are hereby incorporated by this reference. The Lender will record
the UCC Financing Statement following the execution of this Note, which shall remain a
valid lien on the Equipment and Fixtures until the Loan is paid off in full and until the end
of the Loan Term. The Note, Security Agreement, and UCC Financing Statement shall
be collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents” and the terms of which are hereby
incorporated by this reference.
5. BORROWER REPRESENTATIONS. The Borrower represents and warrants that it
is duly organized and existing under the laws of State of Illinois and is in good standing
99 of 129
as necessary in the State of Illinois. The Borrower represents it has the power to enter
into this Agreement and other Loan Documents required under this agreement. That by
proper action in accordance with its organizational documents has been duly authorized
to execute and deliver this Agreement and all documents required under its terms. The
Borrower covenants that this Agreement does not contravene any law or contractual
restriction binding or affecting the Borrower, and that the Agreement will be legal, valid,
and binding obligations of the Borrower, and further that as of the date of this
agreement the Borrower represents that no event or change of condition has occurred
which is a material (as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission) which
would affect the ability of the Borrower to perform its obligations hereunder on a timely
basis.
A. As of the date of this Agreement there is no suit, action, or proceeding pending or
threatened as to which outcome would be materially adverse effect on the Borrower.
B. The Borrower and all entities affiliated with the Borrower have filed all tax returns
required to be filed by them and paid all taxes required as show on those returns.
C. The Borrower represents that it has a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System)
number, in order facilitate disbursement of loan funds properly under federal guidelines.
D. Borrower must remain in good standing with the Illinois Secretary of State.
E. Job Creation: Borrower must create at least one new full-time equivalent (FTE)
position (40 hours per week). The employee hired must have no more than a high
school diploma and the individual’s family income at time of hire does not exceed 80%
of the area median income released by HUD for 2017. If Borrower hires more than one
FTE, the City will include this information in its report to HUD for use of CDBG funds.
6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
A. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events (“Event of Default”) with
respect to Borrower shall constitute a default hereunder (“Default”):
1) If Borrower ceases to operate a restaurant at 709-711 Howard Street
(including by incidence of death of the Borrower). The Lender shall give written
notice to Borrower of this Default. The Borrower shall have a period of thirty
days to cure the Default (“Cure Period”).
2) If all or any part of the Fixtures and Equipment or any interest in it is sold
or transferred (or if a legal or beneficial interest in Borrower’s interest in the
Fixtures and Equipment is sold or transferred) without Lender’s prior written
consent.
3) If a default or event of default occurs and is continuing under any
representation or covenant under the Loan Documents.
4) If a default or event of default occurs and is continuing under any other
mortgage or loan agreement encumbering the Fixtures and Equipment.
100 of 129
5) Borrower or any beneficiary thereof shall (i) file a petition for liquidation,
reorganization, or adjustment of debt under Title 11 of the United States Code or
any similar law, state or federal, whether now or hereafter existing, or (ii) file any
answer admitting insolvency or inability to pay debts, or (iii) fail to obtain a
vacation or stay of involuntary proceedings within ten days, as hereinafter
provided.
6) Borrower or any beneficiary thereof shall make an assignment for the
benefit of creditors of this Note, or shall admit in writing of its inability to pay its
debts generally as they become due, or shall consent to the appointment of a
receiver or trustee or liquidator of all or any major part of the Fixtures and
Equipment.
B. The Borrower also promises that, if the Event of Default specified above, 4(A)(1),
shall occur (after applicable notice and the Occupancy Cure Period detailed above)
before the expiration of the Loan Term, the Borrower agrees to repay to the order of the
Lender or its designee an amount equal to the original principal amount of the Loan and
it is immediately due and payable. Provided however, if an Event of Default is solely
with respect any other Event of Default specified above in 4(A), the Borrower shall have
sixty (60) days after the date on which the notice is delivered to Borrower to cure such
breach, provided, however, that if the curing of such non-monetary breach cannot be
accomplished with due diligence within said period of sixty (60) days then Borrower
shall have such additional reasonable period of time to cure such breach as may be
necessary, provided Borrower shall have commenced to cure such breach within said
period, such cure shall have been diligently prosecuted by Borrower thereafter to
completion (“Other Default Cure Period”). The notice shall further inform Borrower of
the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the
nonexistence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and
foreclosure. If the Borrower does not cure the Default within the specified Other Default
Cure Period within the notice, then this Note is due and payable only with respect to the
remaining balance of the Loan at the time of Default.
C. If the Borrower Defaults hereunder and fails to cure the Default, during the 10-year
loan Term, the Loan shall be immediately due and owing and the balance of the Loan
shall be immediately repaid to Lender in full, subject to the availability of net proceeds
from sale of the Fixtures and Equipment. Lender can auction the Fixtures and
Equipment and use the proceeds and apply it to the loan balance.
D. If any payments of interest or the unpaid principal balance due under this Note or
any escrow fund payments for taxes or insurance required under the Security
Agreement become overdue for a period in excess of ten days, the Borrower shall pay
to Lender a late charge of $50 per day. If any attorney is engaged by Lender, including
in-house staff (a) to collect the indebtedness evidenced hereby or due under the Loan
Documents, whether or not legal proceedings are thereafter instituted by Lender; (b) to
represent Lender in any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership, or other proceedings
affecting creditors’ rights and involving a claim under this Note; (c) to protect the lien of
any of the Loan Documents; (d) to represent Lender in any other proceedings
101 of 129
whatsoever in connection with this Note or any of the Loan Documents or the real
estate described therein; or (e) as a result of the Borrower’s Default and collection
efforts, the Borrower shall pay to Lender all reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses
incurred or determined to be due in connection therewith, in addition to all other
amounts due hereunder.
E. Lender’s remedies under this Note, and all of the other Loan Documents shall be
cumulative and concurrent and may be pursued singly, successively, or together
against the Borrower and any other Obligors (as defined below), the Property, and any
other security described in the Loan Documents or any portion or combination of such
real estate and other security, and Lender may resort to every other right or remedy
available at law or in equity without first exhausting the rights and remedies contained
herein, all in Lender’s sole discretion. Failure of Lender, for a period of time or on more
than one occasion to exercise its option to accelerate the maturity date shall not
constitute a waiver of the right to exercise that option at any time during the continued
existence of the Default or in the event of any subsequent Default. Lender shall not by
any other omission or act be deemed to waive any of its rights or remedies hereunder
unless such waiver is in writing and signed by Lender, and then only to the extent
specifically set forth therein. A waiver in connection with one event shall not be
construed as continuing or as a bar to or waiver of any right or remedy in connection
with a subsequent event.
