This referendum passed by a 71-29 percent
vote. The organizers of this citizen-based initiative were
ecstatic with the results. Their referendum passed by
a landslide, and, they knew in fact they had a mandate that
was binding to any local politician who could be made unsure
of his/her re-election.
In effect, the CARE group, has put an end to
any further approving of land annexations or residential
developments for seven years unless or until the Sycamore
City Council members and Mayor have the fortitude to go
against the perception that a majority of voters will not be
pleased.
An 80-acre in-fill parcel recently was
rejected by the city council after it was unanimously
approved by the planning commission. A 5-3 majority of the
council members voted to approve the project, but in the
case of land annexations, a super majority is needed and the
vote was one council member short.
The developer had agreed to pay full impact
fees without credits for school and park land donations he
was providing. The school district, park district and
planning commission all approved the project. The city
council instead voted in favor of the non-binding
referendum.
This left the Sycamore Planning Commission
at a loss for a sense of direction. Why should they meet and
go over development project plans if the city council was
going to arbitrarily reject such proposals -- even when they
fit the City's comprehensive plan?
A special meeting between the planning
commission and city council members was held to determine
what direction the city should take. Sycamore Mayor, John
Swedberg, who is facing a challenge from current City
Treasurer, Ken Mundy, in the Spring '05 elections, announced
a proposal that would, in effect, halt
future residential developments until 2014.
Swedberg is hesitant to call his proposal a
moratorium because that may not be politically correct but
if the city council approves his plan the comprehensive plan
will become an artifact.
Sycamore's current residential growth
management policies in that comprehensive plan are already
among the most restrictive in Illinois. If a 500-home
subdivision were to be approved today the developer would
have to wait six years, until 2011, before any building
permits could be issued. The number of permits issued after
that date would be limited to 50 homes each year.
City Manager, Bill Nicklas, points out that
only 23% of Sycamore's registered voters voted in favor of
the CARE referendum. It appears he is trying to get council
members, and the mayor, to stick with the comprehensive plan
that was just completed. If so, his motivation is good
but his strategy is flawed. The fact is, of those who did
vote, an overwhelming majority voted for the referendum.
Mayor Swedberg appears uncertain of his
chances for re-election and his proposed moratorium is an
effort to appease the CARE group. If so, he is playing
politics with the city's future.
What the city should consider is to put the
following referendum question to the voters in the soonest
possible election: Should the City of Sycamore follow its
comprehensive plan?
That would bring open, public debate about
the comprehensive plan, the issues of growth and the future
of Sycamore to the table. And it would bring more of
that 77% that didn't vote to the polls.
The CARE group was successful in getting
their referendum passed. Even if they promoted
misinformation, and they did, they are now armed with the
fact that 71% of those who voted supported their views. The
misinformation given was often borrowed from
point-the-finger-at growth government sources who were also
justifying their increases in taxes and fees.
The anti-growth sentiment has been fed by
the local governmental units. Now their hands are tied.
Citizen-based referendums are a good thing.
The tax cap laws and the Sycamore growth moratorium are in
protest of high taxes. They are expressions of "just say
no." But just saying no is not enough if the desired end
result is lower taxes. A growth moratorium could have the
opposite of its intended effect. Be CAREful what you ask
for. You just might get it.
ADDENDUMS:
Report on Sycamore City Council Meeting
I believe you will find this report more informative than
today's Daily Chronicle's coverage of last night's city
council meeting in Sycamore.
This report is specific to:
Agenda Item 13.
CONSIDERATIONS
A. Consideration of an Administration Request for
Clarification Regarding the Council's Position on
Residential Growth Management.
As expected the Sycamore CARE organization attended the
meeting in numbers. Several of their members spoke to remind
council members of their successful nonbinding referendum
while singling out and warning certain council members not
to vote for any measure that violated the spirit and intent
of their initiative.
There were several speakers, more than that of the CARE
group, who spoke in favor of the City following its
Comprehensive Plan along with its ordinance that delays the
issuing of permits and restricts the number of permits
issued each year. As Ken Andersen pointed out, Sycamore's
current but untried growth management policies are among the
most restrictive in Illinois.
Responsible growth advocates pointed out several times
that following any of the other options published in the
agenda and back up material would likely create a perception
that Sycamore was declaring a moratorium on residential
development. Such a perception would hinder the city's
efforts to attract commercial and industrial development.
Steve Milner told the council about his efforts, and
successes, in attracting non-residential development. He
expressed his concerns regarding any perception of a
moratorium.
Dr. Steve Glasgow spoke to the council about his
challenges in recuiting medical professionals and
professional services providers. He talked about how
Sycamore was on the verge of having the population base
necessary for successful recruitment of these valuable
assets and how the community-at-large would benefit from
increased health care services. His statements followed
those of an unidentified Sycamore resident and business
owner who told the council that he was advised that should
he suffer a heart attack he would have to be sent elsewhere,
probably via helicopter, because the community's population
base was not sufficient to support acute heart care
providers.
