On November 17th at 7:30 p.m the Glenview Village Board will have a meeting at the village hall . I would strongly encourage you to attend. At this meeting they will hold a hearing on your upcoming property tax levy which they plan to increase by at least 18.27%. By law they must hold this hearing because the increase is more than 5% . The village is required to allow anyone desiring to be heard an opportunity to present testimony for which they may set reasonable time limits for such testimony. I would encourage you to study the facts and attend this meeting if you are opposed to such a large increase in your taxes.

In addition to the property tax increases they are proposing the village also plans to add a motor vehicle fuel tax. This would be on top of the home rule sales tax which when combined with Cook County gives us the dishonorable distinction of being one of the highest sales tax municipalities in the nation. In addition to raising taxes the village is also raising water/sewer rates for the taxpayer owned water company by an average of 7.2%.

The villages overall debt in 2002 was $ 65 million by the end of 2008 it had grown by 115.4% to $ 141 million - it is no wonder that the portion of the tax levy devoted to debt service is increasing by 97.9%. Despite this fact they are looking to add another $ 7 million plus in debt for 2010.

Not only is the village planning this tax increase they are saying that we should expect future increases of similar proportion ( my interpretation ) or they will have to draw down their reserves dramatically. All of this is in their presentation from the last board of trustees meeting on 11/10/09 - you can watch it from the village site or I can forward you a copy of the presentation.

I am more than willing to go tp the meeting on Tuesday and voice an objection to this nonsense - it will not make a difference unless others show up too. If this something you might want to do please send me a note. Also please pass this note along to anyone else you might think would be interested.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Glen Town Center comes to Village Board Meeting - no questions asked

At Tuesday's village board meeting several people from the Glen Town Center came to their meeting . They were there to present a check for the no interest loan from the village for about $750,000 that was used for signage, marketing and to add Muzak to the village owned parking lot ( that is not a joke they really believe that music in the parking structure attracts people to their mall). Our village president was effusive in her praise for their "success".

One of the people at the podium was a partner in the development company that still owes the village $12,000,000 (again at no interest) - not one person on the village board asked these people when we can expect this money back - they sat there in silence.

I don't know about you but if some mall owner who had 12 million of my money and had never paid back a penny since being open for over 3 years came in front of me I would have had a few questions.

Where do our numbers come from ...

The other night we encountered some folks who disagree with the views on this site. That is great - spirited debate should be what this is all about. However it is noteworthy as to their way of dealing with all of this. The conversation starts with "your numbers are bull@#$%" to which the we respond " which numbers do are you referring to?" This is met with a non-answer.

Once and for all here is the deal - every number quoted on this site comes from either the village's own Audited Financial Report (AFR) posted on the state comptroller's website or from a village budget document . We take great care to try and get it right and will from now on cite our specific sources when we refer to numbers.

Ay least there will plenty of elbow room at the new village hall...

In the 2008 budget the village reduced its FTE (Full Time Equivalents ) from 375 to 350. They outsourced the IT department and gave early retirement bonuses to reduce staff.

So why do they need 42,000 square feet at their planned new village hall ? As we pointed out in a prior post almost 70% of the village workers are paid to not even be at village hall. Does it occur to anyone that building such a large facility will only lead to a larger more expensive village government?

If they have the money to speculate in real estate why did they raise our taxes ?

Last year the village board raised the rate of our local sales tax ( this is on top of the state, Cook County and the RTA) by 50% - if they have all this money lying around to buy Dominick's and build a new village hall why did they decide to take more out of our  pockets ? 

Post from LA

The Board and Village are out of hand! Anything the Village proposes isapproved by the Board.  There is NO control and no one is watching out for the constituents/Tax payers ! ! !  

It would appear that we need new board members …………

Why can't the village board let the library board do their job ?

As the old saying goes " Catch them a fish they eat for a day ; teach them to fish and they eat for life" 

The village board has decided to finance the new library out of village funds vs. letting the library board do what it was elected to do which is get the funding on their own via a referendum for bond financing.

 It has gotten to the point where at a recent board of trustees meeting at least one board member went so far as to suggest where the windows should or should not be in the new facility. 

