HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution #0774•-• i ~ .
.+ y. j
The City Council of the City of Canton, Fulton County, Illinois,
met in open public session at its regular meeting place in the City Hall
Council Chambers in the City of Canton at 6:30 o'clock P.M. on August 1,
1978, with Harlan E. Crouch, Mayor, Nancy S. Whites, City Clerk, and the
following named Aldermen present: Danner, Kovachevich, Yerbic, Carl, Sepich,
Motsirger;, Slaubaugh,Zaborac, Williams, Riley, Churchill, Edwards.
Absent: Alderman Horr. Peak
(Other Business)
The following resolution was thereupon introduced and read in full:
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 'I
A RESOLUTION setting forth the boundaries of the
commercial blight area found to exist within the
City of Canton as a result of the initial study
and survey provided for by Resolution Number
771; setting forth the factors that exist in
the blight area that are detrimental to public
health, safety, morals and welfare; making a
finding of blight in respect to said area;
setting forth a proposed redevelopment plan for
the blight area; and providing for a public hear-
ing on commercial blight and the proposed rede-
velopment plan.
WHEREAS the City of Canton, Illinois (hereinafter referred to as
the "City") is authorized by The Commercial Renewal and Redevelopment
Areas Act, appearing as Division 74.2 of Article 11 of the Illinois
Municipal Code, as amended, (hereinafter. referred to as the "Act"),
to determine whether or not any commercial blight areas exist within the
City, on the basis of an initial study and survey for that purpose; and
WHEREAS the City is further authorized by the Act to set forth the
boundaries of any commercial blight areas found to exist within the City
as a result of the study and survey, and to set forth the factors which
make the area detrimental to the public health, safety, morals and welfare;
and
..
WHEREAS the City is further authorized by the Act to submit a
proposed redevelopment plan, for eliminating the blight areas found to
exist, at a public hearing on commercial blight; and
WHEREAS it has now been determined on the basis of the initial study
and survey provided for in Resolution No. 771 of the City, that a
commercial blight area does exist within the City, and that the above
actions regarding commercial blight within the City should be taken:
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Canton, Fulton County, Illinois, as follows:
Section 1. As a result of the initial study and survey provided
for by Resolution No. 771, the area described in Exhibit "A" is found
to be a commercial blight area.
Section 2. The area described in Exhibit "A" is found to be a
commercial blight area because of the existence of the following factors
within its boundaries which are detrimental to public health, safety,
morals and welfare:
Age
Deterioration and Dilapidation
Presence of Buildings Below Minimum Code Standards
Obsolescence
Excessive vacancies
Deleterious Land Use and Layout
Excessive Land Coverage and Lack of Community Planning
Inadequate Public Facilities
Section 3. In order to eliminate the factors of blight in the
commercial blight area described in Exhibit "A" which are detrimental
to the public health, safety, morals and welfare, the City Council, assisted
by the Citizens Committee created pursuant to Resolution No. 771, hereby
submits a proposed commercial redevelopment plan for the blight area, which
plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and which plan received the approval
and recommendation of a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the members of
the Citizens Committee.
Section 4. In order for the City Council to introduce the testimony
and evidence that entered into its decision to declare the above-described
- 2 -
-,
area as a commercial blight area, hear other testimony on the issue of
blight, and to enter into the record all proposed commercial redevelopment
plans received by the corporate authorities at or prior to the hearing,
to allow all interested persons to appear and testify for or against any
proposed commercial redevelopment plan, a public hearing is hereby called
for August 24, 1978, at 6:30 o'clock P.M. at the Council Chambers, Canton
City Hall, 210 East Chestnut Street, Canton, Illinois. The City Clerk
is hereby directed to give notice of the hearing by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City at least 20 days before
the hearing.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Canton, Illinois and
APPROVED by the Mayor thereof this 15 T day of ~ (mil, `j- (,t. S T 1978.
i
APPROVED : ~~~ -~~~~ ~---; MAYOR
HARLAN E. CROUCH
ATTEST: CITY CLERK
NANC S. WHITES
It was thereupon moved by Alderman ~-~ /~ N N ~ ~ and
seconded by Alderman ,~ ~ Pic H that said resolution be
adopted. Upon roll being called, the following voted:
AYE: Alderman Zaborac, Riley, Slaubaugh, Motsinge4, Sepich, Carl,
Churchill, Yerbic, Kovachevich, Danner
NAY: Alderman Williams
,, ~
APPROVED: "~ MAYOR
HARLAN E. CROUCH
ATTEST: CITY CLERK
NANCY S. WHITES
- 3 -
EXHIBIT "A"
Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly
right-of-way line of East Locust Street and the easterly
right-of-way line of North Second Avenue:
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Pine Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of-way line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the easterly right-of-way line of South White Court;
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Walnut Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along the southerly right-
of-way line of East and West Walnut Street and extensions
thereof to a point 181.5 feet, more or less west of the
westerly right-of-way line of South Main Street;
Thence in a northerly direction along a line parallel to and
181.5 feet more or less west of the westerly right-of-way
line of South Main Street to its intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of West Pine Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of-way line to its intersection with the extended westerly
right-of-way line of South Avenue "A";
Thence in a northerly direction along said westerly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of West Locust Street;
Thence in an easterly direction along the southerly right-
of-way line of West and East Locust Street and extensions
thereof to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way
line of North Second Street, the Point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom those areas bounded by the southerly
right-of-way line of West Locust Street, the westerly right-
of-way line of North Market Court, the northerly right-of-
way line of West Chestnut Street, the easterly right-of-way
line of North Avenue "A"; and the southerly right-of-way line
of East Elm Street, the westerly right-of-way line of South
Second Avenue, the northernly right-of-way of East Pine Street,
the easterly right-of-way line of South Van Buren Court.
In terms of a Project Area Description based on land platted
to date, the following would properly reflect the area:
Original Town - Swans First Recorded Addition: Parcels 94
through 99 and 106, 107, 108
Swans Second Addition: Parcels 109, 110, 111, 120, 124 and
125
Nathan Jones First Addition: Parcels 1 through 11 and 14
through 30
Nathan Jones Second Addition: Parcels 35 through 60
Nathan Jones Third Addition: Parcels 1 through 5 and 7
through 10
Plus all Public Rights-of-Way including streets, alleys and
that area commonly known as Jones Park lying between the
easterly right-of-way line of North and South Second Avenue
and the westerly right-of-way line of North and South Avenue
"A"; the southerly right-of-way line of East and West Locust
Street and the southerly right-of-way line of East and West
Pine Street; and the entire right-of-way of South Main Street
and South White Court between East and West Pine Street and
East and West Walnut Street; and the entire right-of-way of
East and West Walnut Street between a point 181.5 feet more
or less west of the westerly right-of-way line of South
Main Street and the easterly right-of-way line of South
White Court.
,, . .' • ~ EXHIBIT "B"
~_ ,
';,~~ COP~Il"iERCIAL REDEVELOPI~~IENT PLAN
(Canton, Illinois)
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the commencement of commercial activities in the
early 1800's and subsequent City .incorporation in 1837,
the retail core of the City of Canton has undergone vast
changes. Historically, the major retailing activities
have centered around that area commonly known as "Jones
Park" . As a result of several extensive fires in t13e
late 1800's and evolution itself, those original frame
buildings which housed the merchants have been replac-
ed for the most part by masonry buildings. In many in-
stances buildings that are now being used as retail out-
lets were designed and constructed for use by the cigar
manufacturing industry. These "factory" type buildings
were characterized by excessively high ceilings and
rather rough interior finishes, especially on the upper
floors.
Consequently, from the inception of the Central Business
District, new construction in downtown Canton has re-
sulted from little more than the need to replace de-
stroyed buildings. As late as 1973 and again in 1975,
several buildings were destroyed, in the first instance
by fire and the latter by a tornado. The remnants,
along with several adjacent derelict buildings in the
Central Business District have, for the most part, been
demolished and the land is presently vacant and unutilized.