7. PAYMENT OF NOTE HOLDER'S COSTS AND EXPENSES
If the Lender is required to initiate legal process as the result of the Borrower’s Default
as described above, the Lender will have the right to be paid back for all of its costs and
expenses incurred as a result of such Default, to the extent not prohibited by applicable
law. Those costs and expenses include but are not limited to, reasonable attorneys'
fees, court costs, and related litigation expenses.
8. BORROWER'S WAIVERS
To the extent permitted by law, the Borrower waives all rights to require the Lender to
do certain things. These things are: (A) to demand payment of amounts due (known as
"presentment"); (B) to give notice that amounts due have not been paid (known as
"notice to dishonor"); (C) to obtain an official certification of nonpayment (known as
"protest"). If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally
obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Notes, including the promise to pay
the full amount owed. Any person, who takes over these obligations, is also obligated
to keep all promises made in this Note. The Lender may enforce its rights under this
Note against each person individually or against all of us together.
9. NOTICES
Any notices that must be given to the Borrower under this Note will be given by
delivering or by mailing by certified mail addressed to the Borrower at the address of the
102 of 129
Property set forth above. Any notice that must be given to the Lender under this Note
will be given by delivering it or mailing it by certified mail to the Lender at the followin g
address:
City of Evanston
Attn: Economic Development Division
2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 3600
Evanston, Illinois 60201
with a copy to:
City of Evanston
Attn: Corporation Counsel
2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 4400
Evanston, Illinois 60201
10. RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE
If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to
keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Lender may enforce its rights under this
Note against the signatories either individually or together. This means that both
signatories, either individually or together, may be required to pay all of the amounts
owned under this Note. Any person who takes over the rights or obligations of the
Borrower, with the written permission of the Lender, will have all of the Borrower’s rights
and must keep all of the Borrower’s promises made in this Note. Notwithstanding
anything in the Security Agreement to the contrary, the Loan is a recourse obligation of
the Borrower.
11. GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY
This Promissory Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois. Borrower
hereby represents and warrants that it knowingly and voluntarily waives any
rights to trial by jury for any litigation related to or arising out of, under, or in any
way connected with the obligations of this Note.
12. MISCELLANEOUS
The headings of sections and paragraphs in this Note are for convenience only and
shall not be construed in any way to limit or define the content, scope, or intent of th e
provisions hereof. As used in this Note, the singular shall include the plural, and
masculine, feminine, and neuter pronouns shall be fully interchangeable, where the
context so requires. If any provision of this Note, or any paragraph, sentence, clause,
phrase, or word, or the application thereof, in any circumstances, is adjudicated to be
invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Note shall be construed as if such invalid
part were never included herein. Time is of the essence of this Note.
Upon any endorsement, assignment, or other transfer of this Note by Lender or by
operation of law, the term “Lender,” as used herein, shall mean such endorsee,
103 of 129
assignee, or other transferee or successor to Lender then becoming the holder of this
Note.
This Note and all provisions hereof shall be binding on all persons claiming under or
through the Undersigned. The terms “Undersigned” and “Borrower,” as used herein,
shall include the respective beneficiaries, successors, assigns, legal and personal
representatives, executors, administrators, devisees, legatees, and heirs of the
Undersigned and Borrower and shall be binding upon the same
In the event the Undersigned is an Illinois land trust, then this Note is executed by the
Trustee, not personally but as Trustee as aforesaid in the exercise of the power and
authority conferred on and vested in it as the Trustee, and is payable only out of the
property specifically described in the Loan Documents securing the payment hereof, by
the enforcement of the provisions contained therein. No personal liability shall be
asserted or be enforceable against the Trustee because or in respect of this Note or the
making, issue, or transfer thereof, all such liability, if any, being expressly waived by
each taker and holder hereof, and each original and successive holder of this Note
accepts the Note on the express condition that no duty shall rest on the Trustee to
sequester the rents, issues, and profits arising from the property described in the Loan
Documents, or the proceeds arising from the sale or other disposition thereof, but that in
case of Default in the payment of this Note or of any installment hereof, the sole
remedies of the holder hereof shall be by foreclosure of the UCC Financing Statement,
realization on the other security given under the other Loan Documents to secure
indebtedness evidenced by this Note, in accordance with the terms and provisions set
forth herein, or any combination of the above.
The Undersigned have caused this Note to be executed as of the ____ day of
___________, 2018.
BORROWER:
GOOD TO GO JAMAICAN CUISINE LLC
By: _____________________________
Lenice Levy, Member
104 of 129
State of Illinois )
) ss:
County of Cook )
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County in the State aforesaid, do
hereby certify that ______________________, a member of Good to Go Jamaican
Cuisine LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and personally known to me to be the
same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument as such manager
appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that she signed and
delivered such instrument as her own free and voluntary act, all for the uses and
purposes set forth therein.
Given under my hand and official seal this ____ day of _____________, 2018.
Commission expires
105 of 129
EXHIBIT 1
LOAN PAYMENT SCHEDULE
[To be inserted after issuance of TCO]
106 of 129
SECURITY AGREEMENT
This Security Agreement dated March 20, 2018 by and between the Good to Go
Jamaican Cuisine LLC, an Illinois limited liability company hereinafter referred to
collectively as the "Debtor" for value received, hereby grants to the City of Evanston,
Illinois, an Illinois home rule municipality, with its principal address at 2100 Ridge
Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60201, hereinafter referred to as the "Secured Party," a
security interest in the collateral listed at 709 Howard Street, Evanston, Illinois in the
attached EXHIBIT A, hereinafter referred to as the “Collateral” and incorporated by
reference.
This security interest is given for the purpose of securing payment of any and all
indebtedness of the Debtor to the Secured Party in connection with the loan made to
the Debtor and evidenced by promissory note dated March 20, 2018, together with all
costs and expenses in connection therewith including but not limited to expenses of
retaking, preserving, repairing, maintaining, preparing for sale, and selling said collateral
as well as reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other legal expenses. In the
event that Debtor defaults in the payment of said indebtedness, or becomes insolvent,
or fails to keep said collateral free of all other liens, or if for any reason the secured
party feels insecure, Secured Party has the option of declaring the entire indebtedness
immediately due and payable, and shall have all of the rights and remedies of a secured
party under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code as the same may be amended from
time to time. The requirement of the reasonable notice of any sale hereunder shall be
met if such notice is mailed, postage prepaid, to the address of the Debtor shown at the
beginning of this agreement at least 5 days before the time of sale or disposition.
