Chris H, my understanding is that the plan wants to increase sales tax revenue as well as increase property taxes. This is the reason there was so much fuss about getting lessees into the ground floor of VC. Successful shops, some think, would increase property value as well.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
clear cutting downtown riverside
(32 posts)-
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 09:13 #
-
ChrisH, Catherine is right. The goal here is do both. While it would be nice to double our sales tax revenue, we do not need that big of a jump to make a tangible impact on our Village's finances. If we could increase our annual intake of sales tax revenue by $500,000, I think most folks would do back flips.
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 09:32 # -
Any increase would be good, I agree. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 09:53 # -
reply to mike sedivy querie of 06-12-28, 17:57:
thanks for reading my stuff.
i think a 'tif with the proper redevelopment plan,' as you put it, is something i could support -- but i emphasize could, not would.
i think the administration has fallen back many yards on this play. in one of my november emails, which is posted above, as well as in my personal remarks to the board back at that time, i raise the judgment issue as well as planning and financials. it is my opinion that this administration has credibility ground to make up just to return to the prior line of scrimmage, so to speak. katy's january 8 planning process must be fully elaborated, well managed, inclusive and befitting a global landmark masterpiece of planning, design and architecture. the kane-mckenna document, as i hope to explicate soon, was an insult.
so, the administration's new commitment to the sort of openness, transparency and uniformity of rule application that i think is rightly questioned based on recent history must be clear throughout this process.
for riverside to thrive, whatever we decide to do, tif or no tif, we must end up with both the right plan and the right people to implement it. frankly, i doubt we have the right individuals on board to implement a tif, should we as a vilage in due course become convinced that the comprehensive plan, financials, specifics and alternatives analysis all end up grounding an appropriate tif solution.
i may be wrong. commitment to a rigorous and thorogh visioning and planning process, with a first-rate alternatives analysis and a clear statement of how and under what procedures funds would be expended will show if current staff is up to it. based on the village center debacle, i am skeptical, but i would love to be shown otherwise.
so i guess i seek three distinct but interrelated indicies: sound plan, compelling financials and proven judgment in historic preservation redevelopment. i think the first two are possibly achievable through our new process. the third is in my opinion reasonably implicated and at best, as yet to be determined.
i hope this helps. here's to the forum.
best,
chris
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 10:36 # -
ChrisR - thanks for the clarification. Regarding Village Centre, I understand people have issues with the architecture, but it has not yet been completed. I feel that that is the right location for the maximum density allowed under zoning. I do feel that use of variances is not a good way to encourage economic redevelopment, which is why I am a proponent of a tool that is more proactive and not reactive. A lot of people had input on the Village Centre discussions - what is your issue with the development? I was not part of the process back then so I don't have a dog in the fight - just curious.
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 14:32 # -
Mike S: Burlington and Longcommon is already the most congested intersection in town, in part due to its layout and in part due to the back-ups caused by its proximity to the railway tracks. Adding a maximum density mixed-use development at that location means even more traffic there at peak hours. Aesthetics aside, I think it makes the center of town less pedestrian-friendly.
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 15:50 # -
Residents:
The elected officials and staff and the advisory commissions of the Village of Riverside have been and will continue to be responsive to the needs and desires of the community. As stated in a press release, on the web site and restated in another thread,
“At their meeting on Monday, December 4, 2006, the Village Board of Trustees deferred the matter of AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING APPROVAL OF A REDEVLEOPMENT PLAN AND PROJECT FOR AND THE DESIGNATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE ADOPTION OF TAX INCREMENT ALLOCATION FINANCING THEREFOR, CONVENING A JOINT REVIEW BOARD AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
The Board will take up the matter again at 7:30 p.m., January 8 at the Committee of the Whole (please note that public comment is generally not permitted at the COW). The Board expressed a great deal of interest in providing more background on the issues confronting the Village and hearing more from residents on their solutions and suggestions for confronting those issues. The Board will discuss on January 8 alternative processes to achieve this dialogue (who, how, when, where). They will likely consider a timeframe for these discussions as well. The Board members expressed a desire to have the Plan Commission and Economic Development Commission involved in the discussions.—All of the zoning and planning efforts conducted by the Village Board incorporate and venerate preservation and the need to preserve and rehabilitate Riverside's assets. The actions of the Village Board to date have been transparent, occurred over a considerable period of time, open to the public, available for discussion and subject to scrutiny. There are no intentions whatsoever to make wholesale changes in Riverside.
The Board recognizes the concerns being voiced. There is recognition, that unlike most TIF plans, the Riverside Redevelopment Plan does not respond to any one developer's requests nor does it result from a Request for Proposal to redevelop a specific area. The Redevelopment Plan is proactive. It considers the opportunities that might occur where the Village can actually partner and improve the development or redevelopment that results from market conditions.
The Board invites residents to openly share their ideas for how the next phase of these discussions should occur. What alternative solutions are available to the address the questions posed to the elected officials:
What opportunities or solutions might be appropriate for economic development support in the Central Business District or on the community's periphery? How should the community evaluate those solutions? What role should the Village take in fostering investment in private property? How should the Village finance the public improvements in the Central Business District that will support the viability and the potential of the business community? How should those actions be funded in light of the Village's strained financial condition? What tools or catalysts are available to the Village to encourage investment in the existing properties? What type, if any, additional planning studies and efforts will be helpful to formulate a response to the condition?