The City recognizes that, in addition to this and other
vacant land which is presently uneconomic for develop-
ment, other blighting conditions exist throughout the
.central area, in many instances to an advanced degree.
Due primarily to those detrimental Central Area condi-
tions, there i~, great pressure on City govern,-nent to pro-
vide public infrastructure facilities and support services
for peripheral development. Unless public support far
downtown redevelopment is forthcoming, these peripheral
retailing areas will become a fact of life and no commer-
cial redevelopment of the Central Area will occur. This
situation would not only impose an undue economic burden
on.the citizens of Canton, but would give rise to the
added problem of the alternate use of the Central Bus-
iness District lands. The City has, therefore, committed
itself to the implementation of a comprehensive program
for the redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown
area.
-1-
.~' ~ ~ To assure that the needed public support is .forthcoming,
~~ the City proposes to adopt a Commercial Redevelopment
Plan, to designate a Redevelopment Area in downtown Can-
'~ ton pursuant to Division 74.2 of Article XI of the Illin-
ois Z4unicipal Code and to finance the public costs or re-
development, in part, with proceeds derived from the is-
. suance of tax increment revenue and commercial redevelop-
ment revenue bonds and other obligations. Through its
Commercial Rede~~elopment Plan, the City can serve as the
_ central force far marshalling the assets and energies of
'. the private sector for a unified public-private redevel-
opment effort.
_2_
. TI.
COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES
In general, the City proposes to realize its goals of
eliminating the conditions of blight and obsolescence
by encouraging private investment in new commercial facil-
ities through public finance vehicles by:
A. Creating marketable commercial redevelopment sites
and buildings within the Central Business District
through the application of appropriate land assem-
blage techniques, including the acquisition and
removal of deteriorated and/or obsolete buildings,
with ultimate disposition to private developers.
B. SupplemE~nting redevelopment site availability and
desirab=~lity through judicious vacation of existing
public street rights-of -way.
C. Providing those public facilities, including but
not limited to off-street parking, underground
utility and street improvements] that will be re -
quired to create an attractive shopping, pedes-
trian oriented environment which will properly
support future private investments.
-3-
• X'I . • LEGAL DESCRIPTIOPI
The City of Canton proposes that the Redevelopment Area
encompass the following area constituting more than 2
acres within the corporate limits of the City, par-
ticularly described to wit:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly
right-of -way line of East Locust Street and the easterly
right-of-way line of North Second Avenue:
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Pine Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of way-line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the easterly right-of-way line of South White Court;
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Walnut Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along the southerly right-
of-way line of East and West Walnut Street and extensions
thereof to a point 181.5 feet, more or less west of the
westerly right-of-way line of South Main Street;.
Thence in a northerly direction along a line parallel to and
181.5 feet more or less west of the westerly right-of-way
line of South Main Street to its intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of West Pine Street;'
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of-way line to its intersection with the extended westerly
right-of-way line of South Avenue "A";
Thence in a northerly direction along said westerly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of West Locust Street;
Thence in an e~isterly direction along the southerly right-
of--way line of West and East Locust Street and extensions
thereof to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way
line of North Second Street, the Point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom those areas bounded by the southerly
right-of-way line of West Locust Street, the westerly right-
of-way line of North Market Court, the northerly right-of-
way line of West Chestnut Street, the easterly right-of-way
line of North Avenue "A"; and the southerly right-of-way line
of East Elm Street, the westerly right-of-way line of South
Second Avenue, the northernly right-of-way of East Pine Street,
the easterly right-of-way line of South Van Buren Court.
-4-
In terms of a Project Area Description based on land platted
to date, the following would properly reflect the area:
Original Town - Swans First Recorded Addition: Parcels 94
through 99 and 106, 107, 108
Swans Second Addition: Parcels 109, 110, 111, 120, 124 and
125
Nathan Jones First Addition: Parcels 1 through ll and 14
' through 30
Nathan Jones Second Addition: Parcels 35 through 60
Nathan Jones Third Addition: Parcels 1 through 5 and 7
through 10
Plus all Public Rights-of-Way including streets, alleys and
that area commonly known as Jones Park lying between the
easterly right-of -way line of North and South Second Avenue
and the westerly right-of-way line of North and South Avenue
"A"; the southerly right-of-way line of East and West Locust
Street and the southerly right-of -way line of East and West
Pine Street; and the entire right-of-way of South Main Street
and South White Court between East and West Pine Street and
East and ~•7est Walnut Street; and the entire right-of-way of
East and West Walnut Street between a point 181.5 feet more
or less west of the westerly right-of-way line of. South
Main Street and the easterly right-of -way line of South
White Court.
-5-
r
1
' ~IV. CURREI`IT LAND USE AND CONDITION
. Because the proposed Redevelopment Area consists essen-
tially of downtown Canton, it follows that the princi-
pal ,larid~ us.e. is of ~a commerc'ia1 retail/.office/banking
character, with incidental residential uses on upper
floors and on the periphery and some surrounding in-
dustrial activity. (See Map No. 1, Existing Land Uses)
A current analysis of the uses and conditions in the
Redevelopment Area (the results and the analysis method-
ology are appended in Exhibit 1) has disclosed the exis-
tence of numerous persistent blighting factors, such as:
A. Age
89~ of all the buildings in the area are in excess
of 35 years old, with many buildings having been
erected prior to the turn of the century. ,
B, Deterioration/Dilapidation
As a result of advanced age, a large portion. of
buildings in the Central Busin::ss District are
suffering from deterioration, many from outright
dilapidation. The City's study shows that of the
133 buildings in the Redevelo~~ment Area, 97 or
73°s evidence either major structural defects or
a number of minor nonstructural defects which are
not correctable by normal maintenance.
C.
Presence of Buildings Below Minimum Code Standards
In addition to the structural
buildings in the area violate
codes, particularly the health
trical, and fire codes. This
been, or in the future may be,
fires in buildings which lack
D..
Obsolescence
deficiencies, many
other prevailing City
and safety, elec-
latter failing has
manifested by the
sprinkler systems.
Numerous buildings are currer:':ly being put to uses
for which they were not intended at the time they
were built. For example, in many instances the
existing buildings have an extremely narroca, long,
"bowling alley" configuration which will not
properly accommodate modern merchandising techniques.
E,
Excessive vacancies
Due primarily to functional obsolescence, buildings
throughout the area are characterized by vacant,
unused upper floors. The condition stems from the
lack of market for the spaces due to high ceilings
and large poorly fitted windows--both factors leading
to extensive heating costs; radiant heating systems
-6-
' ~,' - which cannot readily accommodate contemporary
central air conditioning; absence of necessary-~
-convenient, primary and secondary access, with
elevators and/or escalators virtually nonexistent;
inadequate plumbing and restroom-facilities which,
in turn, make it impossible to subdivide the rattier
large spaces for more than one tenant.
F. Deleterious Land Use and Layout
Accompanying these building deficiencies is the
obsolete and unmanageable land platting and the
diversity of present ownership. Within the bound-
aries of the Redevelopment Area there exist some 125
separate parcel ownerships. •P•4any of these plats of
land are 25 feet or less in width and 150 feet or
more in depth. Few of the parcels owned or con-
trolled individually are adequate in size or shape
to accommodate new construction. This configuration
all but precludes contemporary development, which
demands a more proportionate width to depth ratio
and consequently better street frontage exposure.
The land assemblage required to accommodate new
development has proven to be beyond the capability
of the private sector.
G, Execessive Land Coverage/Lac}: of Community Planning/
Inadequate Public Facilities
The lack of open space available for off-street
public parking and merchandise loading and unloading
areas has led to congested streets and poor traffic
flow. Trucks delivering goods to retail establish-
ments are forced to park and unload in the middle
of the street, and potential- shoppers are discouraged
from parking and shopping by the lack of conveniently
located parking areas. In an attempt to meet the
vehicle storage-needs of the area, and without past
benefit of a comprehensive redevelopment plan, the
City ha:. purchased several parcels of land and des-
ignated them as parking lots. Unfortunately these
purchases were made on the basis of available vacant
land regardless of location, and consequently do not
provide adequate service.