No one elected the village board to finance and design the new library. Whether the library board is capable of doing this or not is another issue that should be dealt with on its own terms. 

Over 1250 square feet per employee

Think about this - the village has 350 employees - this includes full and part timers. 

Of all of these employees  70% are either in the fire, police or public works departments . This means they are being paid to NOT to be in the village hall. 

 Why in the world would we need a 125,000 square foot building for less than 100 employees ? 

Letter in the Glenview Announcements

More government? No!

While you are confronted by the some of the highest sales taxes in the nation and ever-escalating food, fuel and utility bills in an uncertain economy, on July 1 the Village Board decided it would be a good idea to build a new village hall and substantially increase the space for village staff.

This project is in addition to its plan to fund a new library -- without a library bond referendum. Already the board funded the construction of a new post office while telling us there was no choice because the U.S. Postal Service had no money for new facilities. This cost taxpayers millions.

The same board that has gone into the land speculation business with your tax dollars during one of the worst real estate markets in history with its purchase of the vacant Dominick's and excess Navy-owned land in The Glen thinks we need a lot more room for village government. Trustees think this despite the fact that the police vacated a significant amount of village hall space to move to a very large and expensive new facility -- again all funded with no public referendum.

This is the same village board that continues to defend the millions of tax dollars invested in The Glen Town Center and Von Maur at no interest, and we have yet to see a penny of repayment.

Since 2000, the village has been on a spending spree funded by a sharp increase in debt and a dramatic increase in tax revenues. The village's overall level of indebtedness has grown by 131 percent from 2000 to 2007 and that does not include financing for The Glen, library or a new village hall. During this time our population grew by only 6.2 percent. While increasing our debt, the village has been awash in new sales tax revenues, and the traffic that comes with them, and has seen its take from our utility bills grow by 59 percent. You do not need an accounting degree to figure out that this cannot continue.

Maybe the village does have a plan, since it has been busy annexing property west of the tollway to further expand the village in areas next to Wheeling and Prospect Heights. If history is any indication, the addition of more land and more lousy deals in the name of economic development will only result in more government, more debt, and higher tax bills. Now does not seem to be a good time to be building more, much larger village facilities. You should let your trustees know how you feel before it is too late, and they make a bad situation worse.

We're back

After an extended break we are back and this time we are sticking around. Things have just gotten too crazy to sit on the sidelines anymore so we are going to try and stir the pot up some. 

On July 1st the village board - not as an agenda item but under the guise of the manager's report "decided" to go forward with their Joint Administrative Facility or in other words a new village hall. 

If this project goes forward we will have replaced the approximately 47,000 square foot village hall on Waukegan Road with a combined police - village building that is 266% bigger than what they had to stat with. Putting the significant cost aside - this is an idea that will have an impact on our village for a long time to come. 

Economic Incentive or a bad deal for taxpayers ?

The following is from the village’s 2006 CAFR – it is another example of how the village views economic development – in this case we are buying sales tax revenue from a retailer (our presumption is that it is ABT) who is constantly held out as a “victory” for the village’s effort to increase sales tax revenues. ABT had outgrown their space in Morton Grove and needed a new home and Glenview was a perfect location to meet their historical customer base and increase their business. That should have been enough -  but it wasn’t.  Why is the village discounting its sales tax revenues for a business as successful as ABT ?  Dont' get us wrong ABT didn't do anything wrong -  it was the village who

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

In 2000, the Village entered into an economic development agreement with a local retailer

who wished to relocate their operations to the Village. Under the terms of the agreement,

the Village agreed to rebate sales tax receipts to the retailer at a rate of 50% of the Village's

local sales tax (1.0%) above a base amount of $1,000,000. The agreement is contingent on

the retailer’s agreement to maintain their facility within the Village for a period of at least

15 years from the effective date of the agreement. The Village made payments to the retailer totaling $1,305,372 for sales tax receipts in 2006.

