No way to chains. I don't think that is on the table for the Board. They are not mad. The whole town would flip out. Unless, of course, it is on Harlem Avenue.
Thank you for posting the Pleasantdale issue. I think it is so important I am going to start another thread about it.
Holly and Catherine; Re: Pleasantdale School District.
Please read the Pleasantdale posting closely. Kane McKenna (Riverside's consultant on TIF eligibility) told the Burr Ridge Board on three occasions that it was their opinion that the proposed Burr Ridge TIF did not meet the criteria and was not eligible for classification as a TIF District. A developer approached the Burr Ridge Board and said that another consultant is saying it does meet the criteria (that consultant was Camiros - although Camiros admitted that the eligibility was marginal). The Village Board chose to proceed with the TIF. The school district sued and the courts ultimately decided that it did not meet the TIF eligibility criteria.
So what is the lesson here for Riverside? Kane McKenna has an excellent track record and is willing to say no to TIF even if it will cost them additional consulting fees. (I do not believe that Camiros is involved in the Riverside TIF at all- they have been used by Riverside but not on TIF eligibility review).
I do not think that there are any other lessons that Riverside can learn from the Pleasantdale - Burr Ridge situation. The proposed Burr Ridge TIF district was all vacant land and the proposed TIF was seeking to quality the area based on it being a "blighted area" under the definition of the State Statutes. Riverside's proposed TIF is seeking to qualify the area based on it being a "conservation area". I believe the criteria for each is different.
I hope that you find this helpful.
Thank you Doug. Please see the other two citations in the string "Villages Failing the But For Test." Also, the "but for" applies not only to vacant land, so, I'm not sure I see you there. What can you tell us about Kane McKenna's track record of saying no?
Yes, thank you, Mr Pollock, for your contributions. I am sorry for calling you in by name and reducing your thoughtful position as 'pro-tif'. You have shown that you are more nuanced than that simple characterization.
And I like nuance. Remember that I am one of the two (known) philosophy majors in the tif district. Hey, Catherine, we now have another level that philosophy majors can aspire to besides driving a taxi, tif district member! :)
But you said you might consider moving. Is that because you are so educated, that you did not want to be in a club that would have you as a member? :)
Note: the last sentence links to my 12-21 entry in the tif hidden cost thread.
mike
Thanks Doug. I found that color very helpful. Would you mind inserting your post in other threads that heve been started dealing with this subject.
Doug, thank you for that interpretation. I don't have a problem at all with KMA (they seem to be one of very few players in the game), and it appears they gave good council in this case, but the village board in Burr Ridge continued with the TIF anyway, and ultimately lost in a lawsuit with Pleasantdale. Is that accurate?
Thanks once again for your level-headed contributions to this forum.
Yes, Doug, also - was it here - you commented that people should think more about what the TIF will be used for than the TIF itself. I believe it is to be used to implement the TOD, no? It is also said by Mr Wiaduck to be used principally for infrastructure improvement, but I see only 8 of 20 million dedicated to that so far. Anyone, what am I missing? I too will repeat some color in this string:
Pleasantdale School District 107 v. Village of Burr Ridge
341 Ill. App. 3d 1004, 793 N.E. 2d 856 (2003 1st Dist.)
Found failure of "but for" and found and included extensive discussion of the fact that developing was already occurring in a proposed TIF district that had not requested nor required TIF funds. That is our situation here. (Their consultant was: Camiros.)
Henry County v. Village of Orion
278 Ill. App. 3d 1058, 663 N.E. 2d 1076 (1996 3d Dist.)
Found failure of "but for" and found new building already occurring within a proposed TIF area. That is also our situation here.
Castel Property v. City of Marion
259 Ill. App. 3d 432, 631 N.E. 2d 459 (1994 5th Dist.)
Found failure of but for because growth and development was occurring in the direction of the redevelopment area, in proximity to the redevelopment area before adoption of a final TIF. This, again, is our situation here.