The detailed analysis referenced above included exterior
~,nspections and recording of observations for all buildings
within the designated area. In addition, interior inspec-
tions and recording of observations were conducted on 32 of
the buildings. All inspections were conducted either by
registered architects or by experienced persons under the
d~.rect supervision of a registered architect. The inspec-
tions and subsequent analysis of recorded observations
confirm the fact that the Central Business District is a
"commercial blight area" and as a whole has not been subject
..~ ..
' ~ to growth and development into a contemporary retail
shopping area through investment by private f=:~terprise, f
The City has determined that significant private redevel-
opment of the Central Business District would not rea - j
~sonably be anticipated to occur without the benefit of
public action related to the adoption of a Ca~ercial `'
Redevelopment Plan providing for improvement f~f municipal
off -street parking facilities, assemblage of suitable
redevelopment sates and buildings, ana the construction
_ of certain public works improvements.
_g_
V. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A. Analysis and Projection of the Steps Necessary for
the Elimination or Rehabilitation of the Commercial
Blight Area and the Protection of Adjacent Areas
1. Redevelopment Project
In order that the Program Objectives enumerated
above might be more readily achieved, redevelop-
ment of the proposed Commercial Blight Area will
be stimulated by the expenditure of public funds
in accordance with this Redevelopment Plan. As
adequate funds become available the City will
1) pending execution of redevelopment agreements,
assemble land for sale to private developers and
finance the construction of commercial buildings,-
2) assemble land and construct off-street parking
lots, 3) initiate public works improvements includ-
ing street paving, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping,
pedestrian circulation amenities, underground
utilities and lighting.
More specifically, the following public action will
be initiated in respect to the following blocks as
referenced on Map No. 2:
1) Block 19 - Certain real estate will be acquired
and disposed of for private development.
2} Block 20 - A municipal parking lot with accom-
panying pedestrian access facilities to Jones
Park will be constructed. Multi-tenant com-
mercial buildings will•be constructed and leased
to retail and other commercial users.
3) Block 21 - Certain real estate will be acquired,
certain public rights-of-way vacated, and a
municipal parking lot constructed.
4) Blc,ck 30 - Certain real estate will be acquired,
certain public rights-of-way vacated, and a
municipal parking lot constructed.
5) Block 31 - Certain real estate will be acquired,
certain public rights-of -way vacated, land dis-
posed of in part for private development with.
the remainder retained for the construction of
a municipal parking lot.
6) Block 32 - Certain real estate will be acquired,
certain public rights-of -way vacated, land dis-
posed of in part for private development with
the remainder retained for the construction of
a municipal parking lot.
-9-
7) Block 37 - Certain real estate will be ac-
quired and disposed of for private develop-
ment.
8) Block 38 - Certain real estate will be ac-
quired, certain public rights-of=way vacated,
land disposed of in part for private develop-
ment with the remainder retained for the con-
struction of a municipal parking lot.
9) Block 39 - Certain real estate will be ac-
quired, certain public rights-of -way vacated,
land disposed of in part for private develop-
ment with the remainder ret<~ined for the con-
struction of a municipal parking lot.
10) Block 40 - Certain real estate will be ac-
quired and disposed of in part for private
development, with the remainder retained for
the construction of a municipal parking lot
and street right-of-way.
11) Block 56 - Certain real e:~tate will be ac-
quired and disposed of in part for private
development with the remainder retained for
the construction of a municipal parking lot.
12} Block 57 - Certain real estate will be ac-
quired and disposed of for private development.
It should be noted that the Redevelopment Area is
adequately served by municipally owned water and
sewer systems. With minor modifications related
primarily to location, it is assumed that the
present facilities will adequately serve the needs
of future development. (See Map No. 3, Existing
Utilities)
The foregoing steps will protect the adjacent areas
from deterioration and blight.
2. Redevelopment Project Coats
Current estimates of maximum public sector Redevelop-
ment costs for the implementation of a comprehensive
Central Business District redevelopment program place .
the long-range commitment at approximately $7.7 million.
Redevelopment costs mean and include the sum total or
all reasonable or necessary costs incurred or estim-
ated to be incurred in the implementation of the Com-
mercial Redevelopment Plan and projects. Such costs
include incidental costs and without limitation the
following costs incurred or to be incurred: land
assemblage, construction of public works or improve-
ments, financing costs, and costs of studies, surveys,
plans and specifications, and professional services
-lo-
including, but not limitF•d to, architectural w
. engineering, legal, mark~•ting, financial,
planning and special ser•~ices: `~
This total cost is a com~~osit of $0.9 million for
street and pedestrian circulation improvement,
$2.5 million for acquisition and construction of
off-street parking lots, and a gross cost of
$3.8 million for land assemblage and site
preparation for private development and $0.5
million for supporting services. (See Exhibit No.
2, 3 & 4) These costs are estimates and are based
on the following current value and costs assump-
tions: 1) The assessed value. of real estate within
the Project Area represents approximately 33.50
of the Fair Market Value. 2) The cost of demol-
ishing the buildings and preparing the sites for
development is approximately $0.09 per cubic foot
of building area. 3) The cost of constructing
off-street parking lot and amenities is approxim-
ately $1.60 per square foot. 4) The cost of im-
proving the streets is approximately $60.00 per
lineal foot. 5) Normal design, legal and appraisal
fees are paid. A further qualification of this
total expense would be that all costs use a base
year of 1977 and, depending on when the work is
initiated, a 6o per year compounded inflationary
factor should be assumed. (A 5 year fund commit-
ment would therefore increase the total project
cost to approximately $1.0 million). The City may
also issue revenue obligations to finance land ac-
quisition and commercial buildings. The City shall
issue approximately $1.7 million dollars to be de-
rived from revenue bonds to finance commercial
buildings in Block 20 and adjacent areas.
3. Sources of Funds to Pay Redevelopment Project
Costs
While redevelopment caused by the expenditures enum-
erated in Exhibits No. 2, 3 & 4 will result in a sub-
stantial increase in assessed value of real property
within the area, the costs to the Municipality cannot
be underwritten solely by the proceeds from Tax In-
crement revenue obligations. It is the intent of
the City of Canton to expend all Tax Increment funds
available to retire a Tax Increment obligation of up
to $2.4 million; the City will incur additional Tax
Increment obligations to the extent that .they may be
retired through the use of 90a of additional yearly
Tax Increment revenues. Approximately $l.? million
will be derived from commercial redevelopment bonds ~.
for the project pertaining to Block 20 and adjacent
areas. Additional com;nercial redevelopment revenue
bonds may be issued from time to time for other
redevel~~pment projects. The balance required to
-11-
to complete the Redevelopment Program may be derived
from a number of other sources among which are State
and Federal Grants, Local Special Service Districts,
Tax Revenue, Land Sale proceeds, General Revenue
Sharing, Special Assessments and Motor Fuel Tax
rebates.
4. Nature and Term of Overall Obligations
Without excluding other methods of Municipal fin-
ancing, the principal source of funding will be Tax
Increment Revenue obligations, for a term not to
exceed 20 years nor an annual interest rate in ex-
cess of 8 percent.
Another source of funding will be commercial re- -
development revenue bonds, issued pursuant to•this
Plan. Said bonds shall be for a term not to ex-
ceed 40 years nor an annual interest rate in excess
of the then current legally permissible maximum rate.
B. Initial Phase of the Redevelopment Project
1. Redevelopment Project
Given the magnitude of the contemplated undertaking,
it must be presumed that the public participation
will occur in stages as funds become available.
The initial phase of the Redevelopment Project will
be the acquisition of land in portions of Blocks
20, 32, 38, 39 and 56, the demolition of existing
buildings and the construction of parking lot
improvements. As a result of Redevelopment Pro-
ject activities there will be created, in addi-
tion to the provision of land for municipal park-
ing, a 17,500 square foot private redevelopment parcel
in Block 56. Commercial buildings of approximately
65,900 square feet will be constructed in Block 20 and
adjacent areas .