Secured Party and Debtor have caused this Agreement to be executed and
delivered as of the date set forth opposite their name.
City of Evanston, Illinois Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine, LLC
By:__________________________ By:__________________________
City Manager, Wally Bobkiewicz Member, Lenice Levy
107 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item A2
Ordinance 33-O-18 Creating New Class F-2 Liquor License
For Introduction
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Administration and Public Works Committee
From: W. Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel
Subject: Ordinance 33-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the
New Class F-2 Liquor License for a Retail Liquor Dealer/Gourmet Food
and Amenity Store
Date: March 12, 2018
Recommended Action:
Local Liquor Commissioner and staff recommend City Council adopt Ordinance 33-O-
18. This ordinance is returning for consideration following its introduction and hold over
to March 19th.
Livability Benefits:
Economy & Jobs: Retain and expand local businesses.
Summary:
Michael Binstein, owner of Binny’s, approached the City of Evanston’s Liquor Control
Review Board (“LCRB”) requesting the creation of a new liquor license at 1111 Chicago
Avenue. The subject premises was previously a Whole Foods that held a Class F liquor
license as a grocery store.
Following LCRB consideration of the request, and the resulting discussion regarding
same, staff drafted this Ordinance 33-O-18 creating the new Class F-2 license.
Particular provisions to note are as follows:
1. The Class F-2 Liquor License requires licensees to provide food service where
alcoholic liquor is offered for on-site consumption.
2. Class F-2 Liquor License holders must have at least one BASSET-certified site
manager on premises whenever alcoholic liquor is available for on-site
consumption.
3. The sale of alcoholic liquor must only take place between 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
Monday through Sunday.
4. A Class F-2 licensee must offer for sale fine cheeses, deli and gourmet food
products, related accessories, baked goods or cereal grains, charcuterie,
canned, refrigerated or frozen prepared food products, books and magazines, or
dry goods such as stemware or glasses.
Memorandum
108 of 129
Staff specifically notes that Section 4 of the Ordinance sets a goal for local preferences
regarding employment and retail sale of products, as follows:
SECTION 4: Any prospective applicant for a Class F-2 license must
prioritize hiring Evanston residents for employment at the licensed
premises, and, prioritize the retail sale of local Evanston artisan food and
liquor products at the licensed premises.
To differentiate this proposed license class from the Class K (Vinic, Wine Goddess,
Beer on Central) licenses, consumption of alcoholic liquor is not allowed in an outdoor
patio or sidewalk cafe. Ordinance 33-O-18 also eliminates the prohibition that a license
holder not be within 500 feet of another Class F-1 or Class F liquor licensee. Class F-2
does not permit on-site consumption of beer or wine on the premises (except for
sampling or tasting) like the Class F-1 license in place for the Green Bay Road Whole
Foods.
Legislative History:
The LCRB discussed the issues regarding the creation of a new liquor license at the
Chicago Avenue location during the January 31, 2018 LCRB meeting. This also
followed a community meeting convened by Ald. Wynne regarding this issue.
This Ordinance imposes similar and consistent requirements for retail liquor dealers
selling gourmet food products, which are similar to the requirements for smaller wine,
beer, and spirit shops. The Mayor and the LCRB indicated to current Class K licensees
that they may request similar license language regarding smaller retail sale sizes as that
set forth in subsections 1-3 of this Ordinance. The legislative record reflects that Class
K licensees received 3 license modifications in 2013-2015 to accommodate expanding
business concepts.
The annual F-2 liquor license fee for initial issuance is forty thousand dollars
($40,000.00) and the renewal fee is thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00).
At Alderman Wynne’s and the request of the prospective applicant, this ordinance was
introduced at the February 26th APW committee meeting, but held, pending clarifying
language being added to the ordinance. Clarification language was added to sections
5, 6 and 15 of the ordinance to more clearly define and illustrate the requirements
regarding the prospective licensee’s business operations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
Ordinance 33-O-18
Minutes of the January 31, 2018 Liquor Control Review Board meeting
109 of 129
2/20/2018
3/2/2018
33-O-18
AN ORDINANCE
Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New Class F-2
Liquor License
NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:
SECTION 1: Legislative Statement. The Illinois Liquor Control Act, 235
ILCS 5/1-1 et seq., (the “Act”), prescribes minimum requirements to regulate liquor
license establishments in the State of Illinois, and Section 5/4-1 of the Act confers
authority upon the Mayor and City Council to establish such conditions, regulations and
restrictions upon the issuance of local liquor licenses consistent with law as the public
good and convenience require. The Mayor as Local Liquor Control Commissioner, and
the Liquor Control Review Board considered the request made by Michael Binstein for
creating a new liquor license class to enable a licensed establishment to be located at
1111 Chicago Avenue in Evanston. This premises has been vacant since March 2017
generating no sales tax or employment for Evanston residents. The City of Evanston
Code authorizes the Mayor and City Council to create a liquor license with special
conditions. Higher application and renewal fees under the proposed F-2 liquor license
bear a reasonable relationship to the City’s cost of regulation. Under Illinois law and the
Evanston City Code, the Mayor and the City Council may create new liquor license
classes to account for new economic development and business models offered by a
prospective liquor licensee, while at the same time, ensuring such licensee is regulated
110 of 129
33-O-18
~2~
accordingly.
SECTION 2: Table 1 of Section 3-4-6 of the Evanston City Code of 2012,
as amended, is hereby further amended and revised to add the following:
F-2 Retail Liquor
Dealer/Gourmet
Food and
Amenity Store
Liquor Liquor $40,000 $13,000 0 None 8 a.m. —
12 a.m.
(Mon-Sun)
SECTION 3: Subsection 3-4-6 of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as
amended, is hereby further amended by the enactment of a new Subsection (F-2)
thereof, “Class F-2 Liquor License”, to create a new license with the following special
conditions and restrictions to read as follows:
(F-2) CLASS F-2 licenses, which authorizes the retail sale of packaged alcoholic liquor
for consumption off premises and on the premises to persons of at least twenty-
one (21) years of age. Class F-2 licenses are subject to the following conditions
and limitations for the sale of alcohol, in original packages, unopened only:
1. It is unlawful for a Class F-2 licensee to sell a single container of beer for
consumption off premises unless the volume of the container is greater
than forty (40) fluid ounces or 1.18 liters, or, a single container of craft
beer for consumption off premises unless the volume of the container is
greater than ten (10) ounces or 0.296 liters. It is unlawful for a licensee to
bundle, tape, package, or otherwise manipulate single containers of beer
for sale as a set. Any such manipulation of packaging is a violation of this
Subsection. Nothing in this Subsection is construed as prohibiting the sale
of packages containing six (6) single containers of beer, including such
packages consisting of various single containers of beer chosen by the
consumer.