The "but for" criterion can be challenged before or after the declaration of a TIF, as I read it. These decisions should be on the Illinois Supreme Court website under Appellate Documents, in google somewhere or, of course, in a law library. They make clear reading. I am going to read them today.
Of course, if we agreed on a plan and the need for any such government funding, we would hope not to fail the but for test, but it does happen.
Mike, I will tell you why move because it is relevant to development: NOISE. You know those condos folks want for singles, empty nesters, and elderly couples? Well, in the condo upstairs from me a - hm - very energetic family has moved in, succeeding a more sanguine elderly couple. And of course, no one can discriminate against families.
Some responses:
Catherine asked "What can you tell us about Kane McKenna's track record of saying no?"
I cannot tell you any more other than the three occassions in Burr Ridge that are referenced in the Pleasantdale law suit. But I think it is a legitimate question to ask a consultant.
RiversideResident asked: "...Burr Ridge continued with the TIF anyway, and ultimately lost in a lawsuit with Pleasantdale. Is that accurate?" The Burr Ridge Village Board had asked KMA on three occasions over the course of several years (about 1985-1995) about TIF elibility and in each of those KMA reports, KMA opined that the area did not meet TIF eligility and each time the Village Board did not pursue TIF. It was only when Camiros gave a different Village Board a report in 1998 stating that it was eligible for TIF that the Burr Ridge Board chose to proceed. And yes, Pleasantdale School Distruct prevailed in its challenge of the 1998 Burr Ridge TIF.
For the record: I am an employee of the Village of Burr Ridge but I am speaking here as a resident of Riverside not a Burr Ridge employee.
Catherine said: "...you commented that people should think more about what the TIF will be used for than the TIF itself." Yes, I have said that TIF is a tool and its usefulness depends on how it is used. Just like yourself (and I think many others in town) I am not real clear as to how the TIF revenues are going to be used. In fact, I think this is where the Village Board needs to spend most of its time relative to public education. I know that there is a list of "projects/expenditures" in the TOD plan and in the TIF plan but there is obvious confusion about what the priorities are; i.e. parking garage, community center; intersection improvements, development subsidy, etc. I would like to see the Village Board revisit the TOD plan; either to reconsider its recommendations or at the very least to provide clarification as to the priorities of the TOD plan and the planned TIF expenditures.
One other lesson learned: I believe that it is very important for any community considering a TIF to gain the full support and involvement of the school district before proceeding with a TIF. I have the impression that Riverside is doing that and I applaud them for it.
Catherine,
Even though I don't have the document in front of me, I'll attempt to address your question regarding the TIF planning document, which provides a POTENTIAL breakdown of expenditures if the TIF were to generate $20 million in funds. You say that only $8 million out of $20 million is targeted for infrastructure improvements. If memory serves me correctly, there was also a sizable chunk of money ($1.5 or so million) set aside for reimbursement to schools, and some amount to cover soft costs (consultant fees, report fees etc...). Whatever is left is obviously the pool of capital targeted for potential inducements that may have to be paid to spur development or attract specific businesses. Before anyone gets too excited, the story does not end there. It is misleading to conclude from this scenario that we are investing $20 million of capital and only getting $8 million of benefit (i.e. infrastructure expenditures) from it. This type of conclusion ignores two very important facts; first and foremost, the redevelopment that will take place creates an increase in Riverside's real estate tax revenue collection in perpetuity not just for a 23 year period, secondly, the type of redevelopment we are striving for should generate significantly higher sales tax revenue collection for the Village. In other words the $20 million will be invested by the Village to spur development/redevelopment of the CBD. Out of this $20 million, $8 million in expenditures are potentially targeted for infrastructure improvements that benefit the town as a whole as well as the CBD, while the rest of the money will be invested by the village in its CBD to create an annuity stream of income, in the form of higher sales and real estate tax revenue, that will benefit the Village for decades to come.
Fair enough. I hadn't considered the future revenue the improvements would generate.
You must log in to post.