 

Source - Village 2006 CAFR

Village to raise its sales tax rate by 50%

From the Glenview Announcements 11-8-07

Sales tax on way up

Trustees also endorsed raising the portion of the sales tax that Glenview as a home-rule community can collect to three-quarter of 1 percent from the current one-half of 1 percent. The vote to enact that hike would be scheduled early next year.

"It doesn't seem like something that's going to hurt our businesses nor will it be oppressive on our residents,"  Pat Cuisinier said.

Maybe Trustee Cuisinier should read the following article from today’s Wall Street Journal: 

Tax and Offend
 

November 8, 2007; Wall Street Journal ; Page A22

Voters on Tuesday faced a grab-bag of local issues and responded with mixed messages for both national parties. Perhaps the one clear lesson is that voters remain as skeptical of government schemes as ever.

In Washington state, $47 billion in transportation spending, backed by tax increases to pay for them, went down to apparent defeat in a referendum by what looked like a 10-point margin as we went to press. Voters in that blue state also affirmed an initiative to strengthen the state's supermajority requirement for raising taxes, while rejecting a measure that would have made it easier to raise school taxes. Across the country in North Carolina, county-level referendums on imposing a real-estate transfer taxes lost everywhere. And in Indianapolis, Republican Greg Ballard defeated the incumbent Mayor in a major upset. One of his best issues was opposition to rising property taxes.

Even in bluer than blue New Jersey, voters rejected a plan to borrow $450 million over 10 years to fund stem-cell research. With a $3 billion deficit, $33 billion in state debt and some of the highest property taxes in the universe, residents seemed to feel that more borrowing was merely feeding the spending addicts in Trenton. Voters also rejected a plan that would have "dedicated" revenue from a recent sales-tax increase to property-tax relief. This probably reflects good common sense -- with spending out of control, shifting revenue doesn't address the underlying problem. At the same time, New Jersey overwhelmingly voted Democrats back in control of the Legislature, which reflects the state's hapless Republican Party.

And speaking of hapless, Virginia Republicans lost control of the Senate for the first time in 12 years, and were all but wiped out in Northern Virginia's Fairfax County. Virginia Republicans have lost their way by embracing the tax and spending agendas of successive Democratic Governors, and the result has been more and more Democrats in office. Perhaps they should try to stand for something other than bashing immigrants.

The GOP also lost big in Kentucky, where voters showed scandal-tarred Governor Ernie Fletcher the door. Mr. Fletcher made the mistake of pardoning aides implicated in a personnel kerfuffle at the beginning of his term. The scandal was largely a case of criminalizing politics from the start, but what smacked of abuse of power in response did not sit well with voters in this year of public discontent.

Further South, Republicans cleaned up in Mississippi, continuing a decade-long trend away from one-party Democratic rule. Haley Barbour was re-elected as Governor and all but one statewide office went to the Republicans. GOP success in Mississippi reflects voter approval of doing what Republicans do best -- fiscal conservatism and a major tort reform, combined with a sense that the Barbour administration handled the fallout from Katrina with competence and efficiency.

Taken together, these results paint a picture of voters wary of politicians looking for new pots of money to spend. Democrats running next year on a platform of taking more from taxpayers, please take note. Republicans in Congress have damaged their credibility on fiscal responsibility, but voters are not in a trusting mood when it comes to government spending, regardless of which party wields the purse strings.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment came in Utah, where voters resoundingly voted down a statewide school vouchers plan passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. This reflected a huge misinformation campaign by national teachers unions about the effect on public education. But Governor Jon Huntsman, who campaigned for office as a supporter of vouchers, deserves some of the blame for having bowed out of the referendum debate early on. Business was lukewarm as well. Voucher proponents are going to have to rethink their political strategy, because suburban voters still seem to believe that their own public schools are fine, even if everyone else's are rotten.

Overall, voters seemed to enter the voting booth in a skeptical mood Tuesday. If that attitude extends toward the many gauzy promises that Presidential candidates will be offering next year, so much the better.