2. Initial Phase ~::edevelopment
The initial phase of the Redevelopment Project
will require the expenditure of approximately
$2.920 million. These expenditures will be the
total required to acquire sites, construct com-
mercial buildings, demolish buildings, construct
parking lot improvements and pay financing costs
and special services and pertain to Blocks 20, 32,
38, 39 and 56 (Exhibit 2).
-12-
3. Initial Phase - Revenue Sources
Contingent on the adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan and City commitment to the initial Redevelop-
ment Phase, three major private developments are
to occur within the designated Redevelopment Area;
Fulton Square, a proposed retail shopping complex
to be constructed in Block 20; the expansion of
the Coleman Clinic in Block 56; and the construc-
tion of a retail outlet, also in Block 56.
4. Nature and Term of Initial Phase Obligations
Without excluding other methods of Municipal fin-
ancing, the principal source of funding will be
Tax Increment Revenue obligations, issued pursu-
ant to this Plan, for a term not to exceed 20 years
nor an annual interest rate in excess of 8 percent.
Another source of funding will be commercial
redevelopment revenue bonds issued pursuant to this
Plan. Said bonds shall be for a term not to exceed
40 years nor an annual interest rate in excess of
the then current legally permissible maximum rate.
C. This Plan shall be administered by the corporate
authorities of the City of Canton and officials
of the City of Canton designated by the corporate
authorities.
i
N
-13-
` •. ~ to complete the Redevelopment Program may r~^ derived
from a number of other sources among which ire State
. ~ and Federal Grants, Local Special Service Blstricts,
Tax Revenue, Land Sale proceeds, General Re-;enue
Sharing, Special Assessments and Motor Fuel Tax
• rebates.
4, Nature and Term of Overall Obligation s
Without excluding other methods of Municipal fin-
ancing, the principal source of funding will be Tax
Increment Revenue obligations, for a term nit to
exceed 2.0 years nor an annual interest rate in ex-
cess of 8 percent. The municipality may ire addi-
tion to obligations secured by the special tax al-
location fund pledge for a period rot greater than
the term of the obligations towards payment of such
obligations any part of any combination of the
following: (a) net revenues of all or part of any
redevelopment project; (b) taxes levied and col-
lected on any or all property in the municipality;
(c) the full faith and credit of the municipality;
(d) a mortgage on part or all of the redevelopment
project; or (e) any other taxes or anticipated re-
ceipts that the municipality may lawfully pledge.
~f such obligations are secured by the full faith
and credit of the municipality, the ordinance auth-
orizing the levy may provide for taxable property
~.n the City sufficient to pay the principal and in-
terest on the obligations as they mature. Such
levy may be in addition to and exclusive of the
maxi;num of all other taxes authorized to be levied
by tie municipality, which levy, however, shall be
abated to the extent that monies from other sources
are available for payment of the obligations and
the municipal~.ty certifies the amount of said monies
available to the county clerk.
Another source of funding will be commercial re-
development revenue bonds, issued pursuant to this
Plan. Said bonds shall be for a term not to ex-
Geed 40 years nor an annual inte~:est rate in excess
of tl~e.then current legally permissible maximum rate.
B. Initial Phase of the Redevelopment Project
1, Redevelopment Project
Given the magnitude of the contemplated undertaking,
it must be presumed that the public participation
will occur in stages as funds become available.
The initial phase of the Redevelopment Project will
be -the acquisition of land in portions of Blocks
20, 32, 38, 39 and 56, the demolition of existing
buildings and the construction of. parking lot
-12-
improvements. As a result of Redevelopment Pro-
ject activities there will be created, in addi-
tion to the provision of land for municipal park-
ing, a 17,500 square foot private redevelopment .
parcel in Block 56. Commercial buildings of ap-
proximately 65,900 square feet will be constructed
in Block 20 and adjacent areas.
2. Initial Phase Redevelopment
The initial phase of the Redevelopment Project
will require the expenditure of approximately
$2.920 million. These expenditures will be the
total required to acquire sites, construct com-
mercial buildings, demolish buildings, construct
parking lot improvements and pay financing costs
and special services and pertain to Blocks 20, 32,
38, 39 and 56 (Exhibit 2).
3. Initial Phase - Revenue Sources
Contigent on the adoption of this Redevelopment
Plan and City commitment to the initial Redevelop-
ment Phase, three major private developments are
to occur within the designated Redevelopment Area;
Fulton Square, a proposed retail shopping complex
to be constructed in Black 20; the expansion of
the Coleman Clinic in Block 56; and the construc-
tion of a retail outlet, also in Block 56.
4. Nature and Term of Initial Phase Obligations
Without excluding other methods of runicipal fin-
ancing, the principal source of funding wi•11 be
' Tax Increment Revenue obligations, issued pursu-
ant to this Plan, for a term not to exceed 20 years
nor an annual interest rate in excess of 8 percent.
The municipality may in addition to obligations
secured by the special tax allocation fund pledge
for a period not greater than the term of the ob-
ligations towards payment of such obligations any
part of any combination of the following: (a) net
revenuE: ~ of all or part of any redevelopment pro-
ject; (:~) taxes levied and collected on any or all
property in the municipality; (c) the full faith
and credit of the municipality; (d) a mortgage on
' part or all of the redevelopment project; or (e)
any other taxes or anticipated receipts that the
• municipality may lawfully pledge. If such obliga-
bons are secured by the full faith and credit of
' the municipality, the ordinance authorizing the
Levy may provide for taxable property in the City
sufficient to pay the principal and interest on
the obligations as they mature. Such levy may be
in addition to and exclusive of the maximum of
' all other taxes authorized to be levied by the
municipality, which levy, however, shall be abated
to the extent that monies from other sources are
available for payment of the obligations and the
municipality certifies the amount of said monies
' availabl_ to the county clerk.
-13-
Another source of funding will be commercial
x'edevelopment revenue bonds issued pursuant to this
Plan. Said bonds shall be for a term not to exceed
40 years nor an annual interest rate in excess of
the then current legally permissible maximum rate.
C. This Plan shall be administered by the corporate
authorities of the City of Canton and officials
of the City of Canton designated by the corporate
authorities.
-14-
EXHIBIT 1
i
Criteria Developed and Used in Classifying Buildings as Sound, Deficient or
Dilapidated ~ ~
Classification of Building Conditions
The buildings in the projec~~ area were classified as dilapidated, deteriorated
or sound according to data obtained from surveys of each exterior and selected
interiors. Based on the following analysis, of the 133 total buildings inspected,
22 or 17% were found to be dilapidated and 75 or 57% deteriorated. .
The distribution of conditions by block is as follows:
Total No. No. over
Block of Buildings 35 years No. Sound No. Deteriorated No. Dilapidated
19 7 7 (100%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 0 '(0%)
20 3 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%)
21 12 ~ 9 (750) 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%)
30 18 16 (89%) 3 (17%) 11 (61%) 4 (22%)
31 17 16 (94%) 2 (12%) 10 (59%) 5 (290)
32 17 15 ($8%) 7 (41%) 7 (41%) 3 (18%)
37 18 16 (89%) 6 (330) 8 (47%) 4 (24%)
{3 15 14 (93%) 1 (07%) 9 (60%) 5 (33°a)
39 9 9 (100%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%} 1 (11%)
40 6 6 (100%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%)
56 6 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
57 5 4 (80%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 f0~)
Total 133 119 (89%) 36 (27%) 75 (56%) _ 22 (17'x)
The analysis consists of assigning penalty points to each building defect. The
possible maximum number of points a defect would warrant was weighted according
to the structural importance of the component involved, in relation to the
other building components.
The numerical frequency of building defects is not in itself a true indication
of condition. For example, building X may possess only three defects, and
building Y may possess 11 defects; yet, the consequence of the three defects
possessed by building X may ~~e much more severe than the 11 defects possessed
icy building Y. For this reason, the method was developed to measure more
accurately the defects found in a structure, and to give a truer indicatio:~
of their effect on the structure condition.
