Planning and Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I'd like to call to order the Planning and Development Committee meeting for Monday, September 14, 2026. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you. Item one is an approval of the proposed amendment to the funding agreement with the Rockford Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Go Rockford, extending the term of the agreement from the expiration of 2028 to an expiration of 2032 and the continued lease of 102 North Main Street. This is an extension of the six years from the existing agreement in lease. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved. Second.

Are there any questions or comments? Alderman Durkee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to reiterate the comments on council that I made last week, I find that some of the funding of this and the money that flows through to go Rockford, first of all, I think it needs to be capped at some point. Having an open-ended... Contract as a percent basis. I'm not sure we can do that anymore But there first of all go go Rockford's From their of tax filings their income has gone up from and I think it was 20 2019 or so to present, about almost $2 million a year in their total funding. From somewhere around 2023 to present, to 2025, their hotel income has gone up about $210,000. It's projected that Go Rockford will receive about somewhere, I think, with the 2% hotel district, somewhere around $1.38 million. So my take on this is right now Go Rockford, with the current contract, already exists to fill city of Rockford hotel rooms. That's their role. So within their budget, that's one of the things that they do. They will get an income overlay on that with the hotel regional taxing district. So part of that money is freed up for them to be able to do Davis Park. So I don't see the need to increase their funding at all. They've got substantial income. And when I took a purview of their tax forms, they spend every dollar that they get. It doesn't look like they leave funding over for next year or whatever. But they get a dollar, they spend it. On what, I don't know. Do not. I think Go Rockford does a great job. I think the leadership does a great job. I just think we're paying too much money for it. And I think given their new source of income, which will pay part of what they already do, will release dollars to do whatever Davis Park programming needs to do. I don't know what it takes one FTE or two to program Davis Park, but there's certainly ample funds available. My proposal would just be to leave their budget as is, their contract as it is, and let it expire in 2028. And just keep their funding. They will get an increase from the regional tourism destination district, whatever. I don't know the name of that specifically. They're going to get a funding increase. And given their projected increase in hotel tax revenue as it is, which has gone up, like I said, over the past three years, their budget, their income from the hotel tax has gone up $200-some thousand dollars. So personally, I don't see the need. In fact, I think we need to almost next go around, put a cap on it, and limit their funding. Some of the hotel tax revenue, some of the difference we could realize, we have a couple of bonds that we need to pay down. And I think Director Haggerty laid before us, it's really time to tighten our budget. So my proposal is just leave the contract as is. They can add on the Davis Park programming with an agreement with their current budgeting and funding level.

Thank you. Alderman Granitz.

We received an email saying that there was going to be some amendments to that. Is that somewhere in this? I didn't see it in the document.

So, yes, I had an email on Friday based on conversations that we had with Go Rockford related to the comments from city council last week and what we understood from What the two primary concerns are, one was a concern related to the overall length of the contract, so we reduced it from 34, expiring in the year 34 to 32. So as the Chairwoman mentioned, it would be for a six-year agreement similar to their past agreements as well as the RAVE agreements that have been completed in the past. And we created a right to terminate clause for the Davis Park operations. That would be mutual. So either party could terminate the clause. And the point of creating that provision within the agreement was to address the concerns in regards to what's going to happen related to Davis Park. How is it going to perform? Is there going to be the opportunity to review outcomes related to their operations? Currently, the operations of Davis Park is a responsibility of RAVE, not Go Rockford. We engaged RAVE and Go Rockford, recognizing the level of investment into the community and wanting to make sure that it was activated as much as possible. So that's why we've brought forward the proposal. So the attachment, the amended agreement reflects what I just stated here today within your packet. And you know to address some alderman Durkee's statements. It is correct that you know Go Rockford does see an influx in funding many times that's passed through passed through dollars. They were the fiscal agent for the state related to You know some some grant funding that went to small business restaurants to accommodate for additional payments for insurance premium associated with those that are on unemployment, so unemployment insurance that was facilitated through Representative West. You'll also see that they've been successful in leveraging our funds and bringing additional grant dollars whether that was from the state of Illinois to help support Ironman the last two years. They also are the grant recipient for some of the capital improvements at Davis Park that flows through their agency ultimately to our agency. So there's no doubt that they have been successful in securing funds for the overall community beyond what they see from the funding agreement with the city of Rockford and certainly As tourism grows and there's more beds and heads, per se, that they could see their revenue go up. And certainly we want to see that continue to go up because we want to see occupancy within our hotels and we want to see local spending take place within our community. So many times it's a win-win. when they're driving up room nights, and certainly they're going to receive a percentage of that, but we also retain a percentage of that to help with some of the bond payments that are stated. Again, I'd say we try to take into consideration the comments that took place at city council last week to move forward with an amendment that reduces the years and protects the city to evaluate outcomes should they want to terminate it. in the future and should they terminate the operation of davis park and then the the increase from 70 to 75 percent uh would revert back to 70 percent thank you did you have a follow-up question no i'm good alderman durkee and i'd formally move that we leave the contract in place and let it as is and let it expire in 2028