Glen funds being used for further village development

Here is the president's letter from the November 2007 village newsletter. It states in the clearest terms the political and philosophical context for the village's economic development. What is interesting about the letter is what is omitted. It talks about taxes in a two dimensional way - property and sales taxes which account for 55% of village revenues. The village does not talk about the consumption taxes you are paying each month on you utility and telephone bills. The other broad strategic action that village has implemented is also not discussed. This is the village's decision to use the Permanent Fund which was created from the village's land sales commissions at the Glen to fund further non_glen development in the village.This is where the money for the Dominick's purchase came from. We do not recall that this was ever the spirit or intent of this fund. Now the politicians have a "pot" ( their term) of money to fund their development aspirations. Is this something you favor ? 

Glenview is fortunate to have a vibrant and active business community; in fact it serves as home for almost 3,000 businesses! This year, to further strengthen this community, the Village enhanced its Economic Development eff orts, and brought a parttime Economic Development Coordinator on board.Why did we decide to invest additional resources in this area?At its base, the answer is simple: to maintain and strengthen our tax base. In 2007 alone, sales taxes will bring about $18.4 million into the Village Operating Budget -- that’s 40 percent of its projected revenues of $45.86 million (only 15 percent of operating revenues are projected to come from property taxes)! These dollars support the work the Village does every day. Police and fire protection, emergency medical services, snow plowing, tree trimming, street repairs, inspections and more -- all of these services rely heavily on sales tax revenue. And a strong sales tax base can help moderate property tax increases.We’ve been fortunate that Glenview has att racted so many fi ne commercial, offi ce, and industrial businesses. But with tax revenue fl att ening and municipal

expenses continuing to rise, it make sense to begin taking a more strategic approach to enhancing our business mix. We’ve already invested time and energy into land use planning for The Glen, Downtown Glenview and the Milwaukee Avenue corridor. Through our new Economic Development effort, we hope to take these plans from the page to reality. On the flip side, businesses appreciate working with municipalities that take the time to understand their needs and facilitate their eff orts to set up shop in town.So what, precisely, will our Economic Development Program focus on in the coming year? Here are a few highlights:

• Establishing a business retention and outreach program Build awareness about our Milwaukee Avenue and Downtown Plans.
• Strengthening the Village’s partnership with the Glenview Chamber of Commerce.
• Helping to guide the redevelopment process for the former Avon site (at Golf and Waukegan) and the former Culligan site (at Willow and Sanders). Because these are large parcels, it is important that the Village play a major role in their redevelopment.
• Identifying business or developer interest in the former Dodge Dealer site on Waukegan Working to complete build out of the remaining 17 acres in the Prairie Glen Corporate Campus at the north end of The Glen.

Last month in this space I focused on the Board’s role as stewards of your taxpayer dollars. Proactively seeking to build our business community is an important way that we can continue to ensure the delivery of quality public services.

WHAT WOULD NORTHBROOK DO ?

This is fair question since they just had their own major development going on at Willow Festival. This is located on Willow Road and includes Whole Foods, Lowe’s, Best Buy and a planned hotel. They have left the development to the market – no TIF – no developer incentives – no land purchases.

The following is an excerpt from the village's TIF Retirement plan, what stands out is the willingness of the village to subsidize developers and private interests when it is probably not even needed. We say this because Northbrook has just seen a massive development at Willow Festival and they did not need a TIF or interest free "loans" to developers or incentives to get tenants into commercial office space. 

 " Developer Incentives To date, four cash incentives have been approved from the TIF district to enhance development within The Glen. They include:  􀂾 $76.5 million to OliverMcMillan for infrastructure and building improvements at The Glen Town Center including the public parking decks, parks, sidewalks, and streets ($76.5 million has been paid in full); this incentive was offset by a land sale price of $38,627,000 which consisted of $21,627,000 cash at closing and two revenue-sharing agreements in the amounts of $12 million with OM and $5 million with Von Maur  􀂾 $2 million to Anixter for their corporate headquarters relocation ($950,000 has been paid through 2006)  􀂾 $637,500 to Beltone for their corporate headquarters relocation ($153,750 has been paid through 2006)  􀂾 $2.2 million to M. E. Fields to mitigate soil conditions and provide stormwater detention for a Jeep/Dodge/Chrysler automotive dealership (payments have not commenced)  Additionally, a $1.4 million loan was made to Thomas Place to assist in providing an affordable senior housing complex. Also, an additional contribution to OliverMcMillan in the amount of $750,000 was made in 2005, which must be repaid not later than August 16, 2008. Finally, it is possible that additional incentives will be necessary to attract high density corporate headquarters tenants to the Prairie Glen Corporate Campus. "    