2. It is unlawful for a Class F-2 licensee to sell a single container of wine for
consumption off premises unless the container is greater than 6.32 fluid
ounces or 0.187 liters.
3. It is unlawful for a Class F-2 licensee to sell a single container of alcoholic
liquor for consumption off premises, except beer and wine which are
regulated by Subsections (F-2)(1) and (F-2)(2) of this Section, unless the
container is greater than 1.69 fluid ounces or 0.050 liters.
4. The sale of alcoholic liquor at retail for off-site consumption pursuant to
the Class F-2 license may begin after 8:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday.
Alcoholic liquor for off-site consumption cannot be sold after the hour of
12:00 midnight on any day.
111 of 129
33-O-18
~3~
5. A Class F-2 licensee must provide a minimum of twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet for the retail sale of wine, spirits, and beer. of
production, preparation, and display area in which direct retail sale of food
items or related products are prepared and are for sale. The gross floor
area must include premises within the exterior walls, but does not include
any outdoor patio, parking, storage or display areas. The gross floor area
includes space for retail sale of gourmet food and amenities.
6. A Class F-2 licensee must offer for sale some or all of the following: fine
cheeses, deli and gourmet food products, related accessories, baked
goods or cereal grains, charcuterie, canned, refrigerated or frozen
prepared food products, books and magazines, or dry goods such as
stemware or glasses.
7. Alcoholic liquor sold in original packages and intended for consumption off
the premises cannot be opened or consumed on the premises.
The sale of alcoholic liquor is permitted for tasting/sampling on the premises
subject to the following conditions:
8. Licensees who offer servings of alcoholic liquor for on-site
tasting/sampling must provide food service such as cheese, crackers,
snack food, or other similar deli-style items to customers who are
tasting/sampling alcoholic liquor.
9. Wine tasting is permitted only during authorized hours of business.
Licensees must not provide more than three (3) free samples, each of
which must not exceed one (1) fluid ounce, to any person in a day.
Licensees may sell wine samples, but the volume of any wine sample sold
must not exceed six (6) fluid ounces and the total volume of all samples
sold to a person in a day must not exceed twelve (12) fluid ounces.
Licensees must not provide and/or sell more than a total of fifteen (15)
fluid ounces of wine samples to any person in a day.
10. Beer tasting of only the beers permitted to be sold under this classification
for consumption off-premises is permitted only during authorized hours of
business. Licensees must not provide more than three (3) free samples,
each of which must not exceed two (2) fluid ounces, to any person in a
day. Licensees may sell beer samples, but the volume of any beer sample
sold must not exceed twelve (12) fluid ounces and the total volume of all
samples sold to a person in a day must not exceed twenty-four (24) fluid
ounces. Licensees must not provide and/or sell more than a total of thirty
(30) fluid ounces of beer samples to any person in a day.
11. Alcoholic spirit tasting is permitted only during authorized hours of
business. Licensees must not provide more than three (3) free samples,
each of which must not exceed one quarter (0.25) fluid ounce, to any
person in a day. Licensees may sell alcoholic spirit samples, but the
volume of any alcoholic spirit sample sold must not exceed one (1) fluid
ounces and the total volume of all samples sold to a person in a day must
not exceed two (2) fluid ounces. Licensees must not provide and/or sell
112 of 129
33-O-18
~4~
more than a total of two and seventy-five hundredths (2.75) fluid ounces of
alcoholic spirit samples to any person in a day.
12. Under no circumstance is the consumption of alcoholic liquor allowed in
an outdoor patio or sidewalk cafe.
13. The sampling of alcoholic liquor is adjunct to the operation of a retail liquor
dealer/gourmet food and amenity store, and the premises cannot be
advertised or otherwise held out to be a drinking establishment.
14. Under no circumstance can the sale of alcoholic liquor take place outside
of the normal business hours of the retail liquor store.
15. Class F-2 licensees must have at least one (1) BASSET-certified site
manager on-premises whenever alcoholic liquor is available for on-site
tasting/sampling. All persons who sell, open, pour, dispense or serve
alcoholic liquor must be BASSET certified and/or supervised. Class F-2
licensees must provide food service whenever alcoholic liquor is available
for on-site tasting/sampling. The licensee is strictly liable for complying
with all provisions regarding food service. Alcoholic liquor for retail sale for
on-site tasting/sampling must be sold and dispensed only in plastic
containers provided by the license, and must not be removed from the
licensed premises. No alcoholic liquor will be brought onto the licensed
premises or consumed on the licensed premises other than the alcoholic
liquor sold at retail.
The applicant for the renewal only of such licenses may elect to pay the amount
herein required semiannually or annually. Such election must be made at the
time of application.
The annual single payment fee for initial issuance of such license is forty
thousand dollars ($40,000.00). The annual single payment fee for renewal of
such license is thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00).
No more than zero (0) such license(s) will be in force at any one (1) time.
SECTION 4: Any prospective applicant for a Class F-2 license must
prioritize hiring Evanston residents for employment at the licensed premises, and,
prioritize the retail sale of local Evanston artisan food and liquor products at the licensed
premises.
SECTION 5: Subsection 3-4-6(F-1)(5) of the Evanston City Code of 2012,
as amended, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 6: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
113 of 129
33-O-18
~5~
hereby repealed.
SECTION 7: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is ruled unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect
without the invalid application or provision, and each invalid provision or invalid
application of this ordinance is severable.
SECTION 8: The findings and recitals contained herein are declared to be
prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as
provided by the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the courts of the State of Illinois.
SECTION 9: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law.
Introduced: February 26, 2018
Adopted: ___________________, 2018
Approved:
__________________________, 2018
_______________________________
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Devon Reid, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
W. Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel
114 of 129
Final
Page 1 of 4
C
MEETING MINUTES
Liquor Control Board
Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:00 a.m.