especially due to our upcoming budget constraints, and let it play out. And then we move to, in 2029, craft a different budget.

So that is an option. Obviously, there's a pending motion and a second for approval. So should you not want to approve the amended contract, you would vote no.

Alderman Thunberg?

Let me speak in your committee I appreciate the The agreement that go Rockford is having with the city of Rockford and rave I think they will bring value-added services to Davis Park now my what I do have an issue with is the extension of the contract to what was before 2034. Is that correct? It was 2034. Now just going now to 2032. I would, at this point, agree with the first ward alderman on, I just, you know, they are in a, in, On this multi-year contract, existing multi-year contract, I would still like to see us just adhere to the length of the existing contract. So how would this then, Administrator Pagnoni going forth for this committee and or council next week, if it were to be voted on on the other items which exist in the agreement with the three entities and having then separated to the first ward alderman's idea of letting this contract that exists right now, as far as the terms are concerned, to let that continue to that which is already agreed upon.

Thank you, Alderman. So, you know, committee's rules are less restrictive than city council rules. So should it be the desire of the committee that they want to keep the current timeframe expiration of 2028? They could amend the rules. agreement to state that. That could happen here at Planning and Development. If it advances forward as it is currently written and it wants to be addressed at City Council, an alderman would need to request the legal director to prepare the formal amendment and she would prepare it and have it on everyone's desk next week. Alderman Durkee.

If we leave the contract as is, then number one just fails. We don't have to do anything. Just leave the contract as is.

Alderman Salgado?

Yeah, just real quick, Mr. Cannone. I know you mentioned about Davis Park that we could terminate the contract one way or the other. My question is, and I have not looked at the termination clause, if there is one between Go Rockford and the City of Rockford, is there a clause in there that says on a specified amount that we could terminate the contract between the relationship, this agreement? So right now as it stands, it's 2028 to 2032. Is there any clause in there that says that we could terminate that contract at all?

In the proposed amendment, there is a specific language to terminate the additional discussion that we're having. So the short answer, yes. And if council exercised that termination related to the amendment, because that's what the termination clause is tied to, the percentage of the hotel motel tax would revert back to 70%. And then Go Rockford would no longer be responsible for helping assist in programming Davis Park.

Got you. But if I may, what are the terms? Like 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? Just trying to get a frame.

I'm going to ask Director Hammer, but I believe it was nine months, with also allowing for a mutual time frame less than that. understanding that many times they anticipate pursuing fundraising activities to support certain events and activities, and I would use Stroll On State as an example, that they have a multi-year funding agreement to help support that activity. It's anticipated that as they move forward, should City Council approve this amendment, they would work with Rave and others, but the private sector, to seek out funding opportunities and sponsors. That could be a multi-year agreement, so we wanted to make sure that we left some time so that any obligations like that couldn't be unwound, that we would both be financially made whole.