We will get into the Von Maur deal in separate post for now let's just focus on the commercial real estate incentives. We gave Anixter $ 2 million and  Beltone $ 637.5m. We are now considering further incentives for the new building being erected at the southeast corner of Willow and Patriot. Who benefits from these incentives the most ? The answer is the developer in this case Catellus which was acquired by a company named Prologis. In their latest financial report Prologis announced for the 9 months of 2007 they had earning before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of $ 1.5 billion with $34.4 billion in assets owned. Why in the world is Glenview giving subsidies to the tenants these guys are bringing into their buildings ?

Was the Dominick's purchase a trap for village taxpayers ?

The village is moving full steam ahead with its $6.5 million purchase of the Dominick's at Glenview and Waukegan Roads. The lessee for the property is Dominick's owner Safeway Corporation. Here is where the village might have boxed themselves in. Safeway has a net/net lease that runs until 2012. If they wanted to they could sublet the property to someone else during that time. Glenview does not want this since they have their own  view as to how that property should be developed. Here's the catch - Safeway has the right (with 180 days notice) to cancel the lease in each of the remaining years of the lease. The cost for canceling the lease in 2008 is $ 280,000 which is about what Safeway would spend in 2008 for the lease rent of $ 156,000 plus property taxes - to all taxing bodies - of about $ 115,795.76 plus insurance. 

The question is how much of a "premium" will Glenview pay to get Safeway to terminate the lease. Given this option why would Safeway continue to pay these expenses on vacant store for the balance of the lease unless they see another option. 

All of this could have been easily avoided if Glenview had made it a condition of the purchase that the sellers deal with Safeway. Glenview will tell you the sellers would not entertain this notion (which is exactly what you would say if you were them) - if that was the case then Glenview should have walked away. Now we are in the position of being a strategic (vs. economic) owner of a property that Safeway knows we really want to develop. What do you think Safeway is going to do ? Let's hope for the best. 

Glenview's per capita debt has soared over the past ten years

In 1997 the per capita debt for village residents was $ 1891.15 now it is $3500.40 that is a 85% increase during a time when the village collecting more tax revenues than ever before 

Source : Village of Glenview 2006 CAFR 

Something to forward on to others

Soon you will living in the Naperville of the Northshore 

The following quote is from the village's comprehensive plan 

"Glenview's projected population growth is unmatched by any other comparable community. Naperville comes the closest with a projected rate of 21.2%, while Wilmette and Park Ridge both anticipate negative population growth."

Our politicians are doing everything they can to make sure this happens, Just look in your mailbox at the village report you just received. In the president;s letter on  page two you will see exactly what the plan is. We are going to use the the "pot" of money from selling land at the Glen to further develop the village. Unlike Naperville we do not have cornfields to plow over therefore we can only go vertical which means 4 and 5 stories of condos lining Glenview and Waukegan roads with stores in the first floors. 

 

This is going to be a great deal for developers and lousy one for you. That is unless you like traffic. 

The village's  argument goes something like this we have to keep developing to support our expenses. We are doing this in a way that is good for you because we are growing our sales tax base (who do they think pays the sales tax anyway) . While this certainly a path that can be followed and we are rapidly heading down that road. There is another solution and it is pretty simple. Stop spending so much money and stop increasing the village's debt. This simple solution is attainable when you consider that the village has been collecting more tax revenues then ever and spending every penny of it as fast they can while at the same time increasing our debt top record levels. 

 

There is not another election until 2009 -  if you wait until then chances are it will be too late. Let your voice be heard - write the politicians and tell them what you think about becoming the next Naperville. Post comments on saveglenview.blogspot.com   -  get involved or get ready for the bulldozers as they come down Glenview Road .