The building components considered and their corresponding maximum possible
number of penalty points are as follows:
Exterior Secondary Building Components
Fire Escapes broken
rusted or rotted
missing materials
Possible Penalty Points
1
Chimmey missing materials
leaning (out-of-plumb)
open join~.s
1
.~xteri•or Sccondary fiu1l<ting Components Possible Penalty Points
• ~'a~Cia b Eaves ~ rusted or rotted ~ Z
• " missing materials r
' ~ spl i t-broken
~~prefront Panels -
broken glass or skin panels
4
• broken
missing materials
loose
. ult~dpws ~ rotted sash k ~ ~ _ -
rotted frames
broken glass "
Storefront Trim broken or missing trim t
rusted or corroded
Gutters b Downspouts rusted ~ 2
. missing materia l
Canopies - ~ rotted ~ ~ 2
~. sagging
damaged
.• missing material
Roofing:~ ~ weathered ~ 2
~l oose
rotted, broken
• torn, buckled
Parapets ~ ~ missing • 2 -
disintegrated masonry
out-of-plumb ~ "
broken coping
_ interior Secondary BuiTdirtg
~~ T Components -
Basement Floor cracked 2
'., cracked-heaved
Floors worn, bulged ~ 4
split, rotted
wood floor obsolete ~.
We11 Surfaces ~ cracked k
missing material
cracked ~.
• loose, rotted
Ceiling Surfaces cracked 4
loose
missing materials .
rotted
Doors warped 1
out-of-plumb
broken
Subtotal Points 36
Secondary Components
i
Exterior Primary Structural Components
Possible
Penalty Points
Fczue-dat ions cracked 40
settled _ _
- bulged
• Vertical fault -
• efflorescence ~ -
- loose material -
- open joints -
- Wails cracks - 24
- Verticai fault -
•. missing materials - -
- disintegrated •
- - - open joints - -
• - ~ Potted - -
-• - sagged
sagged lintels
- Structural Alignment
- ~bui~ed - •• 16
- settled •
• - •- out-of-plumb ~ -
Roof Structure sagged rafters or joists- 16
' sagged ridges - •
Plumbing - - inoperable fixtures 4
- missing fixtures ~ -
- Eiectrical System • defective wiring or outlets 10
- inadequate number of outlets
inadequate service
- beating ~ need repair a 1 pt. 6
inoperable e 3 pts. •
inadequate venting
(space heaters) -
- inadequate boiler 2 pts:
room enclosure -
Interior Primary Structural Components
Columns settled
broken-split
. rotted
inadequate footing
Joists deflected-undersize
. inadequate bearing
rotted
split, broken, cut
Reams ~ deflected
• rotted
split, broken, cut
Subtota 1 ~•
TOTAL MAX i MUM POSS i 8LE Nli14BER ~OF PENALTY PQI NTS
.Possible Penalty Points ~
tb
16
• 16
Points 164
Points 2D0
As can be noted from the above schedule, 18 percent of the maximum number of pos-
sible penalty points were assigned to the secondary or non-structural building
components. Eighty-two percent of the maximum number of possible penalty points
were assigned to the primary or structural elements of a building. The structural
elements ~rere weighted more heavily than the nonstructural components, because: 1)
the structural elements are more critical to the adequacy of .a building, and 2) the
condition of the structural system is .more critical~to the safety of a building's
occupants.
An adjustment in the distribution of penalty points was made in order to allow for
buildings more than one story in height. For example, o:e story in a three story
building cannot be assigned the same amount of points for that one story defect, as
a one story building with an identical defect. Story height was considered in the
distribution~of penalty points involving both the interior primary structural and
nonstructural components. The maximum number of possible penalty points•assigned
to an item was held constant, and distributed according to the number of stories a
building had (i.e., the penalty points of an item ~•lere divided by the number of
stories). Thus, for example, the interior ceiling surfaces of a•four story building'
would be assigned one penalty point per story or a total of four penalty points for
that entire component. (See list above.) •
Theoretically, the total maximum possible number of penalty points that could be
ossfgned to a building if every component noted on the survey form were to exist
WOUId be 200 points. However, many buildings surveyed did not possess all of the
eOPlsidered items; and/or such items were not visible. Therefore, a record e•:as
mAintained of such non-occurence, and the number of points involved were substract-
Qd from the theoretical total of 200 points.
The actual number of penalty points assign~~ to an item was based on the finding _
of the surveyors. The surveyors noted the ^vidence of deficiency of an item as
a Category 1, Category 2., Category 3, or Category 4 condition. The degree of
deficiency, indicated by Each category and the amount of points each category
would warrant are as follows:. '
Categ°ry
t .
2
3
Amount of Penalty
Points Assigned to.
Percent of Deficiency Defect
o- 5~
5-30%
30-b0.°G 50~ of the possible
maximum number of penalty
points assigned to the
item
60-100; t00~ of the possible
. 'maximum number of pen-
alty points assigned to
_' the i tem
• No penalty .
25$ of the possible
maximum number of
penalty points assigned
to the item
The percentage penalty point rating of a structure w~is determined by dividing
the total possible penalty points (after correction For nonzpplicable items and
• items not visible} into the total actual penalty points assigned and multiplying
by 100; this figure indicated the degree of deficiency and :determined the classi-
fication.
Dilapidated Structures .
A dilapidated structure prc~rides inadequate shelter or protection against the ele-
ments, may endanger the saf~:ty of the occupants or requires ex.tensive~rajor rebuild-
ing. Dilapidated buildings in generai are those that have deteriorated to a state
which exceeds the practica] limits beyond which a prudent oamer or buyer would go in
attempting repairs or renovation. A~building was considered dilapidated if it
scored in excess of 31 percent in the penalty point rating.
Structures which were considered as borderline cases, that is, structures 4rhose
penalty point ratings were slightly above or below 31 percent were carefully con-
sidered in the light of the surveyor's comments and, in fact, inspected on the in-
terior before being assigned a classification. The majority of these structures
were found to be, in fact, dilapidated. The remaining structures were found to be
deteriorating, and were r.eciassified accordingly.
Deteriorating Structures
A deteriorating structure is one which requires more repair than would be provided
in the course of normal maintenance. A building was a~ns:idered deteriorating if it~
scored 6.O; to 30.9y in the penalty point rating. The survey was structured so that
any structure with a total deficiency of 29~ or more, definitely contained defects
in the structural system, such as faults in bearing walls, settled foundation, de-
teriorated beams, etc.
•. Sound Structure with Minor or No Qefects
Sound structures are weathertight and structurally sound. They may have minor de-
ficiencies which have occurred as a result of deferred maintenance, age, o.r over-.
use, and are correctable by normal maintenance, redecorating or a~modera~te amount
of repair work. A building was considered sound if it .scored 0 to 5.9~ in the
penalty point rating.
Obsolete rlonresidentiaT Buildings
Obsolete nonresidential :structures are t-hose ~rhose original design function and
existing physical plant are no longer relevant to contemporary commercial usage.
Such obsolete buildings may be characterized by long, narrow commercial floor.
space due to immovable load-bearing partitions, etc.; excessively high ceilings;
long stair runs to upper floors; lack of, .or obsolete elevators; radiant heating
systems that preclude installation of central air cc~ditioning; single pane -
loose fitting windows; absence of adequate service access; extremely small floor
areas; inadequate structural design and inappropriate types of construction for
contemporary occupancy. Buildings afflicted by such obsolescent characteristics
ate less marketable and rentable than other modern buildings and as a result may
be occupied by marginal tenants and/or be partially or completely abandoned. The
presence of such obsolete buildings leads to neglect, unsightly appearance and in
general creates a nuisance which detracts fron the desirability of adjacent prop-
erty and constitutes a blighting influence on surrounding, properties. A building
was considered a blighting influence when the extent anc quality of .such. obsoles-
cent characteristics limited the long term usefulness. an~i life .expectancy of the
property to such an extent as to require the clearance of the .structure to remove
its influence on adjacent properties. .
