Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1987Minutes of the Evanston/University Research Park Relocation Sub -Committee .January 15, 1987 Members Present: Aldermen Drummer, Hasuret, Rainey, Warshaw and Nelson: - Members Absent: None Staff Present: .Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager . .Judith A. Aiello, AssistAnt City Manager Tim Clarke, Development Planner Summary of Action: Chairman Drummer called the meeting to order and stated that the purpose was to continue the discussion regarding commercial relocation and the items that had been identified at the Public Hearing as potentially harmful for commercial owners and tenants. Fie indicated that in front of them they had a memorandum from the City Manager regarding these identified issues. 1. Leasehold Improvements - The City Manager's memorandum, indicated that those improvements that are intrinsic to the operation of the business at the new location, mould be included as part of the relocation payment. However, any improvements that were aesthetic in nature would not be included- fir. Nyberg indicated to the Committee that the regulations allow for the provisions of some improvements so that the facility can accommodate the new business. After considerable discussion as to what classified the moving of the personal property or business replacement costs, it was clarified that these would be included in definitions. The Committee also discussed that when there were judgment calls, they wanted the policy to be perfectly clear that the Committee wanted a liberal interpretation of a situa=ion in order to retain a business within Evanston. Alderman riasuret said that in situations where there were need for judgment calls, site mould like it come to the City Council. Alderman Rainey indicated that she felt that the Committee was going to serve as an appeals process. Alderman Nelson indicated that by bringing it to the Council, discussions could be held in executive session due to pending litigation, and therefore, the Committee agreed that appeals would go to the City Council with the stipulation as requested by Alderman Warshaw that issues came to the City Council when decisions were still yet to be made with alternatives. It was indicated that any language regarding the appeals process would be clearly stated that the owner and.'or tenant may submit concurrent to the City Council information in writing to substantiate their dispute regarding a relocation payment. 2. Six Month Time Period - fir. Lorentz from Mumms Printing and John from .).A. Automotive, indicated that they did not believe that six months was an adequate time frame in which to locate a replacement facility. Alderman Rainey stated that she felt this was adequate time, since it goes beyond the State period of 30 days for residential and 90 days under the federal guidelines. Staff indicated that once negotiations were underway the possibility existed to talk Minutes of Relocation Subcommittee Page 2 January 15, 1987 Meeting to the tenants and.lor owners regarding replacement facilities. The Committee indicated that they wanted the language in the policy to state that it was a shared responsibility for each party to look for properties and that only under extreme circumstances where all efforts could be shown that each party acted in good faith, would there be an extension even considered. 3. Rent Supplements - The Committee discussed the staff recommendation of a $4,400 supplement for all businesses, owners and tenants. The concept of this additional supplement is that there are additional costs that occur with any move and that this additional money can be used in a variety of ways, for either rent supplements, new equipment, cash flow or general operations. This is modeled after a program in Manhattan, Kansas, where a business supplement is provided over a period of three years of $1,700, $1,500 and $1,200. The Committee decided that they would with adequate documentation approve a one lump sum draw down of $4,400 for each business. 4. Loss of Business - The Committee concurred that we would not provide any type of payment for loss of business, but felt that with the business supplement thus considered this was adequate compensation. 5. Correct Zoning - The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation that we would continue to look for new locations in the correct zoning areas for the majority of cases. however, it was indicated that City staff would work with the property owners to identify any Code violations that might be in properties that they were acquiring and.or leasing so that these issues could be taken care of in the negotiations for the new locations. In addition, information would be provided to business owners and tenants regarding any other financial programs available including Evanston Business Investment Corporation. 6. Last Resort Assistance - The Committee concurred that we mould not provide any type of last resort assistance. however, felt that the $4,400 payment would be additional assistance. 