Please forward this message on to others that you think might be interested. 

Village Plan to Build Government Supercenter

See article below regarding the village's plan to build another giant facility like the police station - what is key is the last line which says the community supports this project - Do you?

 
From Chicago Tribune - Monday November 5, 2007
With the administrative buildings for the village of Glenview, the Park District and public schools aging and in need of renovations, officials say they could save taxpayers at least $4 million if the entities were housed under one roof.

The decision to combine the offices hasn't been approved, but the idea has the support of several key officials, and a committee has been formed to study the potential merger.

"We see it as a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars," said Gerald Hill, superintendent of Glenview Public School District 34. "It would be a good way to create more space."

The biggest savings would be in planning and construction, said Don Owen, Glenview's director of capital projects.

Also, residents who need to pay a water bill or want to sign a child up for swim lessons could take care of both at one location.

The likely site for this joint administrative facility is on vacant land at what the village calls its public campus, near the new Glenview police station, 2500 E. Lake Ave.

Building separate administrative centers would cost Glenview taxpayers at least $23.7 million, Owen said.

With a combined facility, the staffs could share a lobby, bathrooms, parking lot, and meeting and conference rooms. The joint facility near the police station would be much smaller and would cost $19.5 million, according to village data.

Complaints regarding the inadequacies of the three administrative buildings include lack of space, leaky roofs and outdated electrical, heating and cooling systems.

Some village employees work in one of three trailers because space at Village Hall is limited. Village spokeswoman Janet Spector-Bishop said buckets are set up inside Village Hall when it rains, and she has seen mice scurry across the floor.

Chuck Balling, the Park District's executive director, said the offices for the district's 25 administrative employees are inefficient and need total renovation.

Hill said the 1970s-era school administration building, at 1401 Greenwood Rd., would have to be renovated to provide programs for children and early-childhood education.

The village, park and school boards would need to approve the joint facility. The voting would follow the completion of the committee's study, which is expected to continue through the end of the year.

Officials said feedback from residents has been favorable so far.

"This is something the community is strongly behind," Owen said. "All three agencies have outgrown their facilities. The question is: Do we put money into these old buildings, or do you try to look at the benefits of a combined facility?

More Content Coming Soon ..

Thanks for visiting - please come back soon as we add more content in the next couple of days

Please free to copy the e-mail message below for forwarding

Save Glenview from higher taxes and over development.

As you read this the village of Glenview is planning to raise your taxes while spending millions of your money to get into the real estate development business in the downtown. Is this what you want ?

Do you support the village's plans to increase our population by up to 25 % ?

Are you in favor of the village's plan to line Glenview and Waukegan Roads with 4 and 5 story condos ?

Are you aware that the village plans to raise your taxes yet continues to spend at levels well above the village's population growth ?

At the end of this letter we are going to ask to act and voice your opinion. The time to act is now. One of the most important things you can do is forward this message on to others in Glenview. Waiting will insure that your answer the above questions would be yes and that you support the overdevelopment and over taxing of village for years to come.

Published reports tell us that the village is planning to raise property taxes every year for the next four years, raise the village's share of sales tax and possibly introduce a real estate transfer tax (this you would have to vote on). They are doing this at the worst possible time in light of the threatened state and county tax increases. On top of all of this we are looking at an uncertain economy, rising utility costs and increasing costs for our everyday life. Now is not the time for village government to be taking money out your pocket and putting in the hands of politicians who want to play developer.

A fair question would be : Does Glenview really need you to pay higher taxes and do they have the money to enter into speculative real estate ventures ? An analysis of the village's finances does would indicate that they do not. From 2000 to 2006 the village's
population grew by 6.3% yet villages expenses for providing services (fire,police, village departments) grew from $22 million in 2000 to $56 million in 2006.That is a 56% increase in spending or 9.5 times the rate of population growth.

During the 2000-06 timeframe the village increased its debt by a substantial amount. Since 2000 the villages total debt obligation has gone from $65 million to $157 million . This is an increase of 140% over the past seven years and this does not include the Glen. To put this in context - Glenview's total debt is greater than the debts of Morton Grove, Northbrook, Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Glencoe, Winnetka and Mount Prospect combined.

While the village is planning to raise your taxes to support their spending and debt - the village board is about to decide at their November 6th that they should purchase the vacant Dominick's at the corner of Glenview and Waukegan Roads for $ 6,500,000.

This purchase is being defended by the village as critical to their downtown development plan. This plan was approved by the board in December of 2006 and it called for the private interests to drive the process with about $6 million in village expenses for infrastructure. Now the village is saying the opposite and they with this single transaction spending over 100% more than they said they would. If you not familiar with the village's plans to fill the downtown area with 4 and 5 story condos you can see a copy of their plans on the village website - www.glenview.il.us

Write to the Board of Trustees ( mailing list link ) - tell them what you think. Forward this message on to others in Glenview. Come out to the Board of Trustees meeting on November 6th at 7:30 p.m. at Village Hall to be heard on this issue.

Thank you for your time an consideration.

Post your comments - learn more at http://saveglenview.blogspot.com/
Send us note at saveglenview@gmail.com

Map of the Downtown Development

More Development & Higher Taxes

For current taxpayers ,according to the 10/1/07 issue of the Glenview Watch which said “The village may also increase its home rule sales tax from one-half of one percent to three-quarters of one percent, and the trustees may vote to raise property taxes by 4 percent per year for five years.” ,we are looking at steep increases.

On the development side the village is pursuing plans to develop more land at the Glen, the Downtown, the Milwaukee Ave. Corridor and adding new land west of the tollway (Culligan).

The village wants to do all this without adding a burden to the schools so they are pushing "development light" strategies that add condominiums and townhouses which they believe will be inhabited by empty nesters and families with little or no children

Glenview buys downtown property

At 10/2 village board meeting the Board of Trustees unanimously approved a plan to purchase the vacant Dominicks at the corner of Waukegan and Lake for $6,500,000. This purchase is being justified by the village because other(private) parties had expressed an interest in developing this property. The village contends that these other parties would pursue development that was not in line with their plans for the downtown area.

Since this area runs east from the library to Glenview Road then north on Waukegan to Lake Street village residents should be concerned. Why wouldn’t other landowners start similar rumors about their land so the village would step in and buy them them out ? Why is the village setting the market price for downtown land well in excess of what their consultants said it was worth?

The Downtown Plan’s Catch-22

For the past few years the village and its consultants have been working on a plan to “revitalize” the downtown area. This plan advocates among other things four story condominiums along Glenview Road.
All the downtown plans are driven by the economic models developed by the village's consultants. Each block of the downtown has a preferred use based on these models.
In these plans the consultants state that the Dominick's parcel was "the subject of a significant amount of and analysis during the planning process” . The economic model for the Dominick's parcel has an estimated acquisition cost of $ 4.489 million dollars.  The village is now paying $6.5 million (they have an appraisal for $9.4 million ) for the property. The bottom line is not what the village is paying for the property but that the economic models used to drive the downtown process might, in light of this transaction, be wrong. If that is the case then the downtown development will need more density than it already has

Board of Trustees E-mail Addresses

Here are the e-mail addresses for the Board of TrusteesPresident

Kerry Cummings (4/09)
(847) 729-6809
cummingsvillage@ameritech.net


Trustees (Term Expires)

Scott R. Britton (4/11)
(847) 832-1305
sbritton@brennerlawfirm.com

Pat Cuisinier (4/09)
(312) 201-8880 * patcuisinier@hartiganlaw.com

Paul Detlefs (4/09)
(877) 822-8090 * paulvillage@comcast.net

Deborah Karton (4/09)
(847) 998-9144 * debbyvillage@comcast.net

James Patterson (4/11)
(847) 724-6599 * jimpattersonjr@pattersonco.com

Philip O'C. White (4/11)
(847) 832-0068 * pwhitevillage@comcast.net

Welcome

Save Glenview is not a political party it is a grassroots advocacy group that is concerned about the village of Glenview's development and financial issues.