Do appreciate that and I just want to make sure that that there is a clause in there that states that we can terminate It's nine months according to what you just told me Fair enough. I understand and I'm in the same boat when it comes to ROI Especially, you know, what's their performance how they're doing? I know mr. Groh has been here before City Council has been very explicit on their successes. I'm still disappointed that I have not heard anything from the youth soccer that if we got that award, we bid it out. But I don't think we got that one. That would have been nice, that go Rockford and then the Visitor Bureau would have solidified that one. But most definitely, I think that is a step away that we can determine going forward. It is part of the package, I think, from that perspective. And so those are the things that we need to be cognizant of and Certainly nine months, if we can certainly get out of this contract, if we don't feel like it's not warranted, we can certainly do that at that time. But I do think it's part of that package, and we need to make sure that they're performing to their part, what they've said that they were set out to do. I have full confidence from the different things that they've done with the different projects that they've brought in, tournaments and so forth. As part of the package, I think that would be successful. But most definitely, you know, just having that clause on that amended item, I think, goes a long way from showing their commitment to this. So, thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Bonney? Thank you.

even though I can't vote on this at this committee. The amendment that came by email that has been referenced already to terminate the agreement, I forget what I read versus what I thought I heard. Is it by mutual agreement only or either party unilaterally could end it.

The latter, that either party could terminate.

OK. And so as far as Dr. Durkee's suggestion goes, if the committee were to reject the proposal, and the council never and the council were to do the same, and then we do, I mean, there's nothing in place, and we are operating under the agreement we already have. But if instead, and there were an amendment made to limit the, compensation to what is already in place and the length of the agreement to what's already in place, Go Rockford may not accept it, but wouldn't then, there would still, I think, what Alderman Tunberg was trying to get to is the programming that Go Rockford would be undertaking under this agreement would still be there. I mean, there'd still be an agreement between the entities, the city, Go Rockford, and Rave, but there just wouldn't be any funding tied to it. I don't know that Go Rockford would agree to that, but I guess what I'm getting at is there's a difference between denying this, because if we deny it, then we have no agreement for how, at least I don't think we have any agreement for additional programming at Davis Park outside of the ticketed events that RAVE would be doing anyhow? Or do those responsibilities revert back to RAVE? I'm wondering if it wouldn't be smarter to amend the agreement versus just denying it and And basically being back at square one.

So that is not the approach we took when we were looking to solve the issue related to additional operations at Davis Park. I don't know how fruitful it is to propose an amendment to an agreement that the other party isn't in agreement at. I mean, that would be the same for Rave, right, where you could go and tell Rave you're responsible for managing Davis Park and we're not going to provide you any additional funds, but we're going to make an amendment to your agreement that requires you to do it whether you like it or not. I don't know if that's, you know, a game plan for success. We approached both parties that have good track records and a vested interest in advancing the community forward and said, how should we address this? What are your thoughts? So that led to our discussions with Rave and Go Rockford on a mutually beneficial plan that is agreed. in principle under the MOU that I had shared in that email on Friday on how we could advance the activities at Davis Park. You know, certainly this is at City Council's discretion to do as you please, but to suggest that we are now going to mandate that Go Rockford takes responsibility for programming Davis Park with any additional funding is exactly the concerns that private business has with government. Where 100% of our hotel industry came forward and asked for the improvement of a tourism improvement district, recognizing that they're trying to enhance tourism within our community. And in the same night, we're suggesting that we're going to reduce what Go Rockford does related to tourism industry and redirect those funds to Go Rockford. I just don't think that's a philosophy of good government.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think that I don't think we can not fully utilize Davis Park. But if we were to not approve this agreement, then we're not going to expect that either Rave or Go Rockford is going to do the work without compensation. Then are we going to do the work? Is the city going to do the work? Or are we just not going to? pursue the additional programming that I think we should have at Davis Park, considering the substantial investment that's been put into the redevelopment of Davis Park. So I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. And I also think it's interesting that this is actually Alderman Durkee's suggestion to deny it, but the pushback from staff is toward me.

I'm just responding to all the questions in general and to answer your question if it is denied We still have an agreement with rave That you know would program the park consistent with the attachment to their Agreement I can't say what Go Rockford would or wouldn't do. I think they would be sensitive to redirecting funds away from the other tourism-related activities that they have obligations to complete, but they have been a solid partner. I don't think we would have the success that we would have if we provide funding.