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2750
Members Present: Mayor Stephen H. Hagerty (Local Liquor Control Commissioner);
Marion Macbeth; Dick Peach
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Grant Farrar, Theresa Whittington
Others Present: Lenice Levy (Good to Go); Dennis Levy (Good to Go);
Rob Spengler (Board & Brush); Drew Valko (Board & Brush); Shannon
Valko (Board & Brush); Michael binsteil (Binny’s); Kevin Gazly (Binny’s);
Greg Versch (Binny’s)
Presiding Member: Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen H. Hagerty/Mayor
CALL TO ORDER
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen Hagerty called the meeting to order at
11:03 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine, LLC dba Good to Go, 711 Howard Street
Lenice Levy (LL), owner, requested approval of a class D (restaurant/liquor) liquor
license. LL explained that she and her husband (Dennis Levy) purchased the building
at 711 Howard street and are in the process of renovating it. For 16 years they have
owned and operated Good to Go on the Chicago side of Howard street. They are long
time Evanston residents and are excited to move the restaurant across the street into
the renovated building on the Evanston side of Howard. Good to Go will be a full service
restaurant with a private event space that can accommodate 150 people. Mayor
Hagerty inquired if Good to Go has had any alcohol violations related to underage
drinking at its Chicago establishment. LL responded that there have been no issues.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
issuance of a liquor license to be introduced at the City Council meeting on February
12, 2018.
Target Corporation, Dba Target Stores T3283, 1616 Sherman Ave
Krysanna Bowery (KB), Team Leader, attended the meeting on behalf of Target and
requested approval of a Class F (grocery/liquor) license. KB stated that Target wished
to be a one stop shop with alcohol to cater to customer needs. She stated that most
neighboring city Target stores sell alcohol. 1400 stores nationwide sell liquor. Target
115 of 129
Final
Page 2 of 4
conducts extensive training of its Team Leaders on responsible sale of alcohol with a
90% and greater test score. The point of sale system in place at Target requires
cashiers to obtain photo ID from all customers purchasing alcohol. Marion Macbeth
reminded KB of the close proximity to NU. Mayor Hagerty asked if all cashiers are
BASSET trained. KB explained that only Team Leaders are BASSET trained and
cashiers undergo internal liquor training. Mayor Hagerty asked if she has had any
issues with underage drinking at Target stores. KB responded that there have not been
any issues in any of the stores she has worked at over the past 12 years. Mayor
Hagerty reminded KB of the privilege and responsibility of having a liquor license and
that there is a zero tolerance for underage drinking.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
issuance of a liquor license to be introduced at the City Council meeting on February
12, 2018.
Board and Brush Creative Studio, 802 Dempster
Drew Valko (DV), owner, requested approval of a new liquor license classification for an
Arts and Craft studio that hosts activities involving "painting, ceramics, woodworking,
craft design, and construction projects utilizing fibers, metals, wood or glass" to be able
to serve beer and wine to customers for on-premises consumption. He explained that
Board & Brush is a franchise that hosts wood board décor workshops 3-4 nights a week
and weekends. Wood is distressed at the beginning of class using drill and hammers
and similar tools. These are all put away within the first 10-15 minutes of class. Classes
are instructor led. The remainder of class is spent sanding, painting and staining. There
are about 200 locations and the average consumption is 1-2 drinks. They are seeking
beer and wine only. Mayor Hagerty characterized the business as an “experiential”
business. Shannon Valko stated that it’s a social gathering experience. Dick Peach said
he was not thrilled about adding yet another liquor license classification but said it is a
unique application and has no issue creating a license class for it. Marion Macbeth
appreciated that the distressing tools are put away early in the process. Shannon Valko
stated that there are over 200 location and almost all offer alcohol. Similar new liquor
license classes have been adopted in Park Ridge, Downers Grove and New Lennox.
The owners of Board & Brush also own Little Beans Café in Evanston. Mayor Hagerty
said he was amenable to creating a new liquor license class. Grant Farrar clarified the
process and stated that the new license class would be presented to City Council first.
Once the new license class is created, the applicant can submit an applicaiotn for
issuance of liquor license. Mayor Hagerty reminded the applicants of he zero tolerance
for underage drinking.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
creation of a new liquor license classification to be introduced at the City Council
meeting on February 26, 2018.
Binny’s Beverage Depot, 111 Chicago Ave
Mayor Hagerty shared his appreciation to Binny’s for listening to his concerns about the
proposed amendments to license class K. Mayor Hagerty asked Binny’s
representatives to introduce themselves and discuss the revised proposal to amend
license class F-1. Michael Binstein (MB), owner, stated that Binny’s was started in 1948
116 of 129
Final
Page 3 of 4
by his father. It is a private, family-owned business. It offers a range of products not
currently offered in Evanston. Binny’s has been interested in opening in Evanston for
15years and feels it has finally found the right location at 111 1 Chicago Ave. Binny’s
needs a big store to house its big selection. It has 30 employees on staff on a typical
day. MB said the crux of the proposed F-1 changes revolve around craft beer container
sizes and education and tasting seminars to customers. Smaller craft beer sizes are
needed to be able to offer the best selection. He further suggests changing those sizes
for all license class holders. Binny’s has nationally acclaimed educators that offer
tasting seminars to customers. These sorts of seminars are currently offered at the
Lincoln Park and Highland Park locations. He would like to offer similar events in the
Evanston store. At the request of Mayor Hagerty, Grant Farrar (GF) summarized the
differences between Classes K and F-1. GF explained that the main differences related
to scale and fees. Binny’s proposal would require amendments to the existing class F -1.
Craft beer container sizes have been evolving rapidly. Binny’s requested changes to
container size could be extended to other license classes should they seek a similar
amendment. Mayor Hagerty asked MB to discuss what sort of food products would
Binny’s stock. MB said Binny’s would have a modest selection of “drink local and eat
local” items. It will be a rotating selection of items from local artisans from food and
liquor. It is a new and exciting category for Binny’s.
The meeting was turned over to pubic comments. Eight (8) people spoke and asked
questions. Some questions pertained to fees, zoning and square footage. Others
included comments that class K is not appropriate; a Class E would be more
appropriate; that Binny’s should not be granted any amendments; Binny’s should have
to “play by the rules” and requests that Binny’s sell food items.
