Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Vernon officials hear public concerns over proposed N. 42nd Street TIF plan
Summary
Mount Vernon held a public hearing on Feb. 2 to review a proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for N. 42nd Street intended to enable 200–300 market-rate duplexes and triplexes and fund stormwater infrastructure. Residents raised questions about traffic, wetlands permits and sewer capacity; council action is pending.
Get email alerts on the Tif Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayor John Lewis opened a public hearing on Feb. 2 for the City of Mount Vernon to receive public comment on a proposed N. 42nd Street Tax Increment Financing redevelopment plan.
Cristen Hardin, Senior Project Planner with PGAV Planners, told the council the proposed TIF district covers roughly 62 acres across 64 parcels, of which about 59 are currently vacant. She said the consultants and city staff found the area qualifies under the State’s TIF Act because of chronic flooding and that the draft plan allocates roughly 55% of project costs toward stormwater infrastructure to address that flooding and enable private residential development. “This area qualifies based on the finding that there is chronic flooding within this area,” Hardin said.
City Manager Nathan McKenna described a developer proposal for 200 to 300 market-rate duplexes and triplexes north of Woodglen Acres, saying the units are planned as three-bedroom rental homes with estimated rents of $1,400 to $1,600. McKenna explained how TIF financing would work: the current equalized assessed value (EAV) would become the base, and increases in EAV from new development would be captured in the TIF fund to finance public infrastructure and incentives. McKenna also reported the joint review board for the taxing bodies approved the qualification analysis.
Council members asked staff about the developer’s experience and project details. Council Member Joe Gliosci asked whether the developer had done similar work; McKenna said the developer recently completed a similar project in Marion and that Marion city staff described that developer favorably. Council Member Donte Moore asked about unit mix and rents, which McKenna confirmed.
Residents and nearby property owners raised several concerns during the hearing. Austin Gowler and others asked about an apparent discrepancy in the acreage cited; McKenna said some city-owned parcels are included in the proposed district. Linda Lalli, a resident of Woodglen Acres, said she worried that adding about 200 residences would increase traffic at the Woodglen end; staff and Council Member Moore noted the proposed development would use two curb cuts with access on 42nd Street and said traffic and access would be addressed in engineering and design reviews.
Greg Brown said a creek in the area appears on the USGS wetlands inventory and warned it cannot be altered without federal and state permits. “It can not be touched without approvals of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, Illinois EPA and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources,” Brown said. Brown also reported current sewer backups that run under the interstate to the North Davidson lift station and said additional infrastructure will be required as development proceeds. Hardin and McKenna said the plan includes conceptual detention basins to manage runoff but that final design and permitting would occur when the developer submits engineering plans for city review.
Questions also covered whether any city-owned parcels had been reserved as a park (McKenna said the city holds the parcel but it was not dedicated by covenant), whether the project would include subsidized housing (the city manager said he would consult the city attorney on what can be placed in writing), and whether connections to Woodglen Acres could be required (McKenna noted the city can deny connections over platted right-of-way).
McKenna reiterated that PGAV Planners is the city’s consultant, not the developer, and described the process ahead: the council will consider a first reading of the TIF ordinance at the next council meeting and, if advanced, a second reading at the first meeting in March before any final vote. The hearing closed at 7:00 p.m.
The council took no formal action at the hearing; any adoption of the TIF district will occur at a future council meeting after statutory readings and possible additional reviews.