Before we continue on with conversation, I do want to recognize that we do have Mr. John Groh in the audience with us. So if it is at the will of the council, we can have him step to the microphone to address some of these questions as well. Do I have anyone in opposition of that?

OK.

Seeing none, Mr. Groh, if you do want to step to the microphone and respond to some of the questions being asked or make a statement, that is possible. It is.

I'm not exactly sure where to start or what to address first.

I think I would start with saying that we're having these conversations tonight and this week and in the past couple of weeks to- Can we get an order?

We have members of the audience holding up computers displaying profanities. I don't think we should allow that in council. First of all, I'm talking about Oscar. Madam Chair, I'd like to go a step further and say the action of the gentleman here is quite disruptive to this council and to the discussion here today.

So to address the questions that have come up related to Go Rockford and the city's partnership regarding Davis Park. We're here because Go Rockford was asked if we would consider taking on additional responsibilities. Going back now almost 10 years to when the Davis Park Task Force was formed, through a lot of community conversations and conversations with council members past and present, administration members past and present, the vision has been to have Davis Park be a very active community gathering place with regular activities, whether that's throughout the week, throughout the summer season, and all seasons throughout the year. free community activities, ticketed activities, open to all, of a variety of kinds, a variety of scales, that has always been envisioned as an undertaking that would take resources. We always talked about what it would cost to have the construction, the capital, as well as the programming and that there would need to be a party. It didn't have to be us. It could be any number of partners that you choose to engage. Go Rockford put forward a budget to Mayor McNamara and his team that said that we anticipated expenses related to programming at the park could easily approach $500,000 a year. We asked for well more than is being allocated in the proposal tonight. In addition, we said we would raise approximately $150,000 a year from our own efforts to support activities within the park to pay various operational expenses. So we weren't asking the city for all of that. At the reduced amount, through conversations with the city administrator and the former mayor, we had, you know, we just said, we'll work it out. We'll be your partner. We'll work with staff to figure this out. It's not ideal that it's $140,000 roughly, I believe is the number that Director Hegarty gave last week. But, you know, as your partner, we will work with you to figure this out. should you wish us to. If you don't wish us to, we don't have to. We have a full slate of other activities that we can continue to work on. But if the city wishes to activate the park in the way that you envisioned and voted on based on the capital that's being invested, we can step into this partnership together. I understand the conversation last week, and so the Administrator city administrator, you know, making some suggestions and I believe with council members' input to reduce the term of the agreement to a typical six-year contract which is what historically what our agreements have been that was agreeable to us the mutual opportunity to End if needed if you ever felt that was necessary that was added and agreeable to us We're pregnant with a park that's about to open if you'd like it to be activated We're happy to be your partner if you don't want it to be us we don't have to but I would encourage you to make sure that there is a entity well staffed with a backbone to do it to activate this park in the keeping of the vision that has been put out there respectfully we're willing to do it it doesn't have to be us but it will cost somebody a significant amount to do it and we have committed to helping you raise that that I think is a hallmark of our partnership that we don't come to you with problems we come to you with solutions and often that is coming to you with a solution of If you can fund this, we will go to the private sector or other granting sources to make it happen. And that's in addition for operation, the responsibility that we have to generate a half a million dollars to help pay for the construction costs that were, you know, the gap that was filled. And we'll still do that one way or another, but I hope that further demonstrates our partnership to work with the city to get this done. And to the committee members who are considering this tonight, thank you for the consideration. And look forward to seeing how it moves forward, and hopefully it does. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Durkee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We need to go back to an incorrect premise. People are acting as though their budget is static and their income is static and their income is fixed. It is not. Go Rockford has achieved linear growth by increased tax revenue. That's already baked in. The money and the funding that they're seeking already is there as a matter of linear growth. It's there. Saying we're cutting their budget is incorrect. I think Director Hagerty would even project that hotel tax revenue is going up. They don't get a finite amount of dollars. They get a percent. So poor-mouthing us, I dislike that. I don't like somebody poor-mouthing the council when they know, in fact, their income will more than likely go up. In addition, I will reiterate again, They are already using staff and finances to fill our hotel rooms with the current agreement. They will receive additional funding at 2%, which my estimate is about $1.4 million to also market hotel rooms. Part of that is Rockford. That relieves some of the current funds that they could use for other programming. So money is flowing to go Rockford, both in the text, this new tourism district that will offload some of the money that they were already doing for Rockford to begin with, as well as increased funding via increased occupancy. If you fill the hotel rooms, they get additional revenue. If the hotels raise their rates, which they do, they will get additional revenue. If you look historically at their income, their income has gone up well more than the rate of inflation. I don't like being poor mouth. They have plenty of funds to program data.