Rick Turner expressed the Sycamore Chamber of Commerce's
concerns with moratorium perceptions. Dan Paulsen asked the
council to stay the course of responsible growth. Gregory
Taylor, resident, reminded council that the CARE group did
not represent all Sycamore residents. Another non-identified
lady told the council that the comprehensive plan is
designed for the greater good of the entire community of
Sycamore, inclusive of all residents and businesses, not for
any special interest group, including CARE.
It was pointed out to the council that interfering with
supply and demand would likely lead to higher property taxes
instead of lowering them.
After public discussion on the three options for growth
management offered by City Staff, Mayor John Swedberg, gave
council members a new proposal that in fact places a
moratorium on new annexations. The mayor had earlier
declined Sal Bonanno's request for public discussion of this
proposal. Four of the council members had never seen the
mayor's proposal before.
Alderwoman Cheryl Maness made a motion to adopt the
following growth management policy:
Option #1: Stay the Course:
- Retain the Comp Plan's Land Use Map of 2003.
- Consider new annexation requests on their merits, and
negotiate annexation agreements that establish a
break-even point for school and city services in terms of
voluntary contributions and impact fees. This could
involve significantly higher contributions.
- Continue to use Ordinance 2003.65 and the "Timeline"
of projected annual permits to weigh the fiscal impact of
new residential development.
With the following addendum:
Investigate the feasibility and wisdom of real estate
transfer fees.
Mayor Swedberg immediately asked Maness to rescind her
motion on the basis that he already had four votes from
council members to adopt his proposal. This statement was in
effect an admission by the Mayor that he had excluded
certain council members and had polled other council members
until he had four votes for his proposal. This action is
likely in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. It is
also disrepectful of the council members who were excluded.
The Maness motion was seconded by Alderwoman Terry
Kessler. Alderman Alan Bauer then motioned (seconded by
Barbara Leach) to postpone taking action on the issue until
the next city council meeting. His motion received five of
the eight votes, with Alderwomen Maness, Terry Kessler, 4th
Ward, and Janice Tripp, 4th Ward, dissenting.
OBSERVATIONS: It is interesting to note that
several council and staff members believe that "perception
is reality" in relation to the Sycamore CARE group. "Don't
bother them with facts, because their minds are made up." At
the same time there are some who believe that
decision-makers of commercial/industrial site locations must
not adhere to perception is reality mentality. The
perception of a moratorium may not be the desired effect of
the city council/leaders but they are rolling the dice.
MAYOR SWEDBERG'S PROPOSAL
Option #4:
- Retain the Comp Plan’s Land Use Map
of 2003.
Consider new annexation requests on
their merits, while keeping Ordinance 2003.65 intact,
negotiate annexation agreements that delay the first
permit of any development approved in 2004 until 2012.
Take the same approach with annexation proposals submitted
in 2005 by negotiating a deferral of new permits until
2013. Thereafter, as we review the pace of permitting and
on our “Timeline,” we may feel “caught up” or we may find
that economic forces beyond our control have altered the
projected pace of permitting. This approach allows willing
seller to plan for their estates, and may invite some
interested developers to invest in Sycamore’s future. It
may also avoid the negative impact of a moratorium policy
on commercial interests, while purposefully deferring the
onset of new streams of permits to a later point in time.
- Raise our expectations for
voluntary contributions that can be used for operating
purposes by the School District or the City. A $3,000 per
unit threshold for school contributions should overcome
the net operating expense and produce a modest surplus in
light of present trends in housing prices.
- Aim for an annual population
increase between 3% and 4% per year once the impending
wave of new population growth associated with the
unregulated inventory of platted lots passes.
- Request a “fiscal impact of
development” study over a projected 20 year period. To
include a detailed analysis of fiscal impact of the
current approved annexations, service level assumptions
and the detailed costs and revenues for all city
departments, school, park and library facilities, with the
objective of growth to pay for itself.
OBSERVATIONS:
Item 1 of this proposal places a blanket moratorium
on new building permits. Ordinance 2003.65 already places
limitations on building permits that delays issuance of
building permits up to 6 years and restricts the annual
number of permits allowed for each subdivision. Restricting
the inventory (supply) of a product in high demand results
in rising prices. If land value is increased then housing
prices increase. While increased property valuations allow
homeowners to increase their ability for borrowing as well
as their equity for investment portfolio, rising property
values also increases real estate taxes. A blanket
moratorium will inflate housing costs that will be of
benefit to developers who already have projects approved and
for people who sell their homes for profit or those who
purchase real estate as an investment. However, it will be
detrimental, in terms of higher taxes, for those residents
who view their house simply as their home, especially those
who live on fixed income.
Item 4: As was adroitly pointed
out at the council meeting by a resident, the Comprehensive
Plan should act as a guide for the future of Sycamore for
the betterment of all residents and businesses -- not for
any special interest group. Slow-or-no-growth advocates
commonly use the "Fiscal Impact Study" as a tool to delay
growth. The fiscal impact study described above is
modeled after that tool. Note how the description is
inclusive of detailed costs and revenues for all city
departments, school, park and library facilities
(governmental units who have special interests). It does not
call for research on the costs and revenues for private
citizens and businesses of Sycamore in relation to new
construction. It also completely ignores the social costs
that the growing burden of housing costs has on the
median-to-low income residents.
