Riverside Info » About Riverside

A More Easily Controlled Advisory, Non-Binding Referendum: Joint Review Board

(12 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by Catherine
  • Latest reply from Catherine
1 2

  1. Catherine
    Member

    Some trustees stated they wanted the input from the referenda questions, some of which were of their own composition. Not having received the input they wanted, some other trustees now want input from the Joint Review Board. This input is also easily ignored, as it too is advisory and non-binding. At any rate, this the composition, as I understand it, of a JRB:

    First, a public representative must be chosen. The person must reside in the proposed redevelopment area. I nominate myself. THEN, the following may be convened

    1. Public representative
    2. Metro san district
    3. mosquito abatement
    4. dist 96 schools
    5. dist 208 schools
    6. village
    7. Triton
    8. Water Reclamation District
    9. Cook County

    Note that one of the things they have to certify is that the requirements of establishing a TIF area have been met.

    This list I have taken from another posting. I do not see Riverside Township on here. They are a taxing body, I believe. Please advise. Apparently the schools can be relied upon to roll over, and we know how the village would vote (why are they on this list?)

    If anyone is aware of the voting history of these other taxing bodies, please advise.

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 07:40 #

  2. Elisa
    Member

    I found this on the Village's website in the TIF document center (the History of the proposed ordinance to approve the TOD):

    "ITEM HISTORY (PREVIOUS VILLAGE BOARD REVIEWS, ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS ITEM, COMMITTEE ACTION, OTHER PERTINENT HISTORY):
    The Board has been considering the establishment of a TIF district that generally contains the central business district, plus properties on Burlington to Cowley, properties on the south side of Pine Avenue, the swim club area and a portion of Swan Pond. The purpose of the TIF is to generate revenue for economic development, public infrastructure improvements, historic preservation, plans and studies, relocation expenses, and other items explained in the budget proposed in the Redevelopment Plan. The Board held an informational meeting on 11/9 with the affected taxing bodies and the Advisory Commissions. We held a public meeting on 11/21 to allow the property owners within the boundary to share their concerns as well as any one from the general public."

    Was anyone aware of the 11/9 meeting with the affected taxing bodies? I can't find evidence of it on the Village's website nor can I find any mention of it in the minutes and packets at the library. Not that they didn't hold the meeting, but why is that meeting and the taxing bodies' comments/concerns never talked about? Did they meet? Where did they meet? Who was there? Is this a pre-JRB?

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:06 #

  3. MikeT
    Member

    I went to that meeting. I believe it was also called a commissioners meeting. public was invited to listen but could not talk or ask questions. it was the first public trotting of the tif.

    this was the meeting that was held the day of the central and hauser veterans day programs, and in which I felt it sadly ironic that they were going to 'take my house' coercively reducing basic property rights after I watched those moving programs about the sacrifice of our veterans to support those basic freedoms.

    Also this is the session where I anticipated incisive questioning from the school board members, and all I got was stuff like, District 96 board member to Pres. Wiaduck,

    'riverside is infamous in its lack of support of developers. Once the developers are incented to come to Riverside with this TIF, WILL YOU HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL WILL to FOLLOW THROUGH and SUPPORT THE DEVELOPERS?'

    Mr Wiaduck shook his head yes. I heard later that the district 96 board member who uttered this question was a part time real estate developer.

    Oh yeah, People: can you see now why the Village Board to a member yesterday, except for the next trustee of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , smith, wanted to get to the JRB?

    Kittens.
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=297&page&replies=21#post-4576

    .

    couple links on this
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=35&page&replies=38#post-508

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=229&page&replies=39#post-3679

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=210&page&replies=26#post-3373

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:33 #

  4. Elisa
    Member

    OK, that all comes back to me! I have a habit of revisiting old documents and looking at them with fresh eyes - or through a different lens, if you will. What affected taxing bodies were there - just district 96? or were they all there?

    I also wonder why there are not minutes from that meeting to be found - only the powerpoint show from McKenna.

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:38 #

  5. Elisa
    Member

    My other concern about the JRB is what happens if the taxing bodies are a no show?
    This happened in Clarendon Hills:
    "September 28th 2005
    Hopefully no one else wasted their time and effort to try to talk to Joint Review Board members and help them make an informed decision. This thing was decided some time ago. Of the seven taxing bodies that were to appear on the JRB, only four showed up. After the usual S.B. Friedman riveting presentation and a few unanswered questions from the audience, the JRB voted 4 to 1 to approve the TIF. Of course the only one opposed was the person representing residents of the district."

    I can imagine that some of the taxing bodies wouldn't bother. If that is the case, then is it a simple majority? But I guess the whole thing doesn't matter because the JRB vote is not binding, is it?

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:50 #

  6. MikeT
    Member

    they called them the Commissioners (play peter gunn theme, please), I believe. One guy there was the Zoning Commission. He sat next to me. Afterwards, I discovered he was the person behind the Olmsted Commons plan -aka TJMAX-, the one that satisfies current zoning (unlike the VC), and only needs a TIF to go. "Just add a TIF", bang! Riverside is now on the map!

    Yes, d208 was there too. the superintendent was there. He asked a simple question, 'how will the tif be paid?', and received a real long, and expensive, reply from Mr McKenna, the consultant.

    So I think it was commissioners and affected taxing bodies.

    why no minutes?

    maybe the riverside village manager took the minutes that day as I was told she did on behalf of the clerk on the only other day they ever discussed the tif substantively, on 4-14. It is hard to hold the maps and take minutes.

    btw, we are still waiting from a statement from district 208 on the tif.

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:50 #

  7. Elisa
    Member

    So then they had a meeting with the advisory commissions - and not with the affected taxing bodies (except for d96) as was stated in the document?

    [Edit: I think our responses are crossing in cyberspace!]

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 22:54 #

  8. MikeT
    Member

    here is a link to a bit on the jrb votes. I would still love to know more detail on this jrb thing, especially since that is where all the trustees, save smith, want to go now.

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=229&page&replies=39#post-3779

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 23:14 #

  9. Elisa
    Member

    My knee jerk reaction would have been that Cook County would not have bothered to come to little old Riverside for a TIF JRB meeting, but in looking at the Quigley proposal and other Cook County information on TIFs, they would most likely be interested in putting their two cents worth into the discussion.

    http://www.co.cook.il.us/secretary/CommitteePages/Meeting%20Reports/Finance%20Committee/2006/09-28-06ph.htm

    Posted Tuesday Apr 24, 2007 23:46 #

  10. MikeT
    Member

    Great link, Elisa. From the sept 06 meeting that was linked to...

    According to academic research, TIFs have very little positive impact upon equalized assessed value growth. Simply asserting that equalized assessed value increases in a TIF area does not establish a causal relationship; this value might have increased without the TIF. EAV totals in the annual TIF reports suggest there is growth that cannot be attributed to TIF activity. Of the 45 TIFs that had not yet received any public investment and had no debt service, only eight had negative equalized assessed value growth. The remaining 37 TIFs are growing in value without any public finance activity or subsidized private activity. The LaSalle Street TIF will be in effect for 23 years, with 12 additional optional years. As a result of the proposed ordinances and proposed resolution, the County Board would have input into the decision to create a new TIF, the TIF would be reflected on tax bills, and the State would be requested to perform statistical analysis on the effectiveness of TIFs. TIFs shrink the available tax revenue for other agencies. Countywide governments are negatively impacted by TIFs. TIFs increase everyone's tax rate.

    interesting to see those powerhouses present in the meeting such as daley and peraica.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 25, 2007 00:05 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2

Reply »

You must log in to post.