7. Appeals Process - The Committee concurred that the appeals process would include input by the applicant at the appropriate time to the City Council in writing. With the conclusion of this the Committee determined that they would wait to schedule their next meeting when the consultant had prepared the policy. Alderman Warshaw requested that the information be provided to the Committee with enough time to adequately review the materials. With no further business the meeting was adjourned. f Respectfully submitted: A 'sistant City Manager .IAA:lr ✓ cc: Joel M. Asprooth ' r RELOCATION SUBCOMMr= IL RELOCATION PLAN Ald. Drummer indicated the topic of this meeting was the City's Relocation Plan which had been approved by the Council. He noted that specific questions by Crost Furniture regarding' .the Plan had been spade and that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to discuss these areas of concern. Aid. Drummer noted receipt of the Assistant City Manager's memorandum regarding the questions which have been raised. He stated the format of the sheeting would be to discuss each concern individually. With that, the Committee began its review of each specific concern. Appeal Process Notification Adrian Smith, of Crost Furniture, summarized her concern that the relocation plan does not specify that d;�+�cees have the right to judicial remedy and indicated that she felt this should be the case in order to provide additional protection. Committee members responded that the City's relocation plan was in large part based on the federal relocation plan which was enacted to provide safeguards for dispiacees. Discussion ensued as to whether it was a duty of the City to advise displacees of their right to judicial intervention since this is always a remedy. Discussion continued whether such notification was inviting litigation of relocation cases. The Committee members agreed that no formal change to the relocation plan regarding the appeals process would be made. 30 Day Notice Ms. Smith explained the difficulty she fuids with the 30-day notice in that this provides little time for planning a move if a referral is given the day of this notice. Committee members r'_ agreed, noted the Assistant City Manages memo, and concurred that the plan should be changed to require, for business entities, the issuance of a referral at least 60 days prior to the 30 day Notice to Vacate: Relocation Subcommittee Economic Development Committee r Minutes - May 19, 1987 Page 2 Referrals It was noted and agreed that the City is obligated to provide at least .one referral to each business and that the Plan need not be clarified regarding this issue. Condition of Replacement Locations Ms. Smith noted the relocation plan protects displaced households by requiring that replacement housing meet minimum conditions of decent, safe, and sanitary. She indicated that the plan does not appear to cover business replacement locations and that this wags a major weakness of the plan. Committee members noted the reasoning such protections were provided residential displacees and the history of housing sty: Members noted the high degree of difficulty in creating any such standards for businesses given the great diversity of the -needs and conditions of businesses. They noted that in most circumstances, building/occupancy permits would be required which would require compliance with BOCA code. Discussion continued regarding what specific improvements were considered intrinsic to a business and therefore reimbursable under this plan. It was stated that it is the City's intent -to refer business facilities which met City code and that the Committee has indicated that required improvements will be considered intrinsic to the operation of the business. It was noted that the City Council would review all claims for reasonableness and to confirm the intrinsic nature of any improvements claimed. Business Hardship Payment Ms. Smith indicated that tax returns do not reflect the volume of business and therefore the hardship imposed upon the business due to closure. Discussion ensued regarding the types of businesses which will be displaced, and the accuracy of different methods which could measure true hardship. Ald. Nelson recommended that a business should have the opportunity to submit an alternative method of measuring hardship for staff review and should staff, upon analysis, reject such method, the business could implement the appeals process. Ms. Smith indicated this sounded appropriate. Committee members concurred. Relocation Plan Responsibility Ms. Smith indicated her concerns regarding whose duty it was to carry out the policies of the relocation plan" Ms. Smith and Don Fink noted what they felt were problems with Vector Corporation and the lack of relocation assistance provided to them. They indicated they were told by Vector that they should go out and look for a place and that being told this really wasn't much assistance. They further noted that over the years several different representations have been made by the City to them from different offices. Ald. Drummer indicated that any negotiations or representations must be brought to Council for approvaL AIcL Nelson indicated that it sounded as if City staff needed to get its act together. Ali. Nelson stated that such problems should be made known especially in this case since the next building in the Park is planned for this site. Committee members continued the discussion regarding the future role, if any, of this subcommittee. Ald. Nelson moved to solicit, to the extent necessary, a resolution from the Council to keep the Relocation Subcommittee in existence in order to monitor the Relocation Plan and the status of relocation cases and to hold such meetings of the subcommittee at the call of either the Chairman or 2 members of the subcommittee. Members concurred. 11ia — , Relocation Subcommittee Economic Development Committee Minutes -May 19, 1987 Page 3 Ald. Nelson moved, seconded by Aid. Warshaw that the changes to the plan, as discussed and concurred at this meeting be incorporated into the Relocation Plan and be recommended to Council for formal adoption. Motion passed 4 ayes, no nays. Motion adopted. ADJOURNMENT