EXHIBIT NO. 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Block and
parr~ol
Land Acquisition
.(Assessed Value)
Site Preparation
(Building Volume)
Site Improvements
(Land Area}
TOTAL ESTIItiiATED COST FOR BLOCK 20 b1WICIPAL PARKIPdG LOT-PHASE ONE $250, U00
21-07 $ 46,460 210,400 32,924
21-08 - - - 2.,..840. ~ _ _. _ - -0-- 3,67
21-09 6,530 -0- 7,101 _
Misc. 10,200
Subtotal 55,830/ 210,400 53,901
Factor 0.335 X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal $166,657 18,936 86,241 -
Cont./Fees 16,666 946 8,624
Total $183,323 $ 19,882 $ 94,866
TOTAL ESTIrL~1TED COST FOR BLOCK 21 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT-PHASE ONE $298,091
(Alternate}
21-04 8,090 18,900 8,472
21--05 8, 480 25, 200 ~ 8, 265
21-06 10,380 75,600 8,265
1~2isc. ~ 4,554
Subtotal $ 26,940/ 119,700 29,556
Factor .335 ~ X0.09 -X1.60
Subtotals- -~ $ 80,418 10,773 47,290
Cont./Fees -~ 8,042 540 4,730
Total $ 88,460 $ 11,313 $ 52,020
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS O'~ BLOCK 21 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT-PHASE ONE $1.~1., 793
30-05 $ 15,460 28,800 15,859
30-06 -0- -0- 15,859
30-10 6,210 -0- 5,581
rti.sc. 2,800
Subtotal $ 21,670/ 28,800 40,099 -
Factor 1.335 X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal 64,686 2,592 64,158
Cont./Fees 6,468 130 6,416
Total 71,154 $ 2,722" $ .70,574
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 30 MUNICIPAL LOT-P~IASE OcJE $144,450
' (Alternate}
EXHIBIT N0. 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Block and Land Acquisition
Parcel ,(Assessed Value)
Site Preparation Site Improvements
(Building Volume) (Land Area).
20-01 -0- 290,400 88,506
20-02 16,070 89,100 3,185
Subtotal 16,070 379,500 91,691
Factor 0.335 ~ X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal 47,970 34,155 146,705
Cont./Fees 4,800 1,700 14,670
Total $ 52,770 $ 35,855 $ 161,375
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 20 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT-PHASE ONE $250,000
21-07 $ 46,460 210,400 32,.924
21-08 2,840 -0- 3,676
21-09 6,530 -0- 7,101
Misc. 10,200
Subtotal 55,830/ 210,400 53,901
Factor 0.335 X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal $166,657 18,936 86,242
Cont./Fees 16,666 946 8,624
Total $183,323 x,882 $ 94,866
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 21 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT-PHASE ONE $298,091
(Alternate)
21-04 8,090 18,900 8,472
21-05 8,480 25,200 8,265
21-06 10,380 75,600 8,265
Misc. ~ ~ 4,554
Subtotal $ 26,940/ 119,700 29,556
Factor .335 X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal $ 80,418 10,773 47,290
Cont./Fees. 8,042 540 4,730
Total $ 88,460 11,313 $ 52,020
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS Off' BLOCK 21 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT-PHASE ONE $1.1,793
30-05 $ 15,460 28,800 15,859
30-06 -0- -0- 15,859
30-10 6,210 -0- 5,581
Misc. 2,800
Subtotal 21,670/ 28,800 40,099
Factor ~ 1.335. X0.09 X1.60
Subtotal 64,686 2,592 64,158
Cont./Fees 6,468 130 6,416
Total 71,154 $ 2,722 $ 70,574
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 30 MUNICIPAL LOT-PHASE ONE $144,450
(Alternate)
,.
EXHIBIT N0. 2
.
ESTIMATED PROJECT -COSTS - ~'' - .
Block and Lond Acquisition Site Preparation Site Improvements
Parcel Assessed Value) (Building Volumel ~ Land Area)
30-07 $ 15,S4o 150,880 3,573
30-08 15,240 ~ 131.546 5,.502
30-09 7,080 43,648 1,815 .
Subtota 1 37, 0/ 32•b, 07T' - ~ 10, 90
Factor 0.335 X 0.09 ~~
~ X 1.60
Subtotal 113,015 •.29,3 % 17;T2T+
Cont../Fees 11,302 1,467 1,742 .
Total ~ I2T,317 $ 30-~i-jT+ 19,1
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOi: BLOCK 30 MUNICIPAL.PARKING~LOT - PHASE.TWO $174,297
30-11 $ 12,230 ~ 30,720 ~ - '11,797.
30-12 29,610 ~ 168,480 20,.926
30-13 ~ 3,200 -0- - ~ ~ 9,869
30-14 ~ 2,760 . :2,600 4,118
. 3a-i5 - 5,470 :2,000 4,118 .
Misc. ~ 5,712
. Subtota l ~ ~1~,2~~ ~ 223,00 -
• ~, 5~i0
. ~ Factor 0.335 0.09
~
-X ~ ~X 1.60
Subtota 1 - ~ 15~ .
20,1 2 ~ ~ 90-~
Cont./Fees 15,90] 1,000 - 9,500
Total. ~ 174,916 ~ ~-21~ •99,9
•TOTAL ESTIMATE D COST FOR BLOCK 30 MUN.tClPAL PARKING LOT - PHASE THREE $296,U22
31-02 thru 12 -0- -0- - X2,200
Misc. ~ ~ ~ . -
Subtotal ~ ~ - 22,200
Factor - X.1.60
-
Subtotal - - -
35,520
Cont./Fees;
Total
.. ~ 3,552
~ 39,072
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 31 MUNICIPAL PARKiIdG LOT -PHASE TWO $ 39,072
32-02 15,970 84,500 10,5:31
Subtotal 15,970/ x,500 10,5 1
Factor ~ ~ 0.335 X 0.09 X 1.60
Subtotal 7, 72 700 ~ - 1,900
Cont./Fees 4,767 380 1,690
Total ~~2, 39~ ~ 7,9 0 ~ ,590
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 32 MUNICIPAL PARKIPtG LOj - PHASE ONE $ 79.009
32- East of Alley - Parking Lot improvements only 6Q X 310 = 18,600 X $1.60=
• $ 29,760 +
3,000
32.7 0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BI.~CK 32 MUNICIPAL PARt'.IDtG LOT - PHASE TWO $ 32,760
EXHIBIT NO. 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Block and Land Acquisition Site Preparation Site Improvements
Parcel (Assessed Value) (Building Volume) (Land Area) _
38-05 $ -0- -0- 1,386
38-06 8,160 37,440 1,386
38-07 15,570 74,880 3,135
38-08 16,120 73,440 2,970
38-09 7,200 37,440 1,386
38-10 6,560 31,200 1,609
38-11 8,000 (1) 52,800 1,691
38-12 7,940 56,320 1,939
38-13 15,850 154,800 3,919
38-14 15,320 91,840 6,806
38-15 5,270 29,520 1,650
38-16 ?,250 49,200 1,650
38-17 -0- -0- 9,661
Misc. 1,328
Misc. ~ 2,100
Misc. 1,300
Misc. 5,750
Subtotal $ 113,240/ 688,880 49,666
Factor .335 X0.09 X0.160
Subtotal $ 338,030 $ 61,999 79,466
Cont./Fees 33,803 3,100 7,947
Total $ 371,833 $ 65,099 $ 87,413
(1) Estimate
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOIL BLOCK 38 MUNICIPAL LOT - PHASE ONE $524,345
~, EXHIBIT N0. 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Block and Land Acquisition Site Preparation ' ~. Site Improvements
_ Parcel ~ ( ssessed Value __{8uildinct Volume) _ _ _ {Lund Areal
39-09 $ 21,390 216,000 13,612
• Misc.