Alderman Thunberg, did you have your hand up?

I guess just to clarify, within this proposal, as Alderman Durkee and possibly Alderman Bonney pointed out, that the way it stands right now, if it was denied, correct me if I'm wrong, Director Cagnoni, This was denied in its current form. Would that negate the agreement between Go Rockford, City of Rockford, and Rave?

In short, yes. I mean, the obligation for managing Davis Park is that of Rave. We're trying to bring Go Rockford in under an amendment to their agreement.

Correct. So, again, I believe that it's kind of a separate issue that was just discussed by the first ward alderman. Again, stressing that I believe that Go Rockford can bring value-added services to Davis Park. RAVE, as a representative of city council on RAVE, RAVE board believes that as well. So the 70% to 75% I really don't have an issue with. Again, just going forward, however it's done for next week's council meeting, personally, I would like just to see the contract between the city of Rockford and Go Rockford continue for the next two years. how that can be separated. As not a member of this committee, I can just say that as a council member, I would like to see that. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Alderman Salgado.

Just a clarification, Mr. Cagnoni. When does the whole Davis Park, if we were to pass this contract agreement, would take effect? When would they start to... Through the marketing and all that the maintenance Maintaining Davis Park as part of this agreement, they wouldn't you know to be in two years would it be?

In essence it'd be upon approval or shortly thereafter Right.

What I'm getting at is like as part of this package this agreement, right? We're saying it's six years, right? And so my thing is if if it doesn't happen like say you know, this agreement that we have, how are they going to be able to plan for if it's less than two years, like as Mr. Thunberg and Mr. Durkee has have mentioned, like, let it expire within two years, and then we figure it out. So my question is, like, that's why I ask, when would this take effect, like, for the whole Davis Park for Go Rockford to execute on? You know, within the two years or after two years? Because if it's after two years, we certainly can go out there and, like Mr. Grohl has mentioned, doesn't have to be us that does this, but someone else could potentially do it. But that's where I'm trying to get at is, is it right away that they're essentially going to execute on the whole Davis Park and start the program, whatever is part of that agreement?

So, um, you know, should the amendment be approved upon approval, they would, you know, start advancing forward. So it would be immediate. They would start planning in conjunction with rave, uh, for next year's activities, the parks scheduled to be completed this fall. Um, so they would start to activate engagement as soon as possible.

Alderman Hoffman. Thank you.

What are we going to be voting on?

What is in front of us, or is there an amendment out there? What's in front of us, Alderman Hoffman. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Clerk, will you please call the roll?

No.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Item passes. Item 2 is an ordinance for the termination of the Springfield Corners Redevelopment Project Area and the dissolution of the Special Tax Allocation Fund for the Springfield Corners Tax Increment Financing District. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved.

Second.

Are there any questions or comments? Alderman Bell?

Thank you, Chairwoman, in this capacity. Thank you for allowing me to speak on your committee. This impacts my ward. Just want to ask Director Lice, can you explain why this is being proposed?

So this is just, it's run its course. It's gone through the 23 years. It was initiated in 2002 for some housing developments and for some other things and other projects. So that time has elapsed, right? It's just at the end. And as we've seen, our new way of doing TIFs is to do a new time frame when we have a significant project to start off that TIF with. We don't want to keep something out that doesn't have any projects that could benefit from it, because then the TIF doesn't grow anyway. It's just not a good philosophy, right? So it's just, this one will expire, and then when a project becomes available for that area, we'll look at a new TIF and align it appropriately.

Perfect. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor, please indicate by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Item passes. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Are there any questions or comments? All those in favor, please indicate by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign.