Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southland Development Authority asks University Park for a nonbinding MOU to move forward on 241‑acre Project Southland Bloom
Summary
The Southland Development Authority asked the board for a nonbinding memorandum of understanding to signal willingness to pursue annexation and tax‑increment financing for a 241‑acre site; trustees pressed on annexation sequencing, infrastructure needs (notably power) and legal/financial limits.
The Southland Development Authority (SDA) asked the Village of University Park to approve a nonbinding memorandum of understanding (MOU) to support early work on a proposed Project Southland Bloom, a 241‑acre development the presenter said the SDA currently has under contract.
Phil Kemp, identified himself as CEO of the Southland Development Authority (speaker 12), told trustees the site — described in maps as land between Stunkle and Stager roads west of I‑57 — lacks power and that SDA plans to invest capital and bring an energy partner to build the infrastructure needed to make the land developable. Kemp said SDA’s proposed investment would not only make the 241 acres developable but could unlock opportunity for roughly 3,000 additional adjacent acres.
"We will need support, whether it be annexation or whether it be TIF and other elements because that's table stakes," Kemp said, asking the board to approve a nonbinding MOU that would signal cooperative intent while preserving the council’s authority to approve annexation and TIF later. He stressed the MOU would be nonbinding and that the village would not be financially obligated by the document.
Trustees asked several procedural questions: whether annexation usually precedes a TIF; whether prior, private, off‑record discussions had occurred with the mayor; who owned which parcels; and whether SDA had dedicated end users for the power infrastructure. Kemp said SDA already had conversations with power providers and that the MOU would let the region show momentum to potential end users while preserving the village’s right to say "no" later.
Trustee concerns focused on the proper sequence (annexation versus MOU), transparency about private conversations, and ensuring the village would not be left bearing costs for SDA’s investments. Manager Scott (speaker 13) and others asked SDA to return with further details on annexation timing and a map of exact parcels to be annexed.
The board moved and voted on a resolution authorizing a memorandum of understanding between the village and SDA to explore Project Southland Bloom and to authorize the potential future use of special tax‑allocation funds for development‑related expenses; the motion passed by roll call during the meeting.
What happens next: The SDA will return with more detailed materials on annexation steps, infrastructure plans (including the proposed power solution), and any end‑user commitments so trustees can evaluate annexation and potential TIF creation in due course.
Provenance: SDA presentation begins in the transcript at SEG 958 (topic intro) and continues through trustee Q&A and the MOU roll call (topic finish SEG 1676).