Subtotal ~ 21,390/ 21 ,000' j3~,~j2'
Factor 0.335 X 0.09 X 1.60
Subtotal ~ 3, 50' ~
~ ~ 19, 0 2 1,779 '
. Cont./Fees 6,385 972 - 2,178
Total ~ ~70,235~ ~ ~ 20;12 ~. 23,957
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 39 MUNICIPAL PARKiNG.I.OT'- PHASE ONE $114,604
. 39-07 ~ 10,320 _ 72,800 2,855-
. 39-08 _ 21,510 4 800
~ t7,44o
Misc. •• ~ 4,875
. Subtotal 3%830/ ~ ~ ~ 77,00 ~ 25,170
Factor 0.335 X 0,09 X 1.60
Subtotal ~ X99,015 ~~
~ . -~,9~+ p,272 •
• Cont./Fees . .9.502 ~. 349 ~ 4,027
Total 10 ,517 ~ 7,333. .f,2g9
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 3g MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT - PHASE TWO $156,149
56-01 $ 14,460 14,ooe' 6,615
56-02 8,790 ~ 11,960 3,750 .
56-03. 29, 820 ~ ' 137 ~ 700 ~ 21, 326 .
56-04 ~ 5,870 . -o- 1,815
. 5b-o8 :2,930 -o- ~ 3919
MTsc. (17,500)
Subtota 1 "~T, $7~~ `~'rb~b3(s ~
Factor 0.335 ~ X 0.09 X 1.60
Subtotal ~ 184,686
~
14 735
3
8
Cont./Fees
Total 18 468
203,154 ~
~ j5,465 '• -
3
88 _ . •
35,Q68
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOP. BLOCK 56 MUN1ClPAL PAP.KiNG LOT- $253,687
PHASE ONE
56-05 $ 2,920 18,000 - 1,436
56-06 3,t4o 3,960 1,579
Subtotal
~
c ~,0~/ X21- 9~'0 ~ ~ _ 3,015
. a
tor 0.335 X 0.09 ~ X 1.b0
• Subtotal ~ 1$,090 1,97T ~~t,$-2r+
Cont./Fees 1,808 ~ 100 482
Total ~ 19,99 2,07 5,30
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR BLOCK 56 MUNICIPAL PARKING !OT - PHASE TWO $ 27,251
Note:~ The Project phasing noted above, as well as specific activities within, is dependent
upon the City obtaining adequate finan cial .resources. To the extent such. resources are not avaii••
able the City reserves the right to delete or substitute alternaEe act ivities.
E~IIIBIT NO. 3
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS - LAND ASSEMBLAGE
Block and
Parcel
19-2
19-3
19--4
19-5
19-6
197
19-8
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
31-2
31-3
31-4
31-5
31-6
31-7
31-8
31-9
31-10
3111
31-12
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
32-1
32-8
32-9
32-10
32--11
32-12
32-13 -
32-14
32-15
32-16
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
Land Acquisition
(Assessed Value)
$ 20,460
15,730
20,230
7,170
--0-
30,160
15,680
109,430/
0.335
X326,657
32,666
~- 359,323
$ 14,640
32,890
37,610
21,420
24,710
15,060
12,100
13,960
16,990
15,110
37,550
$ 242,040/
0.335
722,507
72,251
$ 794,758
$ 21,610
15,100
15,980
14,700
14,330
14,650
23,490
11,450
13,860
13,850
162,250
0,335
$ 484,328
48,433
~-532, 761
168,000
44,800
84,000
6,480
83,160
3?.2, 560
100,832
809,832
x $0.09
$ 72,885
3,644
76,529
38,280
223,560
359,280
330.000
108,000
47,600
47,600
57,200
57,375
56,700
308,340
1,633,935
x $0.09
~- 147, 054
7,353
$ 154,407
230,400
56,000
157,500
90,000
43,740
81,000
140,400
32,400
51,520
138,240
1,021,200
x $0.09
91,908
4,595
96,503
Site Preparation
(.Building Volume)
EXHIBIT NO. 3
ESTIMATED ~~ROJECT COS7.'S - LAND
Block and Land Acquis`tion Site Prep~:iration
Parcel {Assessed 'lalue) (Buildi_n~Volume)
37-1
37-2
37-3
37-4
37-5
37-6
37-9
37-10
37-11
37-12
37-13
37-14
M15C.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
$ 27,740
10,380
15,800
22,840
5,470
14,260
47,760
7,580
16,740
17,700
10,240
25,220
$ 218,180
0.335
$ 651,283
65,128
$ 716,411
83,200
41,000
78,000
los,ooo
12,000
100,800
200,70U
128,000
106,400
57,600
43,200
219,200
1,178,.100
x $0.09
$ 106,029
5,301
$ 111,330
38-1
38-2
38-3
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
39-1
39-2
39-3
39-4
39-5
39-6
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
$ 13,480
16,710
23,610
$ 53,800/
0.335
$ 160,597
16,060
$ 176,657
$ 31,610
7,230
11,930
24,730
6,080
4,720
$ 86,300/
0.335
$ 257,612
25,761
$ 283,373
-0--
83,200
97,440
180,640
x $0 .09
$ 16,258
813
$ 17,071
198.400
36,000
36,000
72,000
28,600
8,400
379,400
x $0.09
$ 34,146
1,707
35,853
EXHIBIT NO. 3
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS - LAND
B).ock and
L -..-.-...1
4U-1
4p-2
40-3
40-4 .
40-5
40-6
40-7
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
57-20
57-21
Misc.
Subtotal
Factor
Subtotal
Cont./Fees
Total
Land Acquisition
(Assessed Value)
$ 10,030
2,600
9,120
25,710
16,010
15,370
-0-
$ 78,840
0.335
235,343
23,534
$ 258,877
$ 7,200
14,740
$ 21,940
0.335
$ 65,492
6,549
$ 72,041
Gross Land Acquisition Costs - $3,194,201
Gross Site Preparation Costs - $ 568,408
-0-
-0-
38,400
158,400
230,400
140,400
235,200
802,800
X$ 0.09
75,252
3,613
75,865
-0-
9,000
9,000
x $0.09
$ 810
40
~- 850
Note: The. Project Phasing noted above, as well as specific activities
within, is dependent upon the City obtaining adequate financial re-
sources. To the extent ::uch resources are not available the City
reserves the right to delete or substitute alternate activities.
Diu rre~araLic~n
(Building Volume)
--+ ~ _v to n N D
rt p 3 T 3 ~
D
~
~ ~
~ ~• 3 .
. ~ ~ D
A
~ r.. n"-'DN D
~ Do o
~ ,
s < . -,. < -,. ~
~
n A
~
~ 3 f0
lD ,,,,~. (D . ~ fD
~^ .y. ~ 3 O C C
'
y
-~
O
-r 7 .3
_ ..
_ O O
n.
~~.. -
'~ n D
D ^v _v
o~ D
. . rn = _ - ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0
3
N
Q. Q, o•
. ~ ~
- rn
_ N
' ~_
b~-
V
C
- r r ~
y
-~ >>
•
~
~ (11 W N W W W W W W r rn ---1
• O~ . ~ U7 ~O V 07 c7J q q G] O~ fJ rn rn
U1 "* 000000000 3 -i ~
N C7 rn ~rrr-rr-rrrr ~ D ~ -o
Z -n-n~~-~,T, -n-s,~ Ox
e ~ o ` _
. D C `'' -
• r .~ 3 --i n p7
D
tv _... cn ~ ~ ..r .~ a a
a N
~ r ~--i ~
--~
' ~ ~A- V V ~.i V. V V N N
' ~ D ~o . a~ v, t~~ N N N CJi (.7t O n ~ ~ O
.p, 01 10 G7 W W W g q
~ .
C!1 N P ?. 47 W W W LJ W c~ tD
. ^ H ~ O-
. ~ O ~ .