Mayor Hagerty summarized the issues and challenges to the Class K, E and F licenses
with respect to Binny’s. He noted that the issue raised about Class F businesses
opening within 500 feet of each other illustrates the need to clean up conflicts that exist
in the city’s liquor code since the City already has businesses that are not in compliance
with that particular requirement. Mayor Hagerty asked staff and liquor board members if
it has previously made modifications to liquor license classes in the past. Grant Farrar
responded “many times” by applicants and prospective applicants and estimates about
50 amendments over the past eight years. He summarized the various amendments
made to license class K in 2009, 2013, and 2015 at the request of current license
holders. Marion Macbeth commented that many of the amendments were made at the
request and benefit of small business owners and feels the double standard for a larger
business is not appropriate. Dick Peach agrees and adds that at the time the Class E
liquor store license was created it was restricted to downtown because liquor sales were
still relatively new to Evanston. Evanston 1st Liquors was one of the very first licenses
issued. The thought was that containing alcohol to downtown would allow the City to
better control it. Since then, Evanston has changed a lot and it has added a lot of new
liquor licenses such as boutique wine stores and distilleries and craft breweries. He
feels the board must be careful not to reject new ideas just because they come from a
“big box”. He feels the City should be accommodating and not shut the door on any
business. Mayor Hagerty said he likes the revised focus on the Class F. He agrees with
Alderman Wynne’s desire to see some uniqueness with regards to a deli, cheese,
demonstration kitchen or other similar food offerings. Alderman Rainey offered that
Binny’s is so different that it might benefit from a new license class. Mayor Hagerty
agreed that another F category, such as an F-2 might be more appropriate. Grant
Farrar offered that the comments received by email and LCRB meeting will reviewed
117 of 129
Final
Page 4 of 4
and incorporated as an amendment to license class F (F-2) or a brand new license
classification, depending on the direction given by the board. Presentation of an
ordinance to City Council is tentatively set for February 28th to allow time for staff to
review the issues and comments and to get further details from Bin ny’s regarding its
specific business model.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
creation of a new liquor license classification to be tentatively introduced at the City
Council meeting on February 26, 2018.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by the Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen H.
Hagerty, Mayor at 12:28 p.m. January 31, 2018.
Respectfully Submitted,
Theresa Whittington
Liquor Licensing Manager, Legal Department
118 of 129
For City Council meeting of March 19, 2018 Item A3
Ordinance 31-O-18 Creating New Class X Liquor License
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Administration and Public Works Committee
From: W. Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel
Subject: Ordinance 31-O-18, Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the
New Class X Liquor License
Date: February 26, 2018
Recommended Action:
Local Liquor Commissioner recommends City Council to adopt Ordinance 31-O-18.
Ordinance 31-O-18 was introduced February 26, 2018; At the City Council meeting of
March 12, 2018, the Ordinance was re-referred back to Committee on March 19, 2018
for Action.
Livability Benefits:
Economy & Jobs: Retain and expand local businesses.
Summary:
The City of Evanston’s (“City”) does not have annual liquor license tailored to arts and
crafts studios that allow for the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption. Drew
Valko, owner of Board and Brush Creative Studio, approached the City of Evanston’s
Liquor Control Review Board (“LCRB”) requesting the addition of a new annual liquor
license for arts and craft studios. Ordinance 31-O-18 was prepared to allow arts and
crafts studios the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption. Particular provisions to
note for the onsite consumption of beer and wine are as follows:
1. The Class X Liquor License requires licensees to provide food service where
beer or wine is offered for on-site consumption.
2. Class X Liquor License holders must have at least one BASSET-certified site
manager on premises whenever beer or wine is available for on-site
consumption.
3. The sale of beer or wine must only take place between 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and between 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday through
Sunday.
4. Licensees can serve no more than three servings of beer or wine to any person
in a day.
Memorandum
119 of 129
If this license class is created, Board and Brush Creative Studio would still have to
submit an application to receive a Class X Liquor License and otherwise comply with all
pertinent City Code requirements.
Legislative History:
The LCRB discussed the issues regarding the creation of a new liquor license to serve
beer and wine in arts and crafts studios during the January 31, 2018 LCRB meeting.
The annual X liquor license fee is one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
Ordinance 31-O-18
Minutes of the January 31, 2018 Liquor Control Review Board meeting
120 of 129
2/12/2018
31-O-18
AN ORDINANCE
Amending City Code Section 3-4-6 By Creating the New Class X Liquor
License
NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:
SECTION 1: Table 1 of Section 3-4-6 of the Evanston City Code of 2012,
as amended, is hereby further amended and revised to add the following:
X Arts and
Crafts Studio
Beer/Wine None $1,500 $1,500 0 None 12 p.m. —
9 p.m.
(Mon-Fri);
11:30 a.m.
— 10 p.m.
(Sat-Sun)
SECTION 2: Subsection 3-4-6 of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as
amended, is hereby further amended by the enactment of a new Subsection (X) thereof,
“Class X Liquor License”, to read as follows:
(X) CLASS X licenses, which authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption
at an arts and crafts studio, is limited to patrons of at least twenty-one (21) years
of age. Such arts and crafts studio liquor licenses are issued subject to the
following conditions:
1. An arts and crafts studio is defined as a place kept, used, maintained,
advertised, or held out to the public as a place in which the public may
participate in activities that include painting, ceramics, woodworking, and
craft design and construction projects utilizing fibers, metals, wood, or
glass.
2. The sale and service of alcoholic beverages to a patron can only be a
complement and be accessory to the patron’s participation in craft-making
activities. Alcoholic beverages cannot be sold or served at any time when
a craft-making session is not in actual operation.
121 of 129
31-O-18
~2~
3. Licensees who offer servings of beer or wine for on-site consumption must
provide expanded food service which includes such items as sandwiches,
flatbreads, empanadas, hot dogs, salads, or other similar a la carte items
to customers who are purchasing beer or wine.
4. Licensees must not provide more than three (3) servings of beer or wine
to any person in a day. Each serving must not exceed five (5) fluid
ounces for wine and twelve (12) fluid ounces for beer.
5. Class X licensees must have at least one (1) BASSET-certified site
manager on-premises whenever beer or wine is available for on-site
consumption. All persons who sell, open, pour, dispense or serve beer or
wine must be BASSET certified. Class X licensees must provide food
service whenever beer or wine is available for on-site consumption, in
accordance with the specifications applicable to retail sale for on-site
consumption. The licensee is strictly liable for complying with all provisions
regarding food service. Beer or wine for retail sale for on-site consumption
must be sold and dispensed only in plastic containers provided by the
licensee. Beer or wine sold within the licensed premises for consumption
on the premises must not be removed from the licensed premises. No
alcoholic liquor will be brought onto the licensed premises or consumed on
the licensed premises other than the beer or wine sold at retail.
6. The sale of beer or wine must only take place from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m., Monday through Friday and from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday
through Sunday. No beer or wine may be consumed on the premises after
10:30 p.m. on any given day.
7. Every employee of a Class X licensee who participates in the sale of beer
or wine, pursuant to this license class, must be BASSET-certified.