Any suggestions received for the next phase of this process and dialogue will be included in my communication to the Village Board. In order to have a full and deliberate discussion of these suggestions, I encourage residents to provide them to me in writing by January 4 so that they can be included in the official agenda packet. I am sure the Board will include many opportunities for additional discussion on the above questions.
Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that KMA was hired to determine if the area would meet the eligibility requirements under the TIF statute. They did that. They were charged with developing a redevelopment plan for the area based upon the TOD and the zoning district limitations. They did that. I encourage you to look at East Dundee, St. Charles, Bartlett or any other community's redevelopment plan (many are done by different consultants than KMA). They follow the same model as they must to meet the state statutes (see www.illinois-tif.com/IllinoisTIFs.htm). They are written to provide flexibility so that the elected officials who are charged with the fiduciary responsibility of setting policy for the local government can make judgment on proposals, evaluating them against the plans that are in place and the legislative boundaries established by ordinance. You may also note as you visit other community websites that many of them have TIF guidelines in place. Similar guidelines would be a part of any effort in Riverside and have been suggested by KMA.
Postscript on the Berwyn planning effort —“ they are receiving funding for a transit oriented development study from METRA similar to what occurred in Riverside. The City of Berwyn officials reached out to us in their initial application and there was mutual expression of interest in the effort to improve the viability of this area (the boundaries are yet to be officially determined).
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 16:23 # -
Ms. Rush ~
With all due respect, I disagree with your statement that the actions of the Village Board "to date have been transparent, occurred over a considerable amount of time, open to the public, available for discussion and subject to scrutiny." In another thread, I noted all of the instances where TIF was discussed by the Board. There were very few chances that I saw for public input, and in fact there is the appearance that the Board was HIDING the TIF discussion.Case in point: if you could please explain two Special Meetings in October 2006 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop on 10-21-06 and Special Meeting Budget Workshop continuation on 10-26-06), I would really appreciate it. If the Board was so transparent, why did the agenda for the 1st budget meeting list the budget as the only topic of discussion and the agenda for the CONTINUATION of that same budget meeting list the budget and the TIF? How did that item slip into the agenda of a meeting that was supposed to be only about the budget? If anyone wanted to stay current about this issue (as so many were by October) and was looking at the agendas the Village posted on their web site, he/she would have no indication whatsoever that the TIF was to be discussed.
Do you see that it seems as if it was hidden on purpose? And I have yet to hear an explanation for why there was a second 5-minute meeting held AFTER a regular Board meeting for the purpose of hiring a lawyer to deal with TIF-related issues. If the Board was being transparent, why wasn't it on the agenda. Why was this meeting held after the public had gone home? Why are there no minutes posted on the Village web site since August? Why is the Board and the Village only now being transparent since September - is it a coincidence that that was when the public started putting "pressure" on the Board?
Unless I can get someone to explain these things to me, I have a serious concerns about the credibility of our government officials. That, as I mentioned in another post, is what clouds the TIF discussion for me.
Posted Friday Dec 29, 2006 22:07 # -
KathleenRush: Your decision to name 3 TIFs for our consideration over the holiday weekend, suggest we digest them and submit further written comments to you by Jan 4, is untimely. All the written material you need about our suggestions can be found here on this forum. It is up to the TIF supporters, in particular the village government, to persuade the citizens, not the other way around. We look forward to being presented with these comparative studies. I trust you and the Board are reading all of our comments carefully, and considering them as carefully as those of certain commissions and/or committees.
It is not for consultants, but ultimately for the courts to decide whether Riverside meets the TIF eligibility criteria. Please identify the special counsel the government has retained at taxpayers' expense in this matter and in the matter of eminent domain under the Equity in Eminent Domain Act of 2007, and please provide to interested parties the opinions rendered that the taxpayers have paid for on these matters.
It is to be hoped that there will be an extended period of open public debate, as that that has been had until present is, in my opinion, laughable, and that there will be a scrupulous following of the requirements of the Open Meetings requirement.
I can but hope there is no serious consideration of extending anything having to do with Berwyn into Riverside.
Thank you for your contribution.
Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 05:04 # -
Catherine,
I know this will shock you, but once again I have to completely disagree with your position. The "TIF supporters" have studied the issue and come to their position based on that study. Some of us have tried to explain the basis of our position on this site. The Board and the Village have decided to delay the process to give people who were "blindsided" by the TIF an opportunity to voice their concerns and suggest alternatives. Katie Rush has come on this web site to inform you and others that the first opportunity for your concerns and suggestion to be heard by the board is at the Meeting of the Whole on January 8th. Since this meeting does not allow public comment but rather is an opportunity for the Board to discuss this issue amongst themeselves, Katie appropriately suggested that you submit your concerns/talking points in writing as this is the only way that the board would be able to hear and then discuss these issues at this meeting. She is essentially drawing out a road map for your concerns to be heard and you chose to respond by saying that Katie Rush should search this web site and summarize all of the concerns and that the onus is on the board to convince you and others. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The board's job is to make executive decisions based on what THEY think is in the best interest of the town. They were in the process of doing so when they realized there was significant concern and uncertainty about the TIF among some. Even though they did not have to, they took a pause so that everyone's concerns could be heard and considered. Instead of seizing this opportunity and becoming a productive part of the process, you chose to sit back and take the attitude that it is someone else's job to convince you. Thanks a lot, that attitude is really helpful.
Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 07:28 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.