~
~ "'• 00t11~OU1U1iayOO O n rn
•A Q N tb O V V V V V V N CII Z
~
• cn crcncrooooo0 3 o N
0 0 0 0 O. O O O O ~ ~
•
• -r Ll,. N
. H
' ~
V 1 ~
W N V N N N N O~ C p
C
. O~ ~' WWO.NNNNWW tJ"
N
1 ~~
N
NOW.~wtW.7.wlWJwW Q
W ~ ~W-+ W W W WNN ~
V
' ~ ~o to tr ~ .t~..t>• ~ cn cn ~
;~
-
V
H V W O .A. A O O
X000000000
^r
•
6~
w WNgNN NN~O~O ~
' Oo V OD U O~ P O~ C1~ (n O .
• ~-+ O ---~ W W W W V V D
V U ~• V V V V g W
~-+ 0. A W W W W W W ,
S. AVE A
N. AYE A
ems-
.__w_..._~,
Vi M
f ~
~, ••°: ~ ` ~ e f ~ --- -- I z
~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ 1 N y ~
•''
S MAIN SL N. MAIN ST.
nl ~ ~ i.c..:3 { ~•
~ ~ y >A
}--'
~ ~ .. ,~ ~- N m ~ , m -- - m
~~ ~~~ ~ ~~V' v ~ ~ .
' m
m \ r~ ; N. WHITE CT. y
1 S. WWTE CT.-yi = ~ O
~~ _ _ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ y
i
S. FIRST AVE. N. FIRST AVE.
~~ ~
S. SECOND AVE.
J
- ' ~
Z
A
:_
~ A
7 O
Z
~»
~~
r
a
~ _ ~ ~.~
~as$
~ ~ N ~
goo
~a~
I W 9I
N. SECOND AVE.
I
o
.
o rn
X
co
3 w
~
~
1
~
z
1
d
3,
c
~'
°;
~
~
~
°'
0
N
~
4
~
r
~
v
rn
of
C'f
C
y
m
O
A
N
H
d
rn .n
V
° ®o
~ ~n
n~'rn~
Z~ ~ O
~ n~
- rnn
_o Z , r
'w
.~
~ I
~ ~_
m
r
O
n
c
N
ti
N
H
C
~ ~ ~ ~
' rn ~. ~
~ rn ~ ~ C7
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n f1'I ~
~~ ~ ~' ~ d r ~C ~
~~~ ~ ~ - n r'rn~z
j - ~ v
}~4 ~i~ ~ c=. ~"~nZ
-. ~ ~ ,~,~
z g ~ ~,• m ~„~„'
~o: __ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ - z
o r
N ~ _ Z N --~
w~ ~ -
u u u I~
• 1
~
. V V
~ M
,
- ~ i I ~ V OI -
1
_ _ I
1
: s
- _
a
•
1
G
a!
_ a s
t :s - _ _
1
__..-._ ...-.._
.._._.~ "Sf ~
.MAIN ST.
._.-"" ....-.... 3
.._
..
1 • I a 1
lone puk ~ , 1
I
I _
1
N. WHITE CT
rn
;
•
1
-- --- ..
-- . j ~
i
+
• :
I
• ~j
' 1
~
! a =a •+ ~ ~
j I
i 1
i l
• w
j ~ s ° • I ' I~ : I
_ ~
I 1 ~ • r ~ M t I • I j
• ! m n1 (~
~ : i = >t O
~ ~ v~ ® O
~• ~
;~
Es ~ N ~ ~ Z e: ~n
~e ~ ~ °~.
i C
{~: ~ ~, ~ Zo~oo
£ 4 ~ ~ ~ J ~ O
rn ~,
~~~ ~ ~ r
o ~
W 3 ,N
g m _
W v
NOTICE
Please take notice that pursuant to the provisions of the
Commercial Renewal and Redevelopment Areas Act of the State of Illinois,
Chapter 24, Section 11-74.2-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code,
the City of Canton has scheduled a public hearing on commercial blight.
The public hearing has been set for 6:30 P.M., August 24, 1978
at the Council Chambers, Canton City Hall, 210 East Chestnut Street,
Canton, Illinois.
The City of Canton is authorized by the Commercial Renewal and
Redevelopment Areas Act to determine whether or not any commercial
blight areas exist within the City, on the basis of an initial study
and survey for that purpose. The City is further authorized by said
Act to set forth the boundaries of any commercial blight areas found
to exist within the City as a result of the study and survey, and to set
forth the factors which make the area detrimental to the public health,
safety, morals and welfare. The City is further authorized by said Act
to submit a proposed redevelopment plan, for eliminating the blight areas
found to exist, at a public hearing on commercial blight.
As a result of the initial study and survey provided for by Resolu-
tion No. 771, the following area was found to be a commercial blight area
by the City Council on August 1, 1978:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly
right-of-way line of East Locust Street and the easterly
right-of-way line of North Second Avenue:
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Pine Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of-way line and extension thereof to its intersection with
the easterly right-of-way line of South White Court;
Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of East Walnut Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along the southerly right-
of-way line of East and West Walnut Street and extensions
thereof to a point 181.5 feet, more or less west of the
westerly right-of-way line of South Main Street;
Thence in a northerly direction along a line parallel to and
181.5 feet more or less west of the westerly right-of-way
line of South Main Street to its intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of West Pine Street;
Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly right-
of-way line to its intersection with the extended westerly
right-of-way line of South Avenue "A";
Thence. in a northerly direction along said westerly right-
of-way line and extensions thereof to its intersection with
the southerly right-of-way line of West Locust Street;
Thence in an easterly direction along the southerly right-
of-way line of West and East Locust Street and extensions
thereof to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way
line of North Second Avenue, the Point of beginning.
Exception therefrom those areas bounded by the southerly
right-of-way line of West Locust Street, the westerly right-
of-way line of North Market Court, the northerly right-of-
way line of West Chestnut Street, the easterly right-of-way
line of North Avenue "A"; and the southerly right-of-way line
of East Elm Street, the westerly right-of-way line of South
Second Avenue, the northernly right-of-way of East Pine Street,
the easterly right-of-way line of South Van Buren Court.
In terms of a Project Area Description based on land platted
to date, the following would properly reflect the area:
Original Town - Swans First Recorded Addition: Parcels 94
through 99 and 106, 107, 108
Swans Second Addition: Parcels 109, 110, 111, 120, 124 and
125
Nathan Jones First Addition: Parcels 1 through 11 and 14
through 30
Nathan Jones Second Addition: Parcels 35 through 60
Nathan Jones Third Addition: Parcels 1 through 5 and 7
through 10
Plus all Public Rights-of-Way including streets, alleys and
that area commonly known as Jones Park lying between the
easterly right-of-way line of North and South Second Avenue
and the westerly right-of-way line of North and South Avenue
"A"; the southerly right-of-way line of East and West Locust
Street and the southerly right-of-way line of East and West
Pine Street; and the entire right-of-way of South Main Street
and South White Court between East and West Pine Street and
East and West Walnut Street; and the entire right-of-way of
East and West Walnut Street between a point 181.5 feet more
or less west of the westerly right-of-way line of South
Main Street and the easterly right-of-way line of South
White Court.
The above described area was found to be a commercial blight area
because of the existence of the following factors within its boundaries
which are detrimental to public health, safety, morals and welfare:
..
,~ ~,,
Age
Deterioration and Dilapidation
Presence of Buildings Below Minimum Code Standards
Obsolescence
Excessive vacancies
Deleterious Land Use and Layout
Excessive Land Coverage and Lack of Community Planning
Inadequate Public Facilities
This public hearing is called in order for the City Council to
introduce the testimony and evidence that entered into its decision to
declare the above-described area as a commercial blight area, hear other
testimony on the issue of blight, and to enter into the record all pro-
posed commercial redevelopment plans received by the corporate authorities
at or prior to the hearing, and to allow all interested persons to appear
and testify for or against any proposed commercial redevelopment plan.
All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at the
public hearing.
CITY OF CANTON
~.
BY : "
Nanc S. Whites
Canto City Clerk