The applicant for the renewal only of such licenses may elect to pay the amount
herein required semiannually or annually. Such election must be made at the
time of application.
The annual single payment fee for initial issuance or renewal of such license is
one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00).
The total fee required hereunder for renewal applicants electing to make
semiannual payments, payable pursuant to the provisions of Section 3-4-7 of this
Chapter, is one thousand five hundred seventy five dollars ($1,575.00).
No more than zero (0) such license(s) will be in force at any one (1) time.
122 of 129
31-O-18
~3~
SECTION 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 4: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to
any person or circumstance is ruled unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect
without the invalid application or provision, and each invalid provision or invalid
application of this ordinance is severable.
SECTION 5: The findings and recitals contained herein are declared to be
prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as
provided by the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the courts of the State of Illinois.
SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law.
Introduced: _________________, 2018
Adopted: ___________________, 2018
Approved:
__________________________, 2018
_______________________________
Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Devon Reid, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
W. Grant Farrar, Corporation Counsel
123 of 129
Final
Page 1 of 4
C
MEETING MINUTES
Liquor Control Board
Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:00 a.m.
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2750
Members Present: Mayor Stephen H. Hagerty (Local Liquor Control Commissioner);
Marion Macbeth; Dick Peach
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Grant Farrar, Theresa Whittington
Others Present: Lenice Levy (Good to Go); Dennis Levy (Good to Go);
Rob Spengler (Board & Brush); Drew Valko (Board & Brush); Shannon
Valko (Board & Brush); Michael binsteil (Binny’s); Kevin Gazly (Binny’s);
Greg Versch (Binny’s)
Presiding Member: Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen H. Hagerty/Mayor
CALL TO ORDER
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen Hagerty called the meeting to order at
11:03 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
Good to Go Jamaican Cuisine, LLC dba Good to Go, 711 Howard Street
Lenice Levy (LL), owner, requested approval of a class D (restaurant/liquor) liquor
license. LL explained that she and her husband (Dennis Levy) purchased the building
at 711 Howard street and are in the process of renovating it. For 16 years they have
owned and operated Good to Go on the Chicago side of Howard street. They are long
time Evanston residents and are excited to move the restaurant across the street into
the renovated building on the Evanston side of Howard. Good to Go will be a full service
restaurant with a private event space that can accommodate 150 people. Mayor
Hagerty inquired if Good to Go has had any alcohol violations related to underage
drinking at its Chicago establishment. LL responded that there have been no issues.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
issuance of a liquor license to be introduced at the City Council meeting on February
12, 2018.
Target Corporation, Dba Target Stores T3283, 1616 Sherman Ave
Krysanna Bowery (KB), Team Leader, attended the meeting on behalf of Target and
requested approval of a Class F (grocery/liquor) license. KB stated that Target wished
to be a one stop shop with alcohol to cater to customer needs. She stated that most
neighboring city Target stores sell alcohol. 1400 stores nationwide sell liquor. Target
124 of 129
Final
Page 2 of 4
conducts extensive training of its Team Leaders on responsible sale of alcohol with a
90% and greater test score. The point of sale system in place at Target requires
cashiers to obtain photo ID from all customers purchasing alcohol. Marion Macbeth
reminded KB of the close proximity to NU. Mayor Hagerty asked if all cashiers are
BASSET trained. KB explained that only Team Leaders are BASSET trained and
cashiers undergo internal liquor training. Mayor Hagerty asked if she has had any
issues with underage drinking at Target stores. KB responded that there have not been
any issues in any of the stores she has worked at over the past 12 years. Mayor
Hagerty reminded KB of the privilege and responsibility of having a liquor license and
that there is a zero tolerance for underage drinking.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
issuance of a liquor license to be introduced at the City Council meeting on February
12, 2018.
Board and Brush Creative Studio, 802 Dempster
Drew Valko (DV), owner, requested approval of a new liquor license classification for an
Arts and Craft studio that hosts activities involving "painting, ceramics, woodworking,
craft design, and construction projects utilizing fibers, metals, wood or glass" to be able
to serve beer and wine to customers for on-premises consumption. He explained that
Board & Brush is a franchise that hosts wood board décor workshops 3-4 nights a week
and weekends. Wood is distressed at the beginning of class using drill and hammers
and similar tools. These are all put away within the first 10-15 minutes of class. Classes
are instructor led. The remainder of class is spent sanding, painting and staining. There
are about 200 locations and the average consumption is 1-2 drinks. They are seeking
beer and wine only. Mayor Hagerty characterized the business as an “experiential”
business. Shannon Valko stated that it’s a social gathering experience. Dick Peach said
he was not thrilled about adding yet another liquor license classification but said it is a
unique application and has no issue creating a license class for it. Marion Macbeth
appreciated that the distressing tools are put away early in the process. Shannon Valko
stated that there are over 200 location and almost all offer alcohol. Similar new liquor
license classes have been adopted in Park Ridge, Downers Grove and New Lennox.
The owners of Board & Brush also own Little Beans Café in Evanston. Mayor Hagerty
said he was amenable to creating a new liquor license class. Grant Farrar clarified the
process and stated that the new license class would be presented to City Council first.
Once the new license class is created, the applicant can submit an applicaiotn for
issuance of liquor license. Mayor Hagerty reminded the applicants of he zero tolerance
for underage drinking.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
creation of a new liquor license classification to be introduced at the City Council
meeting on February 26, 2018.
Binny’s Beverage Depot, 111 Chicago Ave
Mayor Hagerty shared his appreciation to Binny’s for listening to his concerns about the
proposed amendments to license class K. Mayor Hagerty asked Binny’s
representatives to introduce themselves and discuss the revised proposal to amend
license class F-1. Michael Binstein (MB), owner, stated that Binny’s was started in 1948
125 of 129
Final
Page 3 of 4
by his father. It is a private, family-owned business. It offers a range of products not
currently offered in Evanston. Binny’s has been interested in opening in Evanston for
15years and feels it has finally found the right location at 111 1 Chicago Ave. Binny’s
needs a big store to house its big selection. It has 30 employees on staff on a typical
day. MB said the crux of the proposed F-1 changes revolve around craft beer container
sizes and education and tasting seminars to customers. Smaller craft beer sizes are
needed to be able to offer the best selection. He further suggests changing those sizes
for all license class holders. Binny’s has nationally acclaimed educators that offer
tasting seminars to customers. These sorts of seminars are currently offered at the
Lincoln Park and Highland Park locations. He would like to offer similar events in the
Evanston store. At the request of Mayor Hagerty, Grant Farrar (GF) summarized the
differences between Classes K and F-1. GF explained that the main differences related
to scale and fees. Binny’s proposal would require amendments to the existing class F -1.
