Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves TIF assistance terms for Rocket Wash after debate on precedent and risk
Summary
After extended discussion about precedent, parcel connectivity and development risk, the board approved an alternative TIF reimbursement structure negotiated with the developer that would return 75% of future increment from Parcels 1 and 2 to reimburse road construction via an MRO, with additional policy language and counsel review to address Parcel 2 and Parcel 4 recovery mechanisms.
The Village Board reconsidered TIF assistance for a proposed commercial development called Rocket Wash at the southwest corner of Highways 165 and 31 and approved a staff‑presented alternative negotiated with the developer.
Staff described a DOT traffic study that requires a roadway connection to Highway 31 through to 72nd Avenue and estimated the road cost at just over $1,000,000. Staff said earlier staff recommendations proposed using 50% of increment from Parcels 1, 2 and 4 to support an MRO for reimbursement (roughly $500,000), while the negotiated alternative offered 75% of the increments from Parcels 1 and 2 only, which staff estimated would yield roughly $614,069 over the life of the TID to reimburse the constructor.
Developer Mike Wilkam told trustees he cannot build the road without receiving 75% of the increment on Parcels 1 and 2 because DOT conditions require the roadway extend to 72nd Avenue. "I can't do it. It's as simple as that," Wilkam said, explaining the upfront cost burden and his expectation of reimbursement over the TID life. Trustees weighed two risks: limited village cash outlay but a reduction in increment available for other future projects, versus the risk the lot remains undeveloped if assistance is withheld. One trustee proposed approving the staff alternative with additional contract language ensuring Parcel 2's improvements would be treated as fully met by the initial construction and directing staff to develop a policy for one‑off commercial TIF assistance. The board approved the motion by voice vote.
The approved terms as described in the meeting allocate a 75% share of future tax increment from Parcels 1 and 2 to reimburse the developer via an MRO; Parcel 4's increment would remain with the village unless and until future negotiations occur and any recovery arrangements would be subject to legal counsel review and possible bridal (right‑of‑recovery) mechanisms. Staff noted the arrangement shifts upfront construction risk to the developer and ties reimbursement to future assessed value.
