Another Comment in the Spotlight!

Yesterday a PRU reader asked:

"I know this does not apply to today's discussion but, I thought there was a state law, or perhaps fed, which says that an employeer with over ? employees must notify the state if they intend to close. Does this apply to Napleton?If not, if Napleton's employees are union did they have to inform the union of their intention to close?I just can't get it out of my mind that Napleton did not know he was going to close when working on the city donation to him. A. J." April 15, 2008 7:38 PM

You jogged our memory banks, A.J. Yes, there is a Federal and State of Illinois law that does require notice. That law, the Illinois WARN Act - "Applies to employer with 75 or more full-time workers" and says in part:

The Illinois WARN Act requires employers to give 60 days notice to employees and their unions, the Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity’s Bureau of Workforce Development and the Illinois Department of Labor, of a plant closing or mass layoff.

The law does not appear to apply to Napleton. We understand from what has been reported that Napleton Cadillac had about 50 employees, and we don't believe they are in a union.

It also appears the local rags have been ratcheting up their game and taking advantage of this newfangled thing called the Internet! On Monday, both the Journal & Topics and the Herald-Advocate posted online updates about the City Attorney's opinion on the Napleton deal.

The PRU Crew is going to go ahead and take a little credit for lighting a bit of a fire under the local rags' backsides. We have noticed that since Mr. Craig Adams became employed by the Journal, the quality of their content has definitely improved. We've also noticed that as of late, Ms. Jennifer - Rip Van Winkle - Johnson seems to have entered a brave new world of reporting. And considering all that has already taken place among elected officials in their various meetings this week, we are actually looking forward to reading what the local rags have to say about it!

It also appears from the reports that Mayor Howard is giving the City Attorney, Buzz Hill, the credit for the City's position that the Napleton deal is D.O.A. The City Attorney's memo says in part:

"It is clear that if any one of the dealerships moves from Park Ridge, the City has no obligations whatsoever to Napleton under the Agreement. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement states:

“Once any one of the Dealerships is moved, the City shall have no further obligations pursuant to this Agreement.”

This includes both the sales tax rebate obligation and the $400,000 Environmental Reimbursement Obligation.

I have informed Napleton’s attorney of this position. As soon as I am directed to do so, I will give written notification as required by the Agreement. Napleton then will have 30 days to notify us that he has convinced GM to change its position and keep the dealerships in Park Ridge."

Of course, giving the City Attorney credit for protecting the interests of Park Ridge taxpayers is the right thing for Mayor Howard to do, because many of us remember exactly what the Mayor's position was:

"Frimark said he has asked City Attorney Everette "Buzz" Hill to review the economic incentive agreement "and see where we stand." Frimark told the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate, however, that while the sales tax rebate is void, he believes Napleton is entitled to receive the $400,000 in clean-up costs which would come from Uptown Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds.

"I believe that's still going to go forward," Frimark said." - Herald-Advocate, April 10, 2008