Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukegan approves $900,000 upfront incentive, TIF note for downtown redevelopment despite council concerns
Summary
The City Council approved a development agreement offering $900,000 in upfront assistance and a $825,000 tax-increment note to a developer group for rehabbing the former YMCA and a nearby Genesee Street building. Council debate centered on plan details, risk, guarantees and TIF repayment.
Get email alerts on the Downtown Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukegan approved a development and final incentive agreement on June 2 to support rehabilitation of two downtown properties, authorizing $900,000 in upfront assistance and a long-term, $825,000 tax-increment note tied to projected property-tax increases from the sites.
The vote followed a detailed presentation from special counsel and weeks of prior review: the development team, described in the presentation as the Waukegan Community Development Partnership, proposes to restore the former YMCA at 200 North County and an adjacent property at 38 North Genesee for mixed use. Special counsel Stuart (Stu) Weiss summarized the financing and city protections and said, “we're not going to make you wait for this incentive. We're going to give you the $900,000 upfront.”
The development agreement, as presented, said the two properties would generate new market-rate residential units and ground-floor commercial space. Weiss's slide deck described “26 new market-rate units” in total; a later slide listed 19 residential units at 200 North County and six at 38 North Genesee. Weiss also told the council that the 200 North County acquisition and renovation was estimated at $3.7 million, with requested incentives totaling $1,725,000 across multiple instruments, and that the city’s $900,000 payment would come from previously allocated casino gaming revenues.
Why it matters: council members pressed for clearer protections for city taxpayers and more detail on what will be built before public money is disbursed. Several aldermen urged tighter conditions on when the city releases funds and stronger recourse if the project fails.
Key terms and city protections - Upfront assistance: $900,000 (drawn from casino revenue allocated by a prior council action). - Long-term incentive: a promissory note for up to $825,000 to be repaid from tax-increment financing (TIF) generated by the two parcels; the city said it would not issue that note until a certificate of occupancy is recorded for 200 North County. - Fee waivers: city agreed to waive certain building permit and inspection fees previously estimated in the presentation as roughly $42,000. - Parking: the city will provide 19 discounted parking passes at $35 per month for five years in a nearby municipal garage for units without on-site parking. - Covenants & security: the agreement requires recorded covenants limiting the units to market-rate housing (not subsidized). The city also takes a second-position lien on the primary property so it can foreclose in a worst-case scenario if developer obligations are not met.
Council concerns and discussion Several aldermen pushed for more detail and additional safeguards before the city disburses public funds. Alderman Hayes said he supported the project’s goals but warned about the timing and the city’s exposure: “A bank doesn't give you $900,000 without plans,” he said, arguing the council should see final drawings and specifications before final disbursement. Hayes also raised questions about entity registration and personal guarantees, noting he could not find a registered company for one of the project entities in the Secretary of State database.
Alderman Florian asked whether bidding or other TIF-related restrictions applied; Weiss replied that the usual bidding requirement applies when the municipality sells property it already owns, and said both parcels here are privately owned and under contract. Weiss and staff said the city will require detailed permit applications, final development plans and executed construction agreements before releasing the $900,000 into a construction escrow account administered by a title company.
Risk and repayment Counsel described three protections intended to limit city risk: the recorded market-rate covenant, a construction escrow that requires private funds to be spent alongside public dollars (a dollar-for-dollar draw structure), and a second-position lien the city can foreclose if necessary. Weiss emphasized the TIF note would bear no interest and would be paid only from increment generated by the project; if increment is insufficient at the end of the TIF’s life, the city could seek an extension from the Illinois General Assembly or draw from contiguous TIF districts, but such extensions are outside the city’s unilateral control.
Vote and next steps A motion to approve the development agreement was made by Alderman Guzman and seconded by Alderman Felix. The motion passed on a roll call vote; Alderman Hayes voted no and eight aldermen voted aye. The council authorized the agreement subject to the conditions described in the executed document, including administrative review of final plans and escrow instructions prior to release of funds.
What remains unresolved Council members and staff said several administrative items will be finalized before any money is paid: final development plans and detailed escrow disbursement instructions; the precise language of the recorded covenants; and monitoring procedures for construction draws. Developers and staff also still must work out lender consent language and the precise allocation of increment between the two parcels. The council directed staff to continue close oversight.
The council's approval allows staff to move forward with contract execution and administrative review; the upfront $900,000 will not be released until the agreement's listed prerequisites—ownership documentation, financing evidence, completed permit applications and executed construction contracts—are submitted and verified by city staff and the construction escrow agent.
Ending Developers present at the meeting signaled they would proceed with preparations; city staff said they will bring escrow and covenant instruments to corporation counsel for review and report back to the council administratively. The project advances a long‑standing city goal to attract residents and businesses to downtown Waukegan, while producing fresh debate over how much city oversight and security is required when public incentives are offered to private developers.