Craft beer container sizes have been evolving rapidly. Binny’s requested changes to
container size could be extended to other license classes should they seek a similar
amendment. Mayor Hagerty asked MB to discuss what sort of food products would
Binny’s stock. MB said Binny’s would have a modest selection of “drink local and eat
local” items. It will be a rotating selection of items from local artisans from food and
liquor. It is a new and exciting category for Binny’s.
The meeting was turned over to pubic comments. Eight (8) people spoke and asked
questions. Some questions pertained to fees, zoning and square footage. Others
included comments that class K is not appropriate; a Class E would be more
appropriate; that Binny’s should not be granted any amendments; Binny’s should have
to “play by the rules” and requests that Binny’s sell food items.
Mayor Hagerty summarized the issues and challenges to the Class K, E and F licenses
with respect to Binny’s. He noted that the issue raised about Class F businesses
opening within 500 feet of each other illustrates the need to clean up conflicts that exist
in the city’s liquor code since the City already has businesses that are not in compliance
with that particular requirement. Mayor Hagerty asked staff and liquor board members if
it has previously made modifications to liquor license classes in the past. Grant Farrar
responded “many times” by applicants and prospective applicants and estimates about
50 amendments over the past eight years. He summarized the various amendments
made to license class K in 2009, 2013, and 2015 at the request of current license
holders. Marion Macbeth commented that many of the amendments were made at the
request and benefit of small business owners and feels the double standard for a larger
business is not appropriate. Dick Peach agrees and adds that at the time the Class E
liquor store license was created it was restricted to downtown because liquor sales were
still relatively new to Evanston. Evanston 1st Liquors was one of the very first licenses
issued. The thought was that containing alcohol to downtown would allow the City to
better control it. Since then, Evanston has changed a lot and it has added a lot of new
liquor licenses such as boutique wine stores and distilleries and craft breweries. He
feels the board must be careful not to reject new ideas just because they come from a
“big box”. He feels the City should be accommodating and not shut the door on any
business. Mayor Hagerty said he likes the revised focus on the Class F. He agrees with
Alderman Wynne’s desire to see some uniqueness with regards to a deli, cheese,
demonstration kitchen or other similar food offerings. Alderman Rainey offered that
Binny’s is so different that it might benefit from a new license class. Mayor Hagerty
agreed that another F category, such as an F-2 might be more appropriate. Grant
Farrar offered that the comments received by email and LCRB meeting will reviewed
126 of 129
Final
Page 4 of 4
and incorporated as an amendment to license class F (F-2) or a brand new license
classification, depending on the direction given by the board. Presentation of an
ordinance to City Council is tentatively set for February 28th to allow time for staff to
review the issues and comments and to get further details from Bin ny’s regarding its
specific business model.
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner asked the members if there were any further
questions or concerns over the request. None were voiced. The Board recommended
creation of a new liquor license classification to be tentatively introduced at the City
Council meeting on February 26, 2018.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by the Local Liquor Control Commissioner Stephen H.
Hagerty, Mayor at 12:28 p.m. January 31, 2018.
Respectfully Submitted,
Theresa Whittington
Liquor Licensing Manager, Legal Department
127 of 129
For City Council Meeting of March 19, 2018 Item O1
Business of the City by Motion: 2018 Business District Planters & Landscape
Improvements
For Action
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Zalmezak, Economic Development Division Manager
Paulina Martínez, Economic Development Specialist
Subject: Evanston Great Merchants Grant Program Award to Herrera Landscape &
Snow Removal for 20182018 Business Districts Planters & Landscape
Improvements
Date: March 12, 2018
Recommended Action:
Staff and the Economic Development Committee seek City Council approval to award
the Request for Proposal (RFP) 18-04 for 2018 Business Districts Planters &
Landscape Improvements contract to Herrera Landscape & Snow Removal for $32,569.
The project is a cornerstone of the annual Great Merchant Grant Program.
Funding Source:
Staff recommends utilizing the Economic Development Business District Improvement
Program Fund (Account 100.21.5300.65522). The City Council approved a 2018 budget
totaling $250,000 for this account. To date no funds have been spent.
Livability Benefits:
•Built Environment: Enhance public spaces
•Economy & Jobs: Retain and expand local businesses
•Education, Arts & Community: Incorporate arts and cultural resources
Summary:
The 2018 Great Merchant Grant application funding period ended October 31, 2017.
Staff received a total of seven applications requesting funding totaling $58,090.50.
Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for planters and landscape services on
December 23, 2017. Proper purchasing guidelines were followed in an effort to reach a
diverse pool of companies. Additionally, staff reached out directly to five companies,
four of which are Evanston based. In total, five proposals were received.
Staff’s recommendation is based on a series of criteria including price, general
responsiveness, quality of work, good references, and general locality.
Memorandum
128 of 129
2
Legislative History
On March 12, 2018, City Council unanimously approved the funding for the Great
Merchant Grant Program project plans from the individual business districts. This
request is for the awarding of the contract to Herrera Landscape, as is required by the
City of Evanston’s purchasing guidelines.
Attachments
Economic Development Packet Materials from February 28, 2018:
- Business Districts’ Applications
- Proposals Received for Landscaping Services
- Pricing Sheet Amendments
129 of 129
M/W/EBE Memorandum
RFP 18-04, 2018 Business Districts Planters & Landscape Improvements, M/W/EBE Memo 03.19.2018
To: Paul Zalmezak, Economic Development Division Manager
Paulina Martinez, Economic Development Specialist
From: Tammi Nunez, Purchasing Manager
Subject: RFP 18-04, 2018 Business Districts Planters & Landscape
Improvements
Date: March 19, 2018
The goal of the Minority, Women, and Evanston Business Enterprise Program
(M/W/EBE) is to assist such businesses with opportunities to grow. In order to help
ensure such growth, the City has established a 25% M/W/EBE subcontracting
participation goal for general contractors. However, for the RFP 18-04, 2018
Business Districts Planters & Landscape Improvements, Herrera Landscape Snow
Removal, Inc will be self-performing 100% of the work and precludes subcontracting
opportunities.
Herrera Landscape Snow Removal, Inc. located within 60203 zip code is not
eligible to receive credit as an EBE. They are in the process of being certified
as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE).
CC: Ashley King, Interim Chief Financial Officer / City Treasurer
Memorandum
129.5 of 129